"I have been reading your amazing blog and listening to some of your podcasts with Carolyn. Not sure how I haven't run across your work before. Amazing stuff." (reader's comment, 10 May 2016)
Come chat with us! You don't even have to download anything! Just click here to chat in #National-Socialism.

16 September 2016

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

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.

13 September 2016

Insurgent Politicians and their Unbeliever Friends

Insurgent political outsiders Jeremy Corbyn (Labour Party, UK) and Donald Trump (Republican Party, USA) both pose problems for the Zionist war-agenda, and both have been attacked for connections with "Holocaust Deniers." Read more about it from CODOH.

01 September 2016

A small taste of what happens when you send White children to school with Negroes

The white cheek of Jazmyn Peters, five years old, carries a hand-shaped bruise left by Tavon Walters.
In Bamberg, South Carolina, school-officials are so afraid of being called racist that they allow Negro criminals on the school-bus with small White children.

The Negro slapped the poor little girl on her face hard enough to leave a bruise. Little Jazmyn is now, understandably, afraid to ride the bus.

This is not a unique incident. This kind of thing, and much worse, happens all the time. This happened in a place where there was video and audio surveillance, and a driver on the bus responsible to maintain order. What might have happened under less secure circumstances?

Such is the result of the racial integration of schools that was forced on the White people of the South in 1969. 

White people must overcome the fear of being called racist and protect their children! 

28 August 2016

Trailer for upcoming film Denial purposefully misquotes David Irving

The trailer for the upcoming film Denial, about David Irving's failed libel-suit in 2000 against Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt, purposefully misrepresents David Irving's position on the Holocaust, and specifically what he said to Deborah Lipstadt on 11 November 1994. 

On that occasion, Professor Lipstadt told an audience that there was a blueprint of a gas-chamber that showed holes in the roof for introducing Zyklon-B pellets. In fact there is no such thing. David Irving stood up and issued the following challenge:

"I have here a thousand dollars for you if you can produce to this audience, now or at any time in the future, this document about which you have just lied to them." (D. Irving, A Radical's Diary, 11 November 1994)

That is what Mr. Irving recorded himself as saying in his Radical's Diary, and there are also two video-recordings of the exchange, one of them made by Emory University.

The trailer for Denial, however, represents David Irving as saying:

"... I've got a thousand dollars to give anyone who can show me a document that proves the Holocaust."

That is very different from what David Irving actually said. David Irving knew that there was no blueprint of an Auschwitz gas-chamber as Lipstadt had claimed, because Robert Faurisson had acquired and published the blueprints for the alleged gas-chambers in 1976: the rooms supposed to be gas-chambers are clearly marked in the blueprints as mortuaries. Irving challenged Lipstadt only on that specific point. The film however has him daring her -- or anyone -- to prove the entire Holocaust. 

The obvious purpose of this misrepresentation is to facilitate labeling David Irving as the quintessential Holocaust Revisionist, or "Denier," which he really never was. David Irving (unlike the much more rigorous and courageous Robert Faurisson) never took the position that there was no Holocaust.

Read more about it from CODOH
Discuss it on the CODOH Forum.

21 August 2016

Warning about so-called “Official German Records of Prisoners in Auschwitz"

Recently I saw somebody post a link to an article about "Official German Records of Prisoners in Auschwitz Concentration Camp from May 1940 to December 1944." Then somebody sent me the same link by email. The links were to information on the "Darkmoon" blog, which I do not trust at all (because Darkmoon has been known to rely on utterly ridiculous sources)

To determine whether the information was credible, I tried to find where the information had been originally posted, but could not. I did find the same material posted in other places, however.

Whereas the compiler is credited only as "Admin" on the Darkmoon blog, on other sites, like Heretical, the compiler is named as "Germar Rudolf." In fact the compiler is one Peter Stahl, who falsely attached Germar Rudolf's name. 

On 21 August 2016 Rudolf sent out this repudiation:

Dear all:

Please be advised that I had no part in compiling the numbers listed below. That's one of Peter Stahl's disruptive activities. See my article on him here: http://www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/StahlDouglas.html

Stahl did that list I think back in 2002 or 2003 without my knowledge or consent, and it lingers on the net. I have never seen any of these microfilms myself. I remember that Stahl told me once that he has them, and at some point he even offered them to me. But I never had my hands on them, let alone studied them (if they exist). For all I know, this could all be made up. Stahl has a history of lying, and of manipulating or outright forging documents, and the fact that he falsely claimed I had compiled these numbers is a strong indicator that this is fishy. I wouldn't touch these numbers with a ten-foot pole. gr

Stahl's apocryphal figure for the total number of Jews who died in Auschwitz is 60,421. Arthur Butz' less precise but more trustworthy estimate from 1989 is "100,000-150,000" total deaths, of which "a large number would have been Jews" (A. Butz, JHR, fall 1989). It means that Stahl's presumably fictitious figures are toward the low end of what is likely. 

When making a controversial point, be sure that you know the original source of the information that you are using, and whether that source is credible.

30 July 2016

Hillary Clinton, Candidate of Billionaire Jews

This is from Forbes of 27 May 2016. The accompanying article says that 80% of the donations to the pro-Hillary super-pac, Priorities USA Action, comes from these donors. No doubt, if she is elected, she will be overwhelmingly obligated to these Jews, and their agenda will continue to be served as it has been under the several preceding U.S. presidents. 

Haim Saban, at the top of the list, is an Israeli Jew who has said: "I'm a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel." Expect more expensive Middle-East wars if his candidate wins.

James Simons is a Jewish hedge-fund manager. With his bought politician Hillary Clinton as President, his ilk will enjoy a free hand to rape the U.S. economy.

The prominence of Jew George Soros as a donor will be reflected in the continuation of absurd indulgence for Black Lives Matter. The domestic race-war will expand and escalate.

While the top donation to the pro-Hillary super-pac is $10 million from an Israeli Jew, the top donation to the pro-Trump Great America PAC is $250,000 from a real-estate company (source). The larger donations in support of Trump come especially from the real-estate industry.

27 July 2016

A Brief Response to Dinesh D'Souza's Cheap Partisan Rhetoric

Nixon's "southern strategy" in 1968 permanently won the Segregationist vote for the Republicans.

In order to diffuse criticism of the underlying racial theme of his shows, Rush Limbaugh and his imitators have often resorted to the tactic of declaring, based on whatever flimsy premise and whatever contorted argument, that the Democrats (or Blacks) are somehow the real racists. It is doubtful that anyone born in the USA is really fooled by this, but it creates enough deniability that Limbaugh's White bourgeois audience can continue listening, confidently armed with a readymade sophistic argument that the show is "not racist."

Dinesh D'Souza, as an ignorant foreigner, takes Rush Limbaugh's and Sean Hannity's rhetoric about the Democrats being the real racists too seriously. All White people born in the United States know that this rhetoric is empty. Everybody with an ounce of sense understands that the Republican Party today is supported mainly by White people who expect the party to represent White interests, while the Democratic Party today is essentially an anti-White coalition of petulant minorities. Thus, with "The Democrats are the real racists," Dinesh D'Souza is arguing a point that, although often stated, almost every American recognizes as absurd on its face.

D'Souza works especially hard to associate the Democratic Party with the Ku Klux Klan.

Although the original Ku Klux Klan of the 1860s was limited to the South and counted the Republicans of that time as its enemies, the new Ku Klux Klan formed in 1915 with inspiration from D. W. Griffith's film Birth of a Nation spread over the whole of the United States and included many Republicans.

In 1924. the Democratic presidential nominee John W. Davis denounced the Ku Klux Klan, while the Republican incumbent Calvin Coolidge avoided saying anything on the subject. The result was that the Ku Klux Klan supported Calvin Coolidge in 1924. (They even like to claim that he was a member of the Klan, but this is not clear.)

By 1948 Southern Segregationists had become so disenchanted with the Democratic Party that they formed their own splinter-party, the States Rights Democratic Party, or Dixiecrats. The Dixiecrats made Strom Thurmond their presidential nominee.

During the 1960s Southern Segregationists like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms left the Democratic Party and joined the Republican Party. Republican strategist Kevin Phillips, author of The Emerging Republican Majority, saw the opportunity and devised what became known as Nixon's southern strategy.* The realignment of Southern Segregationists with the Republican Party in the 1960s and 1970s has been a major source of Republican strength ever since.

D'Souza alleges that the Democrats were somehow pro-fascist. Despite whatever cherrypicked facts D'Souza may scrape together in support of that contention, it is entirely overshadowed by the fact that FDR worked hard to drag the USA into the war against Germany and Italy (as, for example, the Almanac Singers complained in early 1941). 

Meanwhile Republicans like Charles Lindbergh and Senator Robert Taft sanely opposed US involvement in another European war. Donald Trump, incidentally, has taken up again the slogan of those Republicans: America First.

The worst part of calling the Democrats "the real racists" is not that it is deceptive and false, but that it sacrifices White interests for the sake of winning a few partisan debating points, and teaches its audience to do the same. It keeps us inside a box, respecting the taboo that deters us from openly pursuing our racial interest. If we as White people want to have our interests effectively represented, then we must stop worrying about being called racist.

Dinesh D'Souza, as an ignorant foreigner, should stop trying to meddle in the White man's politics, and preferably go back to India.
* "Nixon has ... consistently opposed busing to achieve racial balance. He has said so publicly on many occasions...." (John Beckler, AP, 3 August 1971)