Essays – National-Socialist Worldview

The Democratic Republic is Moribund

Hadding — Sun, 02 Feb 2020 18:41:00 +0000

The real “cradle of democracy” of course was Athens, Greece. That’s where it was invented. The judgment of educated Greeks about their democracy was not very positive. Alcibiades said, “Democracy is acknowledged folly.” Plato’s philosophy is largely about what a bad system democracy is. The best period of the Athenian democracy was under the reign of Pericles, when Athens was a de facto dictatorship and a democracy in name only. Even under the best circumstances democracy tends to be something other than the rule of the people — the rule of the rich, or of otherwise influential individuals.

Democracy presupposes that there is such a thing as the will of the people, which in turn presupposes that there is just one people participating in the elections, or at least one clearly dominant people, whose dominance is not in question. In the USA now there are several peoples — the Whites, the Blacks, the Hispanics, and and artificial groups like the Gays — and these factions are at odds with each other. There is no such thing as the will of the people in the USA, because it is not one people.

Elements of this situation, especially the adversarial attitude of non-White minorities toward Whites, came about because Jews wanted it and orchestrated it (e.g. the Black-Jewish alliance), but not to be overlooked is the role of greedy capitalists seeking cheap labor. Rush Limbaugh complained recently that many Republicans do not regard illegal immigration as a problem but as an opportunity. Unquestionably such greedy opportunists have contributed enormously to our troubles.

Because the process always leaves one faction or another deeply dissatisfied, there are accusations that the process itself is corrupt, and these accusations are becoming more and more consequential. There were accusations in 1960 that John F. Kennedy beat Richard Nixon through electoral corruption but there was not much consequence because the differences between Nixon and Kennedy were not radical. The future of the country did not seem to hinge on whether Kennedy or Nixon was elected. At the time of the “hanging chads” controversy in 2000, the difference between the two candidates, Al Gore and George W. Bush, was still not enormous. There was grumbling about whether Bush had been properly elected but his right to the presidency was not seriously challenged. Today it is generally recognized that the future of the country, and which faction will hold the power and use it against the others, is at stake, and because of that any hint of corruption in the process, or any excuse at all, is grasped as a weapon to invalidate or otherwise negate the process.

With this loss of faith in the process also comes real electoral corruption, as in a couple of the Republican primaries in 2012 where it seems that Ron Paul, a challenger to the bipartisan support of Zionist wars, may have been cheated out of some delegates. When people already do not have faith in the process, corruption becomes business as usual. In that case, why preserve such a system? This system of government in the USA is doomed.

One way or another, dictatorship is in the USA’s future.

German Rocket-Scientists Not Getting Their Due

Hadding — Tue, 23 Jul 2019 21:30:00 +0000

Eugene Cagle, NASA’s engineering manager for the Saturn rocket program, regarded the role of Wernher von Braun in the American space program as crucial:

“(Von Braun) was the main player in all the work that went on. We might have been successful (without him), but not in the ’60s. He was a great leader.” (V. Whitman, Times Daily, 20 July 1999)

How strange it is, then, that on the fiftieth anniversary of the first landing of Americans on the Moon, we have heard so much about the astronauts but very little about Wernher von Braun and his team of rocket-scientists from Germany – and that what we do hear about the German rocket-scientists today is largely negative.

Cagle’s assessment is clearly correct. In the early 1950s the United States had two rocket programs, one run by the Army, which had the Germans, and one run by the Navy, which was plagued with failures. When the National Aeronautics and Space Administration was formed, it was built mainly around the team of Germans brought to the United States after the Second World War. We can safely conclude, therefore, that without Wernher von Braun and his team, there would have been many more failed rockets, and perhaps there would never have been a NASA.

As with some other big ideas, the idea of traveling to the Moon was a German elaboration of a French inspiration. Jules Verne’s novel of 1865, De la Terre à la Lune,contained insights like the fact that Florida would be a good location for launches, but it was Hermann Oberth in the early 20^thcentury who made the physical calculations of how acceleration out of the Earth’s gravitational pull and into outer space might be possible. Fritz Lang’s movie about a voyage to the Moon, die Frau im Mond (1921), and Oberth’s book die Rakete in den Planetenräumen(1923), inspired a schoolboy named Wernher von Braun to learn the mathematics and the physics involved so that he himself might one day travel into outer space.

Read more.

White Nationalists are Innocent of this Crime!

Hadding — Sat, 13 Apr 2019 01:14:00 +0000

The main exhibit in the House Judiciary Committee’s recent hearing on “Hate-Crimes and the Rise of White Nationalism” (9 April 2019) had nothing to do with either hate-crimes (so-called) or White Nationalism.

The supposed hate-crime was in fact committed by a hotheaded anti-racist enraged about his Muslim neighbors’ repeatedly and incorrigibly violating his parking space over a long period.

The perpetrator, Craig Stephen Hicks, was not charged by Obama’s justice department with “hate-crimes” and also escaped the death-penalty for his three execution-style first-degree murders.

Dr. Abu-Salha says that he and his family are firmly convinced that Craig Stephen Hicks murdered his two daughters and son-in-law “because of bigotry and hate.”

On that basis, his moving testimony about this crime from four years ago might have a place in this hearing about “Hate Crimes and the Rise of White Nationalism.” But the evidence for the murderer’s motive that Dr. Abu-Salha offers is extremely thin. It is unverifiable hearsay from one of his daughters that Mr. Hicks had said that he hated the way she looked and dressed.

It was a reasonable hypothesis that this triple murder might have been caused by anti-Muslim bias.

However, in an article for The Occidental Observer that I wrote shortly after this crime occurred, I noted some strong indications that murderer’s motive was NOT RACIAL.

Yahoo News reported that Craig Stephen Hicks’ Facebook page indicated that he was a fan of the Southern Poverty Law Center. He was a proponent of RACIAL EQUALITY.

Craig Stephen Hicks’ motive for this crime was clearly not racial.

I accepted the possibility, however, that Hicks might have been stoked to violence by Zionist War on Terror propaganda. There was widespread speculation that this crime was meant as revenge for the killing of some Americans by ISIS, or for the Charlie Hebdo massacre that happened in the month before this triple murder. There was a lot of anti-Muslim rhetoric in Republican talk-radio at the time.

That was a credible hypothesis, but it does not seem that Hicks had any particular dislike of Muslims. He was a militant atheist who despised all religion, but he despised Christianity more.

The finding of the investigations by the local police and the FBI was that these killings were the result of a running dispute over parking-spaces. It was Obama’s FBI and Obama’s Justice Department that made that finding. If there had been evidence to support making hate-crime charges, you know that they would have done it.

That is why Craig Stephen Hicks was charged only with first-degree murder and unlawful discharge of a firearm in a dwelling. No hate-crime charges were brought because there was not sufficient evidence to support such charges. This was Barack Obama’s FBI and Justice Department. If there had been evidence to justify filing hate-crime charges, you know that they would have done it.

So, why was Mohammad Abu-Salha invited to give testimony in a hearing about “Hate Crimes and the Rise of White Nationalism” when his family’s misfortune had nothing to do with any kind of anti-Muslim bias, much less with White Nationalism?

Why this spurious example like this chosen to represent hate-crimes? Obviously because of the superficial points of resemblance to the Christchurch incident a few weeks earlier, which served as the excuse for this inquisition.

Abraham Lincoln was a White Nationalist!

Hadding — Sat, 06 Apr 2019 11:46:00 +0000

This is a response to Dinesh D’Souza’s silly pretense that Abraham Lincoln was a goody two-shoes according to the standards that leftist Jews have established for us in recent decades, and therefore, necessarily, not at all racist.

Of course Lincoln was racist! He regarded slavery as immoral but he urgently wanted the freed Blacks to leave the country, and he never changed his mind about that.

More specifically, it is a response to the Insolent Immigrant’s recent statements on Fox News that we should be “American Nationalists” like Lincoln instead of White Nationalists. An “American Nationalist like Lincoln” is a White Nationalist! Lincoln certainly did not want a multiracial society!

D’Souza says that Lincoln was an “American Nationalist” instead of a White Nationalist, but they would have been practically interchangeable terms during Lincoln’s lifetime.

It is 45 seconds long, for posting on Twitter.

Twitter Expands Censorship after Synagogue-Shooting; Gab Still Essentially Free Despite Pressure

Hadding — Fri, 09 Nov 2018 16:15:00 +0000

Warning: this discussion includes some crude language.

You may recall that Dylann Roof’s utterly pointless shooting-spree in a Negro church spurred a holy crusade to abolish everything that would betoken a negative thought or attitude about Blacks, including Confederate symbols. That movement seems to have established Twitter’s standards regarding acceptability of content.

Twitter’s censors, however, do not honestly state what they are doing. They do not say that they are trying to abolish all negative thoughts and attitudes toward Blacks. Instead they falsely characterize a mere statement of fact or opinion, if it happens to be unflattering to Blacks, as harassing, threatening, or promoting violence.

A mere statement of fact, if it happens to be unflattering to the Negro race, is deemed by Twitter’s small-brained censors to be a call for violence.

Previously, this kind of censorship on Twitter seemed to happen only in regard to generalizations about Blacks, not about Jews. This is why the completely mild-mannered “race-realist” Jared Taylor, who avoids talking about Jews, was banned from Twitter some months ago, while paradoxically people like me who “deny the Holocaust” were allowed.

In the aftermath of the Pittsburgh synagogue-shooting, it seems that Twitter has decided that disputing the Holocaust is no longer acceptable, probably based on the same premise, that criticizing a group is the same as advocating violence against that group. This logic comes from Deborah Lipstadt: if you defend the Germans, you are really attacking the Jews, because defending the Germans involves calling some Jews liars. If this attitude is accepted, the net effect is that Germans and White people in general are obliged to accept abuse without responding.

It is certainly true that accusations can lead to violence. The Holocaust itself is an old piece of war-propaganda that is resurrected whenever a new war is to be justified. Unapproved leader X gasses his own people! Unapproved leader X must be destroyed!

Similarly, the completely unfounded inflammatory propaganda that mass-media aired following the Trayvon Martin incident, and also after the shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri, caused incidents of violence against White people and police. (I go into some detail about that here.) But there was no movement saying that criticisms of White people and police must stop. At least, I have not heard about it, and Twitter is clearly not influenced by any such movement.

I wonder when Twitter will decide that criticizing President Trump is the same as advocating violence against President Trump. I won’t hold my breath waiting for that.

Hadding Interviewed on Eurofolk Radio

Hadding — Mon, 02 Oct 2017 00:11:00 +0000

On 25 September 2017 I was interviewed by Ted Midward. It was a live show, wherein I did not know what I was going to be asked. Topics included the Alt Right (which I was a little hesitant to discuss), Holocaust Revisionism, and Hitler’s alleged mistakes.

You can hear the show here.

The Holocaustian Propaganda-Campaign Against Bashar al-Assad

Hadding — Mon, 03 Jul 2017 12:57:00 +0000

The Holocaustian establishment, especially the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, has been heavily involved and highly influential in the campaign of warmongering against the legitimate government of Syria, imparting spurious credibility and moral force to accusations and characterizations that cannot withstand scrutiny. Read more.

Public Healthcare and Forced Eugenic Sterilization

Hadding — Sat, 24 Jun 2017 15:32:00 +0000

The entire program in which this segment was originally heard is here.

What Would Hitler Do? – Radical Agenda, 23 June 2017

Socialized Medicine and Racial Hygiene

Hadding Scott

Nationalized healthcare has been in the news recently. I am going to talk about aspects of the National-Socialist approach to this.

Socialized medicine in Germany had its beginnings under Bismarck in 1883.

An important impetus to socialized medicine, and to socialism in general, was German militarism. It was observed by Gustave Le Bon in his Psychology of Socialism that the military is in effect a socialist institution, and that men who serve in the military become habituated to socialism.

Bismarck had another motive for creating Germany’s welfare-state, which was to take the wind out of the sails of the Marxists.

Bismarck’s system of compulsory health-insurance became the model for socialized medicine in other countries.

Much of Adolf Hitler’s agenda consisted of doing the same as Bismarck but more of it. That was the case also with socialized healthcare.

It should not be surprising that a racial state would have socialized medicine, since such a state is strongly concerned with the hereditary constitution and quality of its people. Such a state has an interest in what kind of person you marry and how many children you have. Preferably you should produce children without any outlandish racial mixture and without hereditary defects, because the future of the whole society is affected by this.

There are some possible objections to socialized medicine, however, apart from the general objection to socialized everything. These objections are really objections to healthcare per se.

One objection, that Americans are mostly afraid to state, is that non-Whites might benefit more than Whites from free healthcare. This consideration is a source of White opposition to all sorts of public amenities.

In Germany that was not a problem.

Another objection, especially in the United States, is a general distrust of government, and a tendency to assume that anyone who has any dealings with the government is using it to pad his own pockets at public expense.

This problem also does not exist in Germany. German civil servants are known for being efficient and conscientious.

The main criticism of healthcare in Germany was that it aided the survival of the unfit, since the unfit will have the greatest need of healthcare, while congenitally healthy people will have relatively little need of it.

In the introduction to the 1895 book in which he coined the term racial hygiene, Alfred Ploetz, a Social-Democrat who 42 years later joined the NSDAP, stated some objections to healthcare. This is an excerpt.

At first glance one could suppose that the conditions for the prosperity of a race were the same as the conditions for the prosperity of every single member of it, that the care for the health of the race and the customary healthcare of the individual were one and the same. This is not the case however without something further, and there are excellent researchers who even want to acknowledge a deep conflict between modern healthcare and racial well-being.

[…]

Actually the demand of most Darwinians entails that the struggle for existence must be maintained within human society….

Let the words of Darwin himself suffice:

“As every other beast, man has without doubt reached his present exalted state through a struggle for survival as a consequence of his rapid multiplication, and if he shall progress even higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle.”

In any case it is apparent from the remarks of these men, including even the mild-mannered Darwin, that the view that the wellbeing of our race would be best attained through the improvement of living conditions for all individuals, is certainly not universally accepted.

Therefrom follows the necessity to balance the concept of healthcare in the usual sense, individual hygiene, with another concept, that of the hygiene of a human collectivity. Thus one could speak of the hygiene of a nation, of a race in the narrower sense, or of the entire human race.

Ploetz indicates that the ancient Pagan Germans practiced a kind of racial hygiene:

The idea of racial refinement lay also at least partly at the base of the custom of the ancient Germans, to allow the father to kill feeble, ugly, or otherwise displeasing newborns.

Ploetz blames Christianity and democracy for the sidelining of racial hygiene, but in the intellectual elite of late-nineteenth-century Germany, whose thinking is not governed by Christianity, the idea has returned:

Christianity and modern democracy with their doctrine and demands of equality have so diminished the sense of race in the masses that the conflict between humanitarian socialist demands and racial wellbeing indeed no longer penetrates their consciousness. In the masses, I say.

In the small circle of leaders and researchers, through the advent of Darwin and the political advance of Social Democracy, the racial interest has become very vital again, and the sword-blows of great and small knights of the mind rattle merrily through the springtime air of modern science.

As a socialist informed by Darwinism, Ploetz advocates that the state assist the individual, but at the same time that the state should balance this with racial hygiene.

Ploetz advocates measures not only to prevention of racial deterioration, but improvement of the race:

The escalation of our brain-talents is the most necessary condition that we know for an improvement of our conditions of happiness.

Eugenic laws started in the United States. In 1896, Connecticut enacted a law forbidding the marriage of any person who is “epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded.”

Since a ban on marriage did not prevent the “imbecile or feeble-minded” from reproducing, the logical next step had to be forced sterilization of people whose reproduction was undesirable. In 1907 the American state of Indiana became the first state to have a eugenic sterilization law.

Although 30 states adopted eugenic sterilization laws, the actual implementation of eugenic sterilization in the United States was limited because of lawsuits.

In Germany, with Hitler as the autocratic ruler, eugenic sterilization could be implemented on a grand scale. There were however safeguards to make sure that it was not done without justification. Lothrop Stoddard visited Germany in 1940 and reported on what he saw.

From Lothrop Stoddard, Into the Darkness:

As the Nazis saw it, they had a two-fold task: to increase both the size and the quality of the population. Indiscriminate incentives to big families would result largely in more criminals and morons. So they coupled their encouragements to sound citizens with a drastic curb on the defective elements. That curb was the Sterilization Law.

The object of the statute is set forth in its official title: An Act for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring. The grounds for sterilization are specifically enumerated. They are: (1) Congenital Mental Deficiency; (2) Schizophrenia, or split personality; (3)Manic-Depressive Insanity; (4) Inherited Epilepsy; (5) Inherited (Huntington’s) Chorea; (6) Inherited Blindness; (7) Inherited Deafness; (8) Any grave physical defect that has been inherited; (9) Chronic alcoholism, when this has been scientifically determined to be symptomatic of psychological abnormality.

It should be understood that all these defects and diseases have been proven to be hereditary by scientists throughout the world. It was estimated that at least 400,000 persons in Germany were known to be subjects for sterilization. But the law specifically forbids sterilization for any non-hereditary cause. Even mentally diseased persons, habitual criminals, and ordinary alcoholics cannot be sterilized [if it is not shown to be hereditary].

Each case up for sterilization must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before special district courts, and appeals from their verdict can be taken, first to a regional court of appeals, and ultimately to the High Appellate Court sitting in Berlin.

Such are the provisions of the Sterilization Law. So many charges have been made outside Germany that it is being used to sterilize politically undesirable persons that I particularly welcomed the opportunity to study at first-hand the High Court’s proceedings.

[…]

Germany’s Eugenic Supreme Court sits in an impressive building at Charlottenburg, one of Berlin’s western suburbs. I arrived just as court was opening. On the bench sat a regular judge in cap and gown. At his right was the celebrated psychopathologist, Professor Zutt, a typical savant with mild blue eyes and a Vandyke beard. At the judge’s left was a keen-eyed younger man who was a specialist in criminal psychology and beside whom I sat during the proceedings. All three courteously explained points to me at frequent intervals.

Since this was the court of last resort, all matters came up to it on appeal from lower courts, and thus tended to be “hairline” cases.

The thing that struck me most was the meticulous care with which these cases had already been considered by the lower tribunals. The dossier of each case was voluminous, containing a complete life-history of the subject, reports of specialists and clinics, and also exhaustive researches into the subject’s family history. In reaching its decision, the High Court not only consulted the records of the case but also personally examined the living subjects themselves.

The first case I saw looked like an excellent candidate for sterilization. A man in his mid-thirties, he was rather ape-like in appearance — receding forehead, flat nose with flaring nostrils, thick lips, and heavy prognathous jaw. Not vicious-looking, but gross and rather dull. His life-history was mildly anti-social — several convictions for minor thefts and one for a homosexual affair with another boy when a lad. In early manhood he had married a Jewess by whom he had three children, none of whom had showed up too well. […] He was now seeking to marry a woman who had already been sterilized as a moron. The law forbids a non-sterilized individual to marry a sterilized person; so he was more than willing to be also sterilized. The lower court recommended sterilization.

All three members of the High Court interrogated the man at length. Questions disclosed the fact that he conducted a newspaper delivery route in the suburbs, that he was able to run this simple business satisfactorily, and that he answered the Court’s queries with a fair degree of intelligence. The Court concluded that sterilization had not been proven mandatory and sent back the case for further investigation.

Case Two was obviously unbalanced mentally, though not an asylum case. Swinging a cane like a fine gentleman, he entered Court with an “air,” which went incongruously with his shabby-genteel clothes and the battered felt hat tucked under his left arm. There was no doubt that he should be sterilized. The lower courts had decided he was either a schizophrenic or a manic-depressive, and both defects came under the law. But which of the two it was had to be clearly determined before the operation could be legally performed…. The Court inclined to think him a manic-depressive, but they also detected schizophrenic symptoms. Since they were not absolutely sure, the case was remanded for further clinical investigation.

Case Three was an eighteen-year-old girl. A deaf-mute, she talked through an interpreter. She was obviously not feeble-minded, but had a poor family record. The parents, who also appeared, were most unprepossessing. Her case had first come before the lower court two years ago. It then decided against sterilization because no hereditary deafness was shown in the family record. Recently it had recommended sterilization because several unfortunate hereditary factors in the family had been disclosed by further investigation. The High Court ordered the girl sent to a clinic for observation. It also ordered more research into the family record.

Case Four was a seventeen-year-old girl. The issue was feeble-mindedness. She certainly looked feebleminded as she sat below the bench, hunched in a chair, with dull features and lackluster eyes. Left an orphan at an early age, she had had a haphazard upbringing. The record showed her to have been always shy, backward, and unable to keep up with normal schooling.

[…]

The members of the High Court examined this poor waif carefully and with kindly patience. She had no knowledge of or interest in even the most elementary current events. For instance, she barely knew there was a war going on. But the psychologist discovered that she was able to make change for small customers’ bills in her restaurant and that she could perform other duties of her humble job. So the Court finally concluded that, despite her most unprepossessing appearance and her simple, childlike mind, she was not a moron within the meaning of the law and therefore should not be sterilized.

There were other cases that day, all conducted in the same painstaking, methodical fashion. I came away convinced that the law was being administered with strict regard for its provisions and that, if anything, judgments were almost too conservative. On the evidence of that one visit, at least, the Sterilization Law is weeding out the worst strains in the Germanic stock in a scientific and truly humanitarian way.

That is excerpted from Lothrop Stoddard’s book Into the Darkness (1940). Stoddard then discusses the measures whereby the National-Socialists have succeeded in dramatically increasing Germany’s birthrate.

So, What Would Hitler Do?

In a state like pre-1945 Germany, without large unassimilated and unassimilable racial minorities, of course Hitler would go all out with socialized medicine, but also introduce eugenic sterilization to ensure that the hereditary quality of the nation does not deteriorate as a consequence.

Our case in the United States however is different. We have those large unassimilated and unassimilable minorities, and a very weak sense of community because of it.

In a state that has a large unassimilated racial minority, Hitler I believe would try to solve that problem before expanding services to the people.

After that, it might be possible to increase public-spiritedness and reduce mutual distrust so that the presumption of waste and corruption in government will disappear.

Then, finally, the groundwork might be laid for socialized medicine to function well in the United States.

Why the Greatest Generation fought the Second World War!

Hadding — Mon, 20 Mar 2017 01:38:00 +0000

Of course, these were not the reasons that were stated at the time.

The USHMM’s Fatwa against Richard Spencer

Hadding — Wed, 23 Nov 2016 19:48:00 +0000

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on Monday issued a poorly informed but nonetheless inflammatory statement about the speech that Richard Spencer had read to his organization, the National Policy Institute, on Saturday. The result was that on Tuesday Spencer’s Jewish neighbor, an editor of Politico, posted Spencer’s home-addresses on Twitter and urged violence against him. Read more about it from CODOH.