"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.

08 December 2018

France's White Working Class in Revolt: les Gilets Jaunes

The struggle of the French people against "Jewish France" is an old one.

The use of a masked Negro as the poster image for this video from Russia Today is quite ironic, since the narrator emphasizes that the Gilets Jaunes are essentially a movement of France's White working class. 

On the surface, the Yellow Vest movement in France is about a fuel-tax, inadequate wages, and a cut in pensions. This kind of economic complaint is still allowed in France. 

Under the surface, it is a revolt against the destruction of France's White working class by haughty (of course, largely Jewish) globalist plutocrats whose puppet is Emmanuel Macron. The racial importance of the movement is something that most French people are afraid to state openly.

13 November 2018

Cultivation of Courage versus Impulsive Violence

Robert Bowers doesn't seem to have thought about how to influence people without firearms.

Hadding discusses with Matt Heimbach and Christopher Cantwell what Robert Bowers could have done that would have been more useful than hoarding guns and shooting up a synagogue.

Here Zan Overall, the "Wise Old Man," exhibits the steady self-control that Robert Bowers lacked. There is another video wherein he stands outside a synagogue declaring that the Holocaust is a hoax, and is confronted by angry Jews.

Several of Zan Overall's videos did not survive the great Youtube purge of 2019, but here is a photograph to give you an idea of what you would have seen:

Zan Overall was born in 1926 and was engaged in this kind of activism at least as late as 2012.

10 November 2018

Kristallnacht as a Jewish False-Flag Operation

Warning: this discussion contains some crude language. There are three distinct major points here.
  1. The violence of Kristallnacht has been greatly exaggerated. (The canonical figure for deaths is not in the thousands as one might suppose, but only 91. Heinrich Haertle however says that the number was 35.)
  2. German authorities had strong reasons for not wanting such violence, and in fact took measures to stop it when they found out.
  3. A conspiracy of Zionist Jews instigated the violence so that the British government would not ban Jewish immigration to Palestine.
Points 1 and 2 are indisputable. Point 3 is somewhat speculative, but it answers the question of how violence could erupt throughout Germany all at once, contrary to the interests of the German government, without any organizing factor in view.

Of course, there must have been many German people angry at the Jews, not only for the assassination of their diplomat but for the hardships of the worldwide boycott against Germany organized by the World Jewish Congress in 1936. At the same time, however, riots do not erupt simultaneously in many places without organized instigation.

In the aftermath of Kristallnacht, the National-Socialist government made an effort to prevent repetition of such an event. Since Kristallnacht seemed to be an expression of the German people's rage against the Jewish presence and especially Jewish commercial strength in Germany, the government sought to placate that rage and to prevent another such outburst. First, a large fine was imposed on Germany's Jewish population to pay the cost of repairs. The National-Socialist government then bought Jewish-owned businesses so that they could be placed under non-Jewish ownership (aryanized), so that there would no longer be large numbers of Jewish-owned shops to provoke resentment. Under the Rublee Plan, adopted several months after Kristallnacht, every Jew under the age of 45 was expected to emigrate, and Jews who could not afford to emigrate received financial assistance to make it possible.

09 November 2018

Twitter Expands Censorship after Synagogue-Shooting; Gab Still Essentially Free Despite Pressure

Warning: this discussion includes some crude language.

You may recall that Dylann Roof's utterly pointless shooting-spree in a Negro church spurred a holy crusade to abolish everything that would betoken a negative thought or attitude about Blacks, including Confederate symbols. That movement seems to have established Twitter's standards regarding acceptability of content.

Twitter's censors, however, do not honestly state what they are doing. They do not say that they are trying to abolish all negative thoughts and attitudes toward Blacks. Instead they falsely characterize a mere statement of fact or opinion, if it happens to be unflattering to Blacks, as harassing, threatening, or promoting violence.

A mere statement of fact, if it happens to be unflattering to the Negro race, is deemed by Twitter's small-brained censors to be a call for violence.

Previously, this kind of censorship on Twitter seemed to happen only in  regard to generalizations about Blacks, not about Jews. This is why the completely mild-mannered "race-realist" Jared Taylor, who avoids talking about Jews, was banned from Twitter some months ago, while paradoxically people like me who "deny the Holocaust" were allowed.

In the aftermath of the Pittsburgh synagogue-shooting, it seems that Twitter has decided that disputing the Holocaust is no longer acceptable, probably based on the same premise, that criticizing a group is the same as advocating violence against that group. This logic comes from Deborah Lipstadt: if you defend the Germans, you are really attacking the Jews, because defending the Germans involves calling some Jews liars. If this attitude is accepted, the net effect is that Germans and White people in general are obliged to accept abuse without responding.

It is certainly true that accusations can lead to violence. The Holocaust itself is an old piece of war-propaganda that is resurrected whenever a new war is to be justified. Unapproved leader X gasses his own people! Unapproved leader X must be destroyed!

Similarly, the completely unfounded inflammatory propaganda that mass-media aired following the Trayvon Martin incident, and also after the shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri, caused incidents of violence against White people and police. (I go into some detail about that here.) But there was no movement saying that criticisms of White people and police must stop. At least, I have not heard about it, and Twitter is clearly not influenced by any such movement.

I wonder when Twitter will decide that criticizing President Trump is the same as advocating violence against President Trump. I won't hold my breath waiting for that. 

06 November 2018

Did Jews provoke the Pittsburgh synagogue-shooting?

There have been suggestions that Robert Bowers' spree-shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, which caused eleven deaths, was in some measure provoked by Jewish behavior. Bowers himself had indicated that he was angry about the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society's role in bringing non-White violent criminals into the United States.

The first commentary to this effect that I heard came from Jewish radio talker Michael Savage. As a Jew who often seems frustrated with the behavior of other Jews, Savage complained that leftist Jews were stirring resentment with their own hostility toward White Americans. He seemed hesitant to go into much detail about this, however. Simultaneously, Savage in some ways defended his ethnic group -- as is to be expected -- alleging that Catholic Charities was a bigger factor than the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society in promoting demographic change. Although he barely hinted at the size and nature of the problem, it seemed remarkable that Michael Savage as a Jew was willing to assign some blame to Jews for Robert Bowers' action.

Now, a more unambiguous indictment comes from Catholic historian E. Michael Jones, who says that Jews have in various ways set an example of lawlessness -- an example that, Dr. Jones says, Robert Bowers followed. Jewish organizations like the ADL are also causing frustration and blocking peaceful resolution of grievances through their efforts at censorship.

The tightening of censorship is an important point, not only on Internet but in terms of public demonstrations. Several men went to prison for defending themselves and each other against Antifa at Charlottesville. Antifa had undertaken violently to suppress the Unite the Right rally, which was a lawful and permitted event, while police were ordered to stand by and let Antifa try to shut it down. While Alt Righters go to prison for defending themselves, Antifa who committed acts of violence without physical provocation get at most a slap on the wrist. For somebody who really attempts to exercise his constitutional rights in the United States today (and not many people really do that), it becomes obvious that the law is not enforced impartially. If you conspicuously espouse a disfavored opinion or represent a disfavored interest-group like White people, in certain jurisdictions the local government will collaborate with the federal government to shut you down and possibly put you in prison. The FBI is still pursuing Alt Righters who did nothing more than fight off the Antifa onslaught at Charlottesville that police were supposed to prevent! 

I am not a Christian, but I have been urging people to obey the law and be "Christ-like" by patiently enduring the present injustice, because in the long run this is more likely to produce good results -- since it is in our people's nature to rally to the cause of justice -- rather than spontaneously undertaking violent actions that lack broad support, which will facilitate obfuscation about who the important lawbreakers are. 

But it becomes hard to persuade people to obey the law when they have experienced lawlessness government. E. Michael Jones points out some respects in which Jews have been getting away with breaking the law. I just pointed out others. If Jews are getting away with lawlessness, it is partially because they have corrupted the government and made it to some extent lawless too, which is bound to have an effect on the general population's attitude toward the government and the law.

I have suggested that the public demonstrations like Unite The Right, when they weren't violently suppressed, were an important avenue of expression for White men unhappy with the country's direction. What are those men supposed to do now that Jews have used one-sided enforcement of the law, and legal persecution, to suppress such demonstrations? In a recent New York Times opinion piece, Janet Reitman demands that the federal government find more excuses to prosecute White Nationalists, and refers to the prediction of a professional Jewish agitator (head of the "Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism") named Brian Levin:

When we first spoke this August, Levin noted the continued ascendance of the far right, even after many of its members went underground after Charlottesville. “The rocket ship is still twirling,” he said. Levin predicted that the next big wave of activity wouldn’t be around mega-rallies but around what he calls “aggressive maneuvers” by loners or small cells. A series of violent outbursts in a single week in October made his prediction seem prescient.[J. Reitman, NY Times, 3 November 2018]

In other words, influential Jews understood that suppression of perfectly legal mass-demonstrations would lead to illegal alternate activities: sporadic acts of violence that could be prosecuted. Apparently, a synagogue-shooting is just the kind of thing that they wanted. Of course, the crime is also exploited as an impetus for intensified censorship. The answer to E. Michael Jones' question about whether the Jews at the Anti-Defamation League were privately happy about the synagogue-shooting is: most likely, yes.

21 October 2018

After a lifetime of defying Jewish Bigots, Robert Faurisson dead of a Heart-Attack at age 89

The video below, by Vincent Reynouard, shows what was happening in Faurisson's life the day before he died. The computer-pronunciation of Faurisson's name in the video below is not quite right. It is FOE-ris-son.

Professor Robert Faurisson was a professor of French literature at the Sorbonne, and later at the University of Lyon. He was a famous scholar in the 1960s because of his work on French authors like Rimbaud. He was sufficiently famous as a literary scholar, in fact, to be invited to appear on French television.

His book about Rimbaud is called A-t-on lu Rimbaud? -- Has one read Rimbaud? The emphasis on the word lu (read) in the title meant that people had missed the poet's meaning because they had not read him carefully. 

It was not only poetry that people read with insufficient care. Faurisson, when I visited him in 2000, said that he had conducted a class wherein students were asked to read and interpret news-reports. When people read the news, they often do not remember what they have read, and do not notice contradictions in what they have read, and do not derive the full implications. When the news is read carefully, sometimes the meaning turns out to be completely unclear. Not infrequently, the details buried within an article contradict the title or the first paragraph. With this kind of thing, Faurisson started to get into trouble, because now he was teaching skepticism toward mass-propaganda. The Holocaust was part of that.

Faurisson became interested in the Holocaust in 1960 when he learned that the claims of gassings at Dachau and Buchenwald had been abandoned, according to Martin Broszat of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte in Munich. This was  remarkable news, because there had been some so-called witnesses to these alleged gassings, who, now it must be concluded, had lied. What then was the full extent of the lying?

Faurisson spent years researching the question. He traveled to Auschwitz  where he questioned officials of the museum and acquired documents, and in 1978 went public with his conclusion that there had been no gassings there. Ultimately he concluded that there was no real evidence for gassings of anybody anywhere by Hitler's government. 

Faurisson told me that the period after he published his conclusion about Auschwitz was very hard, because nobody that he knew accepted his finding. The solitude that he experienced, he said, was like having ice on his heart.

In the mean time he at least found intellectual support among likeminded people around the world, traveling to California to attend the first annual conference of the Institute for Historical Review in 1979.

Faurisson became the architect of Ernst Zündel's defense in the Canadian False News Trials of 1985, 1988, and 1992, where Zündel was prosecuted for republishing a booklet called Did Six Million Really Die? The defense masterminded by Faurisson, which set out to prove that Zündel had not published "false news" as charged, was earthshaking in its effects. Faurisson was heavily involved in preparing cross-examinations of the prosecution's witnesses, forcing them to make embarrassing admissions. It was Faurisson who proposed that an expert on gas-executions from the United States, the only country where gassing was used as a method of execution, should be procured as an expert witness for the defense. That expert was Fred Leuchter. It was Faurisson who interviewed Leuchter to determine whether he could be of use to the defense. Faurisson was apprehensive because  Leuchter said that he believed in the Holocaust, and with his curly, dark hair Faurisson was concerned that he might be Jewish -- but Zündel decided to bet on Leuchter's professional integrity, and the rest is history.

Faurisson's reward for seeking the truth consisted of physical attacks by Jews (whom the police would not arrest), endless litigation, and recurring imprisonment. He told me that he did not keep his files at his home, "Because the police could come at any time." In recent years, the recurring litigation became much more onerous because he had to care for his ailing wife, which he could not do if he were sent to prison. But he never bent under the pressure.

In fact, he even taunted the government. There was a telephone hotline for reporting incidents of Holocaust Denial, and Faurisson would call in to report himself. Whenever Faurisson was put on trial, the courtroom became a forum for him to present his views. 

If you can momentarily forget the worst consequences that Faurisson endured, you may find something amusing about a little old man who refuses to stop saying precisely those things that people are most afraid to say and most prohibited from saying. Faurisson's example of defiance reduced the fears of other people, and the sign of this reduction of fear is laughter. In his last years Faurisson acquired something like a countercultural following among young people in France; in particular he was befriended by the famous mulatto comedian Dieudonné.

I think that we can say that in the end, through persistence, Faurisson won. Suppose that you have the most powerful group of people in the world trying to beat you down, destroy you, or intimidate you any way they can, to shut you up, and you survive to a ripe old age without ever yielding even slightly, while gradually more and more people believe that you are right. That is winning.

He was irritated with some people who did yield under pressure. My girlfriend and I spent five hours with him on that day in August 2000, and a good bit of that time he spent complaining about Mark Weber and David Irving. Weber, as editor of the Journal of Historical Review, seemed to be constantly trying to soften the impact of Faurisson's articles, which did not please Faurisson at all. He was annoyed with Irving for his lack of rigor, which unfortunately gave some validity to Deborah Lipstadt's accusation that he was a falsifier of history. The faults that Faurisson noticed in these men eventually became much more evident. Within a decade, both had retreated to the point of endorsing the proposition that some Jews had been gassed. A couple of years ago when I wrote my articles criticizing the retreat from Revisionism by Weber and Irving, and also by David Cole, the time that my girlfriend and I had spent with Professor Faurisson on 5 August 2000 was constantly in the back of my mind.

The following is a general introduction to Holocaust Revisionism. You might have some difficulty with the pronunciation here and there, but it is very worth the effort, if you want to have a good basic knowledge of the subject. 

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 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                                                                          5,885,881

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, as explained by Rush Limbaugh:

"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 (not as he was but as he is usually portrayed) 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!