"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! Download and install an IRC-client -- Hexchat is recommended -- and go to the channel #National-Socialism on the Undernet server.

17 August 2017

Two Know-It-Alls debate National-Socialism's Place in the Alt Right


On 17 August 2017 at 7PM EST there is supposed to be on Youtube a "debate" about national-socialism between two Internet entities, Vox Day and Greg Johnson, neither of whom, it seems to me, can claim to be very knowledgeable about national-socialism.

One of the first things that anyone who would claim to be knowledgeable about national-socialism should know, is that there has been enormous misrepresentation and even forgery that has to be circumvented in order to arrive at a true picture of national-socialism. Neither Greg Johnson nor Vox Day seems to know this, as I shall explain.



Know-It-All Greg Johnson

A few years ago there was an essay by Johnson published on Hitler's birthday on The Occidental Observer, wherein Johnson used just one alleged quote from Adolf Hitler. It happened to be from the fraudulent Hitler-Bormann Documents

I spotted this right away and pointed out the mistake in the comments section. 

The fake quote was removed from the essay for a short time, but then reinserted. Johnson then tried to argue for the quote's authenticity by citing the authority of Dr. William Pierce. Why Johnson would cite Dr. Pierce on such a matter is a mystery to me, but that's what he did. It was a bad move, because unlike Johnson, I did not just meet Dr. Pierce once, but actually knew him and worked for him at various times over the course of several years before Johnson met him, and knew with certainty that Dr. Pierce did not regard the Hitler-Bormann Documents as authentic. National Vanguard Books did not sell that book, specifically because it was known to be a fraud. Johnson was lying.

Johnson is also no friend of national-socialism. In an essay for TOO wherein he was pushing his brandname, "North American New Right," he defined his "new right" as distinct and utterly separate from the stinky poopoo of Fascism and National-Socialism, and even from William Pierce, all of which were tainted by association with a Holocaust that Greg Johnson dares not question and advises others not to question, because questioning the Holocaust is just heartless and mean, Johnson says (G. Johnson, "Dealing with the Holocaust," TOO, 20 July 2012).

And now Greg Johnson is going to speak on national-socialism's behalf? If this were a legal matter I would ask for a different attorney, because this one seems none too fond of his client.



Know-It-All Vox Day

I am almost completely unfamiliar with Vox Day although I have heard the name a few times. From the little that I have seen, he seems to be a know-it-all more or less of the libertarian variety. He is on his moral high horse against "socialism," and is determined that national-socialism should be excluded from the Alt Right because, as socialism, it is leftist and therefore not rightist.

As a national-socialist, I have stated in the past that I do not call myself Alt Right and do not care about participating in the fad of being called Alt Right. National-Socialism is something fairly definite, whereas the Alt Right is something nebulous.

Let us bear in mind that the Alt Right brand more or less belongs to Richard Spencer, who once famously declared, in response to libertarian hectoring: "Big government forever!" Certainly any pro-White creed that embraces "Big government forever!" is big enough for national-socialism.

In that light, the real argument would seem to be about whether Richard Spencer's Alt Right is correctly named. Instead, these two guys, Vox Day and Greg Johnson, will argue about whether national-socialism can be part of the Alt Right.

Vox Day's argument is that, because what is now -- since World War II -- called the right is always for less government and against socialism, it is impossible to be rightist and at the same time in any way socialist.

I spent a good part of a recent What Would Hitler Do? segment explaining that before the Second World War conservatism and socialism were not considered antithetical. There was in Britain, since the 1840s, the concept of Tory Socialism, which is another way of saying conservative socialism. It was Bismarck, with the backing of the Conservatives, who established the welfare state in Germany. There is a long history of conservative, or one might say right-wing, socialism.

This was possible because the older conservatism was not about free markets and individual liberty.  Conservatism was about preserving traditions and morality and, eventually, about preserving the race.

It is only when liberalism calls itself conservatism, as has happened since the Second World War, that conservative socialism no longer seems possible.

Vox Day tries to demonstrate that national-socialism is no different than any other socialism, and presents on his blog seven alleged quotes that are supposed to prove this. Vox Day says that they are "direct quotes from Mr. Hitler himself."

In fact, only two of the seven statements are direct quotes from Hitler.

The first and third quotes are from the fraudster Hermann Rauschning, p. 131 and p. 186 of his book The Voice of Destruction.

The fifth quote is from Ernst Roehm, from the period (1934) when Roehm was complaining that the National-Socialist Revolution had turned out to be less socialist than he had hoped. (Wikiquotes mistakenly attributes the statement to Hitler, alleging Churchill's The Gathering Storm, p. 87, as the source. If you carefully read what Churchill wrote, you can see that he in fact attributes the statement to Roehm.)

The second and fourth quotes are from the memoir of Otto Wagener, supposedly written in 1946 based on recollections of conversations from 13+ years earlier. Postwar memoirs of the vanquished are in general dubious, but a memoir written after so many years had passed is definitely not trustworthy. Furthermore, this memoir, for whatever reason, was not published until 1978 -- seven years after Wagener's death -- which raises a question of authenticity.

I personally do not believe that Wagener's memoir, or the alleged memoir attributed to Wagener, is accurate. The statement that has Hitler seeming to support "international socialism" as a final consequence of the spread of national-socialism is not consistent with other statements. Hitler is recorded in the Table Talk as having said that national-socialism was not for export, because if other nations adopted national-socialism they would become stronger in competition against Germany. 

I am firmly opposed to any attempt to export National-Socialism. If other countries are determined to preserve their democratic systems and thus rush to their ruin, so much the better for us. [Table Talk, entry for 20 May 1942]

It should be plain that Hitler's attitude toward foreign relations as a great competition for survival did not favor such a concept as "international socialism," and that the words attributed to Hitler in the alleged Wagener memoir do not sound like Hitler.

And even if Wagener did write it, a memoir written so many years later cannot be considered reliably as "direct quotes from Mr. Hitler himself."

Only the sixth and seventh sentences in Vox Day's list are "direct quotes from Mr. Hitler himself." The sixth is from a speech that Hitler gave for the beginning of the Winter Aid Program (5 October 1937), and the seventh is from Hitler's address to the German people upon commencement of Operation Barbarossa (22 June 1941). In that speech, when Hitler refers to the "new socialist order in Germany," it is by contrast with the Soviet system, which Hitler characterizes as "chaos, misery, and starvation." The speech emphasized that the Soviet and National-Socialist systems were different, not that they were the same, as Vox Day would have it.

The conclusion is, Vox Day doesn't know what the hell he's on about.

Neither of these guys, neither Greg Johnson nor Vox Day, is well equipped to discuss national-socialism and its relationship to the Alt Right.

That is a moot point anyway. 

The real question is whether libertarianism (what used to be called liberalism) can save the White race. I maintain that it obviously cannot and will not, because unlike national-socialism it was never designed for that.

10 August 2017

Dinesh D'Souza is a Big Liar

Dinesh D'souza in 2014. The frauds that he commits with his books are unfortunately legal.

 

The Big Lie of Dinesh D'Souza

I listened to some of Dinesh D'Souza's recent speeches and interviews about his new book, called The Big Lie, which was published a few days ago (on 31 July 2017). I do not have the book, but I assume that what he has been saying in his recent appearances resembles what he has written.

Last year in Hillary's America, D'Souza used significant omissions to make that argument seem tenable, like the fact that the Ku Klux Klan endorsed Republican Calvin Coolidge for president in 1924, and the fact that the Jewish takeover of the Democratic Party caused Southern segregationists in huge numbers to switch to the Republican Party in the 1960s and '70s, corresponding to what was called Nixon's Southern strategy.

D'Souza's relationship with the truth does not seem to have improved in the past year.

Broadly speaking D'Souza's new work seems to be a repeat performance of Hillary's America, the message of which boils down to “Democrats are the Real Racists,” except that now it's “Democrats are the Real Nazis.” 

D'Souza refers to violence of Antifa and “the irony of using fascist tactics to fight fascism.” 

There is nothing ironic here, unless one begins by accepting the leftist and Jewish premise that Nazis and Fascists invented political violence. In fact the paramilitary Brownshirts organization was created to protect National-Socialist meetings against attacks by leftists.

In general, like the rest of the National Review crowd, D'Souza proceeds from assumptions that are Jew-approved.

An important point of dishonesty in D'Souza's presentation is his reference to images from concentration camps supposedly proving the Holocaust. Those images are really the foundation of the general demonization of Adolf Hitler and National-Socialism, with Fascism being demonized mainly by association with that, but in fact, those images do not prove anything. The fact that D'Souza leans on this shows again that he is pandering to popular misconceptions and basically lacks seriousness.

D'Souza summarizes Hitler's description of the Big Lie without bothering to mention that Hitler accused the Jews of using the Big Lie. This has to be deliberate dishonesty and a deliberate omission on D'Souza's part.

As examples of the leftist “Big Lie” D'Souza points to the accusation that Trump is a fascist, and the accusation that Trump is a racist.

In fact, Trump's movement does resemble a less than fully developed fascism, insofar as its message is nationalist and populist. It is also certain that Trump gets a lot of support from White people based on the perception that he represents the interests of White people. That is what those on the left call racist. So what? I don't see Trump doing backflips to avoid such labels.

In general, D'Souza's presentation is about fear of labels, and about applying those feared labels to others instead of bringing reason to bear. For an educated person, this is on its face not a very convincing kind of argument. Nonetheless I shall dismantle some of D'Souza's major claims.



Eugenic Sterilization

Since Jews have created in the mind of the public a spurious link between eugenic sterilization and the Holocaust, D'Souza would like to identify the movement for eugenic sterilization in the United States with “progressives.” By the same token, however, D'Souza definitely does not want to identify it with Republicans. 

Republican Gov. of Indiana J. Frank Hanly
Perhaps D'Souza never bothered to find out that the first American states to enact forced eugenic sterilization laws were all Republican states.

James Franklin Hanly, the governor of Indiana who signed the first eugenic sterilization bill into law in 1907, was a Republican.

In 1909 Washington, California, and Connecticut all had eugenic sterilization bills signed into law by Republican governors. In 1911 eugenic sterilization was signed into law by Iowa's Republican governor Beryl F. Carroll. The first five states to adopt eugenic sterilization had it signed into law by Republican governors.

The Southern and Democratic states were slower to adopt the practice, possibly because of the influence of Christianity in those states.

Dinesh D'Souza calls Madison Grant, author of The Passing of the Great Race, a progressive, and maybe he was, but Madison Grant was also a Republican, and a friend of Republican President Theodore Roosevelt, who called himself a progressive.

Unlike Roosevelt, however, Madison Grant was unequivocally a racist. Can we really say that a man who advocates racism is on the left? From one perspective, maintaining a race is the most profound form of conservatism. From the perspective of the followers of Ayn Rand, however, racism is “collectivism” and therefore on the left. That is the kind of pigeonholing that Dinesh D'Souza promotes.



What is Conservative? 

Westbrook Pegler
It goes back to a semantic question about what is right, what is left, and what is conservative. These terms do not mean the same today as they meant 100 years ago. 

During the administration of Franklin Roosevelt, the meaning of the word liberal changed drastically. Westbrook Pegler, a dogged critic of the New Deal, wrote this in his column of 21 September 1953:

The truth is that our entire people have been brainwashed by the Roosevelt-Truman administrations for the last 20 years. The result is that today most of us don't even know what our constitutional rights really are. We are afraid to say that Hitler was right about communism and Soviet Russia. Words which formerly had honest meanings now mean exactly the reverse to most of us. Those few who stubbornly insist on using the word “liberal” in its old, genuine meaning, are almost totally misunderstood. We even know we will be misunderstood when we use it.

[…]

I am one of the most liberal liberals in the country. But those who use the name “liberal” as their designation of a line of thought put me down as a reactionary. Well, I am. I hit back when I am hit. That is my reaction to abusive action. Suppose then that we say I am a reactionary liberal. These two political cliches are supposed to be mutually contradictory, although they really are not as any person must admit who knows the meanings of plain American words. [Westbrook Pegler, Reading Eagle, 21 September 1953]

Pegler tells us that before FDR, a liberal was somebody who wanted free markets and less interference from government. That political orientation today is called conservative.

So, if what now passes for conservative used to be liberal, what was conservative? I will give you a clue. Being conservative 100 years ago was not about less government. Conservatives 100 years ago used to recognize that individual freedom had a downside to it.



From Tory Socialism to National-Socialism

In the UK, in fact, there was a concept known as Tory Socialism. You could be a Tory, which is to say a member of the Conservative Party, and also a socialist.

Niles Carpenter wrote in 1922 that Tory Socialism was a form of “political mediaevalist reaction” that was also known in the 19th century as the Young England movement, and its most prominent advocate was Benjamin Disraeli.

… Young England started among a group of Oxford students. Disraeli became the leader, and although the group went to pieces in 1845, the more vital of its principles have carried on to the present day. Disraeli and his followers sought “to reconcile the working classes to the Throne, the Church, and the Aristocracy”; that is, to restore feudalism at its best. This theory was supported by a practical policy, at once progressive and reactionary. [Niles Carpenter, Guild Socialism, 1922: p. 41]

Carpenter says that the Tory Socialists claimed to be the real “friends of the people” unlike the liberal free-traders. The general idea was an alliance of the traditional institutions of Britain with the working class, against the bourgeoisie, which had dominated politics since 1832.

At the turn of the 20th century, a prominent advocate of Tory Socialism was the writer G. S. Street, who authored an essay by that name.

During the 20th century, the British Prime Ministers Stanley Baldwin (1935-1937) (who was nominally opposed to socialism but called moderate in policy) and Harold MacMillan (1957-1963) have been characterized by others as practitioners of Tory Socialism.

In Germany, the modern welfare state was invented in the 1880s, not by a red socialist Jew like Ferdinand Lasalle but by a military man, Count Otto von Bismarck-Schoenhausen, who was not a member of any party but had been relying on the support of the Conservative Party since 1873. The introduction of the welfare state in Germany brought the working class to the conservative, forming an effective coalition against the commercial class (as well as the far left) just as Tory Socialism had intended in England.

A German Communist member of the Reichstag named Karl Korsch, who left Germany in 1933 and ended up in the United States, teaching at Tulane University, referred to Bismarck's policies as “a kind of Tory Socialism.”

I have pointed out, in an earlier installment of What Would Hitler Do?, that Adolf Hitler in some ways walked in Bismarck's footsteps, doing the same kind of thing as Bismarck but more of it.

The fact that such a thing as Tory Socialism could exist, and the fact that Hitler's movement can be categorized in this way, is important, because Dinesh D'Souza takes for granted that socialism and conservatism are never the same thing. D'Souza follows the customs of National Review, using only political concepts from the postwar period, after the period of brainwashing under Roosevelt and Truman that Westbrook Pegler described in 1953.



National-Socialism and the Crisis of Marxism

In his speech at Trinity University earlier this year, Dinesh D'Souza claims that Italian fascism grew out of the “Crisis of Marxism” that happened after the First World War. Most of us who have heard of this Crisis of Marxism know it as the event that spawned Cultural Marxism, a mutant branch of Marxism that no longer made its appeal to the workers but to discontented minorities of every possible kind, and also made an issue of sexual repression.

D'Souza does not even mention the Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxism as a product of this Crisis of Marxism. Instead, he says:

“And out of that Crisis of Marxism came two new variations of Marxism.... The first was Leninist Bolshevism, and the other was Italian Fascism. This is the undisputed truth of history.” [D'Souza, Speech at Trinity University, 2017]

Of course D'Souza is wrong when he says that it is an undisputed truth of history. He immediately contradicts himself on that point when he goes on to say that there was “a very important progressive coverup project” after the Second World War, “to camouflage the close associations of the political left with Fascism and Nazism, and to move Fascism and Nazism from the left, where they were always understood to be, into the right-wing column.”

Whether National-Socialism and Fascism are to be called left or right is a question of definition. Since D'Souza is working with National Review's definitions, and cannot conceive how an expansion of government could be used for essentially conservative ends, of course he tags National-Socialism and Fascism as leftist.

The fomentors of proletarian class-struggle, however, always understood Fascism and National-Socialism, with their goal of class-reconciliation, as something fundamentally different from what they were trying to do.

A Communist member of the Reichstag named Karl Korsch wrote about the products of the Crisis of Marxism in 1931, and what he says is probably more accurate than what D'Souza says. Mind you, D'Souza has said that it was undisputed, or at least undisputed until after the Second World War, that Fascism was one of the two products of the Crisis of Marxism.

First, Korsch wrote in 1931 that there were two movements within Marxism that had continued since before the First World War. These were “the reformist state socialism of the social democratic parties” and “communist anti-imperialism.”

Korsch also named three new movements, resulting from the Crisis of Marxism, that rejected Marx's eschatology. These three innovative movements, Korsch identified as: “unionist reformism, revolutionary syndicalism, and Leninist Bolshevism.”

In Karl Korsch's account of the products of the Crisis of Marxism, from 1931, Fascism and National-Socialism do not appear.

In 1940, Korsch went on to explain that Fascism and National-Socialism were, from his Communist perspective, counterrevolutionary. He favored the summation of Italian Marxist Ignazio Silone who said: 

"Fascism is a counterrevolution against a revolution that never took place"

In other words, Fascism consists of measures taken to secure the loyalty of the workers (including removal of the incorrigible troublemakers from society) so that a proletarian revolution cannot happen. That might not be a right-wing thing to do, but in the big picture it is certainly conservative, in the most important conceivable way.



Verdict

The kind of argument that D'Souza presents seems to be directed primarily to stupid and cowardly people who live in fear of being tarred with some taboo label. Republican status-seekers who live in fear of having anyone know their true racial attitudes might be excited over a production like Hillary's America or The Big Lie that allows them to deflect the accusation that they most fear at somebody else.

In other words, Dinesh D'Souza is not making a contribution to rational public discourse, at all.

Beyond that, he is suggesting to people who need to get over the stigma of being called racist or Nazi that instead they should cherish that stigma as they apply it to somebody else. Thus they become ever more deeply entrenched in their own cowardice and dishonesty.

D'Souza is himself a very dishonest man. In 2014 he was sentenced to five years for fraud (after being reported by the husband of a woman with whom he, also married at the time, was having an affair). As a writer, Dinesh D'Souza is still committing fraud.

D'Souza comes to us from a highly corrupt society that has also given us storekeepers who systematically overcharges customers by small increments, anticipating that few will complain. These people are opportunists and crooks.

Allowing an Indian to come to the United States and to tell our people what to think about political matters is almost as unwise, I would suggest, as allowing a Somali to become a policeman.

07 August 2017

If you do not know who Ernst Zündel was, then you have missed something extremely important!



Ernst Zündel died of a heart-attack in his sleep on Saturday, 5 August 2017. He was 78 years old, having survived decades of legal persecution, threats, violence, and assassination-attempts in the period when he was active as a promoter of Holocaust Revisionism in the 1980s and 1990s -- without ever backing down.

We owe largely to Ernst Zündel the establishment of the strong foundation on which Holocaust Revisionism today stands, since it was he who organized Revisionist scholars and commissioned further research for his defense in the famous series of "False News Trials" in 1985, 1988, and 1992. The Leuchter Report was commissioned for the 1988 trial, where celebrity historian David Irving also testified, himself having been convinced by the Leuchter Report.

The reverberations from Zündel's defense at those False News Trials have not ceased. Not long after the 1988 trial, Professor Yehuda Bauer of the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum declared that the death-tolls for Auschwitz must be reduced, because they were too high to be credible, and the "neo-nazi deniers of the Holocaust," he said, would call attention to this. So the death-toll for Auschwitz was drastically reduced in 1990. That solved one problem, but it created other, new problems. The official reduction of the death-toll for Auschwitz means that the confession of one of the commandants of Auschwitz, Rudolf Hoess, was false. This, in turn, means that all such confessions are dubious. After the damage inflicted by Ernst Zündel, the Holocaust has become like a knitted garment unraveling. 

Suppression of reporting about Holocaust Revisionism has slowed that process in Europe and the anglophone world, but in the long term there will surely be nothing left of the Holocaust -- nothing  qualifying it for the enormous attention that it has received -- and it was Ernst Zündel who initated this process.