Why the Holocaust Story Was Invented

“…the minimum estimate of 9.3 million Germans who died needlessly after the war. This is far more Germans than died during the Second World War. Millions of these Germans slowly starved to death while the Allies withheld available food. The majority of these postwar dead Germans were women, children and very old men. Their deaths have never been honestly reported…”

 

I have been asked the questions: “Why was the Holocaust story invented? Who benefits from this falsification of history?” This article will answer these questions.

Justification for War with Germany

palestine

World War II was by far the bloodiest and most destructive war in human history. Many people wondered whether all of the death and destruction caused by the war had been necessary.

The so-called Holocaust was used by the Allies to demonize Germany and prove that their war effort was necessary to defeat such an evil nation.

With the liberation of Ohrdruf, Buchenwald and Dachau by the American army and the liberation of Bergen-Belsen by British troops, large groups of Western observers confronted the horrors of the German camps for the first time. The gruesome scenes of huge piles of dead bodies and emaciated and diseased surviving inmates were filmed and photographed for posterity by the U.S. Army Signal Corps. Prominent newsmen and politicians were flown in to Germany to see the harrowing evidence at the camps for themselves. The horrific scenes in the German camps were used by the Allies to justify their participation in the war.[1]

Jewish historian Robert Jan van Pelt writes:

To the Allies, the discovery of the camps proved a final justification of their war effort. In 1940, Churchill had proclaimed that a Nazi victory would bring “a new Dark Age made more sinister by perverted science.” The liberation of the camps proved that Churchill had not exaggerated the danger. And even though Auschwitz had been liberated by the Russians, the English and Americans heard many stories about that camp.[2]

 

Establishment of Israel

       The Holocaust story has also been used to justify the creation of the State of Israel. ((((((Simon Wiesenthal)))))) writes:

“The creation of Israel was the only possible and the only correct reaction to Auschwitz. There had to be a country in the world where the Jews were the landlords instead of tolerated guests, a place of refuge in the truest meaning of the word, even for Jews who live in other countries.”[3]

((((((David Ben-Gurion)))))) stated at the beginning of World War II that the war should end by giving the Zionists their own state. After the war, ((((((Ben-Gurion)))))) and other Israeli leaders said that the Holocaust had proven once again that the only solution to the Jewish problem was an independent state in Israel. ((((((David Ben-Gurion)))))) again mentioned during Adolf Eichmann’s trial that the Holocaust happened because Jews did not live in their own country.[4]

Israeli historian ((((((Tom Segev)))))) explains why the Holocaust story is so important to Israel:

      Israel differs from other countries in its need to justify—to the rest of the world, and to itself—its very right to exist. Most countries need no such ideological justifications. But Israel does—because most of its Arab neighbors have not recognized it and because most of the Jews of the world prefer to live in other countries. So long as these factors remain true, Zionism will be on the defensive. As a justification for the State of Israel, the Holocaust is comparable only to the divine promise contained in the Bible: It seems to be definitive proof of the Zionist argument that Jews can live in security and with full equal rights only in their own country and that they therefore must have an autonomous and sovereign state, strong enough to defend its existence.[5]

((((((Tom Segev)))))) further writes:

“The demonization of Nazism and its mythologizing, in general, were also necessary since the Holocaust served as the main justification for the creation and existence of the State of Israel.”[6]

 

Justification of Israeli Violence

       There were at least 33 massacres of Palestinian villages during Israel’s “War of Independence.” Zionist forces were larger and better equipped than their opponents, and by the end of the war over 750,000 Palestinians were ruthlessly expelled from their homes.[7] As ((((((Tom Segev)))))) writes, “Israel was born of terror, war, and revolution, and its creation required a measure of fanaticism and of cruelty.”[8]

Entire cities and hundreds of villages in Israel were left empty and repopulated with new Jewish immigrants. The Jewish immigrants numbered 100,000 in April 1949, most of them survivors of the so-called Holocaust. The Palestinians lost everything they had and became destitute refugees, while the Jewish immigrants to Israel stole the Palestinians’ property and confiscated everything they needed.[9]

 The Holocaust story has been repeatedly used to justify Israel’s aggression against its neighbors. Israeli Prime Minister ((((((Menachem Begin)))))) justified the demolition of an alleged Iraqi nuclear facility in June 1981 with the words, “We must protect our nation, a million and a half of whose children were murdered by the Nazis in the gas chambers.”[10]

Before Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in June 1982, Begin told his cabinet:

“You know what I have done and what we have all done to prevent war and loss of life. But such is our fate in Israel. There is no way other than to fight selflessly. Believe me, the alternative is Treblinka, and we have decided that there will be no more Treblinkas.”[11]

A few weeks after Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, Begin stated that after the Holocaust the international community had lost its right to demand that Israel answer for its actions. Begin declared in the Knesset,

“No one, anywhere in the world, can preach morality to our people.”

A similar statement was included in the resolution adopted by Begin’s cabinet after the massacres in Palestinian refugee camps on the outskirts of Beirut.[12]

By the late 1980s there was hardly a day when the Holocaust story was not mentioned in one of the Israeli newspapers. Such constant exposure encouraged many Israeli soldiers to plan ways to exterminate the Arabs. According to Israeli education-corps officer Ehud Praver,

“too many soldiers were deducing that the Holocaust justifies every kind of disgraceful action.”[13]

 

German Guilt

The so-called Holocaust has also been effectively used to induce guilt in the German people. As British historian Ian Kershaw writes: “Decades would not fully erase the simple but compelling sentiment…‘I am ashamed to be German.’”[14]

Friedrich Grimm, a renowned German authority on international law, was shown samples of new leaflets printed soon after the war in German to be distributed by the Allies throughout Germany. Describing German war crimes, the leaflets were the first step in the reeducation program designed for Germany. Grimm suggested to an Allied officer that since the war was over, it was time to stop the libel. The Allied officer replied:

“Why no, we’re just getting started. We’ll continue this atrocity campaign, we’ll increase it till no one will want to hear a good word about the Germans anymore, till whatever sympathy there is for you in other countries is completely destroyed, and until the Germans themselves become so mixed up they won’t know what they’re doing!”[15]

The Allied campaign to make Germans feel guilty concerning the so-called Holocaust has been highly successful. German guilt is so powerful that it has caused the German government to make enormous reparations and offer humble apologies to the Allies. Millions of German expellees have paid reparations to survivors of the German concentration camps even though these German expellees had their land and personal possessions stolen from them.

James Bacque writes in regard to German feelings of guilt:

      Guilt pervades Germany like a religion. It is the “Canossa Republic,” penitent in pain before its judges. Guilt is so powerful that it has caused the Canossa Republic repeatedly to deny any intention of reclaiming sovereignty over the eastern lands, although it is a well-established UN principle that no government has the right to waive the claims of individuals to their property. Nor may it impede their right of return to their former homeland.[16]

 

Cover Up of Allied War Crimes

The Holocaust story has also been used to cover up and ignore Allied crimes against Germans after World War II. German deaths after the war can be divided into three groups of people. The first group is the German prisoners of war (POW) in both Europe and the Soviet Union. The second group is the German expellees, and the third group is the Germans already residing in Germany. While no one will ever know how many Germans died from 1945 to 1950, it is certain that the deaths far exceed most traditional estimates. The great majority of these deaths were caused by the lethal policies imposed by the Allies against Germany after the war.              

A conservative estimate of German deaths in the Allied POW camps is 1.5 million. This includes over 517,000 POW deaths in the Soviet Union, 100,000 POW deaths in Yugoslavia, Poland and other countries, with the remaining POW deaths in U.S. and French camps. The Germans who died in these Allied POW camps suffered miserably from exposure, disease, and slow starvation. This well-documented Allied atrocity is still denied by most historians today.

Probably a minimum of 2.1 million German expellees died in what was supposed to be an “orderly and humane” transfer. The estimate of 2.1 million German expellee deaths is acknowledged to be valid by most traditional historians. Notable authorities have estimated a much higher number of German expellee deaths.[17]

An estimated 5.7 million Germans already residing in Germany died from the starvation policies implemented by the Allies after the war. James Bacque details how this 5.7 million death total is calculated:

The population of all occupied Germany in October 1946 was 65,000,000, according to the census prepared under the ACC. The returning prisoners who were added to the population in the period October 1946-September 1950 numbered 2,600,000 (rounded), according to records in the archives of the four principal Allies. Births according to the official German statistical agency, Statistisches Bundesamt, added another 4,176,430 newcomers to Germany. The expellees arriving totaled 6,000,000. Thus the total population in 1950 before losses would have been 77,776,430, according to the Allies themselves. Deaths officially recorded in the period 1946-50 were 3,235,539, according to the UN Yearbook and the German government. Emigration was about 600,000, according to the German government. Thus the population found should have been 73,940,891. But the census of 1950 done by the German government under Allied supervision found only 68,230,796. There was a shortage of 5,710,095 people, according to the official Allied figures (rounded to 5,700,000).[18]

The sum of 1.5 million German POWs, 2.1 million German expellees, and 5.7 million German residents equals the minimum estimate of 9.3 million Germans who died needlessly after the war. This is far more Germans than died during the Second World War. Millions of these Germans slowly starved to death while the Allies withheld available food. The majority of these postwar dead Germans were women, children and very old men. Their deaths have never been honestly reported by the Allies, the German government or most historians. Instead, all we ever hear about is the alleged genocide of European Jewry.   

 

Allied Guilt and Apathy

The Allies have also been declared guilty of not doing more to prevent the alleged genocide of European Jewry. Jewish historian ((((((Deborah Lipstadt)))))) writes:

      A real antipathy toward Jews certainly affected the Allied response. While no one among the Allies or in the press wanted to see Jews killed, virtually no one was willing to advocate that steps be taken to try to stop the carnage. Many Allied officials in positions of power in London and Washington were tired of hearing about Jews and even more tired of being asked to do something about them even though there were steps that could have been taken.[19]

((((((Elie Wiesel)))))) writes in regard to the Allies’ failure to rescue European Jewry, “It almost seems as if both diplomats and statesmen spent more time inventing reasons not to save the Jews than trying to find a way to save them.”[20]

U.S. Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush have all made statements that the United States will never again fail to act to stop something as evil as the genocide of European Jewry. At the dedication of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, President Bill Clinton spoke in a similar vein: “For those of us here today representing the nations of the West, we must live forever with this knowledge: Even as our fragmentary awareness of crimes grew into indisputable facts, far too little was done.”[21]

((((((Michael Goldberg)))))) says in regard to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum:

“The museum stands as a grim reminder that for all its purported ideals, America nevertheless turned its back on Jews fleeing Hitler…Hence, the museum’s recalling what happened to Jews in the past may move Americans and their national policymakers in Washington to support Israel in the present, lest in the future, the same fate lie in store for Jews again—and the same moral failure await Americans once more.”[22]

President Barack Obama affirmed on the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Dachau: “…we fervently vow that such atrocities will never happen again” and “History will not repeat itself.”[23] Of course, President Obama forgot to tell his audience that most of the inmates at Dachau died of natural causes. Obama also conveniently failed to mention that the single biggest atrocity that occurred at Dachau was the mass murder by American troops of 520 German guards on the day Dachau was liberated.[24]

 

Reparations to Jews

German guilt for the so-called Holocaust has resulted in massive reparations being paid to Holocaust survivors and the State of Israel. German reparations to Jews were discussed from the beginning of World War II.  ((((((Tom Segev)))))) writes:

      The idea [of reparations] seems to have been in the air from the time the war started, apparently sparked by the punitive reparations payments imposed on Germany at the end of World War I. Ben-Guiron received a memorandum on the subject as early as 1940. Berl Katznelson spoke of it publicly toward the end of that year. By December 1942, there was already a private organization in Tel Aviv called Justicia that offered to help Nazi victims draft compensation demands.[25]

Hatred of Germans in Israel was intense after the war. Many advocated a special law barring Israelis from all social contacts with German citizens. However, since most Israelis felt that the Germans owed them massive reparations for the so-called Holocaust, Germany and Israel began negotiating reparations on March 20, 1952. The Luxembourg Agreement was reached six months later and committed the German government to paying massive reparations to Holocaust survivors.[26]

((((((Nahum Goldmann)))))) said in a 1976 interview that the Luxembourg Agreement “constituted an extraordinary innovation in the matter of international rights.” Goldmann also boasted that he had obtained 10 to 14 times more from the Bonn government than he had originally expected.[27]

Millions of Jews eventually received personal compensation for their pain and suffering in the so-called Holocaust. The German federal government as of 1998 had paid reparations to Israel and Third Reich victims of about $61.8 billion. In addition, Germans had paid many additional billions in private and other public funds to wartime forced laborers.[28] German reparations to Israel and Jews continue to this day.[29]

 

Jewish Solidarity

The Holocaust story is described by many Jewish leaders as a uniquely evil event. An example of this view was expressed by Abraham H. ((((((Foxman)))))) when he was the National Director of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith:

      …The Holocaust is something different. It is a singular event. It is not simply one example of genocide but a near successful attempt on the life of God’s chosen children and, thus, on God Himself. It is an event that is the antithesis of Creation as recorded in the Bible; and like its direct opposite, which is relived weekly with the Sabbath and yearly with the Torah, it must be remembered from generation to generation.[30]

((((((Michael Goldberg)))))) confirms that the Holocaust story has become a religion to many Jews: “As the Holocaust has become many contemporary Jews’ master story, so, too, its perpetual observance has become their paramount Jewish practice, its veneration their religion. And as with any organized church, this Holocaust cult has its own tenets of faith, rites, and shrines.[31]

Israelis are obsessed with the history and heritage of the Holocaust. A 1992 study of Israeli college students found that close to 80% of those asked identified with the statement, “We are all Holocaust survivors.” The so-called Holocaust has become a way for secular Jews to feel connected to their Jewish heritage.[32]

The Holocaust, which is remembered ritually through the observance of Holocaust Remembrance Day, is a major means of creating solidarity among Jews. While some Jewish communities experience conflicts among Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Jews, they set aside their differences and join together to remember the so-called Holocaust. Any truth in Judaism’s slogan of “Jews Are One” manifests itself ritually on Holocaust Remembrance Day.[33]

 

Conclusion   

The alleged genocide of European Jewry has been used to justify the Allied war effort, to establish the State of Israel, to justify Israeli violence against its neighbors, to induce guilt in both Germans and the Allied nations, to cover up and ignore Allied crimes against Germans, to allow Jews to receive massive reparations from Germany, and to create solidarity in the Jewish community. The extreme importance of the Holocaust story in advancing Zionist/Jewish interests ensures that this falsification of history will continue in the future, and allow the continuation of the on going plan to overwhelm the western world with 3rd world invaders and genocide the European people globally, whether in Europe, America or Australia.

 

 

ENDNOTES    

[1] Van Pelt, Robert Jan, The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2002, p. 165.

[2] Ibid.

[3] ((((((Wiesenthal)))))), Simon, Justice Not Vengeance: New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1989, p. 224.

[4] Segev, Tom, The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust, New York: Hill and Wang, pp. 82, 185, 330.

[5] Ibid., p. 514.

[6] Ibid., p. 480.

[7] Weir, Alison, Against Our Better Judgement: The Hidden History of How the U.S. was Used to Create Israel, 2014, p. 58.

[8] Segev, Tom, The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust, New York: Hill and Wang, p. 63.

[9] Ibid., pp. 161-162.

[10] Ibid., p. 399.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid., pp. 407, 412.

[14] Kershaw, Ian, Hitler 1936-45: Nemesis, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2000, p. 840.

[15] Tedor, Richard, Hitler’s Revolution, Chicago: 2013, p. 263.

[16] Bacque, James, Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians under Allied Occupation, 1944-1950, 2nd edition, Vancouver, British Columbia: Talonbooks, 2007, pp. 175-176.

[17] Ibid., p. 124.

[18] Bacque, James, Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians under Allied Occupation, 1944-1950, 2nd edition, Vancouver, British Columbia: Talonbooks, 2007, pp. 115-116.

[19] Lipstatdt, Deborah E., Beyond Belief: The American Press & the Coming of the Holocaust 1933-1945, New York: The Free Press, 1986, p. 277.

[20] Wyman, David S., The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust, 1941-1945, New York: The New Press, 2007, p. x.

[21] Ibid., pp. 342-343.

[22] ((((((Goldberg)))))), Michael, Why Should Jews Survive?: Looking Past the Holocaust Toward a Jewish Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 55.

[23] http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Obama-vows-never-again-on-70th-anniversary-of-liberation-of-Nazis-Dachau-camp-400570.

[24] Buechner, Howard A., Dachau: The Hour of the Avenger, Metairie, LA: Thunderbird Press, Inc., 1986, pp. 5, 29, 96-97.

[25] Segev, Tom, The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust, New York: Hill and Wang, p. 104.

[26] Ibid., pp. 190-191, 227, 233.

[27] “West Germany’s Holocaust Payoff to Israel and World Jewry,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, Summer 1988, p. 245.

[28] “Germany Has Paid Out More Than $61.8 Billion in Third Reich Reparations,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 17, No. 6, November/December 1998, p. 19.

[29] See http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/world/europe/for-60th-year-germany-honors-duty-to-pay-holocaust-victims.html and http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Germany-to-pay-250-Million-to-child-Holocaust-survivors-374596.

[30] ADL on the Frontline, January 1994, p. 2.

[31] ((((((Goldberg)))))), Michael, Why Should Jews Survive?: Looking Past the Holocaust Toward a Jewish Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 41.

[32] Segev, Tom, The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust, New York: Hill and Wang, pp. 513, 515-516.

[33] ((((((Goldberg)))))), Michael, Why Should Jews Survive?: Looking Past the Holocaust Toward a Jewish Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 50.

 

 

It’s Ok To Be White

The good folks over on 4chan have launched their latest IRL trolling operation.

They’ve plastered simple “It’s OK To Be White” pages… …all around their campuses and in the process have triggered a massive shit-lib overreaction.

Genius in its simplicity, the “It’s OK to Be White” campaign has already attracted the attention of people like Tucker Carlson.

Meanwhile, local news is freaking out.

Check out the precious Hominus Universitus start lisping about how it’s not OK to be White during the interview.

And the campaign is still going strong.

But let’s step back and consider what this IRL trolling operation has shown us.

In my humble opinion, /pol/ has just started to flex its muscles. They’ve already been key in the Meme Wars of 2015-2016, but this is a good harbinger of what is to come.

For more than a decade, /pol/ and 4chan, in general, has served as a repository of angst among young men of my generation in the West.

They’ve been griping and trapped in a nihilistic spiral for a long time. But I see a different tone now. A sense of strength and optimism about what they can do.

Many users honestly feel that nothing is beyond their reach now.

And this is a good vibe. I believe it is directly correlated to the success of IRL White activism all over the West, but most notably in America. More and more young men have had enough of griping and wallowing in self-hate. They understand the causes of it now. They know who is to blame, and now they have a plan.

Over here on the Alt-Right, we are joined at the hip to online imageboard culture, whether we know it or not.

Millions have been on 4/pol/ and millions have been red-pilled in the process over the years. It is a powerful subculture, and worth keeping your ear to.

But there are many have been frustrated by /pol/’s stalwart refusal to do much but troll over the years. There is a sentiment among many Alt-Right types that the people who “do something” are worth more than the legions of millennials and Gen Xers on places like /pol/.

But this is an ass-backward understanding of the basic zeitgeist of our era.

You can’t expect disenfranchised, demoralized and damaged kids to suddenly enlist in your legion to fight the POZ and the Anti-White establishment.

/pol/ is not an activist group, it is simply therapy by other means. There you are exposed to brutal honesty, endless abuse and constant venting by those who are already red-pilled bullyciding the rest into accepting harsh reality. People are brought up to the speed…and there is wicked whiplash.

Yet, these young men remain our greatest source of recruits and energy.

And remember that for every one poster, there are 10 lurking, not uttering a peep, but chuckling under their breath and absorbing it all.

Many haven’t felt the fire in their gut urging them to go out and do something about it yet. As has been noted before, many are NEETs, many are anti-social, many need to work on themselves first.

But when you’re out there, marching with a couple hundred old 80’s era activists, with not a young face in sight, you’re doing something wrong.

This isn’t about optics. This isn’t about whether you should fly the swastika and nordic runes or not. (You shouldn’t by the way).

This is about a cardinal failure to tap into the potential that is waiting online. And no amount of intellectual and rhetorical sophistry will take away from the reality of the situation of the White world in the 21st century.

You don’t have hardened, unemployed factory workers milling around in the streets. You don’t have hungry “proletariat”. You don’t have WWI vets forming paramilitaries. All you have is a legion of sexless, jobless, over-educated NEETs begging for a purpose and a calling in life. Begging for you to reach out to them somehow, speak their language, understand where they’re coming from.

Begging for a uniform and an organization to join.

Some people get it though. Many have come to understand the reality of the situation. Guerrilla activism works.

They don’t play-act that they are in 1930’s Germany. While those that do, think they know better and think they can take the energy of the Alt-Right and run with it into a dead-end. And they will call you a cuck for objecting to their bullshit.

We must not let ourselves be led by these people. These people DON’T understand online culture, don’t understand OUR BASE, and simply haven’t done their homework. To them, I suggest lurking more.

The “It’s OK to be White” campaign is IRL activism done right. And it was done by de-centralized little cells running around, with no leadership, and most importantly, no tangible benefit to themselves. This is what you can get these people to do, just for the lulz.

This is what groups like Identity Evropa and Generation Identitaire have pioneered. And this is what #theresistance looks like.

https://altright.com/2017/11/04/its-ok-to-be-white/

No Where Else to Go

Blockhead Joe is at it again, performing the traditional role of the journalist by hunting down dissenters and trying to make sure no important ideas are ever discussed. The national press, that seems to exist in a continual state of effeminate hysteria, is gleeful about revelations ((((((Milo Yiannopoulos)))))) spoke to Alt Right personalities as part of an effort to, well, explain the Alt Right. The heart of the journalistic complaint seems to be that Yiannopoulos somehow violated professional ethics, as reporters are supposed to copy and paste from the latest ((((((SPLC)))))) press release.

As usual, there’s no actual reporting – it appears a disgruntled Breitbart employee actually leaked MILO’s emails. (If there is one defining principle of the Beltway Right, it’s the joyful willingness to hurt friends and colleagues in order to win a few seconds of attention from left-wing reporters.) Yet the crazed excitement emanating from the priests of weakness show they have the scent of blood in their nostrils. No doubt, as neo-Breitbart attempts to prove they are totes not racist, conservative ritual sacrifices will intensify.

Breitbart could kill this Narrative by doing what originally won it a following–attacking and accepting no guilt. Instead, Breitbart’s problem seems to be that the most “right wing” person remaining at the company is Steve Bannon himself, with the rest of the staff composed of frightened “movement conservatives” eager to ring up a liberal journalist so they can ease their transition to the Daily Beast someday.

But the journalists, commissars that they are, are right to take this “scandal” seriously. The Alt Right receiving a semi-truthful mention in Breitbart represented a breach in the cordon sanitaire surrounding ideas in the post-West. Certainly, our nations groaning under alien occupation can’t really be called “free” in any meaningful sense.

For all the sickening boasting about the West’s “Open Society,” we live in an increasingly closed intellectual System – and the role of the contemporary journalist, scholar and academic is to root out heresy and prevent the transmission of knowledge.

Every mainstream media outlet in the country could be shut down and we would have more freedom of speech, more information available and a more elevated public discourse. Do we really need an entire industry of parasitic whiners endlessly complaining about how they are being oppressed every time a white person takes a dog for a walk? Mencken’s definition of Puritanism applies far more to the controlled media than the well-meaning pushovers of the so-called Religious Right.

In an open system, conclusions are shaped by the evidence that is produced. But in a closed system, such as a theocracy, there are certain supreme truths that must never be challenged, such as revelation from sacred texts. If evidence contradicts revelation, it is the evidence that must be dismissed.

It would be far preferable to mouth pieties about some ancient superstition or profess belief in unfalsifiable claims about one god or another than to pretend “all men are created equal.” The Church built a great civilization and gave men a vision of the sublime. Equality created the ruin that is modern Selma and 37 gender options on Facebook.

Breitbart allowed a small amount of heresy to trickle into the mainstream. Steve Bannon once boasted Breitbart had become a “platform for the Alt-Right,” a quote the journalist cum commissars will never forgive nor forget.

Of course, the “Alt-Right” meant something different then, something more diffuse and harder to define. Indeed, it’s an open question whether the term “Alt Right” itself has served its usefulness. In the Current Year, a philosophy or group of ideas is given a name not to help average people understand it, but to help journalists pathologize it.

But say what you will about the Alt Right, at least it’s an ethos. There are certain core ideas about the reality of race, the bankruptcy of “movement conservatism” and the need to radically change American foreign and domestic policy. There’s at least a “something” about that we can debate.

The same cannot be said of the “Alt-Lite” that is now so identified with Milo. Milo was once relevant and edgy precisely because his homosexuality and degeneracy allowed him to occasionally say politically incorrect things that a normal man, in the so-called conservative movement, could not. Stripped of Alt-Right ideas and influences, what, exactly, is his message? “Race-blind conservatism” is precisely what has led us to this point.

And what’s new about what calls itself the “New Right” (and, needless to say, has nothing to do with the actual New Right of de Benoist) Vague conspiracy theories about a “Deep State” that has zero Jewish influence? Random accusations of pedophilia?  BASED black guys and trannies with Trump hats? “Movement conservatism” straight from some bow-tied cuck at the Heritage Foundation is far preferable to this.

We can’t even say the Alt-Lite is against political correctness anymore. It could be said the Alt Lite serves a role pushing back against the mainstream media – but simply calling everything “Fake News” and alluding to mysterious cartels (while fiercely opposing any mention of Jewish influence) actually buttresses the enemy media’s credibility.

The Alt-Lite does try to hold the Left to its own standards, ((((((Alinsky)))))) style, on women’s rights, gay rights, etc. Occasionally, the Alt-Lite even gets something to crow about, like the fall of ((((((Harvey Weinstein)))))). But even this is more due to how the Left has internalized intersectionality and is moving to enforce its social norms even against people previously deemed exempt.

Dinesh D’Souza may think it’s clever to point out Democrats like the late Robert Byrd have been exempt from their monuments taken down – but that’s only because he still has some embarrassing connections to people still alive. They will all come down. Onetime Democratic Party icons like Andrew Jackson are already considered a disgrace by the progressive grassroots.

More broadly, what drives the Left today is simply hatred of white men combined with the rent seeking opportunities created by intersectionality. Crushing workers via mass immigration, ruining the environment, importing regressive ideologies like Islam – the Left has no problem with any of this nor will pointing out “double standards” trouble any progressive’s sleep.

Ideology is the mask power wears, the rationalization racial and ethnic groups use to pursue status and control over others. And the same is true for individuals – Ol’ Harvey was simply outmaneuvered because claiming or championing victimhood is a far more effective way to wield the cudgel than owning a studio.

Breitbart’s “populist nationalism” has more potential than the Alt Lite, assuming we can really draw a distinction between the two. Bannon himself has some awareness of ideas to his right and has shown his capability to exercise power with the victory of Roy Moore in the recent Alabama Republican primary.

The fact Bannon’s “populist nationalism” is poorly defined might make it, like the early Alt Right, far stronger and harder to combat. But it still relies on the Alt Right for an ideological basis, on white resentment for motivating the grassroots, on implicit white identity to define between friend and foe. It’s moves a bit closer to white Identitarian politics, to eliminating the double standard that holds every group except whites can and should pursue its own interests. But ultimately, it’s the same old conservative program of “harnessing the resentments of [Sam Francis’s] Middle American Radicals and exploiting their implicit white identity in the interests of a corporate agenda.”

The only difference is that it’s a bit more dishonest, because one suspects the “populist nationalists” know better, at least the smart ones. That suspicion will be furthered by the Buzzfeed story. The likely result will be increased internal policing, a chilling effect on stories surrounding immigration and political correctness, a greater emphasis on token minority conservatives and more promotion of outright hucksters like the cartoonish Dinesh D’Souza.

At a time when there is a desperate need for a fighting American Right, the “populist nationalists” will give us a team of mediocrities who can’t understand leftist arguments, let alone combat them. They will endlessly hint at Alt-Right themes, but wrap them in elaborate ideological or conspiracy theories rather than simply explaining racial and cultural realities. And they will never be able to confront the brutal core reality that has given rise to the Alt Right – without a white majority, no right of center ideology has any chance of existence.

It’s obviously better if the Alt Right can spread its ideas through the mainstream; the media scum is right to be paranoid and strain to contain this ideological infection. But they cannot stop it and naked repression is the last weapon they have.

The Alt Right exists because conservatism has failed, because there is little left to conserve, because the conservative cause has long since degenerated into a dishonorable racket. The Alt Light, the movement conservatives, the populists and all the rest may occasionally countersignal political correctness, or corporate repression, or media bias.

But the reason the Alt Right is just beginning its rise is because when it’s finally time to exercise the right of free speech, we’re the only ones who have anything to say. And now, it looks like the whole world knows it.

Dressing Up as Disney Characters is Racist, Says Fellow White Person from Brooklyn

Michael Byron
Daily Stormer
October 30, 2017

For most white mothers, Halloween is a day of enjoyment – a time when your children can dress up in their favorite costumes and have parties with other kids.

Not for blogger Sachi Feris, however.

This Caucasian maiden, who hails from the totally white borough of Brooklyn and whose 23andMe results prove that she is 6,000,000% European, is upset that white children are dressing up as both white and non-white Disney characters on Halloween – and she’s determined to tell her fellow honkies all about it!

Daily Mail:

Dressing children up as Disney’s Moana this Halloween is racist, according to one parenting blogger.

While parents should also think twice about letting their brood dress up as Elsa from Frozen because her character promotes ‘white beauty’.

Writing in her popular blog Raising Race Conscious Children, parent blogger activist Sachi Feris urged parents not to dress their children up as characters from backgrounds different to their own as it is ‘cultural appropriation.’

Although many would see the strong-minded Moana as a perfect role model for their child, Feris said it’s racially insensitive and risks parodying Polynesian culture.

Describing her own discussions with her five-year-old daughter, Feris said: ‘Moana is based on real history and a real group of people.

‘If we are going to dress up a real person, we have to make sure we are doing it in a way that is respectful. Otherwise, it is like we are making fun of someone else’s culture.’

Ancestors from Cuba, Lebanon, Syria AND Judea? Oy vey, Sachi Feris is whiter than an Icelandic albino!

So… yeah.

Basically, this little Jewish marmot runs a popular racial activist blog which – imagine my shock – is an all-out attack on white people and the “cultural appropriation” in which we supposedly engage.

Seriously, take a look at this article. This is “dear fellow white people” on steroids.

As usual, the accusations are one-way; whites are “culturally appropriating” non-whites by dressing up as Polynesians on Halloween, but non-whites are never “culturally appropriating” whites for using electricity, computers, vehicles or (in the case of blacks) the wheel.

HOLD UP, do you think we’d have T-shirts in a world without whites? And I’m pretty sure those slums wouldn’t have metal pots, either. 0/10, gives niggers too much credit.

Personally, I love it when mainstream newspapers promote insane Jew-blogs like this one. Very few white readers take this stuff seriously any more, especially when the author presents us with a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation (in this case, children not being able to dress up as either white or non-white Disney characters due to racism).

People don’t tend to like “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situations.

I’m not about to suggest that newspapers like the Daily Mail harbor a network of undercover White Nationalist journalists who are promoting ridiculous websites like “Raising Race Conscious Children” to subtly expose the Jews and instigate a real Holocaust. I will say, however, that if I were an undercover White Nationalist journalist seeking to expose the Jews and instigate a real Holocaust, this is exactly how I’d go about it.

It’s only a matter of time before these normies realize that everyone promoting this anti-white nonsense has an unusually large nose.

So keep pushing us, Sachi Feris & Co. Every anti-white article your tribe publishes ignites a new oven in the bowels of Auschwitz.

Abraham Lincoln: American Hitler

Diversity Macht Frei
October 30, 2017

In the popular imagination, Abraham Lincoln is the patron saint of racial brotherhood. But the reality was very different.

For much of his life Lincoln was a member of the American Colonization Society, an organisation whose purpose was to facilitation the expatriation of negroes to Africa or Latin America.

Here, during the Civil War, Lincoln meets a group of prominent blacks and tries to persuade them to lead their “soul brothers” away to a black ethno-state where negroes could live free from the oppression of whites.

On Aug. 14 1862, Abraham Lincoln hosted a “Deputation of Free Negroes” at the White House, led by the Rev. Joseph Mitchell, commissioner of emigration for the Interior Department. It was the first time African Americans had been invited to the White House on a policy matter. The five men were there to discuss a scheme that even a contemporary described as a “simply absurd” piece of “charlatanism”: resettling emancipated slaves on a 10,000-acre parcel of land in present-day Panama.

Lincoln immediately began filibustering his guests with arguments so audacious that they retain the ability to shock a reader 150 years later. “You and we are different races,” he began, and “have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races.” The African-American race suffered greatly, he continued, “by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence.” Lincoln went on to suggest, “But for your race among us, there could not be war,” and “without the institution of Slavery and the colored race as a basis, the war could not have an existence.” The only solution, he concluded, was “for us both … to be separated.”

The president next turned to what he wanted from the five-man delegation. It was selfish, he suggested, that any of them should “come to the conclusion that you have nothing to do with the idea of going to a foreign country.” They must “do something to help those who are not so fortunate as yourselves,” for the colonization effort needed “intelligent colored men” who are “capable of thinking as white men, and not those who have been systematically oppressed.” In asking them to “sacrifice something of your present comfort,” Lincoln invoked George Washington’s sacrifices during the American Revolution. He then asked for volunteers. “If I could find twenty-five able-bodied men, with a mixture of women and children,” he said, “I think I could make a successful commencement.”

Source

Frederick Douglass, the former negro slave who became a prominent anti-slavery campaigner, said this of Lincoln after his death.

It must be admitted, truth compels me to admit, even here in the presence of the monument we have erected to his memory, Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man.

He was preeminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country.

Source

Stormer, Volume 10: Looney Goons

Daily Stormer
October 29, 2017

This dude had some things to say about skinheads.

Here’s our weekly content digest! Show your appreciation for the authors by helping preserve their work for posterity through the process of samizdat. Download this weekly edition, archive it on your local storage, reupload it to a different location than you found it, and share it from there. Encourage others to do the same.

  • PDF: 112 pages, 4.08MB
  • ePub: 923 pages, 3.6MB

Have we lost our way? The success of white nationalism was about consistently outsmarting the opposition. We make jokes, we have the truth on our side, and we made fools out of an entire establishment. When we got called neo-Nazi white supremacists, that was a good thing. As rational, coherent speakers of the truth it means we got to dominate the discussion. All our opponents had to rebuttal is frothmouthed whiteknuckled SJW rage of screaming slurs at us.

Everyone enjoys seeing this in total breakdown.

This is not effective when it is leveled at a goony looking boomer playing skinhead and dress-up. Then the charge holds water, and the shitlibs look like they are correct. Even if you have the facts on your side and you are funny, if you are stand next to them people are going to see the group as a whole and think you are one of them. Standing with goony boomers belittles and degrades your important and valuable work. This is not part of the movement I spent years of my life building. People posting memes and making jokes turned the tide of history. Before we sacrifice that to the same old street actors, I think we need to think of what kind of real life activism would be ideal.

Local groups could be grown, and most importantly they could run local candidates. This is how the Tea Party propelled themselves to national relevance: they seized lots of local seats and turned them into cultural battlegrounds. We could turn school boards into furious rant platforms against tranny genderqueer rubbish being taught to kids. If any of us become a sheriff they can form a legal death squad and hand all their friends uniforms, guns, and salaries.

This could be us but you playin’.

If we get concentrations of seats then we can leverage them into control of states– maybe even resulting in legitimate secessionist movements. Charity events are also a really good idea, a strategy oft employed historically by organizations like Golden Dawn and NSDAP to garner support from the population. Flashmobs on strategic targets are also a good idea in many circumstances– but they should not be deployed to escalate past organizational failures. This is the grown-up way to do activism, that generates real resistance.

What we don’t want to be is a whining stereotype of past movement failures. We also don’t want to continually be seen as a problem. Tons of people came over to our side previously because Black Lives Matter was too persistent an annoyance and just plain looked bad. Tons of people are going to start thinking the same about us if we keep up the current path, and that will motivate movement against us.

National events are for people that have national candidates. We currently have no people electable on the national level. We also have no people capable of coaxing a military coup in our favor, or creating an armed populist revolt. We can’t do a putsch ourselves either. If you can’t do any of these things, election results matter a lot. And Trump is the best President that we can currently get elected. The things we are doing now might not only devour the ability of /ourguys/ to win elections, they might wholesale turn over entire swing states to the Democrats. We need to be very careful going into 2018 that some Skokie style stuff doesn’t hurt our ability to primary a lot of cucks and create a good environment to score at least some victories.

Unless you are going to a historical reenactment this is a bad idea.

I know a lot of you are disappointed in the Trump presidency. It’s no doubt that we had hope for more than this, but he did just turn boomer cucks against the Negro Felon League by shitposting alone. A few tweets and the entirety of blacks and Jews nationwide were cursing the flag and the anthem and telling flyover country how much they despised everything about America. When was the last time we had a President that accomplished anything that big for white consciousness? We need to take the victories we can garner in the Trump era while acknowledging its limitations in stride. There has to be at least a hint of realism and pragmatism. What viable path to gains in territory do we have before us, and should we take them rather than charging head-on into the machine gun nest?

Many march on a battlefield which we have no path to victory on. Don’t we want to take wins where we can get them? Do we want to play things smart or risk everything on what happens in the next 2 years? I don’t know about you, but I hail victory alone. I do not want to hail suicidal, self-gratifying hedonism.