Robert Bowers doesn’t seem to have thought about how to influence people without firearms.

Hadding discusses with Matt Heimbach and Christopher Cantwell what Robert Bowers could have done that would have been more useful than hoarding guns and shooting up a synagogue.

Here Zan Overall, the “Wise Old Man,” exhibits the steady self-control that Robert Bowers lacked. There is another video wherein he stands outside a synagogue declaring that the Holocaust is a hoax, and is confronted by angry Jews.

Several of Zan Overall’s videos did not survive the great Youtube purge of 2019, but here is a photograph to give you an idea of what you would have seen:

Zan Overall was born in 1926 and was engaged in this kind of activism at least as late as 2012.

The tightening of censorship is an important point, not only on Internet but in terms of public demonstrations. Several men went to prison for defending themselves and each other against Antifa at Charlottesville. Antifa had undertaken violently to suppress the Unite the Right rally, which was a lawful and permitted event, while police were ordered to stand by and let Antifa try to shut it down. While Alt Righters go to prison for defending themselves, Antifa who committed acts of violence without physical provocation get at most a slap on the wrist. For somebody who really attempts to exercise his constitutional rights in the United States today (and not many people really do that), it becomes obvious that the law is not enforced impartially. If you conspicuously espouse a disfavored opinion or represent a disfavored interest-group like White people, in certain jurisdictions the local government will collaborate with the federal government to shut you down and possibly put you in prison. The FBI is still pursuing Alt Righters who did nothing more than fight off the Antifa onslaught at Charlottesville that police were supposed to prevent! 

I am not a Christian, but I have been urging people to obey the law and be “Christ-like” by patiently enduring the present injustice, because in the long run this is more likely to produce good results — since it is in our people’s nature to rally to the cause of justice — rather than spontaneously undertaking violent actions that lack broad support, which will facilitate obfuscation about who the important lawbreakers are. 

But it becomes hard to persuade people to obey the law when they have experienced lawlessness government. E. Michael Jones points out some respects in which Jews have been getting away with breaking the law. I just pointed out others. If Jews are getting away with lawlessness, it is partially because they have corrupted the government and made it to some extent lawless too, which is bound to have an effect on the general population’s attitude toward the government and the law.

I have suggested that the public demonstrations like Unite The Right, when they weren’t violently suppressed, were an important avenue of expression for White men unhappy with the country’s direction. What are those men supposed to do now that Jews have used one-sided enforcement of the law, and legal persecution, to suppress such demonstrations? In a recent New York Times opinion piece, Janet Reitman demands that the federal government find more excuses to prosecute White Nationalists, and refers to the prediction of a professional Jewish agitator (head of the “Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism”) named Brian Levin:

When we first spoke this August, Levin noted the continued ascendance of the far right, even after many of its members went underground after Charlottesville. “The rocket ship is still twirling,” he said. Levin predicted that the next big wave of activity wouldn’t be around mega-rallies but around what he calls “aggressive maneuvers” by loners or small cells. A series of violent outbursts in a single week in October made his prediction seem prescient.[J. Reitman, NY Times, 3 November 2018]

In other words, influential Jews understood that suppression of perfectly legal mass-demonstrations would lead to illegal alternate activities: sporadic acts of violence that could be prosecuted. Apparently, a synagogue-shooting is just the kind of thing that they wanted. Of course, the crime is also exploited as an impetus for intensified censorship. The answer to E. Michael Jones’ question about whether the Jews at the Anti-Defamation League were privately happy about the synagogue-shooting is: most likely, yes.

]]> https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2018/11/06/did-jews-provoke-the-pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting/feed/ 0 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2018/08/09/hit-dinesh-dsouza-on-his-most-vulnerable-points/ https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2018/08/09/hit-dinesh-dsouza-on-his-most-vulnerable-points/#respond Thu, 09 Aug 2018 13:26:00 +0000 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2018/08/09/hit-dinesh-dsouza-on-his-most-vulnerable-points/

The historical narrative that Dinesh D’Souza has been peddling since 2015 is wrong in its general outlines — pretending, for example, that Democratic and Republican parties are exactly the same today as 150 years ago — and in a great number of its details. This is necessarily so, because D’Souza’s technique of taking some anti-American or anti-White historical accusation promoted by Marxists and twisting it around so that it is only applicable to Democrats, inherently requires omissions and distortions.

Conservative American White people feel browbeaten with accusations of wrongdoing against other races. They have been browbeaten for many decades. The proper response to this is a kind of historical revisionism that will put them on a firm foundation to reject being browbeaten. Facts can be questioned, context can be added that changes the meaning of the facts presented, and even the value-judgments about certain actions can be rejected.

The appeal of Dinesh D’Souza’s work is that it supplies a balm for the distress of being browbeaten, but his approach is completely wrong. The problems with D’Souza’s historical revisionism are (1) that it is very superficial and untenable, and (2) that it maintains leftist accusations and value-judgments that keep White people trapped in the box where they must struggle to “prove” that they are not fascist, not nazi, and not racist. Moreover, it teaches White people to affirm the Judaeo-Marxist value-judgments associated with those labels. From a White perspective, the escape that Dinesh D’Souza offers gives only temporary relief and is ultimately a trap.

This has to be stopped.

Anyone who actually finds D’Souza’s narrative convincing cannot be generally well informed about the broad outlines of American history. Consequently, the approach for deprogramming such people cannot be about broad outlines; it must focus on specific, finite claims. That is what I am presenting here, a list of specific, finite claims where D’Souza is clearly taking liberties.

This is somewhat expanded from a list that I compiled for a local talk-show host who was going to interview Dinesh D’Souza and was obviously clueless.  I hope that others also will make use of this list of criticisms. Send it to anyone in media who is discussing D’Souza or about to interview him. As of right now, he is still promoting his new stupid movie. So, here is an activity for you. Copy, paste, and send.

If you think that this is too long for your purpose, just use the section titled D’Souza on Nazis and Eugenics, because that section relates especially to D’Souza’s most recent work. (I do not normally use the word nazi except with some irony: I use it here because it is the word that the kinds of people being addressed would normally use.)

Dinesh D’Souza vs. Reality 

Dinesh D’Souza exhibits copious endnotes in his books, which impresses people and makes them think that what he says must be well documented. Sadly this is not the case. Checking D’Souza’s sources shows that he habitually makes bold assertions going far beyond what his alleged sources would justify.

D’Souza on Andrew Jackson 

Dinesh D’Souza claims that the Battle of Horseshoe Bend was a massacre and an act of genocide by General Andrew Jackson. He also calls Jackson “the land stealer.” The alleged source, Steve Inskeep’s Jacksonland, indicates that the Battle of Horseshoe Bend was not a massacre: Jackson asked the Creek Indians to surrender, and took hundreds of prisoners at the battle’s end. The killing continued only because the Creek warriors would not surrender. The only massacre that Inskeep mentions was at Hillabee, where Jackson was not involved. Inskeep does not indicate that Jackson stole any land or did anything unethical by the standards of the time.

Dinesh D’Souza refers to “Jackson’s policy of Indian Removal.” It was not specifically Jackson’s policy! It was a policy begun by Thomas Jefferson, who agreed in the Compact of 1802 that Indians would eventually be removed from Georgia. The policy was continued by presidents James Madison, James Monroe, and John Quincy Adams, before it reached its culmination under presidents Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren. This was not a policy that originated with Jackson, nor was it specifically a policy of the Democratic Party, since D’Souza defines the Democratic Party as beginning with Jackson, and since Adams was a Whig. The special demonization of Andrew Jackson has been a theme of leftist propaganda since the 1970s: among scholars however it is not the majority view.

Dinesh D’Souza on Democrats and Slavery

Dinesh D’Souza alleges that the Democratic Party is and always has been “the party of slavery.” This only appears to have some semblance of truth because the Democratic Party was not explicitly anti-slavery like the GOP. Most American political parties before 1860 took no clear position on slavery. George Washington, a Federalist, owned slaves. William Henry Harrison, a Whig, owned slaves. The Democratic Party before 1860 had pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions, just like the Federalists and the Whigs. The Confederate vice-president, Alexander H. Stephens, had been a Whig and was in 1860 a member of the Constitutional Union Party, while Lincoln’s vice-president, Andrew Johnson, was a Democrat. D’Souza’s labeling of the Democrats as “the party of slavery” is an oversimplification.

One of Dinesh D’Souza’s most important claims is that the Ku Klux Klan was formally connected to the Democratic Party — meaning that the Democratic Party was responsible for the Klan and its actions. To support this claim, D’Souza pretends to quote Marxist historian Eric Foner. In his books Hillary’s America and The Big Lie D’Souza attributes to Foner the claim that the KKK was “the domestic terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.” Those are supposed to be Foner’s words, but in neither instance does D’Souza note a source for the alleged quote. 

In an interview with Jesse Lee Peterson in August 2018, D’Souza took the liberty of adding some words: 

“For decades the Ku Klux Klan was the domestic terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.” 

It seems that D’Souza is lying. These are the closest approximations in Foner’s work to what D’Souza claims he said: 

“In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy.” (E. Foner, Reconstruction, 1988: 425) 

“The most notorious such organization was the Ku Klux Klan, which in effect served as a military arm of the Democratic party.” (E. Foner & O. Mahoney, America’s Reconstruction, 1995: 119) 

D’Souza’s expression “domestic terrorist arm” does not appear in either quote. Foner never said it.

Foner’s qualifier “in effect,” which means that any relationship between the Klan and the Democratic Party was informal, is omitted from D’Souza’s account of what Foner said. That is because D’Souza wants to blame the Democratic Party as an institution, not just some individuals who happened to be Democrats (whose descendants may now be voting Republican). Without a formal connection D’Souza’s accusation falls apart: therefore he omits the crucial qualifier “in effect” when he misquotes Foner.

Finally, Foner never said that the Klan was “for decades” an arm of the Democratic Party. Foner is an expert on Reconstruction, and has written about the Ku Klux Klan only within the context of Reconstruction, which lasted only 12 years. He has not written anything about the revival Klan of the 20th century, as D’Souza implies. 

Dinesh D’Souza makes a big hoopla about the fact that overt Klansmen were present at the 1924 Democratic national convention. 

D’Souza claims that the 1924 convention in New York City was informally known as the Klanbake. This is false. The Klanbake was a simultaneous event across the river in New Jersey.

The 1924 Democratic National Convention was in fact not a happy experience for the Ku Klux Klan. D’Souza mentions that a motion to condemn the Klan failed by just one vote, but does not mention that the Democratic nominee, John W. Davis, denounced the Klan anyway. After that, the Klan’s support went to the Republican candidate Calvin Coolidge, who did not in any way repudiate that support.

Dinesh D’Souza claims that President Lyndon Johnson had been a member of the Original Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. The source for this claim is an unidentified confidential informant for the FBI, who alleges that Ned Touchstone, editor of the newsletter of the Citizens’ Council of Louisiana and an independent investigator of the Kennedy assassination, was a member of that Klan group, and that Touchstone had told the informant that the group had documentation that Johnson had been a Klansman “during the early days of his political career.” This claim appears in the final paragraph of an FBI internal memo from May 1964 that mostly discusses Touchstone’s published findings about the Kennedy assassination. It is a rumor three removes from the source: the confidential informant said that Touchstone said that the Original Knights of the Ku Klux Klan said. We can accept that the confidential informant said what the FBI’s memo records, but there is no confirmation of the factuality of what he said. Touchstone himself, although an investigative journalist, never published such a claim. The FBI has much more “information” that Hitler fled to Argentina in 1945, than that Lyndon Johnson was ever in any Klan group. It is an unverified rumor.

In any case, Lyndon Johnson was not well regarded by Southern Segregationists: all four states of the Deep South that had given their electoral votes to the Dixiecrats in 1948, plus Georgia, voted against Lyndon Johnson and for Republican Barry Goldwater in 1964. Robert Shelton, Imperial Wizard of the United Klans of America, declared: “We’re going along with the principles that the Republican Party has adopted in its platform.”

When President Lyndon Johnson pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, the vast expansion of social welfare programs that disproportionately benefited Blacks, and the Gun Control Act of 1968 – on every point he acted in diametric opposition to the preferences of the vast majority of Southern White people.  Segregationist Senator Richard Russell of Georgia said of Johnson: “He’s a turncoat if there ever was one.” The suggestion that LBJ was somehow serving an agenda of Southern Segregationists or the Ku Klux Klan is beyond bonkers.

There is an argument that lavishing largesse on Blacks has not been good for them (prominently espoused by a Democrat, Pat Moynihan). Nonetheless, the suggestion that the Ku Klux Klan would support lavishing funds on Blacks as a way to harm them is utterly insane.

In his effort to link the American eugenics movement to the Holocaust, Dinesh D’Souza claims that Paul Popenoe, in his book Applied Eugenics (1918), advocated “lethal chambers.” In fact, Popenoe emphatically dismissed “lethal chambers” as unnecessary (p.184), since mere sterilization suffices to achieve the eugenic goal. (Popenoe was also no leftist: Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, was one of his protégés.) 

D’Souza blames eugenic sterilization on “progressives” without bothering to mention that 19 out of 32 governors who signed eugenic sterilization into law were Republicans. When the case of Buck v. Bell came before the Supreme Court in 1927, 8 out of 9 Justices — all of them Republicans — found that forced eugenic sterilization was constitutional: the sole dissenter, Justice Pierce Butler, was a Democrat.

Dinesh D’Souza pretends that laws against interracial marriage were enacted only by Democrats. In fact, most states (even Massachusetts) at some time had such laws. In 1935, 30 out of 48 states had such laws.

Dinesh D’Souza claims that the American one-drop rule (which he calls the “Democratic one-drop rule”) was “too racist for the Nazis.” It is highly unlikely that the Nazis regarded the one-drop rule as “too racist” where Blacks were concerned, since Germany had indeed applied the one-drop rule in German Southwest Africa, starting in 1907. (Source: Ulrike Lindner, Journal of Namibian Studies, 6 (2009): 63-64)

D’Souza’s alleged source, James Q. Whitman, says that Nazi officials regarded the American laws as generally inapplicable to their situation, because they were making laws about Jews, not Blacks: only the precedent of attaching criminal penalties to miscegenation was derived from the American laws, according to Whitman.

Dinesh D’Souza, who has been associated mainly with the Neoconservative faction of the Republican Party, points out that Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal resembles programs of recovery enacted by Mussolini and Hitler. What he forgets is that leading Neoconservatives like Irving Kristol are former Democrats who cherish the New Deal. D’Souza is calling his own faction of the Republican Party fascist!

Furthermore, the same argument that D’Souza uses to label Fascism as a kind of Marxism can be used to label Neoconservatism as Marxism, because the founders of Neoconservatism, like Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, were ex-Trotskyites. D’Souza’s former editor Professor Paul Gottfried identifies him as a Neoconservative, which by D’Souza’s reasoning means that D’Souza himself must be a Marxist. Maybe he is! ]]> https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2018/08/09/hit-dinesh-dsouza-on-his-most-vulnerable-points/feed/ 0 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/11/09/talking-points-for-demolishing-dinesh-dsouza/ https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/11/09/talking-points-for-demolishing-dinesh-dsouza/#respond Thu, 09 Nov 2017 08:02:00 +0000 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/11/09/talking-points-for-demolishing-dinesh-dsouza/

This is a compilation of material that was posted or could be posted on Twitter. For a more coherent presentation, go to Hit Dinesh D’Souza on his Most Vulnerable Points. 

Dinesh D’Souza’s narrative about how the Democrats are “the real racists” or, lately, “the real fascists” or even “the real nazis,” is so full of holes, and so easily refuted, that it can be hard to understand why anyone could really be taken in by it. 

At least, it is hard to conceive of how somebody with a memory extending back to the 1970s could be taken in by it. In the 1970s, before Trotskyite Jews calling themselves “Neoconservatives” had acquired much influence, conservatism had not yet been entirely redefined as the demand for free markets and less government (which is actually liberalism, not conservatism).  The pro-White motive in conservatism, therefore, was much more conspicuous a few decades ago. For anybody who remembers that, D’Souza’s contention that Segregationists were leftists is such obvious balderdash that it requires no refutation. Certainly, Rush Limbaugh, born in 1951, knows enough that he cannot genuinely take D’Souza seriously in this — yet he plays along.

Nonetheless, there are sincere people, all of them I suppose too young to remember politics before Reagan, who are not just playing along but really have been deceived by D’Souza. Because they are sincere, they can be persuaded.

I have had some success in convincing followers of Dinesh D’Souza on Twitter that he has been lying to them. If somebody says that D’Souza’s book is excellent or interesting, I respond that it is a stupid book. Alternately one could say that it is a very dishonest book. Thereupon there is a reaction of incredulity and a demand for an explanation. Now a discussion begins. These are the points that I have used. (I believe that these blurbs are all short enough to be copied and pasted on Twitter.) 

Eugenic Sterilization and Party-Affiliation

D’Souza hides the fact that eugenic sterilization was promoted mainly by Republicans: the first five governors to sign eugenic sterilization into law in 1907-1911 (in IN, WA, CA, CT, NV) were all Republicans. 

Nineteen out of thirty-two governors who signed eugenic sterilization into law (59%) were Republicans.

The picture that Dinesh D’Souza tries to paint, is that REPUBLICANS WERE ALWAYS CONSERVATIVE AND NON-RACIST, and DEMOCRATS WERE ALWAYS LEFTIST AND RACIST. If eugenic sterilization was mainly a Republican cause then HIS PICTURE IS MESSED UP. That happens to be the case.

Dinesh Hides Republicans behind the word “Progressives”

D’Souza selectively avoids calling eugenicist Republicans by their party-affiliation and calls them “progressives” instead. When D’Souza talks about “progressives” he is usually talking about Republicans.

In fact, the label “progressive” was particularly associated with Republicans like Theodore Roosevelt. D’Souza carefully avoids mentioning this.

Dinesh D’Souza has laid a booby-trap for Republicans with this book. If they follow his lead by noisily condemning eugenic sterilization, it is only a matter of time before somebody points out that it was supported first and foremost by Republicans.

Even today the Republican Party has its “progressives.”

The Republican Connection to Slavery

Dinesh D’Souza always claims that only Democrats owned slaves in 1860. When somebody cites the well known fact that Ulysses S. Grant owned a slave, D’Souza asserts that Grant was a Democrat at that time. In fact Grant was nonpartisan. Thus, Grant was a non-Democrat who owned a slave, and far from unique.

Many Whigs were slaveholders. While Northern Whigs who opposed slavery joined the new Republican Party, many Southern Whigs did not. The Confederate Vice-President, Alexander Stephens, was a slaveholding Whig from Georgia. D’Souza’s assertion that only Democrats owned Slaves in 1860 is false.

There were also some Republicans who owned slaves. Robert Jefferson Breckinridge, a slaveholder from Kentucky who favored the gradual abolition of slavery and resettlement of freed Blacks outside of the United States, may have been still a Know Nothing in 1860, but was temporary chair of the Republican National Convention in 1864. He supported Lincoln because he wanted the Union to be preserved. Lincoln’s exemption of Border States from the Emancipation Proclamation was obviously an accommodation to supporters like Breckinridge who owned slaves.

So, Dinesh D’Souza blames Democrat slaveholders but not Whig slaveholders? What about the fact that Abraham Lincoln campaigned for our three slaveholding Whig presidents — Wm H. Harrison, J. Tyler, & Z. Taylor? It does not seem that Lincoln was a committed abolitionist at all.

The Supposed Party-Affiliation of the Ku Klux Klan

In 1924. the Democratic presidential nominee John W. Davis denounced the Ku Klux Klan, while the Republican incumbent Calvin Coolidge avoided saying anything on the subject. The result was that the Ku Klux Klan supported Calvin Coolidge in 1924.

Dinesh D’Souza claims that the Ku Klux Klan was “the military wing of the Democratic Party.” Anybody who went to school in the United States should know that no U.S. political party ever had a “military wing.” Furthermore, the Klan of the 20th century often supported Republicans.

Citing Eric Foner Dinesh D’Souza calls the KKK “the military wing of the Democratic Party.” What EF wrote is: “IN EFFECT, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy.”

Eric Foner, incidentally, is a neo-Marxist Jew from New York City. Dinesh D’Souza had to lean heavily on such disreputable sources for his book The Big Lie.

Only Democrats would make deals with Fascists? Really?

The USA and Fascist Italy had positive relations, during Republican as well as Democratic administrations, until the invasion of Ethiopia in 1937. Dinesh D’Souza wants to pretend that all men of good will saw Mussolini as a bad guy from the start, and that was not the case.

Segregationist Democrats were Conservative

There used to be conservative Democrats. D’Souza pretends that segregationist Democrats were leftists when in fact figures like Senator James Eastland (Democrat, Mississippi) were regarded as extremely conservative.

Conservative Democrats were not LIBERAL LIKE YOU, Dinesh. They tried to conserve the community school, States’ Rights, individual rights, freedom of association, public morality, and LAW & ORDER.

Would you like to explain, Dinesh, what was conservative about federally mandated school-desegregation and forced busing? It looks like LEFT-WING TYRANNY to me, and that was the consensus among White people in the South. CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS OPPOSED THIS LEFT-WING TYRANNY.

Senators LYNDON B. JOHNSON and ALBERT GORE, SR. were NOT TYPICAL SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS. They both REFUSED to sign the 1956 “Southern Manifesto” of opposition to federally mandated racial desegregation.

Two of the 101 Southern politicians who signed the Southern Manifesto were Republicans from Virginia.

They claim, “Democrats voted against Civil Rights,” or even, “More Republicans than Democrats voted for civil rights.” Both claims are false. The vote was very regional. Not one Southern Republican voted in favor of that Act. The only Southerners voting for it were a few Dems.

Dinesh D’Souza himself has criticized the Civil Rights Act: “Am I calling for a repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Actually, yes. The law should be changed so that its nondiscrimination provisions apply only to the government.”(Dinesh D’Souza, The End of Racism, 1996, p. 544)

Dinesh D’Souza says: “Every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature and signed by a Democratic governor.” This is literally impossible, since most of those states had adopted anti-miscegenation laws before the Democratic Party even existed.

One state of the “Jim Crow South,” West Virginia, received its  segregation-laws under Republican rule, beginning with Arthur I. Boreman in 1863.

Eugenic Sterilization and the former Confederacy

The eugenicist movement was weaker in the former Confederacy than in the rest of the country.

While 32 out of 48 (67%) of the United States enacted eugenic sterilization laws, only 55% of former Confederate states enacted such laws, compared to 70% of the other States.

Eugenic Sterilization and Racial Segregation

17 states had MANDATORY racial segregation. Of these, only 9 (53%) enacted eugenic sterilization laws. 16 states PROHIBITED racial segregation: Of these, 11 (69%) enacted eugenic sterilization laws. There was NO RELATIONSHIP between racial segregation and eugenic sterilization laws.

23 out of 32 states that enacted eugenic sterilization laws had no mandatory racial segregation. 

In fact, states with mandatory racial segregation were somewhat less likely to enact eugenic sterilization laws, compared to states without racial segregation.

The Southern Segregationist Migration to the GOP

White Southern Democrats started voting for the GOP because Richard Nixon in 1968 and 1972 seemed to oppose forced busing. This method of winning the segregationist vote for the GOP, called Nixon’s “southern strategy,”was devised by Kevin Phillips.

Dinesh D’Souza tries to obfuscate the well known fact that most Southern segregationists switched to the GOP by putting the focus on Segregationist politicians, of whom very few switched parties.

Major racially motivated D to R switchers: S. Thurmond, J. Helms, T. Cochran, J. Tower, T. Lott  Charles Pickering, James F. Byrnes, Albert Watson,  William Cramer, Arthur Ravenel Jr., Dave Treen, James D. Martin, Floyd Spence, Bo Callaway, Iris Faircloth Blitch, Mills Godwin.

Not many segregationist politicians changed parties, because the Democratic Party continued to be dominant until 1980. Politicians like Senator James Eastland (who died in 1979) would have been less influential in the GOP. But those segregationists were conservative!

The Big Switch that Dinesh D’Souza Denies

Some significant public figures from the South who switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party are: John Tower, 1951; Strom Thurmond, 1964; Jesse Helms, 1970; Trent Lott, 1972.

The racial attitudes of the two parties by 1983 can be roughly gauged by the Senate’s vote on a holiday to commemorate MARTIN LUTHER KING. While majorities of both parties voted for the holiday, ONLY 4 DEMOCRATS — BUT 18 REPUBLICANS — VOTED AGAINST THE HOLIDAY. 

As it turns out, what D’Souza calls “the nazi roots of the American left” are, on the one hand, “progressive” Republicans, and, on the other hand, conservative Democrats that have now migrated almost entirely to the GOP.

D’Souza pretends that “progressive” Republicans and conservative Democrats were the same group. Furthermore, he wants us to believe that they were all left-wing Democrats. Clearly, none of them were left-wing Democrats! 

In America: Imagine the World Without Her, Dinesh D’Souza declared that “there was no genocide” of American Indians, that this was just another Big Lie by the left to make Americans ashamed of their country. But now Dinesh D’Souza himself is telling this “Big Lie.”

“By some estimates, more than 80 percent of the Indians perished…. But there was no genocide. Millions of Indians died as a result of diseases they contracted from their exposure to the White man: smallpox, measles, cholera, and typhus….”  (Dinesh S’Souza, A:ITWWH, p. 93)

“Today we think of Indians as tragic figures, woebegone on the reservation. But that’s not how Andrew Jackson … saw them. Jackson knew the Indians were canny, organized, and strong…. We should not regard the Indians as passive weaklings.” (Dinesh D’Souza, A:ITWWH, p. 102)

“What term other than genocide can we use to describe Democratic president Andrew Jackson’s mass relocation of the Indians?” (Dinesh D’Souza, The Big Lie, 2017) “But there was no genocide.” (Dinesh D’Souza, America: Imagine the World Without Her, 2014)

Dinesh D’Souza quotes Andrew Jackson out of context, “It was dark before we finished killing them,” and leads his readers to believe that this refers to an act of genocide. In fact those killed (generally) were warriors fighting to the death in the Battle of Horseshoe Bend.

 

Dinesh D’Souza’s attack on Andrew Jackson as a “racist” would instantly be recognized and reviled as Cultural Marxist propaganda if it were not clothed in Republican partisanism.

What do you think President Trump would say about Dinesh D’Souza’s attack on Andrew Jackson as a “racist,” given Trump’s admiration for President Jackson, and the fact that he has been compared to President Jackson (and likewise called a “racist”)?

These are points that any sincere person should be able to grasp without much difficulty. 

One could also dispute D’Souza’s assertions about fascism, but because it is a more obscure subject your interlocutors will find the argument harder to follow.  Therefore it is better just to point out the misrepresentations about American political history.

One young woman asked me if there were another book that I could recommend to her, perhaps one that refutes D’Souza. I told her that I was writing that book. ]]> https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/11/09/talking-points-for-demolishing-dinesh-dsouza/feed/ 0 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/10/16/steve-bannon-and-nationalism/ https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/10/16/steve-bannon-and-nationalism/#respond Mon, 16 Oct 2017 16:17:00 +0000 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/10/16/steve-bannon-and-nationalism/

The creativity of Alt Right trolls is gradually introducing suppressed truth into mainstream discussion. Through President Trump’s retweeting of a GIF that represented him pummeling CNN, and CNN’s overreaction — and the subsequent piling-on against CNN by Trump’s supporters — the world became acquainted with other things posted or reposted by HanA**holeSolo, things that say nothing extraordinary from a White Nationalist perspective, but are revolutionary to almost everybody else. 

In this interview on 710 WOR (New York City) on 5 July 2017, Ann Coulter talks as if she genuinely did not know that mass-media in the United States were dominated by Jews.  She also talks as if she were unaware of the taboo against pointing it out.

This is not the first breakthrough caused by such a graphic presentation. Recall that a very similar image, about Jewish involvement in promoting gun-control, was promoted by rock-guitarist Ted Nugent in early 2016. (He subsequently apologized, but the damage was done.)

]]> https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/07/07/ann-coulter-awakening-to-the-jewish-problem/feed/ 0 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/06/04/attacking-the-bilderbergers-will-not-cause-you-to-be-banned-from-facebook-or-twitter-much-less-to-lose-your-job/ https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/06/04/attacking-the-bilderbergers-will-not-cause-you-to-be-banned-from-facebook-or-twitter-much-less-to-lose-your-job/#respond Sun, 04 Jun 2017 04:14:00 +0000 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/06/04/attacking-the-bilderbergers-will-not-cause-you-to-be-banned-from-facebook-or-twitter-much-less-to-lose-your-job/

Tweet

This is a slightly longer version of the interview posted on Youtube, with some changes that I wanted.

Transcript

JIM: Hi everyone, Jim Rizoli here. And I have another special guest for the show today, it’s Hadding Scott. And we’re going to be discussing a little bit about his life and some of the things that he’s been doing. So let’s get started.

Hadding, again, welcome to the program.

HADDING: Well, hello!

JIM: First of all, the only, really, thing I know about you is just in e-mails, I see coming here and there. And the biggest thing I know about you, I should say, is because my brother Joe, he was very much involved with listening to your discussion about Henry Ford with Carolyn Yeager.

HADDING: Oh yeah, The International Jew Study Hour.

JIM: Right, right! So, maybe you could tell us a little bit— I’ll tell you what, before we get into that, why don’t we, you know, find out a little bit about you? So, what would you consider yourself?

HADDING: Well, I really hate to see somebody prevail through lying. This is something that you could notice in various things that I’ve done. But, you know, I really came to Holocaust Revisionism through other things.

JIM: Yup.

HADDING: My origin has a lot to do with it. My parents were about a generation older than [the parents of] other people my age. I was born in the 1960s. My parents were born in the 1920s. And my mother was raised by her grandparents, who were born not very long after the War Between the States. So, I got a very old perspective from my mother. And my mother always used to say, “Don’t believe everything that you hear!” And she gave me another perspective, when I brought home what I had learned about Abraham Lincoln in school. And she also told me that all the stories about the cruelty of slavery in the South were not true, that this was exaggeration, and that the slaves generally were treated very well, and that the war was not about slavery. Right?

So this really is a nice analogy to Holocaust revisionism. And I grew up with that.

Jim: Are you a teacher or anything like that? Are you an academic person?

HADDING: I have been a teacher.

JIM: Okay. 

HADDING: Not presently.

JIM: Okay. Well, basically you, you know, you’re like me. I mean, I, you know, I got into this, because I didn’t like lying! [laughing] So, you know, I didn’t like people saying things that were just completely absurd and they’re lying and I’m trying to figure out what, why are they saying this if it’s not true? So I could understand that. So, what were the first things that you took up within your travel through life, here? What were some of the topics? I mean, you mentioned Abraham Lincoln. But I mean, what other things did you do?

HADDING: Well, I can tell you how I arrived at Holocaust Revisionism, all right? From this dissident perspective that was inherent in my parentage and my upbringing, I was already accustomed to the idea that much of what we hear in mass media is not true. I grew up with that! Right? But I had other things still that I needed to learn. I needed to learn that there was lying also about the Second World War, because my parents didn’t really have any inkling of that. My mother was very well informed about how there was lying against the South, but not about lying against Germany. But it was not a big leap to think that there might have been lying against Germany. 

But a lot of this depends on what you think about the character of the Jews. Right?

I grew up with this idea that the Jews were pretty much like everybody else, except they had a different religion, and the poor, innocent Jews were victimized by some mass-psychosis that swept over Germany. And you have to learn about the Jews to understand that this is not really how it was. And the way that I became acquainted with the real character of the Jews was by listening to the Larry King Radio Show on the Mutual Broadcasting Network, beginning around 1978 and into the early 1980s.

I had actually dropped out of high school at a very early age, actually. I got away with that. And I would stay up all night listening to Larry King radio show. And this was a big eye opener for me, because Larry King, from my perspective, was insane! [Jim laughing] This was a man who professed to believe in racial equality, whereas I as a Southerner, knew firsthand that this was clearly not true! And I noticed other things about Larry King. Well for one thing he made no secret of being a Jew. He talked about it often and he would have guests on his show all the time that he identified as Jews and many of them were buddies from the old neighborhood in Brooklyn. You could learn from listening to the Larry King Show the character of New York City Jews and the fact that Jews were very prevalent in mass-media and had no shame about using their positions in mass-media to promote specifically Jewish interests. And Larry King was also extremely unfair to callers that disagreed with him on these particular issues, like race, and —  well, especially race. If you disagreed with racial equality, he was very likely to badger you until you became incoherent and then hang up on you and then play the Looney Tunes thing. Right? [Mimicking the Looney Tunes music]

This was extremely unfair and this was really how I learned about Jews. I mean, it’s sort of like seeing the Platonic form of something, you know, you see the platonic form and then you see how that form exists in an imperfect form in the others. So, Larry King was sort of the concentrated Jew, and I saw that there was a little bit of Larry King in a lot of Jews!

JIM: Did you ever call in to the show?

HADDING: I did a couple of times.

JIM: And what happened?

HADDING: Uh, it was a long time ago (pauses to think). I managed to get some stuff out and got hung up on.

JIM: [Laughing] Yeah! So that was your bad introduction to Jews. And he’s such a wackjob anyway, that guy!

HADDING: The thing about Larry King is, he’s completely different on television, compared to how he was on the radio.

JIM: Really?

HADDING: On television he’s very toned down. You don’t get the shameless promotion of Jewish interests on his television shows, that he used to do on the radio.

JIM: Did he ever talk about the Holocaust or anything like that?

HADDING: I’m sure that he had Simon Wiesenthal on there, and Eli Wiesel. But at that point I wasn’t really suspicious about the Holocaust. I believed in the Holocaust until– I started to have some questions about it in the late nineteen eighties. Alright? Before I started to question the Holocaust, I had become interested in psychology. And I read a lot of psychology books, and one of the books that I read was by a Scottish psychiatrist named R. D. Laing. 

And R. D. Laing’s message was that — his message is really, he really goes too far, but there’s still something there that’s valuable, which is: when somebody is labeled as crazy, you should really try to understand what’s going on with them, and try to understand their perspective, and they may not really be crazy. They might actually have their own side of the story, and these people around them may just not want to hear their side of the story. You should try to understand this person that’s been labeled, right? 

Now, the most obvious person that would need to be given this indulgence, to try to understand what’s really going on with him because he’s been so labeled and demonized, obviously, Adolf Hitler and the National-Socialists.

So, because of R. D. Laing I was open to the idea that Adolf Hitler and the National-Socialists might have their own story, that what they did does not seem crazy, right? What they supposedly did, right? So, before I arrived at questioning the Holocaust, I arrived at the position of trying to understand why this happened. What did the Jews do to bring this on them? Right? That seemed to me a logical question. Now, I did know from having been exposed to Larry King and also some other experiences with Jews, that it was entirely possible that there was exaggeration and distortion. But I still believed that the Holocaust must have had at least some truth in it.

It was not until about 1992 that I was convinced that the Holocaust was false. I had started listening to shortwave and the alternative media on short wave. Like Radio Free America with Tom Valentine, and I stumbled across also the American Dissident Voices radio program, which was usually Kevin Strom, but once a month Dr Pierce would make a broadcast. And I wrote to them because I was very interested in the fact that the way Dr Pierce talked about racial problems was very similar to the way that I talked about these things. And he presented a rational discussion of these things.

And I was certainly already open to the— I knew from listening to Larry King that Jews had a lot to do with these problems, that Jews in the media push for racial equality! And I ordered books and magazines from them, and one of the magazines that I ordered was an issue of National Vanguard magazine from 1989 that had Adolf Hitler on the cover. It was the one-hundredth-birthday issue of Adolf Hitler issue of National Vanguard magazine. And that magazine had an article in it called, “The Evidence of the Prussian Blue.”

I had heard and read before then about the Zündel Trials. I heard Ernst Zündel interviewed on Radio Free America with Tom Valentine. I had read an article by Professor Robert Faurisson that somebody had reproduced. But, I wasn’t sure about how much of what they said I should believe! I didn’t know who Robert Faurisson was. He could have been a crazy man, for all I knew. He said that there was no chemical residue in the gas chambers and there should have been chemical residue in the gas chambers. Well, that’s a valid argument, but– It seems to be a valid argument, but I don’t know: who is Robert Faurisson, what is his expertise? How can I be sure that there really should have been residue there? He just says that there should have been. How do I know it?

But with Dr Pierce, when I read it from him, I believed it, because he had a lot of credibility with me, because he spoke my language. I mean, in terms of how he talked about race and racial issues. And he also was a physicist, you know, he would know things like whether there should be cyanide residue in the bricks. You couldn’t fool him on these things and I knew he was a man who consistently told the truth. Therefore, when I read this very concise presentation about the Leuchter Report, from Dr Pierce, I was convinced. And he presented it very concisely. He talked about the blue staining in the bricks which was in the delousing chamber at Birkenau but not in Krema I in Auschwitz [I] nor in any other Kremas. And this convinced me!

JIM: So that was a good awakening for you, to see that. Now how did you pursue it after that?

HADDING: I didn’t do very much with Holocaust revisionism after that until about 2002, 2003. During the propaganda for, war against Iraq. Because it was very clear at that time that Hitler comparisons and invocation of the Holocaust played a very large role in this anti-Saddam Hussein propaganda. Saddam Hussein was supposed to have gassed the Kurdish, the Kurds, he’s supposed to have gassed Kurds, Kurdish civilians, for no reason! It was just an unprovoked gassing of these poor Kurdish civilians that Saddam Hussein was supposed to have done for no reason. And this was supposed to make Saddam Hussein like Hitler. And he wanted to conquer the whole world like Hitler, right? So they were all these comparisons of Saddam Hussein to the legend, which I knew to be false by that point, about Adolf Hitler.

And I wrote some articles, in early 2003, before the US invasion, in which I debunked the propaganda about Saddam Hussein. It was not true that Saddam Hussein had gassed any Kurdish civilians! This was a story that originally had been put out by the Iranians. Because what happened was that the Iranians were attacking this town in northern Iraq called Halabjah, and there was nobody in the town, but then some Kurdish rebels went into Halabjah and the Iranians thought they were Iraqi soldiers and shelled them with cyanide canisters. And the Iranians accidentally killed these Kurds in Halabjah. What happened after the Iranians went into Halabjah and saw the dead Kurds, is they blamed it on the Iraqis. And they called in journalists to see what had happened there and they said, “Look what the Iraqis did!”

And, If you read the early reports about this incident you can tell that they’re somewhat skeptical. The reports are somewhat skeptical; it’s: “The Iranians say.” The Iranians said there were five thousand dead Kurds killed by the Iraqis. The reporters said that they saw a hundred or so bodies. This is the kind of initial reporting on Halabjah. 

But what happened was, after Iraq came out of the war much stronger, as a sort of a regional superpower, Jews started in with their anti-Saddam Hussein propaganda. It happened on September 1, 1988.* There was an article, a news article and also an editorial by William Safire in the New York Times, in which William Safire mentioned that this cyanide gas which had been used to kill the Kurds at Halabjah was the same gas used at Auschwitz! George Herbert Walker Bush also made an explicit Hitler comparison. Compared Saddam Hussein to Hitler. And Saddam Hussein also returned the comparison, comparing George Herbert Walker Bush to Hitler! Everybody that you want to motivate people to attack apparently is just like Hitler.

So we had this war in 1991. I’m perfectly willing to believe the Iraqi side of the story, that the Kuwaitis provoked the Iraqis, and that April Glaspie told them that the USA wouldn’t care if they invaded. And, also I found out the CIA had made a fake satellite photograph showing Iraqi tanks on the Saudi border to try to get the Saudis to support the whole project of invading Iraq, attacking Iraq. Which echoes, of course, the fake CIA photograph that was published in Life magazine, a fake aerial photograph of Auschwitz that was published in Life magazine, I think in 1977. That showed doctored photographs of Auschwitz with people lined up for the gas chamber.

JIM: I’d like to see that picture.

HADDING: Yeah! Well that’s online. You just do a search, Life magazine, Auschwitz. You’ll find it. Actually, it had people standing on the corner of buildings in these lines that were lined up to go into the gas chamber. It was a kind of a sloppy alteration. And they also put in a wall to hide people, so that they could pretend that people going to be gassed were not seen by people outside of the camp. There was no such wall.

JIM: Right.

HADDING: So anyway, this anti-Saddam Hussein propaganda about the gassed Kurds went on for 15 years, until we had the invasion and overthrow of the Iraqi government in 2003. Really, the gassed Kurds story was the basis of the whole propaganda, because — this is an observation that I’ve made about how propaganda works — most people are so overwhelmed with information that they can’t bother to check everything that they hear, or even very much of what they hear. So what people will do, is, they will take a few bits of information that they’ve heard and that they believe, and they’ll construct a picture based on assumptions. So basically they try to see a pattern and fill out a picture based on that. In Gestalt psychology this is called reification. Where you have a few hints about what a shape might be and you can imagine that the shape is there, that’s called reification. It literally means: making the thing, thing-making.

So this tendency of people to fill out their knowledge-gaps with imagination is exploited in propaganda. And the biggest way that they do this is by misinforming people about somebody’s character. Once it was spread that Saddam Hussein had gassed the poor Kurds and had done it with no cause, people would believe that he could do anything! Obviously, this was a crazy man, a man who might very well have been involved in the 9–11 attacks! You couldn’t really convince people that he wasn’t involved in the 9–11 attacks, because that would that would require checking evidence, and most people will never do that. But it fit; if people implied that he might have been involved in the 9/-11 attacks they were very ready to believe it, because of what they had been told about Saddam Hussein’s character. 

And this is something that has to be addressed also in regard to the Holocaust.

One thing that a lot of people in Revisionism seem to do, is, they seem to focus on these details about gas chambers and crematoria and they don’t really look at questions like, What kinds of people were these that are accused of doing these things? and, What is the character of the people making the accusations? That’s extremely important!

Now, since 9–11, and actually since the late 1970s when people started becoming critical of the state of Israel, but especially since 9–11, there’s a lot less trust of Jews, because a lot of people noticed after 9–11 that there was a lot of dishonesty. I just had a conversation yesterday with a leftist. I asked him privately if he believed in the Holocaust. And he said he wasn’t sure, but he doesn’t trust Jews. This guy’s a leftist! He says he doesn’t trust Jews! Right? Because he doesn’t trust Jews, he’s open to the possibility that the Holocaust could be a big lie. Right? That’s very important! And this is something that has to be addressed. If you’re trying to say that there was no Holocaust, while maintaining that, oh yes, the Nazis, they were these horrible people, you’re not going to be very convincing.

JIM: That was a big thing for you, to understand how a lie could be propagated upon us and not be true, and I understand that too. And I do I do believe you, what you say there about the psychology of this all too. There’s a lot more involved in that, that a lot of people don’t get into. I mean, I don’t get into it, because it’s hard to deal with that aspect of it, unless you show pictures [laughing] ., you know, what I mean? I mean, you know, people, you could talk psychology all you wanted but it seems like it only resonates with a certain type of people, the psychology aspect of it. I mean, I think it’s a good aspect of it. Just like, what’s her name? Elizabeth Loftus. Is that her name? She’s the one that talks about the false memory syndrome. Have you ever hear of her?

HADDING: Oh yeah.

JIM: So I mean, she was saying– 

HADDING: I’ve heard of False Memory Syndrome.

Jim: Yeah. Well anyway, that’s, I think that’s who she is. And she’s the one that, you know, she went at it from that aspect. But she didn’t get into the Holocaust. She just gets into it from other people in life, but being a Jew, she didn’t want to deal with that topic of the Holocaust, because obviously, you know, she belongs to the tribe, and that’s not going to be too good for her. So that’s why she never, … But that is an interesting topic if you ever wanted to find out about her. I think it’s Elizabeth Loftus.

HADDING: Well I’ll tell you another psychologist who wrote something that casts a lot of doubt on the Holocaust is Leon Festinger. He wrote A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. This was published in 1957. And you really have to wonder what Festinger had in mind, because in one section of the book he talks about Japanese interned in the United States. And he points out that many of these Japanese really were not loyal to the United States, and they had a bad conscience. And because they had a bad conscience they were ready to believe that terrible things were being done to them. They were inclined to believe that terrible things were being done to them in the camps, because they had a bad conscience. And since there wasn’t any overt sign of anything cruel being done to them, they imagined that terrible things must be happening secretly. To try to make everything consistent with how they felt, they imagined that Japanese were being secretly killed in these American internment camps. It’s irresistible to make the analogy to Jews hearing rumors in Auschwitz or someplace like that. If they had a bad conscience, if they really hated the Germans, if they were Communists, and had bad intentions, and had been locked up in this camp, but were being treated way better than they expected, or way better than seemed justified, they would be disposed to believe the same kind of rumor that these Japanese interned in these American camps believed. They had this rumor that they were being secretly killed and it was the same rumor that the Jews had.

JIM: Now let me ask you this, about your relationship with Carolyn Yeager doing that real, you know, I guess it went on for what, months? Your thing about Henry Ford.

HADDING: Yeah, it was 50-something chapters.

JIM: Wow! So how long did that go on for?

HADDING: It was about a year, I guess.

JIM: Yeah, the reason I know about that, is, my brother Joe, he takes the mp3s and he listens to them when he drive. So he told me all about it, and it’s a great way of understanding, or actually getting the book in without reading it, you know. Because sometimes people, they can’t read. And I do too. When I get on the plane I take mp3s and listen to them as I fly. 

You know, right now I’m listening to The Myth of German Villainy. Are you familiar with that book?

HADDING: No. Who wrote that?

JIM: Oh, my goodness! Ben Bradberry. You have to get that book! If you want to understand World War Two, and prior to World War Two, World War One, and even prior to that from the 1850s on, what happened with Germany and the whole ten yards, you have to read that book, because you’ll get the best education on what really happened. And I think of all the books I’ve ever read, that probably has been the best one.

I interviewed him actually, Ben Bradberry. You could probably do a search for it on You Tube “Ben Bradberry Jim Rizoli interview” But he’s been interviewed by Red Ice and Rense and all these other people, too. So he’s a phenomenal writer and the book, … I don’t even know how he wrote his book. There’s so much in this book. It’s like, how does anybody get into so much information and put it into a book? I just can’t even comprehend it. But he did it. So, yeah, if you ever get a chance definitely read that. I actually have it all online as an mp3 that I downloaded on the site, the archive site [https://archive.org/details/MRTAPMAN_gmail_MGV] that people can download it and listen to it, like I’m listening to it. But it’s like, how many hours, my goodness, I think it’s fourteen hours just audio. So it’s pretty long. But, I do recommend that.

But anyway, getting back to Carol Yeager. Have you done any more stuff with her, or what?

HADDING: She’s not doing very much these days. She just posts articles on our blog, occasionally. She has this website called, January 27 [http: //jan27.org], you know, the “Holocaust” Revisionist Commemoration on International “Holocaust” Remembrance Day. I just wrote an essay for that.

JIM: Yeah, I saw that. It’s not Jan27.org is it? Is that it? Oh, that’s her site, then Okay, all right

HADDING: “jan27.org”

JIM: Right. That’s a real good site there. So she basically, she hasn’t been doing much with, you know, online interviews and stuff anymore?

HADDING: I haven’t heard her do an interview in months.

JIM: Oh, Okay, yeah. I mean, I know I was on her show some years ago. But I haven’t really heard much about her since, you know.

What do you think about– Here’s something that we’ve been discussing here, Diane and I. We’ve been discussing what’s happening in the revisionist movement. A lot of people, well not a lot, but some pretty high ranking people in the movement are kind of recanting their views now, like for instance Eric Hunt. You know, what do you think about what’s going on there?

HADDING: Well, Eric Hunt, I don’t know if he’s really “high ranking.” He’s got notoriety because he makes videos in which, I mean, he’s prominent because he makes videos….

JIM: Right. 

HADDING: Honestly I don’t pay a lot of attention to what other people do, but I’m sure mostly in his videos he summarizes other people’s findings. 

JIM: Right. 

HADDING: So, I don’t have a lot to say about Eric Hunt, but I did have an exchange with him a few weeks ago, and … apparently he had an argument … with David Cole, and apparently he felt badly about his performance in the argument with Cole, and he felt he had been defeated, I guess. He said, “We really need to prove that those Jews weren’t killed in the Action Reinhardt Camps!” Well, wait a second. The burden of proof is on the accuser, you know. That’s one of the reasons why I wrote this essay called, “Semi-revisionism is Dead” [https://jan27.org/semi-revisionism-is-dead] .

JIM: Yeah, I read it and it was excellent. I thought it was very good, but I think, … You know what’s happening with this conversation, OK, what I’m noticing anyway, is these, … I call them the Holo-hucksters and what they do is they turn the conversation on us, to prove something that didn’t happen!

HADDING: To prove it didn’t happen!

JIM: I mean, it’s like, how do you do that!? How do I prove something didn’t happen!? And their biggest thing is [laughing] if you ever get in the conversation is, “Where did the Jews go if they weren’t executed?” and I’m saying to myself, “Who cares? I don’t care where they went!” they weren’t killed, that’s all I care about, you know. So that’s my, you know, my take on that. But, you know, now he in his last article I just saw, he writes all about, you know, the Reinhardt Camps and that people were killed in those camps, because, you know, “Where did they go if they weren’t killed?” And the thing that really bothers me is they make all these assumptions that, you know, the Jews had to go somewhere if they weren’t killed, but they forget all the other information showing how ridiculous the hoax is!

HADDING: That’s right.

JIM: I mean, I don’t get it! I don’t understand how this guy can even look at himself in the mirror and think, “Well gee! Let’s talk about those Reinhardt Camps and, you know, find out where they get all that wood?” You know, how they do all this, you know, those, … How they burnt all these bodies just with lighting a match to a body and the whole body just incinerates, you know, poof! and the whole pile goes up [laughing] just, you know, just like that! Yeah, I don’t know. I just get so aggravated when I hear it.

But then, you know, I hear David Irving, he’s kind of capitulated not??? . Mark Weber, you know, he’s the same way, you know, he basically says, “While I think that millions of Jews were killed, …” but he doesn’t get into how it happened. He just said it happened.

HADDING: Well, I thought you humiliated Mark Weber by asking him, “How were they killed?” and he couldn’t answer that.

JIM: I mean, how do these guys show their face!? I mean, how do you, how do you make, … I mean, you know, I use a lot of IHR material, you know, the old stuff, and, you know, I’m always using it and then I talk to a guy that can’t even give me two facts that show that it happened! And that, you know, David Cole is the same way, you know. So yeah you got David Irving, David Cole and obviously, you know, Mark Weber and now we get Eric Hunt. You know, who’s next? You know, that goes, …

HADDING: Irving, Weber and Cole all have different motives. David Irving, he wants to have his career back, right. I don’t think he’s going to get it, but that seems to be, … I mean, that’s what somebody opined, somebody very well informed, and prominent, and famous, opined to me in 1996 when the Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich book came out: David Irving wants his career back. So that is why David Irving is espousing this Semi-Revisionism the continues the demonization of … Himmler and Goebbels. But it’s really a reversion to the position that he had in the 1970s. That was always his position. He constructed this drama where Hitler was doing good things and he had these evil men around him that were harming Jews behind his back. This is the kind of drama that David Irving has constructed. And he’s really just gone back to that. 

Mark Weber has a different motive. I think he just wants to avoid Holocaust Revisionism and not discuss it to the extent that he can avoid it.

In the case of David Cole, he got involved in Holocaust revisionism only after the 1988 False News Trial when the Leuchter Report appeared and Leuchter testified and David Irving testified on behalf of Ernst Zundel, and the Holocaust industry, in general, was in retreat at that point. And you could see this for example in Yehuda Bauer, his letter to The New York Times. An article about Yehuda Bauer [in] The New York Times followed by a letter from Yehuda Bauer, talking about the need to lower the death toll at Auschwitz, “because those neo Nazi holocaust deniers, they can count, you know!” They realized that they were under a lot of scrutiny and criticism and that they needed to make revisions themselves to try to save their holy myth. And this is when David got involved! By his own account it was 1989 when he got involved. And the first time that the world heard anything about David Cole wasn’t until 1992 — David Cole as a Holocaust Revisionist.

There was this period when Holocaust revisionism appeared to be this great chariot leading to victory, right? And, you know, that’s what David Irving clearly believed in 1988. He believed that Revisionism would prevail within, he said, five to ten years. And then the history books would be rewritten. Well it didn’t turn out that way.

JIM: Right.

HADDING: But during that time David Cole got involved, and he endorsed the findings to the Leuchter Report. And he made this video at Auschwitz, where he basically duplicated what other revisionists had already done. There’s really no new information, I don’t think, in Cole’s Auschwitz video. It is very well done, you know, it has a nice tempo to it and has good audio and it’s watchable. All right? But David Cole was basically just putting a Jewish face on what others had already discovered.

JIM: Right.

HADDING: That’s what he was doing. It’s jewish damage control!

Jim: Right. I know Mark Weber, you know, I don’t know, maybe, you know, this, or not. I don’t know, but he inherited a lot of money, you know, in a settlement he got, you know, he actually inherited like, for the IHR.

HADDING: Carto?

JIM: Yeah and all that. He got several million dollars out of that. I mean, did, you know, that?

HADDING: Well, I knew that there was this woman, I think, left a lot of money to the IHR….

JIM: Yes, she was part, …

HADDING: … in the 1990s, and Carto had embezzled it and …

JIM: Yeah, there’s a whole story there. But the bottom line was, the end result was, he inherited seven, I think seven and a half million dollars that went to IHR and that’s the reason why you don’t hear Mark Weber saying anything anymore. Because he’s got so much money that he’s just sitting on it and just waiting to retire and live happily ever after. So, and he’s not doing anything! No new books, no new writings, nothing! Because he’s pretty well set for life, now. I mean, that’s what I get out of it.

HADDING: Well, from what I see apparently he’s perfectly happy to travel and give a speech against “the Zionist-Jewish power.”

JIM: Right.

HADDING: He’s apparently happy to talks about the Palestinians, but he doesn’t want to talk about the Holocaust.

JIM: Right. Well, that’s the point, you know, why, because he’s still, he’s still reaping money. He’s getting money that’s coming in from people that still donate to his cause and, you know, he, like I said, he doesn’t want to upset the apple cart with the, you know, maybe some of the jews even contribute to his cause that want him to keep quiet, you know, what I mean? [laughing].

HADDING: Who knows?

JIM: So I think, oh yes, I think, you know, I think that’s part of the issue there with him. But that’s sad because, you know, Germar Rudolf, he wrote a really good article about that. About what happened with all that. I just read that, I think the other day, you know, the whole relationship about revisionism and how money corrupts. And it sure has, because it keeps revisionism from doing more. See, because, you know, if they have a lot of money they don’t have to do anything. And Germar, I think Germar out of all the Revisionists, he’s the one I think is the top one now, you know, that’s really doing something and, you know, trying to make this work. Germar. I mean, he’s, that’s my opinion anyway, you know. I don’t know any other one that’s that’s doing anything as much as Germar.

HADDING: Oh sure. Faurisson some years ago referred to the amazing energy of Germar Rudolf, or something to that effect.

JIM: Yes, it’s phenomenal what he’s doing. And … we went down to Pennsylvania and interviewed Germar and he was really a good man. I really like him and I just hope he can, … I mean, what really bothers me is you get these inheritances that come in to these organizations and you think the IHR would throw some money his way, you know, because of all the work that Germar has done, you know. But no, he doesn’t get anything from anybody. You know, he’s just poking along. It’s just sad! I hate to see that happen but it’s happening, you know. Anyway, but that’s, …

HADDING: Well, I don’t think– I just want to clarify. I don’t think that receiving money is what’s wrong with Mark Weber. Alright? Mark Weber — I mean, this is according to Faurisson’s account — Mark Weber is a weak man! He’s a weak man. He’s not very brave. When they were in, I think, in Germany and police had detained Ernst Zundel. They were going to have, … I don’t remember the story now, but they were in Germany and they were in danger of being arrested and Mark Weber’s teeth were chattering!

JIM: Right.

HADDING: But, you know, Mark Weber he’s not a —  just look at him! — he does not convey strength.

JIM: Yeah, he at that point that you are talking about, I’m going to use a term that, there’s no other way I could use it any differently, … He was ready to shit his pants! OK! Because [laughing] he was so afraid of getting arrested and that’s what happened with him. So yeah. But, you know, I look at Fred Leuchter and, you know, hey Fred, you know, he took it. I mean, he, you know, he was going to go to jail too and he hung in there. He eventually got out of there which was the smartest thing to do too. But if he goes back there, they’re going to put him in jail [laughing] So, you know, Fred hung in there and he’s, you know, he’s not going back on any of his views about how things were done in the, you know, the Leuchter Report and all that. And he suffered more than anybody, you know. So, you know, when I see these people talking about suffering like Eric Hunt, you know, my whole life has been topsy turvy by this and that. I just say, please!

HADDING: So you think that’s why he’s backing away from this?

JIM: Well, that’s what I think. I think even Germar said that too. But you got to understand too with David Cole, you know, they threatened David Cole. They had a hit on him, to kill him. You know, he was supposed to, he was going to be killed.

HADDING: Yeah, it’s an interesting thing, they didn’t kill him, did they?

JIM: No, no, I know, yeah, because he talked to, what was his name?

HADDING: Irv.

JIM: Okay, okay. Irv Rubin, at the time anyway. He went to jail. He actually end up going to jail, but he actually end up talking to him and as far as I understand, the story what Cole said, he ended up paying him money or something, not to do anything to him. That’s the story that I heard. I thought I heard from Cole, when I was listening to one of Cole’s audios, videos, like we are doing now. So, the point is it seems like a lot of these people might have been threatened, you know, I can understand that would cause a problem with you, but, you know, we’ve all suffered. I mean, I lost a business, because of the Jews. So I mean, that’s life. You just get on and, you know, I know I didn’t stop. I actually got more, I got more involved with it. I didn’t get less involved in it, because now I have the time to put to it! You know, that’s that’s what I feel is important, you know, use your time wisely. And I think that’s what we all have to do you know.

HADDING: Well Irv Rubin has been dead for years now. I don’t think that Irv Rubin is the reason for what David Cole is doing now. I presented in my essay, “Semi-Revisionism is Dead” background that would support the inference that David Cole was never really interested in debunking the Holocaust as such. That’s never what he wanted to do. Like Yehuda Bauer, he wanted to revise it to keep it alive.

JIM: Right.

HADDING: That’s my thesis about David Cole.

JIM: Well, he got [???] too. After all that he ended up working for the Holocaust museum, or whatever. Somebody involved with that and he was doing videos for them. According to what David Cole says now. I’m telling you what David Cole said. After he went into hiding, he ended up doing stuff for the opposite cause here, and doing videos and research for the pro-Holocaust people.

HADDING: As Stein?

JIM: Yeah as Stein.

HADDING: OK.

JIM: Yeah, he changed his name. And then, you know, that’s what happened there. I mean, well, you know, what are you going to do? I really don’t care about him. I have no interest. I would like to interview him though and really hit him with, you know, some really tough questions, but I don’t know if that’s ever going to happen, you know. I’m not going to really worry about it.

So … do you have like a website, do you like, have a blog site or anything like that?

HADDING: Yes, my main blog is The National Socialist Worldview. Its National-Socialist-Worldview.blogspot.com .

JIM: Oh OK. That’s good. So we can go to that and see what’s going on with you. Like you post things there all the time, or something, or keep it up?

HADDING: Yeah. I try to post at least one thing a week but, you know, sometimes it’s only one thing a month. If I get working on something for CODOH it might keep me from posting on my blog for a while.

JIM: Yeah. So explain to me a little bit about CODOH. So you do stuff with them and who is running CODOH now?

HADDING: Germar Rudolf!

JIM: OK. So Germar is running it and how’s that going?

HADDING: It’s a good gig., you know, I wasn’t really, … It pays a little less than the Occidental Observer, but The Occidental Observer won’t publish my stuff anymore. And I get published much more regularly on CODOH than I could on The Occidental Observer. I use this to pay my bills.

JIM: Right, right. Who runs The Occidental Observer?

HADDING: That’s Kevin MacDonald. 

JIM: Oh yeah, okay, so he probably wouldn’t like, well, you probably don’t put much Holocaust stuff on that anyway.

HADDING:You wouldn’t be allowed, I wouldn’t be allowed to– I mean, even when they were publishing my stuff, you couldn’t– MacDonald is, seems to be afraid of that subject. So–

JIM: Well, you have to understand that if he takes that topic on he’s going to be dead, just like Irving!

HADDING: Well, he’s retired, so what does he have to lose?

JIM: Oh, is that what it is? Okay, well I can understand that. So, okay, that’s good. So, I mean, I just started going to the CODOH site looking up more things. I mean, that’s a great site. I mean, a lot of information there, you know. We, you know, we’re revisionists, I mean, we have a tremendous amount of information out there, you know, the Holocaust Handbooks. I mean, my goodness. I mean, there’s so much stuff there. The problem is the majority of people out there don’t get to see it because, you know, you can’t get it out there. I mean, you know, you have to look for it deep down in the Internet to find it. But it’s there if people, you know, want to look at it, you know. We can we can definitely look at it.

So, basically, you know, you’re just biding your time, just, you know, writing things as they come. I mean again we, you know, we enjoy what you write. I mean, you’re a good writer. You have a nice style and insight, I would say, about things, and I think that’s important that people see that stuff. I mean, that article you wrote about, you know, the three revisionist, what was it, three revisionist you took up?

HADDING: Yes, “Semi-Revisionism is Dead” is the name of it.

JIM: Yes, that was a super article! That was a great article, you know. So anytime you get something, you know, a new, .. Well you send them my way anyway, so we get what you’re doing now. So that’s important.

Well, anything else you have you like to, … What do you think, what do you think the future is for us? You know, the movement, you know, revisionism, the truth movement and all that?

HADDING: I think, we have some people falling away from Holocaust revisionist right now that maybe hadn’t really thought through their position very well initially. Maybe their commitment wasn’t very deep to begin with. So I wouldn’t worry about that too much. I just worry about what I’m doing and trying to make sure what I’m doing the right thing. And keep doing it. And as long as I can get by and pay my bills and have enough to eat while I’m doing the right thing, that’s what I keep doing.

JIM: Right, right. Well, I agree. I’m the same way. You know, I was saying to Diane, I was saying I don’t, I really don’t care what anybody’s, even the revisionists’ views are! I know common sense! You know what I mean? I can read and I can understand common sense and if someone wants to go back on common sense and go to stupidity and believe things that just can’t happen, I mean, that’s that’s up to them! I just feel sorry for them that they can’t stick it out and do what’s right.

But, well look, I really appreciate that you came on with us today. Again you contribute a lot to the cause! I just want to let you know that, Okay?

HADDING: Thank you very much.

JIM: Yeah, I mean, you’re a good man and, you know, keep continuing on and don’t let anybody discourage you. I know financially, you know, things could be better, but it could be like that for all of us too, I suppose. But the truth is the truth! And no matter what the topic is you’ve got to let people know about it. I don’t care what the consequences are, you’ve got to just let everybody, you know, deal with it and go along with it, you know.

Well look, Hadding, thank you very much for our interview. Good luck with what you’re doing and, you know, another time we’ll probably try to talk to you again when something else comes up that, we know, we can talk about too.

HADDING: All right. Well, thank you very much.

JIM: Alright. Bye now! 
_________________________
* I tried to track down the article by Safire that I mentioned here and it seems to be on the 9th rather than on the 1st of September, and that first article about Halabjah by Safire, as I found it online, does not mention Hitler or Auschwitz. Safire did later (e.g. on 24 August 1990) defend the comparison of Saddam Hussein to Hitler. Professor Stephen C. Pelletiere also has noted, as I noted in 2003, that there was very little attention to what happened at Halabjah on 16 March 1988 until early September. So, the gist of what I say here is correct, although what I said about that particular article in the New York Times, including the date, was a little off. ]]> https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/03/15/hadding-interviewed-by-jim-rizoli-valentines-day-2017/feed/ 0