David’s story

Where are your balls?

Fifty years ago, the noblest man born in America was bid farewell with Nazi salutes. Last year, the Roman salute was even condemned by the panel of racialist speakers who, within a few yards, watched Richard Spencer toast after Trump’s triumph. This year the white nationalists have gone further after Charlottesville: they claim in unison that all swastikas must be banned because they give bad optics.

Did the nationalists betray themselves? Rather, the people in general are incredibly more brainwashed than the day they said goodbye to Rockwell. In addition, American nationalists are more cowardly than Ursula Haverbeck, the 88-year-old German woman who has just been sentenced to jail for daring to say anything other than the accepted history of the holocaust.

The day Rockwell was murdered I was a child. Then there were no documentaries on the ‘holocaust’ in the media. Within my life span I have witnessed the holocaust industry grow exponentially to authentically pious levels.

The feminized tactics of today’s racists, to hide the swastikas, must be replaced by the manly tactic of telling the truth about what happened in World War II. But who in the forums of white nationalism constantly talks about the Hellstorm Holocaust committed on the Germans, even from 1945 to 1947? Or does a German old lady have more balls than today’s Americans?

Strong meat

One of the advantages of rereading what one has written years ago is that the faults of the old manuscript become visible. Yesterday I reread my ‘Why I am not a neo-Nazi’ originally published in March of 2014, and I see that the text had an unnecessary tail in which I criticise Covington’s feminism, almost half of the original text.

But most of the article is redeemable and I will add it without the tail as the last essay of the 2018 edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour. The essay shows that my differences with white nationalists are inconceivably deeper than what a casual visitor of this site may surmise. They are Christians and atheist neo-Christians—all of them. Conversely, I am a true apostate of the religion of my parents, which means rejection not only of the theological side but of the axiological side as well. Pay special attention to the quotation of a Swede about the Holocaust in the text below.


Virtually all white males have been brainwashed about what really happened in the Second World War, and they have been feminized. Characterologically they are basically the antipodes of the Spartans, the Vikings or Himmler’s SS men. Even white nationalists are reluctant to repudiate the conquests of ‘feminism’, and by this I don’t only have in mind allowing women to vote (keep in mind the last paragraphs of Yockey’s essay), but allowing their ‘right’ to inherit wealth or property (also keep in mind what we said about Austen’s novels and the causes of Greco-Roman decline in Pierce’s long text).

The humiliating empowerment of white women throughout the West is directly proportionate to the cretinisation of white males. Now that I have reproduced my translations about the prime example of polar Yang in Aryan history, Sparta, I would like to qualify that what we need is Aristotle’s proverbial golden mean. Sparta produced the best soldiers in world history but perished because it ignored what we now know: that enslaving non-whites is fatal in the long run. What we need is the Hegelian synthesis between yang Sparta and yin Athens: a sort of modern Rome. That is exactly what National Socialism was all about. Inspired in Rome, and let us remember the virile Roman salute, the Third Reich incorporated and eliminated—Hegel’s aufheben—the contradictions in both extremes: it was highly cultured as well as a tough military state.

I consider myself a spiritual inheritor of the Nationalist Socialist legacy. But I reject neonazism. Why?

Because neonazis are basically white nationalists plus Nazi paraphernalia. We have already seen that, unlike the NS men, these groups love degenerate music, Judaized Hollywood and non-reproductive sex. Many of these décadents are also anti-Nordicists who would dismiss the command cited in the very first lesson of Stellrecht’s Faith and Action already quoted in previous pages: ‘But if your blood has traits that will make your children unhappy and burdens to the state, then you have the heroic duty to be the last’.

The surreal thing is that even the pure Aryans hate Nordicism. Conversely what I love about Himmler is that, precisely because he was not handsome, he admired the hyper-Nordics of a Norwegian town he visited and harboured the thought that its people could become a paradigm for the Reich. Remember Stubb’s words about white nationalists:

Not only does it [Nordicism in general and National Socialism in particular] retrigger all the anti-racist conditioning they thought they’d gotten rid of, but it makes them ask ‘where does it end?’ ‘At what point can we finally stop paying attention to each others genetic (and non-genetic) flaws?’

The answer is that it doesn’t end: that all life is struggle and hierarchy and that the Aryan race will never be perfected nor entirely freed from threats. But that’s not what they want to hear. Pierce made eugenics the core of his religious outlook as a means of protecting the eugenically-selecting society. But I see little concern for the subject among modern white nationalists. Can you imagine a racial state with a comprehensive eugenic policy which didn’t consider the reversal of mongrelisation to be a major objective? [Stellrecht’s ‘heroic’ advice] That it wouldn’t make its population look more like Swedes and less like Sicilians, as time goes on? It’s hard to do so, which is why I believe ‘anti-Nordicism’ in white nationalism has, among other things, shut down much of the discussion on the subject.

On September 2013, in Harold Covington’s Northwest Front blogsite, several commenters subscribed politically correctness by bashing Covington in order not to offend the feelings of contemporary Greeks. A saner Northwest Front commenter said, ‘Those among us who don’t have the ability to look at a picture of half-Turks and tell they’re not White weren’t ever going to amount to anything on behalf of the White race’. The other side, the ‘revolutionary’ neonazis, ignored that DNA tests have even revealed nigger genes among quite a few of the Portuguese; and we have already seen El Greco’s painting of crossbreed Spaniards as well as Pierce’s statement that ‘a 5 percent decline in average IQ would cause our civilization to collapse’, which applies to Sicily and Greece even before the Turkish invasion.

This cowardly lack of recognition of the very Letter A in Indo-European studies is not the only thing that annoys me about the embryonic movement known as white nationalism. Over the internet boards I find it bothersome when typical neonazis demand that I dismiss the Holocaust stories as hoax; and that if I fail to do it my morals are beyond the pale.

As someone who has spent many years studying controversial subjects (the pseudoscience in both parapsychology and biological psychiatry), I know perfectly that you must spend at least a decade of your life trying to digest the scholarly literature of both sides of an academic debate. I am in my fifties now and don’t have the time nor the motivation to research the Holocaust claims and counter-claims. For me it is enough to point out that two former Holocaust revisionists, Mark Weber, the director of the Institute of Historical Review, and David Irving, our best historian of the Third Reich, have changed their minds over the years, both accepting now that a few millions of Jews probably died during the war. Irving’s forthcoming book on Herr Himmler quotes historical records proving that, even though the six-million figure is an invention, a couple of millions of Jews probably died as a result of harsh Nazi treatments.

David Irving in 2012

But I would like to go beyond Irving’s scruples. Rephrasing a passage of Peter Helmkamp in Controlled Burn, Joseph Walsh commented in my blog: ‘The truth is that the glad stirrings of genocide lurk in the heart of every man, yet only the Nazis had the courage to acknowledge the truth’. Another commenter, a Swede, went even further:

What is certain is that the Holocaust would not have produced any debilitating psychological effect on non-Christian whites. (By Christianity I mean ‘Christian morality’. Most atheists in the West are still Christian, even if they don’t believe in God or Jesus.) Being emotionally affected by the Holocaust presupposes that you think:

1) Victims and losers have intrinsically more moral value than conquerors and winners
2) Killing is the most horrendous thing a human can do
3) Killing children and women is even more horrendous
4) Every human life has the same value

None of these statements ring true to a man who rejected Christian morality. In fact, even if the Holocaust happened, I would not pity the victims or sympathize with them. If you told the Vikings that they needed to accept Jews on their lands or give them gold coins because six million of them were exterminated in an obscure war, they would have laughed at you.

It must be comical for the Nietzscheans of the North that, unlike the monocausalism ubiquitously present in the neonazi and white nationalist movement, Himmler acknowledged other factors: ‘Our people’s thinking was misled by the forces of the Church, Liberalism, Bolshevism, and Jewry’. And let us never forget Hitler’s own words in one of his table talks: ‘The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity’. If neonazis were true Nazis and had transvalued Christian/Neo-Christian values they would be trying to demonstrate that Himmler’s Posen Speech in 1943 is genuine, not a hoax as they claim, and even find genocidal inspiration from the speech.

Of course: they will never do it because all of them are Neo-Christian pseudo-Nazis. Speaking with a little humour I would say that neonazis, white nationalists, and American southern nationalists subscribe what we may call the Harry Potter approach to the Jewish problem. Throughout those novels for children, the female author presents us a Harry who never uses ‘Avara Kadavra’, the killing spell against the bad guys; Harry only uses the disarming charm, ‘Expelliarmus’. But only in novels and movies for kids the good guys, who never are depicted as cold assassins, can win. In real life you have to make a transition to the dark side, to Himmler’s ways, to become a soldier.

I have read The Turner Diaries twice. When I read it for the first time, or rather listened the audio version with Pierce’s own voice, I was still struggling with the last remnants my Neo-Christian programming. I didn’t like the Breivik-like cruelties such as dispatching an entire group of pro-white warriors for not taking care of the Jewish problem in Toronto. And in the novel’s Day of the Rope I was troubled by the description that many innocent young whites also die. Then I read most of Covington’s Quintet and sensed a moral difference. Covington’s characters are not so bloodthirsty, not so genocidal exterminators. I could imagine myself doing the things in Covington’s novels but in the past some passages of the Diaries made me wonder…

But now that I have definitively left behind Christian ethics I can see that Pierce was ultimately right. As NS soldiers in the coming racial wars, altogether imbued in the martial qualities of gravitas and severitas, we must behave. The huge difference between the Quintet and the Diaries is that in Pierce’s world not only an ethno-state is born: in the final pages it is described that only the white race shall inherit the Earth. In Covington’s world that is dismissed because it would mean genocide on a scale not even performed by the Bolshevik Jews. But as Pierce said in Who We Are, already cited way above:

The hard lesson taught by the different results of the European colonization of North America, Latin America, Australia, New Zealand, India, and southern Africa is that the only type of colonization with lasting significance is racial colonization; and that racial colonization can succeed only when Whites are willing and able to clear the land of non-White inhabitants and keep it clear.

This idea in both Who We Are and the Diaries is so strong meat that I will elaborate on it only in Day of Wrath, and in the autobiographical books in Spanish that I’ll write after the completion of the present one.

Carolyn on Kevin

In my previous post I wrote: ‘White nationalism is an impossible chimera between truths and lies, between courage and cowardice, light and darkness’. This abridged article by Carolyn Yeager on Kevin MacDonald supports my claim.
 

Kevin Macdonald recently participated in a videocast of “Torah Talk” with Luke Ford, a non-Jewish student of Torah and Talmud, and two young friends or students of his. It lasted one hour and 50 minutes and resulted in some interesting insights into Kevin’s limitations as a leading White Nationalist voice.

MacDonald was taken by surprise with the first question asked of him: What are your thoughts about holocaust revisionism?

Yeah, um, I guess I’m not, uh, I’ve never had any sympathy really, before—I, I haven’t seen, I haven’t seen anything that I would really, you know, convince me. And I have—frankly, I haven’t dealt into it very much. My view is that it’s not important for what I’m doing and I don’t think it’s really important—I, I think what’s really important is the culture of the holocaust, you know how it’s taught in school, how it’s used to defend Israel, and it’s used as a weapon against people who oppose immigration, and all those things—ah I think those are very important things to discuss. So whether it actually happened, exactly [slurs some words] and all that is something that I don’t think uh is possible to even go there anymore, is just… just uh… third rail.

Hey, wait a minute! Is this the reputedly brilliant professor of evolutionary psychology speaking??? This sounds not only downright dumb but also evasive as hell.

  • I’ve never had any sympathy
  • Never seen anything that convinced me
  • Don’t think it’s really important
  • Haven’t dealt into it very much (weakening the above three comments, if not nullifying them altogether)
  • Not possible to “go there anymore”

Not possible to go there anymore? But then he adds… “third rail.” He should have added the word “comfortably”—it’s not possible to go there comfortably, without putting oneself at risk. By that he signals premature defeat: The Jews have won on this and we have to allow them their victory. It’s too late to do anything about it. The price exacted is too high. By calling it “third rail” he’s dubbing it too dangerous, too highly charged for any sensible man to approach.

Are these brave men or foolish men? Kevin clearly considers them foolish, and maybe not too bright. He’s saying that what he’s doing is important but what they’re doing is not important.

  • What’s really important is the culture of the Holocaust

But wait a minute! If the Holocaust didn’t happen, how can a “culture” of it exist? Or the trappings of such a culture be justified? So he obviously thinks the Holocaust did happen, or believes he must accept that presumption, but doesn’t want to come right out and say so. Because? Because so many listening to him would argue with him about it.

I’m afraid we have caught our evolutionary psychologist in a posture of dishonesty here. I know it has been our position to give Kevin a free pass on this subject, one that goes like this: He has shown so much courage in standing up to the accusations of antisemitism at his university; if he doesn’t want to get into even more trouble over “holocaust denial,” he certainly doesn’t have to. That was a position I myself took back when I had an Internet radio show on which he was a guest four times. I did not even bring it up.

But now he is retired and it is only his professional reputation at stake, not his job. And he is being asked these questions and he is answering them (see here). And I have revised my thinking about giving others so much leeway to think as they want about it. We need all hands on deck on this issue. In Kevin’s case though, I think it would be better were he to simply say, “I’ve made it my practice not to speak about this topic which I have not studied,” and leave it at that, rather than put forth uninformed opinions as he’s doing. Of course, that would be wimpy but at least not dishonest.

But perhaps he’s afraid that would cause his peers to suspect him of being a secret denier, which he clearly does not want. So instead he hems and haws around about “importance”—that the “culture of the Holocaust” has importance while the “happening of the Holocaust” doesn’t.

That’s an odd position. Maybe we can find some insight into his thought process in his answer to the next question asked him: What are your personal feelings toward Hitler?

Toward who? Oh God, I think that the only term I can use is a disaster. I think that his own personality—I just don’t know much about it but I think his own personality got in the way of them carrying out their strategic military [goals?] in World War Two. I think he was, you know, he thought of himself as a general or something. You know, he interfered with policy that should have been left to professionals and I think that that was a—you know, that was horrible, that was a disaster. There are a lot of other things, but uh, so I think that he is not the ideal person to be in that situation.

  • Hitler was a disaster
  • Don’t know much about it
  • Interfered with military policy

His reactions toward Hitler are more vehement than toward Holocaust. They reflect the standard Anglo narrative that Hitler bungled the war, that his generals despised him, he was a flawed personality who all by himself created the disaster that occurred in Germany. No fault is directed toward Jews, or the Allied collusion with Major Jewish Organizations, or the German traitors (including in the Wehrmacht) who conspired to defeat their own country and turn as many people as possible away from their leader. As MacDonald said, he doesn’t know much about it, but the “common American wisdom”, the national narrative, is good enough for him. But then he has a few second thoughts:

But you know, having said that, if you look at the old newsreels from 1930’s in Germany, you know, the people loved Hitler and he really managed to develop a sense of sort of a very unified, culturally unified nation. Uh, they were really on page with this, and I think that was an incredible accomplishment. It’s just unfortunate how they used it, what happened in the end. Just a disaster. I-I think that is the—the, uh, the result of the Second World War is uh has essentially given us the war that we’re in now. I think the triumph of the Left is the result of WWII. I think uh is also um critically important for the rise of Jewish influence. And that is what is now with us. And can’t be undone.

  • Hitler was loved by the people
  • Unified the nation
  • Incredible accomplishments
  • The war was a disaster

Amazing. Kevin goes from admiring how Hitler unified the nation, an incredible feat, directly to the misuse of it, though he doesn’t explain how they misused it. Apparently by going to war. As though Hitler could have avoided war, with Stalin plotting to his east and Roosevelt plotting from the west (see the Potoki Papers). For some reason (we know what it is), he accepts the non-mention of the Jews behind the scenes in all this. MacDonald’s simplified history credits the triumph of the Left and the rise of Jewish influence (which are one and the same) as being brought about by Hitler’s ‘disastrous’ war. Does he have any idea how strong the Left was in Germany when Hitler started? It was an actual revolution that resulted in a communist government for a time in Bavaria!

Jews were already in a strong position since WWI. So our Kevin is not much of an historian of this period and, here again, should be answering, “I don’t know.”

The final questions in this series are:

What kind of world do you think we would have if the Axis had won?

It’s impossible to know. I uh I just don know. If the Axis had won, if they crushed the Soviet Union and then occupied Britain, um there probably would have been a stand off at that point. And then I do think it would have been bad for the Jews, in Europe, if that had happened. But I don’t think Europe would be overrun as it is now with all these non-Whites. I think Europe would have remained a White, Christian-based civilization if that had happened. I—That’s my best guess.

  • Bad for Jews
  • Europe still a White, Christian-based civilization

It sounds like he wishes the Axis had won and now blames Hitler for failing to pull it off.

Do you think there is any hope for Europe at this point, or what do you think would have to happen to fix the situation?

For Europe? You’d have to have a complete change in mental outlook, uh you’d have to have the political will to do something. They could still do something but it’s getting, you know, they don’t and it just keeps getting worse and worse. And I think everybody go—you know, the popular opinion polls do reflect anxiety about it, concern, uh, and yet they can’t seem to vote in a government that will actually do something.

So until that happens… um… they could still do it, I mean the percentages of Muslims in France and the West German countries in Europe (sic) are still pretty small. They could do something. They could just deport. Really, I mean a lot of them have no right to be there. The so-called refugees, they can go back to wherever they came from. They can repatriate these people. It just takes a political will which they are a very long way from being there.

So until that happens, it’s just going to fester and there’s going to be more and more anxiety, and more and more disillusion with these elites… But, I’m amazed at the staying power of… it did look with Brexit, Trump victory and now… but then you see you’ve got the victory of Macron in France, so… and Wilders got defeated very badly in the Netherlands, the Swedish government doesn’t seem to be going away. It looks like Merkel’s going to win in Germany, so it doesn’t look (chuckles wryly) that anything’s really changed.

  • Need complete change in mental outlook
  • No mention of removing Jews
  • No political will even for removing Muslims
  • Voters falling short

Notice he doesn’t mention anything about Jews as a problem, only Muslims. Is that a problem with mental outlook? He said later in the program, speaking of white nationalists he approves of (like Jared Taylor)—when they get together they “don’t talk about gas chambers” (said somewhat sneeringly), they talk about white interests. Understand this as: We are not “disasters” like Hitler, who did have the political will to carry out an anti-Jewish policy. For them the Jews are here to stay because there’s no will to do anything about it. They’re grappling with the Muslims now. They can live with the Holocaust.

@40 min. participant Casey said: “I had to watch Schindler’s List in 8th grade, but that was it. But I got it—Hitler’s a bad guy.” His question: How to change education to give kids a more complete historical context, for example like what was happening in Weimar?

Kevin answers by shifting to Blacks and Slavery, away from holocaust.

@46 min. Luke Ford asks: A line from an article you published was “Jews are genetically driven to destroy Whites.” Is that a fair description?

Kevin: No, it’s not. I wrote a book called Culture of Critique—it’s about culture, not genetics. How they identify themselves, think about themselves. I would like to see a cultural shift.

Luke added: Andrew Joyce wrote in an essay published at TOO: “The Jews of the middle ages did no labor—almost all lived parasitically from money-lending.”

Kevin did defend this, but said, “I don’t use the word parasite… much… I don’t think you can use that word for American Jews.”

@1 hr 44 min. Kevin: “I don’t like people who have swastikas on their websites; identify with Nazism. It’s a non starter in American context. We have to be an American party, we have to be about white people, and we have to give up the sort of National Socialist idea of the past. Which was a disaster, partly of its own making. I don’t think it was well led. So we have to get away from them. It’s just bad PR.”

Kevin MacDonald tries to act casual when it comes up in interviews, but he is clearly not casual in his feelings about it. He is incredibly careful of leaving any opening for an association with him and Holocaust revisionism. By doing so, he helps the Jewish drive to keep Germans forever guilty of “unspeakable” and unnatural crimes, and unable to rise (“on their knees” as it’s been coined); which in turn helps the Jewish drive to wield their weapon of antisemitism against all Europeans; which in turn hinders all whites from feeling enough pride to defend their race because the one who is most famous for doing so is seen as a disaster to his race by his own people. But of course, Kevin would deny all this.

If Whites could stick together and work together on Holocaust revisionism, I believe success could be had. I don’t know of a single person who, willing to really look at the evidence and give it a chance, continued to believe the official narrative of the big H. It’s always a political decision to insist that it must have taken place because too much is a stake politically if it didn’t. The entire WWII global order would be shaken to its core. This is the position MacDonald is in, it seems to me, along with so many other White activists who say they put White survival and sovereignty first. They don’t. They are afraid some element in the social fabric that they don’t like will get control, and that bothers them more than giving control to the non-White. This is incredible but true.

During this program, Kevin spoke of how some anti-Jewish material he reads “makes him sick,” he didn’t want to think he played any part in encouraging it. However, he was quite easygoing when it came to the subject of Jewish behavior—no similar strong feelings emerged. He thought some Jews were aligned with White interests and could participate well in White societies. Clearly it is a matter of culture for him.

In closing, I have seen again and again that behind the reluctance to confront the Holocaust taboo lies the stronger fear of the Adolf Hitler taboo. Many truly believe the propaganda that Hitler was a disaster for Europe, thus to keep anyone like him from returning to power, Hitler must remain the one responsible for the horrible Holocaust and the Holocaust must remain real. What they don’t seem to consider is that as Germans disappear as a consequence, Europe will die along with them. Without a genuine Germany, there is no Europe.

Andy chats with Greggy

Today Andrew Anglin discussed with Greg Johnson on Tara McCarthy’s show. I heard the live show on YouTube but you can listen it on McCarthy’s BitChute account.

The amiable discussion between Johnson and Anglin shows once again what I have said: that white nationalism is very far from National Socialism. Even Anglin, who on The Daily Stormer has used Nazi paraphernalia, said that instead of swastikas in future rallies like Charlottesville it will be necessary to use ordinary American flags, not even the Confederate flag!

Anglin completely ignores that the double DNA helix that founded his country—capitalism and Christianity—are more serious factors of white decline than Jewish intrusion. It was precisely for a similar reason that Hitler had to reject the Weimar flag and devise another flag. If American white nationalists knew about the double helix (Murka was prewired to become New Zion) they would design a new Aryan flag that had nothing to do with horizontal stripes and pointed stars.

Unsurprisingly, Johnson went even further away from National Socialism than Anglin. He said: ‘Nothing that we do depends on what happened in 3rd Reich Germany’ and ‘I do not think we have to rehabilitate the Reich’.

Johnson also complained that Hitler had wanted to colonise the Slavs and Ukraine: ‘Their plans for the Slavic East were really genocidal and that’s immoral’. Johnson omits that the entire Soviet Union was Judaized under Stalin. To my way of thinking, as in William Pierce’s novel every white people who tolerates Judaization deserves to be mercilessly conquered by an Aryan empire (as the country where Johnson and Anglin were born is now Judaized).

Johnson also spoke of the ‘well defended set of taboos’ created by Jews and white traitors over Hitler’s Germany, and that these are ‘triggers they have planted on people’ so it is ‘foolish’ to use the example of Germany.

The terrifying error of this position is that Johnson doesn’t realise that what is happening today is neither more nor less than the expansion of the Morgenthau Plan to all whites! War is not only the physical fighting, but also taking over the official narrative. Tom Sunic himself has said that the Second World War has continued after 1945. Since the Morgenthau Plan not only continues but has metastized throughout Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand, what happened in WW2 must be at the centre of our vision. From this angle, the worst omission in the cordial debate between Andy and Greggy was their deafening silence about the real Holocaust of Germans perpetrated by the Allies.

Regarding the holocaust of Jews, Anglin said ‘the holocaust is a religion’, the central religion of today, and that is the ‘basis of the idea that white people are not allowed to have their own country’. He added that ‘the holocaust is the framework’ on which the narrative of today rests. Johnson countered that revisionism over the Jewish holocaust is ‘a very hard sell’.

He is terribly wrong again! Nothing could be easier than pointing out the YouTube videos that show how the Jewish press was already doing propaganda to the figure of 6 million before 1942. The press even played with the figure of 6 million fearing that the Tsar’s pogroms were to kill that number of Jews! All that is very easy to see in the videos photographing old newspapers in close-up so that visitors can see the letters (see e.g., here).

Understand me well. If life permits, I will add more translated passages from Deschner’s Criminal History of Christianity because they show that the Imperial Church invented the vast majority of Christian martyrs allegedly martyred by pagans. The Imperial Church did this to make the supporters of Greco-Roman culture feel guilty and thus justify the destruction of their temples, libraries, sculptures… If the ancient Romans had known that the martyrology was fake news they would have had more weapons to resist the destruction of their civilisation.

In other words, those who actually perpetrated the conquest by the sword were the Christians, who blamed the pagans for their own crimes. Same thing about the Jewish holocaust. Those who actually perpetrated a German Holocaust were the Allies, who in turn blamed the Germans for their own crimes.

How Johnson and Anglin do not see something so obvious is only explicable if we give plausibility to my claim that white nationalism is an impossible chimera between truths and lies, between courage and cowardice, light and darkness. Johnson sincerely believes, in his most cordial discussion with Anglin, that a white takeover of his society without revisionism is possible. As I said, the pair did not even mention The Hellstorm: the atomic bomb that potentially could destroy the Judeo-liberal narrative because it goes straight to the emotions of the masses, who ignore what actually happened in the war.

The pair also spoke of Charlottesville, religion and spirituality but it is no longer necessary to follow them.

On schizo white nationalism

In 2012 I started to type directly from Randel Helms’ book Gospel Fictions for this blog and after three years the result were five entries:

1.- The art of the Gospels
2.- How to begin a Gospel
3.- Jesus’ nativity legends
4.- Miracles (Synoptics)
5.- Miracles (Johannine)

Recently, at Greg Johnson’s Counter Currents Aedon Cassiel started a series on exactly the same subject and from the same point of view, that we may call ‘mythicism’ (see e.g., here). Even Cassiel himself, after being asked in the comments section if Helms’ approach in analysing the Gospels had influenced him, responded that he was certain that he has read Helms. Since I won’t be adding weekly translations of Karlheinz Deschner’s history of Christianity as I started to do on Saturdays, perhaps this Saturday the anti-Christian reader might find it interesting how the most recent exegesis continues the debunking of the gospel narrative…

But white nationalism is a schizophrenic movement. Most of them want to have it both ways: universalist Christianity and a white-only ethnostate; feminism (cf. Covington’s novels to create the ethnostate) and women having lots of kids within the white republic; they want a takeover of the State but fail to even form a political party. In the specific case of Counter Currents, Andrew Hamilton once said that the webzine that published his articles was ‘schizophrenic’, presumably referring to the fact that he and others reject open homosexuality while the webzine’s editor at the same time publishes homosexualist articles. The list could go on an on. In another of his Counter Currents articles, Cassiel wrote:

So to make it abundantly clear that this argument is posed with no hostility, I’ve decided to collaborate with Christopher Robertson to make this a sort of Bible Week at Counter-Currents. While I publish a discussion of the possibility that Jesus never existed as a historical figure, Robertson will be publishing a sort of Bible study (which he agreed to do by my insistence—I genuinely found it interesting). This way, the overall tone of Counter-Currents won’t be skewed towards either its Christian or non-Christian readers. And I hope that this token of good faith will help defuse any sense of hostility potentially created by this essay.

This is another example of the ‘split personality’ in the movement. I had already noted Johnson’s forked tongue on the subject of Christianity. This is reflected in the fact that his set of values is schizoid too, as can be seen in the first paragraphs of ‘Dies Irae’, the first article of my book Day of Wrath.

But all nationalists are schizophrenic, not only Johnson. Read ‘Dies Irae’ and ask yourself if you’re stuck with Christian ethics, even if you have superficially abandoned the religion of your parents.

The problem is not a peculiar man named Johnson: it’s the country where he was born. In the 1980s I lived at the other side of the Golden Gate where Johnson is currently living (I hated to visit the big city; beautiful Marin County on the other hand had few spics then). I was shocked to see how deeply biblical the country was. Yesterday I watched this video by Steven Anderson.

The first monologues of the video are the best exposé of the Holocaust narrative that I’ve ever watched. Then pastor Anderson—for the first twenty minutes I didn’t know he was a pastor—started to talk about how Jews and Muslims will burn in hell, the fate for all those who reject the Lord Christ, etc.

We can imagine how Americans, if they apostatized from Christianity, could tap the hidden forces of the Aryan psyche. But in a schizophrenic movement that tries to mix water and oil, such as white nationalism, that won’t happen.

Holocaust, the ultimate taboo

See Swedish Henrik Palmgren’s intelligent interview in English of another Swede, Ingrid Carlqvist, on Red Ice TV.

It is magnificent!: a perfect link you can send to your friends who are not red-pilled about the Jewish Question.

After the first hour of the interview, Ingrid, who recently has lost many of her friends in Sweden, starts to raise elemental questions about the ultimate taboo in the West today:

“Scandal in Sweden When Ingrid Questions the Unquestionable”

The burden of Hitler

by Greg Johnson



Adolf Hitler was born April 20, 1889. Every April 20th, White Nationalist websites inevitably see an increase in discussion and debate about Hitler and his legacy. Positions usually array themselves between two poles: Hitler is the problem and Hitler is the solution.

The claim that Hitler is the problem is basically a rejection of an intolerable burden of guilt by association. Hitler is the most hated man in our whole Judaized culture. Indeed, hating Hitler is the only moral judgment not stigmatized by modern moral relativists. The only absolute moral standard we are allowed is the evil of Hitler, and all other evils are judged by their proximity to Hitler—which ultimately means that all white people are evil due to our kinship to Hitler.

The “blame Hitler” argument boils down to this: If only Adolf Hitler had not started World War II, killed six million Jews, and tried to conquer the world, White Nationalism would get good press and perhaps make some progress in the political realm. Hitler is the reason why race realism, eugenics, immigration control, and nationalism have been discredited in the eyes of whites the world over. Thus if White Nationalism is to have any chance of changing the world, we need to ritually condemn and repudiate Hitler and everything he stood for, as well as all his present day followers.

I find this argument to be morally contemptible and politically naïve.

It is contemptible, because it is essentially an attempt to curry favor with our enemies and pander to ignoramuses and fools by throwing a loyal white man under the bus. And make no mistake: Adolf Hitler, whatever his faults, was a loyal white man who fought and died not just for Germany, but for our race as a whole.

Blaming Hitler is also morally obscene because it absolves a whole host of villains who are the real architects of our race’s doom: the slave traders and plantation owners who introduced blacks into the Americas, the railroad magnates and other plutocrats who brought Orientals to our shores, the traitorous capitalists who are destroying the white working and middle classes by importing non-white labor (legal or illegal) and shipping American jobs to the Third World—and of course every politician who has done the bidding of these powers.

Blame must also be placed on the organized Jewish community which has used its control over the entertainment and news media, academia, and the professions, as well as its vast wealth, to corrupt all aspects of American politics, business, and culture and to engineer and promote multiculturalism, mass non-white immigration, miscegenation, racial integration, and a poisonous culture of white self-hatred and anti-white truculence.

Blaming Hitler is also politically naïve. Our race was not set on the path to destruction when Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany in 1933. The problem started long before then, but a real turning point began in the 1880s with the immigration of millions of Jews from Eastern Europe to the United States, a country that was simply not culturally or politically capable of understanding and containing the threat they posed. By 1917, the organized Jewish community—operating through a cabal around Woodrow Wilson—had sufficient power to bring the United States into the First World War as a quid pro quo for the British Empire’s Balfour Declaration, which paved the way for the foundation of the state of Israel.

When Jews arrived in America en masse, they found a largely innocent and trusting people and only the weakest barriers to their rise to wealth and power. And what gratitude did the Jewish community feel toward America and its people? As soon as they were able, they traded the lives of 116,000 of the sons of those trusting Americans, plus the suffering of 205,000 more young men who were wounded, some of them unspeakably, plus the mental anguished suffered by ten million soldiers and their loved ones, plus the years robbed from the lives of the ten million soldiers and all those who worked to support them, plus the untold millions of Europeans who suffered and died because America’s entrance prolonged the war—all in order to gain a British promise to allow Jews to displace the Arabs of Palestine to found a Jewish state.

This was a pivotal moment in world history: In the United States, it became clear that whites had lost control of our destiny to Jews, and ever since then, Jews have been able to use their hegemony in the United States to take control of the destinies of white nations around the world and turn more and more of them onto the path of to extinction.

No, their control was not absolute. In 1924, white Americans passed immigration restriction. But by 1941, Jews and their allies had delivered America into another World War; in the 1950s and ’60s they spearheaded, funded, and controlled the civil rights movement; and by 1965, after more than 40 years of lobbying, Jews were pivotal in opening America’s borders to non-white immigration.

If Hitler had never been elected Chancellor of Germany, if the Second World War had never happened, Jews would still have lobbied for open borders; they would still have promoted multiculturalism, feminism, and generalized cultural decadence; they would still have promoted pseudo-scientific race denial, racial egalitarianism, and racial integration; they would still have corrupted our political system to pursue Jewish interests at the expense of American interests. How do I know this? Because they were already doing all these things long before Hitler came to power.

Jews are promoting conditions that are leading to the genocide of the white race. They are not doing this out of “self-defense” against Hitler’s aggression, since they were doing it when Hitler was just a common soldier in the Great War. Indeed, the truth is that Hitler did whatever he did in self-defense against Jewish aggression—the same Jewish aggression that we are suffering today in a much intensified form.

The “blame Hitler” argument also commits what I like to call the “one little thing” fallacy. The way some people talk, Adolf Hitler is the one thing standing in the way of our victory. If only he had remained a painter, we would be living in a White Republic today. But history is not that simple. History is the net result of billions of causal factors interacting with one another. Therefore, chances are “one little thing” is never responsible for any large scale historical phenomenon, good or bad.

A choice example of the “one little thing” fallacy is a spurious quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin that floats around right wing circles. According to this legend, Franklin claimed that America needed to exclude Jews from the very beginning, else that one little thing will undo our otherwise perfect culture and political system. This kind of thinking is appealing because it simplifies matters considerably and a spares us from the necessity of reflecting on broader, deeper, systematic problems that might implicate us as well.

Blaming Hitler is just another form of blaming ourselves for our ongoing racial decline. It deflects attention from the real culprits—white traitors and aliens—and replaces righteous anger at our enemies with demoralizing self-reproach and self-doubt. Anger motivates action. Self-reproach promotes passivity. So our march to oblivion continues uninterrupted.

White Nationalists who feel like Hitler is a burden on our cause need to recognize that ritually condemning him on his birthday does no good. Hitler is dead and cannot be harmed. And they are still goyim slated for extinction. The only thing that has changed is their own moral status. They may have won the esteem of knaves and fools, but better men see them as ignorant and vile. What good is the friendship of the corrupt and cowardly if it costs you the friendship of the honorable and upright?

How, then, can one lessen the burden of “Hitler”—the Hitler of anti-white propaganda? If a person damages your car, cursing him might feel good, but the only way to fix things is to get some sort of compensation.

How can Hitler compensate us for the burden of “Hitler”? All he has to offer us today is knowledge. So if we can learn something from Hitler that actually helps our race, that would at least contribute to lessening or lifting the burden of “Hitler.” If you really believe that “Hitler” is keeping the white race down, then pick Hitler up: read Mein Kampf, Hitler’s Table Talk, etc. and see if you can glean some useful truths.

There is a lot of truth there: about race, history, the Jewish question, political philosophy, economics, culture, religion, and the dead ends of bourgeois liberalism and conservatism. Mein Kampf is filled with practical advice about radical political organizing and propaganda that remains valid to this day.

Hitler was right about another thing as well: “The National Socialist doctrine, as I have always proclaimed, is not for export. It was conceived for the German people” (Hitler-Bormann Documents, Feb. 21, 1945). What he means is that the ideas behind National Socialism may be universally and eternally true, but the National Socialist movement—its political platforms, symbolism, and other external trappings—are the products of a particular time and place. Thus people who dress up like Storm Troopers in 21st century America have only a superficial understanding of Hitler’s teachings. A real follower of the Leader would look as American as apple pie.

You might also pick up a few good books about Hitler and the Second World War, just so you do not fall into the trap of discussing them in terms of preposterous war propaganda like “Hitler started the Second World War” and “Hitler was out to conquer the world.” Begin with Patrick Buchanan’s Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. I would also look at A. J. P. Taylor’s The Origins of The Second World War. And be sure to read David Irving’s enthralling and fact-packed books The War Path and Hitler’s War, available in a single volume: Hitler’s War and the War Path. Lesser researchers routinely plunder them, so you might as well go back to the source.

I do not think that the progress of White Nationalism in the 21st century requires the rehabilitation of Hitler and the Third Reich, which in any case would be an infinite task for scholars and a distraction for political activists. But when historical clichés are regularly lobbed at us like grenades, every responsible adult needs the basic knowledge necessary to defuse them. We don’t need to be doctors of revisionism, but we should be able to apply some battlefield first aid.

Perhaps the most subversive thing one can do regarding Adolf Hitler is simply to ignore those who hate or love him blindly and instead discuss him rationally and objectively, like any other historical figure. If you follow this advice, I guarantee that the burden of “Hitler” will begin slowly to fade.

But you also may discover that the burden of thinking “Hitler” was wrong is nothing compared to the burden of believing that Hitler was right.

Sacrificial lamb

by Jack Frost

 
Valerie-SjodinIn our culture, shaped as it has been by Christianity, the premier innocent victim is and always has been Jesus.Jew-lamb
He laid the groundwork; established the archetype.

It’s inconceivable that the Holocaust racket would have been as successful as it has been in a non-Christian culture.

Published in: on June 4, 2015 at 10:00 am  Comments (4)  

Freedom for Germany

by William Pierce

wlp_bas_relief

Pierce delivered his third radio speech on American Dissident Voices in November 1993. A text is needed but here you can listen his words.

Update of 7:20 pm: I owe this transcript to Alex!:

A month ago, an American engineer from Massachusetts, Fred Leuchter, was arrested by the German secret police in Cologne, Germany. He had been invited by a German television station to talk about his 1988 investigation of the gas chambers in the former concentration camp at Auschwitz, Poland. Mr. Leuchter, whose profession is designing gas chambers and other lethal devices for prisons, had been hired as an expert witness in a legal case, in which it was alleged that the defendant had lied in saying that 4 million Jewish prisoners weren’t killed in gas chambers at Auschwitz during the Second World War.

Mr. Leuchter had dutifully traveled to Auschwitz with several assistants and made his investigation. He had carefully examined the alleged gas chambers there: the doors and windows; the floors, and walls, and ceilings; the shower fixtures, which show, the official story went, had been used to introduce poison gas into shower rooms full of unsuspecting Jews. He had even collected scrapings from the walls and had them chemically analyzed.

Mr. Leuchter had concluded, back in 1988, that Jews may or may not have been killed at Auschwitz during the war, but that 4 million of them certainly had not been gassed to death in the buildings at Auschwitz, identified in the tourist brochures as “gas chambers.” His investigation had convinced him that these buildings were not used for that purpose, and, indeed, couldn’t have been used for that purpose.

He had testified about his findings during the 1988 trial, and had spoken about them in public several times since then, because what happened during the Second World War remains a matter of considerable interest to many people around the world today. But why, we might ask, should the German secret police arrest an American tourist in order to keep him from talking about such matters on a television program?

Certainly, it isn’t illegal in Germany to talk about the Second World War, or about gas chambers, or about the so-called “Holocaust.” These are frequent topics in the German media and in German classrooms. There’s nothing illegal about them. That is, there’s nothing illegal in talking or writing about these things if one does it in a politically correct way. But it is illegal in Germany to be politically incorrect.

The politically correct position on the Holocaust is that 6 million Jews, for absolutely no fault of their own, were killed in gas chambers by the Germans during the Second World War – 4 million of them at Auschwitz alone. As long as you stick to that line, you can talk about the Holocaust all you want in Germany. But if you say, “Hey, maybe some Jews were killed at Auschwitz during the war, but I really don’t think that 4 million were killed in the gas chambers there, because I’ve been to Auschwitz and examined the facilities,” if you say that in public, the German secret police will grab you, and throw you in prison, and you’ll be facing a five year prison term.

There are a lot of other things one can’t talk about in Germany too. One can be thrown in prison for questioning other aspects of the official version of the Second World War, for talking about the mass murders of German soldiers in Allied prisoner of war camps after the war, for example. It’s illegal to suggest that Germany was not solely responsible for the war. It’s illegal to say that the National Socialist government of Germany was justified in any of its policies or actions before or during the war. One also can get into trouble with the police for campaigning for the return of territory taken away from Germany by the victors after the war, or for complaining about the continued admission of non-White immigrants into Germany today.

The result of these bans on politically incorrect speech is that hundreds of Germans are imprisoned today in Germany, along with Mr. Leuchter, and dozens of patriotic groups and politically parties have been outlawed, all for daring to talk about politically inconvenient facts or to express politically incorrect ideas.

One of the most bizarre aspects of the German government’s outlawing of dissent is that it’s a completely one-sided thing. In Germany today, you are free to tell the most outrageous lies you want, so long as your lies are anti-German. You can state in public that the Germans killed more than 6 million Jews during the war. You can say they killed 100 million Jews, and that, in retribution, the German people should pay reparations to the government of Israel forever. You can say that and the secret police won’t bother you. But if you say, “Hey, it was fewer than 6 million,” you’re in trouble.

And you can insult the Germans. You can falsify their history. You can spit on the graves of their patriots. You can praise their enemies. And the German government will smile at you. This strange behavior by the German government has puzzled some people, and they’ve theorized that the Germans behave that way because of a feeling of guilt for their wickedness during the war 50 years ago. That, of course, is a lot of baloney. The Japanese don’t feel guilty for their role in the war. The Russians don’t feel guilty because of the crimes of their former communist government.

The reason the German government behaves the way it does has a simple historical explanation. At the end of the Second World War, the victorious democratic and communist occupying powers installed a German government of their own choosing. First, they removed every legitimate official from office, unless he could prove that he had secretly worked against his own country during the war. And they did the same thing with the media and the schools. The Allies made treason the criterion for holding public office, or teaching, or publishing a newspaper in Germany.

The only people who could run for public office were Jews, who had miraculously survived the alleged “extermination camps,” or communists, or shirkers, who had fled the country during the war to avoid serving in the German army, much in the way Bill Clinton did over here during the Vietnam War. So one had a post-war government in Germany made up of anti-patriots, of people who had a vested interest in maintaining the official lies that were the party line of the Allied occupying powers.

The present government in Germany is the direct descendent of this anti-patriotic puppet government installed by the conquerors after the war. The last legitimate German government is the one elected in 1933 before the war. So it’s easy to understand why the present government in Germany doesn’t want the German people thinking about that fact, and that’s why the government has made it illegal to criticize the people to whom the present politicians owe their jobs, or to question the whole rationale of the war and its aftermath.

Now, it’s troubling to me, and many others, that the United States government encourages the suppression of human rights in Germany in order to keep the German puppet regime in power there. If an American citizen had been arrested anywhere else in the world merely for agreeing to appear on a television program, the U.S. State Department would protest vigorously, and the matter would be headline material in all our major newspapers. But in the case of Fred Leuchter, there is no protest, and there are no headlines.

This is also troubling because it’s hypocritical. The Clinton government makes a great pretense of supporting human rights around the world. This pretense sometimes serves as the pretext for sending American troops to force some Third World country into line with New World Order. But it is still only a pretense.

The arrest of Fred Leuchter and the lack of response by the Clinton administration to his arrest are most troubling, however, because they are indicative of a trend. Dissent is outlawed in Germany today, and it will be outlawed in America sooner or later, because the same interests in America that approve of stifling German patriots and criminalizing political incorrectness in Germany are pushing for similar governmental policies in America.

There are many people in the Clinton administration who would love to be able to arrest anyone who speaks out against their policy of gun confiscation, for example. They would love to lock up everyone who argues against the continued destruction of U.S. industry through so-called “free-trade agreements” with the Third World. There are people in the government who really believe that it ought to be against the law for anyone to speak out against the flood of non-White immigrants into America, that it ought to be against the law to call for deporting all non-Whites to Africa or Asia.

And there are, of course, the people behind the Clinton administration, the people to whom the Clintonistas look for guidance, people who know that they must make it illegal for anyone to pull the curtain aside and reveal their presence to the public. They understand that they cannot survive if a majority of the American population becomes fully aware of their control of the news and entertainment media, and their manipulation of public opinion and of the political process through that control.

They know that they must limit the spread of information about themselves, about their power, about the crimes they have committed against humanity. And they will try to stifle patriots in America. They will try to silence every dissident voice, just the way they have in Germany, by making it illegal to speak the truth, illegal to challenge their policies.

One might think that in mass-democracies, such as we have in Germany and in the United States, the string-pullers could tolerate a little dissent. After all, probably 70 or 80 percent of the general public really believe the lies they’re told by their TV commentators and by their politicians. Television is a very persuasive medium.

In the United States, we just saw a very substantial portion of the public, perhaps even a majority, let themselves be convinced by television propaganda that the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement would be a good thing for them. They’re in the process now of letting themselves be convinced that they’ll actually be safer when it becomes illegal for law-abiding citizens to have firearms for self-defense.

So, why should the people who control the mass media be afraid of letting a few individuals contradict them with the facts? The answer to that is that the truth can be a very dangerous weapon when used skillfully and aggressively. People who deal principally in lies are afraid of having this weapon used against them.

In Germany, for example, where it is illegal to question the official Holocaust story of 6 million gassed Jews, the dissenters were coming up with too many embarrassing facts, too much evidence that the government and the media had been lying to the public about what had happened during the war. The dissent was spreading. Competent people, including historians and other scholars, were questioning the numbers. Eye witnesses, who had been silent for decades, were speaking out about what had really happened during and immediately after the war, about who had done what to whom, about who were the real war criminals.

And so the German government, whose whole existence really is based on the lie of German guilt, simply made it illegal to question that lie. That’s why an American citizen, Fred Leuchter, is sitting in a German prison now. And the fact that the Clinton administration has not protested his imprisonment is a pretty good indication that the Clinton administration doesn’t really disapprove of locking people up for political incorrectness.

Criminalizing speech and thought, in fact, has become quite fashionable in the crowd of New World Order elitists. They believe that they know what’s best for everyone, and any dissent just confuses people: better to outlaw it, throw the trouble makers into prison, if they won’t adjust their thinking to the New World Order.

One of the consequences of this New World Order intolerance is the plague of so-called “hate legislation,” which has been imposed on the American people in the last decade. It used to be that if you punched someone in the nose, for any reason except self-defense, you could simply be charged with assault and battery. Nowadays, it’s not so simple at all. What you’ll be charged with depends on the color of your skin, the color of the nose you punched, and, most important, what you think about people of the color you punched. Anything you have ever said or written in the past, which may indicate that you punched for a politically incorrect reason, will be held against you.

And it used to be that on university campuses in America, any topic at all was open for debate, and that students and faculty members were free to express any opinion whatsoever on the topic. Freedom of that sort has become very unfashionable today, however. Faculty members are fired and students are expelled for expressing politically incorrect opinions. The atmosphere of intellectual tolerance on American university campuses today is closer to that which prevailed in Spain during The Inquisition than that which was the norm in America before about 1960.

And it will become much worse before it becomes better. The same clever liars, who have managed to persuade a substantial portion of the American people and a majority of the politicians that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution doesn’t really mean what it says, are also working on the First Amendment. Freedom of speech, they want everyone to believe, really means freedom to say fashionable things, freedom to express politically correct ideas, freedom to discuss subjects which aren’t on the forbidden list, freedom to state opinions which don’t offend the government or the members of any officially protected minority.

That’s the way it is in Germany. That’s the way they want it in America. That’s the direction in which the United States government is moving. And it’s moving faster under the Clintonistas than it ever has before.

What can we do about it? How can we restore our right to armed self-defense? How can we preserve our right to speak our minds? What can we do to restore a spirit of free inquiry to our universities? There is no single easy answer to these questions. Part of the answer is vigilance. If we want to preserve our liberty, we must always be vigilant. Part of the answer is the way we live and the way we raise our children. We have become a soft, fearful, feminized people, too willing to surrender our manhood rather than fight, too ready to trade freedom for an imagined security, too eager to look to the politicians and the government for support and protection instead of relying on ourselves.

Part of the answer is a broader, more enlightened view of the world. In the past, we let ourselves be divided against each other by clever enemies. We let ourselves be persuaded that it was all right to take freedom away from Germans so long as Americans kept theirs. We need to understand that unless the healthy, freedom loving elements in America and Europe stand together against our common enemies and against the sick elements among ourselves, who have come under the influence of those enemies, eventually none of us will be free.

Finally, if we want to preserve a right, we must exercise that right. This is especially true of the right of free speech. When the people who control the media begin trying to persuade us that we don’t really need the right to say unfashionable things, just like they persuaded so many people that no one really needs a semi-automatic rifle, then we must speak up loudly and clearly, instead of remaining silent until our right to speak is legislated away, as already has happened in Germany.

All of you listening now, join me in speaking out against those who want to steal our freedom. Speak out against the politicians in Germany who are keeping Fred Leuchter in prison. Speak out against the politicians in America who have refused to protest his arrest. Speak out against the enemies of freedom everywhere, against the Helmut Kohls and the Bill Clintons, against the Feinsteins, and the Metzenbaums, and the Schumers, and the Moynihans in the U.S. Congress.

Use every means at your disposal to make yourself heard. Use call-in radio and television programs. Use letters to the editor of every newspaper and magazine you read. Use bulletin boards. Use graffiti. And use courage and perseverance. Tell everyone, “Freedom for Fred Leuchter. Freedom for Americans and for Germans. Down with the New World Order and the enemies of freedom everywhere!”