Thomas Edsall of the New York Times wrote a column (2 October 2019) presenting and endorsing the paranoid projections of degreed and tenured leftists who accuse President Donald Trump of intending a “coup” in the form of refusing to leave office if he loses the next election. Hadding explains why the accusation is sadly unjustified. (This is an excerpt from the Outlaw Conservative show of 2 October 2019.)

Trump Not Alone in his Assessment

On Tuesday 1 October 2019 President Trump made a post on Twitter to the effect that the movement to impeach him amounted to a coup. Trump’s enemies are acting as if this were some kind of crazy talk, but Trump is far from alone in that opinion. Even some of his enemies have been using that word to characterize the efforts to undermine or terminate his presidency, for more than a year.

24 August 2018, Michael Hayden, former director of the National Security Agency:

“I think impeachment would be a bad idea. If President Trump is somehow forced to leave office before the end of his first term, one-third of America will believe it was a soft coup….”

5 September 2018, David A Graham, The Atlantic, discusses Bob Woodward’s book Fear, and an anti-Trump op-ed written anonymously (probably by Jon Lerner) for the New York Times:

“… the actions described in the book and in the op-ed are extremely worrying, and amount to a soft coup against the president.

6 September 2018, Chuck Todd:

“There is either a soft coup underway or the president is unfit for office.”

The point of the concern about Trump’s use of the word coup, and his comments in 2016 about electoral irregularities, is that if the electoral process is now being voided by a “coup” or if the elections themselves are crooked, then the system is already dead and there can no longer be any moral argument for respecting the Constitution and not simply seizing power. Michael Hayden warned against trying to remove Trump from office precisely because it would induce “one-third of America” that currently respects the Constitution to begin thinking outside of the Constitutionalist box (as has been for decades the exclusive prerogative of the anti-White left, especially in the form of crooked rulings by courts). The fear is that the White majority, struggling against reduction to minority status, may cease fighting with one arm tied behind its back.

We have been headed in this direction for some years now. See my article  from 2012, Welcome to the Banana Republic. ]]> https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2019/10/03/will-trump-become-usas-dictator/feed/ 0 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2018/09/08/most-likely-perpetrator-of-anti-trump-op-ed-is-a-neoconservative-jew/ https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2018/09/08/most-likely-perpetrator-of-anti-trump-op-ed-is-a-neoconservative-jew/#respond Sat, 08 Sep 2018 16:34:00 +0000 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2018/09/08/most-likely-perpetrator-of-anti-trump-op-ed-is-a-neoconservative-jew/

Neoconservative Jew and Never-Trumper Jon Lerner

Lerner is described as a “rabidly neoconservative #NeverTrumper” (FITS News, 6 September 2018), which places him entirely in opposition to the change of policy advocated by Candidate Trump in 2016. Lerner was with the Jewish cabal that promoted Marco Rubio as an alternative to Trump while attacking Trump for his lack of hostility toward Vladimir Putin — which is also a theme of the anonymous anti-Trump screed that recently appeared in the New York Times. If we are going to pick a suspected author of that screed, we can  say that in this instance the yarmulke certainly fits.

The anonymous anti-Trump screed is very concerned with foreign policy.  By far the most conspicuous locus of dissension about foreign policy within the Trump Administration has been between President Trump and Nikki Haley. But Nikki Haley hardly has a brain in her head. Listen to the way Nikki Haley reads what’s put in front of her: she sounds like an elementary school teacher reading to small children. Since Jon Lerner happens to be Nikki Haley’s deputy, it seems entirely likely that Lerner, telling Nikki Haley what to think and what to say, is the behind-the-scenes cause of this dissension.

President Trump is paying the penalty for not excluding blatantly hostile and untrustworthy persons from his administration. Probably he should re-read that verse about the foolish woman and the snake.

As Nikki Haley’s deputy,  Lerner is the obvious reason why she frequently butts heads with Trump.

]]> https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2018/09/08/most-likely-perpetrator-of-anti-trump-op-ed-is-a-neoconservative-jew/feed/ 0 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2018/07/28/response-to-dinesh-dsouzas-stupid-article-for-fox-news/ https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2018/07/28/response-to-dinesh-dsouzas-stupid-article-for-fox-news/#respond Sat, 28 Jul 2018 07:09:00 +0000 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2018/07/28/response-to-dinesh-dsouzas-stupid-article-for-fox-news/

I wrote this comment on an article for Fox News (27 July 2018) written by corrupt non-White immigrant and convicted felon Dinesh D’Souza. The article pretends to defend President Trump from the accusation of being a White Supremacist, by presenting Richard Spencer as a real White Supremacist.

My objection is that Dinesh D’Souza is, as usual, misrepresenting things. He misrepresents Richard Spencer and he misrepresents conservatism, rejecting all traditional attributes of conservatism that do not fit his shysterly argument.

I went through the motions of posting the comment, but where it went, I have no idea. Amid the sea of comments, maybe nobody will see it again. It is lost like a needle in a haystack. Then there is the possibility that the editors will decide not to let the public see it if they dislike it. So, I am putting it here:

There are several things about this article that are dishonest.

In the first place, Richard Spencer does not call himself a White Supremacist. If you asked him if he subscribed to that label, he would say emphatically no. So, where does Dinesh D’Souza get that Richard Spencer is “a real White Supremacist”?

The other big thing is that Dinesh D’Souza’s idea of “conservatism” is very skewed.

What we call conservatism today is very different from what was called conservatism when National Review was founded in 1955. When National Review was founded, conservatism included Christian morality, but conservatives also supported racial segregation.

The identification of conservatism with Segregationism changed gradually during the 60s and 70s. By Reagan’s time, conservatism had become heavily mingled with traditional LIBERAL ideas, like the infallibility of the free market. The racial motive was still present among conservative voters, but it could no longer be overtly stated. There is an interview where Reagan’s campaign strategist Lee Atwater admitted this.

Dinesh D’Souza picks out ONLY the LIBERAL parts of what was passing for conservatism in Reagan’s day, and pretends that these are the exclusive criteria of conservatism. Particularly absurd is the pretense that non-White immigration is conservative! For Dinesh D’Souza, to be called a “conservative” you must be an old-style liberal. What used to be the conservative position on race and immigration is now a disqualifier.

BS!

I could also have said something about the fact that there has been, historically, such a thing as conservative socialism, so that the identification of conservatism with less government also is invalid and represents the corruption of conservatism with liberal ideas, but the maximum length for comments would not allow it. 

Tweet

I stated in this program that Ernst Thaelmann was shot at the end of the war. That is the prevalent story about Thaelmann’s death and I repeated it because I was unaware that there was a contradictory claim from the German authorities: that he died in an Allied bombing-raid. 

The German claim is more likely, because Thaelmann had been kept alive as a prisoner since 1933 and the date of Thaelmann’s death, August 1944, is months before the capture of Buchenwald. Paul Rassinier, who was in Buchenwald briefly, records that Thaelmann was a Kapo. In other words, he (ostensibly) helped the SS to maintain order in the camp. There is no evident reason why the Germans should have terminated Thaelmann in August 1944, but certainly there was a motive for the Allies to lie about having inadvertently killed him with their own bombs, as they also lied about such deaths at Nordhausen. Therefore I think that the death of Ernst Thaelmann by Allied bombing is the more likely story.

I am going to talk about the shooting of Congressman Stephen Scalise, and the Reichstag Fire.

This week we saw an attempted mass-shooting of Republican politicians by a man from Belleville, Illinois named James T. Hodgkinson. Instead of killing many Republicans he only critically wounded House Majority Whip Stephen Scalise and two policemen.

This shooting seems to be part of a pattern of violence that began long before Donald Trump was elected. Last summer we saw leftists attacking Trump-supporters, and we still see street-action between so-called antifa and Trump-supporters, as well as the Alt Right.

This is a wave of unrest that has been drummed up by mass-media.

There was a similar wave of unrest in Germany before and for some time after Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany. In fact there had been violence in varying degrees since the end of the First World War. There had been a Communist takeover of Bavaria that lasted about one month.

On the other side, there had been assassinations by a secret rightwing group called the Organisation Consul in the early 1920s.

There was violence when Hindenburg was elected president in 1925.

The leftists and Jews really threw a fit after Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor in January 1933.

Then as now, the Jewish-controlled press played a big part in provoking violence.

During a torchlight procession on 31 January 1933, the day after Hitler was named Chancellor, an SA-man, a Brownshirt Hans Maikowski, and a policeman Josef Zauritz, were shot dead by Communists. Joseph Goebbels, in a speech of 10 February, warming up the crowd for Hitler, talked about how the Communist newspaper Die Rote Fahne, which he said was run by Jews, had the Chutzpah to claim that the National-Socialists themselves had shot Maikowski and Zauritz. This lie incidentally is also perpetuated today, for example by German Wikipedia.

Another act of leftist violence that been obscured with leftist propaganda is the Reichstag Fire.

Reichstag Fire happens on 27 February 1933. Marinus van der Lubbe, a Marxist organizer, is caught and arrested inside the building. Communists and Jews pretended that Marinus vander Lubbe could not possibly have been responsible for the Reichstag Fire. They made various excuses such as that he was retarded and couldn’t see well.

Mainstream historians long ago accepted that MvdL was involved in the Reichstag Fire, but the myth that the National-Socialists themselves had set the fire and then blamed it on a helpless retard was revived in the 1990s because of Jewish influence on the so-called patriot media, especially through William Cooper, who had Jewish backers and was imitated by Alex Jones – also notorious for his Jewish support – and these guys were imitated later by Abbie Martin and other poorly informed and irresponsible people who just repeat things that they heard.

If you look at the reports on the trial, it is clear that nobody was framed for the Reichstag Fire. Here is some of the transcript that was reported in the Glasgow Herald, 26 September 1933:

Van der Lubbe … was asked if in a Communist tavern in Berlin Neukölln he had said he was a Communist, but did not agree with the Communist leaders, who were too “tame.”

“Yes,” said van der Lubbe.

“Did you say that the future of the workers all depended on Germany?”

“Maybe.”

“Did you say that extremely radical measures must be taken?”

“Yes.”

“While watching a National-Socialist procession on one occasion did you say in an excited voice, ‘Something must be done’?”

“Maybe.”

[…]

“Did you say that it was necessary for the workers to make counter-actions, and that that was the way the Russian Revolution had been carried out, and that it was not too late?”

“Maybe.”

“Did you say that it was necessary to [set] fire [to] public buildings so that the workers might recognize that the time had come?”

“Yes.”

“Did you say that it would be necessary to provoke the Storm Troops and to inflame the people?”

“Possibly.”

Marinus vander Lubbe admits that he set the fire but he denied that Communist leaders were involved., and he did not implicate any co-conspirators.

Ernst Torgler, the former leader of the Communists in the Reichstag, was also on trial. Torgler had turned himself in to stand trial, and pleaded his innocence. There were also some Bulgarians who were suspected of involvement in the arson. (Glasgow Herald, 26 September 1933)

This is really where the proof that M vd L got a fair trial can be found, because these others, although suspected of involvement in the fire, were found innocent. They were not found guilty.

The National-Socialist government did not believe that MvdL acted alone. There had been some witnesses who said that they saw several arsonists, and it would have been convenient to demonstrate that the Communist Party was behind it, but they were not able to do that. But apparently there was some evidence that other Communists were involved, although not necessarily the Communist Party leadership.

This is from the United Press reported on 28 February 1933, the day after the fire:

Police revealed that a raid on Liebknecht House, Communist headquarters, last Friday uncovered “instructions” for the beginning of a widespread reign of Communist terrorism throughout Germany, with the hope of civil war to follow.

A communique said the plot disclosed in the Liebknecht House raid included plans for the destruction of all government buildings, museums, castles, and modern power plants throughout Germany.

A significant paragraph of the instructions was quoted as follows:

“For attacks on the police, women and children, preferably belonging to the families of police officers, should be used to march in front of the attacking rioters.”

You will notice that some of our “antifa” in the United States today also like to get behind women to do their attacks.

By the time the trial happened in September 1933 – eight months after the fire — the government had proceeded on the premise that this Communist conspiracy existed and that it involved the Communist Party per se.

The day after the Reichstag Fire, President Hindenburg issued an emergency decree giving police free rein to search houses, confiscate property, and detain people without trial. Then there was a ban on the Communist and Social-Democratic press. (UP, 28 February 1933)

An election was called in March 1933 that increased the National-Socialists’ seats in the Reichstag to pass an amendment to the Weimar constitution that would allow Hitler to legislate without the Reichstag. This was the so-called Enabling Act.

Hitler used the powers given under Hindenburg’s emergency decree to prevent the Communists from taking their seats in the Reichstag. This way Hitler was able to get the two-thirds majority that was needed.

After that the National-Socialists made sweeping changes in Germany during the following year. Communists, or former Communists, were treated according to how they adjusted to the New Order.

Ernst Torgler who had stood trial and pleaded his innocence, although acquitted of the Reichstag Fire, was kept in protective custody (Schutzhaft) until 1935. The Communist party meanwhile expelled Torgler since he had voluntarily submitted to trial. Torgler later worked for Joseph Goebbels in the Propaganda Ministry, making anti-Soviet propaganda, which made him subject to some criticism after the war. But he did survive the war and after the war became a Social-Democrat.

A different Communist leader however, Ernst Thaelmann, the head of the Communist Party apparently was not so easy to reform. He was kept in a concentration camp until the end of the war, at which time he was killed to prevent his returning to society and organizing Communism again after the war.

The fact that different Communists had different fates under National-Socialism reflects the complexity of the National-Socialist view of the Communist problem.

Communism was a big concern for the Germans in the first half of the 20th century, and the Germans were concerned about how to avoid a Bolshevik takeover in Germany. There are two theories about what causes Communist or Socialist unrest and the decay of civilization that seem to have shaped the National-Socialist approach to the problem.

There is the view presented in Brooks Adams’ The Law of Civilization and Decay, from 1895. Brooks Adams’ theory is that ever increasing concentration of wealth impoverishes the nation’s working class and the peasantry, who are gradually replaced with foreigners. The resulting society of a small plutocratic elite presiding over an impoverished and racially mixed proletariat lacks internal cohesion and this kind of society is weak and easily fragmented. Adams uses the Roman Empire as the paradigmatic society where this happens, and in 1895 he saw the British Empire going the same way.

Adams’ theory sees plutocracy destroying the nation, and this implies that socialism is a justified reaction.

The other theory is presented by Lothrop Stoddard in his 1922 book, The Revolt Against Civilization: the Menace of the Underman. This book explained the Bolshevik Revolution as a result of the proliferation of genetically inferior people. In Stoddard’s theory, there are in every population a certain number of misfits and throwbacks who do not function well in a complex society, and when these misfits and throwbacks reach some critical mass, civilization is in jeopardy and a Bolshevik-style revolution becomes possible. (It is incidentally from Stoddard’s use of the word Under-Man that the National-Socialist term Untermensch is derived. Note that it does not refer to any particular nationality but to the degenerate element that exists to varying degrees in every nation.)

Stoddard’s theory sees the poor as a threat to civilization (since poverty for him is a manifestation of genetic unfitness) and therefore Stoddard sees socialism as totally unjustified and destructive.

Now, the National-Socialists embraced both views: both, Brooks Adams’ and Lothrop Stoddard’s views. They accepted that there were people whose hereditary nature made them problematic for civilization, and they also saw extreme concentration of wealth as detrimental to the nation. Men who had done good service during the war were begging on the streets, so that it was really not credible to say that poverty was entirely a result of hereditary inferiority. Some people were victims of circumstance. The need to combat the concentration of wealth was the subject of Gottfried Feder’s 1918 Manifesto for the Abolition of Interest-Slavery. At the same time, the racial idea had been well established in Germany before the war. It was Alfred Ploetz who discussed the proliferation of the unfit and coined the term racial hygiene in 1895. Plutocracy and the Under-Man thus were the twin evils that National-Socialism sought to suppress in order to preserve the nation.

So, there was a threat from above, and a threat from below.

In terms of the Menace of the Underman, another factor to consider, which Stoddard did not discuss very much but did not escape the National-Socialists’ attention, was the role of mass-media and a perverse intelligentsia in sowing subversion. This is a manifestation of an element that is hostile or contemptuous of the nation, but manages to be successful within it.

Jews, for example, are one of the wealthier ethnic groups in any Western state, which only makes them all the more dangerous, since they generally use their wealth and influence for hostile purposes.

Jews do not however constitute the entirety of the high-functioning subversive element. In Germany, the brothers Heinrich and Thomas Mann, who were not Jews but had some non-White ancestry, were enemies of the National-Socialist state. Thomas Mann even made broadcasts against Germany from the United States during the war.

If we look at James T. Hodgkinson, who nearly assassinated Congressman Stephen Scalise a few days ago, we might see some indications of untermenschlichkeit, – some indications that he might be an Underman – but not to the point that he was an outcast and a failure in our society, as Lothrop Stoddard would say that the Underman generally is. Hodgkinson apparently had his own business and he had a nice home in Belleville, Illinois.

I am not sure that I have enough information to assess Hodgkinson. His proposal that steeply graduated income taxes should be reintroduced to deal with public spending frankly does not seem unreasonable to me as a National-Socialist.

We do however see prior examples of uncivilized behavior by Hodgkinson. He had a criminal record that included some examples of petty violence.

And if you look at the man, you see that he is not exactly a Nordic god. He had a wide, flat nose, that makes me wonder what is in his family tree.

At the same time though, his anti-Republican partisanism seems to reflect the effects of mass-propaganda. On Facebook, Hodgkinson had joined a group called Terminate the Republican Party, run by Howard Scott Pearlman, of Cherry Hill, N.J.

So, we can say that this was a man who had some violent tendencies, perhaps an Underman but a relatively high-functioning one, whose tendencies were pointed in a particular direction by the messages that he heard.

I wrote after Trump was elected last November that the Constitutional powers of the President of the United States were not adequate to deal with the problems – specifically demographic decline and the entrenched anti-White elite – that threaten to destroy our country.

Anybody who would fix what is wrong with the United States today would need the kinds of dictatorial powers that Adolf Hitler was able to acquire after the Reichstag Fire in 1933.

In the best possible scenario, he would one way or another acquire those powers and use them the way Adolf Hitler used them. It is not unprecedented for a US president to exercise extraordinary powers, when there is an emergency that seems to justify it, and if we see more incidents similar to this incident of the shooting of Congressman Scalise, perhaps some sort of state of emergency may be declared and the right result could come from it. ]]> https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/06/17/anti-trump-violence-and-the-reichstag-fire/feed/ 0 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/04/14/fake-intelligence-supports-zionist-warmongering/ https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/04/14/fake-intelligence-supports-zionist-warmongering/#respond Fri, 14 Apr 2017 12:44:00 +0000 https://national-socialist-worldview.com/2017/04/14/fake-intelligence-supports-zionist-warmongering/

Professor Theodore A. Postol, M.I.T.

Theodore A. Postol, a professor of Science, Technology, and International Security at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has written a devastating critique of the Trump Administration’s intelligence-report (dated 11 April 2017) on the recent gassing-incident in Syria (4 April 2017) for which Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, is being blamed. Postol notes discrepancies in the report that exclude the possibility that Assad‘s government did it.

The accusation is that a military aircraft belonging to Assad’s government dropped sarin-gas near Khan Sheikhoun, killing civilians. Part of the evidence for this is supposed to be a spent sarin-container lying in a bomb-crater.

Professor Postol notes that the container — assuming that this really was the source of the gas, as claimed in the report — is “a section of 122mm pipe like that used in the manufacture of artillery rockets”  that was rigged as an improvised chemical munition. The way the tube is contorted indicates that it was ruptured with an explosive device placed over one end of it,  so that it was “crushed by a powerful downward explosive force.”

This is how Postol thinks that a sarin-dispersal device might have been improvised to produce the configuration that resulted.

Postol concludes that this “points to an attack that was executed by individuals on the ground, not from an aircraft.”

Since the area is controlled by al-Nusra Front, a faction hostile to President Assad, the fact that the sarin-container was not dropped from an aircraft means that al-Nusra Front was involved in the commission of this crime.

Al-Nusra Front, incidentally, receives assistance from the State of Israel, according to UN observers. The idea of staging a false-flag atrocity at this time could have come from the State of Israel. The Israeli intelligence-agency, Mossad, is notorious for false-flag incidents, such as the Lavon Affair and the hijacking of the Achille Lauro, and others.

As the cause of the misinformation fed to President Trump, Postol blames  what he calls the “politicization” of U.S. intelligence:

I have worked with the intelligence community in the past, and I have grave concerns about the politicization of intelligence that seems to be occurring with more frequency in recent times – but I know that the intelligence community has highly capable analysts in it. And if those analysts were properly consulted about the claims in the White House document they would have not approved the document going forward.

By politicization, in this instance, Postol obviously means Zionist infiltration of American intelligence-services. This is not the first time that misinformation from an American intelligence-agency was used to provoke violence against an enemy of the State of Israel.

In regard to the alleged gassing-incident at Ghouta in 2013, which is now cited as a precedent and a proof that Assad does indeed gas his own citizens, Postol tells us:

At that time (August 30, 2013) the Obama White House also issued an intelligence report containing obvious inaccuracies. For example, that report stated without equivocation that the sarin carrying artillery rocket used in Damascus had been fired from Syrian government controlled areas. As it turned out, the particular munition used in that attack could not go further than roughly 2 km, very far short of any boundary controlled by the Syrian government at that time. The White House report at that time also contained other critical and important errors that might properly be described as amateurish. For example, the report claimed that the locations of the launch and impact of points of the artillery rockets were observed by US satellites. This claim was absolutely false and any competent intelligence analyst would have known that. The rockets could be seen from the Space-Based Infrared Satellite (SBIRS) but the satellite could absolutely not see the impact locations because the impact locations were not accompanied by explosions. These errors were clear indicators that the White House intelligence report had in part been fabricated and had not been vetted by competent intelligence experts.

[…]

President Obama was initially misinformed about supposed intelligence evidence that Syria was the perpetrator of the August 21, 2013 nerve agent attack in Damascus. This is a matter of public record. President Obama stated that his initially false understanding was that the intelligence clearly showed that Syria was the source of the nerve agent attack. This false information was corrected when the then Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, interrupted the President while he was in an intelligence briefing. According to President Obama, Mr. Clapper told the President that the intelligence that Syria was the perpetrator of the attack was “not a slamdunk.”*

The question that needs to be answered by our nation is how was the president initially misled about such a profoundly important intelligence finding? A second equally important question is how did the White House produce an intelligence report that was obviously flawed and amateurish that was then released to the public and never corrected?

The same false information in the intelligence report issued by the White House on August 30, 2013 was emphatically provided by Secretary of State John Kerry in testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee!

Thus, rumor and widespread belief notwithstanding, there has never been even one confirmed instance of the use of chemical weapons by the government of Bashar al-Assad.


Misinformation from intelligence-agencies also contributed to the warmongering against Saddam Hussein. Here is a particular example of it that I described for the American Dissident Voices broadcast of 26 April 2003. I refer to the accusation that Saddam Hussein attempted to bomb-assassinate former president George Herbert Walker Bush, an accusation often repeated in the period before the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

During a visit by former president George H. W. Bush to Kuwait in April 1993, an undetonated explosive device  was discovered. It was viewed as part of an attempt to assassinate the former president.

The explosive substance from the device was submitted to the FBI’s crime-lab to determine its origin. Specifically, the question was whether the substance resembled the plastique known to be possessed by the Iraqi government.

 

Frederic Whitehurst

The FBI’s chemical analyst Frederic Whitehurst found that it did not resemble the plastique known to be possessed by the Iraqis.

Explosives Unit Chief J. Christopher Ronay, however, submitted a report that gave an impression contrary to Whitehurst’s  finding. The result was that President Bill Clinton launched a retaliatory missile-strike against Iraq.

Whitehurst filed a complaint against Ronay. The Justice Department’s Inspector General summarized the case as follows:

Whitehurst alleges that he compared the explosive material in the main charge of the Bush device to explosive materials in known Iraqi devices and told Explosives Unit Chief J. Christopher Ronay that the explosives were different. Whitehurst claims that Ronay purposely misinterpreted these results in order to link the explosive material to Iraqi agents. Whitehurst further asserts that very possibly his results were changed to support the retaliatory missile strike by the United States. (USDOJ/OIG Special Report The FBI Laboratory: An Investigation into Laboratory Practices and Alleged Misconduct in Explosives-Related and Other Cases (April,1997) Section D: The Bush Assassination Attempt.)

The finding of the Office of the Inspector General does not dispute that Ronay misrepresented Whitehurst’s finding: it claims only that there was insufficient evidence that Ronay did it “purposely.”

Could the misrepresentation of the crime-lab’s findings, leading to a missile-strike against Iraq, really have been the result of mere carelessness? When an institution exhibits a pattern of misrepresentation in accord with a particular bias, it is not credible to regard particular instances of such misrepresentation as accidental. Whitehurst’s perception of Ronay’s conscious bias was very likely correct — except that the bias was not limited to him.

 * * *

President Donald Trump, like several presidents before him, has been misled with misinformation fed to him by Zionist-infiltrated intelligence-agencies. Furthermore, he has not helped himself by selecting advisors and officials who are established supporters of that agenda.

Donald Trump has caught on to “fake news.” Now he needs to learn about fake intelligence and fake conventional wisdom, and recognize what its general purport is likely to be. He also needs to bring new people into his administration, consistent with the positions that got him elected, who do not subscribe to that fake conventional wisdom.

If President Trump does not recognize the problem of Zionist infiltration and deception, it is likely that he will continue to be misled until he finds himself leading his country into precisely the kinds of foreign misadventures that he has in the past condemned.
________________
*Time of 29 August 2013 and the Associated Press of 30 August 2013 reported that the expression “not a slamdunk” was used by U.S. intelligence–officials to describe the accusation that Assad was responsible for the gassing-deaths at Ghouta.

Tweet

Since Donald Trump took office there has been hoopla about a supposed wave of anti-Semitic incidents, which, we are supposed to believe, were perpetrated by Trump’s supporters. The hoopla escalated after President Trump came under attack for not mentioning Jews in his statement on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, and then even more for refusing to modify his statement under pressure. Ha’aretz referred to a “Trump-inspired surge in anti-Semitic incidents.” 

As police solved these crimes, however, most of them turned out not to be the work of angry White males. There was the campaign of swastika-graffiti waged by Punjabi immigrant Jasskirat Saini on Long Island. There was the Negro journalist Juan Thompson accused of at least eight threats against Jewish community centers. There was the Jewish liquor-merchant Scott Young in Newtown, Connecticut who spraypainted “Burn the Jew” and swastikas on his store’s back entrance and then set the store on fire to collect insurance. There were the toppled tombstones in Jewish cemeteries, which police-investigation found to be not the result of crime but of natural deterioration and neglect (Jewish parsimony, in other words).

President Trump has suggested that such incidents might be false flags, which is the commonsense view of anybody familiar with the history of supposed anti-Semitic incidents. (Under considerable pressure, Trump later said that the threats to synagogues were “horrible” but avoided saying what the motives and nature of the perpetrators might have been.) Vandalism accompanied by anti-Jewish graffiti typically turns out to have been inflicted by Jews. The Jewish Forward, however, called Trump’s observation “dangerous.”

Now it turns out that “most JCC bomb-threat calls” spanning several continents over the past six months, as the Jerusalem Post reports, were done by a 19-year-old Jew, a dual citizen of the United States and the State of Israel.

Other reports tell us that this dual citizen perpetrated his false-flag bomb-threats from a home in southern Israel, using computer-technology to mask the origin of his calls. The FBI somehow tracked him down in spite of this, as revealed by a U.S. official:

The official says dogged cyber work and IP tracing led to what he described as the “eureka moment” that was the result of a 6 month intensive effort with Israeli authorities. [NBC News, 23 March 2017].

The Jewish Telegraph Agency identifies him as Michael Kaydar, and gives the number of bomb-threats that he perpetrated against Jewish institutions in the United States as “more than 100.”

Of course he will never be sent to the United States for trial. He will be judged leniently by an Israeli court: already, a medical excuse is being alleged for the perpetrator, without regard for the fact that this is typical Jewish behavior in service to the essentially Jewish anti-Trump agenda, and without regard for the potentially catastrophic ramifications of the Jew’s hoaxes for non-Jewish Americans.

But the important fact is that the world has been shown that the overwhelming majority of these “anti-Semitic incidents” were not what they seemed. The question of how this particular perpetrator will be punished is much less important than that lesson, because such attempts to manipulate the public will surely continue for as long as they seem to work. Like President Trump, our people must recognize the pattern of deception and refuse to be manipulated.

President Trump is proven right again.

UPDATE: Michael Kaydar’s father has also been arrested (Jerusalem Post, 26 March 2017). If father and son were both involved in the crime, the excuse alleged for the son, that his behavior was affected by a non-malignant brain-tumor, is obviated.

“Germany is still a kind of colony of the United States.” 

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

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

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

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

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

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