Controlled Opposition: NeoConsPaleoConsAlt/DissidentRight> Flags Flapping …in Reactionary Wind.
In the decades following World War II, the discourse parameters of controlled opposition purporting to be conservative of White interests through American power and patriotism have been set by two poles – one pole of controlled opposition, NeoConservatism, has become quite well known to Whites considering themselves to have rebelled to a dissident position on behalf of their interests

The other pole, PaleoConservatism, has been scarcely understood for the controlled opposition that it is. However, PaleoConservatism remains the fundamental rubric under which the Dissident Right successors of the now defunct Alternative Right (having served its basic function, to undo the Iran Deal through Donald Trump) continue to function – in the controlled advocacy of Whites and White Nationalism in opposition to the “politically correct” liberalization of White national borders and group boundaries. In fact, PaleoConservatism is a more insidious, sneaky form of controlled opposition.

Indeed, none other than Professor Kevin MacDonald has claimed that PaleoConservatism is not Jewish; when in fact, it is Jewish, both in origin and in purpose – as controlled opposition.
PaleoConservatism is controlled opposition and a more cunning, insidious controlled opposition – because of that, ultimately even more destructive to Whites than NeoConservatism as it seeps in more thoroughly to work against potential means of resistance.

Recognizing that forms of leftist advocacy heretofore backed by Jewish interests were getting out of control against them and that new forms of leftism (particularly, ethnonationalist) might effectively emerge beyond and against Jewish control, that there would be a backlash against the obvious destruction of NeoConservatism and Frankfurt School political correctness, in addition to the intersectional confrontation of its coalitions as they came into conflict with Jewish power and influence; and finally, with the broader White populace in particular becoming more aware than ever of the malign effects of Jewish power and influence as it ascended to greater hegemony than ever with the 2008 subprime crisis bail-out, and potentially organizing against it with a concept of White left ethnonationalism, the PaleoConservative, Paul Gottfried of marked concern, felt the need to control this potential – he saw the need for controlled opposition and voiced inauguration of an “Alternative Right.” In fact, the Alt-Right was basically a got-up version of PaleoConservatism, a catch-all tentosphere of reactionary, anti-social and stigmatic positions that added a few tents to accommodate these reactionaries to be controlled along lines of the original PaleoConservative tent; and to infuse it with otherwise disaffected youth, it added hard edged irreverence to appeal to their youthful rebellion – memes cunningly inserted by this marketing campaign against a characterology of “the left” as it intersected, ran contra to Jewish hegemony and its complicit right wingers (albeit, sometimes unwittingly complicit) to give it street cred and the look of authentic rebellion against political correctness.

For the marketing of this project, Spencer was taken under the umbrella, or big tent, as it were, of the Regnery circus, sponsoring a tentosphere of disaffected right wing reactionaries who were an audience for the long time right wing publisher, Regnery; catering to its largely Germanic audience with Germanophilia bordering on Nazism but strangely also catering to right wing Jews.
The failure of Richard Spencer and the Alt-Right project is well known, but the very real concerns of its audience continue, of course, as does their altercasting within the controlled oppositional framework of PaleoConservativatism.
Cultural Marxism and NeoConservatism vs. PaeloConservatism as Cultural Controlled Opposition.
A leading exponent of PaleoConservatism since the demise of The Alt-Right rebranding and the fall of Richard Spencer, has been Nick Fuentes.

Controlled opposition will place unwitting assets like Fuentes, intelligent but not intelligent enough to be fully unaware that they are functioning under controlled opposition or able to function outside of it if they might be aware. They typically come across as your best asset, providing just enough red meat to gain credibility as true opposition. Nevertheless, if you recognize it for what it is and keep it on the radar screen as such, not getting caught up, controlled opposition can have its utility as they are often funded to provide valuable resource, typically enlisting intelligent people and allowing them fine and clear articulation of some important information for WN. As in the instance when Nick Fuentes nicely articulates Israeli Operation Clean Break, a.k.a., “Project for a New America Century.”






Meanwhile, U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman, (((Alan Greenspan))), was applying (((the magic hand))) of conservative American, anti-communist economics, (((Randian “objectivism” – read the red cape, really subjectivism))) and (((Austrian School Economics and Libertarianism))) to fulfill the culmination of the centuries old cycle of horizontal transmission, in which the wealth of a nation magically accrues to Jewish power and interests – as it did with the 2008 bail out.

This NeoConservative and Austrian School controlled opposition ran rough shod over true conservatism through American Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan to the 2008 financial crisis; which, again, was the point where Jewish power and interests saw need for a marketing campaign to be inaugurated against “The Left” with a renewed PaleoConservative Right.
Although Fuentes’ PaleoConservatism is not what most people consider to be classic controlled opposition, make no mistake. While we are tossing around the word “culture” of late, adding “cultural capitalism” and “cultural nationalism” on the radar screen with cultural Marxism, it can be said quite accurately that Paleoconservatism is a “cultural controlled opposition”….a bit softer and more flexible perhaps than classic, but undoubtedly allowing the enemies of European peoples to act on key points and exacting a cost – as in the instance of Nick being implicated as a figurehead in the Capitol “insurrection” against Biden’s dubious election to the The US Presidency.


Before going more into the historical pattern of the PaleoCon and NeoCon Controlled opposition, lets come up to date as to where Richard Spencer is now at in this controlled opposition; as he apparently wants to remain public, yet now must function with greater compromise than ever to the parameters of controlled opposition given the pressure he is under from the law and media.

Richard is free to follow his elitist predilections, prance around aloof from the dregs of White Nationalism and still be free to have a voice provided he says things which the Noahide lawyers want him to say – he must denounce White Nationalism and describe it as futile; and as a conciliatory gesture to the PaleoCons whom he failed, he must say that Jesus Christ walked in the flesh; even though in all likelihood, he knows that never happened; but that yoking to Noahide law is a crucial part of the PaleoCon bargain that he is under if he is to be free to pursue his elitist predilections, imperialism, supremacism, which fit better under the rubric of NeoConservative Controlled opposition. And that’s the point, he is going to appear to exonerate himself of WN association under a kind of NeoCon controlled opposition, all Nietzschean and Faustian and all.
Richard Spencer (5:45): We could get into an argument as to whether or not Jesus Christ existed. I generally think that he did exist, he was a real person. …and, of course, became parabolic and mythic in his death.”
What we know of what he was saying.. he was a doomsayer …. literally the end was coming tomorrow, maybe …we are living in end, this doomsday is coming and that was a very important part of his message… obviously the end did not come… when that prophesy failed Christianity became the words and the became the believers much more so than just him … and I think something similar is happening, going to happen with Q.”
Lucius (18:45): “Very recently you wrote a tweet thread on uh, nationalism, where you referred to it as a shit magnet essentially. I think that is entirely accurate.
I enjoy as much as anyone else intellectual exercises, theorizing, philosophizing, etc., but all that is valueless if it can’t be grounded in reality.
It is up to us who have the vision to be honest with people and tell hard truths – like this: White Nationalism was always dead on arrival. What do you think?”
Richard Spencer: “Yes.” I agree. “
Lucius: “I thought you would”
Spencer: I mean …as a Nietzschean … you could say that we have to face the fact that White Nationalism as its been constituted, kind of always has been dead on arrival. …and I think it’s always told itself lies. ..and I think there’s a challenge for us to move beyond this kind of thing (let’s out a great sigh, looks despairing).
Lucius: “I agree … a lot of it does become a shit magnet [Editorial question: who is throwing the shit? Jews and their right wing/liberal minions perhaps?] ..because of the reactionary thought process that’s involved in it. It’s always like, oh, this person said this thing, let’s all explode and react to it in childish ways and never actually develop something. You could say like a White Nationalist, one of the things they’re for is a White country, but there’s no principles.”
Spencer: “Yeah, we had a White country and look how it turned out.”
Lucius: “You made an old expression popular again when you said, ‘become who you are’ – that’s always stuck with me and I think becoming who you are involves like, accepting our history, including the Enlightenment, The French Revolution. …you know, that’s all part of our story: liberalism. So, we can’t just react to our forefathers, we have to progress from them”
Spencer: “Right.” “Yes”… “I mean, while recognizing serious limitations, uh, in ourselves and not just treating the west as some museum that we want to maintain. Which is also a very bad tendency – the Paleo tendency, you could say.
We have to understand where nihilism is coming from and its not all a matter of some mean, lying Jews out there who tricked us.
..even if you want to accept that fact, the idea that we’re so easily tricked is rather disconcerting…. you know, the con man needs a mark and the mark needs a con man (?) much like cattle needs a cowboy (?) and a cowboy needs cattle.”
… a lot of these things amounted to a desire to overcome something and I think they could lead to some bad places and I think they have led to nihilism in our sense; but I think we can admire at least the will to overcome; and not retreat to some earlier thing that we already overcame.”
At this point Spencer emphasizes (over emphasizes) the necessity of modernist side of post modernity, its scientific rationality to overcome lame traditions and “the current, “nihilistic order” and not retreat to something that we’ve already overcome, which is the typical conservative viewpoint.”
Lucius: “One of the books that I’ve recommended to you in the Warhammer 40k series …it’s not called a religion, but its basically a religion of reason.
..as a way to cut through the darkness and get beyond expired ideals.”
Spencer (52:25): ..its just another White Nationalist fantasy, that it’s all going to collapse and it’s not going to happen and I probably don’t want that to happen either. …Planet of the Apes not withstanding.”
….
Now, why would Spencer be saying this, going in the direction of the modernist side of post modernity without White ethnoNationalism? Is it because he is an elitist fuck head taking a pay off or at very least trying to stay out of further trouble? Probably yes.
Before we get lost further in the weeds of current events and figures, the more ephemeral matters of politics, whether Donald Trump’s PaleoCon administration being ousted (to be discarded, his purpose – to undo the Iran Deal – having been served to the powers that be, wink), ousted by maneuvers such as Zuckerberg’s sponsoring of Democrat voter registration, i.e., of inner city blacks; or the smoke of Richard Spencer’s latest effort to not be sullied by his PaleoCon forebears, or Nick Fuentes latest ‘no true Scotsmanning’of PaleoConservatism, or getting winded by bag of books known as Paul Gottfried, closer to the root of the PaleCon matter (in fact, having coined the term) though he is, lets look and make sure to keep sight on the general parameters of controlled opposition, structured with NeoConservatives and their impresarios, Leo Strauss and Irving Kristol on one side and PaleoConservativism, its impresario, Frank Meyer, on the other side.

Long story short, Frank Meyer was another one of these Jewish Marxists who purported see the light, converting to American patriotism. He seized upon its salient characteristic aspects that would serve Jewish interests to concoct an agenda that he called “fusionism.”
Basically, he would promote an ideological fusion of the Enlightenment’s universalism to be found written into the U.S. Constitution, which left Whites vulnerable as group organization became veritably anti-American, and especially as (((weaponized))) in “civil-individual-rights” which actually advocated non-White groups, blacks especially, and prohibited White classificatory freedom from association (as “racism”). In even greater departure from NeoConservatism, this American patriotism would be fused with a stronger advocacy of America’s domestic cultural underpinnings in Judeo-Christianity – thus partaking of the greatest controlled opposition of all: Christianity, to configure Whites under Noahide jurisdiction.
Between Enlightenment universalism and its individual civil rights as imbued by the U.S. Constitution at the expense of group organization and conservation (at the expense of White organization, anyway), and Judeo-Christian universalism – all non-Jews are to be a blended liberal Gentile mass, one in Christ; thus, what is being “conserved” in PaleoConservatism is liberalism – viz., liberalization of White borders and boundaries; with the overbearing weight and fear of their very moral order enforce.

Ronald Reagan was a disciple of Frank Meyer and gained the United States Presidency with the help of Meyer’s mentorship. This effectively installed Reagan as false conservatism to placate White reaction in controlled opposition. At the same time, U.K. (((tribesman))) succeeded in installing Thatcher as false opposition to Political Correct “Leftism” through her adherence to the (((Austrian school))) of Hayek, von Mises and the kindred like of Ayn Rand.
The libertarian strain (an offshoot controlled opposition, more individualism pitted against the left and its Neo and PaleoCon controlled opposition) that inhabited Thatcher was in sync enough with PaleoConservatism by her own Judeo-Christianity to thus carry the two great western nations forward in placation of true conservatism; to where the NeoCon Agenda was ready to take hold through the first George Bush, Clinton and Tony Blair years – as we westerners had taken it long enough! We’d patiently endured until the Soviet Union fell, now it was really time to serve Jewish, Israeli interests since their first attempt at world domination through the Soviet Union hadn’t worked out for them. … some pay off to White Right wing sell outs and added license to White liberals in the offing would help ease the way for the NeoConservative take-over.


With the growing power of female gate keepers to empower liberal leaders in their (short term) interests as they could drive harder bargains with the greater competition of open borders and group boundaries, the NeoCons prepared the way for take over in the background of Clinton and Blair as their philosophy, nihilistic of all non-Jewish nationalism, reached a crescendo of Political Correctness and hyperbolic liberalism with no effective means to answer back, particularly in these days prior to the internet.


The puerile and liberal female gate-keepers that rose to greater power than ever within the disorder of modernity’s rupture of classificatory bounds, their atavistic drive to incite genetic competition worse than ever, more pandered-to than ever, facilitated putting into power two of the biggest scumbags ever as heads of state in The U.S. and Great Britain.


His General for the campaign (((Wesley Clark))), said:

…
NeoConservative Fathers and Sons


It is not conservatism, but rather the pretense through ultra-pragmatic and facile utilization of American exceptionalism and twisting of US Constitutional rules for its ends, nihilistically against anything conservative other than Israel and Jewish interests; otherwise, it’s ongoing revolution.
NeoConservatism is basically an ultra facile pragmatism, beginning with the deception of its name, “conservatism” where in fact it is primarily concerned with the foreign affairs of geopolitics, viz., seeking to use American military might and whatever else might be necessary under the rubric of nihilism to expand Israeli come Jewish interests, placating right wingers with some share in the spoils of its warring, imperialist, expansionary reach.
It’s primary psychology as controlled opposition is to instill a sense of confidence in America by deployment of military might and economic power, thus “conserving” America’s exceptional position as the supposed beacon of democratic liberalism (imposer of Abrahamic yoke).
It is only concerned for unionizations and coalitions thereof that it can control and use to scab the national and ethnonational bounds of others.
As Bill Kristol has made clear, it is opposed to ethnonationalism (for Whites); interestingly, Kristol freaks out if you notice the fact that Jews are not White; and he freaks out if Israel comes under critical scrutiny; hardly the conservatism that George Washington had in mind in his farewell speech at Fraunce’s Tavern, declaring America’s need to avoid foreign entanglements. But hey, we “conservatives” can use US power to bomb and kill people who disagree with interference.
Obamas and Rumors of Obamas
Compulsory Diversity News, Adrean Arlott:
The Obama administration, furthering the NeoCon agenda

“The greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christians and Muslims and Jews, cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down!”

Gaddafi: “You idiots, I had warned you!”






…
Ukraine, looking every bit like another phase of Operation Clean Break.

If Jewish men are impregnating Ukrainian women and the children don’t have the same Israeli status as they might if their mothers were Jewish, where better to go than Ukraine to gain a foothold in its strategic geopolitical position, valuable farmland and other resource?



Controlled (and Controlling) Opposition Is Not Necessarily Controlling and Controlled In The Way That People Think It Is.
Coming by top down prescription from their seven to ten elite niches or from the bottom up, less consciously, more of their biological patterns, the YKW’s controlled opposition works through the holes, rational blindness to social accountability as created by the objectivism underpinning right wing/liberal world views.
Trump’s ousting created some temporary unclarity as to how the controlled opposition would be playing-out through its useful goyim idiots, but the recent Spencer interview has clarified things .
Before discussing particulars and generality of controlled opposition, it is necessary to discuss how it works in the reality of praxis; i.e., Jewry’s control of opposition, altercasting right wing and “third positionist” identity as it were, isn’t exactly like a puppet master pulling strings, though it is largely deliberate – it isn’t a plan without options, but rather a bit more like casuistry, taking advantage of the best opportunities and options (while the option parameters are themselves articulated by them in the main) in circumstance and presented by them to the public as such, heads we win, tails you lose; at the same time, even those Jews who promote controlled opposition are not necessarily fully conscious ot if – it can be quite simply a matter of their biology to effect a kind of damage control which nevertheless accrues to their interests by way of controlled opposition.
Indeed, one can say that anyone in opposition to the liberal elitist control which runs rough shod over our systemic borders and bounds is controlled to some extent at this point: but by its actual administrators, controlled opposition at one extreme is an expression of those controlling the logics of meaning and action (again, whether largely calculating or largely intuitive); and it runs through a gamut of awareness (or not) from there; from right wingers and liberals disingenuously, cynically taking the payoff and incentives or naively (less consciously) for their individual participation in a group rubric in controlled opposition (such as Christianity); thus “controlled” in destruction of our would-be systemic homeostasis.
Though Paul Gottfried and Richard Spencer aren’t fully conscious that they are controlling and controlled opposition, operating through biological motives, material incentives and disincentives, this lack of self reflection only makes them more convincing of themselves.

Of course the key concern of controlled opposition since 2008 is to orchestrate public reaction intersecting against YKW elite niche power (blocking retribution from among their internationalist coalition and White ethnonationalism both), as a greater YKW hegemony than ever called attention to itself as a key problem, the key instigator in liberalization of our borders and bounds –
thus, while YKW power and influence had not only gained more hegemony than ever, they needed to control ‘leftist’ opposition, its populist appeal to compassion and broad social justice for a group, not just elites. As the broad group might gain power against their hegemony through unionization and coalition building, this potential needed to be quashed and re-directed in favor of trumped-up stories appealing to right wingers and liberals, casting whatever success they might have as coming through sheer “objective facts,” a matter of personal merit scarcely indebted to their social group, little in need of social accountability – nor the YKW, of course.
At the same time a marketing campaign was unleashed depicting a characterology of “the left” as this thing that did not deal with reality, facts, nature, science and so on. They would cite the insane, anti-White PC Cultural Marxists that their people generated in academia as representatives of “The Left” – “Social Justice Warriors” seeking “Equality” became terms of derision hung on them in a world that knows know equality and should not care because the Jews are on top for pure objective reasons of merit, just as the right wing logics of meaning and action that they altercast will script; just as (((Steve Sailer’s))) red cape of “Human Biodiversity” as a matter of I.Q., convenient to the Ashkenazi, would have it.



The likes of Mike Enoch Peinovich were equipped with a portfolio of memes to mock and combat Political Correctness and “The Left”, these “Lefties”, “Social Justice Warriors”, and he was encouraged to be as irreverent and outrageous as need be in order to gain credibility as leadership in opposition to Jewish power and influence: mock the holocaust, name your show the “Daily Shoah”, make gas chamber jokes, express reverence for Hitler, be as anti-Semitic as need be in order to gain control of the opposition.
But not just the more extreme reactionaries, the broader populace had to brought under control as well, assimilating the Alt-Right reaction but not quite as extreme so as not to put off the “normies” in this campaign. They would thus have an “Alt-lite.”
For that end, Steve Bannon had Breitbart assimilate the Alt-Right, enlisting Milo et al. to gain further control of it.






Alt-Right Marketing Memes Galore

Especially through the portfolio provided Mike Enoch Peinovich and TRS, Weev and Anglin at Daily Stormer as they dipped into 4-Chan’s threads, memes were spread of red pills, blue pills, black pills, white pills, social justice warriors, cuckservatives, “normies” who wouldn’t understand the truth and goodness of Hitler and Nazism, therefore require “Optics Cucking” to be discreet with overt displays of Nazism as they wouldn’t understand and appreciate overt displays of Nazism and its symbolism; nevertheless, as this Alt-Right campaign is pushing beyond, a PaleoConservatism2.0, it must move the Overton window among “the red pilled (awakened).”



And it did that until it completed its purpose of getting Trump elected so that he could undo the Iran Deal for Israel. After that, controlled opposition imploded the Alt-Right, Richard Spencer and anyone else who got wrapped up in this false oppositon come Mike Enoch’s prompt to use the Hitler Salute for Richard Spencer when he “Hailed” Trump’s victory! to the Alt-Right’s final demise in the trap known as “Unite the Right” Charlottesville, in which the thing that the Alt-Right and Richard Spencer had best going for them, their ability to avoid being pinned down centrally as an easily targeted movement, was brought together as a target and brought down.
"The Alt Right, White Nationalism, it's losers" - Steve Bannon

“To me,” Bannon said, “the economic war with China is everything.” … “Ethno-nationalism—it’s losers. It’s a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more.” …“These guys are a collection of clowns,” he added.

The question of whether the phone call was on or off the record never came up. This is also puzzling, since Steve Bannon is not exactly Bambi when it comes to dealing with the press. He’s probably the most media-savvy person in America. I asked Bannon about the connection between his program of economic nationalism and the ugly white nationalism epitomized by the racist violence in Charlottesville and Trump’s reluctance to condemn it. Bannon, after all, was the architect of the strategy of using Breitbart to heat up white nationalism and then rely on the radical right as Trump’s base.
He dismissed the far right as irrelevant and sidestepped his own role in cultivating it: “Ethno-nationalism—it’s losers. It’s a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more.”
“These guys are a collection of clowns,” he added.
From his lips to Trump’s ear. “The Democrats,” he said, “the longer they talk about identity politics, I got ’em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats.”





The Alt-Right and right wingers generally suggested that Trump was not politics as usual, his money (not bailed out by Russian Jews, or anything) made him independent of politics as usual. He was not part of the “swamp.”

They’d try to say that Jews don’t want Trump to be president, despite all obvious evidence: Ye PaleoCons come Alt-Righters, must see how Jews don’t want Trump to be President, defy them!

Adelson also represented a second tier of Jewish money concerned not only about Israel but also about their real estate and other domestic American interests being affected by the intersection of political correctness and immigration intended to work against their enemies. Thus, they were compelled to share some concern and throw some bones to this authentic White concern. Hispanics are notoriously indifferent to stories of Jewish persecution; while Muslim immigration (a big problem in Europe) is going to be outright hostile. Blacks tent to see Jews as the Whitest and most obnoxious of White supremacists.

Trump Cabinet member, Steven Miller, is said to have been influenced by “Camp of the Saints”.


Largely the same old dog whistling to the White base by the Republicans, perhaps a slightly bigger dog whistle and dog bone thrown this time in a deal to get that Iran Deal undone, but heavily controlled opposition just the same, hardly a draining of the swamp

Right wingers who gain personally through complicitness with YKW elitism running rough shod over accountability to White group interests in particular, are pandered to in the ramped up controlled opposition (presently called “dissident right”) marketing campaign against “the left.”
Pandering and pandered-to at the objectivist basis of their world view, adding a still very successful public relations campaign (even after the demise of the Alt-Right) in polemic against a characterology of “The Left” as The enemy, “The” problem: “the left” does not provide working hypotheses, sufficiently liberated from mere facticity in order to operate in authentic sovereignty, sufficient breadth of functional autonomy and perspective, yet delimited and accountable, thus self corrective and having compassion for those temporarily marginalized as a part in historical social capital, but is rather completely divorced from nature and truth, with only one kind of left at that, anti-White. There cannot be a White Left Ethnonationalism which measures objective truth inquiries for their utility against calibrative working hypotheses of relative group interests, accountable to unionized delimitation thereof, though they cannot explain why that must be.
With the purpose of diverting Whites from organizing, unionizing – facilitating accountability and systemic correctability, thus homeostasis and autonomy, structuring concern and compassion to our own, thus building popular support for our social justice and power, along with coalitions with others for our reasonable basis as we might under a concept of White Left Ethnonationalism, the first requirement of casuistry in the intersectional confrontation of the 2008 super hegemony was a marketing campaign shifting from NeoConservative controlled opposition to Paul Gottfried and useful idiot Richard Spencer’s re-tooling of PaleoConservatism for a 2.0 – the Alt-Right, with a bigger tent, a tentosphere of tents appealing especially to a reactionary youth market, chasing the red capes of Cultural Marxism and susceptible to be marshaled into sheer reaction, juxtaposed to straight Marxist unionization building, nixing altogether the concept of unionization as something for the working class of the world, not for White ethnonationals, nixing unionization and the coalition building it facilitates in favor “objectivity”, “truth” and “science.” …whereas unionization of the Ethnonation as opposed to the working class, let alone international working class is supposedly impossible under the auspices of unionization?
With objectivism as opposed to unionizing of relative interests as White ethnonationalists, social accountability truncated, suffering Whites in reaction gobbled up irreverence to the sacred cows of Political Correctness in a big tentosphere which allowed particular tents for anyone holding right wing views stigmatic and anti social enough to ensure that they are controlled, i.e., would never succeed ultimately as a popular movement in social systemic homeostasis of Whites.
They were given a master lock and key for access to the tentosphere, with confounding oxymoronic code: leftism = liberalism. When in fact, the underpinning of leftism is unionization, which is the opposite of liberalism as it precludes the border and boundary opening of liberalism while conserving what is within the union. True, the Marxist internationalist and Cultural Marxist anti White Left is about liberalizing White group bounds and White National borders, but it is not leftism for Whites – not THE LEFT, it is not our left, not our unionization, let alone an integrative unionization of our genus (race) and species (nations), as opposed to class division amongst.
Again, this controlled opposition doesn’t necessarily operate fully consciously through the controlling; and obviously does not function fully consciously through unwitting traitors or the controlled per se. Right wingers in their conspiracy theorizing have a tendency to look at controlling oppositionists more like puppeteers than they are when in fact they often act more opportunistically, in casuistry, making and taking the best available opportunity, pandering to reactionaries and hedging in damage control where they have it good.
And their victims are not necessarily controlled as puppets on strings, but controlled well enough, incentivized as right wingers by payoffs, as liberals by license and licentiousness, coddled in heady exhilaration of “innocence”, in the pseudo warrant of pure objectivity free of social accountability, or frightened to stay within fixed options – within discourse parameters and logics of meaning and action that preclude the true conservatism, conservationism that unionization facilitates by excluding those whoe are not members and conserving those are members (whether they are best or not by universal standards beyond the union), facilitating accountability to and correctivity of membership – as Left Ethnonationalism could do.
And while this ethnonationalist unionization is precluded, with Whites successfully maneuvered into identifying with right wing or third positionist non accountability, they are presented with options under civic nationalist, come weaponized anti-racist anti- White control; either way the anti-Whites win, whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, Donald Trump or Joe Biden; while they preferred Trump to Hillary in 2016 and preferred Biden to Trump in 2020 as a matter of casuistry.
Of course, the Left Ethnonationalism that would structure ethnonationalist unionization and coalition building against this elitist hegemony which liberalizes our borders and bounds to our oblivion, the Left ethnonationalist unionization that we are focused on in true opposition to this oppression and destruction, as opposed to the red cape “The Left” that our people are duped into chasing against our interests, is White Left Ethnonationalism – not only because we are White but because White is the genus, the race, the social (i.e., left) unionization of which the “anti-racism” of our adversaries, the policy and activism of YKW, is intent on rendering utterly disempowered.
Thus, another detail to clarify, i.e., this matter of what White Nationalism is (and is not). It is not something unrealistic, as unionization is eminently practical, requires no great emotional or psychological, political nor geographical migration to participate, it is not dead on arrival for anti-social stigma, it IS ethnonationalist and anti-supremacist as distinguished from the natural fallacy and other ideology of Nazism which considers itself exceptional, beyond praxis.
By contrast, for our adversaries and their controlled opposition it is crucial to muddle, by disingenuous rhetoric and rule implementation (e.g., as we said, with the oxymoron that the enemy is “the left” and the left and leftist organization is liberalism” or by suggesting conservatism is Christian universalism, the golden rule of universal self sacrifice), or to allow White Ethnonationalism’s true form to be muddied, stigmatized in misdirection (as we’ve discussed, e.g., into Nazi imperialism, supremacism and genocidal corollary).
In their controlled opposition they red cape “the left” as internationalist and anti-White only and also seek to mystify and misrepresent what is meant by White, specifically White Nationalism.
White is simply the practical tag for the genus of the European race; practical as a tag because it would be otherwise confusing to refer to us as European when we are born and citizens of nations outside of Europe. But every nation in Europe (and adjacently of Russians), is a White Nation. And White is all the more important a practical tag to defend as it is indeed our genus of our people, wherever we are, that is under attack by anti-racism.
Richard Spencer’s recent podcast provides more bread crumb trail to this concern of controlled opposition. He goes along with (((Kyle Rowland)))’s proposition that White is a preposterous category and void of participatory incentive, ignoring the fact that all European nationalism is White nationalism and White nationalism is the motivating organization of European peoples for national purpose against the anti-racist (i.e., prohibition of White/European genus and species group classification and discrimination accordingly) prohibition of our oppressors; E. Michael Jones makes a similar argument against “White” as a category based on the controlled opposition of Christianity (universal convertability of souls and and ethnicity as more a tag of parish shepherding) in which he is based; and Jonathan Pohl also argues against White Nationalism as a valid category under the tutelage of controlling oppositionist Paul Gottfried.

Posted by Pohl Poot on Sun, 15 Mar 2020 13:22 | #
Jonathan Pohl (1:33:58): This is the problem with racial problem with racial reductionists. Alright, so, if everything is uh, genetics, then history and culture and language and geography are totally irrelevant.
Who fits this criteria of racial reductionism? Who is recommending it? Certainly not I. Though perhaps Pohl might think so because I do see genetics as one valid and important criteria in stewarding group maintenance.
Pohl continues (1:34:12):
And the first thing is that White people are not going to be at the top of the heap.
Who said it was about being on top?
Human ecology (of which race distinction is a part) is rather about maintaining our kinds in a horizontal sense.
Johnathan Pohl (1:34:20):
The reason Europeans are successful has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture and history.
Is he serious? Is he just trying to run camouflage in order to work his way into the system – either for his own purposes or perhaps to act as an agent infiltrator? That would be about the best one could grant him, but it really does not seem to be his purpose. He seems to be taking a markedly liberal, anti-racial position.
Jonathan Pohl (1:34:26):
Otherwise we’d be back to the lie of HBD people that high average I.Q. determines everything.
You see Pohl making the false equivalent between race + human bio diversity + i.q. which is a red cape advanced by the (((Sailer))) camp.
We defend our people not because we have high i.q. but because it is our responsibility, we are indebted to our people for centuries and recognize the value of our qualities.
Pohl (1:37:03):
if everyone were White, then Whiteness would mean nothing.
But everyone isn’t White. White is a tag given to people of European extraction, particularly as it would be awkward to refer to them as European in diaspora …it would be awkward to refer to them as European in Europe for that matter.
Pohl (1:37:05):
It would make no sense to study Whiteness in Iceland.
Why wouldn’t it make sense to study Europeans in Iceland?
Pohl (1:37:14):
No, I’m not part Chinese though my daughter is half Kyrgyz
Pohl (1:43:25):
I got to teach a graduate course in race and ethnicity every year (in the six years that he was in Ghana)
Given that, we can presume the emphasis was on European concerns?
Pohl (2:29:58):
(the Pohl position) is super blue pilled.
That might help you get a job at UVA.
Pohl (2:31:27):
I have seen some of Cotto/ Gottfried streams. I like Paul Gottfried.
I’m not particularly impressed with Cotto though.Paul Gottfried should defect to my stream.
I rest my case. Pohl is even worse than I thought. Both Cotto and Gottfried are virulent Jews, with Gottfried been a key misdirection agent behind the Alt-Right.
Pohl (2:41:44)
Paul Gottfried is uh, quite an impressive figure.
Kind of strange, given that his supervisor for his PhD was probably the worst academic in terms of negative influence on society ever. And that’s Herbert Marcuse.
Yeah, Franz (chat commentor), you know that’s my great, great, great grandfather’s name, Gottfried. One of the one’s from around Lodz in Poland, one of these German settlements with Magdeburg law…
Maybe German, but Lodz is notorious for having had a lot of Jews (e.q., Hollywood Mogul Ludwik Meyer was from Lodz).
Not that that small bit of Jewish heritage would be damning, but the rest of this discussion should have advocates of European peoples looking very critically at what Pohl has to say.
Ecce Lux and some other regulars in racial discussion were in the chat to witness this discussion, so they cannot plead ignorance.
Whereas White is the tag for the race of native European peoples, used because it is awkward to refer to our people as European, particularly when in diaspora; while Nationalism represents the delimitation of the European genus and the delimitation of European nationalist species – very important distinctions and distinctions that our YKW adversaries do NOT want us to make (they look for compliant idiots to oppose and muddle these terms).
They have been intent on casting the left as the enemy, to destroy the pro-social implication and group unionization function of its depth grammar – which is a perfectly natural fit for nationalism i.e., White left ethnonationalism. In fact, contrary to what asshole (Guessedworker) says, not only is there such a thing as left ethnonationalism, there is no effective nationalism that is not left ethnonationalism for the border delimitation that denotes social unionization by nationalism.
By controlled opposition they want to promote right wing identity, to instigate its reactionary purity spiral into pure objectivity, seeking warrant of pure innocence, relief from the exploitative rhetoric and casuistry of relativist praxis through universal truth as unshakable foundation.
But this right wing identity which seeks warrant by sheer objective truth is a vain Cartesian quest; in seeking warrant in objective truth beyond praxis it is susceptible for its rational blindness to social accountability for subjective and relative interests where it does not outright rupture the true stability of systemic homeostasis to be found in social accountability and correctivity, through its practical facilitation by the structuring of relative interests in group unionization.
But where failing to get people to identify as right wing, controlled opposition will settle for a “neither right nor left” response (the ‘clever’ conclusion of the midwit is that “the left/right paradigm is completely phony” and this is) a reaction that also facilitates disorganization and non-accountability just as well.
There is still a third option encouraged by controlled opposition, i.e., the retarded third positionist shit, the kind that Irish nationalist Keith Woods would advocate, as it also abets disorganization, providing back doors for infiltration and subversion through its right wing elements where not direct divide and conquer for lack of social accountability and in-group empathy given its inclusion of Christian tolerance and altruism; or for third positionism’s inclusion of its misnomering, “National Socialism”, nominally justified in its inclusion for its reactionary basis supposedly on objective truth, despite the destructive imperialist supremacism of its objectivist “truth”, the natural fallacy of Hitler; but as Woods nation was not in the path of Nazi wrath; he will probably never learn and continue to rationally blind himself to this, always remain unwittingly controlled for the extent of his hubris.. …joined there by the Thampster, who maintains third positionism as it provides a way to wangle in his backward committment to Christianity; and the grotesque Jewish acolyte, Joel Davis – third positionism is condoned in him as it provides a systemic glory hole allowing him to continue to suck Jewish cock.

Speaking of he who burps Jewish sperm, we might ask who is this clown Lucius Lou is, who interviewed Spencer for Imperial Truth, a podcast appropriately named for a grandiose elitist like Spencer agreed with Lucius that White Nationalism is futile, that the elitists must do as the elitists do; where once Spencer fellated a guy named Charles, who told us that (((Lauren Southern))) believed that it was time for Whites to take street action.



Punching a girl in the face in politically stigmatized street activism when you are already under probation after having spent five years in jail for assault: good tact right winger; it is not only Jesus that will judge you.

The Lies Will Try to Live, but They're Not White, They're Jewish.
This clip (courtesy of Stan Hess) emerges most pertinent in light of Jewish crypsis; along with their twisting and corruption of terms by which we might otherwise organize and understand our people’s interests – as opposed to Jewish influence:
This is a crucial distinction to hold-up against the games they will continue to play with our terminology – and an example of those manichean language games comes with the latest Stark broadcast: http://www.starktruthradio.com/?p=1319
With Jewish “Rachel Haywire”
…and Jewish Ruth, Vivian Veritas, a.k.a. “The Truth Will Live”…

Rather, The Lies Will Try to Live …by infiltrating our interests.
These two try to pawn themselves-off as ‘Alternative Right, right-wingers”…with upstart they say that “THE Left is the establishment.”
(the White Left is the establishment? don’t think so):
Jews do not want us to be a White Left. The reason that they do not want that is because it is our best outlook – an orientation which, together with sufficient anarchy, allows for our coordination and strategic evasion of their infiltration. This capacity to evade their infiltration is facilitated by coordination not merely by place but by language – that is why the terms are so important. Shared terminology serves to coordinate our people wherever they might be while at the same time allowing for sufficient anarchy to evade infiltration, counter our enemies and counter corruption – especially tactical in the clear terminological position of a White Left, its eye on elite betrayal and “scabbing” – i.e., any attempted entry into our “union” by non-Whites.
Sure, these Jews are “the Right ..like reading Spengler and Evola”…just so wild and crazy…“but we’re appealing to the ‘New Generation”…
Rachel Haywire says:
“we’re so ‘in touch’ with the new cultural zeitgest of THE RIGHT”, er, Mulatto Supremacism

“The Left is the establishment”…Jews are just such rebellious trend setters..

“I was at a conference with Richard Spencer and Paul Gottfried”..

…I’m really not interested in race…
I want to create a ‘new species” – read, Mulatto Cyborg…

To note, Greg Johnson banned me from Counter-Currents because I had the nerve to question Dyal’s veracity in advocacy of Whites (and question the extent of his actual Whiteness or mixture, thus motives in fact); this was one example among others where fudgy Johnson’s elitist, vertical discrimination (as opposed to horizontal, qualitative, racial discrimination) leaves him susceptible to infiltrators. Vox Day and Mike Enoch Peinovich are among others; while fudgy even gave a sincere interview to Rachel Haywire.
Haywire continues ibid:
“I’m not really into the race thing, ‘race’ is a mental thing…
..it’s about people who are on like the same wave length..
…people coming together to form new species..
….it’s psychic, like Evola”…


Vivian (Ruth) adds, “I don’t think religion should be about your people (race)”…

The Lies Will Try to Live, but they’re not White, they’re Jewish.
Posted by Millennial Woes on Wed, 03 Jun 2015 17:27 | #
Ruth, who has the channel “The Truth Will Live”, is a close friend of mine. She and I speak regularly about the key issues of the alt-right, including the JQ, and she is on-board with all of it. In particular, residing in a Somali-heavy area of the US, she has to deal with their shit just like the rest of us do, and she hates it and opposes immigration from the Third World as wholeheartedly as any of us do.
To repeat, she is a close friend of mine and I know that she is a good, kind, decent person. I think it is wrong of you to besmirch her unless you have some evidence that she is a fake.
PS. And no, she didn’t ask me to write this post! AFAIK she doesn’t even know about this article.
Posted by Millennial Woes on Fri, 05 Jun 2015 16:41 | #
DanielS,
I understand your position, and I do understand the danger. However, I cannot stand by as my close friends are bad-mouthed when they have done nothing wrong whatsoever. (Note that you conflate Ruth’s statements with Rachel Haywire’s, when they are two very different people.)
Though I am grateful to your site for linking to my channel this last year or so, I ask you to remove that hyperlink now. I do not want to be associated with a site, however worthy it might be, that insults and dismisses my own friends.
Thank you,
MW.
I, DanielS, do not conflate Ruth with Rachel Haywire.
And she has repeatedly taken a position against “the left”, joining the false op that is the atl right as such, and when it failed was ahead in enthusiasm for promoting the term “dissident right” because it “sounds cool.”
She is also a cohort of Melchy Zedek in trying to convert people to Christianity, the Jewish yoke.
Is it really too much to ask of Collett and Enoch to plainly reject Hitler? Forward all Europeans.

The epistemic grounds to reject Hitler should be clear enough to anyone proposing that they are qualified for a leadership role in WN. But these two are apparently carrying-on as if they are pragmatists. How do they propose that their explicitly unapologetic Hitler/Nazi coddling will be anything but terribly divisive of White Nationalism in addition to being epistemologically unnecessary?
If one is to exercise 20/20 hindsight, why not wish that Hitler didn’t attack other European nations; putting efforts instead toward cooperative deportation of non-Europeans?
This is not so much addressed to Enoch-Peinovich, as he has already been quarantined from this platform as an eminently dubious actor. However, Collett…
I won’t elaborate on this much here, as I have an article coming up regarding apparent triangulation against WN in the appeal to Hitler/Nazism, but to address a few absurdities by Collett in this podcast…
First of all, Collett invoked this rule that WN bandies about, which does not make perfect sense: i.e, “never apologize.”


Well, what if you’re terribly wrong? I remember people from the White Voice (guest Heimbach high-fiving host Adams for) refusing to apologize when they mistook Elin Krantz with the actor who posed mounted on top of a black in the mock Swedish National Anthem commercial: therefore “she got what she deserved”. Why not apologize for Elin’s sake?

But this is different. Not asking for an apology from Collett but rather for signs of intelligence enough (or honesty enough) that he can see things better – particularly with 20/20 hindsight.

Carolyn Yeager once described this image (of a Polish woman killed by a Luftwaffe strafing) as “a wounded Polish woman.”
Collett invokes the long ago BBC ambush report to now confirm that he’d still rather his daughter be born in 1930s Germany than some parts of England as she would be “more safe.”
But would his daughter be more safe still, in 1940s Germany, once the Nazi regime got through with murdering millions of people, including millions of civilian women and children, thus provoking revenge and violent retribution upon her?
Would it not be a better idea to find a way to move to a safer part of England while fairly assured that your parenting would give your daughter a better chance to not be groomed, and that you’d have some time for community activism, the kind you engage now, to root-out the problem?
Adding to the foible that he’d rather his daughter be born in 1930’s Germany, while that remark was initiated a long time ago, this one wasn’t: Listing his three favorite books – firstly Mein Kampf. Was that long ago Mark? Sure as reliable Mike Enoch set in motion the whole stiff arm thing that made Richard Spencer Fuhrer for a day…




Now you’ve got Enoch (who thinks he’s proved that he deserves to participate in European advocacy – he thinks so), running interference for you. He says that he’s not going to apologize for his admiration for certain figures of the Nazi era, “they’re going to call everyone Nazis anyway.”….“and look at the gun shows”, how the Nazi memorabilia is snapped up (therefore, it’s really ok to see Hitler’s as just another voice in our round table).

He challenges any of us “optics cucks” (the marketing campaign that Enoch is part of calls for him to suggest that there is no profound reason to reject Hitler, that the argument boils down to how Nazi imagery will look to the “brainwashed” normies), he believes that he can out-verbalize any of us in terms of winning over the “normies.” …confident in his kosher verbal skills, he is.

“…but in terms of who is going to be a part of this movement, it’s got to be White people and really, Jews should be excluded; and, and if you’re going to let in a mixed Jewish person then they really have to have done something to earn that – you know, and I think that in my case, I did.” – Michael ‘Enoch’ Peinovich


Germanophilia encouraged to point of Nazi redemptionism as divide/conquer triangulation against WN
Triangulation
One of the advantages that Jews have in altercasting White identity as right wing or somehow in response/reaction to “the left’s social concerns”, is that they can take advantage of the inherent instability of right wing reactionary rigidity, its quest for pure warrant beyond social accountability and correctability, whether in Nazism’s natural fallacy or Christianity’s otherworldly nonsense (kosher diversion). It has been apparent for some time that some Jewish perspectives are using a triangulation strategy against White identity and solidarity, by encouraging singularly focused Germanophilia in WN, even to the point of encouraging ostensible WN advocates to roll around in Nazi redemptionism and Holocaust well, if not denial, then downplaying with “humor”, etc. With White America being largely German, there is going to be enough of a true believers market, people desperate enough given the onslaught of PC liberalism and lacking in time, energy and concern to see beyond an overly German sympathetic perspective (with its background of Jewish interests) – wanting to believe rather that they are in sheer defiance of the anti-White, PC narrative – such that they will go along with this angle, not particularly concerned that they are playing into a divide and conquer triangulation

Jesus freak Thamster is joined b Josh Neal, with his unfortunate psychologistic background and Jefferson Lee with his newbie foils. Quite articulate of liberalism’s rupture of the organic whole, but what they haven’t figured out is that Hitler and Jesus are not what is needed to keep it together. The day before Richard Spencer’s NPI channel was taken down from Youtube, he was in conversation with these guys extolling the virtues of Mussolini and Hitler (David Duke was doing the same thing the same day and his channel was also taken down after he went on about all the “peace offerings” that Hitler had made. lol). Jefferson Lee invokes the absurd, “they’re going to call you a Nazi anyway” argument (i.e., so may as well prove them right?). When unavailable for a show, Josh says that Jefferson Lee is busy planning revival of The Prussian empire (so funny)

See also, Do Joel Davis and Richard Spencer Want to Suck Jewish Cock?
…or would they prefer to take it up the ass?
The observation of this misdirecting pattern is the important issue at this point. There is no urgent need to trace this pattern to a single or few sources, though there are some of the usual suspects, like Regnery publishing and some of its Alt-Right/Dissident Right/ come Third Positionist/ (((Alt-Lite))) orbiters…

While he is apparently innocuous, David Cole Stein’s Holocaust revisionism has been enough to ingratiate himself in this Jewish sponsored Germanophilism; a proud German-Jew, he is not above coddling Nazism a bit, apparently for the sake of re-routing animus against other Europeans. Cole-Stein uses the revisionist cred and attention that he gets to promote The Institute of Historical Review and “true historians, ‘Mark Weber and David Irving.”
“Hey! quit fuckin around, come on, we’re trying to teach the people something.”


“So this is the denier side.”
“Here we have the three stooges on the denier side (Faurisson, Graf, and Mentionio).”
“This side is the actual historian side. Mark Weber which is represented by the Journal of Historical Review that he edits. David Irving…and then you got me. So, here we have me, Irving, Weber. We represent real history.”

Comments:
rollo clevich
Why did you ignore Arthur Butz?Daniel Sienkiewicz
It seems to me (Cole-Stein ignores Butz) because Butz is a German name (even if a German American). The classic, shifty pivot. David’s classic shifty pivot is apparently to coddle Germans as much as possible, including Nazi apologists, “true historians” Mark Weber and David Irving, to play divide and conquer against Slavics, especially Russian Slavics, including Russian Jewish Slavics who David Cole Stein admits to disliking.
…
While Greg Johnson’s “New Right/Old Right” has denounced Hitler and the Nazi project as counter to current WN interests, of late he has returned to performing rim jobs on overly Nazi sympathetic perspectives. In a recent podcast featured by Counter-Currents, Frodi Midjord goes along with Mark Weber’s (IHR) endorsement of Patrick Buchanan’s dubious, “The Unnecessary War,” to set in motion a perverted line of “reasoning” that blames everybody but Hitler, but especially Churchill for WWII. Of course David Irving’s pro-Hitler slant also works well enough for them. In fact, there are two recent podcasts with Mark Weber featured at Counter-Currents, here is one, “The War That Destroyed The West”. Here is another.

Besides the pandering of Greg Johnson and Counter-Currents, Regnery Publishing has long been suspect, showing signs of promoting this Jewish/German, Germanophilic perspective to the point of soft peddling Nazism. Along with Germanophilic Regnery, there are apparently Jews involved in its executive decision making. The Regnery circus, as we might call it, was pivotal in orchestrating the Alt-Right Tentosphere, a paleoconservative 2.0 which featured tents not only for Christians and right wing Jews, but also for atheistic Nazophiles.


I post this picture a lot, but it remains central, and telling as these paleocon right wingers (and Spencer derivative), double down on their bullshit. Left, Patrick Buchanan, half Irish and half German with a corresponding bias that panders to the bulk of White American demographic reaction. Center, Paul Gottfried, (((paleocon))) maven and leading exponent of “THE Left” as the problem, a Germanophilic, German Jew, he is wont to distinguish Slavic Jews where Jewish culpability is to be acknowledged at all.
Many people orbiting White advocacy, like Jonathan Pohl, Right Ruminations and “Terminal Philosophy” a friend of queer Pilleater, cite Paul Gottfried as a reliable leading light. While Gilad Atzmon is another Jew who tends to pander to the Germanophilic perspective; and will get some endorsement from the likes of David Duke, as such.
The latest means of introducing Nazi triangulation has been through the promotion of “Third Positionism”….
Mark Collett and Keith Woods have been a party to this, sadly along with Morgoth (who should know better, but I already tried and failed to dissuade him). I initially took a disliking to Angelo John Ganucci because he was both popular and taking the line that the most intellectually penetrating of WN were “National Socialists” (Nazis). Typical of right wingers, he demonstrated the inherent instability of the right by becoming a defacto liberal rebounding into “Third Positionist” anti-Zionist (while diaspora Jews can be fellow nationalists with him). Just before he was disgraced, Millennial Warts made a statement that “World War II shouldn’t have happened” and added, to paraphrase, that ‘anybody who can’t accept that Britain made a mistake in entering World War II, that they took the wrong side, is just going to have to step aside, sorry.’ How about Hitler not attacking other European nations if you want to exercise 20/20 hindsight? Warts is soon to be resurrected by Fudge Johnson for an interview over there at Counter-Currents.
Johnson can be a bad judge of character; recall that Warts was indignant with me and Majorityrights when I criticized his (self admitted) confidante (((Vivian Veritas))) for attempting to define terms for White nationalism, and Warts demanded that his link be removed from our site. the_lies_will_try_to_live_but_theyre_not_white_theyre_jewish
Some flaming asshole going by the name of Tom Anderson is a definite gate keeper – he has a wrench on several podcasts and is decidedly against me for my stance against Nazophiles in particular; but strangely, he will join Christians, such as Melchy Zedech when they antagonize me, even when they side with Jews, such as Vivian Veritas.
Church of Entropy joined Wll2PWR and Ovfuckyou to attack me for not adopting a right wing position when I began talking with Ecce Lux; in CoE’s case (and she has no business in WN circles) her motive might have been a bit different, but she was joining Wll2PWR who was attacking me mainly because I’m not Germanophilic to the point of Nazism and Ovfuckyou, decidedly against me because I maintain a platform which rejects Nazism.
I lost confidence in Ecce Lux not as much because of his Christianity, but because he let Ov attack me for rejecting Nazism, trying to say that I was too sensitive because I didn’t want to entertain it; that he’d “been through that” – “brainwashed” into thinking that “the Nazis were bad.”
Ecce Lux and Faustian Spirit (who I talked to and also should know better) apparently go along with this Right Wing/Third Positionist angle encouraged by Tom Anderson; while Dennis Dale tags along, unwilling or unable to get out of the kosher discourse box.

Idiotic Chinese woman, Claire Khaw, panders to Nazophiles with the absurd line that she just wants to promote “real nationalism” and “Hitler just wanted his day in the sun.” To demonstrate the innocent integrity of Nazi Germany, she brought an Israeli onto her show to talk with Nazi ovfuckyou, and he agreed that the “Nazis were really Ok”, apparently the argument being that if that’s what it takes to sort people to their nations (and take care of ‘Jewish traitors’ of Zionistm?).

In penchant for the laconic and incisive, GW observed the “triangulation” that inspired this article.
The epistemic grounds to reject Hitler should be clear enough to anyone proposing that they are qualified for a leadership role in WN. But these two (Mark Collett and Mike ‘Enoch’ Peinovich) are apparently carrying-on as if they are pragmatists. How do they propose that their explicitly unapologetic Hitler/Nazi coddling will be anything but terribly divisive of White Nationalism in addition to being epistemologically unnecessary?
If one is to exercise 20/20 hindsight, why not wish that Hitler didn’t attack other European nations; putting efforts instead toward cooperative deportation of non-Europeans?

If you are able to articulate public relations manipulation so well, how did you wind up altercast?
27 July 2020:
The Absolute State Of Britain #62: The Kosher Sausage-Roll (With MORGOTH)
Morgoth (136:14): I’ve done a few videos on this where the government and every relationship to public relations departments that they use to manage public mood.


In The Home Office, you can even see The Home Office website, they call it the nudge strategy; and what they mean is that first they’ve got contingency plans for everything that can happen; and then they’ve also got PR departments which roll out PR campaigns in order to get the people thinking the way that they want, so that the population is like being permanently managed by the government itself via these PR departments; and they call it the nudge…

..and nudging people in “the right way” so all those tick-tock videos from the pandemic I mean it’s fascinating because…it, I feel like a fucking guinea pig because we’ve just been in the full lock-down thing .. it’s easing up a bit now; and then it’s as if we’ve been like…you get whiplash where you’re whisked into this now, this whole Black Lives Matter thing…just one straight after the other and I’m like you think that I’m, I, are we like a mouse in a proper maze here.

It’s somehow about how we react and how the population is managed because you know what….
Because here’s the thing and I’ve never seen the kind of individualists like Spike take this on. But the problem that you have (I know it’s a joke, but), in theory, we’re a liberal society and that’s supposed to be made up of a mass of individuals who are all able to get to the truth and formulate their own opinions and then they will vote for the party on that [knowledge] and so on and so on…that’ll be how they view the world.
The problem is, if you’re then in the business of managing, macro-managing the entire population, and we’re seeing that right now with Black Lives Matter, then what does that actually say about your individualistic society?
Because what’s happened is, they’re not able to get to any kind of truth, they’re not able to formulate any kind of opinions because all the information that they’re being fed is bullshit and according to a larger agenda.
So this kind of makes a complete mockery out of the individualist because what are you basing all of this on?

And you can see the results of it. I mean, we spoke about it all night here – the middle chunk, who are the most conformist will all, at the individual level, think of themselves as being individuals who make up their own minds.
And yet they agree with the government PR campaigns. It’s not even a conspiracy. All of these different PR companies have got flashy websites and when you go on the websites they’re all like a bunch of millennial bug-men, with target-charts; and all of that kind of thing.. all right out in the open… they’re just managing the public mood…. and to me, it’s this really dire critique of the liberal society; where everybody is an individual who makes up their own mind, because they’re obviously not.
[…]
Yuro (200:56): “See ya Kyle” (a “funny” way of saying “Seig Heil”, because we all think that’s such a cool salutation, don’t we?).
Now, “The Absolute State of Britain” airs over at Mike Enoch’s TRS Network – which I have long recognized as the main distribution outlet for the kosher marketing campaign devised to take White reaction against neo-conservatism, PC and increasing Jewish power and influence circa 2008, and to direct (nudge) it into a revised (((paleoconservatism))) 2.0 called the Alt-Right (now dissident right/ or neither left nor right as “increasingly meaningless terms” or third positionism) against a characterology of the left.
That is, they were nudging the reaction to stay on the right (anti social, stigmatic, disruptive and divisive of organizational power) and providing voice to White reaction, alt-right tents among the tentosphere (Christians, Nazis, the scientistic, the nutty conspiracy theorists and yet another tent for right wing Jews as proposed allies) if they went along and manifested some anti-social stigma, maintained identity as right wing reaction against hyperbolic inernationalist/anti-nationalist Marxist and Cultural Marxist (anti-White) organization/ coalitions characterized as “THE” Left, characterized as didactically repulsive and absurd so that Whites didn’t get the idea of White Left Ethnonationalism and its concept of broad unionization to delimit and protect the bounds of White people – because then they’d begin to organize their power and set sights on the pervasive pattern of kosher folks who naturally advocated for liberal scabbing of their borders and bounds as a rule; and then they’d look up and see who was on top, fucking them over: Kosher folks in 7-9 power niches in tandem with White right wing elitist sell outs, purity spiralists and Liberals taking the license, licentiousness offered them in the disordered circumstance of their borders and bounds having been flung wide open.
I have elaborated in many places about how and what it means to be right wing and liberal (objectivism at its base as an excuse with ever narrowing, “more pure” warrant as its source of power; minimizing accountability to borders and bounds of one’s people, indebtedness and responsibility thereof) and why the kosher folks want Whites to maintain that identity. Also, a characterology of “The Left” with all the absurdities of the exaggerated abuses of group organization, individual agency and activism, associated even at its base, organizational essence, as something only for anti-Whites.
…a dozen memes perhaps (red pills, normies, optics cucking, social justice warriors, etc) provided by some NY PR firm and placed in the portfolio of a Mike Enoch to deliver to the goyim with an instruction, “Be as anti-Semitic and pro-Hitler as you need.” …“call your show the ‘Daily Shoah’ and make ‘oven’ jokes… you’ll establish the ‘vanguard’ and tell people that the ‘normies’ don’t understand like we do, nor do the ‘optics cucks’, so for the most part we’ll have to wink and nod, knowing that “our Uncle” (Enoch literally refers to Hitler that way in the show below) had it all right, but they won’t understand, so keep it cool, “See Kyle!” (lol) until enough of them are ‘red pilled’, especially given the ‘lefties’ out there, who might not want us to deny ‘the holahoax’….you know how unreasonable and anti free speech THE LEFT is.”
The Absolute State Of Britain #61: Black Riots Matter (With MIKE ENOCH)
Meanwhile we’ve got other tents working the other right wing reactionary angles to direct them against our characterology of “The Left”. We’ve got the Christian tents to keep the goyim yoked under Noahide law.
We’ve got Keith Preston to help them, e.g., Todd Lewis and Right Ruminations to maintain the left as the demon.
Where audience turns for something else, we’ve got a tent for people who say “neither left nor right” so that Whites don’t get any idea of the organizational power of White Left Ethnonationalism.
And if they begin to get the idea, we can subvert it with another tent to appeal to newbies with “Third Positionism”..served up by useful idiots Keith Woods (with Cultured Thug, who was singing the virtues of third positionism, Hitler and Mussolini with Richard Spencer et al, the day before Spencer’s channel got taken down), Thamster, Jefferson Lee and Eric Striker (Mike Enoch there to help, of course), promoting it to provide a back door and means to maneuver our people by exploiting its no account, non socially corrective rigid reaction against our social systemic homeostasis/ self corrective, self governing autonomy (specifically subverted by introducing to this left cover, an option for Christianity, or the rational blindness of scientism and objectivism, which dovetails with Hitler adulation).
To shore up this reactionary position against the left, cooler heads will be directed from that horror show back to the home base Gottfried tent where it all started for good old fashioned paleoconservatism; and now that Richard Spencer took the nudge a bit too far at Mike Enoch’s prompting, we have the still edgy, but not too edgy new paleocon, Nick Fuentes, to retain the Christian, Noahide jurisdictional yoke.
Of Course, Christianity is the Biggest PaleoCon of all ... the Largest Expression of Controlled Opposition.
Gottfried's continued "defense" of White Christians as "persecuted" by "the left" and the suggestion that they should "rebel" into their Christianity as an expression of PaleoCon controlled opposition.
Paul Gottfried continually talks about the PC oppression of White Christians and makes it seem like an act of rebellion for them to “rebel” into fervent Christianity, rather than recognizing it as the Abrahamic, Nohahide yoke of controlled opposition that Christianity is.


Under Pressure, it appears that Richard Spencer has begun to favor the NeoCon side, it’s imperialist supremacism being a more natural fit to his personality and interests, his Nietzschean / Faustian overman bullshit and so on, but he is compelled to a Paleocon hat tip to Christianity, disingenuously claiming that Jesus existed as a historical figure in the flesh, when there is no good evidence for that what-so-ever.

Richard is free to follow his elitist predilections, prance around aloof from the dregs of White Nationalism and still be free to have a voice provided he says things which the Noahide lawyers want him to say – he must denounce White Nationalism and describe it as futile; and as a conciliatory gesture to the PaleoCons whom he failed, he must say that Jesus Christ walked in the flesh; even though in all likelihood, he knows that never happened; but that yoking to Noahide law is a crucial part of the PaleoCon bargain that he is under if he is to be free to pursue his elitist predilections, imperialism, supremacism, which fit better under the rubric of NeoConservative Controlled opposition. And that’s the point, he is going to appear to exonerate himself of WN association under a kind of NeoCon controlled opposition, all Nietzschean and Faustian and all.
Richard Spencer (5:45): We could get into an argument as to whether or not Jesus Christ existed. I generally think that he did exist, he was a real person. …and, of course, became parabolic and mythic in his death.”
What we know of what he was saying.. he was a doomsayer …. literally the end was coming tomorrow, maybe …we are living in end, this doomsday is coming and that was a very important part of his message… obviously the end did not come… when that prophesy failed Christianity became the words and the became the believers much more so than just him … and I think something similar is happening, going to happen with Q.”
Lucius (18:45): “Very recently you wrote a tweet thread on uh, nationalism, where you referred to it as a shit magnet essentially. I think that is entirely accurate.
I enjoy as much as anyone else intellectual exercises, theorizing, philosophizing, etc., but all that is valueless if it can’t be grounded in reality.
It is up to us who have the vision to be honest with people and tell hard truths – like this: White Nationalism was always dead on arrival. What do you think?”
Richard Spencer: “Yes.” I agree. “
Lucius: “I thought you would”
Spencer: I mean …as a Nietzschean … you could say that we have to face the fact that White Nationalism as its been constituted, kind of always has been dead on arrival. …and I think it’s always told itself lies. ..and I think there’s a challenge for us to move beyond this kind of thing (let’s out a great sigh, looks despairing).
Lucius: “I agree … a lot of it does become a shit magnet [Editorial question: who is throwing the shit? Jews and their right wing/liberal minions perhaps?] ..because of the reactionary thought process that’s involved in it. It’s always like, oh, this person said this thing, let’s all explode and react to it in childish ways and never actually develop something. You could say like a White Nationalist, one of the things they’re for is a White country, but there’s no principles.”
Spencer: “Yeah, we had a White country and look how it turned out.”
Lucius: “You made an old expression popular again when you said, ‘become who you are’ – that’s always stuck with me and I think becoming who you are involves like, accepting our history, including the Enlightenment, The French Revolution. …you know, that’s all part of our story: liberalism. So, we can’t just react to our forefathers, we have to progress from them”
Spencer: “Right.” “Yes”… “I mean, while recognizing serious limitations, uh, in ourselves and not just treating the west as some museum that we want to maintain. Which is also a very bad tendency – the Paleo tendency, you could say.
We have to understand where nihilism is coming from and its not all a matter of some mean, lying Jews out there who tricked us.
..even if you want to accept that fact, the idea that we’re so easily tricked is rather disconcerting…. you know, the con man needs a mark and the mark needs a con man (?) much like cattle needs a cowboy (?) and a cowboy needs cattle.”
… a lot of these things amounted to a desire to overcome something and I think they could lead to some bad places and I think they have led to nihilism in our sense; but I think we can admire at least the will to overcome; and not retreat to some earlier thing that we already overcame.”
At this point Spencer emphasizes (over emphasizes) the necessity of modernist side of post modernity, its scientific rationality to overcome lame traditions and “the current, “nihilistic order” and not retreat to something that we’ve already overcome, which is the typical conservative viewpoint.”
Lucius: “One of the books that I’ve recommended to you in the Warhammer 40k series …it’s not called a religion, but its basically a religion of reason.
..as a way to cut through the darkness and get beyond expired ideals.”
Spencer (52:25): ..its just another White Nationalist fantasy, that it’s all going to collapse and it’s not going to happen and I probably don’t want that to happen either. …Planet of the Apes not withstanding.”
….
Now, why would Spencer be saying this, going in the direction of the modernist side of post modernity without White ethnoNationalism? Is it because he is an elitist fuck head taking a pay off or at very least trying to stay out of further trouble? Probably yes.
The Horowitz Angle…

David Horowitz and Paul Gottfried occupy two axial points of Jewish motivation to promote a marketing campaign against “the left” and characterology thereof, while altercasting manipulable right wing reactionary positions for Whites given intersectionality with the (((progressive stack of PC victim groups))) against their Jewish interests, their need to get ahead of the reaction to NeoConservatism’s Operation Clean Break / Wars for Israel and reaction to the 2008 financial meltdown/ bail-out.
While I have called attention to David Horowitz as a leading Jewish figure in advancing the marketing campaign – in Jewish interests, obviously – against “THE Left” and indeed, he has contributed to exposing the Cultural Marxist/PC Anti-White Left, I have focused more on Paul Gottfried in terms of posing “The Left” in opposition to White identity and nationalism by definition. Nevertheless, both conveniently ignore the possibility (and necessity) of a White Left Ethnonationalism, instead altercasting any White identitarianism which might respond as some kind of Right –

Alt-Right in Gottfried’s case, with flunkey Richard Spencer figure-heading the addition of new tents, more youthful, flagrantly rebellious and anti-social, secular, along with Paleoconservative and Jewish right wing (Alt Lite) tents – moving to “Dissident Right” after Charlottesville and “Hail Trump”, Spencer then falling to the wayside in favor of a more streamlined but still edgy/ ironic Paleoconservatism (Christianity being what it cannot deviate from) and Third Positionism (includes right wing elements, obviously) – But I haven’t talked much about Horowitz’ part in the marketing campaign, positioning White identity against “The Left” and altercasting White Nationalism as some kind of Right (come Third Positionism, or neither left nor right populism, susceptible to infiltration and ineffective if not self destructive right wing reaction).
Related:
J.F. Gariepy talks with Thomas Goodrich, whom he refers to as a “major historian.”

This attempted redemption of Nazi propaganda has already…

J.F. Gariepy gives Roosh V. a B.J.

But Roosh V. is someone I have the highest respect for.
And it is the most honor I’ve ever felt about a guest coming here!


Related:

Though J.F. Gariepy claims to be thinking independently in his terminological deployment, the discourse parameters he follows are within the altercast box prescribed by Jewish interests and serving them; as ever, a caveat thus in regard to Gariepy’s use of the term “The Left” and its “characterizations;” while this usage and characterology is fairly true when looked upon as a Marxist Internationalist or Cultural Marxist Left, assailing White national, group and personal boundaries, absent the delimiting working hypotheses of the White Ethnonational Left, viz., unionization to structure accountability and gauge correctivity for Whites, Gariepy’s advice is more free floating (and, he admits, nihilistic) than it should be – providing feedback looking toward the more objective facts irrespective of our subjective and relative interests, but lacking the radical orientating context without the centering calibration of White Left Ethnonationalism’s relative, systemic interests.

JF Gariepy discusses recent Youtube bans, including Red Elephants: (6:31)“But then, lets not fool ourselves into thinking that the current order is a liberal one. We don’t live in a liberal society. In a liberal society, you can’t lose your channel like Vincent James just lost it today. That is bullshit. These people are not liberals.”
in regard to his assessment given the recent Youtube bans, viz., of Vincent James, actually, Gariepy is off the mark. The internationalist Marxist, anti-White Cultural Marxist agenda is about liberalizing White National borders and boundaries to the extreme completion – to where we can conserve nothing (not even a Youtube channel with the aim of conserving any vestige of White human ecology).
The discussion below, from NPR Fresh Air, does well to place David Horowitz in the scheme of things. However, it only provides a semblance of explanation of his motivation for terminological and conceptual misdirection of White interests in order to serve Jewish interests as they’ve been intersected by their former client advocacy positions….
All text except for images and captions are from NPR, Fresh Air:
…..
It’s impossible to understand the Trump era, with its unparalleled polarization, without tracing Stephen Miller‘s journey to the White House. That’s what my guest, Jean Guerrero, writes in her new book, “Hatemonger: Stephen Miller, Donald Trump, And The White Nationalist Agenda.
[…]
GROSS: So David Horowitz, who we’ve been talking about, who became a mentor, a far-right mentor to Stephen Miller – you know, Horowitz started off as as a leftist. He was one of the editors of the leftist magazine Ramparts. He, I think, was, you know, an ally of the Black Panthers. Like, what do you know about why and how he changed so radically? He moved from, like, one pole to the other.

GUERRERO: Yeah. I mean, David Horowitz had recommended his friend Betsy (Van Patter) to work on the accounting for the Black Panthers. She’s a white woman. And she ended up being murdered. And the murder was never solved, but David Horowitz blamed the Black Panthers Party and became convinced that they had murdered her. And after that, you saw David Horowitz go through this transformation where he became convinced that the movement that he had been a part of, the left, had waged a unfair war on whiteness – is what he called it. He felt that whiteness was actually something that needed to be preserved.

And, I mean, he tries not to write about it outright as whiteness being preserved. But he talks about how the only important racism in society is racism against white people and that racism against Black and brown people is a figment of your imagination. And it really goes back to the murder of his friend Betty, who he blamed on the Black Panthers.

And it really started to lean into these, you know, misleading statistics that are put out by publications like American Renaissance, this white supremacist publication that paints brown and Black people as innately more violent than white people. And David Horowitz is the one who introduced Stephen Miller to websites like American Renaissance. He describes the founder of American Renaissance, Jared Taylor, to me, as a very smart man, who he claims has a perverse ethnic view because, again, David Horowitz, you know, tries to distance himself from the white nationalist movement because he knows how important it is to launder these ideas through the language of heritage and national security if you want them to appeal to the mainstream.

GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. Let’s get back to my interview with Jean Guerrero, author of the new book “Hatemonger: Stephen Miller, Donald Trump, And The White Nationalist Agenda.” She is a former investigative reporter for KPBS, the public TV and radio station in San Diego. She’s now freelance and continues to report for public media. She previously covered Mexico and Central America for the Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones Newswires.

So we’ve been talking about how David Horowitz mentored Stephen Miller. And Horowitz helped Stephen Miller launch his career. He first got him a job with Michele Bachmann when she was elected as a congressperson, and she was very conservative. So what job did he get working with Michele Bachmann?

GUERRERO: He was hired as a press secretary for Bachmann, and that was his first job. And that’s kind of where Stephen Miller starts to learn about, you know, how to write these very hyperbolic press releases. And he starts to, you know, bombard reporters late into the night with his press releases and links and FYIs.
GROSS: So David Horowitz first gets Stephen Miller a job withCongressperson Michele Bachmann. And then from there, Horowitz gets Miller a job with Jeff Sessions when Jeff Sessions was a senator from Alabama who, like Stephen Miller, was very anti-immigration. So what was the relationship like between Sessions and Miller when Miller was working for him?

GUERRERO: So Miller – you know, he really helped to turn Jeff Sessions into sort of a very combative personality. He – I mean, Sessions was already a leading nativist on Capitol Hill when Stephen Miller joined. But Stephen Miller started to model Jeff Sessions, his remarks, after the far-right, combative media personalities that Stephen Miller had been familiar with his entire life – so really pulling, you know, talk radio talking points onto Capitol Hill and having Jeff Sessions, you know, talk about how too much immigration is going to, quote, “decimate” this country and how anyone who supports immigration reform is part of a globalist elite who wants to destroy the country through limitless importation of cheap labor in the form of mass migration. So these ideas of demonization Stephen Miller really incorporated into Jeff Sessions’ rhetoric.
GROSS: So he becomes Jeff Sessions’ press secretary, and then Sessions and Miller end up in the Trump administration. And Steve Bannon helped get Stephen Miller into the Trump administration, and Bannon was another one of Stephen Miller’s mentors. What was Bannon’s role in Stephen Miller’s life before Bannon was pushed out of the Trump administration?

GUERRERO: So Bannon, you know, gives Stephen Miller a platform on Breitbart while Stephen Miller was working for Jeff Sessions. Basically, Stephen Miller was given free reign over a lot of the writers at Breitbart to just kind of shape their stories and provide them with ideas that they were expected to turn into stories. And during this time is when Stephen Miller was feeding, you know, articles from white nationalist and white supremacist websites to Breitbart and having them do stories about them, you know, painting immigrants as an existential threat.
So Bannon – you know, he gives him a platform on Breitbart and helps connect him with the people on the Trump campaign, where Stephen Miller was initially providing free labor for the Trump campaign, you know, sending over talking points and memos and then eventually gets himself hired in 2016 as the senior policy advisor and top speechwriter for President Trump.
[…]

GROSS: The book “The Camp Of The Saints.”
GUERRERO: “The Camp Of The Saints,” yeah. It demonizes people of color. But it also demonizes their allies. It demonizes anti-racists as agitators and anarchists and as mobs, which you then now see Trump using that exact same language to talk about anti-racist protesters ever since, you know, the police killing of George Floyd. So Stephen Miller is really drawing – whether he’s doing so consciously or not, I mean, Stephen Miller read this book. He promoted this book. And a lot of the language in this book you are now seeing Trump using.
GROSS: Well, among the many riddles surrounding Stephen Miller is – you know, he’s Jewish. His grandparents were immigrants. And he espouses some views that are espoused by white supremacists. White supremacist hate Jews.
GUERRERO: Mmm hmm.
GROSS: They would like Jews to, like, leave the country or at least live in a separate space on their own. How does he reconcile that? I’m sure you don’t know the answer to that. But don’t you wonder?













In line with the synthetic concern of PaleoConservatism to promote America’s Enlightenment based principles in a package with Judeo-Christianity, Paul Gottfried continually signals the victimhood of White Christians, suggesting the controlled oppositional angle that they should “rebel” into their Judeo-Christian yoke.
In fact there is a big push of this PaleoCon angle to assert that accepting Christianity is a necessary and integral part of White Nationalism. To name a few salient examples of this push:
Richard Spencer has been forced to profess absurd belief in the historical reality of a Jesus who lived in the flesh.
Recently Patrick Casey has made the argument with Joel Davis that WN arguing against Christianity is wrong because it is just too popular. But the fact is that most Whites do not believe in Christianity, especially not in Europe.
The Thampster is a similar Christian advocate.
Obviously E. Michael Jones is one as well, taking it a step further in denying “White” as a legitimate category.
Melchyzedek has tried fervently to obstruct my voice because I am not Christian.
Over at Majorityrights, Thorn harassed me for a year because I have sense enough to realize what misdirecting bullshit that Christianity is and sought to banish it from the platform finally when his and other Christian’s trolling was just too obnoxious and counter-productive.
Even Roosh V. (former Manosphere advocate of R Selective Strategy to exploit White women) of all people, is trying to get into the act of promoting Christianity. He’s largely been welcome in the Alt-Right come Dissident Right tentosphere.

And the Paleocon Noahidization agenda is working hard on and through the “TradThots”



Those who think we should be careful about THOT leaders, Trad or otherwise, are correct.

Black Pidgeon Speaks Blond in the Belly of the Beast
She says that she “hates White Leftists most of all.”
… but does she hate White Left EthnoNationalists?

This is one among many articles I’ve written and talks I’ve given distinguishing White Left EthnonNationalism only to have asshole (Guessedworker) try to say that that I have “always talked only in terms of a white left!” Yes, and asshole added to the exclamation point to his complete inaccuracy.
I’ve known for some time now that since about 2011 or 2012 that the Chinese have unfortunately adopted the “White Left” as a slur term for White (or what they perceive as White) cultural Marxists and corollary liberals.
However, I’m not really worried about the Chinese smear “White Left” for a couple important reasons.
White Left (ethno) Nationalism is internally consistent in its position. And in its rule structure, it is not only totally different from cultural Marxism and liberalism, it is in fact closer to the opposite in its disposition to White (European descent) boundaries and borders, regarding rather a serious concern to curate our history, to maintain our inheritance and lineage. This internal consistency of White Left definition is immediately verifiable as such and can be referred to at any time – the application of the term has been consistent in its call for an effective genetic unionization of our peoples – recognizing in and out groups – genetic group(s) called “our” people as opposed to genetic friends and enemies – this provides for accountability to human ecology, historical social capital; and crucially, among the important reasons to retain the moniker “left”, accountability against potential elite betrayal (as they are in key positions to do most damage from limited positions); along with safe guarding not only the interests of rank and file, it ensures criteria (“union rules”) that provide for their accountability as well, against any propensity which they, as rank and file, may have toward over-liberalization of national/group bounds, viz. significant transgressions of bounds and borders.
White Left (ethno) Nationalism is Nationalist – therefore it is not liberal, it speaks of ecological delimitations of peoples, not universal liberalism as the Chinese smear term would describe, or similarly, as our smear term “Red Left”, i.e., Jewish left, would be descriptive of – a “universal leftism” – i.e., a universal liberalism which the Chinese call White Left and what I call “Red” or “Jewish Left”, is prescribed by Jewish interests and their internationalist right wing cohorts, prescribed for others and instigated of them to participate in activism toward a withering away of the state in favor of an arbitrarily composed and controllable international proletariat.
Whereas our Class, the White Class, corresponds to the whole delimited ethno Nation, rich, poor, private property and business owners, whomever, innocent until proven guilty – as a rule, accounts requested should be kept to a minimum.
But because we are accountable as nationalists, of our rank and file while maintaining a vigilance on elite betrayal and liberal internationalism, we are therefore able to cooperate with our left nationalist friends, such as the Chinese and other left nationalists, against right wing / liberal imperialism as it would be imposed by Jewish interests along with their right wing/liberal White cohorts and their Muslim and black shock troop enforcers.
Finally, the Chinese term, White Left, that has been in vogue in China since about 2011 to label White/Jewish Cultural Marxists/liberals, is a word spoken in Chinese; while we speak English and take full advantage of our capacity to define White Left Nationalism as we see fit, and have done that, consistently.
It is entirely different from liberalism and cultural Marxism. Rather it is true security in what is most important and true liberation for our people, our sovereignty as such.
If anything, the Chinese use of the term “White Left” as a smear only confirms Jewish hegemony over prevailing and pervasive discourse – with cultural Marxism reaching its apex during the final days of television’s pre-eminence (a horrible situation where this TV box issued propaganda and you could not talk back, interact and correct what it was saying) in the early 1990’s after the fall of The Soviet Union and before the advent of the internet. The dialectic between Jewish left and Jewish right began a slow, controlled evolution away from the Marxist culture of critique following the fall of communism; and went into full swing in the other direction of Jewish controlled dialectic, with the sub-prime crisis of 2008, as Jewish consolidation of power niches made criticism of “the right” no longer to their advantage, now that they were on top of seven power niches – critique of the right began to “intersect” against their interests – i.e., a continued critique of the right and popularization of a friendly disposition toward a left perspective would highlight their unjust power and influence; as such would call for unionized alliances against them. Hence, they have marshaled the hegemony of discourse more and more against “the left”, with the spearhead “Alternative Right.” At this point, they have so successfully hoodwinked the masses it seems the YKW have everybody constantly ranting against “the left” …how convenient, what a Cohencidence!
Of course they rattle on with a bunch of cliches – typically accusing us of trying to apply artificial concepts to nature, of being anti-nature, being on an impossible quest for “equality”; and they constantly interpose straw men as opposed to what we are really saying – saying cultural Marxism and liberalism are “the left” – when, in fact, these “movements” are the opposite of left activism, the opposite for White unionization, anyway – i.e., anything but a “White Left.”
But they carry on with these cliches and ridiculous distortions that cultural Marxism has promulgated, oblivious to the fact that we are not guilty of the theoretical errors, gross distortions of hermeneutics and social contructionism, the flagrant violation of scientific fact that they point to as examples of “our perfidy” in advance of their newly (((consecrated))) heroic bastion of truth and anti-PC, the “Right” and “Alt-Right.”
And so I say to my Left Nationalist Chinese comrades, with a wink at that term, comrade, what you are calling “White Left” is not a White left at all, but cucked Whites and cucking Jews who are imposing liberalism and cultural Marxism upon the west, opening its bounds and boundaries with the aim now of aligning its right wing reaction against Muslim “extremists”, “Hispanics” and Asians.
The Left as liberalism is an oxymoron that the regular right and Alt Right slavishly partakes of, as their Jewish flank does and would have them do. A White Left (ethno) Nationalism observes the principle of unionization, its recognition and maintenance of in and out groups, which is the opposite of liberalism and its arbitrary doing away with any such provision for accountability to unionized bounds and borders.
To repeat in sum, the Chinese slur ‘White Left’ as a designator of Cultural Marxism and its liberal activism shows Jewish discourse hegemony and influence, its diversion from true White Left Nationalism. It is a testimony to Jewish hegemony in discourse heretofore and how much they don’t want a true White left.
It is a reflection really, of how much the YKW and their right wing cohorts, sell outs, loyalists to their elitist ilk, whatever, don’t want us to have a concept of a proper White Left, unionization of our peoples to provide for social accountability and vigilance on elite betrayal as such, in a way that right wing, objectivist and otherworldly criteria do not provide – they propose disingenuous and naive avoidance of social accountability.
It just goes to show how comprehensive that the Jews have been in denying a White left, in cucking the very notion, that they have the vast nation of China calling White liberals and cultural Marxists, “the White Left”
Maybe Black Pigeon Speaks isn’t Jewish, but I’d want to see a DNA test to prove that, both for reasons of what he says and for how he looks – seems quite Jewish on both counts. And yes, he fits well, even if ad hoc, with the Jewish marketing campaign of Jewish hegemonic interests against “the left” – particularly in this propaganda piece to promote the Chinese slur of liberalism and cultural Marixism as “White Left.”
Along with the deception of hegemonic Jewish discourse, one by which they are doing all they can to align White advocacy with their Jewish interests against “the left”, one must also take into account the fact that if Jewish crypsis can fool White people into not making a distinction between Whites and Jews, think how much more their crypsis would fool Chinese!









And the White protests and push back against Jewish sponsored activist/violence has been nothing by comparison.






“They’re not gonna stop and they should not let up, beware!” – Kamala Harris on support for BLM riots
Conservative News Daily, Youtube, 27 August 2020:
Clip of Kamala Harris speaking to Stephen Colbert in June is going viral again, as the party attempts to pivot away from their support of the violent riots.
Stephen Colbert: I want to be clear that I know that there are still “protests” that are happening in major cities across The United States…
Kamala Harris (smiles enthusiastically) Yeah!
Stephen Colbert: …we’re just not seeing the reporting on it…that I had for the first few weeks
Kamala Harris: Right, that’s right… but they’re not going to stop! They’re not going to stop! This is a movement I’m telling you! They’re not going to stop. And everyone beware! Because they’re not going to stop… it is gonna … they’re not gonna stop before election day in November and they’re not going to stop after election day. And that should be, everyone should take note of that, on both levels. That this isn’t, they’re not going to let up, and they should not, and we should not!


Biden Responds to a Jewish man’s hyperbolic concerns, having been “shaken” by he Trump protestors entry into the Capitol and the “White supremacism” of these people’ by saying that he is treating White supremacy as the greatest domestic terror threat and that he can speak some Yiddish with the questioner.
Note how Red Ice presents Breitbart as a sage:
That’s because they were never able to get out of the box.
And we might ask, rather, is Biden going to renegotiate The Iran Deal to set them up for infraction and attack by “consensus”?
“Considering that Joe Biden – an avowed “Zionist” whose three children all married Jews and raised his grandchildren as Jews – has been a long time loyal supporter of the foreign state of Israel, it would seem ridiculous for the “conservative, far-right” Breitbart.com to accuse Biden’s cabinet, with nearly all the important positions filled by Zionist Jews, of being “anti-Israel” and even “anti-semitic.”
“But they will” – Banned Hipster
HOW JEWISH IS THE BIDEN CABINET? – by Daniel Barge
His Vice Presidential pick, Kamala Harris – husband, Jewish
Here are Biden’s existing appointments and nominees for these 21 positions and their ethnicities:
Secretary of State (Antony Blinken – WHITE-JEWISH)
Secretary of the Treasury (Janet Yellin – WHITE-JEWISH)
Secretary of Defense (Lloyd Austin – BLACK)
Attorney General (Merrick Garland – WHITE-JEWISH)
Secretary of the Interior (Deb Haaland – MIXED RACE (Red Indian + Norwegian))
Secretary of Agriculture (Tom Vilsack – WHITE-CATHOLIC)
Secretary of Commerce (Gina Raimondo – WHITE-CATHOLIC (Italian American))
Secretary of Labor (Marty Walsh – WHITE-CATHOLIC (Irish American))
Secretary of Health and Human Services (Xavier Becerra – HISPANIC (Mexican American))
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (Marcia Fudge – BLACK)
Secretary of Transportation (Pete Buttigieg – WHITE-CATHOLIC)
Secretary of Energy (Jennifer Granholm – WHITE-CATHOLIC (Scandinavian + Irish))
Secretary of Education (Miguel Cardona – HISPANIC (Puerto Rican))
Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Denis McDonough – WHITE-CATHOLIC (Irish American))
Secretary of Homeland Security (Alejandro Mayorkas HISPANIC-JEWISH)
Trade Representative (Katherine Tai – ASIAN (Chinese American))
Director of National Intelligence (Avril Haines – WHITE-JEWISH)
Director of the Office of Management and Budget (Neera Tanden – ASIAN (Indian-American))
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (William Burns – WHITE CATHOLIC (Irish-American))
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (Michael S. Regan – BLACK)
Administrator of the Small Business Administration (Isabel Guzman – HISPANIC-JEWISH)Out of the 21 positions:
- Seven are Whites with a Catholic background (33%)
- Six are Jewish (28.5%)
- Four are Hispanic (19%)
- Three are Black (14.3%)
- Two are Asian (9.5%)
- Zero are White with a Protestant ethnic background.
The main group in sheer numbers are Catholic Whites, but the Jews are extremely well represented. In fact it is hard to deny that Jew obsessives have a case here (28.5% of the cabinet posts with only around 2% of the US population). They will also insist that the more important positions are dominated by Jews, and point to other posts not included in the 21 cabinet position listed by Wikipedia, such as the White House Chief of Staff, etc.
The Biden Plan:Democrat ‘Justice’ Bill Would Seize Farmland And Give It To Blacks.
The Biden Plan will move blacks/people of color to places of White flight; provide a hotline to snitch on resisters.
Joe Biden on Apartheid South Africa
Joe Biden, Whites will be an ABSOLUE minority in America… that’s a source of our strength.
“Not only our Muslim communities, but our African American communities, Asian communities, Hispanic communities …and the wave still continues. It’s not going to stop; nor should we want it to stop. As a matter of fact, it’s one of the things that we can be most proud of. … so there’s a second thing in that black box: an unrelenting stream of immigration – Non-Stop. Non-Stop. Folks like me who were Caucasian of European descent for the first time in 2017 will be an ABSOLUTE minority in The United States of America. Absolute minority. Fewer than fifty percent of the people in America from then and on will be White European stock. That’s not a bad thing. That’s a source of our strength.”
When reflecting the mess that Victoria Nuland’s operation made of Ukraine, of course Joe Biden’s son, Hunter’s antics there, also come to mind.

Operation Clean Break comes to Ukraine.

…




William F. Buckley, figure of American Conservatism after World War II, defined largely by America’s triumph and the challenge of Soviet communism which would indeed, be brought to an end following the economic pressure of the Reagan administration. In part for faithfulness to Americanism – conservatism of which is conserving liberalism – but decidedly for purging any criticism of Jewry and their weaponization of Americanism, Buckley was controlled opposition.

Leading predecessor of Richard Spencer in the PaleoConservative trajectory, Sam Francis is criticized by WN as he diverts the Jewish question into a critique of “the managerial elite” – the idea of James Burnham (another Marxist convert to Americanism) as to THE problematic group, much the way “THE LEFT” is altercast as the problem nowadays. Attuned to “the managerial class” as the problem, Francis’ brilliance served in the false opposition of PaleoConservatism.

Despite his brilliance, Joe Sobran’s PaleoConservatism facilitated retention of some bad ideas; for example, his support of the Vietnam War and more broadly, his Catholicism. Fellow Catholic and most prominent PaleoConservative, Pat Buchanan, might be shown a book with a counter thesis to his “The Unnecessary War”, responding, take it to Hitler and his war mongering if you want to exercise 20/20 hindsight about who started an unnecessary war.

Sobran, a brilliant writer and early adoptee of PaleoConservativism, is famous in WN circles for his wry angle on Jewry and winding up destitute for that, ousted from his job at National Review by William F. Buckley. Sobran piqued truth and popularity with his remark that “It used to be that an anti-Semite was someone who hated Jews. Now an anti-Semite is someone that Jews hate.”

I never listened to or watched him much at all (never liked him, but sort of below contempt, like fellow 80’s guy, Donald Trump) but all Rush Limbaugh had to do was to conclude a Christmas episode of his 1990s TV show featuring an interracial couple kissing, the shot framed by a vignette heart that closed on them to end the show apparently as if a gift to his critics who accused him of racism. I never watched or listened to him again.
But Limbaugh, despite his being obvious controlled opposition, is remembered by several WN orbiters with surprising fondness – one noted his affinity with PaleoConservatism, Rush having read a Sam Francis article on air in 2017.
Sam Francis deployed the framework of James Burnham, yet another former Marxist, like Leo Strass, Kristol and Meyer. Francis offering the red cape of the “managerial class” as the crucial oppositional group which diverts critical attention from Jewish power and influence and their scattered right wing and liberal minions… whereas it is the Jews who set the agenda, take the initiatives and grease the palms.

A liberal, like Bill Clinton, rests on the same objectivist basis as right wingers. As such he is a pliant tool on behalf of Jewish interests against European Nationalism, as Secretary Albright and General Wesley Clark saw fit. Clinton, just like Joe Biden, maintained that that Whites becoming a minority in The United States is a good thing.

Neoconservatism is much more than just pragmatic political thinking. It is a systematic philosophy with deep philosophical roots. At the core of my book is the claim that the political philosopher Leo Strauss was the most important influence on Irving Kristol’s intellectual development. Neoconservatism reveals for the first time the importance of Kristol’s 1952 review of Strauss’s Persecution and the Art of Writing. Strauss, according to Kristol, had “accomplished nothing less than a revolution in intellectual history, and most of us will—figuratively, at least—have to go back to school to learn the wisdom of the past we thought we knew.”
What did Kristol learn from Leo Strauss?
- There is an unbridgeable chasm between theory and practice, philosophy and the city, the wise few and the vulgar many. That is, there is a radical disjunction between the “realm of theoretical truth” (i.e., the realm inhabited by philosophers) and the “realm of practical moral guidance” (i.e., the realm inhabited by nonphilosophers). What this meant for Strauss is that Platonic idealism is compatible with Machiavellian realism.
- The West is in a state of intellectual and moral decline as seen by the rise of philosophic nihilism. Strauss identified the source of modern nihilism with Enlightenment liberalism—the liberalism of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson. Strauss was a trenchant critic of modern rationalism and science, natural-rights individualism, and laissez-faire capitalism, all of which, he argued, turned man away from a supranatural reality to nature, from faith to reason, from community to the individual, from duty to rights, from inequality to equality, from order to freedom, and from self-sacrifice to self-interest. The result is that man and society have come unhinged from the natural order and from the religious faith necessary to sustain moral and political unity.
- Platonic political philosophy is a necessary antidote to the maladies of modern society. Classical natural right was defined by four principles. First, the political community is the primary unit of moral value, which means the “common good” is the end of the regime and coerced “unity” is the means to that end; second, a truly just political order should mirror the “hierarchic order of man’s natural constitution,” which means that some men are more fit to rule than others; third, that which is naturally right for any given society is always changing depending on necessity and circumstances, which means that philosophic statesmen should not be hampered by conventional morality or the rule of law; and fourth, virtue and the public interest represent the end or purpose of the city, which means that wise statesmen must use “benevolent coercion” to make their citizens virtuous.
- Platonic statesmen should ground the regime on certain ancestral pieties and political myths. The cardinal virtue for the vulgar many is self-sacrifice


PaleoConservatism is actually even worse than NeoConservatism in the long run, because NeoConservatism becomes didactically repugnant in its ‘anything-for-Jews-and-Israel’ ultra pragmatism and nothing-for-Whites hard line; while PaleoConservatism’s fusionism adds a soft peddling of “the traditional moral order”, i.e., the Jewish red cape of our very moral order which is leading to our annihilation.
Related:
Do Joel Davis and Richard Spencer Want to Suck Jewish Cock?
…or would they prefer to take it up the ass?
Tracking Asshole-Head Joel Davis for Complicitness with Jewish power, influence and misdirection.
Speaking of Asshole-Head Joel Davis, he has recently (Sept. 2021) been teaming up with Keith Woods to argue in Justification for Hitler and the Axis against the Marxists and other Allies.
Addendum:
I probably should have included “Neo-Reaction” (NRx) and The Dark Enlightenment” to controlled opposition; but in addition to having always been such obvious (((controlled))), it had been getting less promotion and foolish adherence in the past few years. But with its impresario (((Curtis Yarvin))) making a promotional comeback with an appearance on Tucker Carlson, it bears discussion again. The self proclaimed (((Intellectual Dark Web))) of the (((Weinstein Brothers, Dave Rubin))), et. al. also belongs in this realm – against “The Left”/ for (((objectivity))).
(((The Controlled Opposition of Mencius Moldbug/Curtis Yarvin's Neo-Reaction, NRx))))

14 September 2021
(((Curtis Yarvin))), a.k.a. Mencius Moldbug is back; of “Dark Enlightenment” and “NeoReactionary” (((false opposition))) notoriety, Yarvin has recently appeared on Tucker Carlson and has even had a podcast posted at Mike Enoch Peinovich’s TRS (surprise, surprise – Not).

14 September 2021
(((Curtis Yarvin))), a.k.a. Mencius Moldbug is back; of “Dark Enlightenment” and “NeoReactionary” (((false opposition))) notoriety, Yarvin has recently appeared on Tucker Carlson and has even had a podcast posted at Mike Enoch Peinovich’s TRS (surprise, surprise – Not).
Annoyed by the rather obvious controlled opposition, I never delved deeply into Mencius Moldbug (((Curtis Yarvin))). Fortunately, he’s made his strategy clear, albeit not deliberately, but with a not very clever means of obfuscation.
Like all people following the script of the (((marketing agenda))) against “The Left”, as it serves Jewish power and influence in tandem with White right wing sell outs and liberals eager to take the license of pseudo objectivism, Curtis Yarvin is purporting to be objective and honest in his analysis of history and philosophy. It is basically the same angle generated by (((David Horowitz))) and particularly by (((Paul Gottfried))), as “the Left” that their (((tribe))) had been stewarding into a myriad of anti-White hyperbole, was intersecting potentially disastrously for them if Whites could figure out a White Left Ethnonational position in war of position against them and their right wing and liberal cooperators.
((Curtis Yarvin (mencius moldbug)))’s whole “Dark Enlightenment” was effectively an op against STEM types, to misdirect them as they were in the dark as to how White Post Modernity was supposed to work and were thus susceptible to the (((red caped))) misdirection of Post Modern ideas, wanting to grasp white knuckle to “scientific objectivity” in reaction, “neo reaction.”
It’s a bit of a digression as I was fighting with Al Ross, a Nazi sympathetic commenter at Majorityrights, who, when I corrected him about the misrepresentation/misunderstanding of Poles on horseback to take on Nazi tanks at the beginning of WWII having been the result of American media playing staged Nazi propaganda footage time and again to depict “the beginning of WWII”, turned around in his determination to portray Germany on the right side of the World Wars, and changed the topic to World War I.
Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 14 Sep 2021 04:17 | # Yes Daniel S . My mea culpa , mea maxima culpa . Lethargic Pole yokelry v Germanic IQ was WW 1
Response from DanielS
Ah yes, lethargic Poles and Belgians too, just let the high I.Q. Germans burn down their ancient libraries, cities and kill civilians, etc. Poor Germans, the eternal victims… so aggrieved in the condition of their I.Q., they, the others just cannot understand.. a good selling point if one wants to pander to the predominant White demographics of the USA, anyway.

(((Curtis Yarvin))) will give you an “unbiased” perspective that The Germans were just doing what they had to do, what was normal, or so his German wife, blonde mischling kids, and divide and conquer strategy of kissing German ass would have it (Yarvin, who claims to be White, quotes A.P. Taylor as if a credible historian; Yarvin also quotes Goebbels who said “the truth is the best propaganda”, while Goebbels was never averse to a big lie himself. Nor A.P. Taylor who quotes, as if true, Goebbels vast lie that Poles killed 53,000 German civilians interwar; an exponentialized figure that Hitler proposed); a divide and conquer strategy of Germanophilic (((pandering))) shared by (((Paul Gottfried)))(Mr. “we need an Alternative Right” to counter “The” left (i.e. to disorganize and divide would-be White Left Ethnonationalism in its potential war of position against Jewish hegemony and complicit White right wingers and liberals); (((David Horowitz))) (Mr. I am no longer one of those horrible “Leftist” Cultural Marxists); (((David Cole Stein))) (((Mr. I am a proud German Jew and I hate Slavic Jews; and there is no Prussian blue colors on the walls at Auschwitz) and to some extent (((Gilad Atzmon))) (Mr. I hate Israel, sympathize with Germans and basically think the world should be a borderless liberal jazz fest against a veneer of pseudo Heideggerism).

But you know, (((Yarvin))) “proves” that he is unbiased in his take by suggesting that Hitler was gay, and that he has nothing to gain in taking that “bold’ position.

It is rather the case that Hitler’s idol, Frederick the Great, was a homo… maybe sought to prove his manhood by stealing the Polish land that Hitler was aggrieved to have seen returned by the Versailles treaty; while an entire Jewish media, operating in an indifferent market abets the myth that Germany necessarily suffered injustice in the way Versailles drew the borders; veritably always beginning history at 1919.

Yes, the lethargic Poles, it took their cryptographers until sometime in the early 1930s to crack Enigma, the Nazi secret coding machine.







Milo panders to Richard Spencer’s right wing altercast, later makes clandestine recording of the would-be Fuhrer




Reckoning Double 666 & It Ain’t So Joe, Statistical Objectivity Still Deceptive … Despite Your Unjust Banishment

Reckoning Double Number 666 At The Sanctified Temperance & Perpetual Glossolalia Church…
Sometimes to give my mind a rest and diversion from stress, I will take a look at baseball statistics. There’s a soothing appeal in the objectivity of statistics applied to issues that are not a matter of life and death competition, but play. There’s a contiguity and historical contexting about its statistics as they span and compare through generations that can serve that purpose for me.
Finally, I learned to not route for the teams as they are not composed of true identity, but mercenaries, and rather came to route instead for individual players that I can identify with and against players whom I do no identify with and do not like.
Craig Biggio, a second baseman for the Houston Astros, was intriguing to me because he was such an ordinary guy from around my parts in New Jersey; he finished his career in 2007 with some statistics ranking among the all time, absolute legends of Major League Baseball. I noticed how Biggio might finish 5th all time in doubles (at the time) if he could pass George Brett in his final season; and what made that interesting was the four guys in front of him on that list. For anyone who knows baseball: Speaker, Rose, Musial and Cobb – there he is, Biggio in that all time elite company – legends of baseball! – and nobody else. Even the five behind him on the top ten list (when he retired) were legendary (in baseball terms, of course) Baseball Hall of Famers: Brett, Lajoie, Yastrzemski and all-time home run leader, Hank Aaron (until bumped as homerun leader by BarryRoids Bonds)

Craig Biggio, ordinary guy, finished his career with 668 doubles, among the legends of MLB.
All time Doubles Leaders (at the time of his retirement; Albert Pujols has since eaked by him).
1. Tristram Speaker 792
2. Pete Rose 746
Although Rose finished the game with more hits than anyone, he was denied the Hall of Fame because he was caught gambling (The White Black Sox Scandal and Shoeless Joe Jackson was a gambling issue too. I still think steroid use is an even worse transgression).
3. Stan Musial 725
4. Ty Cobb 723
5. Craig Biggio 668

6. Albert Pujols : “Bat Albert” ..or is it Roidal Albert, had just hit number 666, which prompted this post; the enhanced and well paid Albert has since passed Biggio in doubles …
7. George Brett 665
Had hemorrhoids but… “his troubles are all behind him.”
8. Nap Lajoie 657
9. Carl Yastrzemski 646
10. Honus Wagner 640
13. Hank Aaron 624
Now, there was a “horrifying” possibility that even if Biggio managed to squeak past Brett, he might finish his career with 666 doubles, invoking the willies in regard to his final slot.
Of all things, I happened upon a similar baseball Biggio statistic fetishist, but this guy was rooting for Biggio to finish his career the all time number one for having been hit by a pitch – “plunked”, in the vernacular that he uses (a dubious distinction, but not bad, as being hit by a pitch is as good as walk and you reach first base sure as a single). Biggio finished his career second in being hit by pitch – “The Target” who gets “plunked” as this guy called it, naming his blog “Plunk Biggio.”

I promise I’m trying to go somewhere cultural with this.
The guy also noticed the same thing as me that Biggio might get stuck at 666 doubles.
And he wrote this, which is to me, a dynamite characterization of Appalachian snake handling hillbilly talk:
Plunk Biggio Blog Spot, 31 Aug 2007:
At 8/31/2007 02:26:00 AM, Anonymous cletus j. “bubba” huckabee jr. said…
Now if you ask me, and plenty folk do now and again, the log jam in the ascending plunk count might could be on account of the pending evil milestone our man “Target” is fixin’ to achieve. Contrary to what folk down at the Sanctified Temperance and Perpetual Glosolalia Church of Greater Chesterfield County believe, I ain’t necessarily a religious man. Now, granted, I show up on a regular basis and sit in the Huckabee family pew. But that is on account of me carrying on a tradition that goes back seven generations. A Huckabee male is always present when them church doors open, and as the head Huckabee of Chesterfield County, I feel a moral duty to keep the tradition going. In all my many hours of being perched on that uncomfortable pew, I learned to use my head to concentrate on more enjoyable topics than brimstone, hellfire, pending doom, and moral judgment. Don’t get me wrong, I ain’t again the church… I just like to allow my mind to drift during sermons. Well, the other day my mind drifted to the fact that Target is fixin’ to achieve his 666th double. At the Sanctified Temperance and Perpetual Glosolalia Church of Greater Chesterfield County the number 666 is seen is incredibly and indelibly evil. In fact the minions of Hades can be conjured up through the utilization of that particular number. At least, that’s what Brother Cyril done said. If’in that happens to be the case, then I am wondering if the unexpected diminution of the plunks might be the work of the evil one himself. Right today Target is sitting on 665 doubles and shares the record with George “hemorrhoids and pine tar” Brett which I find kind of creepy in and of itself. In fact, I reckon Brett might be one of the minions. Anywho, if’in Target can reach and pass 666 doubles, then maybe that will release the minions of Hades to go on back down to the depths of earth (or at least over to the American League) and leave Target alone. I know you might commence to think I’m reaching for straws, but with so few games remaining in his career, and so few plunks required to top that no-count, snivln’ weasel Hughie Jennings (who very well might be in league with the devil too) I’m desperate to figure out what went wrong and what we can do to right it.

George “hemorrhoids and pine tar” Brett, an all time great hitter, third basemen, wasn’t possessed by demons as he approached the ominous mark of the beast, 666 doubles; no, he freaked out when an umpire called him out and took back a game winning home run on a freak technicality – pine tar (for gripping purposes) too high on his bat.
Brett was also known to have suffered from hemorrhoids during World Series play. He quipped, “my troubles are all behind me.” These two incidents are mentioned in the blog post – “George “hemorrhoids and pine tar” Brett – to reckon, Brett’s from Appalachia, West Virginia parts himself.
Legends Among the Statistics

Some people don’t understand the great appeal of sports fanship to males in particular. But in the topsy-turvey of modernity, when tribal affinity is disallowed as a barometer and all else seems to be so unfair, a rigged deck that females don’t tend to care about because it is rigged largely in their favor – in fact, they are generally favored as its objectivist rupture of classificatory accountability increases their position to breed with the winner, no matter what team (or race) – sports provides a relief from the overriding attention and competition to the default classification that perception and biology atavistically defaults to, despite social prohibition of classifications – females, their relative concerns, liberalizing concerns to incite genetic competition as it accrues to their position’s capacity to breed with “the winner”; in modernity, particularly (((weaponized))), where their classification reins supreme, where White boys social classifications and discriminations are otherwise prohibited, at least in the context of sports, discriminatory relief from female classifications, their concerns and relief from competition as they see fit, is provided at least for an episodic diversion, while the historically coherent and statistically objective, verifiable comfort, persists – particularly when your guys, guys that you can identify with as being not very different from you have proven their objective merit despite rigorous competition.


















It Ain’t So, Joe, And Sports Statistics Didn’t Stay Objective Despite Your Unjust Banishment.
The issue of gambling in major league baseball and throwing games in order to profit by betting against one’s own team has legendary precedent in the infamous “Black Sox Scandal”, in which team members of The Chicago White Sox sullied the game’s reputation by conspiring to play bad at strategic moments to lose the 1919 World Series and profit by betting against their own team.

Then Baseball Commissioner, Kenesaw Mountain Landis, permanently banned eight Chicago White Sox players from baseball; including one of the all time great hitters (top right) and model of innocent heroism for all country boys, “Shoeless Joe Jackson.”
His banishment and conviction for conspiring to throw the game for gamblers spawned the famous beseech, “Say it Ain’t So, Joe!”

Indeed, Joe Jackson always maintained his innocence and present day investigators have made a good case for his acquittal, citing the fact that he played well in the series among other evidence – so, it seems like it ain’t so Joe after all.



….
Roiders on the statistical hit parade


Jack Clark had said:
“I know for a fact that Chris Mihlfield told me that,” Clark said and added that Mihlfeld told him he could inject him the same way he did to Pujols, who at the time was not known to Clark.
Clark said Mihlfield told him, “You’re going to see this guy coming up to the Cardinal organization, he’s going to be in the big leagues and he’s unbelievable,” Clark said.
He also said Mihlfield suggested that Clark try steroids and showed him how he injected Pujols.
“He like pulled his shorts, the waistband, down off his hip and (said), ‘I’ll just give you a little injection right there and you’re on your way and I’ll show you how to do it,” Clark said.
But was forced to genuflect in apology at the behest of Roidal Albert.
Although Pujols has been backed by the law in his claim of defamation, the way his suspiciously, phenomenally good statistics dropped off precipitously with the luxuriant security of his 10 year / $240,000,000 contract signing with the Angels indicates a pattern of steroid use suspended by him in lack of motivation for its continued performance enhancement.
I would not argue that players who gamble on games and angle to throw them in a fix, should not be banned from the game and prohibited entry to the Baseball Hall of Fame. However, I would argue that steroid use is even worse, as it puts pressure on other players to use them (and their use is apparently not that hard to masque), while it models their use – their bodily destructive use – for young fans who might seek to emulate their heroes.



Twenty five years after integration of blacks into the league with Saint Jackie Robinson, Babe Ruth’s iconic life-time home run mark was broken by the quite black, blue black as they say of blacks who are quite black, Hank Aaron. Twenty five years after that the steroid era was ushered in as steroid infested Whitey Mark Mcwire smashed the single season record, hitting 70. Incensed with roid rage, and not to be outdone, Barry “tell me to my face I’m using steroids mo fo!” Bonds, juiced up and set the record anew with 73 in a season.

Not so much as an asterisk coming from baseball writers and officials as Bonds (nr. 25) went on to break Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron’s career marks as well, hitting 762 in the end, under the obvious influence of steroid enhancement.





Now let me venture a more radical suggestion yet, that not only should gamblers and attendant game fixers be banned from participation, not only should steroid users be ostracized, but the officials, public and players who did not think that White Major League Baseball should be integrated with non-Whites, not with blacks and part blacks especially, were correct. Awkward as that may sound in the late stages of modernity’s universalism as we are, White should have a league of our own, to evaluate our sports abilities within the parameters of our sublimation level – which maintains an optimality different form other races, for a better overall pattern of societal function that is not measured by the sports moment or episode – sports criteria which is, at the same time, vastly over valued by popular consumption absent the constraints and accountability to our social capital and the value of our cultural patterns which are created by criteria not well measured by sporting excellence.
And while Guessedworker would claim that “Aristotle is simply not relevant nowadays” we may warrantably assert against Guessedworker’s astounding ignorance and the republic’s over-valuation of sports, Aristotle’s question, “What makes a us distinctly human?” And that we use the answer to that question as more our criteria of judgement.

All time statistically greatest first baseman, Lou Gerhig, a man of good character as well, was taken advantage of under the right wing/come liberal auspices of baseball ownership, and was advised to seek the council of a man of good judgment to fight for a fair contract; he succeeded to get a fair contract with the help of the man of good judgement – Ty Cobb, racist. Cobb complained that “nigger lips” (Ruth) “made the home run king of baseball and strategy a deuce.”
We know that the way of life that we produce as White boys is fine enough, better, we can argue with sound evidence in overall pattern; though it is sometimes hard to prove our part in an instant or episode – still, we appreciate the capacity for vicarious identity also because we do not normally have the opportunity for the exhilarating display of taking it to them in instantaneous and episodic action.
Still, we can even out-manifest them in an instant and episodically, if not vicariously ..it can be proven ..sometimes…depending on the sport ..and other things.. oops ..its not so reliably objective… while the pseudo objectivity can still have that anesthetizing, intoxicating effect …an effect that leads to sorts fan cuckoldry; participation and integration with people who are good athletes, speaking of blacks and mixed black types, but who are not a conducive to our way of life [ for the greater measure of testosterone, lesser impulse control, hyper-assertiveness and lesser impulse control characteristic of a K-selector people, translating to more sex partners, younger, more offspring, single parent families, poverty, crime and violence], and who do not have co-evolutionary women that we see as a fair exchange for their phenotype and behavioral manifestation. particularly given the vast genetic distance and its destruction to our Ethnic Genetic Interests upon integration.
A-Roid-SteerRod to exit

New York Post, He won the AL MVP in 2005 and 2007, then opted out of his contract during the World Series and signed a new 10-year, $275 million deal to stay with the Yankees.
In 2013, Rodriguez ended up in the middle of the Biogenesis scandal*, and after threatening to sue everyone from the Yankees to MLB and his own union, he eventually was suspended for 162 games.
* Means that he was taking steroids
In fact, he was detected in 2003, prior to his contract with the Yankees that made him the highest paid baseball player.
And White sports cucks pay handsomely to see the ugly A-Roid.
Fortune, “Here’s How Much it Costs to See A-Rod’s Last Game”, 8 August 2016:
Ticket prices skyrocketed immediately after his announcement.
When Alex Rodriguez, one of Major League Baseball’s most divisive figures, announced that he’ll be playing his last game on Friday, ticket prices shot up.
A-Rod made the announcement on Sunday. By that afternoon, the average price of a ticket had gone up by over 600%, from $75.92 to $456.76, CNNMoney reported citing data from TiqIQ. Rodriguez’s team, the fourth-place New York Yankees, will be going up against the fifth-place Tampa Bay Rays at Yankee Stadium, which seats about 54,000.
The most expensive ticket is priced at $17,000 for a seat in the 9th row behind home plate. The least expensive tickets are priced at about $85, which is 431% higher than the cheapest tickets offered prior to his announcement.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.
Wiki:
Anne E. Wojcicki (/woʊˈdʒɪtski/ woh-JIT-skee; Polish: [vujˈt͡ʃit͡skʲi]; born July 28, 1973) is an American entrepreneur and the co-founder and chief executive officer of the personal genomics company 23andMe. She was formerly married to Google Co-Founder Sergey Brin.
Early life
Wojcicki, the youngest of three daughters, was born in San Mateo County, California. Her parents are Esther Wojcicki (née Hochman), an educator, and Stanley Wojcicki, a physics professor emeritus at Stanford University. Her mother is Jewish and her father is a Polish American. Her sisters are Susan Wojcicki, CEO of YouTube and a former executive at Google and Janet Wojcicki, anthropologist and epidemiologist at the University of California, San Francisco.
YKW power, influence in Baseball:
This article is a bit dated (from 2011) but it begins to indicate Jewish power and influence in professional baseball.
Of course the higher positions are more significant – starting from team owners, then to executives, general mangers (who determine the players and their salaries) and particularly lawyers and those who act as player representatives -e.g., Marvin Miller, who was the Executive Director of the Major League Player’s union.
Marvin Miller is a particularly important example as he undertook the unionization concept and with it, in fact, succeeded in breaking the owner’s “reserve clause” which prevented players from negotiating with other teams in order to move to them for a higher salary. Miller’s first successful case in breaking the reserve clause on behalf of the player’s union was for the black player, Curt Flood. Meanwhile, Whitey was aloof from concerns of unionization, dreamily bemused in his pure objectivity.
There are probably many significant figures missing from this list: Yankees former General Manager, Brian Cashman may have been Jewish. The Boston Red Sox (last team to integrate) began winning in objective terms with a (definitely) Jewish G.M., Theo Epstein – he’s moved over to the Chicago Cubs.
MLB.com, “Modern Baseball’s Jewish Owners, Executives and Players”, 12 May 2016:
It is a paradox, but it can be explained.
Most Jewish individuals are proud that many baseball owners, executives and players are Jewish, but those same individuals become uncomfortable when that fact is pointed out in the media.
The reason might be related to the bias faced by Jews throughout history, which has resulted in the almost reflexive action that, while one’s Jewishness should not be hidden, it should not be overemphasized.
Baseball’s commissioner, Al “Bud” Selig, the former owner of the Milwaukee Brewers, is Jewish.
Owners Paul Godfrey (Toronto Blue Jays), the Lerner family (Washington Nationals), Jamie McCourt (former owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers), Jerry Reinsdorf (Chicago White Sox), Stuart Sternberg (Tampa Bay Rays), Fred Wilpon (New York Mets) and Lewis Wolff (Oakland A’s) are Jewish.
Seven of the 30 major league teams have Jewish owners.
Some of the most highly respected general managers are Jewish.
Jon Daniels’ Texas Rangers are becoming an American League powerhouse. Theo Epstein will probably have the chance to do for the Chicago Cubs what he accomplished for the Boston Red Sox when he helped put together two World Champion Boston Red Sox teams.
Reuben Amaro Jr. has made the Philadelphia Phillies the team that is expected to win the World Series every season but has done so but once, while Tampa’s general manager Andrew Friedman is Jewish.
Since New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner passed away, team president Randy Levine has taken up the spear with respect to what constitutes a successful Yankees’ season. According to Levine, success is equated to being the World Champion.
The Yankees and the Mets each have fine pitching coaches. The Yankees Larry Rothschild and the Mets Dan Warthen are both Jewish.
A pretty good team could be made of Jewish players.
Ike Davis at first base, Ian Kinsler at second base, Kevin Youkilis is the third baseman and we can move Danny Valencia to play shortstop.
The outfield consists of Ryan Braun and Sam Fuld, although Braun’s mother is not Jewish. Another Jewish outfielder is needed.
The pitchers are led by Jason Marquis, Scott Feldman and John Grabow.
The only Jewish Hall of Famers are Hank Greenberg and Sandy Koufax. In a few years, they may be joined by Braun, Kinsler and Youkilis.
By the way, Jeff Idelson – Head Of Baseball’s Hall of Fame, is Jewish.
Pittsburgh Pirates of the Caribbean

The eccentric Doc Ellis of the Pittburgh Pirates, wore curlers to prepare his Afro and said that “he said that he never pitched a game in which he was not under the influence of some kind of drug.”
In fact, he infamously pitched a no-hitter under the influence of L.S.D. against The San Diego Padres on On 12 June 1970.
..talk about making it difficult and dubious for White boys to try to identify with baseball players:
1 Sept. 1971, Pittsburgh Pirates fielded the first all-black and Latino lineup.
There were only 11,278 fans at Three Rivers Stadium in Pittsburgh on Sept. 1, 1971, but history was made anyway. The date marked 24 years after Jackie Robinson officially broke baseball’s color barrier and the Pirates became the first Major League franchise to field an all-black and Latino starting nine.
Although the normal Pittsburgh Pirates starting lineup that year was usually filled with players of color, it had never been entirely made up of men of color until Sept. 1. Normal starters Richie Hebner (third base) and Gene Alley (shortstop) were both nursing injuries, which allowed Dave Cash and Jackie Hernandez to fill in.
“The Pirates were known for their black and Latin players, and of course on that particular team, we were loaded,” former Pirate Al Oliver told MLB.com. “I don’t know how many we had on the 1971 team, but if I had to guess, maybe 11 or 12 black and Latin players. As a rule, we would start five – if Dock pitched, then it would be six.”
Here’s a look at the rest of that fateful Pirates lineup:
- Rennie Stennett (second base)
- Gene Clines (center field)
- Roberto Clemente (right field)
- Willie Stargell (left field)
- Manny Sanguillen (catcher)
- Dave Cash (third base)
- Al Oliver (first base)
- Jackie Hernandez (shortstop)
- Dock Ellis (pitcher)
“It really wasn’t a major thing, until around the third or fourth inning, and Dave Cash was sitting next to me, and one of us said: ‘You know, we got all brothers out there, man,’ and we kind of chuckled because it was no big deal to us,” Oliver continued. “We really had no idea that history was being made.”
That day’s lineup included three future Hall of Famers – Stargell, Clemente and Bill Mazeroski – including All-Stars in catcher Sanguillen and pitcher Ellis. Combined, the roster was composed of 14 whites, six African-Americans and seven Latinos.
“When it comes to making out the lineup,” then-Pirates manager Danny Murtaugh said. “I’m colorblind and my athletes know it.”
“I wish that it would be brought up more, and it should be,” Oliver told Fox Sports. “It wasn’t maybe as big as Jackie Robinson breaking into the major leagues [in 1947], but it should be up there as far as baseball history is concerned. I think it’s a day that really should be celebrated.”
Vigilant Yankees fan though I was, two incidents around 1989 caused me to stop my fanship and turn me leisure time to better use.

In August of 1989, Luis Polonia was convicted of statutory rape of a 15 year old blond girl in Milwaukee where the Yankees were playing a series against the Brewers. He spent 60 days in jail.
He nevertheless played another ten years in the Major Leagues despite also being sub-par player.
Yankees (White) manager Dallas Green had only this tepid remark: “It’s a shame to see that happen. It’s a personal thing. All you can do is warn people. You can’t live their lives.”

Around the same time, his teammate Mel Hall decided that he wanted to date a White highschool girl from Connecticut. And when the Milwaukee Brewers decided to send a message of disapproval do Luis Polonia by giving him some “chin music” (pitcher throws at hitter in order to hit him with the baseball), Mel Hall came charging out of the dugout to fight with the pitcher on behalf of his and Polonia’s “prerogative.”
I believe that my far stronger position is justified by episode and by pattern, illustrated thus:

THE MANY CRIMES OF MEL HALL
HE WAS A FLAMBOYANT PLAYER, A CHARISMATIC COACH, AND A SEXUAL PREDATOR

Mel Hall was convicted on three counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child and two counts of indecency with a child in June 2009 and received a 45-year sentence. Mel Hall is eligible for parole in November 2031 when he will be 71
Some White owners resisted

Minnesota Twins remove statue of former owner Calvin Griffith from outside Target Field
June 19, 2020, Minnesota Star Tribune:
The Minnesota Twins announced Friday morning they have removed the statue of former team owner Calvin Griffith from outside of Target Field.“While we acknowledge the prominent role Calvin Griffith played in our history, we cannot remain silent and continue ignoring the racist comments he made in Waseca in 1978,” the team said in a statement.
“His disparaging words displayed a blatant intolerance and disregard for the Black community that are the antithesis of what the Minnesota Twins stand for and value.”
Never Forget Twins Owner Made Racist Statements in 1978 About Moving Team to Minnesota
Griffith claimed in 1978 that he moved the Senators to Minnesota and not New Orleans because Minneapolis doesn’t have as many black people. Point blank.
Griffith, after checking to make sure he was in the room with a black person, also expressed his preference for “good, hardworking white people” over minorities, whom Griffith accused of making a “rassling ring” and “putting up such a chant it’ll scare you to death” instead of attending baseball games.

Remembering the team owner who moved his team to get away from black people
Cal Griffith moved his team to the Minnesota “Twin Cities” area, Mineapolis/Saint Paul, in order to get away from the black pattern (never mind that he gave many a decent contract to black players: e.g., Kirby Puckett, Rod Carew, Tony Oliva, Mudcat Grant, Earl Battey, John Roseboro, Zoilo Versalles, Cesar Tovar, Leo Cardenas, Luis Tiant, Larry Hisle, Dan Ford)… now look at Minneapolis Saint Paul. Note: I made that remark months BEFORE the the Saint George riots were to occur.
James Bowery tells us that a great number of Castro’s Mariel boatlift (emptying Cuban prisons and hospitals of AIDS patients into The U.S.) ended up in the twin cities area….
Minneapolis has had some interesting Mayoral leadership in recent times, helping to change it from the White flight haven that Cal Griffin had in mind.



“Will you commit to defunding the police? – No? Then get the fuck out of here!” Minneapolis Mayor (((Jacob Frey))) is doing all he can to acquiesce to black demands.
But we digress…
NYT,
“Yawkey Way, Red Sox Game Day Hub, Will Be Renamed Over Racism Concerns”, 26 April 2018:

Yawkey Way, adjacent to Fenway Park, will revert to being called Jersey Street.
BOSTON — Officials in Boston voted Thursday to rename Yawkey Way, a road adjacent to Fenway Park that was named for a former Red Sox team owner who resisted efforts to integrate baseball in the 50s.
The street will revert to being called Jersey Street, its original name before it was changed in 1977 to honor the owner, Tom Yawkey, who had died the year before.
The Red Sox, under Yawkey, were the last team in baseball to sign a black player, finally calling him up in 1959, 12 years after Jackie Robinson first played for the Brooklyn Dodgers.
The street name came under renewed scrutiny in August, as dozens of Confederate monuments were being removed across the United States. The current team owner, John Henry, led the push to rename the street, telling The Boston Herald he was “haunted” by the team’s racist history.
The Red Sox formally asked the city to rename the street in February, saying that “restoring the Jersey Street name is intended to reinforce that Fenway Park is inclusive and welcoming to all.”
Red Sox Renew Push to Rename Yawkey Way Amid Monument Debate AUG. 18, 2017
‘Racism Is as American as Baseball’ Banner Unfurled at Fenway Park SEPT. 14, 2017
Red Sox Bar Fan From Fenway Park for Using Racial Slur MAY 4, 2017
The narrow, two-block street lined with gift shops and eateries pulsates on game days, and is the meeting point for ballpark tours on days off.

Many pedestrians walking by Fenway Park on Thursday said they were pleased with the decision by the Public Improvement Commission to change the street’s name.
“It’s difficult because he did a lot for the city,” Joshua Baca, 23, said of Yawkey. “But we just shouldn’t have tolerance for racism.”
Tisha Johnson, 41, agreed. “I’m happy they’re switching it because he represents racism,” she said.
One of her friends, Carol Holley, 32, said she was glad too, but that it probably would do little to diminish what she said were racist attitudes in the city today.
“People will still have the same thoughts,” Ms. Holley said.
Others were not happy about the change. “It’s part of the heritage of Fenway Park, and it’s been here forever,” said Mark Ware, 54. “I don’t really know how racist he was, but the club has improved, the racism is gone now and they have players who are minorities,” he said.
The decision promises to inflame debates about the legacy of Yawkey, who is a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame.
Yawkey Foundations, a major charity in Boston, said Thursday that the campaign to remove the name “has been based on a false narrative about his life and his historic 43-year ownership of the Red Sox.”
Renaming the street, the charity said, “will unfortunately give lasting credence to that narrative and unfairly tarnish his name, despite his unparalleled record of transforming the Red Sox and Fenway Park and supporting the city he loved through his philanthropy.”
In a statement, the Red Sox said the vote was “an important step in our ongoing effort to make Fenway Park a place where everyone feels welcome.”
“We recognize we have a long way to go, but remain committed to building a spirit of diversity, inclusivity, and openness within our front office and our ballpark,” the team said.
No matter what people thought about the name change, virtually no one on Yawkey Way on Thursday seemed to like the name “Jersey Street” or understand what it represented.
At the official Red Sox team store on the street, several people were buying up “Yawkey Way” bumper stickers. Tim Pettit, one of the managers of the store, said the signs “were never a huge seller,” though interest had picked up since talk of the name change began last year.
He said he did not know whether the signs would be discontinued when the current stock runs out. But, he said, “I’m guessing this will be the last run.”


Four of the great baseball players from the great teams of the late 1920s and early 1930s.
Far less known than Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig of The New York Yankees, Jimmie Foxx and Al Simmons (Syzmanski) were baseball greats, part of a Philadelphia Athletics team so great, in fact, that they took over American League representation in the World Series for three straight years, 1929, 1930 and 1931, taking it away from Ruth and Gehrig‘s great Yankee teams of the late 1920s. Foxx, Simmons and The Philadelphia Athletics are not only lesser known, but their market provided insufficient financial support, and their owner/manager Connie Mack, was forced to start selling off some of their best players, such as Simmons , ace pitcher Lefty Grove and star catcher Mickey Cochrane ..and the Philadelphia Athletics stopped winning.


Ty Cobb retired just before the Philadelphia Athletics took off and supplanted the Great New York Yankee teams of the late 1920s, but not before he lent his relentless disposition and gathered his 4,000th hit (19th double of his 1927 season and 684th of his career), in the second to last season of his career, which was with the “A’s”.


For all his razzing of Babe Ruth, calling him the “n” word (for his negroid nose) and “n’ lips”, Ty Cobb maintained that Babe Ruth had the biggest heart he’d known.
While the liberal media would play-up Ty Cobb’s racialism, the eminently obnoxious Ken Burns having gone so far as to call him “the black mark” (on baseball) in his schlock documentary, “Baseball”, much less heralded was Cobb’s humanitarian side – which was not a contradiction, but a facet of his relative perspective.
Earlier in his career, famous good guy – baseball great and tragic hero for being stricken young by the disease which was to be named after him – Lou Gehrig was being underpaid by New York Yankees brass. Cobb, a successful businessman outside of his baseball prowess, was called in to help Gerhig negotiate a fair deal. But that wasn’t the half of Cobb’s humanitarian good deeds. He would give money, sometimes anonymously, to fellow ball players who’d fallen on hard times….there were numerous examples of Cobb’s good will and charity in his life that itself got off to a very difficult start. …Tris Speaker also finished his career with the 1928 Philadelphia Athletics, hitting all time high double number 792 that year – lol.

White US demographic susceptible to pass false currency that Hitler was WN





On August 5th 1944, the #WolaMassacre began.
❗“What am I supposed to do with civilians? I have more prisoners than bullets,” reported Gen. #Reinefahrt, commander of #German troops in #Wola.
— Institute of National Remembrance (@ipngovpl_eng) August 5, 2020
″They shot through windows…at people crammed in basements...they tossed grenades into apartments...”#WarsawUprising #WolaMassacre pic.twitter.com/TbjnExnvHs
Around mid-February every year, the media of White Nationalism is replete with stories of the fire bombing of Dresden. As terrible as it was that so many civilians were killed in so horrific a way, and legitimate as it is to question the necessity of it, context or not, it is weird, and to coin an oxymoron, typically weird, unfortunately, of purported White Nationalists to be so overly Nazi sympathetic as to bemoan this tragedy and the Nazi defeat while displaying no empathy in regard to the cities destroyed and civilian deaths in far greater numbers perpetrated by the Nazis. While they demand sympathy and to be unburdened of guilt trips, there is little in the way of concern for victims of the Nazi wrath and that maybe their supremacist, imperialist ideology which perpetrated and precipitated this destruction should be left behind for the sake of our European concordance. No, they believe that they must redeem Hitler and what goes along with it – demeaning and blaming everyone else and all nations that Hitler attacked.
Fucking weird.
White US demographic susceptible to pass false currency that Hitler was WN.
Whether having come into White advocacy within recent years from younger generations, or having come into White advocacy only within recent years despite being substantially older, there is a significant problem with coming into this struggle particularly through the American perspective and particularly if one is of German extraction – these kinds are not going to be as aware or as much concerned that vast over-representation and over-sympathy for the German perspective, to the point of Nazi redemptionism, has plagued White Nationalism for all the decades since WWII. They tend to think that the German and Nazi point of view has not been represented (when in fact it has been a predominant point of view in WN for decades) and re-instantiate a pernicious false either/or between the Nazi worldview and the Jewish world view. But for those of us who have looked to White advocacy as our source of kindred information and with the internet, a primary go to source for news, even; it has been laden, burdened with a predominant German point of view – too much, i.e., to the point of over Nazi sympathy.
Those who’ve come to White advocacy recently do not understand and appreciate the noble struggle of some in previous generations (like TT Metzger) to get beyond Nazism and work toward cooperation among Europeans; they don’t understand this having come to the struggle recently – others do understand, but might not care, being that German chauvinistic – and it terribly obstructs coordination with other European peoples and our sane manifestation of WN on the world stage.
It should be enough for Germans anywhere concerned for their people to say that they are one integral White people among the genus of White people that we advocate, that we advocate German (ethno)nationalism and diaspora, same as with all European peoples; that we are not interested in laying guilt trips on them for what prior generations may have done; and lets use 20/20 hindsight accurately, to facilitate cooperation, not to stir up inter-European conflict again – but absurdly, the obstructions of Nazophile types to this reasonable premise, which would allow for our coordination as European peoples in defense of ourselves, continues.
I am not a historian by specialty but I know enough generally, enough of the perspectives neglected by WN these past decades in combination with the theoretical knowledge that I have to provide necessary speed bumps and redirection into reasonable ethnonationalist coordination as opposed to the imperialist supremacism, viz., the unhinged, over-the top, inhuman, massively destructive, straight backlash reaction of Nazism to Jewish trickery and exploitation.
I hypothesize that the recalcitrant fixation on this reaction (even today) has much to do with the predominantly German make-up of America’s White demographic, along with some other White demographics which might be prone to consume an overly Nazi sympathetic currency that is being circulated from older reactionary right wing generations; some defiant but ignorant true believers, others a bit more disingenuous, opportunistically taking advantage of the market, gaining what limited audience and money they might by pandering to this demographic, beleaguered as it were by PC – those of German extraction might not have quite the perspective of non-guilt of others and be prone to push straight back: “no, the Nazis must be perfectly righteous, only did what was good and necessary. Things said about their atrocities are a hoax,” etc.
Still other sources spreading this false currency of over Nazi sympathy are Jewish, whether more calculating or more intuitive, of their biology, interjecting just enough Nazi sympathy for buffering damage control or in machination to create a stigmatic and divide and conquer effect among European peoples by way of treating Nazism as necessarily associated with White Nationalism.
As I said, it should be enough that we advocate German peoples and nationalism just as we advocate all White people, but there are gate-keepers, pieces of shit like a guy who calls himself Tom Anderson, who do their best to keep me and and a platform like mine out; and to inject old Nazi sympathetic types along with newbie Nazi sympathetic types, like ovfuckyou, Tom White, Melchyzedek …who encourage older German Americans, like Dennis Dale and Jonathan Pohl, in and despite their rationally blinded objectivism – “lets listen to their guidance and work with some Jews and some Nazis” as if their theory serves our side; a naivete which reconstructs the false either/or of Jews or Nazis; with it, the supposed legitimacy of the Nazis, by way of this Jews versus Germanics set framework.
Him being a younger newbie pushing other newbies, including older ones into this false and pernicious either/or, it would be nice to flush a piece of shit like ovfuckyou down the toilet

Ovfuckyou in conversation with Dennis Dale: “I’ll advocate Hitler for the rest of my life.”
Ov added in prior podcasts, that “Hitler did nothing wrong” – he’s ok with this happening to you Polish people and others who would not want to be beholden to Hitler.



I never wanted to address this issue since the last thing that I want is to rekindle fighting between European peoples; and when it comes to this issue, conflict is part and parcel. I had thought that WN had largely moved beyond it having come up through the TT Metzger school, as it were. TT always encouraged putting Hitler behind, promoting 14 and not 14/88 as he knew that Hitler meant inter-European conflict. TT didn’t want that and neither do I. What I found after looking beyond the TT camp, unfortunately, is that a large percentage of WN are still big into Hitler. I’m not a historian but could size things up from my perspective, wrote some articles on the matter, including some more recent articles that I’ve posted addressing the intransigence of the issue…
Though not a historian by specialty I can generally see the perspectives neglected by WN these past decades; in combination with theoretical knowledge this should provide necessary speed bumps and redirection into reasonable ethnonationalist coordination as opposed to the imperialist supremacism, viz., the unhinged, over-the top, inhuman, massively destructive, straight backlash reaction of Nazism to Jewish trickery and exploitation.
I’ll begin with a refurbishing of these articles and a 9 part short audio series that I posted as reference material – again, as I do not like dealing with the issue and I just wanted audio material to point to in order to be unburdened, to put the issue to rest as least as far as where I stand.
Eventually I did come across a friend – Per – who shares the same passionate concern for WN and rejection of Hitler that I have. I put together this podcast series – 9 parts, each about 5 minutes – with his prompting. Though I am not a historian by profession nor even by fancy, but delving into these matters of necessity, for what we need, I can stand by the arguments in the main; there may be some details that can stand improvement, but again, in the main it’s accurate enough and I will be adding whatever corrections, relatively minor though they might be, later.

…and the text:
This is DanielS from Majorityrights Radio, an advocate of White ethnonationalism from America, and I’m going to be setting out a podcast series with the help of my colleague, Per, a fellow White ethnonationalist advocate from Sweden.
This series will provide resource to distinguish and separate White ethno-nationalism from Nazi and Hitler advocacy.
In podcasts to come, we will expose the false claims being made today by the Hitler and Nazi redemptionists.
Claims that they make about the origins of the second world war – that Hitler only wanted peace and had no responsibility for the outbreak of World War II and other related lies.
We will discuss people’s rude awaking to the fact of hostile interests acting against Whites, their sometimes falling into a false either/or – it’s either Hitler or the YKW… something Per’s seen in his native Sweden, but its true of White Nationalism generally, that there has been a susceptibility to this reaction.
There will be some who will not be able to get beyond this reaction. But others may be helped to an ethnonatnionalist, as opposed to a supremacist position, by fleshing out more awareness of the fact that much ethonanationalism that found itself opposed to Hitler in the war, did in fact have a a good sense that the YKW belonged to another nation, that their interests were quite different from those of European nations, including those on the other side of the Axis powers.
But in any case, it’s history. Nobody alive is guilty of any of it and should not be subject to retroactive, collective punishment and violation of their right to survive as peoples – against UN charters.
We are not against Germans, we are for German nationalism as all European Nationalism in alliance against those who would deprive us our ethnonational homelands. We especially do not want fighting between European nations as we need eachother to cooperate in common interests as ethnonationalists against those disregarding and antagonistic to European peoples on the whole; but we do not want to fight any nations, of course, where at all possible, where they are not attacking us.
It’s history. But if we are to go into the history between world wars one and two, the most important fact to underscore is that basically all nations situated between Germany and Russia were against the Soviets; and replete with anti-YKW sentiments – there was large understanding that the YKW were other, that they should not be considered fellow European nationals. These nations knew the situation well enough, but especially, were more than ready to fight AGAINST the Soviets. Furthermore, German nationhood was under no credible threat, especially if it did not antagonize and actively fight against its neighbors, but was willing to deal in the territorial terms that the Versailles Treaty and Treaty of Saint Germain had established with historic and logistic justification – a Germany, by the way, that was huge, including most of what is now western Poland and Kaliningrad.
A German population, speaking of lebensraum, which is the largest European diaspora by far of any White demographic in America – though we are getting ahead of ourselves a bit; that is a factor in the intransigent appeal to Hitler redemption among American WN; and why we are confronted with this situation of having to address egregiously dishonest propaganda that is being used to pander to this, among other White demographics susceptible thus and in particular as they suffer under the destruction of anti-White political correctness.
As we must go into the history then, it is important to address Hitler’s territorial bones of contention and how they were overstated in his mindset – a Frederick the Great 2.0 – that led the Allies to not trust him, especially when he proved to be untrustworthy.
And as we must go into the history then, we need to address a great false either/or that is being presented to ethnonationalsts, between the Soviet and Nazi regimes – when in fact, both were imperialists, and both were terrible regimes largely responsible for massive destruction of property and treasure, the death of tens of millions…
…but also setting forth a chain of association with their horrible misdeeds, lending to overwhelming propaganda to this day for those antagonistic to our ethnonational well being, against necessary ethno national and corresponding socially, ethno-nationally conscientious programs in general. Infact, that is a large reason why, in this podcast series, we will use the term Nazi to refer to Hitler’s regime. Not to guilt trip people, but to separate a rogue, imperialist and supremacist regime from the benign aspects of nationalism and corresponding social accountability.
And so, in days to come, we will unfold a series to redress fundamental points, inaccuracies and dishonesty put out by the Hitler/Nazi redemptionists.
The non-necessity of Nazi larping and Hitler redemption as rhetoric extends to the non-necessity of its once state sponsored political reality in reach beyond the din of hyperbolic liberalism, the Schmittian exceptionalism of Hitler and Nazism as an actualized political program; although we still have some stupid people among generation internet bubble, trying to take this angle… acting like what they are proposing is new and that people who move beyond it to cooperate with other European nations are behind the times.
No, the Hitler redemptionists, in their claim to be after the truth of history, tend to begin history at or about World War I.
And of course, Germany was a sheer victim of the rest of the world, from the Schiff’s backing of the Trotskies, to the Balfour Declaration, to the Treaty of Versailles.
But really, to do enthnonationalism justice, we need to go further back in history…

Hitler was Not White Nationalist Part 2. Audio now online
To commence, we will indicate some of the issues, adding to these issues in the series to come where issues emerge relevant beyond mere detail to be fleshed out and given argumentative support. That is to say, we anticipate an ongoing corrective process.
As we must go into the history, the other side, the side which is subject to a right wing political correctness of its own, needs to be addressed – this quote, alternative media, that sees a niche market in the largest by far White demographics of America – German/Irish – and panders to the fact that they are going to be more susceptible to positive spins on Hitler and Nazi Germany. It is to counter this pandering, that it is necessary to take a corrective postion from an ethnonational standpoint, that does not look upon Hitler and the Nazis as innocent and only acting in accordance to what they should be rightfully entitled.
The map drawn by Versailles and the contentions raised by Hitler are central issues to redress thereupon.
Hermeneutic, that is to say, additional historical perspective is necessary to assess the situation and related contentions over the borders set by The Treaty of Versailles and maintained by The Treaty of Saint Germain in the case of the Sudetenland..
And why should the Allies trust the Nazis, why should they sympathize with their claims and why should they not be aggrieved with what happened in WWI? and in prior Prussian / Austrian expansion?
Contra Allied grievances, Hitler’s mindset of Friedrich The Great 2.0 is key.
Ostensibly justifying excuses were used for his imperial aspirations as such, chief among others, an epistemic blunder failing to assess socially corrective human nature in praxis, taking rather a sheer might makes right naturalistic fallacy, that humans are bound sheerly to struggle in nature’s way; a will to power set in motion in this case by false allegations of mass persecution of German civilians and false threat to the German nation to provide pretext for Imperialist and supremacist expansion Eastward.
His defenders frequently lob the straw man that he was being accused of wanting to take over the whole world, when in fact, he did want Europe eastward up to the Urals, which is way more than bad enough considering he was using the guise of his sheer necessity to fight communism; and when, in fact, all nations between Russia and Germany were anti-Soviet.
Of course these nations weren’t perfect either and yes, the Nazis had a number of things correct, in the quote, N/S idea; and it’s nevertheless understandable how people could get wrapped up and go for broke; but it didn’t work and there was much fundamentally wrong about it, it wasn’t just that the Allies were corrupt, that defending Nazi Germany is bad optics for the “normies”, nothing fundamentally wrong other than that the “normies” are not ready to quote, “understand” – nevertheless, it’s history now, and we can learn from it.
It might also be said of some people on the Allied side, that they can learn too – for example, like many of us since those times, we’ve projected our own reasonableness onto the YKW as a group – we thought, as our Allied forebears might have thought, that the YKW would be ok if we were ok to them – they’d be fair and deserved a chance. How many of you grew up aware of the J.Q.? Well, now the YKW have had their chance and we are aware that we need to be in separate governance.
WN has a pretty good feel of that now, but not so much representation of views apart from what is for it, a politically correct Nazi sympathetic perspective and the false either or thereof YKW or Hitler 88.
With that said. Here are some of the topics we are going to address and more:
As we already mentioned, We will be taking a look at historical events which have been distorted by Nazi propaganda.
Events such as the Bromberg “quote bloody Sunday” incident, the Polish/ Slovak border train station take-over by the Poles, the false so called “peace offers” from Hitler to Britain and Poland and why it was valid for the Allies to reject them.
The claim that Hitler only wanted peace with the neighboring Slavic countries, and only wished to get back lands taken from Germany, where a majority of Germans where then living under non-German governments. And so on.
We will also debunk the claims that Hitler and the Nazis were ok with the Slavic peoples and did not see them as subhumans with less right to life.
We will address the Nazi ideology of imperialism, immoral racism and the concept of “might is right” contra healthy nationalism, ethnopluralistic morality and what we view as the right kind of racism.
(Richard McCullochs racial compact and moral racism: http://www.racialcompact.com/ )
We will address the issue of who has had a worse influence in promoting a false, positive idea of the Nazi regime to Americans after the war – George Lincoln Rockwell or William Luther Pierce?
And a great deal more.
…….
At this point I want/need to digress from the podcast series into some up-to-date commentary.

Draconian though speech restrictions have gotten through means of the internet, the capacity to articulate and have the White ethnonationalist voice heard is nowhere near as restricted as it was in days prior to the internet, when tour de force’s, such as marketing, promotion and advertising specialist Rockwell would use, were almost understandable as means to gain voice.

In those days, there was an argument to be made for a man like George Lincoln Rockwell to use his advertising background skills to contrive the tour de force of presenting Nazism to shock public attention, which, once gained, would allow him to present arguments for White nationalism in calm repose before an audience.

There was even an argument to be made in that circumstance – where Whites were being destroyed and had no voice to object, resist and defend themselves; nor meaningful political means to defend their people by separatism – for violent terrorism, whether by lone wolves (lone wolf violence to be distinguished from lone wolf activism) or by formal organization, including formal declaration of war against ZOG, as in the case of Bob Mathews, David Lane and the Order.
Finally, because there was not the easier access to information and means to its dissemination that we have now with the internet, there was perhaps more of an excuse to not know better than to think that Hitler/Nazism represented White Nationalism, were not legitimately repulsive and divisive against White Nationalist organization.
There is no excuse to promote Hitler and Nazism now, whether to gain attention through “shock” and perhaps with the pretext of moving the Overton window or for the sake of those who stupidly remain true believers in Hitler’s platform – it’s catastrophic epistemic blunder.
We now have the capacity to gather ourselves, to gather our perspective and resource from desperate reaction and speak from the equanimity of the moral high ground from whence our activism on behalf of White ethnonationalism emerges to begin with.
As we regain our balance and equanimity as such with the poise of true knowledge of our systemic patterns and our eminently legitimate interests in them, we are able to see the means out for us, the means to sovereignty and that it is indeed separatism, autonomy and sovereignty that we seek, ultimately; that violence and elimination of the other (or signaling as much by Nazi larping); let alone imperialist supremacism, which added gratuitous exploitation to that infamy for F-sake (as in the perverted program of Nazis) was only a means to this end, where and when our people could see no other (likely under the sway or reaction to the Abrahamic god’s imperialist supremacism). But now there is another way, and with pursuit and establishment of sovereignty, we can allow ostracism to punish traitors as it is likely to when they are cast amidst these aliens; we can prosecute the criminally salient where our moral standing is recognized on the world stage as pursuit of sovereignty and justice, not persecution and exploitation; and finally, we can exercise punishment on those who dare to violate us once our sovereignty is established.
Nevertheless, why we should not try to redeem Hitler and Nazism but need rather to put that aside as history, its attempted resurrection as destructive to White Nationalism, still requires argument to make it clear for the sake of WN advocacy. We also need to address the obstruction to this argumentation coming through the pandering and false currency of Hitler redemption circulated somewhat as tactical misdirection, divide and conquer by Jewish interests; but probably disseminated mostly by the disingenuously opportunistic (likes of David Duke) or true believing boomer right wingers among White American demographics which are predominantly German, second most Irish, sprinkled with other White ethnicities who are susceptible to be overly sympathetic to Hitler; as their motherlands were either on his side, hostile to his adversaries or at very least, not in the path of his wrath; how this false currency is disseminated into the internet bubbles of subsequent generations of these White demographics, taken-up blithely, defiantly, as they are beleaguered even more heavily by political correctness; they are at once more susceptible to take it up and buffered against its reality testing in their internet bubbles – generation internet bubble, millennials as it were.



Siding with him in an eccelux stream, ovfuckyou adopted a mock Jewish voice and laughed in his contrived lol-way to try to put me down as Pohl had the nerve to ask me how I feel about living in a town (Poznan) that “ethnically cleansed its German inhabitants”; as if I’m supposed to feel bad about Stalin’s border shifts 15 years before I was born. How does Pohl feel about …
We’ll get to that in a moment.
This right wing boomer pipeline to subsequent generations in their internet bubbles has the obnoxious consequence of creating instant “experts”, no-it-alls (or so they think) bereft of experience, sufficient knowledge and reality testing.
They wind up thinking the you are the one who is conditioned by anti-Nazi propaganda, not that they are conditioned by Nazi propaganda. They think that you are the one who is old and in the way; they haven’t been around long enough to realize that this shit that they consume and spew is what is old and what has been in the way of White Nationalism for decades.
While they are not, of themselves, important, they manage to highlight the Nazi redemptionist pattern and why it needs to be addressed as some wangle their way into more mainstream appearance and more popular venues, misrepresenting their position as synonymous with WN, while they attempt to obstruct the assent of a platform such as the one on offer here, which is free of Hitler (and other misdiretion, notably by Jesus and Jews).
A flaming asshole going by the name of Tom Anderson, a participant in many stream chats, comes to mind first of all as one who is attempting to marshal this obstructive effect on behalf of Hitler and Nazism: He says that we were on the wrong side of WWII against Hitler as opposed to using 20/20 hindsight to see beyond this false, divisive either or, to allow us to move forward in effective European ethnonationalist coordination.
I had been disappointed by boomer Dennis Dale, who had given a “wrench” (censoring authority in his chats) to this Hitler sycophant, Tom Anderson, but was forced to realized his syndrome (decent logic, insufficient judgment) had taken full hold when he entertained Tom White and especially ovfuckyou, all welcome and warm smiles … even finished his stream with a video of Nazis burning down a village (lovely – was it a Jewish village or Belarusian maybe? Perhaps it doesn’t matter?). I tried, but could not pull Dennis Dale out of the Jewish box. He came into anti-PC through the (((Steve Sailer))) school and is a newbie coming from a liberal mindset with just enough logic to patch up poor judgement and keep him in the box.
I will later detail some of the stupid things that Tom White and “ovfuckyou” have said in their Hitler advocacy against me, but not just yet.
Finally, of these examples, Eccelux, who is actually a late Xer but may as well be a millennial for his minimal experience in the struggle and lack of judgment, provides a few more obnoxious examples of this boomer to bubble transit. Eccelux irritated me a great deal when he tried to suggest that I should calmly allow ovfuckyou to lambast me on behalf of Hitler, as I recognized that ovfuckyou was not worthy of a discussion of the matter.
Eccelux is getting his novice right wing voice out there by means of the commercialized evangelism of “No White Guilt’s pro-White program along with his pompous side-kick, “The Great Order” and Jonathan Pohl, an early Xer Germanophile who unfortunately took ovfuckyou’s side in that episode of senseless antagonism of me in a stream with eccelux – though I had no un-coordinatable disagreement with ecce or Jonathan; even offered to help Jonathan get a teaching job in Poznan – while this episode of antagonism was followed by eccelux being promoted also through Pohls’s streams.
I will detail this history a bit more as I go on below, but let me foreshadow how I see the repugnant nerve of Pohl’s question to me.




Ovfuckyou mocks while Johathan Pohl asks how I feel about Germans being “ethnically cleansed” from the city that I live in, Poznan. He has a lot of nerve to try to make me feel guilty about something that happened 16 years before I was born, by edict of Stalin’s border shifts, which also “ethnically cleansed” Poles from parts east, including my family in this border shift, restoring Poland to its more or less aboriginal form, prior to Frederick the Great’s imperialism – to include Poznan, Poland’s original capital city – a city won back by the Poles after WWI in the Wielkapolska Uprising; incensing young Hitler enough so that his first target of revenge in the onset of WWII were these Polish patriots, killing them largely at Fort 7 Poznan, where the Nazis experimented with their first gas-chambers; in a war that by design would eliminate Polish nationhood and murderously, effectively eliminate Poles as a distinct people, a war that was largely supported by the people of the German nation, some most fervent in these lands conquered by Frederick the Great, as they met with resistance from Poles for over 100 years. And after losing the war composed with this atrocious idea of extending lebensraum at the expense of the peoples and nations to its east, Pohl has the nerve to complain to me about German populations being shifted back over the Oder river, to iis more anciently established boundaries (though even there, in its east, it had destroyed its westernmost Slavic tribe – the Veleti).

Some Table Talk
I see no reason to believe that Hitler changed his mind about conquering Slavic countries and populating them with Germanic people.
The following passages are taken from Hitler’s Table Talk, 1941 – 1944. This book consists of transcripts written with Hitler’s permission of conversations with close associates from 1941 to 1944.
Even if this war costs us two hundred and fifty thousand dead and a hundred thousand disabled, these losses are already made good by the increase in births in Germany since our seizure of power. They will be paid for several times over by our colonies in the East. The population of German blood will multiply itself richly. page 261
In the field of public health there is no need whatsoever to extend to the subject races the benefits of our own knowledge. This would reslut only in an enormous increase in local populations, and I absolutely forbid the organization of any sor of hygine or cleanliness crusades in these territories. Compulsory vaccination will be confined to Germans alone, and the doctors in the German colonies will be there solely for the purpose of looking after the German colonists. page 425
As for the ridiculous hundred million Slavs, we will mold the best of them to the shape that suits us, and we will isolate the rest of them in their own pig-styes; and anyone who talks about cherishing the local inhabitant and civilizing him, goes straight off into a concentration camp! page 617
Any and very nation which fails to exterminate the Jews in its midst will sooner or later finish by being itself devoured by them. page 678
State of the Fart Right: why the bum steers from Jonathan Pohl, STFU James, et. al?
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 08 October 2019
Lately, I have been making the rounds on some of the prominent racialist hangouts and podcasts, trying to get attention to the ethnonationalist platform that would make most sense, be the most viable and with that, to cultivate means for its coordination. As always, I am motivated to take theoretical/epistemic misdirection and help re-direct it to solid theoretical premises for the defense and advocacy of our European peoples.
I have been lured into some hangouts in order to defend myself and this platform against misrepresentations that were happening in real time. That’s what this post is about – to defend this platform as the prominent voices presenting themselves as experts or worthy common sense critics on behalf of European/White interests continue to receive and give terrible misdirection. Recently, I was lured onto a hangout hosted by ‘Babylonian Hebrew’, a young Jewish fellow living in New York but advocating Zionism for Jews and honest, hard criticism of diasporic Jewry.
I joined the hangout in order to correct an egregiuos strawman committed against me/this platform by one of those disingenuous diasporic Jews – Kyle Rowland, an obnoxious kid made infamous in the current racialist conversation by his slathering dissimulations on Luke Ford’s weasil streams – aimed to provide ways out of responsibility for Jews.
Anyway, the world should know by now that I advocate a platform of European/White Left ethnonationalism in order to garner the underlying social organization, accountability and conscientiousness that the concept of unionization provides for, along with other White post modern means to manage our population and stave off infiltration, misdirection into runaway and betrayal – of key importance, the perspective of the union is intent on holding elites to account to our group (union) interests.
Now, Kyle Rowland has been busy peddling the Luke Fraud line that de-emphasizes the hyperbolic ethnocentrism and nepotism of Jewry in its assent to disproportionate if not hegemonic representation in niches of power and influence; at the same time emphasizing argumentation that Jews have achieved this according to objective merit; while Whites have suffered where they have suffered for lack of objective merit.
Predictably, Kyle had tried to strawman me/this platform with stereotypes of this platform being anti-elite so that he could discourage those Whites of powerful resource from taking our side.
I was happy to disabuse the world of this strawman. It is one of the benefits of defining the left for ourselves, viz., a White ethnonational left is not equalitarian, not against private property, relatively free enterprise and people having more according to their merit. It is not against elites, it is about holding all union members, especially including elites, to account – they will not betraý our unionized interests.
Kyle responded that ‘‘your kind always says that’ …‘you are an anti-social right winger.”
Ah, I rejoined, in truth, that I am not anti-social – you want White advocates to be anti-social and that’s why you want them to identify as right wing, paying short shrift to social accountability in futile quest for pure warrant beyond or within nature, below relative human group interests.
At this point Ecce Lux joined-in against Kyle, wanting him to steel-man his argument that race replacement is immoral. Ecce did well, and I pointed out as well that Kyle was making an egregious buyer beware argument – if White people are hoodwinked into accepting race replacement it’s their fault. But I also pointed out to Ecce that anti race replacement is not the strongest angle in America, because Kyle could just hit you, as he already had, with the displacement of native Americans by Whites.
A better tack is to argue carrying capacity and from there segue into human ecology … well, we’re sorry about the history but it is history and we’ve got to manage carrying capacity and human ecology now…
This was when Jonathan Pohl’s cohort, STFU James was encouraged by him and other half wits of the fart right to start attacking …ME…
James was acting as if my adding the word ‘sorry’ was like an offer of reparations along with throwing myself and my people prostrate before the third world.. idiotic straw manning.
To provide some crucial background to the motives for this attack, take a listen the right’s intellectual champion, one ‘Right Ruminations”, on the Praise of Folly’ podcast, repremanding those ‘anti-semites who should rather be grateful to Paul Gottfried and other Jews for conceiving the need for an ‘Alternative-Right’, a revised PaleoConservatism 2.0, moving right along with (((Frank Meyer’s))) incoherent and chimeric fusionism of Judeo-Christian, Abrahamic yoke and Enlightenment objectivist disingenuousness/naiivete – that pitted disingenuously against a marketing campaign of a villainous characterology of ‘The Left’ as oxymoronically liberal (well it is liberal for Whites as it is comandeered by Jewry for internationalist, anti-White coalitions against the would-be conservatism of White unionization). And particularly as Jewish hegemony peaked with the 2008 scam, Jews such as Gottfried and Horowitz were frantically concerned that intersectionality might create a left ethnonational consciousness in Whites – they would organize, unionize and see who was on top, fucking them over – Jewish interests in tandem with White right wing sell outs taking the bribe of no account objectivism and White liberals taking license on similar no account objectivist grounds.
Sure, Right Ruminations! Whites should be grateful for this!
Coming back to our episode, Kyle against the world, where James joined-in.

Clair Khaw, left, a would-be misdirection agent of reactionaries if her proposal of “Secular Koranism” for a European moral order were not so stupid, had said of me:
Posted by Claire Kough on Sun, 15 Mar 2020 15:02 | #
Claire Khaw said in the chat (when I was speaking to Luke Ford recently):
The HardKhaw Prawn

“Is Daniel the biggest intellectual the alt-right can produce? Then it means it is a movement of revolting peasants.” – Claire Khaw
LOL. The woman is absolutely impervious. No matter how clearly or how many times you explain things to her, for example that I NEVER identified as “alt-right.”…
Funny that this Chinese dumpling would be trying pull rank as some kind of elite behind her posh accent, lording herself over the European “peasants.”
Ibid: STFU James started calling me a “Pol;ock”, a moron, saying that Whites don’t and will never think like a group, because they are too individualistic and elite Whites have always sold other Whites out; Whites don’t care about eachother.
He then went into what I now know is his boomer thing about the evils of collectivists, and people supposedly like me, motivated by collectivism in order to take a free ride (not to help my people) while he had picked himself up by his bootstraps and done everything by himself.
Though this only proved to me that he knew nothing about me or what I’ve said on these matters it was clear that there was no reason to argue with this contentious idiot – he was just going to attack, straw man me, my motives and my arguments from the get go. He just wanted to try to discredit me without so much as understanding anything I say or intend.
But before leaving, I did tip my hat to Gandalf for making a cogent argument against James’ self made man against collectivism bullshit.
This becomes more relevant as James would go on to say with Jonathan Pohl that Gandalf and I are alike in being gratuitously complex, pretentious wannabe scholars who really are not worth listening to (and as if Gandalf and I are colleagues, sharing the same platform).
Now, I won’t try to turn the absurdty around on Jonathan Pohl – he is an accredited academic with some insights into history and geopolitics – neither a heavy focus of mine. Even James, one of these guys who hasn’t been to college and so tends to think of those who have as being pretentious and stuck up, needing to be shown by him how much smarter that he is – even he has a thought or two, but nothing that is any good and mutually exclusive to what I say.
But he is too much of a self righteous asshlole to realize that I’m not trying to show off and compete with him.
I had only formed a momentary coalition with Gandalf against James’ bogus anti-collectivist bum steer, but it did illustrate how these temporary coalitons can form between people with ideologies largely at odds – as apparently is happening with momentary coalition formation against me/ this platform by Germanophiles, mutated to imperialists or Nazis as such, Christians and believe it or not, Jews – who are encouraging this right wing nonsense to keep us disorganized, stigmatized, divided and conquered.

Jonathan Pohl (1:33:58): This is the problem with racial problem with racial reductionists. Alright, so, if everything is uh, genetics, then history and culture and language and geography are totally irrelevant.
Who fits this criteria of racial reductionism? Who is recommending it? Certainly not I. Though perhaps Pohl might think so because I do see genetics as one valid and important criteria in stewarding group maintenance.
Pohl continues (1:34:12):
And the first thing is that White people are not going to be at the top of the heap.
Who said it was about being on top?
Human ecology (of which race distinction is a part) is rather about maintaining our kinds in a horizontal sense.
Johnathan Pohl (1:34:20):
The reason Europeans are successful has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture and history.
Is he serious? Is he just trying to run camouflage in order to work his way into the system – either for his own purposes or perhaps to act as an agent infiltrator? That would be about the best one could grant him, but it really does not seem to be his purpose. He seems to be taking a markedly liberal, anti-racial position.
Jonathan Pohl (1:34:26):
Otherwise we’d be back to the lie of HBD people that high average I.Q. determines everything.
You see Pohl making the false equivalent between race + human bio diversity + i.q. which is a red cape advanced by the (((Sailer))) camp.
We defend our people not because we have high i.q. but because it is our responsibility, we are indebted to our people for centuries and recognize the value of our qualities.
Pohl (1:37:03):
if everyone were White, then Whiteness would mean nothing.
But everyone isn’t White. White is a tag given to people of European extraction, the genus European, particularly as it would be awkward to refer to them as European in diaspora.
Pohl (1:37:05):
It would make no sense to study Whiteness in Iceland.
Why wouldn’t it make sense to study Europeans in Iceland?
Pohl (1:37:14):
No, I’m not part Chinese though my daughter is half Kyrgyz
Pohl (1:43:25):
I got to teach a graduate course in race and ethnicity every year (in the six years that he was in Ghana)
Given that, we can presume the emphasis was on European concerns?
Pohl (2:29:58):
(the Pohl position) is super blue pilled.
That might help you get a job at UVA.
Pohl (2:31:27):
I have seen some of Cotto/ Gottfried streams. I like Paul Gottfried.
I’m not particularly impressed with Cotto though.Paul Gottfried should defect to my stream.
I rest my case. Pohl is even worse than I thought. Both Cotto and Gottfried are virulent Jews, with Gottfried been a key misdirection agent behind the Alt-Right.
Pohl (2:41:44)
Paul Gottfried is uh, quite an impressive figure.
Kind of strange, given that his supervisor for his PhD was probably the worst academic in terms of negative influence on society ever. And that’s Herbert Marcuse.
Yeah, Franz (chat commentor), you know that’s my great, great, great grandfather’s name, Gottfried. One of the one’s from around Lodz in Poland, one of these German settlements with Magdeburg law…
Maybe German, but Lodz is notorious for having had a lot of Jews (e.q., Hollywood Mogul Ludwik Meyer was from Lodz).
Not that that small bit of Jewish heritage would be damning, but the rest of this discussion should have advocates of European peoples looking very critically at what Pohl has to say.
Ecce Lux and some other regulars in racial discussion were in the chat to witness this discussion, so they cannot plead ignorance.

Now, I would not be inclined to hold it against Jonthan Pohl that he is fat and ugly – made moreso for the fact that he let his teeth rot, is missing his upper set.
I am not particularly bothered by the fact that he has an Asian wife and mixed kids.
But you put these things together with his unspectacular 111 I.Q. and you start seeing a man who can’t and won’t think outside of the box, because he has a large and disgruntled German American demographic to fall back to; and too much invested in this Jewish framework, as an academic selling point to third world students; his nervous giggle betrays the fact that he is precariously on the fringes of a Nazi German perspective that did things it should not have; and he’d rather have the company of people who stir up blame and hatred of Polish people, rather than the input of a half Italian half Polish man who doesn’t hate Germans, who advocates them and their discreet ethnonationalism.
While your concern about the deportation of Volga Germans from Russia does not set my heart bleeding any more than yours does over similar plights of Poles, I would not expect you to have selfishness to the point of spite, projection and contempt.
So you have mixed Asian kids, therefore curating and defending the European genome – including German, obviously – is not a worthwhile project? It’s made redundant by your going to your German Oompah lounge and stuffing your face with bratwurst and beer?
It is important to note that the DNA Nations is just one criteria offered from this platform and it is optional – voluntary. But even so, it can provide criteria for dealing with mixed kids and other gray areas. It is not only about maintaining purity, though it can and should do that as well.
Do you know that the DNA Nations concept is not only about negotating purity, but also negotiating complexities and gray areas such as your mixed race kids?
You said in chat that I’d have to deport a million Silesian Germans. Why would I have to do that? never even considered it. Why don’t you get over your antipathy and persecution complex?
And you know, prof. Pohl, your buddy James is not the first of your cohorts to subject me to thoughtless, nasty, insantaneous attacks, including the racial epithet, ‘Polock’.
It was only a few weeks ago that I followed you and Ecce to the Hangout of a stream coducted by some cartoonist by trade/ Christian who said that ‘Polocks don’t deserve to be heard’ and that he would block my comment from the chat when I pointed out that Yuri Gagarin, the first man in space (whom he was talking about) may have been Belarusian, not Russian. To compound his willful ignorance, he said that ‘Belarus just means White Russian’….‘basically the same people.’
Never mind that I was defending Belarusians, not Poles….that the name ‘White Russian’ is an artifact of brutal Russification which left millions of what were once Lithuanians dead. That I learned about this and other profound disinctions between them and Russians from Stanislav Shushkevich, the man who drafted and signed the Bialowieza Accords – the dissolution of the Soviet Union signed along with Yeltsin and then President of Ukraine. Shushkevich would go on to be first President of the newly independent Belarus; later deposed by Russian puppet, Lukashenko.
Maybe the friends you keep didn’t want the relevant inference that Belarus, like Poland and all nations between Germany and the Soviet Union, were staunchly against The Soviets, underscoring the lie that Hitler fought a defensive war.
You see, Professor Jonathan, this nasty hatred of Poles (that you’ve countenanced) and the tendency to villify and desparage other European peoples is part and parcel of the Nazi platform – a good reason not to coddle those who traffic in it.
Maybe you are pandering to facile right wing Nazi and Jesus coalitions or perhaps because I don’t focus on Volga Germans and Ghanese, you say that I am not worth listening to. That I have nothing worth hearing or reading. That is worse than stupid, it’s an egregious bum steer for European peoples.
Speaking of the facile right wing coalitions which encourage antagonism of me/ this platform, Ovfuckyou was on a hangout with CoE and none other than Kyle Rowland today. I was invited by Babylonian Hebrew and what did I hear before entering? Ov saying that I (Sienkiewicz) think that all Russians were fighting for Stalin. I NEVER said that EVER and I learned comprehensively in my Theory of Soviet Foreign Policy class at Tufts (taught by prof. Terry, a special advisor to President Reagan on Soviet – Polish relations), that the Russians were fighting mostly for mother Russia, or for the gun at their back; while those Nazis so friendly and kindred to Russians as Ov would like you to believe, were undertaking the killing of millions of Russians at Stalingrad and Leningrad.
But wouldn’t you know that Jewish Kyle Rowland agreed with Nazi Ov’s lie that I think Russians were fighting for Stalin – see what I mean about these right wing coalitions against a platform such as on offer here, one that really centers on defending European peoples in their genus and species?
…….
One last issue that I have to address about an old saw that James seems wont to bring out against me –
That I am trying to obfuscate and misdirect with academic language or that I am ‘trying to impress people’ with academic terms.
This goes to the most fundamental absurdity of James, where a semi intelligent guy really is stupid. He imputes these motives onto me which are totally untrue.
When I use academic terms and concepts it is to help people, viz. White/European people, to understand how they are supposed to be correctly used in their interests.
And in the case of the C.M.M. based posts, while the terms and heuristics are technical and abstract of themselves, I present this material as a resource to help people sort out confusing situations – that’s quite the opposite motive from obfuscation.
I never use words to confuse or for mere decoration, but am rather trying, anyway, to use the word, term, concept that I think serves best.
Posted by Ecceflux on Sun, 01 Sep 2019 07:17 | #
Unfortunately, Eccelux, a newbie to the struggle and very promising as an exponent of White Nationalism, has shown bad judgment in taking right wing misdirection, markedly, by platforming (and without pushback) “Ovfuckyou”….
I started listening to a live stream in which they talked the other day and commented in the chat that Ovfuckyou was not getting any push-back.
Typical of his obnoxiousness, OV remarked that “Daniel Spergowitz” is in the chat and that he (Ov) is willing to talk to him (DanielS) but he has to wait his turn.”
As if I want to talk to him. The only time that I’ve been in any sort of interlocution with him has been by happenstance of a few streams that we both became involved in; or as a result of a trick (getting lured into a “discussion” with him by those who wanted to ridicule me for not loving “the Fuhrer”).
OV did then remark that his emails to me go into my spam-box…
Clearly, I do not want to talk to him let alone would I “wait my turn.”
Note: this great defender of The Third Reich had never even heard of Himmler’s Posen speeches. But I should wait on line to be informed by him?
Rather, I was commenting on the stupidity of people who would platform him.
But the more fundamental reason that I would not talk to him is not his ignorance, but because he is not coming from a position of respect and good will toward all European nations.
He is coming from a position that “Hitler was correct across the board” and all European people should be behind him as “the leader.”
That is not the starting point for meaningful discourse, for discourse that is supposed to meet in a well integrated place of good will for the defense of European peoples. It is rather an expression of the utter hubris and disrespect that is manifest by this fool – manifest in ad hominem attacks and effusive talk-overs in any moment that you might lay out a position that would demonstrate that his attempt to redeem Hitler/Nazism across the board as exemplars of White Nationalism is, in several important respects, off the mark, in many important respects plainly wrong and in perhaps the most important respect, unnecessary.
To say that “Hitler had some things right, that there were reasons why they reacted in epistemic blunder [they weren’t “evil” ex-nihilo] that led to catastrophe and that Jews were a precipitating factor” is enough to pluck out a few things from time to time if an account is requested. But from the standpoint of WN and for the purpose of coordinating good relations, it should be qualified with a rejection of the Nazi platform for its epistemic blunder, its supremacism and imperialism, part and parcel of badly drawn friend/enemy lines and catastrophic epistemic blunder.
This is not about laying guilt trips. Rather, if we are to exercise 20/20 hindsight, it is about using it to make a better effort to cooperate and coordinate European/White ethnonational interests.
Hitler/Nazism do not model ethnonationalism, and do not model leadership that all European nations and other nations can trust and back with moral confidence (whereas coordinated ethnonationalism should be a program we can all endorse).
Alas, the enormity of the Nazi project does not provide a clue, but rather a floodlight to the issue of conflicting interests with Jewry: people aren’t going to be distracted from the seriousness of the J.Q. even though Hitler’s platform is rejected on balance as ill conceived.
– DanielS

Posted by – would love to drop it and move forward on Fri, 13 Mar 2020 07:39 | #
The kidnapping campaign of Nazi Germany | DW Documentary
I’ll be glad to let the issue drop if the fucking Hitler heads will drop it.
If so-called WN are going to invoke 20/20 hindsight, rather than suggesting that America and Britain were on the wrong side of WWII, how about wouldn’t it have been nice if Hitler didn’t start attacking other European nations? because it was clearly NOT a defensive war on his part, despite what Goebbels grossly lying propaganda might have people believe.
To repeat: all nations between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were against the Soviets and were anti-Semitic. It was considered one of Poland’s greatest historical victories to have defeated Soviets aggression at Warsaw in 1920.
Operation Himmler Nazi s false flag to legitimize the invasion.
Posted by Erika on Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:05 | #
Who is silver
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:32 | #
Assuming that you are speaking of Silver, a man who used to comment at Majorityrights ….
He is a man who “never claimed to be White.”
Who claimed affinity for “Anatolia and the Levant” though he seemed to also have significant South Eastern European heritage.
He did not respect my editorial decision to exclude those looking to redeem Hitler/Nazism, deny Operation Reinhard, and so on, because he considered it a “revelation” that “none of this (liberal destruction) would be happening if the Nazis had won the war.”
However, I did not take his position to heart for a few important reasons.
1) Through his commentary, including on that matter, you could gather that the defense and well being of Europeans generally was not his particular concern (witness his lack of regard for those nations and peoples Hitler destroyed) while his angle attempted 20/20 hindsight, that obviously wasn’t 20/20 even though it could have been.
He seemed rather to find an angle to ingratiate himself to the right wingers of England, a place where he liked living as an off-White non-native.
As I recall, he was also defensive of Christianity, which this platform rejects for similar reasons of true European interests.
2) And given his priorities he was a nuisance to my efforts to build this platform, relentlessly trolling and gunking up threads with ad hominum nonsense.
He was not the worst of the nuisances to this platform but near the top
3) When he finally left the ranks of Majorityrights commentators, he went to other right wing sites, such as the former “Alt-Right” to resume attempts to subvert this platform from afar
– notably, we had our Japanese correspondent, Kumiko, here at the time still, and she would venture into battle with the Alt-Righters, because she saw what I saw, that they were being misdirected by Jewish and sellout interests to do their bidding irrespective of ethnonational interests – which would include alliance with Japan and other ethnonational countries if thought out properly, as opposed to their right wing nonsense.
In one notable occasion at Alt-Right, Silver promoted the flagrant lie that “Whites hate Asians” simply, in order to try to subvert this fledgling alliance.
Unfortunately, for all the stupid right wing shit being said, most of it amplified by Jewish interests, Kumiko was a bit too sensitive and prone to believe that WN could not be coordinated with, despite my efforts to explain that Silver was exactly trying to do a divide and conquer op on her, that he was a long time antagonist to this White Left Ethnonational platform which can, in fact, coordinate with Japanese ethnonationalists and other ethnonationalists.
The short answer is that Silver is a piece of shit.
There is more stupidity from the Hitler sycophants that I’ll bring you up on later. For now, I want to get back to the quick as to why treating Hitler and Nazism as a part of White Nationalism is wrong, and then there will be a bit more discussion as to the stupid effect it manifests through some movement figures who cannot manage to see its counterproductivity and move beyond – let me just reiterate briefly regarding this second problem, that much of the stuckness of this Nazi redemptionist quest has to do with the demographic of beleaguered White America – predominantly Germanic. For other Whites (such as myself) to have no interest in laying guilt trips on them for what German relatives may have done a generation or two ago; and for us to treat them, their ethnostate and diaspora as fellow White ethnonational just the same as us, a part of our advocacy group, SHOULD be enough. Some are weird, however, and do not want to take advantage of the perspective and leverage that we can give them now, the perspective of other Europeans which should help alleviate the guilt trips they feel; it should mitigate the desire to push back straight Hitler against the PC guilt trips; and with this perspective, alleviate the nasty requirement of Nazi redemptionism, to try guilt trip other White nation(al)s who recognize Hitler for the colossal fuck up that he was.
Whether the measured tour de force of George Lincoln Rockwell, exploiting the wiles of his advertising background to get shock attention with Nazi imagery so that he could then surprise people again with calm, rational discussion of racial concerns once given the occasion to be heard upon the attention, or The Order’s declaration of war and terroristic means to take on the U.S. ZOG government, both strategies reflect a time when the voice and concerns of White Nationalism were thwarted by the media as it were. However, with the internet, even with draconian attempts of censorship, the fundamental motives of White Nationalism can be heard, and desperate efforts to gain attention can be left behind, especially where people can get themselves past severe reactionary stages and see the possibility for White systemic autonomy – which if reflected upon, is what White Nationalists want most fundamentally.
Our voice heard and the capacity to realize our vision at hand, albeit obstructed, allows us to move to the legitimate by any reasonable standard priority for our sovereignty, not the desperate means once felt to harm without backing of the law or to eliminate other kinds as the only means to be free of them.

Hitler and Nazism were Not White Nationalism, Part 3
Thus we have established a first principle of this discourse, a positive tautology that the World Wars are history, the people of today are not to blame and should not be subject to the collective punishment of losing their peoplehood and corresponding nations.
There is a second principle that we will invoke at this point, one which the internet has provided for in spades, but which White Nationalism has not utilized to anything like its full potential.
That is correctability, the correctability of ideas and understanding through interactive participation, whether through comments or speaking directly to people and engaging correction.
To date, what has been imposed as if correction, has largely been World War II revisionism – which tends to be dishonest excuses and apologetics for Nazi imperialism where not outright recitation of Nazi propaganda that could be falsified rather easily if they cared to do it.
Misrepresentation and omissions of important facts can remain if would-be interlocutors are not of good faith, don’t really want to pursue the truth, such as Nazi apologetics usually claim as their mission.
On the other hand, taking interactive correctability for granted and expecting the voices of correction to chime-in has left me susceptible to allow oversights to linger, because many would-be WN, who’ve accepted the rightist identity and its own political correctness will not say “boo” and alert me to oversights, especially when calling attention to these matters will call negative attention and shoot holes in their pro-Hitler/Nazi position.
There is a third and ancillary tautology to be invoked which is that for whatever grievances that either side had of the times, they were more than made up for.
We will apply this as a third tautological principle then, after ‘it’s history and nobody had anything to do with it’, and after correctability, that is, the tautology that for whatever complaints of the time, “they more than made up for it in retaliation.”
We will take a critical perspective on grievances and injustices alleged by the Nazi apologists, such as allegations made against Polish nationals and partisans, since those allegations have tended to go uncorrected within the philoNazistic PC of so called White Nationalism.
But we need to circle back to our second principle at this point, which is interactive correctability and the fact that so called WN has not been acting in good faith to call matters to attention, especially when they would reflect badly on Nazi Germany.
In previous discussions of Hitler’s complaints over where Versailles borders were drawn, I have made the claim that there were really only three cities of significance lost by Germany – Poznan, Bromberg and Thorn and one made neutral, Danzig (made neutral, not Polish, as in something the Poles could unilaterally return to Germany as misinformed Hitler apologists often claim they should have); and there were some village areas in the corridor and near the Versailles established border where Germans were caught in Polish territory, and we must add that there were Poles caught in German territory. But though Danzig was at the time occupied by Germans, it was a historically disputed city and a strategic city for all concerned, thus justifiably deemed neutral by Versailles. Cities to the south of the corridor, such as Poznan, Gniezno and Leszno, should not have been considered anything remotely but Polish.
While it is true that in previous discussions of this issue I had neglected to mention two cities of significance in the Polish corridor which were inhabited by Germans, Graudenz and Kulm , known in Polish as Grudziądz and Chelmno, it does not change the thesis.
First of all, circling to principle three (mis-spoke; it is “principle two”, correctability that is invoked here) again, that the comment section has been open and feedback of good will is expected to correct oversights such as that.
More fundamentally, these cities being under German political jurisdiction would only extend the salient that would be formed by Bromberg and Torun to obstruct and potentially occlude crucial strategic and economic sea access for Poland.
In addition, Graudenz and Klum were formed of brutal Teutonic and Prussian imperialism on cities that were originally Polish.
Finally, it is a history that only provides more examples of the enormous toll that the Nazis took against impositions of Polish patriotism in these areas; invoking principle three, that they more than made up for it.
Thus, it is no wonder that the Hitler redemptionists didn’t particularly care to take me up on my open offer to correct whatever prior oversights of mine…


Graudenz, Kulm, Thorn and Bromberg, a would-be logistically occlusive salient. To the south of those cities, Poznan and Gniezno are the cradle of Polish nationhood.
Hitler was Not White Nationalist Part 4
Posted by DanielS on Friday, 16 November 2018 14:37.

Press here for video, Part 4: If we take a historical perspective of ethnonationalists acting in good faith as opposed to that of the empires that were in control of Europe just prior to the World Wars, we can see that it was imperialism, not nationalism, that in fact spawned these wars. If we want to do justice to the homeostatic systemic correction that ethnonationalism affords against runaway liberal internationalism, we need to take advantage of interactive correctability through a more honest historical frame of reference, to locate where ethnonationalism lost homeostatic correctiive reference and became subject to imperial stasis.
That would mean beginning at least at the point where (Germanic) imperialism became a dominant paradigm in and through (central/eastern) Europe, a period issued in by Frederick The Great – when the Polish ethnostate was dissolved, Germanization imposed by the imperial Austro-Hungarian and German/Prussian partitions, while imperial Russia controlled the rest of it.
As far as ethnostatism goes in fact, Germany remained huge following Versailles, retaining a great deal of what is now western Poland, including Breslau (now Wroclaw) and East Prussia, which is now Kaliningrad and parts just south.
We’ll go into the roots of these ethnonational travails, including mistakes on the Polish side, but not focusing there for now, since that’s what you’ve been hearing in the PC of so called WN, in exaggerated form.

Historical examination will show that Danzig and the Sudetenland (there in green) form a crucial historical frame of ethnonational borders.
Nazi Germany understood this, as Britain’s Daily Telegraph* wrote in 1939:
“Today we realise the truth of Bismarck’s saying that he who possesses the Bohemian chain dominates Europe.
Are we to realise soon the significance of Frederick the Great’s words, “Who rules over the mouth of the Vistula, rules over Poland better than the King of Poland himself”?
Herr Hitler received a birthday gift of the freedom of Danzig. It remains to be seen whether this will involve Danzig’s receiving the “freedom” of Herr Hitler”

In fact, Danzig is ground zero both in the framework of World War II and historically, of German / Polish conflict, and international intervention. It is there we need to begin overcoming shallow and mistaken Hitler apologist talk that he just wanted Danzig back -as if it was simply German and rightfully theirs, given to those stubborn Poles, when if fact Poland was merely given a stake in a Danzig made neutral by Versailles for historical and logistical reasons.
Of course these were mere pesky contentions to Hitler, which would one day be made historically incidental when his Plan East was effectively concluded. For the time being, propaganda was necessary to justify this plan and get it underway.
Thus, with regard to allegations made by the Nazis of Polish abuse of German civilians within the the corridor, we absolutely cannot assume the veracity. Even cursory glance at footage of interwar Danzig does not indicate a beleaguered German population under anything like abject duress – on the contrary, it shows as remarkably comfortable and thriving population, commercial well being despite this being during the throes of world wide economic depression.
Whatever cruelties that did in fact come of Polish nationalism toward Germans did not come in a vacuum, as they were responses to having their people and nation subject to cruel repression under the Teutonic Order and Frederick the Great’s Prussia – anti Polinism and programs of Germanification.
Again, its important to note in the abstract, that for whatever grievances the Germans may have had in regard to the response of Polish nationalists in their newly reformed nation upon Versailles, Hitler and Nazism more than made up for it, through policies such as killing 10 times the number of Poles for any German killed by Polish partitions; and retaliations far worse in the overview of their war policy and practice against Poles and Poland – such as the murdering of Polish civilians in the Warsaw ghetto uprising – in far greater number than civilians were killed in the Dresden fire bombing a year later, speaking of more than making up for grievances.
But before we re-animate a German – Polish conflict, as we are ethnonationalists of good will – before adopting the appearance of being motivated to attribute retroactive guilt then – let us reinvoke principle once again.
One of the main reasons why we are confronted with having to deal with this issue of Nazism, so divisive and stigmatic of Whites, is because of PC guilt-tripping of Whites… and a direct backlash against that guilt tripping …particularly by those among groups not of a perspective where Nazi Germany was directly antagonistic…
And again, there has been much pandering to counter that guilt tripping in order to gain audience and backing among American Whites in particular.
It is key therefore to invoke this antidote to guilt tripping to underscore first of all, that it is history, nobody alive should be made to suffer and pay with their lives and nationhood.
__________________________
* Correction, I had accidentally said, “Daily Mirror.” This quote is actually from a Daily Telegraph article, 5 May 1939.

Hitler was Not WN Part 5: Indignant Response to the Greater Poland Uprising
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 21 November 2018 06:00.
Innocent until proven guilty we are.
Nobody alive should be presumed guilty and made to suffer and pay with their lives and ethnonationhood, even if it is true that forebears may have over corrected, even vastly. Where people manifest traits of prior generations so as to act criminally, as homicidal imperial supremacists, that’s another matter.


Nevertheless, the vast wounds, the gaping chasms of genetic capital that many may vaguely perceive as family and loved ones lost, yearn over, if not feel acutely – these losses in our genetic capital will likely well up through our unconscious and conscious systemically and must be recognized.


That caveat having been issued, having absolved present generations, we will move on to correct the record of imperialist misdeeds of prior generations and attempted cover-ups by a more recent generation.
We will be addressing the notion that Hitler and the Nazis were acting in sheer defense and that they were making bonafide peace offerings, that the Allies were the true aggressors.
To get a more accurate and fair understanding of the sources of the conflict, we need to be fairly comprehensive about the history – will begin with the more recent history and work back into historical origins… reversing the usual Nazi sympathetic order of historical survey, from Versailles to the present, as if history started there.

We will indeed begin with that fairly recent history of the conflict of imperialism and nationalism, The Treaty of Versailles’s division of national boundaries…and then we’ll work back into the relevant histories from there. Most Westerners don’t really know that in addition to the Treaty of Saint Germain’s retention of the Sudetanland for Czech, that there were only a handful relevant cities that Versailles designated for Poland and one neutral – Danzig – that Hitler was disputing or claiming as eminently warranted to recapture.
In addition to that area of Czech and those few cities of Poland, there were only villages and areas occupied by Germans within what would be a necessary corridor to the Polish nation for strategic and economic access to the sea; but there was the additional factor to their having historical claim and value to national morale, issues which we will address as well.
The common idea spread among White Nationalists that the Versailles borders were thoughtlessly drawn, arbitrarily taking land from Germany that Hitler merely and justifiably wanted back for Germany is far from beyond question; nor is it accurate to say that his designs stopped there.

Frederick “The Great”s imperialist and supremacist stance with regard to Poland.
Regarding territory granted to Poland, we are are talking about a handful of cities of appreciable size – Bromberg, Thorn, Posen, Gaudzen, Kulm, Gessen and a smaller one, Lisa, along with one being made into a free city, Danzig, that the Nazis and their sympathizers would dispute as rallying propaganda, as “rightfully German.”. ..and “places where the Poles demonstrated their pugnaciousness against Germans.” We’ve touched upon Danzig, setting it out as a central issue for elaboration later…
Daily Telegraph, “Can German and Polish claims to Danzig be reconciled?” – May 5, 1939
Are we to realise soon the significance of Frederick the Great’s words, “Who rules over the mouth of the Vistula, rules over Poland better than the King of Poland himself”? Herr Hitler received a birthday gift of the freedom of Danzig. It remains to be seen whether this will involve Danzig’s receiving the “freedom” of Herr Hitler.

The answer, of course, was no, Hitler would not grant Danzig its freedom and he thought of it much the same as did Frederick the Great. We’ll talk about the history of Polish Gdansk and the conflict between Germans and Polish in history which seem largely to have been sparked over Danzig to begin with.
Suffice it to say, Roman Dmowski, called the father of Polish nationalism and a representative of Poland at Versailles, thought Danzig should be Polish, as it was in 1793 when Frederick the Great took it away for Prussia.


Having set the issue of Danzig out, lets set forth disputes which should have been more clear to the Polish side – Poznan and Gniezno.
Poznan is the original founding city of Polish nationhood – in fact, the first Polish kings are buried there; nearby Gniezno represented its consecration into Christendom, which at the time was corollary to the birth of nationhood.

Leszno, another smallish Polish city near Poznan, took in some Czech refugees from the German slaughter of Czechs in the Thirty Years War – which we will discuss as a likely historical factor in the Treaty of Saint Germain’s figuring, logistical and historical calculation that the Sudetenland should remain part of Bohemia. But for now, we just need to mention that these three cities, Poznan, Gniezno and Leszno would be among those audaciously retaken by Pilsudski and the Poles in the Greater Poland Uprising of 1918-19….. and confirmed though correctly by Versailles as Polish, would cause great consternation and will to revenge on the part of Hitler and the Nazis.
In fact, those who were partisans or military intelligentsia in this uprising were targeted by the Nazis two decades later, killed in places like Poznan’s Fort VII.

Fort VII, Poznan, where the Nazis exacted revenge against intelligentsia of the Greater Polish Uprising and experimented with their first gas chambers.



Tour of Poznan’s Old Market Square begins with imagery commemorating The Polish Uprising of 1918/19; then goes up the hill to the castle where the first nobility of Poland lived; then shows Club Dragon; back into the market square and the Ratusz, it’s renaissance salon; the church; archaeological museum; and back into the market square; Pilsudski’s uprising where tour began.
Pardon the labored breathing; it was due to a medical condition that I was unaware of and caught me by surprise; I have since corrected it.

Posted by DanielS on Monday, 26 November 2018 08:58.


We left off at Poznan’s fort7, the Nazis first concentration camp in Poland, largely organized to imprison and kill Poles of the Greater Poland Uprising (1918, 1919) who’d re-taken rightful Polish cities (a short documentary here).
Yet we shouldn’t give the impression regarding even cities less disputably Polish, that the matter is quite so straightforward. A few generations would have passed who would not remember Poznan as anything but German; and they put a lot into cities like that.
Valid though the thesis remains to propose that Hitler’s most legitimate bones of contention were few – cities such as Bromberg and Thorn (by contrast to Poznan and surrounds), as these few cites formed a German speaking salient, stress and ultimately flash point amidst the corridor, I must be careful with wording.
If German speaking and considerable demographic percentage, even if not majority, is the bone of contention, you’d have to add Konitz to the cities worthy of contention in the corridor.
Along with Graudzen and Kulm, there were dozens of cities in and about the corridor contestable for their Germanic population and influence since the days of Teutonic Knights and Prussian incursions.
Still they would not alter the general thesis if added to the discussion.
Their histories all pretty much tell the same story, a similar historical narrative:
Whether Konitz, Kulm, Graudzen, Zempelburg, Dirschau, Bromberg or Thorn…
A look into the history reveals why you didn’t bother trying to sympathize with the idea that they should have been German by Versailles, even less so now, and why Nazi sympathizers do not tend to delve into the histories either.
Virtually the same histories.
A mixed Polish German history, usually Polish to begin and yes, there was war, brutality and exploitation in Polish times as well, then followed by brutal and exploitative German take overs (Teutonic/Prussian), followed by Versailles granting them to Poland for historical and strategic access reasons, then brutal Nazi retaliation, usually killing hundreds if not thousands of Poles.
It becomes apparent why those well disposed to ethnonationalism haven’t been inclined to delve into this, as even a cursory glance at the history and the Nazi reaction, leads one to the conclusion that maybe there shouldn’t be too much complaint among our contemporaries and not anything like the kind of reaction drawn by Hitler.
Still, what overly Nazi sympathetic WN has done is create a burden of addressing their punctuation and misrepresentation of the history (usually beginning at Versailles), a punctuation and denial of other framworks that require me and others to attend to history pragmatically, where we’d rather be attending to contemporary theoretical matters of White advocacy, such as hermeneutics.
Ah, but hermeneutics does tie-in, as opposed to the a-historical Cartesian perspective of modernity, hermeneutics prompts an interactively engaged, circulating, investigative, corrective process, which will encompass relevant historical perspectives as well as facts; but as a narrative approach it facilitates transcendence of the arbitrary flux that mere data presents, a liberation from that mere facticity – achtung! you overlooked Konitz!, yes, we’ll correct that – it allows for coherence instead of an arbitrary and constant searching fret.
White Post Modernity, its deployment of Social Constructionism and Hermeneutics were devised exactly for protecting group interests against Cartesian runaway and antagonistic ethnocentrisms – we cannot allow the proper deployment of these philosophical instruments to be buried by the YKW obfuscation that right wing reactionaries buy-into. The corrective program of left ethnonationalism works remarkably well to make consistent sense of what our enemies are doing, where they lead us astray, and how we should proceed by contrast. Indeed these methods, including hermeneutics and its liberation from mere facticity into narrative coherence, are a means to the salvation of our people
– allowing ethnonationalism to correct the horrific epistemological blunder committed by Hitler as he took off into the systemic runaway of theoria, with a Cartesian notion of placing people in the fallacy of sheer natural causality, rather than in optimal and flexibly corrective judgement of praxis – a people centric position based in human nature – as an ethnonationalist perspective affords in coordination with others, and not just a German-centric position with them proposed as the paragons of pure nature.
Objectivity and facts are tools to be acknowledged and deployed in our relative group interests for ourselves and for coordination with other groups, whose relative interests are going to be slightly different than ours.
Reactionary, typically STEM types of WN, will tend to misread, where not be deliberately misled by YKW misrepresentations and crass distortions of hermeneutics; in their phobic right wing reactions to YKW academic abuses of social conceptualization and means of group systemic maintenance, they’ll refuse to realize that narrative does not necessarily equate to fiction – on the contrary, it is necessary to non-fictional coherence as well – and a conjoint participation in refinement of knowledge (which is largely descriptive in the end anyway).
Aren’t Nazi sympathizers doing this when they talk about the corridor cities as rightfully German? Not really. And they don’t appreciate that for those looking to WN for news and information, their view is not the alternative, their view has largely been the only view purporting to represent WN.
5 minutes largely destroying Pat Buchanan & David Duke’s Hitler apologetics: Hitler was Not WN Part7

Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 05 December 2018 21:28.
Hitler was Not White Nationalist Part 7
In five minutes (36:53 – 41:53), Professor Margaret MacMillan destroys Pat Buchanan and David Duke’s claim that Hitler was bargaining in good faith, and that he only wanted what was “unjustifiably” taken from Germany by Versailles, that he didn’t have imperial supremacist war in mind all along, irrespective of its potential and real destruction to European peoples, including his own, German.
Trinity College Dublin
Published on Nov 1, 2017
Delivered on Thursday, 26 October 2017, Professor Margaret MacMillan
Professor of International History at the University of Oxford, Margaret MacMillen gave the Trinity Long Room Hub Annual Edmund Burke Lecture 2017 which is supported by a generous endowment in honour of Padraic Fallon by his family.
Speakers:
Professor Margaret MacMillan
Professor Jane Ohlmeyer (Director, Trinity Long Room Hub)http://www.tcd.ie/
https://www.tcd.ie/trinitylongroomhub/
https://www.tcd.ie/trinitylongroomhub…

Part 8, concluding introduction to an ongoing series to critique and separate WN from Hitler/Nazism
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, 13 December 2018 18:56
This part, 8, will conclude the introduction to a series which will be open ended and ongoing as necessary to address issues as they emerge relevant to the purpose of separating ethnonationalism from Nazism and Hitler redemption.
We’ve begun with Poland for obvious reasons, since that’s where World War II started.
But we will defend all ethnonationalism against imperialism, with particular focus on the necessity to defend against Nazi association.
We will address various aspects and any perspective that emerges relevant to removing this albatross from our necks.

Of acute relevance is the fact that all nations between Germany and Russia were against The Soviets. The Poles defeated the Soviets at Warsaw in 1920 when the Soviets were otherwise on their way to Berlin. Stab in the back? how about having your capital, Warsaw, leveled, hundreds of thousands of civilians murdered in thanks by the Nazis.
But all of these nations between Russia, including Ukraine, like Poland, had awareness of the J.Q. while being nationalistic and anti-Soviet; there’s been almost no awareness of Belarus, its entirely distinct ethno-nationalism and consciousness – wise to the J.Q., with a long, bitter history of fighting the Russians for independence, a fight on religious levels too, translating to an extreme ethnonationalist willingness to fight the Soviets.
These facts were ignored by Hitler because he wanted lebensraum and the fertile lands of Ukraine. Thus, he set out propaganda, no matter how absurd, to depict his imperialist eastward aggression as necessary despite the fact that these nations hated the Soviets.
Hitler didn’t have to engage this war. As Professor MacMillan observed, he wanted it. It cost over 50 million European lives, for his quest of imperialist expansion on top of what were already imperialistically expanded lands of Frederick the Great.
His supremacist, imperial war, left Europe prostrate, vulnerable to all that beleaguers us now, jeopardizing the very survival of European people, even in our homelands.
In the context of the lives lost, exploited, land appropriated by the Nazis and forebears, for the fact that it was Stalin who reset the borders and moved the populations back west…the sympathy sought for Germans moved to re-established borders after the war by the millions is eclipsed. I feel sorry for those killed in transit.

Schneidemhul (now Pila, Poland).
But of expulsion, my Polish cousins were moved west too (from what is now Belarus to what was then Schneidemuhl) and I do not play the violin. In fact, the borders of Poland now very much assimilate the lands occupied by Polish tribes prior to some losses in its west, including Breslau/Wroclaw, due to the Mongol invasions in the 1200s.


I’m very glad that the ancient Polish city of Zamosc, next big city to its west, didn’t become Himmlerstadt as proposed, eastern capital of the Third Reich. If Nazi Germany didn’t plan on expanding eastward, why whisk out plans like that? As if this wasn’t a necessary war of defense for ethnonational patriots of these nations adjacent to Nazi Germany.

Consider 110,000 Poles expelled from this region and moved into forced labor camps, over 5,000 Polish children kidnapped for Germanification. While 60,000 Germans were moved into the region for their lebensraum generalplan Ost…
Then take into account the start of the war, surprise attack on Danzig,
the panic of the retreating Polish army, as it was sniped passing through Bromberg three days later. Acting on long standing intelligence, much gathered through its decryption of the enigma cypher (in fact, the chief cracker, Rejewski, was from Bromberg),

seeing that there was fifth column of Nazi activity going on there; they took out and shot any Germans who had guns in their houses (my depiction in the audio/video of the Polish response in the so-called “Bloody Sunday” doesn’t capture some of the imminence of the situation begun in fire fight against Nazi partisans; and the image I show of people being executed was not of exemplary Poles: the Polish mayor and teachers were among those executed in retaliation);
but, as we said, the Nazis more than made up for it, killing exponentially the number of Poles (a policy of retaliation that they’d repeat in other nations); then we can talk about Wielun, where the Nazi aerial bombing started off (Bombing of Wielun on September 1, 1939, three days before the Bromberg incident)… the utter destruction of Warsaw, all the civilians killed there ..

But Pat Buchanan wants you to believe that the Poles were imperialists, full of hubris, exemplified by their taking a small strategic train pass. David Duke wants you to believe Hitler was a man of peace with bonafide offers as such.
We’ve yet to discuss the millions of Russian, Belarusians, Ukrainians, French, Czechs, English and on who were killed (supposedly because of Versailles). Where does the absurdity end? Well, it’s beginning is with imperial supremacism, and its end is with a coordinated ecology of ethnonationalism.
Now we’re dealing with generations of suppressed American reactionaries for whom William Pierce is often the common denominator for his misleading depiction of Hitler, misleading otherwise intelligent, would-be nationalists.
End of text to audio
…….
World War II was an unnecessary war? True, and Hitler shouldn’t have started it.
While the British position was awkward, with their article of faith, seeking a balance of power on the continent, it coincided with a moral position regarding smaller ethnostates.
It didn’t work out strategically for them, but morally, their position in opposition to Hitler was correct; while Hitler turned out wrong on both counts, strategically and morally.
From here on, Per and I will address particular aspects of the war as they emerge relevant, and we’ll address individuals who insist on defending Hitler and Nazism across the board, or at least more than we think they should.. …we’ll also talk to people who are more in agreement with us, or who are coming around.

Posted by Greggy Johnson on Fri, 14 Dec 2018 06:00 | #
Greg Johnson has more recently come around to denounce Hitler and his imperialism while hawking his White Nationalist Manifesto (2018); and he was starting to come around before that in his New Right vs Old Right (2013), contrasting genocidal imperial supremacism as part of “the old right way.”
But as recently as 2015, Greg Johnson, having come through the William Pierce school of the White stuff, made this comment at Majorityrights, under the Lindtner interview thread: referring to Hitler as “the greatest statesman of the 20th century.”

That is jaw-dropping stupidity: hard to have it more backwards than that. A statesman (let alone the greatest one) would never initiate the kind of war that Hitler did over the grievances he claimed (an imperial supremacist would). A great statesman would have found a way to negotiate and resolve international disputes, including those claims regarding Versailles, with a much more allied and defensive war, if not peacefully.

Greg Johnson, like the rest of the Nazophilic Right, Regnery Circus/Alt Right, has been playing opposite day with me, (((what their marketing firm))) calls “counter-signalling” me from the onset of my participation at VoR. I observed that the hippies were a manifestation of the White male need to Be (Being/Dasein – later adding Midtdasein via Michael O’Meara), Johnson then turns around and tries to couple the 60s bohemian counter culture mindset, its protest against imperialist warring, with Hitler, shown in love beads to illustrate his “West Coast White Nationalism”, written in tandem with Robert Stark (mischling destined for (((The Stark Truth))).

While I talked about pervasive ecology as a universalizable underpinning to the coordination of ethnonatioalism, Johnson’s articles on “deep ecology” propose to give a lions share of the credit for ecological thinking to the Nazis, even quite recently posting this image of a swastika formed of yellowed trees, along with an article about “eco-fascism.”
This egregious association with human, and what I have coined in term “pervasive ecology”, is uncalled for.
– DanielS
Posted by Lana’s What?? on Fri, 14 Dec 2018 12:24 | #
…more from the William Pierce school of Cosmo-History…
Lana Lokteff critiques anti-White prejudice in TV programming aimed to pander to Mexicans, La Raza – its self-interested and exploitative racial politics, aimed at re-conquista in North America. Fine.
Then she adds this bit at the end (1:14:27):
“Hitler tried to take back German lands in Poland that were annexed by the Soviet Union; and what ultimately happened?”


One may begin by asking why this strange bit of pseudo World War II history was spuriously added to cap-off a discussion of Mexican incursion into The US…
But addressing the claim of itself –
“The world descended upon Germany with bombs because Hitler tried to take back German lands in Poland annexed by the Soviet Union.”
“German lands in Poland annexed by the Soviet Union”
…..????

It’s hard to decipher what this bizarre construction even means or to place it historically – at broadest, she might be talking about the period following the first partition of Poland in the 1790’s, when imperial Russia took a third (and that some of that “should be a part of Germany?”)…or is she talking about the narrow window of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, in which case its hard to tell what “rightful” German territory that the Soviets were claiming in Poland, even then?… Ah, maybe she believes that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania should be German? But they’re not in Poland.
I thought for a moment she might be saying that Molotov had gained the old Prussian area of Konigsberg (now Kalingrad) and areas just to its south in Poland, but I see that the Ribbentrop had even secured that for Germany (that’s where Hitler spent most of the war in his “Wolf’s Lair”).

I’m trying to consider how a Russian woman could be susceptible to Nazi propaganda (the Nazis did rather kill millions of Russians – think of Petersberg alone). My first hypothesis is not flattering. Generally speaking, women prior to socialization into their historical group (I prefer to call them females in this case, reserving woman as an honorary title for those who become socialized largely through the empathy that child rearing inspires), young females, have all the suitors that they need; are prone to incite genetic competition, as they can simply breed with the winner; and therefore it can be convenient to fall in line with right wing politics – the queen bee does not want to be bothered with these excess worker bees, ‘let’s kill off the dead wood’ as Tara McCarthy once said, ‘through nature’s school – war – of hard knocks, or be encouraged “by the fact that these ‘lefty-guys’ won’t be having any children.” ..vulgar natural fallacy can suit the convenience of females who don’t care to penetrate social issues very deeply. Part of Hitler’s popularity came from pandering to this brutal element in puerile, un-socialized female psyche.
"Truth Seeker", "Major Historian" or Maybe..
Ovfuckyou thought that I should talk to this guy, Goodrich, who made a 6 hour film in Hitler redemptionism, composed with wholesale Nazi propaganda. I stopped watching when he had scrolling down the screen the complete lie (wholesale Nazi propaganda) that Poles killed 58,000 German civilians and with that, discussed the Bromberg incident, which happened AFTER the Nazis invaded Poland as if it was a precipitating event of the war.
J.F. Gariepy irresponsibly helps Thomas Goodrich to promote long discredited Nazi propaganda to the detriment of ethnonational solidarity. Not only that, for whatever perceived grievances on the Nazi German side, there is no historical context provided of the other side’s grievances.
Operation Himmler, Part II. J.F. Gariepy interviews “the major historian” Thomas Goodrich:














DEBUNKED: 1939 BLOODY SUNDAY - BROMBERG BLUTSONNTAG
Around mid-February every year, the media of White Nationalism is replete with stories of the fire bombing of Dresden. As terrible as it was that so many civilians were killed in so horrific a way, and legitimate as it is to question the necessity of it, context or not, it is weird, and to coin an oxymoron, typically weird, unfortunately, of purported White Nationalists to be so overly Nazi sympathetic as to bemoan this tragedy and the Nazi defeat while displaying no empathy in regard to the cities destroyed and civilian deaths in far greater numbers perpetrated by the Nazis. While they demand sympathy and to be unburdened of guilt trips, there is little in the way of concern for victims of the Nazi wrath and that maybe their supremacist, imperialist ideology which perpetrated and precipitated this destruction should be left behind for the sake of our European concordance. No, they believe that they must redeem Hitler and what goes along with it – demeaning and blaming everyone else and all nations that Hitler attacked.

While Colin Liddell provides some logistical explanation, ask yourself, if your loved ones, wife, daughter, son, brother, father, dear friends and cousins has been killed – en mass – by the Nazis, if you might be prone to over corrective acts of unjust vengeance. Add to that the legitimate contention that Germany had started BOTH world wars and had committed atrocities against its civilian neighbors, and you might get some understanding of a sick motive of vengeance and will to stop this imperial militaristic urge among the Germans (a people of whom, it might be said, get carried away with a superior logic, at times to the detriment of broader judgment, seemingly not knowing where to stop, in collective correction).
ALT-RIGHT LIES: THE DRESDEN MYTH
ALT-RIGHT LIES: THE DRESDEN MYTH
What the Alt-Right literally believes
by Colin Liddell, 13 Feb 2019:
One of the myths commonly trotted out on the Alt-Right at this time of year is the Dresden Myth.
According to this meme, trope, narrative, or whatever you want to call it, the bombing of Dresden on and around the 13th of February, 1945, was one of the most horrendous war crimes ever. Indeed, it was so bad that it stands right up there with the Holocaust—which, of course, many in the Alt-Right deny—and the atom bombing of the Japanese as some kind of ultimate and delegitimising evil.
Of course it was bad, but in war all sorts of terrible things happen as a matter of course. So, using Dresden in this way is rather a hard sell. The normies just don’t get it. To them it’s just one more example of a bombing raid, hardly a rare occurrence in WWII.
Even when the Alt-Right exaggerate the casualty figures and throw in some colourful details about low flying bombers machine gunning fleeing civilians, etc., the reaction is still pretty much “meh.”
This doubtlessly has something to do with the fact that the Germans were pioneers in the mass bombing of civilian centres themselves. Here’s a screenshot of an interactive bomb map of London from the Blitz.

So, everybody bombed someone. So what?
But this is where the second part of the myth kicks in. In order to make you care about this particular bombing, we are told that the war was already over when Dresden was bombed, so that, unlike Warsaw in 1939, Rotterdam in 1940, and London, the bombing of Dresden was not a “normal” act of war, but instead just an act of gratuitous cruelty and sadism.
Here is a typical anonymous comment from a Facebook group putting forward this point of view:
Dresden was a civilian massacre. Call it what it is man, the war was OVER….germany’s infrastructure was finished a year before Dresden was torched. Germany’s rail system was bombed to shit, they had no resources and the army was done.
Yes, indeed, if the war was truly over by February 1945, that would make Dresden somewhat worse. Although, it could also be argued that even if the war was “effectively over” it would have been quite hard for people to just shrug off years of war conditioning and start acting normally as rational, humane beings in the flick of a switch.
But was the war effectively over as is claimed?
Of course, in the sense that Germany could no longer win against the massive forces arrayed against it, or even achieve some kind of negotiated peace, the war was definitely over. But in terms of brutal fighting and high casualties for both sides, it was still very much an ongoing affair.
This can be proved simply by looking at data—y’know that old-fashioned way of resolving arguments and variant viewpoints.

First here is a map of the military situation in the middle of February 1945. As you can see, the Nazis still control almost all of Germany and large areas of other countries. Millions of men were still under arms, and the Western allies had yet to cross the Rhine.
Now, in case someone thinks this is just a big map of nothing, and that the millions of German soldiers under arms were just wandering aimlessly around looking for someone nice to surrender to, let’s look at the monthly casualty figures just for the US Army. The figures for the Soviet army, if they were available and reliable, would probably paint and even more convincing picture that the war was still very much at its peak.
Starting from June 1944, when the D-Day landings took place, here are the month-by-month casualty figures of the US Army in Europe (including the Army Air Corps). These figures come from the Department of the Army’s final report on “Army Battle Casualties and Nonbattle Deaths in World War II (7th December 1941 – 31st December 1946). A copy of that report is online here.
Note, casualties include killed and wounded at roughly the proportion of three wounded to one killed.
1944
June 49,061
July 61,454
August 49,458
September 54,937
October 47,725
November 65,918
December 80,9941945
January 70,560
February 43,603
March 56,282
April 49,706
May 2,201
June 82As we can see from these figures, US Army casualties were at their highest in December 1944 and January 1945, the months preceding the bombing of Dresden, which occurred in the middle of February. In those months the Western allies had received a nasty shock with a surprise German offensive in the Ardennes (The Battle of the Bulge), when German forces threatened, albeit briefly, to break through to the Channel again.
Also note that US casualties were higher in March and April 1945 than they were in June 1944, the month of the famous D-Day landings and subsequent battles in Normandy, when German forces were at their peak in opposition to American forces. This is so counter-intuitive to what most people know about the war that it needs emphasising: In both the months following Dresden, German military efforts against the Americans were more intense and took a higher toll than they did in June 1944.
The idea that Germany was “militarily finished” when the Dresden bombings happened is thus clearly absurd.
So why does the lying Alt-Right push this retarded myth? The most obvious answer is that they want to evoke sympathy for Nazi Germany. But this raises a further question: Why do they want to evoke sympathy for Nazi Germany?
Knee-jerk hatred of Jews is the obvious answer, but another possible and highly nefarious possibility is that they want to attach White identitarianism, White nationalism, and European self-determination to what is an extremely toxic brand in order to poison it.
They know that people who are attracted to these healthy forms of self-determination are likely to be more open-minded about history and less inclined to believe establishment narratives. Thus they are more likely to be taken in by blatant lies like the Dresden Myth. If that is the intention, then it is clearly an evil one, designed to keep nationalism on its knees as a pathetic victim identity and confined to a Nazi ghetto.
It does not necessarily shut down critique of the Dresden bombing but add to these considerations the insistence by the Soviets that Dresden be incapacitated as it was a transport hub integral to sending Nazi troops to its front line; there was some war industry there (optical devices for guns); the fact that the war was not over, with the possibility still of Nazi Germany developing weapons of mass destruction and delivering them in their death throes; add to that the emotions of millions of family and friends lost at what was perceived as German military aggression through two world wars and the argument indicting the bombing of Dresden is a little less clear.
AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT PODCAST (04): WHAT’S NOT TO LOVE ABOUT THE MORGENTHAU PLAN?

Colin Liddell and Andy Nowicki return with another Affirmative Right Podcast to discuss two “historical memes” pushed by the Alt-Right to evoke sympathy and support for Naziism, namely the firebombing of Dresden in 1945 and the Morgenthau Plan to divide Germany into several smaller states after the war.
But was the bombing of Dresden any worse than many of the other atrocities of WWII, and how about the Morgenthau Plan? Was that really any different from what the Confederacy was trying to pull off in 1860s America? Also, what effect did WWII have on the rising tide of degeneracy in the West today?
While blaming Churchill and Britain for the war against Hitler is a veritable cottage industry in Hitleresque WN, Nazi redemptionism requires blaming every nation in opposition to Hitler, in accordance with Nazi propaganda, beginning with Poland.
“OPERATION HIMMLER” – NAZI FALSE FLAG OPERATION TO JUSTIFY INVASION OF POLAND
ALT-RIGHT LIES: THE JEWS "DECLARED WAR" ON GERMANY

Due to the obsessive grip that antisemitism exerts on weak and immature minds, most of the lies that exist in the Alt-Right seem to focus on matters relating to the Jews.
This is pretty odd, especially if you consider the fact that nothing reinforces disappearing Jewish identity better than the kind of ineffectual antisemitism that the present-day Alt-Right specialises in.
In a previous article, I pointed out how limited Jewish control of the Russian Revolution, the Soviet Union, and thus the Holodomor really was. In a supplementary article I then drew attention to the awkward fact—at least for the Alt-Right—that prominent Jews in the Communist Party actually opposed staging the Revolution, regarding it as too violent and risky. It was essentially the headstrong and impetuous “goy brigade” who were all for storming the Winter Palace and putting their fellow goys in the Tsarist regime to the sword.
In this article I want to look at another popular Alt-Right “meme” that is completely fake, namely the quite common idea that WWII was started by the Jews, and that Hitler was therefore just “defending” himself against aggression, and that any Jewish deaths that resulted can be laid at their own feet.

Really, to believe this requires a level of historical illiteracy or arcane solipsism that only morons or autistes are capable of. One such individual is clearly Jean-Francois Gariépy, who, in the post-Spencerian Alt-Right, is probably better thought of than even the likes of Mike Enoch, Greg Johnson, or Andrew Anglin.
While Enoch is tainted by his obvious Jewishness, Johnson by his apparent homosexuality, and Anglin by his low-brow trollish character (along with the obvious Jewishness of (((The Daily Stormer)))), Gariépy is seen as a “rigorous intellectual” with relatively little negative baggage.
This image is maintained by what appears to be his apparent dedication to “logic and facts,” along with a funny French accent.
Don’t underestimate the last point, as I’ve noticed that this especially impresses American alt-righters, who appear to have some sort of “cultural cringe” towards Europeans. As an example, I remember that my ex-associate Richard Spencer was also deeply “smitten” in a kind of school-girlish way by the Gallic charms of Roman Bernard, a once important figure in the Alt-Right, who has now mysteriously disappeared. For my part, whenever I hear such characters with their heavily nasal voices, I am put in mind of a certain comic skunk.But back to Gariépy’s rigorous erm… intellectualism.
In a recent YouTube video he decided to attack Stefan Molyneux of all people. This was done either to make pointless trouble or else to drive traffic to his own site. Molyneux is one of the rocks of the Dissident Right, who, unlike the retards of the Alt-Right, has a keen understanding of moral dynamics, and has created an informative and morally nuanced channel that pushes realistic and politically incorrect thinking to a vast audience.
Some of the criticisms that Gariépy directed at Molyneux had a point, and showed just how effective he can be as a critic. But then he suddenly went and ruined it all—and blew his credibility—by stepping on one of his real blind spots, namely the causes of WWII.
Now, most fake intellectuals can carry things off as long as they stay out of their obvious weak zones. This allows them to speak with assurance on topics, giving their audience a positive impression of their erudition and honesty. But once they stray into a blind spot, as happened here, then, it is almost as if they have stepped on a landmine or are suddenly shot through with an X-Ray-like beam that entirely reveals their inner workings.
This is what happened to Gariépy, who was revealed as little better than a wind-up anti-Semite, seeking to attribute everything bad to his chosen hate object, with reason and logic subordinated to mere tools in order to present this emotionally preconceived notion. Here is the point at which Gariépy’s rationalist mask slip. In the original video it can be found at the 2:14:20 mark, but this has been deleted, so here is a back-up audio recording:
And here is a transcript of exactly what he says:
“Oh boy, we need to talk about World War II, Stefan. World War II was not an intra-white war. World War II was a proxy War involving the international Jewish community. World War II has been declared even before the beginning of World War II. International Jewry declared War against Germany. World War II has occurred because of the desire of Germany to form a society for itself, for its own people. And Jews declared the war. They said we don’t want that, we won’t let you. And this is very well documented. You can Google it. Those are facts, those are not conspiracy theories. Just Google ‘international Jewry declares war on Germany.’ So don’t tell me about World War II as something Whites have done independent of the Jews. The Jews were extremely involved in the question surrounding World War II.”
I have long been aware of this retarded meme that the Jews started the war, as it is an extremely popular one in the increasingly reductionist Alt-Right, but I was actually quite shocked that someone like JF, who affects to be a rigorous intellectual, would push it.
The first point to make in opposition to this erroneous theory is that Jews simply did not have the apparatus to start wars independently until after WWII, when they were granted their own state with war-making powers.
The whole “truth” of this assertion therefore rests on the idea that the Jews somehow pushed other countries into starting a war with Hitler. This meme—because that is all it is—almost always comes with a picture of a front page of a British tabloid newspaper, The Daily Express, dated March 24th, 1933, which I will reproduce here again to save you the trouble of scrolling up to the top:

In fact, this appears to be the main evidence for this “story,” although other quotes are also sometimes mentioned. So, what exactly does this “declaration of war” consist of? In the Express story, the “war” is essentially a few demonstrations and a call for a boycott of German goods:
“Judea Declares War on Germany! Jews of all the World Unite! Boycott of German Goods! Mass Demonstrations!”
“The Israeli people around the world declare economic and financial war against Germany. Fourteen million Jews stand together as one man, to declare war against Germany. The Jewish wholesaler will forsake his firm, the banker his stock exchange, the merchant his commerce and the pauper his pitiful shed in order to join together in a holy war against Hitler’s people.”
Similar calls were made elsewhere:
“Each of you, Jew and Gentile alike, who has not already enlisted in this sacred war should do so now and here. It is not sufficient that you should buy no goods made in Germany. You must refuse to deal with any merchant or shopkeeper who sells any German-made goods or who patronises German ships or shipping…. we will undermine the Hitler regime and bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence depends.” – Samuel Undermeyer, in a Radio Broadcast on WABC, New York, August 6, 1933. (Reported in the New York Times, August 7, 1933.)
As you can see, these were mainly calls for an economic boycott rather than an actual war. But it is also not too difficult to find examples of Jews calling for a war against Germany:
“We Jews are going to bring a war on Germany.” – David A. Brown, National Chairman, United Jewish Campaign, 1934 (quoted in “I Testify Against The Jews” by Robert Edward Edmondson, page 188 and “The Jewish War of Survival” by Arnold Leese, page 52).
And:
“There is only one power which really counts. The power of political pressure. We Jews are the most powerful people on earth, because we have this power, and we know how to apply it.” – Vladimir Jabotinsky, Jewish Daily Bulletin, July 27, 1935.
Once war broke out, some Jews, not surprisingly in my opinion, welcomed it:
“I wish to confirm in the most explicit manner, the declaration which I and my colleagues made during the last months, and especially in the last week: that the Jews “stand by Great Britain and will fight on the side of the democracies.” Our urgent desire is to give effect to these declarations. We wish to do so in a way entirely consonant with the general scheme of British action, and therefore would place ourselves, in matters big and small, under the co-ordinating direction of His Majesty’s Government. The Jewish Agency is ready to enter into immediate arrangements for utilizing Jewish manpower, technical ability, resources, etc.” – Chaim Weizmann, Head of the Jewish Agency and later President of Israel, the Times, September 5, 1939, and the London Jewish Chronicle, September 8, 1939.
But the fact remains that none of this “declaring” is proof of the Jews declaring an actual war on Germany. In fact, it is simply proof of a desire not to do business with Nazi Germany and an enthusiasm for the war that was later caused by Germany’s own actions and Hitler’s own pointless declaration of war on the United States.
Also consider the timeline. The initial Jewish “declaration of war” was in 1933, when a widespread Jewish boycott was announced. But no fighting took place until over six years later.
Those who push this meme either want you to believe that this economic boycott made Germany so desperate that it viewed war favourably, or else that the political pressure exerted by Jews made the Allies so aggressive towards Germany that they then “pushed it” into war by being diplomatically aggressive.
Neither of these ideas is supported by any of the evidence. In fact the evidence supports completely opposite conclusions. The economic boycott by the “almighty Jews” was a complete failure. Here is Germany’s pre-war trade stats:

As you can see, exports fell slightly 1933-1934, which might be the boycott or could be due to National Socialism boosting domestic consumption and investing in infrastructure. Even if it were due to the boycott, the trend from 1934 is rising exports. With imports it is a similar story.
So, were the Jews able to isolate Germany and reduce it to an international pariah? To answer that question, merely look at the above economic data and try to remember what the main global event of 1936 was and where it was held.

Hitler in 1936 watching some obscure sporting event called the Berlin Olympics, after Germany had been successfully “isolated” by the all-powerful Jews.
Well, if economic and political pressure failed to realise “Judea’s war against Germany,” how about media power? Maybe Jewish-owned periodicals and movie companies were able to whip up the masses into a frenzy of war fever.
Once again there is no evidence of this. Popular anti-war films made before 1933, like Wings (1927) and All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) continued to enjoy wide audiences, except in Germany where Nazi party members disrupted screenings and then banned such films on coming to power.
While a few Nazi baddies appeared here and there in Hollywood movies, there was no real propaganda push until the war actually got under way. Popular support for a war against Germany stayed in the cellar right up to the outbreak of hostilities.
The American public remained isolationist until President Roosevelt was able to “engineer” the attack on the US Pacific fleet by the Japanese, and even then it was Hitler who had to declare war on America! The French meanwhile were so unenthusiastic for war that they built the Maginot Line so they could avoid it. Even the often jingoistic British public had little relish for war, despite numerous provocations by Hitler.

Classic Nazi-bit-part actor Walter Slezak (right) got his first Nazi part in 1942’s “Once Upon a Honeymoon.” Despite Jewish animosity towards Nazi Germany, the public were simply not interested in Nazi bad guys until Hitler declared war on America. |
In every area of supposed Jewish influence—economic, political, media, and cultural—there is no evidence of the 1933 Jewish “Declaration of War” having pushed Europe into war in any measurable or meaningful way. By contrast, what demonstrably did push Europe into war were the actions of Adolf Hitler. Poland did not just jump up and insert itself under the jackboots and tank tracks of the German army. It was invaded, and this invasion was merely the latest in a long line of German provocations.
It is quite possible to argue that the Treaty of Versailles was unjust, and that Hitler was right to some degree in seeking to extricate Germany from it. But the speed and urgency with with which Hitler pushed his agenda and betrayed subsequent agreements, like the one painfully arrived at over Czechoslovakia in 1938, is a sufficient explanation for WWII.
The direct trigger of WWII was Hitler’s invasion of Poland, combined with Britain’s guarantee to Poland.
Those who wish to excuse Hitler usually say that this British guarantee to Poland was somehow an intrusive act aimed at Germany. It is also absurdly argued that this was just a cynical ploy because Britain subsequently failed to protect Polish sovereignty in the post-war period, when Britain was exhausted by six years of war.
This kind of convoluted self delusion is laughable. The British guarantee to Poland was not an act of aggression, but instead a cautious and conservative response to Hitler’s long list of provocations that contravened the Treaty of Versailles and the subsequent agreements made to maintain peace. If anything, the British guarantee to Poland was an additional reason for Hitler not to invade Poland, not an excuse to attack it, as Alt-Right Hitler apologists like Gariépy believe.
By taking this step, Hitler was stupidly placing Germany in an extremely dangerous position between Western allies finally pushed into war and an aggressive Soviet Union, with no longer any buffer states to cushion Germany on the East. The German High Command were quite rightly deeply concerned about this at the time, as they had no plan for winning such a conflict. Their later success in France, which gave them some breathing space was the result of initiatives by relatively low-ranking commanders like Heinz Guderian.
Hitler’s own reckless behaviour between 1935 and 1939—rearming, occupying the Rhineland, annexing Austria, taking the Sudetenland, annexing the rest of Czechoslovakia, and then attacking Poland, right after an explicit guarantee of protection from the UK—provided more than enough causation for WWII with or without Jewish animosity to Germany.
The fact that Gariépy would promote such a retarded Alt-Right narrative, suggests that he is emotionally heavily invested in hating the Jews personally (elsewhere in the video he mentions how Jews dominated his academic career).
Another very real possibility that should not be discounted is that he might just wish to appear to hate the Jews.
Given that the most virulently “Nazi-presenting” and anti-Semitic members of the Alt-Right have turned out to be Jews themselves, another possibility to keep in mind is that Gariépy may be Jewish, or partly Jewish, himself, rather than someone of Basque French-Canadian origin as he claims. His untruthful presentation of history is entirely consistent with this.
Originally published at Affirmative Right in November 2018.
Is it really too much to ask of Collett and Enoch to plainly reject Hitler? Forward all Europeans.
The epistemic grounds to reject Hitler should be clear enough to anyone proposing that they are qualified for a leadership role in WN. But these two are apparently carrying-on as if they are pragmatists. How do they propose that their explicitly unapologetic Hitler/Nazi coddling will be anything but terribly divisive of White Nationalism in addition to being epistemologically unnecessary?
If one is to exercise 20/20 hindsight, why not wish that Hitler didn’t attack other European nations; putting efforts instead toward cooperative deportation of non-Europeans?

This is not so much addressed to Enoch-Peinovich, as he has already been quarantined from this platform as an eminently dubious actor. However, Collett…
I won’t elaborate on this much here, as I have an article coming up regarding apparent triangulation against WN in the appeal to Hitler/Nazism, but to address a few absurdities by Collett in this podcast…
First of all, Collett invoked this rule that WN bandies about, which does not make perfect sense: i.e, “never apologize.”

Well, what if you’re terribly wrong? I remember people from the White Voice (guest Heimbach high-fiving host Adams for) refusing to apologize when they mistook Elin Krantz with the actor who posed mounted on top of a black in the mock Swedish National Anthem commercial: therefore “she got what she deserved”. Why not apologize for Elin’s sake?


But this is different. Not asking for an apology from Collett but rather for signs of intelligence enough (or honesty enough) that he can see things better now.

Collett invokes the long ago BBC ambush report which finds him now confirming that he’d still rather his daughter be born in 1930s Germany than some parts of England because she would be “more safe.”

And would his daughter be more safe still, in 1940s Germany, once the Nazi regime got through with murdering millions of people, including millions of civilian women and children, thus provoking revenge and violent retribution upon her?

Would it not be a better idea to find a way to move to a safer part of England while fairly assured that your parenting would give your daughter a better chance to not be groomed, and that you’d have some time for community activism, the kind you engage now, to root-out the problem?


Adding to the foible that he’d rather his daughter be born in 1930’s Germany, while that remark was initiated a long time ago, this one wasn’t: Listing his three favorite books – firstly Mein Kampf. Was that long ago Mark? Sure as reliable Mike Enoch set in motion the whole stiff arm thing that made Richard Spencer Fuhrer for a day…

..now you’ve got Enoch (who thinks he’s proved that he deserves to participate in European advocacy – he thinks so), running interference for you. He says that he’s not going to apologize for his admiration for certain figures of the Nazi era, “they’re going to call everyone Nazis anyway.”….

….“and look at the gun shows”, how the Nazi memorabilia is snapped up (therefore, it’s really ok to see Hitler’s as just another voice in our round table.) He challenges any of us “optics cucks” (the marketing campaign that Enoch is part of calls for him to suggest that there is no profound reason to reject Hitler, that the argument boils down to how Nazi imagery will look to the “brainwashed” normies), he believes that he can out-verbalize any of us in terms of winning over the “normies.” …confident in his kosher verbal skills, he is.


If you are able to articulate public relations manipulation so well, how did you wind up altercast?
If you are able to articulate public relations manipulation so well, how did you wind up altercast?

27 July 2020:
The Absolute State Of Britain #62: The Kosher Sausage-Roll (With MORGOTH)
Morgoth (136:14): I’ve done a few videos on this where the government and every relationship to public relations departments that they use to manage the public mood.


In The Home Office, you can even see The Home Office website, they call it the nudge strategy; and what they mean is that first they’ve got contingency plans for everything that can happen; and then they’ve also got PR departments which roll out PR campaigns in order to get the people thinking the way that they want, so that the population is like being permanently managed by the government itself via these PR departments; and they call it the nudge…

..and nudging people in “the right way” so all those tick-tock videos from the pandemic I mean it’s fascinating because…it, I feel like a fucking guinea pig because we’ve just been in the full lock-down thing .. it’s easing up a bit now; and then it’s as if we’ve been like…you get whiplash where you’re whisked into this now, this whole Black Lives Matter thing…just one straight after the other and I’m like you think that I’m, I, are we like a mouse in a proper maze here.

It’s somehow about how we react and how the population is managed because you know what….
Because here’s the thing and I’ve never seen the kind of individualists like Spike take this on. But the problem that you have (I know it’s a joke, but), in theory, we’re a liberal society and that’s supposed to be made up of a mass of individuals who are all able to get to the truth and formulate their own opinions and then they will vote for the party on that [knowledge] and so on and so on…that’ll be how they view the world.
The problem is, if you’re then in the business of managing, macro-managing the entire population, and we’re seeing that right now with Black Lives Matter, then what does that actually say about your individualistic society?
Because what’s happened is, they’re not able to get to any kind of truth, they’re not able to formulate any kind of opinions because all the information that they’re being fed is bullshit and according to a larger agenda.
So this kind of makes a complete mockery out of the individualist because what are you basing all of this on?

And you can see the results of it. I mean, we spoke about it all night here – the middle chunk, who are the most conformist will all, at the individual level, think of themselves as being individuals who make up their own minds.
And yet they agree with the government PR campaigns. It’s not even a conspiracy. All of these different PR companies have got flashy websites and when you go on the websites they’re all like a bunch of millennial bug-men, with target-charts; and all of that kind of thing.. all right out in the open… they’re just managing the public mood…. and to me, it’s this really dire critique of the liberal society; where everybody is an individual who makes up their own mind, because they’re obviously not.
[…]
Yuro (200:56): “See ya Kyle” (a “funny” way of saying “Seig Heil”, because we all think that’s such a cool salutation, don’t we?).
Now, “The Absolute State of Britain” airs over at Mike Enoch’s TRS Network – which I have long recognized as the main distribution outlet for the kosher marketing campaign devised to take White reaction against neo-conservatism, PC and increasing Jewish power and influence circa 2008, and to direct (nudge) it into a revised (((paleoconservatism))) 2.0 called the Alt-Right (now dissident right/ or neither left nor right as “increasingly meaningless terms” or third positionism) against a characterology of the left.
That is, they were nudging the reaction to stay on the right (anti social, stigmatic, disruptive and divisive of organizational power) and providing voice to White reaction, alt-right tents among the tentosphere (Christians, Nazis, the scientistic, the nutty conspiracy theorists and yet another tent for right wing Jews as proposed allies) if they went along and manifested some anti-social stigma, maintained identity as right wing reaction against hyperbolic inernationalist/anti-nationalist Marxist and Cultural Marxist (anti-White) organization/ coalitions characterized as “THE” Left, characterized as didactically repulsive and absurd so that Whites didn’t get the idea of White Left Ethnonationalism and its concept of broad unionization to delimit and protect the bounds of White people – because then they’d begin to organize their power and set sights on the pervasive pattern of kosher folks who naturally advocated for liberal scabbing of their borders and bounds as a rule; and then they’d look up and see who was on top, fucking them over: Kosher folks in 7-9 power niches in tandem with White right wing elitist sell outs, purity spiralists and Liberals taking the license, licentiousness offered them in the disordered circumstance of their borders and bounds having been flung wide open.
I have elaborated in many places about how and what it means to be right wing and liberal (objectivism at its base as an excuse with ever narrowing, “more pure” warrant as its source of power; minimizing accountability to borders and bounds of one’s people, indebtedness and responsibility thereof) and why the kosher folks want Whites to maintain that identity. Also, a characterology of “The Left” with all the absurdities of the exaggerated abuses of group organization, individual agency and activism, associated even at its base, organizational essence, as something only for anti-Whites.
…a dozen memes perhaps (red pills, normies, optics cucking, social justice warriors, etc) provided by some NY PR firm and placed in the portfolio of a Mike Enoch to deliver to the goyim with an instruction, “Be as anti-Semitic and pro-Hitler as you need.” …“call your show the ‘Daily Shoah’ and make ‘oven’ jokes… you’ll establish the ‘vanguard’ and tell people that the ‘normies’ don’t understand like we do, nor do the ‘optics cucks’, so for the most part we’ll have to wink and nod, knowing that “our Uncle” (Enoch literally refers to Hitler that way in the show below) had it all right, but they won’t understand, so keep it cool, “See Kyle!” (lol) until enough of them are ‘red pilled’, especially given the ‘lefties’ out there, who might not want us to deny ‘the holahoax’….you know how unreasonable and anti free speech THE LEFT is.”
The Absolute State Of Britain #61: Black Riots Matter (With MIKE ENOCH)
Meanwhile we’ve got other tents working the other right wing reactionary angles to direct them against our characterology of “The Left”. We’ve got the Christian tents to keep the goyim yoked under Noahide law.
We’ve got Keith Preston to help them, e.g., Todd Lewis and Right Ruminations to maintain the left as the demon.
Where audience turns for something else, we’ve got a tent for people who say “neither left nor right” so that Whites don’t get any idea of the organizational power of White Left Ethnonationalism.

And if they begin to get the idea, we can subvert it with another tent to appeal to newbies with “Third Positionism”..served up by useful idiots Keith Woods (with Cultured Thug, who was singing the virtues of third positionism, Hitler and Mussolini with Richard Spencer et al, the day before Spencer’s channel got taken down), Thamster, Jefferson Lee and Eric Striker (Mike Enoch there to help, of course), promoting it to provide a back door and means to maneuver our people by exploiting its no account, non socially corrective rigid reaction against our social systemic homeostasis/ self corrective, self governing autonomy (specifically subverted by introducing to this left cover, an option for Christianity, or the rational blindness of scientism and objectivism, which dovetails with Hitler adulation).

To shore up this reactionary position against the left, cooler heads will be directed from that horror show back to the home base Gottfried tent where it all started for good old fashioned paleoconservatism; and now that Richard Spencer took the nudge a bit too far at Mike Enoch’s prompting, we have the still edgy, but not too edgy new paleocon, Nick Fuentes, to retain the Christian, Noahide jurisdictional yoke





“…but in terms of who is going to be a part of this movement, it’s got to be White people and really, Jews should be excluded; and, and if you’re going to let in a mixed Jewish person then they really have to have done something to earn that – you know, and I think that in my case, I did.” – Michael ‘Enoch’ Peinovich
Here’s How Breitbart And Milo Smuggled Nazi and White Nationalist Ideas Into The Mainstream

Buzzfeed, “Here’s How Breitbart And Milo Smuggled Nazi and White Nationalist Ideas Into The Mainstream”,




Weev: Master Tactician, Semi-Tactful Infiltrator or Tactless Fool?




Germanophilia encouraged to point of Nazi redemptionism as divide/conquer triangulation against WN
Triangulation
One of the advantages that Jews have in altercasting White identity as right wing or somehow in response/reaction to “the left’s social concerns”, is that they can take advantage of the inherent instability of right wing reactionary rigidity, its quest for pure warrant beyond social accountability and correctability, whether in Nazism’s natural fallacy or Christianity’s otherworldly nonsense (kosher diversion). It has been apparent for some time that some Jewish perspectives are using a triangulation strategy against White identity and solidarity, by encouraging singularly focused Germanophilia in WN, even to the point of encouraging ostensible WN advocates to roll around in Nazi redemptionism and Holocaust well, if not denial, then downplaying with “humor”, etc. With White America being largely German, there is going to be enough of a true believers market, people desperate enough given the onslaught of PC liberalism and lacking in time, energy and concern to see beyond an overly German sympathetic perspective (with its background of Jewish interests) – wanting to believe rather that they are in sheer defiance of the anti-White, PC narrative – such that they will go along with this angle, not particularly concerned that they are playing into a divide and conquer triangulation.

Thamster, Josh Neal and Jefferson Lee. Quite articulate of liberalism’s rupture of the organic whole, but what they haven’t figured out is that Hitler and Jesus are not what is needed to keep it together. The day before Richard Spencer’s NPI channel was taken down from Youtube, he was in conversation with these guys extolling the virtues of Mussolini and Hitler (David Duke was doing the same thing the same day and his channel was also taken down after he went on about all the “peace offerings” that Hitler had made. lol). Jefferson Lee invokes the absurd, “they’re going to call you a Nazi anyway” argument (i.e., so you may as well prove them right?). When unavailable for a show, Josh says Jefferson Lee is busy planning the revival of The Prussian empire (funny?).


….
See also, Do Joel Davis and Richard Spencer Want to Suck Jewish Cock? …or would they prefer to take it up the ass?
…….
…. let’s get it underway, starting with the hypothesis.

While he is apparently innocuous, David Cole Stein’s Holocaust revisionism has been enough to ingratiate himself in this Jewish sponsored Germanophilism; a proud German-Jew, he is not above coddling Nazism a bit, apparently for the sake of re-routing animus against other Europeans. Cole-Stein uses the revisionist cred and attention that he gets to promote The Institute of Historical Review and “true historians, ‘Mark Weber and David Irving.”

“Hey! quit fuckin around, come on, we’re trying to teach the people something.”
“So this is the denier side. Here we have the three stooges on the denier side (Faurisson, Graf, and Mentionio).”

“This side is the actual historian side. Mark Weber which is represented by the Journal of Historical Review that he edits. David Irving…and then you got me. So, here we have me, Irving, Weber. We represent real history.”

Comments:
rollo clevich
Why did you ignore Arthur Butz?Daniel Sienkiewicz
It seems to me (Cole-Stein ignores Butz) because Butz is a German name (even if a German American). The classic, shifty pivot. David’s classic shifty pivot is apparently to coddle Germans as much as possible, including Nazi apologists, “true historians” Mark Weber and David Irving, to play divide and conquer against Slavics, especially Russian Slavics, including Russian Jewish Slavics who David Cole Stein admits to disliking.
The observation of this misdirecting pattern is the important issue at this point. There is no urgent need to trace this pattern to a single or few sources, though there are some of the usual suspects, like Regnery publishing and some of its Alt-Right/Dissident Right/ come Third Positionist/ (((Alt-Lite))) orbiters…
Over at Counter-Currents, its proprietor, Greg Johnson is a reactionary right wing elitists, whose over sympathy for Hitler was initiated through the usual means of William Luther Pierce, and then was maintained to some extent by his elitism, whether encouraged by true believers or by the several infiltrators that he has been susceptible to given his lateral, elitist discrimination as opposed to horizontal, qualitative discrimination – which is the proper racial direction of discriminatory qualty control.



While Greg Johnson was quick to include participation from the obviously dubious likes of Rachel Haywire and Vox Day, continued to defend Mike Enoch Peinovich when the evidence against him was damning, he excluded me, banned me from Counter-Currents for questioning the veracity of Mark Dyal.
Criticisms of Johson’s elitism, for example:
In his conversation with Morgoth (prior to one with Laura Towler), he calls the Scottish Nationalist Party the “perfect example of left nationalism.”
Is it really so hard for you to do something like put the word international before the term left?, Greg, or do you insist upon an oxymoron like internationalizing nationalism, which is what you are talking about with The SNP?
Also in this discussion, he wants to contrast aesthetics to counter the avarice of sheer mercantile utilitarianism.
I endorse the essence of the project he’s after, that is, countering radical liberalizing effects of mercantile hegemony…
But the concept of usefulness is not the opposite of the importance of aesthetics. Aesthetics play important, useful functions for people.
And paying attention to what is useful is an under utilized, liberating suggestion in service of orienting the popular understanding and deployment of philosophy. Hence, Greg’s superficial suggestion of aesthetics over utilitarianism just to play opposite day with me is a bum steer.
I guess that snooty right wing elitism is a comfy perch for Greg.
Related at Majorityrights:
Elitism, secrecy, deception … the way to save white America?
In his recent talk with Richard Houck, he discusses an (important) idea that I have discussed for years – including emphasizing its significance in the White Post Modernity (((red caped))) post – that immigration can be treated like a force of nature in the language of our enemies, whereas we do have agency in its regard, and can reverse it. He’s mentioned this before and may have gotten it from me without a hat tip, and maybe it isn’t necessary – it is, after all, a logical inference that he could have made; but it wouldn’t be the first time; again, there was the handing off of the retooled Maslow to Andy Nowicky, less likely to have been a coincidental inference, as I was rather in your face with the idea of re-tooled Maslow at VOR (where Greg published as well), prior to his publishing Andy’s go at the idea.
Also in his talk with Houck, he was apparently defending objectivity against my encouragement of centralizing our relative group interests enough to manage the group and accountability thereof. But Greg says:
Greg (58:20): “Real value is objective, and by objective I mean (subjectively lol) shared by many (relative lol) people.
Add these to the list of Greg’s Gems:
“Hitler was a great statesman.” – lol
On the thread of Dr. Christian Lindtner’s interview:
Posted by Greg Johnson on Sun, 22 Mar 2015 12:39 | #
Graham, I disagree regarding National Socialism and Fascism. They did not fail. They were destroyed by the Allies and international Jewry, who were threatened by them because they showed signs of being fantastic successes.
Hitler was not solely or even largely responsible for World War II. The British and the French started WWII. Hitler started a war with Poland, over German territories held captive by Poland. He started the war after exhausting negotiations for a diplomatic solution.
We now know that the Poles would not make a deal because they believed false promises made by the British to protect Polish territorial integrity.
The bad faith of the British is proved by the fact that they declared war on Germany for invading Poland but not on the USSR, which also invaded Poland. Obviously, Polish territorial integrity did not matter. What mattered was a pretext for war, which the British manufactured merely by throwing Poland into a two front war that caused unimaginable suffering.
In short, Hitler may have started a war with Poland, but the British made sure he had no other choice.
Hitler attacked the USSR, a regime that should have been exterminated on principle by all European powers, just in time to save all of Europe from a massive Soviet invasion. Yes, Hitler had evil colonial intentions toward the Ukrainians and the Russians. But it is a lie of Allied propaganda that he planned to exterminate 30 million Slavs.
On balance, I think that Hitler was the greatest statesman of the 20th century, and a genuine “Great Man” of history. Those who are interested in exploring this further should read my review of Russell Stolfi’s Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/05/r-h-s-stolfis-hitler-beyond-evil-and-tyranny-part-1/
Sorry to hurt your feelings Greggy, but you are making a LOT of mistaken assumptions in your endorsement of “the great statesman.’
I discuss some of Greg’s other antics here.
“West Coast White Nationalism”
Jamming with Greggy
Greg’s image for “eco-fascism”
Greg ought to stop playing opposite day with me; it only serves to reveals his uptight, philosophical doldrums. E.g., he hasn’t grasped social constructionism and hermeneutics, nor the significance of these ideas (and he tried to say that I “failed to see the irony’ when I called him (and J.F. Gariepy) out on that.
Greg banned me from Counter-Currents when I questioned whether Mark Dyal was a trustworthy advocate of Whites.
Is that placing elitism over a friendly suggestion or what? The octaroon Dyal has pedigrees, sure, and reads like a Fed if there ever was one.
Elitists like Greg can be blind to infiltrators and misdirection if their inorganic motives fit the snob criteria better than true White Nationalists without the elitist cred. There are other examples besides Dyal.
Finally, Greg also took me off his Skype contacts when I was actually trying to take his side against Arktos Publishing.
.. oh well. That’s what you get for trying to help a snob. “Try to take away my right wing perch here in hunky Nietzsche heaven will you?”

Rather, The Lies Will Try to Live …by infiltrating our interests ..But They’re Not White, They’re Jewish.
These two (The Truth Will Live/Vivian Veritas and Rachel Haywire) try to pawn themselves-off as ‘Alternative Right, right-wingers”…with upstart they say that “THE Left is the establishment.”
(the White Left is the establishment? don’t think so):
Jews do not want us to be a White Left. The reason that they do not want that is because it is our best outlook – an orientation which, together with sufficient anarchy, allows for our coordination and strategic evasion of their infiltration. This capacity to evade their infiltration is facilitated by coordination not merely by place but by language – that is why the terms are so important. Shared terminology serves to coordinate our people wherever they might be while at the same time allowing for sufficient anarchy to evade infiltration, counter our enemies and counter corruption – especially tactical in the clear terminological position of a White Left, its eye on elite betrayal and “scabbing” – i.e., any attempted entry into our “union” by non-Whites.
Sure, these Jews are “the Right ..like reading Spengler and Evola”…just so wild and crazy…“but we’re appealing to the ‘New Generation”…Haywire says, “we’re so ‘in touch’ with the new cultural zeitgest of THE RIGHT.”…er, Mulatto Supremacism
“The Left is the establishment”…Jews are just such rebellious trend setters..
“I was at a conference with Richard Spencer and Paul Gottfried..
…I’m really not interested in race…
I want to create a ‘new species” – read, Mulatto Cyborg…
Morpheus Mark, “White men are disgusting”, Dyal, nested at Haywire’s site, naturally.
Haywire continues: “I’m not really into the race thing, ‘race’ is a mental thing…
..it’s about people who are on like the same wave length..
…people coming together to form new species..
….it’s psychic, like Evola”

While Greg Johnson has rebounded some from his statement in commentary on the Lindtner thread at Majorityrights, “that Hitler was a greatest statesman of the 20th century and a genuine great man of history” with his “New Right/Old Right”, wherein he has denounced Hitler and the Nazi project as murderous of White peoples and therefore counter to current WN interests, of late he has returned to performing rim jobs on overly Nazi sympathetic perspectives. In a recent podcast featured by Counter-Currents, Frodi Midjord goes along with Mark Weber’s (IHR) endorsement of Patrick Buchanan’s dubious, “The Unnecessary War,” to set in motion a perverted line of “reasoning” that blames everybody but Hitler, but especially Churchill for WWII. Of course David Irving’s pro-Hitler slant also works well enough for them. In fact, there are two recent podcasts with Mark Weber featured at Counter-Currents, here is one, “The War That Destroyed The West”. Here is another.

Besides the pandering of Greg Johnson and Counter-Currents, Regnery Publishing has long been suspect, showing signs of promoting this Jewish/German, Germanophilic perspective to the point of soft peddling Nazism. Along with Germanophilic Regnery, there are apparently Jews involved in its executive decision making. The Regnery circus, as we might call it, was pivotal in orchestrating the Alt-Right Tentosphere, a paleoconservative 2.0 which featured tents not only for Christians and right wing Jews, but also for atheistic Nazophiles.


I post this picture a lot, but it remains central, and telling as these paleocon right wingers (and Spencer derivative), double down on their bullshit. Left, Patrick Buchanan, half Irish and half German with a corresponding bias that panders to the bulk of White American demographic reaction. Center, Paul Gottfried, (((paleocon))) maven and leading exponent of “THE Left” as the problem, a Germanophilic German-Jew, he is wont to distinguish Slavic Jews where Jewish culpability is to be acknowledged at all.
Many people orbiting White advocacy, like Jonathan Pohl, Right Ruminations and “Terminal Philosophy” a friend of queer Pilleater, cite Paul Gottfried as a reliable leading light. While Gilad Atzmon is another Jew who tends to pander to the Germanophilic perspective; and will get some endorsement from the likes of David Duke, as such.
The latest means of introducing Nazi triangulation has been through the promotion of “Third Positionism”….
Mark Collett and Keith Woods have been a party to this, sadly along with Morgoth (who should know better, but I already tried and failed to dissuade him). I initially took a disliking to Angelo John Ganucci because he was both popular and taking the line that the most intellectually penetrating of WN were “National Socialists” (Nazis). Typical of right wingers, he demonstrated the inherent instability of the right by becoming a defacto liberal rebounding into “Third Positionist” anti-Zionist (while diaspora Jews can be fellow nationalists with him). Just before he was disgraced, Millennial Warts made a statement that “World War II shouldn’t have happened” and added, to paraphrase, that ‘anybody who can’t accept that Britain made a mistake in entering World War II, that they took the wrong side, is just going to have to step aside, sorry.’ How about Hitler not attacking other European nations if you want to exercise 20/20 hindsight? Warts is soon to be resurrected by Fudge Johnson for an interview over there at Counter-Currents.
Johnson can be a bad judge of character; recall that Warts was indignant with me and Majorityrights when I criticized his (self admitted) confidante (((Vivian Veritas))) for attempting to define terms for White nationalism, and Warts demanded that his link be removed from our site. the_lies_will_try_to_live_but_theyre_not_white_theyre_jewish
Some flaming asshole going by the name of Tom Anderson is a definite gate keeper – he has a wrench on several podcasts and is decidedly against me for my stance against Nazophiles in particular; but strangely, he will join Christians, such as Melchy Zedech when they antagonize me, even when they side with Jews, such as Vivian Veritas.
Church of Entropy joined Wll2PWR and Ovfuckyou to attack me for not adopting a right wing position when I began talking with Ecce Lux; in CoE’s case (and she has no business in WN circles) her motive might have been a bit different, but she was joining Wll2PWR who was attacking me mainly because I’m not Germanophilic to the point of Nazism and Ovfuckyou, decidedly against me because I maintain a platform which rejects Nazism.
I lost confidence in Ecce Lux not as much because of his Christianity, but because he let Ov attack me for rejecting Nazism, trying to say that I was too sensitive because I didn’t want to entertain it; that he’d “been through that” – “brainwashed” into thinking that “the Nazis were bad.”
Ecce Lux and Faustian Spirit (who I talked to and also should know better) apparently go along with this Right Wing/Third Positionist angle encouraged by Tom Anderson; while Dennis Dale tags along, unwilling or unable to get out of the kosher discourse box.


Millennial Woes says “World War II shouldn’t have happened.”
Daniel Sienkiewicz
7 hours ago (edited)
World War II shouldn’t have happened: Take it to Hitler. He was the one attacking other European ethnonstates. The Nations to his east, which he wanted to take over imperialistically, were all AGAINST the Soviet Union and were All Anti-Semitic – willing to work on deportation plans. I.e, Hitler/Nazi Germany were NOT fighting a defensive war.
Millennial Woes, in his premature assent to e-celebrity, exercises a 20/20 “hindsight” that actually serves the wishful blindness and seeks to gain audience from the large market of America’s beleaguered White demographic – particularly German/Irish – susceptible in reaction to be overly sympathetic to Nazi Germany, circulating false currency through their internet bubble with it’s insulated and instant “historical expertise”…and in Millennial Woes rookie mistake to go with that blindered perspective, he serves Jewish divide and conquer.
MW Ostracises half of Britain
The Lies Will Try To Live But They’re Not White, They’re Jewish
This brings us back full circle to the triangulation that GW observed the articles posted above, featuring this statement above the image of “No White Guilt, Mark Collett and Mike Enoch Peinovich from a podcast of theirs…
The epistemic grounds to reject Hitler should be clear enough to anyone proposing that they are qualified for a leadership role in WN. But these two (Mark Collett and Mike ‘Enoch’ Peinovich) are apparently carrying-on as if they are pragmatists. How do they propose that their explicitly unapologetic Hitler/Nazi coddling will be anything but terribly divisive of White Nationalism in addition to being epistemologically unnecessary?
If one is to exercise 20/20 hindsight, why not wish that Hitler didn’t attack other European nations; putting efforts instead toward cooperative deportation of non-Europeans?


Spencer hails (((Milo))) and (((Milo))) leaks clandestine audio of Richard Spencer


The idiotic Chinese woman, Claire Khaw, panders to Nazophiles with the absurd line that she just wants to promote “real nationalism” and “Hitler just wanted his day in the sun”…. to demonstrate the innocent integrity of Nazi Germany, she brought an Israeli onto her show to talk with Nazi ovfuckyou, and he agreed that the “Nazis were really Ok.”… apparently the argument being that if that’s what it takes to sort people unto their nations [IF].



As I’ve said, Jonathan Pohl is new to the White advocacy scene and that only contributes to his lack of awareness that this struggle has been burdened with Germanophilia to the point of hubris and ignoring other European perspectives for decades. Such that he would side with ovfuckou against me, as if he were a “necessary evil” in order to head in a new direction (rather than reconstruct the same old divisive shit, with sheer concern to exonerate Germans alone).
Posted by Against Pohl’s narrative guilt-trips on Sun, 26 Apr 2020 05:54 | #
Pohl is still up to this destructive angle, pandering to German American reactionaries, proposing a “redemptionist” narrative that there was “no reason for The US to enter World War One and kill Germans.”
He says that toward the end of this podcast:
Creating a US Redemption Narrative between the Civil War and World War One.
It has been an intransigent argument on the part of a pandered-to, largely German demographic of America, to say that America and England should not have gotten into wars with Germany – neither WW I nor WW II.
And it is wrong, especially if you are exercising 20/20 hindsight – why not cast doubt on the justice of Germany attacking other nations, and in truth, observe that they started both wars and should not have?
In regard to “no reason to get into WWI”, the military historian Sir Hew Strachan along with Max Hastings, make a convincing case that the German regime was way out of line in attacking Belgium, murdering civilians and burning down the ancient library of Leuven, among other precipitating factors of the war on the part of the German regime.
“The Necessary War” – a film by Max Hastings
But Pohl wants to “change the narrative” by laying guilt trips on other nations while ignoring precipitating German atrocities – the destruction of Kalisz would be another.
Whether The US or the UK should have gone into the wars is after the fact. Germany started them, should not have, but did – brutally – and without sufficient reason.
Here’s a redemption narrative: we can learn from historical mistakes and not start brothers wars, especially not for the sake of imperialist, supremacist aspirations.

Posted by Kalisz on Mon, 22 Oct 2018 07:05 | #
Massacre of civilian population[edit]
As the situation seemed to calm down, new forces from Saxony arrived, while Major Preusker’s soldiers were withdrawn. Another incident happened on August 7 on Main Market Square, when a lone horse ran free; as a result, German soldiers started shooting in a disorganised way, which led to the death of some of them. Artillery was positioned within the city and the Germans fired at civilian buildings for over an hour. About 100 civilians died in this incident. The Germans searched for survivors and when they found them, they stabbed them to death with bayonets.
During the afternoon, City Hall was set on fire, and officials executed. The Germans retreated and shooting began again, which continued overnight between 7 and 8 August. On Saturday morning, the Germans returned to the city, taking 800 men prisoner and executing 80 of them on a nearby hill. The following day, the Germans started to systematically burn down the city. It is mentioned that in cases where civilians tried to fight the fire, they were murdered by German soldiers.[1]
The shootings, murderers, plunder of shops and homes as well as the burning down of the whole city lasted until 22 August, when the last home was set alight on Nowoogrodowska street.[1]
The Polish press in all territories of Partitions reported extensively on the event, some calling it “monstrous madness, that is unbelievable”.[1] The damage in Kalisz constituted 29,5% of the losses in the entire Congress Poland during World War I. The destruction has been compared to the massacre of Louvain, where a city was destroyed in similar manner by the Germans.[1] Before the war Kalisz had 65,000 citizens; after the war, there were only 5,000 left.[1]
Rape of Belgium
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The ruins of the library of the Catholic University of Leuven after it was burned in 1914
The destroyed city of Leuven in 1915
The Rape of Belgium is a phrase given to the mistreatment of Belgian civilians by German troops during the invasion and subsequent occupation of Belgium during World War I.
The neutrality of Belgium had been guaranteed by the Treaty of London (1839), which had been signed by Prussia. However, the German Schlieffen Plan required that German armed forces pass through Belgium (thus violating Belgium’s neutrality) in order to outflank the French Army, concentrated in eastern France. The German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg dismissed the treaty of 1839 as a “scrap of paper”.[1]
Throughout the beginning of the war, the German army engaged in numerous atrocities against the civilian population of Belgium, including the destruction of civilian property; 6,000 Belgians were killed, and 17,700 died during expulsion, deportation, imprisonment, or death sentence by court.[2] Another 3,000 Belgian civilians died due to electric fences the German Army put up to prevent civilians from fleeing the country, and 120,000 became forced laborers, with half of that number deported to Germany.[3] 25,000 homes and other buildings in 837 communities were destroyed in 1914 alone, and 1.5 million Belgians (20% of the entire population) fled from the invading German army.[4]:13
Posted by Rape of Belgium on Mon, 22 Oct 2018 07:29 | #
War Crimes:
In some places, particularly Liège, Andenne and Leuven, but firstly Dinant, there is evidence that the violence against civilians was premeditated.[4]:573–4 However, in Dinant, the German army believed the inhabitants were as dangerous as the French soldiers themselves.[5][6] German troops, afraid of Belgian guerrilla fighters, or francs-tireurs, burned homes and executed civilians throughout eastern and central Belgium, including Aarschot (156 dead), Andenne (211 dead), Seilles (fr), Tamines (383 dead), and Dinant (674 dead).[7] The victims included men, women, and children.[8] In the Province of Brabant, nuns were ordered to strip under the pretext that they were spies or men in disguise. However, there is no evidence that nuns were violated.[4]:164 In and around Aarschot, between August 19 and the recapture of the town by September 9, women were repeatedly victimised. Rape was nearly as ubiquitous as murder, arson and looting, if never as visible.[4]:164–165
On August 25, 1914, the German army ravaged the city of Leuven, deliberately burning the university’s library of 300,000 medieval books and manuscripts with gasoline, killing 248 residents,[9] and expelling the entire population of 10,000. However, contrary to what many believe and write, it was not the books of the Old University of Leuven which disappeared in smoke; indeed, in 1797, the manuscripts and most valuable works of this university were transported[10] to the National Library in Paris and much of the old library was transferred to the Central School of Brussels, the official and legal successor of the Old University of Leuven. The library of the Central School of Brussels had about 80,000 volumes, which then came to enrich the library of Brussels, and then the future Royal Library of Belgium where they are still. Civilian homes were set on fire and citizens often shot where they stood.[11] Over 2000 buildings were destroyed and large quantities of strategic materials, foodstuffs, and modern industrial equipment were looted and transferred to Germany in 1914 alone. These actions brought worldwide condemnation.[12] (There were also several friendly fire incidents between groups of German soldiers during the confusion.[6])
Overall, the Germans were responsible for the deaths of 23,700 Belgian civilians, (6,000 Belgians killed, 17,700 died during expulsion, deportation, in prison or sentenced to death by court) and caused further nonfatalities of 10,400 permanent and 22,700 temporary invalids, with 18,296 children becoming war orphans. Military losses were 26,338 killed, died from injuries or accidents, 14,029 died from disease, or went missing.[2]

Professor John Horne: On the 25th of August, there was the sound of fighting. German soldiers shooting at what they claim was an insurrection. At about 11:00 in the evening, this beautiful university library was broken into by the German soldiers and deliberately set fire. One young Jesuit, Father Dupierreux, had written in his notebook, that he thought that the Germans, in burning down the library, had done something as barbaric as the destruction of the library of Alexandria in antiquity. This notebook was seized by German soldiers and he was summarily executed.
By the 29th or 30th, you have to imagine Louvain as an almost empty town. The population that hadn’t been deported gradually straggled back in to find between 1,500 to 2,000 buildings destroyed. Well over 240 of the townspeople killed.

Max Hastings: All armies in all wars can behave very badly. What seems different about what happened in Belgium in 1914? It wasn’t just a question of a few odd soldiers brutally murdering a few civilians. They were systematically shooting them in scores and sometimes in hundreds as hostages.
Professor John Horne: You’re quite right. What we’ve just described in Louvain was a terrible incident, immediately grabbed the international headlines; but it was typical of something that happened across the whole invasion front in Belgium and also in Eastern France. And it wasn’t the worst case in terms of the death rates.
Dinant was destroyed as a town, 674 of its inhabitants executed two days before..
Max Hastings: In cold blood?
Professor John Horne: In cold blood.


DINANT

Professor John Horne has exhaustively researched
0:30:06 0:30:10
and catalogued the German Army’s actions
0:30:10 0:30:12
in Berlin and France during 1914.
0:30:12 0:30:15
John, we are here, in the university library at Louvain,
0:30:17 0:30:21
what happened here?
0:30:21 0:30:22
Well, on 25th August, there was the sound of fighting –
0:30:22 0:30:27
German soldiers shooting at what they claimed was a civilian insurrection.
0:30:27 0:30:32
Round about 11 o’clock in the evening,
0:30:32 0:30:34
this beautiful university library was broken into by the German soldiers
0:30:34 0:30:38
and deliberately set fire.
0:30:38 0:30:40
One young Jesuit, Father Dupierreux, had written in his notebook
0:30:40 0:30:45
that he thought the Germans, in burning down the library,
0:30:45 0:30:47
had done something as barbaric
0:30:47 0:30:49
as the destruction of the library of Alexandria in antiquity.
0:30:49 0:30:53
This was seized by German soldiers and he was summarily executed.
0:30:53 0:30:57
And by the 29th or the 30th,
0:30:57 0:30:59
you have to imagine Louvain as an almost empty town.
0:30:59 0:31:03
The population that hadn’t been deported gradually straggled back in
0:31:03 0:31:06
to find between 1,500 and 2,000 buildings destroyed,
0:31:06 0:31:10
and well over 240 of their own townspeople had been killed.
0:31:10 0:31:15
All armies in all wars can behave very badly.
0:31:15 0:31:18
What seems different about what happened in Belgium in 1914
0:31:18 0:31:22
was that it wasn’t just the question of the odd soldiers
0:31:22 0:31:25
brutally murdering a few civilians,
0:31:25 0:31:27
they were systematically shooting them in scores
0:31:27 0:31:30
-and sometimes in hundreds as hostages.
-You are quite right.
0:31:30 0:31:33
What we’ve just described in Louvain was a terrible incident
0:31:33 0:31:37
and it immediately grabbed the international headlines.
0:31:37 0:31:39
But it was typical of something that happened across the whole
0:31:39 0:31:42
invasion front, in Belgium and also in eastern France.
0:31:42 0:31:46
And it wasn’t the worst case in terms of the death rate.
0:31:46 0:31:49
Dinant was destroyed as a town
0:31:49 0:31:51
and 674 of its inhabitants executed two days before…
0:31:51 0:31:54
-In cold blood?
-In cold blood.
0:31:54 0:31:57
In the first weeks of the war,
0:32:03 0:32:05
nearly 6,500 civilians were executed by German troops
0:32:05 0:32:10
in Belgium and France.
0:32:10 0:32:11
Berlin claimed that they were merely exacting legitimate reprisals
0:32:12 0:32:17
for resistance by civilians, so-called franc-tireurs,
0:32:17 0:32:21
‘but John Horne rejects this.’
0:32:21 0:32:23
You found no evidence at all of franc-tireurs activity, did you,
0:32:23 0:32:26
of guerrilla activity against the Germans?
0:32:26 0:32:28
None, it was… er, apart from the odd
0:32:28 0:32:31
very isolated incident,
0:32:31 0:32:32
but nothing which justified the German accusations,
0:32:32 0:32:34
which was that there had been what they called a “Volkskrieg”,
0:32:34 0:32:37
a people’s war, a mass uprising.
0:32:37 0:32:39
And the Kaiser, already by 9th August, only a week into the war,
0:32:39 0:32:43
is accusing the King of the Belgians of fermenting such an uprising.
0:32:43 0:32:47
It didn’t happen.
0:32:47 0:32:48
But it was the institutional response of the German generals
0:32:48 0:32:52
and right up to the Kaiser that seems striking.
0:32:52 0:32:54
And it does seem to say something about the character of the regime.
0:32:54 0:32:58
That’s right.
0:32:58 0:32:59
Because, very quickly, what starts out as panics
0:32:59 0:33:03
and localised responses by German soldiers
0:33:03 0:33:06
is immediately endorsed by the whole German command structure.
0:33:06 0:33:10
And then what swings into play is a series of very brutal reprisals,
0:33:10 0:33:15
which are justified in terms of German military doctrine
0:33:15 0:33:18
as to what you do when you’re faced with civilian uprising.
0:33:18 0:33:21
For years, apologists for Germany claimed that the Belgian atrocities
0:33:23 0:33:28
were figments of Allied propaganda.
0:33:28 0:33:30
Some of the stories that made headlines in 1914,
0:33:31 0:33:34
for instance, claims that thousands of babies
0:33:34 0:33:37
were maimed by German soldiers, were indeed fabrications.
0:33:37 0:33:40
But a big truth persists –
0:33:43 0:33:45
the German Army behaved with systemic barbarity
0:33:45 0:33:48
during its advance across Belgium and France.
0:33:48 0:33:51
Its actions persuaded many hitherto doubting British people
0:33:52 0:33:56
that they had chosen the right side
0:33:56 0:33:58
in the ghastly conflict that was unfolding.
0:33:58 0:34:01
Some historians today claim that the British government’s decision
0:34:03 0:34:06
to go to war in defence of Belgium’s neutrality was simply a fig leaf,
0:34:06 0:34:11
a pretence, when really, it was all simply
0:34:11 0:34:13
about supporting the French against the Germans.
0:34:13 0:34:16
I’d put it a bit differently.
0:34:16 0:34:18
Yes, it’s true that some key ministers wanted to fight anyway,
0:34:18 0:34:22
but Belgium provided a tipping point –
0:34:22 0:34:24
all sorts of British people who cared nothing for Serbia or Russia
0:34:24 0:34:28
could easily get their minds around the notion
0:34:28 0:34:31
that it was outrageous that the most powerful army in Europe
0:34:31 0:34:34
proposed to crush beneath its boots a small state
0:34:34 0:34:37
simply to serve the convenience of the Schlieffen Plan.
0:34:37 0:34:40
And wasn’t that indeed a decent and honourable reason
0:34:41 0:34:45
for Britain to go to war?
A similar atrocity happened to the Poles in Kalisz:
This sort of thing in addition to conflicts going back to ancient times, and the attempt to wipe Poles and their nation off the map, inspired the The Wielkapolska Uprising.
After the Poles had served (8 percent) in the German forces during WWI, with the promise they’d be given more territorial sovereignty after WWI, they were not leaving anything to chance and took Wielkapolska region by force; this is the setting of Poznan, the first capital of Poland








And perhaps the most salient argument that Hitler was a backstabbing liar that Germany was alone in taking on the Soviet threat:
Battle of Warsaw Anniversary August 12–25, 1920. The Miracle You’ve Never Heard Of.
Pilsudski’s audacity culminated 123 years of Poles fighting to regain their nation and its sovereignty.
Pilsudski’s audacity:
Bezdany raid
Jump to navigationJump to search
Bezdany raid was a train robbery carried out on the night of 26/27 September 1908[note 1] in the vicinity of Bezdany near Vilna (now Bezdonys near Vilnius) on a Russian Empire passenger and mail train by a group of Polish revolutionaries, led by future Polish national hero and authoritarian leader, Józef Piłsudski.
Background[edit]
Piłsudski expected that only a conflict between the powers who partitioned Poland in the late 18th century could restore Poland as a country; he also viewed the Russian Empire as the worst of Poland’s occupiers. Therefore, he decided to temporarily support the Central Powers (the Austro-Hungarian and German Empires).[1]
In 1906 Piłsudski, with the knowledge and support of the Austrian authorities, founded a military school in Kraków for the training of Bojówki (Combat Teams),[2] a military arm of the Polish Socialist Party (or, specifically, its Revolutionary Fraction). In 1906 alone, the 750-strong Bojówki, operating in five-man units in the former Congress Poland, killed or wounded some 1,000 Russian officials.[2] Bojówki were certainly not above robbing Russian authorities to obtain funds for their operations, and by 1908 Piłsudski and his organization were desperately short on cash.[3]
Piłsudski expressed his thoughts about this violent action in a last will[4] or obituary that he wrote to a friend before the raid:[3]
- I am not going to dictate to you what you shall write about my life and work. I only ask of you not to make me a ‘whiner and sentimentalist.’ […] I fight and I am ready to die simply because I cannot bear to live in this latrine which is what our life amounts to […] Let others play at throwing bouquets to Socialism or Polonism […] My latest idea, which I have not yet fully developed, is to create in all parties, and most of all our own, an organization of physical force, of brute force. I have already done much towards its fulfillment but not enough to rest on my laurels. So now I am staking everything on this last card […] I may die in this ‘expropriation’ and I want to explain […] Money […] may the devil take it! I prefer to win it in a fight than to beg for it from the Polish public which has become infantile through being chicken-hearted. I haven’t got money and I must have it for the ends I pursue.[3]
The robbery[edit]
In September 1908, the Bojówki assaulted a Russian mail train near Vilna (Vilnius). The train was carrying tax revenues from Warsaw to St. Petersburg.[2]
Piłsudski personally led the raid; it was the only one he personally took part in, the rule of the bojowka being that each member must take part in at least one armed attack.[4]
The group that took part in the robbery numbered 20 people – 16 men and 4 women[5] Among the members of the Bojówki who took part in that action was his lover and future wife, Aleksandra,[5][6] and three future Polish Prime Ministers: Tomasz Arciszewski,[7] Aleksander Prystor[5] and Walery Sławek,[5] and other notable politicians and activists of the Second Polish Republic era, like PSP activists Edward Gibalski[7] (or Franciszek), Jerzy Sawicki, and W. Momentowicz.[7]
The Bojówki group had known about the train for weeks and took that time to familiarize themselves with the area.[5] On 26 September, six of them were on the train as passengers,[5] the rest assembled at the little train station at Bezdany, in the presence of several guards unaware of their intent.[7] When the train stopped at the station, the revolutionaries sprang into action, dividing into two groups: one assaulted the train, the other took control of the train station offices, cutting the telephone and telegraph wires. The Poles had several bombs; at least two were thrown into the carriage with the escort by Gibalski and Balaga. One Russian soldier was killed and five were wounded[5] in the short firefight[5] before the rest surrendered. Piłsudski with others prepared the final dynamite charge which opened the mail car and destroyed the iron boxes within.[5] After the Poles took control of the station and the train, they put the money in bags and escaped. Piłsudski went with the group that carried the heaviest bags and escaped through the nearby river.[5]
Aftermath[edit]
The loot from that raid was about 200,000 Russian rubles (under the gold standard, equivalent to approximately 5,000 ounces of gold, worth $100,000 in 1908 or 8 million dollars at the price of gold in 2012), a fortune in contemporary Eastern Europe.[note 2] The money was supposed to cover the costs of building a tram system in Vilnius.[8] Piłsudski used those funds to aid his secret military organization. The raid become known in Eastern Europe as one of the most daring and successful train robberies.[3][7]

Tour of Poznan’s Market Square area
Begins with imagery commemorating The Polish Uprising of 1918/19; then goes up the hill to the castle where the first nobility of Poland lived; then shows Club Dragon; back into the market square and the Ratusz, it’s renaissance salon; the church; archaeological museum; and back into the market square; Pilsudski’s uprising where the tour began.
Pardon the labored breathing, too close to the microphone and too out of shape (though breathing has always been a weak point for me, even as a child, was prone to wheezing).

Poznan’s cathedral, where the first three kings of Poland are entombed. Poznan, which derives its meaning from the Polish, “to make acquaintance”, was the place, legend has it, that the original Polish, Czech and Russian men met (made acquaintance); then they set out their separate ways to form their nations. Poznan was a founding city for the Polans as was Gniezno just to its east – Gniezno meaning the “nest”, which “Lech”, the first Polish man made for himself as the primordial seat of Lech, the Polans.
German imperialism sought aggrandizement of Polish lands and imposed harsh policies of Germanicization upon them through tracts of history. In this very area, in Wrzesnia, a famous (for Poles) school strike was initiated in the early 1900’s when Polish school children were beaten by Prussian teachers for not speaking German. Poles resisted Germanicization and fought against it, holding together as a people even when they did not exist as a nation on the map for over a hundred years, but only in interpersonal agreement, language and patriotic narrative. That they persevered so, is one reason why they are warranted in having their nation – despite the fact that Friedrich the Great and his admirer to the death, Hitler, would have been quite comfortable with Poland not existing.




Jonathan Pohl asks how do I feel about Germans having been “ethnically cleansed” from Poznan after WWII? How does he feel about my cousins being “ethnically cleansed” from eastern parts? It’s a history that I had nothing to do with and does not trouble my conscience at all.

Jonathan Pohl asks how I feel about Germans being ethnically cleansed from Poznan? First of all, Bozo, it wasn’t my choice, happened way before I was born.
How does Pohl feel about this?
Vengence for wielka polska uprisign.
Fort VII
Jump to navigationJump to search
The main entrance to the fort, with the Konzentrationslager Posen sign | |
Date | October 1939 – 1944 |
---|---|
Location | Occupied Poland |
Cause | Invasion of Poland |
Participants | Gestapo, SS |
Casualties | |
Minimum of 4,500 Polish civilians including patients and staff of psychiatric hospitals in Poznań and Owińska Part of a series | |
World War II crimes in occupied Poland |
Fort VII, officially Konzentrationslager Posen (renamed later), was a Nazi German death camp set up in Poznań in German-occupied Poland during World War II, located in one of the 19th-century forts circling the city. According to different estimates, between 4,500 and 20,000 people, mostly Poles from Poznań and the surrounding region, died while imprisoned at the camp.
Contents
Camp establishment
The decades-old Fort VII (also known as Fort Colomb from 1902–1918) was one of the ring of defensive forts built around the perimeter of Poznań by the Prussian authorities in the late 19th century, in the second stage of their Festung Posen plan. It was built in 1876–1880 (with improvements in 1887–1888). At present, it stands in the western part of the city, on today’s ul. Polska in the Ogrody neighbourhood, part of Jeżyce district. In the interwar period it was used for storage purposes.[1]
Following the German invasion of Poland in September 1939, Fort VII was chosen as the site of the first concentration camp in occupied Poland, called Konzentrationslager Posen. It was probably created by decision of the Reichsstatthalter of the Poznań region, Arthur Greiser. It began functioning at some time around October 1939. The prisoners were mostly Poles from the Wielkopolska region. Many were representatives of the region’s intelligentsia, often people who had been engaged in social and political life, as well as known Polish patriots and veterans of the Wielkopolska Uprising (1918–1919) and Silesian Uprisings. In the early stages of the camp’s existence prisoners were generally executed within a week of arrival. In October 1939 an early experiment in execution by gas chamber was carried out by an SS chemist, Dr. August Becker,[2][p. 175] whereby around 400 patients and staff from psychiatric hospitals in Poznań were gassed at Bunker No. 17.[1] The extermination of mentally ill was conducted by SS-Sturmbannführer Herbert Lange, chief of the Gestapo in occupied Poznań. Lange served with Einsatzgruppe VI during Operation Tannenberg.[3] He and his men were responsible also for the murder of 2,750 patients at Kościan, about 1,100 patients at Owińska, as well as 1,558 patients and 300 civilian Poles at Działdowo; the experience gained allowed Lange to become the first commandant of Chełmno extermination camp (until April 1942).[2][4][5]
In mid November 1939 the camp was renamed as a Gestapo prison and a transit camp (Geheime Staatspolizei Staatspolizeileitstelle Posen. Übergangslager – Fort VII). In this period prisoners usually remained in the camp for about six months, before being sentenced to death, a long prison term or transfer to a larger concentration camp, such as Dachau and Auschwitz, or in rare cases being released. Prisoners in this period included political and military activists in the Polish Underground State.[1]
Following Himmler‘s decree of 28 May 1941 the camp was renamed as a police prison and corrective labour camp (Polizeigefängnis der Sicherheitspolizei und Arbeitserziehungslager). In this period some prisoners (called niedzielnicy in Polish, from the word niedziela, “Sunday”) would be held in the camp temporarily between ending work on Saturday and beginning work on Monday.[1]
Prisoner numbers and deaths
About 2,000 to 2,500 prisoners were held at the camp at any one time, guarded by approximately 400 members of the SS. There were 27 cells for men and three for women. According to conservative estimates of the Fort VII State Museum, a total of 18,000 prisoners passed through the camp, of whom 4,500 died. Other estimates put the total number of prisoners as high as 45,000, and the number of deaths at around 20,000. Deaths were the result of either to execution: including shooting, hanging or gassing; mistreatment, torture, and contagious disease.[1]
On the 20 October 1939 the first Jewish victims from Posen (Poznań), Benno Rindfleisch and Julius Tychauer, were shot at Fort VII. Several more Jews were shot in the same month in Poznań and in nearby Buk and Kornik. But the majority of the Jewish population of Posen was transported to the Lublin district, most likely ultimately perishing at Belzec or Sobibor. The prison’s documentation was destroyed near the end of the war. According to reports submitted by the prison to the register of deaths, the official number of prisoners who died at Fort VII was 479. Prisoners included citizens of other countries as well as Polish nationals, from the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, France, the United Kingdom, as well as some Germans.[1]
Conditions
Fort VII was known among prisoners as a particularly harsh camp, partly because of the high ratio of guards to prisoners (about one to five). Prisoners lived in cramped, dark, damp and cold conditions. Sometimes 200–300 prisoners were held in a cell measuring 20 by 5 metres. The women’s cells, located below ground level, sometimes remained flooded up to knee height.[1]
Until mid-1942 prisoners slept on the floor or on rotting straw. There was little or no access to washing facilities, and parasites and disease spread easily. Prisoners were subjected to torture and humiliation by the guards. On the “stairway of death” prisoners would be made to run up carrying a heavy stone, and possibly kicked down from the top by a guard. Food rations were minimal, as officially the prisoners were not working. However, some of them were made to work in unofficial workshops. Only one prisoner is known to have escaped – Marian Szlegel, thanks to his work, was able to identify a time when the camp was less well guarded, and took the opportunity to abscond.[1]
Witness accounts speak of 7 to 9 executions by shooting a day, as well as mass hangings, and shootings of larger groups away from the fort itself. There were two typhus epidemics, each of which killed about 80% of the prisoners held at that time. Many prisoners also died after being taken to other concentration camps.[1]
Closure of the camp
From March 1943 the process of gradually liquidating the camp began, so that the site could be used for industrial purposes. Prisoners were made to work on the construction of a new camp south of Poznań, in Żabikowo (called Poggenburg by the Germans), and were then transferred there, the last ones being moved on 25 April 1944. Fort VII became a Telefunken factory producing radio equipment for submarines and aircraft.[1]
After the war the building was used as a storage facility by the Polish army. Plans were made in 1976 to turn the site into a museum in memory of the victims of the camp. The museum opened on 13 August 1979, and is called Muzeum Martyrologii Wielkopolan Fort VII (“Fort VII Museum of the Wielkopolska Martyrs”).
Secondly, in response to Pohl’s question as to how I feel about Germans being “ethnically cleansed from Poznan”, my cousins were moved as well, third, no, it was Stalin’s action and I do not feel the least bit responsible.

Curzon Line – Poles living to the East had their property taken and were moved West after World War II.
My relatives were moved and lost property in the former Eastern extremes of what was Polish territory. That is not a misfortune worth grievance now. Nor is Germans having been moved from Eastward thrusts of their former habitation. By analogy, it is not and would not be cause for grievance for Jews to be recognized as non-European and transferred out of Europe along with other non-Europeans.
Some may not be seeing this because their position increases the efficiency, the logical force of over-identifying with the Nazi point of view.
Causes of the overstated premise and false either/or: Overlapping and underlapping perspectives with the Nazi wrath. The demographic hegemony of those nations and people who were either completely aligned (overlap) with the Nazi point of view or at least not in the path of its wrath (underlap) facilitates currency through lessened obstruction to its way of talking and gives it a backing that gains additional traction by those seeking power, popular assent and perhaps profit. It can also have interest to those seeking identitarian difference, e.g. rebellion by brooking the bad guy image. It will also be promoted by Jewish interests to stigmatize, divide and conquer White organizational efforts.
For example, those not directly in the path of Nazi wrath would be German or Irish or Irish and German American – the largest White demographics of America by far; witnessing the catastrophe of Jewish imposed liberalism, along with the stress and the guilt trips overlapping (as in the case of Germans) or underlapping their concerns (as in the case of Irish) they may not see from their perspective a way out other than overcompensating, rebelliously strict identification in over-agreement with the Nazi point of view; the maintenance of that stigmatized identity; which then in turn, calls for arbitrary, one-sided historical punctuation.
It is also likely to be the case that as these large, overlapping and underlapping demographics can provide currency to this way of talking that it will gain traction through pandering by those looking for popular assent, power or profit; or it may appeal to those rebelling to identitarian difference from victim to victimizer role. Of course it will also be advanced by Jews looking to stigmatize, divide and conquer White/ European nationalist organization.
While the nationalism of some Irishmen may have a view in resentment of the English to include resentment of their position in World War 2, it would of course, be natural recourse for some English, when looking at the current situation to ask, what did we get involved in that war for? For other nations, however, Hitler was offering an even less appealing choice.
While additional National examples can and will be provided, we may suffice with Belarus, Ukraine and Poland to begin: I will focus mostly on Poland because it is the example that I know best and probably most central to the Nationalist aspect of World War II’s conflict.
By looking at the Nationalism of these three countries we can see that they all had significant degrees of anti-semitism and that each were not only resistant to Russian expansion over their territories, but had fought it throughout history, including times relevantly prior to World War II.
These facts refute arguments that the transfer agreement could not have been negotiated between the European nations. They also refute the argument that Germany was exposed to Russian invasion from the east. Hence, speculation about plans of Soviet invasion of Germany (hence, e.g., the “necessity” of Barbarossa) post Molotov-Ribbentrop are after the fact, having forgone the possibility of negotiating alignment of Eastern European countries against Soviet invasion.
These negotiations would have been difficult, but they would not have been more difficult and in all likelihood, enormously less destructive than the Nazi policy that was actually pursued.
The greatest obstacle to such negotiative strategy was Hitler: his worldview shaped by the militaristic means (as opposed to statesmanship) of World War I, and an intractable admiration for Germany’s historical/military conquests (e.g. for the imperialism of Friedrich The Great, the militarism of The Teutonic Knights) rendered mass death and militaristic means a matter of course; finally, of course, with that view, he defined his in-group primarily Germanic, while Slavics were looked upon as hostile/inferior outsiders – a view further torqued in rage by the Treaty of Versailles.
Thus, all 20/20 hindsight has to be qualified with that IF. IF Germany had a reasonable leader at that time, national matters may have been negotiated amicably.
As White Nationalists engage in 20/20 hindsight, we might agree that it can be perfect. As such, we might refrain from laying guilt trips on this generation of Axis descendants and we may kindly request that they and their sympathizers refrain from laying guilt trips on those descended of Allied nations. We may even show understanding for those who did not fully appreciate the J.Q. since from a casual point of view of our interests, Jews make no sense. Hindsight is 20/20 and thus, lets look from the worldview where it is, and was NOT necessary for European nations to fight one another.
It is generally agreed that The Treaty of Versailles was overly punitive. That is true economically, but not very true territorially. I will get to that in a minute.
First, it is necessary to address a very important point here: we cannot allow for portrayals of Germans or Nazis as ex-nihlo evil; but neither can we allow for their staunch advocates to portray The Allies as ex-nihlo evil either.
While our 20/20 hindsight shows that The Treaty of Versailles went overboard, the utter rage and indignation of those who fought and lost millions against German militarism bears consideration as well. Nazi apologists do not often mention the fact of antecedent events – such as the rape of Kalisz and Leuven circa WWI, the destruction of Warsaw, Kiev and Minsk in WWII – which context their own casualties as having been in response. One might proceed infinitely in setting the frame of the context; but with Jews and Nazis being rather uncharitable in recognition of these contextual, antecedent frames, we have to undergo the tedium.
With that, while we might have sympathy for the Germans for the Treaty of Versailles, we need not fail to recognize that they over-corrected in World War II.
Thus, we might sympathize with their indignation with Jews and advise this generation to unburden themselves of guilt trips by the analogy that we all know what it is like to be provoked to the point of lashing-out, for our biology to convulse and wretch in attempting to throw-off a virus. Revising the whether or not or how and the how many of Jews were killed is not especially important from a non-Nazi point of view, nor does it need to be especially important from a German point of view. The more productive (and safe route – because it is more a matter of honest inquiry from the onset rather than trying to fit a rhetoric) is to ask why there was such animus for the Jews and point to illustrations such as the Holodomer, the Bolshevik atrocities, the destruction of the German economy and so on. But as far as distortions and mechanizations of holocostianity, present day Germans and Europeans have no part in what happened – whether particularly accurate or not, it is not now. Cooler heads prevailing, only a fool would say that we would not have been better off negotiating the transfer agreement, along with prosecution of the most culpable Jewish elite, if we could have.
Continuing with our 20/20 hindsight then, I would like to look at another aspect of the Treaty of Versailles, one which was not far off the mark, in fact, quite close to appropriate and fair – on the border with Germany (whereas on Poland’s Eastern border regions, more land and cities probably should have been enforced clearly to Poland’s Eastern neighbors). To see the approximate fairness of the boundaries as they have resulted to date, it is necessary to consider the Polish nationalist perspective.

German territorial losses (in light tan) after World War I, Treaty of Versailles
Josef Pilsudski was an exemplary Polish Nationalist of the times – despite his circumstantial pragmatism (which would not only allow Jews into the state, but encourage their assimilation) he was nevertheless ideological enough to consider his arch enemy to be Felix Dzerzhinsky, Jewish Bolshevik head of the Soviet secret police.
That is, Pilsudski’s Polish nationalism would ultimately place him at odds not only with the Soviets, but also Jewish interests – as Jews simply were not Polish nationalists.
Roman Dmowski was Pilsudski’s chief Polish nationalist opponent. Purged of Dmowski’s social Darwinism and adding a modicum of socialism from Pilsudski’s program, Dmowski’s platform would have ultimately been the more practical version of Polish nationalism, as it sought a strictly homogeneous population while maintaining a prescient anti-semitism. Nevertheless, my contention is that Pilsudski’s situational, federalist, pragmatism – which would unite diverse peoples under Polish nationalism – would inevitably be confronted with the unassimilability of Jewish interests.
Giving Pilsudski’s pragmatism its due, he led an amazing upset defeat of the Red Army at Warsaw, when the Red Army was in fact, on its way to Berlin. This puts the lie to the argument that Nazi Germany was without recourse in its vulnerability against Russia to its East. Unless, of course, they planned to stab Poland along with Belarus and Ukraine in the back, which they did, despite these countries having fiercely anti-Soviet positions (and plenty of anti-Semitism).
The Soviets may not have been at full strength when Pilsudski defeated them. Poland may have been seen as arrogant by the Nazis. But in truth, the Poles did not believe they could defeat the Nazis alone; they hoped for help from the French and British. At any rate, their being “arrogant, overconfident and overly brave” are non-sequiturs – Nazi invasion of Poland does not follow in justification.
As to the extent that Poland participated in “the rape of Czechoslovakia” (1938), and which according to Buchanan signaled the national guilt of Poland, it is in truth barely worth mentioning; I will leave that for the comments.
Nevertheless, Pilsudski was not perfect either and waged campaigns to the East in defiance of The Treaty of Versailles.
The Treaty tentatively designated Lemberg (L’viv) just to the southeast, beyond Poland; and Vilna (Vilnius) to Lithuania, beyond Poland’s northeast border.
From the view of hindsight, and perhaps only with that benefit, Pilsudski may have elected not to wage battle to retain Vilnius and L’viv as Polish. In the case of Vilnius (Pilsudski’s city of birth; my grandfather’s as well), however, he may have had some additional encouragement from the Belarusians (the original Lithuanians) as they saw him as fighting the Soviets for the city and possibly bringing it, their ancient capital, back into their fold eventually by means of this fight. In addition, he was perhaps mistaken not to give The Belarusians their sovereignty to fight the Soviets more of and for their own accord. L’viv would have been still more difficult for the Poles to relinquish entirely. The Poles built that city and put a lot into it. More than that, there was the harrowing complication of atrocities committed between the Poles and Ukrainians in surrounding villages, which would have made not fighting near impossible. Perhaps L’viv should have been negotiated to be some sort of neutral city; but with the benefit of hindsight on that conflict between historical input and logistics, logistics should be favored, as it extends a bit too far into rightfully Ukrainian populated lands.





L’viv’s Grand Theater built circa Paderewski
Now then, lets take the analogy of the fact that Poles were moved from these places after World War II and the fact that neither I nor anybody I know begrudges them to the present day Lithuanians, Belarusians and Ukrainians. Though it is very hard and would have been very hard, especially at the time, to lose a place such as L’viv, a statesmen accepts this for the logistics of Nationalist concordance – particularly with the vantage of 20/20 hindsight.
While Germany/Prussia was not the vast monstrosity that engulfed half of Poland as it had been when Poland was wiped off the map, it was still enormous after the Treaty of Versailles; much larger than it is today. A statesman might have looked at the matter more deeply and with more perspective than that of the imperialist aims of say, Friedrich the Great – who looked upon the Poles as unworthy of governing their own land, who sought economic means to exploit them (in such a manner that Goldman Sachs might admire), who, with the idea of German superiority, would seek to deprive Poles even of one of their foundational cities – Poznan.
Interesting that if one so much as intimates the slightest defense of Poland (e.g., against chauvinism and imperialism) that you will project your mindless German chauvinism (a troll commentor had said that I am a “mindless Polish chauvinist” and that is why MR is unpopular); with a reactionary part of a large demographic under more direct pressure of PC lies, thus going with the pretense that it cares for sheer truth by reaction – it is backed by Jewry as the third default position:
1) Sheer liberalism is their preferred position for Whites (direct betrayal of Whites and White atomization).
2) Christianity as it places Whites mindlessly under the yoke of Abrahamic law (the golden rule is mindless; the gentiles are not ethnicity organized as such).
3) Failing that, they will encourage Nazism – the clear chauvinism – as they know it will repulse most normal people and lead to antagonism among Whites where not otherwise sending us headlong into disaster. ..perhaps take care of some ‘traitorous’ Jews all too intermarried with Germans, Poles, other ‘goyim.’
4) Failing that they will encourage sundry and motley no-account, right wing reactions that help to atomize would-be White organization and coordination:
a) No account scientism and objectivism for the higher I.Q.
b) Conspiracy theories; and ideologies beyond reality and verification for the less intelligent;
or to cover that part of their intelligence that isn’t (lacks judgment).
I am not lonely, but your bubble that appears as camaraderie is based on illusion and lies; along with (((marketing))) of tropes and memes in YKW interest.
Enabling some stupid dude like yourself to absurdly accuse me of “mindless Polish chauvinism”, if I defend ethnonationalism.
Nor am I a chauvinist of any kind. I’m ethnonationalist, defending ethnonationalism of all kinds, but the European kind and its coordination to begin with.
Nazism is the clear imperialist supremacism, programmatic of disaster. And scientism – viz., scientistic reaction – is the mindlessness that lets it be guided headlong to disaster. Get with the reality of praxis instead, get with the ethnonational program.
Posted by Why your bubble protects an illusion on Mon, 22 Oct 2018 23:05 | #
Interesting that if one so much as intimates the slightest defense of Poland (e.g., against chauvinism and imperialism) that you will project your mindless German chauvinism (a troll accused me of being a “mindless Polish chauvinist” and said MR was unpopular because of it); with a reactionary part of a large demographic under more direct pressure of PC lies, thus going with the pretense that it cares for sheer truth by reaction – it is backed by Jewry as the third default position:
1) Sheer liberalism is their preferred position for Whites (direct betrayal of Whites and White atomization).
2) Christianity as it places Whites mindlessly under the yoke of Abrahamic law (the golden rule is mindless; the gentiles are not ethnicity organized as such).
3) Failing that, they will encourage Nazism – the clear chauvinism – as they know it will repulse most normal people and lead to antagonism among Whites. ..perhaps take care of some ‘traitorous’ Jews all too intermarried with Germans, Poles and other ‘goyim.’
4) Failing that they will encourage motley and sundry no-account, right wing reactions that help to atomize would-be White organization and coordination:
a) No account scientism, objectivism for the higher i.q.
b) Conspiracy theories; and ideologies beyond reality and verification for the less intelligent or to cover that part of their intelligence that isn’t (lacks judgment).
I am not lonely, but your bubble that appears as camaraderie is based on an illusion and lies.
Enabling some stupid dude like yourself to absurdly accuse me of “mindless Polish chauvinism”, if I defend ethnonationalism.
Nor am I a chauvinist of any kind. I’m ethnonationalist, defending ethnonationalism of all kinds, but the European kind and its coordination to begin with.
Nazism is the clear imperialist supremacism, programmatic of disaster. And scientism – viz., scientistic reaction – is the mindlessness that lets it be guided headlong to disaster. Get with the reality of praxis, get with the ethnonational program.
Posted by Warsaw 1938 on Mon, 19 Nov 2018 21:43 | #
Color footage of Warsaw 1938, looked quite good.
Posted by 3 May 1939 on Mon, 19 Nov 2018 21:53 | #
…and 3 May 1939….the Pilsudski parade and surrounds look quite spiffy…the Jewish ghetto not quite so..
Posted by Warsaw before its destruction on Mon, 03 Dec 2018 02:43 | #
More great footage of Warsaw before its destruction.
From an American perspective, its amazing alone to see a White city (there is one African in one scene)















Posted by DanielS on Wed, 23 Sep 2020 10:40 | #
While I am being nice and in due diligence to free speech, I am satisfied that I describe the cross contextual patterns underlying left and right very well – and importantly distinguished as such – whereas Frodi Midjord tries to introduce a description of “the right” as a perspective which “adapts” to the national interests.
To me it is pretty clear that he is trying to spuriously affix a positive word “adaption” to what is more characteristically a reactive function, which at its best, provides feedback to the proactive calibration of praxis – the proactive and corrective group function, i.e., with its accountability to the group praxis (not to pure nature and ideals), thus to its left unionizing function of ethnonationalism.
If Frodi would be talking to Mark Weber and bothering to redeem the Nazi regime, it is not especially surprising that he is not liberated from an emotional, and defensive reaction which would be susceptible to its epistemological blunder; hence his spurious definition of the right, which doesn’t have much in the way of historical evidence, i.e., being characteristically “adaptive” as opposed to reactive.
Speaking of Mark Weber, I’ve noticed that beyond him, i.e., even among mainstream Historians such as Victor Hansen, it is quite taken for granted that The Treaty of Versailles was irrational and unjust in how it drew the borders of the newly re-formed Polish nation; thus, a “border war” was all that should have happened; Hitler was justified inasmuch.
But No he wasn’t. There were historical and logistical reasons, justifications for the way Versailles drew the borders. War was not necessarily justified.
Not that long ago, Norvin requested that I engage in a debate with Hitler redemptionists. I would only bother with such a thing if it was conducted along a professional historian’s levels. Thus, I would bring in Dr. Christian Lindner and Per Nordin. I ventured to test the waters with these proposed interlocutors prior to getting these fine gentlemen involved.
I explained that there was indeed reasonable rationale and historical justice to the way Versailles drew the borders, contrary to the way even mainstream media has portrayed it, as “the Germans having 13% of their territory taken from them” …and I added that that is not to say its not disputed territory, obviously it was and the treaty didn’t work out, but it is far from true that it was completely arbitrary, irrational and unjust, as the Nazis would portray it. I didn’t even say that the borders were necessarily right as they were drawn, just that there was rationale to it.
I barely made these rational and measured points when I was greeted by (what I am now provisionally forced to call) an idiot going by the name of Tom White saying that I’ve talked enough, the likes of Metzger and I would have to take a back seat now, Germans are the heart of Europe and bla bla bla….followed by Ovfuckyou going into his mock Jewish voice in a chorus with the rest of those there, saying they’d heard enough of my “whining” about “my little corridor’ .. ..‘Heinrich Lucas Ford’ calling me a “Pollock” (later reading Carolyn Yeager’s attempted hit piece on me an so forth) and so on…this was not said with any pretense of concern for calm, rational debate, let alone civil discussion of the facts. Just the most crude attempt to bludgeon the point of view which called Hitler’s “justifications” into question.
And to think, I was testing the situation to see if these were worthy interlocutors for Dr. Christian Lindner. Obviously I could not allow that debate to materialize.
Perhaps one begins to get a sense of why I limit the “free speech” of committed Hitler redemptorists here at MR. In order to protect our free speech, in a word. MR provides a haven from this nonsense for nationalists who are both wise to the J.Q. but realize that Hitler’s worldview is obsolete for our purposes.
In a subsequent podcast of my own, after a careful analysis going through the history and influence of Descartes, Locke to the post modern turn of Vico, Nietzsche, Heidegger and Gadamer .. I let Tom White in for discussion because in some ways he is an intelligent guy, anyway, capable enough of providing feedback from a concerned perspective on the ground (viz. in Minnesota) and I was thinking that maybe he could be brought around to a more well rounded position. Nope. He says (after my careful talk) “We’re just talking here” and “Germans are the heart of Europe”, and then he says to me (a guy who is not even German), literally, “the only thing that matters are Germans.”
He adds, “I’m everything you say we shouldn’t be” ..I’m “a supremacist and a Nazi” (for the record, I never said that people shouldn’t be ‘racist’) and this stuff about how objective he is in his preferences and how everyone must agree …
After all I’ve said and done: “The only thing we should care about is Germans” and I should waste our time with this guy’s free speech”?
He’s now doing shows with Ovfuckyou, who subjected me to some of the nastiest and most juvenile attacks (largely in the form of abusive talk-overs which didn’t allow for the point of view that doesn’t see Hitler as wonderful and justified), all allowed for by Ecce Lux, Jonathan Pohl (I’m supposed to feel guilty about Germans being moved over the Oder River after WWII; and I should look upon Gottfried as a leading light according to Pohl) and Melchy Zedek (I’m supposed to be abused because I’m not a Christian and don’t think “Mein Kampf” is a revelaton).
Just a few years ago Ovfuckyou was a “Bernie Bro”… Ecce Lux was a liberal… they have no idea what an ordeal it has been and get a platform together that views both Jews and Hitler as being outside of White interests. They don’t understand that theirs is the shit that is old and in the way.
No, they can have their (distortion of) free speech, somewhere else.
But here is Frodi; he has his free speech here at MR. When he talks to Mark Weber of the “IHR” and endorses Pat Buchanan’s taken for granted (German/Irish American) take on the genesis of WWII, its being unnecessary not having much to do with Hitler’s Friedrich the Great style imperialism and revanchism; reinventing the broken wheel that gets stuck in the mud of World War attrition with the stupidity of a Tom White and Ovfuckyou.
Wouldn’t Claire Khaw see an angle for her self promotion in this, trying to normalize Ov. After all, as a Chinese woman, what does she care for 50 million Europeans needlessly killed for this Austrian corporal’s grandiosity – “he just wanted his place in the sun.”
So, they have their free speech and they will not interfere with the free speech of people who need an alternative from that stupid insanity.
…..
One more thing. There was mention in the posted discussion with Frodi that Jared Taylor had been banned from the Schengen Zone due to a complaint from Poland.
I personally found that strange myself and posted an article about it. However, I do not know who among the Polish nation was responsible for the complaint and the decision.
They added that Richard Spencer has been banned from Poland. This I can understand a little more. Spencer has repeatedly disparaged Polish nationhood, saying “there’s not going to be your little Poland” etc, in course of denouncing nationalism altogether as a “zero sum game” which should give way to imperialism (featuring German leadership in cooperation with Russia, of course).



Posted by Hossbach Memorandum on Wed, 14 Oct 2020 19:44 | #
The Hossbach Memorandum PROVES Hitler Wanted to Wage a War of Aggression

Generally speaking, I don’t like to go into World War II, because I view it as a nasty history for Europeans, about which few people alive had anything to do – therefore, I prefer to uncouple the ethnonationalist cause from it – and especially from Nazism – for the sake of Germans perhaps especially. However, because a needless and counterproductive tendency to try to fully exonerate and redeem Hitler and the Nazis persists – e.g., Mark Collette and “ComfyTangent” recommending that people attend to the schlock revisionism of “The Greatest Story Never Told”; David Duke persisting in blaming anyone but Hitler for WWII – there is yet need to address the issue enough to put it to rest for anyone reasonable – not something to expect from the Stormfront crowd, e.g; and many have not yet gotten Dr. Lindtner’s message regarding the disingenuousness of Faurisson and other revisionists. We will be engaging podcasts on the matter with a Swedish colleague, et al. in days to come to straighten-out the record on WWII – why White Nationalism need not and should no be burdened with Hitler/Nazi association, denial, let alone its idealization and idolatry.

In the meantime, while you will hear a great deal from American White Nationalists about the terrible fire-bombing of Dresden, you can expect them to remain irresponsibly silent (or make revolting excuses) regarding events like the quelling of the 1944 Warsaw Uprising.
If anyone has better information to add, they are welcome, but again, because I don’t like going into WWII history, at this point I’ll merely set forth a textual sketch of the event from Wikipedia and this video:


Polish resistance:
15,200 killed and missing[7]
5,000 WIA[7]
15,000 POW (Incl. capitulation agreement)[7]
Berlin 1st Army: 5,660 casualties[7]
Warsaw Airlift: 41 downed aircraft German forces:
8,000–17,000 killed and missing
9,000 WIA
150,000–200,000 civilians killed,[8] 700,000 expelled from the city.[7]

Poland 1944–45: The Warsaw Uprising (Polish: powstanie warszawskie; German: Warschauer Aufstand) was a major World War II operation, in the summer of 1944, by the Polish underground resistance, led by the Home Army (Polish: Armia Krajowa), to liberate Warsaw from German occupation. The uprising was timed to coincide with the retreat of the German forces from Poland ahead of the Soviet advance.[9] While approaching the eastern suburbs of the city, the Red Army temporarily halted combat operations, enabling the Germans to regroup and defeat the Polish resistance and to raze the city in reprisal. The Uprising was fought for 63 days with little outside support. It was the single largest military effort taken by any European resistance movement during World War II.[10]


The Uprising began on 1 August 1944 as part of a nationwide Operation Tempest, launched at the time of the Soviet Lublin–Brest Offensive. The main Polish objectives were to drive the Germans out of Warsaw while helping the Allies defeat Germany. An additional, political goal of the Polish Underground State was to liberate Poland’s capital and assert Polish sovereignty before the Soviet-backed Polish Committee of National Liberation could assume control. Other immediate causes included a threat of mass German round-ups of able-bodied Poles for “evacuation”; calls by Radio Moscow’s Polish Service for uprising; and an emotional Polish desire for justice and revenge against the enemy after five years of German occupation.[11][12]

Initially, the Poles established control over most of central Warsaw, but the Soviets ignored Polish attempts to maintain radio contact with them and did not advance beyond the city limits. Intense street fighting between the Germans and Poles continued. By 14 September, the eastern bank of the Vistula River opposite the Polish resistance positions was taken over by the Polish troops fighting under the Soviet command; 1,200 men made it across the river, but they were not reinforced by the Red Army. This, and the lack of air support from the Soviet base five-minute flying time away, led to allegations that Stalin tactically halted his forces to let the operation fail and the Polish resistance to be crushed. Arthur Koestler said the Soviet disposition will rank on an ethical level with Lidice.”[13]

Winston Churchill pleaded with Stalin and Franklin D. Roosevelt to help Britain’s Polish allies, to no avail.[14] Then, without Soviet air clearance, Churchill sent over 200 low-level supply drops by the Royal Air Force, the South African Air Force, and the Polish Air Force under British High Command, in an operation known as the Warsaw Airlift. Later, after gaining Soviet air clearance, the U.S. Army Air Force sent one high-level mass airdrop as part of Operation Frantic.
Although the exact number of casualties remains unknown, it is estimated that about 16,000 members of the Polish resistance were killed and about 6,000 badly wounded.

In addition, between 150,000 and 200,000 Polish civilians died, mostly from mass executions. Jews being harboured by Poles were exposed by German house-to-house clearances and mass evictions of entire neighbourhoods. German casualties totalled over 8,000 soldiers killed and missing, and 9,000 wounded. During the urban combat approximately 25% of Warsaw’s buildings were destroyed. Following the surrender of Polish forces, German troops systematically levelled another 35% of the city block by block. Together with earlier damage suffered in the 1939 invasion of Poland and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in 1943, over 85% of the city was destroyed by January 1945, when the course of the events in the Eastern Front forced the Germans to abandon the city.
Posted by #WolaMassacre on Mon, 06 Aug 2018 06:03 | #
On August 5th 1944, the #WolaMassacre began.


The bodies were burned on site. Their ashes weighed 12 tons.
Unlike #BabiYar & #RapeOfNanking, the massacre is unknown in the West.
Institute of National Remembrance
@ipngovpl_eng
#WarsawUprising: From 5-7 VIII 1944, 40,000 to 60,000 residents of Warsaw’s Wola district were killed during executions carried out by Nazis. Similar mass crimes were committed in the district of Ochota by Nazis and allied #SS units.#WolaMassacre #OchotaMassacre

Stupid things that ovfuckyou, Tom White et al said...
Ovfuckyou:
Ovfuckyou in conversation with Dennis Dale: “I’ll advocate Hitler for the rest of my life.”
Not only did the idiot tell me that I should tell Poles that Hitler was not so bad….
Tries to insist that I debate Hitler with him and after I’d been lured into this obnoxious situation… calls me a Pollock, uses a mock Jewish voice when I presented the alternative perspective on the Versailles and St Germain borders.
Mocks me in the same mock Jewish voice, when Jonathan Pohl asks how I feel about the “ethnic cleansing of Germans from Poznan.
Repeatedly talked over me and said that I was talking over him. OK, you don’t like talking with me dickhead? How about we not talk at all.
Says ‘Hitler did nothing wrong”: the kid is just obnoxious…
He asked me why I think he’s doing this (probably thinking that I should answer that he’s valiantly moving the Overton window) but I answered accurately instead – yeah, I know why, because you’re stupid.
Claire Khaw and con ops platform this piece of shit because they don’t care that Hitler got millions of Europeans killed and he is never going to be anything but divide and conquer of Europeans.
A few years ago he was Bernie bro. His mother sucks Jewish cock. He’s half Italian, part German, Slovenian… and he tries to tell me that I am not Italian because “Italians have a thick skin” … idiotic reversal of the stereotype of Italians which is that they are hair trigger temperamental.
Starts yelling at me that I should “deal with it” i.e., accept Nazim and his claim that White Nationalism and Nazism go hand in hand rather than being at odds, which, of course, they are.
I told him the truth, that I am dealing with it. He tried to say that no, I wasn’t but what the idiot does not understand is that I do not go to Nazi (or Christian sites) to hassle them.. I was lured in on these few occasions.
What this idiot really doesn’t understand is that I provide a unique and eminently necessary platform in advocacy of Whites – a haven free of stupid pro Hitler shit and lies, free of Jesus and the idea that Jews can be in our advocacy group.
Again, this is an expression of his being new to this, not realizing that his shit is old and in the way, same lack of realization that Tom White.
Burps at me and says that he doesn’t respect me.
Tries to insist that I unblock his email to me. lol.
When discussing the musical appeal of blacks, in order to make an important point, I used the example of the appeal of Jim Hendrix and his music, idiot ovfuckyou changes it to a competition, saying that Hendrix had said that Terry Kath (guitarist) of Chicago was better.
My response was that this was boring.
Norvin Hobbs had sense enough to make the point that the science is on the side of blacks having an advantageous inborn capacity for rhythm and music…
and the point that I would elaborate from there, is that Terry Kath is not going to marshal the appeal of Jimi Hendrix nor be remembered with the same adulation. That is to set up the greater point regarding objectivity, that being that even if Jim Hendrix music is that good, is it worth your beautiful White wife, opening group boundaries to him and his kind? I’d rather have my White wife, thank you very much. I ask further, as Aristotle would, what makes people distinctly human, rhythm and musical ability? No. Ov says that he doesn’t like Aristotle, as if we should care about this idiot’s opinion.
Tom White:
Tom White, apparently determined to pursue Hitler redemptionism, has made himself a side-kick of ovfuckyou.
Among the several triggering remarks, displaying lack of judgment, experience and intelligence on the part of Tom White was his saying, “We’re just talking here”…and “what are we doing here?”… this is after a few hours of discussing important theoretical distinctions, necessary preparation based on years of experience – on a Monday night (how better to “waste this time”), discussing ideas that he’s not going to hear anywhere else and this is the best this idiot’s judgment comes up with.. he goes onto say, literally, “the only thing that matters are Germans”….”Germany is the heart of Europe”… “Germany and North East Europeans are the only thing we should care about.” He says that he’s “just being objective” ..he adds, implying that Germanic women are objectively the most beautiful, asking, ‘what kind of women do yo like?….I answered that I like Italian women and I might have added Slavic women overall would probably score higher. Germans have their beauties and it’s not the only thing that matters, but he asked.
Because I have made it clear that that I am not on the Hitler train, he tries to attribute it to my background, asking:
“You’re a Pollock, right?”
My mother was Polish American.
“You’re 1/8th Jewish, right?”
DNA tests show trace Jewish ancestry, less than 3%
I tell him the truth, that my first reason for hating Hitler was because he got over 50 million European people killed.
He objected, “No, Hitler did not get tens of millions of people killed.”
After having the nerve to tell me that I had said enough when trapped by Norvin into testing the waters with him and ov (not knowing them yet) in a proposed debate with Professional level historians, when I merely rationally presented the counter argument – which I was asked to do…. I focused carefully and calmly on the borders drawn by Versailles and St. Germain, (which indeed had rationale to them), he said that I was “whining” – such an utterly stupid remark. I do not seek to argue with Nazi sympathizers.
Tom said that Metzger and I needed to take a back seat now (to him and ov right?) I could not believe the stupidity I was hearing. A back seat to him. I informed him that he had a long, long way to go. Later, he would try to say that “we have a long way to go”…no, Tom, YOU have along way to go.
Said that I am just jealous of Richard Spencer. That he would be happy to send Spencer money. lol.
That he has the opposite perspective on everything I tell people not to do. I am anti Nazi, supremacist and imperialist, other than that, I don’t say people shouldn’t be racist.. etc.
…….
I had asked an intelligent colleague of mine if he would participate in this proposed debate that I would find was supposed to be with ovfuckyou and Tom White (for f-sake – these guys wanted to talk to intelligent people). Anyway, before I knew how stupid that they were, my colleague wrote me this (which I would read to them in the truncated “debate.”):
I don’t believe I have the depth of knowledge required to be of much use in such a debate. I’m aware that professional historians refuse to debate with revisionists because they know that revisionists are not concerned with genuine historical inquiry. They twist and distort facts and lie to their readers because they have a political motivation. The genuine historians know that they themselves will be doing all the work. It’s far harder to disprove an assertion than it is to make one.You will not be debating revisionist historians but your opponents may well have a stack of revisionist material at hand. Not that they would need that. It is they who want you to oblige them by giving them a platform to air their views and opinions. You will be playing with their cards, which they shall deal. They don’t have to display knowledge, they can use simple one liners eg “The Poles killed 58,000 Germans. Hitler had to act. Hitler really only wanted peace”. The onus is on you to disprove it, for which you will need a truckload of historical facts and when you’ve finished, they’ll throw another at you. “Hitler saved Europe from Communism” and on it will go, “The Bug River camps were transit hubs” etc, etc. Ask them why they feel the need to exonerate Hitler and you’ll know what they’ll say “White guilt” “Jews make shekels from the Holohoax Industry” and so on. Things you’ve heard six million times already. Their fall back position will always be that Jews control the narrative just as Jews can micro-manage world events, organize the universe and still find time to make latkes…. It would never occur to them to look up the date the first Holocaust museum opened in America and then the date that Faurrisson began writing denial letters to Le Monde (four years earlier). Most of the listening audience will likely be sympathetic to the Nazi view.
This is my main concern, however. As you know, there have been a number of recent attacks on the Houses of the Holy (still a great Led Zep number, btw) When I returned from my break I found I had been emailed this linkDangerous? wasn’t that long ago Griffin was a MEP.Then there’s the clown named Corbin Kauffman arrested in the US for the transmission of threats to cause injury to another person and awaiting trial. His online life has been made public. Using the alias “KingShekels” his comments on WN sites include witty remarks like “Murder your local Juden”.Despite Morgoth having cleaned up his site a bit his “Review” has made it into Hope Not Hates annual “watch list” for the first time this year. The far right, at this point in time, is as toxic as fuck. Given that virtual reality is increasingly entering the real world, the kick back from government is only going to get stronger and stronger. In a couple of years there might not be any white advocacy sites at all, however if any survive, they will have a big say in the narrative going forward. I finally gave up trying to help the far right a couple of years ago. I don’t regret it. I believe they have a Manichean mindset and changing someones mindset is incredibly difficult. I certainly don’t feel it is the right time to engage with them or share a platform with them even in opposition. It’s not like they are actually going anywhere, although a few may end up in a six by eight as some inmates bitch.It has occurred to me that an appreciation of the current situation may explain why Kumiko is “lying low”. I would expect her to know when a perfect storm is brewing. Anyhow, I guess you will do as you will but please mull some of my points over.Best Regards
I responded:I agree except that it needs to be made known that they do not represent white nationalism, but rather something quite opposed, adversarial and lethally destructive to our people.
I hadn’t intended that email to be for public consumption, I’d have been more vitriolic if I had
I suppose some of it could be used for something a bit more substantial in the future though.Regarding your second email, I can only make the following observations really ;“Norvin took exception with my taking for granted that Revisionists were typically more politically motivated than motivated by truth”.Well, for many years, David Irving was the leading Revisionist. He sold the most books. “Churchill’s War” was a best seller and received widespread critical acclaim. As he himself would often say, his work was based on primary sources, he had extensive access to German records and access to the Russian archives as well as conducting interviews with eye witnesses to events. When The Times wanted to validate the authenticity of “Hitler’s Diaries” they called in Irving, such was his reputation. Yet Irving lost his case against Penguin Books and Lipstadt because her legal team were able to demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, that Irving had misled his readers by omissions and distortions in order to shield Hitler. As far as I’m aware, Irving is the only Revisionist to have appeared in court in a country where denial is legal, so it was his own work and the motivations he had which were the issue. All the documents from the trial are on line. I’m not suggesting you read them all as it would be a mammoth task. I’ve read Judge Gray’s deliberations and summary for myself and a friend who is from a legal background has read the whole thing. She told me she would have to agree with Judge Charles Gray’s judgement on the case. You could read the preface to the case notes in the link as it provides a two minute synopsis. Personally, I believe if the entire cast of “Inconvenient History” were put under the same scrutiny, most would be found wanting too.It seems clear to me there is considerable difference between Britain and America. Here, there is no evidence of a move towards the Holocaust taking on religious dimensions, although some secular Jews place greater emphasis on the Shoah as being more important with regard to their Jewish identity than Judaism. In fact, the British government is very upfront as to why the Holocaust and other genocides are a mandatory part of secondary education (and also taught in many primary schools). They use it as a tool to promote tolerance. If there is a new religion here, it is liberalism and political correctness, dressed up as “British Values”. Is it any worse than the “old” religion elevating a Jewish boy and his Mom above everyone and everything?My final observation is that the biggest Jewish concern is that the Holocaust gets forgotten.Best Regards

Bombing of Wieluń
The attack on the town has been described as the first war crime committed by Germany in World War II.[2]
The city was bombed with extreme precision, from low altitude due to the absence of air defenses. After the bombing, the Germans strafed fleeing civilians.[15] The town was captured by the German Army on the first day of the invasion.[20]
Most historians agree that the town contained no targets of military value.[6] Historian Timothy Snyder suggests that the civilian population itself may have been the primary target: “The Germans had chosen a locality bereft of military significance as the site of a lethal experiment. Could a modern air force terrorize a civilian population by deliberate bombing?”[27] This view has also been supported by Polish historians Tadeusz Olejnik and Bogumił Rudawski.[28][29] Another view of a number of historians is that the destruction of the town infrastructure may have been the raids’ aim, in order to test the tactics and firepower of the Luftwaffe, in particular of the new Ju 87B bomber.[8][28] Two weeks before the war began, Germany’s Chief of the General Staff Franz Halder mentioned in his war diary a plan called “Offensive Operation Red in the Wieluń area”. In the first days of the war, the Luftwaffe launched several further attacks in the area, including on the small towns of Działoszyn and Kamieńsk, and produced aerial photographs of the effectiveness of attacks on other towns.[26]
Halder distinguished in his war diary between “terror attacks” and attacks on military targets.[26] German historian Hans-Erich Volkmann [de] notes that, for the German 10th Army, which was the critical military factor in this section of the front, Wieluń would have had no operational, let alone strategic, importance to justify its bombing. The commander responsible for the Luftwaffe, Wolfram von Richthofen, would have personally ordered the attack. Volkmann, like Böhler, observes that while Richthofen might not have intended it as a “terror attack”, he had selected Wieluń as a target close to the border in order to test the capabilities and operational effectiveness of his dive bombers, if possible without losses to his own force. Volkmann characterizes the destruction of Wieluń as an attack on a non-military target and therefore as a war crime.[30] Similar reasons for bombing a defenseless small town are given by historian Norman Davies for the bombing of Frampol two weeks later: “Frampol was chosen partly because it was completely defenceless, and partly because its baroque street plan presented a perfect geometric grid for calculations and measurements.”[31]
Piątkowski, analyzing the bombing from the perspective of aerial bombardment and international law, concludes that the bombing constituted a violation of a number of war norms, in particular relating to humanitarianism and proportional force. He also discusses the applicability of the term “terror bombing” in the light of a never-adopted 1923 draft convention (The Hague Rules of Air Warfare) that introduced the term. He concludes that, in order to describe the Wieluń raids as terror bombing, documents would have to prove that the real reason for the bombing was the terrorizing of the civilian populace and not a misidentification of military targets.[8]
Reprising J.F. Gariepy and whom he calls "the major historian."


J.F. Gariepy: “One of the major historians of World War II” Thomas Goodrich: “From what I’ve read..


..from what I’ve read it was a virtual massacre of German residents living in areas under Polish control.”


J.F. Gariepy: “Alright, so that would be quite shocking.” Thomas Goodrich: “Or maybe”…
The real question is why recycled Nazi propaganda has any sort of currency today and why it should have any credibility beyond your typical Internet lunatic fringe.
For the answer, return to the top of the page and read again (further orienting clue, it’s part and parcel of the YKW’s interest in having Whites identify with right wing reaction).
Is there any evidence about the Danzig massacres and the killing of more than 58000 Germans before the start of WW2?
13 Answers
Andrew Warinner
Andrew Warinner, Code monkey, expat, utility infielder
Updated Jan 20 · Author has 1.4k answers and 6.7m answer views
The killing of 58,000 Germans in the run up to World War II was retailed in a “report” (scare quotes intentional) by one Hans Schadewaldt published in 1940:
More than 58,000 were lost by the German minority in Poland during the days of their liberation from the Polish yoke, as far as canbe ascertained at present. The Polish nation must for all time be held responsible for this appalling massacre consequent upon that Polish reign of terror. Up to November 17, 1939, the closing day for the documentary evidence contained in the first edition of this book, 5,437 murders, committed by members of the Polish armed forces and by Polish civilians on men, women and children of the German minority had already been irrefutably proved. It was quite apparent even then that the actual number of murders far exceeded this figure, and by February 1, 1940, the total number of identified bodies of the German minority had increased to 12,857. Official investigations carried out since the outbreak of the German-Polish war have shown that to these 12,857 killed there must be added more than 45,000 missing, all of whom must be accounted dead since no trace of them can be found. Thus the victims belonging to the German minority in Poland already now total over 58,000. Even this appalling figure by no means covers the sum total of the losses sustained by the German minority. There can be no doubt at all that investigations which are still being conducted will disclose many more thousand dead and wounded. The following description of the Polish atrocities which is not only confined to murders and mutilations but includes other deeds of violence such as maltreatment, rape, robbery and arson applies to only a small section of the terrible events for which irrefutable and official evidence is here established.
Hans Schadewaldt 1940 [the Polish Atrocitites Against the German Minority in Poland]
As you would expect to find in a work of Nazi propaganda, the report is long on outrage, short on substantive evidence and obfuscatory about when, where and who did all this killing.
Setting aside the claim that in 1940 there was no trace of 45,000 ethnic Germans (Schadewaldt provides no details of where, who or how), what about the 12,857 murders (a suspiciously precise number)? Here too Schadewaldt is similarly vague, long on outrage and very short on detail.
We now know that the Abwehr and SS organized clandestine Volksdeutsche groups in Poland prior to the war to provide intelligence and to carry out provocations on orders. When the Wehrmacht invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, they went in with a comprehensive list of Polish politicians, civic leaders, religious leaders and intelligentsia to be arrested, much of which was contributed by Volksdeutsche groups.
In retrospect it is difficult to distinguish what was manufactured wholesale for propaganda, violence resulting from organized provocations and how much real ethnic violence there was against ethnic Germans in Poland before and after the outbreak of World War II.
The real question is why recycled Nazi propaganda has any sort of currency today and why it should have any credibility beyond your typical Internet lunatic fringe.
Posted by …and maybe on Mon, 22 Oct 2018 02:59 | #
Area Pole, Historian (2006-present)
Answered Apr 3 2017One should mention the German nationalist slogan of the 19th: “Drang nach Osten”. Germany since the 19th century appealed to settle Polish lands by German colonistsnp Such views were, for example: ostpreußischen Abgeordneten Carl Friedrich Wilhelm Jordan, Schriftsteller Gustav Freytag, Friedrich List, Friedrich Ratzel.
In 1926 appeared a book written by Hans Grimm – “Volk ohne Raum”. The usage of the slogan is most known for its usage by the Nazis. In Nazi propaganda the slogan was repeatedly used to at least justify or legitimize the German conquest of Poland and the Soviet Union and for the massive territorial expansion into Eastern Europe to ensure Germanic Aryan Herrenvolk (“Aryan master race”) rule over Poles and Russians who the Nazis considered “non Aryan” and subhuman. Slavs as non-Aryans were to be ethnically cleansed and exterminated, and their territories settled by Germans. From the very early days of the Nazi party, the notion that the Germans were people without living space and had a right to expand was widespread among German nationalists and right-wing organisations.
On February 24, 1920, Hitler proclaimed the party program and one of the 25 points of the National Socialist Program stated: “We demand land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our people, and colonization for our surplus population.“In order to justify their Drang nach Osten (“desire to push East”).
Adolf Hitler, dictator of Nazi Germany from 1933–1945, called for a Drang nach Osten to acquire territory for German colonists at the expense of central and eastern European nations (Lebensraum). The term by then had gained enough currency to appear in foreign newspapers without explanation. His eastern campaigns during World War II were initially successful with the conquests of Poland, the Baltic countries, Belarus, Ukraine and much of European Russia by the Wehrmacht; Generalplan Ost was designed to eliminate the native Slavic peoples from these lands and replace them with Germans. (source: HITLER’S PLANS FOR EASTERN EUROPE, Selections from Janusz Gumkowkski and Kazimierz Leszczynski POLAND UNDER NAZI OCCUPATION)
Nazi Germany employed the slogan in calling the Czechs a “Slav bulwark against the Drang nach Osten” in the 1938 Sudeten crisis. (source: Edmund Jan Osmańczyk, Anthony Mango, Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements, 2003, p. 579)
Secondly: “The German concept of Lebensraum” – Following Adolf Hitler’s rise to power Lebensraum became an ideological principle of Nazism, and provided justification for the German territorial expansion into East-Central Europe. The Nazi Generalplan Ost policy (the Master Plan for the East) was based on its tenets. It stipulated that most of the indigenous populations of Eastern Europe would have to be removed permanently (either through mass deportation to Siberia, death, or enslavement) including Polish, Ukrainian, Russian, and other Slavic nations considered racially inferior. The Third Reich aimed at repopulating these lands with Germanic colonists in the name of Lebensraum during World War II and thereafter. The entire populations were to be decimated by starvation, allowing for their own agricultural surplus to feed Germany. (source: André Mineau (2004). Operation Barbarossa: Ideology and Ethics Against Human Dignity. Rodopi. p. 180.,André Mineau (2004). Operation Barbarossa: Ideology and Ethics Against Human Dignity. Rodopi. p. 180. / Shelley Baranowski Nazi Empire: German Colonialism and Imperialism from Bismarck to Hitler. Cambridge University Press. 2011, p. 141. / Jeremy Noakes (March 30, 2011). “BBC – History – World Wars: Hitler and ‘Lebensraum’ in the East”).
Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf (1925; My Struggle), presented his conception of Lebensraum as the philosophic basis for the Greater Germanic Reich who were destined to colonize Eastern Europe — especially Ukraine in Soviet Russia — and so resolve the problems of overpopulation, and that the European states had to accede to his geopolitical demands.
The Nazi usages of the term Lebensraum were explicitly racist, to justify the mystical right of the “racially superior” Germanic peoples (Herrenvolk) to fulfil their cultural destiny at the expense of “racially inferior” peoples (Untermenschen), such as the Slavs of Poland, Russia, Ukraine, and the other non–Germanic peoples of “the East”. Based upon Johan Rudolf Kjellén’s geopolitical interpretation of Friedrich Ratzel’s human-geography term, the Nazi régime (1933–45) established Lebensraum as the racist rationale of the foreign policy by which they began the Second World War, on 1 September 1939, in effort to realise the Greater Germanic Reich at the expense of the societies of Eastern Europe. (source: Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th Ed., vol. 6, p. 901)
Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf “the Zweites Buch” from 1928: “The National Socialist Movement, on the contrary, will always let its foreign policy be determined by the necessity to secure the space necessary to the life of our Folk. It knows no Germanising or Teutonising, as in the case of the national bourgeoisie, but only the spread of its own Folk. It will never see in the subjugated, so called Germanised, Czechs or Poles a national, let alone Folkish, strengthening, but only the racial weakening of our Folk.” (source: p.26) & “The Folkish State, conversely, must under no conditions annex Poles with the intention of wanting to make Germans out of them some day. On the contrary, it must muster the determination either to seal off these alien racial elements, so that the blood of its own Folk will not be corrupted again, or it must, without further ado, remove them and hand over the vacated territory to its own National Comrades.” (source: p.29)
On 3 February 1933, at his initial meeting with the generals and admirals of the Third Reich, Adolf Hitler said that the conquest of Lebensraum in Eastern Europe, and its “ruthless Germanisation”, were the ultimate geopolitical objectives of Reich foreign policy. (source:Weinberg, Gerhard The Foreign Policy of Hitler’s Germany Diplomatic Revolution in Europe, Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1970 pp. 26–27).Such official racist perspectives for the establishment of German Lebensraum allowed the Nazis to unilaterally launch a war of aggression ( Blitzkrieg ) against the countries of Eastern Europe. Also until 1937 in German rearmament program well under way that he began to speak about the need for living space again. (Source: Richard Weikart, Hitler’s Ethic, p.167)
Posted by also on Mon, 22 Oct 2018 03:31 | #
Ibid
It is worth mentioning that Adolf Hitler had planned to attack the USSR since the 30s. In his secret plans, Hitler also considered Poland as a potential ally as indicated by German diplomatic documents of the times.
The war with Stalin was to Hitler’s realization of the idea of “Drang nach Osten” in order to gain the necessary German “living space” (Lebensraum).
Poland was perceived by Hitler as the “bastion of anti-Bolshevism”, and the best example of this was the war in 1920 by the Polish Army of the Bolshevik offensive on the Vistula.
Hitler stated in public statements that Poland was a key partner of the Third Reich in the Eastern policy – not only because of proximity to the USSR, but also because of ideological differences between the two states. The vision of a future, joint Polish-German conflict with the USSR Hitler opposed the plans of the German generals to attack Poland in the wake of the revisionist concept of fighting the “dictator of Versailles”.
On January 28, 1934, the “Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact” was signed in Berlin for 10 years.
Adolf Hitler in the Reichstag on January 30, 1934 said: “Germany and Poland will have to come to terms with their existence, so it is necessary to shape a state that will give the two nations the greatest possible benefit and which will last for a thousand years.”
In May 1934, a Fuhrer adviser on foreign policy matters Alfred Rosenberg postulated a joint attack by Poland, Germany and the United Kingdom on the Soviet Union, and its division into several spheres of influence. According to this idea Poland would get Ukraine and the British would have secured their oil interests in the area of southern Russia.
One of the greatest advocates of the anti-Soviet German and Polish military pact was Hermann Goering. He said during his visit to Białowieża in January 1935, the Alliance of both states was to be, in Goering’s view, a preventive step to “defend against Russian expansion” to the West.
For months Berlin reiterated the proposals of a military alliance with Warsaw. After the conclusion of the anti-Comintern pact by Italy and Japan on November 25, 1936 (Italy joined him a year later), Hitler hoped that Britain and Poland would also join him in the future.
Shadow on the relations between Germany and Poland, however, were cast by the issue of Gdańsk and the so-called The Pomeranian corridor, whose connections to the Reich demanded Hitler. In return for territorial concessions, he offered to Poland, among others. Prolonging the nonaggression pact for the next 25 years.
In 1939, Hitler joins Austria and Sudetenland to the III Reich and took all of Czechoslovakia and Klaipeda County in 1939 without consulting Poland.
March 26, 1939 Poland rejects German territorial demands.
March 31, 1939, Britain gave Poland guarantees of military aid in the event of a conflict with the III Reich.
April 3, 1939, Hitler ordered preparations for an attack on Poland (a plan codenamed “White Variant” – Fall Weiss).
April 28, 1939, Germany renounce a nonaggression pact with Poland, deciding on a future war.
August 23, 1939. In order to avoid a war on two fronts, Hitler was in contact with Stalin, but the treaty of the Fourth Partition of Poland (the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact) was only temporary, Hitler’s priority was still a future attack on the USSR.
(source: Rolf-Dieter Müller Enemy in the East: Hitler’s Secret Plans to Invade the Soviet Union, 2015)
So the above. Hitler invented the plan called: “Operation Himmler” it was a false flag project planned by Nazi Germany to create the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, which was subsequently used by Nazi propaganda to justify the invasion of Poland. This included staging false attacks on themselves using innocent people or concentration camp prisoners. Operation Himmler was arguably the first act of the Second World War in Europe. (source:Roger Manvell, Heinrich Fraenkel, Heinrich Himmler: The SS, Gestapo, His Life and Career, p.76).
For months prior to the 1939 invasion, German newspapers and politicians like Adolf Hitler had carried out a national and international propaganda campaign accusing Polish authorities of organizing or tolerating violent ethnic cleansing of ethnic Germans living in Poland.
The plan, named after its originator, Heinrich Himmler, was supervised by Reinhard Heydrich and managed by Heinrich Müller. The goal of this false flag project was to create the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, which could be used to justify the German invasion of Poland. Hitler also might have hoped to confuse Poland’s allies, the United Kingdom and France, into delaying or stopping their declaration of war on Germany. (source: Address by Adolf Hitler – September 1, 1939; retrieved from the archives of the Avalon Project at the Yale Law School. / Nazi Conspiracy And Aggression, Volume VI. Office of United States Chief of Counsel For Prosecution of Axis Criminality. United States Government Printing Office: Washington, 1946, p.188 / 20 Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Volume 4; Thursday, 20 December 1945. The Avalon Project. Retrieved 4 August 2007. / Gerald Reitlinger, The SS, Alibi of a Nation, 1922-1945, Da Capo Press, 1989, p.122 / Steven J. Zaloga, Poland 1939: The Birth of Blitzkrieg, Osprey Publishing, 2002, p.39)
Examples:
The German troops, dressed in Polish uniforms, would storm various border buildings, scare the locals with inaccurate shots, carry out acts of vandalism, and retreat, leaving behind dead bodies in Polish uniforms. (source: Martin Allen, Himmler’s Secret War: The Covert Peace Negotiations of Heinrich Himmler, 2005, p.51).
The bodies were in fact prisoners from concentration camps; they were dressed in Polish uniforms, killed (by a lethal injection, then shot for appearance) and left behind. They were described in plans as “Konserve”, i.e. ‘canned goods’ (which also led to the more informal name of the operation, Operation Konserve). (source: John S. Craig, Peculiar Liaisons in War, Espionage, and Terrorism of the Twentieth Century, 2005, p.180 / Christopher J. Ailsby, The Third Reich Day by Day, 2001, p.112)
The strategic railway at Jablunka Pass (Jabłonków Incident), located on the border between Poland and Czechoslovakia (source: Jorgensen, Christer, “Hitler’s Espionage Machine”, Spellmount Ltd., 2004)
The German radio station Sender Gleiwitz (Gliwice) (this was arguably the most notable of Operation Himmler operations, vide: “Gleiwitz incident”) (source: Christopher J. Ailsby, The Third Reich Day by Day, 2001)
The German customs station at Hochlinden (today part of Rybnik-Stodoły) (source: Christopher J. Ailsby, The Third Reich Day by Day, 2001)
The forest service station in Pitschen (Byczyna) (Martin Allen, Himmler’s Secret War: The Covert Peace Negotiations of Heinrich Himmler, 2005, p.51)
The communications station at Neubersteich (“Nieborowitzer Hammer” before 12 February 1936, now Kuznia Nieborowska)
The railroad station in Alt-Eiche (Smolniki), Rosenberg in Westpreußen district
A woman and her companion in Katowice
By mid-1939, thousands of Polish Volksdeutsche had been secretly prepared for sabotage and guerrilla warfare by the Breslau (Wrocław) office of the Abwehr; the purpose of their activities was to provoke anti-German reprisals that could be claimed as provocations by the Germans. Those German agents indeed cooperated with the German forces during the invasion of Poland, leading to some reprisals, which were highly exaggerated by the German Nazi propaganda. One of the most notable cases of such a scenario was reportedly carried out during Bydgoszcz Bloody Sunday. (source: Perry Biddiscombe, Alexander Perry, Werwolf!: The History of the National Socialist Guerrilla Movement, 1944-1946, 1998, p. 27 / Richard Blanke, The American Historical Review, Vol. 97, No. 2. Apr. 1992, pp. 580-582.)
From 1 September 1939 massacres of civilians began. The Germans did not spare anyone, killed old people, women and children. (vide: “Operation Tannenberg”) Captured soldiers were stripped of their uniforms and shot as partisans.
During World War II, six million Polish citizens died between 1939 and 1945; an estimated 4,900,000 to 5,700,000 (45% Polish Jews) were killed by German forces and 150,000 to one million by Soviet forces. Jews in Poland suffered the worst percentage loss of life compared to all other national and ethnic groups. The vast majority were civilians. On average, 2,800 Polish citizens died per day during its occupation.
Posted by Bullshit promoted by Linder at VNN on Sat, 08 Sep 2018 08:50 | #
The kind of shit that Linder is promoting at VNN:
VNN:
Poland Lost Millions of People, Billions of Dollars Under Nazi Occupation
Posted by Socrates in communism-as-Jewish, communist brutality, history, History for newbies, Hitler, Poland, Socrates, World War II at 4:54 pm | Permanent Link
Who cares? The Nazi occupation of Poland only lasted 6 years (1939-1945; and it was Poland’s own fault it was occupied, since it wouldn’t give back certain areas of land to Adolf Hitler, e.g., Danzig). Poland was later enslaved by Jewish communists for 44 years! [1]. Why don’t we talk about that, hmmmm? [Article].
[1] Jewish communists such as Jacob Berman, Hilary Minc, Anatol Fejgin, Jozef Swiatlo, Roman Zambrowski and others terrorized Poland after 1945
3 Responses to “Poland Lost Millions of People, Billions of Dollars Under Nazi Occupation”
Zerstorer Says:
5 September, 2018 at 6:46 pmWhat people have forgotten is Poland was carrying out ethnic cleansing in Danzig against the ethnic German population, which prompted Hitler’s invasion of Poland to rescue the German population from being butchered and murdered by the Poles. I have a book on the subject written in 1940, “Polish acts of atrocity against the German minority in Poland.”
Pierre Says:
6 September, 2018 at 8:13 amIn his book, The Myth of German Villainy, Benton Bradberry states that something like 50 000 Germans were killed by the Poles. This is what motivated the German attack of Poland which started WWII. This is after Hitler tried everything possible to negotiate a deal with the poles to have access to their city of Dantzig which was separated from Germany by the Versailles Treaty which ended WWI.
Tim Says:
7 September, 2018 at 9:49 amAnother anti-Hitler hit piece from the (AP) AshkeNAZI Press. What did you expect?
“It was Poland’s own fault it was occupied, since it wouldn’t give back certain areas of land to Adolf Hitler, e.g., Danzig”
It wasn’t Poland’s to give one way or the other. The Versailles Treaty made it a neutral city as it has been at times in history.
“Benton Bradberry states that something like 50 000 Germans were killed by the Poles”
Is that true?
Look at this as an honest person and try not to laugh that people would believe this, from the cited book, “The Myth of German Villainy” by Brenton Bradburry.
It is estimated that some 58,000 German nationals were killed during this period by marauding mobs, encouraged by the Polish government. The German government lodged dozens of formal complaint with the League of Nations, but with no results. Hitler became increasingly distressed about it and said to the British Ambassador Sir Neville Henderson on August 25, 1939: “Poland’s provocations have become intolerable.” Typical of these massacres was that which occurred in the German town of Bromberg, in the Polish Corridor. In this massacre, called “Bloody Sunday,” 5,500 ethnic Germans were slaughtered like pigs. Children were nailed to barns, women were raped and hacked to death with axes, men were beaten and hacked to death. 328 Germans were herded into Bromberg’s Protestant church, after which the church was set on fire. All 328 burned to death.
Operation Himmler. Ok that’s Wikipedia, but at least it puts you well within the ball park, whereas Bradburry buys Goebbels utterly fallacious propaganda.
* Regarding the Bromberg incident, it happened AFTER the Nazis had already invaded – it didn’t happen the way Nazi propaganda alleges; and for better or worse, there were reasons for the executions (e.g., their being suspected of sniping and Nazi partisan fifth column operations); but finally, the Nazis more than made up for it, executing ten times as many Polish civilians there in retaliation.






Posted by …and maybe on Mon, 22 Oct 2018 02:59 | #
Area Pole, Historian (2006-present)
Answered Apr 3 2017One should mention the German nationalist slogan of the 19th: “Drang nach Osten”. Germany since the 19th century appealed to settle Polish lands by German colonistsnp Such views were, for example: ostpreußischen Abgeordneten Carl Friedrich Wilhelm Jordan, Schriftsteller Gustav Freytag, Friedrich List, Friedrich Ratzel.
In 1926 appeared a book written by Hans Grimm – “Volk ohne Raum”. The usage of the slogan is most known for its usage by the Nazis. In Nazi propaganda the slogan was repeatedly used to at least justify or legitimize the German conquest of Poland and the Soviet Union and for the massive territorial expansion into Eastern Europe to ensure Germanic Aryan Herrenvolk (“Aryan master race”) rule over Poles and Russians who the Nazis considered “non Aryan” and subhuman. Slavs as non-Aryans were to be ethnically cleansed and exterminated, and their territories settled by Germans. From the very early days of the Nazi party, the notion that the Germans were people without living space and had a right to expand was widespread among German nationalists and right-wing organisations.
On February 24, 1920, Hitler proclaimed the party program and one of the 25 points of the National Socialist Program stated: “We demand land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our people, and colonization for our surplus population.“In order to justify their Drang nach Osten (“desire to push East”).
Adolf Hitler, dictator of Nazi Germany from 1933–1945, called for a Drang nach Osten to acquire territory for German colonists at the expense of central and eastern European nations (Lebensraum). The term by then had gained enough currency to appear in foreign newspapers without explanation. His eastern campaigns during World War II were initially successful with the conquests of Poland, the Baltic countries, Belarus, Ukraine and much of European Russia by the Wehrmacht; Generalplan Ost was designed to eliminate the native Slavic peoples from these lands and replace them with Germans. (source: HITLER’S PLANS FOR EASTERN EUROPE, Selections from Janusz Gumkowkski and Kazimierz Leszczynski POLAND UNDER NAZI OCCUPATION)
Nazi Germany employed the slogan in calling the Czechs a “Slav bulwark against the Drang nach Osten” in the 1938 Sudeten crisis. (source: Edmund Jan Osmańczyk, Anthony Mango, Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements, 2003, p. 579)
Secondly: “The German concept of Lebensraum” – Following Adolf Hitler’s rise to power Lebensraum became an ideological principle of Nazism, and provided justification for the German territorial expansion into East-Central Europe. The Nazi Generalplan Ost policy (the Master Plan for the East) was based on its tenets. It stipulated that most of the indigenous populations of Eastern Europe would have to be removed permanently (either through mass deportation to Siberia, death, or enslavement) including Polish, Ukrainian, Russian, and other Slavic nations considered racially inferior. The Third Reich aimed at repopulating these lands with Germanic colonists in the name of Lebensraum during World War II and thereafter. The entire populations were to be decimated by starvation, allowing for their own agricultural surplus to feed Germany. (source: André Mineau (2004). Operation Barbarossa: Ideology and Ethics Against Human Dignity. Rodopi. p. 180.,André Mineau (2004). Operation Barbarossa: Ideology and Ethics Against Human Dignity. Rodopi. p. 180. / Shelley Baranowski Nazi Empire: German Colonialism and Imperialism from Bismarck to Hitler. Cambridge University Press. 2011, p. 141. / Jeremy Noakes (March 30, 2011). “BBC – History – World Wars: Hitler and ‘Lebensraum’ in the East”).
Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf (1925; My Struggle), presented his conception of Lebensraum as the philosophic basis for the Greater Germanic Reich who were destined to colonize Eastern Europe — especially Ukraine in Soviet Russia — and so resolve the problems of overpopulation, and that the European states had to accede to his geopolitical demands.
The Nazi usages of the term Lebensraum were explicitly racist, to justify the mystical right of the “racially superior” Germanic peoples (Herrenvolk) to fulfil their cultural destiny at the expense of “racially inferior” peoples (Untermenschen), such as the Slavs of Poland, Russia, Ukraine, and the other non–Germanic peoples of “the East”. Based upon Johan Rudolf Kjellén’s geopolitical interpretation of Friedrich Ratzel’s human-geography term, the Nazi régime (1933–45) established Lebensraum as the racist rationale of the foreign policy by which they began the Second World War, on 1 September 1939, in effort to realise the Greater Germanic Reich at the expense of the societies of Eastern Europe. (source: Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th Ed., vol. 6, p. 901)
Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf “the Zweites Buch” from 1928: “The National Socialist Movement, on the contrary, will always let its foreign policy be determined by the necessity to secure the space necessary to the life of our Folk. It knows no Germanising or Teutonising, as in the case of the national bourgeoisie, but only the spread of its own Folk. It will never see in the subjugated, so called Germanised, Czechs or Poles a national, let alone Folkish, strengthening, but only the racial weakening of our Folk.” (source: p.26) & “The Folkish State, conversely, must under no conditions annex Poles with the intention of wanting to make Germans out of them some day. On the contrary, it must muster the determination either to seal off these alien racial elements, so that the blood of its own Folk will not be corrupted again, or it must, without further ado, remove them and hand over the vacated territory to its own National Comrades.” (source: p.29)
On 3 February 1933, at his initial meeting with the generals and admirals of the Third Reich, Adolf Hitler said that the conquest of Lebensraum in Eastern Europe, and its “ruthless Germanisation”, were the ultimate geopolitical objectives of Reich foreign policy. (source:Weinberg, Gerhard The Foreign Policy of Hitler’s Germany Diplomatic Revolution in Europe, Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1970 pp. 26–27).Such official racist perspectives for the establishment of German Lebensraum allowed the Nazis to unilaterally launch a war of aggression ( Blitzkrieg ) against the countries of Eastern Europe. Also until 1937 in German rearmament program well under way that he began to speak about the need for living space again. (Source: Richard Weikart, Hitler’s Ethic, p.167)
Posted by also on Mon, 22 Oct 2018 03:31 | #
Ibid
It is worth mentioning that Adolf Hitler had planned to attack the USSR since the 30s. In his secret plans, Hitler also considered Poland as a potential ally as indicated by German diplomatic documents of the times.
The war with Stalin was to Hitler’s realization of the idea of “Drang nach Osten” in order to gain the necessary German “living space” (Lebensraum).
Poland was perceived by Hitler as the “bastion of anti-Bolshevism”, and the best example of this was the war in 1920 by the Polish Army of the Bolshevik offensive on the Vistula.
Hitler stated in public statements that Poland was a key partner of the Third Reich in the Eastern policy – not only because of proximity to the USSR, but also because of ideological differences between the two states. The vision of a future, joint Polish-German conflict with the USSR Hitler opposed the plans of the German generals to attack Poland in the wake of the revisionist concept of fighting the “dictator of Versailles”.
On January 28, 1934, the “Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact” was signed in Berlin for 10 years.
Adolf Hitler in the Reichstag on January 30, 1934 said: “Germany and Poland will have to come to terms with their existence, so it is necessary to shape a state that will give the two nations the greatest possible benefit and which will last for a thousand years.”
In May 1934, a Fuhrer adviser on foreign policy matters Alfred Rosenberg postulated a joint attack by Poland, Germany and the United Kingdom on the Soviet Union, and its division into several spheres of influence. According to this idea Poland would get Ukraine and the British would have secured their oil interests in the area of southern Russia.
One of the greatest advocates of the anti-Soviet German and Polish military pact was Hermann Goering. He said during his visit to Białowieża in January 1935, the Alliance of both states was to be, in Goering’s view, a preventive step to “defend against Russian expansion” to the West.
For months Berlin reiterated the proposals of a military alliance with Warsaw. After the conclusion of the anti-Comintern pact by Italy and Japan on November 25, 1936 (Italy joined him a year later), Hitler hoped that Britain and Poland would also join him in the future.
Shadow on the relations between Germany and Poland, however, were cast by the issue of Gdańsk and the so-called The Pomeranian corridor, whose connections to the Reich demanded Hitler. In return for territorial concessions, he offered to Poland, among others. Prolonging the nonaggression pact for the next 25 years.
In 1939, Hitler joins Austria and Sudetenland to the III Reich and took all of Czechoslovakia and Klaipeda County in 1939 without consulting Poland.
March 26, 1939 Poland rejects German territorial demands.
March 31, 1939, Britain gave Poland guarantees of military aid in the event of a conflict with the III Reich.
April 3, 1939, Hitler ordered preparations for an attack on Poland (a plan codenamed “White Variant” – Fall Weiss).
April 28, 1939, Germany renounce a nonaggression pact with Poland, deciding on a future war.
August 23, 1939. In order to avoid a war on two fronts, Hitler was in contact with Stalin, but the treaty of the Fourth Partition of Poland (the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact) was only temporary, Hitler’s priority was still a future attack on the USSR.
(source: Rolf-Dieter Müller Enemy in the East: Hitler’s Secret Plans to Invade the Soviet Union, 2015)
So the above. Hitler invented the plan called: “Operation Himmler” it was a false flag project planned by Nazi Germany to create the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, which was subsequently used by Nazi propaganda to justify the invasion of Poland. This included staging false attacks on themselves using innocent people or concentration camp prisoners. Operation Himmler was arguably the first act of the Second World War in Europe. (source:Roger Manvell, Heinrich Fraenkel, Heinrich Himmler: The SS, Gestapo, His Life and Career, p.76).
For months prior to the 1939 invasion, German newspapers and politicians like Adolf Hitler had carried out a national and international propaganda campaign accusing Polish authorities of organizing or tolerating violent ethnic cleansing of ethnic Germans living in Poland.
The plan, named after its originator, Heinrich Himmler, was supervised by Reinhard Heydrich and managed by Heinrich Müller. The goal of this false flag project was to create the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, which could be used to justify the German invasion of Poland. Hitler also might have hoped to confuse Poland’s allies, the United Kingdom and France, into delaying or stopping their declaration of war on Germany. (source: Address by Adolf Hitler – September 1, 1939; retrieved from the archives of the Avalon Project at the Yale Law School. / Nazi Conspiracy And Aggression, Volume VI. Office of United States Chief of Counsel For Prosecution of Axis Criminality. United States Government Printing Office: Washington, 1946, p.188 / 20 Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Volume 4; Thursday, 20 December 1945. The Avalon Project. Retrieved 4 August 2007. / Gerald Reitlinger, The SS, Alibi of a Nation, 1922-1945, Da Capo Press, 1989, p.122 / Steven J. Zaloga, Poland 1939: The Birth of Blitzkrieg, Osprey Publishing, 2002, p.39)
Examples:
The German troops, dressed in Polish uniforms, would storm various border buildings, scare the locals with inaccurate shots, carry out acts of vandalism, and retreat, leaving behind dead bodies in Polish uniforms. (source: Martin Allen, Himmler’s Secret War: The Covert Peace Negotiations of Heinrich Himmler, 2005, p.51).
The bodies were in fact prisoners from concentration camps; they were dressed in Polish uniforms, killed (by a lethal injection, then shot for appearance) and left behind. They were described in plans as “Konserve”, i.e. ‘canned goods’ (which also led to the more informal name of the operation, Operation Konserve). (source: John S. Craig, Peculiar Liaisons in War, Espionage, and Terrorism of the Twentieth Century, 2005, p.180 / Christopher J. Ailsby, The Third Reich Day by Day, 2001, p.112)
The strategic railway at Jablunka Pass (Jabłonków Incident), located on the border between Poland and Czechoslovakia (source: Jorgensen, Christer, “Hitler’s Espionage Machine”, Spellmount Ltd., 2004)
The German radio station Sender Gleiwitz (Gliwice) (this was arguably the most notable of Operation Himmler operations, vide: “Gleiwitz incident”) (source: Christopher J. Ailsby, The Third Reich Day by Day, 2001)
The German customs station at Hochlinden (today part of Rybnik-Stodoły) (source: Christopher J. Ailsby, The Third Reich Day by Day, 2001)
The forest service station in Pitschen (Byczyna) (Martin Allen, Himmler’s Secret War: The Covert Peace Negotiations of Heinrich Himmler, 2005, p.51)
The communications station at Neubersteich (“Nieborowitzer Hammer” before 12 February 1936, now Kuznia Nieborowska)
The railroad station in Alt-Eiche (Smolniki), Rosenberg in Westpreußen district
A woman and her companion in Katowice
By mid-1939, thousands of Polish Volksdeutsche had been secretly prepared for sabotage and guerrilla warfare by the Breslau (Wrocław) office of the Abwehr; the purpose of their activities was to provoke anti-German reprisals that could be claimed as provocations by the Germans. Those German agents indeed cooperated with the German forces during the invasion of Poland, leading to some reprisals, which were highly exaggerated by the German Nazi propaganda. One of the most notable cases of such a scenario was reportedly carried out during Bydgoszcz Bloody Sunday. (source: Perry Biddiscombe, Alexander Perry, Werwolf!: The History of the National Socialist Guerrilla Movement, 1944-1946, 1998, p. 27 / Richard Blanke, The American Historical Review, Vol. 97, No. 2. Apr. 1992, pp. 580-582.)
From 1 September 1939 massacres of civilians began. The Germans did not spare anyone, killed old people, women and children. (vide: “Operation Tannenberg”) Captured soldiers were stripped of their uniforms and shot as partisans.
During World War II, six million Polish citizens died between 1939 and 1945; an estimated 4,900,000 to 5,700,000 (45% Polish Jews) were killed by German forces and 150,000 to one million by Soviet forces. Jews in Poland suffered the worst percentage loss of life compared to all other national and ethnic groups. The vast majority were civilians. On average, 2,800 Polish citizens died per day during its occupation.
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 29 Nov 2018 04:06 | #
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 28 Nov 2018 20:35 | #
“Operation Reinhardt”
If I recall correctly it was in vol. 2 of Richard Evans’ history trilogy on the Third Reich that I encountered the claim that hundreds of thousands of Jooooos were gassed to death in rickety wooden sheds in one of the “Reinhardt” camps. Hard to imagine getting much of a hermetic seal on an old wooden shed. But if the Joooze say it’s so, then we must believe – as DanielSperg apparently does.
I’m not very familiar with the book nor the claim, I may have heard some people talking about something like that (wooden “gas chambers” that wouldn’t work) but didn’t consider it interesting as I do not consider it relevant enough to our self defense. I find people who belabor dissimulation of Reinhardt to be creepy; and most normal people probably find people who go the route toward denial to be frightening. I do not consider the Holocaust, Operation Reinhardt or whatever it might be called, to be relevant enough to our self defense. Did you do it? Did the Germans or anyone else of today do it? Should we be punished for it?
Belaboring fallacious claims, e.g., wooden gas chambers, is not most helpful to unburdening of guilt.
From my point of view, it is unhelpful to belabor the issue, to deny that there was a program like that (Reinhardt) or to belabor dispute over aspects or particulars (to centralize some authors’ claim about wooden gas chambers). There is a place for that (particularly inasmuch as it calls-out holocaustianity) but it is topical not categorical of White National defense.
Even if the Nazis were more horrible than Nazi sympathizers claim that they were to Jewry, it could lend to a powerful clue and argument that there may have been instigating factors in Jewish patterns to provoke such malice and thus separatism is all the more necessary.
Nazism As Overstated Premise of White Nationalism and False Either/Or

Border changes after World War II
It is a particularly important preliminary note that there is virtually nobody here who had anything to do with events of World War II. That fact is most relevant. Under that rubric, let us begin:
Hitler and Nazism as an overstated premise in representation of White/European nationalism; and Hitler and Nazism or the international Jew as false either/or.
Method:
Working hypotheses will be advanced
as to why these logical fallacies are being adopted despite their apparent obviousness;
how they are mistaken;
and remedies will be proposed in cooperative nationalism.
Statements will be set out as hypotheses to allow for efficient positioning of historical viewpoints as they emerge practical in argumentative service of cooperative European nationalism. In addition to the practical efficiency of hypotheses for unburdening detail, the modesty of unfinished claims is meant to facilitate participation from the commentariat to elaborate, correct and amend the hypotheses – i.e., to make optimal use of Majority Rights discussion format.
* Note: in comment number 2, I erred in grammatical present tense when discussing Brelsau (Wroclaw). Which, according to the Treaty of Versailles and through World War II, remained German. There would have been no good argument to that point in time for its not being German.

Germany/Prussia 1871 – 1918 – imperialistically expanded into East Europe.
Introduction – Sought premise, significant obstacle, causes, proposed remedy.
The sought premise is a cooperative alliance of sovereign indigenous European nations/nationals, in Europe and worldwide
A significant obstacle is the overstated premise of Hitler and Nazism as being representative of White Nationalism and as a false either/or – either Hitler and Nazism or the international Jew.
It is disturbingly easy to find counter-points to the view that the Nazis were simply right, any misdeeds of theirs simply fabrication and that they were merely victims.

October 1939: Kazimiera Mika, a ten-year-old Polish girl, mourns the death of her older sister, who was killed in a field near Jana Ostroroga Street in Warsaw during a German air raid by Luftwaffe… Suddenly two German planes appeared from nowhere and dropped two bombs only two hundred yards away on a small home. Two women in the house were killed. The potato diggers dropped flat upon the ground, hoping to be unnoticed. After the bombers had gone, the women returned to their work. They had to have food. But the Nazi fliers were not satisfied with their work. In a few minutes they came back and swooped down to within two hundred feet of the ground, this time raking the field with machine-gun fire. Two of the seven women were killed.”



Polish civilians murdered by SS in Warsaw uprising 1944
Righteousness is not a sufficient explanation for a pro-Nazi position being adopted by WN’s. It is likely that people coming from some perspectives may want to see righteousness, or at least unanimity, in its worldview and operations. In that motive, we are coming closer to the causes of its adoption.
An overview of the hypothesized cause of the problem and remedy:
The logical fallacies of overstated premise and false either/or are adopted by those not seeing that European national perspectives which were conceived of by the Nazis as being against Germany were not necessarily against them then and are not now – and if persons in these positions could see that, they could take the balance and flexibility of the alternative perspective (the lack of which is expressed in their overcompensation and false either/or); by sharing in the analogy and gain in perspective, see the legitimacy and innocence at the core of their own nationalism; as well as sense in the cooperative function that this additional flexibility affords in mutual defense of native Europeans wherever necessary. That is the hope in writing this article, but there is risk.
In the very act of discussing historically problematic issues between White/European nationals there is a risk of reanimating and rekindling dilemmas that had led to conflicts originally, rather than achieving cooperative alliance through mutual understanding. Hence my reluctance. However, among White Nationalist discourse, over-representation of the Nazi point of view has been pushed beyond a point where it may be discreetly ignored to where it is an unfortunate necessity to brook potential conflict.
The enunciation here is that just as with all White Nationalisms, German Nationalism is more than valid, it is proper and necessary. However, by contrast, Nazism is not only an overstated premise as it might be proposed to represent an overlapping position of White Nationalisms, it is even an overstated premise as it would be proposed to represent German Nationalism – viz., Nazism is more like German Imperialism. Moreover, it is often proposed among White Nationalists as an either/or – either Nazism or the international Jew – and this is a significantly false either/or: it is counter-productive and unnecessary to cop to the charge of “neo-Nazi;” let alone to insist upon reverence, to follow its book of rules verbatim and adopt its regalia as emblematic of White/ European Nationalisms.
I will endeavor to set-out this platform and argumentation for those White/European Nationalists who might see deliberate association with Nazi identification as pejorative and unnecessary as they would, therefore, not mind dropping it in favor of a cooperative alliance between all White/European nationals. Nazism was a thing of the past, it had its historical circumstances, its strong points and reasons, but was an overcompensation not necessary to associate with and embrace now.
To me, that is fairly obvious and I am sure it is obvious to others as well. However then, why do many prominent White Nationalists over-sympathize, if not identify quite flamboyantly with Nazism? These are the central questions and problems that I will address and for which I will pursue remedy here.
I suppose that in a very real sense that both Jewish elites and faithful Nazis might actually like to believe in the necessity of an either/or and thus overstate their premises – I will endeavor the argument that that is not necessary, identify some of the key reasons why it may be thought to be necessary, while proposing remedy to this overstated premise and false either/or.

The Silesians in the Southwest, the Vistula in the Southeast, the Mazurians in the Northeast, the Pomeranians in the Northwest and the Polans in the West are five aggregate Slavic tribes that have come together as the Poles. The Polans established Poznan as their initial capital.
After the Prussians took Poznan in 1793, three generations of Germans lived there. It would have been understandably bewildering, dismaying for a generation born when there was nobody alive who could remember its not being a German city – to then have the city restored to Poland through a Polish military uprising which was then confirmed by The Treaty of Versailles. Nevertheless, hard decision though it was imposed by The Treaty of Versailles, it was a correct in historical justice and logistics.
Every bit as much the loss to the Germans according to the Treaty, if not more than Poznan, were two cities located just to its northeast – Bromberg (Bydgoszcz) and Thorn (the German Copernicus’s town now called Torun). A militarist looking for a crisp argument could take advantage of examples such as that to inflame his people and rally them to militaristic action.

Torun, German, Thorn) a tough loss for Germany.
But hard as these losses were to Germany, embarrassing perhaps even, to have Thorn sat in the lap of Poland (as L’viv might be for Ukrainians), a statesman would recognize them as logistically valid concessions as they extended far into Polish lands and would make access to the sea circuitous and precarious. Former German bastions such as these and Malbork had come with Prussian and then Teutonic violence and cruelty to such an extent that it was denounced even by the German, Copernicus.
Lets not mince words – following World War I, German historical pugnaciousness was not in doubt and what might serve as militaristic outposts far into Polish land or even the highway through it that Hitler so kindly requested, were rather something that sane negotiators would prefer to buffer.
Thus, while it would have been a very hard concession for a statesman and very easy inflammatory source for a militarist, these places were properly given to Poland from both logistical and historical consideration.
Perhaps I am making this sound easy, but that is the point – it was not. These were hard choices that sufficient cooperative nationalism would have made. Irrespective of the history pro or con, practical logistics would cede these cities to Poland.
Breslau (Wroclaw), on the other hand, was still German after The Versailles Treaty. As Germans had been there for 800 years after its brief foundation by Czechs and alternating habitation with Poles, there should not be dispute over its having remained German at that point. How far Germany still extended into Silesian territory was more debatable but not worth dispute if it would have kept the peace.
The matter of Danzig is a bit more subtle: Versailles left it as a neutral city. The Germans could and did inhabit the city – did in vast majority. The Poles did have a historical imprint on the city, including its heyday; thus, to award them access to the city was reasonable. Germanics lived there in ancient history and Poles lived there at different points in history; a mixed German/Polish breed known as Kashubians emerged but disputes continued with the Poles being ousted at times, violently when by the Teutonic Knights. Nevertheless, after World War I Germans could and did live there – having access by sea and air.
But where I might have drawn the Versailles borders differently is to put Polish sea access to the East side of Gdansk/Danzig, extending eastward to Elbing. Although Poland may have had historical ties to the west coast of Danzig – viz. Gydynia – and invested hugely there from 1920 until the war – logistics should have prevailed over history and put Polish access to the east side of Gdansk/Danzig. A highway might have proceeded along the coast to allow Germany road travel to East Prussia. Draw bridges beneath it would allow Poland access to the sea.
That is of course, IF Hitler was not who he was. Germany did have access to Danzig, was allowed to dock a ship there and proceeded by sneak attack to bomb Polish defenses at Gdansk/Danzig. That more than flies in the face of Nazi propaganda about this being a defensive war on their part. It is also quite a different opening to World War II than the (I now know) Nazi propaganda footage we were always shown as the commence of the war, with dashing Nazi panzers going up against hapless Polish cavalry.



The Poles had struggled 120 years to regain their nation only to have the Nazis move to take it away from them just 20 years later.
Those overly disposed to sympathize with the Nazi point of view might like to believe Goebbels propaganda, to believe in the false flag operations such as Gleiwitz, that the Germans were under attack. There were Nazi black ops going on in Poland prior to the war and at its onset of which the Poles were aware; in the shock and horror three days after the attack on Danzig/Gdansk, a retreating Polish army or Polish irregulars (or Polish and/or Jewish locals gone rogue) may have over-reacted by killing German civilians in Bromberg (Bydgoszcz) upon reports of sniping – or perhaps it was a bit more justified than what might be characterized as a mere panicked over-reaction, as German civilians there were noted as early as 1935 pledging allegiance to the Nazis; advanced Nazi agents may have been there as well. Whatever the case, Nazi propaganda and their present day sympathizers tend to use the event as evidence of the ex-nihlo evil of the Poles – not even granting the context of the start of World War II against them two days before! ..let alone subtle considerations: perhaps there was Nazi partisan activity, black ops and sniping going on there. Whatever the case, Goebbels capitalized on it to propagandize it as justification for further incursion against Poland. And of the particular killings of Germans in Bydgoszcz, Nazi propaganda and direct consequent action more than made-up for it, killing ten times the number of Polish civilians in response.






That is an analogy that I would tend to extend regarding whatever complaints Nazi Germany had with Poland. They more than made-up for it.
And extending this analogy, importantly, that the Jews have more than made-up for whatever grievances they have had.
6,000,000 would be a very small fraction of the number of European/White people killed-off as a result of Jewish policy, power and influence.
Coming back to the concrete context of the war: Poland knew that Hitler did not only want Gdansk/Danzig. Anybody who does not want to simply believe in Nazi propaganda recognizes that. And that is why talk of negotiation in minutiae over the Versailles borders is an exercise merely in what should have been, for the sake of proper understanding now.
They saw – all in violation of The Treaty of Versailles – German: re-armament, re-militarization of the Rhineland, taking over Austria, taking all of Czechoslovakia after appeasement was attempted by ceding the Sudetenland. But really, one had to look no farther than Mein Kampf to see that Hitler had designs to take over East Europe.
That he would take Zamosc, a city never, at any point in history, German, and rename it “Himmlerstadt”, to be the Eastern capital of the Third Reich, provides a clue that being satisfied to stop at Danzig and leave Poland alone after that was not exactly a priority of their agenda.

I don’t know what the hell so called White Nationalists are thinking when they would propose to have us all rally behind Hitler and Nazism. But it is not reasonable to expect people from countries who had their people lined up and shot, their women strafed by the Luftwaffe, their cities bombed to hell by the Nazis to rally behind and with you. Diversity in WN is good, but Nazism is necessarily divisive. If you want people to share in sympathy over the bombing of Germany and its deaths, then you ought to share in sympathy for the bombing and deaths of the rest of Europe. You should not expect WN’s to rally behind the swastika any more than expect them to rally behind another symbol of particular European nationalism transformed into violent aggression against neighboring White peoples.
In that regard, given Nazi Germany’s overcompensation, it is not wrong that Poland was granted Wroclaw (Breslau) again after an 800 year absence. The Germans had moved in originally only after the Poles there were wiped out by a Mongol invasion. But of relevant importance now, by transferring it and surrounding Silesia back to Poland, the fight over L’viv and (now) western Ukraine was ended as the Poles who were there, along with those who had lived in Grodno and Vilnius, were moved to Wroclaw; and to the surrounding Silesia region; as well as to the region of Pomerania in the Northwest, also restored to Poland.
Gdansk is four lovely streets with some ornate buildings, the widest street comprising the market square; anyone who wants to have a war over this city is need of a mental health check-up. Let it be a part of Poland now and forget about it. Why not rather look toward Montana, etc. for living space?
Wise statesman would seek cooperation of European nationalists to secure their native populations, to work to remove citizenship from Jews and other non-native Europeans. The best way to do this is to declare the nations anew and void non-Europeans from consideration of citizenship. Our nations would be reformed in the virtual sphere first and then efforts made to retake them on their actual grounds. To fight about whether Pomerania should be a part of Poland now? No. We cooperate against non-Europeans and use that cooperative European nationalism to seek additional, sacrosanct European nationalist living spaces on other continents as well.
Thus, if we are looking with 20/20 hindsight into an unnecessary war, it was for lack of the statesmanship that could have conceived and implemented things in that manner.
It is unfortunate to have to address this matter now, as I might have hoped it was more clear that identification with the swastika was negative, divisive and unnecessary. I have been forced to consider why it is not more obvious for others and I hypothesize that it has largely to do with the following factors: too complete a genetic overlap with the Nazis or too little genetic overlap with those in the path and wrath of the Nazi juggernaut; resulting overcompensation; arbitrary historical punctuation in order to throw-off overbearing guilt trips and to confidently address the catastrophe that has befallen the west as a result of Jewish imposed liberalism. That is, it is all too easy for some, there is a very strong logical force from some perspectives to adopt the position that the Nazis were simply right.
If, as I hypothesize, that unanimity with the Nazi position stems from overlap/underlap of guilt trips and results in an overwhelming need to overcompensate for that, particularly in the wake of Jewish imposed liberalisms’ vast destruction, which then sets about conveniently serving arbitrary historical punctuation – and if it is agreed that this unanimity is unnecessary if not destructive, including self destructive for its tactlessness – what may remedy look like?
Remedy would borrow perspective from the relative innocence of other European countries and White Nationals wherever they might be. This would provide analogy that allows for the tracing of innocence in not only German but all White Nationalisms. What I mean by innocence in this context is not purity and certainly not innocence of anti-Semitism – just the opposite. In fact, that neighboring European countries sought to maintain their borders, populations and were deeply troubled by Jewish power and influence as well.
The Wodanist admiration for war bravery would be a quaint culturalism were it not for its potential for wreaking and having wreaked havoc on what could have been statesmanship. A Wodanist might look upon these things as a joke.
Nevertheless, if we are to indulge in 20/20 hindsight, we might theorize potential agreement of mutual sovereignty for European Nationalisms, which does not recognize Jews as European but nationals of some non-European place. In mutual recognition of the European nations’ mutual aims there might be a cooperative effort to effect the control and population of European Nations to their native own.
In pursuit of balance, we will take the most relevant examples of historical European Nationalism from both sides, and from different sides, so that correction to the overstatement and false either or might be shown – providing perspective on innocence in normal parameters of European nationalism; while additional perspective (not necessarily at odds, nor either/or) may also provide flexibility for cooperation.
………..
In the very act of discussing historically problematic issues between White/European nationals there is a risk of reanimating and rekindling dilemmas that had led to conflicts originally, rather than achieving cooperative alliance through mutual understanding. Hence my reluctance. Specifically, there is a risk of reciprocally escalating diatribe, as one group, say the Nazis, feels strongly obligated to put forth justifications for what are taken to be their misdeeds and then the opposing group must put forth justifications for what are taken to be its misdeeds; and back and forth ad infinitatum until it goes beyond negotiation and into war.
It is another noteworthy matter that Polish service in World War I was largely contracted with the agreement that they might regain their national sovereignty upon conclusion of the war
Polish vs Nazi anti-Semitism: Poles sought nationalist separatism; Nazis sought nationless race war.
27:10: It is Poland’s explicit policy after 1935 to rid itself of 90% of its Jewish population. Given that there were more than three million Jews in Poland that’s a very large number. ..but from their point of view, the way to get rid of the Jews was to support right wing Jewish terrorists who are going to make a lot of trouble in Palestine so there could be a Jewish state.
…from the Nazi point of view, anti-Semitism is part of [their concept of] racial anarchy. The Nazi point of view is that Jews are the ones who are in the way of a racial struggle, which is non-political.
The Polish point of view is different. The Polish point of view is attached to the state. They don’t understand that the Nazis are about racial anarchy. …the[y think rather that the] way to handle whatever problem they’re defining, even what they see as the struggle against Jews, is by way of states. So, you either negotiate with the British or behind their back you find a way to create a state in Palestine and then you can get the Jews sent off there.
…to emphasize the point that there are different kinds of anti-Semitism, it’s not just a matter of turning up the dial or turning down a dial ..or who is more anti-Semitic the Poles or the Germans.. there are issues of quality here which matter, especially when the quality has to do with the state. ..but where we’ve gotten to in history is the moment where Germany starts to destroy states. Where this theory of state destruction actually becomes practice.
30:40: Poland is where Hitler finally gets his war. It’s not the war that he wanted; it’s not a war that he had planned; it’s not a war that he expected. But when he made war against Poland it was the first war that he prosecuted while actively destroying the state.
When he talks to his high officers in July/ August 1939, before the war… early September 1939, what he tells them is that this war is not like other wars. It’s not about territory. It’s not about victory. It’s not about seizing a certain amount of land. It’s about destroying Poland as a state and as a nation.
In other words, it’s not just about destroying the Polish army; but about coming into the country, declaring that the civil code no longer functions; the Polish state does not exist; (this is where it gets interesting) the Polish state has never existed.
So, the claim that they make when they enter Poland is basically the same kind of claim that European imperialists made beyond Europe; that the territory we’re entering is uninhabited, at least in the sense of being uninhabited by political beings.
So, Poland is treated colonially in the sense that the Polish state is not acknowledged as an institution; actively not acknowledged. And the people who are thought to represent it, whether they are military officers, whether they are civilian politicians, whether they are Roman Catholic priests, are physically eliminated – killed: in the tens of thousands. That’s not an accident. That’s part of the idea of destroying the Polish state.


Jan Opletal
Heritage of Czechia
@CzechiaHeritage
17 November 1939 – After the funeral of student Jan Opletal killed during manifestation, Czech people’s demonstrated against German occupation of #Czechia. Hitler suppressed it by military force. Czech universities were closed, the heads of students were executed

In World War II, in Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia, the Lidice massacre was a complete destruction of the village of Lidice, in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, now in the Czech Republic, in June 1942 on orders from Adolf Hitler and Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler.
In reprisal for the assassination of Reich Protector Reinhard Heydrich in the late spring of 1942, all 173 males over 15 years of age from the village were executed on 10 June 1942. Another 11 men who were not in the village were arrested and executed soon afterwards, along with several others already under arrest. The 184 women and 88 children were deported to concentration camps; a few children considered racially suitable for Germanisation were handed over to SS families and the rest were sent to the Chełmno extermination camp where they were gassed to death.
The Associated Press, quoting German radio received in New York, said: “All male grownups of the town were shot, while the women were placed in a concentration camp, and the children were entrusted to appropriate educational institutions.” About 340 people from Lidice died because of the German reprisal (192 men, 60 women and 88 children) and after the war ended, only 153 women and 17 children returned.


European peoples, especially of these subsequent generations, might rather share in the relative innocence of Polish ethnonationalism, for an example, legitimately insistent, as it were, after its persecution, ostensible elimination for a hundred years and then resurrection to the map as a sovereign nation.
In this sharing of perspective, our European brothers can take the ownmost innocence of their nationhood to coordinate among a brotherhood of European nations and peoples.
And they should partake in the perspective that the non guilt over ethnonationalism has to share, which I try to share.
I have a problem, however, in trying to get this message across. Even though I am only half Polish, my mother was Polish American, father Italian American, and I live in Poland, the truth is, having been born and grown up there, I am culturally and of my worldview a White American. Despite the fact that I could not be a Polish chauvinist if I tried, blaming Poland and anti-Polinism (and anti-any nation that opposed the Nazis) is so integral to the pro-Hitler, pro Nazi platform and perspective, that it makes it impossible for some people to share in this perspective of ethnonational legitimacy and relative innocence.
The Hossbach Memorandum PROVES Hitler Wanted to Wage a War of Aggression
Dr MacDonald on Jews and Immigration & The History of Political Correctness
DR. KEVIN MACDONALD ON JEWS & IMMIGRATION

While Emmanuel Celler set about to push for his Jewish agenda of immigration reform, with the 1965 Immigration & Naturalization Act, shabbos goy Ted Kennedy was put out front to placate the White masses on what, supposedly, the Act would Not do:


The Kennedys Saw Immigration Reform as Part of Civil Rights Movement
Immigration reform was also a personal project of John F. Kennedy, Chin notes, whose pamphlet written as a senator was published after his assassination as the book A Nation of Immigrants, and argued for the elimination of the National Origins Quota System in place since 1921.
The 1965 Aimed to Eliminate Race Discrimination in Immigration
When the U.S. Congress passed—and President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law—the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, the move was largely seen as symbolic.
“The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants,” lead supporter Sen. Edward “Ted” Kennedy (D-Mass.) told the Senate during debate. “It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”
That sentiment was echoed by Johnson, who, upon signing the act on October 3, 1965, said the bill would not be revolutionary: “It does not affect the lives of millions … It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives or add importantly to either our wealth or our power.”
But the act—also known as the Hart-Celler Act after its sponsors, Sen. Philip Hart (D-Mich.) and Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-N.Y.)—put an end to long-standing national-origin quotas that favored those from northern and western Europe and led to a significant immigration demographic shift in America. Since the act was passed, according to the Pew Research Center, immigrants living in America have more than quadrupled, now accounting for nearly 14 percent of the population.
The 1965 Aimed to Eliminate Race Discrimination in Immigration
In 1960, Pew notes, 84 percent of U.S. immigrants were born in Europe or Canada; 6 percent were from Mexico, 3.8 percent were from South and East Asia, 3.5 percent were from Latin America and 2.7 percent were from other parts of the world. In 2017, European and Canadian immigrants totaled 13.2 percent, while Mexicans totaled 25.3 percent, other Latin Americans totaled 25.1 percent, Asians totaled 27.4 percent and other populations totaled 9 percent.
The 1965 act has to be understood as a result of the civil rights movement, and the general effort to eliminate race discrimination from U.S. law, says Gabriel “Jack” Chin, immigration law professor at University of California, Davis and co-editor of The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act: Legislating a New America.
READ MORE: U.S. Immigration Timeline
Kennedys Saw Immigration Reform as Part of Civil Rights Movement
Immigration reform was also a personal project of John F. Kennedy, Chin notes, whose pamphlet written as a senator was published after his assassination as the book A Nation of Immigrants, and argued for the elimination of the National Origins Quota System in place since 1921.
Ted Kennedy, along with Attorney General and Sen. Robert Kennedy (D-N.Y.), were both proponents of the bill, in part to honor their brother and also because it was consistent with their general interest in civil rights and international cold war politics, Chin adds.
“I think every sensible person in 1965 knew that the sources of immigration would change,” Chin says. “The more fundamental change, and the more fundamental policy, was the articulation by many legislators that it simply did not matter from where an immigrant came; each person would be evaluated as an individual. That kind of argument was novel, but consistent with the anti-racism of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
The act, Edward Kennedy argued during the Senate floor debate, went to the “very central ideals of our country.”
“Our streets may not be paved with gold, but they are paved with the promise that men and women who live here—even strangers and new newcomers—can rise as fast, as far as their skills will allow, no matter what their color is, no matter what the place of their birth,” he said.
Changes Introduced by the Immigration Act of 1965
Among the key changes brought by the Hart-Celler Act:
Quotas based on nation of origin were abolished. For the first time since the National Origins Quota system went into effect in 1921, national origin was no longer a barrier to immigration. “With the end of preferences for northern and western Europeans, immigrants were selected based on individual merit rather than race or national origin,” Chin says. “Accordingly, there were many more immigrants from Asia, Africa and other parts of the world which had traditionally been discriminated against.” The act also established new immigration policies that looked at reuniting families and giving priority to skilled laborers and professionals.

Immigration World Poverty and Gumballs 2010 – Immigration Doesn’t Work
Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts
…
The History of Political Correctness: The Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxism.
As Jewish activism, anti-White Nationalism, had begun to intersect with Jewish interests more and more through the 1990s and early 2000’s, concerned Jews such as David Horowitz sought to control the reaction and re-direct it, to some specific Jews perhaps, but to a Generalized “Left”, which began as Marist internationalist (i.e., anti-nationalist workers of the world uniting) but was transformed to “Cultural Marxist” (anti-Whites of the world unite in Political Correctness) by The Frankfurt School when economic Marxism failed to compel the White American working class.

Horowitz’ diagnosis, that “The Left” is the problem is key misdirection of controlled opposition to intersection against Jewish interests. While it was conceived at time when reason to oppose the (((neo-con))) war mongering on behalf of Israel was not quite as clear to the public, this concern does not conflict with his interest to conceive of “The Left” as the enemy; and he nevertheless spills the beans on the Frankfurt School. This remains an accurate description of their transformation of Marxism from an internationalist /anti-nationalist movement on behalf of “workers of the world” (implicitly uniting in rhythmic coalition with Jewish E.G.I., to mitigate would-be powerful nations, particularly White, which might oppose Jewish interests), a world wide working class coalition, under the strain of which the nation states would wither away, and give way for their communist utopia (implicitly perhaps unconsciously, heading to governance by Jewish rule) … to transformation to a coalition of non-White groups in anti-White activism, a “cultural” (anti-White, racial) Marxism, seen as necessary by Jewry since the White working class, not interested in communist participation, was in the way of Jewish interests.

Fellow Jew of similar concern for the intersectionality of Marxism and the backlash against Jews for Cultural Marxism, Paul Gottfried, has also been determined to control the reaction by making “The Left” into “the enemy, spearheading a mass marketing campaign as such, directing White reaction into maintaining White identity with the right, viz, an Alternative Right (Paleoconservatism 2.0), not wanting Whites to get any White Left Ethnonationalist ideas…
In this controlled opposition, Gottfried has recently been concerned to try to muddy the waters by saying that the history of Cultural Marxism put forth by Lind and Horowitz is not accurate. Don’t believe Gottfried. This telling of the history of Political Correctness, i.e., Cultural Marxism, as having arisen through the Frankfurt School is accurate.
The History of Political Correctness (Complete)


Angela Davis was Marcuse’s most famous student.


Marcuse was a major exponents of “free love”, “polymorphous perversion” even – this was an extreme affectation on the Hippie movement’s essential motive, as males from every corner of the earth vying for his co-evolutionary females is anything but conducive to White male Being.

The so-called “68ers” of Europe, who followed Marcuse’s Cultural Marxism, were more easily diverted by its affectations as opposed to the basic Motive of Dasein, as their Being was not up against Death the way American Hippies were, on account of the draft for the Vietnam War.

White Ethnocentrism: Can Americans Really Be Brainwashed?
One of the great intellectual divides is the venerable nature/nurture dichotomy.
Conservatives tend to be on the side of nature:
Race exists as a biological reality; there are race differences in socially important traits like IQ; people’s brains are wired to prefer people like themselves; they are more likely to contribute to public goods like health care and education if the beneficiaries are of the same ethnic group; people trust others more if they live in homogeneous societies.
The left takes the opposite tack:
Race doesn’t exist; the idea that it does exist is a fantasy of moral reprobates. To the extent that differences in traits like IQ are interesting at all, they are the result of capitalism, discrimination, or general evil. If it weren’t for white people behaving badly, we could easily build a strong, racially diverse multicultural society where all people can live happily ever after.
I am not going to try to convince you of the merits of either side of this debate. Over the years, VDARE.COM has certainly published some of the premier writers on the nature side.
But if you pick up the New York Times, you’ll get a very different version of these issues. It’s a version which, sad to say, has a lot more influence.
So what makes culture so powerful and how does it work at the psychological level?
Psychologists have shown that there are two different types of processing systems—the implicit and the explicit.
Implicit processing is the way the ancient parts of our brain operate—automatically and unconsciously.
Say you are talking to a salesman about a used car. Without any conscious effort on your part, your brain is processing an enormous amount of information. Some parts of your brain are processing the colors and shapes of the furniture, while others are responsible for recognizing the face of the salesman and picking up on his emotional expressions. Your brain is also assessing how similar this salesman is to yourself, and, without any conscious awareness on your part, it is making you trust him more if he is more like yourself. Furthermore, if he is from a different race or ethnic group, it is flagging that fact and it is coloring your interactions with stereotypes—whether negative or positive—that your unconscious mind associates with that race or ethnic group.
These implicit mechanisms – psychologists call them “modules” – are like zombies or robots. They go about their business without any conscious effort, and quite a few of them are beyond our control.
A good example is the face recognition module. If I am looking at someone I know, I can’t help but recognize him. I can’t simply turn off the module. The module takes in the information from the environment and simply does its thing in a preprogrammed way.
Importantly, the implicit brain includes mechanisms related to ethnocentrism. There are several different evolved mechanisms that make us prefer people like ourselves and be wary of people in outgroups.
Phil Rushton’s Genetic Similarity Theory [PDF] is a good example. Birds of a feather do indeed flock together. People tend to make friends and marry people who are like themselves on a wide range of traits, from IQ and personality, to ethnic group and even wrist size.
Research in Genetic Similarity Theory finds a biological basis to this flocking tendency. Each system of genes wants to reporoduce itself, and has the best chance of doing so if it chooses to mate with a system of genes which has some overlap.
But some aspects of ethnocentrism may be learned as well. The human mind is prone to rapidly learning negative stereotypes about outgroups. And even if these stereotypes are learned, they act just like the biological ones—they are triggered automatically via implicit processing.
The point is that in either case people tend to have negative stereotypes of other races and they prefer people from their own race. But, of course, that’s not the end of the story—only the beginning.
The other part of the brain is the more recently evolved part—the part responsible for explicit processing. Explicit processing involves language and thought.
The implicit brain processes information in a zombie-like reflexive way, but explicit processing is effortful and controlled. It’s the kind of processing that we use when we are solving a problem in math class, where we have to make a plan to solve the problem.
And it’s the part of the brain that takes in cultural information. When a person reads the New York Times, there a lot of explicit messages—immigration is good; people who oppose immigration are uneducated racist Neanderthals; there are no genetic differences between the races, yada, yada.
It’s easy to see that there can be conflicts between implicit processing of our ancient brain and the explicit messages one gets from the New York Times. The implicit part of the brain makes you more comfortable socializing with people like yourself. In fact, the implicit part of the brain leads white people to seek out implicit white communities — communities like NASCAR, country music, and certain kinds of rock music (like AC/DC) where the faces are pretty much all white.
White flight is one of the most salient phenomena of the late 20th century. And where are these white people fleeing to? To the suburbs where there are lots of other white people and where their children go to schools with other white children.
As sociologist Kevin Kruse notes in his book White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism, race is never part of the explicit rhetoric of white flight. Instead, white flight tends to be expressed as opposition to the federal government, the welfare state, taxation, and perceived moral dangers like abortion and homosexuality. But at the implicit level, the desire for white communities and the aversion to contributing to public goods for nonwhites are the overriding motivations.
Each of these identities allows white people to associate with other whites without any explicit acknowledgement that race plays a role.
Indeed, the granddaddy of implicit white communities is the Republican Party. In the recent election, the Republicans received at least 90% of their votes from white people. The delegates to the Republican convention in August were 93% white, 5% Latino, and 2% black. If these were all rich white oligarchs at the Republican convention, as Jon Stewart’s Daily Show would have it, that would be one thing.
But most Republicans are not rich white oligarchs. The fact is that the Republican base is really about the Sarah Palin phenomenon—white Christians—many with small town roots in the South and West—who yearn for the America they are rapidly losing: a white America.
But all of that is down deep in their brains, at the implicit level. In the upper reaches of their prefrontal cortex, they would never dream of saying explicitly that they are a party of white Americans. That would be “racist.”
The same goes for their spokesmen—although calling these people spokesmen for the Republican base is being a bit generous. “Conservative” commentators like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly studiously avoid saying anything that could be construed as “racist”. Nor do they dare to oppose the massive legal immigration that will make the Republican base a permanent electoral minority even if we stopped illegal immigration immediately. That’s because the explicit processing system is in charge, at least at the conscious level.
Here’s how it works. Implicit attitudes on race are assessed by tests like the Implicit Association Test. (You can take the test here.) Subjects are presented with photos of blacks and whites in succession and asked to pair positive or negative words (e.g., “intelligent,” “law-abiding,” “poor,” “success”) with the photos.
Eighty percent of whites take longer to associate positive words with blacks than with whites. This is interpreted as indicating that whites have implicit negative stereotypes of blacks.
The interesting thing is that there is a gap between whites’ explicitly positive attitudes about blacks and their implicitly negative attitudes. Even white liberals show implicit negative attitudes toward blacks, although their implicit attitudes are less negative than those of conservatives.
In fact, white liberals are more hypocritical about race than conservatives: There is a larger gap between implicit attitudes and explicit attitudes toward blacks among white liberals than among white conservatives.
What’s happening is that the conscious, explicit brain is thinking positive thoughts about blacks because it reads the New York Times. And it is suppressing the negative thoughts that are deep below the surface in the implicit part of the brain.
In one study, subjects were shown photos of blacks and whites while hooked up to an fMRI machine that takes pictures of the brain in action. When the photos were shown for very brief periods—too short to be explicitly processed, the fMRI showed that whites had a negative response to the photos of blacks. This procedure therefore measures implicit negative attitudes toward blacks.
However, the photos of blacks were presented for a much longer period, so that they were processed by the explicit part of the brain. The difference in negative reaction to black and white faces decreased.
This happened because the prefrontal cortex and explicit processing were activated. In other words, people who are consciously aware that they are seeing photos of blacks are able to suppress the negative automatic responses produced by their ancient brain. The explicit part of the brain suppresses the implicit part.
So implicitly processed feelings and perceptions are suppressed out of conscious awareness. But that doesn’t mean they have no influence. Besides affecting responses on the Implicit Association Test, the implicit brain is seeking out white communities like the Republican Party, and it has negative gut feelings about massive non-white immigration.
This disconnect between the implicit and the explicit brain produces some interesting phenomena. Young children tend to have unabashedly explicit bias in favor of their own race. Explicit race bias emerges early, as young as age three or four, peaks in middle childhood, and then undergoes a gradual decline through adolescence, and disappears in adulthood. Quite a bit of this decline is doubtless due to active campaigns to instill the official racial ideology of the Left in schools. Multicultural propaganda permeates education, from kindergarten through college, pushed by groups of cultural Marxists such as the National Association for Multicultural Education: “NAME celebrates cultural and ethnic diversity as a national strength that enriches a society and rejects the view that diversity threatens the fabric of a society.”
However, there is no such decline in implicit racial preferences, which remain strong into adulthood. Indeed, there is also a decline in cross-racial friends and companions as children get older. White schoolchildren are much more likely to have white friends than chance expectation would account for, and this trend increases as they get older.
This means that at the same time that explicit racial preference in white children is declining, children are becoming less and less likely to actually interact with and form friendships with children from other races. In effect, schools undergo a process of self-segregation. And among adults, whites are significantly less likely than other racial groups to report interracial friendships and contacts.
The bottom line, then, is that as children get older they become increasingly aware of the official explicit racial ideology, and they conform to it. The explicit processing centers are becoming stronger, so that they are better able to suppress positive attitudes about their own race in order to conform to the demands of their teachers. At the explicit level, they are free from any negative attitudes toward nonwhite groups and may even be politically liberal or radical.
At the same time, however, they are “voting with their feet” by choosing friends and companions of the same race.
And their parents are doing the same thing. I have noted that liberals show a greater gap between explicit attitudes and implicit attitudes and behavior than do conservatives. Indeed, while highly educated white parents tend to have liberal explicit attitudes on racial issues, a recent study shows that these same highly educated whites seek out schools that are racially segregated and are more likely to live in racially segregated neighborhoods. In other words, there is a positive correlation between the average education of white parents and the likelihood that parents will remove their children from public schools as the percentage of black students increases.
Michael Emerson, an author of the study, is quite aware of the gap between explicit attitudes and behavior. He writes:
“I do believe that white people are being sincere when they claim that racial inequality is not a good thing and that they’d like to see it eliminated. However…their liberal attitudes about race aren’t reflected in their behavior.”
The explicit parts of their brains have been programmed to say and believe the right things. But the implicit parts of their brain are controlling their behavior.
This might be cause for hope for those of us whose explicit brain is more in tune with their implicit brain.
But the fact is that if explicit messages on race are repeated often enough, they start to become automatic and implicit. People can be brainwashed. This is the great hope of the cultural Marxists—that constant repetition and propaganda actually could produce what the Frankfurt School — the fons et origo of cultural Marxism in the West — called a “genuine liberal”: someone who in his heart of hearts really has the gut instincts of a cultural Marxist; a white person who prefers non-whites on an Implicit Association Test.
They have a ways to go on that. But the election of Barack Obama will probably aid the cultural Marxist onslaught on the educational system. I can’t see any principles of human psychology that would prevent them from getting there eventually. (Of course the collapse of the Soviet Union indicates that religion and national identity are harder to eradicate than Stalin thought they were, and he tried very hard.) It would probably take a 1984-like police state to do it. But quite obviously that is not seen as a drawback by its proponents.
My conclusion: The New York Times is important because it and media like it control the explicit messages on vital issues like race and immigration. The culture of critique has become the explicit culture of the West, endlessly repeated in media messages but packaged differently for people of different levels of intelligence and education.
The message here is that by programming the higher areas of the brain, this explicit culture is able to control the implicit ethnocentric tendencies of white people.
The explicit culture may not be able to prevent white people from moving to white neighborhoods, and it may not prevent them from going to a NASCAR race. But it does make them supine in the face of a massive invasion of other peoples and cultures. It prevents the Republican Party from saying explicitly that they are a party of European-Americans intent on ending immigration and retaining their political majority and their cultural dominance. And it makes them cringe in horror when someone calls them a “racist”.
In attempting to find a way out of this morass, therefore, changing the explicit culture is critical. That’s why media like VDARE.COM and my own The Occidental Observer are so important. To paraphrase Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign slogan, it’s the explicit culture, stupid.
Changing the explicit culture won’t be easy. I suggest that the first step is a psychological one: Proud and confident explicit assertions of ethnic identity and interests among white people, and the creation of communities where such explicit assertions are considered normal and natural rather than a reason for ostracism.
The fact that such assertions appeal to our implicit psychology is certainly an asset. It’s always easier to go with a natural tendency than to oppose it.
And in this case, our natural preference for people like ourselves is intellectually defensible: That is, it can withstand the probing rationality of the explicit processing system.
It’s the ideology of New York Times and the cultural Marxists that can’t withstand intellectual scrutiny.
[Vdare.com note: This article is partly based on MacDonald, K. (2008). Effortful Control, Explicit Processing and the Regulation of Human Evolved Predispositions. Psychological Review, 115(4), 1012–1031. (pdf on request)]
Kevin MacDonald [email him] is Professor of Psychology at California State University-Long Beach. For his website, click here.
Kevin MacDonald talks about how Jewish networking, not I.Q., explains their hegemony in academia, media and business:
Although this show features MacDonald’s take on the war, the most valuable part is MacDonald’s preliminary discussion of how Jewish networking took predominant power and influence in American academia, media and business.
His take on the Ukraine / Russian war is poor – way too favorable of Russia.
He is among those who tries to maintain that Viktor Yanukovych was elected by neutral between the west and Russia and freely elected by democratic procedure. No mention that his opponent had been literally poisoned by Russia in his prior electoral run. MacDonald goes on to say that he hopes Putin’s Russia wins the war. Of all people, he should be parsing the Jewish influence in Ukraine from genuine Ukrainian ethnonationalism.
Vast, unmerited Ivy League over-representation of YKW.

While I cite David Duke is for his theoretical ineptitude – and properly so, since often as not he’s not just misdirecting WN, he’s pointing us in the wrong direction theoretically – if you take into account right wing perfidy (naïve or disingenuous complicity) and with that, like many right wingers, that his fact finding is based on and headed toward a naïve/disingenuous universal, objectivist model of ‘dems da real racists’, and put the more radical requirement for pursuit of a separatist agenda of our relative interests and its qualitative perspectives aside for a moment, it is also the case that he, with the assistance of Patrick Slattery, can provide useful facts and figures – revealing some outrageous injustices being perpetrated by the YKW.

One of their best efforts was to take the (((Ron Unz))) article that looked at discrimination against Asians at Harvard and put it to the ‘translation (discrimination) machine’ – i.e., parsing Jewish crypsis, to distinguish it from Whites (the Unz article and the Asian law-suit is not making this distinction) and getting the net result of vast over-representation of Jews at Harvard and vast under representation of Whites at Harvard – Harvard being a key gate to power and influence in American life.

Vast over-representation of Jews/under-representation of Whites in the Ivy League - not merit based (not even close).

“White Privilege” or “Jewish Privilege” : The Ultimate Racism in America
White Privilege or Jewish Privilege?
The Jewish dominated media is constantly ranting about so-called “white privilege” in America, yet in the most important universities of America, the very institutions which form the very foundation of the American elite, non-Jewish European Americans are by far the most underrepresented group of all.
68% of the population of America is European American — Harvard allowed 20% White students.

In fact, Jews are vastly over-represented by proportion of population and vastly over-represented over far better qualified non-Jewish students! Their over-representation Harvard and in the Ivy League is not only incredibly disproportionate against European American students, but also wildly disproportionate against every other racial group in America.
Above: Here is a chart showing the appalling lack of true diversity at Harvard and the Ivy League. Jews are dramatically over-represented in comparison with every ethnic/racial group in America. In comparison with European Americans, Jews are almost 47 times more represented than their population would merit. That’s four thousand seven hundred percent over-represented in comparison with the actual population of Jews and European Americans!
Even though European Americans founded Harvard, America’s most important university, and are almost 70 percent of the American population, the university is now under powerful Jewish influence, to the point that only about 20 percent of the students at America’s premier university are European Americans.(1)
Harvard and the Ivy League practice a blatant racist discrimination against better-qualified students and only allows Whites to make up 20 percent of the Harvard student body–as compared to allotting 25 percent of it to Jews, who are only 1.8 percent of the American population.
Jews are 1.8% of college age Americans and given 25% of Harvard’s admissions

It should be noted that Jews are the most privileged by far of any other identifiable group in the United States by income and influence. Jewish students are also dramatically over-represented in comparison with Asians, Hispanics and African Americans as well as in comparison with European-descended students. So this Jewish privilege and preference is also over every non-Jewish group in America.
In fact as Ron Unz points out in the “Myth of American Meritocracy,” (2) Jewish racism is accelerating at Harvard. He documents that between 2000 and 2011, only the Jewish group increased in percentages at Harvard, while every other group fell. The Jewish increase of 35 percent was above an already outrageous Jewish over-representation.
So, in fact, Jews are the real kings of racist privilege in America, and this is especially true in the most important elite universities of America which are the primary source of the ruling elite of the American establishment.
European Americans who founded these great universities and who are 68 percent of the population, are the most discriminated against, of all groups, and dramatically so!

Some European American high level students harbor resentment against African American students for affirmative action discriminatory programs. Conservative politics in America is under the domination of Jewish “neoconservatives” and they carefully channel European American against African Americans and other races. However, the fact is that discrimination against European American students, especially in the highest levels of academia, is far more likely to be on behalf of Jews than African-Americans.
Further, the concept and implementation of affirmative action programs of racial discrimination weren’t initiated by African Americans, but by Jewish Supremacists.
And many more programs of discrimination against European Americans have not been created and imposed by African-Americans, but by the Jewish Supremacists who enjoy the ultimate racist privilege in America.
Racist Discrimination Against Better Qualified Non-Jewish Students
Discrimination at Harvard is not simply demographic. Jews at Harvard–and across the Ivy League–are over-represented by the factor of 13 times higher numbers than their merit would justify!
Jewish over-representation has come about because of racial discrimination against better qualified European Americans and for less-qualified Jewish students.
The research of a Jewish authority, Ron Unz, demolishes the Jewish “master race” fantasy and his data proves that Jews are not only vastly over-represented by population in the elite universities like Harvard, but they are also vastly over-represented than they deserve by merit.
Jews, who are less qualified in comparison with European Americans, are over-represented by a factor more than 13 times than their merit, and almost 6 times over-represented than their ability would deserve against Asians. (3)

This is easily proven by comparing groups of the top performing students of the United States with the National Merit Scholarships. One can simply compare the percentage of Jews who score in the highest levels in the National Merit Scholarships compared to Gentile groups such as Asian, African, Hispanic and European-American performance on what is the best predictive gauge of student qualification and ability before college.
When one compares the Jewish and Gentile National Merit Scholarship qualifiers with the admissions to the top universities, one can easily judge the relationship between academic performance and actual university admission at Harvard and other schools. Of course, there is one ultimate way to most accurately compare the relative ability of a group to perform well at Harvard or any elite educational institution: to simply examine how the groups compare in achievement after four years at the institution.
Demolishing The Myth of Jewish Intellectual Superiority
When one points out that Jews are vastly over-represented compared to other groups in the elite universities, in Media, in banking and among top government administrators, the Jewish media constantly presents images of Jews as intellectually superior in comparison with other people.
The Jewish dominated media constantly produces images of brilliant, Einstein-like Jews and produce constant images that Jews have a superior work ethic than non-Jews.
If one dares to point out the vast Jewish domination of academia or of any part of society, the “counter-argument” is that “Jews are just smarter than anyone else.”
The suggestion is that Jews are dominant at Harvard and the Ivy League, or for that matter in Hollywood or banking — is because they are the most capable and that they earned it through their merit.
If this argument were valid, it would have to prove they were indeed markedly smarter, work harder, and just as importantly, that higher performing Jews would outnumber their Gentile competitors on a per-capita basis and in actual numbers.
Of course, that idea is ludicrous when you look at the tiny percentage of Jews in America. Even if the performance levels of Asians and European Americans were less on average than Jews, the reality is that there are many more non-Jews than Jews. The only rational explanation for this difference would be that other factors are responsible for the Jewish dominance in academia. In fact, the best gauge of a groups’ ability to perform well in an elite university is not how they perform on a preparatory test or even in past academic performance, but to simply look at the performance of those respective groups at the completion of their studies.
There is a simple and elegant way to determine the best performing students. It is called Phi Beta Kappa, the premier honors society of academic excellence in America.
Phi Beta Kappa recipients at Harvard make up about the top ten percent of students. It is based on an extremely high grade point average of 3.75 (out of 4) and a rigorous Arts and Sciences curriculum, the inclusion of advanced math classes and foreign language proficiency.
As pointed out previously, European American students are markedly outnumbered by Jewish students at Harvard. European-Americans are just 20 percent of the Harvard students as compared to Jews, who are 25 percent.
The numerical disadvantage to European Americans is like a basketball team limited to 4 players which must compete against a Jewish team with 5 players.

Yet, what percentage of total Phi Beta Kappa recipients at Harvard are European Americans, and what percentage are Jews?
Jews — 11 percent
European Americans — 54 percent
Asian Americans — 35 percentJews greatly outnumber European Americans at Harvard, but are only 11 percent of Phi Beta Kappa achievers. (4)
The numerically fewer European Americans occupy 54 percent of the Phi Beta Kappa positions.
On a per capita basis, European Americans are more than 5 times (500 percent) as likely to achieve Phi Beta Kappa status and the highest academic achievements at Harvard as are Jewish students.
Harvard is the elite university of America. Even though its administration is dominated by Jewish administrators and faculty, and although Jewish students outnumber European Americans — Jews achieve the elite Phi Beta Kappa status at a small fraction of White students.
Considering that the Harvard administration permits European Americans to be only 20 percent of the Harvard student body, it indicates that huge numbers of European Americans of the highest abilities are facing racist discrimination at Harvard, in the Ivy League, and other Jewish-dominated elite universities.
So who is Behind the Jewish Supremacism at Harvard
The clear racial discrimination shown here against European Americans, Asians and others on behalf of Jewish students, begs the question of how and why.

The conclusion is inescapable.
There is a clear Jewish domination of the faculty and staff of Harvard University and the rest of the Ivy League.
Using their positions of power they have systematically and deliberately discriminated against non-Jews in both admissions and faculty hires, and once they achieved their supremacy over these institutions they have protected and maintained their power. Jewish supremacist racism surrounding the appointment and tenure of the Harvard Law School, by far the most important Law School in the United States, illustrates the dynamics of Jewish Supremacism.
Elana Kagan, now a Supreme Court justice, was appointed to Dean of Harvard Law School by the Jewish President at the time, Lawrence Summers. Kagan went on to give over 50 percent of her faculty appointments at the most important, the pinnacle law school in America, to her fellow Jewish tribalists.(5)
Under Dean Kagan, Jews, who are only 2% of the adult population of America, received over 50% of faculty appointments. Simple math shows Kagan’s massive discrimination against non-Jews resulted in a 2,400 percent over-representation in her appointments compared to the Jewish percentage of population.

Her Harvard law position and Jewish tribal alliances and influence in politics enabled her to become what must be one of the most under-qualified appointments to the Supreme Court in its history. She joined two other Jews on the Supreme Court to make up part of a vast Jewish over-representation on that critical body.
Is there any sound reason that her decisions on the Supreme Court will not reflect her Jewish allegiances as reflected in her tenure at Harvard?
The clear facts of Jewish racism and discrimination at the highest echelons of academia at Harvard and in the Ivy League would suggest that the dominance of Hollywood, banking, and political organizations could all be similarly influenced by this Jewish racism of Jewish preference and privilege and accompanied by racial discrimination against those “not chosen.”
What is the mechanism of the Jewish takeover of academia? Mass Discrimination Against Gentiles in the Name of Diversity!
There are two critical components of the Jewish takeover of academia in America. The primary mechanism the aforementioned Jewish tribalism in which Jews often support fellow Jews in the same way Kagan gave 50 percent of her appointments to fellow Jews.
The second is the structure of college admissions in America in which “Diversity” is now the key word in college admissions. At Harvard the impact of “diversity” can be seen in the fact that some Harvard applicants who have perfect high school records in excellent schools and perfect SAT entrance examinations are not admitted in favor of students with far worse academic records and far lower test scores.
Universities are now evaluating the “personality” and “intangible” qualities of individual students. Of course, universities are supposed to selecting the students who are best at academic and intellectual performance the same way that athletes are selected for athletic performance.
In the name of diversity then, academic credentials, abilities, and performance can take a back seat to the intangibles. In the interviews and the selection process then personal prejudices and bias of the administrators can play a huge role in selection because there is no longer any objectivity based on testing and prior performance. Now a critical factor is the subjectivity of the administrators doing the admissions process.
This is why Jews have an incredible 13 times, or 1,300% over-representation than their actual academic merit would allow.
In the name of “diversity” academic performance is put in the back seat, and Jewish administrators are free to select fellow Jews for admissions, graduate programs and academic appointments such as in the Kagan case.
Of course, diversity is the idea that institutions should reflect the diversity of the underlying population and demographics of the region or nation and that there should be fair and equitable representation.
What kind of “diversity” gives one group massive over-representation and all other groups massive under-representation, with the largest population segment of the United States the smallest proportion of representation.
The greatest irony is that in the name of diversity, America’s elite is selected by a group that is only 2% of the population and gives its own group a massive over-representation in the universities that are the source of the American elite.
This is the real privilege in America. It is not “White Privilege” when 96 percent of the “White” population are discriminated against in favor of a select 4 percent. When the 70 percent White population who has more than 70 percent of the most outstanding students in America are accorded only 20 percent of Harvard and Ivy League admissions.
Postscript: NY Times Boasts of the “Jewish Takeover of America”
The most prominent NY Times Columnist, David Brooks, wrote a column called “The Chosen, Getting In.” The article talks about a book by a Jewish Professor James Karabel who a book called The Chosen, which discusses the Jewish takeover of the Ivy League.
In the first paragraph of the article, Brooks talks about his giving a lecture on the substance of Karabel’s book. He points out that after his speech an obviously Jewish woman came up to him and said, “What you are talking about it the Jewish takeover of America.” Here is an excerpt from my new book, The Illustrated Protocols of Zion due out later this year:

One thing about many Jews, in their chutzpah they just can’t help but boast. I am glad he does, for he is telling the truth.
The Jews, just 2 percent of the American population, have taken over American academia and the American elite. They have taken over not because this 2 percent has a majority of the intelligence in America.
They are respectably intelligent, but their weapon of conquest is not their cleverness, but their their ultra-racism and their racial discrimination. Those are the devices their elite has used to depose the European American elite that created America, the American academia, and who today oppress not just European Americans but all Americans who don’t want to ruled over by a alien, racist oligarchy.
If ethnic oppression and exploitation is immoral, then should we not rise up, all of us, and free ourselves from this racist, Jewish supremacism?
Ending this racist suppression is not only important for European Americans but for all Americans of every race and ethnicity.
David Duke, Source: davidduke.com
Additional Sources:(1) Harvard enrollment for the class entering 2010: Asian 16% Black non-Hispanic 7% Hispanic 8% International 10% Mixed 3% Unknown 12% Jewish 24% White non-Hispanic Non-Jewish 19% Sources: Harvard Provost Office: “Degree Student Enrollment, 2010,” Hillel: “The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life” ).
(2) Unz, Ron: “The Myth of American Meritocracy: How corrupt are Ivy League admissions?” The American Conservative, November 28, 2012.
(3) Unz, Ron: “The Myth of American Meritocracy: Quantitative Sources and Methods,” The American Conservative website, Appendix G, November 21, 2012).
(4) Ibid.
(5) Slattery, Patrick: “Elena Kagan’s ‘diversity problem’ and Jewish privilege” The Occidental Observer, September 2, 2012).
Related:
TOO, “Ron Unz on Jewish Strategizing to Maintain 1000% Overrepresentation in the Ivy League”, 26 Nov 2018:
– by Kevin MacDonaldRon Unz has an important article on Jewish overrepresentation in the Ivy League. Essentially the subterfuge was likely counting only religious Jews as Jews which resulted in a sudden very large drop in Hillel’s claims about Jewish enrollment in the Ivy League. As Unz notes, this is beautifully reminiscent of Jewish strategizing to avoid the charge of Jewish overrepresentation among Bolsheviks during the horrors of the first decades of the Soviet Union: The ADL and other Jewish organizations simply claimed that Bolshevik Jews, being godless Communists, were not really Jews at all. This is why Chapter 3 of The Culture of Critique is concerned with showing that Jewish Bolsheviks and other Jews on the left in the diaspora in the West not only identified as Jews but also saw communism as “good for the Jews,” as the saying goes. And of course, it was good for the Jews: Yuri Slezkine provides a great deal of corroboration that indeed Jews became an elite—a hostile elite—in the Soviet Union during the most murderous decades of the regime.
Harvard University
Verified account@HarvardThe 9 honorary degree recipients—Marilyn Strathern, Angela Merkel, Lonnie G. Bunch III, Ingrid Daubechies, William Chester Jordan, Wu Hung, Drew Gilpin Faust, David Jay Remnick, Emmanuel Saez—with Provost Alan Garber and President Larry Bacow before #Harvard19 commencement

Related:

Meanwhile, Cornell had the smallest percentage — 10.4 percent — of first-generation students in its newly-admitted class.
Cornell boasts the highest percentage of students who self-identify as students of color in its admitted class — 54 percent.
Princeton, Penn, and Harvard followed closely behind Cornell, with 53.4, 53, and 52.4 percent, respectively, of accepted applicants who self-identify as students of color.

The percentages of admitted international students vary slightly between universities. Nine percent of Cornell’s Class of 2022 is international students, whereas 12 percent of Harvard’s and Princeton’s admitted classes are international students.
Still, Penn accepted the highest percentage of international students of all Ivy League universities; 17 percent of Penn’s Class of 2022 is international students.
Source:
Admission rates across the Ivy League: a breakdown.
By Yoni Gutenmacher 03/29/18
On Ethnic Genetic Interests
Ethnic Genetic Interests

by JWH
Introduction
“Mainstream” discussions about immigration, race, and the implications of a multiracial society
usually consider only secondary questions such as economics, crime, culture, etc. They ignore the ultimate interest of a people: genetic continuity. No rational person would support policies that would, on the one hand, “enrich” their family while, on the other hand, simultaneously replace their family with strangers. And yet we seem to completely ignore the large scale effects of
public policies on our greater “extended family”– the racial and ethnic groups to which we
belong. Concerned individuals have awaited a comprehensive and honest study of these issues.
The wait is over. Dr. Frank Salter has published just such an analysis in the journal Population
and Environment (Vol. 24, No. 2, November 2002, pages 111-140), entitled: “Estimating Ethnic
Genetic Interests: Is it Adaptive to Resist Replacement Migration?” He has then followed this
crucially important article with an even more detailed study in the book, “On Genetic Interests,”
reprint: Transaction Publishers, 2007. The following summary is based upon Dr. Salter’s work.
Basic Considerations
Essentially, life as we know it is ultimately about the propagation of distinctive genetic information from one generation to the next. Living organisms can be seen as the vehicles by
which this propagation occurs. Family members share many of the same distinctive genetic
information, so a person’s fitness is increased by the survival and reproductive success of his or
her family. This is true also for population groups, or “ethnies,” a term which can refer to races,
ethnic groups, and/or various subgroupings of these. Like families, members of an ethny have
more distinctive genetic information in common with each other than they do with people of
other populations. Although the genetic relationship of ethny members is more diluted than that
of family members, ethnies are larger reservoirs of genetic interests for their members because of their size, which can number in the many millions Therefore, it can be as adaptive, or more so, tosupport one’s ethnic or racial group as it would be to support one’s own family.
A defined territory is crucial for the survival of an ethny. In the long run, territory is crucial for
survival, and human history is largely a record of groups expanding and contracting, conquering
or being conquered, migrating or being displaced by migrants. The loss of territory, whether by
military defeat or displacement by migrants, brings ethnic diminishment or destruction – precisely
what is happening in the “multicultural” West today. An important part of Dr. Salter’s work is a
quantitative analysis of this negative genetic impact.
Carrying Capacity
Dr. Salter’s analysis is based on two concepts: carrying capacity and genetic kinship. Carrying
capacity is the maximum population that can live in a given territory. Although technology and
increased economic efficiency can increase carrying capacity, there is a practical limit above
which further population growth is not possible. Many ecologists believe we are approaching, or
have surpassed, the practical carrying capacity of the Earth. Even if these ecologists are wrong
about the Earth as a whole, it is clear that carrying capacity has already been exceeded in those
areas where over-population has badly damaged the environment or depleted natural resources.
Immigration undermines the interests of natives even if their territory has not reached its carrying
capacity. For example, the carrying capacity of the United States is probably significantly greater
than its current population. However, one day its carrying capacity will be reached, and if at that
point part of the country is filled with the descendants of today’s immigrants, natives will have no
room into which they can expand. In other words, even if the carrying capacity of the United
States is as high as 600 million or more, if that population figure is ever reached, some portion
will be the descendants of alien immigrants. The presence of millions of non-whites will make the
parts of the United States they occupy unavailable to whites. We may reach carrying capacity
later rather than sooner, but since the earth is a “closed system,” it will happen eventually. The
same principles apply to any other nation, including the nations of Europe, many of which are
more densely populated than is the United States.
Kinship and Child Equivalents
It is important to note that Dr. Salter treats the arrival of immigrants, not as a simple addition to
the population, but as a one-for-one displacement of natives. This is methodologically correct,
because when a nation reaches its carrying capacity, it is the presence of immigrants and their
descendents that makes it impossible for natives to increase their numbers. What may not appear to be one-for-one displacement today will, in retrospect, be seen to be precisely that. The other concept central to Dr. Salter’s paper is genetic kinship. Even though all humans share much
genetic information, kinship is a measure of the genetic similarities and differences above and beyond this general genetic sharing.
Dr. Salter expresses the loss of genetic interest in units he calls “child-equivalents.” In other words, Dr. Salter is asking: For any given member of the native population, what is the number of
lost children that would equal the loss of his or her genetic interests caused by the arrival of a
certain number of alien peoples? Note that we are not talking about actual children, but genetic
equivalents put into the form of the parent-child relationship. Put differently, the arrival of
immigrants from other ethnies will change the genetic character of a population, and make it
more alien to every member of the native ethny. The amount of genetic change, from the point of
view of any given member of the native group, can be calculated as the equivalent of the number
of children not born to that person. This is putting a number on the replacement of members of one group by members of another.
Some examples will make this clearer. The data that Dr. Salter used for these calculations derives
from genetic assays. Please note that these specific studies are somewhat dated, although the
most basic findings have been replicated in more recent research. It is very important to note that
these data almost certainly underestimate the extent of genetic interests and underestimate the
genetic damage done by immigration and multiracialism. That is because not only are the
original studies somewhat dated and not as detailed as later work, but the findings do not include differences inherent in higher order genetic structure, which also contribute to genetic interests. Dr. Salter begins by considering the English as the native population, and examines the effects of
the immigration of 10,000 Danes, an ethny that is genetically very close to the English. Replacing
10,000 Englishmen with 10,000 Danes changes the genetic characteristics of the population so much that the resulting “post -displacement” population differs from the undisturbed population
by the equivalent of an Englishman (or woman) “not having had” 167 children! Again, we are not
talking about actual children, but of the genetic equivalent.
Effects of Immigration and a Multiracial Society
Let us consider other examples. What if the immigrants were Bantus – a population very genetically distant from the English – rather than Danes? Here the genetic cost to any given
Englishman of the arrival of 10,000 Bantus is the equivalent of 10,854 lost children! Clearly, the
extent of the genetic transformation of a population depends on the genetic distance between the native and immigrant populations.
What if the levels of immigration were greater, and more in keeping with the massive
displacement of Western peoples we observe today? If 12.5 million Englishmen were replaced by
an equal number of Danes, the genetic loss to each individual Englishman would be the
equivalent of 209,000 children not born; if the immigrants were from India, the loss would be 2.6
million children; if the immigrants were Bantus, 13 million. These figures are not “guesses;” they
are objective, mathematical results based on genetic data. As stated above, these figures likely
underestimate the real genetic damage. It is also important to stress that this loss is not somehow reduced by being spread over the entire native population. The loss in terms of genetic
equivalents reflects the change in population from the point of view of every member of the
native populace. Dr. Salter writes: “For a native woman it is equivalent to the loss of her children
and grandchildren, for a native man it is equivalent to the loss of his children and grandchildren,
though on a much larger scale” (emphasis in original paper).
To further illustrate these points Salter then determines the number of immigrants of group y
necessary to reduce the genetic interests of a random member of native group x by one child
equivalent. For Europeans, an average of only 1.1 African or 1.7 Northeast Asian immigrants is
sufficient for the loss of one child equivalent. In other words, using conservative genetic data that likely underestimate these effects, the presence of about one African, or about two Northeast Asians, damages the genetic interests of a typical white (i.e., of European ancestry) person to a degree equivalent to that of losing a child. This is a powerful and personal argument against
racially alien immigration and against a multiracial society.
While plunging birthrates may be damaging for European-derived peoples, their replacement by
genetically alien immigrants is much worse. A falling birthrate reduces the population but does
not transform it, and a future increase in birthrates can always make up for the loss. Once immigrants have established themselves in a territory their genes are a permanent addition. From the standpoint of genetic interests, the idea that “immigration makes up for low native birthrates” is pathological. The assertion that immigrants must be imported for “economic” reasons, or for some other short-sighted rationale, is therefore exposed as incredibly destructive to the interests of the natives. Any consideration of the costs vs. benefits of immigration – or of a multiracial society in general – must absolutely consider the costs incurred at the most basic, most personal, and most fundamental human level. After all, humans are living, breathing organisms – “economic growth” or other issues are important only insofar as they influence real, living humans and human interests. A people do not “benefit” from “X” if “X” results in that people’s displacement and their replacement by others to an extent equivalent to mass murder.
Genetically, mass alien immigration is genocide. Similarly, a multicultural, multiracial society
that manages the demographic eclipse of its majority population is also practicing genocide.
These are facts which cannot be responsibly evaded.
Biopolitics
This is not meant to inspire dislike or anger towards immigrants – or towards any other people.
On the contrary, such emotions are self-defeating and counter-productive. After all, these peoples
are only taking advantage of the opportunities given to them for a better life and to expand their numbers in other peoples’ lands. No, the ultimate causes of Western decline are that the governments and “leaders” of the West are openly and actively betraying the interests of their
own peoples, and that the peoples of the West themselves, all too comfortable and unconcerned with their own demise, are seemingly uninterested in defending their interests. Or is it that
Westerners are grossly uninformed about where their real interests lie?
Thus, this essay has three basic purposes. First, to introduce the fundamentally important concept of genetic interests – which are ultimate interests – to Western peoples. Second, to explain, succinctly but precisely, what is at stake: the demographic decline of an entire people, with a consequent devastating personal loss for each and every member of that people. Third, to encourage Western peoples, so informed, to engage in legal, peaceful, non-violent, and rational sociopolitical activism to pursue their genetic interests. Which means: to ensure their own
survival.
What is required is the practice of biopolitics – the fusion of biological, human concerns with political action and public policy initiatives. Westerners need to stop focusing exclusively on
secondary issues such as economics and economic growth, “cultural assimilation,” employment
opportunities, funding for pensions, and a myriad of other concerns which – while certainly
important and certainly worthy of interest and consideration – pale in significance compared to
the ultimate problem of demographic displacement.
Survival comes first. All else comes second. Genetic interests come first. Other interests come
second. Biopolitics will reorder priorities in the recognition that the well being of the Peoples of
the West first requires that these peoples continue to exist. Biopolitics will ensure that they do.
———————————————————————————————————————————————–
This essay is adapted from an analysis of Dr. Salter’s work that was published in the February 2003 issue of the journal American Renaissance (http://www.amren.com).

Frank Kemp Salter is an Australian academic and researcher. Most of his career was at the Max Planck Research Centre for Human Ethology, in Andechs, Germany. He is best known for writings on ethnicity and ethnic interests. He studies political phenomena using conventional methods and the theories of behavioral biology. He has written about hierarchy (Emotions in Command, 1995), indoctrination (Ethnic Conflict and Indoctrination, 1998, edited with I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt), ethnic altruism and conflict (Welfare, Ethnicity and Altruism, 2002, Risky Transactions: Trust, Kinship and Ethnicity, 2004), and genetic interests (On Genetic Interests, 2003). In a review, Jared Taylor called On Genetic Interests “a vitally important contribution to our understanding of the significance of race and ethnicity in human affairs.”
Our Team? Our Team’s Verdict? We can’t let them divide us on racial lines?

O.J. Simpson’s Giddy Parole Board Hearing

Connie Bisbee is Chairman of the Nevada Board of Parole. She addressed killer O.J. Simpson with giddy smiles at his parole hearing. In this moment (22:48 of the clip) she fawns over Simpson after accidentally citing his age as “90” – she gushed gleefully toward the murderer, Simpson, “that he looks great for 90.” Is it any surprise that killer O.J. got parole with the likes of her presiding?
Simpson should not have been able to touch Nicole Brown in the first place.
The story of Simpson beating Nicole because she was disturbing him with complaints about Simpson having sex with another woman in another room in the house is a particularly graphic example of black hyper-assertiveness. And a problem with White women in that regard – the allure of sheer confidence to them, which, overweening in blacks, apparently can become like a drug to some women; causing them to ignore if not forgive all manner of destruction in order to have that fix.

Black women’s hatred of White women, especially when they take their black men:
WN ought to take advantage of the reality and make it known to mudsharks that they will be on their own when confronted by this hatred from black women. No White knighting, good riddance to you when YOU face the consequences of black hyper-assertiveness. We do not generally seek to join you in reciprocal race betrayal, depriving black men of their natural partners.

People who know about Stacy Abrams understand that she hates Whites – won’t even bother trying to pick up White liberal votes anymore; said that was what caused her to narrowly lose the Georgia election. Next time she won’t make that mistake and she’ll win (because blacks don’t vote like Whites, they vote strictly for their own kind irrespective of issues, if the choice is between a black and White candidate).
Only White women are deluded enough to believe that their universal “sisterhood”, including with black women, is a stronger bond than with their brothers, fathers, cousins and extended racial family. The O.J. Simpson jury which acquitted Simpson of murder is a classic example. The black women on that jury had no loyalty to the “White sisters.” In fact, they typically hate White women especially when they take black men, and especially when taking wealthy and accomplished black men like O.J. Simpson, as Nicole Brown did.

Attorney Holly von Roark referred to this in discussion with Dennis Dale. She observed that Christopher Darden should have told Marge Clarke that having black women on the Simpson jury would work decidedly against their prosecution.

O.J. Simpson & Nicole Brown’s Alleles Combined


Irrefutable trail of blood: Vincent Bugliosi vs. O.J. Simpson (“ABSOLUTELY 100% GUILTY”) (1999)
(Part 2) (Bugliosi’s “FINAL SUMMATION” to the jury).

O.J. Simpson, typical black behavior and typical Jewish facilitation.

NPR, “The Perfect Perversity of the O.J. Simpson Case”, 14 June 2016:
There is no doubt that OJ Simpson committed the murders.
There were signs from the very first date he had with the 18 year old Nicole Brown that OJ Simpson was violent.
Brown’s friend had noticed signs that Simpson had forced himself upon her in the first date..he had ripped open her pants…

The series reveals many other facts not previously well known about the case:
Another 9-11 call from Nicole has a policeman arrive. Brown tells the policeman emphatically that Simpson is going to kill her. Brown has a bruise on her face and Simpson tells the policeman that he doesn’t care, he doesn’t want her in his bed, he has two other women.
The policeman tells Simpson that he is under arrest for domestic violence. Simpson goes into his house, ostensibly to get dressed, but races away in his car via a rear exit. The police pursue, but don’t catch him and don’t pursue him afterward.
This is one of the surprising elements of the series: The L.A. Police Department was not eager to prosecute Simpson. They treated him with kid gloves.
The detective who interviewed Simpson after the murder did not ask him to provide a time line of his day – which would have caught him in several lies – basically, because the detective was following The L.A. P.D.‘s tendency to treat Simpson and his celebrity with deference.
In fact, detective on the case, Mark Fuhrman, in being racial himself, was an outlier to this culture. He actually had sued the L.A. Police Department for early retirement, claiming psychological disability because he could not stand having to deal with blacks.

The L.A.P.D. won the case against Fuhrman, was not compelled to accept his claim, and told him to get back to work.
Unfortunately for the case against Simpson, Fuhrman was the one who collected Simpson’s glove left at the scene of the murder.
Simpson was advised to stop taking his arthritis medicine so that his hands would swell up. When the glove didn’t fit Simpson’s hand in a demonstration before the jury, it added to the suggestion that Fuhrman’s racism might motivate him to set-up Simpson – a Negro man in an interracial relationship which Fuhrman was known to not like – prosecuting him unjustly by planting the glove as fake evidence.


Allowing Simpson to try-on the glove was one of black prosecuting attorney Christopher Darden’s blunders; the other mentioned before, allowing the jury to be populated by black women.

“If it doesn’t fit you must acquit” was Simpson’s black defense attorney, Johnny Cochran’s famous line, but what was most important in the acquittal was the way he successfully pandered to a majority black jury, Jewish legal system and zeitgeist, by diverting them from the obvious evidence against O.J. Simpson, into “juicestice” instead, presenting the case as an indictment of Furhman and the L.A. Police Department’s early stage ‘Hitleresque’ will to genocide, racism and cover-up of its racism – a particularly effective argument in L.A. following the Rodney King incident.

Reginald Denny, beaten FAR worse in retaliation for the Rodney King beating.
Key excerpts from Johnny Corchran’s closing argument:
Stop this cover-up. Stop this cover-up. If you don’t stop it, then who? Do you think the police department is going to stop it? Do you think the D.A.‘s office is going to stop it? Do you think we can stop it by ourselves? It has to be stopped by you. And you know, they talked about Fuhrman, they talked about him in derisive tones now, and that is very fashionable now, isn’t it? Everybody wants to beat up on Fuhrman, the favored whipping boy in America. I told you I don’t take any delight in that because you know before this trial started, if you grow up in this country, you know there are Fuhrmans out there. You learn early on in your life that you are not going to be naive, that you love your country, but you know it is not perfect, so you understand that, so it is no surprise to me, but I don’t take any pride in it. But for some of you, you are finding out the other side of life. You are finding out—that is why this case is so instructive. You are finding out about the other side of life, but things aren’t always as they seem. It is not just rhetoric, it is the actions of people, it is the lack of courage and it is a lack of integrity at high places. That is what we are talking about here.

[Ibid. Johnny Corchran’s closing argument] I don’t know how this subject was raised but officer Fuhrman says that when he sees a Nigger, as he called it, driving with a white woman, he would pull them over. I asked what if he didn’t have a reason and he said that he would find one. I looked at the two marines to see if they knew he was joking, but it became obvious to me that he was very serious.” Now, let me just stop at this point. Let’s back it up a minute, Mr. Harris. Pull it back down, please. If he sees an African American with a white woman he would stop them. If he didn’t have a reason, he would find one or make up one. This man will lie to set you up. That is what he is saying there. He would do anything to set you up because of the hatred he has in his heart. A racist is somebody who has power over you, who can do something to you. People could have views but keep them to themselves, but when they have power over you, that is when racism becomes insidious. That is what we are talking about here. He has power. A police officer in the street, a patrol officer, is the single most powerful figure in the criminal justice system. He can take your life. Unlike the supreme court, you don’t have to go through all these appeals. He can do it right there and justify it. And that is why, that is why this has to be routed out in the LAPD and every place. Make up a reason because he made a judgment. That is what happened in this case. They made a judgment. Everything else after that is going to point toward O.J. Simpson. They didn’t want to look at anybody else. Mr. Darden asked who did this crime? That is their job as the police. We have been hampered. They turned down our offers for help. But that is the prosecution’s job. The judge says we don’t have that job. The law says that. We would love to help do that. Who do you think wants to find these murderers more than Mr. Simpson? But that is not our job; it is their job. And when they don’t talk to anybody else, when they rush to judgment in their obsession to win, that is why this became a problem. This man had the power to carry out his racist views and that is what is so troubling. Let’s move on. Making up a reason. That is troubling. That is frightening. That is chilling. But if that wasn’t enough, if that wasn’t enough, the thing that really gets you is she goes on to say: “Officer Fuhrman went on to say that he would like nothing more than to see all niggers gathered together and killed. He said something about burning them or bombing them. I was too shaken to remember the exact words he used. However, I do remember that what he said was probably the most horrible thing I had ever heard someone say. What frightened me even more was that he was a police officer sworn to uphold the law.” And now we have it. There was another man, not too long ago in the world, who had those same views who wanted to burn people, who had racist views and ultimately had power over people in this country.
People didn’t care. People said he was just crazy, he is just a half-baked painter. They didn’t do anything about it. This man, this scourge, became one of the worse people in the history of this world, Adolph Hitler, because people didn’t care or didn’t try to stop him. He had the power over his racism and his anti-religion. Nobody wanted to stop him, and it ended up in world war ii, the conduct of this man. And so Fuhrman, Fuhrman wants to take all black people now and burn them or bomb them. That is genocidal racism. Is that ethnic purity? What is that? What is that? We are paying this man’s salary to espouse these views? Do you think he only told Kathleen Bell whom he just had met? Do you think he talked to his partners about it? Do you think commanders knew about it? Do you think everybody knew about it and turned their heads? Nobody did anything about it.

Reaction to the “innocent verdict”: O.J. Simpson, typical black behavior (dindu) and typical Jewish enabling. The glove trick was the idea of Shapiro (in background). F. Lee Baily, O.J. Simpson and Johnny Corchran, react in foreground.
In what is supposed to be prosecuting attorney Marcia Clark’s “closing argument” against the eminently guilty O.J. Simpson (who is merely one expression of pervasive black hyper-assertion, social irresponsibility and violence that needs to be defended against), Clark instead makes it a key point to condemn and condemn ultimately, Mark Fuhrman, a dedicated, competent and fair, career police detective:

Let me come back to Mark Fuhrman for a minute. Did he lie when he testified here in this courtroom saying that he did not use racial epithets in the last ten years? Yes. Is he a racist? Yes. Is he the worst L.A. P.D. has to offer? Yes. Do we wish that this person was never hired by the L.A. P.D.? Yes. Should L.A. P.D. have ever hired him? No. Should such a person be a police officer? No. In fact, do we wish there was no such person on the planet? Yes.
This “closing argument” by Marcia Clark is unbelievably perverted – she devoted 41 seconds (1/4th) of her 2:44 second long closing argument to condemning, and condemning ultimately, Mark Furhman, for the innate and necessary capacity that all species have to discriminate on behalf of their own survival – she even explicitly denounces Furhrman’s very existence.
Marcia Clark’s lawyering efforts were thoroughly co-opted by Jewish, anti-White purposes of destroying Whites.
Anti-racism is a Jewish construct that capitalizes on Cartesianism’s rational blindness to prejudices, to the fact that its prescribed universalistic way of treating the world is not innocent, that it is hurting and it is killing people – it is a disingenuous weaponization that targets Whites, heir naïve complicity to forego their capacity to classify social group patterns and discriminate as necessary, accordingly, in their defense.




29 April 1992, during black riots: Blacks pulled Reginald Denny from his truck passing through the riot areas, and then celebrate after having thrown a brick full force, point blank into his head. This was far worse than the incident which sparked the riots, a baton beating that police administered to physically resistant Rodney King, who had been apprehended after a dangerous, high-speed car chase.
I could spend the rest of my life citing cases of the destruction that comes about when “our team” is composed of universal mercenaries, from any racial group, let alone from another town, region, city or nation…
The only thing to do in address of this problem then, is to continue to cite salient examples…
“Do you like white women? Because we have a lot of them at Baylor, and they love football players.”

Washington Post, “Baylor moves to dismiss lawsuit alleging 52 rapes by 31 football players”, 29 March 2017:
Baylor moved Tuesday to dismiss a federal lawsuit filed in January filed by a former student who claimed to have been gang-raped by a pair of football players in 2013. In addition, her complaint alleged 52 “acts of rape” committed by the school’s football players between 2011 and 2014.
Those numbers were far higher than the eye-opening figures cited by school regents from the report of an outside law firm, which found that 17 women had reported 19 incidents of sexual or domestic assault by Baylor football players since 2011. However, in its court filing Tuesday, Baylor said it “does not agree with or concede the accuracy of Plaintiff’s 146-paragraph complaint and its immaterial and inflammatory assertions.”
“Baylor moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s assault, failure to investigate, and negligence claims because they are barred by the two-year statute of limitations,” stated the document, filed with a U.S. District Court that includes Baylor’s home of Waco, Tex., in its jurisdiction. The move to dismiss also claimed that the allegations of the woman, referred to as Elizabeth Doe, “do not rise to the level of ‘deliberate indifference.’ ”
Doe alleged in her complaint that on April 18, 2013 — an annual date known as “Diadeloso” (“Day of the Bear”) at Baylor and marked by a lack of classes and an encouragement of social interaction — she was raped by two freshman football players, Tre’Von Armstead and Shamycheal Chatman, and that Baylor ignored the situation. She also claimed that her position as a member of the school’s female recruiting team, called the Baylor Bruins, contributed to the incident.
“Baylor’s recruiting policies and practices, along with the Baylor Bruin football hostess program, directly contributed to the creation of a culture of sexual violence that permeated Baylor and from which Ms. Doe would soon suffer,” the lawsuit stated.
The lawsuit also contended that Kendal Briles, a former assistant football coach and son of former head coach Art Briles, told a recruit, “Do you like white women? Because we have a lot of them at Baylor, and they love football players.”
[Art Briles says he ‘did not cover up any sexual violence’ at Baylor]
“While broadly and needlessly impugning the integrity of the many female students who honorably participated in the Bruins organization, Plaintiff does not allege that she herself was ever asked by any Baylor official, directly or indirectly, to participate in the ‘good time’ recruiting policy that she claims to have existed,” Baylor said Tuesday, “nor does she claim that her alleged assault occurred in conjunction with any recruiting activity.”
More broadly, the lawsuit claimed that “Baylor football players were responsible for … the most widespread culture of sexual violence and abuse of women ever reported in a collegiate athletic program,” adding, “Baylor football under Briles had run wild, in more ways than one, and Baylor was doing nothing to stop it.”
“Although Baylor appreciates the sensitivity and seriousness of the issue of sexual assault — a fact demonstrated by its voluntary release of the Pepper Hamilton investigation findings in May 2016 — Plaintiff’s inflammatory and immaterial allegations must be disregarded when evaluating whether Plaintiff has stated a claim,” the university said in Tuesday’s filing.
Former Baylor football player Tre’Von Armstead arrested on sexual assault charges.
Armstead and Chatman were arrested last week and indicted in connection with the 2013 incident. Another former Baylor football player, Sam Ukwuachu, had a sexual-assault conviction overturned last week by a Texas appeals court, with the case remanded for retrial. Two other ex-Bears, Tevin Elliott and Shawn Oakman, have been convicted of and indicted on rape charges, respectively, in an ongoing scandal that has cost the jobs of Briles and other senior Baylor officials and spawned numerous lawsuits.
On Friday, lawyers for 10 women (in addition to Doe) who are suing Baylor for its alleged indifference to their rapes by football players filed notice to subpoena materials from Pepper Hamilton’s investigation into the school. “It’s long past time for the truth of how senior administrators discouraged and retaliated against the young women for reporting sexual assault,” Jim Dunnam, one of the lawyers, said Monday (via the Waco Tribune-Herald).
“We’ll never have transparency until they stop saying this was just a football problem,” he added. “Every time they say it is just a football problem is further victimization of the over 100 young women who were wronged that had nothing to do with football.”
Baylor’s Kim Mulkey: “Knock Parents Concerned About Sexual Assault Scandal ‘Right In The Face.”
DeadSpin, “Baylor’s Kim Mulkey: Knock Parents Concerned About Sexual Assault Scandal ‘Right In The Face”, 25 Feb 2017:
Today was senior day for the Baylor women’s basketball team, and rather than spending her time at the mic focused solely on her soon-departing players, head coach Kim Mulkey took a different route.
The storied coach decided to share a few choice words for parents voicing concern over sending their daughters to a place currently being sued for allowing and enabling football players to commit an alleged 52 sexual assaults in four years. Or rather, she shared some instructions for the fans—who cheered her both during and after her speech—telling them that if a parent tells them they won’t let their daughter attend Baylor, they should “knock them right in the face.”


NBCDFW, “Baylor Football Player Convicted of Sexual Assault in Waco”, 21 Aug 2015:
Sam Ukwuachu sentenced to 180 days in jail and 10 years of probation

Ibid: A jury in Texas district court found 22-year-old Sam Ukwuachu guilty Thursday of one count of sexual assault. The one-time All-America who transferred to play football at Baylor University has been sentenced to 180 days in jail and given 10 years of probation Friday for sexually assaulting a fellow student athlete in 2013.
Prosecutors said Ukwuachu sexually assaulted a former Baylor women’s soccer player at his Waco apartment. Ukwuachu has said the encounter was consensual.

Daily Beast, “Baylor Football’s Shawn Oakman Investigated for Rape”, 17 April 2016:
Police are investigating sexual-assault allegations against Shawn Oakman, a former Baylor defensive end and NFL draft hopeful.
Police are investigating sexual assault allegations made against NFL draft hopeful and former Baylor University football player Shawn Oakman, after a woman reported that he raped her over the weekend.
[…]
Two other former Baylor football players, Tevin Elliott and Sam Ukwuachu, have both been convicted—in 2014 and 2015, respectively—of sexual assaults on female students in separate cases. In his trial, Elliott was convicted on two counts of sexual assault and sentenced to 20 years in prison, and witnesses during his trial claimed that he may have assaulted as many as four women, according to the Waco Tribune. The other women’s cases were not independently reported or tried in court. After Ukwuachu’s conviction, he was controversially only sentenced to six months in jail, with 10 years of probation to follow.
[…]

BlackSportsOnline, “Victim’s Photos of Shawn Oakman’s Alleged Domestic Violence Released”, 6 June 2016:
Shawn Oakman is currently accused of raping a woman, but back in 2013 he was accused of domestic violence against his girlfriend at the time.
She never pressed charges and Oakman wasn’t punished by Baylor.
TMZ has obtained photos of her injuries from the alleged attack. She accused of Oakman of shoving up up against walls and cabinets in the apartment.
CBS, “Ex-Baylor University player Shamychel “Myke” Chatman arrested on sexual assault charges”, 27 Mar 2017:

…
Erica's Story




…
Worst seats at The Final Four




….
How to Fight Anti-Semitic Trolls and Bigotry Online

..another example. Someone Tweeted at me, ‘why are Jews so weak, and bad at sports?’
Now, does this guy actually believe it? I doubt it. He just thought that it would get me angry. uhmm. but..
What it actually was a fastball down the middle.
And so, I just excerpted his Tweet and said, well, of course Jews don’t really participate in athletics – that’s what we use to divert the energy of the gentiles while we take over the systems of power.

From NFL films seduction of slow motion display against compelling music, to… mass sports fan cuckoldry – mesmerized in adulation of dramatic episodic display, riveted to momentary action, fast twitching muscle fibers and brute strength …at the expense of our profound genetic patterns, the social capital which has indeed, been built of our sublimation beyond momentary and episodic display.

Kermit Alexander’s punt return for nearly a touchdown suddenly crystallized several factors of my burgeoning masculine identity (I was only 9) and bonded it strongly with the Los Angeles Rams in a moment on Monday Night, October 26th 1970.
I was not completely oblivious to the fact that he was black nor even entirely without trepidation for the long term implications of siding with blacks – just a few years before it was Malcolm X who said that blacks were going to rule me, which of course I did not want – there were the black riots which burned Newark and killed some dozens in 1967; and there were the “chocolate nurses”, whom I naturally did not identify with, and did not like, but surrounded me in the hospital when I was admitted for my tonsillectomy.
Oh, perhaps I exaggerate the exhilaration, elation and importance of this moment of Monday Night Football, under the spotlights which gleamed off the Rams and Vikings cool, streaking helmets, but I think not – even though it was but one moment and episode among a mass of factors which would misguide me for a few teenage years into mis-identification. I was devastated that the Rams were stopped in that episode on the goal line against the Vikings – The Vikings, who had been to the prior Super Bowl. But I was now hopeful and determined that “we” could play with them – and furious that my parents made me go to bed; miserable to wake up to find the Rams lost.






The Vietnam war, where men were expected to die, feminism, that blamed men for everything, my family’s communicologial craziness and what was already society’s (((the media and academia’s))) anti-White prohibition against White identity, its crowning of blacks as what we now call the “untouchables” and Jews as taboo to even privately wonder critically about, let alone openly criticize.. some context and it was quite difficult for a boy hard programmed to like girls: yeah, I was starting to like girls, but of course not wanting to be deterministically beholden, at this point, to this situation – with all this context going against my identity and the need by contrast to identify with people who were on my side and who’d fight hard; given the hostility of my family and society, I needed some socially sanctioned identity, on my side, with those who’d fight.
This was the only clear expression – in fact, a dramatic expression of masculine aggression and identity and a way to demonstrate the fact that I was not a homo.
It is something of a challenge to provide alternatives to young White boys to the visual appeal and action of sports like football which blacks can do well (similar as the challenge of black musical ability and audio appeal, of a kind, more broadly, it even has some addictive properties).
NFL Films were a significant part of constructing a riveting identity, i.e., my entrancement into undue sports rooting in my teenage years.
This Week in The NFL game review of a Rams vs Niners game in 1973 features some compelling Sam Spence tunes that I could not find as independent pieces on Youtube.
I would remain fiercely loyal to my side and could not tolerate losing, even though the Vikings always got the best of them in the playoffs – and in excruciating manner.
In the 1974 playoffs, not only did White Rams fans suffer the indignation of having their team headed by one of the first black quarterbacks (And I didn’t like it. Quarterback, the helm leader, was always a firmly White position), but they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory against the Vikings, again thwarted at the goal line.

The Rams had a first down on the Vikings’ one-yard line at the time. The penalty made it second and six, but quarterback James Harris threw an interception into the end zone on the next play and the Vikings eventually won, 14-10.
The Rams had gone 99 yards and produced no points! We lose by 4 points.
The Viking curse.

In 1976 the Rams got thwarted on the goal-line in the playoffs against the Vikings once again.
In the 1976 playoffs, the Rams returned to the dreaded frozen north for another NFC title game. The temperature at kickoff was nine degrees.
The cold didn’t seem to bother the Rams, who drove smartly down to the one-yard line, but then their luck—and maybe their confidence—froze. Knox sent wide receiver Ron Jessie on an end-around to the right, where Jessie was met at the goal line by a pack of purple defenders.
“He scored on the play,” McCutcheon said. “I saw the ball over the (goal) line, in the end zone. They spotted the ball like on the one-inch line.”
The Rams had cause to feel an ominous chill at that moment.
“We still had a couple of more plays to get the ball in,” McCutcheon said. “I think he (Knox) called a quarterback sneak with (Pat) Haden and some other play I can’t remember. …That was really disappointing because we were one inch from the goal line, and that was the year we were running the ball so well—25-Lead, 44-Lead. I thought at that time we would certainly want to get the ball to one of our backs—preferably myself.
“I couldn’t believe the quarterback sneak. So (on fourth down) we decided to go for the field goal, and they block it and take it back 99 yards.”
Actually, it was only 90, but old Rams still have nightmares of Viking Bobby Bryant scooping up Tom Dempsey’s aborted field goal attempt and racing toward the other end of the field. Jack Youngblood was so heartsick after the game that he couldn’t talk—literally couldn’t talk—for 15 minutes.





While in 1976 the Rams had to contend with the meteorological frustration of Minnesota’s bitter cold, surprisingly, on the home turf in 1977…

The “Mudbowl” of 1977 stuck the erstwhile viable Rams in mud and loss to the Vikings yet again.

In culmination of the 1979 season, the Rams finally made it to the Super Bowl and might have upset the Steelers to be champions…

…to be champions if Vince Ferragamo spotted wide open wide receiver, Billy Waddy, for a go-ahead touchdown pass. Instead, he focused on the other side of the field and threw into a crowd and was intercepted by the Steelers Jack Lambert.
Despite the “heartbreaking” loss on the precipice again, I moved past disappointment in minutes, having by this time matured enough and gain in personal identity through college matriculation.
Although this Rams Superbowl team of the 1979 season was still exactly half White and there would remain enough White players on the team through the 80’s for the absurdity of this pseudo-identity to not pique my consciousness, by the late 80’s incidents of black athletes taking White women, including choice ones, was enough to make me swear off attendance to football in any manner. It had sunk in. I didn’t want to be part of the meme that we didn’t have yet, cuckoldry.



The legacy of sportsfanship (the costumed fan images come from this site):


Adrian Peterson: Typical black behavior.
Peterson is also the father of Ashley Doohen’s murdered mudlet.









Darren Sharper: Typical black behavior
How did our people get to the level of sports cuckoldry where we are now, with N.F.L. teams being mostly black and stands packed with fans in attendance almost all White?
Although I had sense enough to get off early enough, returning to my own adolescent captivation by the train before I disembarked probably gives some clues…
So lets continue with the topic of sportsfanship, how we might illustrate and redirect the illusionary escape of illusionary observational objectivity and diversionary identity. It’s an important matter, leading to a cuckold identity if, as a habit, not broken (thankfully, I did).
NFL Films were a significant part of constructing a riveting identity, i.e., my entrancement into undue sports rooting in my teenage years.
Furthermore, by examining the romanticizing and compelling role that NFL Films play in identity creation, we might be able to take a few of its ideas for the building of our own identity creation.
So let’s examine the films a little more to see what could lure one into sports enthusiasm during teen years and beyond. It can parlay into a fanaticism that we could rather use to fight on behalf of our own peoples.
N.F.L. Film’s style captured attention with Yoshi Kishi’s editing, John Facenda’s narration and Sam Spence’s music.
Film Editor Yoshi Kishi was the one who set the style for N.F.L. Films, revolutionizing their film structure and how they organize shots …and he knew nothing about football.
Yoshi was already a legend of editing, however.
In fact, the documentary discusses inception and crystallization of N.F.L Films dramatization..

But while NFL Films served to seduce, corrupt and divert my identity for some time from better pursuits, it is also worth talking about how we might perhaps use some of its techniques to deploy to our cause.
At least it was something that people were paying attention to. It was not merely the moment when Kermit Alexander’s fast twitching muscle fibers sprinted toward the end zone ..it was that and much more..

Click here for classic editing scene.
Note also the irony that the brunette actress who plays Joe Pesci’s wife was brutally stabbed by a stalker in real life a few years later.


Samuel Lloyd Spence (Mar 29, 1927 – Feb 6, 2016) was an American soundtrack composer best known for his work with NFL Films. His work has also been on the EA Sports Madden NFL football videogames and many football-related commercials.
Biography
A former University of Southern California music instructor living and working in Munich, Spence was hired in 1966 to score the mini-documentaries that conveyed National Football League highlights and personalities to fans in the network-television era. Spence’s music cues combined with the baritone voice of John Facenda to remarkable artistic effect, creating the now trademark style of sports highlights videos of the NFL. Spence, together with Steve Sabol and the NFL Films crew, can arguably be credited with a significant role in making American football the most popular professional sport in the U.S.
Initially, Mahlon Merrick was asked to provide scores for NFL Films. A friend of Spence, Merrick asked Spence to help in the recording sessions. “Mahlon had written marches,” said Spence. “Toward the end of that recording session, I stuck in a couple of different pieces –my own orchestral compositions with strings and woodwinds, more like a Hollywood film score. It turned out they were Sabol’s favorites and he offered me a three-year contract to write, conduct, and produce NFL Films’ music.”
In Germany, Spence wrote several TV soundtracks with Hani Chamseddine, e.g., for the Francis Durbridge thriller “Wie ein Blitz”. After his retirement in 1990, he returned to Munich. He achieved unexpected fame in 1998 with the success of a CD compilation entitled The Power and the Glory: The Original Music & Voices Of NFL Films. Spence died at a Lewisville, Texas nursing center on February 6, 2016, at the age of 88.[2]


N.F.L. Films style made football America’s game, first by capturing the attention with Yoshi Kishi who contributed his innovative editing technique, then adding John Facenda’s deep voiced, stern narration and culminated by Sam Spence’s riveting music: With slow motion, fast motion, varied shots, bustling action and music, music of burley combat, “Sunday With Soul” – that music so compelling to the emotions of a kid who wants his identity ultimately dramatized, with march to battle, ranging from bawdy to the toughest, most earnest, manly American quest, epoch exhilaration, to dark, grim, wide ranging venture, and heartbreaking sympathy, “The game that got away” – while husky voiced narrators, John Facenda and Pat Summerall embellished the seriousness of it all. The music here, during minute 1:12 – 2:20, as background to a Redskins – Eagles game, is particularly intriguing: here it is by itself – “Undercover Man” – one of my favorite among these Sam Spence and William Loose tunes. “The Horse” was not included among N.F.L. Films songs, but was/is a marching band staple along the sidelines of high school games that achieves much of the same sentimental effect. And there was that Monday Night Football intro music…another compelling tune to add to the collection – second 017.



The coaches, adults, enter the the Coliseum accompanied by music invoking grim determination to underscore the deadly seriousness of the contest.
In wonderland escape of sunny southern California, by the floodlights of fabled Hollywood, manly battle took place in cool uniforms..



The timing had something to do with it, sure. As I’ve said elsewhere, the early 1970’s were a time when the Vietnam war was ending, the relaxed communal sense of Being being extended to White men was giving way to feminism – could be rabid, White man hating, feminism. My older sister was a cold feminist, when not a searing hot feminist, when not a disconcertingly light, breezy and trivializing feminist; my mother, when not having some sort of catharsis for herself through a breakdown and drinking, was usually hostile; if you knew my father, you could have some sense of why she was that way. I’m over that, and its not my point to complain, but to state the fact of why I needed some vicarious identity – which could neither so easily be had with my family nor with my (((diverse, multicultural society and its programs of forced integration.)))
OK, so, I was ripe for some escapism and masculine aggressive identification – a quasi serious thing, treated seriously by adults.
At the same time, through programs of school “integration”, by the school year of 1970 my homeroom teacher was black, and there were plenty of blacks in the integrated class of my local elementary school. But in 1971-72, the integration program bused me to Nishuane, a mostly black school – and a nightmare.
Again, this wasn’t long after Malcolm X declared that “the Honorable Elijah Muhammad said that the black man would rule” and not long after the black race riots in 1967 burned the nearby town where I was born, Newark; while it was taboo to take an identitarian stance against even saying anything about that, even then.
Though I hadn’t liked baseball to that point, found it boring, when turning the TV channels in an idle moment after coming home from that black school in September 1971, I stopped on a Yankees game just long enough to repeat what I heard a fan from the crowd shout – “hit a home run, Bobby!” Surprisingly enough Bobby Murcer and I had the same kind of adrenaline rush as I did with the Kermit Alexander punt return… this rush leading me into the pseudo objectivity and the soothing reliability of baseball statistics; but still there was something even more immediately mainlining into the older parts of the brain via the sports thing of NFL films.
I’m sure this kind of thing hooked many a kid, not just me.
In this I got a program, maybe what we’d now call a site, to identify with the venting of my spleen, my rage, will to action, to run, to identify with a tribe, to bask in the glory and to identify with, well, actually, White guys…..and we could share in widespread appreciation that was not forthcoming, personally, i.e., whereas we might otherwise not be given much support in identity (((to say the least))). In this quasi-identity, with our masculine strength alone and mere uniforms distinguishing teams [the players did not even come from the towns that “they played for!”] we could at least assimilate fighting for an identity together, not against our own – quite unlike my family, my (((American society))) and my Europe.
“The fearsome foursome”, Deacon Jones, Merlin Olsen …the cool uniforms, winning ways, Roman Gabriel, exotic Los Angeles. I could identify fiercely with them. On Monday night, October 24 1970, my parents let me stay up late….almost..I got to see Kermit Alexander’s exhilarating punt return….the Rams were stopped on the goal line just before halftime. I was broken hearted, but optimistic that they could play the Vikings, they could win. I didn’t want to be torn away from the TV but my parents would not let me stay up..

That moment set off an adrenaline rush as lights gleamed off streaking helmets, followed by the frustration of losing to the Vikings, a threatening team in uniforms just as cool as the Rams. From the cold north, men in Viking helmets came to play men in Ram helmets. Fascination set in.
It is a challenge to provide alternatives to young White boys to the visual appeal and action of sports like football … visual mediums which blacks can accelerate in, culminating in their end-zone dances (a similar challenge as presented by the allure of black musical ability, and probably with similar properties as audio tropism, it can have addictive properties).
Still there is that older part of the brain. I did not like “the chocolate nurses” when I had my tonsillectomy at age 7. I didn’t like it when black rioters burned the city of my birth, Newark, where my grandmother lived; or when Malcolm X said just a few years before, that “blacks would rule.”
…and with the to the onset of my enmeshment in this pseudo identity in 1970, I had wanted to be a magnanimous American and identify with black Deacon Jones, was glad when he was a member of the “fearsome foursome” (cool nickname given to he four Rams defensive linemen, of which Deacon Jones was one) and his play was on our side, but I couldn’t quite
– I thought that he looked weird.



I wasn’t inclined to identify with Deacon Jones and Kermit Alexander: rather, I wanted rather to identify with Jim Bertelsen, Jack Youngblood, Fred Dryer, Roman Gabriel and Jack Snow.

Kermit and his obsequious, White, fundamentalist Christian wife, Tammy Alexander…
… adopt 5 Haitians: Good work Christianity. Haitians, who have a 60 i.q., who practice voodoo in this day and age, while their forebears slaughtered, exterminated the French colonialists, men, women and chilren not once, but twice – the second time after they begged the French to return and help them rebuild the island.
I plead innocent Xer, overwhelmed by Boomer and Greatest Generation funk; a few years before, confronted by the chocolate nurses in the hospital for a tonsillectomy, I had fantastic temper-tantrums in resistance to them, did not like them, wouldn’t permit this in my realm if I were king.
Besides – how was I to know who Kermit Alexander was and what he could come to mean to us… why should I believe that adults would let this happen, when what was happening by way of blacks was so obviously bad in terms of their hyper-assertiveness.
Who’d want to live with these people who burned Newark, made things so ugly, but nevertheless had the nerve to say that they’d rule us?
Unbeknownst to me, this was the football season following the Super Bowl (IV) played by the first majority black team – The Kansas City Chiefs. That is to say nothing, of course, of my nine year old awareness (lack thereof) of the (((egregious forces and purposes))) behind the 1964 Civil Rights Act, The 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act, the 1968 Rumsford Fair Housing Act…
This process of imposing black integration upon Whites through sports ball goes back a long way before I was born, as I noted in the article, “Our football coaches were not Marxists imposing integration with blacks.
Rather, they were objectivists imposing integration with blacks.”
In fact, the first two Superbowl championships were won by The Green Bay Packers, coached by Vince Lombardi:

Vince Lombardi’s Unprejudiced Nature
In 1960, on at least one team, a color barrier still existed in the NFL. But Jack Vainisi, the Scouting Director for the Packers, and Lombardi were determined “to ignore the prejudices then prevalent in most NFL front offices in their search for the most talented players.” Lombardi explained his views by saying that he “… viewed his players as neither black nor white, but Packer green”. Among professional football head coaches, Lombardi’s view on discrimination was not de rigueur in the midst of the American civil rights movement.
An interracial relationship between one of the Packer rookies and a young woman was brought to the attention of Lombardi by Packer veterans in his first training camp in Green Bay. The next day at training camp, Lombardi, who had a zero tolerance policy towards racism, responded by warning his team that if any player exhibited prejudice, in any manner, then that player would be thrown off the team. Lombardi, who was vehemently opposed to Jim Crow discrimination, let it be known to all Green Bay establishments that if they did not accommodate his black players equally as well as his white players, then that business would be off-limits to the entire team. Before the start of the 1960 season, he instituted a policy that the Packers would only lodge in places that accepted all of his players.

Caveat: Although Vince Lombardi was not a Marxist, his objectivist purity spiral was at least partly backed by his strong Christian conviction; i.e. the Jewish influence to blend away Gentile capacity for relative group organization and resistance to subjugation is still there.



Whites playing the objectivist game gamely, but upended by first majority black team, Kansas City Chiefs, in Super Bowl III, January 1970.
Even so, by 1972 the war was ending and feminism, no longer constrained by the double standard of the (male only) draft and with it, the background need to grant some leeway to male protest for Being, came unhinged. I needed vicarious male identity more than ever.




There were massive stadiums packed with fans, pageantry, marching bands, cheerleaders…


Here they were, the L.A. Rams – an opportunity for the requisite, more objective identity for me: they were from far away Los Angeles, with a team that was coming out of the 1960’s with great records and an awesome manly reputation. My older brother told me that they had the “The Fearsome Foursome” – their defensive line featuring Deacon Jones, Merlin Olsen ..later Fred Dryer and Jack Youngblood ..with their cool names, add quarterback Roman Gabriel to that regard. They had the coolest uniforms too.

I wanted to identify with Roman Gabriel, Jack Youngblood, Fred Dryer, Jim Bertelsen, Jack Snow…









Again, my consciousness of PC’s antagonism had not been thoroughly piqued through the 80’s, and I still watched the games, but teams started becoming ridiculously black and football being a vehicle for race mixing (which was NOT very noticeable among middle class White girls until the late 80s) delivered a coupe de grace to my interest by the late 80’s….but even the embers of my identification were hosed as the Rams moved to Saint Louis in 1995. Los Angeles was a part of the tenuous identification that I had achieved and Saint Louis doesn’t have the same glamour as L.A.
By January 30, 2000 I had long since stopped paying attention except for one brief moment, when the now Saint Louis Rams led by (White) Cinderella story, Kurt Warner, defeated the Tennessee Titans to finally win a Superbowl.

Cinderella story Kurt Warner finally takes the Rams to Super Bowl victory.
Warner and the fact of having nothing else to do while I attended my dying father gave me an excuse after not having watched football for many years. I watched that one game on 30 January 2000; I told my father that the Rams had won as he sat in a hospital bed with tubes in him and an oxygen mask, looking like an alien elephant… barely conscious, but he heard that..and smiled: he had got me attending to football on TV in the winter of ‘69-‘70, he had witnessed the many tearful temper tantrums of mine as the Rams always lost along the way. He died the next morning.


The Tennessee Titans quarterback for that Super Bowl was Steve McNair (left) who went on to be murdered by his “lover” (right) in 2009.

After victory in the 2012 Superbowl, Greg Jones proposes to his girlfriend, Mandy Piechowski.






Background issues become foreground issues to White/European interests: not just fans, cheerleaders, bands, coaches, cameramen and security guards such as the ignored black booty to the left of the screen, but also the discourse of news reporters:
Listen to what the White cuck news reporter had to say about it –
“What a night for the Giants and for former Michigan State linebacker, Greg Jones. First he won a Super Bowl ring. Then after the game, on the field he asks his girlfriend, Mandy Piechowski, to marry him …she’s crying her eyes-out. He pulls-out an engagement ring and slips it on her finger. She played basket ball at Michigan State, is now a model, obviously she said “yes” ..what a terrific thing this is …congratulations to Greg and Mandy. That is one heck-uva night for that young man.”


Female co-reporter: “Well how sweet. Do you think that if they had lost that he would have still done that?”
Second White male cuck reporter: “I’m not even going to go there because I know that someone would yell at me.”
Cuck reporter number one: “I’m sure it would have quite the same effect.”



She went to Michigan State as well.
She was found in a state of rigor mortis – naked, with her legs fixed unnaturally on both sides of her chest. ..in the position that she was when she was raped to death.
* Thanks to Craig Cobb for the astute White reporting on that disgusting, erstwhile unreported fact.
More Cuck Reporting After The Fact:
According to right-wingers, it’s nobody’s fault but ours or nobody’s fault but the Jews – we should not think critically, in socially interactive, agentive terms: we should simply know what “is” and adjust to it.
Investigative reporting from the perspective of White interests would never be satisfied to report on this surface level; it would be coupled with true intellectual quest to delve into causes and implications of the issues suggested here, to analyze issues kept in the background, including the influence of NFL Films, how they have served to glorify, normalize and institutionalize this beastiality – this destruction of 35,000 years of sublime co-evolution.



Superbowl commercials are notoriously expensive advertising space. Half time in this Superbowl featured a General Motors commercial narrated by Clint Eastwood, barking that it was “half time in America”.. you haven’t seen anything yet, “you’re going to hear our (America’s) engines roar!”
To wit, Matt Parrott wrote a clever article titled:
THE GAME IS OVER. THE PATRIOTS LOST. Though I cannot recommend Matt Parrott for his foolish and unwarranted misdirection away from and against the platform here, he is clever enough to turn a good phrase, as in this article, where the issue isn’t too deep for him. However, for one thing, he needs to understand that the Christards are playing a suckers game in line with propositional nationalism, and being beaten badly for it as well. In fact, one of my disagreements with him had to do with his suggestion in regard to miscegenators that you should just give them a bath an forget about it… in fact, it seems nowadays he’s back in collaboration with Matt Heimbach after having watched him fuck his wife…what a cuck.


Not far removed from mainstream cuck reporting, self proclaimed Al-Right novelist, Andy Nowicki, maintains that we shouldn’t care…he likes to watch sports …we should be ok with that.. He contends that when we complain about miscegenators that we make their day, only make them happy. To me, this is like the old school yard joke: Jenny is on the top stairs of the slide about to go down and several boys are on the ladder beneath, lookin up her skirt. “Jenny, the boys will see your underwear!” …and Jenny says, “I fooled them, I’m not wearing any!”
Just because Andy is homely and can’t have a beautiful woman doesn’t mean he should recommend his resignation to others.



Mike Wallace Interview with Lawrence Taylor: Taylor confesses to snorting hundreds of thousands in cocaine, soliciting prostitutes to wear-out opponents the night before games; then after “coming clean” with his confessions to a shockingly sympathetic Mike Wallace (who apparently pronounces him kosher clean, while dabbing the mini black Caligula’s tears with a handkerchief)…. ..Taylor goes on to be arrested for soliciting underage prostitutes for himself.


Dave Megget is another sordid Giants player.
I also recall a story of black player, think he was also a Giant, alleged to have more than 30 illegitimate children. I will try to find the story, but it might be difficult, Google being what it is.
Moving to the Super Bowl for the 2013 season and beyond…


And WHAT would we do without “The Super Bowl”?
By 2016 all teams were mostly black and the Superbowl half time show featured a homage to the Black Panthers and Malcolm X.
Super Bowl 2016, halftime show features homage to Black Panthers and Malcolm X
Perfectly fitting entertainment that it is for a stadium full of White sheeple and a world wide audience of White sheeple – in attendance to one team of fast twitching blacks in ultra-actualized competition against another team of fast twitching blacks …speaking of the dark side of self actualization and its destabilizing effect on healthy social systems…
TMZ, Beyonce Pays Homage to Black Panthers During Super Bowl Performance, 8 Feb 2016:
Beyonce made a stirring political statement during the Super Bowl halftime show, in what appears to be a tribute to the Black Panthers, a ‘60s group that advocated violence to correct racial injustice.
The singer was flanked by backup dancers who wore berets, similar to the berets worn by the group. They also raised their fists, symbolic of the Black Power movement.
At one point the dancers posed with a sign that read “Justice 4 Mario Woods,” the man shot and killed by San Francisco cops.


Ibid: The dancers on the field also formed an “X” on the field, which seemed symbolic of civil rights militant Malcolm X. Beyonce also had a strap on her chest in the form of an “X”.

Ibid:Tina Knowles posed with the dancers, fists raised high.

It’s not only a symbol of the Panthers, it’s also a gesture used by Tommie Smith and John Carlos during the ‘68 Olympics.


King Shamir Shabazz, Chairman of the Philadelphia New Black Panther Party: “I hate White people. All of them! Every last iota of a cracker I hate him…. You want freedom? You going to have to kill some crackers (White people). You gonna have to kill some of their babies”…


“We kill the men, we kill the women, we kill the children, we kill the babies, we kill the blind, we kill the cripple, we kill the crazy, we kill the faggots, we kill the lesbians, I say, goddammit! we kill ‘em all! (applause)
You say why kill them all?
Why kill the women?
First, why kill the babies?
They’re just little innocent blue-eyed babies!
Because, goddammit, one day they’re going to grow-up to rule your babies.
Kill ‘em now!
Why kill the women in South Africa?
I say kill the women because the women are the military manufacturing center; and every nine months they lay down on their backs and reinforcement rolls-out from between their legs. So shut-down the military manufacturing center by killing the White woman!
Why kill the older crackers? The old, decrepit crackers in South Africa. How the hell you think they got old? – they got old oppressing and killing black people. I say kill (strange glossolalia), kill ‘em all! Kill the faggot, kill the lesbian!
And after you kill them all!
I said that day about Mandela to say what he really knows about me. He don’t know a damn thing! I said then you go to the goddamn grave and dig them up!
And kill them a goddamn-gain, because they didn’t die hard enough! (applause)
And if you don’t have the strength to dig them up after you’ve done all that work – just go to the grave and shoot in the damn grave, kill ‘em again!
Because they didn’t die hard enough!

…and by NFL season 2017..
NFL protests: US propositional liberalism needs overturning, but blacks are not revolutionaries

As ethno-nationalists, we may bear accord with those who who maintain that the U.S. flag represents propositional liberalism and ever represents as such, adversary to ethno-nationalism
While it is theoretically valid for black football players to protest the history of slavery that is taken for granted in the anthem, it was not just any Whites who brought them to the Americas, it was right wing hubris that brought them to the Americas.
There was no bigger error in history than to bring African slaves to the Americas – a classic right wing hubris compounded ultimately in its disingenuous liberal expression of anti-racism that was not only disastrous for the human ecologies of the Americas both native American and White, but an economic short-cut that threw the world’s economy into a perilous imbalance in relation to Asia; an imbalance from which it has not recovered.
It is a hubris for which we, as ethnonatiolists, have little responsibility and deserve no penalty where we fight the right wing system that brought this about –
Nevertheless, the liberal system will continue to try to penalize us, and disingenuously wall paper our difference from these right wingers, will do all it can to associate our liberation with the right. Many Whites will take the bait – our “enemies” are trying to divide us from our “brothers”, the black Americans – so says the idiot, Father Francis.

It was a hubris, typical of the right wing, falsely and vainly comparing Africans to others – of course finding them “wanting and in need of help” – they are just misguided by the YKW, it is not that these right wingers are complicit with destroying the ethnonationalsm that never would have forcibly mixed Africans with Whites and Native Americans – as they did, in the cases of some tribes to virtual extinction.
Their idea of “inequality” is based on false comparison. In a world where Heidegger can only hope to guide Europeans to be at home in their skins, in their land, among their folk, in a world where the African is always at home, always comfortable, never at a loss and always ready to assert as much – there is no more self righteous, hyper-assertive, aggressive, no more alpha a male, than the black.
Madison Avenue knows this, knows that the puerile follow the alpha, that’s why it leads with it in marketing campaigns; the rest of Jewry knows this too, ready in its institutional positions to pander to the puerile, both male and female
Thus, we must beware when blacks are upheld as making a revolutionary protest. We must be aware of black nature. Black nature is of Alpha R selection, and like a male lion, it will do nothing but be brought tribute and breed with supplicant females.
The talented tenth, mostly Mulattoes, who are able to function somewhat as leaders of their community, serve to articulate the narratives of how the system supposedly oppresses blacks: but the system does not oppress blacks, the system reacts to blacks and tries to placate them, pays tribute to them.
Blacks are natural compradors and henchmen of the system.
For this creature, “revolution” means solidifying its being imbued in the American power structure; its nature is right wing – whether it can rule or not, this is what it always aims for: “The honorable Elija Muhammad said the black man will rule” – Malcolm X – a Muslim, of course, not a left nationalist. The wish to “rule over others” or the belief in its destiny is right wing.
Blacks will not be revolutionaries of America – America will adjust to them in its puerile idolatry, enshrinement and institutionalization: not only paying them millions and lavishing them with adulation and women for their sports and entertainment, but making endless excuses to engraft them further in the power structure – as illustrated by sports reporter Bob Costas, saying that Kaepernick’s protest is an expression of true American patriotism; and indeed it is. Blacks, adulation of them, no matter how perverted, no matter how unjust, brutal and violent, no matter how lavished with undue reward as a pattern, they are to be adulated as a part of the American institution. And as the admired alpha R selection breeders that they are, they are free to go through women, including what probably should have been your wife, and leave litters of babies behind – everyone else’s social problem, while you wonder how you might pay for one of your own and give it a decent environment.

Their males and the females they impregnate and discard at their convenience are placed on US welfare – to the servitude of everyone else, not to mention that their less athletically capable brothers and sisters are to be set aside government programs, well paying government jobs with solid benefits; also affirmative action and special provisions in corporate America and academia as a result of civil rights court actions (the consent decrees) are to be given them …not because they are revolutionaries, but because they are an integral part and parcel of feudal enforcement.

Negro quarterback Colin Kaepernick, raised by adoptive White parents and given a multi-million dollar contract to play football, refuses to stand for the national anthem; that is to protest the “racism” of America – a nation that spends trillions in welfare, government jobs and benefits to incubate black babies – for those that can’t go on to get million dollar contracts for things like playing football – money that they would never get and could never make in a black country.
The NFL is majority black / its fans, who pay handsomely for tickets and broadcast access, are in vast majority White.
According to nfl.com:
Colin Kaepernick, San Francisco 49ers – $19,000,000
Six years, $114,000,000 total with $61,000,000 guaranteed-he is the 17th highest paid player in the NFL in 2016.
Don’t you feel so sorry for him.

What revolution is going to come from these people? Their protest is the protest of consummate alpha pigs, whose tribute is not yet 1,0000 percent granted by the obsequious.
They are not motivated to overturn America; they are motivated to imbue themselves, engraft themselves inexorably within this most powerful right wing system in the world.
Colin Kaepernick, the Mulatto, has a (Egyptian-Muslim) girlfriend who was taught by Jewish professors that America was founded by slave holders – and so it was. She pointed out that a part of the National Anthem – verses that nobody ever sings, knows or adheres-to, verses that were written hundreds of yeas ago by right wingers – can be used as a publicity stunt to further engraft themselves into America’s power structure; this, by pretending on the basis of these long ago verses that they are oppressed in their multi-million dollar football contracts.
She tells a story based on the Jewish wall papering of the White Class, that Whites put blacks in jail for the arbitrary racism of it, not to defend themselves from violent criminals.
In truth, and at best, blacks might alert dissent from American patriotism in this protest, and finally disgust White Americans and others enough to disabuse them of their negrophelia.
But would-be ethnonationalists are not likely to suspend disbelief in the black liberation narrative, as the protest is allowed to proceed and is commended by the liberal, the right wing (they merge) powers that be. They know how to play and deepen beholdenness of the puerile to the position of blacks as “leaders” of the so called vanguard. Blacks are the ultimate “Whitey be cool stick” for liberals, for right wingers, for puerile females who wish to retain undue privilege, license.
There should be no enthusiasm from revolutionaries for this protest. Only cold analysis. The danger is to us, that in sympathy and admiration for blacks, as Madison Ave knows, it will only help them to become embedded in “a revolution” of the American system which is no revolution, it is its mere reconstruction, and has them only more privileged in their elite tenth, especially, which will be highly protective and ethnocentric of the rest of black Americans – which will have little concern for the pesky concerns of other’s rank and file.
Madison Ave. knows how stupid Whites can be in their right wing reaction, like those of Stormfront, the unbearably stupid “Father Francis” who says blacks should be grateful for having been brought to America for all the good its done them, and Whites should be proud for having liberated the slaves… how benign blacks are, their nature not really so destructive that Whites cannot live with them, they’re just a bit misguided by the YKW. Yet in truth it was the right wing that brought them upon us and unleashed these hyper assertive primitives upon us. They have done no White people a favor, least of all in the virtue signal of liberation and tolerance of a Father Francis – idiot.
Our admiration for their assertion in valid recognition of an ancient injustice of America must be cut short; for they are not liberators, they have been inflicted upon working class Whites and native Americans by right wingers.
It is an alpha capacity known all too well to Madison ave and the rest of Jewry to create followers among those who would become assimilated to Mulatto supremacism.
Blacks are not revolutionaries because they are the descendants of alpha selection and alphas are not revolutionaries – blacks will only be bulwarks of the status quo.
One has but to watch the Vietnam documentaries to see that America’s liberal propositionalism is a dubious if not disingenuous and totally destructive prospect to support and export – viz., it illustrates why any conscientious person should be a revolutionary with regard to America.
Some Americans find this out when after signing up for wars in patriotic enthusiasm, they come to realize that they are being used in the most abject way:

Ironically, this is the case of Pat Tillman – the NFL player who left a lucrative contract in order to fight in Afghanistan – who President Trump invoked as a true patriot in contrast to the kneeling black footballers. Some have suggested that if Tillman were alive, he’d be kneeling during the national anthem as well …perhaps not in sympathy for BLM, but he did not have opportunity for such widely publicized protest because he was killed by friendly fire. Tillman was well known to have soured on America’s militarism and to have begun to openly denounce it.


Yes, the mulatto Kaepernick got a tip that attention may be garnered by the liberal press looking for left cover where the National Anthem reveals America to have been on the wrong side side of ethno-nationalism, the workers, “the hirlings.”
But it is up to White ethnonationalism to take the exposure of those flagrantly dissatisfied with the American flag, even those who in economic terms perhaps should not be dissatisfied, as a point of departure to coordinate matters of ethnic genetic interests, ethnonational liberation with Indios, Amerindians and Asians.
Lyrics
O say can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;
O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
‘Tis the star-spangled banner, O long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion,
A home and a country, should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps’ pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave,
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.O thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war’s desolation.
Blest with vict’ry and peace, may the Heav’n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: ‘In God is our trust.’
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
It is not valid for protests, which would be rightfully directed against right wingers, to be allowed to brush and wall paper all Whites as privileged implementors and beneficiaries across the board (talking about taking genetic interests, quality of life and stress or lack there-of into the equation, not just economic numbers) of that right wing hubris – as ethnonationalists, it is dubious to admire these blacks in their protests. Their assertion is right wing, and to wish to share in their assertiveness is the way of puerile females and right wing pandering to that powerful gate-keeping position in the disorder of modernity. Madison Ave knows this, Jews know this, that they can shepherd the sheep through the alpha….Stormfront and the unbearable “Father Francis” apparently are oblivious to this, the alpha nature of blacks that his techno-nerdom allows him to weasel around, to build psychological fire walls around and do calculative gymnastics to sympathize with the blacks who are being pushed-out by Mexican gangs – rather than saying “go Mexicans!” as we do, they sympathize with these blacks on multi-million dollars of collective welfare, government jobs and programs, multi million dollars in celebrity careers … they protest their “oppression”…. for they are not revolutionaries, they are a part of their same right wing system, and seek only to engraft themselves more fully into its central governance.


New England Patriotards vs Los Angeles Crips

By 2019, the Rams team had moved back to Los Angeles and made it to the superbowl again, this time to face The New England Patriots.

Since the time in the late 80’s when I prioritized racial interests over the entertainment of sports and music, when I do observe race mixed sporting events or statistics, I root for the individual performance of White players and against individual black players.
Over at Amren, Paul Kersey entitles an article, “Root for the Patriots in the Superbowl”
Although there is something to be said for the Patriots success while using White players in positions usually associated with black skills, as rather an expression of White selection and identity, betraying negrophila some along with its taken for granteds, the teams are still mercenary, not particularly representing a place or race. Thus, I can’t agree with his conclusion that Whites should feel ok about rooting for mixed race teams as it perpetuates the idiot cuckoldry of White fandom and support of the race mixing agenda through one of its most seductive means – visually exciting sports, adulation of athletic skills beyond merit, way beyond real world value and just reward, while ensconced in the deceptive, soothing pretext of passive objectivity. (take into account that Kersey, like Jared Taylor, is expository of black behavior, but Jewish friendly) Kersey writes:
The white quarterback, Tom Brady, along with white wide receivers Julian Edelman and Chris Hogan, white tight end Rob Gronkowski, and white running backs Rex Burkhead and James Develin, are an anomaly in the “vibrant” NFL. They have a vast overrepresentation of skilled white players who not only excel, but dominate.
[…]
With all this whooping about diversity, an anomaly does not go unremarked: the whiteness of the New England Patriots during their historic run under Tom Brady. For this year’s Super Bowl in Atlanta, all eyes are on Mr. Brady, the 41-year-old quarterback, who will be playing in his unprecedented ninth championship game in 18 seasons (this will be his third consecutive shot at the Lombardi Trophy, and Mr. Brady holds a 5-3 record in the Super Bowl).
With that, he suggests:
Root for the Patriots in the Superbowl
It’s OK to be white.
On Sunday, more than 110 million Americans will huddle around their television sets and watch the 53rd Super Bowl, a matchup between the Los Angeles Rams and New England Patriots.
After two seasons marred by black NFL players taking a Colin Kaepernick-style knee or raising a ‘Black Power’ fist during the National Anthem, television ratings slightly improved during the 2018 season.
[…]
So even if you are not a fan of the NFL, or don’t like the antics of black players who knelt during the National Anthem, there’s nothing wrong with rooting for the New England Patriots and Tom Brady to win Super Bowl 53. In a league where 72.6 percent of the players are POC, there’s nothing wrong with cheering for a team that looks a little more like you.
It’s the white thing to do.
He supplies one good reason NOT to root for the Patriots or any NFL team, here:
Ibid. That year, largely because of pressure from the owners of NFL’s 32 franchises, the league saw only a handful of black athletes—who account for 69.7 percent of the players—take a knee during the anthem. A recent poll of NFL fans shows only 24 percent of white fans strongly support the anthem protests, while 59 percent of blacks do (47 percent of white fans and 7 percent of black fans strongly oppose them). Though the kneeling stopped, the owners did create an $89 million fund for the players to hand out to “improve social justice and racial equality in our country.


Anyway, Patriotard star quarter back, Tom Brady, played well, especially for a 41 year old, White tight end Rob Gronkowski had a decisive catch, while White running back Rex Burkhead had flashes of brilliance to put a nail in the Rams coffin… as the Patriotards beat the Crips to win the Superbowl. However, we would learn that the star “White” Patriotard receiver, who also played well, is not White, he’s Jewish – (((Julian Edelman))).
Should have caught that myself (That’s what I get for taking the Paul Kersey/Jared Taylor camp for granted). Thanks for the heads-up, Captainchaos.




Patrick Mahomes signed a 10 year, $450,000,000 contract with the Kansas City Chiefs, including a $10,000,000 signing bonus, $141,481,905 guaranteed; average annual salary of $45,000,000.
His father, who was a Major League Baseball pitcher, was “only” able to collect $2,658,000 in salary over 11 years, having a bad e.r.a. of 5.47 over the course of his career.
Tom Brady Wins his Seventh Super Bowl.

Brady congratulated by Gronkowksi, who joined him in moving from a several time Patriots champion to continue their ways with the Buccaneers, where Brady won his seventh Super Bowl.


Here’s food for thought to put this matter in perspective:
To paraphrase Aristotle:
‘What is it that makes us distinctly human? Is it strength, quickness, the ability to run fast? There are many creatures which exceed us in these capacities’…
Generational Astrology: Zodiac Sign of the Boomer, Part 11
Augustinius, Manichius, Cartesius
Big Bro Boomers selfishly over-state fear of collectivism at expense of Little Bro Xers atomization
In truth, I didn’t intend to move over to Majorityrighs, I rather sought to poach Bowery and bring him to The Voice of Reason Broadcasting Network. Noting his talent, disillusionment and insult he experienced of Majorityrights proprietor, Guessedworker; I hoped to bring his talent to VoR.
When Bowery told me that he would come to VoR and set about to “re-boot the Enlightenment”, I face palmed as he was gearing up to fly in the face of the White Post Modern philosophy – a philosophy cultivated largely to overcome the flaws of Enlightenment era philosophy and extend up-to-date conceptual tools to take us where I knew that our people needed to go. Nevertheless, I kept quiet, as he has marked talent, even if not the best philosophically, and I could work around him. However, his coming to VoR as a regular didn’t materialize because, as I said, the network was allowed to go down when Carolyn Yeager and Tanstaafl left to establish their own network.
When I did move over to Majorityrights with the demise of VoR, Bowery remained a somewhat grudging presence, enduring the insult of Guessedworker, but also conflicting bitterly with some of the others there – he would finally give an ultimatum: “It’s me or Graham Lister.” Graham is a rather intelligent man, a geneticist, sometimes commenter and poster at MR, but with an absurd level of disdain for Americans and the attendant foibles that Bowery had – individualism, aversion to any social integration theory as the road to “eusociality” in our people (eusociality in people means their functioning in a non-human way, like a hive group, like bees or ants); and his own special idea to stave off eusociality, an elaborate scheme to administer “pair-wise duels” to preserve “Euroman’s individual nature”, which, he maintained, is under threat by the zeitgeist of specialization that has been evolving since the times when we gathered around campfires; followed by a pernicious development of “civilization” culminating through Rome’s imposition of “civilization” on the feral Northerners of Europe, ruining their true individual and creative nature.
Captainchaos said:
“Computer geeks make for shitty political philosophers.”
Graham Lister replied:
“Very true – narrow technical intelligence doesn’t often translate very well into the much broader field of political thought. Well done CC! There’s hope for you yet!”
Needless to say, Bowery wasn’t pleased with this sort of remark. But to my surprise, he also took a rather hostile stance toward my offerings, not as antagonistic as Guessedworker, however…
Being a social constructionist, I take for granted that there is, at least somewhere along the line, a joint effort in the construction of knowledge. With Majorityrights being a discussion site with active and regular commentators, I figured I could at least eventually show them that this outlook was a natural fit as a means to advance ethnonationalism. If I put up a “specificatory structure”, i.e., a post that could use adjustments, some “shaping and crafting”, I expected it to be treated as an occasion for friendly, minor correction and amendment as such (I say “friendly minor correction” as it is clear that my will is good and the material that I bring to bear is relevant, different and important), not absolute dismissal of everything I say and me along with it – treated as the Trojan horse of an enemy envoy (even though NOBODY, friend or foe, was doing anything like me) to be utterly vanquished as redundant where not the bringer of veritable evil. Although that treatment was even more GW’s sickness, they were both treating me in accordance with the “transmissions” model of communication, as if I presented myself as Moses on Mount Saini delivering with all pomp and pretense, the infallible and perfectly understood truth to the passive audience receiving it below. The modernist assumption and its corresponding refusal to suspend disbelief, maintaining instead a position of endless skepticism and critique, with the assumption that the battering would lead to “foundational” knowledge, would become more and more evident, as would Guessedworker’s disingenuous purpose for this convenient premise.
For “a discussion” site, as Majorityrights purported to be, there was next to nothing in the way of discussion – in fact, that would have been more like a social constructionist/communications perspective. Instead what comments there were, were basically trolling and ridicule which were anything but informative; this trolling based on the old transmissions model, as if I were presenting myself as a Moses on Mount Saini, issuing edicts impervious to feedback, this pompous guy not amenable but who, rather, needed to be taken down.
Snark and aim for the “one thing” that would take down the whole charade was also an artifact of the STEM mindset of this culture at MR, enamored of machine precision. It is a bad mindset to apply to the more messy world of praxis (the social world) – where people have agency and there are reflexive effects; thus, where working hypotheses and specificatory structures are a better means of analysis than a quest for perfect and singular theory to the exclusion of all other ways of considering its issues.
From Bowery I’d get a reaction and a similar position as GW, as if I was waving the same (((red capes))) of the humanities that he was used to reacting-to. And I received some pedantic instruction as to how I might pursue GW’s STEM reaction ontology project.
For a salient example, although I devised the first DNA Nations post to flatter his abilities and encourage his participation in the project, he never really did much participate, but instead talked of implementing his own “sortocracy” project and said, with a tinge of sadistic glee – “then we wouldn’t need it” (The DNA Nations project). This is the STEM dream, to find an error or redundancy in a scheme and then eliminate it as redundant.
And I got this snark from hims in line with GW’s hyperbolic resentment of scholasticism:
“Augustinius, Manichius, Cartesius”
In fact, lets go right these examples.
“Augustinian” and “Manichean” are Clerk Maxwell’s “conceptual demons” – two different kinds of challenges that humans have to face and are well advised to distinguish.
Augustinian devils are natural challenges, they don’t change when resolved. It is a reasonable and obvious hypothesis that I offer that Europeans, especially northerners, are evolved more to deal with these challenges; this corresponds with scientific achievement and with social naivete – it means that people of this mindset are a bit prone to be dupes. I am not knocking this predilection, it is my own and ultimately, it is the important mindset as it is by successfully taking on Augustinian challenges that humans will survive or not.
Manichean Devils are man made devils; they can be tricksters and change the rules; say, if you’ve solved a problem they can “un-solve” it. It is a reasonable hypothesis that I offer that Middle Easterners are more evolved to deal in terms of this kind of devil, as they are evolved in circumstance where the challenge was more against other tribes than nature itself. This outlook of the Manichean Devil is evident in the Mossad’s motto, “wage war by deception,” and in the Muslim “taqiyya”, which is also an endemic means of deception.
Now. why the fuck would Bowery flout me as pompous, saying that I was coming to Majorityrights in pretentious scholasticism, talking in terms of “Manichius” or “Augustinius”?
Especially with his concerns for Northern “Euroman” and his individual scientific creativity, there should have been no aversion what so ever to these working hypotheses. I might have rather expected steel manning.
I would expect someone like Bowery, who claimed to be “lightyears more intelligent” than me, to do better in terms of seeing the value and working with me to integrate ideas like this and several more that I brought to bear… but instead was treated like a frivolous and pompous fool – ” Augustinius, Manichius …and Cartesius”…
Yes, Bowery would lambast me in a Skype call, telling me to “stay far away from talking about Descartes. You are demoralizing our people!”…. he would add with a tone of utter disgust, that I should stop criticizing “Modernity” as a problem.
Now, what we’re seeing here is a STEM boomer reaction to the (((red caping))) of post modern concepts. Boomer, as in settled in that perspective, before Modernity “came into question” and assault by the (((red caped))) misrepresentation of “Post Modern” concepts – (((Post Modernity))) as opposed to White Post Modernity.
He’s acting very defensively of science, as if I am attacking science when I discuss some of the mistakes of the “Empirical Philosophers.” I should be able to take it for granted that when I talk about problems with “the empirical philosophers” that I am talking about Locke, Berkeley and Hume, not criticizing empiricism per se (or even empirical philosophy).
But Bowery either was that sensitive to the potential disparagement of science and/or, like GW, but to a lesser extent, he was looking for a foil to polemicize against. I think in Bowery’s case, it’s more a science sensitivity.
It’s kind of like when I discussed the post modern concept of herremeneutics with Dr. MacDonald and he insisted that hermeneutics is anti-science (when I know that it is not, it is facilitative of science) because all he’s known is the (((red caping of heremeneutics))) as anti-science.
And again, when I talked of “scientism,” Bowery reacted as if I was criticizing science per se. Unlike GW, he was at least placated when I clarified (though it was to repeat, as I was never vague about this), that what is meant by “scientism” is bad science or bad application of science.
You don’t want to defend bad science, do you? He did not say anything but it was clear that he would say no, as he is a frequent critic of bad science.
Let me offer a graphic example of scientism, a very dangerous expression, at that:


It is not hard to to find other examples. The idea that human beings are animals who cannot be monogamous would be another example of scientism. There is no reason to extend examples and elaborate, the point should be clear. This is NOT about being against science, but against bad science, or bad application of science, i.e., scientism. Having made this distinction many times over the years, I still found GW responding to the word scientism as if he’d heard the word “science” and it being criticized, calling for him to rejoin, “well Europeans are a scientific people”… I face palm. Ok, maybe he was trying to invoke sympathy but… sheesh.

Ok, now lets turn to the biggie, the big bugbear for Bowery and Guessedworker: Cartesianism.
In philosophy, including for Guessedworkers fixated German god, Heidegger, Cartesianism is at the crux of Modernity against what would come to be known as the Post Modern, Hermeneutic turn.
From here on out, I might interchangeably refer to Guessedworker as “Asshole” because that’s what he is. Now, Asshole believes that he has removed Heidegger of this critique, having “told me” that Heidegger was not against Cartesianism altogether; in fact, recognized that this Cartesian provision could not always be avoided.
Since Asshole is “telling me this” (“you have been told”), let me tell him right back to his philosophically talentless self, that trying to abolish all utility in Cartesianism is not what philosophers are doing in its critique.
I have made this clear. He has been told. I/we are not going to try to tell microwave engineers to stop using Cartesian coordinates where they find them to work in their inquiries.
What Post Modern philosophy (proper) is doing, commencing with Vico’s critique of Descartes and with that critique picking up steam and resource through Heidegger, is to call our attention back from Cartesian estrangement and detachment from Praxis and instead re-center our world view in its relative social group interests and requirements for conduct (i.e., “phronesis”, the means of practical judgement, not pristine theory) – guiding us yes, in hermeneutic circulation as need be, from holding fast to our emergent qualities enough for guidance against misdirecting social rules to providing coherence over and against the arbitrary thrownness of our existential circumstance.
This is not to take our hermeneutic liberation from mere facticity so far as to be estranged from our relative social interests in abstractions beyond praxis and authentic human concern – that would be Cartesian – nor getting caught up in the arbitrary flux of our thrown condition below praxis, in brute nature, where force and might is all meaningful as opposed to the human negotiation of praxis; caugth instead in the mere facticity below praxis, its confusingness to our authentic concerns, its contradictions, paradoxes, arbitrariness (we can in fact breed with any race, you can say “we are all Africans under the skin” ..stupidly), as again, that would be a Cartesian problem which may otherwise be ameliorated, liberated by the hermeneutic turn from mere facticity.
Whether in this corrective liberation from mere facticity and its tortuous arbitrariness or in corrective of principles which, if followed ad nauseum, would take us beyond nature to no care for this world, hermeneutics is a process of engaged inquiry which provides a distinctly human capacity to liberate us from this Cartesian estrangement, from non-human causality, to be liberated from mere facticity (beyond momentary and episodic facts and confusions as need be) by the White Post Modern, hermeneutic turn.
Now, it is important to emphasize that hermeneutic inquiry does not deny facts, ignore more objective and scientific inquiry as a part of its survey or reject its findings.
Again, these inquires into facts and truths irrespective of our subjective and relative interests are well placed as invaluable feedback against the calibration of our relative interests.
When we can grasp the non-Cartesian, partly storied, historical narrative, accept the limitations but see the opportunity in the tiny bit of arbitrariness to “the narrative” of our people, as delimited group, not run away to the Cartesian netherworld above or below Praxis, then we may be accountable, coherent, agentive and corrective – i.e., homeostatic of our group systems, establishing autonomy and warrant thereof, sovereignty in a word. We may have “authentic” human existence as a people and with it, the wide range of functional autonomy that our people enjoy as individuals.
This Post Modern, hermeneutic, anti-Cartesian, anti-Modern turn, is thus an extremely important turn for European peoples. No fucking Asshole Guessedworker with his piddling 143 I.Q. and no Bowery will dissuade this. It is too important. My I.Q. will be 200 for the occasion if need be (lol).
There are many examples of the significance of the heremeneutic process of inquiry, its capacity to resolve problems where the rigidity of Cartesianism might fail. But let me call attention to one example that became particularly illustrative between Bowery and I.
Bowery’s got this concept of “Sortocracy” and while its pretty good as a libertarian sourced ideas go, it’s limitation as compared to heremeneutic method is shown in an example that he provided.
I wrote about this in an article – A Hermeneuticist Confronts a Sortocracer With A Provocative Issue – and I’ve commented upon this as well. His concept of Sortocracy is a very empirically based idea, i.e. here and now testing: viz., people are encouraged to vote with their feet to sort and be with whom they like, where they like, in order to test the human ecology that they see fit. Here’s where it got provocative, interesting, my ears perked. He added in passing, that “this would have resolved the Polish corridor /Danzig question right away” rather than its being a precipitating dispute of WWII.
Knowing something of the history of the city, that it has been Germanic, it has been Polish (including in its hay day), it has been neutral, it has been German and was almost entirely German in population at the time preceding WWII, that Sortocracy may have sorted things out as Hitler wanted (but not quite, as it lacked the resistance that supplied the rhetoric of his reasonableness in the face of intransigence that his war mongering rhetoric deployed); but hermeneutic inquiry contained the possibility for a more just adjudication, which was attempted by noting that the city has been in important dispute for centuries between Poland and Germany. And a return to its neutrality might have been its optimal status. Perhaps not, but hermeneutics circulating process of inquiry can look at the history and take it into account to correct for a more just result, if possible, based on historical information; or it can circle back to the situation now and say, well, better make it German. The point is, that it opens up important vistas that a-historical empiricism does not. Similar historical inquiries would be raised in Czech and the Sudetenland under the Treaty of St. Germain.
Now, what the Cartesian anxiety does to Bowery, lacking in hermeneutic liberation from mere facticity as it were, is have him attempt to engage, at the apex of his inquiries, into different kooky ideas, whether its an absurd binary choice between pairwise duels or that we become eusocial creatures like insects… or that we must tear civilization down in order to save our natural selves [I’ve written about this too, “Civilization”, which Bowery sees as a major problem or “Modernity” which I see as a major problem] ..civilization is to be torn down in order to free the Euro man in his commune with god at the end of this Cartesian stretch, whereof he does not, you see, see that he should be curbing his objectivist inquiries; which, though yielding some great ideas along the way, need to be curbed and recognized as feedback to be gauged against the relative interests of our people, and corrected in their systemic virtue in that group systemic calibration – for what, really, does his individuality matter otherwise and where, otherwise, does it really come from. ..to whom is it really indebted?
But on the other hand, this is where I have sympathy for Bowery’s Cartesian anxiety, knowing it well for having been in the situation of America myself. To say the least, Praxis does not present itself as an appealing option. Rather, one is looking for an escape from “socialization” in this imposition of peoples from everywhere and anywhere, from the fall-out of (((weaponized))) Lockeatinism, where classifications are not mere impositions against individualism, but “racism” and cause to force people upon you who are utterly destructive to you. This is the rule of the land, just about everybody takes it for granted as the the American way (the hegemonic, American way)… you experience Cartesian anxiety, acutely, you look for the way out – in Bowery’s case, in terms of libertarianism to begin with and then perhaps to more speculative ideas, to where you’ll even give Doolittle a considered hearing.
GW and especially Graham Lister are not very sympathetic to the hell of Bowery’s circumstance. They take for granted what White Americans cannot in their situation absent the ancient coherent history of the people and their land at bottom; a couple hundred years history Americans have, with no collective identity to enforce it, only individual rights and not much for you, Whitey.
Now, while I am sympathetic to Bowery, I am not overly sympathetic.
I believe that his perspective is scientistic in its recoil from the White Post Modern Project. While it is possible for us to evolve in eusocial way and certain means of war, in particular, are a likely way to stimulate that direction of evolution, he is showing a lack of appreciation for the Aristotelian nature of Praxis. In the main, if we have our bearings in praxis, its correctivity, there is no clear an present danger to us turning into eusocial creatures very quickly; and if we see ourselves evolving in that way, we can take measures to correct it – i.e., if we are losing our individuality, masculinity, whatever, we can take measures to correct these trends.
Whereas Bowery has at times acted as if he was saving us from eusociality, he was, in fact, metastasizing Boomer cancer.

Big Brother, the boomer generation, is not watching, is not looking after your interests. He has disingenuously allowed the once more relevant fear of collectivism to be over-extended in his selfish interests at the expense of our group survival – not looking-after, but blocking “Little Brother,” viz., generation Xers corrective concern regarding atomization – the obvious vulnerability and destruction of our group, systemic survival and individuals thereupon.
And now these selfish pigs (not Bowery, but Boomers as a metastesized pattern) are aligning with right-wing Jewish interests – either naively or disingenuously – to bypass the ethnonational left corrective of gen-Xers, to instead mainline the parasite’s directives directly for an advanced stage take-over through generation internet bubble – instant experts, ‘knowing-it-all’ thanks to taking Big Brother’s (((directed vigilance))) against “The Left.” …the YKW don’t want the gentiles to get any grass-roots union organizing ideas now that they have hegemony in all elite niches; they just want right-wingers who disingenuously or naively comply with thwarting those nascent Left Ethnonationalist challenges to them (let alone any coalition building of ethnonationalisms against them).
Little Brother’s Concerns are Not being looked-after.
… that is to say, necessary philosophical corrections of the Gen-Xers are not.
“The attempt to sideline positions such as this as on one side or the other of the “individual vs collective” divide is, itself, a most egregious Cartesian attack.”
The Hermeneuticist doesn’t side track issues by balancing concern for the individual and collective (for example). But rather, in circulating corrective of Cartesian runaway – in this case of the boomer generations’ emphasis, now anachronistic over emphasis on the fear of collectivism’s dehumanizing dangers – it instead recognizes that the emphasis for our people now has to be more directed toward correcting our atomization as a people resulting from the rupture of ethnonationalist unionization (through weaponized modernity, for example: unionization being an “unnatural”, socially collectivizing concept as Asshole might see the red capes of praxis; whereas nationalism should emerge as naturally as his zen farts); we need to assert the warrant of our people’s unionization and accountability thereof; without which the very grounds even of what distinct individualism that the European species affords is destroyed.

All American highschoolers of the 50s and 60s were assigned (((Kafka’s))) book Metamorphosis, a sci-fi nightmare allegory culmination in eusocial take-over of its subject’s once human body.
They were also assigned Orwell’s 1984 story of the negative utopian horrors of collectivism, to where social accountability, that is to say, accounts requested, had been taken beyond all reason (producing insanity like that of the Stasi, Merkel and much of the PC enforcement of today).

It is apparent now, that the parasite is encouraging WN in right-wing reaction against the so called left (against the hyperbolic exaggerations of their international, Marxist left and Cultural Marxist, anti-White Left as disingenuously lumped with proper White and non-Jewish left ethnonationalism); into right wing reactions that double down in the reaction against YKW abuse of left conceptualization of the social and group; a reaction encouraged, where not prescribed by them as the parasite merges with the host Whites to drive them over the top and into to ultimate dissolution of those aspects which will not be totally merged and controlled by its Jewish agenda for thorough supremacy over the “gentiles.”

Grade school kids of the Boomer generation were sometimes drilled to scurry beneath their school desks to shelter themselves from atomic attack from The Soviet Union.

I guess its not very important, maybe a standard kind of intellectual hazing ..and maybe he would be annoyed for having had ideas similarly that others were claiming as theirs uniquely, but Bowery would gaslight at times; for example, showing me the wiki page on the “Human Be-in” and acting like he was informing me about the connection between a Heideggerism and the underlying, unarticulated Hippie motive.
For more examples of this older bro hazing, which may be a little obnoxious, not very good, but also not necessarily egregious… testing to see if you are not too intellectually sensitive…

I would say Bowery’s criticism of the Mulatto Supremacist article, one of the first that I put up at MR, was somewhat valid, but I was mainly trying to get the term out there as a pejorative. The Haitian uprising against the French colonialists presented itself as subject matter, but ran counter to Mulatto Supremacism as a threat, since the blacks proper destroyed the Mulatto claim to supremacy; true enough, the Boxer, Jack Johnson, was black proper and therefore somewhat problematic to its coherence as subject of the piece, only tangentially and potentially propagating Mulatto Supremacism by way of any offspring that he might have. That wasn’t quite Bowery’s concern, as he criticized my “analysis” for looking at a boxer; and that criticism is valid except that women are not always attracted to feats of I.Q., but can, reasonably, be a bit more ecologically balanced in their interests, including for aspects of biopower, as in the case of Jack Johnson’s wife exactly, who left an intellectually accomplished White husband for Johnson.
Black biopower can be quite an intellectual challenge to take on, not only a physical challenge, that’s why I looked to take it on… I also wanted to take on an example illustrating how black biopower could be a challenge prior to the time of quite such Jewish hegemony…e.g., there was no Cultural Marxism in Johnson’s hay day.

Bowery said that women don’t like, in fact, “nobody likes” (I don’t know how he knows everybody but..), nobody likes my take on Sex, in my articles, Sex as Sacrament, Sex as Celebration, Sex as Natural Fact and other Stories, but I am saying that there are different views upon it, so which one does he not like? or do they not like?

And when I discussed Lakoff’s (Women, Fire and Other Dangerous Things) concept of human’s having to classify (Lakoff said categorize, but to classify is the same thing), Bowery said that he was thinking of this back in the day, suggesting therefore again, my redundance, that I was not contributing anything new (modern), therefore nothing important…. or saying that I am “sloppy” as I don’t treat Praxis in a STEM manner, like a car engine, as GW might…. or suggesting that I am a wuss (in hidebound stereotype of masculinity, playing into the modernist notion of universal maturity – he once presented me this image and said, “see that, that’s you”:

So he is a bit stricken by Cartesian anxiety. That is where you get the nutty shit, understandable in its cause though it may be, in the midst Jewish rhetoric and sophistry of praxis, amidst the imposition of throngs of people unaccountable, people you want nothing to do with imposed upon you by the (((weaponized))) modernist notion of “civil rights” … imposing people upon you that you need to get away from. Getting social and getting together with people? That’s the last thing you’d want – if you are taking a mere empirical perspective, without the White Post Modern concept of hermeneutic transcendence and social constructionist engagement, responsibility.
Especially when someone is claiming to be light years more intelligent than I am, I don’t expect to have to argue this much, let along argue against intransigence.
I posted an article “James Watson does not exist” (said sarcastically, of course) in order to illustrate how easily his concerns fit with the White Post Modern view, when he was miffed at Watson’s travails in the PC (((red capes of Post Modernity))).
…
Through the times at Majorityrights, Bowery didn’t have much to say about social constructionism other than castigating a commentator troll who was using it in the red cape way.
But he seems to be stuck on the anachronistic social constructivism and thought that he was going to correct me by citing von Glassersfeld as such: von Glassersfeld – people go around perturbing one another, lol.
Social constructivism, however, looks at the products of socialconstruction not the process itself, and it is this interactive process of social constructionism, of its nature in praxis, which apparently neither Bowery’s nor GW’s boomerism has come to terms…..despite its advantages, despite its reality!
Bowery has made individualism – the sovereign euro man – into a veritable religion and has said on at least one occasion that he would go to another people if they were the more likely vehicle to protect individualism.
In a way, he is at the extreme opposite from GW’s concern. Whereas Bowery is averse to the social interactive perspective because in America all kinds are thronged and forced upon you – which might just make you want to extricate yourself from other people to the extreme as in Bowery’s case; GW is averse to social interactive possibilities because he wants to hold his people together, their taking for granted a social bond and historical homeland; he wants for them not to be swept up in language games which may liberalize them from their emergent form.
In Cartesian anxiety Bowery goes speculative, off the deep end into pair wise duels, nutty speculation of pure relation to god, realms of shield maidens, sovereign male White knight protectors…Someone said something about “Dungeons and Dragons”… how they were glad that they didn’t get wrapped up in it in their youth..
Now, in segue, I will save for the Guessedworker section the few remarks that I have in defense of using ideas from Vico and Harre; but I have strong reason to believe Bowery was supporting GW in his dismissal of Harre and Vico. This is to really misunderstand how I am using their work and to take issue only as they might.
Addendum regarding an avenue attempted by Bowery in Nordicist Boomer Cartesian Anxiety
Nearly ten years ago at Majorityrights, I had been making posts deploying Vico and Heidegger’s neo-Aristotelian, existentialist repositioning of Praxis (our people group classification) as the central world view. I was trolled relentlessly and with utter stupidity by a Christard named Joe, whose main offense was the sheer number and volume of his irrelevant Christian conspiritard posts, gunking up the threads. For whatever stupid reason, Bowery was taking the disposition that it was not supposed to bother me when it was if I was trying to carefully conduct the playing of classical orchestra while Joe was constantly disrupting the sound with loud, obnoxious noise. It was pretty clear that Bowery simply did not have a great deal of respect for what I was saying (or for me to be able to say it) if he simply expected me to accept Joe’s obnoxious disruption.
Then on 14 March 2013, Bowery displayed what I maintain to be a folly of his Nordicist boomer Cartesian anxiety. That is, he made a post arguing how John Harland shows Christianity to have been retooled through Northern European auspices to protect their natural individuality …and thus supposedly remains worthy as a religion for European people – nordicist snobs, anyway.
Suffice it to say I recognize this expression of Cartesian anxiety, seeking foundation beyond the correctivity of praxis in Jesus or whatever pure principle of individuality, let alone biblical text – ugh! to be part and parcel of the problem for the homeostasis of European genus and species.
In commenting on his post, I made some important points and then the Christard Joe came in with a deluge of bizarre conspiracy theories, comment after comment. Now, one will take note that the Christard/J-friendly misdirection agents, Thorn and Haller, welcomed this absurd commentary from Joe.
Going back some, as Majorityrights is a fee speech forum, I actually defended Joe as a commenter at first, stating that he presented ideas that others could clarify their disagreements by way of but that was before the deluge of utter absurdity from him.
And there was no real good reason for Bowery to continue to defend Joe; it was a reflection of a bad aspect of James in that for his high I.Q., he wants ‘yes’ men, not respecting the opinion of someone like myself who might say ‘no’ to some of his ideas and thus willing to see commentary obfuscated by the likes of an idiot like Joe.
Why do I say this? First there was Joe’s (along Thorn’s and Haller’s Christard distracting bullshit) interminable trolling attacks in commentary on my posts, which Bowery thought that I should just put up with. And then, after I made some thoughtful comments on Bowery’s post proposing the utility of Harland in redemption of Christianity and Joe came back with a deluge of conspiratorial bullocks, comment after comment, I made a few wry remarks, Bowery blamed me for encouraging him; but on the contrary, it was Bowery’s explicit tolerance of him that encouraged him. But what was even more insulting was misrepresenting my assessment of Joe as an expression, analogously speaking, of a “virus”, i.e., the Christard virus, and construing it as if I was somehow concerned that his ideas might go “viral” in the idiom of “become popular” misunderstanding rather than being what they were, overbearingly obnoxious distraction.
I will post the relevant comments from that post here, with the only caveat with regard to my position being that I may come across as an atheist in my rebuttal of Joe in some comments where I quote Nietzsche and “Zeitgeist” with George Carlin, but actually, I do believe that Europeans can and should have a new religion which serves our genus and species.
I will start off with the last comment first, made by myself just today. I could see in scrolling through this thread, “Christianity as expression of authentic European culture,” that I was talking of Christianity as “controlled opposition” in April of 2013 (lest anyone think Adam Green is the unique and stellar purveyor of this idea.
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 13:06 | #
P.S., Note my use of the term “controlled opposition” for Christianity in this comment of 15 April 2013. That is not, of course, to say that others could not or did not make the same inference, only to assert that I (and probably others) were talking that way long before Adam Green (who said that he traced the idea to some book he’d read; maybe so).
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:48 | #
The motive of the shit eating Jew fly calling itself “Joe” is to come here with its flurry of derailing and trivializing conspiracy theories that nettle and attack tender morsels until it can finally lay its Jewish eggs, the controlled opposition of Christianity, into a wound.
There is no true Christianity, it is all a Jewish hoax.
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 12:57 | #
Bowery was not representing my opinion here in suggesting that I was worried that Joe’s views would go “viral” .. in fact, very insulting to suggest that I would have such concern. I was rather bothered, and rightfully so, that he was obstructing and disrupting valuable informational traffic with his bullshit. His vast and relentless trolling was degrading the threads and distracting from careful thought.
As one looks back, one can see that I exercised patience and did NOT encourage him. Further, there was no reason what so ever to grant his comments space for people to “contemplate” here, including idiots like Thorn and Haller; who you see, what a “surprise”, welcomed him here.
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 15:24 | #
I don’t exactly agree, DaneilS. I do think that you’re encouraging him by continuing to respond to him. Anyone who reads what he writes with any degree of perception will see that he is not engaging in intellectually honest discourse. Others might be “infected” by his “viral” memes (the sense in which I think you mean his posts are “viral”) and go off and start transmitting the same viral memes to others. However, keep in mind that his perspective on Christianity is rather unique which tends to mitigate against that risk on the face of it.
Have fun with Thorn, your resident retard, Christard.
Christianity As Expression of Authentic European Culture
Posted by James Bowery on Thursday, 14 March 2013 01:37.
GW has expressed the constraint:
“It is a pity that Christianity, as flawed as it is from a European racial perspective, is undeniably part of the unity of north and south. We are stuck with it, for it has been too close for too long to us – and the faithful must have their faith expressions, after all.”
DanielS has expressed the constraint:
“Adding yet another knot in the tangle is the argument that with the Christian texts already being the terms in which many of our people think, the currency for two thousand years now, there must be some ontological basis beneath, and we may as well find the positive logic to it for our purposes. However, with the texts being what they are, the motivations of the texts being as convoluted, Jewish and ambiguous as they were to begin, all that winds-up happening with the deciphering of our “true” logic behind Christianity is a contribution to the mess.”
Note first of all, that Bowery is going to share Guessedworker’s snobbish concern for Nordics and relative disregard for Southern Europeans when it is an unnecessary false either/or, throwing southerners under the bus where all Europeans can be taken care of in their peculiarities by national boundaries, where the differences of our species are the concern (e.g., protecting the individuality of northern types). Nevertheless, in his Nordic penchant to quest after pure objectivism, Bowery wants to show how Harland can use Christianity to protect the individuality of the nordicists – just what we need, right? more of that bullshit.
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 06:06 | #
I think it is already clear enough that I am inclined to this option:
“or declare folly the entire effort to connect with the spiritual force of Christianity.”
Except that I would not necessarily reject spiritual force. I just don’t believe that it has to, or does necessarily, come with Christianity.
I favor a religious orientation around the 14 words, one to which any person of European extraction may subscribe – innocent until proven guilty.
However, as ecology and historico-systemic accountability are crucial, there is the necessity to negotiate and maintain a balance among and between different kinds of Europeans.
We need to be careful to be neither slobs nor snobs:
The slobs would be those who would recklessly integrate all European peoples on the one hand or perhaps allow for too much non-European influence on the other hand.
The snobs would be those who observe a particular European snob club, permitting of only one particular kind of European, one nation, one region, or one based exclusively on some particular skill; while needlessly excluding and putting at risk Europeans* who, while being loyal Europeans, cannot or will not subscribe to that particular European club.
* Of course, the snobs would be putting themselves at risk in certain circumstances by needlessly shunning potentially helpful allies; or in the worst case scenario by generating new enemies among Europeans.
To me, the most essential requirement, after being genetically European and after loyalty to Europeans is, whether one is willing to fight or flight on behalf of Europeans. I see maintaining the distinctions of Europeans as 1b. It is not the second priority but in the name of not going perilously far in the snob direction, to where we leave ourselves dangerously thin of allies or worse, increase our antagonists, the genus of European ought to occupy the realm of friends.
Perhaps Heidegger’s distinction between first and essential is useful here: Of accountability, first would be your particular nation but essentially would be European.
Or first European and essentially your particular kind of European? …I’m not sure, but somehow there should not be a serious conflict between the parts and the whole of Europeans
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:58 | #
…….
Not only is Christianity not authentically European, by taking it for grated that it is authentically European KMac gives what is (in my opinion) the mistaken advice that it is somehow radically rebellious to resurrect and defend Christianity against Jewish attacks. It is not radical and rebellious. To adopt Christianity is to play right into Jewish hands, their manipulated contrivance.
This seems to be an ongoing problem with those confronting the J.Q. They seem to feel doing just the opposite of what the Jews would want for their own interests is necessarily what is good and authentic for us, for our interests.
But that is mere reaction. Moreover, as I have said in many instances, that with the Jews acting in group interests, to merely do the opposite would be to act in a way opposing group interests, most saliently, not in our own group interests simply because we do not want to be like Jews.
Hence: Christianity, Darwinism, Inequality, Individualism, Anti-social constructionism, Nazism, pure theoria of science as opposed to the rhetoric of praxis, ruthlessness as opposed to compassion….
all these things and more are reacted into as necessarily good because they are the didactic opposite of the Jews exaggerated self interest.
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:18 | #
.
* A further note on the snobs. It is not wrong for them to exclude others from their particular club. The problem comes to the extent to which they effectively exclude Europeans from the genus, European, and unnecessarily put them at risk to non-Europeans as such.
Nevertheless, it is true that there should be some purist snob clubs to protect fairly pure genotypes or whatever other valuable difference may exist.
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:44 | #
…objective measures, impartiality…. oh, Blacks are suffering from immigration too (like we should give an F)
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 20:12 | #
1) What to do with the authentic European spirit that finds expression in Christianity—however distorted?
As many people will continue to be engaged in the Christian narrative, I suppose it is a question of some relevance; however as I see it, there is too much chance of reconstructing the tangles of Judeo-Christianity, and that will be seen as an unnecessary price by the majority of us, who do not find Christianity compelling whatsoever.
Some of us would rather churches be transformed into swimming pools or general discussion halls if not churches of the 14 Words
2) What is authentic European culture?
To begin with, it is rule structures which reconstruct European people by entailing things they are legitimated to do, are prohibited from doing, or are obliged to do.
Europeans have a variety of ways of doing things and their particularization of these rules differ.
You place heavy emphasis on a region of European people, on individualism, duels, a special reading of Christianity. Fine, I suppose that can be one expression of European, but it certainly does not encompass all of what it means to be European.
One thing that does represent a common bound of European is our DNA groupings and our evolution on the continent. There is more, but that is a significant basis which does not allow for that much weasel room, because there is a clear difference from Jewish peoples.
Farther elaborating on European rule structure:
It sets limits and protections on the the systemic pattern of the people at the point where it is being transgressed. Hence, it is culture (artificial selection as you observe), the cultivated turn of culture, in that it recognizes that the European people’s system is an open system; thus its well being and persistence is not entirely self corrective, not entirely homeostatic, but must be cultivated, through rules: obligation, prohibition and legitimacy which protect and afford the living and re-birthing of the people in a variety of benign, enjoyable and (to them) helpful ways.
Regarding the 14 Words, I did not say that it covered all the bases. First things first. However, if it is based in the Euro DNA Nation and its categories, which I propose, it is not adoptable by some other people. Rudimentary though it is, it forms (for me, anyway) a more positive core value than Christianity has to offer: an individual rebels against Jewish collectivism and exploitation? That strikes me as negative, reactive and inherently unstable.
I have the impression that you are too concerned that individualism will be consumed by collective enterprise. First of all, I don’t see why anybody would want to deny individual sufficiency to the extent that it can realistically exist; next, I see it as a part of evolution: population, struggle, variation, selection, survival. The variation part will foster individualism and the reconstruction of individualism where it may have been dulled for a time – viz. it can be reborn from our genetic basis where it may have been a bit dulled (say, by a necessary collective effort for survival).
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 20:30 | #
Hymie, the genetic map of Europe that I provisionally use shows that Europeans are identifiable and distinguished genetically.
There is some overlap with Iranians, yes, but they are still quite different from Europeans
The part that is similar is the fairly large percentage of R1a that they have. They even have some R1b.
Iran
R1a 16.5%
R1b 6.5%
But Europeans invariably have more of the R haplogroups in sum total; in addition to sporadic Nordic, Dinaric, pre Celto Germanic among their distinctly European groupings.
Joe’s first post comes here: Joe on Fri, 15 Mar 2013
and then here reels-off three more long comments.
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 15 Mar 2013 22:11 | #
Joe, you obviously didn’t bother reading the link I provided or you would know that to conflate 20th century US with 18th century US as you did in your response indicates such intellectual slop as virtually eliminate any residual interest your unusual viewpoint might hold.
Amidst 97 protracted comments by Joe, from March 13 to April 8 Thorn and Haller show their hand with these tidbits:
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 17 Mar 2013 15:10 | #
Informative discussion over at The White Network on the topic of Lawrence Auster, the rise of Jewish hegemony, and the resulting white dispossession thereof.
http://thewhitenetwork.com/2013/03/16/macdonald-and-tanstaafl-on-auster-and-jewish-influence/
Notwithstanding Lawrence Auster’s first and foremost underlying motivation: “Is it good for the jews”, I think on balance he and his body of work is a positive for the pro-white preservationist cause.
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 11:40 | #
Joe,
So you’re another Californian Catholic white patriot, eh? I thought I was alone in upholding that particular ‘slant’ here at MR. Welcome aboard!
……
Now, from March 13 to April 8, Joe made 97 protracted comments, welcomed by Thorn and Haller; and his only prime interlocutor was Bowery, who gave eleven responses to Joe during that time. Who was encouraging him? Certainly not I.
Finally, after all of Joe’s crazy shit about me and others being “Daseinists” and other insane bullshit, he posts this and I respond (hardly feeding the troll).
Posted by Joe on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 20:59 | #
About Jesus ;
Jesus was NOT a Jew ;
Article : ” Jesus Was NOT a Jew” :
http://assemblyoftrueisrael.com/JesuswasNotAJew.htm
Search Term will access more information :
” Jesus Was NOT A Jew”
116Posted by DanielS on Mon, 08 Apr 2013 21:05 | #
Nobody gives a shit, asshole
After a deluge more of Joe’s commetns, I added this:
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:48 | #
The motive of the shit eating Jew fly calling itself “Joe” is to come here with its flurry of derailing and trivializing conspiracy theories that nettle and attack tender morsels until it can finally lay its Jewish eggs, the controlled opposition of Christianity, into a wound.
There is no true Christianity, it is all a Jewish hoax.
And I added this great comment by J.B. Campbell:
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 15 Apr 2013 20:41 | #
“The problem is Christianity, which is Judaism for gentiles. Christians cannot deal with Jews because they believe that Jews are god’s chosen people.”
“I think it is the problem, the basic problem we have yeah.”
“To become a Christian is to deny yourself the right of survival… It assures the Jew that the enemy will not fight back.”“Yeah, those whom the Jews destroy they first make Christian.”
“The purpose of this essay is to prepare the reader for a life of struggle against Jewish rule in this country.”
“It is so simple to see what I’m talking about looking at Russia after 1917. What happened to all the Christians in Russia, I don’t even know how many millions. There are wild numbers, at least twenty million Christians were slaughtered by the Jewish Bolsheviks and maybe more than that.”
“To become a Christian is to deny yourself your right of survival in the deadliest struggle on earth. Those whom the Jews destroy they first make Christian, because it assures the Jew that the enemy will not fight back.”– J.B. Campell
Then I added a few remakrs from Nietzsche, and “Zeitgeist” featuring George Carlin, and that may have made it seem like I am an atheist, which I am not (I favor a new religion for European peoples, genus and species).
Joe made several other comments and I made a few other appeals to drive Joe away; naturally, Thorn came to Joe’s defense, saying his typically retarded things like I “abhor successful people” ? and that’s why I don’t like Joe and Christianity, lol.
…
More deluge from Joe.
I respond:
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 17 Apr 2013 04:17 | #
The authentic religion of Europe will be based on the 14 words or tantamount – as such it will clear away Joe’s false religion of Christianity:
Joe is a an evil virus that will do anything in its power to bury the truth on behalf of its religion that would have you worshiping a Jew in preparation to its universal subjugation and eternal death.
Joe goes on and on, while I troll him a bit until the 19the April when Bowery says this:
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 13:37 | #
Daniel, this is the second time you’ve addressed me in an inappropriate manner about this Joe character. The first was in a your part 3 where you basically stated that Joe would not be doing what he is doing here at MR if it were not for my encouraging him to do so.
[…]
You will notice, if you are careful, that my “encouragement” of Joe was that he should put his ideas together in a single coherent (yes I know you’ll say this is impossible) post where he can argue with folks who want to argue with him. Clearly I do not as I have not responded to him subsequent to my “encouragement” to write such a main post; which the reasonable man might see as different from encouraging him to spam every main post in MR and may even have been a more effective tactic to get him to stop spamming every main post at MR than continuing to pay attention to him as you have.
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 13:57 | #
I don’t exactly agree, Jim. I do think that your encouraging him at one time had something (not everything, by any means) to do with his feeling free to attack my posts and spam the threads.
As for the Boston thread, he was bringing a lot of kooky conspiracy theory there too, so I parodied your statement – Why would anyone commit utterly pointless seemingly random acts of terror, evincing pure nihilism, against benign events like ….Dasein? – to take a jab at him, not at you.
Do you see? I was not addressing you (in a manner appropriate or otherwise), l was addressing him.
Nevertheless, I will leave the matter unless it becomes acutely relevant.
….
I then attempted to be more kind than I should have with James effort to redeem Christianity, saying this:
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 14:20 | #
………..
As to your PS, I can understand your frustration at central points of your post not being addressed in commentary. I can’t think of one post of mine where that has not been the case.If you want to rewrite Christianity by way of Harland, it sounds like it could be a worthy narrative for the way of life that you and others value most.
It is more the drawbacks of getting confused and intertwined with other interpretations of Christianity that would keep me away from Christianity altogether and start anew with religious fundamentals. I think Christianity is too much a corollary to the received texts; and that they are poison.
I have no doubt, however, that there will be people who like your rendering of Christianity and your making use of those Harland aspects that have served well for northern European peoples.
P.S. I do think that I accidentally addressed Bill a bit too harshly (at the end of the incommensurability post), but I did not mean to: my rancor was really aimed at Auster. I left in an accidental pronoun “you” that would imply Bill, when I meant Auster.
At this point, Jamesmakes the sarcastic and innacurate comment that I was the one who was encouraging Joe:
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 15:24 | #
I don’t exactly agree, DaneilS. I do think that you’re encouraging him by continuing to respond to him. Anyone who reads what he writes with any degree of perception will see that he is not engaging in intellectually honest discourse. Others might be “infected” by his “viral” memes (the sense in which I think you mean his posts are “viral”) and go off and start transmitting the same viral memes to others. However, keep in mind that his perspective on Christianity is rather unique which tends to mitigate against that risk on the face of it.
And again most insulting of all, James is suggesting that I am worried that Joe’s ideas will “go viral” as opposed to my seeing him as an expression of the Judeo Christian virus and and a boring distraction as such.
But I didn’t say that at the time, left it the matter there in April of 2013.
However, seeing some activity on the thread now, I want to update my comments with the clarity that while I am not of an Abrahamic religion, I consider myself as having religious convictions with regard to my European people, genus and species.
Furthermore, I note my calling Christianity false opposition in that thread.
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 12:57 | #
Bowery was not representing my opinion here in suggesting that I was worried that Joe’s views would go “viral” .. in fact, very insulting to suggest that I would have such concern. I was rather bothered, and rightfully so, that he was obstructing and disrupting valuable informational traffic with his bullshit. His vast and relentless trolling was degrading the threads and distracting from careful thought.
As one looks back, one can see that I exercised patience and did NOT encourage him. Further, there was no reason what so ever to grant his comments space for people to “contemplate” here, including idiots like Thorn and Haller; who you see, what a “surprise”, welcomed him here.
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 19 Apr 2013 15:24 | #
I don’t exactly agree, DaneilS. I do think that you’re encouraging him by continuing to respond to him. Anyone who reads what he writes with any degree of perception will see that he is not engaging in intellectually honest discourse. Others might be “infected” by his “viral” memes (the sense in which I think you mean his posts are “viral”) and go off and start transmitting the same viral memes to others. However, keep in mind that his perspective on Christianity is rather unique which tends to mitigate against that risk on the face of it.
Have fun with Thorn, your resident retard, Christard.
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 05 Jan 2022 13:06 | #
P.S., Note my use of the term “controlled opposition” for Christianity in this comment of 15 April 2013. That is not, of course, to say that others could not or did not make the same inference, only to assert that I (and probably others) were talking that way long before Adam Green (who said that he traced the idea to some book he’d read; maybe so).
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:48 | #
The motive of the shit eating Jew fly calling itself “Joe” is to come here with its flurry of derailing and trivializing conspiracy theories that nettle and attack tender morsels until it can finally lay its Jewish eggs, the controlled opposition of Christianity, into a wound.
There is no true Christianity, it is all a Jewish hoax.
In commentary on the post above, I begin by saying:
Ecce Lux is making errors not worthy of double AA, let alone Major League White advocacy by featuring Nazi Ovfuckyou and Jonathan Pohl on his hangout.
I suppose that one might expect better understanding and judgment regarding history from history PhD Jonathan Pohl, but then if one has ANY understanding and judgment of the history, they would see through Jonathan Pohl’s claims as absurdly lacking in understanding and judgment – expressions of absurd German chauvinism.
Specifically, Pohl has the nerve to claim that I live in a city, Poznan, that “ethnically cleansed” thousands of Germans in 1944-45.
Absurdity number one bespeaking an ignorance born of utter German chauvinism and disregard for neighboring Europeans:
This expulsion occured on the heels of Nazi Germany having just killed millions of Poles and other Europeans from neighboring nations – and Pohl has the nerve to complain about Germans being sent to live in Germany proper after the war.
Not only that, but these millions were killed in large part for Hitler’s program of Lebensraum – living space for Germans at the expense of the nations to the east.
In other words, after having killed millions toward this end and losing to them, Jonathan Pohl expects no hard feelings, not even the inconvenience of being moved back into Germany proper.
While the borders established by Stalin at that time had the Germans losing lands in what is now Poland’s west, there is a reasonable accounting for this…
First regarding Poznan:
Pohl and Nazi Ovfuckyou laughed when Pohl said that I think that because Poznan was Polish before 1793 (Frederick the Great homosexual’s imperialism) that it should always be Polish.
Obviously, I could make the same claim – with more force in return – they think that because German imperialism had this land from 1793 to 1919 that it should always be that way – ho ho ho.
But it gets worse for their part…
Poznan is the first capital of Poland, established by the namesake tribe, “the Polane.” The name Poznan comes from Polish, ‘to make acquaintaince’ between the Czech, Russian and Polish man.
Because it is the first capital of Poland, the first kings of Poland are burried here, in its cathedral.
It gets worse for Pohl and Ov…
After Hitler’s idol and model, Frederick the Great Faggot took one third of Poland along with Russia and Austria, the Poles never stopped trying to regain their nation…..
This, despite the fact that Germany tried to destroy Poland’s history, burning its library, with its genealogy and territorial records.
Nevertheless the Poles tried unsucessfully to regain their nation for 123 years.
In World War I, Poles joined the German side up to 8% of fighting forces given the promise of more Polish autonomy following the war.
Holding them to their promise, Pilsudski orchestrated the WielkaPolska uprising which re-took the ancient capital of Poznan for the Poles.
Shortly thereafter, Pilsudski defeated The Soviet Union at Warsaw, when the Soviets were otherwise on their way to attack Berlin.
Endorsing Polish nationhood, The Versailles Treaty confirmed Poznan as Polish again, made Danzig neutral (though it had been Polish at times in history, including in its heyday), along with a Polish corredor, providing Poland logistical access to the sea, much to the chagrin of a young Hitler, whose idol, Frederick the Great faggot, saw controlling Polish sea access as the means to control Poland.
Frederick the Great Faggot hated Poland, by the way, and was full of tricks that would make the YKW blush, such as counterfeiting Polish currency in order to make it go into hyper inflation… ..but anway….
As I said, Hitler was indignant at the insult to his idol, Frederick The Great Faggot, and among his first acts of revenge with the invasion of Poland in World War II was the imprisoning and murder of Poles involved in the WielkaPolska uprising that had re-taken Poznan.
In fact, at Fort VII in Poznan, the Nazis established their first experimental gas chambers.
Now, lets make quick work of the more well known history, that you would expect everyone, especially a PhD to take into sober account – lets talk about the millions of Poles killed by the Nazi war effort; including hundreds of thousands of Polish civilians killed in retaliation for the Warsaw Uprising of 1944. Many more Polish civilians were kllled in Warsaw than Germans in Dresden.
But what does Jonathan Pohl have to say? He complains that Germans were moved over the Oder River according to the borders that Stalin drew…
…says they were “ethnically cleansed.”
Does Jonathan Pohl have any concern that Poles, including my own family, were “ethnically cleansed” according to Stalin’s borders, from their former homes in what was then the east of Poland?
Of course not.
In this shifting of national boundaries westward, the biggest loss to Poland of its east was what is now L’viv, Ukraine.
A maginficent city developed by the Poles and surrounded by some Polish villages…
Now, in this same conversation, Jonathan Pohl mentions the Ukrainian Nationalist, Bandera.
Pohl is not eager to mention that Bandera massacred whole villages of defenseless Polish men, women and children in 1944 for fear that the Poles might try to reclaim L’viv and surrounds after the war.
No, Pohl is not eager to mention this because it might mitigate against his chauvinist sob story about Germans being moved over the Oder River after the war (though Germans being killed during that expulsion process was bad, I would agree).
Speaking of lives lost in expulsion, the Polish population of Wroclaw and surrounds was wiped out by a Mongol invasion in the 1200s.
When the Mongols withdrew back east, the Germans moved in to develop Breslau, which they controlled for 800 years….
While Stalin took L’viv from the Poles, he increased the buffering zone of Poland by giving them back Wroclaw (Breslau) after the war.
This would provide for a much better complaint and argument of injustice for Jonathan Pohl, than does expulsion from Poznan.
And it still doesn’t hold up to provide sympathy to a just understanding.
Given the Poles loss of L’viv and Nazi aggression and atrocities in quest of lebensraum at the expense – ethnic cleansing – of Poles, losing Breslau to the Poles was a just punishment.
Moreover, absent Hitler’s imperialist aspirations modeled after his idol, Frederick The Great Faggot, Germany would still have Wroclaw and most of Silesia, most of what is now western Poland, all of what is now Kaliningrad and neutral access to the free city of Danzig.
That wasn’t enough for Hitler, not even being granted the Sudetenland against the Treaty of St. Germain was enough.
No, Hitler wanted lebensraum up to the Urals and got 50 million plus Europeans, including millions of Germans, killed for his Frederick The Great Faggot 2.0 grandiosty.
But the only sorrow that Jonathan Pohl wants to express is a sob story about Germans being moved back into Germany after the war.
It is mindboggling.
Many complain about the poor quality of academics nowadays.
If Jonathan Pohl were once again to get a job teaching in Ghana it would be too good for him.