"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.

02 December 2011

Our Weapon, The Truth

I wrote an essay that has now been published by The Occidental Observer. The outline is as follows:
  1. Some White racialists seem to regard honesty as an impediment. This is a wrong attitude.

  2. While propaganda such as the system uses is beyond our means, counter-propaganda, the disputation of the system's propaganda, is within our means.

  3. By appealing to reason, we cannot win over the masses, but we can win over the rational minority that does not follow the crowd.

  4. Our appeal will be smaller when we progress beyond counter-propaganda to the presentation of a new worldview. This means that our cause is destined to have an inner circle of completely enlightened people, and an outer circle of people that reject the system's propaganda but have not accomplished a revolution in thinking.

  5. Radical social change is accomplished by militant minorities. The majority merely waits to see what happens. We can form our own militant minority by convincing thinking and idealistic people that our way of thinking is correct.

  6. In order to cultivate this elite, we have to be careful in our rhetoric.

You can read the whole essay on The Occidental Observer



01 December 2011

Radio Enoch: A British Nationalist Clandestine Broadcaster of the 1970s

This unlicensed "right-wing wireless" station broadcast in 1978-1979, and even attracted the attention of newspapers. 

A front-page article from The Observer, 18 March 1979


Like The Voice of Tomorrow in the USA, Radio Enoch's programs were very well done, passable as professional broadcasting, except that the speakers on Radio Enoch all spoke in a West-Midlands accent rather than what used to be the standard BBC pronunciation.

The station of course was named after Enoch Powell, a conservative politician from the West Midlands best known for his Rivers of Blood speech in opposition to continued non-White immigration. 

The broadcast includes discussion of the following:

1. Immigration of Hindus and Muslims creates problems with food in public schools.
2. Rhodesia: the situation is unstable because of conflict among "tribes," among whom the White Man had been the source of order and stability.

3. The need to curb the power of trade unions (discussion followed by anti-union song).
4. Praise of anti-Communist dictator Augusto Pinochet.
5. Complaint about opposition to nuclear power by ecologists, merging into a counter-accusation about overpopulation: "People are the pollutants."


I love the quality of the broadcast, and the material is interesting, better than anything that we get from "conservative" media today -- but that isn't saying much. The ideology presented by Radio Enoch is quite flawed.


Critique

Radio Enoch on Race

Radio Enoch and The Voice of Tomorrow are both explicitly concerned with race, but while The Voice of Tomorrow focuses entirely on race, Radio Enoch calls itself "right-wing" and puts race on the same footing as some other issues. Radio Enoch seems to have been perhaps even more concerned about labor unions than about race. 

Also, the way Radio Enoch discusses race is not as direct as the discussion on The Voice of Tomorrow. Radio Enoch doesn't confront the listener with the worst aspects of multiracialism and ask, "Whatcha gonna do, Whitey?" (Which was more or less Enoch Powell's approach in the powerful Rivers of Blood speech.) Instead they have a woman bemoaning the complications of arranging school-lunches for Hindus and Muslims. Between these two clandestine political broadcasters you can discern the difference between conservative racism (such as it was in the 1970s) and race-radicalism.

Radio Enoch on Jews

The most telling moment comes in the interview with "a well known personality from southeast Africa" when the personality says that we need "to understand who our real enemies are." In other words, we have apparent enemies, and real enemies, somebody pulling the strings behind them.

The interviewer asks, "Whom do you believe them to be?"

The well-known personality responds: "Well they could be a conglomerate of the Marxists, Internationalists, and people who seek to govern through the medium of greed and power."

That is not a straight answer. A real, straightforward answer from a man that  knows "who our real enemies are" does not begin with "Well they could be." Apparently the listeners are supposed to decipher his circumlocution to figure out that he means Jews. Our real enemies are, you know -- nudge nudge, wink wink -- reptilians perhaps. It's questionable how many people are really getting the point there.

Radio Enoch on Labor-Unions

The hostility of "true conservatism"  toward organized labor was, I think, probably self-defeating.

Unionized workers mass-demonstrated in support of Enoch Powell.
Right-wing anti-unionism may have harmed the anti-immigration cause in Britain, since much of the groundswell of support for Enoch Powell's anti-immigration stance came from unionized White laborers, e.g. dockers and meat-porters. This kind of internal contradiction is the weakness of national-liberalism, in contrast to national-socialism.  

The Slide into Kosher Conservatism

When the Jewish problem is never stated clearly, and when multiracialism is presented in terms of difficulties of implementation rather than as something unwanted in itself, and when it's all mixed with anti-Marxism and anti-unionism, the possibility of gradually pushing racial concerns out of conservative discourse entirely is obvious. With Jews gaining a foothold in "conservative" media during and since the 197os (and being all-too-eagerly received), that is what has happened. We have reached the point now that so-called conservatives  will even accuse someone of being un-conservative if he tries to raise one of these neglected topics.

29 November 2011

The Voice of Tomorrow: a White-Racialist Clandestine Broadcaster of a Quarter-Century Ago


The Voice of Tomorrow was an unlicensed mediumwave and shortwave station of the late 1970s and 80s that achieved a certain notoriety with occasional* broadcasts. This particular recording was made by a listener to a broadcast on 1616kHz AM on 10 March 1985.



The risks involved in do-it-yourself radio broadcasting were, potentially, a $10,000 fine and a year in prison, although in practice the penalty tended to be a fine of less than $1000, and confiscation of equipment.

This is the kind of extreme to which people were driven to try to get out a message of truth prior to the proliferation of Internet and podcasts, since it was very difficult to find a licensed station that would air pro-White programming, and in any case expensive -- not like Internet podcasting now, whereby anyone can reach thousands of people at very little cost.

Even though such erratic broadcasts were heard by relatively few people, it was inspiring to hear, or read in Popular Communications, that somebody was doing such a thing.

Who did this?

There has been speculation that Kevin Strom, a former broadcast engineer for The Voice of America who later created the American Dissident Voices radio program, may have been behind Voice of Tomorrow. The Wikipedia article about Strom even affirms this, alleging his insane first wife as the source. When I asked Strom about it in 1993, however, he denied any connection, and I have to say that the voices in the recording sound not a bit like him.

The self-identification, "White American Resistance Information Network," indicates that Voice of Tomorrow  was put on not by Kevin Strom but by somebody associated with Tom Metzger, since White American Resistance is a name that Metzger used, later changed to White Aryan Resistance. 

The quality of the production, judging by this small sample, seems to have been quite good. It might be worthwhile if the possessor of the original studio recordings would digitize them and make them available on Internet.








____________________________
* It is impossible to maintain a consistent broadcast schedule on "AM" or shortwave at any significant wattage without attracting a visit from the Federal Communications Commission. Unlicensed broadcasting on FM was always much safer than on medium and shortwave. The FCC has always paid much less attention to FM pirates, probably because the signal at those frequencies generally crosses no state-boundary (and thus is arguably not under Federal jurisdiction), and certainly has no effect on international broadcast agreements. With the Reagan Administration's cuts to the FCC's budget, flagrant regular unlicensed FM broadcasting grew in the 1980s, and again in the 1990s. The prevalent theory about prosecution of unlicensed broadcasters on FM is that it is a very low priority for the FCC and only gains priority if the FCC receives complaints: of course a broadcaster with a racial message is very likely to become the target of complaints.

** The recording comes from "Mike Brooker's DX Dharma."


Upload MP3 and download MP3 using free MP3 hosting from Tindeck. 

27 November 2011

Paul de Lagarde: Banking should be a Government Enterprise

Paul de Lagarde (1827 - 1891) was a professor at the University of Göttingen and highly respected in the field of ancient Near-Eastern languages. He was chiefly concerned with elucidation of the Bible, but also wrote books about the ancient Persians and Armenians, among others. He urged that Christianity be purged of Semitic elements.

He was a member of the Conservative Party, and the original proponent (in 1885) of the mass-deportation of Jews from Europe to Madagascar.


Paul de Lagarde and the Banks
Alfred Rosenberg

Völkischer Beobachter, 8 May 1921
 

Not infrequently have nationalist leaders had to struggle with the reproach: “Why do you people come forth with your demands only now? Why didn’t you tell us this before?” And always the response then must be that almost all the demands were already made decades ago, but nobody paid attention to those lone strugglers, because the entire world was intoxicated with cheap slogans and liberal mantras.

Even nationalization, which means governmental control of the entire banking system, as the fundamental prerequisite for a national economy that would be independent from Jewish speculators, is an old demand. In this context it is an honor-bound duty also to remember the man  who was one of the most determined and righteous Germans that the 19th century gave us: Paul de Lagarde.

According to Lagarde, the Reich had  to secure for itself, in addition to all other monopolies, the monopoly of money and credit:


This answers the requirements for a steady source of revenue to cover regular governmental expenditures, first, in regard to the fact that money and credit worth the same as money [are] used by everybody*, so that what is meant to serve all according to their share in the economic life of the state is likewise absorbed proportionally.... 
The postal service, telegraph, railroad, are all entirely in the hands of the Reich. The transactions of people with each other and the movement of wares has grown into such a big thing that there is nobody that does not take part in it. Everything however that concerns all of us is the prerogative of the state.  Therefore, just like the three modes of transaction, so should money and credit be under the administration of the government.[1]


How to implement the necessary arrangements is easy to discover: 


If the so-called Reichsbank  – a private institution strongly entangled with Jewry – has main and branch-offices throughout the entire Reich, so too can a genuine, completely judain-free Reichsbank – a state institution – have main and branch offices throughout the entire Reich. If there are post-office savings-banks, so can there also be Reich savings-banks.[2] 


Furthermore, the monopoly on credit will bring in more money for the government, while cutting out the noxious intermediary Jews:


What the Reich gains, the Jews of course will not gain.[3]  


A further advantage of the monopoly on credit would be the limitation of financial trading. Many shady stockmarket-players would refrain from their unclean business if Reich officials had the right to investigate their arbitrages [Differenzgeschäfte].
 


The need of creditworthy borrowers for money would be satisfied by impartial officials of the Reich, not by bloodsuckers of foreign nationality, whereas loans would be denied to unreliable and weak hands. Through the latter, only seemingly harsh measures, that misery would be averted which the Jewish money-man so often now calls forth by lending to rash youth in the expectation of eventually forcing the borrower's honorable but poor family to cover his ill-considered debts to preserve their reputation....[4]
Compensation would not be granted to the owners of currently outstanding debts. The sponge has soaked up entirely enough so as no longer to be in need of water. Whomever anger about our injustice would drive from our borders, yes indeed he should go; he does us a favor by his absence.[5]

As one sees, Lagarde discerned long ago the point where the lever should be placed so as to move the German people to recovery. With just a few others he stood alone; the octopus of the banks however embraced the folk with tentacles becoming ever tighter. And thus the German folk entered the war in 1914 and – something that worried the cadre of resistance against a world of enemies was handed over to the Jews’ banks. The Ballin-Rathenau System subjected Germany to usury and undermined the foundation of the German house. Discontent grew. This discontent was in turn stoked by Jews and, with the help of all the Jew media, urged onto the wrong track. As Rathenau later cynically stated: world history would have lost its meaning if Germany had won![6] These words no German should forget.

Regarding Ballin-Rathenau, I refer to the disturbing book by D. Arnim: Die Juden in den Kriegsgesellschaften. What is to be noted concerning the banks, is that 280 Jewish bank and exchange houses constitute the basis of Berlin’s entire monetary system, among them the firms Warschauer, Mendelsohn, Bleichröder, Oppenheim, Heinemann, and Goldschmidt. The 100 banks of Frankfurt are almost all Jewish. Hamburg has around 40, Hannover 30, Munich 20, Leipzig 12, Nuremberg 25 Jew-banks. Besides those, another 400 of Germany’s banks are found in the hands of the Chosen People. The situation is exactly the same in all other countries.

The takeover of the banks by the government – provided that German men form the government – is the first nationalist demand after the dismissal of all Jewish civil servants.

Among the most courageous pioneers of this national-socialist idea should be counted, even ahead of others, Paul de Lagarde. German posterity will erect a monument to him.
 ____________________________
1. Deutsche Schriften, p. 378.
2. Ibid., p. 497. Judainfrei seems to be a word that Lagarde invented. Since Judain would mean some distilled Jewish essence, Lagarde's word judainfrei means free of Jewish poison. That word appears in the essay, "Die nächsten Pflichten deutscher Politik" (1885). Friedrich Nietzsche was probably in some way imitating Lagarde when he coined the word  moralinfrei (free of moral poison), which appears in Der Antichrist (1888).
3. Ibid., p. 498.
4. Ibid., p. 498
5. Ibid., p. 499
6. Ibid., p. 499. What Rathenau said in the fall of 1914 was: “The moment will never come when the Kaiser and his Paladins on their white chargers ride victorious through the Brandenburg Gate. On that day world history would have lost all meaning.” Ludendorff understood this as an expression of defeatism, but Rathenau’s defenders have claimed that it only indicated his disapproval of the Kaiser. It seems to show a lack of enthusiasm for the German cause in any case.

*Literally it says "all the world," but since only Germany is meant, I take it to be a calque of French tout le monde, thus carrying the same connotation, "everybody."

22 October 2011

Was Hitler Responsible for World War II?



Simplistic History

Recently I heard Jamie Kelso putting all blame for World War II on Adolf Hitler (Click here to listen):

September 1, 1939 the German armies entered Poland, and that was a precipitous moment there, a turning point, a decision by Hitler to go right back to world-war, absolutely one of the most catastrophic -- well, I think the worst decision ever made by a White man, to start another world-war. A choice that one man, one man had the power and the opportunity, to make that choice.... It was one man's decision, and you and I are paying for it today, as are all White people.

Hitler decided to start a world-war in 1939 and we are all paying for it today!  So simple! Well, it's not so simple. I was flabbergasted that somebody supposedly a White Nationalist and even a leading figure for that cause was espousing a simplistic, anti-nationalist history that was written for us by our enemies, and had never taken the trouble to get better information.


Many a war-leader could be made to appear as a crazed aggressor if the circumstances and provocations that made his choices seem necessary were omitted from discussion. I would like to remedy that omission in this instance.


Taking Account of Circumstances

Just in broad outline, this is why, in my view, Adolf Hitler was not responsible for World War II:

1. The Treaty of Versailles gave Germany an indefensible eastern border.

2. Germany had to be concerned about the military threat posed by its eastern neighbors, especially the Soviet Union.

3. Germany's efforts to reach an accommodation with Poland, so that the indefensible border would no longer be a problem, were thwarted, largely as a result of British meddling.

4. Worse than that, there were some positively jingoistic Poles. It seems to have fallen down the memory-hole that Poland occupied part of Czechoslovakia simultaneously as Germany occupied the western part. And indeed there were some atrocities against ethnic Germans in Poland. 

5. While Germany's effort to make a defensive arrangement with Poland had been foiled, Britain began sabre-rattling over the German occupation of western Czechoslovakia* (but not over the Polish occupation of another part of Czechoslovakia).

 6. Under the circumstances, with the looming threat of a war in the west, it made very good geopolitical sense for Germany to cultivate good relations with the USSR and to partition Poland with the USSR so as to create a short and defensible eastern frontier far from Berlin, while eliminating Britain's ally from Germany's rear.

7. The cross-border Polish attacks of 31 August 1939, which constituted the immediate provocation for the German invasion of Poland, were probably not an elaborate hoax as alleged at Nuremberg. There were cross-border attacks at many locations, and the only evidence that any of them was fraudulently staged was the post-war Nuremberg testimony of one man, the mysterious Alfred Naujocks.


"Powers behind Roosevelt"
8. It was crazy for Britain and France to declare war on Germany because of Poland. Neville Chamberlain complained to Joseph Kennedy that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war. (This was then related by Kennedy to Admiral James Forrestal; it appears in Forrestal's published diary on p. 122. Kennedy also revealed that Roosevelt had instructed him in the summer of 1939 to put pressure on Chamberlain.)  Additional information about how the Roosevelt Administration pushed for another European war (primarily through financial pressure on Britain) can be read in FDR:The Other Side of the Coin, by Congressman Hamilton Fish.

The continuation of the war by Britain after the fall of France, which facilitated the European war's development into another World War with American involvement, was even more crazy.

Historian Stephen Ambrose said: "The British had as many problems, if not more, in recovering from victory, as the Germans did in recovering from defeat. What did Britain get out of the war? Not very much. Not very much. She lost a very great deal. I suppose that if you want to look at it positively, she got a moral claim on the world as the nation that had stood against Hitler alone for a year."


That "moral claim" for Britain's policy in World War II of course only holds water if one accepts the demonization of Adolf Hitler and National-Socialist Germany, including the proposition that it was worthwhile for Britain to sacrifice her blood and treasure so that Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe could be under Soviet rather than German hegemony.


In summation, Hitler's actions were all reasoned responses to dangers and provocations. It was Britain that behaved unreasonably, at Jewish and American instigation. Without that unreason in British foreign policy, there would have been no Second World War.
________________________
* Chamberlain (and Daladier) had conceded at Munich in 1938 that Germany should be allowed to annex the Sudetenland, the mountainous western fringe of Czechoslovakia that was inhabited mainly by ethnic Germans. Hitler may have made in perfectly good faith the agreement which Chamberlain took back to Britain and waved around declaring, "Peace in our time!" But then, after Germany occupied the ethnic-German areas, the Czechoslovakian government collapsed. At that point Germany occupied Bohemia and Moravia (the Czech area), while Hungary and Poland occupied Slovakia. It would not have been prudent for Germany to refrain from occupying Bohemia and Moravia, because in that power-vacuum, some power, perhaps even the Soviet Union, was likely to move in. This response to an emergency, however, only a very short time after Hitler had told Chamberlain that Germany had no further territorial ambitions in Europe, was easily misrepresented as deliberate mockery of the agreement with Chamberlain, and it was used to humiliate Chamberlain and goad him into an aggressive posture. Incidentally, Bohemia and Moravia were never annexed into Germany: they remained a "protectorate." Czechs also were treated very well by the Germans, at least until the British instigated the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich by some Czechs: that made the relationship more difficult.

15 October 2011

Finance-Capitalism vs. Honor and Folk



Introduction

The focus here is not on Jews or Marxism or the Underman, although all are mentioned. Rosenberg here is focused on the fact that Capitalism is destructive to the national ethos. This seems to be a more fundamental problem than Jews, Marxists, and the ascent of the Underman. This essay is about how the Germans must straighten out their own ethos.

Rosenberg says that the Germans must get back their sense of honor, if they are to survive as a people. The honor to which Rosenberg refers includes unwillingness to suffer grievous insults and unjust treatment of one's folk. Where Rosenberg uses the term German-consciousness (Deutschbewußtsein) it amounts to a synonym for honor. 

When pursuit of money becomes the highest value, it undermine the sense of nationality and the sense of honor. Rosenberg sees Capitalism as thus preparing the way for the rule of the Underman. Furthermore, he sees the Social-Democrats as deliberately using Capitalism for that purpose. 

With a quote from Frederick the Great, Rosenberg implies that the corrosion of national honor under Capitalism was what had  induced Germany to accept a highly unfavorable armistice in 1918.  After that, the attack on national honor was continued with more direct means, such as inflicting guilt for alleged war-crimes, and presentation of entertainment that humiliates the nation. 

There is a significant parallel here with what has happened since the United States' ignominious retreat from Vietnam. We too need to change our way of thinking.

Hadding Scott, 2011   




Paragraphs 1-5:  On the symbiosis of Marxism and Finance that brought Germany to ruin, and the mendacity of newspapers.
Paragraphs 6-11: The rule of the Underman in Germany.
Paragraphs 12-20: The origin of the national-socialist worldview.


 
Germany's Future:
The National-Socialist Movement
 Alfred Rosenberg

Völkischer Beobachter, 26-27 February 1928
Translation by Hadding Scott, 2011

We are all more or less enthusiastic readers of the Münchener Neuesten Nachrichten (Munich's Latest News). We know that this international newspaper has established correspondents in all states; therefore we were quite astonished a few days ago to read in it that only now was it learned that any relationship existed between Marxism and World Capitalism. It says that the world was advised of that only after the announcement appeared in the current issue of the Süddeutsche Monatshefte[1] three weeks ago!


One can perhaps accept such admissions with some humor. Nevertheless we must state that it is an insolence beyond compare that in a city where this problem was fought and battled eight years ago[2] under the eyes of the editorial staffs of the biggest newspapers, only today is it announced in this newspaper that something of that sort occurred. This is only one example among thousands of how the so-called national upper class of the folk and the so-called "major media" behave toward vital questions, and how they try to silence every new rising power as soon as it touches a problem that hitherto was considered off-limits. Here in Munich hundreds upon hundreds of gatherings have taken place; every day our newspaper struggles to enlighten the public about questions that here in the Münchener Neueste Nachrichten are supposedly being revealed now for the first time.[3]


Moltke the Elder
In this regard we must declare that even we, who struggle as a people's movement for this enlightenment, are not the first to illuminate this relationship between Marxism and Capitalism. We know thanks to those Germans of the past who already indicated these things with a prophetic eye: there was the great Moltke, who, seeing the dress-rehearsal for the Bolshevik Revolution, the Paris Commune, declared openly in the Reichstag that the Paris Communards had stormed the small businesses while the palaces of the Rothschilds were protected by special garrisons; meanwhile Eugen Duehring and Paul de Lagarde were lonely prophets who did not reach the mass of the people. Only now our age is called to bring their names again to honor. But even the leaders of the Social-Democracy have known very clearly not only today but since decades ago what a close relationship their movement had to those powers that today rule the entire world. In the year 1903 the big capitalist and  Social-Democrat Paul Singer[4] proclaimed in the Reichstag with open cynicism that the Social-Democratic Party would protect the stock-exchange in order thereby to hasten the social revolution. Marx declared that he supported free trade because it would cause the social revolution to erupt[5].


The leaders knew very clearly that the stock market and its capital represented a subversive element in national and economic life. On 9 November 1918 came the test of whether these arrangements had been understood  merely as ways to undermine the old system. The Social-Democratic leaders did not impose a heavy tax on the stock market, which they knew to be subversive; rather they proclaimed brotherhood with it before the entire people. The Berliner Tageblatt[6]  today can dare before the eyes of millions of workers to call Herr Scheidemann[7] a friend and comrade in the common struggle. In fall 1924 the Vorwärts[8] ventured, as the abhorrent Dictate of Versailles was hung over Germany on behalf of stock-finance, to present the rising sun[9] and the dollar-sign together, and proudly to proclaim that this development lay in the evolution of Social-Democratic politics. Since that day German workers and the German people have labored and paid eight million goldmarks per day for the satisfaction of these brothers and friends of Social-Democracy.


If earlier some great men had indicated the danger of the undermining of German-consciousness, they nonetheless did not reach the people with it. After 9 November 1918, in the midst of the deepest catastrophe of the German people, arose the uneasy question of how this collapse was possible, and which powers had had a part in it. The feeling was in the air even in small and middle-sized cities at that time, but nowhere more clearly and consciously than in Munich, that this collapse could not have been an accident, not a military failure, but was the consequence of a movement consciously directed, determined by instinct, and pushed for decades.


If today we look back on our eight years of struggle, we are entitled to say that eventually  it will be designated a political miracle that, in the midst of the deepest catastrophe of a people, its most conscious element picks itself up undiscouraged so as to go about constructing a new state based on a new theory of government [Staatsgedanken]. Everybody sensed at the time that we were living in one of those periods when the old [order] was shattered, the old society reduced to rubble, and old traditions had to give way to new ideas of life, and we have sensed looking back that, while such epochs of revaluation have often occurred  in our contemporary history, like deep chasms separating different ways of life, nonetheless an essential difference exists between the past and the present.


Today we stand before the fact that all powers of the Underman have been set free so as to destroy [vernichten] the last substance, in moral and racial regards, of Germandom. The 9th of November 1918 signified the rising of the yeast, the ferment of the scum that is present in every people, which through envy and high treason seizes power, and today this less-valuable Underman rules over the valuable forces of the German people.


In what manner all racial and moral values of the German nation today are being  deliberately buried, we can observe daily in the Berlin press, in Berlin's weekly newspapers and monthly magazines, whose assault is directed no longer as previously against certain externalities; instead, at stake are the deepest and greatest values that in general have sustained the German people. We can see that in the Jewish-run "international newspapers" the German officer corps is depicted as a cesspool of the nation, and that it is very often said: beat the German officer corps to death; only then is room created for a German culture. In the Jewish Weltbühne (World Stage)  Ignaz Wrobel[10] calls German soldiers "patriotic asses, brutal death-officers, and progeny of a Ludendorff ... beastly soldiers, bulldogs and sergeants of the Kaiser's army." By no German court has this man been brought to account; he was the Paris correspondent of the Vossische Zeitung[11].


Notorious traitors to our country sit on kangaroo committees of inquiry and judge whether German soldiers in dire straits had shot spies before the court could get involved. We witness the remarkable fact that in all these "kangaroo murders" it is not investigated whether the one shot really was a spy or not. We see it as a deliberate trampling of the national sense of honor when men who have bled from sixty-four wounds are later locked up as "kangaroo murderers" in cells where previously a sex-killer sat.


Those are the signs that consciously and deliberately, day by day, something of the core of the nation is being eroded in order to destroy it so that in the future resistance will be no longer possible. A former president of the Senate, Baumbach, says that today justice has become the maidservant of politics. This statement is consistent with the brutal frankness of the National-Socialists. And if we ask ourselves, how is it possible that today all German values are thus trampled underfoot, we must answer: Because we have forgotten that without the idea of honor no folk can exist.


Today we stand before the fact that the highest values of Germandom are no longer present in the life of the state and in the administration of justice. The Germanic legal system developed from self-help to the honor of the clan and to the honor of the tribe, and then the defense of honor was taken over by the state, which bears legitimacy to the degree that it is able to defend the honor of a totality. We can see that an insult to Germandom could be prosecuted by a government attorney. We can also see that the Weltbühne is able to speak of a "Whore Germania" without anyone lifting a finger to seize this lad by the collar. That is the deepest calamity that a people can experience.


Nevertheless on 9 November 1918 in thousands of Germans something new came to life, and the highest value arose, which should bind us all together today.  Here for the first time was born that which appears to us today as the highest and holiest: a racial and type-based folkdom.


This worldview led us not only to contemplate today's situation under a new illumination, but also to view history in a different light. Thus we see that the frequently mentioned Light from the East has faded, that all culture-creating deeds have progressed from West to East, and it is certain that before the Germanic peoples founded all the states of Europe, quite long before that, Nordic waves went over the Alps to Rome, Greece, Persia, and India,[12] where racially characteristic cultures and racially characteristic art arose, and that only the Germanic Eveningland ever created similar values again, although in new forms.


For the National-Socialist movement two fundamental demands derive from that: the unconditional vigorous defense of the race and the unconditional defense of national honor. The former is the physical substance, the latter the innermost value. What economic program and political possibilities will result later, no man can know. Ultimately it is not programs that we want to cultivate. At the beginning and end of the National-Socialist movement stands the Germanic person, outwardly healthy and inwardly valuable. From this fundamental awareness again two other demands result: active nationalism, which means the securing of the entire territory against hostile neighbors, the protection of seventy-million Germans amid the various races and peoples of Europe, and in another direction, a just-as-active socialism, which means securing the individual against any exploitation by private powers.


Nationalism pertains mainly to foreign policy while socialism is the domestic complement.   Corresponding manifestations are the army and the police. We want to bring together the two currents that splash around the middle, the strongly nationalist movement and the strongly socialist movement purged of Marxism. Therefore National-Socialism distinguishes itself from the religion of the Second Reich -- from National-Liberalism -- which is distinguished on the one side by unlimited exploitation, on the other by charity. On one side the ladle of finance scoops away small savings; on the other side nursing homes and hospitals appear. This is most evident today in America, where exploitation has already become a condition that is encouraged. The stock-jobber who has robbed a people for 60 years, in the 65th year builds a hospital for his victims.


Against this age led today by Marxism we have declared a struggle to the end. National-Socialism clearly distinguishes itself in terms of worldview, and cultivates personality in the knowledge that it is soil-bound and race-bound, and that its ultimate goal is service to the organism of the folk [Volksorganismus]. If somebody declares to us that the German should sacrifice himself for the great European Idea, we declare that all Europe could go to ruin if the German folk must suffer harm.


Anti-White Propaganda
Whenever such thoughts are pronounced, then come the Men of Darkness [Dunkelmänner] from all camps and say, That is idolatry of the nation. They, who today have only one idol, their party and their moneybag, who look on  daily as all German values are trampled in the mud, dare to proclaim that. Indeed while the film about Luther was banned, the same ministry declared that it found no reason to ban the Negro opera Jonny Spielt Auf (Jonny Strikes Up). This disgraceful Black piece is being presented at sixty German opera-houses. It culminates in the glorification of the Negro atop the globe carrying the stolen violin of a German, and at his side an Aryan girl that has been raped [ein vergewaltigtes arisches Mädchen].

Luther (1928) with Eugen Klöpfer, was banned by the Weimar Republic.


Several weeks ago a wonderful book appeared, the Briefe (Letters) of Houston Stewart Chamberlain, that great man, to whom we owe a fine interpretation [Weltbild] of our history, and who at the end of his life strongly supported Adolf Hitler. We see that this tireless fighter for Germany's honor and greatness knew precisely the weakness up in the diplomatic classes, and with a bleeding heart how he complained that, while strong personalities were creatively active in all fields, nonetheless in the upper classes a decadence prevailed that could result in catastrophe. "The day is approaching," he wrote, "when that society will be swept away. By what method this will happen, I know not, but it must be and it will therefore be."

The National-Socialist movement will always acknowledge that the point of origin already contained within it all possibilities for the future. It cannot be otherwise. If one pursues a definite direction from the start and beholds the vision of a new state, one will be able to find many fine things along the way. But fulfillment remains already determined in the point of origin, in the preservation of the type-based folk, in the preservation of those character-values that for millennia have been fruitful everywhere that Germanic life determined them. If all great men of the German past -- Bismarck, Freiherr vom Stein, Lagarde -- could look down on this honorable, character-filled struggle that our movement has been conducting for eight years, they would bless this movement. Frederick the Great, in the greatest need after a lost battle, once wrote the following words:


"Never will I experience the moment that would compel me to conclude a disadvantageous peace. No speech, however clever, will bring me to the point of undersigning my disgrace. I will either have myself buried among the drummers of my fatherland, or, if Destiny, which persecutes me, begrudges me even this consolation, I myself will make an end to my misfortune, if it will be no longer possible for me to endure it."


And true to the legacy of the greatest German king, we National-Socialists say: Never will come the time when we would make a shameful peace with the honorless worldview of Democracy and of Marxism. Better to pack up the whole movement than to submit. If today one speaks of a German united front, we recognize that it means the National-Socialist German Workers' Party.
______________________
1. The Süddeutsche Monatshefte (South-German Monthly) was a monarchist periodical that was unfriendly toward the NSDAP but shared with the NSDAP the views that Germany had not been guilty for the war and had lost due to a "stab in the back."

2. Rosenberg here refers to the short-lived "Bavarian Soviet Republic" (April-May 1919) which was quashed by the Freikorps and still-loyal elements of the German Army.

3.  The dominant political party in 1920s Bavaria, the Bayerische Volkspartei (Bavarian People's Party) represented views similar to those of the Süddeutsche Monatshefte. The editors of the Münchener Neuesten Nachrichten may have suddenly realized in 1928 that it behooved them to treat those views with some respect. The fact that the ban on Adolf Hitler's participation in politics had ended the previous year may or may not be relevant.

4. Paul Singer (1844-1911) was a Jew prominent in the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands in the late 19th century, even during the period when it was banned.

5.  "But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade." (Karl Marx,  Discours sur la Question du Libre Échange, Brussels, February 1848; this passage is found in Florence Wischnewetzky's1888 English translation on page 42. )

6. The  Berliner Tageblatt (Berlin Daily Paper) (1872-1939) was primarily a newspaper catering to business.

7. Philipp Scheidemann (1865– 1939) was a prominent Social-Democrat who proclaimed what came to be known as the Weimar Republic on 9 November 1918, following the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II, which had been expected to lead to the accession to the throne of one of his grandsons. The declaration of the republic was Scheidemann's own unilateral decision. When the NSDAP came to power in 1933, Scheidemann left Germany.

8. The  Vorwärts (Forward) was the official newspaper of the Social-Democratic Party.

9. The rising sun was a symbol used by the Social-Democratic Party. The NSDAP did not fail to subsume this poweful symbol into its own propaganda, placing a swastika on the sun.

10. Ignaz Wrobel was a pseudonym of Jewish journalist Kurt Tucholsky.

11. The Vossische Zeitung (Voss Times) (1721–1934) was a previously venerable Berlin newspaper of the liberal bourgeoisie that was perceived after the First World War as not very patriotic.

12. To say that Aryan man passed "over the Alps to Rome, Greece, Persia, and India" is a bit different from the late twentieth century's mainstream scholarly view of where the original Aryan homeland was and the routes that the Aryans took on their way to creating those cultures. There is however some evidence that the Aryans could have originated in Northern Europe. The greatest concentration of blonds in the world is in Sweden and Finland, and the modern language that most resembles the theorized original Aryan language is only a short distance away, in Lithuania. Only the route to Rome is likely to have involved crossing the Alps.

27 September 2011

Brain and Politics

What happens when the abnormal brain becomes common? 
Does it form its own political party?


This study of the relationship between political orientation and brain-form, based on questionnaires and MRI scans of the brains of 90 students, was conducted by Professor Geraint Rees of University College, London. 

The results showed a strong correlation between between political belief and two specific regions of the brain. The grey matter of the anterior cingulate was significantly thicker amongst those who described themselves as liberal, or left wing, while the amygdala - an area associated with emotional processing - was larger in those who regarded themselves as conservative or right wing.
"It's a remarkable finding" says professor Rees. "We were very surprised to find two areas of the brain from which we could predict political attitudes." [Tom Feilden, BBC Radio 4, 28 December 2020]

15 September 2011

Some Noteworthy Physical Characteristics of the Negro (and their relevance for self-defense)

The ninth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica lists some key physical characteristics of the Negro; of particular interest to us are points 1, 3, 8, and 9:

(1) the abnormal length of the arm, which in the erect position sometimes reaches the knee-pan, and which on an average exceeds that of the Caucasian by about 2 inches; (2) prognathism, or projection of the jaws (index number of facial angle about 70, as compared with the Caucasian 82); (3) weight of brain, as indicating cranial capacity, 35 ounces (highest gorilla 20. average European 45); (4) full black eye, with black iris and yellowish sclerotic coat, a very marked feature; (5) short flat snub nose, deeply depressed at the base or frontal suture, broad at extremity, with dilated nostrils and concave ridge; (6) thick protruding lips, plainly showing the inner red surface; (7) very large zygomatic arches—high and prominent cheek bones; (8) exceedingly thick cranium, enabling the Negro to butt with the head and resist blows which would inevitably break any ordinary European's skull; (9) correspondingly weak lower limbs, terminating in a broad flat foot with low instep, divergent and somewhat prehensile great toe, and heel projecting backwards ("lark heel"); (10) complexion deep brown or blackish, and in some cases even distinctly black, due not to any special pigment, as is often supposed, but merely to the greater abundance of the coloring matter in the Malpighian mucous membrane between the inner or true skin and the epidermis or scarf skin; (11) short, black hair, eccentrically elliptical or almost flat in section, and distinctly woolly, not merely frizzly, as Prichard supposed on insufficient evidence;' (12) thick epidermis, cool, soft, and velvety to the touch, mostly hairless, and emitting a peculiar rancid odor, compared by Pruner Bey to that of the buck goat; (13) frame of medium height, thrown somewhat out of the perpendicular by the shape of the pelvis, the spine, the backward projection of the head, and the whole anatomical structure; (14) the cranial sutures, which close much earlier in the Negro than in other races.

The Negro has a small brain (77% of the European average, by weight) encased in an "exceedingly thick cranium." This has implications. Aside from the obvious fact that less brain-matter implies less-profound brain-processes, it means that the Negro has a distinct advantage so far as receiving blows to the head is concerned. His skull is able to "resist blows which would inevitably break any ordinary European's skull."  Marquess of Queensberry rules therefore place any White person at a serious disadvantage when engaged in a violent struggle with a Negro. Striking the head is not the way to defend oneself against a Negro attacker.

Fortunately, Encyclopaedia Britannica also tells us that however strong the Negro's skull may be, his lower limbs are "correspondingly weak." He has "weak lower limbs" (in terms of bone-structure) and "a broad flat foot." So, if you must defend yourself against a Negro attacker, the method of self-defense is clear and race-specific: attack the lower legs and feet. That was advice that my father, at one time a bus-driver in a majority-Negro city, often imparted to me: "Kick 'em in the shins! Stamp on their feet!"

Recently my father's advice was famously validated by a pregnant White woman in Philadelphia.


This woman broke a Negro criminal's lower leg with a side-kick (following up with the less obvious technique of twisting his foot to aggravate the existing fracture). She happens to have been trained in kickboxing so that her kick was perfectly delivered, but the main basis of her success  is that she attacked the Negro where he was vulnerable. It does not take formal training or advanced technique to learn to kick lower legs and stamp feet so as to inflict serious pain. If you must send your children to school where there are many Blacks, you might want to instruct them in appropriate self-defense.

Here is a demonstration of some self-defense techniques that exploit the weaknesses of a Negro's lower-legs and feet.


Blacks will always be dangerous because of their impulsiveness, but let's not live in excessive fear of these people. Let's not have them walk all over us or our children because of the false impression that they are invincible in a fight. They have the advantage only if we give it to them.

20 August 2011

Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood Speech





Lord Lester QC, who says that he "contributed to" Roy Jenkins' speech setting Britain onto the path of multiculturalism rather than assimilation, is a Jew. (The Jewish stake in such a policy is clear enough.)








Eric Clapton on Enoch Powell and Immigration (1976).