June 14, 2009
This Week in Disorganized America:
- The Von Braun Shooting
- Editorials ask: ‘What is it about those Jews?’
June 14, 2009
This Week in Disorganized America:
June 11, 2009
Matt Johnson discusses:
(Next week: The discussion of Hrushevsky and Mykola Kostomarov will continue;
the nationalist society of Sts. Cyril and Methodios will also be covered.)
15 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 57 min.
June 10, 2009
Edgar J. Steele’s Nickel Rant Internet radio show returns this week with “Why He Did It – and Why Von Brunn Won’t Be the Last.” Topics include:
Plus – for the first time – we will take live callers at the telephone number to be given after the first break. Talk to me, America. Tell me why I should continue with this radio show despite my current inclination to end it all this week.
Here is the link to the transcript of the formal rant that will be on line directly following the show: http://www.nickelrant.com/rants/090610rant.htm
26 MB / 32 kbps stereo / 1 hour 55 min.
June 9, 2009
In this episode, Dr. Kevin MacDonald joins Tom for a discussion on “identity”: what it is, the psychology of identity, and identity politics.
Tom and Kevin, leading lights among those who advocate for the political organization of European-derived peoples around the world, are long-time friends and knew each other when Tom taught at Cal State Long Beach. This is a thought-provoking show that shouldn’t be missed!
A high-quality version of this broadcast archive can be found here.
13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 59 min.
June 9, 2009
This is a high-quality version of the broadcast archive posted here.
56 MB / 128 kbps stereo / 0 hour 59 min.
June 9, 2009
by David Hamilton
Often, in doing my research for an article like this, I find it is almost impossible to believe what I was reading. I am reminded that we are fortunate. We have attained a perceptive grasp and know how to read between the lines. But if you talk to the average punter in the pub, in the shops or on the bus, you will find that they know little about what is really going on. They just know what they have been told by the media.
There is an awakening going on, very gradually. But the media are still dictating opinion for the mass of people in the soggy centre. The control is very great.
Everyone talks of the gutter press, and of their lies and deceit. But people still form their opinions on what the press tells them. The propagandist nature of that is apparent in the dumbing-down that we see in the coverage of politics and areas that the elites want to control, while the analysis on the sports pages of, say, football tactics, or analysis offootball managers and their styles, is thoughtful, informative stuff. It assumes a great deal of both the intelligence and knowledge of the reader. The political coverage, however, treats him as an empty vessel to be filled with filled with foreign thoughts.
How do the establishment and their media deal with people who form their own conclusions from life, and see through the lies told by the media? They ignore our perceptions and argue to the man. They insult the speaker. Why don’t they calmly and reasonably explain why we are wrong? Because our views are natural and traditional and instinctive. They cannot face what they also think deep down, so they project on to us. Those in charge, the “caste”, are the same as us deep down but don’t have to express it because they have good lives in nice areas and exclusive jobs; underneath, they have the same instincts as us and, though cushioned, feel the same shocks. What they do when they feel unease sneaking in is to repress the doubt, and when dark thoughts bubble to the surface they force them to the back of their minds. This tension is barely perceived as it is projected on to us. They see what they cannot face in us, and that is why they never give a reasoned explanation to us. All the press hate the BNP with a passion. When I read their hate I look for sensible points in case there is a real expose, but it is always lies.
UKIP have only one firm policy. But it is even doubtful that they want to leave the EU. Their other ideas, like increasing coal-fired and nuclear power stations and banning wind farms, seem ridiculous. They do much better in Euro Elections than at General Elections. They have the advantage of contacts, media, and business backing – which the BNP don’t. That’s the Old Boy Network for you, though.
But the BNP are a genuinely popular movement that recalls Huey Long in the States and Poujad in France, and have an opportunity at grassroots level, and an enormous opportunity now they have two MEPs.
Griffin has made some inroads into gaining the vote from middle-class voters which should make a lot of difference in the long run. There are a several BNP councillors who own businesses and who, through networking, will probably help to increase the popularity of the party. Maybe that explains part of why the media went to war with them!
What else is it about the BNP that the media hate so much? Is it that its policy is completely different from the norm, thus they attack people who are not like “us”? General dislike of the leaders? Revenge, then? It was the BNP’s Michael Barnbrook who exposed Conservative MP Derek Conway and started the expenses scams ball rolling. Or are the media, like the politicians, scared the BNP will expose them too? The press are, as an institution, liberal-Socialist. Individually they want to keep their jobs so they toe the line. The media put a great deal of money and effort into their Anti-BNP campaign, with every single newspaper and even The Publican, Accountancy Age and Caterer & Housekeeper joining the biased fray!
If not for the internet, the BNP website, blogs etc and the activists on the ground, the party would have been hammered at the ballot box. I can honestly say that I have never seen such a campaign of hatred towards any party, which destroys the media pretence of being fair and unbisased and leads me to suspect that the NUJ is probably still the closed shop that it was back in the 80’s. And I only hope that the claims of vote-rigging aren’t true (though I’m not as naive as to believe that there won’t have been some discussions of vote-rigging going on). It is of profound importance to tackle this bias.
It is built into people like animals to defend our territories, and when they have uncomfortable thoughts or feelings they often project them onto other people, assigning the thoughts or feelings that they cannot face in themselves to an alternative target. Neurotic projection is seeing in others what they find objectionable in themselves and unwanted thoughts, and emotions are ascribed onto another person or people. According to Wade, Tavris (2000) projection occurs when a person’s unacceptable or threatening feelings are repressed and then attributed to someone else.(1)
When the Establishment attacks it always generalises, but even when corruption is widespread amongst the Establishment parties, as with the expenses scandals, it is presented as an individual matter. Although it is clear that the expenses scandal is a matter of the party as a whole, the media, being corrupt, focus on individuals. Party politicians, for their part, try hard not to focus at all.
David Cameron acknowledged that many people will be angry at the main parties over the MPs’ expenses, but he urged them not to react by voting for the BNP. Cameron is a civilised and polished man. But he became very angry with a member of the audience at the Bath and West Show in Shepton Mallet, Somerset – and this was an example of when what cannot be faced is projected. The member of the audience argued that the BNP “have a point when it comes to immigration” and Cameron retorted: “If you vote for the BNP you are voting for a bunch of fascists who want to divide this country over the issues of race and the colour of skin.” Cameron told him: “Go and have a look at what the BNP have said. Do not be naive about what these people stand for. “They dress up in a suit and knock on your door in a nice way but they are still Nazi thugs”. Yes, look at what they really stand for and do not trust the media.
He told the audience:
“There is a proper national debate that we should have about immigration. I want us to limit the number of people coming to Britain, but do not believe that the way to beat the BNP is to half agree with them.”
He knows full well that debate and honest expression of fears have been suppressed by the Ideological Caste who cannot bear to hear the truth! But what is his hidden agenda?
Cameron revealed the establishment agenda to de-culture as well as dispossess us:
“Not for the first time, I found myself thinking that it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around.”
To accelerate the socially-engineering of our society Cameron set up the Conservative Muslim Forum, a sort of Tory equivalent of the National Black Police Association, which ‘advises’ the Conservative Party on how best to assimilate us to Muslims. The CMF wants the compulsory history curriculum in schools changed to give full recognition of the “massive contribution (sic) that Islam has made to the development of Western civilisation”.
His totalitarian response to comments by Patrick Mercer and Nigel Hastilow show what this “freedom” means – persecution of dissidents. But what does he stand for, in his lovely suits?
“There is no domestic or foreign any more. In this world today, we are all in it together.”
He abandoned his constituency in Whitney during severe flooding to visit Rwanda. His view that immigration has benefited Britain “immeasurably”, and we are they “free” and not frightened of being persecuted by the state, would not find an echo in the hearts of the masses. What Cameron really means is that he wants people to be free to say what the Caste wants them to say, and to have control over their lives so that the Caste can manage them in the way they want to.
Nick Clegg, another member of the Ideological Caste, saw himself staring straight back at him when he looked at the BNP:
“They peddle hate and they don’t actually provide people with hope.”
Hope? If you are hopeful for the future for women in an increasingly Islamicised West, just look at the Despatches programme that was filmed inside Mosques. If you are hopeful for a just life for the native British, just look at how immigrants enter our country without question and officials say nothing. But if we speak we are shut up with the usual insults of “racism”, “xenophobia” and “hate”. In normal, non-Marxised times there are rules of etiquette that govern how we approach others and are approached. The idea that the present vile censorship constitutes hospitality and openness to strangers is utterly false, and just a cover because the Caste are too weak to acknowledge the enormity of what they have done to us.
Complementary Projection is the act of assuming that others do, think and feel in the same way as you. The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK “seems unavoidable”. He told Radio 4’s World at One on 7th February 2008 that the UK has to “face up to the fact” that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system. Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion. Williams also tried to cover up the exposures of MPs’ expenses.
Another who wants to destroy Britain and her people is the Bishop of Hulme, the Rt Rev Stephen Lowe. He said recently that anyone who votes BNP is not a Christian!.
Lowe also took it upon himself to ban I vow to thee my country from his services for being too nationalistic:
“Honestly, nobody can really, if they read that hymn, sing it in any seriousness anymore.”
He added that he was raising the issue in the wider context of the “vilification” of foreigners in the media and had noticed it was being sung at “various national occasions”. Of course, it is those of the indigenous population who are vilified in the media IF they stand up for themselves.
The Bishops talk as if the BNP operates in a vacuum where no changes and no events ever impel political consequences. They seem to think that their faux-holy response has no foundation in culturally Marxist ideology. But it does: it is all part of their ideology. And what do they really think? Archbishop Murphy-O’Connor tolerated child abuse by priests.
In reality, hospitality implies that someone needs refuge … you welcome them … but after a time they leave. They do not move in or push your own children out. That is not hospitality. That is dispossession.
Certainly the most comic but also the best example of repressed racism was the classic bloomer by famous football manager Ron Atkinson in what is known as a Freudian Slip. On 21 April 2004, he said, “… he (Desailly) is what is known in some schools as a lazy thick nigger”. Transmission in the UK had finished – his comment was broadcast to the Middle East. He also gave up his column for The Guardian “by mutual agreement”. He has no idea why he said it. He believes it was an aberration and that he is not racist, stating that his West Brom side was the first high-profile British club to have a significant number of black players.
Last November, Brown and Mandelson went to Saudi to ask for funding for the IMF and Western economies, and offered them some influence over our affairs. Darling has introduced Sharia banking and the EU have signed “The Barcelona Deal” which gives open immigration into Europe. The consequences are very ugly. Last January thousands of Muslims marched through London and other European cities chanting “Jews to the gas”.
It is important that intelligent young people start looking into what is actually happening – not what we are told is happening. Don’t take my word for it. Look into it.
The quote in that article of Cameron saying we should adapt to Muslims is only different in degree, but not kind, from the submission of Simon Hughes to Muslims.
The traditional elites such as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Judge Butler-Sloss and Stephan Hickman QC are calling for the introduction of Sharia Law. Consider how we are told that Islam is a “Religion of Peace”. Both Tony Blair and Boris Johnson have asserted as much. Well, if that’s true, wouldn’t you expect such a force for “goodness” to be evident in culture, and society? But is that the truth of Islamic societies?
Saudi Arabia (Muslim) has a legal system that uses savage penalties. How does a ‘Religion of Peace’ feel about criminals getting their hands chopped off? The protesters who called for
death to a cartoonist who drew Mohammed in a way that they saw as offensive. Did Muslims across the world declare that this was in no conceivable way an appropriate response? Were the Muslim “extremists” who in their hundreds called for death to Gillian Gibbons, the teacher working in the Sudan who made the cultural error of permitting a pupil to name a teddy bear “Mohammed”, mere ‘freaks’, totally insane, totally unrepresentative of any version of Islam? In our own country we saw what they really think when they burnt Salman Rushdie’s books.
The Caste behave with studied generosity towards immigrants, and pretend they are harmless. If you cannot face some danger you may well pretend it is harmless, or even not real. If there is a gangster in the area terrorising others you wish it away. Oh, he’s a good bloke … he doesn’t bother me. It’s a way of putting off catastrophe. And perhaps they will get to like us. Perhaps they will realise that we are nice people. It’s like being so frightened you pretend something is not happening. It is too painful for the elites to acknowledge and would lead to sufficient anguish for them to strike out, blaming us.
The timid rulers have capitulated to everyone from Communists in South Africa and Zimbabwe to Muslims throughout Europe. They can not assert themselves over anyone but their own compliant people. There is a great deal of emasculated masochism bound up with the shame and lack of moral courage of our rulers.
They give overseas aid to countries who don’t need it and pass oppressive laws against their own people. An early example of the state oppressing its own people and privileging foreigners was the the race battles in Notting Hill of 1958. Evil Judge Salmon gave excessive sentences of around 4 years to the young working-class local lad but let the Black youths off.
The 1962 race battles in Dudley were similar. Young men were fearful of losing their jobs to immigrants but even worse, the immigrants were pulling their women while many young locals were away serving their country on national service. The police arrested them and the magistrates punished them just for acting naturally. The state was breaking down the primary instincts of its own menfolk to keep their women and territory!
In his excellent book “The Deculturalisation of the English People”, John Lovejoy told of how, on his return from Australia where he had worked closely with Aborigines, he was horrified to see that his own people were being deculturalised in the same way (and by the same Globalist forces). The most important factor in a people’s decline is when the men lose their women, and that is what the Caste are doing to us by constantly promoting ethnics. How often in a normal day do we encounter advertisements and other represetnations of the typical family unit as a Black with a white woman. I urge people to look for themselves and not trust the Caste who are trying to destroy their own people for no better reason than their own underlying fear of other races!
Source: Majority Rights
June 9, 2009
Forty-two years ago today the USS Liberty, a U.S. spy ship sailing in international waters north of the Sinai Peninsula, sustained a series of aerial and torpedo attacks by Israeli defense forces. Thirty-four U.S. servicemen died and 171 crew members were injured in the relentless assault.
The details of the extensive damage, suffering, and horrific destruction, including the valiant efforts to save the severely injured crew and to keep the ship afloat, are disclosed in James Scott’s riveting new book, The Attack on the Liberty: The Untold Story of Israel’s Deadly 1967 Assault on a U.S. Spy Ship.
The author’s sobering account of the human suffering and carnage during the deadly air and sea attacks draws the reader into a surreal story of heroism, tragedy, despair, and ultimately dishonor by the military branch which warned the surviving crew members not to discuss the details of the attacks to anyone.
Leaving Malta on a New Mission
The 455-foot reconnaissance ship had monitored early developments in the six-day war between Israel and neighboring Arab states near the coast of Egypt. On the fourth day of the war, the USS Liberty sustained heavy damage after a barrage of fire from Israeli jets. The jets strafed the ship from bow to stern with rocket missiles, cannon shells and machine gun rounds. Cannon fire left bowling-ball size holes in the upper deck of the ship. Israeli torpedo boats fired on the Liberty. A direct torpedo hit killed 26 and severely crippled the ship causing it to list badly.
Crew members worked round the clock, many with twisted pieces of shrapnel lodged in their bodies that resulted in punctured internal organs and severe internal bleeding, in a valiant effort to restore the ship’s communications system after the radio antennae and transmitters were taken out by Israeli missile and rocket fire.
(Last month electronics technician Terry Halbardier received a Silver Star for connecting a cable between an antenna and a radio transmitter during the air assault on the Liberty. Halbardier’s body, left leg, and both arms were hit with shrapnel but the 23-year-old shipmate prevailed despite his wounds and his efforts allowed a radioman to send a Mayday distress call to the U.S. Sixth Fleet. His vital role in restoring the ship’s radio transmitter is believed to have ultimately saved the ship from further attacks.)
Investigators found some 821 rocket and cannon holes that knocked out all of the ship’s 45 antennae. Napalm canisters plastered burning petroleum jelly over parts of the upper deck and created surface temperatures of nearly 3,000 degrees.
Scott notes that the bombing raids, “had shattered portholes, ripped open metal doors, and destroyed the forward machine gun tubs, where sailors had died desperately trying to save the ship. Charred and blistered paint covered much of the port side from the combination of napalm and the 110 gallons of gasoline that had furiously burned on deck.”
Many of the injured were severely ripped up by flying shrapnel, including razor-sharp metal shards that had penetrated internal organs and in some caused non-stop bleeding. The doctor onboard worked round the clock to treat the injured despite little surgical experience. Sponges were used to soak up the blood where internal hemorrhaging created large deposits and shutdown vital organs among the gravely wounded. Arm to arm blood transfusions were administered in some cases.
Rescue crews from a tug boat sailed as close as a thousand yards behind the ship as the Liberty made its way across the Mediterranean. “The majority of the damage,” Scott notes, “was below the waterline and in the ship’s most sensitive spot, the NSA’s top-secret hub. Seawater flowed freely through flooded compartments as the Liberty steamed west, washing classified papers and bodies into the Mediterranean.” One diver retrieved a body that had been in the water three days, first in the flooded compartments following the torpedo strike and then floating out to sea. The diver noted that a piece of shrapnel struck the back of the sailor’s head and “[t]he exit wound caused the face to explode. Peering through his mask, [the diver] saw what looked like the man’s brains and skin hanging down in the water.”
Scott dissects several lingering myths that overshadow the Liberty incident.
Israeli pilots and naval personnel misidentified the USS Liberty.
The notion that the Liberty was fired on erroneously and mistaken for the Egyptian ship El Quseir, a vessel half as big as the Liberty, has been thoroughly discredited. Naval investigators, admirals, former Johnson administration officials, and National Security Agency and State Department officials reject the claim that Israel fired on the Liberty in error.
The Israeli attacks on a U.S. naval ship were accidental.
The actions of the Israeli forces and extent of the destruction indicate that Israeli perpetrators were neither randomly “trigger happy” nor unaware that the targeted ship was an American ship. The author’s father John Scott, a Liberty survivor, was on deck watch on the morning of the attacks and witnessed a reconnaissance plane which “made 3 runs fore and 2 aft in a figure eight pattern…and headed back towards Tel Aviv.”
The apology by the Israeli government and eventual settlement to the families of the Liberty’s dead crewmembers adequately resolved Israel’s culpability in the attacks.
Reparations were paid to the families of the dead and wounded Liberty sailors in two installments (one for $3.3 million and another in March 1969 for $3.5 million). Israel settled on $6 million to cover damages to the ship, a figure lower than the settlement U.S. officials requested.
The naval inquiry into the attacks absolved Israel’s actions.
Scott quotes Rear Admiral Thomas Brooks, a former director of naval intelligence, who “described the treatment of the Liberty’s crew as a ‘national disgrace.’ The Navy was ordered to hush this up, say nothing, allow the sailors to say nothing….The Navy rolled over and played dead.”
President Johnson ordered Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach to press the Israelis for reparations “to the injured and the families of the men killed and make sure the payments were generous.” Katzenbach, when asked by the book’s author if “he had ever demanded to know why Israel attacked….’No,’ he said. ‘What good would it do? What would it tell you?’”
Why Did They Do it? Israel’s Motivations for Attacking the USS Liberty
The big unanswered question is what motivated the Israelis to attack a defenseless U.S. ship in international waters. Scott presents a convincing case that the attacks were deliberate and intentional, but offers little insight into the question of the day: Why?
According to Scott, “William Dale, the embassy’s second in command, suspected that the Israelis feared that the intelligence collected by the Liberty might fall into Arab hands. The Department often sent telegrams with intelligence information to multiple embassies. A pro-Arab American diplomat stationed in Damascus, Beirut, or Cairo might pass along information to his contacts, a dangerous wartime proposition for Israel.”
Scott also quotes former NSA director Bobby Ray Inman as saying that former NSA Deputy Director Louis Tordella believed that Israel did not want a repeat of the 1956 Suez Crisis when Eisenhower pressured the Jewish state into withdrawing from territories it had captured. Inman stated that “[Tordella's] view was that [the Israelis] didn’t want to run a risk that we would detect exactly what they were going to do and try to bring it to a halt with a lot of pressure before they achieved their objectives. … They knew exactly what the ship was and what it was doing and therefore it was, in his [Tordella's] view, a deliberate act to try to protect the plans until they finished what they were going to do [in the Six-Day War].”
According to a 2006 declassified internal history report, the CIA position had changed over the years and, given the mounting evidence, it discounted the idea that the attack was a mistake. Former CIA Director Richard Helms cast doubt on the notion that the attack was the result of Israeli blunders. “I don’t think there can be any doubt that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing,” Helms said, “Why they wanted to attack the Liberty, whose bright idea this was, I can’t possibly know. But any statement to the effect that they didn’t know that it was an American ship and so forth is nonsense.”
Admiral John S. McCain, Sr., Sen. John McCain’s father, barred investigators from traveling to Israel during the naval investigation. Yet the Navy’s full report—released eight days after the incident—concluded that the attack was a case of mistaken identity. The full report was kept from the public record for a full decade until it was declassified and then it omitted “all the evidence that contradicted Israel’s explanations.”
Scott also seems well aware of the dynamics of ethnic politics and the influence that organized Jewish interests played in the awkward tip-toe responses on the part of the Johnson administration. Scott describes Johnson’s sensitivities to organized Jewish political activists within the Democratic Party as an overriding concern, which seemed to drive the conduct of the administration’s handling of the aftermath of the attacks on the Liberty.
Indeed, the infuriating aspect of Scott’s research on how the Johnson administration handled the USS Liberty incident is that he shows that political considerations and sensitivities to Jewish ethnopolitical interests—an unpopular war in Vietnam, growing disenchantment with the administration’s foreign policies, the domestic influence of Jewish anti-war activists, and Israel’s victory in the six-day war—triumphed over the lives of U.S. servicemen.
What is truly pathetic is that quite a few top people in the Johnson administration (including Johnson himself) were privately enraged over the Israeli attacks and the cavalier response on the part of Israeli officials. Israel issued a brief apology for the attacks but failed to investigate or bring to justice the officials who ordered the attacks. To this day, no one conclusively knows how far up the Israeli chain-of-command the orders to attack the Liberty originated.
That someone in Israel’s military structure did so and continues unaccountable for this deadly, unprovoked massacre is a disgrace to the heroic efforts of the Liberty’s crew who deserve a full accounting—from the U.S. and Israeli governments—of this sordid ordeal.
The Attack on the Liberty: The Untold Story of Israel’s Deadly 1967 Assault on a U.S. Spy Ship, by James Scott; Simon and Schuster, 2009; 374 pp., $27.
Kevin Lamb (email him), a freelance writer, is a former library assistant for Newsweek, managing editor of Human Events, and assistant editor of the Evans-Novak Political Report. He is the managing editor of The Social Contract.
Source: The Occidental Observer.
June 9, 2009
By Eric S. Margolis
President Barack Obama’s visit to Normandy to commemorate the 65th anniversary of D-Day makes us think about the entire course of World War II, and the lingering propaganda or myths that still becloud it.
As a former instructor of military history and lover of history, let me address four of these myths that are particularly annoying and misleading:
First, France’s army did not simply surrender or run away in 1940, as ignorant American Know-Nothing conservatives claim.
The German Blitz that smote France on May-June, 1940, scattering its armies like leaves before a storm, was a historical revolution in warfare. Blitzkrieg combined rapidly-moving armor and mobile infantry, precision dive bombing, flexible logistical support, and new high technologies in C3 – command, control and communications. In 1940, Germany led the world in technology: 75% of all technical books were then written in German.
France’s armies and generals, trained to re-fight World War I, were overwhelmed by lightening warfare. France was then still a largely agricultural society. Blitzkrieg – now adopted by all major modern armed forces – was designed to strike an enemy’s brain rather than body, paralyzing his ability to manage large forces or to fight. The Germans called it their `silver bullet.’
Indeed it was. France still relied on couriers to deliver vital information. Germany was the world’s leader in mobile radio communications. Amazingly, the French commander in chief, Gen. Gamelin, did not even have a telephone in his HQ outside Paris.
Britain’s well-trained expeditionary force in France was beaten just as quickly and thoroughly as the French, and saved itself only by abandoning its French allies and fleeing across the Channel.
No army in the world at that time could have withstood Germany’s blitzkrieg, planned by the brilliant Erich von Manstein, and led by the audacious Heinz Guderian, and Erwin Rommel –three of modern history’s greatest generals.
They were also incredibly lucky. Just one bomb on a German bridge over the Meuse, or one impassable traffic jam in the Ardennes forest could have meant the difference between victory and defeat. The French had temporarily moved some of their weakest reserve units just into the sector the Germans struck. It was, as Wellington said after Waterloo, a damned close run thing.
Germany’s new, fluid tactics shattered France’s armies. They were unable to reform their lines in spite of often fierce resistance. The fast-moving German panzers were constantly behind them. Retreat under fire is the most difficult and perilous of all military operations. After six weeks, and a stab in the back by Mussolini’s Italy, France’s armies had disintegrated.
France lost 217,000 dead and 400,000 wounded. Compare that to America’s loss of 416,000 dead during four years of war in the Pacific and Europe. At least France did not suffer the 2 million dead it lost in World War I. Germany losses: 46,000 killed in action, 121,000 wounded, and 1,000 aircraft. By comparison, the US, British and Canadians lost some 10,000 dead and wounded at D-Day.
Second, the forts of France’s Maginot Line were not tactically outflanked, as myth has it. The Germans struck NW of the Line’s end, through the Belgian/French Ardennes Forest, a route anticipated by the French Army which held war games there in 1939. The immobile French field army failed, not the Maginot Line. It may have been too costly, tied down too many men, and came to symbolize France’s defensive attitude, but the Great Wall of France fulfilled its designated mission.
The Line was intended to only defend the coal and steel industries of Alsace and Lorraine, which it did.
The Germans concluded an attack on the Line would be too costly, and opted for a different route – through Belgium.
But the high water table of Flanders and France’s aversion to building forts behind its Belgian ally left the Franco-Belgian border with only scanty fixed defenses.
Ironically, after the German breakthrough at Sedan on the Meuse, a French corps held in reserve to
cover this vital sector moved east to the Stenay Gap to protect the Maginot Line’s left flank,
opening the way for Guderian’s panzers to fan out to the NW behind French lines.
The second largest amphibious operation in Western Europe during WWII was the totally forgotten German crossing under fire of the Rhine in June,1940.
The crews of the unconquered Maginot forts held out until the armistice. Those who mock France for building forts that were supposedly `outflanked’ should know the `impregnable’ modern US fortifications at Manila, and Britain’s Fortress Singapore, were both taken from the rear by the Imperial Japanese Army. Germany’s much vaunted `Westwall’ and coastal defenses fared no better.
Third – Germany’s Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe were crushed well before D-Day. In commemorating the war, we must remember to salute the courage and valor of Russia’s dauntless soldiers and pilots who, like German soldiers, fought magnificently albeit for criminal regimes. World War II in Europe was not won just at D-Day, as popular myth has it. Germany’s army and air force were broken on the Eastern Front’s titanic battles.
The numbers speak for themselves. The Soviets destroyed 75-80% of all German divisions – 4 million soldiers – and most of the Luftwaffe. Russia lost at least 14 million soldiers and a similar number of civilians. The Red Army destroyed 507 Axis divisions. On the Western Front after D-Day, the Allies destroyed 176 badly under-strength German divisions.
When the Allies landed in Normandy, they met battered German forces with no air cover, crippled by lack of fuel and supplies, unable to move in daytime. Even so, the Germans fought like tigers. Had the invading US, British and Canadians encountered the 1940’s Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe, the outcome may well have been different.
Fourth – World War II was not a good and evil struggle between `western democracies’ and `totalitarian powers,’ as we are still wrongly taught.
It was a world conflict over land and resources pitting the British Empire which controlled 25% of the entire globe, the French Empire, Dutch Empire, and Belgian Empire, and, later, the US imperium(Philippines, Pacific possessions, Cuba, Central America), against the Italian and Japanese empires. The Soviet Union was an empire unto itself.
In 1939, the only major powers without colonies – that were not imperial powers – were Germany(who lost her few colonies in World War I) and China. Once the war ended, Britain and Holland, who complained mightily about the evils of Nazi occupation, scrambled to reoccupy their former colonies, some of which had declared independence.
One can hardly call this a crusade for freedom. Liberation for the white people of German-occupied Europe, certainly. But not for the peoples of Africa and Asia. However, in the end, the war did set in motion forces that would eventually spell the end of colonialism. The collapse of the British Empire, which Winston Churchill had vowed to defend at all costs, opened the way to worldwide decolonization.
We should not forget all this.
Source: Eric S. Margolis.
June 9, 2009
Buchenwald is widely regarded as one of wartime Germany’s most notorious “death camps.” In fact, though, this carefully cultivated image bears little resemblance to reality. Today, more than forty years after the end of the Second World War, the camp deserves another, more objective look.
The Buchenwald concentration camp was located on a wooded hill outside of Weimar, in what is now East Germany. It was opened in July 1937. Until the war years, almost all the inmates were either professional criminals or political prisoners (most of them ardent Communists). Some 2,300 Buchenwald inmates were pardoned in 1939 in honor of Hitler’s 50th birthday.
At the outbreak of war in September 1939 the camp population was 5,300. This grew slowly to 12,000 in early 1943, and then increased rapidly as many foreign workers, especially Poles, Ukrainians and Russians, were brought for employment in war production. (note l)
During the war years Buchenwald was expanded into a vast complex of more than a hundred satellite factories, mines and workshops spread across a large portion of Germany. The most important of these was probably the Dora underground plant, which produced V-2 missiles. In October 1944 it became the independent Nordhausen (Mittelbau) camp. (note 2)
Many thousands of Jews arrived at Buchenwald from Hungary and various eastern camps in 1944 and 1945. Most had been evacuated by railroad from Auschwitz and other camps threatened by the advancing Red Army. (note 3)
The number of inmates increased enormously during the final months of the war: 34,000 in November 1943, 44,000 in April 1944, and 80,000 in August 1944. A monthly peak was reached at the end of February 1945, when 86,000 inmates were crammed into the severely overcrowded camp. Almost 30,000 inmates were evacuated from Buchenwald during the week before the U.S. Army takeover on 11 April 1945. Altogether a total of 239,000 persons were interned in the camp between 1937 and April 1945. (note 4)
The first Commandant, Karl Koch, ran Buchenwald from 1937 until early 1942, when he was transferred to Majdanek. He proved a notoriously brutal and corrupt administrator who enriched himself with valuables stolen from numerous inmates, whom he then had killed to cover up his thefts. The camp physician, Dr. Waldemar Hoven, murdered many inmates in cooperation with Koch and the Communist underground camp organization. Koch was eventually charged by an SS court with murder and corruption, found guilty and executed. (note 5)
His wife, Ilse Koch, was involved in many of her husband’s crimes, but the fantastic charge that she had lamp shades and other items manufactured from the skins of murdered inmates is not true. This allegation was made by the United States prosecution team at the main Nuremberg trial. (note 6)
General Lucius D. Clay, Commander in Chief of U.S. Forces in Europe and Military Governor of the U.S. Occupation Zone of Germany, 1947-49, carefully reviewed the Use Koch case in 1948 and found that, whatever her other misdeeds, the lampshade charge was baseless. He commuted her sentence from life imprisonment to four years and informed the Army Department in Washington “There is no convincing evidence that she [Ilse Koch] selected inmates for extermination in order to secure tatooed skins or that she possessed any articles made of human skin.” (note 7) During a 1976 interview Clay recalled the case:
We tried Ilse Koch … She was sentenced to life imprisonment, and I commuted it to three [four] years. And our press really didn’t like that. She had been destroyed by the fact that an enterprising reporter who first went into her house had given her the beautiful name, the “Bitch of Buchenwald,” and he had found some white lampshades in there which he wrote up as being made out of human flesh
Well, it turned out actually that it was goat flesh But at the trial it was still human flesh. It was almost impossible for her to have gotten a fair trial.
… The Germans picked her up and gave her 12 years for her treatment of her own people. But it wasn’t really a war crime in the strict sense of the word.
And those are the kinds of things that we had to deal with all the time. (note 8)
There is no question that many atrocities were committed against Buchenwald inmates. However, at least a very large portion of them were committed, not by the German SS guards, but by the underground Communist camp organization that gained almost total internal control after 1943. This remarkable situation was confirmed in a detailed U.S. Army intelligence document of 24 April 1945 entitled Buchenwald: A Prelirninary Report. (note 9) This confidential analysis remained classified until 1972.
In a short preface, Army intelligence chief Alfred Toombs called this secret report “one of the most significant accounts yet written on an aspect of life in Nazi Germany” because it “tells how the [Buchenwald] prisoners themselves organized a deadly terror within the Nazi terror.” The general accuracy of the report had been independently confirmed, Toombs added.
As large numbers of foreigners began arriving at the camp during the war years, the confidential report noted, the understaffed SS found it necessary to turn over an ever larger share of camp administration to the inmates themselves. In practice this meant that by 1943 the well-organized and disciplined Communist inmate organization had taken virtually total control of the camp’s internal operation. As the report explained:
The trusties had wide powers over their fellow inmates. At first they were drawn almost exclusively from the German criminals. This period lasted until 1942. But gradually the Communists began to gain control of this organization. They were the oldest residents, with records of 10-12 years in the concentration camps … They clung together with remarkable tenacity, whereas the criminal elements were simply out for their own individual welfare and had little group cohesiveness. The Communists maintained excellent discipline and received a certain amount of direction from outside the camp. They had brains and technical qualifications for running the various industries established at the camp.
Their advances were not made without resistance from the criminals, but gradually the criminals were eliminated from power, partly by intimidation, partly with the aid of the SS. Numbers of the criminals were killed by beatings, hangings or injections of phenol into the heart or of air or milk into the veins. The injections were a specialty of the camp doctor [Hoven], who became a partisan of the Communist faction.
Besides the top positions in the trusty organization, there were a number of key Communist strongholds in the administration of the camp. One was the food supply organization, through which favored groups received reasonable rations while others were brought to the starvation level. A second was the hospital, staffed almost exclusively by Communists. Its facilities were largely devoted to caring for members of their party … Another Communist stronghold was the Property Room … Each German trusty obtained good clothing and numerous other valuables. The Communists of Buchenwald, after ten or twelve years in concentration carnps, are dressed like prosperous business men. Some affect leather jackets and little round caps of the German navy, apparently the uniform of revolution.
As a result of all this:
… lnstead of a heap of corpses or a disorderly mob of starving, leaderless men, the Americans [who captured the camp] found a disciplined and efficient organization in Buchenwald. Credit is undoubtedly due to the self-appointed Camp Committee, an almost purely Communist group under the domination of the German political leaders.
… The trusties, who in time became almost exclusively Communist Germans, had the power of life and death over all other inmates. They could sentence a man or a group to almost certain death … The Communist trusties were directly responsible for a large part of the brutalities committed at Buchenwald.
Communist block chiefs, the report stated, would personally beat their charges and “sometimes forced whole blocks to stand barefoot in the snow for hours, apparently on their own initiative.” The Communists killed “large numbers” of Polish inmates who refused to submit to their rule. They forced French inmates to give up thousands of Red Cross parcels. The report mentioned several particularly brutal Communist camp leaders by name.
It confirmed that the camp physician, Dr. Hoven, had been an important Communist ally who killed numerous criminal and anti-Communist political prisoners with lethal injections. An SS investigation team uncovered his activities during the war and sentenced him to death for murder. However, because of the critical wartime shortage of doctors, he was reprieved after 18 months in jail. After the war the Communists tried to protect their ally, but Hoven was sentenced to death for a second time by a U.S. military tribunal and executed in 1948.
Camp Communists maintained close relations with the well- organized underground Communist party on the outside. “From Buchenwald an inmate went out regularly to establish contact with a Communist courier bringing news and instructions. Bound by his loyalty to the Party, the contact man never made use of his opportunity to escape personally.” The Communist camp military organization had three machine guns, fifty rifles and a number of hand grenades. The German Communists lived better than any other group. “Even now,” the report noted, “they may be distinguished from the rest of the inmates by their rosy cheeks and robust health, though they have been in concentration camps for much longer than the others.”
Finally, the report’s authors warned against the simplistic and naive notion that former inmates should be trusted and helped just because they had been interned in German camps. “Some are in fact ‘bandits,’ criminals from all Europe or foreign workers in Germany who were caught stealing … They are brutalized, unpleasant to look on. It is easy to adopt the Nazi theory that they are subhuman.”
A book published in 1961 by the Communist-run “Intemational Buchenwald Committee” of East Berlin proudly describes the wartime activities of the camp’s Communist underground. It ran an underground camp newspaper, an illegal radio transmitter, an inmate orchestra (which played Communist songs), a large library and even a military organization. It held Communist ceremonies and political meetings, and carried out extensive sabotage of German war production. (note 10)
Former Buchenwald inmate Emst Fedem, a Jew, explained after the war how the Communist camp organization cooperated with the SS to increase its own power and eliminate opponents and undesirables. He recalled that the leader of the Jewish section of the Communist camp organization, Emil Carlebach, declared quite frankly that for him only his [Communist] friends counted, that everybody else might as well perish.” Fedem reported that he personally witnessed two acts of brutality by Carlebach, who was a Block Senior from 1942 until 1945. In one case he ordered the death of a fellow Jewish inmate for allegedly mistreating inmates at another camp. On another occasion Carlebach personally beat an elderly Jewish inmate from Tulkey to death because he had unavoidably relieved himself in the barracks. (note 11)
Similarly, an Englishman who spent 15 months in Buchenwald reported after the war that the Communist camp organization did not consider the Jewish inmates particularly worth trying tokeep alive. (note l2)
In recent years some homosexual organizations have claimed that thousands of homosexuals were “systematically exterminated” in the German concentration camps. While it is true that many were interned as criminals, no homosexual was ever killed by the Germans for that reason alone. It is also worth recalling that during the 1930s and 1940s, homosexual behavior was considered an odious crime in most of the world, including the United States.
A former Buchenwald inmate recalled in 1981: “… Homosexuals were oppressed by the Nazis because of their social mores … In Buchenwald, a great number of them were not killed by the Nazis, but by political prisoners [Communistsl, because of the homosexuals' aggressive and offensive behavior." (note l3)
Day-to-day conditions were much better than most portrayals would suggest. Inmates could both receive and send two letters or postcards monthly. They could receive money from the outside. Inmates were also paid for their labor with special camp currency which they could use to purchase a wide variety of items in the camp canteen. They played soccer, handball and volleyball in their spare time. Soccer matches were held on Saturdays and Sundays on the camp playing field. A large camp library offered a wide range of books. A motion picture theater was very popular. There were also variety shows, and musical groups put on regular concerts in the central square. A camp brothel, which employed 15 prostitutes when the Americans arnved, was available to many inmates. (note l4)
The Americans who arrived at Buchenwald in April 1945 found hundreds of sick inmates and many unburied corpses in the camp. Horrific photos of these gruesome scenes were immediately circulated throughout the world and have been widely reproduced ever since, giving the impression that Buchenwald was a diabolical mass killing center.
The American government encouraged this impression. A U.S. Army report about Buchenwald prepared for the Supreme Allied Headquarters in Europe and made public at the end of April 1945 declared that the "mission of the camp" was "an extennination factory." (note 15) And two weeks later a U.S. Congressional report on German camps, later used as a Nuremberg trial document, was issued which likewise described Buchenwald as an "extermination factory." (note l6)
This superficially plausible description is, however, completely wrong. The great majority of those who died at Buchenwald perished during the chaotic final months of the war. They succumbed to disease, often aggravated by malnutrition, in spite of woefully inadequate efforts to keep them alive. They were victims, not of an "extermination" program, but rather of the terrible overcrowding and severe lack of food and medical supplies due to a general collapse of order in Germany during the tumultuous final phase of the war.
Along with these indirect victims of the war were many healthy inmates. B.M. McKelway inspected Buchenwald shortly after the U.S. takeover as one of a group of American newspaper editors and publishers. He reported that "many of the hundreds of inmates we saw appeared to be healthy while others suffering from dysentery, typhus, tuberculosis and other diseases were living skeletons." (note 17)
One striking indication that Buchenwald was not an "extermination" camp is the fact that some of the internees were children too young to work. An estimated one thousand boys, aged two to 16, were housed in two special children's barracks. Train transports of Jewish children arrived from 1942 to 1945. Some arrived from Auschwitz in 1943. Other Jewish children came from Hungary and Poland. (note 18) The confidential U.S. Army report of April 24, 1945, noted the "most remarkable sight of the children" who "rush about, shrieking and playing." (note l9)
Thirty years after the war, even famed "Nazi hunter" Simon Wiesenthal conceded that "there were no extermination camps on German soil." (note 20)
Perhaps the most vicious lie circulated after the war about Buchenwald is the charge that the Germans exterminated inmates there in gas chambers. An official French government report submitted to the Nuremberg tribunal as a prosecution exhibit imaginatively stated: "Everything had been provided for down to the smallest detail. In 1944, at Buchenwald, they had even lengthened a railway line so that the deportees might be led directly to the gas chamber. Certain [of the gas chambers] had a floor that tipped and immediately directed the bodies into the room with the crematory oven.” (note 21) The chief British prosecutor at the main Nuremberg trial, Sir Hartley Shawcross, declared in his closing address that”murder [was] conducted like some mass production industry in the gas chambers and the ovens” of Buchenwald and other camps. (note 22)
In a book published in 1947, French priest Georges Henocque, former chaplain of the Saint-Cyr Military Academy, claimed to have visited the inside of a Buchenwald gas chamber, which he described in detaiL This particular story has been cited as a good example of the kind of Holocaust lies which even prominent personalities are capable of inventing. (note 23)
Another French priest and former inmate, Jean-Paul Renard, made a similar claim about the camp in his own book published shortly after the war: “I saw thousands and thousands of persons going into the showers. Instead of liquid, asphyxiating gases poured out over them.” When fellow Frenchman and former Buchenwald inmate Paul Rassinier pointed out to the priest that there was no gas chamber in the camp, Renard replied: “Right, but that’s only a figure of speech … and since those things existed somewhere, it’s not imporant.” (note 24)
In a book published in 1948, Hungarian Jewish writer Eugene Levai charged that the Germans killed tens of thousands of Hungarian Jews at Buchenwald in gas chambers. (note 25)
A widely distributed booklet issued by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith also spread the tale that people were gassed at Buchenwald. (note 26)
In 1960 the Buchenwald gassing story was officially declared a fable. In that year, Martin Broszat of the anti-Hitler Institute for Contemporary History in Munich specifically stated that no one was ever gassed at Buchenwald. (note 27) Professor A.S. Balachowsky, a member of the Institut de France, likewise declared in November 1971: “I would like to confirm to you that no gas chamber as such existed at Buchenwald …” (note 28) Holocaust writer Konnilyn Feig conceded in her book, Hitler’s Death Camps, that Buchenwald did not have a gas chamber. (note 29) Today no serious historian still claims gassings there.
The numbers of persons estimated to have perished at Buchenwald while it was under German control vary tremendously. According to former inmate Elie Wiesel, the prolific Jewish writer and 1986 Nobel Peace Prize recipient, “In Buchenwald they sent 10,000 to their deaths every day.” (note 30) This wildly irresponsible statement is, unfortunately, all too typical of the the rhetoric of the man who was also chosen to head the U.S. govemment’s official Holocaust Memorial Council.
The 1980 edition of the World Book Encyclopedia claimed that “more than 100,000″ died in the camp. (note 31) The Encyclopaedia Judaica put the number at 56,549. (note 32) Raul Hilberg, writing in the 1982 edition of the Encyclopedia Americana, stated that “more than 50,000 died in the Buchenwald complex.” (note 33)
The U.S. Army intelligence report of April 24, 1945 (cited above) noted that the total number of certified deaths was 32,705. (note 34) A detailed June 1945 U.S. government report about Buchenwald put the total at 33,462, of whom more than 20,000 died in the chaotic final months of the war. (note 35)
The authoritative Intemational Tracing Service of Arolsen, an affiliate of the Intemational Red Cross, stated in 1984 that the number of documented deaths (of both Jews and non-Jews) at Buchenwald was 20,671, with another 7,463 for Dora (Mittelbau). (note 36)
While even these lower figures are regrettably high, it is important to realize that the great majority of those who died at Buchenwald were unfortunate victims of a catastrophic war, not Germany policy. Most of the rest were murdered by order of the Communist underground camp organization. Several hundred were also killed in Allied bombing attacks.
In one air raid against a large munitions factory near the main camp, British bombers killed 750 persons, including 400 inmates. (note 37)
Following the American takeover of Buchenwald in April 1945, about 80 remaining German guards and camp functionaries were summarily murdered. Inmates brutally beat the Germans to death, sometimes with the aid and encouragement of American soldiers. (note 38) Between 20 and 30 GIs took turns gleefully beating six young Germans to death. (note 39) Inmates also commandeered American jeeps and drove to nearby Weimar, where they looted and randomly killed German civilians. (note 40)
After the war the Soviet secret police operated Buchenwald as a concentration camp for “potential class enemies” and other “possibly dangerous” German civilians. In September 1949, more than four years after the end of the war, there were still 14,300 inmates in the “special camp.” (While Buchenwald was under German control, the number of inmates did not reach 14,000 until May 1943.) Conditions were horrible. Even the Soviet official in charge of the concentration camps in Germany, General Merkulov, acknowledged the severe lack of order and cleanliness, particularly at Buchenwald. At least 13,000 and as many as 21,000 persons died in Soviet-run Buchenwald, but no one has ever been punished for the deaths and mistreatment in this notorious postwar camp. (note 4l) One former inmate described his “five years of horrible seclusion, humiliations, interrogations and annihilation” in the Soviet-run camp in these words:
People were mere numbers. Their dignity was consciously trampled upon. They were starved without mercy and consumed by tuberculosis until they were skeletons. The annihilation process which had been well tested over decades was systematic. The cries and groans of those in pain still echo in my ears whenever the past comes back to me in sleepless nights. We had to watch helplessly as people perished according to plan — like creatures sacrificed to annihilation.
Many nameless people were caught up in the annihilation machinery of the NKVD [Soviet secret police] after the collapse of 1945. They were herded together like cattle after the so-called liberation and vegetated in the many concentration carnps. Many were systematically tortured to death. A memorial was built for the dead of the Buchenwald concentration camp. A figure of death victims was chosen based on fantasy. Intentionally, only the dead of the 1937-1945 period were honored. Why is there no memorial honoring the dead of 1945 to 1950? Countless mass graves were dug around the camp in the postwar penod. (note 42)
In an act of stunning hypocrisy, the Communist rulers of the postwar “Gemlan Democratic Republic” have turned the Buchenwald camp area into a kind of secular shrine. Every year, hundreds of thousands visit the sites, complete with museums, bell tower, monumental sculpture and memorials dedicated, ironically enough, to the “victims of fascism.” (note 43) There is nothing to remind visitors of the thousands of forgotten Germans who perished miserably during the years after the war when the camp was run by the Soviets.
The story of Buchenwald, like the story of virtually every German wartime concentration camp, is a microcosm of the entire Holocaust tale. The widely-accepted portrayal of Buchenwald, like those of the other German camps, contrasts sharply with the little- known reality.
1. The information in this section is from two sources: “Buchenwald,” Encyclopaeda Judaica (New York and Jersualem: 1971), Vol. 4, pp. 1442, 1445; and U.S. government report B-2833 of 18 June 1945. Document 217I-PS, published in the “red senes,” Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression (NC&A) (Washington, DC: 1946-48), Vol. 4, pp. 800-833.
2. U.S. Army report of 25 May 1945. Document 2222-PS. Published in NC&A, Vol. 4, pp. 86p864; “German-Bom NASA Expert …,” New York Times, 18 October 1984, pp. Al, A12: “Ex-Nazi Denies Role …,” New York Times, 21 October 1984, p. 8.
5. Nuremberg testimony of Günther Reinecke, 7 August 1946. Published in the IMT “blue series,” Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal (IMT) (Nuremberg: 1947 49), VoL 20, pp. 438, 441 142; SS indictment brief against Karl Koch, 11 April 1944. Document NO-2360.
8. Interview with Lucius D. Clay. Official Proceedings of the George C. Marshall Research Foundation. Transcript of a videotape interview shown at the conference “U.S. Occupation in Europe After World War II,” 23- 24 April 1976 at Lexington, Van, sponsored by the George C. Marshall Research Foundation, pp. 37-38. (I am grateful to Robert Wolfe of the National Archives for bringing this interview to my attention.)
9. Egon W. Fleck and Edwartd At Tenenbaum, Buchenwald: A Preliminary Report, U.S. Army, 12th Army Group, 24 April 1945. National Archives, Record Group 331, SHAEF, G-5, 17.11, Jacket 10, Box 151 (8929tl63-8929/180). I am grateful to Mr. Timothy Mulligan of the Military Branch of the National Archives for bringing this report to my attention. See also: Donald B. Robinson, “Communist Atrocities at Buchenwald,” American Mercury, October 1946, pp. 397-404; and Christopher Burney, The Dungeon Democracy (New York 1946), pp. 21, 22-23, 28-29, 32, 33, 34, 44, 46, 49.
14. John Mendelsoln; “Sources,” Prologue (Washington, DC: National Archives), Fall 1983, p. 180; Konnilyn G. Feig, Hitler’s Death Camps (New York 1981), p. 96; K. Morgen testimony, 7 August 1946, IMT, Vol. 20, p. 490; testimony by former Buchenwald inmate Arnost Tauber at Nuremberg “I.G. Farben” trial, 12 Nov. 1947. Printed in: Udo Walendy (ed.), Auschwitz im IG-Farben Prozess (1981), p. 119; Roger Manvell and H. Fraenkel. The Incomparable Crime (New Yorlc 1967), p. 155; Buchenwald Camp: The Report of a Parliamentary Delegation (London: HMSO, 1945), pp. 4, 5.
19. E.W. Fleck and EA. Tenenbaurn, Buchenwald: A Prelinunary Report, 24 April 1945 (Cited above), p. 14; see also the photo of Jewish children inmates at Buchenwald in: Robert Abzug, Inside the Vicious Heart (New York: Oxford, 1985), pp. 148-149.
24. Paul Rassinier, Debunking the Genocide Myth (Torrance, CA.: The Noontide Press, 1978), pp. 129-130.
26. Earl Raab, The Anatomy of Nazism (New York ADL, 1979), photo caption opposite page 21. The Buchenwald gassing myth was also propagated in: Francis Tomczuk, “Days of Remembrance,” American Legion Magazine, April 1985, p. 23.
41. “Bis 1950: Buchenwald und Sachsenhausen,” Amerika Woche (Chicago), 11 May 1985, p. 3; “Im Todeslager der Sowjets.” D. National-Zeitung (Munich), Nr. 47, 15 Nov. 1985, p. 4; “Soviet Camps Busy, Berlin Paper Says,” Ncw York Times, 10 Sept. 1949, p. 6.
42. Letter by E. Krombholz of Aschaffenburg, “Erlebnisbericht aus einem Sowjet-KZ,” D. National-Zeitung (Munich), Nr. 11, 9 Mash 1984, p. 10; see also sketches of conditions in Soviet-run Buchenwald by former imnate Dr. Heinz Moller in: D. National-Zeitung (Munich), Nr. 6, 3 Feb. 1984, p. 5.
[From The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1986-87 (Vol. 7, No 4), pages 405-417]
Source: Institute for Historical Review.
June 7, 2009
Tomislav Sunic’s recent article, Who is an Anti-Semite?, brings to the fore an important question that has been insufficiently discussed within our circles, and which must, nevertheless, be the complement to any debate about White displacement and multiculturalism. That question is: How are we to redefine our attitudes towards non-Whites in a context where Whites are being forced to compete for resources under the gaze of a hostile elite?
As Sunic points out, in both Europe and America, White attitudes towards Jews have come to be defined in modern times by mendacity and intellectual servility. Faced with a political, academic, and media establishment — the current masters of discourse — configured around a colossal concentration of Jewish power, Whites have not only trained themselves to avoid Jewish wrath by keeping any critical opinions about Jews to themselves, but they have also learnt to curry Jewish favor by flaunting their admiration for Jewish superiority and achievement, by piously demonstrating their conformity to Semitically-correct cognitive structures, and by loudly championing Jewish causes — even when these run directly counter to White interests. Sunic correctly suggests that, in as much as this fuels Jewish hubris, such an unhealthy relationship approaches a limit where it exists one crisis away from detonating into violent anti-Semitism.
The phenomenon is not confined to Jews, however, because inasmuch as the political, academic, and media discourse has come to be defined by a succession of highly-influential Jewish intellectual movements that have over time discredited White racial consciousness and affirmation, White mendacity and intellectual servility also permeate — just as unhealthily — White relations with other racial groups. Thus we end up with a situation where, out of fear of or a desire for favor from the present masters of discourse, Whites dare not protest, and even applaud, their own displacement and dispossession by a rainbow coalition of hair-trigger Blacks, thermonuclear feminists, in-your-face homosexuals, vengefully reproductive Hispanics, and agallimaufry of ethnically-motivated intellectual terrorists.
For Whites, such a state of affairs makes no tactical sense. Any relief or advantage that Whites may gain now from dulcifying their racial adversaries will be more than cancelled out if Whites end up an oppressed minority in their own traditional homelands, with nowhere else left to run on planet Earth. It is infinitely preferable to accept the discomfort of being called names now, because the more time passes, the worse the consequences of appeasing the name-callers will become, and the more radical the subsequent corrective measures will need to be — if they are to have any chance of success. And even then, there is a limit to how long we can postpone the unpleasantness, for the consequences of appeasement will eventually become permanent and irreversible.
Of course, were it purely a matter of logic, we would easily win the debate over White displacement and multiculturalism, because our arguments are amply substantiated by science and history. The problem is, however, that we are not dealing with rational processes: we are dealing with psychological processes that stem from an innate human need for belonging and self-esteem, which have been successfully exploited by the masters of discourse, and which are notoriously impervious to logical argument.
Because self-esteem is largely dependent on social legitimization, humans are unlikely to risk opprobrium without a pay-off that is both comparable in character and superior in extent. This is particularly true of what I call “respectable” Whites — status-conscious Whites whose self-esteem is dependent upon meeting the accepted definition of respectable in a social context whose moral tenets conform to the establishment formulation. Because “Respectable” Whites will typically find any pay-off for pro-White dissidence either negative or not immediately apparent, these “respectable” Whites will sooner buttress their socially-sanctioned anti-White attitudes with absurd self-justificatory sophistry and rationalizations than visibly defend their own collective racial interests.
“Respectable” Whites are prevented by their fear of opprobrium from accepting that there is nothing wrong with criticizing, or even disliking, members of a particular racial group because they exhibit characteristics that are in fact more common among that group.
Further, “respectable” Whites are conditioned by their fear of opprobrium to forget that we all have our own individual preferences, and that no one can possibly like everybody: After all, a great many people can be downright irritating, obnoxious, stupid, embarrassing, and, sometimes, malevolent and radically opposed to everything we hold dear. These Whites are prevented by their fear of opprobrium from finding it natural that individuals, even if likeable on a personal level, may well have interests that conflict with those of Whites because of a group self-identification.
“Respectable” Whites are at present incapable of honesty in race relations because they conflate criticizing or disliking entire groups of people with rudeness, crudeness, ignorance, lack of culture, lack of intelligence, moral turpitude, and psychiatric disorder. This is because the masters of discourse, being excellent tacticians and consummate stylists, have very effectively promoted that conflation both in academia and in the mass media of news and entertainment, where racially-conscious Whites are persistently portrayed as primitive nincompoops whose company no self-respecting, cultured, intelligent person would ever seek or tolerate. The stereotype of the White hillbilly from the American South, dysgenically inbred, gap-toothed, jug-eared, and of negligible cranial cubicage, is a well-known — and socially acceptable — weapon of mass embarrassment.
Because the underlying psychological processes are irrational, the war against White racial consciousness is waged on an infra-rational battlefield, through a controlled flow of highly stylized images, memes, and sound bites. The latter are readily identifiable, as they are invariably regurgitated — almost word for word — every time a racial infraction has been committed: “There is no place for racism in the 21st century”; “Hitler and the Nazis killed six million Jews”; “Such views are abhorrent and I deplore them.”
None of these are logical or substantive arguments. Yet, together with the progressive disappearance, slander, and stupidification of Whites in big-budget film, television, and advertising, they comprise a semiotic strategy that is integral to the Leftist anti-White project, and more effective than any logical argument. As I have argued before, mastery of style trumps superiority of argument every time.
Effectively combating the anti-White mental poison will require us to mirror our enemy’s tactics through the development of a semiotic strategy our own — notfor the enemy’s consumption, but for the emotional benefit of the “respectable” Whites whom the enemy have so thoroughly terrorized. Only then will the positive pay-off of pro-White dissidence become apparent to this self-effacing constituency. The data and the arguments already exist, and they are quite substantive; what is missing is the shiny packaging.
In the current cultural climate, in a society where power has its basis on money, it might seem impossible to elaborate a convincing semiotic strategy with which to sell pro-White dissidence to “respectable” Whites. When the masters of discourse have the power to frustrate the achievement of academic, professional, social, and economic status (i.e., the usual sources of social legitimization upon which self-esteem largely depends), attempting to suggest that incurring the wrath of these masters is likely to pay off might justifiably appear unrealistic and naïve. Few have the stomach to be martyrs or impecunious revolutionaries.
Yet, the fact is that Whites still possess a considerable demographic advantage, they still concentrate an enormous amount of talent, and they still control most of the wealth within their own traditional homelands: Enough opportunities exist within alternative networks, therefore, to remain economically active, and even enjoy material security, without subservience to the present political, academic, and media establishment.
Moreover, there are plenty of alternative networks — call them subcultures — that have successfully grown in demographic presence, economic power, and cultural influence, despite being defined, in some cases, by radically anti-establishment ideologies. The Black Metal music subculture, wherein I operate a record label, is an excellent example. The Neo-Folk music subculture is another. And the Martial Industrial music subculture is yet another. All, it should be noted, possess well-defined and highly stylized semiotic systems. And while the latter are informed by ideology, it is their auditory and visual appeal that first gains a following.
Most importantly, however, any semiotic strategy that we develop can easily exploit the fact that dissident subcultures confer upon its members feelings of intellectual and moral superiority. This stems from their being in a select minority that possesses information that is unknown within (and is often too harrowing for) a self-deluded and mendacious mainstream. This already applies within pro-White activism and related circles (and has also long characterized Jewish intellectual and political movements), but in our case it has not been self-consciously stylized and repurposed as a marketing tool —not since the fascist movements of the 1930s.
Finally, and as contradictory as it might seem, given the fact that pro-White activism aspires to achieve mainstream status, any semiotic strategy that we develop must emphasise elitism and exclusivity. These values are closely associated with the idea of belonging to a dissident subculture with access to secret knowledge. They are also highly compatible with the worldviews — Nietzschean, Conservative Revolutionary, Radical Traditionalist — prevalent among racially conscious Whites.
The integration of these values into a stylized semiotic system is essential if the latter is to successfully capture the imagination of “respectable” Whites who otherwise would rather arrest their continuing displacement and dispossession. It makes people feel good when they belong to something special, and making something special necessitates a semioticized system of status levels and barriers to entry that recognises worthiness and achievement but is not open to everyone. Why otherwise do so many in democratic societies — democratic societies that loudly proclaim their commitment to equality — voluntarily create and subject themselves to authoritarian structures, eagerly making financial sacrifices and enduring all manner of trials and humiliations as they strive to attain membership in an exclusive club, lodge, circle, or society?
The need to market themselves with a view to improving performance in electoral contests has forced pro-White political parties like the BNP, Jobbik,Vlaams Belang, and the NPD to improvise their own semiotic laboratories. In capitalist economies, however, where people define themselves according to what Jean Baudrillard called “the system of objects,” the valorizing of Whiteness needs to be encoded in a wide range of high-quality, visually-distinct, style-conscious, and ideologically-informed commercial products, so that their consumers may surround themselves with a feel-good message of self-affirmation while the designers and manufacturers of these products enhance the economic power and social status of racially conscious Whites. In as much as these products will necessitate an alternative consumer media within which to advertize them and alternative advertizing agencies to design the advertisements, the pro-White message could well develop into a marketable proposition.
The end product to aim for is a parallel universe, comprised of alternative institutions, media, and markets, that legitimates Whiteness and is poised for a cultural reconquista once the present establishment is sufficiently weakened by its own cultural bankruptcy and corruption.
So long as we persist in relying solely on logical argument and in dismissing style as a superficial pursuit, however, we will remain a clique of middle aged, angry White men, slanderously cartoonified by our enemies in the derisory manner that best suits their purpose. Our enemies became masters of the discourse by first being masters of style; they understood that humans would rather look good and feel good and be accepted in a social context than maintain a factually correct position. So long as we fail to match our enemy’s astute understanding of the irrational urges that motivate human behaviour, we will remain on course to be remembered in future histories as the extinct human race that always apologized for itself with the timid preface, “I am not racist, but…”
June 6, 2009
This Week in Disorganized America:
June 5, 2009
Those of us who are critical of the power of the Israel Lobby have been intrigued by the fact that the Obama administration seems to be standing up to the Israelis — and, by implication, to the Israel Lobby. After all, during the election campaign Obama did all the right things to show his support of the Israel Lobby and calm the fears of some Jewish activists that he would not be sufficiently pro-Israel, including which Philip Weiss termed a “truckling” speech at the AIPAC convention.
Obama was rewarded for his apparent fealty. Around 80% of Jews voted for Obama, and Jews contributed more than 50% of the Democratic Party’s money during the campaign. His choice of Rahm Emanuel (who served with Israeli Defense Force during the 1991 Gulf War) as Chief of Staff and the presence iof seasoned pro-Israel activists like Dennis Ross in the State Department also made it seem that Obama’s policy toward Israel would not be a major departure.
Nevertheless, the Obama administration has appointed George Mitchell (who has a reputation as relatively evenhanded) as Middle East envoy and made conciliatory statements toward the Muslim world. More importantly, the administration has called for a two-state solution and pressed Israel to put a meaningful freeze on settlement expansion—including what Steven Walt terms the “fig leaf of ‘natural growth’”. (The New York Times reports that if all the currently approved West Bank housing units were actually built, it would almost double the total.)
One could be excused for being skeptical about these developments. Walt interprets the Obama administration’s behavior as entirely in keeping with the thrust of the ideas presented in The Israel Lobby. He interprets the stance of the Obama administration as a hopeful sign that the United States is at last pursuing a policy that is in the interests of both the US and Israel. But he warns that thus far, it’s all rhetoric.
Indeed, other presidents—most notably Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush—have put pressure on Israel, only to be thwarted because of the power of the Israel Lobby in Congress. There have already been murmurs of dissent in Congress about Obama’s statements among both Democrats and Republicans—the latter doubtless sensing a political opening.
It must concentrate the minds of the Obama administration to realize that Carter and Bush were one-term presidents who were heavily criticized by the Israel Lobby. Jimmy Carter was widely viewed as hostile to Israel during the 1980 election, and his policy toward Israel was the main impetus to the migration of neoconservatives to the Republican Party. Many believe that George H. W. Bush’s loss in 1992 stemmed from his attempt to rein in the settlements. (George W. Bush apparently got the message and decided not to alienate the Lobby on the settlement issue. This resulted, among other things, in his administration becoming bogged down in a needless and costly war in Iraq.)
One wonders if many American Jews feel they would have been better off with John McCain and his neocon foreign policy advisors—especially considering that McCain’s treasonous attitudes on immigration and the rest of his domestic agenda were compatible with Jewish attitudes.
The reaction to the Obama administration’s rhetoric by Jewish fanatics in Israel has been predictably over the top. National Religious Party’s leader, Science Minister Daniel Herschkowitz, compared Obama to an archetypal anti-Semite from the past: “The American demand to prevent natural growth is unreasonable, and brings to mind Pharaoh who said: Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river.”
Israeli activists are launching protests, and posters of “Barak Hussein Obama” (middle name included) in Arabic headgear with the statement “Anti-Semitic Jew Hater” are being distributed throughout Israel.
Poster of President Obama
Wearing a Kaffiyeh
Philip Weiss notes that one of the protests was organized by “none other than Nadia Matar, who when we last saw her was raising [tax deductible] money in a New York synagogue and calling for Mahmoud Abbas to be assassinated.” The following statement by an activist gets at the depth of emotion involved:
I’m here to tell Obama that Eretz Yisrael belongs to the Jewish people. What right does anybody have to tell us to stop building in the land that was given to us by God? I’m not going to stand by and let Obama, or anybody else, tell me where I can live and where I can’t live.
This is actually quite mild compared to the comments (most of them scatological) by young Israelis in this video by Max Blumenthal.
J Street and the Israeli left (and commentators such as Steven Walt) believe that freezing the settlements and agreeing to a viable Palestinian state are good for Israel. I have expressed doubts about this in my review of The Israel Lobby—the main point being that Israel has the power, especially with the cooperation of the US, to achieve its goal of seizing substantially all of the West Bank and relegating the Palestinians to a completely degraded status to the point that most will emigrate.
Of course, these aggressive, expansionist policies make Israel into an international pariah. But the Israel Lobby has a long and successful track record in rationalizing Israeli behavior, at least in the United States.
The more important point is that it really doesn’t matter if it’s good for Israel. The present government is the most right-wing in Israeli history, and many of its supporters are the types of fanatics putting up posters stating that Obama is an “Anti-Semitic Jew hater.”
The extremists have had a powerful say in Israeli politics, at least since the 1967 war. They are now more entrenched than ever. There is simply no way that these people are going to make major territorial concessions without a fight.
Any attempt to rein in the settlements or make a meaningful withdrawal from the West Bank and East Jerusalem or allow a viable Palestinian state would produce a civil war among Israelis. But it’s also quite clear that there is no political will in Israel for supporting such policies. The Labor Party functions mainly to collaborate with the right in order to give it a fig leaf of respectability (see also here). (Predictably, Labor leader Ehud Barak was sent to the US to present the Israeli position on the settlements.) According to my calculation, the ethno–religious–nationalist–pro-settlement right holds 92 of 120 seats in the Knesset.
As throughout Jewish history, it is the most committed members who determine the direction of the entire group. This is doubtless true of most groups, but it is especially the case with Jews where there is a long history of fanaticism. In the present case, the most fanatical members of the Jewish community are firmly in support of territorial expansion in the West Bank. They are a solid majority in Israeli politics.
I am reminded of Christiane Amanpour’s depiction of Jewish fanatics in her excellent TV documentary, God’s Jewish Warriors (now back online[!]). One of the early scenes shows a large force of Israeli soldiers forcibly removing settlers from a Hebron neighborhood. Imagine what it would be like to remove anything approaching the nearly 500,000 settlers (as of 2006) now living in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights.
These West Bank settlers and Jewish activists are massively ethnocentric, and they do not accept Western values like democracy and free speech. They live in a completely Jewish world where their every thought and perception is colored by their Jewish identity. Theirs is an apartheid world separated by high concrete walls from their Palestinian neighbors, where even tiny settlements are necessarily protected by the Israeli army.
At a time when Americans are constantly being encouraged by Jewish organizations like the ADL to be ever more tolerant of all kinds of diversity, these people are anything but tolerant. Calls for expropriation and expulsion of the Palestinians are commonplace among them. Many believe that God gave Jews all of the West Bank and Jerusalem.
Such people may not be representative of the Jewish community, at least in America. But their numbers are large, and they have created “facts on the ground” that make any kind of reasonable settlement impossible.
In the foreseeable future, it is quite clear that no Israeli government will fail to promote their interests. And the problem will only exacerbate as time goes on because the fanatics are the ones having the children. Already, the calls for “natural growth” of the settlements are rationalized because of the high fertility of the settler population.
As Walt points out, there are indeed signs in America that the less fanatic Jews, such as J Street, may have some influence in blunting the force of the Israel Lobby or possibly even turning it against the settlement movement. However, in keeping with the general finding that the most extreme Jews tend to win the day within the Jewish community, I predict that in the end Jews will be forced to choose between supporting their extremist brethren, or become marginalized or even ostracized from the Jewish community. The great majority of activist Jews in the US will support Israel even if it continues to stand firmly behind the settlement movement.
And when push comes to shove, Jews will go along with the activists who lead the organized Jewish community. One can talk about U.S. interests or Israeli interests all one wants, but this is a fight to the finish.
I’m not sure that Obama realizes what he’s getting into.
Source: The Occidental Observer.
June 5, 2009
GENEVA (AP) — The United Nations’ top racism investigator says Washington needs to step up the fight against racial profiling.
Mithu Muigai says in a 29-page report that law enforcement is responsible for the “most pronounced” racism now practiced in the United States.
He says the Constitution clearly prohibits racial profiling, but evidence such as arrest and search rates shows a wide disparity between whites and nonwhites. He says state governments need to do more, too.
Muigai is a Kenyan lawyer who reports to the U.N. Human Rights Council. He will present his report to the 47-nation body June 16.
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Esther Brimmer said Friday in Geneva that she received the report. She said Washington would study its findings and recommendations.
Source: The Associated Press.
June 5, 2009
Any day now, unless the American public wakes up and contacts its Congressthings, the Englishmen who have dubbed themselves “The Heretical 2″— writer Stephen Whittle (pen name Luke O’Farrell), and his publisher, Simon Sheppard—will be deported back to the UK, where they will be imprisoned for up to seven years.
I wrote in July, September, and again on May 18 about this pair, who had been convicted in England of thoughtcrimes, specifically of “publishing racially inflammatory written material” on the internet. (In January, Sheppard was also convicted of five more counts in absentia). They fled the UK for the U.S. last July, and upon arrival trustingly notified the authorities that they were seeking political asylum.
It made perfect sense. They have been convicted of a purely political offense, which is not a crime in the U.S.—yet. (Indeed, Whittle has persuasively argued that, based on English jurists’ expansive reading of U.K. “hate crime” statutes, even VDARE.com writers could be arrested on “hate crime” charges, should they ever so much as change planes in England.) The U.S. gets tens of thousands of asylum applications a year. Virtually all are let in on their own recognizance. A very high proportion end up staying here, with asylum or not.
The sometimes brilliant, sometimes sophomoric Sheppard and Whittle are plenty inflammatory, alright. They are typically referred to as “Holocaust-deniers,” though Whittle has rejected my characterization of them as such. On that point, we’re going to have to agree to disagree.
Sounds like a hot story, no? And yet, the American MainStream Media have given them the silent treatment. (The first major story has only just appeared: Men bedeviled in bid for sanctuary, by Dana Parsons, Los Angeles Times, June 3, 2009).
Why do Sheppard and Whittle matter, and why do they matter so much?
Because the U.S. government’s treatment of them is of a piece with its treatment of white Americans with the “wrong” sort of views—views which are increasingly being criminalized, the Constitution be damned.
The federal government permits people to immigrate here by the millions whose beliefs are incompatible with the U.S. Constitution, and who routinely commit acts as part of their “culture,” such as female genital mutilation, polygamy, slavery and honor killings (also here and here), which are crimes here. Sheppard and Whittle made a classic asylum argument, showing that the actions for which they were convicted in the UK are not crimes here. Why do the feds welcome criminals, while refusing asylum to men whose actions violated no American laws?
The answer is that Sheppard and Whittle are unapologetically white, and pro-Western. In contrast, our elites seek out and welcome Somalis, Sudanese, and other African Bantu and Moslems etc, because those groups are unapologetically non-white, and anti-Western.
Consider federal prosecutor Michelle Myers’ kangaroo court reasoning in the Heretical 2’s asylum case. Whittle: “[T]hat as U.S. Asylum laws were designed to protect refugees and we criticized refugees, we could not possibly be protected under said laws”.
Myers also implied she supported EU crackdowns on freedom of speech, discreditable to her but irrelevant to American law.
My hunch: Myers is so used to “making her cases” through wielding the coercive power of the state like a brickbat, that she is incapable of making a legal argument. And since she had a like-minded judge, Rose Peters, she didn’t have to. The logic of the Heretical 2’s case meant nothing. (In contrast, in 2004, Judge Peters refused to allow the US government to deport an IRA man convicted of abetting the murder of two British soldiers.)
The EU-style crackdown on free speech is coming here. Militant homosexuals, illegal immigrants, racist blacks and their totalitarian supporters are presently championing a new, enhanced “hate crime” law, the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act” (LLEHCPA—H.R. 1913/S. 909) which, if passed, will degrade civil liberties in America to the level rest of the planet. (For more VDARE.COM coverage, see here and here).
Earlier, the bill was called the “Matthew Shepard Act” Matthew Shepard, 21, was a homosexual college student in Laramie, Wyoming, who in 1998 was robbed, tied to a fence, and pistol-whipped by white heterosexuals. Shepard later died.
The MSM and Hollywood have exploited Shepard ever since, asserting that he was somehow representative of an entire besieged demographic group whose persecutors were getting mere wrist slaps.
In fact, Shepard’s killers are currently each serving two consecutive life sentences, in one case without the possibility of parole, i.e., as much or more punishment than they would have gotten under a hate crime law.
“Huh. Well…what injustice is this Matthew Shepard Act preventing, exactly? I thought it was just barely illegal to kill and torture gay people…but shockingly, it seems that the existing laws against murder and violence ALREADY cover gay people as well, and ostensibly, even handicapped people.” [Preventing Another Great Travesty of Justice by The Kvetcher, May 13, 2009.]
Shepard’s murder provided no rationale for a new law. But homosexuals wield incredible power within the MSM. In William McGowan’s landmark 2001 book, Coloring the News: How Crusading for Diversity Has Corrupted American Journalism, he juxtaposed the MSM’s treatment of the Shepard murder with the 1999 rape-torture-murder, committed in Rogers, AK, by homosexual pedophiles against 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising. In the first month after the Shepard murder, 3,007 stories were devoted to the case. In contrast, the Dirkhising rape-torture-murder story was “spiked”, with only 46 stories appearing the first month after the murder.
The reason was simple: the Shepard case cast homosexuals in the role of victims. But the Dirkhising case cast homosexuals as the villains, which political correctness forbids.
Another notorious crime which was exploited by the “hate crime” lobby was the 1998 torture-dragging murder, in Jasper, Texas, of black James Byrd Jr., 49, by three white supremacists. (All four men were ex-cons, and had “served jail time together.”) During the 2000 presidential campaign, the NAACP illegally campaigned on behalf of Democratic candidate Al Gore, running TV ads condemning then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush for not supporting “hate crime” legislation, which supposedly would have achieved justice for Byrd and black victims of similar crimes.
But as Bush pointed out at the time, one of Byrd’s killers had been sentenced to life in prison, the maximum he could have gotten under the proposed legislation, and the other two had been sentenced to death. Thus, the claim that heinous crimes committed by heterosexual white men against blacks were being inadequately punished was a lie.
With all due respect for the memory of James Byrd, a white Texan named Ken “Bimbo” Tillery was murdered near Jasper in 2002 in a similar fashion by three racist blacks. And I routinely report on black rape-torture-murders of whites so gruesome that they make the Byrd case look like a tea party. However, the MSM and political activists pushing for “hate crime” laws suppress news about the white victims of racist black killers; failing that, they deny that the whites were victims of “hate.”
Critics point out that LLEHCPA will lead to the inflation of non-crimes and misdemeanors into felonies, the multiplication of charges and sentences upon conviction, the criminalization of (white) Christians and other people, based solely on their opinions, and will violate the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
The militants counter that the critics are crazy homophobes, and that the legislation will have no such effect. But that’s what militant homosexuals said in England and Canada. And once those countries enacted “hate crime laws,” Christians were persecuted for acting, or merely speaking as Christians. Militant homosexuals here speak fondly of those draconian laws. (Indeed, extant “anti-discrimination” laws in America have already been used to persecute Christians.)
Consider the ongoing hate campaign that California homosexual militants orchestrated, beginning last November, against whites who had financially contributed to the successful campaign for Prop. 8, which affirmed yet again, that marriage is between a man and a woman. (Never mind that it was black Christian support that carried the referendum.) Considering how hate-filled the militants already are, do we really want to put the power of Leviathan in their hands?
LLEHCPA also applies to the fictional category of “transgenders,” those poor, deluded souls who are convinced that they are sexually the opposite of that which God or nature made them, and who have their bodies butchered and re-formed like so much chopped meat. Critics of the bill call it the “Pedophile Protection Act,” arguing that it would also confer protected minority status on practitioners of anywhere from 30 to 547 sexual perversions (“paraphilia”), including incest, pedophilia, necrophilia, voyeurism and exhibitionism.
The bill’s supporters have accused opponents of dishonesty. Yet its sponsors have refused to define “sexual orientation,” and rejected an amendment expressly denying pedophilia status as a “sexual orientation.”
An equally crazy consequence of LLEHCPA would be to codify the presently illegal practice by scores of cities and two states of granting sanctuary to illegal foreign invaders. Under LLEHCPA, illegal aliens would have superior status to Americans in federal law simply by virtue of being part of a “protected class”.
“Hate crime” statutes are a logical consequence of the civil rights movement. The 1964 Civil Rights Act, which was supposed to guarantee equality under the law, was instead converted, via bureaucratic alchemy, into legal privileges for blacks (racial quotas), and later for other groups. And when a group gets one legal privilege, it soon demands more.
The civil rights laws created a parallel legal system of Shadow Law, which contradicted and usurped the U.S. Constitution. The Shadow Law system sees certain groups (e.g., blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals) as “protected classes,” legally superior to non-protected classes (e.g., heterosexual whites, particularly heterosexual white boys and men). The notion of “protected classes” violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, and inexorably leads to additional, cascading abuses.
LLEHCPA also puts its favored groups above the law. A member of a “protected class” can assault a member of an unprotected class, and claim that he had merely responded to “hate speech” from the actual victim.
Such crimes have already been rampant for years. In virtually any large American city, racist blacks daily commit countless racially motivated attacks on whites and Asians, particularly in the public schools, which are typically racist torture centers. (See my chapter on education in the NPI report, The State of White America-2007, which is downloadable here.) Often, they shout racial epithets at their victims. And yet not only are the racist black criminals rarely arrested for their crimes (and virtually never for “hate crimes”), if their white victims defend themselves, the latter are often arrested.
Based on an unspoken agreement between racist blacks and white elites, the false claim by a black assailant that his white victim called him the “n-word” often serves as a “get-out-of-jail-free” card (see section, “The Magic Word” in my post on the Atlanta courtroom incident.)
LLEHCPA would also bury what is left of the prohibition against double jeopardy, which is anchored in the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and goes back to 355 B.C. in ancient Athens.
Over the past generation, federal civil rights prosecutions have routinely violated this prohibition, by taking someone who had been acquitted of a crime at the state level, and prosecuting him all over again at the federal level, under a different statute, under the sophistic theory of “dual sovereignty”. According to “dual sovereignty” theory, each citizen owes allegiance to two sovereigns, state and federal. Because of the change in sovereignty, and because federal and state statutes are different laws, even though the identical act is again being prosecuted, one power may prosecute someone who has already been acquitted or convicted in the other power’s court. Except that, under this theory, the two prosecutions are not for the identical act, because “a defendant who violates the laws of two sovereigns, even if by a single act, has committed two distinct offenses, punishable by both authorities.”
Such casuistry effectively eliminates the prohibition against double jeopardy. But since prior to the 1960s there were relatively few federal laws, dual sovereignty theory was unable to cause much mischief. Beginning in the 1960s, however, Congress decided to remake America through massive, continuous legislating.
The Fifth Amendment provides three different protections against double jeopardy: Against being re-tried for a crime, after being acquitted of it; against being re-tried for a crime, after being convicted of its commission; and against being punished again for a crime for which one has already been punished. Civil rights prosecutions began the unconstitutional tradition of violating the first protection; LLEHCPA will eliminate the other two.
LLEHCPA provides for federally re-prosecuting—and thus re-punishing—someone who has already been convicted of the same crime at the state level, if prosecutors believe that he wasn’t punished harshly enough the first time! Buried in the bill’s labyrinthine subsections, in SEC. 6. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.: ‘Sec. 249. Hate crime acts: 3(b)2(D), we find as a justification for a federal “hate crime” prosecution,
‘(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.
LLEHCPA is thus paradise for federal prosecutors.
America is the only country with a First Amendment, which forbids criminalizing ideas, as opposed to actions.
Unfortunately, few judges or prosecutors appear to have read that document. Since VDARE’s 1999 founding, it has chronicled the illegal imprisonment of Americans for exercising constitutionally-protected speech in Michigan, Idaho, Maryland and Louisiana.
And those were the good, old days of the creeping totalitarianism under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush! Today we are faced with the galloping totalitarianism of Barack Obama and Co. who, with help from our old friends the $PLC, have defined all political opponents to their right—i.e., millions of patriotic Americans—as “potential terrorists,” as shown by the recent, $PLC-influenced MIAC and DHS reports on “Rightwing Extremism.”
LLEHCPA’s institutionalized violation of the First Amendment would have a chilling effect even on social policy debate. Consider a case which would appear to have nothing to do with First Amendment law: The Minority Mortgage Meltdown. And yet, as Steve Sailer wrote on May 17, “[T]he root cause [of the minority mortgage meltdown] was the elite’s intoxication with the concept of diversity—and its concomitant suppression of dissent.”
Any honest statement about diversity made by a member of a non-protected group —regarding racial and ethnic differences in education, illegitimacy, crime, creditworthiness, etc.—could be charged as a “hate crime”, based on some member of a protected group, somewhere, having been assaulted, following the statement.
The next, inevitable step will be for the mere honest statement about diversity to be redefined into a “verbal assault” against all members of a protected class, and thus a “hate crime.” Multiculturalists in academia and the MSM have worked for over 20 years to institutionalize the notion of “verbal assault,” for just such a purpose.
Nat Hentoff titled one of his First Amendment books, The First Freedom because, if it is lost, all other freedoms will also be lost in its wake. Meanwhile, Obama and his comrades embrace real bomb throwers and the adherents of a philosophy determined to destroy Western Civilization.
Keep in mind that while I have enumerated some of the apparent problems with LLEHCPA, every law is inevitably extended and abused beyond its written meaning in ways that cannot be foreseen.
Thus, this bill is best thought of as a contemporary “Enabling Law”, which would give Obama unlimited power.
Stephen Whittle and Simon Sheppard will probably be deported back to the UK and jail.
But how many American Sheppards and Whittles will there soon be?
Nicholas Stix [email him] lives in New York City, which he views from the perspective of its public transport system, experienced in his career as an educator. His weekly column appears at Men’s News Daily and many other Web sites. He has also written for Middle American News, the New York Daily News, New York Post, Newsday, Chronicles, Ideas on Liberty and the Weekly Standard. He maintains two blogs: A Different Drummer and Nicholas Stix, Uncensored.
June 4, 2009
Matt Johnson discusses Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821 – 1881):
14 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 59 min.
June 4, 2009
Editor’s Note: From the vantage point of the present, it seems almost impossible that the following article could appear in a popular magazine likeReader’s Digest. Yet it did appear, less than 70 years ago, in November 1939–within the lifetime of many of those living today. We are working for the day when such articles can appear again. May it also be within the lifetimes of many who are living today.
Aviation has struck a delicately balanced world, a world where stability was already giving way to the pressure of new dynamic forces, a world dominated by a mechanical, materialist, Western European civilization. Aviation is a product of that civilization, borne on the crest of its outlook. Typical also of its strength and its weakness, its vanity and its self-destruction–men flung upward in the face of God, another Icarus to dominate the sky, and in turn, to be dominated by it; for eventually the laws of nature determine the success of human effort and measure the value of human inventions in that divinely complicated, mathematically unpredictable, development of life at which Science has given the name of Evolution.
Aviation seems almost a gift from heaven to those Western nations who were already the leaders of their era, strengthening their leadership, their confidence, their dominance over other peoples. It is a tool specially shaped for Western hands, a scientific art which others only copy in a mediocre fashion, another barrier between the teeming millions of Asia and the Grecian inheritance of Europe–one of those priceless possessions which permit the White race to live at all in a pressing sea of Yellow, Black, and Brown. But aviation, using it symbolically as well as in its own right, brings two great dangers, one peculiar to our modern civilization, the other older than history. Since aviation is dependent on the intricate organization of life and industry, it carries with it the environmental danger of a people too far separated from the soil and from the sea–the danger of that physical decline which so often goes with a high intellectual development, of that spiritual decline which seems invariably to accompany an industrial life, of that racial decline which follows physical and spiritual mediocrity.
A great industrial nation may conquer the world in the span of a single life, but its Achilles’ heel is time. Its children, what of them? The second and third generations, of what numbers and stuff will they be? How long can men thrive between walls of brick, walking on asphalt pavements, breathing the fumes of coal and of oil, growing, working, dying, with hardly a thought of wind, and sky, and fields of grain, seeing only machine-made beauty, the mineral-like quality of life. This is our modern danger — one of the waxen wings of flight. It may cause our civilization to fall unless we act quickly to counteract it, unless we realize that human character is more important than efficiency, that education consists of more than the mere accumulation of knowledge.
But the other great danger is more easily recognized, because it has occurred again and again through history. It is the ember of war, fanned by every new military weapon, flaming today as it has never flamed before. It is the old internal struggle among a dominant people for power; blind, insatiable, suicidal. Western nations are again at war, a war likely to be more prostrating than any in the past, a war in which the White race is bound to lose, and the others bound to gain, a war which may easily lead our civilization through more Dark Ages if it survives at all. In this war, aviation is as important a factor as it has been a cause — a cause due to its effect on the balance of strength between nations, a factor because of the destruction and death it hurls on earth and sea. Air power is new to all our countries. It brings advantages to some and weakens others; it calls for readjustment everywhere.
If only there were some way to measure the changing character of men, some yardstick to reapportion influence among the nations, some way to demonstrate in peace the strength of arms in war. But with all of its dimensions, its clocks, and weights, and figures, science fails us when we ask a measure for the rights of men. They cannot be judged by numbers, by distance, weight, or time; or by counting heads without a thought of what may lie within. Those intangible qualities of character, such as courage, faith, and skill, evade all systems, slip through the bars of every cage. They can be recognized, but not measured. They lie more in a glance between two men than in any formula or mathematics. They form the unseen strength of an army, the genius of a people.
Likewise, in judging aviation, in its effect on modern nations, no satisfactory measurement of strength exists. It is bound to geography, environment, and racial character so closely that an attempt to judge by numbers would be like counting Greeks at Marathon. What advantages will they gain? What new influence can they exert? To judge this, one must look not only at their aviation but at them, at the geography of their country, at their problems of existence, at their habits of life.
Mountains, coastlines, great distances, ground fortifications, all those safeguards of past generations, lose their old significance as man takes to his wings. The English Channel, the snow-capped Alps, the expanses of Russia, are now looked on from a different height. The forces of Hannibal, Drake and Napoleon moved at best with the horses’ gallop or the speed of wind on sail. Now, aviation brings a new concept of time and distance to the affairs of men. It demands adaptability to change, places a premium on quickness of thought and speed of action.
Military strength has become more dynamic and less tangible. A new alignment of power has taken place, and there is no adequate peacetime measure for its effect on the influence of nations. There seems no way to agree on the rights it brings to some and takes from others. The rights of men within a nation are readjusted in each generation by laws of inheritance–land changes hands as decades pass, fortunes are taxed from one generation to the next; ownership is no more permanent than life. But among nations themselves there is no similar provision to reward virility and penalize decay, no way to reapportion the world’s wealth as tides of human character ebb and flow — except by the strength of armies. In the last analysis, military strength is measurable only by its own expenditure, by the prostration of one contender while the other can still stagger on the field–and all about the wolves of lesser stature abide their time to spring on both the warriors.
We, the heirs of European culture, are on the verge of a disastrous war, a war within our own family of nations, a war which will reduce the strength and destroy the treasures of the White race, a war which may even lead to the end of our civilization. And while we stand poised for battle, Oriental guns are turning westward, Asia presses towards us on the Russian border, all foreign races stir restlessly. It is time to turn from our quarrels and to build our White ramparts again. This alliance with foreign races means nothing but death to us. It is our turn to guard our heritage from Mongol and Persian and Moor, before we become engulfed in a limitless foreign sea. Our civilization depends on a united strength among ourselves; on strength too great for foreign armies to challenge; on a Western Wall of race and arms which can hold back either a Genghis Khan or the infiltration of inferior blood; on an English fleet, a German air force, a French army, an American nation, standing together as guardians of our common heritage, sharing strength, dividing influence.
Our civilization depends on peace among Western nations, and therefore on united strength, for Peace is a virgin who dare not show her face without Strength, her father, for protection. We can have peace and security only so long as we band together to preserve that most priceless possession, our inheritance of European blood, only so long as we guard ourselves against attack by foreign armies and dilution by foreign races.
We need peace to let our best men live to work out those more subtle, but equally dangerous, problems brought by this new environment in which we dwell, to give us time to turn this materialistic trend, to stop prostrating ourselves before this modern idol of mechanical efficiency, to find means of combining freedom, spirit, and beauty with industrial life–a peace which will bring character, strength, and security back to Western peoples.
With all the world around our borders, let us not commit racial suicide by internal conflict. We must learn from Athens and Sparta, before all of Greece is lost.
Source: Occidental Quarterly Online
June 3, 2009
As militants attack his home with burning tyres and drive workers from his land, one of the last white farmers in Zimbabwe feels betrayed by the new Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai
By Ben Freeth
The invaders came at 11pm. Fifteen of them — singing, chanting and crashing metal objects together by our windows. “Out, out,” they shouted as they surrounded our farm — they certainly wanted us out. They broke into the house and dragged burning tyres through the front door. They invaded the hallway and occupied the courtyard. The flames leapt into the thatch as they pulled the tyres under it, but it did not catch alight.
This was last Tuesday. I called the police but then the invaders took the phone away. Their leader, who calls himself “Landmine”, was armed with a rifle. They pushed us around and raised sticks and said that we must leave. They beat my tonga drum so hard that the cowhide skin broke.
One of them went up to the children, who had been woken by the din. “Josh, Josh, there’s a man in our room,” said Anna, 4. Joshua, 9, told my wife Laura afterwards that the man was making hyena noises. My other son, Stephen, is 7.
Police arrived and the invaders were ushered out. None was arrested, but “Landmine” did return my phone at the request of the police. When the police left, though, the invaders resumed their attack. They did not break in this time, but they made a lot of noise, circling the house like whooping hyenas and shouting before they left: “We will eat the children.”
By the time the police came back a second time the invaders had given up: returning to the house of my wife’s parents on the other side of the farm. My parents-in-law were evicted by “Landmine” two months ago.
To be caught on the edge of life, isolated, without help and abandoned, is a hard thing. This is how it is living on a farm in Zimbabwe today. Our house, surrounded by wild stretches of swaying savannah grasses, should be a haven of peace. For us, though, looking out and listening, there are things we see and hear that make our hearts beat fast and our minds race. It is like looking out on a tranquil river, the languid stretches of the mighty Zambezi, and somehow being able to see the crocodiles beneath the surface lying in wait for the one who is careless and not alert.
We thought that with the new Government, and Morgan Tsvangirai becoming the Prime Minister, things might get better. Underneath the waters, though, we knew that the great crocodile, Robert Mugabe, was still in control. It is clear to us now that Tsvangirai does not want to harm Mugabe’s “sacred cow” — the eviction of the last of the white men from their farms must continue. Last week Tsvangirai said that there were invasions on only “one or two farms” and that they have been “blown out of proportion”. This is not the truth. Almost every white farmer that has so far survived is either being prosecuted criminally by the State for still being on his farm, or is facing an attack in which invaders take the law into their own hands.
To stay in our home, which we built on the farm from nothing in 1999, is a battle of wits and nerve — a battle that has raged since we completed our house and had our first child. Joshua, born three days before 2000, has known nothing but farm attacks. His first brush with the invaders was when he was four months old. We were driving out to visit another farm, but militia had erected a road block on the driveway. The invaders stopped us and smashed our car windows with axes and rocks. We had to drive for our lives, with Joshua in his carrycot on the back seat.
There was a time, though, when there was peace on the farm. It was a childhood dream of my father-in-law to reintroduce wildlife to the land. When the 1,200-hectare Mount Carmel farm, which has a river flowing though the middle, came up for sale he sold everything, took out a loan and bought it to create a safari enterprise. Over many years of hard farm work his dream gradually became reality. He introduced nine species of antelope and even had 45 giraffe by the time Joshua was born. The animals did well and my parents-in-law built a safari lodge set by the Biri River.
It was a happy place then, without fear stalking the veldt. Laura, my wife, grew up among all that. The bush war made things difficult for a time in the late 1970s, but it was never as it is now. Today, of the several hundred antelope that were here, not one remains. They have all been killed and the safari lodge has been burnt down.
The battle now is relentless, wearing and it drains all our innermost reserves. It is also an unusual battle — where else in the world does a government declare war on its own people? Where else does the State aim to destroy the economic base of the country so that people will be poorer and therefore more easily controlled? Where else do police connive with criminals to destroy agricultural production — leaving the people starving and totally dependant on the ruling party? Those who have not lived through a time of terror at the hands of a dictatorial government will never understand what it is like.
We have 500 people living and depending on the farm but none of the 150 workers has been allowed to work since April 4. They are chased away with guns by the invaders whenever they try.
Ninety per cent of our farming community has left or is packing at the moment. Tsvangirai’s appointment has hastened our demise. There is a rush to clear the farms of the last white people so that Mugabe can put his men on to the land to control and terrorise the people when the next election comes. Nobody can farm in the midst of this controlled anarchy. That is why we are now the most food-aid dependent country in the world.
Last year the Southern African Development Community Tribunal, a new human rights court set up in Namibia , told the Zimbabwe Government that it must “protect the possession, occupation and ownership of the lands of the applicants”. This is simply not happening. We are going back to the tribunal on Friday. It is important that we show how its judgment has been flouted. But of course the Government will not listen. In the last month the High Court of Zimbabwe has twice ruled in our favour, but it makes no difference. It ordered Nathan Shamuyarira, the octogenarian Zanu (PF) party spokesman and stalwart, who has been “given” our farm, to “vacate the property”. Police were directed to assist in ensuring that the order was complied with. But, six weeks later, the invaders are still here.
We can run away of course. Most people have. If self-preservation is the goal then there is no sense in staying. For us, though, there is a greater good. It is a matter of principle. If individual men and women allow evil to advance unchecked, it will prevail and more people will suffer and starve. It is hard to live and try to make a difference in a time of terror — especially with a family. My wife has been amazing. It is only our faith in God and his provision that sustains us.
Tuesday was not Landmine’s first visit. When he came last month and broke in to the house of my elderly parents-in-law, Mike and Angela Campbell, during the night, shouting that they must leave, our workers were beaten. One was put in the fire and his trousers caught alight before he wriggled out. They then beat him with sticks and metal pipes all over his body. They dumped him, his skull fractured, at the local Chegutu police station. After that it was easy for the invaders. My in-laws are still trying to recover from a savage beating and abduction on the farm nearly a year ago. Then, between the three of us, we suffered 13 broken bones. My skull was also fractured.
At the age of 38 I recovered well, but Mike, 75, who sustained the worst beating, is taking a long time to mend. Our crime was to try to get the whistle blown in the SADC Tribunal. With guns to our heads, they made Angela sign a paper saying that we would withdraw from the court, but we never did.
After Mike and Angela were forced to leave, Shamuyarira’s men were able to have the run of the place. For more than a month we have not been able to retrieve any of their possessions from the house. Two weeks ago the invaders drove a red government tractor into the fenced area around our house and started ploughing up our beautiful garden and driveway so that we could not get out. They screamed abuse and threatened to burn down our home, lighting sacks under the thatched roof before weaving off down our access road and ploughing that into a quagmire too. They then went to the workers and pushed down the door to the home of the foreman, Peter. He has been working for my father-in-law for 31 years. They took him from his bedroom and started beating him and then continued hitting him with sticks on the soles of his feet through the night. We could hear the singing and the raw screams of the beating through the night air, but there was nothing we could do. Nobody knew where Peter was until the next morning when he was dumped at the police station. There were no arrests.
It is harvest time in Zimbabwe. That is one of the reasons that Shamuyarira’s men have come now. This is the largest mango farm in Zimbabwe. There were 50 tons of mangos in the pack shed and cold rooms and another 120 tons still hanging on the trees two months ago. They have stolen all of them and are now starting on the oranges. After that it will be the maize and the sunflowers — and nobody is willing to stop them.
Where else in the world do the Government sanction people to reap what they did not sow, and get away with it? Where else do people come to take homes and occupy them? Where else do people get beaten and left at police stations and their attackers drive off with impunity?
Nobody is putting in a wheat crop this year. The wheat seed sits in the warehouses and in the shops. And so there will be no bread.
When the invaders are not here there is an eerie unease. The workers’ houses are quiet and deserted — their occupants in hiding. When we do see our workers they are furtive — listening, jumpy, ready to move at the slightest threat. Ultimately it must be for them that we stay. We know that if we run they will be chased from their homes and will starve. It is our conviction that God has called us to stay and stand and resist the evil that continues to beset the land.
For now, though, we are reeling, sometimes seeing stars, bewildered in a bewitched land. We are waiting for a future.
Source: Times Online.
June 3, 2009
Now Spanish pronunciation is everywhere. On National Public Radio, every Mexican name gets a rolled “R“ and flat vowels.
No one does this with French or German names. Not even the wildest Francophile would pronounce Detroit or Illinois or Lake Pontchartrain the way the French do. But it proves you love “diversity” if you talk about Los Angeles the way a Mexican would.
Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court wants to give us language lessons, too. We’re not supposed to pronounce her name the way an American would, with the accent on the first syllable and the last two syllables rhyming with “mayor,” as in the mayor of Chicago. She insists on a Spanish pronunciation.
Not Sonia. As she keeps telling us, although she is American-born, she is a “Latina”—forget that English dispensed with this type of gender distinction a thousand years ago—and she wants to remind us of this every time we hear her name.
It wasn’t all that long ago that people wanted to fit in, and changed their names to sound more American. Ralph Lauren was born Ralph Lifshitz and campus radical Mark Rudd started life as Mark Rudnitsky. Volodymyr Palahniuk made things a lot easier for himself by switching to Jack Palance.
Of course, no one wants to fit into America any more, not even someone who wants to sit on the Supreme Court. We have to adjust to them, not the other way around.
At the same time, this pronunciation fad is an attempt to sneak Spanish in the back door as a sort of official language—or at least to exempt Spanish names from the Anglicizing process other names go through. Like “Press 1 for English,” this is just one more result of having let 40 million Hispanics come live here.
The Chinese have been pushing us around, too. We’re not supposed to talk about Peking or Canton anymore. They are Beijing and Guangzhou. The Communists changed the spelling after they took over in 1949, but only started bullying Westerners about it in the 1980s.
The Chinese claim the new spellings sound more like the way the Chinese themselves pronounce the name. So what? English-speakers have certain names for certain places and we have used them for centuries. Munich isn’t even spelled the same as München and Florence doesn’t sound much like Firenze, but the Germans and the Italians don’t ask us to change. If the French told us to start calling their capital Paree we would laugh at them.
The Japanese have their own names for things, too. They use the same characters as the Chinese but pronounce them differently. So they are the only people in the world who talk about Moh Taku-toh and Sho Kai-seki rather than Mao Tse-tung and Chiang Kai-shek.
The Chinese don’t like that but the Japanese speak Japanese, not Chinese. And Nancy Pelosi could live in Japan all her life but never be anything but Nahnshee Pehroshee.
Like the Japanese, the French have their own ideas about how our names should be pronounced. Our last president was Zhorzh Boosh, and he lived in la Maison Blanche, not the White House. To them, New England is Nouvelle Angleterre and South Carolina is Caroline du Sud.
And do you think Mexicans ever go to New York? No, they go to Nuevo York. In 2001, Hispanic legislators introduced a bill in the New Mexico state house officially to change the state’s name to Nuevo Mexico. When the bill never made it out of committee, sponsor Miguel Garcia blamed “covert racism.” [Lawmaker Suggests Racism To Blame After New State Name Axed, By S. U. Mahesh, Albuquerque Journal, February 14, 2001]
Americans speak English, and not just any kind of English. We don’t talk about lorries and lifts, and we don’t twist our mouths into funny shapes just because foreigners tell us to.
Why should this Supreme Court nominee get special treatment? Keep pronouncing her name the way an American would.
If someone corrects you, ask him “What’s the capital of Japan? When he says “Tokyo“ (and it won’t sound like the way the Japanese say it) explain to him: “Obviously you don’t speak Japanese. I don’t speak Puerto Rican.”
Jared Taylor (email him) is editor of American Renaissance and the author of Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America. (For Peter Brimelow’s review, click here.)
June 3, 2009
By Edmund Connelly
I don’t think my previous column could have been more timely. Titled On the Visual Displacement of the White Race, it appeared May 15. One week later, major news media reported that President Obama had chosen a former astronaut and Marine general to lead NASA.
This move certainly bolsters my point about the displacement of White men in positions that combine excellence in both technical innovation and high status: aeronautics. I showed an ad that Microsoft ran in The Atlantic Monthly — two pages with an unmistakably clear message: White males need not apply to future rocket programs, as engineers or astronauts. The future in this field—as the photo shows—belongs to the usual multicultural hopefuls—women, Hispanics, Asians and most particularly Black males.
The nominee for NASA administrator is Charles Bolden, who has four shuttle missions under his belt, including two as mission commander.
Interestingly, Obama chose a White woman as Deputy NASA Administrator Lori Garver, blocking out any White men at the very top of America’s space program. This comes in stark contrast to the historical make-up of all levels of NASA going back to the 1950s. The Gemini and Apollo programs were essentially White male preserves, from the Mission Control Specialists to the astronauts themselves.
This was accurately portrayed in Ron Howard’s 1995 film Apollo 13. One might express surprise that the NAACP didn’t lodge a complaint against the nearly all-White male main cast. And when women did appear, they were in supporting roles as wives and mothers. Clearly, things have changed in America since then.
Unlike other prestigious fields like law, medicine and academia, in which women and minorities have made impressive strides in the last forty years, aviation has remained solidly in the hands of White males. Among commercial airline pilots, for example, only about 2% are women, with Blacks accounting for far less than that. Considering that the astronaut pool had traditionally been drawn from pilots, it became a statement when NASA began to routinely present its unchanging mix of a multicultural crew of shuttle pilots, mission specialists and payload operators. Here, for example, is the crew that was lost in the 1986 Challenger explosion:
NASA was not the only prominent arena in which White males took a hit last week: On May 26th, President Obama nominated a Puerto Rican American woman to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court left by a retiring White man. As Kevin MacDonald noted, the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor “is yet another marker in the march toward the dispossession of Whites in America.”
As I argued two weeks ago, the visual displacement of Whites goes hand in hand with our actual displacement. Surely I am not the only one to notice this. Look, for instance, at the photo chosen by the National Guard in one of its recruitment ads:
Doubtless millions of Americans have observed over the years that the faces in posters for their banks have changed, as has the composition of student photos from their alma maters, even if the student body is still heavily White. As someone I know commented, “Even the WASPiest prep schools now trumpet diversity über alles.”
Incredibly, even a new biopic of famed singer Frank Sinatra might feature African American actor Jamie Foxx as “Old Blue Eyes,” as reported by Political Cesspool host James Edwards last week. (The free download of the show may still be available here.)
Another friend summed up this process well:
Another subtle aspect of modern TV ads is the fact that whenever whites appear in ads with nonwhites, it is always in a subservient position: black boss — white workers, black doctor — white patient, etc. Also, you will see blacks explaining things to whites in ads, or blacks being right and whites having it all wrong. You never see the reverse. In a group context, blacks are always out front with whites in the background.
It is an intentional and dedicated campaign designed to reduce whites to subordinate status. I believe that it has a very psychologically debilitating effect on young whites who are continually exposed to it and don’t understand that it is just a deliberate attempt to beat them down.
These memes have sunk deep into the American psyche by now. Thus we now have the phenomenon of the “Numinous Negro,” which I wrote about a month ago. There we saw that the word “numinous” is a Roman term for “the presiding divinity . . . of a place.” It also means “spiritually elevated.” Accordingly, the Numinous Negro presides over America, “and contact with him elevates us spiritually.”
This shared cultural assumption is everywhere now (despite the lack of any real objective reasons for it). Consider that even the Corn Refiners Association, in trying to counter negative associations with their product, has appealed to prevailing “wisdom.” Their site tells us that “in the summer of 2008, the Corn Refiners Association launched a multimedia advertising and public relations campaign ‘Changing the Conversation about High Fructose Corn Syrup.’” Let’s unpack this professionally made commercial.
In the video, the viewer is positioned in a handsome kitchen, looking out open doors onto the back yard where kids are celebrating. On our right we see a Black woman pouring a container of punch into a glass. A white woman approaches and chides her for her lack of concern for her children’s health, as the drink contains corn syrup. Unconcerned, the Black mother continues pouring, stating confidently that it’s made from a natural ingredient, corn.
The White woman is left confused by this air of authority and quickly changes the topic to fashion. The point is that the makers of this ad felt that by placing their product in the hands of the Black woman, it would be associated with something positive and superior. The Black mother triumphed and by association so should corn syrup over sugar.
Admittedly, this is a trivial example by itself. But when the relationships in the ad are repeated ad nauseum in the media, they doubtless have an important effect on people’s attitudes.
Allow me one more point about the larger context. Thus far I’ve discussed visual images in which it was mostly Blacks replacing Whites in both real and imagined scenes. The paradox here is that there is no real-world corresponding growth in power among individual Blacks or Black groups to even begin to account for their astounding relative rise in the last two or three decades. They’ve amassed few noteworthy fortunes, they control few major enterprises on their own, and they have precious few professional and business networks to boast of. Even with their prominence in sports, music and, more recently, film, they own next to nothing when it comes to movie studios or sports teams. Even when it comes to the NAACP, Blacks were not responsible for creating it, or staffing it for decades. So what is going on?
The answer should be familiar to TOO readers: The overwhelming credit for boosting the image of Blacks goes to their old allies, American Jews. On one level, as I’ve written about, Jews have fought anti-Semitism by supporting the black struggle against racism. I then went on to argue that:
This account is simplistic. While it does refute claims of totally altruistic motives for Jewish agitation on behalf of blacks, it fails to appreciate the larger goals of Jewish Americans. They were not merely interested in defeating anti-Semitism so that they could participate comfortably in American life. They were waging a massive war on Majority Americans, the results of which we see all around us today.
Blacks, then, have been used as foot soldiers in one front of this war. Or, if you prefer a stage reference, they have been used as props in a war not of their making. In any case, as Kevin MacDonald noted on this site last week, for Jews, “making alliances with other minority groups has been a critically important part” of their effort to unseat Majority Whites as primary power holders in America.
This has also been noted on the other side of the Atlantic, as evidenced by the calm, rational prose of John Tyndall of the British National Party. The Occidental Quarterly Online recently ran a 2004 disquisition of Tyndall’s thoughts on The Jewish Question. His words ring true.
Tyndall described this awakening in The Eleventh Hour:
Bit by bit, it started to come home to me, in the form of incontrovertible evidence, that there was present in Britain and around the world a definite Jewish network wielding immense influence and power — through money, through politics and through its strong foothold, in some sectors amounting to virtual monopoly, in the mass media. . . .
Then what of the uses of Jewish wealth and power? I set to work studying the political orientation of Jewish writers in the press, Jewish book-publishers, Jewish political leaders, political philosophers and academics. I investigated the various causes to which Jewish money was being donated.
The truth was inescapable. In not one single case could I find any prominent, powerful and influential Jewish personage who identified himself or herself with any cause complementary to the interests of the British Nation. . . . Quite the contrary, every cause inimical to these things seemed to have Jewish participation and backing. Looking back to the political arguments I had had earlier, it now occurred to me, as it had not done at the time, that the most vociferous and aggressive opponents of all I believed in had been Jews.
Then, in a line that resonates with so much of what has been written in this TOO space over the last year, Tyndall concludes, “The wrath and hatred of organized Jewry is a mountain that stands in the path of every movement of enlightened racial patriotism wherever one cares to look in the world, but in particular among nations of White European pedigree.”
This, then, is behind the rushing sound of air we hear as Whites vacate positions of power in America and people from other ethnic groups fill them. While Obama may be the most prominent example of this, it is also quite clear that he is a mere prop, as much as are the dark faces we see in so many commercials.
VDARE’s Peter Brimelow, for one, understands this unprecedented process of displacement. “Obama,” he writes, “doesn’t have 43% of his appointees white Protestants, in fact I don’t think even 4% are white Protestants. So you have to ask yourself what’s going on here. How can the founding stock of the country have so completely lost control? They could reasonably regard the Obama administration as kind of an occupation government: a coalition of united minorities that succeeded in uniting the minorities and dividing the majority.”
Does that sound like a familiar strategy?
Political philosopher Carl Schmitt was right when he years ago wrote: “It’s not only you who chooses your enemy, it’s more often your enemy who chooses you.” Tyndall makes a similar but more specific claim, arguing that “though we may do everything possible to avoid conflict with Jewry, Jewry—or at least its politically organised elements—[is] determined on conflict with us.”
So don’t waste too much time worrying that somehow Obama and other Blacks are conspiring to outcompete you, or that Hispanics like Sotomayor will leave you in their dust.
Your real rival—one that has a two-thousand-plus year record of impressive victories—is the one identified by Mr. Tyndall. So know this, Mr. White Man: Dispossession is coming to a place near you!
Edmund Connelly (email him) is a freelance writer, academic, and expert on the cinema arts. He has previously written for The Occidental Quarterly.
Source: The Occidental Observer.
June 2, 2009
This is Tom Sunic’s debut broadcast on the Voice of Reason Broadcast Network! Tom Sunic brings you The New Nationalist Perspective. In this episode, Tom examines the meaning of ‘culture’ and the semantic distortions that have arisen from the use and misuse of this word over the past fifty years. Joined by VoR staff member Gregor, Tom also discusses the concepts of multiculturalism and of civilization.
A high-quality version of this broadcast archive can be found here.
14 MB / 32 kbps mono / 1 hour 1 min.