With malice aforethought

by William Pierce

wlp_bas_relief

 

A review of the movie The Crying Game, American Dissident
Voices (September 18, 1993). The following text of a radio
address by Pierce is taken from Kevin Strom’s archive.

 

Today I want to talk with you about morality… about standards… about values.

Most of us have heard it said that the reason America is in such a mess today is that our people have lost the values we used to have, and that we need to regain them—that we need to begin teaching values to our kids in the schools.

And I guess I’ll agree with that… but there’s more to it. It’s certainly true that as a nation, or as a race, we’ve lost our values. Or, more accurately, we had them stolen from us. And now, unfortunately, the values we used to have are being replaced by new values which are worse than no values at all.

America hasn’t so much lost its sense of direction as it’s had all the road signs changed while it wasn’t looking. Values are our problem today… but even more, our problem is the people who have deliberately changed our values, deliberately perverted them.

I don’t want to beat around the bush or keep you guessing what I’m getting at, so I’ll come right out with it: the people who control the mass media in America have deliberately and consciously, with malice aforethought, used their influence over the thinking of the people who see their films, who watch their television programs, who read their newspapers and comic strips and popular magazines… they’ve used their influence to twist our values, to reorient our whole way of looking at the world.

Now, most of us have heard that too. We’ve heard about the destructive effect of television and the other mass media on public morality. We’ve heard that there’s too much violence and too much sex on television and that it isn’t good for us. And I guess that I’ll agree with that too… sort of. Too much television isn’t good for us, but it’s not just because of the sex and violence. It’s because television—and films and magazines and the rest of the controlled media—are used for propaganda aimed at subverting the values of our people, especially our young people. And they’re used with malice aforethought.

A lot of us have more or less realized this. We’ve sort of sensed that something was rotten in the media establishment. We felt that the media bosses who run Hollywood and the media bosses who control the TV networks were slyly twisting the view of the world they presented to us, slyly trying to change our attitudes. But the media bosses are clever and they’re subtle, and, of course, they denied everything. And so it often was difficult for ordinary people who felt they were being manipulated to really put their fingers on what the media bosses were trying to do.

And so people have jumped on the too-much-sex-and-violence bandwagon, but that really isn’t the problem at all. The sex and violence in films and television is simply pandering. It’s simply keeping the viewers distracted, so that they won’t complain about the real propaganda. The real propaganda the media bosses have been trying to slip into our minds is the idea of human sameness, the idea that the differences between Blacks and Whites, between men and women, between homosexuals and heterosexuals aren’t significant, aren’t important, that we ought not to notice these differences, and we certainly ought not to take them into account in choosing friends, associates, or lovers… that we ought not to feel any special affinity for people of our own sort, that, in fact, we ought to feel a little guilty if we still have any sense of racial or ethnic identity left, or if we regard homosexuals any differently than we do normal people.

TVThat’s the basic message. That’s the propaganda. But, as I said, the media bosses are subtle, and the average person usually doesn’t see that whole message in any single film or TV show, and so it’s difficult for him to recognize that he’s being manipulated.

The media bosses are getting bolder, however, and a film came out a few months ago which contains pretty much the whole message, and it contains it in a form that’s not at all subtle, that is in fact blatant enough for many people to see for what it is—at least, they should be able to see it once it’s pointed out to them. The film I’m referring to is The Crying Game. It was made by Miramax Pictures. That’s a film company in England which is owned by two Jewish brothers, Bob and Harvey Weinstein. When the film first came out I wasn’t interested in seeing it, because the reviewers in the NY Times and the other major media were all oohing and ahing over it. They considered it a very “sensitive” film, and so I figured it must be more of the same, old trash.

Well, I was wrong. A friend sent me a video of the film, and I viewed it a couple of days ago.

In case you haven’t seen the film, let me run briefly through the plot. It opens in present-day Northern Ireland. A British soldier is enticed by an Irish girl he meets at a carnival to head off into the bushes for a little sex, where he is immediately kidnapped by members of the Irish Republican Army, to be held as a hostage in retaliation for the arrest of an IRA man by the British Army. Nothing the matter with that as a movie plot, of course—except that the “British” soldier just happens to be Black. No one pays the least attention to that rather startling fact, even as the Black soldier kisses and fondles the blonde Irish girl in the midst of the carnival crowds. The message the filmmakers are sending us here is that the soldier’s race makes no difference, either as a soldier or as a lover. We are being told that we should see nothing amiss in a typical British soldier being Black, or in a Black man romancing a White girl.

While he is being held hostage, a friendship develops between the Black soldier and one of his Irish captors, a man named Fergus. Eventually the time comes to kill the captive, but before that the Black has shown Fergus a photograph of the girl back in London he really loves, a mulatto, and he makes Fergus promise to visit the mulatto girl and tell her that his last thoughts were of her.

Fergus keeps his promise—more or less. But he also falls in love with the mulatto girl. Then, in the course of trying to make love to her he discovers that she’s really a man: a homosexual female impersonator. At first that disconcerts Fergus rather badly, but by the film’s end he’s shed his prejudices, his bigotry, and he’s realized that it really doesn’t make any difference, that he loves the homosexual mulatto after all, just as the Black soldier had done before him.

Now, I’ve skipped a lot of the lurid details, which would get this program thrown off the air if I described them to you, but you get the picture: race doesn’t matter, sex doesn’t matter, sexual orientation doesn’t matter. All that matters is love. Every effort to discriminate—to distinguish—between Blacks and Whites, between men and women, between homosexuals and heterosexuals is bigotry, is prejudice, is hatred. We’re all human beings, the film tells us, and that’s the only thing that’s important. We should ignore everything else and love others, without regard for these superficial differences.

The people who made The Crying Game don’t believe that, of course. That’s just what they want us to believe. They understand that any race which absorbs their message, any nation which absorbs their message, any society which absorbs their message… has been morally disarmed and has been made helpless against its enemies. The race which absorbs and takes their message to heart has lost its ability to discriminate and therefore its ability to survive. It’s a race ripe for exploitation, ready to be plucked and slaughtered, a race unable to defend itself against the predatory tribe to which Bob and Harvey Weinstein belong.

As I said, the media bosses prepare their message for us with malice aforethought.

Now, if you think I overstate my case, if you think I exaggerate, if you think I’m being unfair to the media bosses, I invite you to view The Crying Game yourself. It’s available in video stores everywhere. View it for yourself. See if you don’t agree with me about what the Weinstein brothers are trying to tell us.

Their message, of course, is the same message we get from all of the controlled media these days. The only thing unique about The Crying Game is that it rubs our faces in their filth so much more forcefully than most other films do. Usually they don’t slap us right in the face with the whole message at once. Usually they sugarcoat it and slip in just a bit of it here and there. Usually they don’t let us see so clearly what they’re aiming at. Usually they just teach us to parrot a few of their Politically Correct clichés about the evils of “discrimination” and about how wonderful “multiculturalism” and “diversity” are.

After I viewed The Crying Game I reread the reviews of the film. I want to read you a few short extracts from these reviews. The NYT reviewer, Bernie Weinraub, bubbles about how the film explores “the blurred nature of love, trust, and compassion.”

Blurred, indeed, for Mr Weinraub and the Weinstein brothers!

Weinraub then goes on to quote the film’s director and scriptwriter, who says his film is “a love story, in the broadest possible sense. It’s about the extremes of love and the responsibilities of love, and how two characters find a way to love each other who are divided by many things. It’s also about how one person loses himself to find himself. The central character loses all the different facets of what he thought was his identity. Once he does that he finds the human being in himself.”

Newsweek magazine gushingly calls the film a “study of what constitutes moral virtue.” Newsweek tells us: “If the test of a good movie is how it makes an audience feel when the lights come up, The Crying Game is a very good movie indeed. It leaves one giddy.”

Isn’t that something! Not a mention of the film’s portrayal of homosexuality and miscegenation as normal, healthy behavior we all should feel good about. The film, according to the reviews, is about love, about finding the human being in oneself. It makes audiences feel so good they are giddy.

What are we to think about the people who made this film and the people who reviewed it and the people in Hollywood who awarded it several Oscars? The Weinstein brothers and Bernie Weinraub and the rest of their tribe are so arrogant as to tell us that every standard of quality, every standard of behavior, every standard of beauty and righteousness which has guided our race for thousands of years is bad because it discriminates, and that we have to throw them all out and be undiscriminating.

While laughing up their sleeves and smirking behind their hands they come into our country and tell us that it is wrong for us to discriminate between decent and indecent behavior, between our own race and other races, between what is natural and what is unnatural, between what is wholesome and beautiful and what is filthy and ugly. It’s all the same, they say; that’s the new morality.

How can anyone be so pushy? How do they get away with it? Why do we permit people who so clearly are working to destroy us morally to carry on their destructive activity? Why did we permit them to take over our newspapers and magazines, our film industry, our television?

Part of the answer to that question is, as I said before, that these people usually are not so obvious about their intentions as they were in The Crying Game. Usually they make films which simply entertain people, while slipping in just a little poison unnoticed by most of us.

And part of the answer lies in a peculiarity of human nature, a peculiarity which the great Danish storyteller Hans Christian Andersen commented on more than a century ago in his story titled “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” When the average person sees a film as shocking and evil as The Crying Game, he doesn’t simply say to himself, hey, that was a shocking and evil film, which aims at making us abandon our sense of right and wrong, our sense of discrimination.

And he certainly doesn’t say that to his friends and neighbors. Instead he looks around to see what other people’s reaction to the film is. He listens to what the opinion molders are saying, the film reviewers. And if they say, hey, this was a wonderful, sensitive film about love, then he’ll simply suppress his own reaction to the film, and he’ll tell the people around him, oh, wasn’t that a sensitive film! Even sophisticated, educated, intelligent people will behave that way. Remember, in Hans Christian Andersen’s story it wasn’t a professor or a successful businessman but a child who said, “Mommy, mommy, look, the emperor is naked!” And then, if you remember the story, the other spectators who heard the child also began saying, yes, the child is right, the emperor is naked.

Perhaps Andersen was a little too optimistic about human nature if he really believed that one lone voice of truth and reason could shatter the whole fabric of lies and deceit which the masters of the controlled media have woven around us. But I believe, nevertheless, that individuals must speak out now: we must say to everyone around us, films like The Crying Game are not about love. They are about the abandonment of values and standards. They are about giving up our power to discriminate. They are about surrendering to evil.

We must say these things not just because they are right, but also because some people who hear us will wake up, just like the people in the crowd admiring the emperor’s new clothes woke up when they heard the child saying what should have been obvious to everyone. We must say that it is not love to permit Blacks to fondle and kiss White women or to treat a homosexual female impersonator as if he were a normal woman. It is racial suicide. It is filth and sickness. We must say that loudly and clearly. And we also must say that the people who have been trying to twist our values, the film-makers and the film reviewers and the television network bosses, are evil people, and we should not tolerate their presence in our society. We should rid ourselves of them by whatever means is necessary.

We should understand that those who want to rob us of our values are as dangerous to us as those who want to steal our possessions or our liberty. Those who try to make us believe that anything goes and that it’s wrong of us to discriminate are as much our enemies as any gang of terrorists bent on destroying our society. The Weinsteins and the Weinraubs and their ilk are trying to destroy us morally.

And they’re succeeding. Just look at the filth we elect to public office in this country. Look at what we tolerate in the White House and in the Congress.

You know, a single film and a few deceitful reviews seem like an inconsequential thing. It is, after all, just entertainment, and we might think that we can take it or leave it.

No, no, really—it’s more than that. It’s part of a vast, concerted, ongoing effort, and it does have consequences. We can see those consequences all around us, from the Clintonistas in Washington to the breakdown of order in our cities and the loss of discipline in our kids’ schools.

We don’t have to put up with that any longer. We don’t have to pretend that we don’t notice what’s been happening. We can stand up and speak out. We can make others wake up. We can begin taking this country back. It’s time to start doing it.

America since World War 2

(an interview with Pierce)

wlp_bas_relief

“And, yes, they [the Jews] deserve a great deal of blame.
But not all the blame. Perhaps not even most of it.”

—William Pierce (see below)



November 7, 1992

Kevin Alfred Strom: With the excitement of the election behind us now, what do you see ahead for Americans during the next four years?

William L. Pierce: More of the same.

KAS: You mean you think the recession will continue?

WLP: Actually, I didn’t mean that. I meant that America will remain on the same downward course she’s been on since the Second World War. I can’t predict the little ups and downs of the economy. But I can predict that, so long as certain very fundamental flaws remain in our society, we will continue going from bad to worse, in the long run. Whether the so-called “economic indicators” that the government publishes go up or down, whether we temporarily pull out of the present recession or not, economic life for the average White American will become bleaker in the years ahead. Worse, his social life will become more sterile, his cultural life more debased. Worst of all, his spiritual life, his view of his own meaning and purpose, will continue to shrivel.

KAS: My, you’re not very positive today, are you? Can you explain your gloomy prediction for us? Can you tell us just what you mean, can you give us the details, when you say that life for White Americans will continue to become worse? In what way will the economy become worse, for example?

WLP: The economy will become worse in that the average White family will work longer and harder for a smaller reward, for fewer of the necessities of life, for less security, for a meaner life style than before. The average standard of living, in other words, will continue to decline, just as it has in during the past few years. And this is something which absolutely did not depend on the outcome of the recent election. Both Clinton and Bush have been supporters of globalizing the US economy. They both have been boosters of the New World Order, in other words. They both support the removal of trade barriers with Mexico, for example, which will accelerate the export of American industry and American jobs to Mexico, simply because wages are much lower there. The effect of this, of course, will be gradually to raise wages in Mexico, while they are pulled down in the United States.

But, then, that’s the whole rationale behind the push for globalization, the push for the New World Order, isn’t it? Equalize living standards around the world. Lift up the poor non-Whites in the Third World and drag down the rich Whites. Give everyone a fair share of industry and the wealth which goes with it. Break down national and racial barriers. Homogenize the world, economically, racially, culturally. That’s the idea which has been pushed inexorably and unceasingly by the controlled media ever since the Second World War. The controlled media have made this idea of globalization fashionable; they’ve made it a Politically Correct idea, and therefore no one in the controlled political establishment in this country, whether Democrat or Republican, dares oppose it.

KAS: So it’s this bipartisan push for a global economy which leads you to predict that the US economy will continue to decline, no matter which party is in the White House?

WLP: That’s one of the reasons, and it’s an important reason, but there are also others. There is the continuing, unchecked flood of non-White immigration into America, for example. There’s the continued policy of favoritism shown to non-Whites in university admissions, in the awarding of scholarships, in hiring, and in promotions. And there’s the growing burden of supporting an unproductive and largely non-White welfare class. All of these reasons for future economic decline are thoroughly entrenched, they’re long-term, and they’re bipartisan reasons.

Which is to say that they’re Politically Correct, and so neither the Democrats nor the Republicans dare do anything about them. Can you imagine either a Democrat or a Republican proposing that we cut off all non-White immigration into the United States and try to restore America as a White country? Can you imagine one of them proposing that the government should no longer provide any support to the millions of inner-city residents now on welfare and should use all necessary force to maintain order if they don’t like it? There’s no more chance of that than there is of either a Democrat or a Republican President announcing that the New World Order is a scheme intended to reduce the White American worker to the same level as the Mexican peon and the Chinese coolie and that we’ll have no part of it.

And because there’s simply no chance that the controlled political establishment in this country, Democrat or Republican, will address or even admit the existence of the fundamental reasons for the declining living standard of Americans, I can predict with complete confidence that the economy will continue to decline, over the long run. There are various paper-shuffling tricks, of course—fiddling with interest rates, changing the tax structure, rearranging the Federal budget—which can make temporary changes in the economy, apparent changes, but they can’t cure this country’s real economic problems.

KAS: That’s interesting. But you know, the so-called economic “experts” that we hear on the controlled media disagree with you completely. They tell us that this recession is just a little anomaly, a little readjustment, and that over the long run everything is rosy. They say that the globalization of our economy is helping America by allowing us to export more of our products. They say that non-White immigration is boosting our economy by providing us with needed skills and eager workers. Here’s a recent issue of Business Week. The headline on the cover says, “The immigrants: how they’re helping the U.S. economy.” Are the media experts wrong?

WLP: Yes, they’re wrong, and what’s worse they know they’re wrong. They’re deliberately lying to us, deliberately misleading us, just as much as the politicians are. It doesn’t take a genius to see what’s happened to the economy of this country since the Second World War. The experts rave about the benefits the new World Order is bringing to us by allowing us to increase our exports. But the cold, hard reality is that globalization has brought us an enormous trade deficit.

The fact is that it has wiped out whole industries in this country and exported them overseas: the consumer electronics industry, for example, or the machine tool industry. The fact, not the theory, is that millions of Americans are being forced to switch from high-paying jobs in manufacturing and basic industry to low-paying service jobs. The fact is that before the Second World War most American families needed only one wage earner to keep them comfortable and secure; wives and mothers could stay at home and take care of their families. Today, of course, most mothers have to work outside the home. The fact is that our economy isn’t getting better and better; it’s actually getting sicker and sicker.

KAS: You keep referring to the changes which have taken place in the economy since the Second World War. Why is that? What does the war have to do with it?

WLP: The Second World War really has everything to do with it. It was, after all, an ideological war, one could almost say a religious war, a war between two fundamentally different world views.

On one side were the believers in quality over quantity, the elitists, the believers that White people, Europeans, are more progressive, are better able to maintain and advance civilization, and should hold onto their position of world mastery.

On the other side were the believers in quantity over quality, the egalitarians, the believers in racial and cultural equality, the people who thought it was wicked for the United States to remain a White country, wicked for White Britain to have a world empire, wicked for White Germany to be allowed to smash communism, wicked to permit nationalism to triumph over internationalism. And the fact is that the egalitarians won the war. After the Second World War White Americans could no more justify keeping hordes of hungry, non-White immigrants out of their country than Englishmen could justify hanging onto the British Empire. They had cut the moral ground right out from under themselves.

KAS: Of course, that’s not the way it was presented to Americans back in the 1940s. We were all taught that we went to war to keep America free, that we were fighting against tyranny, that we were fighting on the side of decency and justice.

WLP: Nonsense. We were fighting on the side of the folks who marched the entire leadership stratum of the Polish nation into the woods and murdered them. And the people who control our news and entertainment media knew that too. When the German Army discovered those huge pits full of murdered Polish officers and intellectuals, they called in the world press to look at the evidence. But the controlled media kept it quiet, so that we would keep fighting on the side of the murderers.

After the war they blamed it on the Germans. And there was nary a squawk from the controlled media when we turned the surviving Poles, and the Hungarians, and the Balts, and all the rest of the Eastern Europeans over to the same gang of cutthroats who had butchered Poland’s leaders in 1940. Of course, it made sense in a sick sort of way. After all, murdering a nation’s elite is an egalitarian act. After you kill off the most intelligent, the most able members of a nation the ones who’re left will be more nearly equal.

KAS: And easier to control.

WLP: Yes. But the point is that, the reasons given to the American people for getting into the war against Germany were all spurious. It was not a war to keep America free. Americans weren’t in the slightest danger of losing their freedom to the Germans. It was, as I said, an ideological war. It was a war about what kind of ideas would govern the world. It was a war about whether we would be proud and White and strong, or whether we would feel guilty about the fact that Mexican peons aren’t as well off as we are. And we lost the war. That was a real turning point in the fortunes of our race and our nation.

The loss of the Second World War is the real reason for the decline of the U.S. economy—and of our social life, our cultural life, and our spiritual life. Before the war we had a White country, a country determined to stay White. After the war we no longer had that determination. Instead we had the vague feeling that it was wrong of us to want to stay White. After the war when the controlled media began pushing for so-called “civil rights” laws and for opening our borders to the Third World, it was just a continuation of their push to get us into the war on the side of the people who had made Poland a more “equal” country by slaughtering her leaders at the killing pits in the Katyn woods.

We don’t really have time today to trace the whole process of the breakdown of America after the war, but we can look at a few examples which more or less tell the story. We’ve been talking about the economy, but it’s really our whole society which has been corrupted by the war, by the ideology for which the war was fought. Think, for example, about what life is becoming for the millions of White Americans who still live in our cities, especially those cities with a large minority contingent. We are no longer the masters in our own land, and we are paying the price for that decline in status.

Crime has soared enormously in our cities and made life a daily nightmare for millions who cannot move away. Even for those who live in the suburbs and only must work in the cities during the day, crime has become an ever-present constraint, a burden, a limit to their lives. City streets which once were safe for White women and men, by night as well as by day, are now like minefields where we must proceed with caution and be always on guard.

We know who makes our streets unsafe. We know against whom we are obliged to bar our windows. We know whom we must fear if our cars run out of gas or break down at night. And these are the same people whose welfare support imposes such an intolerable burden on our strained economy. And it is interesting that the government cannot solve our crime problem for exactly the same reason that it cannot solve our economic problem: it cannot address the causes; it cannot even admit the existence of the causes, because those causes are Politically Incorrect.

Just as the government economists talk about interest rates and budget adjustments but dare not speak of the effects of globalism on our economy, the sociologists talk about “poverty” as the cause of urban crime, but dare not mention that crime in America today is above all else a racial problem. Or look at what our schools have become, or look at popular entertainment. You know what the purpose of a school should be?

It should be not just to pound facts into the heads of children so they can earn a living; it should be to mold them into good citizens. It should be to teach them about their roots, about their ancestors, about their race. It should be to give them a sense of identity, a feeling of solidarity with their people, a feeling of appreciation for the civilization which their people created. It should be to teach them the values and customs which are peculiar to their people.

But most of the schools in America’s cities cannot do these things. They are not even permitted to try to do these things, because these things are all profoundly racist, the controlled media tell us. The only kind of school which can teach meaningfully about roots and identity is a school which is racially homogeneous, but such schools were outlawed by our government after the Second World War, because they are contrary to the principles for which that war was fought.

When our kids turn to drugs today, when they learn anti-White rap lyrics from the television, when they think Magic Johnson is a hero and say upon meeting a friend, “hey, man, gimme five,” we’re paying the price of the war. I said a few minutes ago that the worst aspect of the breakdown of America was not what’s happened to our economy, but what’s happened to our spiritual life, to our morale, to our idealism, to our character. White Americans haven’t become more stupid in the last fifty years. Most of the people listening to this program understand exactly what I’m saying. They didn’t really need me to point it out to them. They can see it for themselves. It doesn’t take a genius to understand why our schools aren’t working or why the New World Order will hurt Americans as the price of making Mexicans and Chinese more prosperous.

But it does take just a tiny bit of courage to stand up and say these things when we’ve had it drummed into our heads that we always must be Politically Correct. The people listening to this program have for years been watching America being torn down. They have seen the effects of egalitarianism, of liberalism on our society. They have seen one liberal program after another make things worse and worse, and they have listened to the controlled media and the controlled politicians tell them that what’s needed to fix things is more of the same. And they’ve thought to themselves, this is crazy.

But they’ve been afraid to say that out loud. They’ve been afraid to say, “Hey, look, Joe, the emperor doesn’t have any clothes on.” And it’s my considered opinion that this timidity, this willingness to go along with every new insanity imposed on us by the media and the politicians, even when we know it’s unnatural and immoral and destructive of everything worthwhile—this is a spiritual failure. This spiritual failure, this willingness to tolerate evil, is a more serious matter, in my eyes, than our economic decline. When we are able to heal ourselves spiritually, we’ll be able to heal ourselves economically and socially, but not before.

KAS: Is this spiritual failure entirely the fault of the American people? You’ve repeatedly referred to the controlled media as the principal promoters of the ideology which is at the root of our problems. Aren’t they to blame? Aren’t the people who control the media responsible for what’s happening to America? And, by the way, who are these media controllers?

WLP: Well, I think we all know who wields more control over the news and entertainment media than any other group. It’s the Jews. And, yes, they deserve a great deal of blame. But not all the blame. Perhaps not even most of it. After all, they’re only acting in accord with their nature. They’re doing what they always do when they come into a country.

We shouldn’t have let them do it. We should have stopped them when they were taking over Hollywood 75 years ago. We should have stopped them when they began buying up newspapers back before the Second World War. After the war we shouldn’t have let them get anywhere near a television studio. But we didn’t stop them, and the blame for that really lies with those who have set themselves up as our political leaders. They sold us out. They sold out America. They sold out their race. When our kids are exposed to the godawful, anti-White rap musicals from MTV, should we blame the Jewish owner of MTV, Mr Redstone, or should we blame the politicians in Washington who let him get away with it? Personally, I’d go after the politicians first.

KAS: I see your point. Tell us, Dr Pierce, do you think there’s any hope that White Americans ever will go after the politicians who are betraying them? Do you think they ever will regain enough spiritual strength to stand up and say, “Hey, the emperor is naked”?

WLP: I do. I believe that one day they’ll be shouting it from the housetops. More people are angry today about what their government is doing to America than at any time since the Second World War.

As time passes their numbers and their anger will grow. That is inevitable, because the policies of the controlled media and the government are making America an unlivable place.

The condition of the economy helps too. I would really be worried if I thought that the politicians could patch up the economy enough to lull people back to sleep. But I know that they can’t. I know that conditions can only become worse and worse under the policies which come from Washington, regardless of who’s in the White House. And this is what gives me hope for the future. When the pain becomes great enough, anger and frustration will overcome the fear of being Politically Incorrect, even for the most timid White American.

By Way of Deception

Thou Shalt Do War

 

wlp_bas_relief

by William Pierce

The motto of Israel’s spy agency, Mossad, is, according to recently defected Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky: “By way of deception thou shalt do war.” That motto describes more than the modus operandi of the world’s most ruthless and feared organization of professional assassins and espionage agents; it really describes the modus vivendi of an entire race. It is necessary to understand that fact before one can hope to understand fully the role of the Jews in national and world affairs.

The concept of a race eternally at war with the rest of the world is alien to us. It is difficult to believe or even to grasp. When we examine such a concept and begin sifting the evidence it is easy to become confused. On the one hand we have the Old Testament injunctions to the Hebrews from their tribal god, speaking through their prophets, to annihilate every Gentile nation over which they gain power:

And thou shalt consume all the peoples which the Lord thy God shall deliver unto thee; thine eye shall not pity them… thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. (Deuteronomy 7:16, 20:16)

Similarly bloodthirsty, explicit injunctions are repeated so often in the Jews’ holy books that we can only assume that they are meant to be taken seriously. The historical evidence suggests that in ancient times the Jews did indeed take their religion seriously: they were notorious everywhere and at all times as implacable haters of humanity who in turn were thoroughly despised by every people among whom they lived.

Then on the other hand we have the modern, American Jew in the role of humanitarian, shunning the instruments of war and urging that all citizens, including himself, be disarmed, in order to make the streets of our cities kinder and gentler. Not only do the Jews provide the principal impetus to America’s gun-control effort, but they are found in the forefront of every other squishy, do-good movement, from those ostensibly aimed at reducing hostility between the races to those designed to increase tolerance of homosexuals and their practices.

How are we to make sense of this apparently conflicting evidence?

Is the Jew in the U.S. Congress who cites the rising murder statistics and then demands that the government confiscate all privately owned firearms trying to deceive us as to his intentions? When he talks peace and disarmament is he really thinking war against the Gentiles?

And what of the carefully cultivated media image of the Jew as a gentle, inoffensive victim of bigotry, always being persecuted but never persecuting others? Is that also deception? And even if it is, does it necessarily mean that beneath the Jew’s mask of benevolence and innocence hides the malevolent visage of a cunning predator? Perhaps for every bloodsucking Jewish swindler like Ivan Boesky or Michael Milken there is a Jewish benefactor of mankind like polio vaccine developer Jonas Salk, and for every bloody-handed Jewish gangster like Ariel Sharon, Meyer Lansky, or Yitzhak Shamir there is a Jewish Nobel Peace Prize winner like Menachem Begin, Henry Kissinger—or the appropriately named Elie Wiesel.

Or are we also being deceived when the Salks and the Kissingers are held up to us as reasons for not condemning all Jews for the transgressions of some?

By way of deception thou shalt do war.

Does that injunction mean: “If you must wage war—if it is impossible to avoid war—then you stand a better chance of winning by being tricky”? Or does it mean: “Thou shalt wage war, and thou shalt deceive”?

The answer to this question is important. If it is the former—if the Jews, as a whole, are not malevolent, if they have broken with their Old Testament tradition and no longer feel that their racial mission is to destroy all other peoples, but they merely feel that when forced to defend themselves they are justified in using all means, including deception, then we may be able to live on the same planet with them, at a distance. We don’t have to like them or agree with their policies, but we can see the possibility, at least, of some sort of peaceful coexistence, once a separation of peoples has been accomplished.

In seeking the answer we should keep in mind that deception is, in itself, hostile. A policy of systematic deception is tantamount to a policy of war. If we discover that the Jews (as a whole, not just a few swindlers among them) have been deceiving us deliberately and systematically over an extended period of time on any matter of substance, then we may infer that they regard the relationship between us as one of war, and we should respond accordingly.

The pursuit of this inference may be the only path to an unmuddied answer. After all, how do we know that someone is waging war against us? If he makes an open declaration of war and then begins shooting and bombing us, the matter is clear enough. But if, because he always follows a policy of deception, he declares that he is not at war with us and only has our best interests at heart, we may have difficulty in deciding whether the injury he causes us is deliberate or inadvertent.

Suppose he undertakes courses of action which damage us in ways somewhat less directly than shooting and bombing—ways such as bringing hordes of non-Whites across our borders, breaking down the barriers to racial mixing in our society, encouraging permissiveness, undermining our institutions, promoting cultural bolshevism—all the while claiming that he does not regard these things as harmful. If we were a more practical people we might pay less attention to what the Jew says and more to what he does; we might stop worrying about his motive, judge him on the basis of the effect his presence has had on us, and then act accordingly.

Unfortunately, there are many who cannot in good conscience take a stand against the Jew without knowing what is in his heart—and the Jew is aware of this. We must catch him deliberately lying to us, deceiving us systematically and massively, in order to infer that his intent is hostile.

That’s one reason why the unraveling of the “Holocaust” myth is so important to us—and why the Jew clings so desperately to every lie in its fabric.

We should draw some sort of conclusion from the consistency of the Jew’s actions. Virtually everything he does is harmful to us. Without much exaggeration we can say that whenever the Jew takes a stand on a new issue, the proper position for us is on the other side.

Everyone who has read any Jewish literature—i.e., literature by Jews about Jews—has encountered the traditional Jewish character who whenever he must make a decision about something the goyim have done asks himself: “Is it good for the Jews?” That’s an admirable trait in any person, Jew or Gentile: always being concerned first about the welfare of his community, of his tribe, of his race. The Jewish author more often than not sprinkles a bit of dissimulation over it, however, suggesting that it may be unfashionably parochial, but it is excusable on the grounds that the Jews have been obliged by bitter experience to be wary of anything the Gentile does.

It goes without saying, of course, that the same author would regard it as totally inexcusable for a Gentile to use a similar criterion: to ask himself about some policy or action of the Jews, “Is it good for the White race, for Gentiles?” Such a character could only be cast in the role of villain.

And what we never encounter in Jewish literature is a Jewish character weighing a Jewish policy by asking himself: “Is it bad for the goyim?” Unspoken though it may be, however, it seems that this criterion plays as large a role as the first in determining Jewish policies. Perhaps to them it is just another way of saying the same thing—although they are very careful not to phrase it that way. At least, they have been since the Second World War; before that they sometimes seemed to think that the goyim couldn’t read, and chutzpah got the better of discretion. In 1924, for example, the prominent Jewish publicist Maurice Samuel, author of a score of serious books on Jewish matters and recipient of numerous awards from Jewish organizations, wrote in his You Gentiles, a book addressed to his hosts:

We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers forever. Nothing that you will do will meet our needs and demands. We will forever destroy because we need a world of our own, a God-world, which it is not in your nature to build.

Even here, however, there is deception, with the will to destroy masked as piety.

Think of the enormous demographic and social changes which have transformed our world since the Second World War. In 1941 the United States was for all practical purposes a White country. Blacks and other minorities existed, but they were not seen in White residential areas, White schools, White recreational facilities, or most White workplaces. They had a negligible influence on the political process, on public morality, and on the national culture. Racial intermarriage was illegal in most jurisdictions and extremely rare everywhere. America’s city streets were safe by night and by day. There was no drug problem; the use of marijuana, heroin, and other drugs was confined almost entirely to Blacks and mestizos, in their own, separate communities. Teenage pregnancy (among Whites) was as rare as a public display of homosexuality. Schools were orderly, disciplined, and safe.

America had its problems, of course. Whites, even when they are in control of their own destiny, are not angels. Greed, meanness, superstition, and stupidity were reflected in a thousand social and cultural ills. A thoroughly corrupt political system, inevitable in a democracy, provided the country with its top political leaders and public officials. Blacks and other racial minorities, though invisible and powerless, were a festering sore which eventually would have to be dealt with.

The country, however, was still White and gave every indication of staying that way; in the years immediately prior to the war immigration to the United States was predominantly White, with immigrants from Europe outnumbering those from Asia and Latin America combined by five to one. America’s problems were still soluble and Western civilization was still viable, still capable of being cleansed and renewed. Furthermore, in Germany a man was showing the race the way to save itself.

In response to that man’s efforts most of the Western world engaged in an all-out war to destroy him, his works, and his followers. His ideas and teachings became anathema, and the half-century which followed was dedicated to justifying the slaughter and destruction of the war by promoting the antitheses of those ideas and teachings.

He had taught that the White race is the most progressive race and is inherently superior to the non-White races in its civilization-building capacity, and so the elevation of the social and economic levels of non-Whites at the expense of Whites became the premier postwar goal.

He had taught that racial mixing is a crime against Nature, that our race must strive above all else to maintain the integrity of its gene pool, and so racial mixing became the postwar fashion: schoolchildren were bused to achieve mixing in the schools, forced housing laws were passed to achieve residential mixing, laws against miscegenation were struck down everywhere, and the immigration laws were changed to bring a new flood of non-Whites into the country.

He had taught that the building of self-discipline in young people, the strengthening of their will-power and of their ability for self-control, is the most important task of a nation’s educational system, and so in postwar America discipline became a dirty word, and permissiveness became the norm.

He had taught that, just as races differ in their innate abilities, so also do the individuals within a race, and that a healthy and progressive society must conform its institutions to this natural inequality among its members. Consequently, in postwar America egalitarianism became the new religion, and leveling the aim of government. To seek out the best and brightest, in our schools and elsewhere, and give them the recognition and the special training to enable them to move upward to positions of leadership—even to admit the possibility that some were better and brighter than others and could contribute more to civilization—became taboo.

He had taught a healthy, complementary relationship between men and women, with the former as providers and protectors and the latter as nurturers, and the new society he built in Germany was family centered, with laws and institutions aimed at strengthening the family and helping it to provide a sound environment for healthy children. Therefore, after his works were destroyed the victors denounced sexual complementarity as “repressive” and brought women out of the home and into the workforce by the millions, with children relegated to day-care centers. Every sex-role distinction was officially discouraged or outlawed, even to the point of bringing women into the armed forces on an equal footing with men. Feminism and homosexuality flourished with governmental protection.

Today we can see the consequences of these postwar policies all around us, and it is a matter of public record that the Jews have been the primary instigators and propagandists for each of these policies without exception.

They had non-Jewish collaborators in abundance, of course. The legislator primarily responsible for the change in postwar immigration patterns, the late Jewish Congressman from Brooklyn, Emanuel Celler, for many years chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, chose as a co-sponsor for his 1965 immigration bill the Gentile Senator from Massachusetts Edward (Teddy) Kennedy.

The “civil rights” revolutionaries who were organizing “sit-ins” and “freedom rides” during the 1950s and 1960s received their financing, their legal assistance, and their media support from Jews, but without an utterly corrupt and unprincipled Gentile collaborator in the form of Lyndon Johnson, first as Senate majority leader (1955–1961) and later as President (1963–1968), the series of legislative coups which made the agenda of the revolutionaries the law of the land would not have come so easily.

Collaboration has come from Blacks as well as Whites. Many of the organizations pushing for legislated “equality” between Blacks and Whites have been headed by Blacks in recent years. The most venerable of them, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, was given its first Black president as long ago as 1975, after an unbroken succession of Jews (although the separate NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which bills itself as “the legal arm of the civil rights movement,” is still strictly kosher, with a Jewish chief).

In no area of endeavor have the Jews had more willing non-Jewish collaborators than in the postwar promotion of permissiveness. Jews Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin may have been the most flamboyant spokesmen for permissiveness during the 1960s with their “if it feels good, do it” and “kill your parents” maxims for young Americans, but dozens of well-known Gentiles were right on their coattails, from “New Age” guru Timothy Leary with his campaign to popularize LSD and other psychedelic drugs to soft-porn publisher Hugh Hefner and his advocacy of “the Playboy philosophy.”

It is, after all, hardly the case that Jewry forced its way into America with tanks and machine guns and compelled the unwilling Aryans to stand by and watch while their civilization was destroyed and their race corrupted by the Semitic invaders. From the beginning the prey collaborated with the predators at all levels: the primitive Bible-beaters who for generations have been taught by their own kind that the Jews are “God’s Chosen People” and that it’s bad luck to cross them; the jaded, self-indulgent great grandsons and great granddaughters of an earlier generation of hard-headed, hard-working pioneers and entrepreneurs, eager to be amused and titillated by every new fashion in ideology, art, music, or lifestyle dangled before them by wordy, alien hucksters; hungry opportunists in business, in education, and in the cultural establishment, ready to take the part of the obnoxiously pushy but admirably well-organized strangers, once those strangers had established sufficiently strong beachheads to be able to offer favors in return; and, of course, the politicians, democracy’s inevitable maggots, who are ready to ally themselves with the Devil himself if they think they can gain a temporary personal advantage by doing so.

It is clear that when cleanup time comes there’s as much weeding to be done in our own garden as in any other race’s. An inattentive observer might even conclude that the Jews are no more blameworthy for the bad directions taken by our society than our own worst elements are; that as opportunists they merely look for ways to turn the weaknesses they find in us to their own advantage.

Did they push for opening our borders to the Third World because they had a long-range plan to mongrelize us, or were they merely going along with greedy and irresponsible elements of our own race who wanted to keep the cost of labor down?

Have they been the principal promoters behind every destructive fashion in painting and music in order to cut us loose from our cultural moorings, thereby confusing our sense of identity and making us easier prey, or simply because they have recognized the lack of aesthetic discrimination on the part of our consuming masses and are as eager as the confidence men of any race to sell the suckers whatever they’ll buy?

Do they use their control of the entertainment industry to promote the acceptance—and in many cases the approval—of homosexuality, feminism, and interracial sex as a way of softening us up morally and preparing us for slaughter, or are they simply trying to please and thereby win as customers for their commercial sponsors the more degenerate elements of our population?

An inattentive observer might be stumped by such questions. A more attentive observer, however, will note the details, the specifics, as well as the generalities, and he will understand that those details, taken together, are not consistent with simple opportunism but only with war by way of deception.

Forcing the stream of immigration into America after the Second World War to change from White to Brown and Yellow has most notably kept the cost of farm labor down, but Jews are not farmers, and it is difficult to see how they could expect to benefit economically from this change. The influx of non-White immigrants also has kept the cost of certain other types of labor down—restaurant workers, unskilled construction workers—but the connection to any vital Jewish business interest is tenuous at best.

There can be no doubt that culture distortion has been enormously profitable for Jews. With a controlling economic interest in every facet of the popular-culture industry from art galleries to music records, tapes, and compact discs, they make money from nearly every product that the culture-consuming public can be persuaded to buy. And since no one has ever lost a nickel by underestimating the taste of the public, the deliberate Jewish debasement of art and music is understandable on the grounds of greed alone. But the specific directions are not.

In the production and promotion of what might be called “consumer music,” for example, the one great change which has taken place since the Second World War has been the ascendancy of African rhythm over European music. Fifty years ago one could walk into any record store catering to the general public and find 78-rpm phonograph discs with a number of different types of music: classical, hillbilly (a form of White American folk music known today as “bluegrass” and subsumed under the more general heading “country and western”), numerous samples of genuine folk music from Europe, the religious music of the more primitive Christian fundamentalists (“gospel”), and a wide-ranging selection of “popular” music. The last category contained everything from the songs of Stephen Foster to the vacuous, fluffy stuff of the musical comedies which were especially popular then.

Jews already had established a strong beachhead in popular music production—Sigmund Romberg, Richard Rodgers, Oscar Hammerstein, George Gershwin, Jerome Kern, Irving Berlin—but, at least, most popular music, even that composed by Jews, was still based on European forms. Jazz was for all practical purposes the only non-White music being peddled to White consumers, and it constituted a relatively small minority of the wares—although the “swing” and “big band” forms into which jazz evolved took a larger share of the market. Still, much of the available music was White in form and origin, with classical music still prominently represented.

By the end of the Second World War jazz-influenced popular music was evolving away from its Black roots into hybrid forms that most people considered more White than Black. The introduction of the long-playing record, which for the first time permitted people to listen to an entire symphony without changing records, and of high-fidelity sound systems even brought about a renewal of public interest in classical music. At this point the people controlling the music industry could have moved in any of a number of directions. They chose to put their heaviest promotional efforts behind another music form with Black roots: rock ‘n’ roll.

Rock also evolved, of course. Today in its many forms, some of which have moved rather far from their Black origins, it dominates consumer music. And the masters of the industry have begun pushing yet another non-White music form, more blatantly Negroid than anything heretofore: rap.

Today one must look hard to find even a handful of classical cassettes or compact discs in the music section of a K-Mart or other consumer emporium. European folk music can be had only from a few specialty stores. The majority of the music offered to the consuming public is in some significant sense non-White.

Economic democracy might be invoked to explain, at least in part, the displacement of structure by rhythm, as the taste of the average consumer has become more primitive. But it is clear that deliberate promotion has had much to do with this trend. Why have the promoters so consistently chosen directions which weaken and dilute the White cultural heritage?

Certainly, the feminists, homosexuals, and race-mixers are pleased to see themselves depicted on television and cinema screens as people of a morally superior sort, as role models for the younger generation of goyim. Perhaps they even show their appreciation by buying more of the products of the sponsors of Star Trek, True Colors, and other brave, new television productions. But feminists, queers, and interracial couples still make up only a rather small minority of the population, despite the best efforts of the media masters. Wouldn’t it make better economic sense to cater to the majority? There are as many approximately normal consumers who feel at least a twinge of disgust when a television program tries to persuade them that hard-drinking, hard-swearing female soldiers or cops are “normal” as there are bull-dykes who will run out and buy the sponsor’s brand of beer. And there certainly must be more healthy viewers who seethe with suppressed rage when they see a White woman kissing a Black man on the screen than there are avant-garde sickos who applaud such an abomination.

No, opportunism does not explain the Jews’ destructiveness. There is no doubt that they are opportunists. But their opportunism is too consistently destructive. They have too inerrant an instinct for what will be bad for the goyim.

Can their behavior be explained in terms of an alien brand of idealism—an idealism which evolved in the marketplaces and bazaars of the Middle East over the last five thousand years and is natural for them, but which leads to disaster when applied to European society and institutions? Was their support for communism from the middle of the last century up until its recent collapse really based on their sympathy for the oppressed proletariat and their desire for social and economic justice, as they claim? They themselves have been oppressed, they say, and so they have a natural sympathy for the underdog. They will tell you that the reason they promote feminism, argue for the acceptance of homosexuals, and demand the integration of Blacks into every facet of our lives is that their religion requires it of them; the ethics of Judaism is egalitarian, and it specifies that each man be judged only by his or her character.

Undoubtedly there have been naive, starry-eyed idealists among communism’s Gentile propagandists—at least, in those countries which had not yet experienced communism in practice; the great American writer Jack London was one, and there certainly may have been a few Jewish idealists of Marxism as well. But only a person who has no knowledge of communism in practice can believe that those who engineered its revolutionary triumph in Russia or commissared its institutions in Eastern Europe after the Second World War were seekers of justice for the workers.

As for the claim that Jews have an affection for justice and equality greater than that of other races, we only need to look at the ways in which this alleged affection manifests itself in that part of the world where it should be seen in its purest form: namely, Israel and the Israeli-occupied Arab territories. Ask any Palestinian about Jewish justice!

Judaism, of course, is unequivocally opposed to feminism and homosexuality—for Jews. Furthermore, it is a race-based religion, which defines its adherents in terms of their bloodline and declares them inherently superior to all other races. How does their promotion of feminism among the goyim, for instance, square with the well-known Jewish prayer, “I thank you, oh Lord, for not having made me a goy, a slave, or a woman,” which is recited every day by the Orthodox faithful?

In the Talmud, that authoritative compendium of the Jewish oral law, there are a thousand other reminders to the Jew that he is absolutely superior to all other life forms:

Heaven and earth were created only for the sake of the Jews. (Vayikra Rabba 36)

The Jews are human beings, but the goyim are not human beings; they are only beasts. (Baba Mezia 114)

Yahweh created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form and is condemned to serve the Jew day and night. (Midrash Talpioth 225)

So much for Jewish egalitarianism. Jewish solicitude for Blacks in America today is as much a fraud as was the claim of Jewish sympathy for the oppressed proletariat of Russia on the eve of the Bolshevik Revolution.

What truly lies in the Jewish heart was revealed by an exceptional Jew, Baruch Spinoza (like Ostrovsky, a renegade), who wrote in the 17th century:

The love of the Hebrews for their country was not only patriotism but also piety and was cherished and nurtured by daily rites until, like their hatred of other nations, it was absolutely perverse… Such daily reprobation naturally gave rise to a lasting hatred, deeply implanted in the heart: for of all hatred, none is more deep and tenacious than that which springs from extreme devoutness or piety and is itself cherished as pious. (Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, Chapter 17)

The Jewish role in the non-Jewish world and the Jewish motivation for the policies pursued by the Jewish community would be much easier to perceive if the Jews acted in a more consistent and straightforward way: if they spoke with a single voice and spoke truly, saying what really was on their minds. But, then, consistency and straightforwardness would violate the cardinal rule: By way of deception thou shalt do war.

Nevertheless, on a somewhat higher plane of subtlety, there is a consistency in the Jews’ inconsistency. On virtually every major issue—political, social, cultural, moral, or what have you—where there are two principal sides or factions, Jews will be found pushing in both directions and serving as spokesmen for both factions—but with a difference.

Consider: For many years prior to Mikhail Gorbachev’s recent dismantling of the Soviet power bloc and the general recognition of Marxism as a fraudulent, unworkable system, communism’s principal apologists and apparatchiks in the West were Jews. So were a number of anti-communist spokesmen.

During the Second World War, of course, the communists could do no wrong in the eyes of the West’s controlled media, because they were helping to destroy the man about whom the Jewish media masters had nightmares. Thus, while Soviet butchers were torturing thousands of patriots to death in the police cellars of the Baltic countries and liquidating the Polish leadership stratum at the killing pits in the Katyn woods, Jewish communists in the United States were stealing the plans and test results from America’s atomic bomb program and sending them to their colleagues in the Soviet Union.

After the war was over, however, and a reaction began to set in among White Americans as they realized that the communist beast they had unleashed against Eastern Europe might end up devouring them too, it was time for Jews to begin hedging their bets: it was time for the media to begin quoting “responsible” anti-communists. (The “responsible” ones were those who failed to mention the Jewishness of the system they were speaking out against.)

While the memory of Jewish atomic spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg was still fresh and Jewish communist sympathizers such as Robert Oppenheimer were being weeded out of America’s atomic weapons program, Jewish scientist Edward Teller became the spokesman for anti-communist Americans who wanted a strong, nuclear-armed America able to stand up to the Soviet Union. Three decades later, after Jews had rooted for the Viet Cong communists throughout the war in Vietnam, Jews began flocking to the neoconservative movement to speak up for an America strong enough to defend Israel’s interests in the Middle East against the Soviet Union’s Arab clients there. Often they were the same Jews who had been cheering for the Reds a year or two earlier. That really confused the goyim.

Consider: Whenever a gaggle of eggheads gets together in some area to sponsor a classical-music FM radio station as a sole outpost of European culture in a sea of African rock-and-rap rhythm or sub-dimwit gospel bleating, there surely will be a Jew or two among them. And when they are interviewed by the local press, it surely will be one of those Jews who is quoted. That helps to spike any nasty rumors as to who’s behind all of the garbage-music programming at the other stations.

Consider: As I have demonstrated elsewhere, the madness of Political Correctness which has infected America’s colleges and universities is Jewish through and through. And many of those who are urging their colleagues to hold the line against Political Correctness also are Jews (at least, the ones appointed by the media to be spokesmen for academic freedom are). This not only ensures that the Jews manning the PC barricades won’t be criticized as Jews for wrecking our universities, but it preempts those who might try to swing things too far back toward academic freedom.

Consider: While Jew Howard Metzenbaum in the U.S. Senate and Jew Charles Schumer in the U.S. House of Representatives spearhead the legislative drive to strip Americans of their right to armed self-defense and are unanimously and vociferously supported in this effort by the Jewish media, a tiny, Milwaukee-based, Jewish pro-gun group calling itself Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) manages to attract far more attention to itself than its size ordinarily would merit. JPFO is not just a group of pro-gun people who coincidentally happen to be Jews; it is a group of people who are shouting to the world: “Hey, look at me; I am a Jew, and I am in favor of gun ownership.” Whenever a JPFO spokesman is quoted in the news media—which is often enough to give the impression that his organization is right up there with the National Rifle Association, fighting for gun owners’ rights—he flaunts his Jewishness.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that in any contest it’s a good strategy to control your principal opposition. That way you can put on a great show of bad guys versus good guys struggling against each other, but you are always in a position to make the contest go in either direction you want and only as far as you want. Not only do you preempt any real opposition, but you keep the goyim fooled and deflect any criticism of your role in the affair.

By way of deception thou shalt do war.

The deception is masterfully done. It suffices to keep most of the people fooled most of the time. Only a careful study of the details of a number of different social phenomena in which Jews are involved parts the veil of lies and trickery sufficiently for us to see a clear pattern.

The pattern is this: Jews come into any homogeneous society—and such was America at the beginning of this century—as outsiders, as strangers. The society is effectively closed to them. They cannot easily penetrate its institutions. They cannot get their hands on the levers of power. If they try they are noticed, suspected, and resisted. And they always must try. In this they apparently cannot restrain themselves.

To make way for themselves, to open up possibilities for penetration and control, they must break down the structure of the society, corrupt its institutions, undermine its solidarity, weaken its sense of identity, obliterate its traditions, destroy its homogeneity. Thus they inevitably will be in favor of democracy, of permissiveness, of every form of self-indulgence and indiscipline. They will be proponents of cosmopolitanism, of egalitarianism, of multiculturalism. They will oppose patriotism (except when they are inciting their hosts to fight a war on behalf of Jewish interests). They will agitate endlessly for change, change, change, and they will call it progress.

And no matter what they are for or against they will have at least some of their number taking the opposite side: If they are promoting the public acceptance of homosexuality, they also will have a few prominent Jewish publicists bemoaning the downfall of traditional morality and warning of the consequences of the confusion of sexual roles. If their aim is to neutralize the universities as institutions for passing on the historical, intellectual, and cultural traditions of our people to a new generation of potential leaders, at the same time that they are organizing Red Guard brigades to enforce Political Correctness they will have a contingent beating the drums for tradition and free inquiry. If they are working feverishly to disarm White Americans in order to prevent the latter from exercising their right of revolution they will go to the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership for a contrary statement now and then.

What does all of this prove? In the strictest sense of the word, nothing; it is only suggestive.

If you watch a person flip a penny five hundred times, and it always comes up tails, you cannot be absolutely certain that the penny has two tails. But you at least ought to suspect that someone has been working on that penny in his machine shop.

If you study the historical record and observe that every matter of importance in which the Jews have been involved turns out badly for us, even though there are usually a few Jews on our side of the matter, you cannot be absolutely certain that the game is rigged. But you at least ought to suspect that the Jews are following their ancient maxim and waging war against us by way of deception.

— February, 1992

Good war… better peace

To help celebrate the upcoming 70th anniversary of the end of the “Good War” and the beginning of the “Good Peace,” Tom Goodrich offers the following from his books, Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947, and Rape Hate: Sex & Violence in War & Peace.


And so, with the once mighty German Army now disarmed and enslaved in May, 1945, and with their leaders either dead or awaiting trial for so-called “war crimes,” the old men, women and children who remained in the dismembered Reich found themselves utterly at the mercy of the victors. Unfortunately for these survivors, never in the history of the world was mercy in shorter supply.

Soon after the Allied victory in Europe, the purge of Nazi Party members from government, business, industry, science, education, and all other walks of German life commenced. While a surprising number of Nazis were allowed—even compelled—to man their posts temporarily to enable a smooth transition, all party members, high and low, were sooner or later excised from German daily life. In theory, “de-Nazification” was a simple transplanting of Nazi officials with those of democratic, socialist or communist underpinnings. In practice, the purge became little more than a cloak for an orgy of rape, torture and death.

waffen-SS-soldiers-brutalised-american-allied-soldiers-ww2

De-Nazification

Because their knowledge of the language and culture was superb, most of the intelligence officers accompanying US and British forces into the Reich were Jewish refugees who had fled Germany in the late 1930s. Although their American and English “aides” were hardly better, the fact that many of these “39ers” became interrogators, examiners and screeners, with old scores to settle, insured that Nazis—or any German, for that matter—would be shown no mercy.

One man opposed to the vengeance-minded program was George Patton. “Evidently the virus started by Morgenthau and [Bernard] Baruch of a Semitic revenge against all Germans is still working… ,” wrote the general in private. “I am frankly opposed to this war-criminal stuff. It is not cricket and it is Semitic… I can’t see how Americans can sink so low.”

Soon after occupation, all adult Germans were compelled to register at the nearest Allied headquarters and complete a lengthy questionnaire on their past activities. While many nervous citizens were detained then and there, most returned home, convinced that at long last the terrible ordeal was over. For millions, however, the trial had but begun.

“Then it started,” remembered Anna Fest, a woman who had registered with the Americans six weeks earlier.

Such a feeling of helplessness, when three or four heavily armed military police stand in front of you. You just panic. I cried terribly. My mother was completely beside herself and said, “You can’t do this. She registered just as she was supposed to.” Then she said, “If only you’d gone somewhere else and had hidden.” But I consider that senseless, because I did not feel guilty… That was the way it went with everyone, with no reason given.

Few German adults, Nazi or not, escaped the dreaded knock on the door. Far from being dangerous fascists, Freddy and Lali Horstmann were actually well-known anti-Nazis. Records Lali from the Russian Zone:

“I am sorry to bother you,” he began, “but I am simply carrying out my orders. Until when did you work for the Foreign Office?”

“Till 1933,” my husband answered.

“Then you need fear nothing,” Androff said… “We accuse you of nothing, but we want you to accompany us to the headquarters of the NKVD, the secret police, so that we can take down what you said in a protocol, and ask you a few questions about the working of the Foreign Office…”

We were stunned for a moment; then I started forward, asking if I could come along with them. “Impossible,” the interpreter smiled. My heart raced. Would Freddy answer satisfactorily? Could he stand the excitement? What sort of accommodation would they give him?

“Don’t worry, your husband has nothing to fear,” Androff continued. “He will have a heated room. Give him a blanket for the night, but quickly, we must leave…”

There was a feeling of sharp tension, putting the soldier on his guard, as though he were expecting an attack from one of us. I took first the soldier, then the interpreter, by their hands and begged them to be kind to Freddy, repeating myself in the bustle and scraping of feet that drowned my words. There was a banging of doors. A cold wind blew in. I felt Freddy kiss me. I never saw him again.

“[W]e were wakened by the sound of tires screeching, engines stopping abruptly, orders yelled, general din, and a hammering on the window shutters. Then the intruders broke through the door, and we saw Americans with rifles who stood in front of our bed and shone lights at us. None of them spoke German, but their gestures said: ‘Get dressed, come with us immediately.’ This was my fourth arrest.”

So wrote Leni Riefenstahl, a talented young woman who was perhaps the world’s greatest film-maker. Because her epic documentaries—Triumph of the Will and Olympia—seemed paeans to not only Germany, but National Socialism, and because of her close relationship with an admiring Adolf Hitler, Leni was of more than passing interest to the Allies. Though false, rumors also hinted that the attractive, sometimes-actress was also a “mistress of the devil”—that she and Hitler were lovers.

“Neither my husband nor my mother nor any of my three assistants had ever joined the Nazi Party, nor had any of us been politically active,” said the confused young woman. “No charges had ever been filed against us, yet we were at the mercy of the [Allies] and had no legal protection of any kind.”

leni-riefenstahl

Leni Riefenstahl

Soon after Leni’s fourth arrest, came a fifth.

The jeep raced along the autobahns until, a few hours later… I was brought to the Salzburg Prison; there an elderly prison matron rudely pushed me into the cell, kicking me so hard that I fell to the ground; then the door was locked. There were two other women in the dark, barren room, and one of them, on her knees, slid about the floor, jabbering confusedly; then she began to scream, her limbs writhing hysterically. She seemed to have lost her mind. The other woman crouched on her bunk, weeping to herself.

As Leni and others quickly discovered, the “softening up” process began soon after arrival at an Allied prison. When Ernst von Salomon, his Jewish girl friend and fellow prisoners reached an American holding pen near Munich, the men were promptly led into a room and brutally beaten by military police. With his teeth knocked out and blood spurting from his mouth, von Salomon moaned to a gum-chewing officer, “You are no gentlemen.” The remark brought only a roar of laughter from the attackers. “No, no, no!” the GIs grinned. “We are Mississippi boys!” In another room, military policemen raped the women at will while leering soldiers watched from windows.

After such savage treatment, the feelings of despair only intensified once the captives were crammed into cells.

“The people had been standing there for three days, waiting to be interrogated,” remembered a German physician ordered to treat prisoners in the Soviet Zone. “At the sight of us a pandemonium broke out which left me helpless… As far as I could gather, the usual senseless questions were being reiterated: Why were they there, and for how long? They had no water and hardly anything to eat. They wanted to be let out more often than once a day… A great many of them have dysentery so badly that they can no longer get up.”

“Young Poles made fun of us,” said a woman from her cell in the same zone. “[They] threw bricks through the windows, paperbags with sand, and skins of hares filled with excrement. We did not dare to move or offer resistance, but huddled together in the farthest corner, in order not to be hit, which could not always be avoided… [W]e were never free from torments.”

“For hours on end I rolled about on my bed, trying to forget my surroundings,” recalled Leni Riefenstahl, “but it was impossible.”

The mentally disturbed woman kept screaming—all through the night; but even worse were the yells and shrieks of men from the courtyard, men who were being beaten, screaming like animals. I subsequently found out that a company of SS men was being interrogated.

They came for me the next morning, and I was taken to a padded cell where I had to strip naked, and a woman examined every square inch of my body. Then I had to get dressed and go down to the courtyard, where many men were standing, apparently prisoners, and I was the only woman. We had to line up before an American guard who spoke German. The prisoners stood to attention, so I tried to do the same, and then an American came who spoke fluent German. He pushed a few people together, then halted at the first in our line.

“Were you in the Party?”

The prisoner hesitated for a moment, then said: Yes.” He was slugged in the face and spat blood.

The American went on to the next in line.

“Were you in the Party?”

The man hesitated.

“Yes or no?”

“Yes.”

And he too got punched so hard in the face that the blood ran out of his mouth. However, like the first man, he didn’t dare resist. They didn’t even instinctively raise their hands to protect themselves. They did nothing. They put up with the blows like dogs.

The next man was asked: “Were you in the Party?”

Silence.

“Well?”

“No,” he yelled, so no punch. From then on nobody admitted that he had been in the Party and I was not even asked.

As the above case illustrated, there often was no rhyme or reason to the examinations; all seemed designed to force from the victim what the inquisitor wanted to hear, whether true or false. Additionally, most such “interrogations” were structured to inflict as much pain and suffering as possible. Explained one prisoner:

The purpose of these interrogations is not to worm out of the people what they knew—which would be uninteresting anyway—but to extort from them special statements. The methods resorted to are extremely primitive; people are beaten up until they confess to having been members of the Nazi Party… The authorities simply assume that, basically, everybody has belonged to the Party. Many people die during and after these interrogations, while others, who admit at once their party membership, are treated more leniently.

“A young commissar, who was a great hater of the Germans, cross-examined me…,” said Gertrude Schulz. “When he put the question: ‘Frauenwerk [Women’s Labor Service]?’ I answered in the negative. Thereupon he became so enraged, that he beat me with a stick, until I was black and blue. I received about 15 blows… on my left upper arm, on my back and on my thigh. I collapsed and, as in the case of the first cross-examination, I had to sign the questionnaire.”

nurguard

American torture pen

“Both officers who took our testimony were former German Jews,” reminisced a member of the women’s SS, Anna Fest. While vicious dogs snarled nearby, one of the officers screamed questions and accusations at Anna. If the answers were not those desired, “he kicked me in the back and the other hit me.”

They kept saying we must have been armed, have had pistols or so. But we had no weapons, none of us… I had no pistol. I couldn’t say, just so they’d leave me in peace, yes, we had pistols. The same thing would happen to the next person to testify… [T]he terrible thing was, the German men had to watch. That was a horrible, horrible experience… That must have been terrible for them. When I went outside, several of them stood there with tears running down their cheeks. What could they have done? They could do nothing.

Not surprisingly, with beatings, rape, torture, and death facing them, few victims failed to “confess” and most gladly inked their name to any scrap of paper shown them. Some, like Anna, tried to resist. Such recalcitrance was almost always of short duration, however. Generally, after enduring blackened eyes, broken bones, electric shock to breasts—or, in the case of men, smashed testicles—only those who died during torture failed to sign confessions.

Alone, surrounded by sadistic hate, utterly bereft of law, many victims understandably escaped by taking their own lives. Like tiny islands in a vast sea of evil, however, miracles did occur. As he limped painfully back to his prison cell, one Wehrmacht officer reflected on the insults, beatings, and tortures he had endured and contemplated suicide.

I could not see properly in the semi-darkness and missed my open cell door. A kick in the back and I was sprawling on the floor. As I raised myself I said to myself I could not, should not accept this humiliation. I sat on my bunk. I had hidden a razor blade that would serve to open my veins. Then I looked at the New Testament and found these words in the Gospel of St. John: “Without me ye can do nothing.”

Yes. You can mangle this poor body—I looked down at the running sores on my legs—but myself, my honor, God’s image that is in me, you cannot touch. This body is only a shell, not my real self. Without Him, without the Lord, my Lord, ye can do nothing. New strength seemed to rise in me.

I was pondering over what seemed to me a miracle when the heavy lock turned in the cell door. A very young American soldier came in, put his finger to his lips to warn me not to speak. “I saw it,” he said. “Here are baked potatoes.” He pulled the potatoes out of his pocket and gave them to me, and then went out, locking the door behind him.

* * *

Horrific as de-Nazification was in the British, French and, especially the American Zone, it was nothing compared to what took place in Poland, behind Soviet lines. In hundreds of concentration camps sponsored by an apparatus called the “Office of State Security,” thousands of Germans—male and female, old and young, high and low, Nazi and non–Nazi, SS, Wehrmacht, Volkssturm, Hitler Youth, all—were rounded up and imprisoned. Staffed and run by Jews, with help from Poles, Czechs, Russians, and other concentration camp survivors, the prisons were little better than torture chambers where dying was a thing to be prolonged, not hastened. While those with blond hair, blue eyes and handsome features were first to go, anyone who spoke German would do.

Moments after arrival, prisoners were made horrifyingly aware of their fate. John Sack, himself a Jew, reports on one camp run by twenty-six-year-old Shlomo Morel:

“I was at Auschwitz,” Shlomo proclaimed, lying to the Germans but, even more, to himself, psyching himself like a fighter the night of the championship, filling himself with hate for the Germans around him. “I was at Auschwitz for six long years, and I swore that if I got out, I’d pay all you Nazis back.” His eyes sent spears, but the “Nazis” sent him a look of simple bewilderment… “Now sing the Horst Wessel Song!” No one did, and Shlomo, who carried a hard rubber club, hit it against a bed like some judge’s gavel. “Sing it, I say!”

“The flags held high…,” some Germans began.

“Everyone!” Shlomo said.

“The ranks closed tight…”

“I said everyone!”

“Blond!”

Shlomo cried to the blondest, bluest-eyed person there. “I said sing!” He swung his rubber club at the man’s golden head and hit it. The man staggered back.

“Our comrades, killed by the Reds and Reactionaries…”

“Sonofabitch!” Shlomo cried, enraged that the man was defying him by not singing but staggering back. He hit him again, saying, “Sing!”

“Are marching in spirit with us…”

“Louder!”

“Clear the street for the Brown Battalions…”

“Still louder!” cried Shlomo, hitting another shouting man… “Millions of hopeful people…”

“Nazi pigs!”

“Are looking to the swastika…”

“Schweine!” Shlomo cried. He threw down his rubber club, grabbed a wooden stool, and, a leg in his fist, started beating a German’s head. Without thinking, the man raised his arms, and Shlomo, enraged that the man would try to evade his just punishment, cried, “Sonofawhore!” and slammed the stool against the man’s chest. The man dropped his arms, and Shlomo started hitting his now undefended head when snap! the leg of the stool split off, and, cursing the German birchwood, he grabbed another stool and hit the German with that. No one was singing now, but Shlomo, shouting, didn’t notice. The other guards called out, “Blond!” “Black!” “Short!” “Tall!” and as each of these terrified people came up, they wielded their clubs upon him. The brawl went on till eleven o’clock, when the sweat-drenched invaders cried, “Pigs! We will fix you up!” and left the Germans alone.

Some were quite fixed… Shlomo and his subordinates had killed them.

The next night it was more of the same… and the next night and the next and the next. Those who survived the “welcoming committees” at this and other camps were flung back into their pens.

“I was put with 30 women into a cell, which was intended to accommodate one person,” Gerlinde Winkler recalled. “The narrow space, into which we were rammed, was unbearable and our legs were all entangled together… The women, ill with dysentery, were only allowed to go out once a day, in order to relieve themselves. A bucket without a cover was pushed into the cell with the remark: ‘Here you have one, you German sows.’ The stink was insupportable, and we were not allowed to open the little window.”

“The air in the cells became dense, the smell of the excrement filled it, the heat was like in Calcutta, and the flies made the ceiling black,” wrote John Sack. “I’m choking, the Germans thought, and one even took the community razor blade and, in despair, cut his throat open with it.”

When the wretched inmates were at last pried from their hellish tombs, it was only for interrogation. Sack continues:

As many as eight interrogators, almost all Jews, stood around any one German saying, “Were you in the Nazi Party?” Sometimes a German said, “Yes,” and the boys shouted, “Du schwein! You pig!” and beat him and broke his arm, perhaps, before sending him to his cell… But usually a German said, “No,” and the boys… told him, “You’re lying. You were a Nazi.”

“No, I never was.”

“You’re lying! We know about you!”

“No, I really wasn’t—”

Du lugst! You’re lying!” they cried, hitting the obstinate man. “You better admit it! Or you’ll get a longer sentence! Now! Were you in the Nazi Party?”

“No!” the German often said, and the boys had to beat him and beat him until he was really crying, “I was a Nazi! Yes!”

But sometimes a German wouldn’t confess. One such hard case was a fifty-year-old…

“Were you in the Party?”

“No, I wasn’t in it.”

“How many people work for you?”

“In the high season, thirty-five.”

“You must have been in the Party,” the boy deduced.

He asked for the German’s wallet, where he found a fishing license with the stamp of the German Anglers Association. Studying it, he told the German, “It’s stamped by the Party.”

“It’s not,” said the German.

He’d lost his left arm in World War I and was using his right arm to gesture with, and, to the boy, he may have seemed to be Heiling Hitler. The boy became violent. He grabbed the man’s collar, hit the man’s head against the wall, hit it against it ten times more, threw the man’s body onto the floor, and, in his boots, jumped on the man’s cringing chest as though jumping rope. A half dozen other interrogators, almost all Jews, pushed the man onto a couch, pulled off his trousers, and hit him with hard rubber clubs and hard rubber hoses full of stones. The sweat started running down the Jews’ arms, and the blood down the man’s naked legs.

“Warst du in der Partei?”

“Nein!”

“Warst du in der Partei?”

“Nein!” the German screamed—screamed, till the boys had to go to Shlomo’s kitchen for a wooden spoon and to use it to cram some rags in the German’s mouth. Then they resumed beating him… The more the man contradicted them, the more they hated him for it.

Salomon_Morel

Shlomo Morel

After undergoing similar sessions on a regular basis, the victim was brought back for the eighth time.

By now, the man was half unconscious due to his many concussions, and he wasn’t thinking clearly. The boys worked on him with rubber and oak-wood clubs and said, “Do you still say you weren’t in the Party?”

“No! I didn’t say I wasn’t in the Party!”

“You didn’t?”

“No!” said the punch drunk man. “I never said it!”

“You were in the Party?”

“Yes!”

The boys stopped beating him. They practically sighed, as if their ordeal were over now. They lit up cigarettes…

“Scram,” one said to the German. The man stood up, and he had his hand on the doorknob when one of the boys impulsively hit the back of his head, and he fell to the floor, unconscious.

“Aufstehen, du Deutsches schwein. Stand up, you German pig,” the boys said, kicking him till he stood up and collapsed again. Two boys carried him to his cell and dropped him in a corner…

Of course, the boys would beat up the Germans for “Yes”es as well as “No”s. In Glatz, the Jewish commandant asked a German policeman, “Were you in the Party?”

“Of course! I was obliged to be!”

“Lie down,” the commandant said, and six weeks later the boys were still whipping the German’s feet.

Some torture sessions lacked even the pretense of an examination. Remembered Eva Reimann:

My cell door opened. The guard, who, because of the foul smell, held a handkerchief to his nose, cried, “Reimann Eva! Come!” I was led to a first-floor room.

He shouted at me, “Take off your shoes!” I took them off. “Lie down!” I lay down. He took a thick bamboo stick, and he beat the soles of my feet. I screamed, since the pain was very great… The stick whistled down on me. A blow on my mouth tore my lower lip, and my teeth started bleeding violently. He beat my feet again. The pain was unbearable…

The door opened suddenly, and, smiling obligingly, a cigarette in his mouth, in came the chief of the Office, named Sternnagel. In faultless German he asked me, “What’s wrong here? Why do you let yourself be beaten? You just have to sign this document. Or should we jam your fingers in the door, until the bones are broad…?

A man picked me up by the ankles, raised me eight inches above the floor, and let me fall. My hands were tied, and my head hit hard… I lay in a bloody puddle. Someone cried, “Stand up!” I tried to, and, with unspeakable pain, I succeeded. A man with a pistol came, held it to my left temple, and said, “Will you now confess?” I told him, “Please shoot me.” Yes, I hoped to be freed from all his tortures. I begged him, “Please pull the trigger.”

After barely surviving his “interrogation,” one fourteen-year-old was taken to the camp infirmary. “My body was green, but my legs were fire red,” the boy said. “My wounds were bound with toilet paper, and I had to change the toilet paper every day. I was in the perfect place to watch what went on… All the patients were beaten people, and they died everywhere: at their beds, in the washroom, on the toilet. At night, I had to step over the dead as if that were normal to do.”

When the supply of victims ran low, it was a simple matter to find more. John Sack:

One day, a German in pitch-black pants, the SS’s color, showed up in Lola’s prison. He’d been spotted near the city square by a Pole who’d said, “Fascist! You’re wearing black!” At that, the German had bolted off, but the Pole chased him a mile to the Church of Saints Peter and Paul, tackled him by a gold mosaic, hit him, kicked him, and took him to Lola’s prison. Some guards, all girls, then seized the incriminating evidence: the man’s black pants, pulling them off so aggressively that one of the tendons tore. The man screamed, but the girls said, “Shut up!” and they didn’t recognize that the pants were part of a boy scout uniform. The “man” was fourteen years old.

The girls decided to torture him [with]… fire. They held down the German boy, put out their cigarettes on him, and, using gasoline, set his curly black hair afire.

At the larger prison camps, Germans died by the hundreds daily.

“You pigs!” the commandant then cried, and he beat the Germans with their stools, often killing them. At dawn many days, a Jewish guard cried, “Eins! Zwei! Drei! Vier!” and marched the Germans into the woods outside their camp. “Halt! Get your shovels! Dig!” the guard cried, and, when the Germans had dug a big grave, he put a picture of Hitler in. “Now cry!” the guard said. “And sing All the Dogs Are Barking!” and all the Germans moaned,

All the dogs are barking,
All the dogs are barking,
Just the little hot-dogs,
Aren’t barking at all.

The guard then cried, “Get undressed!” and, when the Germans were naked, he beat them, poured liquid manure on them, or, catching a toad, shoved the fat thing down a German’s throat, the German soon dying.

Utterly unhinged by years of persecution, by the loss of homes and loved ones, for the camp operators, no torture, no sadism, no bestiality, seemed too monstrous to inflict on those now in their power. Some Germans were forced to crawl on all fours and eat their own excrement as well as that of others. Many were drowned in open latrines. Hundreds were herded into buildings and burned to death or sealed in caskets and buried alive.

Near Lamsdorf, German women were forced to disinter bodies from a Polish burial site. According to John Sack:

The women did, and they started to suffer nausea as the bodies, black as the stuff in a gutter, appeared. The faces were rotten, the flesh was glue, but the guards—who had often seemed psychopathic, making a German woman drink urine, drink blood, and eat a man’s excrement, inserting an oily five-mark bill in a woman’s vagina, putting a match to it—shouted at the women… “Lie down with them!” The women did, and the guards shouted, “Hug them!” “Kiss them!” “Make love with them!” and, with their rifles, pushed on the backs of the women’s heads until their eyes, noses and mouths were deep in the Polish faces’ slime. The women who clamped their lips couldn’t scream, and the women who screamed had to taste something vile. Spitting, retching, the women at last stood up, the wet tendrils still on their chins, fingers, clothes, the wet seeping into the fibers, the stink like a mist around them as they marched back to Lamsdorf. There were no showers there, and the corpses had all had typhus, apparently, and sixty-four women… died.

Not surprisingly, the mortality rate at the concentration camps was staggering and relatively few survived. At one prison of eight thousand, a mere 1,500 lived to reach home. And of those “lucky” individuals who did leave with their lives, few could any longer be called human.

When a smattering of accounts began to leak from Poland of the unspeakable crimes being committed, many in the West were stunned. “One would expect that after the horrors in Nazi concentration camps, nothing like that could ever happen again,” muttered one US senator, who then reported on beatings, torture and “brains splashed on the ceiling.”

“Is this what our soldiers died for?” echoed a Briton in the House of Commons.

Added Winston Churchill: “Enormous numbers [of Germans] are utterly unaccounted for. It is not impossible that tragedy on a prodigious scale is unfolding itself behind the Iron Curtain.”

While Churchill and others in the West were expressing shock and surprise over the sadistic slaughter taking place in the Soviet Zone, precious little was said about the “tragedy on a prodigious scale” that was transpiring in their own backyard.

* * *

Among the millions imprisoned by the Allies were thousands of Germans accused of having a direct or indirect hand in war crimes. Because the victorious powers demanded swift and severe punishment, Allied prosecutors were urged to get the most damning indictments in as little time as possible. Unfortunately for the accused, their captors seemed determined to inflict as much pain as possible in the process.

“[W]e were thrown into small cells stark naked,” Hans Schmidt later wrote. “The cells in which three or four persons were incarcerated were six and a half by ten feet in size and had no windows or ventilation.”

When we went to the lavatory we had to run through a lane of Americans who struck us with straps, brooms, cudgels, buckets, belts, and pistol holders to make us fall down. Our head, eyes, body, belly, and genitals were violently injured. A man stood inside the lavatory to beat us and spit on us. We returned to our cells through the same ordeal. The temperature in the cells was 140 Fahrenheit or more. During the first three days we were given only one cup of water and a small slice of bread. During the first days we perspired all the time, then perspiration stopped. We were kept standing chained back to back for hours. We suffered terribly from thirst, blood stagnation and mortification of the hands. From time to time water was poured on the almost red-hot radiators, filling the cells with steam, so that we could hardly breathe. During all this time the cells were in darkness, except when the American soldiers entered and switched on electric bulbs… which forced us to close our eyes.

Our thirst became more and more cruel, so that our lips cracked, our tongues were stiff, and we eventually became apathetic, or raved, or collapsed.

After enduring this torture for several days, we were given a small blanket to cover our nakedness, and driven to the courtyard outside. The uneven soil was covered with pebbles and slag and we were again beaten and finally driven back on our smashed and bleeding feet. While out of breath, burning cigarettes were pushed into our mouths, and each of us was forced to eat three or four of them. Meanwhile the American soldiers continued to hit us on eyes, head, and ears. Back in our cells we were pushed against burning radiators, so that our skin was blistered.

For thirteen days and nights we received the same treatment, tortured by heat and thirst. When we begged for water, our guards mocked us. When we fainted we were revived by being drenched with cold water. There was dirt everywhere and we were never allowed to wash, our inflamed eyes gave us terrible pain, we fainted continuously.

Every twenty minutes or so our cell doors were opened and the soldiers insulted and hit us. Whenever the doors were opened we had to stand still with our backs to the door. Two plates of food, spiced with salt, pepper, and mustard to make us thirstier, were given us daily. We ate in the dark on the floor. The thirst was the most terrible of all our tortures and we could not sleep.

In this condition I was brought to trial.

During the Nazi war crimes trials and hearings, almost any method that would obtain a “confession” was employed. Eager to implicate high-ranking German officers in the Malmedy Massacre, American investigator Harry Thon ordered Wehrmacht sergeant Willi Schafer to write out an incriminating affidavit:

Next morning Mr. Thon appeared in my cell, read my report, tore it up, swore at me and hit me. After threatening to have me killed unless I wrote what he wanted, he left. A few minutes later the door of my cell opened, a black hood encrusted with blood, was put over my head and face and I was led to another room. In view of Mr. Thon’s threat the black cap had a crushing effect on my spirits… Four men of my company… accused me, although later they admitted to having borne false testimony. Nevertheless I still refused to incriminate myself. Thereupon Mr. Thon said that if I continued to refuse this would be taken as proof of my Nazi opinions, and… my death was certain. He said I would have no chance against four witnesses, and advised me for my own good to make a statement after which I would be set free… I still refused. I told Mr. Thon that although my memory was good, I was unable to recall any of the occurrences he wished me to write about and which to the best of my knowledge had never occurred.

Mr. Thon left but returned in a little while with Lieutenant [William] Perl who abused me, and told Mr. Thon that, should I not write what was required within half an hour, I should be left to my fate. Lieutenant Perl made it clear to me that I had the alternative of writing and going free or not writing and dying. I decided for life.

Another Landser unable to resist the pressure was Joachim Hoffman:

[W]hen taken for a hearing a black hood was placed over my head. The guards who took me to my hearing often struck or kicked me. I was twice thrown down the stairs and was hurt so much that blood ran out of my mouth and nose. At the hearing, when I told the officers about the ill treatment I had suffered, they only laughed. I was beaten and the black cap pulled over my face whenever I could not answer the questions put to me, or gave answers not pleasing to the officers… I was beaten and several times kicked in the genitals.

Understandably, after several such sessions, even the strongest submitted and signed papers incriminating themselves and others.

“If you confess you will go free,” nineteen-year-old Siegfried Jaenckel was told. “[Y]ou need only to say you had an order from your superiors. But if you won’t speak you will be hung.”

Despite the mental and physical abuse, young Jaenckel held out as long as he could: “I was beaten and I heard the cries of the men being tortured in adjoining cells, and whenever I was taken for a hearing I trembled with fear… Subjected to such duress I eventually gave in, and signed the long statement dictated to me.”

Far from being isolated or extreme cases, such methods of extorting confessions were the rule rather than the exception. Wrote author Freda Utley, who learned of the horror after speaking with American jurist Edward van Roden:

Beatings and brutal kickings; knocking-out of teeth and breaking of jaws; mock trials; solitary confinement; torture with burning splinters; the use of investigators pretending to be priests; starvation; and promises of acquittal… Judge van Roden said: “All but two of the Germans in the 139 cases we investigated had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. This was standard operating procedure with our American investigators.” He told of one German who had had lighted matchsticks forced under his fingernails by the American investigators to extort a confession, and had appeared at his trial with his fingers still bandaged from the atrocity.

In addition to testimony given under torture, those who might have spoken in defense of the accused were prevented. Moreover, hired “witnesses” were paid by the Americans to parrot the prosecution’s charges.

When criticism such as Utley’s and van Roden’s surfaced, and even as victims were being hung by the hundreds, those responsible defended their methods.

“We couldn’t have made those birds talk otherwise…,” laughed one Jewish “interrogator,” Colonel A. H. Rosenfeld. “It was a trick, and it worked like a charm.”

On Paul Kurtz

kurtzIt is true that I have praised Paul Kurtz, who died in 2012 and I used to call a “mentor” for his work debunking precisely the pseudosciences that made me lost many years of my life. The photo in the Wikipedia article on him (also at the left) was uploaded by me after I requested it directly to Kurtz.

Alas, after he died I discovered this video where in the last five minutes Kurtz said that “America is a universal culture” and, mentioning the immigration fauna in the US, he added the phrase, “We are part of the planetary community.”

Kurtz then agreed with the interviewer that “the genetic makeup of the human race is all one” and, incredibly for someone who made a career defending real science against pseudosciences, he added: “There are no separate races. We are all part of one human family.”

The interviewer defined Kurtz as the “father of American secular humanism.” On a 2013 Occidental Observer thread a commenter opined about the “secular humanists”:

The new atheists are pure scum. Yes, despite their adolescent hatred of Christianity, their morality is a hundred percent Christian; anti-racism, egalitarianism, brotherhood of humanity, etc. Pathetic. I have far more respect for the average Christian than I have for those soulless, deadened worshippers of “reason” and “logic.”

I could not resist the temptation of naming Kurtz “scum” in that thread, in spite of the fact that Jews and Christians are presently on the same page here. This happened just after I discovered the above-linked video, where Kurtz stated also that WASPs have no exclusive claim to North America, and mentioned the Inuit as a group that, according to him, settled there before whites. Go figure! Before I became Jew-wise once I even harbored the thought of dedicating my autobiographical book to this guy…

Looking directly at the camera by the end of the interview, Kurtz concluded that “the First Principle in planetary ethics is that we ought to treat every person on planet Earth as equal,” after which he mentioned the races and the ethnic groups.

Well, well… I am still grateful that Kurtz’s writings, his magazines Skeptical Inquirer and Free Inquiry, and the organization of skeptics he founded has helped a lot of people who, like me in the past, went astray in parapsychological cults. But when I met him personally in 1989 and 1994—in the 1994 Seattle conference of skeptics I also met Carl Sagan and shacked hands with him—I ignored that both Kurtz and Sagan had Jewish ancestry.

Subtle thought police

Tom Sunic wrote:

The thought police in America, with its numerous outlets, are much less visible and much more subtle than in Europe—and therefore more efficient. For example, The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) claims to be a think tank but is essentially an assembly line for smearing those who have “evil thoughts” on topics such as race and Jewish influence. It receives millions of dollars from anonymous sources with its prime goal being the blacklisting of all groups it labels as “extreme rightwing” and of all intellectual nonconformists daring to criticize the System. Indeed, the SPLC resembles a private spy agency whose ideological lines are drawn in the vicinity of cultural Marxism, and which is headed by Morris Dees, Mark Potok and Richard Cohen.

Long ago, it was the SPLC itself that launched the new rules of the language engagement and which continues to employ abusively the expressions such as “hate groups” or “white supremacist” for individuals of European ancestry voicing opinions critical of multiculturalism and opposing the disproportionate role of the Jews in the American media. In the French language, words such as “hate groups” or “white supremacists” have not yet assumed the same inquisitorial significance, in contrast to America, where these terms have a paralyzing effect on any intellectual or a politician daring to touch the modern Holy of Holies—i.e. the Jewish question or the metaphysics of multiculturalism. Although in the Penal Code there is not yet a legal provision referring to “hate speech,” this expression, however, is propagated by the U.S. media on all wavelengths, and has by now become part of the new media jargon, serving as an increasingly powerful deterrent against all free spirits. Indeed, the locution of “hate speech” is so vague that it can easily lend itself to any interpretation; hence the label may strike anybody at any time.

thought-policeThe SPLC or the powerful explicitly Jewish lobby, the Anti-Defamation League, (whose counterpart in France is the CRIF, Conseil représentatif des institutions juives de France—“Council of French Jewish Organizations”) are not just intellectual espionage machines. The SPLC is also an outlet which informs the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security in the United States about White heretics suspected of spreading “hate speech” and who—by the process of guilt by association—are likely to become “terrorists”—a denotation with far more serious implications in America. Worse, the SPLC has also set itself the task of monitoring academic institutions, sniffing out and cataloguing “evil-minded” teachers whose syllabi depart from the Gospel of multiculturalism. Not only are its targets young wacky self-proclaimed Nazis, but also many prominent scholars in the field of sociobiology, as for instance Professor Kevin MacDonald, or even politicians and writers, such as the former presidential candidate and the bestselling author Patrick Buchanan.

Of course, everybody in America is legally entitled to criticize everything on numerous websites and in fringe nationalist papers of the so-called extreme right, but in most cases, the intellectual scope of these papers and sites is limited and can in no way harm the System.


Franklin Ryckaert commented:

The difference between America and Europe with regard to freedom of speech about the two taboos (Jews and race) is that in America the problem is “solved” in a privatized way—in accordance with its ethos of the free enterprise system, while in Europe it is solved by the State (laws), but the result is the same. In America private inquisitions (ADL, SPLC) persecute heretics, in Europe it is the State. In both cases it is the Jews who are behind it.

Then there is of course a secondary class, consisting of whites who have entirely interiorized Jewish thinking and now have undertaken the holy task of persecuting their heretical brethren: the pathetic case of the anti-white whites, variously known as “anti-racists”, “anti-fascists” etc.

The more Jews take power and the more the number of non-whites increases, the more restriction of free speech will increase. There is no other way out of this predicament than through the use of free speech. Here lays the major battlefield. The internet with its numerous websites allows us to wage a kind of guerrilla war in this struggle, but for how long?


My 2 cents:

Greg Johnson wrote today about his recent encounter with the American thought police:

Last week, Caitlin Dewey, a writer at The Washington Post, wrote an article about Heidi’s campaign, giving it a great deal of publicity, and not 48 hours later, Amazon canceled our affiliate account. The SPLC’s purpose, of course, is to put Counter-Currents out of business. (Ask yourself how you would fare with a 20% reduction in income.)

They have to silence us, of course, because they can’t answer us. As more people awaken to the fact that multiculturalism is a marriage made in hell, the SPLC and other organs of Jewish domination and anti-white genocide will only intensify their attempts to suppress freedom of speech and freedom of thought.

Then Greg took the opportunity to request further donations. He now wants $60,000 a year from his sponsors.

If like Linder you are unimpressed by Greg’s “porcelain gun” approach to white preservation, consider donating to this blog instead.

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 180

the-real-hitler

31st August 1942, evening

Britain, Germany, Lloyd George and the Duke of Windsor—Jews spur on the deadly work of the warmongers—Churchill.
 

It is a mistake to think that all Britons are arrogant. It is perfectly true that they have a handful of degenerates at their head, and I must admit that our leaders of 1917-18 shone in comparison.

I asked Lloyd George why it was that he had failed to gain his point when negotiations for the peace treaty were in progress? (He was advocating a magnanimous peace treaty.) He explained that Wilson opposed him from the beginning, and that the French never ceased from their witch-hunt; it was not his fault, and he had done all that was in his power to do.

Recently they have announced the internment of eleven thousand Fascist followers of Mosley. The real reason for the destruction of the Duke of Windsor was, I am sure, his speech at the old veterans’ rally in Berlin, at which he declared that it would be the task of his life to effect a reconciliation between Britain and Germany.

The campaign of antagonism against Germany was organised by Churchill on the orders of his Jewish paymasters, and with the collaboration of Eden, Vansittart and company. The Jews had already succeeded, step by step, in gaining complete control of the press. To counteract Rothermere, the Jews cut off his complete revenue from advertising, and it was Rothermere himself who told me the story of how he was compelled to toe the line. Any and every nation which fails to exterminate the Jews in its midst will sooner or later finish by being itself devoured by them.

_____________________________

Consider obtaining a copy of the complete notes
published by Ostara Publications.

On the so-called “New Right”

Or:

The New Right rejects winning.
There is no winning without violence.

Below, Alex Linder’s retort to Greg Johnson’s manifesto, “New Right vs. Old Right” (video here; textual version here), originally posted in Vanguard News Network Forum that in October of 2012 I excerpted for my Addenda. It merits inclusion here.

Keywords: OR (Old Right), NR (New Right). Linder’s retort appears unindented:


[In his manifesto Johnson wrote:]

So how does the New Right differ from Fascism and National Socialism? This is a vital question, because of the intense stigmas attached to these movements since the Second World War. The North American New Right, like the European New Right, is founded on the rejection of Fascist and National Socialist party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide.

This is why Greg can only describe Golden Dawn as “interesting.” If he starts saying successful, then he has to observe that, contrary to what he’s imagining the NR to be, GD does embrace party politics and daily operations that are very similar to what the OR carried on.

We believe that such a world can be achieved through gradual and humane programs of territorial partition and population transfer.

We believe that these aims can come about by changing people’s consciousness, i.e., by persuading enough people in positions of influence that everyone has a stake in ethnonationalism.

In less grandiose terms, NR is not to provide leaders but to influence some vague elite, either the existing or one yet to arise. But not actually be that elite itself. In other words, the NR are kibitzers—people who stand around the table and tell the men actually in the game how to play their cards. I mean, it sounds great when Johnson lays it out, but really, in more prosaic terms, he’s just going to offer more free advice. The NR’s not actually getting in the ring. Like, you know, Golden Dawn.

Metapolitics refers to what must come before the foundation of a new political order.

So says Johnson. Because it fits what he wants to do—multiply essays. But in fact, the change in order comes from being involved in all aspects of the process, not just writing and thinking. All these matters, as much of them as can be engaged, go on simultaneously.

That is what we saw with the OR Nazis, and what we see with the Neo-Old Right Golden Dawners. Creating a new political order is not the hands-off affair Johnson imagines it to be.

Does Golden Dawn need some “metapolitical” change before it can begin working to transform Greece? Hell no! Whites in Western countries don’t need their consciousness transformed, they need potatoes. Potatoes and protection. They need cooking oil and champions. People who will help them vanquish enemies and feed them potatoes and milk when they are hungry. The state’s not there—but Golden Dawn is. The real-world physical help and political leadership provided by Golden Dawn will do more to transform Greek consciousness and culture than 1,000 clever essays by Brown Johnson. And at some level he knows this.

He does not have the character to admit that his approach is not, in fact, a political strategy but a personal declaration about where he and his group are going to put their effort. They’re going to write essays. Lengthy important reviews of important new Batman movies; crypt-keeping of the same-old goth writers and ancient German thinkers everyone’s long familiar with. Rehash after furious rehash, but no engagement with actual politics. I’d rather have Golden Dawn’s feta-politics than Greg Johnson’s meta-politics anyday. And so would average Greeks. And so would Whites in all nations.

“Metapolitics must come before a change in the political order.” Johnson asserts this without proving it. It is merely his opinion. Like there’s something new in human relations waiting to be discovered and transmitted, and everybody will go, holy shit, I never thought of that before.

But it’s not like that at all. We just need ordinary politics, carried on by heroes, not new philosophies, new ideas, anything new. Just better champions, tighter organization, more loyalty, greater bravery. Honestly, Greg, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but 10,000 more 10,000-word exegeses of the gothic in Lovecraft aren’t going to produce political change.

Metapolitics refers to what must come before the foundation of a new political order. Metapolitics breaks down into two basic activities. First, there is education: articulating and communicating forms of white nationalism tailored to the interests and outlooks of the full array of white constituencies.

Well, that’s the theory, but in reality you have pitched and will continue to pitch to an extremely narrow, if high-level, sector. You have the words right, but you can’t deliver on them. Do you imagine that because you serve up a 5,000-word exegesis on “The Dark Knight Rises” that you are reaching the masses who actually attend such a movie? You’re not.

All you’re reaching are intellectuals of a certain bent. The original VNN actually achieved what you imagine you are trying to achieve. You can’t repeat its success because it involves qualities neither you nor your writers possess (wit, humor, ability to satirize), and because, for reasons of sniffishness, you won’t go low enough to fish where the whitefish are. Your offering is monolevel, precisely in the way George Lincoln Rockwell advised against, even if your words make obeisance to the full-spectrum offerings he advised.

Second, there is community organizing…

Ok. But not party politics. As Golden Dawn shows, they can easily be the same thing. Hamas showed that too. As did the OR national socialists. What you appear to mean by community organizing are the private salons, like the one you’re holding this weekend in California.

Second, there is community organizing, meaning the cultivation of real-world communities that live according to our vision in the present and may serve as the seeds of a New Order to come.

Except that’s not possible because of the law, which can only be changed by the politics you specifically state you will not be involved in.

The primary metapolitical project of the North American New Right is to challenge and replace the hegemony of anti-white ideas throughout our culture and political system.

And this magician is going to do this by eschewing political involvement in favor of multiplying essays. The butt baby of David Copperfield and Blaine wouldn’t even dream of trying to sell an illusion this fragrant. Get this again to fully appreciate its absurdity: without owning any tv stations, or radio stations, or any elected officials, Greg Johnson and his crew of anonymities are going to “replace the hegemony of anti-white ideas throughout our culture and political system.”

And they’re going to achieve this without any political involvement, simply by influencing (his word, not mine) some vague elite—not being the elite. They don’t propose anything as icky as leading an actual struggle, but by influencing some unknown mass of people.

Presumably there is a body of men out there just waiting for 5,000-word exegeses of Batman movies in order to break from their thrall and lead our race to victory. We’re a long way, truly, from simple Greeks out working the fields, collecting watermelons and onions to feed their hungry neighbors. Nah, that’s not the stuff that provides the cultural and political transformation that “must” precede change in the political order. Too mundane.

The entire cultural and political mainstream—including every shade of the “respectable” political spectrum—treats white racial consciousness and white self-assertion as evil.

As always, Johnson acts like other ideas have triumphed because they persuaded people, when the known truth is that the vast majority has no real beliefs other than to avoid pain, and will generally go along with whatever comes out of the loudspeaker. That’s the truth. It’s just too boring for the Johnsons of the world to accept. You can’t win a cultural battle where you don’t control the mass media and you refrain from actual politics.

Our goal is to critique and destroy this consensus and make white racial consciousness and self-assertion hegemonic instead, so that no matter what political party wins office, white interests will be secured.

And you’re going to do this without being involved in politics, without controlling any mass media, purely by the brilliant persuasiveness of your ideas. D is for delusional.

Our goal is a pluralistic white society in which there is disagreement and debate about a whole range of issues. But white survival will not be among them.

Meanwhile Whites are shot on the street daily by feral niggers, to be redundant, the white presidential candidate takes it up the ass from jews while sucking off niggers, and not a single word contrary to the existing order of things can be printed in the mass media. You’re going to change that by eschewing politics for essay-writing. One is reminded of those cult nuts’ attempt to levitate the Pentagon by prayer.

There are systematic analogies between the Old Right and the Old Left, and between the New Right and the New Left.

The Old Right and Old Left had widely divergent aims, but shared common means: hierarchical, ideological political parties organized for both electioneering and armed struggle; one-party police states led by dictators; the elimination of opposition through censorship, imprisonment, terror, and outright murder, sometimes on a mind-boggling industrial scale.

Greggy, you don’t seem to understand that you can’t just pick and choose how you fight. If the other guy is willing to cheat, lie, steal and murder—and you’re not—guess who’s going to win?

You’re simply high-handedly declaring that you’re too good for anything as icky as actual fighting—which is merely a sign of your personality problems, and your lack of self-awareness, but what’s unforgivable is the alacrity with which you throw your betters under the bus.

Does their behavior at some level shame you? The NS not only wrote better essays than you, they thought better thoughts, and they fought better fights. Golden Dawn shows the proper relation between old and new right, if you must insist on that distinction. You can verbally camouflage it all you like with pretty words, but your retreat into mere essaying is the farthest thing from an actual political strategy. It’s just your way of rationalizing your own choices.

Yes, in the case of classical National Socialism, revisionists argue that many of these atrocities are exaggerated or made up out of whole cloth. But revisionism about the Second World War is really beside the point, because the terroristic, imperialistic, genocidal impulse exists in National Socialism today. For instance, latter-day National Socialist William Pierce routinely pooh-poohed the Holocaust. But he was willing to countenance real terrorism, imperialism, and genocide on a scale that would dwarf anything in the 20th century. That spirit is what we reject.

All this does is show that you are incapable of loyalty. You will throw anyone under the bus if you think it will make you look better. The Nazis deserve respect, even if you’re not a Nazi. You don’t give it to them. All you care about is that you think they make you look bad. Let me assure you, Gregster—you alone are fully competent to make yourself look bad. I guess you could say you have achieved a metapolitical success in how I view you.

You reject the “spirit.” Pierce recognized jews were attempting to genocide us, and wanted to return the favor. Guns to a gunfight, is all that is. Your view is that fights can be conducted by whatever means the fighter finds comfortable; there are no objective criteria that need to be taken into consideration. So you don’t need to worry that you control no tv or radio, you just ignore that, and big it up that your website and books are going to create a cultural revolution. This is not serious stuff—when put forward as a political strategy. The very concept of metapolitics is bogus, because it always comes down the technics of influence, and here the control of the loudspeakers (cable tv, etc., and the political system) are determinative. Sorry, Greggy. There’s no escaping politics.

Yes, there were degrees of totalitarianism. The Communist abolition of private property entailed a far greater disruption of and intrusion into private life than Fascism or National Socialism, which merely sought to harmonize private property and private enterprise with the common good whenever they conflicted. Fortunately, hard totalitarianism—even the softest version of hard totalitarianism—is neither desirable nor necessary to secure the existence of our people, so we reject it.

You can’t know a priori what will in fact be necessary since you haven’t even begun the fight and in fact expressly reject fighting.

It is instructive to look at how the New Left has handled the mind-boggling, heart-rending, stomach-churning atrocities of the Old Left. The best New Leftists do not deny them. They do not minimize them. They do not pin their hopes on “Gulag revisionism” or rehabilitating the reputation of Pol Pot. They simply disown the atrocities. They step over them and keep moving toward their goals.

Which is not a decision they make, as you imply, but an opportunity that is only possible because they control the organs of public opinion. They can’t be forced to defend their record when nobody else is allowed a chance at the mike. Of course they’re not going to talk about their record of mass murder.

But you’re ignoring what lets them get away with it, in order to further the frankly ridiculous illusion that your side can make a similar evasion. First, as the revisionists you’ve thrown under the bus have shown, there’s nothing to evade. Second, the enemy can use that same media monopoly to force your side to respond to its attacks or else simply accept the damage they do. Why do you keep acting like the playing field is level, and everything is a matter of the choices we make? You act, per the Jared Barnum Taylor who associated with this school of stupidity, like there is no enemy. And we don’t need to take him into account. We just put on our best writin’ suit and pen up Another Great Essay! And if we do enough… we win! You’re a cheesedog, Johnson.

This is exactly what we propose to do. We are too busy resisting our own genocide to tie ourselves to defending the mistakes and excesses of the Old Right.

Johnson is a natural-born conservative. Attacking is not in him. The best he can do is evade and avoid, and get back to arranging the pretty flowers.

They are simply not our problem. To borrow a phrase from Jonathan Bowden, “We’ve stepped over that.” Our enemies keep throwing it down in our path, and we just keep stepping over it.

Why not pick it up and smash them over the head with it until they’re dead? Then you won’t have to dance, Chinaman, dance like a good little albino monkey.

The New Left retained the values and ultimate goals of the Old Left. They also retained elements of their philosophical framework. They then set about spreading their ideas throughout the culture by means of propaganda and institutional subversion. And they won. Aside from Cuba and North Korea, orthodox Communism is dead. Capitalism seems everywhere triumphant. And yet in the realm of culture, leftist values are completely hegemonic. The left lost the Cold War, but they won the peace.

New Left and Old Left is as bogus a distinction as Old Right / New Right. What we’re discussing here as though it’s an ideas-battle is actually a matter of institutionalization of power.

If the left owns all the satellite uplinks, and the politicians and preachers and teachers, then of course it can get away with “soft” means. The hard work of killing people has already been done. But that doesn’t mean it won’t have immediate recourse to this option wherever it needs to. Or that in any way rejects the use of any means to get the job done.

Old? New? Bullshit: same. It’s you, the fool with no power, who is overtly, publicly rejecting the struggle for power that is in fact the only way your side could free itself or regain control of the apparatuses; the control of which is what actually provides this influence you desire to effect.

See, Greggy, people don’t think. Very few of them. You are hugely overrating how thoughtful people are, and hugely underrating how much their meaningless views are simply authority-tropisms. Whatever the tv says to stay away from is what the mass-paramecium fears to be involved with. It’s not deeper than that. People are not intellectuals. They will be influenced by brave leadership, in struggles such as we have before us, and nothing else. Certainly not by disembodied idea-ists who seek not to lead but to influence. Your aim to influence, which is wifely effeminacy, will be taken as weakness by the masses, and rightly so. The masses, as OR Hitler knew, require a strong hand. They take only a masculine impress, and reject what is soft, weak, unsure.

I hate to have to explain this to you, young master Gregerson, but… when you look at Hitler, bublele? You’re, yr yr… looking up. Not down. Up. Yeah. Sorry ol’ Uncle Al has to break that news to you.

Since in the West, both the Old and the New Left functioned primarily as a vehicle for Jewish ethnic interests, it would be more precise to say that Jewish values are hegemonic throughout the culture, even on the mainstream right.

The New Left and New Right have widely divergent aims, but very similar means, namely the pursuit of political change through transforming ideas and culture, aiming at the establishment of intellectual and cultural hegemony.

This is just fruity beyond the point of acceptability. Premise is there’s a real intellectual debate goin’ on and wez gonna win it. Yeah, except there is no debate because they own all the tv, radio and newspapers. Not only are you giving even a passing to their impregnable technical superiority in dissemination positioning, and legal context, you continue to pretend that the left’s power is ultimately based on ideas rather than physical suppression of resistance. This is manifestly not true, and if you disagree, take your message to the street and see. But of course you don’t even dare to get into that game, and you advise others against it. You’re going to win it all growing flowers in your own little hothouse. It is to laugh.

The New Right rejects the totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide of the Old Right.

As well say, the New Right rejects winning. There is no winning without violence. Willing and able recourse to violence is how the jews took power. Ideas are merely an expression of jewish power, not the source. If I may use the phrase the quitter-conceder Weber used. Jews dominate this country because they are willing to use violence against competitors. And now they have the cops in their hands to do their dirty work for them. How are you going to change that? You’ll say something fruity about new and different and better ideas, but this is nothing. This is just an academic pretending that politics is a battle of ideas rather than a battle.

But we do not reject their political model: the ethnically and culturally homogeneous, hierarchically organized, organic society.

You just reject the only means by which it can brought about. Cuz the world has changed so much back then. Instead of fighting, today men just listen and vote.

We want a world in which every distinct people has such a homeland, including the Jews.

Great. Jews are for racism for them, and mongrelism for us. And you’re for racialism for everybody. You bring a knife to a gunfight and expect to win.

Nor do we reject the theoretical frameworks of Fascism and National Socialism, which today are more relevant and better-grounded in science and history than ever before.

Nor do we reject such figures as Hitler and Mussolini. Objectivity requires that we recognize their virtues as well as their flaws. We have much to learn from them. We will never repudiate awakened white people just to curry favor with the Bourgeoisie.

This is particularly ludicrous. He’s just gotten done rejecting basically everything the OR did, and now he’s hypocritically talking about how he embraces the very people, philosophies and behaviors he just rejected.

Johnson has come to make a habit of talking out of both sides of his mouth. “It is not enough that you believe, you must fight,” said one famous OR guy. “I believe, but I will not fight,” saith Johnson, who then rotated yet again and expressed his support for Hitler’s words. You need to decide, Greg, whether you’re a Big Johnson or a Little Johnson. Well, you have decided. You just can’t face the truth about your decision. I urge you to face it, and to reconsider.

I have received some gentle ribbing about including Hitler and Mussolini among the birthdays we commemorate, as it smacks of the totalitarian cult of personality. But as an editor, I find that birthdays are ideal, regularly-occurring occasions to discuss important figures. They also produce spikes in search engine traffic, which we want to capture. Besides, we commemorate many birthdays, and it would be craven to discuss people like Ezra Pound or Knut Hamsun but ignore the people they were imprisoned for following. So we will keep commemorating their birthdays until, eventually, everybody does.

Ok, that makes sense. It is good to have heroes. Respected figures. Even if you disagree with them on things. But you undermined The Tradition when you draw an indelible line between your new thing and theirs. The psychology of celebrating them while simultaneously distancing yourself from them conveys a mixed message that is confusing, and unnecessarily so in light of the found facts you reject.

One of the main motives of the New Left’s move from politics to culture was disappointment with the proletariat, which was so effectively mobilized by Fascism and National Socialism, not to mention the centrist regimes of the Cold War era.

The New Left believed they represented the interests of the workers, but their approach was entirely elitist. They focused their attention on influencing the college-educated middle and professional classes, because these people have disproportionate influence on the rest of society, particularly through education, the media, and popular culture.

It’s a little more than influence. The left bought up the organs of opinion, took over the colleges, teachers’ colleges and law schools, and bribed both political parties. This left it, over a few decades, in position to dictate ideology to the right half the bell curve, the college grads.

The left doesn’t influence people, it threatens them. If you don’t agree, you will be weeded out of their system. If you’re in the system and found out, you will be harassed and fired. To speak of persuasion and influence is far too soft. Dominate + paranoia + occupied power position + owning all the loudspeakers = suppressing all resistance.

You can call that winning the debate, but that’s not accurate. Preventing any debate from happening is accurate. To truly understand what the left does is to observe that it goes far, far beyond dictating political positions. It goes to the point of preventing bad thoughts from ever forming by developing techniques intended to stunt the mind: bad ways to read. And if the mind makes it over this hurdle, then all it has to read are PC-scripted textbooks. All it hears on radio/tv are jew-written news and fiction scripts.

The left hasn’t won the debate, it has taken over and smashed all competing views, and done what it could to destroy the very idea of idea-competition. Johnson’s tone does not accurately convey the physiological-political reality of the left, which is utterly jewish, which is to say driven by hatred and paranoia. Any two white men speaking unrecorded by ZOG = conspiracy.

Likewise, the New Right represents the interests of all whites, but when it comes to social change, we need to adopt a resolutely elitist strategy. We need to recognize that, culturally and politically speaking, some whites matter more than others. History is not made by the masses. It is made out of the masses. It is made by elites molding the masses. Thus we need to direct our message to the educated, urban middle and professional classes and above.

Simple question, Greg. Given that Hitler, per the essay you published by Andrew Hamilton specifically did not try to attract the bourgeois at the start of his campaign to liberate Germany, and given that Golden Dawn in 2012 Greece is finding great success in going out in the streets to help the poor, why should anyone believe your way will work?

in-the-beginning-was-the-word

Especially given that you have no way at all to influence the bourgeoisie through the colleges and grad schools? Why are cowardly, selfish, materialist upper-middle-class bourgeois with a lot to lose going to flock to your standard (as opposed to poor or lower-class people with comparatively nothing to lose)?

There is no shortage of Old Right-style groups with populist messages targeting working class and rural constituencies. But we need to go beyond them if we are going to win.

In America? Really? Who are these groups?

Who I am speaking for here? When I say “we,” I am speaking for more than just myself, but not for all or even most of our writers or readers. There is no presumption that every author we publish approves of our agenda, in whole or in essence. (Indeed, many of them are dead.) Nor is there any presumption that any author agrees with any other author published here. Publication here does, however, imply that I, as the Editor-in-Chief, think that a given work advances our agenda directly or indirectly: directly, by articulating a viewpoint that I would endorse as true; indirectly, by helping us build an intellectually exciting movement.

That means that this so-called New Right is an artificial construct of essays written by bourgeois individualists, not any genuine political school or tendency. It could just as well be called Greg Johnson’s Fan Club. Or Greg Johnson’s Racialist Reader’s Digest.

And the North American New Right is an intellectual movement, not a fixed doctrine. The goals are fixed. The basic intellectual strategy is fixed. But everything else is in movement: usually toward our goals, but sometimes just whirling around the dance floor for the sheer joy of it (which, in a subtler way, also moves toward our goals).

Yeah, I’m not feeling the brio in the forced tendentiousness of those 5,000-word Batman overintellectualizations.

There is a wide array of different and often incompatible intellectual traditions within the New Right. We have followers of the Traditionalism of Julius Evola and René Guénon as well as other thinkers who emphasize a metaphysics of eternal form. We have followers of non-Traditionalist, flux and history-oriented philosophers like Nietzsche, Spengler, and Heidegger. We have believers in decline and believers in Promethean progressivism. We have Darwinian biologists and scientific materialists squared off against metaphysical dualists. We have atheists, and we have representatives of all schools of religion, Christian and pagan, Eastern and Western.

We need this kind of diversity, because our goal is to foster versions of white nationalism that appeal to all existing white constituencies.

Yeah, all white constituencies except the 95% who aren’t intellectuals.

We can speak to multitudes because we contain multitudes.

Eh, not really. A variety of proud opinions, maybe, but a very thin and specific type.

How does the North American New Right relate to Old Right-style groups in North America and around the globe?

Easy answer: you won’t fight. You won’t politic. You’ll just scribble and scribble and scribble some more.

And how do we relate to various democratic nationalist parties in America and Europe?

Alex Kurtagic has recently argued that democratic party politics can perform the metapolitical functions of education and community organizing, thus there is no fundamental contradiction between metapolitics and party politics.

True, altho truer would be to observe that metapolitics doesn’t exist. The problem Whites face is not philosophical, it’s that they don’t have power and their enemies do. Pretty simple thing. Of course political campaigning involves education and community organizing, but these are merely the byproducts of pursuing office. And that goal means that all educational and organizing efforts must be dominated by the election cycle and the political issues of the day. Your blathering looks obscene next to what Golden Dawn is doing every single day in the field:

• protecting people
• beating up enemies
• setting up new offices
• fighting fires in rural areas
• checking out animal abuse carried on by illegals
• helping the government patrol the border
• printing and passing out newspapers
• posting letters from Greeks
• posting ideological texts as lessons
• smacking commie cunts in the face
• rebutting big lies from “human rights” hypocrites
• holding torchlight memorials

There’s a lot more to it, when you have a real and functional nationalist party, than just running for elections.

That is fine, if one’s real goal is to win office. But outside of proportional representation systems, seeking office is pretty much futile. So if one’s real goal is education and organizing, then political campaigning is merely a distraction. So why not focus all one’s energy into educational and organizing efforts, and determine the agenda ourselves, rather than let electoral politics determine it for us?

You’re not doing that. You’re writing 5,000-word Batman essays that no normal person wants to read.

Why not take all the money spent on purely political activities—voter registration drives, campaign travel, campaign literature—and channel it into education and organizing?

What organizing?

David Duke, for example, has been doing enormously important work with his writings, speeches, and videos. Most of that work would come to a stop if he were to make another futile and expensive run for office.

Which made a bigger impression on the public: his educational materials or his campaigns? The answer is obvious.

Intellectually, we need to draw a sharp, clear line between New Right metapolitics and all forms of nationalist party politics. We share the same broad aims, but we differ as to the best means of achieving them. We need to acknowledge these differences frankly, then divide our camp and pursue our common aims by the various paths that seem best to us.

I do not wish to spend time criticizing and attacking other sincere white advocates, competing for turf and followers or squabbling over dimes. In the end, the only valid argument for or against an approach is to look at its results. I want to win support by doing good work, not denigrating the work of others.

Yet you spend all your effort denigrating both the original right, which actually dared, unlike you, get involved in politics, and damn near won the whole thing… and then you also denigrate the fact finders who preserve their legacy by protecting what they actually did from jewish big liars.

You want people to credit you with real Nazi virtues while not holding you responsible for imaginary Nazi flaws. What a big stinking, steaming hypocrite you are. Who could trust you?

Even though one can draw a sharp intellectual line between New Right metapolitics and nationalist party politics, no wall separates us in the real world. The North American New Right is not a political party or a party-like intellectual sect. We are an informal network that can overlap and penetrate all social institutions, including parties. I maintain contacts with people all over the globe who are involved in various political parties. They know where I stand. Where we disagree, we agree to disagree.

Are you a movement, or not? You say you are, but your words then again show you’re not. Inconsistency has become a serious problem with you, Johnson. Brown Johnson’s Book & Essay Club is what you are. That’s fine. Or it would be fine if you admitted it. But you prefer to play games, with yourself and others.

Speaking personally, however, I wish that a wall could be erected in some cases, for if there are only six degrees of social separation between me and Barack Obama, there are far fewer degrees of separation between me and the next Anders Behring Breivik. And, for me, that is just too close for comfort. I do not want anything to do with gun-toting armies of one. The only gun I want to own is made of porcelain.

Yeaaaah. You are going to take over culture. You and your ideas… and your porcelain gun. Mmhmm. We’ll see that you’re stuck in a lavender-scented rubber room, sir.

You see, I really believe that what I am doing is right and important. Gregs weapon Too right and too important to expose to the risk of grown men dressing up as Knights Templar or Stormtroopers and playing with real guns. I have nothing against guns or gun-owners as such. But the Old Right model attracts unstable, violence-prone people, which just makes our job harder.

Again: no one can make you look bad but you. And you’re more than qualified on that front.

But since I can’t build a movement—even a metapolitical movement—by being a hermit, the best I can do is draw clear intellectual lines of demarcation: again, the North American New Right is founded on the rejection of Fascist and National Socialist party politics, totalitarianism, terrorism, imperialism, and genocide.

Yeah, we get it: No fight. Just right.

Breivik is a complex case, because he emerged from the Counter-Jihad movement, a Jewish-dominated false opposition to the Islamic colonization of Europe. But we still share his basic concerns and his goal of Europe for Europeans, even though we reject his actions and much of his analytical framework.

Cynics have accused the New Left of being nothing but a dishonest marketing ploy. Of course, there is no point in trying to convince cynics, who know a priori that the truth is always more sordid than it seems. But the New Left actually delivered on its promises: Marxism without totalitarianism, without terror, without camps.

No, that’s not accurate. Accurate is that anyone who threatens the regime will be thrown in jail. What crime did Mahler and Stolz and Rudolf commit? There’s nothing at all soft, different or new about leftist tactics, they just don’t need to be as repressive as they once were because they’ve consolidated their control.

It is merely your self-interested pretension that the left changed its nature rather than its tactics, and that it renounces violence in favor or persuasion. It does no such thing. It uses violence wherever it needs to. You just won’t acknowledge it. Because it encourages your nostrum that real change can be accomplished by soft means alone. In your case, by writing essays.

Of course we all know that the present regime is a form of soft totalitarianism which is enacting the genocide of the white race in slow motion. But the point is that this regime was not imposed upon our people through a violent revolution. They accepted it because of the transformation of their consciousness. They can be saved the same way.

Garbage. Decades of agitprop, and our people still vote time after time to close the borders and against affirmative action. With their feet they vote to move to White areas, and toward the altar with someone of the same race. Their consciousness has hardly been transformed.

They simply see no option than to go along with most things because there’s no one leading the other way, and they only get one position no matter which authority they listen to. And men who might lead them are sitting on the sidelines kibitzing with essays while advising others to stay out of politics, even though they have a contemporary example right in front of their nose in Greece that getting involved is what actually works.

The next month Linder commented on his VNN Forum:

Johnson dogmatically and a priori rejects violence. He is single-handedly, with his collection of academics and other writes, going to create a sea change in culture that inevitably as a tsunami sweeps away existing mindsets and tiny villages and replaces them with new ones.

Johnson is a page fascist, but not a street fascist, hence not a real fascist. He is a WN, but functionally he’s a conservative. That’s what I’ve maintained. We will get into this, not just in relation to him, but in relation to the original NS and today’s Golden Dawn.

Uncle Adolf’s table talk, 192

the-real-hitler
Night of 29th-30th November 1944

Jesus and Saint Paul—Christianity, a Jewish manoeuvre—Christianity and Communism—National Socialism, the implacable enemy of everything Jewish.
 

Jesus was most certainly not a Jew. The Jews would never have handed one of their own people to the Roman courts; they would have condemned him themselves. It is quite probable that a large number of the descendants of the Roman legionaries, mostly Gauls, were living in Galilee, and Jesus was probably one of them. His mother may well have been a Jewess.

Jesus fought against the materialism of his age, and, therefore, against the Jews.

Paul of Tarsus, who was originally one of the most stubborn enemies of the Christians, suddenly realised the immense possibilities of using, intelligently and for other ends, an idea which was exercising such great powers of fascination. He realised that the judicious exploitation of this idea among non-Jews would give him far greater power in the world than would the promise of material profit to the Jews themselves. It was then that the future St. Paul distorted with diabolical cunning the Christian idea. Out of this idea, which was a declaration of war on the golden calf, on the egotism and the materialism of the Jews, he created a rallying point for slaves of all kinds against the elite, the masters and those in dominant authority.

The religion fabricated by Paul of Tarsus, which was later called Christianity, is nothing but the Communism of today.

Bormann intervened. Jewish methods, he said, have never varied in their essentials. Everywhere they have stirred up the plebs against the ruling classes. Everywhere they have fostered discontent against the established power. For these are the seeds which produce the crop they hope later to gather.

Everywhere they fan the flames of hatred between peoples of the same blood. It is they who invented class-warfare, and the repudiation of this theory must therefore always be an anti-Jewish measure. In the same way, any doctrine which is anti-Communist, any doctrine which is anti-Christian must, ipso facto, be anti-Jewish as well.

The National Socialist doctrine is therefore anti-Jewish in excelsis, for it is both anti-Communist and anti-Christian. National Socialism is solid to the core, and the whole of its strength is concentrated against the Jews, even in matters which appear to have a purely social aspect and are designed for the furtherance of the social amenities of our own people.

The Fuehrer concluded: Burgdorff has just given me a paper which deals with the relationship between Communism and Christianity. It is comforting to see how, even in these days, the fatal relationship between the two is daily becoming clearer to the human intelligence.

_____________________________

Consider obtaining a copy of the complete notes
published by Ostara Publications.

“We must accept the blame”

Tom Sunic’s recent review of a 2013 book by Kerry Bolton contains phrases that support our view that “economics over race” policies lie at the root of white decline; Jewry, a secondary infection. No ellipsis added between unquoted sentences:

 

The tower of Babel is rightly used as a metaphor for contemporary rootless and mongrelized masses stashed together in the towering inferno of end times. The Babel Inc., as Bolton sees it, is a logical postmodern transposition of the myth of economism and egalitarianism, two doctrines whose genealogy can be traced from well before the period of Enlightenment in Europe.
 

Twin brothers: communism and capitalism

Thus we learn in the first half of his book that capitalism, being a prime factor in the construction of the modern Babel Inc. and in the deconstruction of the nation-state, has always been a “modern and revolutionary” force. Its inherent dynamics aims at destroying traditional communities, regardless of their spot on the planet Earth. In fact, the much decried and alleged foe of capitalism (or rather its mirror-image), communism, fell apart in the East, in the late 20th century, because its paleo-communistic goals of egalitarianism and economism had already been better achieved in the capitalist West. Both communism and capitalism share a common ideological thread, namely a common belief in progress and common hatred of all racial, ethnic and territorial identities. The Banker and the Merchant, just like their mirror-image the Commissar, detect in any historical rootedness, in any national or racial consciousness a major hindrance on the way to the glorious future under the banner of “free market, democracy and human rights.”

Massive non-White immigration, and now its reverse side, i.e. the colonisation of Europe and the USA, is just a logical outcome of political designs framed long time ago by rootless plutocrats and their leftist acolytes.

It is fundamentally wrong to blame all our ills on the SPLC, or the ADL, or the LICRA, or the Trilateral Commission, or some real or hypothetical Jew, or some hostile, plutocratic, culture-destroying Babel Inc. elites only. We White Europeans and Americans must accept our full share of the blame. We must first and foremost reject the religion of progress and its underlying principle of permanent economic growth, before considering setting up our own ethnic enclaves.

 

_________________________

See also a chapter of The Fair Race, “On the white genocide meme,” and never forget Codreanu’s immortal quote, “A country has the Jews it deserves. Just as mosquitoes can thrive and settle only in swamps, likewise the former can only thrive in the swamps of our sins.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 283 other followers