"I have been reading your amazing blog and listening to some of your podcasts with Carolyn. Not sure how I haven't run across your work before. Amazing stuff." (reader's comment, 10 May 2016)
Come chat with us! Download and install an IRC-client -- Hexchat is recommended -- and go to the channel #National-Socialism on the Undernet server.

27 March 2012

Black America's "Nigga Moment"

The head of the NAACP and George Zimmerman: one is a Black man seeking justice, while the other does things that hurt Black people. Can you tell which is which?

A Crazy Conspiracy-Theory

Early reporting on the shooting of a 17-year-old Black named Trayvon Martin in The Retreat at Twin Lakes, a gated community in Sanford, Florida, described the shooter, 28-year-old George Zimmerman, as a White man. It was alleged that the White police and the White power-structure of Sanford wanted to protect a racially motivated White killer. This predictably generated an angry Black mob demanding essentially that the government lynch the perpetrator.

A widely circulated arrest-photo of George Zimmerman from several years ago does not show a White man, but a man with tawny skin and a broad nose, resembling what is usually described as “non-White Hispanic,” very likely about one-eighth Negro himself. I pointed this out several times in the comments section of CNN's initial report on the story (which did not include any photo of Zimmerman); CNN"s  next report on the matter called Zimmerman "Hispanic" instead.

So, since it was not a White man, that should dispel the notion of a racist conspiracy, right? No, it only made the lynch-mob's rhetoric a little more awkward.

Mass-media dropped the claim that Zimmerman was White, but somehow the notion seems to persist among Blacks that a “racist” conspiracy is the reason why Zimmerman has not been arrested. This was being loudly proclaimed, e.g., at the “Million Hoodie March” in New York City, an affirmation of Trayvon Martin's right to dress like a criminal.

"My hoodie is at the cleaners."
A More Realistic View

Trayvon Martin was not from Sanford, but from crime-ridden Miami. At the time of his death, he was under suspension from his high school and had gone to stay with his father in Sanford. The reason for the suspension was that he was “in an unauthorized area” according to his father (who declined to offer more details, says The Miami Herald). A subsequent report in the Orlando Sentinel indicates that Trayvon Martin had traces of marijuana on him when he was found in the unauthorized area.

Photos of Trayvon Martin accompanying the initial reports seem to be from a few years ago, showing him looking much less menacing than he appeared at 17. This created the unrealistic impression that Trayvon Martin could not have been dangerous. Another way that the public has been misled (e.g. by Pastor David Manning[1], and by Emily Bazelon writing for Slate) is with the observation that Zimmerman was “a much bigger man” (Bazelon's words) than Martin: what this really means is that Zimmerman is fat. If Zimmerman was 100lbs heavier than Martin, he is surely not as tall as Martin was at 6'3”. (Now it comes out that the figure of 250lbs for Zimmerman from 2005 is no longer valid, nor is he 6' tall as some claimed: Zimmerman currently weighs 170 and is only 5'8".) The fact that Zimmerman was armed is also not a very good argument that Martin did not attack him, since a concealed-carry permit such as Zimmerman has does not allow one to carry a weapon in plain view.

The fact that Martin was wearing a hoodie is not insignificant. Hooded sweatshirts are a favorite garment of Black criminals, because the hood allows them to be unidentifiable on surveillance video. Even criminals that are not Black, for example ant-racist anarchists, will wear these hoodies for exactly that reason. Zimmerman was not wrong to be suspicious and to “profile” the wearing of a hood by an unfamiliar person in his gated community as an indicator of possible criminal intent. 

Police say that the reason why they did not arrest Zimmerman is that Zimmerman claimed that he had shot the Black in self-defense, and they believed him. Why did the police believe Zimmerman? He appeared to have taken a beating. He was bleeding from his nose and the back of his head, for which he was treated by paramedics, and his back was wet and covered in grass, indicating that he had been involved in a tussle. Zimmerman said that he had yelled for help but nobody came. "I was yelling for someone to help me but no one would help me," he told paramedics. One witness who subsequently ran upstairs to phone police actually saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him up.

Despite these facts, Blacks almost universally seem to be sure that George Zimmerman is guilty of murdering poor, innocent little Trayvon Martin, and that the police wanted to cover it up. Some of the mainstream media continue to put out biased accounts of the incident that encourage that belief.

The Rule of Unreason

Those who want to blame Zimmerman say that he should have kept his distance from Martin. If I had been in Zimmerman's shoes, I probably would have kept some distance. But why is it necessary to be so prudent where Blacks are concerned? Why would it have been wrong for Zimmerman to approach Martin to ask what he was doing? I myself have been asked such questions when my hair was long and I was in an upscale neighborhood where I did not live – but of course I am a White guy. Nobody expects a White guy to go berserk just because you asked him what he was doing. On the other hand, we all know that young Black males fly off the handle on a regular basis. In the Boondocks cartoon, authored by a Black person, this phenomenon even has a special name, the "nigga moment."

This is how Zimmerman describes the altercation with Trayvon Martin:

Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words.

Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose, according to the account he gave police.
Zimmerman fell to the ground and Trayvon got on top of him and began slamming his head into the sidewalk, he told police. [Orlando Sentinel, 26 March 2012]

In Boondocks terminology, Trayvon Martin had a nigga moment.  

We White people – and apparently all non-Black people, since George Zimmerman is certainly not White -- are expected to give extra indulgence, or otherwise go out of our way, to avoid provoking a “nigga moment.” Apparently Zimmerman chose not to go out of his way to avoid trouble, with the result that Trayvon Martin attacked him. For this, Zimmerman is at fault? We seem to judge interactions with Blacks the same way we would judge encounters with wild animals: if anything goes wrong, it's the human's fault, because it is accepted that the wild animal lacks reason and self-control.

The scandal is not that a Black turned violent, nor that somebody shot a Black in self-defense, nor that an unreasonable Black mob has gone off half-cocked. The scandal is that this agitation by a Black mob for the arrest of a man who shot one of them in self-defense is considered worthy of respect. Unreason among Blacks is being promoted and encouraged. The entire Black population has been goaded by mass-media and by what passes for Black leadership into indulging a collective nigga moment.

Where are the reasonable Blacks – the Blacks who are fed up with crime in their own communities – who will say that maybe George Zimmerman really did shoot Trayvon Martin in self-defense? Are there any?
George Lincoln Rockwell about to address the Nation of Islam
A keynote of National-Socialism has always been reconciliation; in Germany this meant the elimination of class-grievances that could be exploited by enemies of the entire people. In the United States, the same general idea might manifest as a rational modus vivendi between Black and White based on mutual respect, if that is possible. There are certain eventualities that will be ruinous for Blacks as well as Whites if they are not avoided. Specifically, it is very much not in the interest of Blacks to see Whites become a minority in the United States, because, in a majority non-White America, Blacks will be pushed out of jobs and the preferences that all non-Whites have received as a consequence of White guilt will not be very helpful to Blacks anymore. Furthermore, Blacks along with Whites will experience the effects of the society's overall deterioration. Face it, the more Mestizos live in the United States, the more the country will come to resemble Mexico in all respects. Blacks and Whites together could perhaps form an electoral coalition sufficient to prevent that. But there is no way that self-respecting White people can  deal with Blacks that act like a paranoid lynch-mob.

It is an interesting coincidence that the two judas-goats that have been trying to persuade Blacks to support the browning of the United States, Ben Jealous of the NAACP and Al Sharpton, a crazy loose cannon who for some reason has his own syndicated radio show and now a TV show on MSNBC, have been in the forefront of Black celebrity agitators against reason in this matter. 

"Zimmerman needs to be put behind bars," said Jealous, who appears to have less Negro ancestry than George Zimmerman. By stirring the pot in this matter, both Ben Jealous and Al Sharpton are making political consensus between Blacks and Whites about the future of the country impossible. Provoking Blacks to behave completely unreasonably is a way to maintain chaos and prevent rational measures from being taken.  

Cui bono? Well, it is well known that the NAACP was founded by Jews and as recently as the 1970s the NAACP did not even pretend to be run by Blacks; Kivie Kaplan, a Jew, was the president of the NAACP until 1975, and Jews apparently still control the NAACP through purse-strings. During a brief period in the mid-1990s when the NAACP had a president who was openly critical of Jews, Ben Chavis, the organization suddenly ran into financial problems -- because donations from Jews dried up. As for the Jews' perceived interest in and efforts toward increasing and maintaining illegal immigration, Professor Kevin MacDonald has written about that. 

Some Blacks are already skeptical of the NAACP and realize that it is run by Jews for Jewish interests. Certainly many Blacks also recognize that immigration is contrary to their interests. If Blacks in the United States collectively want to have any future, the level-headed among them should  at least attempt to counter the chaotic, media-manipulated Black mob, and present a face with which self-respecting White people could cooperate for common good against the ruin that is approaching.
1. To his credit, Pastor James David Manning gradually revised his statements on the case, with what seems to be practically a total reversal by 20 May 2012.

06 March 2012

Why was Pat Buchanan fired from MSNBC?

Pat Buchanan denounces anti-White bias while Rachel Maddow tries not to cry.

Synopsis of "A Closer Look at What Happened to Pat Buchanan"

Many have assumed that Pat Buchanan's dismissal from MSNBC was due to leftist agitation and the prevalence of leftists within MSNBC. I argue that although Buchanan has conflicts with  leftists, the real agents of his downfall are probably not leftists but Zionist Jews. 

Glenn Beck was fired from Fox News a year ago. When any credit for Beck's downfall was given, it was usually given to Color of Change, but a closer look shows that Beck was actually able to survive all the trouble that Color of Change could muster. It was only after Beck attacked the Middle-East régime-change project, when influential neocons turned against him, that patience with Beck at Fox News ended.

Buchanan was probably fired from MSNBC for roughly the same reason that got Glenn Beck fired from Fox: because he was inconvenient for the Israel-First foreign policy.
Fox News canceled Andrew Napolitano's Freedom Watch  at about the same time, many believe, for the same reason. The timing could be related to Ron Paul's presidential campaign as well as current and future indefensible activities in U.S. foreign policy.

Cenk Uygur quotes the president of MSNBC, Phil Griffin, as saying that "people in Washington" make programming suggestions to MSNBC, and according to Uygur MSNBC complies with these suggestions. One day in the spring of 2011 he was called into Phil Griffin’s office where the president of MSNBC said to him: “I was just in Washington, and people in Washington tell me that they’re concerned about your tone…. Look, you’ve got to tone it down.”

This explains, not only why Buchanan and Napolitano were fired at about the same time, but also why MSNBC's prime-time schedule was suddenly, drastically changed a short time before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, with suppression of the strong criticisms of war-propaganda that MSNBC had been airing. 

The essay has been published in two parts on The Occidental Observer.

02 March 2012

Brute Force and the Idea

The following appears in the U.S. Army's 1943 series of propaganda-films, Why We Fight, at 13:52 in the episode titled Prelude to War.

It says:
"Only the application of brute force used continuously and ruthlessly can bring about the decision in favor of the side it supports"
Mein Kampf - Page 189 - German Edition
The purport of the alleged quote is that Adolf Hitler trusted only in brute force. Therewith it also implies a low regard for the importance of ideas and truth, and no inclination to abide by any principle. This alleged quote implies the entire portrait of Adolf Hitler that Why We Fight presents: that he is a brutal and opportunistic criminal, that he cannot be trusted, that he must therefore be destroyed through violent means.

It is curious that in this instance it was decided to reference the "German edition" of Mein Kampf, even though the sentence is not in German but in English. There was no obvious reason to do that, since two unexpurgated English translations were available as of 1941, one of them distinctly hostile to Hitler. The implication of presenting a sentence in English but referencing it to the German edition is that the information could not be found in an English edition, but that is on its face extremely unlikely.

We can find something resembling this alleged quote in the English translation published in 1941 by Reynal and Hitchcock. Words used in the alleged quote appear in red:

Every attempt at fighting a view of life by means of force will finally fail, unless the fight against it represents the form of an attack for the sake of a new spiritual direction. Only in the struggle of two views of life with each other can the weapon of brute force, used continuously and ruthlessly, bring about the decision in favor of the side it supports. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, tr. New School for Social Research, p. 223]

Notice what was left out: where Hitler used the qualifier, "in the struggle of two views of life with each other," the film entirely omits this.

In the German edition of 1943, the corresponding passage does indeed appear on page 189:

Jeder Versuch, eine Weltanschauung mit Machtmitteln zu bekämpfen, scheitert am Ende, solange nicht der Kampf die Form des Angriffes für eine neue geistige Einstellung erhält. Nur im Ringen zweier Weltanschauungen miteinander vermag die Waffe der brutalen Gewalt, beharrlich und rücksichtslos eingesetzt, die Entscheidung für die von ihr unterstützte Seite herbeizuführen.[Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, ed. 1943, p. 189]

The Reynal and Hitchcock edition represents the meaning of this German passage accurately, so that referencing the German edition was unnecessary. Furthermore, the words in the film match the words in that translation closely enough that it is obvious that the Reynal and Hitchcock edition was in fact the source, here as elsewhere in Why We Fight.

Why, then, does Why We Fight in this instance reference a page number in the German edition when a widely available English translation says the same? Most likely this was done so that it would be very difficult for Americans having seen the film to check the accuracy of the quote. It is not even close to being accurate.

Through selective omission of words Hitler is represented as saying very nearly the opposite of what he did say. Adolf Hitler was not saying that ruthless use of force was the key to everything. What he said -- read it for yourself -- was that force by itself was ultimately impotent, that force could only prevail if it were employed in service to an idea (or geistliche Einstellung, spiritual orientation). The lack of any such idea was, he said, the reason why attempts to combat Marxism with force alone had failed. Far from being contemptuous of the idea, Hitler insists on it.*
* The false view of Adolf Hitler as contemptuous of thinking and ideas was so successfully propagated that Friedrich Hayek, an ideological enemy of National-Socialism, felt compelled to begin chapter 12 of his 1944 book The Road to Serfdom with these words: "It is a common mistake to regard National Socialism as a mere revolt against reason, an irrational movement without intellectual background." (Hayek, The Road to Serfdom) This view of National-Socialism was not some random "common mistake"; it was a lie deliberately propagated, and unfortunately still widely believed today.