National-Socialist Worldview

Jewish Influence caused the Death of George Floyd as well as the Violent Reaction that Followed

Hadding — Tue, 02 Jun 2020 13:16:00 +0000

Knee-on-the-neck is a standard technique used by the Minneapolis Police Department. According to NBC News, Minneapolis police have used that technique and variants thereof at least 200 times since 2015. They got it from the Israelis.

Police attended an Israeli “counter-terrorism training conference” in Minneapolis in 2012. (J. Collins, MPR News, 26 June 2012).

Ultimately it will have to be admitted that Derek Chauvin did what he was trained to do, and, to the extent that George Floyd was not the cause of his own death, Israeli training of American police will be exposed as the problem. Chauvin at present is being scapegoated. A civil suit against the Minneapolis PD would make more sense than a criminal prosecution of Chauvin.

Even then, the fact that George Floyd was a drug-abuser (high on fentanyl* at the time of his death) and had a bad heart should be a mitigating factor. Anybody with such problems can die in a stressful situation. If you can’t take stress then don’t do crimes.

But the biggest humbug in all of this is that it was “racist.” It was not. The Vice-President of the United States, Mike Pence, reveals himself as an idiot (in case there was any doubt) by giving credence to this accusation.

In fact, with his uncritical admiration for the State of Israel, Pence himself is part of the problem that he rushed to condemn.

In this situation we are experiencing what some call a kosher sandwich. It means that Jewish influence is fundamental on both sides of the problem.

Jewish-controlled mass-media have taught Americans to have a high regard for the State of Israel. As a ramification of this, many American police departments have accepted training in heavyhanded Israeli police techniques, such as restraining a suspect with a knee on the neck.

On the other hand, Jewish-controlled mass-media also agitate against “White racism.” Their default interpretation of any misadventure of a Black criminal (Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown) is “White racism.” When they do this, a general reaction against White people (by non-Whites and by some do-gooder Whites) is the result.

How can the standard procedures of the Minneapolis Police Department represent White racism when the chief of the Minneapolis Police Department is Black, and at least half of the officers involved in the arrest of George Floyd, Tou Thao (Vietnamese) and Alexander Kueng (apparently of mixed race), are not White?

Black criminality — based on hereditary aggressiveness, low intelligence, and poor self-control — is the main reason why Blacks disproportionately go to prison and have misadventures while committing crimes.

But the cause of this particular crisis — the reason why suspects are dying unnecessarily in police custody and riots are resulting from it — is Jewish control of mass-media, and the Jewish influence that comes with it. There is a pressing need for Jewish influence to be recognized as a problem. Until we do that, White people will be taking the blame.
__________________________
* which, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, causes “problems breathing.”

Dr. Robert Faurisson talks about Dachau

Hadding — Wed, 20 May 2020 17:51:00 +0000

Professor Robert Faurisson demonstrates that the pattern of deaths at Dachau concentration-camp, where there happens to be a thorough record of all deaths, is completely inconsistent with the Holocaust narrative.

Probably the most important point here is that appearances can be misleading, and moreover that appearances can be used to create very misleading propaganda. One should not therefore allow oneself to be manipulated into reacting with rash emotionality to scenes like those in the concentration-camps in 1945, because in that case the cause of the situation was not what one gratuitously supposes, and because the Germans had in fact tried to prevent such a situation from developing.

A point that Faurisson does not emphasize is that the way that the Allies waged war against Germany, above all the demand for “unconditional surrender,” meant that Germany must be in total collapse before the war could end. Rampant typhus in Germany at the end of the war, and especially in the crowded concentration-camps, was a ramification of this demand.

Professor Faurisson’s statement near the end of this presentation from 1992, that he did not believe that there was a “Jewish conspiracy” to lie, deserves an asterisk, because when I met him at his home in August 2000 he said something that on its face might seem at variance from what he had said publicly 8 years earlier. About the lie of the Holocaust, he said:

“It is not a British lie; it is not a Communist lie: it is a big Jewish lie.”

One can reconcile these statements by emphasizing the word conspiracy. It means that Jews did not have a meeting as portrayed in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion where they decided in an organized manner to tell this lie. Rather, it is a story that began perhaps as a rumor*, which Jews in general have taken up and repeated because it suited their disposition and their purposes. The Holocaust, and the willful credulity of Jews toward this story, is best understood perhaps as a religious movement, where there is a wish to believe, and facts and logic do not count for much. (See my article noting that the Holocaust now is regarded as part of the Jewish identity in the same sense as Biblical mythology.) Unquestionably there are Jews at the top of today’s Holocaust hierarchy who understand that they are obfuscating problems in the story, and perpetuating it through dishonesty (as happens in some other religions), but they did not create the story; rather, they inherited it, and they do not have to conspire (in the sense of secret, organized planning).

In my exchange with Professor Faurisson, the question of who was responsible for the lie of the Holocaust came up because he was talking (or really, I should say, complaining) about David Irving, and when I mentioned Irving’s claim that British psychological warfare had invented the gas-chamber story, that was the professor’s reaction.

When you look at the documents on Irving’s own blog, you discover that the story came from Jews. Victor Cavendish-Bentinck, chairman of Britain’s Joint Intelligence Committee, opined in an internal memo of 27 August 1943 that the British government should not be promoting a story for which there was no evidence, and which was likely false because it resembled lies told during the First World War:

“I think we weaken our case against the Germans by publicly giving credence to atrocity stories for which we have no evidence.

“These mass executions in gas chambers remind me of the story of the employment of human corpses during the last (1914-18) war for the manufacture of fat, which was a grotesque lie and led to the true stories of German enormities being brushed aside as being mere propaganda.”(quoted by S. Ward, Independent, 22 August 1993)

An official named Richard Allen commented:

“It is true that there have been references to the use of gas chambers in other reports; but these references have usually, if not always, been equally vague, and since they have concerned the extermination of Jews, have usually emanated from Jewish sources.” (Ibid.)

If you listen only to David Irving, you might get the impression that Cavendish-Bentinck had invented the gas-chamber story, when in fact it was a report that his bureau had received, originating mainly from Jewish sources, about which Cavendish-Bentinck was skeptical and uncomfortable. Even Wikipedia’s article about Cavendish-Bentinck says this.
______________________
* The Jewish psychologist Leon Festinger, in his 1957 book A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, cites the development of a similar rumor among Japanese held in U.S. concentration camps during the Second World War. The explanation for such a rumor, according to Festinger, is that when people expect to be treated cruelly but receive kind treatment instead, their imagination tends to make up the difference: they assume that what appears to be kindness is a trick. Thus a perfectly innocent shower-room becomes a gas-chamber to the fearful imagination.

Dinesh D’Souza misjudges his audience’s opinion of MLK

Hadding — Thu, 23 Apr 2020 01:22:00 +0000

Somebody tells Dinesh D’Souza to go back to India, citing his conviction for campaign-finance fraud as a reason why his presence is undesirable. D’Souza responds by rhetorically asking his interlocutor, who most likely is a Democrat, if he would have said the same to Martin Luther King — obviously relying on MLK’s status as a sacred cow who was arrested many times, and assuming that he could analogize his victimhood to that of MLK and induce the Democratic critic to relent.

Bad move.

That particular interlocutor, the Democrat, easily dismisses the comparison by pointing out that MLK was born in the USA and D’Souza was not.

What is striking however is that, contrary to what D’Souza must have anticipated, the responses from other readers of his Twitter page are overwhelmingly in the affirmative. You can check it for yourself on Twitter. Yes, the overwhelming majority of Dinesh D’Souza’s followers on Twitter would send Martin Luther King back to Africa!

It confirms my explanation of D’Souza’s success, which is that he has been valued mostly as a non-White exponent of White grievances. D’Souza is more than anything else a stalking horse for conservative Whites who are afraid of being called racist. I suggested in 2018 that he should make a movie exposing all the dirt about MLK. We see here that such a movie would have been highly popular with D’Souza’s following.

D’Souza however will probably claim that these people cheering a proposed deportation of MLK were all Democrats, if he ever has to say anything about it.

Here is a sample of the responses:

Soviet Propaganda faked scenes at Auschwitz in imitation of Anglo-American camp-liberation propaganda

Hadding — Sun, 22 Mar 2020 10:52:00 +0000

During the Good Morning Britain of 27 January 2020 Auschwitz survivor Eva Schloss said this:

“And something I wanted to point out to you. You know, there are many pictures about the Russians liberating Auschwitz, and there is never any snow. And the snow was honestly that high (indicating several feet of snow). And, so I have some connection with the Russian Embassy, and I was there once, and I said: something puzzles me, those photos are fakes, because there is no snow. And they said: well, yes, they are not fakes, but when the army came they didn’t have cameras, they didn’t photograph; so, only much later, when they realized we should have pictures of it, they took pictures like you see now. But this is definitely not in Auschwitz, and not the liberation of Auschwitz.

“There were not that many … children – and [the pictures show] no snow!” (Eva Schloss , Good Morning Britain, 27 January 2020)

This attack on the claim to authenticity of images used in propaganda about Auschwitz and the Holocaust is of the highest importance, because whenever it is suggested that the gas-chamber story might not be true, the first reaction is almost always: What about the pictures? Are you saying that those are fake?

It turns out that, yes indeed, some of them definitely are fake — and we can cite an Auschwitz survivor as our authority for that fact.

The fact that there was snow in late January when the Red Army arrived at Auschwitz is not controversial. It is admitted, for example, in Irmgard von zur Mühlen’s 1985 documentary The Liberation of Auschwitz. The memoir Eva’s Story mentions that the ground was covered with snow several times during February, and never indicates a time when this was not the case, until Soviet authorities finally decided to evacuate civilians from the Auschwitz complex.

Significantly, snow is lacking from nearly all of the visually shocking scenes that are supposed to represent Auschwitz at the time of the “liberation.”

In 1985 Soviet cameraman Alexander Vorontsov admitted that all barracks-scenes from Auschwitz were staged, making excuses for the deception:

“Initially, we did not film the misery inside the barracks. After evacuating the camp on January 19, the SS cut off the electricity. Because initially our camera crews had no lights, we could not shoot indoors. The prisoners had to be transported as quickly as possible, because they were starving to death, and almost frozen.” (The Liberation of Auschwitz, 11:04-11:26)

The narrator tells us that the barracks-scenes were dramatized with Polish women “after the snow had melted.” We are supposed to trust that the dramatization was faithful to reality. Is Soviet propaganda trustworthy?

The USHMM in 2020 still presents this scene — a fraud exposed as long ago as 1985
— as if it were genuine.

Further undermining the credibility of Soviet documentary film, Vorontsov says that the original idea of how to dramatize the liberation of Auschwitz was completely different from the form that Soviet Auschwitz-propaganda eventually took.

In the original cinematic vision of the liberation of Auschwitz it did not seem to occur to the Soviet cinematographers to show emaciated corpses. (Perhaps they hadn’t seen any?) Instead they showed healthy-looking prisoners anxiously waiting at the gate and cheering when the Red Army arrived to set them free.

In those scenes, there is no snow on the ground, nor on the roofs of the buildings, which indicates that this film was not made immediately after the arrival of the Red Army.

Furthermore, this filming must have been done after the general evacuation in which Eva Schloss participated, since she told Good Morning Britain that the Red Army had no cameras, and her memoir gives no account of any movie being made. Based on the vague chronology in Eva’s Story this evacuation seems likely to have happened in March (rather than February as she said in one interview; if in February it would have had to be very late February). The filming of the first conceptualization of the liberation of Auschwitz, then, must have happened later than that.

Here is an important fact. Although the Red Army had arrived at the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration-camp complex on 27 January 1945, Soviet propaganda did not immediately give Auschwitz the importance that it has today. The narrator of The Liberation of Auschwitz tells us:

“The Soviet press agency TASS did not inform the world about the scale of crimes committed in Auschwitz until May 7, 1945. (The Liberation of Auschwitz, 49:41)

Why did it take so long?

The beginning of this kind of Auschwitz-propaganda may have arisen from emulation of British and American camp-liberation propaganda. More than two months after the Red Army arrived at Auschwitz, the Western Allies captured Buchenwald (11 April), Bergen-Belsen (15 April), Dachau (27 April), etc. The timing suggests that this new Soviet Auschwitz-propaganda was inspired by Anglo-American camp-liberation propaganda.

The 1945 Soviet propaganda-film Auschwitz (Oświęcim ) (made from about 20 minutes of selected footage, with German-language narration) is called a “film-document” and is supposed to prove “horrific crimes.” What happens to that pretense when it is admitted that parts of the movie are dramatizations? In particular, the movie shows the now admittedly staged scene of the women in the Auschwitz barracks. The narrator evokes pity by emphasizing that they were all seemingly harmless elderly women:

“Warum ermorderten die Nazihenker diese armen alten Frauen?” (Auschwitz (Oświęcim ), 04:08)

“Why did the Nazi hangmen murder these poor old women?”

This 1945 production of course gives no indication that the scene was staged.

The narration in Auschwitz (Oświęcim ) clarifies that one famous scene is definitely fraudulent. A pitiable group in striped uniforms crowds at the fence, as we are told:

“Und so fand sie die Rote Armee. Die Sowjetkämpfer haben die Deutschen aus Auschwitz vertrieben. Den überlebenen Gefangenen haben sie erklärt: Ihr seid frei! Frei für immer! Die Unglücklichen aber konnten es zuerst gar nicht fassen.”

“And this is how the Red Army found them. The Soviet fighters drove the Germans out of Auschwitz. They declared to the surviving prisoners: You are free! Free forever! At first, the unfortunates could not believe it.”

With this original narration from 1945, indicating that the scene is supposed to represent the very moment of the arrival of the Red Army at Auschwitz, the fraud becomes obvious — because, as Eva Schloss points out, there is no snow.

The memoir Eva’s Story contradicts the whole narrative (whether the 1945 or 1985 version) that images of “the liberation of Auschwitz” are supposed to support. We are supposed to believe that the Red Army made horrible discoveries when they arrived at Auschwitz, and immediately took great interest in the liberated prisoners and their wellbeing. In fact, the behavior of the Red Army during February and late January 1945 as described in Eva’s Story does not reflect any great sense of importance about Auschwitz-Birkenau or its inhabitants. The Birkenau women’s camp, according to Eva Schloss, was not even permanently occupied by the Red Army, nor was any special effort made to help its inhabitants for at least several weeks after the so-called liberation. Official Soviet solicitude for the wellbeing of the inhabitants of the Auschwitz complex was invented retroactively, and supported with dramatizations.

This is a greatly condensed version of an article that can be read in full from CODOH.

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.

Why Zionists who Know the Situation are Afraid to Attack Iran

Hadding — Sun, 12 Jan 2020 17:49:00 +0000

E. Michael Jones makes a lot of sense, not in every subject, but certainly when he talks about U.S. foreign relations.

It is puzzling, how much publicly available information Zionist warmongering seems to ignore. For example, how could they not have known that the elimination of Saddam Hussein would facilitate a great expansion of Iranian influence in the region? This should have been a no-brainer. Yet like a deindividuated, unthinking mob, Zionists were determined that Saddam had to go!

The highly competent leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, stated last summer, long before the senseless killing of Qassem Soleimani, that an attack on Iran would provoke a retaliation against Israel. He said that Hezbollah’s missiles could take the Zionist Entity back to the Stone Age, and he said that the Jewish State would definitely suffer a retaliation if Iran were attacked. Perhaps Nasrallah did not make it clear enough that the retaliation would include tens of thousands of missiles from Hezbollah.

It was only after E. Michael Jones stated that any retaliation for the murder of General Soleimani should be against the State of Israel rather than against America —

“Israel is the cause of this mess; Israel should be held responsible for what happened.” (Press TV, 5 January 2020)

— that Nasrallah’s position seemed to be remembered and taken seriously.

Hidden Origins of the Second World War

Hadding — Fri, 10 Jan 2020 22:02:00 +0000

For more information about William C. Bullitt’s character and likely motives read The Jew Who Caused the Second World War.

source

Facts don’t care about Ben Shapiro’s Holocaust

Hadding — Sat, 07 Dec 2019 06:20:00 +0000

This redacted clip from the Radical Agenda show of 2 December 2019 contains foul language and adult references.

At Stanford University on 7 November 2019 Ben Shapiro quoted a document from the Communist legal system of post-war Poland, a deposition attributed to a former concentration-camp inmate named Henryk Tauber, to the effect that 2500 corpses per day were cremated by a crew working in Birkenau’s Krema II. According to information from the manufacturer of the crematory ovens used at Birkenau, Topf und Söhne, this is simply impossible.

There were 15 crematory retorts in Krema II and each could cremate (on average) one body per hour. In 24 hours of continuous operation, then, 360 bodies could be cremated. All the 38 retorts in Birkenau operating continuously for 24 hours could cremate 912 bodies.

It’s really worse than that, because the ovens had to be out of service for 3 or 4 hours each day to be cleaned. In that case the maximum possible numbers are 315 for Krema II and 798 for Birkenau as a whole.

The idea that cremations could be accomplished faster by piling in bodies seems to be based on the assumption that a crematorium functions like an open fire, where the energy released as heat is mostly wasted. In fact a crematorium, especially the kind used at Auschwitz-Birkenau, functions more like an oven for baking food, where the temperature is controlled and waste of energy is minimized. It is a well known fact that in a household oven the time required for cooking a piece of meat is roughly proportional to the mass. This rule also applies to crematory ovens.

Apart from false testimonies like Tauber’s, there is no reason to believe that Birkenau’s crematoria were operated to the maximum extent possible. A document discovered by Carlo Mattogno refers to a “twelve-hour workday” in relation to fuel-consumption. Also, some of Birkenau’s crematoria spent considerable time out of service needing repairs, which surely would not have been allowed if the full capacity for cremation had been needed at all times.

The impossibly high rate of cremation claimed in Tauber’s deposition seems to have been calculated to support the old Soviet line, that 4 to 5 million died in Auschwitz-Birkenau. The Auschwitz Museum’s current claim (still a gross exaggeration) is that only about 1.1 million died there.

Indisputably, that document from the Communist legal system of post-war Poland makes absurdly inflated claims about how fast corpses could be cremated in Birkenau concentration camp, and Ben Shapiro was a fool to trust it.

Shapiro felt the need to try to demonstrate the factuality of the Holocaust because of Nick Fuentes’ mockery of it in a video-clip from last January, which had been dredged up and publicized as a way of attacking Fuentes after his followers humiliated the representatives of a phony conservative organization called Turning Point USA. A discussion of the conflict around Nick Fuentes can be read here: America First vs. Holocaustian Mind-Control.

Hadding & Cantwell discuss Thanksgiving and the Impact of the Arrival of Europeans on Ambient Hunter-Gatherers

Hadding — Thu, 28 Nov 2019 13:49:00 +0000

This is an excerpt from the Outlaw Conservative show of 27 November 2019.

A little more information about Squanto

He was the sole survivor of a disease epidemic that struck the Patuxet tribe, who had lived at the site of Plymouth before the Pilgrims. The Patuxet had been part of the Wampanoag Confederation based in what we now call Rhode Island.

Since the whole confederation had been severely reduced in numbers by disease, leaving them vulnerable to conquest by the nearby Narangansett Confederation, Squanto was able to convince the Wampanoag king Massasoit to make an alliance with the musket-bearing Englishmen.

The native who first contacted the Pilgrims was not Squanto but Samoset, an Abenaki sagamore who had become acquainted with Englishmen through their fishing expeditions and camps around the Gulf of Maine. Samoset, traveling through the area, noticed the Pilgrims’ settlement and approached to ask for beer. On his next visit Samoset brought Squanto, because Squanto had been to England and spoke much better English.

Lynn Ceci, in Science magazine of 4 April 1975, demonstrates that the agricultural technique of burying a fish with maize to make it grow better was one that Squanto himself had most likely learned from other Englishmen (source).

The traditional belief in the Red Man’s wisdom and benevolence toward the Pilgrims is superficially informed and unrealistically idealized.

Will Trump become USA’s Dictator?

Hadding — Thu, 03 Oct 2019 16:08:00 +0000

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.