"I have been reading your amazing blog and listening to some of your podcasts with Carolyn. Not sure how I haven't run across your work before. Amazing stuff." (reader's comment, 10 May 2016)
Come chat with us! Download and install an IRC-client -- Hexchat is recommended -- and go to the channel #National-Socialism on the Undernet server.

09 December 2016

The World of Dylann Roof

This point of this essay is not to condone Dylann Roof's crime, as anyone who reads it entire will see, but to show it in proper perspective, and to propose a lawful alternative to such deeds. 


On Dylann Roof's Manifesto
by Hadding Scott

Originally published by The Occidental Observer, 22 June 2015

Before Dylann Roof set out to commit the shooting at the Emanuel A.M.E. Church, he set up a very simple web-site called Last Rhodesian and posted there a manifesto that referred to his intended actions. I think that it is worthwhile to examine Roof’s manifesto for some clues about how he ended up doing what he did.

Roof says that he grew up in the South, having “a small amount of racial awareness, simply because of the numbers of Negroes in this part of the country.” Southerners in general probably do have a better sense, compared to White people from other places, about how Blacks behave. This was not a clear White racial consciousness however; rather it was the kind of dissimulating defensiveness promoted by the likes of Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck, with its rhetoric of deflective counter-accusation characterized by Roof as “Blacks are the real racists.”

Roof was shocked out of this weak orientation based on fear of being called “racist” by the drumbeat of anti-White propaganda that began with the absurdly biased reporting on the case of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin in 2012 and 2013:


The event that truly awakened me was the Trayvon Martin case. I kept hearing and seeing his name, and eventually I decided to look him up. I read the Wikipedia article and right away I was unable to understand what the big deal was. It was obvious that Zimmerman was in the right. But more importantly this prompted me to type in the words “black on White crime” into Google, and I have never been the same since that day. The first website I came to was the Council of Conservative Citizens. There were pages upon pages of these brutal black on White murders. I was in disbelief. At this moment I realized that something was very wrong. How could the news be blowing up the Trayvon Martin case while hundreds of these black on White murders got ignored?

Although Roof’s main theme was biased media-coverage of Black-on-White crime, this was not mentioned in an article on Roof’s manifesto by one of the leading culprits, the New York Times.

There is no question that the biased publicity over the alleged murder of Trayvon Martin caused an increase of violence by Blacks against Whites. Two months after the original incident in the case, Darryl Owens called attention to some of the ramifications of the media-coverage in the Orlando Sentinel:


Let’s call it Trayvon Piñata.

How’s it played?

Simple. Gather at least two or up to 30 players (usually black, but not always). Target some unsuspecting, blameless white person. Confront. Spout some racial pap. Stomp the stuffing out of him in Trayvon’s name.

Rip-roaring fun!

It’s all the rage — these outrageous acts of vengeance born out of misplaced rage.

Gainesville was the scene earlier this month of two rounds of Trayvon Piñata.

In the first attack, five to eight black people allegedly pounded a 27-year-old white guy as he walked home, according to the Gainesville Sun. The goons shouted “Trayvon!” before laying into him.

In the second assault, a crowd reportedly pounced on a white guy who’d chased down a black purse-snatcher and pinned him. Unaware of the circumstances, some began shouting “Trayvon,” egging on several group members who stomped the good Samaritan’s hands to free his quarry. [Darryl Owens, Orlando Sentinel, 27 April 2012 ]

The game was not limited to Florida. In Chicago 18-year-old Alton L. Hayes III and a minor accomplice robbed a 19-year-old White man, then gratuitously beat him, telling police later that they did it because of Trayvon Martin and because the man was White (Huffington Post, 26 April 2012).

In Mobile, Alabama, Matthew Owens was beaten nearly to death by a mob of 20 or more Blacks in front of his home. After the attack, one of the Black attackers declared, “Now that’s justice for Trayvon!” (New York Daily News, 25 April 2012).

The mood of vengefulness generated by mass-media during the period following the death of Trayvon Martin was pervasive and palpable, and some influence thereof could be reasonably presumed as a contributing factor in any Black-on-White violence during that period, whether explicitly stated or not.

In March 2012 in Kansas City, Missouri, one month after the publicity about Trayvon Martin began, a 13-year-old boy returning home from school was doused in gasoline and set on fire by two older Black boys who said: “This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, White boy.” (Daily Mail, 4 March 2012).

John McWhorter, writing in Time about the shooting-death of an Australian college student by a Black male in Oklahoma, says that racially motivated Black-on-White violence like the Kansas City incident is “hardly uncommon”:


So, it’s just fake to pretend that the association of young black men with violence comes out of thin air. Young black men murder 14 times more than young white men. If the kinds of things I just mentioned were regularly done by whites, it’d be trumpeted as justification for being scared to death of them. [John McWhorter, “Don’t Ignore Race in Christopher Lane’s Murder,” Time, 22 August 2013]

Time of course is about as mainstream and respectable as any monthly news-periodical could be, yet it plainly states that there is an anti-White and pro-Black racial bias in the reporting of violent crime. The real question is not how Dylann Roof came to the same conclusion in the wake of the Martin-Zimmerman case; rather the question is how anyone could have failed to understand it by now.

In 2014 and 2015 the mass-media seem to have been obsessed with publicizing any possible case of misconduct toward Blacks by police, beginning with the accusations against policeman Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri. It was predictable that there would be retaliatory violence generated by that propaganda as well. The first such incident was the murder of two New York City policemen, Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu (neither of them White, but then neither was George Zimmerman), as they sat in their police-vehicle. The fact that the young Black male suspect, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, was motivated by media-hoopla against the police was apparent in his posts on Instagram before the crime:


Brinsley allegedly posted a photo of a gun with the caption, “I’m putting wings on pigs today. They take 1 of ours, let’s take 2 of theirs,” officials said. He used the hashtags ‘Shootthepolice’ ‘RIPErivGardner (sic)‘ and ‘RIPMikeBrown.’ [CBS New York, 20 December 2014]

That was only the first of a number of such scattered incidents of anti-police violence induced by mass-media. The alleged murder of Trayvon Martin, in the accusation’s original form, was also supposed to have been a conspiracy of the police.

For many who become racially conscious, it began with noticing absurd anti-White bias in the news. Dr. William Pierce, in an essay about the evolution of his thinking (“The Radicalizing of an American,” 1978) mentions that an important moment for him was when he saw bias in news-coverage about the Civil Rights Movement; he saw that television news always showed the least credible and least attractive representatives of the pro-White side, for example screeching overweight housewives in hair-curlers, rather than someone like the one-time C.E.O. of Delta Airlines, Carleton Putnam, who wrote two books defending segregation.

What Dr. Pierce did next, and what Dylann Roof did after observing anti-White media-bias, was to look for sources of truth. Dr. Pierce read books and eventually learned about Jewish control of mass-media as the explanation for anti-White media-bias. Roof on the other hand found a trove of documentation about Black-on-White violent crime on the Internet, and this made a great impression on him.

In his radio broadcasts in the 1990s, Dr. Pierce would sometimes begin a discussion by referring to an instance of Black-on-White crime, as a way to catch the interest of White listeners, but the ultimate focus was never on Blacks. It was on the real powers — especially Jewish control of mass-media — that made Blacks into the problem that they had become.

A defining factor in Dylann Roof’s course of action is that he retained the commonplace but mistaken idea about where the real problem was. Because unruly Blacks were obvious, and because mainstream conservative media and even much of White-advocacy media never mentions Jewish activism as contributing to the Black problem, Dylann Roof mistakenly regarded the Black problem as primary, writing 1484 of the 2444 words in his manifesto under the heading “Blacks.” Roof describes Blacks as “the group I have the most real life experience with, and the group that is the biggest problem for Americans.”

What Roof writes about Blacks is generally true, as far as it goes. As we all know, relative to Whites, Blacks have a low IQ and poor self-control, and commit a grossly disproportionate amount of violent crime. Roof also correctly states that Blacks act with much more racial solidarity than Whites.

Roof offers two theories as to why Black misbehavior is tolerated. One is that Blacks are held to a lower standard because, whether we admit it or not, we regard them as inferior and expect less of them: therefore they get indulgence. The other theory is White guilt, particularly on account of Black sufferings under slavery and segregation. Roof thinks that Black suffering under slavery and segregation have been exaggerated:

We are told to accept what is happening to us because of ancestors wrong doing, but it is all based on historical lies, exaggerations and myths. I have tried endlessly to think of reasons we deserve this, and I have only came back more irritated because there are no reasons.

The indulgence given to Blacks because of this spurious guilt, he says, causes suffering to the principal victims to date of the anti-White revolution — poor and working class Whites who do not have the means to get away from Blacks:


But what about the White people that are left behind? What about the White children who, because of school zoning laws, are forced to go to a school that is 90 percent black? Do we really think that that White kid will be able to go one day without being picked on for being White, or called a “white boy”? And who is fighting for him? Who is fighting for these White people forced by economic circumstances to live among Negroes? No one, but someone has to.

Dylann Roof looks around himself and finds again and again that in racial matters, what is done in the name of justice is usually gross injustice. Once upon a time a minority of Whites owned Negro slaves. Now poor Whites whose ancestors probably never owned slaves must bear guilt and other sufferings for it. There is no justice in that.

Roof also sees no justice in what has been happening in Europe, where the same racially destructive processes are being imposed without the justifications that are offered in the United States, which suggests that those justifications are really only excuses:


I researched deeper and found out what was happening in Europe. I saw that the same things were happening in England and France, and in all the other Western European countries. Again I found myself in disbelief. As an American we are taught to accept living in the melting pot, and black and other minorities have just as much right to be here as we do, since we are all immigrants. But Europe is the homeland of White people, and in many ways the situation is even worse there. From here I found out about the Jewish problem and other issues facing our race.

Roof mentions “the Jewish problem” and “Jewish agitation of the Black race” but treats it as less important than what he seems to regard as an inherent tendency in Blacks to take offense when no offense is intended. Roof seems to have no inkling that Blacks were not always as unruly and dangerous as they have become, especially since the counter-cultural revolution of the 1960s which, for example, saw the beginning of the dramatic decline in all of the markers of family-functioning among Blacks. He is unaware of the origin of the current troubles between Blacks and Whites in the “Black-Jewish alliance” that E. Michael Jones discusses here: 



Obviously, the Council of Conservative Citizens, by publicizing factual information about Black-on-White crime, is not responsible for Dylann Roof’s action. If CCC could be held responsible for that, then it would certainly be reasonable to hold television-networks liable for the killings of police that resulted from their biased reporting of the Darren Wilson case, etc. Nonetheless, I do not believe that the conflict between Black and White is really where the focus of pro-White media ought to be. Blacks most definitely do not form an elite, and they have little real power in shaping public discourse on race or in enacting legislation. Pro-White media should be making White people aware of the less obvious but much more important problem.
Roof says that he “found out about the Jewish problem and other issues facing our race,” but he does not treat the Jewish problem as primary. He knows that Jews agitate Blacks but he does not seem to consider it a key cause of the trouble between Whites and Blacks. Under the heading of “Jews” in his manifesto Roof wrote only 138 words. He says that “unlike many White Nationalists” he regards Jews as White, and concludes with: “I don’t pretend to understand why Jews do what they do. They are [an] enigma.”

It is evident that Dylann Roof never spent much time reading The Occidental Observer. If he had, he’d have had some idea about why Jews do what they do.

Another reason for Roof’s course of action seems to be that he underestimated the importance of ideas (as Americans often do). I have occasionally encountered people who take the attitude that educating people is a useless activity, apparently because its effects are not immediately visible. In some cases they tried to tell somebody something once, and because that person was not immediately convinced, the effort was abandoned. They didn’t have the patience to keep trying. Affecting people’s attitudes and thinking is a slow process that requires perseverance. Then after thinking has been changed, the new thinking still requires opportunities to be implemented. Anybody who thinks that educating people is pointless or futile probably is expecting tangible results much too quickly. From this impatient perspective, educating people is just talking, and talking equates to doing nothing. That seems to be Roof’s attitude:



To take a saying from a film, “I see all this stuff going on, and I don’t see anyone doing anything about it. And it pisses me off.” To take a saying from my favorite film, “Even if my life is worth less than a speck of dirt, I want to use it for the good of society.” … We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet. Well someone has to have the bravery to take it to the real world, and I guess that has to be me.

Note the wording. Roof dismisses talking; he wants to “see” somebody “doing” something, and he makes it clear that this means violence. Shooting people of course produces an immediate visible result, but the net result to any such premature illegal action is almost always counterproductive.

One point that I believe Dylann Roof has right is his point about the ability of quality to prevail over quantity. He rejects the view that a non-White majority means that Whites will be unable to master the situation:



To this I say look at history. The South had a higher ratio of blacks when we were holding them as slaves. Look at South Africa, and how such a small minority held the black in apartheid for years and years. … It is far from being too late for America or Europe. I believe that even if we made up only 30 percent of the population we could take it back completely.

The most famous example from history of the supremacy of quality over quantity consists of the various conflicts between the ancient Greeks and the diverse, multicultural army of the Persian Empire. Grossly outnumbered by the motley Persian assemblage, the Greeks beat them again and again.

That observation, that all is not lost even when we are a minority, would seem to be a note of optimism, and an indication that patient and well-grounded approaches to the problem are to be preferred over hasty and desperate actions. I agree with that. Yet in his next sentence Roof says: “But by no means should we wait any longer to take drastic action.”

That is a non sequitur. It seems to reflect Roof’s own impulsiveness rather than the foregoing argument. At best, one might suppose that he feels an obligation toward the White children in Charleston who must attend schools with Blacks, and hoped that a general race war would ensue from his initiative. It is hard to imagine how he thought his actions could have a significant effect on the Black population of Charleston. It is also not credible that there would be enough White copycat shooters to have any significant effect, except perhaps in terms of gratifying the craving of anti-White media for White-on-Black killings to report. The illegal action that Dylann Roof undertook is utterly ineffectual for whatever pro-White goal he may have had in mind — certainly, even counterproductive.

Roof, I believe, was onto something when he said that Whites could prevail even against much more numerous non-White enemies. It is unfortunate that he did not follow through with the implications of that thought.

If White people are to prevail, the main prerequisite is to change their thinking. Just as Jewish activists in the media and academic world initiated a decades-long educational project to change White attitudes on race that were dominant in the 1920s, we must do the same. Whites must learn to think and feel differently about race, and about issues affecting racial solidarity. They must learn to be less impressed with quantity and more concerned with quality. This is a long-term educational project that must contend with the fact that at present all of the media high ground is occupied by the enemies of Whites, their interests, and their culture.

Dylann Roof’s impatience, his emphasis on immediate physical action rather than the battle for the mind, and his belief that Blacks rather than Jews are the main problem, all contributed to his action, and in fact they all seem to be interrelated. If Roof had recognized the paramount importance of ideas, he could not have imagined that it was Blacks telling us what to think; the possibility for a tiny minority of Jews to wield enormous power, however, would have been obvious. The answer to false information and bad ideas does not have to be violence: it can be true information and good ideas. But if the whole problem is seen as irrational violence and nothing more, then the choice becomes simply whether to fight or to retreat, which is how Roof framed his choice.

This implies something about what the focus of pro-White media ought to be. The focus should be not on the bright and noisy spectacle, but on the man behind the curtain who makes it all happen. This is something that must be emphasized.

Ideally, Blacks and Whites should be able to recognize some common interests and cooperate on those interests. There are very clear common interests in curtailing Black crime — since, according to the FBI, 90% of murders of Blacks are committed by other Blacks — and in stopping immigration.

All of the agitation of Black hostility toward Whites by the mass media, mostly on false premises, which has generated not only anti-White and anti-police violence by Blacks but also Dylann Roof’s response, certainly doesn’t make such cooperation any easier.

06 December 2016

Deborah Lipstadt's Latest Attention-Whoring Gimmick

Early Holocaust Revisionists: Freedman, Hoggan, Barnes, Rassinier.

Deborah Lipstadt acquired spurious fame in the 1990s by pontificating against Holocaust Revisionism. Now she pretends to be an expert on the Alt Right too, based on the claim that Holocaust Revisionism and the Alt Right (which she insists on calling White Supremacy) are somehow the same. 

She claims that "Holocaust Denial" and "White Supremacy" both were formerly represented by blatantly disreputable characters, but that these sordid villains subsequently decided to don coats and ties to feign respectability and fool the public.


The problem with this story is that none of it is true. The instigators of Holocaust Revisionism in the United States were all men of some status. Likewise White advocacy has always had its high-status representatives (e.g. Carleton Putnam), but Jewish-controlled mass-media chose not to show them. Jewish mass-media always prefer to show the least reputable representatives of any cause that they want to quash.

There is no Holocaust Revisionist who metamorphosed in this way -- at least none that comes to mind. Certainly David Irving, whom Lipstadt mentions in this context, did not make such a transformation. (Incidentally, David Irving is in no way the typical representative of Holocaust Denial that Lipstadt always pretends.)

It must be conceded that a transition vaguely resembling what Lipstadt describes was made by David Duke, but that was 35 years ago, long before the so-called Alt Right, which only came to prominence in the past year.   

Richard Spencer was never either a Klansman or a Hollywood Nazi: he's an upper middle-class boy with an M.A. in humanities who worked for The American Conservative and Taki's Mag. Spencer is not trying to fool anyone by wearing a suit and tie; he was probably born wearing them. Spencer was not showing his true colors but more likely pandering to the audience at his conference by saying Hail victory! and all that.

But the claim that wicked men are fooling the people by pretending to be civilized and decent is more acceptable than Lipstadt's real, unstated complaint. As it is, she pretends to have the well-being of the American public in mind. The less humanitarian complaint that she refrains from stating is that Jewish censorship has been circumvented.

Today the Jewish ability to control information has been circumvented by Internet, so that movements like Holocaust Revisionism and the Alt Right (and even Donald Trump) can speak directly to the public without misrepresentation. Without Internet, pro-White dissidents could spew nonstop brilliance all day every day and the American public for the most part would never know.

Read more about it from CODOH.

04 December 2016

Is any White Nationalist really stupid enough to take advice from David Cole?




Taki's Mag on 1 December 2016 published an essay by Jew and former Holocaust Revisionist David Cole titled, "See, This Is Why We Can't Have White Things." The essay pretends to advise White Nationalists about how best to present themselves. Even apart from the question of whether David Cole really has the best interests of White Nationalists at heart, it is clear that this is a very dishonest essay.

Rhetorically, it is a venerable technique to begin an address by making points that you know your audience will find agreeable. That is what Sinon the Greek did in Vergil's account of how the wooden horse full of Greek soldiers was introduced into Troy. Sinon told the Trojans that the Greeks were terrible people, and the Trojans were impressed with his truthfulness. Behold, an honest Greek! After that, Sinon could lie to the Trojans and they would believe it. You establish credibility with an otherwise skeptical audience by telling them what they already believe.

That is how David Cole begins this essay, by saying things that he knows will meet with approval. After an unflattering story about Hillary Clinton, he launches into criticism of Richard Spencer's performance at the now notorious NPI conference of 19 November. He says that Spencer should not have made quasi-hitlerian utterances and gestures "in a spirit of irony" while expecting the media to portray it, and the public to understand it, as irony. This is self-evident common sense. I have said the same myself.

It does not appear that Cole really examined what Spencer said, since he uncritically repeats the false report that Spencer referred to Jews as golems (rhetorically questioning whether they were human) when this comment was clearly about Republican strategists.

Cole then says that any association with Hitler and National-Socialism is toxic to public relations. There is certainly some truth in that, but Holocaust Revisionists, of whom Cole once claimed to be one, see this as largely due to misrepresentation. 

Cole acknowledges that there are people who see Hitler's bad reputation as undeserved, but these people, he advises, are unhelpful to the White Nationalist cause:


Their ultimate goal is only partly to make things better for whites in the here and now; they also want to reach back in time and provide a little image repair for good old Adolf. 

Thus Cole tells us that revising the history of Adolf Hitler is an unnecessary distraction from White advocacy, a waste of time. Certainly we have heard this annoying refrain before, usually from people whose motives could be questioned. Often it seems to be cowardice, mental laziness, or a conflict of interest masquerading as prudence. What is always evident, however, is that they cannot defend their position in a discussion. But surely Cole's motives are beyond reproach! Surely a swarthy Jew, a member of the ethnic group that bears primary responsibility for the defamation of Adolf Hitler and for Cultural Marxism generally, wants to make things better for Whites!

The clear necessity for White nationalists to challenge the Jewish Holocaust story was explained convincingly in Richard Harwood's seminal Did Six Million Really Die? as long ago as 1974:

Why the Big Lie? What is its purpose? In the first place, it has been used quite unscrupulously to discourage any form of nationalism. Should the people of Britain or any other European country attempt to assert their patriotism and preserve their national integrity in an age when the very existence of nation-states is threatened, they are immediately branded as "neo-Nazis". Because, of course, Nazism was nationalism, and we all know what happened then -- Six Million Jews were exterminated! So long as the myth is perpetuated, peoples everywhere will remain in bondage to it; the need for international tolerance and understanding will be hammered home by the United Nations until nationhood itself, the very guarantee of freedom, is abolished. [R. Harwood, Did Six Million Really Die?, 1974]
    
In the event that one is not quite convinced of the lack of utility in revising Hitler's reputation, Cole argues that it is not even possible anyway, because, it turns out, Hitler really is the Devil! In support of that position, to make his argument credible, he quotes three nationalist sources. The problem is that he quotes all three in a misleading manner.

Cole quotes a statement from an essay by James Harting reposted by National Vanguard (from Stormfront) that says that Hitler saw himself as a leader only of the Germans:

It must be said that Hitler did not consider himself as any kind of a world leader of Aryandom. Rather, he saw himself as the political leader of the German nation, and perhaps more generally the symbolic leader of all of the Germanic peoples. [James Harting, "Adolf Hitler: German Chancellor or Pan-Aryan Leader?", Stormfront, 14 December 2013]

Cole omits the subsequent explanation that Hitler acquired broader significance:

Increasingly as the War went on, Hitler found himself as the de facto head of all of the Aryan peoples of Europe, and not just of the Germans or of the Germanics.

In fact it is Harting's thesis that Hitler really was "the symbolic leader of the whole of the Aryan race." By quoting a concessive statement out of context, Cole has inverted the essay's overall meaning.

Cole quotes from Himmler's essay of 15 May 1940 , about the treatment of the inhabitants of German-occupied Poland, the words "dieses Untermenschenvolk des Ostens." Cole omits to mention that the essay also proposes to allow children of Slavic national origin to be educated in Germany, if their parents wish and if they meet racial standards. The takeaway is that not all Slavs were regarded as Untermenschen

However, even with the proviso that it does not mean every Pole, Himmler's generalization may seem absurdly harsh to American ears in the 21st century. The seeming egregiousness of Himmler's view is dispelled when one considers what some others had to say about the Poles in that era. An American reporter for the Chicago Tribune gives a very unflattering account:


Paul Super was an American who worked for many years to help Poland. He was director of the American Young Men's Christian Association. [...] After working 18 years among Polish boys, he told me the thing which horrified him most was "The Pole's lack of respect for property." To put it more plainly: that there were so many thieves in Poland.

In his campaigns in the United States to raise money to help Polish youth, Super mailed tens of thousands of appeals to American firms and individuals. One of these, which he presented to me, was a small mimeographed leaflet. It contained a fearful indictment of the Polish government. It runs as follows:

"I know a city — which has a population of 600,000 — but — it has water-works and no sewer system. It's Lodz, Poland. It is probably the largest cotton-mill center on the continent of Europe. 1064 smoke-stacks belching smoke. Most of these are cotton mill smoke stacks. Tens of thousands of Mill-hands. Each one a person. There is utterly inadequate provision for decent recreation, physical exercise, vocational education, wholesome boy life. Owing to general conditions this city is a splendid breeding place for: discontent, radical socialism, bolshevism, tuberculosis, social immorality, irreligion. Young men born there hardly have a fair chance at life's real values: education, christian character, personal growth, health, a chosen vocation, citizenship, enjoyment of beauty, home life."

He continues to tell how the YMCA (that is himself) succeeded in organizing some of the unselfish citizens of Lodz in 1922, how they obtained promises and enrolled 1,200 members of whom 340 were attending classes, and how they founded a library with 3,376 books which were read by 1,096 persons each month. He urged Americans to help widen YMCA work in Poland. Through this and other appeals Super collected money to build a modern YMCA building with a swimming pool for Lodz. He erected three such institutions in Poland, the other two being located in Warsaw and Krakow.

But the point I am driving at is this: this appeal was mailed to America in 1934. The conditions he portrays as existing in Lodz were also to be found in many other Polish cities and towns. After 14 years of national existence the Polish government had been unable to improve such conditions. Neither in Lodz, nor any other town.

Pride has always been a dominating characteristic of the Poles. At the receptions and parties I attended I was invariably asked how I liked Poland and I very frankly stated that I did not like the country at all. This always shocked the questioner. When I explained the living standard of the inhabitants of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia was far higher then in Poland, that the streets of Baltic cities were not overrun with beggars, that the Baltic peoples could afford to buy soap and liked to use it and kept themselves, their homes, their cities and streets spotlessly clean, the Poles were very much surprised.


German prosperity and Polish poverty (1920).
They were proud of their culture. That culture was much more of the past than of the present. For instance: they made much of the Poles' love for horses. I have traveled much but I have never seen so many blind and starved horses as I have seen on city streets and country roads in Poland. In fact, there were so many that I questioned a number of veterinary surgeons. They told me the average Polish peasant is so lazy and cruel that he frequently blinds a nervous, high-strung horse rather than take the trouble of breaking it properly to harness.

At one of these receptions a titled Polish woman became impatient with me. "Please remember Mr. Day, that Poland is a backward country. A century ago Poland was culturally 200 years behind France. Today we are still two hundred years behind France and very possibly we shall be still two hundred years behind France a hundred years hence." France was the ideal of the average Pole.

She continued:

"Let me tell you a true little story which will show you how backward we really are. It was told to me by our minister of health. Last year he issued an order directing the policemen throughout the country to make a monthly inspection of the village latrines. You see, usually a Polish village has only one latrine for the entire community and if it is a larger village sometimes there will be two. One policeman, making his usual inspection of the latrines in his district, discovered one to be clean and in good order. He complimented the Starastvo (village elder). A month later to his amazement he discovered the latrine was still in the best of order. He asked the Starastvo to tell him how he managed to keep it so clean, so he could inform the other village leaders, thus relieving him of the necessity of imposing fines each month. 'That is easy,' said the Starastvo, 'I keep it locked up.'"

The Polish lady did not display the slightest trace of shame when she told me this anecdote. A few minutes later when she asked me what I thought of Polish women, I decided it was my turn to shock her. I said I found them "Beautiful, but dirty." [Donald Day, Onward Christian Soldiers, pp. 66-67]

Cole quotes Ernst Zündel saying at a conference of the IHR in 1994 that he encountered Russians who were irritated about the fact that "Soviets" had been called Untermenschen during the Second World War. This requires some explanation.

First, the National-Socialist use of the term Untermensch comes from the American writer Lothrop Stoddard. In his book The Revolt Against Civilization: the Menace of the Under-Man, Stoddard said that Bolshevism was possible where there were many degenerate men, whom he called the Under-Man. In German this was rendered as der Untermensch. It was Lothrop Stoddard's theory, then, that Untermenschen were the cause of the Soviet Union. One could thus generalize that the "Soviets" were Untermenschen.

Now, if some or many Russians were brutes who supported Bolshevism, it does not mean that all were like that. (In fact the Bolsheviks, at the time of their takeover, relied heavily on non-Russian muscle.) We have already seen that Himmler did not regard every Slav as an Untermensch. Even the SS publication Der Untermensch does not say that Slavs categorically, or any Slavic nation, are Untermenschen

The false claim that the National-Socialists regarded all Slavs as Untermenschen was propagated during and after the war, along with the claim that they were being gassed by the millions in Auschwitz. (The fact that some Slavic nations, Slovakia, Croatia, and Bulgaria, were allied with Germany, and that many others were recruited into foreign legions of the SS and Wehrmacht, has been overlooked and forgotten -- except when Jews wanted to accuse of a Pole like Frank Walus or a Ukrainian like John Demjanjuk of warcrimes.) To make Soviet rule seem preferable to German occupation, the most extreme lies had to be told. Thus, it is not a bit surprising that Ernst Zündel encountered Russians in 1994 who believed this. But it does not reflect reality. 

In spite of racial doctrine, the Germans appeared as liberators to many Slavs and others in the USSR.

Finally Cole suggests that if nationalists want to succeed they should strenuously avoid any hint of association with Hitler. 

The wisdom of this advice depends on what one wishes to accomplish. If one is trying to be elected to public office, then one has to take care not to buck existing public opinion too much. If, however, one's purpose is to alter public opinion, then one must not revere public opinion as it is. One must be willing to violate taboos.

There is this famous observation about the phases in the introduction of a new truth, attributed (perhaps spuriously) to Arthur Schopenhauer:

All truth passes through three stages: first, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and third, it is accepted as self-evident.

Anybody who wants to change the world must be willing to endure belittlement and hostility. Anybody who thinks that it is smarter to avoid all that trouble, or gives up because he encounters opposition, is not going to be able to change very much.

On the other hand, if NPI is to be taken seriously as a think-tank, and if  bourgeois respectables like Jared Taylor and Peter Brimelow are to continue appearing at those conferences, then the gratuitously provocative touches in Spencer's presentation were unwise and damaging to NPI's mission, but it is not clear that any net harm was done to White Nationalism as such. There is always something to be said for stretching the Overton window, and really people should not be shocked and appalled at the sight of a Roman salute (formerly practiced in the USA as the Bellamy salute), but I believe that vastly greater benefit is derived from persuasion with national-socialist ideas than from direct efforts to normalize National-Socialist symbols.

The specific taboo of association with Adolf Hitler is one that nationalists ultimately cannot avoid. This was discovered by Enoch Powell in 1968 when he called for non-White immigration to Britain to be curtailed, and it was used against Donald Trump during the year prior to his election -- backfiring in this instance, because Trump had a substantial core of supporters who would not desert him in any case, due to the recognized necessity of his agenda.

Cole, as a Jew, obviously could have no interest in the success of White Nationalism. If he drew attention to himself in the early 1990s as "the Jewish Holocaust Revisionist" by capitalizing on the work of others after Auschwitz had already been debunked, it was only a few years later that he was reined in by other Jews, including not only the Jewish Defense League but his own family. Since then, by adopting the artificial Semi-Revisionist position that the Holocaust in general was real even if Auschwitz was fake (which is hard to take back), he has more or less fallen back in line with Jewish ethnic interests. 

Cole says:

In my entire life, I’ve never uttered a single pro-Hitler sentiment....

No surprise there, Colenstein! It is a rare Jew (Roger Dommergue, Benjamin Freedman) who is capable of putting aside ethnic bias to that degree, and also has the courage to buck the pressure that Jews place upon other Jews to conform.

Maintaining the demonization of Adolf Hitler, who certainly was a prominent opponent of Jewish power regardless of whether any Jew was gassed, is an obvious Jewish ethnic interest. Correspondingly, the rehabilitation of Adolf Hitler and his government is  an essential interest of White people, but it cannot be accomplished while heeding the advice of David Cole.

The multifarious meanings of the German word Volk

The meaning of the German word Volk is of great consequence. Sometimes the interpretation of this single word makes all the difference between whether a particular statement from somebody like Heinrich Himmler does or does not appear to represent an intention to kill all Jews.

In English, people has two meanings. It can serve as the plural of person, or it can mean a nation or ethnic group. Volk in German also has these two meanings.

If Himmler says that dieses Volk (rendered in English as these people) must be killed, referring to a group of Jewish guerrillas who have been murdering German soldiers or civilians on the Eastern Front, that is very different from saying that dieses Volk,  understood to mean this people, the entire Jewish people, must be killed.  

Ultimately context must determine what exactly the word means, but quite often the Defenders of the Holocaust Faith choose to ignore context, reading poorly so that they may continue to claim that their story is true.

The Muret-Sanders Encyclopædic German-English Dictionary, an unabridged translating dictionary that is a little more than 100 years old, gives not just two but six possible meanings of Volk from which to choose.

1. The first meaning is "people" in the sense of an aggregation of persons, with a tendency to connote the common people or the masses. You see this meaning also reflected in the adjective volksarm -- sparsely populated.

2. The second definition of Volk includes the word "nation." This is the meaning that we customarily assume. But this particular use of the word cannot have been common before German nationalism was awakened in the early 19th century.

3. In the third definition we are told that Volk can designate a class of persons, like children (das kleine Volk) or women (ein wunderlich[es] Volk). Sometimes Volk in this sense is even applied to non-human species, as if birds, for example, were a class of humans.

4. Volk used in the plural Völker can refer collectively to a feudal lord's servants. 

5. Like the Latin word populus, it can mean all the men of appropriate age to serve in the country's army, or it can mean the army itself. The plural Völker also can be used like the English word troops.

6. In reference to beasts and birds, Volk can mean troop, flock, swarm, covey, or bevy.