"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.

16 August 2018

The Reason behind Dinesh D'Souza's Box-Office Failure

This represents a large part of the Republican electorate.

Some anti-Trump pundits are inferring that the initially poor box-office performance of Dinesh D'Souza's current movie Death of a Nation reflects a decline in the popularity of President Trump. What they fail to take into account is that D'Souza's cinematic success has been in steady decline for several years. Here's the breakdown:

2012   Obama's America                                                                    $33,449,086
2014   America: Imagine the World Without Her                      14,444,502
2016   Hillary's America                                                                       13,099,931
2018  Death of a Nation                                                                                  ?

The reason for the decline, I believe, is that D'Souza, adhering to the anti-racist neoconservative line, is falling more and more out of step with the multitude of Republicans in the Age of Trump.

D'Souza's great opportunity came with the election of Barack Obama. Many White people were profoundly uncomfortable with having a Negro president, but were afraid to say it. Rush Limbaugh stated on several occasions that Republicans in Congress hesitated to resist or criticize Obama because of fear of being called racist:

"This is what Republicans are still afraid of, in fact, is being called ‘racist’ if they criticize him. They’re still afraid to jump all the way in with both feet on this because they’re afraid of that charge of being called racist." (Rush Limbaugh, 4 October 2010)
* * *
"And I’ve mentioned [that in 2012 Haley Barbour] made the point, 'We cannot criticize Obama, Rush, as a party. We can criticize his policies. We can criticize his policies all day long, but we can’t go there.' He didn’t say why, but it was the unspoken, you can’t go there ’cause he’s African-American, we'll be called racist, and it was the same old song and dance. I didn’t say anything. I just sat there and nodded." (Rush Limbaugh, 15 June 2016)
 * * *
"What has happened is, the Republican Party has by and large been shut down. Their reluctance to be critical of anything Obama is doing is rooted in the fact that they don’t want to be called racist by the media." (Rush Limbaugh, 14 July 2014)

When D'Souza attacked Obama in 2012, he struck a chord. As a non-White person, had no fear of attacking Obama, and thus became the voice for people who were afraid to speak freely. Fearful Republicans could stand behind this clearly not-at-all-racist champion, and not risk being called racist themselves.

D'Souza's subsequent movies did not respond to that kind of need. Nobody feels inhibited about praising America or attacking Hillary Clinton. Praise of America is commonplace, and anti-Clinton material has been stored up since the 1990s. This is a large part of why, I believe, D'Souza's second and third movies brought in less than half the revenue of his first production.

The need itself is also somewhat diminished compared to what it was  when Obama's America appeared in 2012. This is due to the example of Donald Trump:

"The Republican Party gave [Obama] his free ride; they said there’s no impeachment; they took it off the table. There’s no enforcement mechanism for anything Obama does that’s extra-constitutional, in violation of the law or what have you. He’s got his free ride here. And the reason he’s got it is because people are scared to death of being called racist or sexist or whatever. 

"Okay, within that, here comes Trump. It may well be that a whole bunch of Republicans agree with Trump and have not had the… I don’t want… I’m not questioning people’s manhood here. I’m questioning political analysis. Maybe they just haven’t had the courage to do it, but Trump did and they’re probably sitting back and saying, 'Yeah, look what’s happening to him. They’re trying to destroy him.' Yeah, but that’s the lesson! What is Trump doing? With every insult that comes his way, with every bit of criticism, he doubles down and fires right back at the critics. This is, in one small part, exactly what Republican voters have been seeking, wanting to see." (17 August 2015)

On top of failing to meet a vanishing need, D'Souza took a turn that seems likely to have alienated much of his audience. D'Souza combined his attack on Hillary Clinton with attacks on Andrew Jackson and racism. At this point D'Souza's propaganda began to acquire a strange odor, because Jackson and racism are traditional targets of leftist propaganda. To make these attacks, D'Souza relied on leftist sources. 

Donald Trump likes Andrew Jackson and most of Trump's base probably has some racial feeling. Thus with Hillary's America in 2016, D'Souza's message took a turn that was offensive to at least a significant part of the Trump electorate.

Many Republicans are happy to say things that they do not really mean (like, "Democrats are the real racists") in order to score partisan debating points. On that basis they may have appreciated Hillary's America as disingenuous but -- they hoped -- effective propaganda.

With Death of a Nation, however, D'Souza is not only attacking the Democrats. Now he adds effusive praise of Lincoln and argues that racists do not belong in the Republican Party. Believe it or not there are many Republicans today who are racists and not uncritical of Lincoln. It seems likely that Republicans who were comfortable enough with seeing the Democrats called racist as a mere rhetorical ploy are not enthused about seeing it turned against themselves.

Although D'Souza struck a chord in 2012 when he attacked Obama, since then he has been gradually alienating his Republican audience, and the Party of Trump also has less need for what he offers. So, who still follows Dinesh D'Souza? From the positive retweets on D'Souza's Twitter page what I see mainly are simpleminded people: in particular, those who put party-affiliation above all else. Even before the current movie, D'Souza's followers on Twitter were so simpleminded, that when he posted a satire he had to label it satire or they could not tell. Probably they are also especially timid people.

I would suggest, if Dinesh D'Souza wants to end the unmistakable decline of his cinematic success, that he go back to attacking figures that White people in general are still afraid to criticize, and leave off the attacks on racism and on White icons like Andrew Jackson. A movie presenting all the dirt about Martin Luther King, Jr. would probably be a blockbuster and it would actually be helpful. If we could get Rush Limbaugh to stop referring in reverential tones to "Dr. King," that would be fantastic!

12 August 2018

Jewish Professor of Psychiatry Foolishly Tries to Rescue Dinesh D'Souza, is Annihilated

American Thinker seems to be churning out one pro-Dinesh puff-piece after another. I've seen three or four. It makes me wonder who runs that site. It seems that their primary concern is not really thinking but, in this case, pushing an agenda that is incompatible with thinking.

The latest that I've seen is written by a professor of psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago, named Kalman J. Kaplan. His profession is obviously invoked to add credibility to his statements -- and he's a Jew, and Jews are so smart, right? -- but he's still wrong, wrong, wrong. 

The bigger they are, the harder they fall!

You can read the entirety of Kaplan's article of 12 August 2018 on the American Thinker blog, but I don't think that it's really necessary to go there -- unless you want to give thumbs up to my comment -- since I include quotes from his crummy argument below:

I can very easily demolish most of these points.

"The Democrats [Lincoln] ran against were largely supporters of slavery...."

It seems that Kaplan is slightly misrepresenting D'Souza's position in order to help him, because in all the times that I've heard D'Souza make this point in interviews and speeches, he has never said "largely." Instead he asserts without a hint of nuance that the Democrats are THE PARTY OF SLAVERY. He talks as if there were only two parties, the unambiguously pro-slavery Democrats and the anti-slavery Republicans. The GOP sure enough was founded as an anti-slavery party, but the Democrats and the Whigs and the Federalists and the Know Nothings had no clear position on slavery. The Confederate vice-president, Alexander H. Stephens, was in fact a Whig (which was Lincoln's party before the GOP formed), while Lincoln's vice-president, Andrew Johnson, was a Democrat. D'Souza's labeling of the Democrats as "the party of slavery" is an overgeneralization. It is not correct to say that the Democrats were THE PARTY OF SLAVERY when they had no clear position on it.

"The Klu Klux Klan was an organ of the Democratic Party...."

The KKK was never an organ of the Democratic Party. D'Souza alleges as his source for this claim the Marxist historian Eric Foner, an expert on Reconstruction. When you check Foner, however, you find out that he does not quite say that. Foner only says that the activities of the KKK during Reconstruction benefited the Democratic Party (in the South), the planter class, and White Supremacists. That's as far as Foner goes. He does not allege any formal connection as D'Souza does -- and a formal connection is crucial if the Democratic Party per se is to be made responsible for the Klan's activities. D'Souza lies about that detail, because the charge of guilt-by-association with the Klan doesn't hold up without it.

"The segregationist Dixiecrats were Democrats...."

To make his thesis work, D'Souza has to pretend that both major parties are pretty much the same as they were 150 years ago. The fact that Southern Segregationists generally switched to the GOP in the late 20th century blasts a giant hole in that thesis. Therefore D'Souza obfuscates.

Among the Dixiecrats, or Dixiecrat-supporters, were majorities of voters in several states of the Deep South that gave their electoral votes to the Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond in 1948, to the Republican Goldwater in 1964, to the American Independent candidate George Wallace in 1968, and to Nixon in 1972. That's a lot of Dixiecrat voters who ended up voting Republican! Whenever this objection about Southern Segregationist support switching to the GOP comes up, D'Souza sidetracks the discussion into a trivia-quiz about Dixiecrat politicians. That's really not relevant. The important and indisputable fact is that huge numbers of Southern White people who favored Segregation ended up voting for GOP presidential candidates. Kevin Phillips, who was an advisor to the Nixon campaign in 1968, wrote a book about this shift called The Emerging Republican Majority, which was written before the 1968 election and published after. My own mother voted for Strom in 1948 and Nixon in 1972; so, the effrontery of this immigrant trying to gaslight us about our own living memory is just remarkable.

"Robert Byrd, a former Dragon of the Klan ..."

This is a gross exaggeration. Robert Byrd was never a Grand Dragon. Way back in the 1940s he was an Exalted Cyclops, which is a local office.

"Only one segregationist Democratic senator, Strom Thurmond, and one Democratic congressman actually switched parties."

It was a lot more than that. I have already mentioned that MILLIONS of Southern Segregationist VOTERS began voting for Republican presidential candidates. I have found the following noteworthy politicians who switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party for apparently racial reasons: Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Thad Cochran, John Tower, Trent Lott, Charles Pickering, James F. Byrnes, Albert Watson, William Cramer, Arthur Ravenel Jr., Dave Treen, James D. Martin, Floyd Spence, Bo Callaway, Iris Faircloth Blitch, and Mills Godwin.

The reason why there were not more D-to-R Segregationist party-switchers is that the Democrats were the majority party until 1980 and switching parties generally means loss of seniority. But if you look into Segregationist politicians like Senator James Eastland, you find that they were known as conservatives and might just as well have been Republicans.

"Hitler ... was a populist, who was hated by the Conservative Junkers of Prussia."

But they clearly preferred him to the Communists. The conservative DNVP threw its support, including Alfred Hugenberg's media-empire, behind Hitler in 1928 to make sure that the Communists would not come to power. That support was crucial for putting Hitler in power.

"Many of the Brown Shirts were homosexual."

There was a clique of homosexuals around Ernst Roehm, who were extirpated. Homosexuality was illegal under Hitler's rule.

Kalman J. Kaplan may be a professor of psychiatry, but an historian he is not.

You can do this too!

09 August 2018

Hit Dinesh D'Souza on his Most Vulnerable Points

The historical narrative that Dinesh D'Souza has been peddling since 2015 is wrong in its general outlines -- pretending, for example, that Democratic and Republican parties are exactly the same today as 150 years ago -- and in a great number of its details. This is necessarily so, because D'Souza's technique of taking some anti-American or anti-White historical accusation promoted by Marxists and twisting it around so that it is only applicable to Democrats, inherently requires omissions and distortions.

Conservative American White people feel browbeaten with accusations of wrongdoing against other races. They have been browbeaten for many decades. The proper response to this is a kind of historical revisionism that will put them on a firm foundation to reject being browbeaten. Facts can be questioned, context can be added that changes the meaning of the facts presented, and even the value-judgments about certain actions can be rejected.

The appeal of Dinesh D'Souza's work is that it supplies a balm for the distress of being browbeaten, but his approach is completely wrong. The problems with D'Souza's historical revisionism are (1) that it is very superficial and untenable, and (2) that it maintains leftist accusations and value-judgments that keep White people trapped in the box where they must struggle to "prove" that they are not fascist, not nazi, and not racist. Moreover, it teaches White people to affirm the Judaeo-Marxist value-judgments associated with those labels. From a White perspective, the escape that Dinesh D'Souza offers gives only temporary relief and is ultimately a trap.

This has to be stopped.

Anyone who actually finds D'Souza's narrative convincing cannot be generally well informed about the broad outlines of American history. Consequently, the approach for deprogramming such people cannot be about broad outlines; it must focus on specific, finite claims. That is what I am presenting here, a list of specific, finite claims where D'Souza is clearly taking liberties.

This is somewhat expanded from a list that I compiled for a local talk-show host who was going to interview Dinesh D'Souza and was obviously clueless. (I do not normally use the word nazi except with some irony: I use it here because it is the word that the kinds of people being addressed would normally use.) I hope that others also will make use of this list of criticisms. Send it to anyone in media who is discussing D'Souza or about to interview him. As of right now, he is still promoting his new stupid movie. So, here is an activity for you. Copy, paste, and send.

If you think that this is too long for your purpose, just use the section titled D'Souza on Nazis and Eugenics, because that section relates especially to D'Souza's most recent work.

Dinesh D'Souza vs. Reality 

Dinesh D'Souza exhibits copious endnotes in his books, which impresses people and makes them think that what he says must be well documented. Sadly this is not the case. Checking D'Souza's sources shows that he habitually makes bold assertions going far beyond what his alleged sources would justify.

D'Souza on Andrew Jackson 

Dinesh D'Souza claims that the Battle of Horseshoe Bend was a massacre and an act of genocide by General Andrew Jackson. He also calls Jackson “the land stealer.” The alleged source, Steve Inskeep's Jacksonland, indicates that the Battle of Horseshoe Bend was not a massacre: Jackson asked the Creek Indians to surrender, and took hundreds of prisoners at the battle's end. The killing continued only because the Creek warriors would not surrender. The only massacre that Inskeep mentions was at Hillabee, where Jackson was not involved. Inskeep does not indicate that Jackson stole any land or did anything unethical by the standards of the time.

Dinesh D'Souza refers to "Jackson's policy of Indian Removal." It was not specifically Jackson's policy! It was a policy begun by Thomas Jefferson, who agreed in the Compact of 1802 that Indians would eventually be removed from Georgia. The policy was continued by presidents James Madison, James Monroe, and John Quincy Adams, before it reached its culmination under presidents Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren. This was not a policy that originated with Jackson, nor was it specifically a policy of the Democratic Party, since D'Souza defines the Democratic Party as beginning with Jackson, and since Adams was a Whig. The special demonization of Andrew Jackson has been a theme of leftist propaganda since the 1970s: among scholars however it is not the majority view.

Dinesh D'Souza on Democrats and Slavery

Dinesh D'Souza alleges that the Democratic Party is and always has been "the party of slavery." This only appears to have some semblance of truth because the Democratic Party was not explicitly anti-slavery like the GOP. Most American political parties before 1860 took no clear position on slavery. George Washington, a Federalist, owned slaves. William Henry Harrison, a Whig, owned slaves. The Democratic Party before 1860 had pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions, just like the Federalists and the Whigs. The Confederate vice-president, Alexander H. Stephens, was in fact a Whig, while Lincoln's vice-president, Andrew Johnson, was a Democrat. D'Souza's labeling of the Democrats as "the party of slavery" is an oversimplification.

Dinesh D'Souza on the Ku Klux Klan

Dinesh D'Souza claims that the Ku Klux Klan was formally connected to the Democratic Party -- meaning that the Democratic Party was responsible for the Klan. D'Souza pretends to cite Marxist historian Eric Foner when he calls  the Klan “the military wing of the Democratic Party.” In one speech D'Souza says, "quote, the domestic terrorist arm of the Democratic Party, endquote," and he also includes that alleged quote in his book The Big Lie. D'Souza is lying! Foner says no such thing! What Foner says is that the Democratic Party (in the South), the planter class, and White Supremacists benefited from the Klan's activities during Reconstruction. That's as far as Foner goes. Here are his exact words:

"In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy." (E. Foner, Reconstruction, 1988: 425)

You do not see D'Souza's terms "terrorist arm" or "military wing" in Foner's sentence. D'Souza chose those terms to indicate that the Klan was subordinate to a larger organization, whereas Foner calls the Klan a "force," which does not indicate such subordination. Foner underscores the lack of any formal connection between the Klan and the Democratic Party with the qualifier "in effect" -- of which D'Souza gives no indication. D'Souza has dishonestly distorted and exaggerated  what Foner said.

Dinesh D'Souza makes a big hoopla about the fact that overt Klansmen were present at the 1924 Democratic national convention. He mentions that a motion to condemn the Klan failed by just one vote, but does not mention that the Democratic nominee, John W. Davis, denounced the Klan anyway. After that, the Klan's endorsement went to the Republican candidate Calvin Coolidge, who did not in any way repudiate that support.

Dinesh D'Souza claims that President Lyndon Johnson had been a member of the Original Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. The source for this claim is an unidentified confidential informant for the FBI, who alleges that Ned Touchstone, editor of the newsletter of the Citizens' Council of Louisiana and an independent investigator of the Kennedy assassination, was a member of that Klan group, and that Touchstone had told the informant that the group had documentation that Johnson had been a member “during the early days of his political career.” These claims appear in the final paragraph of an FBI internal memo from May 1964 that mostly discusses Touchstone's published findings about the Kennedy assassination. This is a rumor three removes from the source: the confidential informant said that Touchstone said that the Original Knights of the Ku Klux Klan said. We can accept that the confidential informant said what the FBI's memo records, but there is no confirmation of the factuality of what he said. Touchstone himself, although an investigative journalist, never published such a claim. The FBI has much more “information” that Hitler fled to Argentina in 1945, than that Lyndon Johnson was ever in any Klan group. It is an unverified rumor.

In any case, Lyndon Johnson was not well regarded by Southern Segregationists: all four states of the Deep South that had given their electoral votes to the Dixiecrats in 1948, plus Georgia, voted against Lyndon Johnson and for Republican Barry Goldwater in 1964. Robert Shelton, Imperial Wizard of the United Klans of America, declared: “We're going along with the principles that the Republican Party has adopted in its platform.”

When President Lyndon Johnson pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, the vast expansion of social welfare programs that disproportionately benefited Blacks, and the Gun Control Act of 1968 – on every point he acted in diametric opposition to the preferences of the vast majority of Southern White people. The suggestion that LBJ was somehow serving an agenda of Southern Segregationists or the Ku Klux Klan is beyond bonkers.

There is an argument that lavishing largesse on Blacks has not been good for them (prominently pointed out by a Democrat, Pat Moynihan). Nonetheless, the suggestion that the Ku Klux Klan would support lavishing funds on Blacks as a way to harm them is utterly insane.

D'Souza on Nazis and Eugenics

In his effort to link the American eugenics movement to the Holocaust, Dinesh D'Souza claims that Paul Popenoe, in his book Applied Eugenics (1918), advocated “lethal chambers.” In fact, Popenoe emphatically dismissed “lethal chambers” as unnecessary, since mere sterilization suffices to achieve the eugenic goal. (Popenoe was also no leftist: Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, was one of his protégés.) 

D'Souza blames eugenic sterilization on “progressives” without bothering to mention that 19 out of 32 governors who signed eugenic sterilization into law were Republicans. When the case of Buck v. Bell came before the Supreme Court in 1927, 8 out of 9 Justices -- all of them Republicans -- found that forced eugenic sterilization was constitutional: the sole dissenter, Justice Pierce Butler, was a Democrat.

Dinesh D'Souza pretends that laws against interracial marriage were enacted only by Democrats. In fact, most states (even Massachusetts) at some time had such laws. In 1935, 30 out of 48 states had such laws.

Dinesh D'Souza claims that the American one-drop rule (which he calls the “Democratic one-drop rule”) was “too racist for the Nazis.” It is highly unlikely that the Nazis regarded the one-drop rule as “too racist” where Blacks were concerned, since Germany had indeed applied the one-drop rule in German Southwest Africa, starting in 1907. (Source: Ulrike Lindner, Journal of Namibian Studies, 6 (2009): 63-64)

D'Souza's alleged source, James Q. Whitman, says that Nazi officials regarded the American laws as generally inapplicable to their situation, because they were making laws about Jews, not Blacks: only the precedent of attaching criminal penalties to miscegenation was derived from the American laws, according to Whitman.

D'Souza on the "fascist" welfare-state

Dinesh D'Souza, who has been associated mainly with the Neoconservative faction of the Republican Party, points out that Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal resembles programs of recovery enacted by Mussolini and Hitler. What he forgets is that leading Neoconservatives like Irving Kristol are former Democrats who cherish the New Deal. D'Souza is calling his own faction of the Republican Party fascist!

01 August 2018

Dinesh D'Souza is The Big Liar

Spread these around!

Here are some new memes to greet the release of Dinesh D'Souza's ridiculous new book and film. The general theme is, Dinesh D'Souza is The Big Liar

Since there is no limit to this person's shameless dishonesty, the strategy is, rather than to pick apart the endless multitude of lies that he tells, to present a few clear examples and thereby to discredit him, and to label him clearly, as an untrustworthy source -- as The Big Liar.

There has been some criticism of D'Souza's propaganda in mainstream media. The problem is that many dittoheads and Fox News viewers refuse to consider that any criticism from mainstream media might be valid.

When some leftist points out the stupidity of D'Souza's arguments and laughs at the people who take those arguments seriously, the dittoheads misinterpret this as an indication that the leftists are angry because D'Souza has scored points against them. They are utterly clueless!

To reach those people, the criticism of D'Souza has to be stark and simple and presented in such a way that it is obviously not from the left and not from any mainstream source.

See also, Talking Points to Demolish Dinesh D'Souza

Alternate Memes -- for Timid People

28 July 2018

Response to Dinesh D'Souza's Stupid Article for Fox News

I wrote this comment on an article for Fox News (27 July 2018) written by corrupt non-White immigrant and convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza. The article pretends to defend President Trump from the accusation of being a White Supremacist, by presenting Richard Spencer as a real White Supremacist.

My objection is that Dinesh D'Souza is, as usual, misrepresenting things. He misrepresents Richard Spencer and he misrepresents conservatism, rejecting all traditional attributes of conservatism that do not fit his shysterly argument.

I went through the motions of posting the comment, but where it went, I have no idea. Amid the sea of comments, maybe nobody will see it again. It is lost like a needle in a haystack. Then there is the possibility that the editors will decide not to let the public see it if they dislike it. So, I am putting it here:

There are several things about this article that are dishonest.

In the first place, Richard Spencer does not call himself a White Supremacist. If you asked him if he subscribed to that label, he would say emphatically no. So, where does Dinesh D'Souza get that Richard Spencer is "a real White Supremacist"?

The other big thing is that Dinesh D'Souza's idea of "conservatism" is very skewed.

What we call conservatism today is very different from what was called conservatism when National Review was founded in 1955. When National Review was founded, conservatism included Christian morality, but conservatives also supported racial segregation.
The identification of conservatism with Segregationism changed gradually during the 60s and 70s. By Reagan's time, conservatism had become heavily mingled with traditional LIBERAL ideas, like the infallibility of the free market. The racial motive was still present among conservative voters, but it could no longer be overtly stated. There is an interview where Reagan's campaign strategist Lee Atwater admitted this.

Dinesh D'Souza picks out ONLY the LIBERAL parts of what was passing for conservatism in Reagan's day, and pretends that these are the exclusive criteria of conservatism. Particularly absurd is the pretense that non-White immigration is conservative! For Dinesh D'Souza, to be called a "conservative" you must be an old-style liberal. What used to be the conservative position on race and immigration is now a disqualifier.


I could also have said something about the fact that there has been, historically, such a thing as conservative socialism, so that the identification of conservatism with less government also is invalid and represents the corruption of conservatism with liberal ideas, but the maximum length for comments would not allow it. 

23 July 2018

Censorship -- not by Facebook, but by the Gov't -- is what Zuckerbergs want

In a lengthy interview about Facebook's policies last week, Mark Zuckerberg used Holocaust Denial as an example of a kind of speech that Facebook tolerates. What Zuckerberg said set off a firestorm of reaction, but was complex and ambiguous in ways that commentators seemed not to grasp. When sister Randi Zuckerberg weighed in to defend her brother, however, she said one thing that was unambiguous: she wants Holocaust Denial to be illegal in the United States. 

10 April 2018

The Holocaustian Propaganda Campaign Against Bashar al-Assad -- audio

This is a presentation of an article written for CODOH and originally published on 30 June 2017. It can be viewed here.

Important Points

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has been heavily involved in agitation for war against the government of Bashar al-Assad. In this activity the USHMM acts in effect as a propaganda-agency for the State of Israel, which has an interest in overthrowing the secular government of Syria, as a continuation of the agenda of "régime change" advocated by Neoconservative Jews in the 1990s, begun with the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and continued with the so-called Arab Spring in 2011.

An early advocate that the government of the United States should take hostile measures against the government of Syria was Peace-Prize Winner Elie Wiesel, at a ceremony of the USHMM in 2012. 

President Obama eventually issued his "red line" ultimatum, which was the kind of action, likely to lead to war, that Elie Wiesel had advocated in the Washington Post of 8 June 2012.

From 2012 to 2017 huge quantities of inconclusive evidence were amassed to lend specious credibility to accusations that Bashar al-Assad was a monster who gassed his own people. This supposed evidence consisted of thousands of photographs of unidentified dead people, and horror-stories told by people hostile to President Assad. A moderately skeptical person could recognize that this so-called evidence did not really prove wrongdoing by Assad's government. The USHMM however was heavily involved in promoting this so-called evidence, which happens to be the same kind of evidence used to generate spurious belief in the Holocaust.

Russia Today on 30 October 2014 explicitly accused the USHMM of using the Holocaust to drum up a war against the Syrian government.

In early 2017, a group of 90 rabbis, citing the now deceased Elie Wiesel as their moral inspiration, sent a letter to President Trump advocating airstrikes against Syrian airbases. This was subsequently advocated by Hillary Clinton and finally executed by President Trump.

Subsequently, there was a ceremony held by the USHMM in the Capitol, where the Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer, amid a flood of moralizing rhetoric about so-called lessons of the Holocaust, praised President Trump for his missile-attack on Syria.

09 April 2018

Maurice Bardèche on "Germanic Fascism" -- Part One

The long second chapter of Maurice Bardèche's Qu'est-ce que le fascisme (What is fascism?) is presented here in several installments.

In this first section of Chapter II, Bardèche explains that German National-Socialism was different from Italian Fascism in: 
  • its origin, from the defeat of Germany in the First World War, 
  •  the limited time-frame – only four or five years – in which National-Socialism could unfold naturally before being forced by circumstances to prepare for another war, 
  • its foundation in a Germanic and Mediaeval, rather than a Roman vision, 
  • its application of biology to politics (imported from the United States).

I said that I would have some criticisms of what Bardèche says about National-Socialism, and so I do. The following points are just about this first section.

* * *

Bardèche objects that “true fascism” does not take account of biology. Insofar as the German National-Socialists never called themselves fascist, and insofar as the word Fascism properly belongs to an Italian movement that was more sociological than Darwinian in outlook, this seems to be true. But, that is not to concede that National-Socialism was not an improvement over Fascism, with its more radical approach to improving the nation, not just through discipline but through husbandry of the people's germ-plasm. 

This aspect of National-Socialism is related to Germany's defeat in the First World War, insofar as the Germans wanted to avoid future defeats and were willing to learn from the powers that beat them. They were heavily influenced by Madison Grant's observation about the importance of Nordic men for having an effective military, and adopted eugenic policies that originated in the United States. 

This imitation of the victors extended even to seemingly trivial matters such as Hitler's advocacy of boxing, because habituation to fistfighting had given the Americans a great advantage in hand-to-hand combat over the more civilized Germans  during the First World War.

* * *

DNVP placard: "Rescue the east!"
Bardèche says that National-Socialism was animated by the Mediaeval and Germanic ideal, and by the agenda of reacquiring lost territories, but these were not unique to the NSDAP. The Deutschnationale Volkspartei (conservative nationalists who were also Pan-Germanist like the NSDAP) also featured these themes in their electoral placards. 

* * *

The suggestion that Germany could have avoided intense international criticism by taking a slow approach to removing Jews from the elite professions and the levers of power in Germany is probably wrong. Macchiavelli said that if the prince must inflict unpleasantness, he should do it all at once. Bardèche's suggestion seems to be based on the premise that there was something reasonable about the Jewish vendetta against Germany. Was it reasonable? Recall that the American Jewish Congress issued its famous declaration of war against Germany on 27 March 1933, when Hitler had been chancellor only a few weeks and hardly anything had happened in terms of restrictions on Jews. Later, apparently deeming deportation and expropriation of wealth an inadequate grievance, Jews added fake grievances, claiming that the entire Jewish population of Axis Europe as of 1942 was being systematically killed and turned into soap. Thus, the propaganda against Germany far outstripped the reality of what was happening, so that greater moderation toward the Jews on the part of the Germans would likely have made no difference. History shows that nothing is gained by being nice to the Jews -- except, eventually, a knife in the back.

Furthermore, Hitler was in a race against time, insofar as he had to make use of the emergency powers that had been granted to him to fix as many things in Germany as much as possible while it still was possible, while the public mood still supported drastic measures. A gradual reduction of Jewish influence would have brought Jewish influence at some point to a seemingly tolerable level, which would have made de-judaization difficult to complete. Jews of course would be using whatever influence they retained to try to undermine the process. That is another reason why it was advisable to disempower the Jews all at once. To protract the aryanization and de-judaization of the economy and society over a long period of time as Bardèche proposes would have doomed the project to stalling before completion. 

* * *

Not everyone would entirely accept Bardèche's criticisms of Mein Kampf. Bardèche seems to find relatively little to learn from it, but what was obvious to a French fascist who had lived through the war is not necessarily obvious to us today, given that the French had their own fascist and anti-Jewish traditions. Hitler's criticisms of Jews, for example, would not have been the novelty to Bardèche that they are to an American of today.

Also, Bardèche speaks of Mein Kampf as if it were the definitive work presenting National-Socialism, but this is disputable. Mein Kampf, as the very title indicates, was a book about Adolf Hitler the man, explaining who he was and what he wanted to do, and why. Not everything that Hitler proposed to do was a ramification of National-Socialism. 

While Bardèche appropriately notes that it is unfair to judge National-Socialism by the short time that it was allowed to exist under relatively normal circumstances, one can also say that National-Socialism is not precisely the same as Mein Kampf. (Examples: Hitler referred to the Aryan and the Jew as races, but when the official racial doctrine of the NSDAP was promulgated, it reflected contemporary racial science and differed from what Hitler had written. Also, the foreign policy that Hitler outlined in Mein Kampf has only a slight resemblance to how events unfolded.) 

* * *

Bardèche speaks as if Hitler had intended all along that Germany should wage war against the entire world. This is clearly not what Hitler wanted. The war in 1939 was provoked by cross-border Polish incursions (more information), and the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 was preemptive (more information). Hitler especially would have liked to have had an alliance with the UK, and in that partnership Germany, dependent on the mercy of the British fleet for access to foreign colonies and trade, would clearly have been the junior partner, not at all undertaking to stop the Sun in its course as Bardèche says.

* * *

Bardèche says that the greatest reproach against Hitler is that he gave the provocation for war. He wrote that in 1960, two decades before Jewish propaganda made the entire history of the era rotate around their so-called Holocaust, and the fictitious 6 million were made to count more than 60 million that really died in the war. 

 * * *

What Bardèche says is of interest, but his historical perspective was different from ours. To some extent Bardèche's attitude is conditioned by being French, rather than German or American, and to some extent he was still in the lingering fog of wartime propaganda. There is always a tendency, even today, to try to explain the destruction of National-Socialist Germany through some fault or error of Hitler, even though the war, and its expansion, was forced on him -- and Bardèche seems not immune to this tendency. We should take the limitations of his perspective, and of course also our own, into account.

Maurice Bardèche 
Germanic Fascism 

from Qu'est-ce que le fascisme?, 1961
translated by Hadding Scott, 2018

German national-socialism, like Italian Fascism, is connected to an historical vision; it was baptized by fairies no less illustrious, whose sponsorship was also not more fortunate. Completely different from Italian Fascism, it was born from the German defeat, from the humiliation of the German people, and also from Germanic pride. Conquered after an heroic war in which they had exhibited the somber bravery of the soldiers of Arminius, the Germans demanded at once from their Germanic past a justification for their threatened national unity, and a reason to believe in themselves. While some men in morning coats, bent over maps, dismembered Germany, a handful of vanquished soldiers remembered the war-song of the infantry formations surrounding the barbarian chariots with their arms joined -- at their mighty march against the line of Varus, at the empire of the war-chiefs that succeeded the Roman Empire, at the time of Charlemagne, which is more handsome and more poetic than the age of Augustus, [and] at the great river called the Middle Ages, which is the father of our fields and of our cities. And thus they feel solid ground beneath their steps. Their truth and their faith were there. This was the boundary of their despair and the certainty of what they were. A new Jerusalem arose for them upon the ruins of their country: it was an entirely different matter from the work of national management (gestion nationale) that Mussolini undertook in 1921.

Another fundamental difference is that national-socialism did not have time to be realized. Hitler attained power in 1934 and, from 1938, he left to his colleagues the realization of reforms and devoted himself entirely to preparation for a war that he reckoned inevitable. From the beginning of the war, the implacable necessities of the struggle against a worldwide coalition command all national-socialist policy; the character of the government is changed entirely. Can one render a definitive judgment on a government that had only four years of peace for molding a nation? If we pretended to judge the Soviet government based on the Russia of 1924, what Communist would accept this criterion and what adversary of Communism would even dare to propose it? It is however what we do by judging without appeal national-socialism, based on the one hand on what its short years of full exercise permitted it to do, based on the other hand on what the necessities of the war forced it to impose.

Since then, the trial that one habitually stages for national-socialism runs the risk of being completely distorted. A doctrine is indicted and judged based on the results that it produced during a period of abnormal functioning. While pursuing the discussion on this terrain one encounters only passions and cries of hatred; one crashes against the impregnable fortifications of propaganda that time alone can cover with froth and disarm in oblivion: the only rewards of this task are glorious wounds, but it does not appease, and, at least for the moment, it does not reconstruct.

Let us leave however this presently unfruitful discussion. Ultimately, when one investigates what a coherent definition of fascism can retain of national-socialism, what is striking is the foreignness of national-socialism; I mean by that what it has that is fundamentally Germanic and inadaptable to other peoples. Had it not committed errors with which we have no reason to declare solidarity, it is so far from us by its profound inspiration that it is almost unusable. It remains the strong image of fascism: like a young god triumphant and terrible, but coming from foreign plains where unknown gods dwell.

One will more easily admit at least some of this affirmation if one bewares the following finding: the majority of the chapters of Mein Kampf are bereft of interest for a reader of 1960, however voracious for neo-fascism you might like to imagine him. That is because they deal with the situation of Germany in the Europe of 1935, which is as far from the Europe in which we live as the Europe of 1905 that conditioned the positions taken by Maurras.

These chapters of Mein Kampf are doubly unusable for us: first because they refer to an equilibrium of forces that no longer exists, then because they place national-socialism in the service of a nationalism of reclamation that has disappeared from our preoccupations as thoroughly as the Europe of Poincaré. But let us tear out the pages of Mein Kampf that concern the Treaty of Versailles and the borders of Germany. But let us also regard as suspect all those who have as their chief purpose to enable the German people to support this reclamation. If national-socialism is only a doctrine of avengers, it has nothing to attract us.

This comment is made only in passing. The essential is elsewhere. Look: the Germanic or mediaeval vision of the world is not more fundamental for a modern fascism than the Roman vision of Mussolini. Let us understand this point: while they speak of labor, of courage, of heroism, or while we recall our shared origin or our shared vocation, nothing is more essential than these images of our past, nothing nourishes better our sensitivity and our thought. But these nourishing evocations of imagination ought not to be transformed into myths and even less to be confused with medicines. The Germany of the Holy Roman Empire, the Roman Empire, the France of Louis XIV, are not stone horsemen that a magic wand can reanimate. Their greatness contains secrets of life and youth that we must rediscover. But their resurrection, if it were possible, would not suffice to save the West. We have to save ourselves each day and we shall have to save ourselves each day: in that regard, peoples are like Christians. The Hitlerian dream of history however contains in itself the same element of fantasy as the Maurrasian dream or the Mussolinian dream: it was based on no universal affirmation; it did not propose any mission for all men; it affirmed only a mission of the German people.

But it offered something infinitely more formidable than the dream of Mussolini: this is that it conformed to some extent with reality. The downfall of Mussolini was a normal downfall, in some way, it was a downfall of a captain of industry, a downfall of an inventor, the heroic downfall, the classic downfall of Icarus, that of men who are no longer in touch with reality. The downfall of Hitler was horrifying because he had taken the entire German nation into his dream, because the German people was taken entirely as ice in a river is taken by the winter and because the catastrophe came crashing down not only on the dreamer but on everyone.

For the fact unrelated to fascism was to play this Germanic card alone and above all to play the Germanic man alone, to the exclusion of other men. Fascism never said anything about the Germanic man alone. Fascism quite likes the Germanic man; it has nothing against him: but it never recognizes anything exclusive about him; it recognizes some qualities in him, which is not the same thing, but no exclusivity, and there is not reason – I mean that there is no universal reason, no reason in wisdom and justice – to confer upon him in fact an exclusivity. For Europe is not only the Holy Roman Empire; it is also the Europe of Caesar; it is also the France of Louis XIV. And Germany succumbed to this enormous error and to no other: to have wanted to actualize the historical delusion, to have believed above all that they could actualize it, to have believed that the Germanic man alone, like Joshua, could halt the Sun.

For everything came from there. “The Germans will lose the war,” someone said to me in 1942, “because it is a small nation.” I believe that it is unnecessary to seek elsewhere for the cause of the German defeat. A small nation, a pink dot, a small pink pocket in a universe entirely opposed to it with forges, with fleets, with planes, with inexhaustible batallions. The Germanic man could be worthy of the comrades of Arminius: he was that. But he was unable to achieve victory alone; he was unable to halt the Sun; the Germanic man alone could not impose on the world the Germanic peace, Germanic law, the great silent peace of the Holy Roman Empire.

And the errors came from there too. In Berlin in 1934 42% of the physicians were Jews, 48% of the attorneys, 56% of the notaries, 72% of the stockbrokers, 70% of the real estate in Berlin belonged to the Jews. Would it really have seemed exorbitant for the German government to try to reintroduce some Germans into these privileged professions? Would a policy of replacement, conducted with caution, have exposed Germany to this international conspiracy of hate whose power Hitler himself had explained? But it was all passionate, and, what is even worse, scientific. In the place of the habitual norms of politics – what is useful, what is possible, what is necessary – one sees the appearance of an unexpected premise, biology, which, to true fascism, is as foreign as German nationalism.

The Germanic man was not content to be the magnificent human animal that he was, with his qualities that are admirable; he was not content to perfect, to cultivate, to improve with reason, as in a breeding project, this courageous and serious human animal who had grown on his soil; he felt the need to invent the contrary of the Germanic man, to personify the anti-German as he had personified the German and to extirpate him scientifically by means of a spectral analysis as infallible as those of the chemical industry. Metaphysics are reincarnated also with the cruel automatism of science. A systematic vision of the world began to thresh the area like a machine for separating grain from chaff. And it was necessary to separate the grain from the chaff, but not with a blind machine that was crushing thousands of harmless helots, not with a system that was absolute, rigid, mechanical like all systems. But the scientific thresher, nickel-plated, insensate, automatic, poured men into sacks, blind sower of distress and hatred. And the Germanic man emerged from this machinery implacable, alone now, quite alone, a pure statue, an incorruptible god, bright like brand new brass, but menacing like an unfamiliar god, like a denizen of another land. For the thresher was not too bothersome for us people of Auvergne. And while totally admiring the great blond barbarians, we thought deep inside ourselves that the same energy, loyalty, sacrifice, and patience could be found also in a laborer of Romania, in a lowly black-haired peasant of Old Castille, and even in an Auvergnat.

Part Two is not yet posted.