"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.

29 June 2017

The Profit-Motive as a Cover for Jewish Subversion

Recently it was revealed by Project Veritas, in a (covertly recorded) conversation with CNN's supervising producer John Bonifield, that CNN has been perpetuating for most of a year now the story of Russian meddling in the American presidential election knowing full well that there was no evidence for it. It was done at the insistence of the CEO of CNN, (((Jeffrey Zucker))). 

The explanation for this behavior -- which seems not to be widely questioned -- is that it was done for ratings. In other words, the false story of Russian manipulation of the U.S. presidential election was perpetuated month after month because it was profitable.

But the fact that Bonifield offered "ratings" as an explanation for Zucker's insistence that CNN harp ad nauseam on the Russian conspiracy story does not necessarily mean that this was in fact Zucker's motive. It is not a very convincing explanation.

First, if profit was a motive, it clearly was not the only motive for CNN to perpetuate the Russian conspiracy story.

The general hostility of  mass-media toward Donald Trump's presidential campaign, and the general hostility of Jews, underlying the hostility of mass-media, are well known. Rabbi Eric H. Yoffe wrote in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz last year that Jews were "panicking" and "terrified" at the prospect of a Trump presidency, and that 90% of Jews in the United States would be voting against Trump (E. Yoffe, Ha'aretz, 22 July 2016). There was and still is an agenda to stop Donald Trump and the civic nationalist agenda that he represents.

There is also a conspicuous Zionist hostility toward Russia that has been evident since September 2013, when Vladimir Putin, through diplomatic efforts, deflated the planned overthrow of the legitimate government of Syria. Immediately an anti-Putin vendetta became apparent. It was only five months later that the elected president of the Ukraine, friendly to Putin and pro-Russian, was overthrown and replaced with an anti-Russian government. The granting of diplomatic recognition to Cuba and the deal with Iran were done hastily as attempts to pry away more of Russia's allies, and the price of fuel, on which the Russian economy depends, was driven down to unanticipated lows. Meanwhile a new Cold War, or even a potential hot war, was generated with talk of Putin's being another Hitler.

So, let us not pretend that this incessant drumbeat of anti-Russian and anti-Trump propaganda was motivated only by ratings and profit.

Furthermore, if CNN had wanted to invent stories for profit, they should not have obsessed over this one story to the point of running it into the ground. Tabloids that specialize in sensational stories always manage to find or invent a variety of new ones every week. If CNN was inventing the Russian conspiracy story, they could easily invent a variety of other stories to generate even greater interest.

In fact, CNN had put so much time into the Russian conspiracy story that CNN's own editor-at-large Chris Cillizza observed that the public was getting tired of hearing about it (C. Cillizza, CNN, 22 May 2017).

Ratings and profit was not the reason why CNN put so much time into the Russian conspiracy story. They did it because there is a Jewish vendetta against both Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, and CNN happens to be controlled by Jews. Jeffrey Zucker is a Jew.

The profit-motive has been invoked again and again as a cover-story for Jewish machinations.

A good example of this is the so-called War on Terror. The cover story promoted for people who object to all these foreign wars is that oil-companies, or companies that profit from war, had wanted these wars because they expected to profit from them.

But the USA did not get any oil from the invasion of Iraq. Donald Trump complained about this when he was campaigning for president. After going to all that trouble, why didn't we take the oil? he asked. Ultimately it has become clear that the invasion of Iraq was not about oil.

As for companies that profit from war, there is no reason for their sakes that all those wars have to be against enemies of the State of Israel -- but for some reason that's how it almost always happens.

The overwhelming power of the Zionist motive in U.S. foreign policy has been widely recognized at least as long ago as Professor John Mearsheimer's (U. Chicago) and Professor Stephen Walt's (Harvard) book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, which appeared in 2007.

In December 2016, former CIA officer Philip Giraldi commented about the Israel Lobby:

Its ready access to the mainstream media to spread its own propaganda provides it with cover for its actions. [P. Giraldi, The Unz Review, 6 December 2016]

How do the media cover the Israel Lobby's actions? Zionist wars, for those who object, are explained as capitalist wars, and when the mainstream media's Zionist lies are uncovered, they are explained as capitalist lies.

There are no Jews and no Jewish motive behind any of this, you see? It's just the effect of competition in the capitalist system.  

That's what they want us to believe.

Cowards and professional talking heads, with their moistened finger forever in the breeze, will of course happily parrot such falsehoods -- if it allows them to avoid the discomfort of blaming Jews. 

But our people need to know the real causes of events. They need to know who is pushing these things.

When you hear people parroting this nonsense about the profit-motive being the cause of foreign wars and the cause of lies that serve a Zionist agenda, call them out. Do not let them continue to obscure the Jewish motive behind these events.

24 June 2017

Public Healthcare and Forced Eugenic Sterilization

The entire program in which this segment was originally heard is here.

What Would Hitler Do? – Radical Agenda, 23 June 2017

  Socialized Medicine and Racial Hygiene

Hadding Scott 
Nationalized healthcare has been in the news recently. I am going to talk about aspects of the National-Socialist approach to this.

Socialized medicine in Germany had its beginnings under Bismarck in 1883.

An important impetus to socialized medicine, and to socialism in general, was German militarism. It was observed by Gustave Le Bon in his Psychology of Socialism that the military is in effect a socialist institution, and that men who serve in the military become habituated to socialism.

Bismarck had another motive for creating Germany's welfare-state, which was to take the wind out of the sails of the Marxists.

Bismarck's system of compulsory health-insurance became the model for socialized medicine in other countries.

Much of Adolf Hitler's agenda consisted of doing the same as Bismarck but more of it. That was the case also with socialized healthcare.

It should not be surprising that a racial state would have socialized medicine, since such a state is strongly concerned with the hereditary constitution and quality of its people. Such a state has an interest in what kind of person you marry and how many children you have. Preferably you should produce children without any outlandish racial mixture and without hereditary defects, because the future of the whole society is affected by this.

There are some possible objections to socialized medicine, however, apart from the general objection to socialized everything. These objections are really objections to healthcare per se.

One objection, that Americans are mostly afraid to state, is that non-Whites might benefit more than Whites from free healthcare. This consideration is a source of White opposition to all sorts of public amenities.

In Germany that was not a problem.

Another objection, especially in the United States, is a general distrust of government, and a tendency to assume that anyone who has any dealings with the government is using it to pad his own pockets at public expense.

This problem also does not exist in Germany. German civil servants are known for being efficient and conscientious.

The main criticism of healthcare in Germany was that it aided the survival of the unfit, since the unfit will have the greatest need of healthcare, while congenitally healthy people will have relatively little need of it.

In the introduction to the 1895 book in which he coined the term racial hygiene, Alfred Ploetz, a Social-Democrat who 42 years later joined the NSDAP, stated some objections to healthcare. This is an excerpt.

At first glance one could suppose that the conditions for the prosperity of a race were the same as the conditions for the prosperity of every single member of it, that the care for the health of the race and the customary healthcare of the individual were one and the same. This is not the case however without something further, and there are excellent researchers who even want to acknowledge a deep conflict between modern healthcare and racial well-being.


Actually the demand of most Darwinians entails that the struggle for existence must be maintained within human society....

Let the words of Darwin himself suffice:
“As every other beast, man has without doubt reached his present exalted state through a struggle for survival as a consequence of his rapid multiplication, and if he shall progress even higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle.”

In any case it is apparent from the remarks of these men, including even the mild-mannered Darwin, that the view that the wellbeing of our race would be best attained through the improvement of living conditions for all individuals, is certainly not universally accepted.
Therefrom follows the necessity to balance the concept of healthcare in the usual sense, individual hygiene, with another concept, that of the hygiene of a human collectivity. Thus one could speak of the hygiene of a nation, of a race in the narrower sense, or of the entire human race.

Ploetz indicates that the ancient Pagan Germans practiced a kind of racial hygiene:

The idea of racial refinement lay also at least partly at the base of the custom of the ancient Germans, to allow the father to kill feeble, ugly, or otherwise displeasing newborns.

Ploetz blames Christianity and democracy for the sidelining of racial hygiene, but in the intellectual elite of late-nineteenth-century Germany, whose thinking is not governed by Christianity, the idea has returned:

Christianity and modern democracy with their doctrine and demands of equality have so diminished the sense of race in the masses that the conflict between humanitarian socialist demands and racial wellbeing indeed no longer penetrates their consciousness. In the masses, I say.

In the small circle of leaders and researchers, through the advent of Darwin and the political advance of Social Democracy, the racial interest has become very vital again, and the sword-blows of great and small knights of the mind rattle merrily through the springtime air of modern science.

As a socialist informed by Darwinism, Ploetz advocates that the state assist the individual, but at the same time that the state should balance this with racial hygiene.

Ploetz advocates measures not only to prevention of racial deterioration, but improvement of the race:

The escalation of our brain-talents is the most necessary condition that we know for an improvement of our conditions of happiness.

Eugenic laws started in the United States. In 1896, Connecticut enacted a law forbidding the marriage of any person who is "epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded."

Since a ban on marriage did not prevent the “imbecile or feeble-minded” from reproducing, the logical next step had to be forced sterilization of people whose reproduction was undesirable. In 1907 the American state of Indiana became the first state to have a eugenic sterilization law.

Although 30 states adopted eugenic sterilization laws, the actual implementation of eugenic sterilization in the United States was limited because of lawsuits.

In Germany, with Hitler as the autocratic ruler, eugenic sterilization could be implemented on a grand scale.  There were however safeguards to make sure that it was not done without justification. Lothrop Stoddard visited Germany in 1940 and reported on what he saw.

From Lothrop Stoddard, Into the Darkness:

As the Nazis saw it, they had a two-fold task: to increase both the size and the quality of the population. Indiscriminate incentives to big families would result largely in more criminals and morons. So they coupled their encouragements to sound citizens with a drastic curb on the defective elements. That curb was the Sterilization Law.

The object of the statute is set forth in its official title: An Act for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring. The grounds for sterilization are specifically enumerated. They are: (1) Congenital Mental Deficiency; (2) Schizophrenia, or split personality; (3)Manic-Depressive Insanity; (4) Inherited Epilepsy; (5) Inherited (Huntington's) Chorea; (6) Inherited Blindness; (7) Inherited Deafness; (8) Any grave physical defect that has been inherited; (9) Chronic alcoholism, when this has been scientifically determined to be symptomatic of psychological abnormality.

It should be understood that all these defects and diseases have been proven to be hereditary by scientists throughout the world. It was estimated that at least 400,000 persons in Germany were known to be subjects for sterilization. But the law specifically forbids sterilization for any non-hereditary cause. Even mentally diseased persons, habitual criminals, and ordinary alcoholics cannot be sterilized [if it is not shown to be hereditary].

Each case up for sterilization must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before special district courts, and appeals from their verdict can be taken, first to a regional court of appeals, and ultimately to the High Appellate Court sitting in Berlin.

Such are the provisions of the Sterilization Law. So many charges have been made outside Germany that it is being used to sterilize politically undesirable persons that I particularly welcomed the opportunity to study at first-hand the High Court's proceedings.


Germany's Eugenic Supreme Court sits in an impressive building at Charlottenburg, one of Berlin's western suburbs. I arrived just as court was opening. On the bench sat a regular judge in cap and gown. At his right was the celebrated psychopathologist, Professor Zutt, a typical savant with mild blue eyes and a Vandyke beard. At the judge's left was a keen-eyed younger man who was a specialist in criminal psychology and beside whom I sat during the proceedings. All three courteously explained points to me at frequent intervals.

Since this was the court of last resort, all matters came up to it on appeal from lower courts, and thus tended to be "hairline" cases.

The thing that struck me most was the meticulous care with which these cases had already been considered by the lower tribunals. The dossier of each case was voluminous, containing a complete life-history of the subject, reports of specialists and clinics, and also exhaustive researches into the subject's family history. In reaching its decision, the High Court not only consulted the records of the case but also personally examined the living subjects themselves.

The first case I saw looked like an excellent candidate for sterilization. A man in his mid-thirties, he was rather ape-like in appearance -- receding forehead, flat nose with flaring nostrils, thick lips, and heavy prognathous jaw. Not vicious-looking, but gross and rather dull. His life-history was mildly anti-social -- several convictions for minor thefts and one for a homosexual affair with another boy when a lad. In early manhood he had married a Jewess by whom he had three children, none of whom had showed up too well. [...] He was now seeking to marry a woman who had already been sterilized as a moron. The law forbids a non-sterilized individual to marry a sterilized person; so he was more than willing to be also sterilized. The lower court recommended sterilization.

All three members of the High Court interrogated the man at length. Questions disclosed the fact that he conducted a newspaper delivery route in the suburbs, that he was able to run this simple business satisfactorily, and that he answered the Court's queries with a fair degree of intelligence. The Court concluded that sterilization had not been proven mandatory and sent back the case for further investigation.

Case Two was obviously unbalanced mentally, though not an asylum case. Swinging a cane like a fine gentleman, he entered Court with an "air," which went incongruously with his shabby-genteel clothes and the battered felt hat tucked under his left arm. There was no doubt that he should be sterilized. The lower courts had decided he was either a schizophrenic or a manic-depressive, and both defects came under the law. But which of the two it was had to be clearly determined before the operation could be legally performed.... The Court inclined to think him a manic-depressive, but they also detected schizophrenic symptoms. Since they were not absolutely sure, the case was remanded for further clinical investigation.

Case Three was an eighteen-year-old girl. A deaf-mute, she talked through an interpreter. She was obviously not feeble-minded, but had a poor family record. The parents, who also appeared, were most unprepossessing. Her case had first come before the lower court two years ago. It then decided against sterilization because no hereditary deafness was shown in the family record. Recently it had recommended sterilization because several unfortunate hereditary factors in the family had been disclosed by further investigation. The High Court ordered the girl sent to a clinic for observation. It also ordered more research into the family record.

Case Four was a seventeen-year-old girl. The issue was feeble-mindedness. She certainly looked feebleminded as she sat below the bench, hunched in a chair, with dull features and lackluster eyes. Left an orphan at an early age, she had had a haphazard upbringing. The record showed her to have been always shy, backward, and unable to keep up with normal schooling.


The members of the High Court examined this poor waif carefully and with kindly patience. She had no knowledge of or interest in even the most elementary current events. For instance, she barely knew there was a war going on. But the psychologist discovered that she was able to make change for small customers' bills in her restaurant and that she could perform other duties of her humble job. So the Court finally concluded that, despite her most unprepossessing appearance and her simple, childlike mind, she was not a moron within the meaning of the law and therefore should not be sterilized.

There were other cases that day, all conducted in the same painstaking, methodical fashion. I came away convinced that the law was being administered with strict regard for its provisions and that, if anything, judgments were almost too conservative. On the evidence of that one visit, at least, the Sterilization Law is weeding out the worst strains in the Germanic stock in a scientific and truly humanitarian way.

That is excerpted from Lothrop Stoddard's book Into the Darkness (1940). Stoddard then discusses the measures whereby the National-Socialists have succeeded in dramatically increasing Germany's birthrate. 

So, What Would Hitler Do?

In a state like pre-1945 Germany, without large unassimilated and unassimilable racial minorities, of course Hitler would go all out with socialized medicine, but also introduce eugenic sterilization to ensure that the hereditary quality of the nation does not deteriorate as a consequence.

Our case in the United States however is different. We have those large unassimilated and unassimilable minorities, and a very weak sense of community because of it.

In a state that has a large unassimilated racial minority, Hitler I believe would try to solve that problem before expanding services to the people.

After that, it might be possible to increase public-spiritedness and reduce mutual distrust so that the presumption of waste and corruption in government will disappear.

Then, finally, the groundwork might be laid for socialized medicine to function well in the United States.

17 June 2017

Anti-Trump Violence and the Reichstag Fire

I stated in this program that Ernst Thaelmann was shot at the end of the war. That is the prevalent story about Thaelmann's death and I repeated it because I was unaware that there was a contradictory claim from the German authorities: that he died in an Allied bombing-raid. 

The German claim is more likely, because Thaelmann had been kept alive as a prisoner since 1933 and the date of Thaelmann's death, August 1944, is months before the capture of Buchenwald. Paul Rassinier, who was in Buchenwald briefly, records that Thaelmann was a Kapo. In other words, he (ostensibly) helped the SS to maintain order in the camp. There is no evident reason why the Germans should have terminated Thaelmann in August 1944, but certainly there was a motive for the Allies to lie about having inadvertently killed him with their own bombs, as they also lied about such deaths at Nordhausen. Therefore I think that the death of Ernst Thaelmann by Allied bombing is the more likely story.

What Would Hitler Do? – Radical Agenda, 16 June 2017

 Anti-Trump Violence and the Reichstag Fire
Hadding Scott

I am going to talk about the shooting of Congressman Stephen Scalise, and the Reichstag Fire.

This week we saw an attempted mass-shooting of Republican politicians by a man from Belleville, Illinois named James T. Hodgkinson. Instead of killing many Republicans he only critically wounded House Majority Whip Stephen Scalise and two policemen.

This shooting seems to be part of a pattern of violence that began long before Donald Trump was elected. Last summer we saw leftists attacking Trump-supporters, and we still see street-action between so-called antifa and Trump-supporters, as well as the Alt Right.

This is a wave of unrest that has been drummed up by mass-media.

There was a similar wave of unrest in Germany before and for some time after Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany. In fact there had been violence in varying degrees since the end of the First World War. There had been a Communist takeover of Bavaria that lasted about one month.

On the other side, there had been assassinations by a secret rightwing group called the Organisation Consul in the early 1920s.

There was violence when Hindenburg was elected president in 1925.

The leftists and Jews really threw a fit after Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor in January 1933.

Then as now, the Jewish-controlled press played a big part in provoking violence.

During a torchlight procession on 31 January 1933, the day after Hitler was named Chancellor, an SA-man, a Brownshirt Hans Maikowski, and a policeman Josef Zauritz, were shot dead by Communists. Joseph Goebbels, in a speech of 10 February, warming up the crowd for Hitler, talked about how the Communist newspaper Die Rote Fahne, which he said was run by Jews, had the Chutzpah to claim that the National-Socialists themselves had shot Maikowski and Zauritz. This lie incidentally is also perpetuated today, for example by German Wikipedia.

Another act of leftist violence that been obscured with leftist propaganda is the Reichstag Fire.

Reichstag Fire happens on 27 February 1933. Marinus van der Lubbe, a Marxist organizer, is caught and arrested inside the building. Communists and Jews pretended that Marinus vander Lubbe could not possibly have been responsible for the Reichstag Fire. They made various excuses such as that he was retarded and couldn't see well.

Mainstream historians long ago accepted that MvdL was involved in the Reichstag Fire, but the myth that the National-Socialists themselves had set the fire and then blamed it on a helpless retard was revived in the 1990s because of Jewish influence on the so-called patriot media, especially through William Cooper, who had Jewish backers and was imitated by Alex Jones – also notorious for his Jewish support – and these guys were imitated later by Abbie Martin and other poorly informed and irresponsible people who just repeat things that they heard.

If you look at the reports on the trial, it is clear that nobody was framed for the Reichstag Fire. Here is some of the transcript that was reported in the Glasgow Herald, 26 September 1933:

Van der Lubbe … was asked if in a Communist tavern in Berlin Neukölln he had said he was a Communist, but did not agree with the Communist leaders, who were too “tame.”

“Yes,” said van der Lubbe.

"Did you say that the future of the workers all depended on Germany?"


"Did you say that extremely radical measures must be taken?"


"While watching a National-Socialist procession on one occasion did you say in an excited voice, 'Something must be done'?"



"Did you say that it was necessary for the workers to make counter-actions, and that that was the way the Russian Revolution had been carried out, and that it was not too late?"


"Did you say that it was necessary to [set] fire [to] public buildings so that the workers might recognize that the time had come?"


“Did you say that it would be necessary to provoke the Storm Troops and to inflame the people?”


Marinus vander Lubbe admits that he set the fire but he denied that Communist leaders were involved., and he did not implicate any co-conspirators.

Ernst Torgler, the former leader of the Communists in the Reichstag, was also on trial. Torgler had turned himself in to stand trial, and pleaded his innocence. There were also some Bulgarians who were suspected of involvement in the arson. (Glasgow Herald, 26 September 1933)

This is really where the proof that M vd L got a fair trial can be found, because these others, although suspected of involvement in the fire, were found innocent. They were not found guilty.

The National-Socialist government did not believe that MvdL acted alone. There had been some witnesses who said that they saw several arsonists, and it would have been convenient to demonstrate that the Communist Party was behind it, but they were not able to do that. But apparently there was some evidence that other Communists were involved, although not necessarily the Communist Party leadership.

This is from the United Press reported on 28 February 1933, the day after the fire:

Police revealed that a raid on Liebknecht House, Communist headquarters, last Friday uncovered “instructions” for the beginning of a widespread reign of Communist terrorism throughout Germany, with the hope of civil war to follow.

A communique said the plot disclosed in the Liebknecht House raid included plans for the destruction of all government buildings, museums, castles, and modern power plants throughout Germany.

A significant paragraph of the instructions was quoted as follows:

“For attacks on the police, women and children, preferably belonging to the families of police officers, should be used to march in front of the attacking rioters.”

You will notice that some of our “antifa” in the United States today also like to get behind women to do their attacks.

By the time the trial happened in September 1933 – eight months after the fire -- the government had proceeded on the premise that this Communist conspiracy existed and that it involved the Communist Party per se.

The day after the Reichstag Fire, President Hindenburg issued an emergency decree giving police free rein to search houses, confiscate property, and detain people without trial. Then there was a ban on the Communist and Social-Democratic press. (UP, 28 February 1933)

An election was called in March 1933 that increased the National-Socialists' seats in the Reichstag to pass an amendment to the Weimar constitution that would allow Hitler to legislate without the Reichstag. This was the so-called Enabling Act.

Hitler used the powers given under Hindenburg's emergency decree to prevent the Communists from taking their seats in the Reichstag. This way Hitler was able to get the two-thirds majority that was needed.

After that the National-Socialists made sweeping changes in Germany during the following year. Communists, or former Communists, were treated according to how they adjusted to the New Order.

Ernst Torgler who had stood trial and pleaded his innocence, although acquitted of the Reichstag Fire, was kept in protective custody (Schutzhaft) until 1935. The Communist party meanwhile expelled Torgler since he had voluntarily submitted to trial. Torgler later worked for Joseph Goebbels in the Propaganda Ministry, making anti-Soviet propaganda, which made him subject to some criticism after the war. But he did survive the war and after the war became a Social-Democrat.

A different Communist leader however, Ernst Thaelmann, the head of the Communist Party apparently was not so easy to reform. He was kept in a concentration camp until the end of the war, at which time he was killed to prevent his returning to society and organizing Communism again after the war.

The fact that different Communists had different fates under National-Socialism reflects the complexity of the National-Socialist view of the Communist problem.

Causes of Communist Unrest

Communism was a big concern for the Germans in the first half of the 20th century, and the Germans were concerned about how to avoid a Bolshevik takeover in Germany. There are two theories about what causes Communist or Socialist unrest and the decay of civilization that seem to have shaped the National-Socialist approach to the problem.

There is the view presented in Brooks Adams' The Law of Civilization and Decay, from 1895. Brooks Adams' theory is that ever increasing concentration of wealth impoverishes the nation's working class and the peasantry, who are gradually replaced with foreigners. The resulting society of a small plutocratic elite presiding over an impoverished and racially mixed proletariat lacks internal cohesion and this kind of society is weak and easily fragmented. Adams uses the Roman Empire as the paradigmatic society where this happens, and in 1895 he saw the British Empire going the same way.

Adams' theory sees plutocracy destroying the nation, and this implies that socialism is a justified reaction.

The other theory is presented by Lothrop Stoddard in his 1922 book, The Revolt Against Civilization: the Menace of the Underman. This book explained the Bolshevik Revolution as a result of the proliferation of genetically inferior people. In Stoddard's theory, there are in every population a certain number of misfits and throwbacks who do not function well in a complex society, and when these misfits and throwbacks reach some critical mass, civilization is in jeopardy and a Bolshevik-style revolution becomes possible. (It is incidentally from Stoddard's use of the word Under-Man that the National-Socialist term Untermensch is derived. Note that it does not refer to any particular nationality but to the degenerate element that exists to varying degrees in every nation.)

Stoddard's theory sees the poor as a threat to civilization (since poverty for him is a manifestation of genetic unfitness) and therefore Stoddard sees socialism as totally unjustified and destructive.

Now, the National-Socialists embraced both views: both, Brooks Adams' and Lothrop Stoddard's views. They accepted that there were people whose hereditary nature made them problematic for civilization, and they also saw extreme concentration of wealth as detrimental to the nation. Men who had done good service during the war were begging on the streets, so that it was really not credible to say that poverty was entirely a result of hereditary inferiority. Some people were victims of circumstance. The need to combat the concentration of wealth was the subject of Gottfried Feder's 1918 Manifesto for the Abolition of Interest-Slavery. At the same time, the racial idea had been well established in Germany before the war. It was Alfred Ploetz who discussed the proliferation of the unfit and coined the term racial hygiene in 1895. Plutocracy and the Under-Man thus were the twin evils that National-Socialism sought to suppress in order to preserve the nation.

So, there was a threat from above, and a threat from below.

High-Functioning Subversives

In terms of the Menace of the Underman, another factor to consider, which Stoddard did not discuss very much but did not escape the National-Socialists' attention, was the role of mass-media and a perverse intelligentsia in sowing subversion. This is a manifestation of an element that is hostile or contemptuous of the nation, but manages to be successful within it.

Jews, for example, are one of the wealthier ethnic groups in any Western state, which only makes them all the more dangerous, since they generally use their wealth and influence for hostile purposes.

Jews do not however constitute the entirety of the high-functioning subversive element. In Germany, the brothers Heinrich and Thomas Mann, who were not Jews but had some non-White ancestry, were enemies of the National-Socialist state. Thomas Mann even made broadcasts against Germany from the United States during the war.

James T. Hodgkinson

If we look at James T. Hodgkinson, who nearly assassinated Congressman Stephen Scalise a few days ago, we might see some indications of untermenschlichkeit, – some indications that he might be an Underman – but not to the point that he was an outcast and a failure in our society, as Lothrop Stoddard would say that the Underman generally is. Hodgkinson apparently had his own business and he had a nice home in Belleville, Illinois.

I am not sure that I have enough information to assess Hodgkinson. His proposal that steeply graduated income taxes should be reintroduced to deal with public spending frankly does not seem unreasonable to me as a National-Socialist.

We do however see prior examples of uncivilized behavior by Hodgkinson. He had a criminal record that included some examples of petty violence.

And if you look at the man, you see that he is not exactly a Nordic god. He had a wide, flat nose, that makes me wonder what is in his family tree.

At the same time though, his anti-Republican partisanism seems to reflect the effects of mass-propaganda. On Facebook, Hodgkinson had joined a group called Terminate the Republican Party, run by Howard Scott Pearlman, of Cherry Hill, N.J.

So, we can say that this was a man who had some violent tendencies, perhaps an Underman but a relatively high-functioning one, whose tendencies were pointed in a particular direction by the messages that he heard.

What Should Be Done

I wrote after Trump was elected last November that the Constitutional powers of the President of the United States were not adequate to deal with the problems – specifically demographic decline and the entrenched anti-White elite – that threaten to destroy our country.

Anybody who would fix what is wrong with the United States today would need the kinds of dictatorial powers that Adolf Hitler was able to acquire after the Reichstag Fire in 1933.

In the best possible scenario, he would one way or another acquire those powers and use them the way Adolf Hitler used them. It is not unprecedented for a US president to exercise extraordinary powers, when there is an emergency that seems to justify it, and if we see more incidents similar to this incident of the shooting of Congressman Scalise, perhaps some sort of state of emergency may be declared and the right result could come from it.

09 June 2017

A National-Socialist Response to Terrorism at Hip-Hop Concerts

The audio has a couple of glitches in it. Where I seem to say "infinitely escalating morality," the word is actually immorality.

After this program, I learned that Ariana Grande was not born a mulatta, but underwent plastic surgery so that she would appear part-Negro. 

How sick is that? Young women in show-business now undergo surgery to make themselves negroidally ugly -- to improve their career.

I slightly overstated Rush Limbaugh's skepticism toward the accusation against Assad in 2013. What Limbaugh said on 3 September 2013 was that it would have made no sense for Assad to use poison gas and that the so-called rebels could have done it. Here is the transcript.

The video from which this audio was taken can be viewed here.

04 June 2017

Attacking the Bilderbergers will not cause you to be banned from Facebook or Twitter, much less to lose your job.

Christopher Cantwell attended the protest outside the annual conference of the Bilderberg Group, this year at Chantilly, Virginia, where he interviewed several protesters, all of whom avoided saying anything explicit about race or Jews. Two of them were associates of Alex Jones, from whom one obviously could not expect much. Cantwell then gave this little speech wherein he indicated that Jews were the real problem.

This needs to be said, because "the Bilderbergers," "the Trilateral Commission," and "the Council on Foreign Relations" have been used for decades as substitute terms by people like the John Birch Society who are paralytically frightened of saying the word Jew -- even where it is the only correct word to use.

For example, the talkshow host Lionel, who makes frequent appearances on Russia Today, is clearly highly averse to saying anything negative about Jews qua Jews, or about even Jews qua Zionists. When RT's reporter Caleb Maupin (who knows his stuff) recently said on Lionel's YouTube show that Israel was behind the trouble in Syria, Lionel instructed Maupin that he must not say this; he must say that it is about oil or a pipeline instead. Well, unsurprisingly, on the same day that Cantwell posted his speech to the protesters, Lionel told audiences on YouTube and on Russia Today that the Bilderbergers were tier one of the globalist conspiracy, or words to that effect.

There is no social stigma or penalty incurred by criticizing the Bilderberg Group but the strongest possible discouragement against any criticism of Jews.

Little by little, however, that prohibition against criticizing Jews has been losing its power.  It is an intimidation that is destroyed through overt defiance. When somebody responded to Cantwell by calling him an anti-Semite, Cantwell said, "I am, yes!" and continued unfazed.