"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.

28 March 2013

Fake Hitler Quote about Slavery

This fake quote appears in the third installment of the U.S. Army's Why We Fight series, titled "Divide and Conquer." It appears, bizarrely enough, in the context of a description of how the French were treated following the armistice in 1940. The French were certainly not enslaved; the peace-conditions that Hitler gave the French were in fact rather generous: they were allowed to retain colonies and some of their army and their navy, and to remain neutral in the war. 

Mein Kampf is sometimes alleged as the source of the statement, but in fact it is slightly modified from the usual source of fake Hitler quotes, the utterly discredited Hermann Rauschning:

"There will be a Herren-class, he said, "an historical class tempered by battle, and welded from the most varied elements. There will be a great hierarchy of party members. They will be the new middle class. And there will be the great mass of the anonymous, the serving collective, the eternally disfranchised, no matter whether they were once members of the old bourgeoisie, the big land-owning class, the working class, or the artisans. Nor will their financial or previous social position be of the slightest importance. These preposterous differences will have been liquidated in a single revolutionary process. But beneath them there will still be the class of subject alien races; we need not hesitate to call them the modern slave class. And over all of these will stand the new high aristocracy, the most deserving and the most responsible Führer-personalities. [Hermann Rauschning, Hitler Speaks, pp.50-51]

The fact that the statement comes from Rauschning already means that it is spurious. But let us look at how even Rauschning's false testimony underwent further distortion by a Hollywood screenwriter.

Why Hollywood Tweaked an Already-Fake Quote

The omission of still in the propaganda-film is significant. While the statement in the film is presented in reference to the treatment of the French after their defeat in 1940, there is no indication of this in Rauschning. On the contrary, in Rauschning the statement seems to be about a class of subject alien races that already existed, such as Indians and Black Africans. Elsewhere in The Voice of Destruction, Rauschning portrays Hitler as saying that Germany would take over the colonies of other European powers. Since it would have made no sense to refer to the French as belonging to some pre-existing class of "subject alien races,"  the word "still" had to be excised. 

Furthermore, as the fictional speech continues, Rauschning represents Hitler as saying:

"Certainly we shall admit to our new ruling class members of other nations who have been worthy in our cause. On this point I entirely agree with Darré and Himmler. The racial and biological aspect is only one side of the total process. In fact, we shall very soon have overstepped the bounds of the narrow nationalism of today. My party comrades, it is true that world empires arise on a national basis, but very quickly they leave it far behind."

Evidently that new aristocracy would include some French people, since a leading National-Socialist with a French name is mentioned.

The meaning that Rauschning attributed to Hitler, that Blacks for example were a "subject alien race" and de facto slaves, would not have seemed nearly so shocking  to an American audience of the 1940s as the same idea applied to the White people of France. At that time there were still considerable numbers of people that could remember when de jure Negro slavery existed.

Thus the statement from Rauschning, already a falsification, was deprived of its original context and altered to make it consistent with the purport of Why We Fight, that Hitler was treating the White people of France as slaves.

19 March 2013

Why Germany pays reparations to the Jewish State

The USA strong-armed Konrad Adenauer into having Germany pay reparations to the State of Israel. Adenauer lied about it in his memoirs and Helmut Kohl's government perpetuated secrecy around the fact, but now it is revealed.

Eisenhower and Adenauer, 1952
In the Luxembourg Agreement of 10 September 1952, the First Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, Konrad Adenauer, promised reparations to the State of Israel in spite of widespread opposition among Germans, even within Adenauer's own cabinet. Finance-minister Fritz Schaffer considered the Jewish demands excessive, while justice-minister Thomas Dehler opposed reparations to the Jewish State entirely. An opinion-poll showed that 44% of the Federal Republic's citizens regarded reparations to the Jewish State as entirely "superfluous."*

Translated from the current issue of Der Spiegel:

The chancellor however pursued the reparations-project with determination. In his memoirs accordingly he also named the reason for the decisive action: the agreement with Israel was based "on a compelling moral obligation," he wrote, and was therefore "something other than an ordinary contract between two states." "There is something higher than good business."

But when the federal government under chancellor Helmut Kohl (CDU) considered publishing the transcripts of Adenauer's cabinet-meetings after expiration of the period of secrecy in 1982, it decided not to do so, as revealed in records now published by the Foreign Office. It turned out that the documents stood "in clear contradiction" to the ex-chancellor's memoirs, which was noted by a high official of the Foreign Office on 17 December 1982: Adenauer was apparently only "ready to negotiate reparations because of pressure from the USA."*** [Felix Bohr, "Wiedergutmachung für Israel: Was Adenauer verschwieg", Der Spiegel 18 March 2013 - translated by Hadding Scott]

On 17 June 1952 Adenauer told his cabinet that a failure to accommodate the Jewish State would "provoke the most serious political and economic dangers for the Federal Republic" in its relations with the United States.

Adenauer agreed that the Federal Republic would pay $3 billion in reparations over the course of the next 14 years, constituting a very large part of the Israeli government's revenue during that period. This however was only the beginning. Especially since the 1990s, after the intensification of Holocaust propaganda from Jewish-controlled mass-media in the USA, numerous other Jewish demands for reparations have followed. It is likely that all payments to Jews based on alleged wrongs committed during the Second World War are fundamentally due to pressure from the heavily Jew-influenced government of the United States.

Listen to Dr. William Pierce on the endless "reparations" to Jews here.

It is a good sign that Germany is now ready to reveal and discuss the circumstances whereby the United States forced her to pay reparations to the State of Israel. It casts an unflattering light on both the United States and the Jewish State, and ultimately suggests questions about the alleged grievances of the Jews on which those reparations are based, questions which should have been asked long ago. 

The sharp decline of the prestige and influence of the United States since 2001, and the already darkened reputation of the State of Israel, have facilitated this new candor, which is allowing Germany to become Germany again.
* "überflüssig"
** The quote in Der Spiegel is: "aufgrund des Drucks der USA zu den Wiedergutmachungshandlungen bereit". 
***  Der "ergebnislose Abbruch von Verhandlungen mit Israel würde die schwersten politischen und wirtschaftspolitischen Gefahren für die Bundesrepublik heraufbeschwören"

06 March 2013

How Patriotism is Co-Opted and Misdirected

Did you ever wonder why people that pretend to advocate for your interests spend so much time talking about things that are beside the point? Rush Limbaugh, for example, will say that there is propaganda for making White people feel guilty -- which is true -- but then he leaves race out of it. Instead, he says, they are trying to make us feel guilty about global warming. Huh? Global warming? This is supposed to be a greater focus of anti-White guilt-propaganda than the Holocaust? And so the Jewish problem and more generally the race problem is left as the elephant in the living room that everyone is so accustomed to stepping around and not discussing, that we almost forget that it's there. Another common diversion is to say that government as such is the problem, rather than specific things that the government does, like helping non-Whites at the expense of Whites. The rhetoric of Rush Limbaugh and other mass-media conservatives is full of this kind of substitution and omission of forbidden subject-matter. 

Probably many public figures receive such suggestions about what they should and should not discuss, with incentives to cooperate and deterrents for refusing to do so. The absurd media-blackout on Ron Paul in the last U.S. presidential election, for example, surely did not occur spontaneously. I can name several media-figures supportive of Ron Paul (Pat Buchanan of MSNBC, Andrew Napolitano of Fox Business News, Rick Barber of KOA Denver) who all just happened to lose their shows in late 2011 and early 2012. For his part, Rush Limbaugh managed to discuss the controversy over crooked voice-votes and rule-changes at the Republican national convention for hours without saying the name Ron Paul once, even though it was really all about him.
This is an instructive clip from Nick Griffin's speech, The BNP Solution. Griffin invites former members of the British National Party who have joined other groups to return, explaining that some of those other ostensibly patriotic groups were formed specifically for the purpose of co-opting or weakening nationalism:

Out of all the groups, the most important one by a mile was the English Defense League/British Freedom Party. That was a serious, systematic, hugely funded effort by a section of the ruling elite, by the Zionist-Neocon clique, to dominate, to simply take over nationalism, and turn it into their tool, to encourage the White working class to go and fight their wars, and so that when the banking collapse comes people are looking in the wrong direction instead of [at] the real culprits.

This party, we were approached, I was approached, we were offered money from the United States, and all they wanted was two things. 

They only wanted us to concentrate on Islam -- and I yield to no one in my criticism of Islam, and grooming; I put my neck on the line; many of you have put your neck on the line as well -- but, it's not the only problem. And they wanted us only to focus on that. 

And it only came with one other thing: they wanted us to drop our criticism of the banking system. Those were the only two things: we had to concentrate on talking about Muslims, and we had to drop our criticism of the international banking system.

And I refused. And we refused. That was in about 2007. And all hell broke loose really from that time, when systematically they tried to take this party apart [by setting up well funded competing organizations].

So, if you witness a discussion where somebody insists that Muslims are the real problem about which we all ought to be most concerned (even in the United States where there are very few Muslims) you'll have an idea what the agenda behind that might be. I recall months and months of wailing and gnashing of teeth on conservatard radio over the fact that somebody supposedly wanted to build a mosque in the general vicinity of the former World Trade Center. What difference does it make? Non-issues like this are hyped into matters of importance in order -- as Nick Griffin says -- to keep us in an uproar against Muslims and positively disposed to fighting the Zionist Jews' wars.

While it is remarkable that Nick Griffin could speak for some minutes about Zionists, Neocons, wars for Israel, and international finance without ever saying the word Jew, it is at least to Griffin's credit that in the instance described he did not take the easier path. You can view Griffin's entire presentation on the BNP's Online Television Channel.

02 March 2013

Most Members of the Bolshevik Central Committee in October 1917 were Jews

There is much criticism of claims about the Jewishness of Bolshevism. Some of the information circulated about the matter is inaccurate. This however, The Bolshevik Revolution 1917-1918: Documents and Materials, by James Bunyan and H.H. Fisher (Stanford University Press 1934),  seems to be a reputable source:

Zinoviev, Kamenev, Trotsky, Sverdlov, Uritsky, and Sokolnikov, were all Jews.

Lenin was (at least) a quarter-Jew* who allegedly grew up speaking Yiddish. The fact that the frontman for the Bolsheviks had any Jewish ancestry was concealed for many decades. 

Dzerzhinsky was (at least nominally) a Polish noble, although there are questions about him. Stalin was a Georgian. Bubnov and Lomov were Russians.

Seven out of twelve of those present at this meeting of the Bolshevik Central Committee shortly before the Bolshevik coup are known with certainty to have had Jewish ancestry.
* Lenin's mother's father was one Israel Blank, a Jew. This fact was officially suppressed until after the collapse of the Soviet Union. A Jew named Larry Horwitz, who had recently visited Lenin's Tomb, wrote about it to the New York Times in August 1992. The name of Lenin's maternal grandmother is given as Anna Ivanovna Grosshopf, who is said to be "apparently of Germanic background." Note the lack of certainty, however. Grosshopf is an extremely rare name, with apparently not even one person in Germany today bearing that name (as you can verify for yourself). If it is a corruption of Grosskopf, which is a surname often borne by Jews, then both of Lenin's maternal grandparents are likely to have been Jews, in which case Lenin himself could be considered a full Jew.