Jan 20, 2016

Changing America, Part 2

via Kevin Alfred Strom

Listen Now 

Part 1

KAS Editor's Note: We see a changing America, an America that is changing for the worse. An America that is getting darker, more dangerous, more corrupt, more degenerate, and sicker with each passing year. We see an America that is no longer fit for our children to live in, an America in which our grandchildren may not even have a future. Dr. William Pierce, the founder of the organization behind this program, the National Alliance, saw these changes too — and developed a plan to save our race and make our children’s future brighter and greater than we ever imagined before.

“Changing America” is a phrase with a double meaning. Yes, we see a changing America all around us. But changing America is also what we need to do.

Today we’re going to hear Dr. Pierce explain how and why the Alliance must have a voice that can be heard by every member of our people.

I give you Dr. William Pierce and Changing America, part 2:

* * *

We’re striving always to speak with a louder and louder voice, a more and more authoritative voice. We’re building a multi-media communications capability. We began with leaflets and pamphlets and tabloids back in the 1970s. We sold our tabloids in news racks in Washington, and distributed our leaflets on street corners. Then we began publishing books and distributing books from other publishers. We also began publishing magazines. In the early 1990s we began our American Dissident Voices broadcasts, first on shortwave radio stations and then on commercial AM and FM stations. Then we began using the Internet, and made a large amount of information available through the World Wide Web including the texts and the audio recordings of our weekly radio broadcasts.

Now that we are using all of these media, our task is to continue to develop our ability to use them more and more effectively and on a larger and larger scale. That is, we want to deliver our message to the public as persuasively as we can; we want to make the best impression, the strongest impression we can. And we want to reach more and more people.

Eventually, we want to be speaking continually to every White man and woman in every walk of life and of every ideological persuasion, whether he wants to hear us or not. We know that even those Whites who have been taught by the controlled media to hate and fear us, even those who have been brainwashed into hating their own race and feeling guilty for being White, eventually can be won back for our race. But that won’t happen overnight.

Of course, we also use the media controlled by the enemies of our people as much as we can, sometimes through radio or television or newspaper interviews, but more often through their reporting of our activities. All of this reporting is intensely hostile and is quite distorted, however, and although it increases the public’s familiarity with our name it can hardly take the place of our own presentation of our facts and ideas and policies to the public through our own media.

Building our communications infrastructure is a big job and it requires the participation and support of many people. And so we also have an organizational task: We must recruit men and women who can staff our infrastructure and make it functional; we must recruit others who can provide the financial support and other necessary help. All of this requires an ongoing recruiting effort.

Our aim is not just to inform people but also to motivate them to participate in our effort in one way or another — some by contributing money or other resources, some by utilizing their skills or talents to help us with the formulation and propagation of our message, whether as researchers or writers or editors or technicians; and some to do the other tasks necessary for us to continue building a strong and effective organization.

And although the main function of our organization now is communication with the public, in the future we need to develop other functions. Every facet of the society around us has become corrupted. It’s not just the controlled news and entertainment media with which we need to compete effectively. The public schools and the universities have been corrupted and turned against our people. The same is true of virtually every mainstream Christian church, and of course there is the government with its courts, its legislators, and virtually the whole bureaucracy, along with the police and military branches. The professional organizations — associations of lawyers, physicians, engineers, professors, teachers, as well as the labor and trade unions — also have been infiltrated and subverted and are marching in ideological lockstep with the controlled media, at least on the essential issue of race.

All of these institutions have been damaged to the point where it’s not just a matter of making new rules and replacing a few personnel in order to make them once more constructive and progressive components of our society — some of them will need to be rebuilt from the ground up. Many people who are involved in these corrupt institutions, many members of these corrupt associations, are aware of the corruption and would like to fight it — but by themselves can’t do much. We want to recruit these people, and in order to do that effectively we must do it as insiders, not outsiders. We need lawyers to recruit lawyers, teachers to recruit teachers, soldiers to recruit soldiers, policemen to recruit policemen, professors to recruit professors.

This really requires a ramified organization in which many of the capabilities and functions of the larger society are duplicated on a smaller scale inside the organization. This is a very important feature of the National Alliance and one that distinguishes it sharply from any other organization which claims to be working for the survival and progress of our people. We’re not trying to build a mass organization with a membership consisting primarily of disgruntled or dispossessed White people who have a personal grievance. We want the people who — despite affirmative action and massive non-White immigration and special quotas for non-Whites — still are successful and productive people, people who have been able to succeed despite all of the obstacles put in their way.

We need men and women with the strength of character and the intelligence and the self-respect to get ahead in their chosen fields of endeavor regardless of the circumstances. We’re building an organization of winners, not losers. We understand two essential things about the nature of our task. The first thing is that the time has passed when one could make a successful revolution by gathering a howling mob outside the city gates. The people inside the gates have too great an advantage. The only way to make a revolution in this technological era is from inside the gates. If our aim is to gain control of the machinery of power, then we must recruit people who already are part of the machinery. We need the technicians and the engineers and the scientists; we need the programmers and the system administrators; we need the professors and the military officers and the police officials; we need the writers and the editors and the newspaper reporters and the lawyers. We need at least some of the people who already have their hands on the levers of power, people who can throw open the gates at the right moment.

The second thing we understand — and this is a repetition of what I said just a few minutes ago — the second thing is that as long as the enemies of our people control the mass media, as long as they control Hollywood and the television networks and Madison Avenue, a majority of our people will continue to dance to whatever tune the Jews are playing. They will believe whatever they are told they should believe, and will vote accordingly whether the economy is bad or good. That’s why it is folly to attempt to save our people through the present system of electoral democracy. It makes no sense at all to attempt to build a third party or to capture the Republican or the Democratic party until we have TV and Hollywood in our own hands or have in some way made it impossible for the Jews to continue using these mass media for their own purposes.

We cannot now illuminate or motivate most of our people, we cannot win the hearts and minds of the couch potatoes, of the lemmings, of those who are authoritarian by nature. We can persuade only the minority of our people who are capable of thinking independently, the minority not under the spell of television. That’s somewhere between 2 and 5 per cent. of the population, not enough to win an election or to form a mob capable of overwhelming the government — but definitely enough to throw open the city gates at the right moment. That’s why we put so much of our effort into communicating effectively with those able to listen to us and why we aim for the most intelligent, the most capable, and the strongest people — the winners rather than the losers who traditionally are the targets of a revolutionary movement.

Of course we need winners who also are moral and responsible, winners who have not been corrupted and who have not sold out to those who are trying to destroy our people, winners who still have a sense of racial identity and racial responsibility.

One thing we always must keep in mind in this regard is that despite the fact that a majority of our people are under the influence of the propaganda of our enemies at the moment, most of them are not really bad people. Relatively few White people are consciously evil; relatively few make a conscious decision to betray their own people for personal gain. Most are morally neutral people. They are lemmings, and what they need is good leadership and proper guidance. No matter how hostile to us they may seem now when they have been filled with racial guilt and racial self-hatred and hatred against us by the controlled media, they will quickly forget this guilt and hatred and they will develop healthy attitudes and opinions after the media have been taken away from the hate-mongers.

That’s why we never count our enemies, only our friends. And the number of the latter is growing all the time, more and more with each passing day.

As I said, the tasks that all of us in the National Alliance have set for ourselves are, first, to build a communications infrastructure giving us the capability of reaching the perceptive and responsible few of our people now — and eventually reaching all of our people as we become able to compete effectively with television and the other mass media under Jewish control; and second, to recruit the best of the people we reach with our message, to bring them into the National Alliance and organize them into an effective force for change.

And what is it that we want to change? How do we want to change the society around us, the government, the laws, the lives of our people? What is our vision of a changed America, a changed world?

We are of course still a long way from being able to implement any of the changes that we want. We don’t even know whether we will be able to change things peacefully by winning the hearts and minds of a sufficient number of people in positions where they’re able to help us transform America’s laws and institutions in healthy and constructive ways, or whether the degenerative forces now destroying America will plunge us all into chaos first, and we’ll have to try to build an entirely new society on the ruins of the old.

We don’t know what will happen during the next few years. We don’t know what sort of conditions we’ll have to cope with, but we still can have a vision of the changes that we want to make, a vision of the sort of world that we want our people to inherit.

The Battle for Room 314: A White Liberal Is Stripped of His Illusions by the Reality of "African-American Culture"

via American Renaissance

In 2008, Ed Boland, a well-off New Yorker who had spent 20 years as an executive at a nonprofit, had a midlife epiphany: He should leave his white-glove world, the galas at the Waldorf and drinks at the Yale Club, and go work with the city’s neediest children.

The Battle for Room 314: My Year of Hope and Despair in a New York City High School” (Grand Central Publishing) is Boland’s memoir of his brief, harrowing tenure as a public school teacher, and it’s riveting.

There’s nothing dry or academic here. It’s tragedy and farce, an economic and societal indictment of a system that seems broken beyond repair.

The book is certain to be controversial. There’s something dilettante-ish, if not cynical, about a well-off, middle-aged white man stepping ever so briefly into this maelstrom of poverty, abuse, homelessness and violence and emerging with a book deal.

What Boland has to share, however, makes his motives irrelevant.

Names and identifying details have been changed, but the school Boland calls Union Street is, according to clues and public records, the Henry Street School of International Studies on the Lower East Side. [Editor’s Note: The school is 54 percent Hispanic, 29 percent black, 14 percent Asian, and 2 percent white.]

Boland opens the book with a typical morning in freshman history class.

A teenage girl named Chantay sits on top of her desk, thong peeking out of her pants, leading a ringside gossip session. Work sheets have been distributed and ignored.

“Chantay, sit in your seat and get to work–now!” Boland says.

A calculator goes flying across the room, smashing into the blackboard. Two boys begin physically fighting over a computer. Two girls share an iPod, singing along. Another girl is immersed in a book called “Thug Life 2.”

Chantay is the one who aggravates Boland the most. If he can get control of her, he thinks, he can get control of the class.

“Chantay,” he says, louder, “sit down immediately, or there will be serious consequences.”

The classroom freezes. Then, as Boland writes, “she laughed and cocked her head up at the ceiling. Then she slid her hand down the outside of her jeans to her upper thigh, formed a long cylinder between her thumb and forefinger, and shook it . . . She looked me right in the eye and screamed, ‘SUCK MY F–KIN’ D–K, MISTER.’ ”

It was Boland’s first week.

At the time, Boland’s new school was considered a bold experiment–not a charter but an “autonomous” one, given freedom in both management and curriculum. It was endowed in part by the Gates Foundation, and the principal hired only teachers who had once lived abroad.

Boland had taught English in China. This was his favored school–advertised as the last, best hope for kids who had fallen far behind–and he was thrilled to be hired. He went home to his then-boyfriend (now-husband) and celebrated over takeout pad Thai and an expensive bottle of red wine.

“I was ready to change lives as a teacher,” he writes.

How wrong he was.

There were 30 kids in his ninth-grade class, some as old as 17. One student, Jamal, was living in a homeless shelter with his mother; most of the other students lived in public housing. There was one white kid in the whole school.


Two weeks in and Boland was crying in the bathroom. Kids were tossing $110 textbooks out the window. They overturned desks and stormed out of classrooms. There were seventh-grade girls with tattoos and T-shirts that read, “I’m Not Easy But We Can Negotiate.”


Here among the kids who couldn’t name continents or oceans, who scrawled, “Mr. Boland is a f*****t” on chalkboards, who listed porn among their hobbies, were a few who had a shot.

There was Nee-cole, who wore thick glasses and pigtails. She was quiet, smart, much more childlike than her peers, and Boland felt for her. He was also intrigued by a tough girl named Yvette, who showed flashes of insight and intelligence yet did all she could to hide it. “PLEASE DON’T TELL ANYONE I WROTE THIS,” she scrawled on one report.


Boland came to actively loathe most of the student body. He ­resented “their poverty, their ­ignorance, their arrogance. ­Everything I was hoping, at first, to change.”


A lifelong liberal, Boland began to feel uncomfortable with his thinking. “We can’t just explain away someone’s horrible behavior because they have had a tough ­upbringing,” he argued back. “It doesn’t do them–or us–any good.


Boland didn’t know what to ­believe anymore. At the end of the school year, he quit.
Boland ends his book with familiar suggestions for ­reform: Invest more money, recruit better teachers, retool the unions, end poverty. But there’s no public policy for fixing a broken kid from a broken home, or turning fear into resilience, or saving kids who can’t, or won’t, be saved. . . .

Widar, the Silent and Meditative God

via Aryan Myth and Metahistory

We have entered a new year today and it is the task of the Arya to reflect on what is to come. It is not the Arya's task to mark the accasion with public drunkenness, disorder and violence as is the habit of the masses each year in this country. As a spiritual elite we stand apart and above such bestial behaviour.

Instead we should follow the example of the God of the Coming Age, the new Golden Age which will be manifested after the end of Ragnarok-Korangar. The God of this Coming Age is the Avenging God Widar/Vidar/Wid-Ar. He is a God of vengeance yes but He is also the God of silence!
"Vidar is the name of one, the silent As." (Gylfaginning, Prose Edda, Faulkes translation)
"How shall Vidar be referred to? He may be called the silent As,..." (Skaldskaparmal, Prose Edda, Faulkes translation)
What is the reason for Widar's silence? Neither of the Eddas reveals the reason for this but this only adds to Widar's enigmatic personality. He is clearly not a God of the masses and very few outside of our circles have even heard of Him. However a clue to His silence is revealed in Handbook of Norse Mythology, 2001, John Lindow:
"Vidar's silence is unexplained in the texts that have come down to us. Some scholars believe it may derive from ritual silences or other abstentions accompanying acts of vengeance;...."
Widar resides apart from the other Aesir but does nevertheless join them in their feasts. He lives alone because he chooses to do so, a further indication of the reflective nature of this God:
"Brushwood grows and high grass
           widely in Vidar's land;

           and there the son proclaims on his horse's back

           that he's keen to avenge his father." (Grimnismal 17, Poetic Edda, Larrington translation)
"O'ergrown with branches and high grass is Vidar's spacious Landvidi: There will the son descend, from the steed's back, bold to avenge his father." (Thorpe translation)
Although He is known as the Silent As that does not mean that He was mute! Indeed the image of Vidar seated on His horse proclaiming to all that He will avenge Woden demonstrates that when He does speak He speaks words of power-of significance. This image reminds me of the Kalki Avatar and the avenging Christ of the Book of Revelation:

11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. (King James Version/Authorised Version)
 Vishnu will return as Kalki, upon a white horse, as the last Avatar, amid fire and flames.' - Hindu Puranas c 900 c.e.  
'Vishnu will return … as [ Kalki ] the last Avatar, amid fire and flames … he will travel across the globe …' - The Srimad Bhagavata ( circa 1500 BCE )
'When the Kali age.. is well-nigh past, the Lord will appear in His Divine form consisting of Sattva[purity] alone for the protection of virtue. Lord Vishnu adorned of the whole animate and inanimate creation, and the Soul of the Universe, appears in this world of matter for protecting the virtue of the righteous and wiping out the entire stock of their Karma and thereby liberating them. the Lord will appear under the name of Kalki.. 
riding a fleet horse.. and capable of subduing the wicked. the Lord of the Universe wielding.. divine powers and possessed of endless virtues and matchless splendor, he will traverse the globe on that swift horse and exterminate with his sword the robbers[those whose minds are devoted to iniquity] by the tens of millions.' - Srimad Bhagavata  
'He will then reestablish righteousness upon Earth; and the minds of those who live at the end of the Kali age shall be awakened, and shall be as translucent as crystal.' - Vishnu Purana IV:24,26-27
"When righteousness is weak and faints and unrighteousness exults in pride, then my Spirit arises on earth.
"For the salvation of those who are good, for the destruction of evil in men, for the fulfillment   of the kingdom of righteousness, I come to this world in the ages that pass." (Bhagavad Gita 4:7-8, Mascaro translation)
"Sajaha: `Der Dritte Sargon wird kommen in spaeterer Zeit. Er wird vertilgen die Knechte der Finsternis mit all ihrem Samen, er wird das Boese ausreissen mit der Wurzel."(Book of Sajaha the Seer, Tablet 12.14)
Wotans Krieger`s translation:
"Sajaha: `The Third Sargon will come at a later time. He will exterminate the slaves of darkness with all their seed, he will pull out the evil by the root."
It is likely also that the silence which is associated with Widar is to do with the ancient meditative practices of the Aryan peoples which are also referred to in The Meditative Paradigms of Seiðr. Widar is a God who waits, meditates and reflects as a necessary prelude to the vengeance that He will bring when the time is right. Then and only then will he act!

A Review of “Why the Germans? Why the Jews?”

via The Occidental Observer

The culture of the Holocaust is destroying Germany. Endlessly reinforced over decades by the intellectual and media elite, the notion that Germans and their descendants are responsible for “the single most evil event in human history” has had such a demoralizing effect that millions fully support Angela Merkel’s current attempt to destroy the ethnic basis of their nation. The culture of the Holocaust has been used to devastating effect right throughout the West to stifle opposition to the Jewish diaspora strategies of mass non-White immigration and multiculturalism. “The Holocaust” is the absolute lynchpin of the White displacement agenda, with any hint of European racial or ethnic identification or solidarity being instantly linked with Auschwitz and its alleged horrors in the minds of millions (probably billions) of people.

The entire social and political order of the contemporary West — based as it is on spurious notions of racial equality and the alleged virtues of racial diversity and multiculturalism — has been erected on the moral foundations of the Holocaust. White people cannot be recognized as a group with interests because “never again.” Western nations have a moral obligation to accept unlimited non-White immigration from the Third World because “never again.” Europe must open its borders to hostile Islamic invaders because “never again.” Whites should meekly accept their deliberate displacement (and ultimate extinction) because “never again.”

Jewish historian Peter Novick has described how today’s culture of “the Holocaust” emerged as part of the collective Jewish response to the Eichmann trial in 1961–62, the Six-Day War in the Middle East in 1967, and, in particular, the Yom Kippur War in 1973. While the foundation was laid at Nuremberg in 1946, it was with these later events, and the anxieties they engendered among Jews throughout the world, that “there emerged in American culture a distinct thing called ‘the Holocaust’ — an event in its own right,” and with it a term that entered the English language as a description of all manner of horrors. From that time on, he notes, “the Holocaust” has become “ever more central in American public discourse — particularly, of course, among Jews, but also in the culture at large” and has since “attained transcendent status as the bearer of eternal truths or lessons that could be derived from contemplating it.”[i]

Novick acknowledges the primary reason for this state of affairs: that Jews, with their domination of academia and the media and entertainment industries, virtually dictate this “American” (and by extension “Western” culture) which has become so Holocaust-obsessed. He argues that the importance of the Holocaust is not a spontaneous phenomenon but stems from highly focused, well-funded efforts of Jewish organizations and individual Jews with access to the major media:
We are not just “the people of the book,” but the people of the Hollywood film and the television miniseries, of the magazine article and the newspaper column, of the comic book and the academic symposium. When a high level of concern with the Holocaust became widespread in American Jewry, it was, given the important role that Jews play in American media and opinion-making elites, not only natural, but virtually inevitable that it would spread throughout the culture at large. (Peter Novick, The Holocaust in American Life (Mariner Books, 1999), 12)
The Jewish director Jill Soloway observed that Jews in Hollywood are “recreating culture to defend ourselves post-Holocaust.” This ethnic “defense” has entailed the intensive promotion of racial diversity and mixing, the denigration of White people and their traditional culture, the hyper-sexualization of what now passes for Western culture, the glamorizing of sexual non-conformity and the breakdown of traditional gender roles — all alongside constant reminders of “the Holocaust” with its concomitant themes of noble Jewish victimhood and unsurpassed German (White, European) evil.

Since 1945, some 148 feature films have been made about “the Holocaust” — the majority after 1970. The Jewish intellectual Chaim Bermant observed that “the Jews that came to dominate Hollywood” between them “did more to determine American attitudes and tastes than the churches or even the schools.”[ii] The psychological effects of Hollywood’s Holocaust-obsession were clear by the 1990s when one survey found that 97 percent of Americans knew what “the Holocaust” was — substantially more than knew what “Pearl Harbor” related to, or that the United States has dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, and far more than the 49 percent that knew that the Soviet Union had fought on the American side in World War Two.[iii]

Throughout the West proliferating “Holocaust” memorials and museums are lavishly funded by taxpayers, and study of “the Holocaust” in schools is mandated by law in many jurisdictions. As well as serving to morally disarm Whites concerned about their own immigrant-led displacement, the culture of “the Holocaust” is a key part of Jewish efforts to prevent intermarriage in the diaspora. Eric Goldstein, for instance, notes how “Jews discuss, read about, and memorialize the Holocaust with zeal as a means of keeping their sense of difference from non-Jews alive.”[iv]

Holocaust films

“The Holocaust” has become, in the words of Nicholas Kollerstrom, “an ersatz substitute for genuine metaphysical knowledge,” with Auschwitz now serving as the spiritual center of a new religion and a place of awed pilgrimage for millions of penitent Europeans. The narrative has also unleashed an endless flow of money from Germany to Israel and to compensate more “Holocaust” survivors than there were ever Jews in countries under German control.[v]

Without the “Holocaust” narrative, and the veneer of moral rectitude it confers upon Jewish activism, it is doubtful the 1965 immigration laws in the United States would have passed. Likewise, the toppling of the White Australia policy just eight years later — a direct result of Jewish ethno-politics — would probably not have occurred without the moral leverage “the Holocaust” afforded Jewish activists and their non-Jewish collaborators. The leftwing Australian historian Professor Henry Reynolds has acknowledged the Jewish ethno-political (and Holocaust-centered) origins of the regnant belief in biological racial equality when he noted that: “My students often ask me how it was that people in the past held such objectionable views [about race]. They have no understanding of just how pervasive racial thought was a generation or two ago, how the Second World War and the Holocaust marked an intellectual watershed after which nothing would be the same again.”[vi]

Boasian anthropology and the “the Holocaust”  

While the Jewish critique of racialist thought, spearheaded by Franz Boas, preceded World War II  by several decades, it gained urgency following Hitler’s assumption of power in 1933. In his book Racism, posthumously published in 1938, the Jewish “sexologist” Magnus Hirschfeld set out to provide a refutation of the racial doctrines of the National Socialists. “If it were practicable,” he wrote, “we should certainly do well to eradicate the term ‘race’ as far as subdivisions of the human species are concerned.”[vii] During the war the writings of Boas, his students Ruth Benedict, Melville Herskovits and others critical of the link between race, culture and ability began to reach a mass audience. Benedict’s Races and Racism, published in 1942, dismissed racial thought as “a travesty of scientific knowledge.”[viii] In the same year, the Jewish intellectual Ashley Montagu (born Israel Ehrenberg) published Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race which became a best seller.

An illustration from Ruth Benedict’s The Races of Mankind (1946)
An illustration from Ruth Benedict’s The Races of Mankind (1946)

These Jewish ethnic activists and their allies, with their pseudo-scientific theories, were only able to reach a mass audience through the eager assistance and promotion of Jewish influence in the press and publishing houses — not because of the intrinsic merits of their arguments. As a result of these efforts, the British historian David Cannadine has noted that: “By the end of the Second World War, the notion that race was the most significant form of collective human identity, consciousness, and ranking had been stripped of any serious claim to intellectual respectability.”[ix]

In 1949 the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) convened a panel of “scientists,” chaired by Montagu, to “produce a definitive verdict on race.” One leftist historian has pointed out how the panel was comprised of “a team of ten scientists all of whom were recruited from the marginal group of anthropologists, sociologists and ethnographers who perceived the race concept primarily as a social construct.” He also notes that: “Most of these had at some point either been affiliated with the scientifically marginalized groups of cultural anthropologists that were mostly students of Franz Boas at Colombia University in New York.”[x]

After the panel’s first meeting at the UNESCO headquarters in Paris, Montagu wrote a proposal for a final statement on race during one night at a nearby hotel, and over the following days the participants discussed “the race concept” in light of Montagu’s draft.[xi] Montagu claimed that “only if our deliberations had taken place at Auschwitz or Dachau could there have been a more fitting environment to impress upon the committee members the immense significance of their work.”[xii] At that time UNESCO House was the former headquarters of the German military during its occupation of France during World War II. Underpinning the words of the UNESCO declaration “was widespread revulsion at the Jewish Holocaust.”[xiii] Leftist academic Anthony Hazard notes that “a clear rejection of anti-Semitism seemed to underline the entire effort.”[xiv]

Ashley Montagu
Ashley Montagu

The Montagu-led UNESCO panel’s statement (replete with falsehoods and specious arguments) was issued in 1950. “Scientists,” it claimed, “have reached general agreement in recognizing that mankind is one: that all men belong to the same species, Homo sapiens.” Genes responsible for the “hereditary differences between men” were “always few when compared to the whole genetic constitution of man and the vast number of genes common to all human beings regardless of the populations to which they belong.” It therefore followed that “the likenesses among men are far greater than their differences.” The error here is assuming that small differences in the input to a system must yield small differences in the system’s output. On the contrary, it is often the case that small differences in the input result in large differences in the final outcome. For instance, it has often been pointed out that human beings and chimpanzees differ in less than two percent of their DNA; nevertheless, the difference in intelligence between the species is enormous. Many genetic diseases are caused by a single gene, and some of these are deadly.

The UNESCO panel’s statement proposed that it would be best “to drop the term ‘race’ altogether,” since “for all practical purposes, ‘race’ is not so much a biological phenomenon as a social myth.” Montagu and his colleagues ended their “definitive statement on race” with a ringing endorsement of the idea of a common humanity: “Biological studies lend support to the ethic of universal brotherhood; for man is born with drives towards co-operation. … In this sense, every man is his brother’s keeper.” Here we find the invariable Jewish tendency to couch the pursuit of specific Jewish interests in a pretended universal benevolence.

UNESCO’s Montagu-drafted “definitive verdict on race,” was published with a press release with the headline: “No biological justification for race discrimination, say world scientists: Most authoritative statement on the subject.”[xv] The New York Times reported on the statement with a story whose headline proclaimed: “No Scientific Basis for Race Bias Found by World Panel of Experts.”[xvi] The UNESCO Statement on Race amounted to the foisting of a Jewish ethno-political agenda onto the global polity — with devastating consequences for the interests of Europeans.

With this new agenda now in place at the highest level, and with the demonization and marginalization of dissenters, it was almost inevitable in the decades following the defeat of Germany that the remaining policies constructed on the basis of racialist thought and identity would be dismantled. The 1950 statement on race (which contributed to the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court desegregation decision in Brown v. Board of Education in Topeka) was described by one sympathetic commentator as “the triumph of Boasian anthropology on a world-historical scale.”[xvii]

Cannadine notes that, during the decades that followed, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand “abandoned their policies of racial discrimination, ended their restrictions on immigration … and embraced multiculturalism.” This misleadingly implies that these changes occurred as a result of a shift in popular sentiment, of people suddenly coming to their senses and “embracing” racial diversity. The reality in the U.S., and, as I explicated in my series of essays on Australia, was that the movement toward the liberalization of immigration policies in countries like Australia was a top-down, totally undemocratic movement pursued for specifically Jewish ends.

Götz Aly — Reinforcing the culture of “the Holocaust” in Germany

Roger Devlin has observed that “all of us in the West are supposed to be responsible for the ills of the rest of the world, but only Germans have had their identity entirely constructed on guilt for 70 years.” One of those who has worked hard to reinforce the culture of “the Holocaust” in Germany, and to entrench the climate of opinion that is leading the German people to destruction, is the University of Frankfurt historian Professor Götz Aly who has written a series of books on German “anti-Semitism,” the Third Reich and “the Holocaust.” Aly, who was involved with militant far left organizations in the sixties and seventies, is the descendent of a Turkish soldier who converted to Christianity in the seventeenth century. Despite his partial Turkish ancestry, Aly identifies as an ethnic German. He is, nevertheless, acutely critical of the German people and their history. Aly’s latest book (recently translated into English) is Why the Germans? Why the Jews? Envy, Race Hatred, and the Prehistory of the Holocaust, which is Aly’s attempt to explain “why German history culminated in genocide.”[xviii]

Götz Aly
Götz Aly

Unlike the bulk of establishment historians, such as the egregious Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Aly is at least willing to accept that the origins of post-Enlightenment German “anti-Semitism” can be traced to conflicts of interest between Jews and non-Jews — or rather, in his view, to the envy of average Germans at the rapid social and economic advancement of Jews in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. He regards attempts to account for the rise of National Socialism solely on the basis of political ideology as unsatisfactory, observing that “conservatives weren’t the only ones guided by hostility toward and even hatred of Jews. Reformers and pioneers of political liberty often were as well. We must look for explanations elsewhere.”[xix]

Despite these small concessions to reality, Aly remains firmly within the camp of intellectual apologists for Jews in proposing that “anti-Semitism” is a phenomenon that always has its wellspring in the psychopathology or delusions of non-Jews — in this case in the pathological jealousy of Germans. His exoneration of Jews from any role whatever in contributing to manifestations of “anti-Semitism” is hardly surprising given that Aly’s book has the imprimatur of the leading Jewish representatives of the Holocaust industry. The author, who is a past winner of a Jewish Book Award, notes, for example, how his research was “made a lot easier and a lot more pleasant by my helpful and welcoming colleagues at Yad Vashem” and that his work was underwritten by the Baron Friedrich Carl von Oppenheim Stipend for Research on Racism, Anti-Semitism, and the Holocaust.

From the standpoint of an unquestioning acceptance of the dogmatic Hollywood version of “the Holocaust,” Götz Aly asserts that: “What remains contentious are questions of its ultimate meaning and deeper causes,” and argues that “the answers will, no doubt, continue to be fragmentary. Nonetheless, historians have a duty to seek them.” So, according to the author, historians have a moral and intellectual duty to search for the ultimate meaning of “the Holocaust” (provided of course this fully exonerates Jews) but not a duty to determine the actual facts regarding the alleged event itself. So much for the once revered academic tradition of fearlessly seeking out the truth wherever it leads. In the subsequent parts of this review I critically analyze Aly’s “envy” theory of the German “anti-Semitism” which forms the basis of his much praised book.

[i] Peter Novick, The Holocaust and Collective Memory (London: Bloomsbury, 2000), 144.
[ii] Chaim Bermant, Jews (London; Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1977), 91.
[iii] Novick, Holocaust, 232.
[iv] Eric L. Goldstein, The Price of Whiteness: Jews, Race, and American Identity (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2008), 211.
[v] Nicholas Kollerstrom, Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust, Myth & Reality (Uckfield: Castle Hill, 2014), 133.
[vi] Henry Reynolds, Why Weren’t We Told? — A personal search for the truth about our history (Melbourne: Penguin, 2000), 248-249.
[vii] David Cannadine, The Undivided Past: Humanity Beyond Our Differences (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013), 205.
[viii] Ibid., 210.
[ix] Ibid., 211.
[x] Poul Duedahl, “From racial strangers to ethnic minorities, On the socio-political impact of UNESCO, 1945-60.” Paper presented at 7th Annual International Conference on Politics and International Affairs in Athens, Greece, in 2009.
[xi] Ibid.
[xii] Anthony Q. Hazard, Postwar Anti-Racism: The United States, UNESCO, and “Race,”1945-1968 (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2012), 38.
[xiii] Cannadine, The Undivided Past, 212.
[xiv] Hazard, Postwar Anti-Racism, 39.
[xv] Duedahl, “From racial strangers.”
[xvi] Elazar Barkan, The Retreat of Scientific Racism: Changing Concepts of Race in Britain and the United States between the World Wars (Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 341.
[xvii] Robert Wald Sussman, The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2014), 207.
[xviii] Götz Aly, Why the Germans? Why the Jews?: Envy, Race Hatred, and the Prehistory of the Holocaust (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2014), 2.
[xix] Ibid., 3.
[xx] Ibid., 1.
[xxi] Ibid., 9.
[xxii] Ibid.
[xxiii] Ibid., 110.

Jew-Dominated CNN Continues to Denigrate Trump to Facilitate the Rise of Socialist Jew, Bernie Sanders

via First Light Forum

Look, if for a moment you still think Donald Trump isn’t the Lord’s choice for US President to endorse the interests of messianic Jews, both in America and the state of Israel, just take even a cursory look at the wicked leftist commie Jew propaganda relating to him on CNN’s Web site, which includes a commentary on Trump’s speech at Liberty University by the JEW Jeremy Diamond…

Donald Trump takes Liberty University by storm and courts its evangelical Christians on its first convocation for 2016…

and no I don’t endorse his introductory comments about “Marxist Lucifer King’s” Day, but I do think he is America’s best choice for president by far…

Okay, so Trump isn’t a true born again Christian and needs to reconcile with God through Jesus to avoid hell after death, but he does generally honor God; and his quote from scripture in the following video was NOT a misquote, as the sicko CNN lackey would have you believe, because “two Corinthians” is a legitimate reference to the second epistle of the apostle Paul to the Corinthians in the New Testament…

Look, if for a moment you still think Donald Trump isn’t the Lord’s choice for US President to endorse the interests of messianic Jews, both in America and the state of Israel, just take even a cursory look at the wicked leftist commie Jew propaganda relating to him on CNN’s Web site, which includes a commentary on Trump’s speech at Liberty University by the JEW Jeremy Diamond…

Click HERE to view a series of Jew co-opted CNN videos that denigrate The Donald for the leftist Jews who want the JEWISH CREEP Bernie Sanders to reign as a “new Kerensky” over the Jews’ new Soviet of the “USSA”, locked down under Jew run Homeland Security, as the Jews’ new NKVD…



Related…click on this…

Top Homeland Security officials brief hundreds of Jewish groups…

Also these pathetic comments by the useless wowsers in the English Parliament on the proposed ban on Trump entering the UK, because of his proposed temporary ban on all Muslims entering the US…

German Questions

via Radix

Martin Schulz, a German Social Democratic politician and the president of the EU Parliament, reportedly told an Israeli politician,
For me, the new Germany exists only in order to ensure the existence of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.
Wow. Just wow.

The source? Avraham Burg, an Israeli businessman and Knesset member, in Haaretz of last year. So this is a little old, but I have not seen it discussed elsewhere before, and it helps to explain Grand Mutti Merkel and the German political class’s suicidal reaction to the ongoing African/Islamic invasion of Europe, which is the so-called “migrant crisis.”

Burg tell us:

Say a Big 'Thank You' to Martin Schulz

[. . .] Martin Schulz, the president of the European Parliament, is a close friend of mine. On most issues connected to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict we disagree. He is closer to the Israeli mainstream, and his positions resemble those of Labor Party chairman Isaac Herzog. He once told me, during a frank and stern conversation, “For me, the new Germany exists only in order to ensure the existence of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.” He’s a brilliant intellectual and a thoughtful politician, and we don’t need to worry – he won’t give up his existential friendship so easily. [. . .] And so, I want to say a big “thank you” to Martin Schulz, one of Israel’s last and best real friends in the world.
Now, Burg was making these comments in the context of outrage among Israeli media and politicians regarding a statement made by Schulz complaining (in an otherwise very pro-Israeli speech) that Israelis in the West Bank (Jewish settlers, to be precise) are allowed to use four times more water than are Palestinians.

Burg may have been exaggerating a bit to make his friend Schulz appear in a good light during a media crisis. But Schulz made no attempt to correct the statement reported in Haaretz. So either he, indeed, made it in private or he was happy to have it reported without correction or further comment. Schulz is then content to have the Israeli public know that the German people and their government, the Federal Republic of Germany, exist “only in order to ensure the existence of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.”

Shouldn’t the German government only exist to serve the interests of the German people, and not those of a foreign people or minority group?

Schulz is an unremarkable German Social Democratic politician. As the temporary occupant of the office of President of the EU Parliament, he has a tiny sliver of power accorded to him under the strange regime that is the European Union, the small reward for a long career of keeping his head down and going with the flow of internationalist and plutocratic orthodoxy.

As such, Schulz is as good an indicator as any of the fashions of the German and European political classes today. His insanity is also the insanity of Chancellor Angela Merkel and of the German politico-media elite generally.

Of course, the Federal Republic of Germany is not a fair or particularly “democratic” embodiment of the spontaneous will of the German people. Rather, it was founded under foreign occupation after the Second World War—after the Germans had been traumatized by the burning alive of tens of thousands of civilians, the ethnic cleansing of 9 million Germans in East Prussia, Silesia, and the Sudetenland, and the mass rape of at least 2 million German women by the Allies, the egalitarian coalition of liberals and Communists.

In response, the West Germans created an anti-nationalist dictatorship—the Federal Republic—so that never again foreign powers would have a reason to inflict such horrific and sadistic death and pain upon their people. German politicians like Schulz were raised on “anti-Nazism” and taught to believe that their people, the Germans, were the most evil people in the world and they had a duty to redeem themselves through unlimited and unreciprocated altruism towards other peoples.

The Germans were, in a sense, reprogrammed after the Second World War to destroy themselves. This program is still in operation and has even metastasized. Mainstream German “journalists” openly say they have a sacred mission to undermine nationalist and right-wing ideas, not report on them objectively or critically and fairly discuss them.

Hence, Schulz’s statement that “the new Germany exists only in order to ensure the existence of the State of Israel and the Jewish people” and Merkel’s suicidal invitation of unlimited Islamic settlement into Germany.

The case of Merkel is somewhat more puzzling. She was raised in the Communist dictatorship of East Germany, the German Democratic Republic. The Germans are a talented people, and East Germany was the most economically prosperous (which is admittedly not saying much) and rigorous dictatorship in the entire Communist bloc, with as much as five percent of the population serving as information for the Ministry for State Security (the Stasi).

Actually, the “Prusso-Stalinism” of East Germany had some successes. The native birth rate was maintained at replacement level by agressive and progressive natalist policies, including generous child benefits, a so-called “baby year” of paid post-pregnancy work leave, and propaganda pressure on all women (including the working and educated) to bear children for the Fatherland. By dent of these policies, the East German fertility rate recovered to near-replacement levels in the 1980s, levels close to notoriously baby-obsessed France (and without relying on fertile African and Muslim immigrants, of course). In contrast, in West Germany, all natalist policies were taboo because of their association with the Third Reich. Births collapsed in the 1970s to about 1.3 and have never recovered since.

The East Germans even had some eugenic policies, though they were not able to match the Czechoslovakian Communists. Prague implemented considerable financial incentives (the equivalent of 10-months pay) for voluntary sterilization of up to 2,000 women annually, massively disproportionately affecting the otherwise highly fertile gypsy population. (There was also apparently a small minority of cases of forced sterilization, for which the Czech Republic has been considering paying reparations.)

The hard school of Communism has, as a rule, helped inoculate Central and Eastern Europeans against the softer form of leftism that has become hegemonic in the West since the 1960s. Thus, the Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the Occident (PEGIDA) movement is strongest in East Germany, particularly Leipzig, where the fall of the East German Communist regime began over two decades ago.

Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, and Romanians alike are appalled at the prospect of African or Islamic settlement imposed by the EU, and their governments are putting up various degrees of resistance. They laugh at the French for having allowing their nation to be Afro-Islamized, leading to the turning of churches into mosques, annual “carbecue” festivals, and periodic bouts of terrorist attacks killing, as the case may be, Jews, leftist cartoonists, or nice White liberals.

Merkel, however, appears to not care. She is, I suspect, merely a figurehead reflecting the consensus of a German political class that can think of no higher goals than selling a few more BMWs and being nice to foreigners to demonstrate that they’ve redeemed their past.

But when does it end? Thilo Sarrazin, a more hard-headed figure, has prophesied that it will end with the end of the German people itself.

Let us hope the Germans wake up before that happens. Europe cannot, I believe, resurrect herself without Germany. And there will be no salvation for Germany unless the current political class is removed and replaced.

Until then, the German people will be ruled by individuals like Martin Schulz and Angela Merkel. So deranged and so damaged, they believe the German nation has a sacred duty to destroy itself. Importing peoples from Africa and the Middle East, they seem coldly indifferent to those Germans whose lives have been ruined as a result.

The NSA Collects Information on Israeli Lobbyists, Jews Scream Bloody Murder

via Majority Rights

In a story that shows that Jewish-American lobbyists and journalists have very little self-awareness, Adam Entous and Danny Yadron thought that it would be a good idea to publish a story in which they made it appear that the US Government was violating some kind of agreement to not spy on ‘allies’, when the NSA monitored Netanyahu’s activities during the P5+1 negotiations with Iran.

The monitoring activities were carried out with the intention of discovering what Netanyahu’s views on the proposed deal were, and what his response to it going forward might be. This monitoring would have been approved by senior figures in the Obama administration, as well as the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.
Wall Street Journal, ‘U.S. Spy Net on Israel Snares Congress’, Adam Entous and Danny Yadron, 29 Dec 2015:
President Barack Obama announced two years ago he would curtail eavesdropping on friendly heads of state after the world learned the reach of long-secret U.S. surveillance programs.
But behind the scenes, the White House decided to keep certain allies under close watch, current and former US officials said.
The National Security Agency’s targeting of Israeli leaders and officials also swept up the contents of some of their private conversations with U.S. lawmakers and American-Jewish groups. That raised fears [...] that the executive branch would be accused of spying on Congress.
Of course, what neither of these persons mention in their article is that monitoring Netanyahu’s communications was both legal and necessary.

Monitoring what other world leaders are doing so that the United States can have good information from which to make policy decisions is literally the mission statement of the NSA. Furthermore, Israel has chosen to prefer a policy on Iran that is directly at odds with that of the United States, and at odds with that of NATO more broadly. The North Atlantic desired to cultivate Iran as a swing-power which could be peeled away from Russia and utilised for offsetting Russian preponderance over natural gas supplies to Europe, and which would perhaps someday be able to frustrate Russian attempts to consolidate its influence over CIS states that have cultural or historical ties to Iran. Israel has different ideas, because Israel has a different set of priorities.

So what are they complaining about? It’s a nonsensical complaint. The Israelis should have expected that they’d be monitored. This of course did not prevent Israel’s most ardent defenders from writing absolutely ridiculous stories for weeks on end about it.

But there was an element of this story that was not touched on and which was almost conspicuously not touched on. The fact that spying on Netanyahu would become the same thing as ‘spying on the US Congress’ was what really ought to have been the story. If spying on Netanyahu is almost the same thing as spying on the US Congress, then that is an indicator of there being a serious problem in the political system itself.

That problem looks like this:
Wall Street Journal, ‘U.S. Spy Net on Israel Snares Congress’, Adam Entous and Danny Yadron, 29 Dec 2015:
How Mr. Netanyahu and his advisers had leaked details of the U.S.-Iran negotiations—learned through Israeli spying operations—to undermine the talks; coordinated talking points with Jewish-American groups against the deal; and asked undecided lawmakers what it would take to win their votes, according to current and former officials familiar with the intercepts.
And also ambassadors getting themselves involved:
Wall Street Journal, ‘U.S. Spy Net on Israel Snares Congress’, Adam Entous and Danny Yadron, 29 Dec 2015:
Mr. Dermer was described as coaching unnamed U.S. organizations—which officials could tell from the context were Jewish-American groups—on lines of argument to use with lawmakers, and Israeli officials were reported pressing lawmakers to oppose the deal.
Israel’s pitch to undecided lawmakers often included such questions as: “How can we get your vote? What’s it going to take?”
But you see, according to present and former US lawmakers who have enormous mouths and are suddenly very concerned about the somewhat nebulous concept of ‘civil liberties’, discovering when someone is trying to plunge a knife into your back is just the gravest violation of the privacy of those who are trying to do the plunging.
For example, Representative Ted Lieu, (D-California) who “has consistently voted to curb powers of the NSA”, asserted on twitter that:
That’s the part he objects to.

And there was also none other than Pete Hoekstra (formerly R-Michigan), the former congressman who chaired the House Intelligence Committee from 2004—2007, took to twitter to complain, saying:
Perhaps Hoekstra is really upset because he shares something common with former representative Jane Harman (D-California), who in 2006 was being lined up to seamlessly replace him, and whose Israeli tricks were foiled by the NSA at that time too:
Wall Street Journal, ‘Lawmaker Is Said to Have Agreed to Aid Lobbyists’, Neil A. Lewis and Mark Mazzetti, 20 Apr 2009:
Ms. Harman was inadvertently swept up by N.S.A. eavesdroppers who were listening in on conversations during an investigation, three current or former senior officials said. It is not clear exactly when the wiretaps occurred; they were first reported by Congressional Quarterly on its Web site.
The official with access to the transcripts said someone seeking help for the employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a prominent pro-Israel lobbying group, was recorded asking Ms. Harman, a longtime supporter of its efforts, to intervene with the Justice Department. She responded, the official recounted, by saying she would have more influence with a White House official she did not identify.
In return, the caller promised her that a wealthy California donor—the media mogul Haim Saban—would threaten to withhold campaign contributions to Representative Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat who was expected to become House speaker after the 2006 election, if she did not select Ms. Harman for the intelligence post.
Much like Hoekstra, Harman also had something to say about supposed ‘abuses of power’ at that time:
Think Progress, ‘Harman: ‘I’m Just Very Disappointed’’, Ali Frick, 21 Apr 2009:
I’m just very disappointed that my country — I’m an American citizen just like you are — could have permitted what I think is a gross abuse of power in recent years.
She’s one of the people who approved the budget and the legal framework that would supply the NSA and others with equipment and a mandate to watch PCS networks and collect the data under ONEROOF, but then she thought that the NSA and FBI were going to magically avoid collecting signals from her because she’s special?

Whenever Jews or their associates find themselves being treated just like everyone else, they suddenly get very tearful and start talking about how they are so, so, so oppressed. A sad tune needs to be played for them, perhaps, on the tinyest of tiny violins.

Aeschylus as Agitprop: A Review of Sarah Kitz’s “Agamemnon”

via Alternative Right

I decided to impress the missus the other night by taking her out to the theatre, opting for something "a bit classical" – a modern retelling of Aeschylus’ Oresteia, reworked for a modern Canadian setting by Nicolas Billon, a playwright previously honoured with the Governor General's Award for English-language Drama.

What could possibly go wrong? Quite a lot actually as I hadn’t done my homework.

The play was directed by one (((Sarah Kitz))) and should have been accompanied with trigger warnings throughout. In the program (((Kitz))) writes:
"The story before this one is Iphigenia's sacrifice. A young female life is offered as a symbol to appease the gods, to achieve a wind to sail armies to Troy, to sack Troy and punish/retrieve Helen (how dare a woman leave her husband and follow her own desire?)."
On the contrary (((Ms. Kitz))), how dare you rewrite Western historiography to fit in with your modernist feminist agenda!

I was prepared to give some leeway for modernizing artistic license, but what we witnessed was utter schlock and debasement. Right away épater les bourgeois was in full cry, with a rebelliously cynical cookie cutter teenage Chrysothemis spouting, "Fuck this! Fuck that! Cunt! etc."

OK, fine. I get it. The language was meant to shock and prepare us for the sitcom tone of the piece that was to follow, but I had already begun to regret paying for this.

For Nietzsche, Aeschylus represented the high point of Western tragedy, in which the Dionysian forces were brought under the sway of the Apollonian order. But in this revolting revision, the Dionysian force was represented in unbridled 'comic' form as a queer with a strap-on dildo in the role of Aegisthus.

Miss Kitz definitely has an axe to grind
against White Western Culture
Adding insult to injury, the important roles of Halaesus and Agamemnon were doled out to black actors "because diversity." That the vital warrior aspect of Western Civilization embodied in these roles, had been bequeathed to Africans was no mere accident, but an act with an insidious and malevolent intent.

Despite their Black father, Agamemnon's daughters were not mulattoes, something we were, of course, not supposed to notice or comment on, because race is supposed to be invisible for White people, if for nobody else.

The play showed both Clytemnestra and her daughter Chrysothemis fawning over the black males, something else we were supposed to signal our tolerance with, by remaining blithely oblivious of, at least outwardly.

Chrysothemis, after straddling Halaesus upon sight, invites him into her room to "fuck her mouth" no less. Wow, just Wow! as our opponents would say in a similar state of outrage. Later in the show, Agamemnon "Africanus" proceeded to give the audience a strip show, so that we could gawk at the displacement of the white male by the black man. Thanks again (((Sarah)))!

The jokes were cheap, the script shabby, the acting pitiful, but the insults to Western man plentiful and cutting. Thanks be to Zeus this was the final show of the play's run – although "run" seems an inappropriate word to describe something that left such a trail of degenerate slime in its wake.

Holocaust = House of Cards

via National-Socialist Worldview

In my essay "Our Weapon: The Truth", published on The Occidental Observer in December 2011, I said this:
The fact that somebody expresses a forbidden thought, and forces the system and the public to tolerate it, is already a victory that puts the system into a defensive posture.
Essentially the same idea had been stated in 1984 by  Milovan Mracevich in this final paragraph from an article about "Holocaust Denial" that appeared in The Montreal Gazette:
Many Jews fear that revisionist propaganda may eventually succeed in denigrating the central fact of the Holocaust, namely the murder of millions of Jews in gas chambers, from an absolute historical truth into a subject of debate. If a sizable portion of the public ever begins even to question the genocide as having occurred, the revisionists will, in a large sense, have already won. [M. Mracevich, "'Holocaust-Denial Movement' Steps Up Attack" The Montreal Gazette, 1 March 1984]
The problem that the Holocaustian establishment has is that if they engage the revisionists, they will lose the argument because the facts are on the revisionist side, and if they are seen forcibly stifling expressions of revisionism, they will lose moral authority by destroying their pretense of being truly liberal or committed to fairness. Either way, discussing or refusing to discuss, they lose -- if only someone raises the question.

One of the points that I made in my essay in "Our Weapon: The Truth" was that the success of a publicity-campaign should not be measured by the number of people willing to stand up and publicly agree. Most of the people influenced by such a campaign will not be willing to do that.

Disbelief toward the Jewish Holocaust story may not always be expressed as disbelief, since we all know that disbelief is strongly disapproved. We all are familiar with the concept of avoiding trouble by not saying exactly what we really think. Private doubt about the Holocaust may come out as impatience with having to hear about the Holocaust yet again, or as criticisms of how the Holocaust story is used, often introduced by a concatenation like, "I am not a Holocaust-Denier but ...."

The absence of expressions of outright concurrence therefore should not be taken as a sign of failure. On the contrary, merely having Holocaust-skepticism accepted as an opinion to which one is entitled is an enormous success. That is what Milovan Mracevich told us in 1984.

Anyone who says that revisionism has had no impact is willfully blind. Jews are no longer securely established on the pedestal that they occupied a few decades ago, and widespread doubt about their Holocaust story  is certainly a large part of the reason for that change.

The Holocaust and the rest of the Jewish mythology that we are all expected to endorse is a mere house of cards just waiting to be knocked down.

How I Became a Socialist by Jack London

via Counter-Currents

Jack London
It is quite fair to say that I became a Socialist in a fashion somewhat similar to the way in which the Teutonic pagans became Christians — it was hammered into me. Not only was I not looking for Socialism at the time of my conversion, but I was fighting it . I was very young and callow, did not know much of anything, and though I had never even heard of a school called ” Individualism,” I sang the paean of the strong with all my heart.

This was because I was strong myself. By strong I mean that I had good health and hard muscles, both of which possessions are easily accounted for. I had lived my childhood on California ranches, my boyhood hustling newspapers on the streets of a healthy Western city, and my youth on the ozone-laden waters of San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. I loved life in the open, and I toiled in the open, at the hardest kinds of work. Learning no trade, but drifting along from job to job, I looked on the world and called it good, every bit of it. Let me repeat, this optimism was because I was healthy and strong, bothered with neither aches nor weaknesses, never turned down by the boss because I did not look fit, able always to get a job at shovelling coal, sailorizing, or manual labor of some sort.

And because of all this, exulting in my young life, able to hold my own at work or fight, I was a rampant individualist. It was very natural. I was a winner. Wherefore I called the game, as I saw it played, or thought I saw it played, a very proper game for MEN. To be a MAN was to write man in large capitals on my heart. To adventure like a man, and fight like a man, and do a man’s work (even for a boy’s pay) — these were things that reached right in and gripped hold of me as no other thing could. And I looked ahead into long vistas of a hazy and interminable future, into which, playing what I conceived to be MAN’S game, I should continue to travel with unfailing health, without accidents, and with muscles ever vigorous. As I say, this future was interminable. I could see myself only raging through life without end like one of Nietzsche’s blond beasts, lustfully roving and conquering by sheer superiority and strength.

As for the unfortunates, the sick, and ailing, and old, and maimed, I must confess I hardly thought of them at all, save that I vaguely felt that they, barring accidents, could be as good as I if they wanted to real hard, and could work just as well. Accidents ? Well, they represented FATE, also spelled out in capitals, and there was no getting around FATE. Napoleon had had an accident at Waterloo, but that did not dampen my desire to be another and later Napoleon. Further, the optimism bred of a stomach which could digest scrap iron and a body which flourished on hardships did not permit me to consider accidents as even remotely related to my glorious personality.

I hope I have made it clear that I was proud to be one of Nature’s strong-armed noblemen. The dignity of labor was to me the most impressive thing in the world. Without having read Carlyle, or Kipling, I formulated a gospel of work which put theirs in the shade. Work was everything. It was sanctification and salvation. The pride I took in a hard day’s work well done would be inconceivable to you. It is almost inconceivable to me as I look back upon it. I was as faithful a wage slave as ever capitalist exploited. To shirk or malinger on the man who paid me my wages was a sin, first, against myself, and second, against him. I considered it a crime second only to treason and just about as bad.

In short, my joyous individualism was dominated by the orthodox bourgeois ethics. I read the bourgeois papers, listened to the bourgeois preachers, and shouted at the sonorous platitudes of the bourgeois politicians. And I doubt not, if other events had not changed my career, that I should have evolved into a professional strike-breaker, (one of President Eliot’s American heroes), and had my head and my earning power irrevocably smashed by a club in the hands of some militant trades-unionist.

Just about this time, returning from a seven months’ voyage before the mast, and just turned eighteen, I took it into my head to go tramping. On rods and blind baggages I fought my way from the open West, where men bucked big and the job hunted the man, to the congested labor centres of the East, where men were small potatoes and hunted the job for all they were worth. And on this new blond-beast adventure I found myself looking upon life from a new and totally different angle. I had dropped down from the proletariat into what sociologists love to call the “submerged tenth,” and I was startled to discover the way in which that submerged tenth was recruited.

I found there all sorts of men, many of whom had once been as good as myself and just as blond-beastly; sailor-men, soldier-men, labor-men, all wrenched and distorted and twisted out of shape by toil and hardship and accident, and cast adrift by their masters like so many old horses. I battered on the drag and slammed back gates with them, or shivered with them in box cars and city parks, listening the while to life-histories which began under auspices as fair as mine, with digestions and bodies equal to and better than mine, and which ended there before my eyes in the shambles at the bottom of the Social Pit.

And as I listened my brain began to work. The woman of the streets and the man of the gutter drew very close to me. I saw the picture of the Social Pit as vividly as though it were a concrete thing, and at the bottom of the Pit I saw them, myself above them, not far, and hanging on to the slippery wall by main strength and sweat. And I confess a terror seized me. What when my strength failed? when I should be unable to work shoulder to shoulder with the strong men who were as yet babes unborn? And there and then I swore a great oath. It ran something like this: All my days I have worked hard with my body and according to the number of days I have worked, by just that much am I nearer the bottom of the Pit. I shall climb out of the Pit, but not by the muscles of my body shall I climb out I shall do no more hard work, and may God strike me dead if I do another day’s hard work with my body more than I absolutely have to do. And I have been busy ever since running away from hard work.

Incidentally, while tramping some ten thousand miles through the United States and Canada, I strayed into Niagara Falls, was nabbed by a fee-hunting constable, denied the right to plead guilty or not guilty, sentenced out of hand to thirty days’ imprisonment for having no fixed abode and no visible means of support, handcuffed and chained to a bunch of men similarly circumstanced, carted down country to Buffalo, registered at the Erie County Penitentiary, had my head clipped and my budding mustache shaved, was dressed in convict stripes, compulsorily vaccinated by a medical student who practiced on such as we, made to march the lock-step, and put to work under the eyes of guards armed with Winchester rifles — all for adventuring in blond-beastly fashion. Concerning further details deponent sayeth not, though he may hint that some of his plethoric national patriotism simmered down and leaked out of the bottom of his soul somewhere — at least, since that experience he finds that he cares more for men and women and little children than for imaginary geographical lines.

To return to my conversion. I think it is apparent that my rampant individualism was pretty effectively hammered out of me, and something else as effectively hammered in. But, just as I had been an individualist without knowing it, I was now a Socialist without knowing it, withal, an unscientific one. I had been reborn, but not renamed, and I was running around to find out what manner of thing I was. I ran back to California and opened the books. I do not remember which ones I opened first. It is an unimportant detail anyway. I was already It, whatever It was, and by aid of the books I discovered that It was a Socialist. Since that day I have opened many books, but no economic argument, no lucid demonstration of the logic and inevitableness of Socialism affects me as profoundly and convincingly as I was affected on the day when I first saw the walls of the Social Pit rise around me and felt myself slipping down, down, into the shambles at the bottom.