National Vanguard http://nationalvanguard.org News. For us. For a change. Wed, 04 Mar 2015 20:07:07 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Marx, Darwin and the Scientific Ideology http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/marx-darwin-and-the-scientific-ideology/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/marx-darwin-and-the-scientific-ideology/#comments Wed, 04 Mar 2015 20:07:07 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2457 Marx and DarwinScientific investigation of the nature of life supports racialism, demolishes Marxism and equalitarianism

by John Thornton Bannerman

WHEN IN 1867 Karl Marx had completed the first volume of his major work, Das Kapital, he offered to dedicate it to the great biologist Charles Darwin. Darwin cautiously declined the honour, pleading his “ignorance of economics.” It is one of the great ironies of history that the main founder of one of the major ideologies contending for the soul of the Twentieth Century should thus have wished to dedicate his magnum opus to the man who was to play an equally significant, if less overt, role in founding the other great contending world-view. (ILLUSTRATION: The young Jew, Karl Marx, left; the young European, Charles Darwin, right. Each in his own way would dramatically affect the . . . → Read More: Marx, Darwin and the Scientific Ideology]]> Marx and DarwinScientific investigation of the nature of life supports racialism, demolishes Marxism and equalitarianism

by John Thornton Bannerman

WHEN IN 1867 Karl Marx had completed the first volume of his major work, Das Kapital, he offered to dedicate it to the great biologist Charles Darwin. Darwin cautiously declined the honour, pleading his “ignorance of economics.” It is one of the great ironies of history that the main founder of one of the major ideologies contending for the soul of the Twentieth Century should thus have wished to dedicate his magnum opus to the man who was to play an equally significant, if less overt, role in founding the other great contending world-view. (ILLUSTRATION: The young Jew, Karl Marx, left; the young European, Charles Darwin, right. Each in his own way would dramatically affect the future of the West.)

No less ironic were the words spoken sixteen years later at Marx’s graveside by his amanuensis and financial backer, Friedrich Engels. “Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature,” eulogised Engels, “so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history.” Ironic, for the social consequences of the law of evolution in organic nature Darwin discovered sounded the death-knell of Marx’s pretended “law of evolution in human history.”

The invocation of Darwin’s name by Marx and Engels cannot have reflected any grasp on their part of the social implications of his discoveries. Implications which are in fact utterly fatal to the Marxist world-view. Instead, Marx and Engels trotted out the name of Darwin as part of their ambition to present as “new” and “scientific” a body of belief which actually is very old and wholly unscientific.

Marx’s “scientific” “law of evolution in human history” is, at bottom, little more than the old Judaeo-Christian superstition dressed up in the trappings of pseudo-scientific jargon. Trappings which, in turn, merely reflect the rising prestige of Science and the declining prestige of religion in the Nineteenth Century Western society in which Marx lived.

Marx’s vision of human history, past and future, shares the basic Judaeo-Christian theme of the Fall and Redemption of Man. In the beginning, according to Marx, was the primal Eden of “primitive Communism.” Therein entered the serpent of private ownership. This, as the distinguished Oxford historian, R. N. Carew-Hunt, rightly put it, “in the Marxist scheme takes the place of the Fall of Man, since the inclination of men to take advantage of one another was a corruption introduced into history by the private ownership of the means of production.” [1]

After the Fall follow ages of Man floundering in sin, or “class struggle,” as Marx terms it. Human misery and degradation steadily increases as feudalism succeeds the servile economy, capitalism succeeds feudalism, fewer and fewer capitalists exploit more and more workers ever more brutally, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Karl Marx

Karl Marx. Marx’s “scientific” “law of evolution in human history” is, at bottom, little more than the old Judaeo-Christian superstition dressed up in the trappings of pseudo-scientific jargon.

But then comes Redemption. Fired by the One True Faith preached by the Redeemer Marx and his modern-day Marxist apostles, the righteous proletarians (with a little help from “progressive bourgeois elements” like K. Marx, F. Engels and, come to think of it, most leading Marxists then and now) overthrow the wicked Capitalist system. “The expropriators are expropriated” and, after a brief “Socialist” interlude, the Communist Millennium arrives. After which, as after the Coming of the Jewish Messiah or the Second Coming of Christ, history in effect stops, having attained a stasis of eternal and universal perfection.

Marxism shares more than a historical and eschatological vision with Judaeo-Christianity. Despite denials of the existence of any immutable moral laws divorced from the system of social relations, Marxists, in fact, share the egalitarian, cosmopolitan ethic of Judaeo-Christianity and its other “secular” offshoot, bourgeois liberalism. Marx derives his blistering sense of moral outrage at the “inequality,” “unfairness,” “exploitation,” “injustice” etc., of his contemporary Capitalist society in essence from the Judaeo-Christian ethic, as, indeed, do his modern disciples when they evince such “shock! horror! gasp!” moral affront at the “evil” of “racism and fascism.”

The Sermon on the Mount and the Communist Manifesto share not merely a common social outlook but also a common equalitarianism, anti-elitist ethic. But Marx’s loudly-proclaimed atheism deprives such a morality of its only possible objective justification: that it is decreed for men by a vastly more powerful supernatural entity who will ruthlessly condemn to eternal torture any and all who disobey said entity in that or any other matter. Bereft of the “Stalin in the Sky” before whom Jews, Christians and Muslims alike fawn and grovel, Marx’s ethic hangs mystically suspended above the ideological void — scarcely a very scientific position!

Most fundamentally, Marxism shares with Judaeo-Christianity, and with its other offspring, liberalism, a common “environmentalist” view of the nature of man. Central to the Marxist thesis, as to the Judaeo-Christian and liberal, is the doctrine that men are, in some sense, born equal, and that all subsequent inequalities, which are so obvious between men and between races of men, are simply the result of environmental influences — upbringing, social background, education, etc. In effect, human nature is a product of human society: societies create men, rather than the other way round. In Marxist terms, the “substructure” of economic relations determines the “superstructure” of ideas, beliefs, laws, mode of government, and culture. Marx, following the Eighteenth Century liberal Rousseau, goes further than traditional Judaeo-Christians and blames all human wickedness on the environment — specifically the institution of private property.

From this, Marx deduced that if society creates human nature, then a perfect society can create perfect men. Marxists in power should, by forced collectivization, be able to create a race of altruistic angels inhabiting a Communist Elysium. Or at least ants in human form, dwelling in a giant ant heap. So Marx deduced.

But, for all his invocations of science and Darwin, he never seriously attempted to prove, or even to adduce, evidence for his egalitarian, environmentalist conception of the basic nature of man, which, as we have seen, he derived via Rousseau from Judaeo-Christianity. Lenin went so far, in The State and Revolution, as to dismiss the question of how exactly the fundamental transformation of human nature required to “build Communism” was to be effected as one to which there could be no answer and which no one has the right to ask. Hardly the attitude of the scientist! But quite the attitude of the priest of a dogmatic cult confronted with an awkward question! It is hardly necessary to point out that when Lenin first put into practice the social reforms demanded by Marx, the promised “fundamental change in human nature” failed to occur, leaving him and his successors to flounder their way into a society Marx would have recognised as a classic example of his “Asiatic, or slave” economy!

Thus Marx was himself guilty par excellence of the very “Utopian idealism” he correctly identified as proof of the “unscientific nature” of other Nineteenth Century Socialists such as Proudhon and Owen.

Despite the “scientific” jargon in which it is couched, and the silly and sterile “dialectical” word-games in which it indulges, Marxism has no serious claim to being “scientific.” It is an incoherent and internally inconsistent rationalisation of nihilistic envy, utopian social fantasies, Judaeo-Christian moral outrage and messianism, and ethnic alienation (as Carew-Hunt pointed out, “it is no accident that so many of the Communist leaders from Marx’s day onward have been Jews”). [2]

Indeed, Marxism may be said to be little more than the old Judaeo-Christian superstition purged, in deference to increasing popular awareness of scientific credibility, of angels, virgin births, miracles, risings from the dead, Oriental despots in the sky, and other ideological equivalents of flying saucers and Bermuda Triangles.

Marxism retains all the self-righteous bigotry, totalitarian desire to extirpate, not only all rival faiths, but also all rival brands of its own faith, and justification of very real present evils on the grounds of far less substantial future bliss (be it in Heaven or on an indefinitely postponed future Earth) of its Judaeo-Christian parent. For all their claims to “scientific truth,” Marxists silence those who would reveal scientific findings that contradict their dogma as brutally as Christians, Jews, and Muslims have always done. The book burnings of the Holy Inquisition and those of Trofim Lysenko, the death at the stake of Giordano Bruno, and the death, in a Soviet labour camp, of the geneticist N. I. Vavilov, “anti-racism” and “creationism” reflect alike the frantic writhings of the foul grubs of ignorance, bigotry and superstition lest they be illuminated for what they are by the clear light of Science.

Charles Darwin, by contrast, was among the greatest of those scientific illuminators of the Judaeo-Christian-Marxist-liberal gloom. His epochal work, apart from dispelling the hold of hither-Asiatic tribal creation myths on the Western mind, also laid some of the first bricks in the imposing edifice of hard scientific facts which today supports the only ideologically coherent alternative to the intellectual spawn of the alien Judaeo-Christian phantasmagoria.

That alternative world-view, upheld today by Racial-Nationalists around the world, is based upon a “hereditarian,” rather than “environmentalist,” conception of the genesis of human nature. The human nature we observe — including, not only individual and racial inequalities in abilities, but also universal behaviour patterns such as territoriality (e.g., Nationalism), ethnocentrism (e.g., Racialism), aggression and social hierarchies — this world-view considers to be the product, not of “economic relationships,” but of an inborn, genetic inheritance. That inheritance, the product of millions of years of evolution, is, in effect, fixed.

Therefore we, as hereditarians, believe that we must accept the existing realities of human nature, as it is now and evidently has been throughout recorded history. We cannot, as Marx did, simply dream up a Utopia and blindly trust that human nature will change beyond recognition so men can live in it. Instead, we must design any conceptions of a better future society around the existing reality of the human nature, taking into account the inbred national and racial characteristics of the people who will make up that society. Thus we base our socio-political programmes however radical, firmly on the existing human reality. And we base our perception of that reality firmly on the findings of Science.

Charles Darwin. Darwin laid some of the first bricks in the imposing edifice of hard scientific facts which today supports the only ideologically coherent alternative to the intellectual spawn of the alien Judaeo-Christian phantasmagoria.

Charles Darwin. Darwin laid some of the first bricks in the imposing edifice of hard scientific facts which today supports the only ideologically coherent alternative to the intellectual spawn of the alien Judaeo-Christian phantasmagoria.

These scientific findings, which underpin our case, first began to emerge clearly in the time of Darwin, the mid-Nineteenth Century. It was Darwin’s contemporaries, such as Sir Francis Galton, who first began measuring the quantifying human inequalities in attributes such as intelligence, and adducing evidence that they were hereditary rather than environmental in origin. Another of his contemporaries, Gregor Mendel, was, unknown to Darwin, laying the foundations of genetics, the science which would explain how such hereditary inequalities were determined and passed on from generation to generation. And others were simultaneously laying the foundations of physical anthropology, which examines the races of man and the differences between them.

Darwin’s great contribution to the development of our world-view was to perceive why these inherited inequalities between individuals and races should occur, and the nature and crucial importance of their role in the development and progress of life. For Charles Darwin did not invent the idea of the evolution of life from lower to higher forms, including Man. That idea had occurred to some of the Classical Greeks. But, in the 1840s, he finally realised how that evolution occurred: by the process of the Natural Selection of the fittest individuals in the struggle for limited resources, the “survival of the fittest.”

It can at once be seen from this that inherited inequalities are the precondition for evolutionary advance. If there are no inequalities, all are equally endowed with the trait under consideration, running ability, length of neck, intelligence or whatever, then clearly there is no “fittest” to be selected. And if there are inequalities, but they are not inherited but environmentally determined, then the selection of the fittest will have no evolutionary effect. For Fitness will not then depend on parental genes but the organism’s own environment and upbringing. Fitter parents will have offspring no fitter on average than the average of their, the parents’, generation. So selection, however rigorous, will have to start anew in each generation, and no evolutionary advance can occur.

The corollary also obtains. If any trait has evolved, as in geologically recent times human intelligence and social behaviour have done, then, in order to have done so, that trait must be subject to hereditarily determined inequalities within and between the populations of the species concerned. Thus we would expect, on a priori grounds of Darwinian evolutionary theory, to find the very hereditary variations in, for example, intelligence within and between human races that we in fact do find.

So Darwin showed that inherited individual and racial inequalities are not only inevitable but progressive in terms of human evolutionary advance. Such inherent inequalities are the very fuel which drives the machine of evolution. And they are a deadly poison to the social theories of Marx and his followers. For they imply that, in a number of important respects, human nature is and must be determined at root by genes, not the social environment. In which case changing the social environment cannot in any fundamental way change the nature of man. So the essential precondition for the “attainment of Communism” — the whole point of all Marx’s ideas, and of his “Communist” successors’ actions — is inherently unattainable.

The more so as in the century since Darwin’s death geneticists and sociobiologists have shown that more and more facets of Man’s social nature are the products of genetic evolution, not “the relationships of the productive forces.” Today, Marxists cannot deny Darwin’s thesis, lest they be reduced to supernatural fairy tales to account for the origin of Man. But in accepting Darwin, they must clasp to their bosom an ideological viper whose truth is a deadly poison to their entire world-view.

Marxism, therefore, is not, despite its claims, scientific. It is contradicted by the evidence of Science. Indeed, it is surely significant that, for all their talk of “scientific socialism,” Marxists have always rested their case almost entirely upon the writings of economists, soi-disant “sociologists,” historians, self-appointed political philosophers and indeed everyone but scientists. The only prominent student of Darwin’s field, biology, who freely joined the Marxists, J. B. S. Haldane, left them in disgust when they tried to solve the fatal contradiction between Marx and Darwin by imposing the anti-Darwinian crankery of the charlatan Lysenko on the scientific world at gunpoint.

In contrast, those of us who uphold Marxism’s only serious intellectual rival, hereditarian Racial-Nationalism, adduce in support of our arguments scientists almost exclusively — geneticists, physical anthropologists, sociobiologists, evolutionary biologists, and so on. It would be no great overstatement to say that, whilst Marxism emerged from the gloom-enshrouded reading room of the British Museum and amid the mouldering tomes of discredited superstitions, Racial-Nationalism was born in the laboratory under the bright light of the new scientific vision.

Indeed, the difference between Marx and Darwin, as between the ideologies each inspired, is fundamentally the difference between superstition, however pseudo-scientifically expressed, and true science. It is the difference between astrology and astronomy, between flying saucers from Atlantis and Apollo spacecraft to the moon, between perpetual motion machines and atomic power plants, between hysteria and reason, between the political equivalents of the witch-doctor and the surgeon. At root, it is the difference between the murky mystery cults of the Levant and the brilliance of the European mind.

 

Endnotes

1. The Theory and Practice of Communism by R. N. Carew-Hunt (1963).

2. Ibid., p. 32.

* * *

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/marx-darwin-and-the-scientific-ideology/feed/ 0 Nationalism and the Environment http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/nationalism-and-the-environment/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/nationalism-and-the-environment/#comments Wed, 04 Mar 2015 19:38:16 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2454 Forest Scene

The best among us instinctively love — and want to protect — the beauty and health of our natural environment.

by Francis Playfair

FOR FAR TOO LONG now the ‘green issue’ has been hijacked and controlled by the left wing of the establishment. It hasn’t always been that way. For many generations the environment was a White issue and it was the White race that was at the forefront of the green movement.

To a modern reader this might seem like a bizarre claim: Is it not true that the White man is the destroyer of the land and that the benign and humble savage its protector and caretaker? No, that is not true; it is just a myth.

Yes, there are primitive tribes who have done little damage to the Earth, but this is . . . → Read More: Nationalism and the Environment]]> Forest Scene

The best among us instinctively love — and want to protect — the beauty and health of our natural environment.

by Francis Playfair

FOR FAR TOO LONG now the ‘green issue’ has been hijacked and controlled by the left wing of the establishment. It hasn’t always been that way. For many generations the environment was a White issue and it was the White race that was at the forefront of the green movement.

To a modern reader this might seem like a bizarre claim: Is it not true that the White man is the destroyer of the land and that the benign and humble savage its protector and caretaker? No, that is not true; it is just a myth.

Yes, there are primitive tribes who have done little damage to the Earth, but this is not because they were environmentally aware — it is because they did not have the power or ability to do much damage.

The true race of the land is the White race, this can be traced back throughout our history. We have long been folk of the fields and forests, of the mountains and of the lakes — and, as the power of man grew, and the land came under threat, it was the White man who strode out to protect it once more.

In the 1870s in Washington, D.C., Dr. Ferdinand V. Hayden, head of the U.S. Geological Survey of the Territories, set about compiling his findings in an official report that joined others in urging the U.S. Congress to set aside the Yellowstone region as America’s first national park. That was accomplished just a few short months later when, in March 1872, President Ulysses Grant signed into law an act creating Yellowstone National Park.

This was a perfect example of the White race seeking to protect the environment. However it is not just the White race, but the nationalists within the White race who have always been at the vanguard of environmental progress.

Jorian Jenks

Jorian Jenks

In his book The Stuff Man’s Made Of, the prominent British nationalist, Jorian Jenks, anticipated the current organic food “explosion” by a quarter of a century. He maintained that between 1901 and 1956 heart disease had increased by 84%, cancer by 155%, nervous diseases by 150%, and he believed it was no coincidence that the use of chemical fertilisers had increased by a third between the wars. In addition, it had nearly trebled between 1939 and 1954 to further increase the quantity of the yield. Equally he blamed the “civilised” food of commercial farming as highly processed, low in fibre, and depleted of vitamins.

To understand better why this is fundamentally a nationalist issue, one has to understand the true nationalist and how he strives for the preservation of not only his race, but also his land and the whole planet; as he sees that we are all connected environmentally, whether we like it or not.

To illustrate this point further, we can look at how different factions view the environmental issue.

To present-day conservatives, environmental questions are seen mostly through the lens of how environmental laws affect business. Their prime concern is in making money, and ideally, for them, nearly all environmental laws should be eliminated, because they are viewed as merely driving up the costs of doing business.

This of course, neglects the human factor: We have had millions of industrial workers and their children over the years who have suffered from pollution and dangerous work environments — but the modern conservative puts profit before people.

On the other side of the coin we have the left, who see the environmental issue as being solved by programs of massive state regulation, which can only result in thousands of burdensome and restrictive laws, which stifle economic growth and people’s liberties.

But then is this not typical of the Marxist’s hatred of free enterprise and independent wealth?

I truly believe that, for many leftists, their sole interest in the environment is not for the environment’s sake but as part of their control freak agenda.

So how do we nationalists differ on these issues?

We differ because we see the land and the people as two parts of a larger whole.

We stand in opposition to the position of the conservatives which sees the land as merely a tool to be abused by man, but we also stand against the views of the left which sees man as the tool.

Man and Nature have to be in balance, if things are to work properly.

This is why we need to take the green ground back again, to offer the true environmental policies that the people want, protecting our green and pleasant land from the continual onslaught that takes place in the name of multiculturalism; that takes place to house the hordes of immigrants that flock to our shores; that takes away our beautiful countryside to build the facilities these people demand; the prisons, the asylum centers, the houses, the mosques and the synagogues. It’s time to say “stop!” — not just for the people of this land, but for the land itself.

We don’t need to destroy these beautiful nations of ours with landfill sites to bury the waste of the Black consumers who must have their carcinogenic “happy meals” wrapped in the product of clearcut forests, with throwaway trinkets inside made from our ever-diminishing natural resources. We don’t need to allow our rivers to be polluted to allow these people to live and breed in the ever more filthy and squalid conditions that they gladly accept.

Nationalism and environmentalism go hand in hand: It is pride in your people, pride in your nation, pride in the very soil of the land.

This is how it’s always been — and always should be.

* * *

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/nationalism-and-the-environment/feed/ 0
Bill Nye Lies http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/bill-nye-lies/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/bill-nye-lies/#comments Tue, 03 Mar 2015 21:25:53 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2447

by Ann Hendon

“BILL NYE THE SCIENCE GUY” repeats the crudest — and most unscientific — lies about race in a recent interview on the Jewish-controlled cable television network HBO. Nye states flatly that the only difference between the human races is skin color — which, according to Nye, becomes darker if you live closer to the equator or “closer to space,” as in Tibet.

He states to his young, apparently White, interviewer that race is nonexistent immediately before recognizing that the interviewer’s background is European based on his appearance. He then proceeds to say that if the married interviewer “had sex with a Chinese woman,”  any resulting child would “just be human” — a non sequitur which proves exactly nothing.

If you can bear to watch this controlled-media clip to the end, you’ll also discover that Nye has “changed his . . . → Read More: Bill Nye Lies]]>

by Ann Hendon

“BILL NYE THE SCIENCE GUY” repeats the crudest — and most unscientific — lies about race in a recent interview on the Jewish-controlled cable television network HBO. Nye states flatly that the only difference between the human races is skin color — which, according to Nye, becomes darker if you live closer to the equator or “closer to space,” as in Tibet.

He states to his young, apparently White, interviewer that race is nonexistent immediately before recognizing that the interviewer’s background is European based on his appearance. He then proceeds to say that if the married interviewer “had sex with a Chinese woman,”  any resulting child would “just be human” — a non sequitur which proves exactly nothing.

If you can bear to watch this controlled-media clip to the end, you’ll also discover that Nye has “changed his mind” about GMO foods — after a long meeting with scientists from Jewish-owned Monsanto. Nye formerly opposed the GMO food industry.

* * *

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/bill-nye-lies/feed/ 0
The White Race Does Not Deserve to Survive (White Version) http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/the-white-race-does-not-deserve-to-survive-white-version/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/the-white-race-does-not-deserve-to-survive-white-version/#comments Tue, 03 Mar 2015 21:20:31 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2444 White Familyby Andrew Hamilton

IT IS A commonplace today that the White race does not deserve to survive. That and philo-Semitism are the two primary pillars of mainstream [1] ideology and public policy. There are many reasons to assert the contrary, but fundamentally, as National Alliance founder William Pierce said with regard to a slightly different version of the statement phrased as a question, “Why should we survive?” is like asking “Why is good better than evil?” 

I will deal with this quasi-official Jewish/elite/government doctrine some other time. Today I want to focus on the same statement expressed by frustrated White racialists — in other words, by persons not motivated by hatred and a determination to commit genocide, but dedicated to our survival.

I have not made a catalogue of how many times I’ve seen this particular declaration . . . → Read More: The White Race Does Not Deserve to Survive (White Version)]]> White Familyby Andrew Hamilton

IT IS A commonplace today that the White race does not deserve to survive. That and philo-Semitism are the two primary pillars of mainstream [1] ideology and public policy. There are many reasons to assert the contrary, but fundamentally, as National Alliance founder William Pierce said with regard to a slightly different version of the statement phrased as a question, “Why should we survive?” is like asking “Why is good better than evil?” 

I will deal with this quasi-official Jewish/elite/government doctrine some other time. Today I want to focus on the same statement expressed by frustrated White racialists — in other words, by persons not motivated by hatred and a determination to commit genocide, but dedicated to our survival.

I have not made a catalogue of how many times I’ve seen this particular declaration by Whites, but it recurs frequently. Here is a real-life example: “Any population group that doesn’t want to live deserves to die.”

This commonly-encountered argument should be rejected out of hand. Fundamentally, it is an unsupportable type of “self-” (i.e., “blame Whites”) flagellation, which takes many forms and is extremely popular. Another example of the impulse is the widespread insistence that no blame may be assigned to Jews, even though the most rudimentary observation demands it.

The assertion also appears to be highly correlated with a strong belief, or rather faith, in either Darwinian evolution or social Darwinism.

Thus, Glenn Miller, 73, a highly capable and courageous street activist, proclaims, “If it is our self-imposed fate to remain irreversible cowards, then our Race does not deserve to live.”

In his case the link with evolutionary thought is explicit:

In her divine wisdom, Mother Nature demands that cowardly species become extinct. Even rats and virus bugs fight to defend their space, and for their right to procreate what they are. But as we are now, the sooner we die out, the better off this world will be, an undeniable fact of nature, proven throughout the natural order imposed on this planet — the natural order that [has] always weeded out, through extinction, cowardly species one day or another to benefit the fittest.

Note how deeply infused with normative judgments Miller’s evolutionary statement is (“divine wisdom,” “Mother Nature demands,” “cowardly species,” “the sooner we die out, the better off this world will be,” “to benefit the fittest” — given his beliefs, he has to mean Jews, Negroes, and other non-Whites), as well as overly-insistent (“an undeniable fact of nature, proven throughout the natural order,” “that [has] always weeded out, through extinction, cowardly species”).

Miller is hopelessly confused, because he simultaneously maintains:

To blame White people is to blame the victims. Instead, despise the disease spreaders, not those whom the diseases sicken. Despise the Jew parasites! Not the bodies, minds, and souls that these Jew parasites attach themselves to and suck the life’s blood from their unsuspecting victims, draining their sap, strength and very will to resist.

The second statement, though basically correct (collaborators, of course, have also played an indispensable role in genocide), is logically inconsistent with the evolutionary one.

The “deserves to die” viewpoint is expressed as well by William Pierce in “Does America Deserve to Live?” (1975). I have added italics to separate unsupportable value judgments from more or less objective statements which are not italicized:

There have always been only a tiny few who have been willing to take the chances and make the sacrifices upon which the fates of all their fellows have depended.

So long as those few were enough, the nations survived and prospered. When those few were too few, they went under. . . .

And, from the long viewpoint of History, that was right and proper. Those nations live which deserve to live, and those die which deserve to die.

Does America — does the West — deserve to live? Does our race deserve to live?
That question has not yet been answered, but History is deciding the verdict now, and we will know it soon enough. . . .

In the days ahead the righteous will be separated from the unrighteous, and there will be a counting of heads. Then we will see whether the few are too few.

And if they are too few, then nothing will save us. Our souls will have been tried and found wanting. Our race will become amalgamated with the mud-races of this earth, and the Great Experiment will be over. And justice will have been done.

(Attack! newspaper, issue No. 41, 1975; reprinted in Kevin Alfred Strom, ed., The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard Tabloid, 1970-1982 [1984], pp. 57-58).

The irony of Pierce’s position is that, unlike many people who claim to be pro-White, he explicitly and without hesitation acknowledged and thoroughly examined the key role played by Jews in our race’s destruction. He candidly admitted that genocide was to a great extent the consequence of culture distortion, not some mysterious, utterly inexplicable form of collective madness never seen before.

Yet so reflexive and overwhelming is the ingrained tendency to moralistic punishment that Pierce perceived the elimination of our people, should it occur, as being “just.” Compare his “self-”accusatory mindset with that of the Jews, who never blame themselves for anything, but always point a condemnatory finger at others. What a contrast!

The main point to grasp about these “Whites deserve to die” assertions is that no such ought follows from any is. Ought is a consequence of the moral or immoral judgments of human actors.

It is objectively the case that Whites will not survive (some happy accident aside) if they cannot overthrow the existing order, which has walled itself off from free discussion via the suppression of speech, association, and democracy (which is predicated upon open debate), and thereafter embrace and assert the will to live. Nature, however, does not assign any positive or negative value to the outcome. Life or death simply is. Genocide is never “justified” by nature, history, or evolution.

In no other area would most people make such arguments. Take the Mafia, for example. In various times and places it has possessed power analogous to, though of course far more limited in scope than, what Jews and governments exercise today, and formerly did under Communism.

Did Mafia victims or the tens of millions of victims of the Communists “deserve” to die? Once the Mafia or the Communist Party achieved a certain level of unchecked power, countless people were bound to be oppressed and killed. But did they “deserve” their fate by some writ of “nature”?

How about the victims of ordinary murderers? Do they “deserve” to die? Are their deaths the consequence of “divine” “Mother Nature” working out her evolutionary will in order to weed out cowards and weaklings to benefit the “fittest,” thereby making the world “better off”?

If Whites do not — possibly by now they cannot, thanks to overwhelming forces beyond their control — survive, then they will perish from the face of the Earth. But only in the minds of our race’s enemies, and a few of its partisans, will this be considered right and proper.

The fact is, nature as such is utterly indifferent, just as it would be if Jews were coldly eradicated by an equally malevolent force.

Note

1. While proofreading, I decided to look up “mainstream.” The closest dictionary at hand was from 1955. To my surprise, the word was not in there. This means that it did not exist in its current sense, or was relatively rarely used. Next I checked my large, heavy, unabridged, 2,662-page Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, the main text of which is copyright 1961. It contained a brief entry: “The prevailing current or direction of activity or influence (‘within the mainstream of the western democratic tradition’).” This was a noun. The dictionary also has a 1981 addenda section with new words and meanings that had appeared in the interim. Usage of the term had obviously altered, for a new entry for mainstream as an adjective had been added: “Having, reflecting, or being compatible with the prevailing attitudes and values of a society or group.”

* * *

Source: Counter-Currents

 

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/the-white-race-does-not-deserve-to-survive-white-version/feed/ 0
Jewish Online Magazine Starts Charging Commenters to Deter ‘Offenders’ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/jewish-online-magazine-starts-charging-commenters-to-deter-offenders/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/jewish-online-magazine-starts-charging-commenters-to-deter-offenders/#comments Tue, 03 Mar 2015 21:00:05 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2432 ca89f501-66e9-4c5a-b5c0-f47808a45819-620x372EDITOR’S NOTE: As Kevin Alfred Strom noted recently, there is a rising awareness of race and Jewish power and that awareness is becoming obvious in the comments sections of establishment news sites — so much so that some of these sites are turning comments off entirely, censoring them heavily, or taking the Tablet’s approach described below.

SINCE the Internet continues to remain the only medium available for providing the free exchange of news and information to the public, the Jewish elites — who own the vast majority of mainstream T.V. and newspaper media — are becoming desperate to stifle any “unpopular” or “politically incorrect” ideas from readers and users visiting their news websites. (ILLUSTRATION: Jewish online-magazine Tablet will begin charging readers for the ability to write comments.)

A February 10th, 2015 article of The . . . → Read More: Jewish Online Magazine Starts Charging Commenters to Deter ‘Offenders’]]> ca89f501-66e9-4c5a-b5c0-f47808a45819-620x372EDITOR’S NOTE: As Kevin Alfred Strom noted recently, there is a rising awareness of race and Jewish power and that awareness is becoming obvious in the comments sections of establishment news sites — so much so that some of these sites are turning comments off entirely, censoring them heavily, or taking the Tablet’s approach described below.

SINCE the Internet continues to remain the only medium available for providing the free exchange of news and information to the public, the Jewish elites — who own the vast majority of mainstream T.V. and newspaper media — are becoming desperate to stifle any “unpopular” or “politically incorrect” ideas from readers and users visiting their news websites. (ILLUSTRATION: Jewish online-magazine Tablet will begin charging readers for the ability to write comments.)

A February 10th, 2015 article of The Guardian reported that a Jewish online magazine, Tablet, will begin charging readers $2 to comment on their news-stories:

Dealing with “toxic” commenters is a problem faced by many websites – and must be a particular problem for faith-based publishers…

On Monday, it announced that users would have to pay $2 a day, $18 a month or $180 a year to comment on its stories.

Tablet’s editor-in-chief, Alana Newhouse, explained in a blogpost:

“We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, sometimes allowing destructive – and, often, anonymous– individuals to drag it down with invective (and worse)…

“The donation rates are small because we are not looking to make money, but instead to try to create a standard of engagement likely to turn off many, if not most, of the worst offenders. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.”

…The move is interesting in the light of recent moves by organisations such as Bloomberg and Reuters to turn off comments on their stories.

The Guardian’s executive editor of digital, Aron Pilhofer, said at last week’s news:rewired conference in London that the trend of switching off reader comments was a “monumental mistake”.

Pilhofer said:

“…You see site after site killing comments and moving away from community – that’s a monumental mistake. Any site that moves away from comments is a plus for sites like ours. Readers need and deserve a voice. They should be a core part of your journalism.”

Read Full Article

Tablet may be a small news outlet which only caters to Jewish readers, but, as the article also mentions, Bloomberg and Reuters news agencies have already turned off their comments sections. And it is quite possible that Tablet will set the precedent to which larger establishment news sites will begin to follow soon enough.
]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/jewish-online-magazine-starts-charging-commenters-to-deter-offenders/feed/ 0
Citizen Dinitz http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/citizen-dinitz/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/citizen-dinitz/#comments Tue, 03 Mar 2015 20:00:13 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2429 dinitz_simchaBenjamin Netanyahu’s end-run around protocol to lobby Congress directly for Israel is nothing new, as this Instauration article reveals.

LET US COMPARE the reactions of two U.S. presidents to similar cases of interference into American domestic politics by two foreign envoys. (ILLUSTRATION: Simcha Dinitz)

In 1793, when France and England were at war, President Washington issued a proclamation of neutrality. Shortly thereafter the diplomatic representative of the French revolutionary government, “Citizen” Genet, arrived in the U.S. By the concerted efforts of Thomas Jefferson’s pro-French war party, he was given a red carpet treatment rare in the annals of American international relations. Washington, on the other hand, welcomed the Jacobin emissary with stiff formality. This did not please Genet, a tough hombre from a tough government which had just cut off the head of France’s king and . . . → Read More: Citizen Dinitz]]> dinitz_simchaBenjamin Netanyahu’s end-run around protocol to lobby Congress directly for Israel is nothing new, as this Instauration article reveals.

LET US COMPARE the reactions of two U.S. presidents to similar cases of interference into American domestic politics by two foreign envoys. (ILLUSTRATION: Simcha Dinitz)

In 1793, when France and England were at war, President Washington issued a proclamation of neutrality. Shortly thereafter the diplomatic representative of the French revolutionary government, “Citizen” Genet, arrived in the U.S. By the concerted efforts of Thomas Jefferson’s pro-French war party, he was given a red carpet treatment rare in the annals of American international relations. Washington, on the other hand, welcomed the Jacobin emissary with stiff formality. This did not please Genet, a tough hombre from a tough government which had just cut off the head of France’s king and was preparing to decapitate the queen. At the urging of his backers he went over the head of the President to the Congress and to the “people.” He issued manifestos, organized propaganda hate fests, secretly tried to turn American ports into supply depots for French privateers, and even dabbled in a plot to overthrow our nine-year-old government. When all this came to light, Washington ordered the French government to recall its preposterous ambassador.

More recently, Simcha Dinitz, the Israeli ambassador to Washington, at a convention of B’nai B’rith women went far beyond the bounds of diplomatic protocol — and good manners — by openly criticizing the Ford administration for supporting the sale of six C-130 military transports to Egypt — not bombers or fighter planes, mind you, merely six large transport planes, together with a few helicopters and some electronic equipment.

As the Associated Press report stated: “Dinitz’s speech marked an escalation of his government’s attempt to pressure the Ford administration into pulling back from the Egyptian arms arrangement … State Department officials had mixed reactions, some saying it was dangerously close to interference with American domestic matters.”

In so many words Dinitz was urging his listeners to lobby the government and Congress to overturn the agreement. This is not the first time he has threatened to cash in the IOU’s of American politicians to Jewish financial supporters in order to force Congress and the White House to pursue a foreign policy more to Israel’s liking. During the 1973 Yom Kippur war, Dinitz warned the State and Defense Departments he would go directly to Congress if more and more military aid was not immediately forthcoming. The two “Singers,” Schles and Kis, resonated genetically and quickly caved in. In March of this year Dinitz issued another warning to the government when William Scranton, the new U.S. Ambassador to the UN, made a statement on the Mideast that was not rabidly pro-Zionist. Scranton had just replaced the Zionist mouthpiece, Patrick Moynihan, an ex-bartender who still acted like a bartender in order to prepare for a political career in New York or to return to the plaudits of the Harvard faculty. Scranton was the butt of so much criticism that he partially “redeemed himself” a few days later when he vetoed a UN resolution against Israel.

1-edmond-genet-1763-1834-granger

Edmond Genet

Like most of his affluent racial cousins, Dinitz holds his winter court in Miami Beach. There, just before the Florida primary, he summoned Jimmy Carter, the peanut farmer, to one of those glittering $250,000 beachfront condominiums where, to quote an undiscovered poet, “neon palms illuminate Jews in Cadillacs rushing their peroxide blondes to dog tracks.” Jimmy, according to the Miami Herald, listened intently to what Dinitz had to say and when he emerged from his audience announced his “total support of Israel.” He also promised that he would continue to “consult” Dinitz. It was just about as humiliating a performance as George McGovern’s public kowtowing in the 1972 presidential campaign to assorted Jewish leaders in New York. “Just tell me what to do,” he pleaded desperately. This was too much even for the New York Times.

When Citizen Genet came to America he sported the tricolor hat of the French revolution. Jimmy Carter, after his audience with Citizen Dinitz, donned a yarmulke and addressed a Jewish fund-raising group.

They say history repeats. It didn’t in this case. Citizen Genet was given his walking papers. Citizen Dinitz still remains our unofficial Assistant Secretary of State for Mideastern Affairs.

* * *

Source: Instauration, June 1976

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/citizen-dinitz/feed/ 0
Racial Socialism: The Search For A New Ideology http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/racial-socialism-the-search-for-a-new-ideology/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/racial-socialism-the-search-for-a-new-ideology/#comments Mon, 02 Mar 2015 23:52:40 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2423 Eagle-Statue-285x300

by Michael Woodbridge

THE RAMSHACKLE REMNANTS of British Nationalism afford us a unique, ideological, opportunity which can provide a revolutionary framework for the future. Bold courageous thinking is in order. In this article we’ll take a brief introductory look at the historical context of British Nationalism and examine a way forward as suggested by the American writer and religious founder Ben Klassen.

Up until 2010, when the British National Party was still largely thriving, there was a possibility, just a possibility, that by “not rocking the boat” and adhering to its intellectually dishonest but populist agenda, our movement might just break through to establish at least a toehold in “the corridors of power.” Not so any longer! In fact with hindsight the demise of the BNP might be seen as a blessing in . . . → Read More: Racial Socialism: The Search For A New Ideology]]> Eagle-Statue-285x300

by Michael Woodbridge

THE RAMSHACKLE REMNANTS of British Nationalism afford us a unique, ideological, opportunity which can provide a revolutionary framework for the future. Bold courageous thinking is in order. In this article we’ll take a brief introductory look at the historical context of British Nationalism and examine a way forward as suggested by the American writer and religious founder Ben Klassen.

Up until 2010, when the British National Party was still largely thriving, there was a possibility, just a possibility, that by “not rocking the boat” and adhering to its intellectually dishonest but populist agenda, our movement might just break through to establish at least a toehold in “the corridors of power.” Not so any longer! In fact with hindsight the demise of the BNP might be seen as a blessing in disguise. Without the requisite ideological weaponry any form of British Nationalism is bound to fail sooner rather than later. This is not a personal criticism of the many fine men and women who made untold sacrifices out of an altruistic sense of duty. However, if anyone should doubt the futility of their course they would be advised to follow the fortunes of the United Kingdom Independence Party over the next few years. By adopting the same superficially, patriotic agenda, but in an even more watered down form than the BNP, Ukip will follow the BNP into the same political cul de sac. As such and without the foundation of an honest Racist ideology, Ukip will only ever be a useful irritant against the political establishment but never in itself a means to effect necessary change.

Had a miracle occurred and had the BNP won a parliamentary seat at Dagenham during the 2010 General Election or even advanced sufficiently to be in a winning position for the next round this year, the Party would have still remained ideologically half-baked. Terms such as “Democracy” and “anti-White Racism” abounded in BNP literature. It should have dawned on the leadership that by adopting the nomenclature of the enemy they were fighting the enemy on its own home turf. The term “Democracy” was used by the BNP to imply all that’s good, just and desirable in modern society. Unfortunately, the word has become increasingly identified with the American/Zionist agenda whereby innocent citizens are terror bombed from a great height in order to effect “regime change” and the “democratic” blessings which are supposedly going to flow from it but never do. The other major mistake the BNP leadership made was to adopt a negative connotation to the word “Racist.” So we had glossy pamphlets announcing that “Racism cuts both ways.” Yet in their eagerness to turn the proverbial tables on their “politically correct” opponents the BNP leadership ended up wearing politically correct clothes themselves, leaving no space for a principled Racist ideology. Vainly might we try to disentangle the term “Racialism”, “Racial Loyalism” or “Racial Nationalism” from the term “Racism.” But the BNP leadership had already scored a home goal. In any case we were never going to persuade a hostile media that while those nasty “Racists” down the road might be bigoted morons who probably write poison pen letters and allow their pit bull terriers to foul the pavement, we nice, cuddly “Racialists” want nothing more than to champion the sweet reason of identity and the true diversity of “humankind.”

Rather than confront our enemies full on by adopting the term “Racist” as our own, the BNP leadership avoided using the “R” word altogether and so retreated ideologically by discovering “Ethno-Nationalism.” The problem with “Ethno-Nationalism” though is that it avoids a scientific definition of Race. Ethnicity is as much a cultural concept as a racial concept and although we know Race and Culture are dependent upon one another the distinction between them becomes blurred. When asked about the concept of Ethno-Nationalism at a Red White and Blue rally, the late and hugely lamented Jonathan Bowden replied that he was a Racialist … the idea was a fudge, and he wasn’t going to lie to the British people. He might have also quoted the Victorian statesman who wrote, “All is Race, there is no other truth.” Another quote from the same source, which the BNP in its eagerness to play the victim card might have taken on board was, “Never complain, and never explain.”

In the propaganda war, of which we’re a part, we should never allow our opponents to frame the argument. On the contrary, we should wear their attempted demonisation as a badge of honour. We should become our enemy’s worst nightmare. Of course if we simply reacted in a ridiculous way to every false accusation and started behaving like “Hollywood Nazis,” we would also be allowing our opponents to frame the argument. Those who might wish to act in such a way are as much our enemy as, shall we say, Russell Brand might like to dream he was.

Aficionados of the cinema might notice how Soviet propaganda films from the Second World War never referred to the German enemy as “Nazi” or “National Socialist,” but always as “Fascist.” This is for the very good reason that the Soviets considered themselves to be the guardians of true Socialism and couldn’t bring to themselves to acknowledge that the Germans might have felt the same way about themselves.

During the ‘Cold War’ we in the ‘West’ were constantly told that Communism and National Socialism were evil twins. Since 1989 and the triumph of Global Capitalism the position has shifted somewhat. Former Trotskyites in America, largely Jews, have become Neo-conservatives, super patriots and warmongers. The Trotskyite/Marxist agenda of “Political Correctness” with its unrelenting pursuit of an unobtainable, universal equality has become the leading dogma of our age. This suits the establishment very well because neo-Marxist deconstructivism breaks down tradition and resistance leaving the way open for the insatiable greed of the Capitalist system. Both Marxist deconstructivism with its brainchild “Political Correctness” together with unbridled Global Capitalism perform a pincer movement in our planned destruction. Between them they have become an out of control  juggernaut. It’s been referred to elsewhere as the “Greed Machine.” The Capitalist half of the juggernaut views with contempt those who object to its progress by describing them as “Nimbeys” (Not In My Back Yarders). In truth, those lucky enough to have a backyard know that it’s their one legitimate breathing space where they can retain some control over their lives.

In opposing our racial and cultural extinction many of us have been drawn to National Socialism. Yet, at the heart of National Socialism is a paradox because, as exemplified during the Second World War, there could be a conflict between an intense loyalty and love for one’s own country and one’s paramount duty to ones race. To take just one sample, the case of of John Amery, son of Leo Amery, Churchill’s wartime Secretary of State for India, who was hanged for treason after the War for recruiting British prisoners to fight against the Bolshevik menace on the Eastern Front. Who amongst us could now say that John Amery who not only risked his life but his reputation and honour, was any the less patriotic than the countless thousands slaughtered on the battlefields in a dysgenic war fought on behalf of our countries enemies? When he faced Albert Pierrepoint, the hangman, he quipped, “Mr. Pierrepoint, I’ve always wanted to meet you. Though not of course under these circumstances.” Pierrepoint acknowledged that John Amery was the bravest man he’d ever hanged.

Klassen-1

It was the realisation of the limitations of Nationalism that led many progressive minded patriots after the War to look for an ideology that, without betraying their cultural heritage, would take us beyond the small Nation State. Prominent amongst these were Sir Oswald Mosley and Francis Parker Yockey, both of whom favoured a European Union. However, whilst Mosley and Yockey thought of Europe primarily in cultural and geographic terms it took Ben Klassen and his American based Church of the Creator to put Race firmly at the forefront of the political agenda with his ideology of Racial Socialism.

In some ways it would take an American such as Ben Klassen to clearly understand the pre-eminence of Race in determining culture. Born of German speaking parents in Russia he was brought up and educated in Canada. During his career he had been a farmer, a schoolmaster, an inventor of the electronic tin opener and a Florida State Legislator. It was in his book, ‘Nature’s Eternal Religion’ that Klassen developed his Racial Socialist theme.

Ben Klassen found that each of America’s multiplicity of cultures was defined by its Race. As John Tyndall once said, “America is a melting pot which refuses to melt”. So we’re left with Native Americans, Afro-Americans, Latin Americans, Jewish Americans and European Americans. Thus Race rather than National background becomes important. It’s also important to note that just as men from various countries in the Waffen SS during the Second World War fought together in comradeship as one army, so White Racial Loyalist Americans will have more in common with others from various national backgrounds than they have with degenerates of their own nation.

Rejecting all political dogma, Ben Klassen defines Racial Socialism simply as, “Organised Society.” This is the polar opposite of Mrs Thatcher’s Capitalist view when she said, “There’s no such thing as Society”.

As Klassen said, “What we are really concerned about is: what is the most practical and viable type of organised society for the White man to live in? What is best for the White Race?” He says that Racial socialism is teamwork elevated to its highest perfection for the welfare of the whole Race and led by its ablest leaders. Rejecting “individual enterprise” as fraud, Klassen cites the game of ‘Monopoly’ in which the eventual winner gains the upper hand long before the game is over. As he says the White Man’s natural mode of living is as a member of the tribe, as a member of a larger group. Were he to live outside it and live as an individual, again, his society would break down and he would perish.

* * *

Source: Western Spring

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/racial-socialism-the-search-for-a-new-ideology/feed/ 0
Nearly One Million Italian School Kids Are Immigrants http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/nearly-one-million-italian-school-kids-are-immigrants/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/nearly-one-million-italian-school-kids-are-immigrants/#comments Mon, 02 Mar 2015 22:45:36 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2421 italy12

IN 2001 to 2002, there were 196,000 foreign students in Italian schools; making about 2.2% of the total school population.

Since then, this figure has more than quadrupled in 2013-2014 to 803,000 foreign students; making them 1 in 10 of all Italian students.

This data compiled by the Italian Ministry of Education shows that while some of the African and Middle Eastern immigrants do stay in Italy, most prefer to move on to Northern and Central European countries.

Education Minister, Stefania Giannini, recently opened an event in Rome entitled ‘Schools in a multicultural context. Promoting and governing integration’ 

He said the biggest issue was that immigrants had not been assimilated, and suggested more policies “focusing on language.

“We want to provide to schools the scientific and educational tools, and appropriate organizational and give centrality to language . . . → Read More: Nearly One Million Italian School Kids Are Immigrants]]> italy12

IN 2001 to 2002, there were 196,000 foreign students in Italian schools; making about 2.2% of the total school population.

Since then, this figure has more than quadrupled in 2013-2014 to 803,000 foreign students; making them 1 in 10 of all Italian students.

This data compiled by the Italian Ministry of Education shows that while some of the African and Middle Eastern immigrants do stay in Italy, most prefer to move on to Northern and Central European countries.

Education Minister, Stefania Giannini, recently opened an event in Rome entitled ‘Schools in a multicultural context. Promoting and governing integration’ 

He said the biggest issue was that immigrants had not been assimilated, and suggested more policies “focusing on language.

“We want to provide to schools the scientific and educational tools, and appropriate organizational and give centrality to language training because language is the passport of communication and integration“

Despite the protests, strikes, and riots, the Italian navy is still being used to ferry illegal African immigrants from their boats to Italian immigration centers.

Europe has been kept majority White for millennia, and that wasn’t done with open borders. The Ottoman Empire or the Huns, or the countless other non-White groups would have snatched up our countries long ago if we had the “open borders” and “multiculturalism” we have today.

And today, because of these policies, we see Europe – along with non-Euro White countries – turning minority White.

These policies are a deliberate attempt by our political class to get rid of us. They don’t have to live around the “diversity” they demand we do, and so they push for White genocide.

* * *

Source

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/nearly-one-million-italian-school-kids-are-immigrants/feed/ 0
Open Letter to the Peoples of Ukraine http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/open-letter-to-the-peoples-of-ukraine/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/open-letter-to-the-peoples-of-ukraine/#comments Mon, 02 Mar 2015 22:15:57 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2417 Gabor VonaFULLY AWARE OF our historic responsibility, driven by honest intentions and with a clear conscience, we are addressing the warring parties in Ukraine, the peoples of Ukraine and European leaders who have mostly been passive observers of the ongoing events. (ILLUSTRATION: Gabor Vona)

As Hungary’s second largest political party, Jobbik follows the tragic events with the utmost concern as they claim countless lives, leading to bloodshed and turning Eastern Ukraine, which has seen better days, into a country of sorrow and mourning. Living up to its responsibility as a political force, Jobbik shall be the first to tear down the wall of silence and talk directly and honestly to the impacted parties and all nations of Europe.

Here in Hungary, we are making every effort to prevent any further bloodshed and the escalation of . . . → Read More: Open Letter to the Peoples of Ukraine]]> Gabor VonaFULLY AWARE OF our historic responsibility, driven by honest intentions and with a clear conscience, we are addressing the warring parties in Ukraine, the peoples of Ukraine and European leaders who have mostly been passive observers of the ongoing events. (ILLUSTRATION: Gabor Vona)

As Hungary’s second largest political party, Jobbik follows the tragic events with the utmost concern as they claim countless lives, leading to bloodshed and turning Eastern Ukraine, which has seen better days, into a country of sorrow and mourning. Living up to its responsibility as a political force, Jobbik shall be the first to tear down the wall of silence and talk directly and honestly to the impacted parties and all nations of Europe.

Here in Hungary, we are making every effort to prevent any further bloodshed and the escalation of war. We Hungarians wish to live in peace with all other nations in Europe. We do not have problems with these nations, only with their reckless, deceitful governments that drag our nations into pointless wars. None of these irresponsible governments will ever be able to make up for the lives of any Hungarian, Ruthenian, Polish, Russian or Ukrainian victim! The deceased represent our common loss, who are just as sorely missed by our nations as by their own families. In order to avoid any more sacrifice, we must not remain passive and must honestly speak out to the peoples of the world.

We ask the UN Assembly, the leaders of the world’s great powers and European nations to finally recognize the truth and stop ignoring the facts. Shooting journalists and cartoonists in Paris is not the only hideous crime. The death of innocent Palestinian and Jewish people in the conflicts instigated by the lack of an independent Palestinian State is not the only tragedy to condemn, and the massacre of Christians in Nigeria, Iraq or Syria is not the only aggravated act of violence. It is also a crime against humanity when the regular army of a state in Eastern Ukraine murders innocent civilians whose will and decision is ignored.

Besides being Charlies, we ask European citizens to be the people of Donieck and Luhansk, or just be simple truth-seeking, sympathetic people who know nothing of double standards. Besides marching in the streets of Paris to demonstrate against violence, they should also demonstrate universal human values, showing that they care for the lives of penniless and poverty-stricken Eastern Europeans deprived of all their rights in an unjust war as much as they care for the lives of rich Western European citizens.

Also, we ask them to join us in standing up for the sovereignty of all peoples and nations. We ask them to share our values and express that the decisions, rights and political opinions of all people are equally important and not hierarchically ranked.

We Hungarians, Ruthenians, Poles, Ukrainians and Russians must live in peace with each other and we cannot afford to shed each other’s blood upon the orders of executors funded, agitated and manipulated by external forces.

Neither Ukrainian nor Russian people are enemies for us, Hungarians. However, our nations and compatriots are currently forced, and may also be forced in the future, into a war that causes irreparable damage to all the three parties. The responsibility for our current losses does not lie with countries or nations, it exclusively lies with the political groups and governments who believe that their power gives them the right to play with the lives and fates of millions at will without having to take responsibility for their actions. We are convinced that the moment of truth and peace will come and all those responsible shall be held accountable for these atrocities.

We shall respectfully address the military and political leaders of the rebel forces fighting for their freedom.

We Hungarians can never be grateful and thankful enough for the freedom fighters for trying to save the lives of our Hungarian and Ruthenian brothers forcefully drafted into the Ukrainian army and for doing their best to help these brothers of ours to get home from the front. We thank them and we ask them to continue demonstrating their human grandeur and save Hungarians, Ruthenians as well as the other ethnic communities that have been oppressed by the governments of Ukraine for decades and are now used as cannon fodder, thus changing the ethnic proportions in certain areas of Ukraine.

We believe that this massacre will soon come to an end, and the Hungarian as well as the Ruthenian nation will be able to properly express its gratitude for the humane gestures made for their brethren.

Finally, let us address our Ukrainian neighbours in a voice of honest respect.

None will benefit from a government that grabbed power through a US-funded, bloody coup d’état and listens to no one but its owner and employer. None will benefit from a government that incites hatred among its own peoples, destroys and devastates everything in the interest of securing its own hold on power. None, including the Ukrainian people, will benefit from a government that uses war and forced military drafting to retain its power, flaunt its strength and intimidate its citizens. A government that has no consideration for its citizens or its nation’s economy, wealth and growth, destroying everything that people hold dear, can no longer stay in power.

A government that serves foreign interests and turns its citizens against each other clearly demonstrates that it is itself foreign and unworthy of leading its own people.

Any responsible Ukrainian government should be focusing on making and maintaining peace among its peoples, as well as on resisting the Western influence that was willing to incite a civil war in Ukraine for its own geopolitical purposes. Any responsible government would respect the human rights of all ethnic minorities, regardless whether they are Ukrainians, Russians, Hungarians, Ruthenians, Poles or Romanians. Such a government would understand and accept the democratic decisions of its people if they have a different vision for the future, especially after these tragic events.

Here in Hungary and all over Europe, Jobbik will do its best for peace in Ukraine, for the justice of the peoples living in Ukraine as well as for the respect of their human rights. No matter how little this promise might mean, it may yet be a milestone in clearing up the confusion among Europe’s nations because this letter was dictated by the truth. Jobbik will use all Hungarian and international forums to seek justice for the peoples forced into a war in the territories of Ukraine and to ensure that their rights be acknowledged.

 

On behalf of Jobbik’s leaders and members:

Gábor Vona

President

* * *

Source: Jobbik

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/open-letter-to-the-peoples-of-ukraine/feed/ 1
50%+ Republicans Want Christianity National U.S. Religion http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/50-republicans-want-christianity-national-u-s-religion/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/50-republicans-want-christianity-national-u-s-religion/#comments Mon, 02 Mar 2015 21:11:00 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2414 Praying Weirdos

AMERICA’S FOUNDING FATHERS may have explicitly banned the formation of a national religion, but don’t tell that to Republican Christians. A poll found that over half of the religious right wants to establish Christianity as the country’s official creed.

When asked if they supported “establishing Christianity as the national religion,” 57 percent of the Republicans surveyed told Public Policy Polling (PPP) that they were in favor. Three in ten opposed turning the U.S. into a theocracy, while 13 percent were unsure.

The Bill of Rights expressly prohibits the government from promoting one religion over others: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” the Constitution’s First Amendment states.

Women were more likely to support the official establishment of Christianity in the U.S., with two-thirds — 66 percent . . . → Read More: 50%+ Republicans Want Christianity National U.S. Religion]]> Praying Weirdos

AMERICA’S FOUNDING FATHERS may have explicitly banned the formation of a national religion, but don’t tell that to Republican Christians. A poll found that over half of the religious right wants to establish Christianity as the country’s official creed.

When asked if they supported “establishing Christianity as the national religion,” 57 percent of the Republicans surveyed told Public Policy Polling (PPP) that they were in favor. Three in ten opposed turning the U.S. into a theocracy, while 13 percent were unsure.

The Bill of Rights expressly prohibits the government from promoting one religion over others: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” the Constitution’s First Amendment states.

Women were more likely to support the official establishment of Christianity in the U.S., with two-thirds — 66 percent — responding “yes” to the question, while less than half the men surveyed — 49 percent — chose that option.

“It’s convenient that Republicans are so willing to ignore the Bill of Rights when it conflicts with any aspect of Christianity, but if you even for one minute mention any form of gun control, then you’re trying to destroy the Constitution and ruin America,” Amy Eddings wrote for Ring of Fire Radio.

Science fared even worse than the First Amendment. The poll’s finding “supports the growing perception liberals have of conservatives,” meaning Republicans are “anti-science Christian theocrats,” the New Civil Rights Movement wrote.

Those Republican primary voters who identified as members of the Tea Party were less likely to believe in evolution — only 27 percent were fans of Charles Darwin’s theory — than the 46 percent who believe in evolution and did not identify as part of the ideological group. Overall, 37 percent of those surveyed believe in the theory, with less than half — 49 percent — disbelieving. A majority of Tea Party members — 61 percent — said they don’t accept the theory of evolution.

When it came to global warming, only a quarter of respondents said they believe in climate change, while two-thirds — 66 percent — do not. Self-identified Tea Party members were vehemently against the scientific phenomenon, with 91 percent being so-called “climate deniers.”

Women were more likely to believe in global warming, at 30 percent. Only 20 percent of men agreed. Meanwhile, women were less likely to believe in evolution — 30 percent, compared to 43 percent of males.

Dreams of Christian theocracy: GOP majority wants Christianity as national religion

Dreams of Christian theocracy: GOP majority wants Christianity as national religion

Along with political polling, PPP is known for asking off-beat questions in its surveys. In 2013, the company announced that about 13 percent of Americans believe Obama is the anti-Christ, nearly 30 percent believe in aliens, and four percent believe lizard people control the US.

That same survey also asked about climate change, finding that 51 percent of Americans believed in global warming, while 37 percent said the whole idea is a hoax. This margin was particularly high among Republicans, of which 58 percent said climate change is a made-up phenomenon.

PPP, a Democratic-leaning firm, surveyed 316 Republican primary voters from February 20-22. The margin of error was 5.5 percentage points. The survey also asked questions about potential primary candidates and the favorability of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

* * *

Source: The European Union Times

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/50-republicans-want-christianity-national-u-s-religion/feed/ 0
Habits of Highly Effective Racists http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/habits-of-highly-effective-racists/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/habits-of-highly-effective-racists/#comments Sun, 01 Mar 2015 18:16:53 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2374 dadintogarden_cropBeing White won’t be an accident in 2055; it will be an act of will on the part of one’s immediate ancestors.

by Rob Freeman

An Analysis of Overseas Chinese

I LIVE NEAR two casinos, Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun. The Chinese are a race of highly enthusiastic gamblers, and are drawn to casinos like moths to a flame. They have a lot of problems in this milieu with loan sharking, fighting, and sometimes murdering one another over lover’s quarrels and money disputes. They exploit one another horribly, and often rip one another off.

In one case, it was discovered that some Chinese willingly get 2,000 dollars in debt to the Chinese mafia (the Triads) in order to get a two-year stint working 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, on a fishing boat. Of those . . . → Read More: Habits of Highly Effective Racists]]> dadintogarden_cropBeing White won’t be an accident in 2055; it will be an act of will on the part of one’s immediate ancestors.

by Rob Freeman

An Analysis of Overseas Chinese

I LIVE NEAR two casinos, Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun. The Chinese are a race of highly enthusiastic gamblers, and are drawn to casinos like moths to a flame. They have a lot of problems in this milieu with loan sharking, fighting, and sometimes murdering one another over lover’s quarrels and money disputes. They exploit one another horribly, and often rip one another off.

In one case, it was discovered that some Chinese willingly get 2,000 dollars in debt to the Chinese mafia (the Triads) in order to get a two-year stint working 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, on a fishing boat. Of those two years, they spend about 13 months just paying back the Triad. In the last 11 months, they earn about 1,200 dollars — for two years of 112 hour weeks. Do the math; that is about 1,200 hours, for 1,200 dollars, or a dollar an hour after they pay off the Triad goons. That is absolutely horrendous exploitation. How could such people be more effective racists than us?

Here on the East Coast, Chinese will work 80 hours a week at Chinese restaurants, then come and blow all their pay at the casinos, and then sometimes get in debt to loan sharks. It’s ugly.

But they are very quickly buying up property in Norwich and Ledyard. New London county is going to be a Chinatown. How do they do it?

I’ll tell you how, and if you wrinkle your nose and say, “I would never live like that,” then you might not be a Highly Effective Racist.

One Chinese who is working as, say, a blackjack dealer or a maintenance worker at Mohegan Sun will get a mortgage and buy a house in Uncasville, within walking distance of the casinos. It is important that it is within walking distance, or near a bus stop for casino workers, because the Chinese are too clever to buy a car — not like us stupid American sheeple.

So a Chinese gets a big house with a 1,500 dollar per month payment, and he rents out the house to 15 other Chinese working at Mohegan Sun. He charges each of them one week’s pay every month. This is what really happens. A janitor pays $350 a month; a mah-jong dealer might pay $600 a month. One week’s pay per month is signed over to the landlord, period.

Suppose the average is $400 a month from the 15 Chinese sleeping in the bedrooms, basement, living room, family room — even “hot bedding” between shifts. That’s 6,000 dollars a month. It might be annoying to live in close proximity with so many people, but the landlord is making $70,000 a year. If they bought it for $300,000, the house is paid off in seven or eight years when you take into account taxes and maintenance.

I personally could not do this, but only because my conventional-minded wife would object. Were I single and knowing what I know now, I would do exactly this with White nationalists. Moreover, my house would be on a farm, and I would allow my tenants to live in campers and trailers, and give them the opportunity to do things like brew beer, grow gardens, raise animals, have a woodshop or a metal shop, and board horses.

No one who isn’t independently wealthy has the luxury to work a mere 40 hours a week, and then do Odin knows what in his spare time. Exactly the way the Chinese are “colonizing” pieces of America, we need to be colonizing, or re-colonizing pieces of America. We have to stop being such damned suckers! We are suckers and dupes for living as though the country still belonged to us. We need to live as though we are immigrants who need to “take over” a piece of the country, because Jewish immigration policy has made us foreigners in our own country.

The rest of the country is definitely not playing by the rules, or going by established convention. If we are going to adapt, we need to adapt to this fact, while staying legal and not getting in trouble with the law. Right now Whitey is taking a knife to a gun fight, metaphorically speaking. In the New York Times I came across this quote:

‘There are financial costs, too. While regional figures are hard to come by, the business magazine Barron’s recently reported that the nation’s underground economy has swollen to almost $1 trillion. Much of the research was based on immigrant communities in the New York metropolitan area. And according to Bear Stearns, whose researchers were cited in the article, Long Island is experiencing serious growth in the undocumented labor force. This shadow economy robs local, state and federal governments of tax revenue — money that finances schools, roads, libraries and sewers.’

What I am demanding from racially aware Whites is to adapt in the Darwinian sense, and do it quickly! We haven’t much time left. We have a new situation, a new struggle, a new “war with the Indians,” as Dr. Pierce used to say.

Adapt, damn it! Get it through your head — simply preferring your own people and wishing the other races would go back to their native lands doesn’t make you an effective racialist. Good intentions and a five dollar bill will get you a caffeinated beverage at Starbucks. Believing “good intentions” are sufficient is childish, but it is unfortunately ingrained in us moderns. Good intentionism underpins the worldview of the multiracialists and so called “liberals” — they believe that their wonderful “anti-racist” intentions excuse all the damage they do.

The Chinese model is an effective model of colonization. Ten White racialists in Boston or Little Rock or Duluth, Minnesota can start buying up property — even farms, and start re-colonizing America, once they have reconciled themselves to working 70 hours a week, and making one another rich, one at a time.

If one of us gets a mortgage to buy a farm, then another nine of us should live on that farm, with each working 40 hours a week at some job, and developing a farm-based business with the rest of his or her time. One week’s pay goes to the landowner, and the other three weeks’ pay is your own. (One week’s pay for rent is a damned good deal, let me tell you!)

And when you aren’t working, you are doing some income-producing work on the farm, to add to your own savings, and making things to trade with your own people. For example, the farmer may grow barley and hops, and you brew beer. You give some finished beer to the farmer as pay for the barley and hops, and he gives some of that beer to the other renters on the farm who helped him grow the barley and hops. A ten-acre farm and one White nationalist landowner and nine sharecroppers/tenants becomes a micro-economy.

The Chinese could do this easily. No problem. They’re already doing the equivalent. If we can’t, then what are we but weaklings and losers who aren’t worthy descendants of our White pioneer grandfathers and grandmothers? If you won’t work 70 hours a week to colonize the American continent for your race, for your White descendants, then you might as well bow and scrape to the wonderful “diversity” that is taking over. If you won’t get on your feet and work your tail off for the survival of your people, then you might as well get on your knees and pray to the Jews.

The Force of Evolution is making White people more racially-minded with each generation. How is that? Well, non-racialist whites are breeding with non-Whites, and their posterity is no longer White. The only White people in 50 years will be the descendants of Highly Effective Racist White people. Being White won’t be an accident in 2055; it will be an act of will on the part of one’s immediate ancestors.

(As an aside, I have to take a break from writing this to take my highly-demanding daughter sledding! It is something I am happy to do. When I come back, I will finish this up.)

At sledding, my daughter got quite a bit of exercise climbing the hill for the 15-second rush of sliding down and going over a jump. I was happy to see her face develop an “exertion blush” like you see on long distance runners. It is a warm day in February, and the snow is melting. I had the rabbits out under the sun for the day, instead of in their well-insulated and roofed cage. When we came back from sledding, I put the rabbits back in their place. My daughter plopped herself on the couch and is watching Russian cable TV with her Ukrainian grandmother, who made her some hot chocolate.

Everyone is well taken care of, and everyone in the household has his or her own job. My daughter takes care of the berry patches, and when the berry bushes start producing, I will let her keep half of the proceeds for spending money, and put half away in savings for her. She will have to spend hours picking just to get a few quarts of berries, but this will be good for her. Kids nowadays are “bored” because they need to be put to work. When my children have some free time during which they aren’t working, you can be sure they don’t complain to their parents that they are “bored!” And some natural greed is good motivation to set them to work taking care of berry bushes and/or chickens.

The White racialist movement as a whole is not working because the people involved do not realize that they need to start at Square One. Everyone is trying to skip steps.

The path to White sovereignty is directly through the Jewish economic octopus. Every breath you take, every drink of water, every bite of food, every mile down the road, every TV show or movie you watch, every magazine or newspaper you read, makes profit for the Jews.

Unraveling the Jewish economic octopus with non-violent, honest labor and enterprise, if done with sufficient diligence and intelligence, will eventually threaten Jewish power. To those who are praying for a violent revolution, I fear they are going to get it when our efforts to become materially self-sufficient start to mature. Do you suppose Jews are going to take it lying down when they aren’t making profits from our every breath of oxygen and bite of food? They take it for granted that they have the economic monopoly over the Western world. They are going to absolutely freak out when they begin to lose this. They’ll initiate the violence.

We Whites have great feelings of despair and loss when we see non-Whites flooding into the country, and see Whites breeding with non-Whites. The Jews will have similar or greater feelings of despair when their parasitism gets downsized, and they will probably take more and bloodier action than our best fantasists have ever imagined. However, the action they take will only earn them the hatred of the general population. They will be forced into the open when they find it necessary to overtly assert their superior legal and political status. They have a lot to lose, and when they start losing it, there will be parallels to Bolshevism in Russia and Ukraine — with expropriations of food, mass arrests, and seizing control of enterprises.

This won’t be a planned action on the part of the Jews, but a panicked reaction. This is why it is likely to fail, and to bring about the loss of Jewish power.

The most important thing to remember is that the catalyst to this conflict is in your hands — the unraveling of the Jewish economic octopus will set it off. If you fail to unravel this octopus before it goes down, it will take you down with it. If you manage to make yourself independent of it, then you have a chance of surviving the demise of the American empire.

I saw a great quote from Dennis Wholey the other day: “Expecting the world to treat you fairly because you are good is like expecting the bull not to charge because you are a vegetarian.”

The hour is getting late. It’s time to stop playing around, and grow up. We are the only adults in this country, or at least potential adults. We are the founders of the new White Nation, if there will be one at all; it’s time to start acting like Founding Fathers and Mothers.

The concrete action I demand of you is this: If there are five (or ten) dedicated racially aware White people in the same area, one of you should take out a mortgage on a farm, and rent the farmhouse and property to the other four. All of you work your tails off to build wealth, working towards the goal of all five of you becoming landowners and/or business owners — and then replicating the same for more of us, thus colonizing the area you are in with racially loyal White people.

The only thing that stands in your way is your own character, if you are lazy and/or dishonest. If your laziness and dishonesty is greater than your animal racial loyalty, then you have weeded yourself out.

If we can’t do the sort of racial colonizing that the Chinese are doing, then what claim do we have to racial survival? Let’s get real here. We have a situation where our very existence and our claim to this country is being seriously challenged, and those out there who are aware of the threat are not doing what it takes to adapt to the threat. If you are letting the Chinese outrun you economically and demographically in your own native territory because you are too lazy, then you are letting the Chinese prove more evolutionarily adaptable, are you not?

Are the Chinese going around talking political revolution? No. They are presenting themselves as the most unthreatening, accomodating, bowing and scraping coolies, “Oh sank you fely much fo opotunity to wok for amelikan dleam!” Give them a century and they will own this continent, unless Whites adapt and rise to the evolutionary adaptive level of Overseas Chinese.

It’s long been said that “to whom much is given, much is expected.” Being a racially aware White person puts you in this category. Now that you are one of us, it behooves you to always ask yourself, “Am I trying hard enough?”

I expect you guys to take some risks, and emulate the requisite qualities of the Overseas Chinese in this country which is being stolen out from under you. I expect you to take a mortgage, and rent it to your comrades, and live like hippies (except a lot more disciplined) — sleeping living rooms and basements, and working your tails off to save money and grow your own food, brew your own beer, and make your own good times.

When you do this, more Whites will be recruited to your side. If you have a White nationalist communal house and you bring home a high quality White woman, she will be impressed that you have created a community. This is a country of lonely people. People want to be part of a tribe. If you create a White nationalist tribe the way the Overseas Chinese are creating their own tribes over at the Mohegan Sun casino, you will be powerful — and taking the first steps towards White sovereignty and victory.

This essay describes the first step in detail. It isn’t meant to envision the revolution in full. But before you’ve taken that First Step, the First Step is all that matters.

Right now, the Chinese are the Highly Effective Racists that we need to copy. Until we become Highly Effective Racists who are re-colonizing our living space, the way the Chinese are re-colonizing New London County, we are going nowhere.

Don’t let conventional ideas about having a house to yourself get in the way. Would you rather live on five acres and share a house with five or ten White nationalists while being Highly Effective Racists, or live in a condominium by yourself and pay a Jewish landlord while you slave away at some customer service job? Victory or defeat — make your choice.

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/habits-of-highly-effective-racists/feed/ 4
Jews and the Ruin of Classical Music http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/three-jews-and-the-ruin-of-classical-music/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/three-jews-and-the-ruin-of-classical-music/#comments Sun, 01 Mar 2015 16:00:40 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2398 SchoenbergHiLo-1935IN DISCUSSING the music of the West, a line can almost be drawn at the beginning of the 20th century. It was at that time that “modern” philosophies and ideologies assumed hegemony over the artistic scene. That serious music would change course and fall largely under the sway of Jewish pens and Jewish batons was predictable. The Jews were the only minority group with the monetary capability and cultural eclat to pull off such a feat. (ILLUSTRATION: Jewish Composer Arnold Schoenberg)

Charles Rosen’s recent biography of Arnold Schoenberg provides solid support for this assertion. Although the composer and his students were only a part of the general upheaval taking place in the art world, Rosen writes that the theories of the Second Viennese School, to which Schoenberg belonged, were a step forward . . . → Read More: Jews and the Ruin of Classical Music]]> SchoenbergHiLo-1935IN DISCUSSING the music of the West, a line can almost be drawn at the beginning of the 20th century. It was at that time that “modern” philosophies and ideologies assumed hegemony over the artistic scene. That serious music would change course and fall largely under the sway of Jewish pens and Jewish batons was predictable. The Jews were the only minority group with the monetary capability and cultural eclat to pull off such a feat. (ILLUSTRATION: Jewish Composer Arnold Schoenberg)

Charles Rosen’s recent biography of Arnold Schoenberg provides solid support for this assertion. Although the composer and his students were only a part of the general upheaval taking place in the art world, Rosen writes that the theories of the Second Viennese School, to which Schoenberg belonged, were a step forward in the development of music. The author feels that overcoming the extremely hostile atmosphere that greeted Schoenberg’s later pieces was a salutary and positive step in the direction of artistic freedom. That not one composition with the lasting quality of a minor work by Beethoven or Mozart has been produced in the last fifty years is somehow overlooked, as is the fact that the public could not care less about the music now being written. To check this, compare the attendance figures of a concert of pre-20th century music and one that features modern music.

The reason for the stagnation of contemporary music is not hard to explain. Music, as well as the other arts, depends on a delicate balance of the abstract and the emotional. Melodic sounds and harmonies evoke feelings of pleasure in the listener, while the structure and form of the composition make it intellectually appealing. Similarly, in a painting, the sight of the picture is pleasant and familiar, while the form and technique fulfill the abstract requirements.

But the revolution of Schoenberg and his disciples Berg and Webern (all three Austrian Jews [It appears that the anonymous Instauration author is mistaken here; only Schoenberg of this trio was a Jew. Thanks to Greg Johnson for this correction. — Ed.]) eliminated the emotional aspect of music. The twelve notes in the musical scale were arranged in a particular order that had to be repeated with mathematical precision, although with changing rhythms. Through the next several decades, this music became even more controlled, until we ended up with mathematicians and computer programmers taking on the job of composing.

The reaction or lack of reaction to computerized and mathematical music moved music makers to the opposite extreme. Now the composer is encouraged to take the most absurd liberties, to the point where compositions may vary at every performance. Since it is all impulse and has no logic, the resulting music dies aborning.

Finally, there is the lack of tonality in modern music. Tonality is what most people probably know as the particular key in which the piece is written. It is the ultimate requirement to a successful composition. It makes the music both enjoyable and understandable, and gives it an inner schematic. Tonality was largely abandoned by Schoenberg and has only rarely been revived. Without it, the ear simply cannot comprehend a musical composition.

The only hopeful sign in the contemporary music world is that composers have now carried the mathematical games on the one hand and the emotional anarchy on the other to their furthest limits and have nowhere to go but to return to the middle. But this, needless to say, does not offer any guarantee of true progress in the music world.

Mr. Rosen to the contrary, the effect of the revolution in music by Schoenberg and his followers was not progress, but the sidetracking of musical evolution. To reawaken the development of Western music, perhaps the highest expression of artistic creativity, we will first have to go back to where we left off, and then start afresh.

* * *

Source: Instauration magazine, May 1976

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/three-jews-and-the-ruin-of-classical-music/feed/ 1
The Millstone About His Neck http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/the-millstone-about-his-neck/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/the-millstone-about-his-neck/#comments Sun, 01 Mar 2015 15:00:58 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2405 John Stuart MillThe real source of “liberal” delusions

by Revilo P. Oliver

JOHN STUART MILL (1806-1873; pictured) is chiefly remembered today as an example of precocity and as the author of an enthusiastic essay On Liberty (1859). There is still debate about whether he was extraordinarily precocious or merely an example of what any child with a first-rate mind, but not a genius, could accomplish, if properly taught. Educated by his father, he read, when he was eight, the whole of the Anabasis and of Herodotus, although only two or three books of one or the other are now expected of pupils in their second year of Greek in college. When he was twelve, he was reading the logic of Aristotle and comparing it with the Mediaeval Scholastics.

The essay, although little regarded at the . . . → Read More: The Millstone About His Neck]]> John Stuart MillThe real source of “liberal” delusions

by Revilo P. Oliver

JOHN STUART MILL (1806-1873; pictured) is chiefly remembered today as an example of precocity and as the author of an enthusiastic essay On Liberty (1859). There is still debate about whether he was extraordinarily precocious or merely an example of what any child with a first-rate mind, but not a genius, could accomplish, if properly taught. Educated by his father, he read, when he was eight, the whole of the Anabasis and of Herodotus, although only two or three books of one or the other are now expected of pupils in their second year of Greek in college. When he was twelve, he was reading the logic of Aristotle and comparing it with the Mediaeval Scholastics.

The essay, although little regarded at the time, when it was only a minor item in the mass of his politico-social writings, survived as a model of restrained eloquence. It was read by many Americans in the 1920s, when English literature was still taught in the secondary schools, and the few who went on to a serious study of Ancient History in college remembered it when they read the declamations of Aelius Aristides and other orators of the Second Sophistic. His treatises on political economy and sociology, however, lapsed into obsolescence. His last major work, left incomplete at his death, has now been published in book form for the first time, exhumed from the pages of a long forgotten British periodical.

The completed chapters of Mill’s On Socialism have been published in a booklet of 146 pages by an affiliate of the Skeptical Inquirer in Buffalo, Prometheus Books ($4.95). Forty-four pages of the booklet are an Introduction by Lewis S. Feuer, which most of my readers will find more interesting and useful than the text of Mill’s essay.

Mill was one of the crowd of Victorian writers whose anxious cerebration about politico-social problems was being made obsolete even while they wrote, and now appear to us as wreckage washed up from the tempest of the French Revolution or as a fumbling reaction from the hysteria of its terribles simplificateurs. He did attempt to ponder the problems without preconceptions and to analyse them objectively, hoping he could produce by logic a sociology as scientific as the physical sciences, and we must agree that his conscientious effort was commendable. He deserves the praise Mr. Feuer gives him, and his social science will always have the interest of other attempts at scientific method, such as astrology and phrenology, of which the former still attracts today many ignorant or temperamental individuals, who imagine that what is systematic must be scientific in the modern English meaning of that word. (It is still possible in French to term any systematic treatment of a subject, such, for example, as demonology or hagiology, une science, but in English the word is now acceptable only when it denotes an objective determination of empirically demonstrable facts about the real world.)

Interest in Mill’s politico-social writings is now being revived by the persons who call themselves “libertarians” and like to discourse about what society ought to be — and what it might conceivably be, if it were composed, as in Plato’s Nomoi, of individuals rigorously selected for inclusion in a state newly created in territory previously uninhabited. These fantasies, like most Utopian writings, have a certain charm, if set forth with some literary skill, and often are taken seriously by earnest young men when they emerge from a conventional college.

It is the merit of Mr. Feuer’s Introduction that it quickly and agreeably shows the reader precisely what was the fatal flaw in Mill’s attempt to reason logically and objectively. Mill did make an earnest effort, and it is to his credit that, unlike some of his contemporaries, he was never taken in by the gospel of St. Marx and the amazingly successful religious cult that even today has so large a following and gives such power to the masters of Communism, who, needless to say, are too intelligent to believe the hokum that makes their herds obedient. Mill, as you will see from On Socialism, perceived the enormous discrepancy between the beings imagined in the gospel and existing human beings, but he was bemused by the shortcomings of the society in which he lived and sought to explain and mitigate them in a kind of groping perplexity, never understanding their origin and basis.

As Mr. Feuer tells us, Mill took seriously the “Positivism” that Auguste Comte formulated when not in a strait-jacket, and if we know anything of Comte, we marvel, perhaps a little unfairly, that Mill was not alerted or even moved to derisive laughter by Comte’s “Religion of Humanity,” with its temples in which priests would exhort the pious to revere sanctified “benefactors of mankind,” including, by the way, the celebrated Francisco Lopez, who, I believe, has the distinction of having killed off in war a larger percentage of his male population than any other ruler known to history.

There was undoubtedly a strain of madness in Comte, even when he was not insane. It was clearly evinced in his system of hygiène cérébrale, by which he maintained the purity of his mind by reading only a few poets, significantly including Dante, and in prose, even more significantly, the sentimental maunderings of the Imitatio Christiattributed to Thomas à Kempis. But if we put ourselves imaginatively in the first part of the Nineteenth Century, we can see that there was something attractive in a doctrine which exalted reason above superstition and was sufficiently realistic to perceive that political systems were limited by the prevalent morality and thus able to appreciate the social necessity of the Czars’ government of Russia and the import of the coup d’état carried out by Louis Napoléon, which aroused such screaming from Victor Hugo and his fellow doctrinaires. We can understand why Mill was a generous contributor to the subsidy provided for Comte when he was in need.

Mill’s admiration of Comte, however, is merely a characterizing detail. To comprehend fully the cause of Mill’s failure, we need only perpend two of his pronouncements, which Mr. Feuer rightly stresses and contrasts.

Mill knew a great deal about India. His father, the author of a once highly regarded History of India, which is still a source of some value, who had long practical experience in the government of India, had observed that “No other race of men are perhaps so little friendly and beneficent to one another as the Hindus,” and had attributed their “listless apathy” to their long subjection to a despotic government, plus, perhaps, their “grovelling and base” religion. (1) Mill, who assimilated his father’s knowledge, himself had a long practical experience of Indian realities, having been in charge of the East India Company’s relations with the native states until the Company was disestablished after the Sepoy Mutiny. He believed that the people of India were “in their nonage,” but with the facile optimism of his time, thought they might eventually become politically and socially adult, after making lots of progress with education and other fashionable nostrums.

(Footnote 1. He was thinking, of course, of the popular sects, the Tantraic orgies, the Vallabhacharyas, and the other cults of insanely perverse sexuality which gave a paralysing shock to Victorians who knew of them and which might unsettle the stomach of even a hardened modern observer; the murderous worship of Kali by the Thugs, whom the British imperialists so ruthlessly suppressed; the grotesque, skull-bearing Kapalins; and all the disgusting horde of dirty fakirs and maniacs who posed as holy men. James Mill doubtless thought the grandiose speculations of the post-Vedic religious literature almost irrelevant to the squalid lives of the swarming multitudes of India.)

It seems never to have occurred to Mill that India was (and is) a multiracial cesspool (such as Americans hope to make of the United States) and, that by biological and social necessity, its mongrel populations had to be governed despotically. There is still a good deal of Aryan blood in India, wherefore its dominant language today is Indo-European, a derivative of Sanskrit, which was a modification of the earlier Vedic. No doubt something also survives of the White race, perhaps akin to the Sumerians, whose civilization left traces in the Indus Valley recently discovered by archaeologists. There are today White Hindus, whose fair complexion is almost startling when they are seen in contrast with the teeming majority that surrounds them.

The Moslem conquest of India in the Eleventh Century brought with it hordes of various Semitic and Mongoloid peoples. There are innumerable varieties of the Dravidians, who were probably already mongrelized when the earliest White invaders described them as monkeys or demons. One may despair of analysing the biological components of the dark-skinned natives whom those invaders thought civilizable and classed as Sudras, lumping together tribes that differed from each other. There is a considerable number of descendants of Australoids, the lowest of extant races. And there is an almost infinite variety of hybrids, combining in various proportions various of these racial stocks. The British, wicked colonialists that they were, restrained the native yearning to massacre racially incompatible groups, but since India has been liberated from such oppression, massacres, which began with “independence,” will periodically delight the blood-lust of our “Liberal intellectuals,” who are determined not to perceive that, for example, the recent outbreaks of both the Sikhs and “Tamils” are entirely of racial, not religious, origin.

One would suppose that so obvious a fact would have been understood by a man intimately associated with the routine administration of India, but Mill seems to have been oblivious of it. He was blinded by the epidemic hallucination about “all mankind,” which teaches that every talking anthropid is just like all the others, only more so. And his brain was inhibited by the fiction about “human rights,” presumably ordained by some unnamed deity, so that he could not face the fact that there can be no rights except those a society, whether a tribe, a nation, or a country, bestows on its members and may deem it expedient to extend in part to such aliens as it tolerates in its midst. And in a multi-racial country, which is not a society but only a congeries of biologically and psychologically incompatible individuals, there can be no actual rights, only concessions its rulers deem it expedient to make at any given time.

Mill knew nothing about Congoids, with whom he had had no contact at all. He was so gullible, however, that he believed the propaganda of missionaries and other professional troublemakers, which so fitted his superstition about “all mankind” that he approved the ruin wrought by England’s outrageously unjust suppression of slavery and thought it a great moral triumph; he whooped it up for the vicious pack of Abolitionists in the United States and raved that the Southerners’ struggle to defend against invaders their rights under the Constitution that was being abrogated, their property, and their lives was “the devil’s work” and the cause of “Satan.” And his frenzy continued, even after the conquest of the South by the hate-crazed aggressors, and he demanded that all the niggers be entitled to vote. When a man who is proud that he is not a Christian howls about “Satan,” it is easy to measure the extent of his mental aberration.

Mr. Feuer could have added to his quotations that show Mill’s emotional unreason an even more telling incident of Mill’s career in Parliament. The island of Jamaica was one of Great Britain’s most prosperous, stable, and cultivated colonial outposts until 1832, when Britain, by what amounted to piracy under international law, undertook to suppress the slave trade of all nations. There are, to be sure, cogent arguments, economic and social, against slavery as an institution, even in its least noxious form, but the British policy was determined, not by rational political considerations, but by a party government’s yielding to agitators inspired by Christian malice and the old yen of proletarians to afflict their betters so that “the last shall become first.” Our people have been so conditioned and morally weakened by centuries of superstition that they never think of inquiring against whom “do-gooders” want to “do good.”

In 1832, packs of pests, chiefly Baptist fanatics drawn from the very dregs of English society, swarmed into Jamaica to harangue the slaves about their “rights” and set off a disastrous revolt that took the colonists by surprise, slew a part of the civilized population, and wrought extensive destruction. In 1834, the British government, having learned nothing, emancipated all the slaves, ruining the planters and reducing many of them to destitution — to the great delight of the “humanitarians.” The impoverished colony survived, largely by importing Chinese coolies to replace useless Blacks, whom the “do-gooders” maliciously refused to ship back to Africa.

Eventually London appointed as Governor Edward John Eyre, who, in his early career, when stationed in Australia, had been sentimental about the Australoids, but who, since he was not a “Liberal,” had learned something from experience. He was, however, unable to exclude from the islands packs of sleazy busybodies from London, who, in 1865, high-mindedly exerted themselves to incite the savages to another outbreak, in which, to the “do-gooders” great satisfaction, they massacred almost all the Whites in a few parts of the island and set out on joyous looting and burning to celebrate the “rights” they had transcendentally acquired from the defeat of the American Confederacy in its War for Independence. Governor Eyre, with admirable efficiency and despatch, declared martial law, suppressed the uprising, and restored order.

Incredible as it will seem to rational men, the stultified British did not slap down the “do-gooding” agitators who bemoaned the Governor’s cruelty in depriving the dear little black boys of their fun. Eyre was “suspended” and eventually recalled for having done his duty, and the rabid pests even tried to have him prosecuted for saving the lives of the Englishmen in Jamaica. Mill arose in the Parliament to deliver an outrageous attack on Eyre. It is some satisfaction to note that the English population was not yet fatally decadent, and the voters terminated Mill’s parliamentary career at the next election.

By this time it will be obvious what was corroding Mill’s mind. In his Autobiography, quoted by Mr. Feuer, he boasted that he was “one of the very few examples, in this country, of one who has not thrown off religious belief, but never had it.” How he deluded himself! He may not have cringed before a Big Daddy in the clouds or venerated a Saviour who committed suicide by getting himself crucified, but it is obvious that his mind was so pickled with Christian superstition that he believed the hokum about “all mankind,” an “equality” patently absurd in the light of quotidian observation, and a factitious “morality” ordained by some divine dispensation of malignant “righteousness.” Of that he was evidently unaware. That, of course, is what makes nonsense out of all politico-social theory that ignores Darwin and biological reality. Mill’s attempt to construct an objective sociology was just a laborious drawing of logical conclusions from false and illusory premises.

Mill seems never to have asked himself how he could rationally justify his grotesque claim that it was England’s “duty” to meddle in the affairs of all other nations to promote and impose “freedom,” thus setting a precedent for contemporary Americans’ suicidal itch to mind other nations’ business and infect all the world with their own deadly social disease.

Mill may have thought he had never had a belief in the supernatural, but, as Mr. Feuer points out, he (as his unquestioned premises made inevitable to a logical mind) eventually came to one. He finally posited the existence of a “limited god,” a deity whose power, like that of the Christians’ god, was restricted and countered by the almost equal power of an enemy god. Mill, in other words, came at length to consider the world a battlefield on which a good god and an evil god fight perpetually, each to overcome the other, in an interminable war, while we must hope that our god will eventually defeat his antagonist and we are called upon to supplement, with our puny hands, his cosmic might. Mr. Feuer, for some reason, chooses to call this notion “Manichaean,” although it was an article of faith in all Christian sects until quite recently and Satan is now being resuscitated by the big hucksters in the salvation-industry. The Christians, of course, derived the notion from the Zoroastrians, who seem to have invented it.

Such was the course of Mill’s thought. He began with an illusion that he had no religion, but the superstition latent within him controlled his anxious cogitations and, quite naturally and indeed inevitably, he became Chrétien malgré lui. His politico-social writings retain, however, the interest that attaches to all earnest, though mistaken, endeavors to understand the world, such as ancient astrology or the physiology of humours or the chemistry of phlogiston or Sumerian cosmology.

* * *

Source: Liberty Bell magazine, January 1988

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/the-millstone-about-his-neck/feed/ 0
Holy Holocaust! http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/holy-holocaust/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/holy-holocaust/#comments Sun, 01 Mar 2015 13:00:54 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2383 holocaust-lies

by Edgar J. Steele

RECENTLY, a list subscriber pointed out that my name had been added to the short list of “American Extremist Individuals” carried on the ADL’s Web page, alongside the likes of Ernst Zundel, William Pierce, David Irving, Dr. Ed Fields, Willis Carto and Bo Gritz, among others, all of us identified as being “Holocaust Deniers.” To those individuals, first let me say that I am at once honored and unworthy to be included in your ranks.

To the ADL, I say…THHBBTTT!  That’s it!  I have freakin’ had it! This “Holocaust” business has gotten way out of hand. Like a dog that bites the neighborhood kids, it needs to be put down…for good.

You want “Holocaust Denial,” you Jewish Supremacist creeps? I’ll give you Holocaust Denial and I won’t dress it up . . . → Read More: Holy Holocaust!]]> holocaust-lies

by Edgar J. Steele

RECENTLY, a list subscriber pointed out that my name had been added to the short list of “American Extremist Individuals” carried on the ADL’s Web page, alongside the likes of Ernst Zundel, William Pierce, David Irving, Dr. Ed Fields, Willis Carto and Bo Gritz, among others, all of us identified as being “Holocaust Deniers.” To those individuals, first let me say that I am at once honored and unworthy to be included in your ranks.

To the ADL, I say…THHBBTTT!  That’s it!  I have freakin’ had it! This “Holocaust” business has gotten way out of hand. Like a dog that bites the neighborhood kids, it needs to be put down…for good.

You want “Holocaust Denial,” you Jewish Supremacist creeps? I’ll give you Holocaust Denial and I won’t dress it up in scholarly robes, either.

Y’know, I’ve never really quite “gotten” this Holocaust business. First of all, it happened a long time ago, so it isn’t relevant to life today. Second, it didn’t happen to me.

What’s more, my family didn’t cause it, so why should I even care? In fact, several members of my family fought in that war, which was openly declared by world Jewry against Germany in 1933, several years before Germany dared respond to Jewish demands that Germany be destroyed.

The Holocaust as Religion

Since then, the Holocaust has taken on aspects of a State Religion in Western nations. It simply cannot be questioned in any regard, under penalty of prison.  I kid you not — prison!  The “Holy Holocaust,” if you will. Seems kind of odd, somehow — the very countries that rescued the Jews by defeating Germany end up being enslaved by those same Jews. Germany, of course, has become the most slavish of all.

I was confronted with this issue recently by a Jewish talk-show host, Donny Deutsch, on national television. He demanded to know if I thought that 6 million Jews dying in the Holocaust was an exaggeration. “Look,” I said, “one would be too many, but the numbers are grossly exaggerated. After all, they keep changing the sign out in front of Auschwitz. First, it said 4 million Jews died there, then it quietly was replaced with a sign that claimed 2.6 million. Today, the sign claims only 1.5 million Jews died in Auschwitz, with serious discussions taking place about lowering that into the range of 700,000, yet the reductions never seem to make it into the claim of 6 million total.”

Deutsch, who insisted that the 6 million figure was gospel (“holy,” don’t forget), looked like he was going to pop an aneurism as I continued: “You know, 75 million people, military and civilian, died worldwide during WWII, yet we are supposed to honor the memory of only 6 million.” I was cut off before adding that most of that 6 million never existed and, besides, it seemed to me that Jews should be honoring those of us who rescued them, not the other way around. That’s how it is every time free speech hits the holy Holocaust wall — it must yield.

The Holy Roundup

Now they are jailing scholars for the crime of saying things as mild as what I said on national TV.  Jews forced Ernst Zundel to be arrested here in America on a phony visa charge and deported to Canada, where he spent two years in solitary confinement for saying 6 million was too many; now he faces a five-year prison term in Jewish-controlled Germany for the same “crime.”

In a replay of the Zundel pantomime deportation, scientist, historian and publisher Dr. Germar Rudolf was arrested in America on a phony visa charge and deported to Germany by Jews. I now call this routine “being Zundeled.”

David Irving, one of the most-respected historian author/scholars in the world, now languishes in a European jail on the orders of Jews. And others — many others. All face lengthy prison terms, merely for saying 6 million is an exaggeration. Look, I couldn’t just make something this ridiculous up, you know. Prison…for speaking the truth!  They aren’t even accused of lying, which, of course, they aren’t. They are jailed under the vague charge of “Holocaust Denial.” What’s wrong with this picture?

Things Get Worse

Hold on, though — it gets worse.

Last month, the execrable United Nations adopted a resolution written by Israel which designates January 27 as the “International Day of Commemoration in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust.” The UN’s decree goes on to reject “any denial of the Holocaust as an historical event, either in full or part.”

This would be a good time for you to go look up the definition of “chutzpah,” a Yiddish term.

But wait — it gets even worse.

You probably aren’t going to believe this next item. I scarcely believe it myself. Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives adopted a Jewish-sponsored resolution to designate every January as “Jewish History Month” throughout America. All that remains is for the President to issue an appropriate Executive Order. Did I mention that the House voted unanimously? Unanimously. That means both you and I voted for it, since our state representatives cast our votes for us. Unanimously. Can you believe it?

Now go look up the definition of “hubris,” which really ought to be a Yiddish term.

And you thought you were sick of Black History Month? You ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Coming right up behind it now is Jew History Month. How appropriate. What? You don’t get the joke? Think about it.

Staking the Devil

Now, I’m no historian. I’m no authority on World War II and I sure don’t claim to be a scholar. But, since the Jews have locked up all those who fit those descriptions and who dare to speak out on the so-called “Holocaust,” it falls to the rest of us to pick up where they left off. What should we do? We should drag this Holocaust myth out into the daylight and, in plain view of the entire world, drive a stake through its evil heart, once and for all.

I mentioned the Auschwitz signs. That’s proof enough, right there, that 6 million is a lie. A lie — not a mistake — a Jewish lie!  But there is so much more.

By the way, if the Nazis killed so many Jews, how come there are so many “Holocaust survivors,” anyway? Just asking.

The WWI Holocaust

Did you know that the Jews trotted out their 6 million lie before, during WWI? No, I didn’t think so. They want you to forget about that claim, which simply didn’t stick. People were better read and educated then, I suppose, else it might have gained the traction that it has achieved today in couch potato land. “Six million men and women are dying” in the Ukraine, claimed The American Hebrew periodical on October 31, 1919, the very same claim that Jews made twenty years later.

You see, Jews thought they were going to establish Israel right after WWI, due to the Balfour Declaration’s promise of Palestine in exchange for Jews causing America to enter the war against Germany. Since Jewish Talmudic prophecy demands that there be a 6-million-Holocaust offering prior to Jews returning to the Promised Land, it was incumbent upon them to fabricate the Holocaust then and there. The Talmud called for cleansing the “chosen” souls through the sacrifice of 6 million in “burning ovens,” since unclean souls could not be allowed to return to the Promised Land. That is the real source of the “6 million” myth, as well as the myth of the “ovens.”

However, Britain was unable to deliver up Palestine as promised by Lord Balfour, since Palestine still was possessed by Turkey. It took another twenty years and another World War to make good on Balfour’s promise. Quietly, the 6-million lie was put to rest, only to be revived just prior to WWII. The self-same claim about 6 million Jews dying was made, as part of the propaganda to once again force America to enter a war which involved none of its interests.

Jewish Hubris

You really must have a glimmering of the true extent of Jewish hubris in order to appreciate their belief that, if they got the whole world to repeat their 6-million lie, then God would be fooled into allowing them to enter the “Promised Land.” Jews actually teach that their best Rabbis have the ability to beat God in debates, by the way. Hubris. This time, do what I told you before and actually look it up. This is why the figure 6-million is sacred to our new State religion, the Holocaust. If there is a Jewish God, which I sincerely doubt since most Jews are atheists, then he must be really dumb.

75 million people throughout the world died in WWII. 75 million. Yet, we are supposed to honor and remember only 6 million? Out of 75 million!!! Just 6 million…Most of whom never existed in the first place!

Simple Logic

The whole premise of the Jewish Holocaust defies simple logic: Why would Germany, fighting a war on two fronts…with fuel scarce…short of all resources…ship millions of Jews by railroad…hundreds and thousands of miles…to camps specially built just to hold them…feed them…clothe them…tattoo them in order to keep track of them….just to KILL them? 

It doesn’t even begin to make sense. If the Germans had wanted to kill the Jews, they would have done it the way the Russian Jews murdered 20 to 80 million Russian Christians earlier in the century…with a bullet to the base of the skull, wherever they were found.

Or, as my buddy Al likes to say: In all of German-occupied Europe, there were 2.4 million Jews.  After the war, 3.8 million Jews applied for Holocaust reparations. Tragically, the remaining 6 million were lost.  More Jews received pensions than were present in German-occupied Europe because so many of them moved west from Russia after the war and cleaned up on the pension scam.

Even a cursory examination proves that the Jews are lying. For example, the Jewish Encyclopedia confirms Al’s figures. Otherwise, the Jewish pre-war worldwide population figure of 15 million would read 9 million after the war instead of the 16 million that it gives. That’s right — the worldwide Jewish population actually increased during WWII!

In fact, the WWII Jewish Holocaust did not really take shape until fully fabricated by Jews during the late 1950s. That is why, in the memoirs of so many WWII leaders and generals, including Eisenhower, Churchill and De Gaulle, as recently pointed out by Professor Richard Lynn, “one will find no mention either of Nazi ‘gas chambers,’ a ‘genocide’ of the Jews, or of ‘six million’ Jewish victims of the war.”

The Evidence

“What about the Auschwitz gas chambers?” you ask. Per Willis Carto’s late, great Spotlight newspaper, none other than Dr. Franciszek Piper, senior curator and director of archives of the Auschwitz State Museum, has admitted on film that “Krema 1,” the only alleged “homicidal gas chamber” on display to hundreds of thousands of tourists every year at Auschwitz, was built after the war by the Soviet Union.

In 1948, three years after the war ended, formal Allied Commissions of Inquiry concluded that nobody died of poison gas at any of the German concentration camps, a conclusion also reached by modern engineering forensics expert Fred Leuchter after extensive examination of the grounds and buildings. Leuchter lost his business, his job and his reputation simply for telling the truth about his engineering and chemical tests, many of which were repeated by Dr. Germar Rudolf, who confirmed Leuchter’s results. That was the major crime for which Dr. Rudolf now sits in a German prison. And yet the Holocaust myth endures!

“But the confessions…” you splutter. False. Every one of them. All those German officers were tortured by Jews prior to the Nuremburg show trials, most of them having had their testicles crushed in the process, which is why they signed all those confessions. What’s more, they signed confessions written mainly in English, a language most of them could neither read nor speak. You know the torture that Jews inflict upon Palestinians today when they catch them? That’s nothing compared to what Jewish interrogators did to their German prisoners at Nuremburg. What’s even more telling, all the prosecutors and judges at Nuremburg were Jews.

No wartime aerial photos of the camps show piles of corpses or crematoria in action. Reasonable people ask, “If six million are dead, then where are the bodies?” That and Talmudic prophecy wording is where the gas oven stories came from: “They went up in smoke.” No bodies were found then, nor was any billowing smoke seen emitted by the camps, nor have any remains been found near any of the camps in amounts which add up to anything more than the relatively small number of prisoners acknowledged to have died of typhus and other diseases while imprisoned.

International Red Cross documents clearly show that fewer than 300,000 Jews died during WWII in all German concentration camps combined. As a race, Jews gave far fewer to the war efforts than did any other nation involved, which is why their total population increased during the war, in contrast to that of most combatants.

The ridiculous claims about Jews being made into soap and lampshades were debunked thoroughly long ago and Jews would like you to forget them now that they have made their 6-million hoax into a viable religion. After all, the absolute lack of any proof of Jewish soap or lampshades would weaken their new religion, wouldn’t it?

The Real Holocausts

Meanwhile, there are genuine Holocausts which actually did happen last century, yet which are not memorialized. In fact, Jews file lawsuits to suppress their mention and/or accurate description in public schools and in modern media.

The undisputed genocide of 1.5 million Armenians at the hands of their Turkish oppressors in 1915 is particularly maddening since Turkey at that time was controlled by Donmeh Muslims.  Now, you may not know this, but Donmeh Muslims are a sect comprised entirely of Jews who “converted” to Islam yet continued secretly to practice Judaism and refused to intermarry with true Turks. This was last century’s first Holocaust and it was caused by Jews. My children are one fourth Armenian (my wife is half Armenian and half German…for what it is worth, I am half Scotch and half Irish). Does that make them Holocaust survivors?

In the post-revolution, Jewish-controlled Soviet Union, between 20 and 80 million White Christians systematically were murdered from 1917 to 1953. This was the second Holocaust of the Twentieth Century, perpetrated directly by Jews, in a preview of what they have in mind for American Christians during this coming century. What? You didn’t think the de-Christianization of American schools, government and Christmas would stop where it currently stands, did you?

In what amounts to the third Holocaust of the Twentieth Century, the Allies firebombed Dresden, Germany, during WWII, simply to see if they could create a self-perpetuating firestorm. They succeeded and, in the maelstrom that followed, murdered upwards of 500,000 people, most of them civilians, and destroyed one of the most beautiful cities then in existence.  Since the war was prosecuted at the behest of and for the benefit of Jews, the blood of Dresden is upon Jewish heads (to borrow the Biblical phrase, “His blood be upon our heads,” uttered by the Jews who engineered the crucifixion of Jesus Christ).

The fourth Holocaust, of course, is America’s laying waste to both Nagasaki and Hiroshima with nuclear bombs. The Jewish connection requires a short explanation. America cut off Japanese oil supplies, forcing their attack upon Pearl Harbor. Franklin Roosevelt had advance knowledge of Pearl Harbor, yet simply let it happen so that the American people finally would be outraged enough to allow him to declare war on Japan, which until then had been engaged in a long-standing, low-grade war solely with China. Without oil, Japan was sure to lose to China, thus was forced to lash out at America. Because of Japan’s mutual defense pact with Germany, American Jews finally had their war against Germany, too, their primary objective in causing the U.S. to interfere with Japan’s war, which until then had been confined solely to Asia. Thus, the nuclear holocaust unleashed upon Japan also is to be laid at the feet of world Jewry.

The truth puts the lie to the laughably deniable so-called Jewish Holocaust. So few Jews died during WWII and those mainly of natural causes, at that, that the term Holocaust should not even be applied to what happened to them. Indeed, the four events of the Twentieth Century that actually deserve the term Holocaust all were caused by Jews themselves, advancing their own interests!

Why?

Since the Jewish Holocaust is so easily disproven, why do Jews hold onto it with such fervor? There are many reasons, in addition to the Talmudic prophecy, of course, which must be met. Incidentally, speaking of prophecy, do you believe in it? Did you know that the Jewish population of the United States now is about 6 million? Did you know that the Jewish population of Israel also numbers about 6 million at this time? Lessee now, if prophecy actually gets fulfilled, which do you suppose will get nuked out of existence first?

But, back to the benefits the Holocaust holds for Jews: First and foremost, it protects Jews, both individually and collectively, from criticism. It also has provided prodigious income, both in reparations and in contributions from the deluded, particularly American aid to Israel, which, prior to the beginning of the current Iraq war, amounted to about $64,000 from every American family. What’s more, the “Holocaust” forms a sort of “them-against-us” mentality for Jews to use in keeping their brethren all pulling in the same direction. And the Holocaust enables Israel to formulate and direct American Middle-Eastern policy. The Holocaust also diverts attention from the many Jewish-instigated true holocausts of the Twentieth Century.

In Closing

Now, that’s real Holocaust Denial! None of this penny-ante, “Gee, was it 6 million or 5 million?” business for which fellows like Zundel, Rudolph and Irving now sit in jail, awaiting trial. And, God, how the Jews deserve it, believe me. When they labeled me a Holocaust Denier, they asked for it. In for a penny, in for a pound. I don’t want to hear them complain now, simply because I gave them that of which they accused me. And I’m not done, either. In fact, I’m just getting warmed up.

Interestingly, when Deutsch threw that question at me on national TV about how many Jews died during the Holocaust, the first response that floated across my mind, as though on a Teleprompter, was a joke punchline, as so often is the case with the way my mind works. I resisted the impulse to read it off as it floated by, just as I usually do, and, instead, gave the answer I related above. What was the initial answer my somewhat twisted mind offered up? Not enough! Mind you, I do not mean to suggest that we do unto Jews as they have done unto us, time and again. But, if 6 million really had died during WWII, do you suppose we would be having the troubles on their account that we have today?

As I like to say: I agree with those who say anti-Semitism is a disease. You catch it from Jews!

My name is Edgar J. Steele. Thanks for listening.

* * *

Source: Edgar J. Steele, 2005

 

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/holy-holocaust/feed/ 0
The End of Commercial Man http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/the-end-of-commercial-man/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/the-end-of-commercial-man/#comments Sun, 01 Mar 2015 13:00:50 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2390 USFlag

A MORE THAN casual look at The Environmental Movement shows it to be mostly a facade of noisy rhetoric. If the speechifying is largely surrealistic, the problems are real. Basic resources for industry, as well as exotic ones, are getting scarcer. Cheap oil is a thing of the past. Even if there are no real shortages at the moment, unlimited growth is a mathematical absurdity. Nothing is growing so fast as the population of the Third World nations. Neither governments nor professional ecologists offer more than symbolic solutions.

As the Sierra Club Bulletin (October 1975) summed it up: “In the ten-year span from 1960 to 1970, Americans alone consumed more raw materials and energy than were used by all of mankind before 1960,”

Rather than review all the frightening statistics, which has been done . . . → Read More: The End of Commercial Man]]> USFlag

A MORE THAN casual look at The Environmental Movement shows it to be mostly a facade of noisy rhetoric. If the speechifying is largely surrealistic, the problems are real. Basic resources for industry, as well as exotic ones, are getting scarcer. Cheap oil is a thing of the past. Even if there are no real shortages at the moment, unlimited growth is a mathematical absurdity. Nothing is growing so fast as the population of the Third World nations. Neither governments nor professional ecologists offer more than symbolic solutions.

As the Sierra Club Bulletin (October 1975) summed it up: “In the ten-year span from 1960 to 1970, Americans alone consumed more raw materials and energy than were used by all of mankind before 1960,”

Rather than review all the frightening statistics, which has been done over and over again, it might be worthwhile to consider first what kind of mentality caused them. If we listen to the shamans of minority racism, we will hear the blame pinned on “the culture of white, Western masculinity” (Theodore Roszak, Where the Wasteland Ends). There is an iota of truth here. Many of the leading polluters are indeed white males of Teutonic or Celtic descent. But the principal culprit is Commercial Man, a cultureless, raceless, unisex creature, who has purged himself of all ethnic feelings and devoted his whole being to the exchange of goods and services.

Commercial Man is not going to solve the environmental problems because he is the cause of them. He did not invent the modern technology which amplifies them, but he is the one who utilizes technology to turn everything in sight into goods and money. Science started out as the hobby of eccentrics. It was only in the nineteenth century that Commercial Man really took notice of the science kooks and decided there was unlimited wealth in store for those who could exploit science. A few geniuses like Edison and Henry Ford straddled both worlds and became legends in their own times.

The great fallacy of the ecology-minded is that modern technology is the key factor in environmental degradation. Technology is a factor, but irrigation and the stone axe could also do the job, as any serious study of the ancient world quickly reveals. Of course today’s advanced technology provides fantastic leverage for human stupidity. The scientists and engineers who created it are unfortunately lacking in the mental scope or emotional maturity needed to utilize such power properly. All they know is to speed up the growth demanded by Commercial Man. Konrad Lorenz has compared the situation to cancer (Civilized Man’s Eight Deadly Sins). This is a perfectly valid simile, since the cancer cell has lost the ability to function cooperatively in the organism. It multiplies and multiplies and the malignancy grows and grows. The tumor fattens until the organism dies. Faith healers report that they have persuaded some cancers to reform in their own best interest. What are the chances of our social cancer coming to its senses? Very little. Antibodies are needed, not gentle persuasion.

Commercial Man cannot do anything meaningful to prevent this planet from being plundered and destroyed because very candidly that is his entire reason for being. In his socialistic, humanitarian garb his goal is to maximize the tonnage of human protoplasm on the earth and to provide these quivering masses of hominid tissue with goods and services. Optimizing the process is outside his scope; in fact it is antagonistic to his values and his way of thinking. His outlook on life is so one-dimensional that he offers only stopgap solutions for problems caused by his mindless quest for more of everything. Replication is his forte, not creativity. A billion mediocre things are better than one good one.

The mania for quantity and production has made efficiency a virtue. High efficiency means rigid stability. Natural processes operate at about ten percent efficiency. As efficiency rises above this level, the ability of a mechanism to adjust to changes declines dramatically. Lessons like this are totally lost on Commercial Man.

Commercial Man, in fact, is a creature of all humanity. He can be an Anglo-Saxon liberal member of the Junior Chamber of Commerce, a de-ethnicized American Jew, an overseas Chinese, a Hindu in Africa, a multiracial comprador in Latin America. His camp followers are the bureaucrats and intellectuals who sometimes claim to be his enemies, but are more appropriately his heirs.

The essence of Commercial Man has loomed over very diverse societies — the Third Reich, liberal America, the People’s Republic of China, the Soviet Union, Israel and the United Arab Republic. Having existed for a long time, longer than historical records, he serves a useful purpose, but becomes a serious problem when his is the dominant class.

Reading between the lines of liberal-minority environmentalists reveals their solution consists of eliminating technology, in part by downgrading white nations and eliminating white scientists and engineers. Since the Chinese, Japanese and other Asiatics have plenty of good engineers and plenty of good Commercial Men, the disappearance of whites will by no means signify the end of industrialism. If anything, what will vanish will be any and all restraints on industrial expansion. The world will not return to being a beautiful wilderness inhabited by noble savages. Instead it will be covered by an endless favela teeming with rats, lice, roaches and nonwhites. There is no way of telling how long this global squalor will endure before the last so-called human creature perishes. Probably not too long.

With little doubt Commercial Man’s days are numbered, just as they were in classical times. The only serious question is whether there are any alternatives to the world favela.

A return to the true values of the West would entail a rejection of the false and hypocritical humanitarianism of Commercial Man. The population explosion in the Third World would be halted. Each nation would eventually have the population it could support at whatever level it deemed suitable for itself. National liberation in the Third World would also mean national responsibility instead of anti-white racism. The liberal is indeed a perverse being who wants to destroy his own race and society, but only after he has made the rest of mankind just like him. He will be gone, thankfully, and this alone will make the earth a better, cleaner, healthier place to live.

With other nations and peoples pursuing their own destinies, the Majority could turn its attention to much needed self-improvement. Marginal souls could be discouraged from having children and the childbearing of those with genetic potential would be encouraged. Without racial antagonisms and recriminations, government could be used for solving social problems, instead of treating the symptoms and breeding the causes. Welfare budgets would decline. Freedom would be available to those who wanted it and security would be there for those who valued it more highly than freedom. An increasing ratio of brighter people would supply the drive to keep such a system going.

An unculled herd deteriorates. This is why we have suffered genetic decay. Society in contrast to nature selects not the best for massive reproduction, but the very worst. The poorest and least successful among us have the largest families, so the liberal democrats have the strongest voting blocs.

The gene pool of a race is not stationary. It changes with every generation. Without information inputs from the environment, such as differential reproduction rates and infant mortality, the race will deteriorate. Since we have reproduction rates favoring the worst of our own race, not to mention the worst of the blacks, things are getting bad very fast. This is what Elmer Pendell said in Sex and Civilization, and what has been known for thousands of years to animal breeders. It is formally demonstrable in the quasi-mathematical communications theory. Those who don’t understand the dynamics of genetic decay have been born into the wrong universe and had better find another one for their next reincarnation.

The nobility of the Middle Ages maintained large forest areas, despite a growing need for more agricultural land. Part of the motivation was the sport of hunting and varieties of game for the table; part was the need for a supply of lumber and other forest products. If the barons and earls allowed all the trees to be cut, there would be more, not fewer, hungry peasants and no game or wood for anybody.

The contrasting survival styles of different people is reflected in domestic animals. The dog is like the average Third Worlder. He breeds promiscuously and copiously until there are no more scraps and garbage to feed him. His cousin the wolf acts more like the nobleman. Commercial Man acts like vermin.

If we are not to sink into the mainstream of humanity and then out of sight, a small but influential portion of us must somehow move the rest off their collision course with the second law of thermodynamics (genetic entropy). Technology must be utilized to improve man, not tailor the world for increasing numbers of hard-to-feed bipeds.

The world’s mineral resources are fast disappearing. So are the genetic advantages of the American Majority. If we continue to tolerate the liberal, the bureaucrat, the financial manipulator and our own aimless whimsy, if we who know better continue to be the servants of Commercial Man, we will not only be his gravedigger but our own.

* * *

Source: Instauration magazine, February 1976

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/the-end-of-commercial-man/feed/ 0
The Consequences of Comfort http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/02/the-consequences-of-comfort/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/02/the-consequences-of-comfort/#comments Sat, 28 Feb 2015 23:00:35 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2356 wlp_outside_trees2by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

UNTIL QUITE recently, unending struggle has been the condition of mankind. Through struggle we evolved. Struggle selected the strongest and most fit for survival and eliminated the unfit. A high birthrate together with a high death rate guaranteed progress.

Since the Neolithic Revolution the progress has been intermittent, however, with periods of ease, a lowering of the death rate, survival of the less fit, and decay alternating with periods of struggle, winnowing, and advancement.

It is not just individuals who are more or less fit, fitness is a term which applies to nations as well. When the Romans encountered the Celts and the Germans more than 2,000 years ago, the Celts and the Germans were more fit individuals than the Romans, on the average — bigger, stronger, more daring . . . → Read More: The Consequences of Comfort]]> wlp_outside_trees2by Dr. William L. Pierce (pictured)

UNTIL QUITE recently, unending struggle has been the condition of mankind. Through struggle we evolved. Struggle selected the strongest and most fit for survival and eliminated the unfit. A high birthrate together with a high death rate guaranteed progress.

Since the Neolithic Revolution the progress has been intermittent, however, with periods of ease, a lowering of the death rate, survival of the less fit, and decay alternating with periods of struggle, winnowing, and advancement.

It is not just individuals who are more or less fit, fitness is a term which applies to nations as well. When the Romans encountered the Celts and the Germans more than 2,000 years ago, the Celts and the Germans were more fit individuals than the Romans, on the average — bigger, stronger, more daring — but the Romans were more fit collectively, because they were better organized and disciplined. For the Celts the consequences of indiscipline were disastrous; where they were not annihilated, they were pushed to the western fringe of Europe.

The German peoples eventually learned the value of organization and discipline  better than anyone else, and prevailed not only over the Romans but over the rest of the world as well. When they came to North America 500 years ago, they brought the habits of organization and discipline with them from Europe, and these habits served them well in conquering the new continent and building a civilization on it.

As America’s wealth grew, the struggle ceased. Not only were children who never would have survived on the frontier kept alive to breed more weaklings, but even those individuals with good genes lost their good habits and became less fit. The second half of the 20th century was a catastrophe in this regard. Wealthier than they had ever been before and therefore less obliged to struggle for their existence, White Americans quickly became less fit than ever before. Nor has loss of fitness only afflicted the wealthy, the growth of the welfare state has sheltered members of the working class from the consequences of failure and caused them to become less fit also.

The loss of fitness has not been uniform. In some families tradition and strong leadership helped maintain good habits despite the wealth. More families, however, succumbed to the new fashion of permissive child-raising. Discipline became a bad word. Punishment was unheard of. The whole society became feminized, and the protection of children became a paramount concern; protection not only from physical dangers, but also from competition, from challenge, from disappointment, from need or even want, from the consequences of failure. Schools and other public institutions have collaborated with families in protecting and coddling children.

The consequences of excessive wealth and ease and the feminization of child-raising has been a population of soft, morally crippled White Americans. We have a generation of men who not only never had to kill another man in the struggle for survival, they grew up never having to pick up their dirty socks or actually having to work for a weekly allowance. As children they were never held accountable for anything. Everything they wanted has been given to them. They never have had to solve a problem or get themselves out of a tight spot. Many of them have no idea what hard work is. They have never been hungry, they never had to clean up their own messes, never had to suffer the real-life consequences of failure; mommy and daddy — or the welfare office — always have been there to bail them out. Concepts such as craftsmanship, performance, and responsibility are meaningless to them.

This moral debility has not affected all White Americans, of course. Those who still possess the capacity for self-discipline, for careful planning and hard work over an extended period, for enduring discomfort without complaint, for postponing gratification, and for self-criticism — a capacity expected in everyone a century ago but relatively rare today — have an enormous advantage over those who do not possess this capacity, or possess it to a smaller degree. And a similar statement can be made about organizations.

Understanding these things isn’t really helpful to the adult who has grown up without discipline or struggle, because the lack of capacity for self-discipline is almost impossible to remedy in an adult. In nearly all cases, it either is acquired early in life, or it is not acquired at all. Parents and prospective parents who understand these things, of course, are more likely to make correct decisions about raising children, if they still have the capacity to resist peer pressure and buck the trend toward even greater permissiveness.

The significance for us in all this is that if we are able to recruit selectively the better disciplined members of the White population, we can gain a significant advantage. This advantage may not be immediately apparent to a superficial observer under present conditions, but will become quite apparent when stress is applied. Which is to say, as long as the society remains tuned to the needs of the pampered and undisciplined population, the advantage of self-discipline may not stand out. When the support system breaks down, however, and the inept are left on their own — when the welfare checks stop coming, the electricity goes off, and the pampered suddenly become edible prey — those who have the habit of self-discipline will be far more likely to survive and prosper than those who don’t.

Likewise for organizations.

* * *

 Source: National Alliance BULLETIN, May 2000

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/02/the-consequences-of-comfort/feed/ 0
Hinton Rowan Helper: Harbinger of America’s New Dawn http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/02/hinton-rowan-helper-harbinger-of-americas-new-dawn/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/02/hinton-rowan-helper-harbinger-of-americas-new-dawn/#comments Sat, 28 Feb 2015 22:00:19 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2340 Hinton_Rowan_Helperby Jack Pershing

FOR MOST readers having a nodding acquaintance with American history, the term “abolitionist” conjures up a vision of a sentimental housewife like Harriet Beecher Stowe, a homicidal psychopath in the mold of John Brown, or some stone-faced Puritan negrophile. This picture is accurate enough as far as it goes, but it is a long way from being complete. Abolitionism and negrophilia were not one and the same thing.

There was another abolitionism, born of the conviction that the Black was a menace to society, whatever his legal status. This tradition included among its adherents some of the leading figures in American history. Not so famous as the others, perhaps, but of particular interest to us as fighters for a White America, was Hinton Rowan Helper (pictured).

Once the center of a vortex . . . → Read More: Hinton Rowan Helper: Harbinger of America’s New Dawn]]> Hinton_Rowan_Helperby Jack Pershing

FOR MOST readers having a nodding acquaintance with American history, the term “abolitionist” conjures up a vision of a sentimental housewife like Harriet Beecher Stowe, a homicidal psychopath in the mold of John Brown, or some stone-faced Puritan negrophile. This picture is accurate enough as far as it goes, but it is a long way from being complete. Abolitionism and negrophilia were not one and the same thing.

There was another abolitionism, born of the conviction that the Black was a menace to society, whatever his legal status. This tradition included among its adherents some of the leading figures in American history. Not so famous as the others, perhaps, but of particular interest to us as fighters for a White America, was Hinton Rowan Helper (pictured).

Once the center of a vortex of controversy, Helper is now largely forgotten. His insights made him an inconvenient visionary, and the court historians have assigned him to the Stygian oblivion of the memory hole. He should be rescued from his obscurity, if only to frustrate the designs of the Ministry of Truth.

Gaining the proper perspective from which to view our subject involves a bit of analysis of the social structure of the Old South, and a look at his place in it. Southern virtues are and have been intertwined with Southern vices since the evolution of a more-or-less separate Southern way of life. And always, looming over the Southern landscape like some doom-laden thundercloud, has been the fact of Black slavery.

One is tempted to say that everything of importance in Dixie revolved around the twin poles of planter and slave. One commentator noted, “Any man who passes through our country could hardly help being struck with the fact that all the capital, enterprise, and intelligence is employed in directing slave labor. . . .” [1]

The commitment to large-scale plantations using slave labor was, as far as the majority of Whites were concerned, a pact with the devil. The position of the poorer Whites was tenuous at best. They often found themselves competing with slave labor, lived under the threat of Black insurrection, and generally were cast in the role of odd man out in a society dominated economically and politically by an oligarchy of slave-owning planters.

It was into this class of White yeomen that Hinton Rowan Helper was born on December 27, 1829. His father worked a small farm in what was then Rowan (now Davie) County, in western North Carolina, but died of mumps while Hinton was a child. His mother and an uncle took on the task of raising the brood of five boys and two girls.

A few years spent at the local Mocksville Academy was all the formal education Helper was to receive, but at that he was better off than most of his fellows. At the age of 18, however, economic necessity led him to become indentured for three years to a merchant in Salisbury, North Carolina.

Life as a store clerk wasn’t what Helper had in mind. When the three years were up he said goodbye. Standing six feet tall, with blue eyes and dark, wavy hair, possessed of energy, ambition, and a keen, analytical mind, he was ready to have a go at making his way in the larger world. He went to New York, found it not to his liking, and on January 31, 1851, sailed around the Horn to California on the clipper Stag Hound.

Helper seemed to be racially conscious from birth, but if he bore any illusions at all they didn’t survive for long in the racial chaos that was gold-rush California. The grasping San Francisco merchants, among whom the Jews were conspicuously active, he called “the shrewdest rascals in the world.”

Helper described his experiences in his first book, The Land of Gold. He was unfavorably impressed by all the non-White elements he met. He said of the 40,000 Chinamen in California, “I cannot perceive what more right or business these semi-barbarians have in California than flocks of blackbirds in a wheat-field.”

The Digger Indians, whose main claim to fame was their matchless skill in stalking the wily acorn, met with equally short shrift: “Too indolent to work, too cowardly to fight, they will melt away before the white man like snow before a spring sun.”

Even the south-of-the-border senoritas found little favor in Helper’s eyes. He wrote, “Their pumpkin hues and slovenly deportment could never awaken any admiration in me.”

After three years of backbreaking but unremunerative work in the goldfields Helper decided that he had eaten enough pork and beans for one lifetime and returned to North Carolina. He completed The Land of Gold and then began planning the book which was to generate a political hurricane: The Impending Crisis of the South.

Published in 1857, The Impending Crisis, though hardly to be mistaken for great literature, was interesting and significant in several respects. It was an early attempt to use economic statistics to buttress a sociological argument. Helper used data collected in the 1850 census to show how slavery was debilitating Southern society. The linchpin of his argument consisted of 58 tables comparing the economies of the North and the South. Although some of his arguments were specious, the overall picture was indeed one of economic, and ultimately social, stultification.

The book recalled a former outburst of Southern anti-slavery agitation. In the wake of Nat Turner’s bloody slave rebellion in 1831, many Virginians had become disillusioned with the whole business of slavery. That feeling was reflected in the 1831–32 debates of the Virginia House of Delegates. Helper quoted Charles James Faulkner’s opinion that the slaves “threaten the subversion and ruin of this Commonwealth. Their present number, their increasing number, all admonish us of that.” In Faulkner’s view the economics of slavery was disastrous, in that “it banishes free white labor, it exterminates the mechanic, the artisan, the manufacturer. It deprives them of bread.”

Helper was not a man to mince words, and in the hyperbolic rhetorical style of his day he vented his spleen against what he saw as an irresponsible, uncaring slavocracy which oppressed the White masses economically, socially, and politically. In his view the White worker was treated “as if he was a loathsome beast, and shunned with the utmost disdain.” While the cotton aristocracy lavished its wealth on luxury goods from Europe and the North, and sent its sons to Northern schools, the average Southerner was left illiterate, barefoot, and to all intents and purposes disenfranchised.

Black slaves had become a status symbol and were rented out at rates higher than the wages that Whites could command. According to Helper the North Carolina Railroad Company paid $12 a month to free Whites, while slave owners could rent out their darkies for $16 a month. While the plantation plutocrats were maximizing profit in the short run, the lifeblood of the South was being drained. The slave economy “has retarded the progress and prosperity of our portion of the Union; depopulated and impoverished our cities by forcing the more industrious and enterprising natives of the soil to emigrate to the free states.”

Antipathy to the slave system and all its works was widespread in the highland areas of the Old South. In Alabama, for instance, Winston County seceded from the state to form the Free State of Winston. So violent was the negrophobia of the hill folk that even today some towns in northern Alabama have a reputation as “sundowners”; i.e., if a Black isn’t out of town by sundown his stay may be eternal.

These were Helper’s people, and he spoke for and to them with a passion. He was especially vituperative when condemning the machinations of the slave-owning elite: “Never were the poorer classes of a people so basely duped, so adroitly swindled, or so damnably outraged.” The planter oligarchy, or the “lords of the lash” as Helper referred to them, were accused of the most supreme indifference to the lot of their unmoneyed kinsmen. The White workers were “regarded with less esteem and attention than Negroes, and though the condition of the slaves is wretched beyond description, vast numbers of whites are infinitely worse off.” He quoted a South Carolinian to the effect that “a large portion of our poor white people are wholly neglected, and are suffered to while away an existence but one step in advance of the Indian of the forest.”

Helper was convinced that the slave owners kept the White masses unlettered and unknowing, the better to manipulate them: “They have purposely kept you in ignorance, and have, by moulding your passions and prejudices to suit themselves, induced you to act in direct opposition to your dearest rights and interests.”

Though they vastly outnumbered the slave owners, the non-slave-owning Whites were, Helper said, virtually excluded from the political system. Under this state of affairs the latter “have never yet had any part or lot in framing the laws under which they live. There is no legislation except for the benefit of slavery and slaveholders.”

Helper felt deeply, and by the 1850s he was correct in saying it, that anyone who dared to question the wisdom of the slave system was subject to both psychological and physical intimidation. Dissenters were liable “to be crushed with stern rebukes, cruel oppressions, or downright violence. If they dare to think for themselves, their thoughts must be forever concealed.”

The solution which Helper proposed in The Impending Crisis was eminently sound. Given the history of human folly, however, it was probably too sensible to have any hope of adoption. According to Helper, the slave owners should free their slaves and give each one $60 for boat fare. Everything that would float should be rounded up and should be kept “constantly plying between the ports of America and Africa, until all slaves shall enjoy freedom in the land of their fathers.”

Helper was basically on firm ground in his critique of the slave system. Unfortunately, he carried his personal antipathy to the slave-owning class too far. His suggestion that the planters should reach the same conclusion that Judas came to and hang themselves is typical of his invective on the subject. He failed to see that the White masses clung to the “squirearchy” as a bulwark against the spectre of a slave revolt. Any crack in the wall of White solidarity appeared to them to augur nothing but disaster. The dream of repatriation to Africa must have seemed too good to be true. Perhaps it was.

At any rate, in June 1856 Helper disposed of his share in the family farm for $280 and set out to have his book published in New York. He knew better than to try to publish below the Mason-Dixon line. In the slave states it was a criminal offense to distribute “incendiary documents.”

John_Brown_by_Levin_Handy,_1890-1910

Crazed White abolitionist John Brown

Eventually Helper used his connections with the Republican Party to promote The Impending Crisis in a condensed, mass-market version. Sold mostly at cost, some 75,000 copies were put into circulation. The book became famous, or infamous, and was the focal point of a national brouhaha in the last antebellum Congress. Convinced, in the backwash of John Brown’s murderous raid, that a slave insurrection was being plotted, pro-slavery Congressmen waved copies of The Impending Crisis in the faces of their Republican colleagues, demanding that they disavow the book. An indication of the volatility of the situation is the fact that most of the members of Congress went about armed.

When war came Helper found himself in an uncomfortable position. Unable to support secession, he was equally unwilling to serve in an invading army. In 1861 he managed to wangle a diplomatic appointment to Argentina, where he served as U.S. consul until 1867. During this tenure he found a wife in Marie Louisa Rodriquez, a well-bred Spanish Argentinian. On his return to North Carolina he began a period of intense literary and political activity. He addressed the race problem in America, proposed a solution, and strove to put it into practice.

Published in 1867, Nojoque, A Question for a Continent was the first volume of a trilogy by Helper on America’s racial problem. He was, to say the least, disappointed by the form the abolition of slavery had taken. Instead of being promptly repatriated, the freed slaves were unleashed on the South like an infestation of killer bees. With the publication of Nojoque there could be no confusion in anyone’s mind as to where Helper stood. He had, he assured his readers, “ever regarded the Negro as a very inferior and almost worthless sort of man, to be freed, colonized, justly and liberally provided for, and then put wholly upon his own resources and left to himself.”

The remarkable thing about Helper’s writing is its clarity of vision. In uncompromising terms he drove home again and again the nature of the race crisis and relentlessly declared the solution: “No slave, no Negro or mulatto, no Chinaman nor unnative Indian, no black nor bi-colored individual of whatever name or nationality will again find domicile anywhere within the boundaries of the United States.”

To a large extent Nojoque was a pastiche of expert testimony on the undesirable traits of Homo africanus. Among the sources cited were the Transactions of the London Ethnological Society and William B. Carpenter’s Principles of Human Physiology. Anthropological evidence was reinforced by personal observation. In the halls of Congress Helper had “beheld there, uncouthly lounging and dozing upon the seats, a horde of vile, ignorant, and foul-scented Negroes.” He saw the Black as a natural slave who had nothing to lose and everything to gain by latching on, remora-like, to White civilization: “To be a slave of the White man, yet, if possible to be a slave exempt from labor, has always been the ruling ambition of the Negro.”

Helper wrote his next book, The Negroes in Negroland, in 1868 to awaken Northerners to the infernal nature of what was being done to the South under the label of Reconstruction. The White masses of the South were suffering an unprecedented martyrdom. Politically they were powerless, having been disenfranchised as former Confederates. Economically they found themselves in competition with the freed slaves, who were hired en masse by their former masters at subsistence-level wages. This was the era when many Southerners disappeared overnight, leaving a cryptic “GTT” (“gone to Texas”) scrawled on a barn door. While shoeless White women begged for bread in the streets, Helper noticed “multitudes of sleek, stupid, filthy, greasy, and grinning Negroes, occupying places which would have been infinitely better occupied by whites.”

With the growing influence of Radical Republicanism, worse was to come. As crime became the primary means of subsistence and amusement for many of the former slaves, Helper wrote of a terror that “reigns supreme among the white females of every family.” His hope was that decent men of good will could save the Republican Party from the Radicals, whose program he labeled “a consummate outrage, an unmitigated despotism, an unparalleled infamy, and atrocious crime.”

Negroes in Negroland was especially aimed at the negrophobic public in the Old Northwest (today’s Midwest). It included a vivid catalog of the racial peculiarities of the blackamoor, witness: “. . . his low and compressed forehead, his small, backward-thrown brain, his projecting snout-like mouth, the malodorous exhalations from his person, his puerility of mind, and his apathetic indifference to all propositions and enterprises of solid merit.”

Land

Helper quoted the opinions of a number of people concerning “the black imps of Africa,” as he called them. David Livingstone (of “I presume” fame) allowed that “among the Negroes, no science has been developed, and few questions are ever discussed, except those which have an intimate connection with the wants of the stomach.”

Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on Virginia produced more grist for Helper’s mill. The man claimed as their spiritual forebear by today’s renegade Democrats knew his Blacks, as evidenced by his comment on “their disposition to sleep when distracted from their diversions and unemployed in labor.” Furthermore, “I think . . . [a Negro] could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid.”

Abraham Lincoln himself was anything but a negrophile. As a true son of the Northwest he told a delegation of Blacks in 1862, “We have between us a broader difference than exists between any other two races. As I think your race suffers greatly by living with us, ours suffers from your presence.”

On a trip to Africa, Helper had a chance to study his “black imps” in their native habitat when his ship stopped at Dakar. His remarks on the occasion were blunt, devastating, and rather humorous. While the women seemed to spend most of their time scurrying about with outsized water jugs perched atop their woolly domes, the men declined to bestir themselves “except to loll and loiter about, beg, grin, giggle and guffaw.” Much the same spectacle can, of course, be seen on a thousand ghetto street corners today.

More exotic was the sight of underdressed Negresses pounding millet, their pendulent mammaries vibrating “like globules of calves-foot jelly on a dish in transit.” Helper watched three females pursue a reluctant chicken for the better part of an hour, and though his sympathies were with the unfortunate pullet, “many a circus has afforded me much less amusement.”

Unlike those who to this day insist on pestering inoffensive aboriginals in the name of Yahweh, Helper was sceptical of missionaries and their doings. In Dakar he found the local Jesuit particularly unnecessary. In Helper’s opinion the gentleman just as well could have carried on “in a community of gorillas or baboons.”

While he was capable of appreciating the laughable side of the Blacks’ eccentricities, Helper was always acutely aware of the gravity of the problem they posed. For him it was “utterly impossible for clean-natured and clean-sighted white men ever to disdain the Negro in a manner at all commensurate with his manifold and measureless demerits.”

There was nothing funny about the election of Ulysses Grant in 1868. The Radicals were now in the saddle, digging their spurs hard into the flanks of a prostrate South. Helper became convinced that the mainstream political parties were beyond redemption. His answer to the challenge thus raised was a plan to form a new party dedicated to the well-being of the White working class, North and South.

In 1869 Helper contacted William J. Jessup, president of the New York State Workingman’s Association. Jessup was impressed enough to present Helper’s ideas to the convention, meeting in Philadelphia that year, of the National Labor Union, which had been organized in 1866. It was resolved to form a committee to study the idea of a new party.

Helper put his program into book form with Noontide Exigencies in America. With the symbiotic rise of Radical Republicanism and industrial-financial plutocracy, the White masses were in a bad way. Inevitably, things were worst in the erstwhile Cotton Kingdom. Many White women, in their desperation, had turned to the oldest profession. Blacks were monopolizing “the light work which, by the laws of right, honor, fitness, and decency, should be given to white females only.”

Those White women who found honest work were often forced to labor in the fields, where they were subject to the attacks of Black marauders. Helper wrote, “The very Negroes which we have taken within, are, in effect, encouraged to pursue and outrage the same unfortunate white females whom we have turned without.”

The first step toward setting things right was to deny employment to all non-Whites. The man who hired Blacks was “a vile traitor to his race, and a sower of seeds of immorality, dissension, strife, demoralization, and ruin.”

Helper proposed an 18-point platform for the new party, including:

Immediate purchase of San Domingo, Haiti, or Cuba, to be used as a sort of wastebasket receptacle for our American Negroes and mulattoes and for all our other black and brown rubbish of the genus Homo . . .

Recognition by law of the obvious distinctions which Nature has been pleased to make in the several races of mankind; no more tyrannical forcing of white people into intimate association or relations with Negroes; no denying white men justice by having Negro jurors; no degrading of white children by sending them to Negro schools; no fraternization with Negroes in the community . . .

No encouragement to Chinese or other Asiatics to become coolies in the United States . . .

Liberal inducements to all Negroes, mulattoes, and Mongolians to emigrate beyond the prospective limits of the United States . . .

No more sending of Negroes abroad as representative Americans. The white man only is the representative American. Wherever it is not proper for the white man to go in that capacity, no one else should be sent.

In 1870 the National Labor Union took the first steps toward political activism. Whether Helper’s prompting decided them is problematic, but the members purged their ranks of Blacks and demanded an end to Chinese immigration. When it came to challenging the Democrats and the Republicans head on in the national political arena, however, the trade union leaders seem to have lost their nerve. The intellectual cadre tried to soldier on, and in the national election of 1872 they nominated Associate Supreme Court Justice David Davis of Illinois for the Presidency. He withdrew at the last minute, and by 1873 the National Labor Union was kaput.

After this Helper, who had made no money to speak of from his books, turned his attention to the task of rehabilitating a dilapidated exchequer. He became, with some success, an agent for people with financial claims against various South American governments. His dealings with the tinpot tyrants of half a dozen banana republics were in themselves worthy of a dime novel, but Helper needed no Ned Buntline. He did the job himself in his Oddments of Andean Diplomacy.

By no means did he lose interest in the question of race, however. He was struck by the contrast between the mobs of mestizos and the White Latins, whom he called in his last-named book “the peers if not the paragons of the politest and highest-toned people in the world.” The throngs of mongrels were a different matter, dismissed by Helper as “an idle, vicious, and worthless population of Negroes, Indians, and bi-colored hybrids; vile-visaged and deleterious forms of human rubbish.”

A dream began forming in Helper’s fecund imagination. He envisioned a double-tracked railroad extending from America’s heartland through Mexico and Central America, all the way down to the Argentine pampas. He imagined a flood of American exports, material and human, vitalizing the entirety of Latin America, lending support to the rule of the better elements, and eventually sweeping aside the biological clutter which by its inertia kept the area so backward. He expounded his dream in yet another book, The Three Americas Railway.

The concept was bold and stirring, worthy of a great people and a great nation. It became more difficult to relinquish than it had been to conceive. As chimeras have a way of doing, the Three Americas Railway remained a glittering maybe. Helper impoverished himself attempting to promote it, and believed in its inevitability to the end.

The end came in 1909, at the age of 79. In poverty and alone, Helper made the decision to step into eternity with a final exercise of his sovereign will.

We needn’t exaggerate the stature of Hinton Helper to honor him. He wasn’t a world-heroic figure. Basically he was a man who used his eyes to see, and who had the guts to tell others what he saw. He was a brave man and he was true-blue.

All honor to you, Hinton Helper. You fought the good fight. We can and will do no less.

* * *

Notes

1 – William Gregg, in an address to the South Carolina Institute, 1851. Gregg (1800–1867) was another Southerner whose opposition to slavery was based on the effects the institution had on working-class Whites; like Helper, he tried to break the monolithic, plantation-based economy of the South, which left no room for them. He retired from his profession as a watchmaker and silversmith in 1838 and established the South’s first typical cotton-mill village, near Aiken, SC, employing only White workers in his mill.

* * *

From National Vanguard Magazine, Issue No. 100, May 1984, pp. 9–13.

Appendix

Also see Kevin Alfred Strom’s “Savage Africa” series of radio programs, based on Hinton Rowan Helper’s book Negroes in Negroland (linked in article):

Savage Africa, Part 1: http://nationalvanguard.org/2014/12/savage-africa-part-1/

Savage Africa, Part 2: http://nationalvanguard.org/2014/12/savage-africa-part-2/

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/02/hinton-rowan-helper-harbinger-of-americas-new-dawn/feed/ 3
The Absurdity of Hitler-Bashing http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/02/the-absurdity-of-hitler-bashing/ http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/02/the-absurdity-of-hitler-bashing/#comments Sat, 28 Feb 2015 21:00:38 +0000 http://nationalvanguard.org/?p=2312 3644252552_034d979f3d_b_cropHow much longer can the cartoonish Hitler-bashing in the media continue to be taken seriously? How ridiculous does it have to get before the spell wears off, and the people realize that it is the media itself, and the Jews that run it, that are our real enemies, rather than the historical “Nazis” that they love to attack so much?

AS CAROLYN Yeager pointed out in a recent podcast, the British newspaper The Daily Mail publishes at least one article bashing Hitler every week. These articles are revealing, as when looked at with a critical eye, they have almost no substance whatsoever. Following a set format, they either take an otherwise innocuous story and pepper it with emotionally-charged language, or make outrageous and impossible allegations, without even attempting to back them up . . . → Read More: The Absurdity of Hitler-Bashing]]> 3644252552_034d979f3d_b_cropHow much longer can the cartoonish Hitler-bashing in the media continue to be taken seriously? How ridiculous does it have to get before the spell wears off, and the people realize that it is the media itself, and the Jews that run it, that are our real enemies, rather than the historical “Nazis” that they love to attack so much?

AS CAROLYN Yeager pointed out in a recent podcast, the British newspaper The Daily Mail publishes at least one article bashing Hitler every week. These articles are revealing, as when looked at with a critical eye, they have almost no substance whatsoever. Following a set format, they either take an otherwise innocuous story and pepper it with emotionally-charged language, or make outrageous and impossible allegations, without even attempting to back them up with facts.

On August 12th they ran a piece called “How to become the perfect Nazi bride: The sinister regulations for women to learn to breed, cook, sew, iron – and worship Hitler.” The only thing sinister about the content of this article is the journalist’s interpretation of it. He gives the opinion, for instance, that the Nazis regarded women as nothing more than ‘breeding machines,’ and then backs up this opinion with quotes from Nazi officials that say German mothers are ‘divine’ and the ‘spiritual caregivers and queens of our people.’

Himmler and Others

Do you see the discrepancy here?:

The documents show that the Nazis regarded women, above all else, as breeding machines and ‘sustainers of the race’, in the language of the schools.

Scholtz-Klink praised motherhood under the Nazis as ‘divine’ and in a speech to senior party leaders in 1935 ranted: ‘You need us, you depend on us.’

‘We are into something good, we participate in the resurrection way of our people. Women must be the spiritual caregivers and the secret queens of our people, called upon by fate for this special task!’

With the sensational rhetoric about ‘henchmen’ and ‘death camps’ and the invocation of Jesus Christ in the following passage aside, what is essentially being said here is that coaching the would-be wives of a country’s leaders how to be well-mannered and family-orientated is somehow ‘sinister':

A sinister set of rules for would-be wives of Nazis in the Third Reich has been discovered three quarters of a century later.

Several ‘bride schools’ were set up with the aim of providing the perfect partners for Adolf Hitler’s henchmen.

Regulations dictated that young women would be taught ‘washing, cooking, childcare and home design’ before they could walk up the aisle with the men who would staff death camps and rule conquered lands with an iron fist.

They were also instructed in social niceties – such as how to hold conversations at cocktail parties – and how to bring up their children worshipping not God or Jesus Christ, but Hitler.

Of course the writers of these articles know that most of their readers already have the preconceived notion that Hitler and the NSDAP were the embodiment of pure evil, so they can pretty much label anything even remotely related to them as ‘sinister’ – Sinister Nazi garbage cans, sinister Nazi shopping carts, or even sinister Nazi children’s toys, as is the claim made in a piece ran on August 15th:

Forget Furbys and Cabbage Patch dolls, for the children of Nazi Germany sinister toy soldiers depicting Hitler and his henchmen were top of their wish lists during World War Two.

Miniature figurines of the evil German dictator, complete with an adjustable right arm to allow youngsters to mimic a Nazi salute, were among the sought-after toys used to brainwash children in the Third Reich.

Again, there is absolutely zero substance here. The toys are just presumed evil because they are associated with the Third Reich. It’s not like they depict hook-nosed rabbis or shrunken heads and human soap, they are simply figurines that reflect the national culture of that time period. The first article gives us a more explicit list of the aims of the bride schools as follows:

'Sinister' toys of the Third Reich

‘Sinister’ toys of the Third Reich

The bridal candidates of the S.S. marriage academy had to swear certain things, including:

  • Loyalty to Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler and Nazi Party superiors ‘unto death.’
  • To marry in neo-pagan ceremonies before a party functionary and an altar bedecked with S.S. runes and oak-leaves instead of in a church before a Christian cleric.
  • Pledge to remain at all times ‘Sustainers of the Germanic Race.’
  • Promise to ‘become proficient in cooking and housekeeping, sewing, washing and ironing; childcare, nursing and home design.’
  • Declare that any and all children born in marriage ‘will be raised in accordance with the ideals of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.’

Notice that the author never explains why any of this is a bad thing. He just calls it ‘sinister.’

Whether or not there really is anything sinister about this is ultimately subjective. I, on the one hand, fail to see anything wrong with a woman learning how to raise a strong family and be a good mother. If you are a Marxist, on the other hand, then you will most likely have an aversion to this kind of thing. That is, if you are a radical feminist, a sexual pervert, or a subversive Jew, the traditional family structure of your host nation is your natural enemy.

The stronger the family unit of the middle class of a nation, the more difficult it is for these types to flourish. This is why Jews and other deviant types are often consciously and actively engaged in attacking and weakening the core family structure. This hostility towards the family has it’s roots in Marxism, where it is officially codified and encouraged with shocking candidness.

The Communist Manifesto,’ which is the primary doctrine of Marxism, has this to say:

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

The majority of people would not agree that deliberately destroying the family unit is a good thing, yet this is what is done to us openly by the Marxists. 50% of all marriages now end in divorce, and you’d be hard-pressed to find a mainstream article explaining why this is, considering the Marxist (liberal) dominated media itself is primarily responsible for it. Take, for example, the popular Hollywood TV show Sex and the City, which flagrantly pushes the idea that a woman is more ‘independent’ if she spends her adult life sleeping around instead of raising a family.

World War II was essentially a war between the two ideologies: Marxism and Nationalism. The United States, unbeknownst to the masses, fought on the side of Marxism, an ideology that overtly attacks and denigrates the nuclear family, in order to elevate the dregs of society above it. As things stand now, in a world where the forces of Marxism have triumphed over those of Nationalism, simply stating that it is healthy for a woman to act like a woman is considered ‘politically incorrect’ and unacceptable, while wearing ass chaps and waving a dildo around in front of children in a ‘Gay Pride’ parade is not.

All 10 planks contained in the ‘Communist Manifesto‘ have basically been fulfilled in present-day America and most other ‘democratic’ nations. Included in these 10 planks is the abolition of private property, a graduated income tax and centralized banking.

Contrast the planks of the manifesto with the 25 points of National Socialism, which advocated the people’s right to self-determination, debt-free currency, strict immigration laws, generous social benefits for the elderly, an honest press run by devoted nationalists and suppression of destructive and degenerate art. None of this is present in modern American society.

The most recent Daily Mail Hitler-hit-piece is a personal favorite. If this doesn’t make people doubt the validity of some of the claims made about Hitler, then I don’t know what will. It is titled “Hitler the drug addict: How he used a cocktail of drugs including cocaine to make him a ‘Nazi superman,’ and it makes The Onion seem like a serious news outlet.

According to this one short article Hitler was:

  • A drug-abusing hypochondriac with deformed genitals who regularly consumed a cocktail of amphetamines, bull semen, rat poison and morphine when he sent millions of innocent people to their death
  • A feeble, trembling figure, egomaniac, sadistic mass murderer, manic depressive and amphetamine addict with bipolar disorder, chronic eczema, persistent stomach cramps and appalling flatulence
  • A user of powdered cocaine to ‘clear his sinuses and soothe his throat’ and user of eye-drops infused with cocaine
  • Frequently injected with extracts from the prostate glands or ground testicles of young bulls to boost his libido so he could keep up with his much-younger lover
  • A hyperactive gambler
  • Lazy

I’m serious. Go read it for yourself.

Maybe this is why nobody finds it strange when they come out with a movie about Nazi zombies or Space Nazis on the dark side of the moon – the official story that we are expected to believe is already pretty much science fiction. Human soap, lampshades, shrunken heads, incredible pedal-driven brain-bashing machines and drug-addled Hitlers with mutilated testicles are only a small step away from “Nazis at the Center of the Earth.”

Nazis Movie

People can deny certain truths, but what they can’t deny is the reality right in front of their eyes. If it were our word alone against the big lies that people have been indoctrinated with all of their lives by emotionally driven, vindictive propaganda like the examples given above, it would almost certainly be a losing battle. But pointing out statistics, such as that 50% of all American marriages now end in divorce, and comparing it to the stated plans of the communists, may jog some minds. You can then show them the article where learning how to be a good wife and mother is referred to as ‘sinister’ – and then have them watch an episode of Sex and the City or Californication. See if they can figure out why this type of degenerative filth is allowed in our societies.

If they still wish to believe that Hitler was the most evil man that ever lived, then maybe you can show them the article about him being a drug-abusing hypochondriac with deformed genitals, so they can see the kind of lies they are defending while taking that position.

Make sure you remind them that Hollywood and every other form of mass media and entertainment is owned and operated from top to bottom by Jews, too.

***

Source: The End of Zion

 

 

]]> http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/02/the-absurdity-of-hitler-bashing/feed/ 0