"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.

19 September 2018

A Few Words about “The Deep State”

There is a general tendency among conservative Republicans to focus their ire on people who are not the real problem. People who run for office, or who work for the government, even violent Antifa, and others who make a lot of noise, are not the real problem, because they are pawns in a game played by others.

James O'Keefe has begun releasing undercover videos that purport to expose the deep state. In fact, that is not what he is doing. Instead he is exposing holdovers from the Obama Administration who do not agree with what President Trump is trying to accomplish. We already knew that those people were there, and they are not the deep state, properly speaking.

The term DEEP STATE does not properly refer to people in the government. Peter Dale Scott imported the term from Turkey, where it referred to a criminal syndicate that effectively controlled the elected government of Turkey. It refers to entities outside of the government that are sufficiently powerful to control the government. In the American context, Peter Dale Scott specifically refers to Wall Street as part of the deep state.

I am inclined to make the meaning of deep state within the American context even more specific, to point out that the deep state has a particular ethnic coloration. One can see, for example, that the largest political donors are overwhelmingly Jewish billionaires (many of them connected to Wall Street). Mass-media in the United States also have been dominated by Jews since broadcasting began. It is clear that enormous extra-governmental power is in the hands of Jews. Peter Dale Scott however does not venture that degree of clarity. In fact deep state seems to be essentially a way to avoid talking explicitly about Jews.

Nonetheless, even as Scott uses the term, it has some usefulness. It means the powers that be, fundamentally outside of the government but penetrating and controlling the government.

It was probably through Peter Dale Scott's appearances on Infowars that the term gained some currency.

When Reagan cultists like Rush Limbaugh got hold of the term, however, they tried to make it fit their preconceived notion about where the source of trouble must always be. Since Ronald Reagan said, “Government is the problem,” it was more comfortable to assume that the deep state meant people within the government. 

Limbaugh really should know better. The concept represented by the term deep state is not entirely new to him. In November 2014 Limbaugh noticed and admitted that wealthy people outside of the government -- the donor class -- were in fact the real problem, at least in regard to the push for illegal immigrant amnesty. This observation posed a great problem for Limbaugh's ideology, which is disposed to regard billionaires as benevolent job-creators who help the country, rather than as greedy monsters who will destroy the country if not curbed. More recently, Limbaugh has also come to regard mass-media as a malevolent power unto itself.* These observations are entirely corrosive to the classical liberal ideology that Limbaugh has been espousing since the late 1980s, but he still has not embraced the anti-liberal implications. He continues, hypocritically, to spout the old Reaganite cant.

Consequently, when Rush Limbaugh heard deep state, he seems to have fallen into his old ruts and assumed that it meant people entrenched within the government -- which is fundamentally not what it means.

James O’Keefe follows the example of Rush Limbaugh in misapplying the term DEEP STATE to refer only to people in government.

Now I hear that a Jew named Jason Chaffetz has opportunistically written a book called The Deep State, which perpetuates and reinforces the already prevalent error, calling the deep state an army of bureaucrats.

With their incorrect use of the term deep state, O’Keefe and Limbaugh and the Jew Chaffetz are letting the important culprits off the hook. Of course, some of this could be intentional.

The image above represents the allegory of the cave, from Plato's Republic. It represents the fact that most people are unaware of the real powers behind events. They are focused on shadows on the wall, which could represent the public actions of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and are unaware of the puppetmasters behind them that manipulate those shadows. James O'Keefe by invoking the term deep state pretends to be exposing the puppetmasters, when in fact he is still focused on the shadows on the cave's wall, and also keeping others focused there.

Whenever you hear somebody using this term deep state to mean entrenched bureaucrats, you should point out that, according to Peter Dale Scott who introduced the term, this is not what it means; that it refers to the real power, which is outside of the government.
* You know, I still chuckle when I see stories talking about how, ‘The media, following the lead of Democrat Party leaders…’ Give me a break. It’s the other way around. -- Rush Limbaugh, 2 July 2018

11 September 2018

Who did the 9-11 attacks?

This poster issued by the FBI, although revised in November 2001, does not say that Osama bin Laden was wanted in connection to the 9-11 attacks. It only specifically mentions the African Embassy Bombings from 1998. Why? Because, despite all the hoopla to the contrary, evidence for OBL's involvement in the 9-11 attacks was lacking.

Furthermore, the director of Germany's Federal Intelligence Agency at the time of the 9-11 attacks, August Hanning, said that his agency could find no connection to "al-Qaeda terrorism." 

Jason Burke, a journalist for the Manchester Guardian, went even farther and declared, in the third hour of Adam Curtis' documentary, The Power of Nightmares, that no such organization as al-Qaeda even existed, but that it was invented in order to allow charging Osama bin Laden under the USA's RICO statute. There are also scholars who have been saying that no such organization as al-Qaeda was supposed to be existed.

08 September 2018

Most Likely Perpetrator of Anti-Trump Op-Ed is a Neoconservative Jew

Neoconservative Jew and Never-Trumper Jon Lerner

Lerner is described as a "rabidly neoconservative #NeverTrumper" (FITS News, 6 September 2018), which places him entirely in opposition to the change of policy advocated by Candidate Trump in 2016. Lerner was with the Jewish cabal that promoted Marco Rubio as an alternative to Trump while attacking Trump for his lack of hostility toward Vladimir Putin -- which is also a theme of the anonymous anti-Trump screed that recently appeared in the New York Times. If we are going to pick a suspected author of that screed, we can  say that in this instance the yarmulke certainly fits.

The anonymous anti-Trump screed is very concerned with foreign policy.  By far the most conspicuous locus of dissension about foreign policy within the Trump Administration has been between President Trump and Nikki Haley. But Nikki Haley hardly has a brain in her head. Listen to the way Nikki Haley reads what's put in front of her: she sounds like an elementary school teacher reading to small children. Since Jon Lerner happens to be Nikki Haley's deputy, it seems entirely likely that Lerner, telling Nikki Haley what to think and what to say, is the behind-the-scenes cause of this dissension.

President Trump is paying the penalty for not excluding blatantly hostile and untrustworthy persons from his administration. Probably he should re-read that verse about the foolish woman and the snake.

As Nikki Haley's deputy,  Lerner is the obvious reason why she frequently butts heads with Trump.

30 August 2018

What kind of “dogwhistle" was that?

The gubernatorial nominee of the Republican Party of Florida stated during the speech following his nomination that it was important not to "monkey this up," meaning that Florida's economy should not be burdened with the kinds of massive social programs and other changes advocated by the Democratic nominee, a Negro named Andrew Gillum.

Some are saying that this was a "dogwhistle" to appeal to White racist voters.

A dogwhistle is something that a political candidate says or does to make White racist voters believe that he's their man, or at least preferable to the other candidate. In 1988 George Herbert Walker Bush engaged in dogwhistling with his advertisements featuring a Negro murderer named Willie Horton, who had been allowed out of prison and thus given the opportunity to commit more crimes -- assault, armed robbery, and rape -- by Governor Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts, who was Bush's opponent in that election. With that advertisement, voters were given to believe that Bush was not soft on Negroes the way Dukakis was.

Back before I heard the term dogwhistle, I used to call this practice winking, which I think is really a better metaphor. A wink is a signal that implies, "I'm on your side," without clarifying what benefit if any that is supposed to confer. The term dogwhistle has become so widespread, though, that there seems no point in fighting it.

The great master of the dogwhistle was Republican campaign strategist Lee Atwater. In a 1981 interview, Atwater described how overt racism became sublimated into talk about tax-cuts:

You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger": that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights, and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now. You're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is, Blacks get hurt worse than Whites. [Lee Atwater, 1981]

Atwater then tries to backtrack from what he has said, and suggests that "tax-cuts" may have had merely a subconscious racial appeal, but as I recall there was nothing subconscious about it. The "Black welfare queen" and Affirmative Action were familiar to everyone, and tax-cuts and less government seemed as if they might be ways to attack these problems indirectly, while avoiding overt discussion about race. Did it work? No. The main effect of this general approach was to lull White people into avoiding conflict, into thinking that racial preservation would be accomplished indirectly while in fact the cause was not advanced at all.

For the voter, the problem with choosing a candidate based on dogwhistles is that whatever is conveyed by the dogwhistle carries no obligation, because it was never actually said -- and we know that there has been calculated dishonesty in this kind of racial signaling.

George H. W. Bush needed to mobilize the racial feeling in White voters, because otherwise there was not much enthusiasm for him as a candidate. It was a dishonest manipulation, however. Although Bush won White votes with the Willie Horton ads, he was anything but pro-White. It was he who signed the calamitous Diversity Lottery into law, which among other deleterious effects has certainly increased the number of murders in our country.

DeSantis' utterance makes no sense as a dogwhistle. Why? Because everybody already knew that Gillum was a Negro, and a rather dark one at that. There was no point to dropping hints about it. By the way, did you notice that my opponent is a Negro? That is what the "monkey this up" comment was supposed to convey, according to the dogwhistle-theory. But there was no need to say that, and nothing was to be gained by saying it, because everybody could see it.

The idea that DeSantis' "monkey this up" comment somehow functioned as a dogwhistle is very stupid. 

The mention of "socialism" could be seen as a kind of dogwhistle, insofar as Southern White voters tend to think of socialism as redistribution of wealth from Whites to Blacks -- an interpretation of socialism that will immediately spring to mind when a Black is advocating it, especially amid the influence of recent reports from South Africa. Republican media always euphemistically explain the dispossession of Whites under Black rule as an effect of "socialism."

"Socialism" is not a correct explanation of what causes things to go wrong when Blacks take power, but this is how Republicans have become accustomed to talk. Racial concerns are cloaked entirely in non-racial terms. One just hopes that the original thought behind all this dissimulating rhetoric has not been forgotten.

If DeSantis ran advertisements discussing the disastrous effects of "socialism" while showing scenes from South Africa, thereby associating Gillum with anti-White violence through being a "socialist" -- that could be an effective form of dogwhistle. People would hear socialist and think criminal Negro parasite.

But DeSantis doesn't have to go that far. It seems highly unlikely that Florida, a state that doesn't even have an income-tax, would elect a far-left Negro governor -- at least, not yet. If demographic change continues unabated, however, many bad things will become possible.

Things being as they are now, all the wailing and moaning and gnashing of teeth over the monkey-comment won't hurt DeSantis, and may to some extent help him, if he just follows the example of Donald Trump by not acting overly concerned about it.

21 August 2018

All Standards of Intelligent Discussion have been Waived to Accommodate Brown-Skinned Immigrant Dinesh D'Souza

The French Ministry of Biases and Sophisms issues Godwin Points like this one, to be awarded to the likes of Dinesh D'Souza,"for having capably brought the discussion to the ultimate comparison."

Reductio ad Hitlerum is a ubiquitous feature of Dinesh D'Souza's recent work. The past couple of days he has been garnering support -- including more shilling from American Thinker -- by attacking some poorly considered utterance from Web Hubbell's daughter, Chelsea Clinton, about supposed economic benefits of abortion.

She did not explicitly say that abortion added wealth to the U.S. economy, but even Snopes admits that she seems to have implied that abortion added $3½ trillion of production by enabling women to work instead of raising children.

The Clinton girl's utterance was originally reported by Craig Bannister of CNS. One week later, however, Dinesh D'Souza decided that he could make the story suitable for his readership by adding a completely untenable Hitler-comparison. 

As foolish as Chelsea's utterance may have been, Dinesh D'Souza's invocation of Godwin's Law was even worse.

American Thinker however continues to shill for D'Souza.  American Thinker's article declares:
Score one for Dinesh D'Souza....
By all means, "score one" for the insolent immigrant, because he is certainly not scoring many points with his latest silly movie. It was a good idea for him to find something else to discuss. Attacking Clintons always gets applause. A Clinton championing abortion? That is an irresistible target!

The comparison to eugenic sterilizations in 1934 Germany was quite a stretch, however. Obviously, abortion and eugenic sterilization are not the same thing.
In fact, Hitler's government used the tax-code to promote marriage and begetting of children. There was a tax on all unmarried persons, amounting to 3/8 of the unmarried person's total income. Women were encouraged to be housewives and mothers and NOT to work. Abortion was illegal in Germany under Hitler's government. They wanted German women to marry, and to have German children, and to stay home and raise them.

That is completely the contrary of Chelsea's idea. If intelligent women abort their children to pursue careers, that is the opposite of eugenics. That is the elimination of some of the most desirable heredity from the genepool.

Furthermore, it certainly would not have occurred to a German National-Socialist, during the early phase of Hitler's rule when eugenic sterilization was proposed, that bringing women into the workforce would be good for the economy. The chief problem that Germany, like most of the world, faced at that time was an excess of workers and a deficiency of consumers. (You can read Lawrence Dennis, The Coming American Fascism, for more about that.) Let the men have all the jobs and keep the women at home to create more consumers: it's a win-win solution!

I gave Dinesh D'Souza a Godwin Point for stretching so hard to make such a nonsensical comparison to Hitler.

19 August 2018

How does Dinesh D'Souza get away with it?

It has been amazing to see how much Dinesh D'Souza gets away with. I have yet to see any of his movies, but I have his books, and I've listened to interviews and watched his speeches.

Nobody seems to come to D'Souza's presentations prepared, and that's a problem.* It is difficult to argue history extemporaneously. You have to be able to point to a source. In D'Souza's case, you can point to his own sources and show how he has misrepresented them. But nobody does that.

Nobody catches his crooked rhetoric either, like when he sidetracks an important objection to his thesis onto some trivial point. The obvious point that Southern segregationist voters en masse migrated to the GOP -- which blasts a giant hole in D'Souza's thesis -- is obfuscated with a trivia-quiz about politicians who supported Strom Thurmond's third-party presidential campaign in 1948.

Nobody catches the fact that he pretends that there were always only two political parties in US history, and that everyone is either a Democrat or a Republican. He is able to call the Democrats "the party of slavery" because Whigs and Federalists and NPAs do not exist in D'Souza's narrative. Somebody pointed out that Ulysses S. Grant had owned a slave before he became president. D'Souza's comeback is that Grant had not yet become a Republican and was therefore a Democrat at the time. While it is true that Grant had not yet become a Republican, I see no indication that he was ever a Democrat; he seems to have had no party-affiliation until he was drafted to run for president. The point is, MANY non-Democrats -- like George Washington! -- owned slaves, and did so long before the Democratic Party even existed, so that it is not correct to call the Democrats the party of slavery. This should be extremely OBVIOUS.

How does he get away with it?

Somebody has suggested to me that there has been hesitation to take Dinesh D'Souza to task because he is not White. I don't know.

I have been especially disappointed that Republican talkshow hosts like Rush Limbaugh take no trouble to stifle dangerous nonsense being propagated among the GOP faithful. Limbaugh certainly knows better, because I've been sending him information about D'Souza for the past year. Even without such advice, Limbaugh surely knows that the Ku Klux Klan were not "progressives," but he lets D'Souza get away with that on his show. 

In Limbaugh's case, the profit motive seems to be a corrupting factor, because D'Souza has bought wall-to-wall advertising for his movie on Limbaugh's show. Last year Limbaugh was touting D'Souza's book The Big Lie, declaring, "It's all true!" -- but that was before I started sending him information, and maybe back then he didn't know what he was endorsing, but he knows now, and is doing it anyway.

D'Souza's material is dangerous to Republicans because it can easily boomerang against them. For example it was Republicans first and foremost who supported eugenic sterilization. It was a Republican Supreme Court justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, who wrote, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." And then there's the plain fact that D'Souza shows that a significant number of Republicans will believe, or pretend to believe, almost anything. It does not look good.
* Here is preparation: Hit Dinesh D'Souza on his Most Vulnerable Points. If you are going to one of D'Souza's presentations, read that, print it out, and take it with you.

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                                                                          5,882,235

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, he did not have the average Republican's 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 for a non-White spokesman, based on fear of being called racist, is also somewhat reduced from what it was  when Obama's America appeared in 2012. Republicans have to some extent lost that fear, due to the example presented by 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)

In addition to ceasing to address a need, D'Souza's work 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!