“Good War . . . Better Peace”

/97 Comments/in /by

To help celebrate the upcoming 70th Anniversary of the end of the “Good War” and the beginning of the “Good Peace,” I offer the following from my books, Hellstorm—The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944–1947, and Rape Hate—Sex & Violence in War & Peace.

And so, with the once mighty German Army now disarmed and enslaved in May, 1945, and with their leaders either dead or awaiting trial for so-called “war crimes,” the old men, women and children who remained in the dismembered Reich found themselves utterly at the mercy of the victors. Unfortunately for these survivors, never in the history of the world was mercy in shorter supply.

Soon after the Allied victory in Europe, the purge of Nazi Party members from government, business, industry, science, education, and all other walks of German life commenced. While a surprising number of Nazis were allowed—even compelled—to man their posts temporarily to enable a smooth transition, all party members, high and low, were sooner or later excised from German daily life. In theory, “de-Nazification” was a simple transplanting of Nazi officials with those of democratic, socialist or communist underpinnings. In practice, the purge became little more than a cloak for an orgy of rape, torture and death.

De-Nazification

De-Nazification

Because their knowledge of the language and culture was superb, most of the intelligence officers accompanying US and British forces into the Reich were Jewish refugees who had fled Germany in the late 1930s. Although their American and English “aides” were hardly better, the fact that many of these “39ers” became interrogators, examiners and screeners, with old scores to settle, insured that Nazis— or any German, for that matter—would be shown no mercy. Read more

Reasons why Ukip will underperform in the upcoming election

/56 Comments/in /by
Editor’s note: Robert Henderson recently sent me a link to his article, “British Future report says 25% of British adults want all immigrants repatriated” which discusses a survey showing a great deal of hostility toward immigration in the U.K. The question then is why are we reading that Ukip is losing ground in the polls and not expected to get more than a handful of MPs. The most recent poll, published in the Telegraph, has Ukip at 13% and 3 MPs for the May 7 election. Given that Ukip ranks highest of all the parties in the popularity of their immigration proposals, the question is why. Many of his points apply also in the United States and  elsewhere.
1. Political inertia.  The first past the post system makes it  immensely  difficult for new parties to get established as a real political force because most British constituencies have large in-built majorities for either the Labour or Conservative Parties.  This is because the nature of the populations in those constituencies are such as to make a winning vote for the  Conservatives or Labour  candidate very likely, for example, Labour safe seats will lie at the centre of major cities and towns and old industrial centres  where thy continue to capture the White working-class vote and those of ethnic/racial minorities. Safe Conservative seats will  tend to be in the suburbs and countryside.   In many constituencies people will think there is no point in voting for anyone but the almost certain winner and often will not bother to vote if they do not support the party of the probable winner.
In the years since the Restoration in 1660 and the formation of the Whigs and Tories only one entirely new party (Labour)  has every formed a government in the UK , although the Whigs transmuted into the liberals and the Tories mutated into Conservatives  during the 19th century.  The fate of the Social Democratic Party formed by four dissident leading members of the Labour Party  in the early 1980s is instructive.  It managed to win by-elections and in alliance with the then Liberal Party managed to gain 25% of the vote at the 1983 General Election. That gained the alliance a paltry  23 seats out of 650.     By the next general election the SDP was a dead duck.   The problem for the alliance was that their vote was spread much more evenly across the country than the vote of Conservative and Labour  parties.  The same applies to Ukip.

Read more

The Toxicity of Truth: Honesty as a Handicap for White Nationalists

/90 Comments/in /by

For me, the most important question in the world is this: What is truth? The question underlies every attempt to understand the world and to act therein. In a biological sense, the problem of formulating true representations of the world existed long before humans and language. Animals seek accurate information about the world: what is edible, what is not; what is dangerous, what is not.

This means that deception also existed long before human beings. Animals are in competition and although they want accurate information for themselves, they often want to deny it to their competitors. Think of camouflage. The truth about a stick-insect is that it is good food for birds or lizards. It conceals that truth by its appearance. The truth about a cuckoo-chick in a reed warbler’s nest is that it is a parasitic interloper. It conceals that truth by its behaviour.

Wasps and monarch butterflies do the opposite: they broadcast the truth about themselves as clearly as possible. “We sting!” “We taste bad!” But their clear warnings can then be stolen by deceivers. Some harmless moths mimic wasps; some edible butterflies mimic monarchs. To understand biology, you have to investigate not just flows of energy, but also flows of information. When you do, it’s clear that control over information is an essential part of biological competition. Deception is a very common evolutionary strategy both between and within species.

These biological realities also apply to human beings, but there are extra layers in the human world. We have language, and our psychology is far more complex. However, this does not alter one essential fact: Truth is often toxic. Revealing it can be very harmful. It’s easy to see how this applies in personal life, but I want to examine how it applies in politics too. The naïve assumption might be that it is good for a political movement to have the truth on its side. But is it? For example, are White nationalists, who recognize the truth about racial differences, actually handicapped by being in the right?

I would suggest that they are. And I’m not simply referring to the hostile media, which celebrate charlatans like Stephen Jay Gould and persecute truthful men like James Watson. We have to ask: why has a strategy of lies and deceit been so successful in politics? Read more

On Jewish Privilege and the “Dictator Mentality”

/60 Comments/in , /by

It’s been noted previously at TOO that Jews are happy to be considered White when they benefit from it. Historically, Jewish efforts at crypsis and gaining acceptance among Whites were pursued in order to obtain significant political, social, educational, and economic benefits.[1] Efforts at being seen as White have varied over the course of millennia. Some of the earliest efforts involved abandoning phenotypic characteristics that marked them out as a very distinct population, and which provoked White hostility. Since the Enlightenment in particular, there has been a powerful trend towards abandoning special Jewish languages, modes of dress, styles of hair, and ways of dressing. Even in modern times, rhinoplasty, or nose reshaping, has been so common among Jewish female teens that Tablet argued it was at one point a Jewish “rite of passage” that fell “somewhere between their Bat Mitzvahs and their wedding.” Aside from alterations to outward appearance and behavior, prior to emancipation the Jews of Europe often saw conversion to Christianity as a meal-ticket to mass acceptance, and with it admission to the franchise, political office and commercial opportunities. These “conversions of convenience” were hardly sincere, but were sufficient for Whites to admit Jews into the ranks of their society. A major part of the Jewish evolutionary strategy is therefore the penetration of White society, assisted by the adoption of the outward appearance of conforming to White norms, thereby enabling the untroubled transfer of resources from Whites to the cryptic Jewish population.

The Jewish evolutionary strategy is also adaptive and responsive to cultural and demographic change, and humans more generally are “flexible strategizers” in pursuit of evolutionary goals.[2] Jews in particular have employed countless strategies involving crypsis in their bid to combat hostility from Whites and other ethnic groups. They have been assisted in this by their above-average IQ, and related talents in general purpose cognitive processes — enabling them to constantly adapt, shift and change posture in response to novel situations. One of the simplest and most basic of these strategies is what has been called the “shell game of Jewish identity.”[3] This is the game where Jews will describe themselves primarily as either an ethnic group or a religion, depending on the angle of the attacks, or the nature of the disabilities, they face. New contexts demand the need for new “games.” American demographics are shifting ever faster against Whites, and Leftist dogma has taken on a life of its own within some of the new minorities — on occasion quite apart from Jewish intellectual influence. In the new context, Jews are seen by minorities as too phenotypically and culturally similar to Whites to escape the accusation that, even if not White, they have enjoyed the fruits of that social unicorn, “White Privilege.” Read more

Does Jewishness matter?

/48 Comments/in , /by

A while ago, there was a minor media firestorm about a situation at UCLA that erupted when a Jewish student was being confirmed for a position on the student council’s Judicial Board. The student was asked a series of questions about whether her Jewish commitments would affect her performance on the Board. This, of course, violates a major taboo. From the NYTimes account:

“Given that you are a Jewish student and very active in the Jewish community,” Fabienne Roth, a member of the Undergraduate Students Association Council, began, looking at Ms. Beyda at the other end of the room, “how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?”

For the next 40 minutes, after Ms. [Rachel] Beyda was dispatched from the room, the council tangled in a debate about whether her faith and affiliation with Jewish organizations, including her sorority and Hillel, a popular student group, meant she would be biased in dealing with sensitive governance questions that come before the board, which is the campus equivalent of the Supreme Court.

The discussion, recorded in written minutes and captured on video, seemed to echo the kind of questions, prejudices and tropes — particularly about divided loyalties — that have plagued Jews across the globe for centuries, students and Jewish leaders said.

The council, in a meeting that took place on Feb. 10, voted first to reject Ms. Beyda’s nomination, with four members against her. Then, at the prodding of a faculty adviser there who pointed out that belonging to Jewish organizations was not a conflict of interest, the students revisited the question and unanimously put her on the board. …

“We don’t like to wave the flag of anti-Semitism, but this is different,” Rabbi Aaron Lerner, the incoming executive director of the Hillel chapter at U.C.L.A., said of the vote against Ms. Beyda. “This is bigotry. This is discriminating against someone because of their identity.”

The university’s chancellor, Gene D. Block, issued a statement denouncing the attacks on Ms. Beyda. “To assume that every member of a group can’t be impartial or is motivated by hatred is intellectually and morally unacceptable,” he said. “When hurtful stereotypes — of any group — are wielded to delegitimize others, we are all debased.”

The esteemed Dr. Block, whose Jewish identity is doubtless completely irrelevant to his statement, is going way beyond the evidence by saying that the proceedings assumed that “every member of a group can’t be impartial.”  The obvious reason for the questions was because there was doubt, not assumption. Anyone in his or her right mind would realize that it would not exactly be surprising if Ms. Beyda’s Jewish identity influenced how she voted on a lot of issues, most particularly Israel and the now common controversies over the BDS movement on campus. Read more

“The Last Free Man?” — Rivarol Interview with Jean Marie Le Pen

/55 Comments/in , /by

                                                                    Translated from the French by Tom Sunic 

Below are some lengthy excerpts from a long interview with Jean Marie Le Pen (86), the honorary president of the Front National, published in the French nationalist weekly Rivarol  on April 9, 2015.  One must emphasize the recent fall-out between him and his daughter, the current head of the FN, Marine Le Pen, in regard to some of the comments made earlier by her  father on  WWII gas chambers and the state of Israel.  In commenting on the interview, Marine Le Pen stated that his remarks have resulted in an “unprecedented crisis” for the FN and that they are “political suicide.”

“An apparently furious Marine Le Pen on Wednesday accused her 86-year-old father of taking the party hostage in an attempt to damage her and said she intended to stop him standing as an FN candidate in regional elections at the end of the year.” … [JM Le Pen] attacked Prime Minister Manuel Valls as an “immigrant”: “Valls has been French for 30 years, I’ve been French for 1,000 years?” he says. What is Valls’s real attachment to France? This immigrant, has he completely changed?”

One must also single out JM Le Pen’s own and unique figures of speech, teeming with irony and combativeness, often difficult to transpose into English. As of now the interview is stirring up a great deal of intellectual and media commotion all over France.

Rivarol: In regard to the National Front what is your assessment of the second round of departmental elections?

Jean-Marie Le Pen: It was to be expected that the results could not quite match our big success of the first round. According to the official documents from the Ministry of the Interior, the FN is the first party in France having obtained in the first round over 25% votes, which makes more than 5 million voters. Read more

The seething ethnic hostility behind the Rolling Stone scandal

/29 Comments/in , /by

Editor’s Note: Since Rolling Stone has now officially retracted its article on the fabricated UVA rape case, I thought that this would be a good time to repost Frances Carr Begbie’s article focusing on the ethnic angle that is, of course, completely missing in the mainstream media. 

You would need a heart of stone not to laugh at the humiliating predicament of Rolling Stone magazine. The hipster bible’s lurid account of a gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity house has spectacularly blown up in its face and the magazine has been forced to issue an excruciating apology to its readers.

The story, by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, seems to have been written without the most basic journalistic checks and safeguards. There was no police investigation or third-party witnesses. The “suspects” were never approached for their side of the story, and now there are openly voiced doubts as to whether any rape took place at all.

Bloggers such as Steve Sailer and Richard Bradley ruthlessly pulled the original story apart. The affair has become a perfect case study of leftist journalism modus operandi in that where the facts clash with the narrative, it is the facts that have to give way.

It is also an instructive in media ruthlessness; for the magazine has chosen to shift responsibility for the debacle on the hapless woman herself with the words that, because of “discrepancies” in the story, its “trust” in her “was misplaced” — a cynical way to treat an obviously vulnerable young person who, whatever happened to her, is clearly still in distress.

But there is another dimension which has only so far been mentioned by Jewish convert blogger Luke Ford — that is the undertow of seething Jewish ethnic resentment that permeates the entire affair.

This can be heard in the initial squawks of indignation from Rubin Erdely’s stoutest defenders — Jewish female journalists.  Jezebel’s Anna Merlan initially dismissed Richard Bradley as an idiot and seemed to think gang rape was too foul for ethics. “Uurgh, it’s about ethics in gang rape journalism as well now?” She grudgingly back-pedalled later.

New York Magazine ‘s Kat Stoeffel was similarly indignant that anyone would question the veracity of the affair. Read more