"I have been reading your amazing blog and listening to some of your podcasts with Carolyn. Not sure how I haven't run across your work before. Amazing stuff." (reader's comment, 10 May 2016)
Come chat with us! Download and install an IRC-client -- Hexchat is recommended -- and go to the channel #National-Socialism on the Undernet server.

04 December 2016

Is any White Nationalist really stupid enough to take advice from David Cole?

(I am likely to add more to this within 24 hours of posting.)

Taki's Mag on 1 December 2016 published an essay by Jew and former Holocaust Revisionist David Cole titled, "See, This Is Why We Can't Have White Things." The essay pretends to advise White Nationalists about how best to present themselves. Even apart from the question of whether David Cole really has the best interests of White Nationalists at heart, it is clear that this is a very dishonest essay.

Rhetorically, it is a venerable technique to begin an address by making points that you know your audience will find agreeable. That is what Sinon the Greek did in Vergil's account of how the wooden horse full of Greek soldiers was introduced into Troy. Sinon told the Trojans that the Greeks were terrible people, and the Trojans were impressed with his truthfulness. Behold, an honest Greek! After that, Sinon could lie to the Trojans and they would believe it. You establish credibility with an otherwise skeptical audience by telling them what they already believe.

That is how David Cole begins this essay, by saying things that he knows will meet with approval. He says that Richard Spencer, at the now notorious NPI conference of 19 November, should not have made quasi-hitlerian utterances and gestures "in a spirit of irony" and realistically expected the media to portray it as irony and the public to understand it as irony. This is self-evident common sense. I have said the same myself.

Cole then says that any association with Hitler and National-Socialism is toxic to public relations. There is certainly some truth in that, but Holocaust Revisionists, of whom Cole once claimed to be one, see this as largely due to misrepresentation.

Cole then makes the very un-Revisionist (and unhelpful to White interests) argument that Hitler really is the Devil. In support of that position, to make his argument credible, he quotes three nationalist sources. The problem is that he consistently quotes in a misleading manner.

Cole quotes out of context a statement from an essay published by National Vanguard that says that Hitler began as a leader only of Germanic people, while omitting the subsequent clarification within the same essay that Hitler nonetheless became "the de facto head of all of the Aryan peoples of Europe."

Cole quotes from Himmler's essay of 15 May 1940 the words "dieses Untermenschenvolk des Ostens" but omits to mention that the essay also talks about allowing children of Slavic national origin to be educated in Germany if their parents wish and if they meet racial standards. The takeaway is that not all Slavs were regarded as Untermenschen.

Cole quotes Ernst Zündel saying at a conference of the IHR in 1994 that he encountered Russians who were irritated about the fact that "Soviets" had been called Untermenschen during the Second World War. This requires some explanation.

First, the National-Socialist use of the term Untermensch comes from the American writer Lothrop Stoddard. In his book The Revolt Against Civilization: the Menace of the Under-Man, Stoddard said that Bolshevism was possible where there were many degenerate men, whom he called the Under-Man. In German this was rendered as der Untermensch. It was Lothrop Stoddard's theory, then, that Untermenschen were the cause of the Soviet Union. One could thus say that the "Soviets" were Untermenschen.

Now, if some or many Russians were brutes who supported Bolshevism, it does not mean that all were like that. (In fact the Bolsheviks, at the time of their takeover, relied heavily on non-Russian muscle.) It is evident that Himmler did not regard every Slav as an Untermensch. Even the SS publication Der Untermensch does not say that Slavs categorically, or any Slavic nation, are Untermenschen. But the false claim that the National-Socialists regarded all Slavs as Untermenschen was propagated during and after the war, along with the claim that they were being gassed by the millions in Auschwitz. Thus, it is not a bit surprising that Ernst Zündel encountered Russians in 1994 who believed this. But it does not reflect reality.

Finally Cole suggests that if nationalists want to succeed they should strenuously avoid any hint of association with Hitler. 

The wisdom of this advice depends on what one wishes to accomplish. If one is trying to be elected to public office, then one has to take care not to buck existing public opinion too much. If, however, one's purpose is to alter public opinion, then violating taboos is necessary.  The Internet trolls who constituted the bulk of Richard Spencer's audience at the NPI conference are all about that. If NPI is to be taken seriously as a think-tank, and if he expects bourgeois respectables like Jared Taylor and Peter Brimelow to continue appearing at those conferences, then the gratuitously provocative touches in Spencer's presentation were unwise in those regards, but it is not clear that any net harm was done to White Nationalism as such. My main criticism has been that Spencer should have foregone the outmoded symbolism from 1930s Germany and included some of the genuine substance of national-socialist thought.

The specific taboo of association with Adolf Hitler is one that nationalists ultimately cannot avoid. This was discovered by Enoch Powell in 1968 when he called for non-White immigration to Britain to be curtailed. This was why Richard Harwood stated in his introduction to Did Six Million Really Die? (1974) that the lies about Hitler's government were such a serious roadblock for nationalists that they had to be debunked.

Cole, as a Jew, obviously could have no interest in the success of White Nationalism. If he drew attention to himself in the early 1990s as "the Jewish Holocaust Revisionist" by capitalizing on the work of others after Auschwitz had already been debunked, it was only a few years later that he was reined in by other Jews, including not only the Jewish Defense League but his own family. Since then, by adopting the artificial Semi-Revisionist position that the Holocaust in general was real even if Auschwitz was fake, he has fallen back into line with Jewish ethnic interests to the extent that he could. 

Maintaining the demonization of Adolf Hitler, who certainly was a prominent opponent of Jewish power regardless of whether any Jew was gassed, is an obvious Jewish ethnic interest. Correspondingly, the rehabilitation of Adolf Hitler and his government is  within the essential interest of White people, but it cannot be accomplished while heeding the advice of David Cole.

The multifarious meanings of the German word Volk

The meaning of the German word Volk is of great consequence. Sometimes the interpretation of this single word makes all the difference between whether a particular statement from somebody like Heinrich Himmler does or does not appear to represent an intention to kill all Jews.

In English, people has two meanings. It can serve as the plural of person, or it can mean a nation or ethnic group. Volk in German also has these two meanings.

If Himmler says that dieses Volk (rendered in English as these people) must be killed, referring to a group of Jewish guerrillas who have been murdering German soldiers or civilians on the Eastern Front, that is very different from saying that dieses Volk,  understood to mean this people, the entire Jewish people, must be killed.  

Ultimately context must determine what exactly the word means, but quite often the Defenders of the Holocaust Faith choose to ignore context, reading poorly so that they may continue to claim that their story is true.

The Muret-Sanders Encyclopædic German-English Dictionary, an unabridged translating dictionary that is a little more than 100 years old, gives not just two but six possible meanings of Volk from which to choose.

1. The first meaning is "people" in the sense of an aggregation of persons, with a tendency to connote the common people or the masses. You see this meaning also reflected in the adjective volksarm -- sparsely populated.

2. The second definition of Volk includes the word "nation." This is the meaning that we customarily assume. But this particular use of the word cannot have been common before German nationalism was awakened in the early 19th century.

3. In the third definition we are told that Volk can designate a class of persons, like children (das kleine Volk) or women (ein wunderlich[es] Volk). Sometimes Volk in this sense is even applied to non-human species, as if birds, for example, were a class of humans.

4. Volk used in the plural Völker can refer collectively to a feudal lord's servants. 

5. Like the Latin word populus, it can mean all the men of appropriate age to serve in the country's army, or it can mean the army itself. The plural Völker also can be used like the English word troops.

6. In reference to beasts and birds, Volk can mean troop, flock, swarm, covey, or bevy.

03 December 2016

An Alternative to Negro Slavery

Negroes sometimes claim great importance for their race in the development of American economic power through their role as slaves picking cotton. Roland Martin, interviewing Richard Spencer in the aftermath of his recent "Hail Trump" speech, said precisely that "free labor from Black people" was what made America great. 

I do not wish to insult or provoke any Negroes, but this is really quite a poor argument.

How should one respond?   

Richard Spencer's response was: "We could have found another way to pick cotton." But he gives no specifics.

Some say: "If I'd known that there was going to be all this trouble I would have picked my own damned cotton." 

Others offer a different solution:

"In fact I think you could teach some chimpanzees to do some things that some Negroes couldn't do." 

This turns out to be entirely correct. In Thailand, apes are trained to pick coconuts, and to perform some other simple tasks such as Negro slaves once performed in America, and still perform in Africa, where slavery is still practiced.

How much trouble could have been avoided!

The apes in this video are not even chimpanzees but macaques, a less intelligent primate.

23 November 2016

The USHMM's Fatwa against Richard Spencer

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on Monday issued a poorly informed but nonetheless inflammatory statement about the speech that Richard Spencer had read to his organization, the National Policy Institute, on Saturday.  The result was that on Tuesday Spencer's Jewish neighbor, an editor of Politico, posted Spencer's home-addresses on Twitter and urged violence against him. Read more about it from CODOH.

20 November 2016

The Hoopla about the “Alt Right"

In recent years I have paid less and less attention to what goes on in White Nationalism generally, or what is now known as the Alternative Right. Whether White Nationalism and the Alternative Right are the same thing, or different things, I cannot tell. Some people think that they are the same thing. Others deny it.
I first heard the term Alternative Right a few years ago. For me the term had some connotations. The word alternative has a positive connotation for some people in a certain age-group, because of alternative music or alternative dance-music that some preferred to the music played on radio-stations in the 80s and 90s. This alternative music, incidentally, usually exhibited less Negro influence than the music in the pop-charts. Thus it seems that the Alternative Right was supposed to be a better form of right-wing politics, for the cool White kids.

But why invent a new term at all? Are there really any new political orientations that have not been labeled?

No, of course not. A new label is invented to escape stereotyping. It's the same reason that Blackwater Security keeps changing its name. Nobody wants to be called Racist or White Supremacist, because the mass-media always represent Racists and White Supremacists in a negative way. (Racism and White Supremacy, by the way, were not always universally considered derogatory terms.) Most people prefer to do things the easy way. So, rather than try to fight the stereotype, one chooses a new label.

I have never used the term Alternative Right to refer to myself, because I thought it was too vague. I have never been eager to participate in fads, which is how the use of that term appeared to me. Also, as a national-socialist, my position is a synthesis of what are normally regarded as left and right. To say that I am on the right would not be entirely accurate.

Most people are not going to know from the name just what the Alternative Right is. Because the term has no instantly clear meaning, its intended meaning is easily missed or distorted.

When Steve Bannon told a Jewish reporter for Mother Jones that Breitbart was a platform for the Alt Right, he offered a rather vague notion of what this might mean:

“Our definition of the alt-right is younger people who are anti-globalists, very nationalist, terribly anti-establishment.” [S. Posner, Mother Jones, 22 August 2016]

Mother Jones of course did not fail to inform readers of the term's inextricable association with White Nationalism. Bannon has subsequently declared that Breitbart had zero tolerance for “racial and anti-Semitic” views.

Ann Coulter, on the other hand, has recently said that her idea of the Alt Right is: teenagers who discovered that it is fun to be called racist.

This is not at all the impression given by Richard Spencer's panel of Alt Right luminaries -- Peter Brimelow, Kevin MacDonald, Jared Taylor, et al. -- at a press-conference on 19 November 2016. They are all uptight about being called racist. When a reporter asked if they were racist, instead of boldly saying, "Yes we are racists, they objected to it. Jared Taylor said that the word racist was pejorative (obviously not having read  René Binet's Theory of Racism). So, it is clear that these luminaries, who are supposed to represent the Alt Right, are in fact less radical than the teenagers that Ann Coulter thinks really are the Alt Right.

When a reporter mentioned Andrew Anglin and The Daily Stormer, Peter Brimelow (a former employee of National Review) felt obliged to stipulate that Anglin was not a member of the Alt Right at all, but a flat-out Neonazi, meaning that there was some important difference between Anglin and the Alt Right.

This really puzzled me, because it is not at all clear, from a strictly political perspective, that these Alt Right luminaries share goals not shared by Andrew Anglin. The differences between MacDonald and Taylor alone are huge. MacDonald focuses entirely on Jews, while Taylor tries never to focus on Jews. If they are in one boat together, it is a broadly pro-White boat. It does not seem tenable to assert that they are in one movement together while Andrew Anglin is in a different one -- if it is strictly a matter of politics.

It is obviously not a matter of politics. There are other reasons why they find the association with Anglin embarrassing. Basically he is running a sensationalist tabloid in the form of a blog, and he is catering to a young audience, and, perhaps most importantly, he does not avoid taboos that these respectable luminaries assiduously shun, starting with the very name of his blog. Just as these worthies fled from the word racism, they flee from that association. Pretending that there was a huge political gulf between the Alt Right and The Daily Stormer was a way of escaping this embarrassment. It is bourgeois respectability that is at stake here.

This is at the opposite extreme from Ann Coulter's impression of what the Alt Right is.

I was dismayed to hear Spencer say that the Alt Right is interested inthe conservative revolution in Germany. The Revolutionary Conservatives were a tiny political movement that had very little effect. Whatever useful ideas they produced were subsumed under National-Socialism. One of the better known Revolutionary Conservatives, Hermann Rauschning, became a traitor to his country. When people say that they are interested in the Revolutionary Conservatives, it tells me that they have some inhibition about showing an interest in National-Socialism, which was obviously a much more important movement. It is a way of maintaining distance from Hitler, which means that Richard Spencer is still under the influence of Holocaust-propaganda. Spencer's professed admiration for the French New Right -- he named Benoist, Faye, and Steuckers -- likewise  represents a retreat from taboo, because these men generally avoid discussing Jews. Bourgeois respectability, bourgeois inhibition, still at work.

It must have been like the Earth crumbling beneath them, therefore, when Tila Tequila and two young men at the conference were photographed giving a Roman salute. All those pains taken to avoid being called racist, and to avoid association with The Daily Stormer, only to have this happen. (It has since been determined that the two males photographed giving a Roman salute with Tila Tequila are Jews.)

This may vaguely resemble Ann Coulter's idea of the Alt Right.

If Richard Spencer and his friends are not even able to control the behavior of people attending NPI's conferences, they are certainly not going to be able to control the use of the term Alt Right.

Ultimately, because there is no control over what Alt Right can mean and who calls himself Alt Right, the term will continue to be stretched and distorted until it becomes entirely useless, or even a liability for some who have conspicuously applied the term to themselves. That process surely accelerated recently, when the term acquired importance as the object of so much attention.

Now, Spencer's National Policy Institute is a different matter. That is an organization. Its goals and membership can be defined by its leadership. Good luck to Richard Spencer on that. I just hope that NPI's proposals will be as radical and thorough as our situation requires.

16 November 2016

Is Breitbart now more radical than The Occidental Observer?

Donald Trump's Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor Stephen Kevin Bannon

In regard to the hostile reactions toward the appointment of Stephen Bannon, former editor of Breitbart, as Donald Trump's chief of staff, there is an interesting contrast between the treatment given by The Occidental Observer (ostensibly a White Nationalist blog), and by Breitbart itself (until recently at least, a Jew-friendly "conservative" blog).

TOO on 15 November ran an essay titled: "Political Assassination: The Smearing of Steve Bannon," by somebody called Marcus Alethia, Ph.D. The essay purports to defend Bannon by affirming that he is not a raging anti-Semite and not a racist as mainstream media have accused.

Wait a minute. Why would there be any interest for a White Nationalist blog to demonstrate that Steve Bannon is not critical of Jews and not loyal to the White race? Are these really smears? Who was supposed to read this? It would make sense if some "responsible conservative" publication "defended" Bannon from such charges, but from the White Nationalist perspective a defense is neither necessary nor desirable.

For Marcus Alethia, Ph.D., however, the desire to debunk these "smears" is understandable, since he is not a White Nationalist but rather, it is stated in the essay, "an American Jew." 

Ironically it is Breitbart, quoting Ann Coulter, that takes the proper White Nationalist attitude toward the enemy's statements about Bannon. In an appearance on Sean Hannity's radio-show Coulter said:


“We’ve just gone through 16 months with the media calling Trump ‘Hitler,’” she said. “I believe every single op-ed columnist at The New York Times at one point or another in the past year has a brilliant think piece on the comparisons between Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler. It didn’t work; so now they’re trying it with his aide. You know, I had never heard of, and I’m sure you haven’t, nobody had heard of this ‘alt-right until Donald Trump was running. But now having discovered these teenagers-- they’re really leading the way in taunting the media and the liberals. And their position-- I think they’re leading us the way out of this by just saying, ‘No, actually it is fun to be called a racist.’”

Coulter went on to add what she thought the appropriate response should be to those attacking Bannon.

“The only reaction to this nonsense–- I don’t want anyone going on TV and somberly telling us that Steve Bannon is not an anti-Semite, he is not a racist,” she added. “How about, ‘Screw you’?” [Jeff Poor, Breitbart, 15 November 2016]

Exactly right, Ann. This kind of devil-may-care defiance is an important part of what the White majority of the United States has learned over the past sixteen months. "These teenagers" might be a reference to the "troll-army" of The Daily Stormer, or the cut-ups at MyPostingCareer who invented the term "cuckservative," but the Donald himself has exhibited a remarkably low level of concern about imputations of racism -- unlike every other politician. The example has steeled the spines of others.

Rush Limbaugh, himself a figure of enormous influence, is among those who have been at least somewhat emboldened. Limbaugh's typical pattern, in the past, has always been to try to turn every racial issue into something else, often an economic issue, and to argue for what he apparently regards as White racial interests in that guise. The words "White people" were very rarely heard from Rush Limbaugh. On the Wednesday and Thursday after the election, however, Limbaugh spent considerable time talking about the fact that White people as a group have interests, and asked rhetorically why it should be wrong for White people as a group to vote according to their interests. This is unprecedented from Limbaugh. This is the effect of Trump's presidential campaign and the victory that followed.

What a shame that The Occidental Observer apologizes for racism at precisely the moment when many White Americans have outgrown such apologies.

14 November 2016

Jews Caught in False-Flag Church-Desecration to be blamed on Trump

Morales, left, and Kafker, right, from the Chicago Tribune.

On 11 March 2016 Matthew Kafker and Anthony Morales, both freshmen at Northwestern University in Illinois, were caught on video vandalizing a Christian chapel at the university, leaving graffiti calculated to reflect badly on Donald Trump.

The two were charged with institutional vandalism, hate crime to a place of worship and criminal damage to property.
The graffiti included a swastika, drawings of male genitalia and the word “Trump.”
Both Morales and Kafker pled not guilty at their arraignments. Spector told The Daily Kafker was “incredibly intoxicated” when he allegedly vandalized the chapel, stressing that this was out of the character for the former NU student. [F. Rahman, The Daily Northwestern, 24 June 2016]

The claim that it is "out of character" for a Jew to commit false-flag vandalism and graffiti to advance a political agenda is ridiculous. It is in fact typical. There are many examples.
In this case, since the Jews were caught on video, they could not pretend that they did not do it. Yet they pleaded innocent! That's some chutzpah. Kafker hopes that claiming to have been rip-roaring drunk at the time of the crime will get him off the hook. It will be extraordinary if it works, since such an excuse never works for anybody else.
In any case, what they did was not at all out of character -- for a Jew.