"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.

13 June 2019

Dinesh D'Souza teaches White Americans to Despise their own Great Men





Here is a 45-second adaptation from the above that I made for Twitter:




Dinesh D'Souza makes unsubstantiated categorical assertions and invalid arguments in support of reckless false conclusions. 


Dinesh D'Souza admits Republican
involvement in eugenic sterilization.
(In fact it was 19 out of 32, not 20.) 
When somebody produces a counterexample to one of his categorical assertions, his typical reaction is to minimize the counterexample's importance and to continue making the same general assertion. After I spent weeks in 2017 battering D'Souza on Twitter with the fact that eugenic sterilization a century ago was mainly a Republican cause, he began admitting that some Republicans like Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant had supported eugenic sterilization, but marginalized them as "RINOs," which they clearly were not. He also has put qualifiers on some of his other sweeping assertions: it is now not "all," but "the vast majority" of KKK leaders that he says were Democrats, and he no longer says that no Republican ever enacted a segregation law, but instead no Republican after the 1880s. When one of Dinesh D'Souza's unverified sweeping assertions is proven wrong, he makes an excuse and then keeps on saying it. 

In this video I go into detail about one example, D'Souza's argument that the Democrats were "the party of slavery," which employs bad logic and pretends to be based on the spurious assertion that no Republican owned a slave in 1860. The text for this presentation was written on 9 June 2019, after I noticed that someone had adduced the name of Francis Preston Blair as a slaveholder who was not only a Republican in 1860 but had helped to found the party. On the following day, Dinesh D'Souza did as I predicted, minimized the importance of the counterexample that he had tauntingly solicited for several years, and asserted that he was essentially correct in spite of it. 

An important principle in dealing with a dishonest interlocutor like Dinesh D'Souza is not to let him set the rules of discourse. The leftist "twitterstorians" arguing with D'Souza made this mistake. They foolishly allowed D'Souza to tell them how they must approach his argument, and now -- surprise, surprise -- after they've jumped through his hoop D'Souza is still not admitting that he was wrong.

27 May 2019

Dinesh D'Souza's Holocaust Propaganda

"Hitler Didi," about a young Indian woman with the strict, righteous, and forceful character of Adolf Hitler, was a soap opera produced by Zee TV in Dinesh D'Souza's hometown of Bombay.

Discrimination based on ancestry is traditional and normal in India. Indians do not believe in equality, and they tend to be somewhat sympathetic toward Adolf Hitler, since he was the enemy of their enemy. Therefore it is natural that Dinesh D'Souza, as an immigrant from India, would feel no affinity for the kind of propaganda that has been used to cow the White man in the West.

D'Souza's early work reflects that kind of inegalitarian outsider's perspective. With Illiberal Education (1991) he criticized the unreasonable arrogance of uppity minorities at universities. With The End of Racism (1995) he explained that Blacks in the United States had only themselves to blame for their misfortunes. As late as 2014 D'Souza declared that there was no "genocide" of the Red man in North America.

Then came a change. There were always touches of distortion and exaggeration in D'Souza's work, but with his arrest and incarceration for campaign finance fraud in late 2014 he seems to have come unhinged.

By 2016 D'Souza had taken a sharp turn toward dishonesty. He decided, instead of attacking the holy myths of leftist history, to make tenuous, hairsplitting arguments about who is to blame for those alleged crimes. Much of this new rhetoric from Dinesh D'Souza relates in some way to the Holocaust, which is of course the most powerful of the anti-White accusations.

Unfortunately for D'Souza's followers, the most important arguments that D'Souza uses to try to link real and alleged phenomena of Hitler's Germany to the Democratic Party turn out, on closer examination,  to show much more influence from Republicans. Eugenicists Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard, and Paul Popenoe were all Republicans. The 1924 Johnson-Reed Act restricting immigration, which Hitler admired, was enacted mainly by Republicans. A man like Adolf Hitler, if a citizen of the United States in the 1920s, would much more likely have been a Republican than a Democrat.

D'Souza's argument that Hitler was a socialist and therefore more like the Democrats than the Republicans is nugatory, because economic policy is not the point of comparison. (Incidentally, Republicans are foolish to disdain Hitler's economics. They would do well to recognize Hitler's economic policy as a way to keep working-class support.)

After Republicans and conservatives have loudly endorsed the playing of the Holocaust Card in American political discourse, only to find that it applies mainly to themselves, what defense can they make?

Republicans and conservatives who parrot Dinesh D'Souza's arguments undermine their own cause.

Read the article at CODOH.com

20 April 2019

The Greatest German - tribute to Adolf Hitler on the 130th anniversary of his birth





By Carolyn Yeager

JUST IN TIME FOR ADOLF HITLER'S BIRTHDAY ON APRIL 20th, I came across some new images of him that I like very much. They're said to have been taken by Heinrich Hoffmann, Hitler's friend and personal photographer, and have just recently been discovered, or recovered. 

So here they are, with my best wishes for one and all to thankfully remember our great friend and leader for the inspiration he was and continues to be.

Read more from Carolyn Yeager.

12 April 2019

White Nationalists are Innocent of this Crime!





The main exhibit in the House Judiciary Committee's recent hearing on "Hate-Crimes and the Rise of White Nationalism" (9 April 2019) had nothing to do with either hate-crimes (so-called) or White Nationalism. 

The supposed hate-crime was in fact committed by a hotheaded anti-racist enraged about his Muslim neighbors' repeatedly and incorrigibly violating his parking space over a long period.

The perpetrator, Craig Stephen Hicks, was not charged by Obama's justice department with "hate-crimes" and also escaped the death-penalty for his three execution-style first-degree murders.


Dr. Abu-Salha says that he and his family are firmly convinced that Craig Stephen Hicks murdered his two daughters and son-in-law “because of bigotry and hate.” 

On that basis, his moving testimony about this crime from four years ago might have a place in this hearing about “Hate Crimes and the Rise of White Nationalism.” But the evidence for the murderer's motive that Dr. Abu-Salha offers is extremely thin. It is unverifiable hearsay from one of his daughters that Mr. Hicks had said that he hated the way she looked and dressed.

It was a reasonable hypothesis that this triple murder might have been caused by anti-Muslim bias.

However, in an article for The Occidental Observer that I wrote shortly after this crime occurred, I noted some strong indications that murderer's motive was NOT RACIAL.

Yahoo News reported that Craig Stephen Hicks' Facebook page indicated that he was a fan of the Southern Poverty Law Center. He was a proponent of RACIAL EQUALITY.

Craig Stephen Hicks' motive for this crime was clearly not racial.

I accepted the possibility, however, that Hicks might have been stoked to violence by Zionist War on Terror propaganda. There was widespread speculation that this crime was meant as revenge for the killing of some Americans by ISIS, or for the Charlie Hebdo massacre that happened in the month before this triple murder. There was a lot of anti-Muslim rhetoric in Republican talk-radio at the time.

That was a credible hypothesis, but it does not seem that Hicks had any particular dislike of Muslims. He was a militant atheist who despised all religion, but he despised Christianity more.

The finding of the investigations by the local police and the FBI was that these killings were the result of a running dispute over parking-spaces. It was Obama's FBI and Obama's Justice Department that made that finding. If there had been evidence to support making hate-crime charges, you know that they would have done it.

That is why Craig Stephen Hicks was charged only with first-degree murder and unlawful discharge of a firearm in a dwelling. No hate-crime charges were brought because there was not sufficient evidence to support such charges. This was Barack Obama's FBI and Justice Department. If there had been evidence to justify filing hate-crime charges, you know that they would have done it.

So, why was Mohammad Abu-Salha invited to give testimony in a hearing about “Hate Crimes and the Rise of White Nationalism” when his family's misfortune had nothing to do with any kind of anti-Muslim bias, much less with White Nationalism?

Why this spurious example like this chosen to represent hate-crimes? Obviously because of the superficial points of resemblance to the Christchurch incident a few weeks earlier, which served as the excuse for this inquisition.

06 April 2019

Abraham Lincoln was a White Nationalist!




This is a response to Dinesh D'Souza's silly pretense that Abraham Lincoln was a goody two-shoes according to the standards that leftist Jews have established for us in recent decades, and therefore, necessarily, not at all racist. 

Of course Lincoln was racist! He regarded slavery as immoral but he urgently wanted the freed Blacks to leave the country, and he never changed his mind about that. 

More specifically, it is a response to the Insolent Immigrant's recent statements on Fox News that we should be "American Nationalists" like Lincoln instead of White Nationalists. An "American Nationalist like Lincoln" is a White Nationalist! Lincoln certainly did not want a multiracial society!

D'Souza says that Lincoln was an "American Nationalist" instead of a White Nationalist, but they would have been practically interchangeable terms during Lincoln's lifetime.

It is 45 seconds long, for posting on Twitter.

01 April 2019

Holocaust Skepticism in 45 Seconds!





In 1945  Hollywood director Billy Wilder made Die Todesmühlen
for OMGUS (U.S. occupational military government of Germany). This film told the German people that TWENTY MILLION people had been murdered in THREE HUNDRED concentration camps operated by their government during the war. 

The clip here is from the War Department's English-language version, Death Mills, apparently made for indoctrination of U.S. armed forces.

The information at the end of the video is from an article that I wrote for CODOH, "Anti-Gentiles Deny the 5 Million!" The statement from Professor Yehuda Bauer, that "no more than half a million" non-Jews died in the German concentration-camps, was published by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 31 January 2017.

The point here is to show what kind of extreme accusations were being made in 1945, and how enormously the story has changed -- except in regard to the alleged number of murdered Jews, which has remained strangely constant.

Of course, a reasonable person could suspect that the story as it stands now might still not be correct.

20 February 2019

Was the Civil Rights Movement opposed to Identity Politics? Balderdash!

 

The self-proclaimed conservatives of the Republican Party have a sickening tendency to try to minimize controversy by not challenging the sacred cows that the anti-White left sets up for us all. Thus we hear, for example, Rush Limbaugh speaking in reverential tones of "Dr. King" and "what Dr. King had in mind."

Has everyone forgotten that the Republican presidential candidate of 1964 opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that the Republican president elected in 1968 had campaigned on opposition to forced busing -- meaning continuation of de facto segregation? 

Amnesia is the great enemy of conservatism. If we fail to remember where we were, if we fail to keep in mind what we were trying to preserve and what we were trying to prevent, we end up gradually adopting all the positions of our persistent enemies.

This has been the story of so-called conservatism since the Second World War and it is a tendency evident even in Tucker Carlson.

Last night I heard something very stupid on Tucker Carlson's show. Tucker and his guest lamented the growth of "identity politics" and together declared that identity politics was never what the Civil Rights Movement was about.

Well, let me give you this red pill.

The NAACP -- the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People -- is more than 100 years old. It has identity-politics in its name.

The term "Black Power" was coined in the 1960s.

In the 20th century, the so-called Civil Rights Movement was ALWAYS accompanied by identity-politics. It was about achieving gains for specific groups. 

First the Blacks were mobilized against Southern Whites within the infamous Black-Jewish alliance, then Northern Whites were targeted too. Jewish Cultural Marxists would mobilize any group with a conceivable grievance against straight White males, and even create such groups by proselytizing deviance.

When I hear Tucker Carlson agree with Tammy Bruce that the Civil Rights Movement was opposed to identity-politics, it makes me think either that he is weak, or that he has no memory. 

All of this genuflecting toward the Revrun Docta Martin Loofa King -- the figurehead of the Civil Rights Movement -- should be coming to an end now, with all the information that has been published about him. 

We used to have identity-politics for White people in the USA, and we were not ashamed of it. We wanted to maintain a White majority and the Immigration Act of 1924 reflected that.  A real conservatism would try to defend that status quo. It is the reason why Donald Trump was elected. The fact that we cannot even openly declare this purpose, and our acceptance of the premise that there is something shameful about it, makes this preservation of our country and our people very much harder to accomplish.

The real threat to the future of the United States is not from identity-politics but from the failure of the White population to practice identity-politics with sufficient vigor as to retain control.