"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 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.