Racial Hygiene – National-Socialist Worldview

National-Socialism vs. Libertarian Darwinism: a response to Jean-François Gariépy

Hadding — Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:32:00 +0000

In Hitler’s Germany if you were an unemployed man, you could join the Reichsarbeitsdienst.

This was originally a response to some comments hostile to National-Socialism, from a video by Jean-François Gariépy. I had not yet decided to repost it here when YouTube made the decision for me by shadow-censoring it after the first thumbs-up. I am not categorically shadow-banned on YouTube; they only made this particular comment invisible. Why? Maybe some of YouTube’s moderators are bigoted libertarians.

Gariépy has many interesting things to say about many things, but when questions arise about economy and how a society should be ordered, he falls into the convenient ruts of simplistic libertarian omniscience.

For one thing, he suffers from the half-baked libertarian belief that the free market is eugenic, which in turn is based on the blatantly false belief that a market is “nature.” The market is not nature.

Regarding the comment at 1:20:09 —

It is not true that National-Socialism in Germany did not reward success. We are talking about a militaristic society surrounded with enemies. In that respect, National-Socialism was a continuation of the ancient German militaristic tradition. This is a tradition that rewards good performance of duties through promotion. You might notice that the job-creation programs in National-Socialist Germany had a quasi-military character, with the participants wearing uniforms. They did not pay people to sit around and do nothing. An army has its own evolutionary pressures, and Fascism and National-Socialism extended those pressures beyond the armed forces.

Add to this the sterilization of 400,000 genetic defectives and there is nothing to criticize about National-Socialist Germany from an evolutionary standpoint.

The libertarian faith in the eugenic effect of the free market is only somewhat valid. Economic competition weeds out the least intelligent, but it does not select for good character. The free market rewards those who aggressively seek their own advantage even at the expense of the society. Sociopaths prevail. Ultimately the nation loses its viability due to the parasites at the top. Brooks Adams’ The Law of Civilization and Decay is about this.

At the intersection of Libertarianism and Darwinism, Jewish hedge-fund managers appear as “the fittest.”

“Nature has its own mechanism,” says J-F at 1:39:10 — but we do not live in a state of nature! The selective pressures of a market are not natural pressures. The selective pressures of a militaristic society struggling to survive against hostile neighboring states are more natural — insofar as the genepool is the unit of survival — than the pressures of a market, which reward sociopathy.

A militaristic society that systematically promotes the competently dutiful is much more eugenic, in terms of national survival, than a society that honors hucksters and speculators.

How does Dinesh D’Souza get away with it?

Hadding — Sun, 19 Aug 2018 12:43:00 +0000

It has been amazing to see how much Dinesh D’Souza gets away with. I have yet to see any of his movies, but I have his books, and I’ve listened to interviews and watched his speeches.

Nobody seems to come to D’Souza’s presentations prepared, and that’s a problem.* It is difficult to argue history extemporaneously. You have to be able to point to a source. In D’Souza’s case, you can point to his own sources and show how he has misrepresented them. But nobody does that.

Nobody catches his crooked rhetoric either, like when he sidetracks an important objection to his thesis onto some trivial point. The obvious point that Southern segregationist voters en masse migrated to the GOP — which blasts a giant hole in D’Souza’s thesis — is obfuscated with a trivia-quiz about politicians who supported Strom Thurmond’s third-party presidential campaign in 1948.

Nobody catches the fact that he pretends that there were always only two political parties in US history, and that everyone is either a Democrat or a Republican. He is able to call the Democrats “the party of slavery” because Whigs and Federalists and NPAs do not exist in D’Souza’s narrative. Somebody pointed out that Ulysses S. Grant had owned a slave before he became president. D’Souza’s comeback is that Grant had not yet become a Republican and was therefore a Democrat at the time. While it is true that Grant had not yet become a Republican, I see no indication that he was ever a Democrat; he seems to have had no party-affiliation until he was drafted to run for president. The point is, MANY non-Democrats — like George Washington! — owned slaves, and did so long before the Democratic Party even existed, so that it is not correct to call the Democrats the party of slavery. This should be extremely OBVIOUS.

How does he get away with it?

Somebody has suggested to me that there has been hesitation to take Dinesh D’Souza to task because he is not White. I don’t know.

I have been especially disappointed that Republican talkshow hosts like Rush Limbaugh take no trouble to stifle dangerous nonsense being propagated among the GOP faithful. Limbaugh certainly knows better, because I’ve been sending him information about D’Souza for the past year. Even without such advice, Limbaugh surely knows that the Ku Klux Klan were not “progressives,” but he lets D’Souza get away with that on his show.

In Limbaugh’s case, the profit motive seems to be a corrupting factor, because D’Souza has bought wall-to-wall advertising for his movie on Limbaugh’s show. Last year Limbaugh was touting D’Souza’s book The Big Lie, declaring, “It’s all true!” — but that was before I started sending him information, and maybe back then he didn’t know what he was endorsing, but he knows now, and is doing it anyway.

D’Souza’s material is dangerous to Republicans because it can easily boomerang against them. For example it was Republicans first and foremost who supported eugenic sterilization. It was a Republican Supreme Court justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, who wrote, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” And then there’s the plain fact that D’Souza shows that a significant number of Republicans will believe, or pretend to believe, almost anything. It does not look good.

______________________________
* Here is preparation: Hit Dinesh D’Souza on his Most Vulnerable Points. If you are going to one of D’Souza’s presentations, read that, print it out, and take it with you.

Is David Hogg Trans-Racial?

Hadding — Mon, 02 Apr 2018 02:33:00 +0000

I want to preface by saying that I have doubts about whether David Hogg has actually had rhinoplasty. It could be true or not.

In any case David Hogg is a strange-looking individual. The reason why he looks so strange is that his narrow nose clashes with his extremely broad face.

It is a significant fact about David Hogg that if his nose is broadened, he no longer looks freakish and takes on a familiar ethnic appearance. In the image on the left, his broad nose gives him the distinct appearance of an “Hispanic” with some Negro ancestry. With a broad nose, suddenly his face looks natural!

Hogg’s freakish appearance (in the image on the right) may be only the result of racial mixture, or it may have been aggravated by plastic surgery, which is today extremely common and not at all surprising for someone like David Hogg intending a career in broadcast-journalism.

If we assume that he has not had surgery, the bizarre combination of features on the right, no less than the Hispanic look on the left, indicates that he is of mixed race. When features from different racial types are combined, it creates a strange impression. In physical anthropology such combinations are called disharmonic.

If you look at other members of David Hogg’s family, you can see that they too exhibit indications of non-White ancestry.

It means that neither of the leading anti-gun agitators from Parkland is White.*

Mixed-Race Hispanics David Hogg and Emma Gonzalez.

This is an important point, because pretending to be White is a way to be more persuasive to the White majority.
_____________________
*Of course there might even be more to it than that. Rebecca, David, and Lauren — these are names favored by a certain ethnic group. Every female named Lauren that I have ever encountered was a Jew, and Emma Gonzalez was most likely named after Emma Goldman.

Brief Comments on the new “Reconstruction” of Cheddar Man

Hadding — Sat, 10 Feb 2018 20:25:00 +0000

Cheddar Man is the name given to a complete male human skeleton approximately 9100 years old that was found in southwestern England. It constitutes evidence of what kind of people inhabited Britain in prehistoric times.

In the new reconstruction of Cheddar Man, the eyes are BLUE. The hair is WAVY. These are unmistakable Caucasoid traits.

The features do not contradict this conclusion. The nose is a bit broad, but not Negroid. This is not even the kind of nose that mulatta Meghan Markle had before her plastic surgery.

Note also the lips. Those are not Negroid lips. We are so accustomed to seeing mixed-race people with only fractional Negroid ancestry and calling them “Black” that we sometimes forget how a real full-blooded Negro looks. This is not how a Negro looks.

Look at the jaw. The jaw of a Negro projects forward (prognathism). The jaw on this skull is quite the opposite.

What they’ve done, is that they’ve tried to muddle the race of this person by matting the hair and by assuming a skin-tone that seems quite unlikely in combination with blue eyes. When have you ever seen such a dark-complected person with blue eyes? Most likely never. It would be quite an oddity. We have a right to be skeptical about this.

In any event, these people were not Negroes, because the bone-structure is all wrong, and bone-structure is far more important than pigment in determining race. If you know the bone-structure, you know the race, as these images demonstrate:

The skull of Cheddar Man is consistent with his being Caucasoid. Here is an earlier reconstruction, based on the same skull:

And here is an Englishman, Adrian Targett, whose DNA shows that he is a direct descendant of Cheddar Man (Daily Mail, 7 February 2018):

The face of Cheddar Man is the face of a British peasant, the people that were conquered by the Aryans: first by the Britons, then by the Anglo-Saxons, then by the Normans. It is not an especially attractive face by White standards, but it is a White face.

Jared Taylor’s Censored Videos about Eugenics

Hadding — Mon, 25 Dec 2017 13:12:00 +0000

YouTube has disabled automatic generation of codes for sharing and embedding some of Jared Taylor’s videos, but through Aryan ingenuity I was able to construct the code for Part 2 here.

Taylor correctly emphasizes a point that I have been stating for several years, that Hitler’s decree of 1 September 1939, authorizing physicians to euthanize the incurably ill, had nothing to do with eugenics, and that neither eugenics nor euthanasia had anything to do with anti-Jewish policies:

“The policy against Jews was not a eugenics policy. Nazis considered Jews an enemy people, not genetically inferior.”

That is an important point. Holocaust propaganda has tried to give the impression that there is a slippery slope from eugenic sterilization to euthanasia to gassing Jews, and there is really no connection, even putting aside the fact that no Jews were gassed.

I did not know one fact that Jared Taylor states, which is that Sweden did more with eugenic sterilization, proportionally, than Germany.Why then was there no Holocaust in Sweden?

Dinesh D’Souza admits that Republicans supported Eugenic Sterilization

Hadding — Wed, 13 Dec 2017 00:27:00 +0000

This is a corrected version of the Eugenicist Republican meme.

About a month ago I wrote that I had accused Dinesh D’Souza of relying heavily on half-truths, and that when Dinesh D’Souza challenged me to cite one of his half-truths, I pointed out that he hides the fact that Republicans were the main proponents of eugenic sterilization.

When I pointed that out, he had no response. There was no response that he could give that would even speciously let him off the hook. So he just moved on and ignored the problem.

Subsequently I created a meme, a map of the United States that shows that mostly Republican governors signed eugenic sterilization into law, and I have posted it many times on Twitter, along with other memes indicating other deceptions in Dinesh D’Souza’s argument.

Dinesh D’Souza generally ignores my posts attacking him, of which there have been many. He has responded to two between 9 November and today. In one instance he responded with a hairsplitting rhetorical question that bypassed the real point, and in another instance he responded to a point that was not what I had said, which of course is called strawmanning. This kind of dishonest rhetoric actually seems to work for him with the kinds of stupid people who find the rest of his rhetoric appealing, if likes and retweets are any indication.

This morning (12 December 2017) I made the same point that I made on 9 November, but this time using the meme that I had created, and it was addressed to somebody recommending D’Souza’s book The Big Lie to Bret Baier of Fox News. There was a good chance that Bret Baier would see my post.

That’s why, I think, Dinesh D’Souza finally felt obliged to respond to the point that he had ignored one month earlier. This time, amazingly, he admitted that Republicans had supported eugenic sterilization. He still tries to downplay it, but that’s not going to be very convincing when there was already a graphic display in the same thread showing that the overwhelming majority governors who signed eugenic sterilization into law were Republicans.

Since Dinesh D’Souza also claims in his response that progressives supported “eugenic murder,” I posted proof that he had lied about this, a page from Paul Popenoe’s book Applied Eugenics (1918) wherein Popenoe says that the “lethal chamber” and castration are not necessary for eugenics. Dinesh D’Souza has been claiming that Popenoe advocated the use of “lethal chambers” and thereby, D’Souza says, pointed the way for the Holocaust. This lie linking Popenoe to the Holocaust is important, given the subtitle of D’Souza’s book: Exposing the nazi roots of the American left.

The last post on that thread (as of this writing) is by a leftist (whose motives for attacking Dinesh D’Souza are probably different from mine). He supplies a video by Rachel Maddow that talks about the Republican involvement in curbing “diverse” immigration, and the eugenic argument that was used to justify this change in policy.

The information given about the history of the Republican involvement in eugenic sterilization and immigration-restriction is, I believe, mostly correct.

The assertion that eugenic sterilization has anything to do with killing people is, however, false: it’s Jewish Holocaust propaganda. You will recall that Dinesh D’Souza made the same assertion, and that I showed the page from Paul Popenoe’s book Applied Eugenics where Popenoe said that eugenics required neither killing nor castration.

Anti-Trump Violence and the Reichstag Fire

Hadding — Sat, 17 Jun 2017 05:09:00 +0000

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.

What Would Hitler Do? – Radical Agenda, 16 June 2017

Anti-Trump Violence and the Reichstag Fire

Hadding Scott

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.

Causes of Communist Unrest

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.

High-Functioning Subversives

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.

James T. Hodgkinson

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.

What Should Be Done

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.

A National-Socialist Response to Terrorism at Hip-Hop Concerts

Hadding — Sat, 10 Jun 2017 01:27:00 +0000

The audio has a couple of glitches in it. Where I seem to say “infinitely escalating morality,” the word is actually immorality.

After this program, I learned that Ariana Grande was not born a mulatta, but underwent plastic surgery so that she would appear part-Negro.

How sick is that? Young women in show-business now undergo surgery to make themselves negroidally ugly — to improve their career.

I slightly overstated Rush Limbaugh’s skepticism toward the accusation against Assad in 2013. What Limbaugh said on 3 September 2013 was that it would have made no sense for Assad to use poison gas and that the so-called rebels could have done it. Here is the transcript.

The video from which this audio was taken can be viewed here.

Don’t Celebrate Too Much Yet

Hadding — Thu, 10 Nov 2016 17:52:00 +0000

The election of Donald Trump as President of the United States represents a temporary reprieve for the United States of America as a majority-White country. It could become much more than that, but it is not yet evident that it will.

While Trump represents a move in the right direction, he has given no indication that he will take adequate measures to deal with the biggest fundamental problems in the United States:

demographic shift;
the embedded anti-White elite.

Trump talks about keeping illegal aliens out entirely, and has mentioned deportation, with priority given to those who commit crimes beyond simply being here illegally.

Of course the government should be doing this! How did this ever become controversial?

However, if President Trump deports every illegal alien and prevents all further illegal immigration, that will not be enough to preserve the White majority in the United States for very long.

In the first place, as Ann Coulter has been saying, legal immigration is an even bigger problem than illegal immigration, but Trump has not proposed to curb that.

Apart from any question of immigration, there is the differential birthrate between the non-White and White populations. There is no way for the government to address this problem without taking actions that would presently be considered unconstitutional.

The hour is very late, in regard to this demographic problem in the United States. The direness of the situation is reflected in the fact that Trump (according to current widely acknowledged figures) lost the popular vote and won only through the quirks of the Electoral College, due to the fact that Hispanic populations are concentrated in a few states and not evenly distributed like the White majority.

Of course it will be a disaster even for many non-Whites in the United States if Whites cease to be the majority. Rush Limbaugh refers to the White population as “the people who make the country work.” We can only hope that Trump, or somebody, will recognize the compelling need to preserve a White majority, and find a way, despite restrictions of the Constitution as currently interpreted, to preserve the country’s future.

The fact that there are already anti-White tantrums against Trump’s election is a hopeful sign. It was similar leftist tantrums in Germany (the Reichstag Fire being one manifestation) that facilitated Hitler’s assumption of emergency powers so that he could do what needed to be done. Let that anti-White rabble keep up its disturbances. Let them become more and more outrageous. There is hope for us in their irrational behavior.

Meanwhile you will see the anti-White elite and their lackeys like George Will scream bloody murder if Trump even presses the limits of executive power as much as Obama has done already. George Will explicitly stated this position immediately after the election, in anticipation of Trump’s not behaving like a typical Republican.

On the bright side, even before he won the election, Trump’s candidacy was very educational for the American public, in terms of shifting the range of acceptable public discourse, and bringing hidden problems to the surface.

Most notably there is the conflict between the interests of the White majority and the “Neoconservative” Jews like Krauthammer and Kristol, and crypto-leftists like George Will and the Bush family, who had embedded themselves in the Republican Party and hobbled its potential for representing White interests. Such infiltrators are now widely recognized as enemies of the White majority because of their reaction to Trump.

This lesson needs to be kept in mind, because just as they tried to prevent Trump’s election, they will now try to prevent Trump from making any significant permanent changes to stop the country’s decline. Their attempts to make nice and to pretend once again that they are really on our side of course should be rejected.

For the country’s survival, these people really should be removed from the body politic, “as a physician would purge a bacillus,” in the words of Mussolini. But it seems highly unlikely that Trump will do any such thing, as long as these subversives cannot be shown to have committed any statutory crime.

Trump’s enemies have called him a “racist autocrat” but that seems to represent what those anti-White subversives fear and expect, rather than Trump’s actual positions. We can hope that he will grow in that regard.

Meanwhile, the greatest good accomplished by the election of Donald Trump may be outside the United States. Of course it will be good for Russia and Syria if the USA ceases its saber-rattling and covert support for religious lunatics, but it also happens to be the case that US influence operates behind the scenes in the politics of Western Europe, especially Germany. It was US pressure that induced Germany to begin reparations payments to the State of Israel, and later to import unnecessary Turkish guestworkers. It is a good bet that behind-the-scenes manipulation has something to do with the current flood of non-White immigrants in Germany, and especially the inviting hospitality of “Mama Merkel.” Trump’s election will give Europe the possibility of taking necessary actions to recover from this.

In regard to the United States however, if Trump does not greatly alter the country’s demographic decline, it seems practically inevitable that he will be succeeded, before long, one way or another, by a real autocrat.

DEVO, Lothrop Stoddard, and a Suggestion for Video-Editing

Hadding — Fri, 16 Sep 2016 19:18:00 +0000

DEVO is an interesting band, especially in their first recordings, which were the culmination of years of laboring in obscurity in the cultural wasteland (as M. Mothersbaugh calls it) of Akron, Ohio, against the dominant cultural trends of the 1970s. While the liberal view was that society was getting better and better, DEVO’s view was that society was getting worse and worse.

What makes DEVO particularly interesting from a national-socialist perspective is the incorporation of Lothrop Stoddard’s theory of the under-man in their songs. Stoddard offered an explanation for why society might be getting worse and worse. In his book, The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under-Man (1922), Stoddard argued that civilization was endangered precisely by de-evolution (whence DEVO gets its name). The ease of civilized life made it possible for degenerates and throwbacks to survive and multiply within civilization, and ultimately, when they became too numerous, to destroy the civilization that had enabled them to survive. The Bolshevik takeover in Russia was, in Stoddard’s view, a result of this process. National-Socialist use of the word Untermensch reflects Stoddard’s influence in Germany.

The song chosen for the A-side of DEVO’s first single, “Mongoloid” (1976), portrays the undetected persistence of cognitively impaired genetic defectives within our society:

Mongoloid, he was a mongoloid,
Happier than you and me;
Mongoloid, he was a mongoloid,
And it determined what he could see.

And he wore a hat,
And he had a job,
And he brought home the bacon,
So that no one knew.

The only absurdity in the song is the premise that a sufferer of Down’s syndrome (a “mongoloid” in older terminology) could go undetected. This is a comic exaggeration of the real problem that Stoddard identified.

The flipside to “Mongoloid” was “Jocko Homo,” which mocks the perspective of someone who denies evolution — and, by implication, de-evolution. The song’s title is copied from a 1925 anti-evolutionary tract by Christian apologist B.H. Shadduck, Ph.D.

The lyrics alternate between denying and admitting de-evolution. The rhetorical question “Are we not men?” really means: are we not all equal and worthy insofar as we are all classified as “men”? The answer to the question however is: “We are DEVO.” — in other words, products of degeneration. “We’re pinheads all.”

The cover of DEVO’s first album, Q: Are We Not Men? features what used to be known in common parlance as a pinhead (microcephalic individual). If you look carefully, you can see that the misshapen head on the cover is stamped “ACTUAL SIZE.”

Gradual loss of cranial capacity within White populations was an early concern of racial hygienists. Once again, DEVO presents the problem in an exaggerated form. The representation of a man with a tiny cranium wearing a polo-shirt and a fedora implies, again as in the case of the “Mongoloid,” that this seriously defective individual is passing for normal and achieving some degree of social success — and seriously threatening the whole population and social structure through an insidious infiltration of hereditary unintelligence.

The spectacle of mentally deficient people prospering and multiplying was likely part of DEVO’s firsthand experience from living in an industrial town like Akron, where, typically, there are simple and repetitive factory-jobs that allow even a moron to prosper, if he is only reliable and obedient. This is not to say that everyone who does such work is a moron, but a moron can be successful in these niches — with disastrous longterm consequences for the general population. That is what the A and B-sides of DEVO’s first single, and the cover of their first album, represent.

DEVO was sometimes described as the band that showed that “fascism” could be fun, which probably meant that Jews caught the references in DEVO’s lyrics but managed to convince themselves that the band could not possibly have been serious.

Now, if DEVO had been clearly serious about all this, they could not have had much of a career. They would not have been allowed their crucial appearance on Saturday Night Live in 1978, and other important breaks.

Gerald Casale, DEVO’s keyboardist, said that DEVO deliberately went against the currently prevailing cultural norms:

“We were doing something that looked wrong, sounded wrong, and we talked about things that no one was talking about.”

From that explanation, one might suppose that writing songs about the effect of dysgenic breeding was just for shock or novelty. If DEVO wanted to say something antithetical to the dominant trends of the 1970s, they picked the right thing, and even if they did not really mean it, nonetheless, as Chaucer said: “Many a true word is spoken in jest.”

After the beginning of commercial success, the theme of de-evolution seems to have receded from its early prominence in DEVO’s work.

The song “Beautiful World” (1981) is quite good and has some fine ironic lyrics about how the world is not progressing but deteriorating. That in itself is already an anti-leftist attitude. The song also calls attention to conflicting interests:

It’s a beautiful world for you, for you,
Not for me.

The assumption that conflict is inherent in life is fundamental to nationalism and antithetical to globalism. The conflict here is between a high-quality population with high standards (represented by the singer in his quasi-fascist uniform) and low-quality populations with low standards (to whom the song might be addressed).

The song’s official video begins with genuine images of beauty from nature, followed by images of a beautiful, futuristic White world — but then a decline into ugliness begins. The first hint of the decline into ugliness is the scattered appearance of some non-White faces followed by lewd dancing — but different people will interpret this different ways. The decline into ugliness becomes unambiguous, however, with a scene of a German soldier (from the First World War) lobbing a grenade, as if the appearance of some non-White persons had caused Whites themselves to descend into savagery (an interpretation consistent with some statements of C.G. Jung), but again, not everyone will make that interpretation. It seems that the meaning of the video was deliberately left ambiguous.

After the descent into ugliness has clearly begun, we see among other things, a stereotypical image of a bawling African Negro child. We are allowed to think that what’s really wrong with the world is man’s inhumanity to man, including the fact that poor little African children are allowed to starve. This is hackneyed claptrap for leftists, and a contradiction of DEVO’s fundamental message.

What is really wrong with the world, of course, is that somebody not only fed that African Negro child without preventing his further multiplication, but even enabled him to immigrate to the White world, destroying the possibilities for a White future such as that shown at the beginning of the video. We, as White people, are not going to be able to preserve ourselves with this kind of indiscriminate generosity.

What I propose is that someone with some video-editing chops make an updated version of DEVO’s “Beautiful World” video. First, choose a different scene for the transition into ugliness. Instead of a German soldier, show some significant anti-White event. Cut out the starving African child and the absurd footage that conveys absolutely nothing, and put in scenes of non-White violence, some Black Lives Matter, and scenes of non-White immigration, with applauding and rejoicing Obamas, Hillaries, and Merkels, and Jewish fatcats. I recommend using clips from something like this footage of naive little 14-year-old Haydyn Wilson being attacked by five Negroes in, of all places, Australia:

See, it’s a “beautiful world” for these Negroes, since they are enjoying the benefits of White civilization, but not for Haydyn Wilson, who has to endure their presence.

Colin Flaherty I think has tons of this stuff, but it’s important to get in the Jewish and White-traitor angle too. It’s a beautiful world for them.

That would clarify in DEVO’s “Beautiful World” what may have been its originally intended meaning, which commercial considerations did not allow to be clearly expressed.