Mar 10, 2016

The Revenge of the Lower Classes and the Rise of American Fascism

via Darkmoon

College-educated elites, on behalf of corporations, carried out the savage neoliberal assault on the working poor. Now they are being made to pay. Their duplicity—embodied in politicians such as Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama—succeeded for decades. These elites, many from East Coast Ivy League schools, spoke the language of values—civility, inclusivity, a condemnation of overt racism and bigotry, a concern for the middle class—while thrusting a knife into the back of the underclass for their corporate masters. This game has ended.

There are tens of millions of Americans, especially lower-class whites, rightfully enraged at what has been done to them, their families and their communities. They have risen up to reject the neoliberal policies and political correctness imposed on them by college-educated elites from both political parties: Lower-class whites are embracing an American fascism.
These Americans want a kind of freedom—a freedom to hate. They want the freedom to use words like “nigger,” “kike,” “spic,” “chink,” “raghead” and “fag.” They want the freedom to idealize violence and the gun culture. They want the freedom to have enemies, to physically assault Muslims, undocumented workers, African-Americans, homosexuals and anyone who dares criticize their cryptofascism. They want the freedom to celebrate historical movements and figures that the college-educated elites condemn, including the Ku Klux Klan and the Confederacy. They want the freedom to ridicule and dismiss intellectuals, ideas, science and culture. They want the freedom to silence those who have been telling them how to behave. And they want the freedom to revel in hypermasculinity, racism, sexism and white patriarchy. These are the core sentiments of fascism. These sentiments are engendered by the collapse of the liberal state.
The Democrats are playing a very dangerous game by anointing Hillary Clinton as their presidential candidate. She epitomizes the double-dealing of the college-educated elites, those who speak the feel-your-pain language of ordinary men and women, who hold up the bible of political correctness, while selling out the poor and the working class to corporate power.

The Republicans, energized by America’s reality-star version of Il Duce, Donald Trump, have been pulling in voters, especially new voters, while the Democrats are well below the voter turnouts for 2008. In the voting Tuesday, 5.6 million votes were cast for the Democrats while 8.3 million went to the Republicans. Those numbers were virtually reversed in 2008—8.2 million for the Democrats and about 5 million for the Republicans.

Richard Rorty in his last book, “Achieving Our Country,” written in 1998, presciently saw where our postindustrial nation was headed.
Many writers on socioeconomic policy have warned that the old industrialized democracies are heading into a Weimar-like period, one in which populist movements are likely to overturn constitutional governments. Edward Luttwak, for example, has suggested that fascism may be the American future. The point of his book The Endangered American Dream is that members of labor unions, and unorganized unskilled workers, will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time, they will realize that suburban white-collar workers—themselves desperately afraid of being downsized—are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else.
At that point, something will crack. The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for—someone willing to assure them that, once he is elected, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots. A scenario like that of Sinclair Lewis’ novel It Can’t Happen Here may then be played out. For once a strongman takes office, nobody can predict what will happen. In 1932, most of the predictions made about what would happen if Hindenburg named Hitler chancellor were wildly overoptimistic.
One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. The words “nigger” and “kike” will once again be heard in the workplace. All the sadism which the academic Left has tried to make unacceptable to its students will come flooding back. All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet.

—  §  —

Fascist movements build their base not from the politically active but the politically inactive, the “losers” who feel, often correctly, they have no voice or role to play in the political establishment. The sociologist Émile Durkheim warned that the disenfranchisement of a class of people from the structures of society produced a state of “anomie”—a “condition in which society provides little moral guidance to individuals.” Those trapped in this “anomie,” he wrote, are easy prey to propaganda and emotionally driven mass movements. Hannah Arendt, echoing Durkheim, noted that “the chief characteristic of the mass man is not brutality and backwardness, but his isolation and lack of normal social relationships.”In fascism the politically disempowered and disengaged, ignored and reviled by the establishment, discover a voice and a sense of empowerment.

As Arendt noted, the fascist and communist movements in Europe in the 1930s “… recruited their members from this mass of apparently indifferent people whom all other parties had given up as too apathetic or too stupid for their attention. The result was that the majority of their membership consisted of people who had never before appeared on the political scene.
Fascism is aided and advanced by the apathy of those who are tired of being conned and lied to by a bankrupt liberal establishment, whose only reason to vote for a politician or support a political party is to elect the least worst. This, for many voters, is the best Clinton can offer.

HILLARY  CLINTON

clinton_072713

This evil bitch is seen as “the lesser of two evils”



Fascism expresses itself in familiar and comforting national and religious symbols, which is why it comes in various varieties and forms. Italian fascism, which looked back to the glory of the Roman Empire, for example, never shared the Nazis’ love of Teutonic and Nordic myths. American fascism too will reach back to traditional patriotic symbols, narratives and beliefs.

Robert Paxton wrote in “The Anatomy of Fascism”:
The language and symbols of an authentic American fascism would, of course, have little to do with the original European models. They would have to be as familiar and reassuring to loyal Americans as the language and symbols of the original fascisms were familiar and reassuring to many Italians and Germans, as [George] Orwell suggested. Hitler and Mussolini, after all, had not tried to seem exotic to their fellow citizens.
No swastikas in an American fascism, but Stars and Stripes (or Stars and Bars) and Christian crosses. No fascist salute, but mass recitations of the pledge of allegiance. These symbols contain no whiff of fascism in themselves, of course, but an American fascism would transform them into obligatory litmus tests for detecting the internal enemy.
Fascism is about an inspired and seemingly strong leader who promises moral renewal, new glory and revenge. It is about the replacement of rational debate with sensual experience. This is why the lies, half-truths and fabrications by Trump have no impact on his followers. Fascists transform politics, as philosopher and cultural critic Walter Benjamin pointed out, into aesthetics. And the ultimate aesthetic for the fascist, Benjamin said, is war.

Paxton singles out the amorphous ideology characteristic of all fascist movements.
Fascism rested not upon the truth of its doctrine but upon the leader’s mystical union with the historic destiny of his people, a notion related to romanticist ideas of national historic flowering and of individual artistic or spiritual genius, though fascism otherwise denied romanticism’s exaltation of unfettered personal creativity. The fascist leader wanted to bring his people into a higher realm of politics that they would experience sensually: the warmth of belonging to a race now fully aware of its identity, historic destiny, and power; the excitement of participating in a wave of shared feelings, and of sacrificing one’s petty concerns for the group’s good; and the thrill of domination.
There is only one way left to blunt the yearning for fascism coalescing around Trump.

It is to build, as fast as possible, movements or parties that declare war on corporate power, engage in sustained acts of civil disobedience and seek to reintegrate the disenfranchised—the “losers”—back into the economy and political life of the country.

This movement will never come out of the Democratic Party.
If Clinton prevails in the general election Trump may disappear, but the fascist sentiments will expand. Another Trump, perhaps more vile, will be vomited up from the bowels of the decayed political system.
We are fighting for our political life.

Tremendous damage has been done by corporate power and the college-educated elites to our capitalist democracy. The longer the elites, who oversaw this disemboweling of the country on behalf of corporations—who believe, as does CBS Chief Executive Officer Leslie Moonves, that however bad Trump would be for America he would at least be good for corporate profit—remain in charge, the worse it is going to get.

Blacks Blame "KKK" for Black Homicide Rate in Memphis

via Stuff Black People Don't Like

First, black people blamed "demonic weaves" on black people killing one another in 65 percent black Memphis. 

Now? 

The KKK. 

Seriously. 

In 2016, black people in Memphis are blaming the KKK for high rates of black-on-black homicide in the city.

[Provocative Memphis exhibit puts focus on black-on-black violence, WREG Memphis, 3-7-16]:
MEMPHIS, Tenn. -- At the National Civil Rights Museum, call it an artistic vision of violence showcased in a new exhibit on black-on-black crime.

Michael Loritts traveled from Nashville to visit the museum with his family.

"Because it seems like when Dr. Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks stood for something, and now we are killing our own," Loritts said.

This powerful series of drawings is called "Kin Killin' Kin," or KKK.

Artist James Pate uses charcoal and paper to depict black youth wearing KKK hoods and apparel.

The exhibit compares black-on-black crime to violence against the black community by the Klan.

Noelle Trent is director of interpretation, collections and education at the NCRM.
"I think it's relevant not just because of the nature of gun violence in the community, but particularly in Memphis. This is gang violence happening across the nation," Trent said.

It's an arresting approach and one designed to shock those who see it, such as Jessica Harper of Memphis.

"I've never seen anything depicted this way. It's different. It makes you think about our community and where we are," Harper said.

Walking through the exhibit, visitors will see pictures, along with an hourglass filled with shell casings and crime tape posted along the walls.

Visitors such as Jim Hershey of St. Louis called the exhibit fascinating.

"Here's an artist rendition of what's going on in society today and combining them with things that have gone on in the past, also not so great," Hershey said.

The exhibit speaks to so many different levels, especially to those directly impacted by crime.

Family and friends will be allowed to write down the name of someone they know impacted by gun violence and hang it along a memorial fence.

"Too often we hear on the news about there was a gunshot here, and it becomes white noise. We want a visual representation of how this has impacted the Memphis community," Trent said.

It's art capturing urban crime with hopes of encouraging people to come together and reduce violence seen everyday on the streets.

"Kin Killin' Kin" will be on display at the National Civil Rights Museum through April.
Oh... not THAT KKK... after all, THAT KKK is nothing more than undercover FBI agents who pissed a superior off and got burdened with an assignment few would volunteer to perform.

Wait a second. Don't Black Lives Matter?

How does the whole Black Lives Matter factor into the "Kin Killin' Kin" series? 

Doesn't the KKK drawings actually invalidate that whole movement?

Or would we say it was the "demonic weaves" possessing black people in Memphis that invalidate the entire black population of Memphis, not just the Black Lives Matter movement?

Identity Politics

via Radix

Something is happening. Is it a tectonic shift, or merely a minor interruption in today’s liberal hegemony? Only time will tell. But if the mood at the National Policy Institute’s conference this past weekend was any indication, there is a hunger for an alternative way of seeing our world, one that doesn’t look to be sated any time soon.

Over 150 people, mostly young and sharply dressed, converged upon Washington D.C.’s Ronald Reagan Federal Building. The theme of the conference was “Identity Politics,” an exploration of what the Trump phenomenon means for Euro-Americans today and the future of an explicitly White identity politics in the future.

The conference was addressed by three speakers: NPI’s own Richard Spencer, Occidental Quarterly/Observer editor Dr. Kevin MacDonald, and YouTube vlogger Paul “RamZPaul” Ramsey. Each addressed a different aspect of Donald Trump’s impact on politics and wider cultural questions.

RamZPaul, a kind of comedian of the alt-right, kicked off the evening with some light ribbing of everyone’s favorite GOP consultant the Rick Wilson. He then went into the concept of the “alt-right” and what it stands for (besides anime waifus). He broke down the alt-right into three basic components: sex realism, race realism, and the Natural Order.

Each element lays the ground for disentangling the lies that grip our society. In some ways, they are like a dark counterpoint to Conservatism Inc.’s own three-legged stool of national security, free markets, and “family values.” His speech ended with a call to arms, to not waste one’s life but to take charge and make something of it.

For many of us on the “alt-right,” we always put off doing something for the cause until tomorrow, or next year. Maybe after we get our finances in order, or after we find that girl, or land this or that new job. RamZPaul made the important point that if we don’t persue our dreams now, we may never find the will or courage to do so.

If not us, who? And if not now, when?

Which brought us to Dr. Kevin MacDonald’s speech, which laid down the stark realities that are facing our people. Dr. MacDonald laid out how the Republican party has continued to sell out the interests of its voters, mostly white Americans, to the Chamber of Commerce on domestic policy and the Israel Lobby in foreign policy.

Trump, for Dr. MacDonald, represents what is now only the implicitly white backlash going on in this year’s election season. He built on the way in which Trump handles the media and refuses to play into games about being called “racist” or bigoted points a way forward for white Americans to act outside of the media-political narrative that has silenced our interests for so long.

NPI President Richard Spencer was the evening’s final speaker. His talk centered on what Trump has already accomplished and what we should take from it. He cautioned wisely not to get too invested in this cycle’s politics. After all, a Trump victory would not be an explicit victory for our cause, but merely the opening of space within which, we could grow.

But, what Trump has acheived is in demolishing old ideas about “conservatism” and what can and cannot be said in America. Trump, Spencer said, has become a “killing word.” Indeed, throughout America and even in Europe, the name “Trump” has now become synonymous with resistence to the multi-culti feel good ideology that has reigned for so long throughout the current years of our lives.

In that way, Trump does act as a figure of the coming era. In many ways, the setting of the conference—a building named after Ronald Reagan—was more than appropriate. The past, which includes not only Reagan but the entire post-war conservative movement, is now behind us. Only if we recognize this and seize upon it and build our own institutions and become serious about our cause, then tomorrow as Spencer said, will “belong to us.”

After Spencer’s speech, conference atendees mingled and met each other. Sometimes only knowing each other by Twitter handles or forum screen names. Their masks in many ways were coming off. Who they are came together with who they have to present themselves as, in a way that truly resonated with the conference's theme: identity.

NPI’s last conference, Become Who We Are, implored us to figure our that question. Now, at least for many attendees, that question has been answered. We are Europeans who have a right to exist. We have a proud history and we should have a future.

Today’s implicit identity will lead to the explicit empires of tomorrow. Last year in October we were all dreaming of who we were and could become. This past weekend, we woke up.

We are a people who have a future, history has returned. We must play our parts or face oblivion.

The new era of “Identity Politics” is here, and we know who we are!

The Mind of the Jew

via The End of Zion

Jews are disgusting perverts who are somehow not biologically repulsed by human excrement (but instead seem to be fascinated by it, generally).

It’s so confusing to them why anyone would be disgusted by shit they have to come up with strange theories to explain why this is so.

From Sigmund Freud’s “Introduction to Psychoanalysis:
What we call “perverse” in the life of the adult, differs from the normal in the following respects: first, in disregard for the dividing line of species (the gulf between man and animal); second, being insensible to the conventional feeling of disgust; third, the incest-limitation (being prohibited from seeking sexual satisfaction with near blood-relations); fourth, homosexuality, and fifth, transferring the role of the genitals to other organs and other parts of the body. None of these limitations exist in the beginning, but are gradually built up in the course of development and education. The little child is free from them. He knows no unbridgable chasm between man and animal; the arrogance with which man distinguishes himself from the animal is a later acquisition. In the beginning he is not disgusted at the sight of excrement, but slowly learns to be so disgusted under the pressure of education; he lays no special stress on the difference between the sexes, rather accredits to both the same genital formation; he directs his earliest sexual desires and his curiosity toward those persons closest to him, and who are dear to him for various reasons—his parents, brothers and sisters, nurses; and finally, you may observe in him that which later breaks through again, raised now to a love attraction, viz., that he does not expect pleasure from his sexual organs alone, but that many other parts of the body portray the same sensitiveness, are the media of analogous sensations, and are able to play the role of the genitals.
This is what we’re dealing with.

Much more on this problem here.

Facebook? No Thanks!

via Nationalist Sentinel

I am getting a stream of reports back that yet again, Facebook owned by the two Jewish gentlemen Mark Zuckerberg and  Dustin Moskovitz, is in a state of anarchy.

The situation is out of control and is greatly damaging both the Movement and its relations with kindred organisations.


To that end I am putting the following motion to the National Front Directorate.
"The National Front should maintain only one Facebook Page as an Official One. It must be a closed site open only to members and selected supporters by invite. 
Free discussion of policy and the and the announcement of events and news concerning the NF are to be encouraged. No other Facebook pages apart from the Official NF Site are recognised by the NF. 
Any personal or character attacks against Party members or their families may well result in suspension and expulsion from the Party. 
Strictly ANYBODY who is not a member of our Movement is allowed to moderate the site, nor unless specifically invited, be allowed to post on the same site. 
Non - members abusing this privilege will be removed from the site's postings"
Personally I see no reason to go onto Facebook at all. It might be argued that its a good way to stay in touch with friends and family - then fine open a friends and family site but don't spread gossip, rumours, and innuendo on any Social Media site.

There was a time when Searchlight and Hope Not Hate had to infiltrate our ranks to learn about activities. They don't need to bother anymore - they just log on and see the anarchy reigning amongst White Nationalists!


--Eddy Morrison

Diversity Outreach to Cover-Up Economic Illiteracy

via Alternative Right

At the last Canadian federal election, Canadians expressed their will to "make a political change." Many felt that ten years of Conservative rule had been enough for them.

It wasn't that the country had been mismanaged or anything like that. They simply felt they needed "change" and Justin Trudeau, the flamboyant leader of the Liberals, represented just that. The Conservatives had applied a libertarian-inspired approach along the lines of "the less you hear about the federal government, the better things are," while Justin was more a "look at me" histrionic personality.

Even before being elected, he presented himself like a rock star, going to all sorts of events and taking hundreds of selfies every day. He even posed with a half-naked lesbian at a gay parade. For the younger generation, he represented "modernity." For the different interest groups, he was "Mr. Diversity." He saw no contradiction in courting the vote of Radical Islamists immediately after attending Gay Pride.

Many people today complain about the Liberal Party's economic policies, which are expected to bring about a 150 billion dollar deficit within five years, something never seen before. But, it must be remembered, that economics is only what it is, namely economics. The economic catastrophe Canada is heading towards under Trudeau’s leadership is nothing compared to the profound social changes Trudeau is implementing in order to veil his economic shortcomings.

Using the same strategy as François Hollande, he uses societal and cultural policies to gain popularity with loyal minority groups in order to get support from progressive voters. The potential economic fallout of these policies is not a concern, as the Left abdicated economically with the coming of the New Left. On the Right, meanwhile critics focus almost entirely on the monetary disaster ahead of us and ignore the societal side.

But economics is just economics. A financial disaster is nothing compared to demographic and societal catastrophes. An economic crisis can be overcome and we can get back on our feet, but a change in the nature of society is harder to rectify. The Liberals in power today are creating a new status quo that will shift the centre of politics in their direction, with today’s liberal lunacies becoming tomorrow’s conservative policies.

Trudeau: hiding from the facts.
The last decade of Conservative rule proved one thing: conservatives are not about defending a set of values. They merely defend the current status quo. For example, they refused to even talk about abortion – yes, even talk! Likewise with gay marriage, something which they now believe should be legally safeguarded from criticism. They of course refused to decrease immigration, and actually thought they could win a few seats by increasing it, which they did with no second thoughts, setting a new record for Canadian immigration.

There was only one exception to their general retreat on social issues: their opposition to the gun registry. But here it was mainly driven by economic concerns about spiraling costs and inefficiency. The registry was no longer justifiable, as even its most aggressive defenders had given up any rational arguments and merely repeated the mantra that "guns kill."

With Conservatives having such a poor track record in fighting back, what the Liberals are implementing today is here to stay. For this reason critics of the Liberals should focus on the societal changes rather than the economic ones.

An economic debate would be fine if Liberals could limit themselves to economics, but they use social changes to cover up their economic illiteracy, and this is the real threat.

Demographic changes are permanent unless there is a strong will to reverse them. Trudeau has been hyper active in the field of immigration since his arrival on Sussex Drive. He has pledged to welcome 35,000 Syrian migrants. He has decided to offer free health care to everyone applying for asylum – no matter if the applicant is a real refugee or not. He has repealed the visa requirement imposed on Mexicans traveling to Canada – legislation passed by Harper in order to curb the extravagantly high amount of asylum claims. He has repealed the law C-24, which revoked the citizenship of dual citizens convicted of terrorism. Finally, he wants to do away with the language requirements and the tests that newcomers must pass. And all this in less than a semester!

He has also pledged to make homosexuality the new norm by taking several steps to become the most gay-friendly prime minister in our history! Right after announcing that he would be the first Canadian PM to attend a gay parade, he decided to grant clemency to all the homosexuals convicted prior to 1969, the year when his own father revoked the "gross indecency" law banning homosexuality. He also crusades to end the supposedly "homophobic" regulation that stipulates that homosexuals cannot give blood in Canada. He also wants to extend the protection homosexuals now enjoy to transgenders and others of similar categories.

Many have pointed out the lack of consistency in this prime minister. He has not only been a vocal supporter of the gay lobby, but also of radical Muslims. Illogical as this seems, it is totally consistent with his role of "Mr. Diversity," or Mister "The Current Year."

It is hard to believe that he can maintain this rate of social destruction in the future. But, after everything he has done so far, it would not be  surprising, especially considering his electoral promise to double legal immigration, a promise, thankfully, he has not talked about since the election.

The future will prove that the major deficits and the economic problems that will accompany them are nothing when compared to the displacement of our people and the trampling of our values.

With Trudeau having a majority in Parliament and three years ahead of him before the next election, we are in a state of political powerlessness, but this is definitely no excuse for inaction as the metapolitical struggle is now more important and promises to be more fruitful than ever before. Canadians cannot expect any immediate improvement in their situation, but this catastrophic state of affairs can serve as an eye opener for many of our fellow citizens – especially with the healthy example of Trump south of the border.

Trump Offers Neo-Con Elites a Way Out. They Won’t Take It

via VDARE

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) this year had the feel of a city under siege. Speaker after speaker made veiled, hostile references to Donald Trump, without mentioning his name [CPAC 2016 Facing Trump Specter, WND, March 3, 2016]. When the conflict finally broke into the open, with Trump snubbing the conference to dodge planned protests, CPAC turned into a defiant rally against the de-facto Republican frontrunner [Donald Trump Bails On Speech At CPAC, WND, March 4, 2016]. By Saturday night, it was clear “conservatism” is no longer really a coherent political philosophy or worldview, but a tribal identifier. Trump is hated not because of his political positions or even his style, but because he does not repeat the shibboleths of the Beltway Right.

Despite CPAC’s theme—“Our Time Is Now”—the conference seemed simply an exercise in nostalgia, a kind of temporary theme park for aging Baby Boomers who want to remember the 1980s and young politicos who want to visit a Disneyesque fantasyland. Speaker after speaker simply urged politicians of the present to copy Ronald Reagan. That would be sufficient to solve every challenge of the present!

For example, Mark Levin, who clearly recognizes the problems with mass immigration and is not afraid to discuss them, nonetheless simply recited the electoral success of Reagan almost ritualistically, without mentioning changing demographics. [Talk radio star attacks Trump without mentioning his name, by Garth Kant, WND, March 4, 2016] He also took an odd swipe at the nationalist currents surrounding the Trump campaign (without mentioning Trump), by suggesting “nationalism” and “populism” is not conservative, and indeed, is somehow foreign or “French.”


Meanwhile, the keynote speaker for a conference celebrating “intellectual conservatism” was Glenn Beck. [The Kool Aid Cult, by Gregory Hood, Radix, February 1, 2016] Beck took the audience on a remarkable journey through whatever reality he is living in, a fantastic realm where the Industrial Revolution began in the United States as a direct result of the United States Constitution. [Glenn Beck at CPAC: Compares Trump to Film Villain, Claims Industrial Revolution Started in America Because of Constitution, by Rebecca Mansour, Breitbart, March 6, 2016] He also compared Donald Trump to the bad guy from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. 

As the satirical Twitter personality “Conservative Pundit” joked about Trump and the atmosphere at CPAC, “Just sickens me to see someone take our esoteric Reagan mystery cult and try to make a winning party out of it.”

The day after the conference ended brought the gloomy news that the great Nancy Reagan had gone to her reward. Though I and presumably most other patriots were saddened at the report, I couldn’t shake the irreverent thought that if she had died while CPAC was still going on, the conference may have culminated in ritualistic mass suicide. As always at CPAC, immigration was the one issue that had to be debated rather than proclaimed. There was a “Point/Counterpoint” discussion, with Congressman Louie Gohmert of Texas ably describing the patriot case for restricting immigration. Meanwhile, the ghost of Reagan was invoked to hallow the cause of Amnesty for illegal aliens. The Open Borders case was given by a nice white lady billed as a “GOP Strategist” for the “Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles,” and that alone should tell you what we’re talking about when we make fun of the Beltway Right. [Gohmert Reveals Real Border Guards, WND, March 4, 2016]

During a speech defending “populist conservatism,” Rick Santorum denounced conservatism’s internal divisions when it comes to immigration, suggesting immigration should be as non-negotiable as favoring tax cuts. Great. But when it mattered, Rick Santorum chose to endorse Marco Rubio for President, suggesting he doesn’t really think immigration is the most important issue.


Of course, it’s premature to pronounce the death of movement Conservatism. Indeed, the most consistent “movement conservative,” Ted Cruz, has now emerged to present the most credible challenge to Donald Trump for the Republican nomination following his victories in Saturday’s primaries.

But Cruz has been more insistent during this campaign about deporting illegal immigrants than Trump, not even offering to “let the good ones” back in [Ted Cruz’s Plan To Deport Undocumented Immigrants Is Even Worse Than Trump’s, by Esther Yu-His Lee, Think Progress, January 5, 2016]. Ultimately, it’s coming down to a question of who you trust more to keep promises on immigration—Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.

Marco Rubio, the pro-cheap labor choice of the Donor Class, received an enthusiastic reception at CPAC and was the clear choice of many of the younger attendees dreaming of future careers as Fox News pundits. Yet after his disastrous showing on Saturday, even Commissar Leon Wolf [Email him] over at Redstate is writing off Rubio and urging anti-Trump conservatives to get behind Cruz [Rubio Sacrificed His Campaign to Save America, March 6, 2016]. Open-Borders Republicans have been utterly routed this primary season.

For the Republican Establishment, “Jack Kemp” conservatives and the Open Borders Lobby, Cruz is horrifying and his emergence the worst-case scenario. Someone has finally arisen to present a real challenge to Donald Trump for the Republican nomination—and it’s arguably the only man they hate worse than Trump.
Yet both candidates have serious weaknesses.

Trump has the utterly unique ability to shift the Overton Window, flip the Main Stream Media Script and appeal to working class white voters and independents. He’s completely correct when he brags no one would be talking about immigration were it not for him.

At the same time, his infuriating lack of message discipline, refusal to invest in campaign infrastructure, and seeming indifference to debate preparations is leading the campaign to careen from one disaster to another, from last Thursday’s dumpster fire of a debate to Saturday’s loss of the Maine caucuses. Indeed, were it not for early voting, his campaign would be regarded as being in a tailspin.

Superbly organized, fanatically disciplined, and has the best campaign infrastructure of any candidateMeanwhile, Cruz is superbly organized, fanatically disciplined, and has the best campaign infrastructure of any candidate. Even if it goes to a brokered convention, Cruz can’t be counted out simply because of his skill in these kinds of close-quarters political battles. And though it is perhaps too late, he is uniting movement conservatives behind him. For what it’s worth, he also won the Straw Poll at CPAC this year.

But Cruz’s entire strategy seems to be to squeeze out every last possible vote from a remarkably narrow slice of voters. Cruz wins in caucuses and closed primaries. The broader the electorate, the worse he does. He has shown no ability to win over independents in open primaries. How he expects to win a general election is a mystery when his theory of turning out evangelicals seems to have already failed him throughout the South. Cruz has a large number of delegates compared to everyone but Trump—but he’s supposed to have won the entire South by now, not be fighting Trump to a standstill.

Even Cruz’s large victory in Kansas over Trump on Saturday isn’t that impressive given the state’s history. Rick Santorum won the state in 2012 by a larger margin than Cruz did this year, taking an actual majority of the votes. And in 2008, Mike Huckabee won almost 60 percent of the vote in the Kansas caucuses. It’s not an encouraging sign for Cruz supporters their candidate couldn’t match the performances of prior winners who failed to secure the nomination.

Michigan will clarify a great deal. Each candidate has an advantage in a different way. Trump leads in Michigan by double digits, but only by the same kind of margin he had in Kentucky and Louisiana, where in the end he barely fended off Cruz—and there is no early voting in Michigan. If Trump is collapsing, we’ll see it in Michigan. On the other hand, the state has an open primary, which favors Trump, and if Cruz really is incapable of growing his coalition, he will have no chance in the state.

It’s not impossible to imagine Cruz and Trump reconciling and forming a powerful unity ticket despite the bitter campaign. After all, it’s no more unlikely than Lyndon Johnson and John F. Kennedy or even George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. But it’s probably not going to happen.

The battle in the GOP primary isn’t about candidates or even about political philosophy. It’s about control over the American Right. The forces aligned around Cruz see the conservative movement as the answer to the “GOP Establishment.” But most of the forces around Donald Trump consider the conservative movement itself to be part of that same Establishment. And that conflict is irreconcilable.

If CPAC 2016 shows us anything, it’s that the conservative movement is incapable of reforming itself. Change will have to be forced upon it.

It’s easy to imagine CPAC 2036 speakers still paying tribute to Ronald Reagan amid the crumbling ruins of a Third World America, promising one more round of “deregulation” will make it all okay. Many of them would rather lose without Trump, and more importantly without his supporters, than win with them.

It’s a great sign for immigration patriots that Rubio has faded and the two leading candidates for the nomination both claim to be on our side.

But immigration must remain at the center of the 2016 campaign—or there won’t be much of an American Right, or an American nation, left to fight over.

More Mestizo Invaders Seek Citizenship to Vote against Trump

via American Renaissance

Donald J. Trump’s harsh campaign language against Mexican immigrants has helped him win a substantial delegate lead in the Republican primaries, but it is also mobilizing a different set of likely voters–six in the family of Hortensia Villegas alone.

A legal immigrant from Mexico, Ms. Villegas is a mother of two who has been living in the United States for nearly a decade but never felt compelled to become a citizen. But as Mr. Trump has surged toward the Republican nomination, Ms. Villegas–along with her sister, her parents and her husband’s parents–has joined a rush by many Latino immigrants to naturalize in time to vote in November.

“I want to vote so Donald Trump won’t win,” said Ms. Villegas, 32, one of several hundred legal residents, mostly Mexicans, who crowded one recent Saturday into a Denver union hall. Volunteers helped them fill out applications for citizenship, which this year are taking about five months for federal officials to approve. “He doesn’t like us,” she said.

Overall, naturalization applications increased by 11 percent in the 2015 fiscal year over the year before, and jumped 14 percent during the six months ending in January, according to federal figures. The pace is picking up by the week, advocates say, and they estimate applications could approach one million in 2016, about 200,000 more than the average in recent years.

While naturalizations generally rise during presidential election years, Mr. Trump provided an extra boost this year.

{snip}

Among 8.8 million legal residents eligible to naturalize, about 2.7 million are Mexicans, the largest national group, federal figures show. But after decades of low naturalization rates, only 36 percent of eligible Mexicans have become citizens, while 68 percent of all other immigrants have done so, according to the Pew Research Center.

{snip}

This year immigrants seeking to become citizens can find extra help from nonprofit groups and even from the White House. Last September, President Obama opened a national campaign to galvanize legal residents to take the step. They can now pay the fee, $680, with a credit card, and practice the civics test online. They can get applications at “citizenship corners” in public libraries in many states.

The White House recruited Fernando Valenzuela, the legendary Mexican-born pitcher who naturalized only last year, and José Andrés, the Spanish-American chef, to make encouraging advertisements and to turn up at swearing-in ceremonies. On Presidents’ Day, administration officials swore in more than 20,000 new citizens. On Wednesday the administration announced $10 million in grants to groups guiding immigrants through the process.

Why Are Both Democrat and Republican Elites so Afraid of Trump? Is it because He Might Go against Their Wishes and Act in the Best Interest of America?

via Patrick J. Buchanan

Narrow victories in the Kentucky caucuses and the Louisiana primary, the largest states decided on Saturday, have moved Donald Trump one step nearer to the nomination.

Primaries in Michigan, Mississippi and Idaho on March 8, and in Florida, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri and North Carolina on March 15, may prove decisive. If Marco Rubio does not win his home state of Florida, he is cooked, as is Gov. John Kasich if he does not win Ohio.

Ted Cruz already looks to be the last man between Trump and a GOP nomination that has gone, in the last seven elections, to George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney.

All five of those nominees since 1988 seem appalled by Trump’s triumphs, and only slightly less so by the Cruz alternative.

Not in memory has the leadership of a party been so out of touch. The Republican rank and file are in revolt, not only against the failures of their fathers but the policies of their present rulers.

Some among the GOP elites, who have waited patiently through the Obama era to recapture control of U.S. foreign policy, are now beside themselves with despair over Trump’s success.

Fully 116 members of the GOP’s national security community, many of them veterans of Bush administrations, have signed an open letter threatening that, if Trump is nominated, they will all desert, and some will defect – to Hillary Clinton!

“Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin,” says Eliot Cohen of the Bush II State Department. According to Politico’s Michael Crowley, Cohen helped line up neocons to sign the “Dump-Trump” manifesto.

Another signer, Robert Kagan, wailed in the Washington Post, “The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton.”

Are they serious?

Victory for Clinton would mean her remaking the Supreme Court, killing all chances that Roe v. Wade could be overturned, or that we could get another justice like Antonin Scalia before 2021.

What are these renegades and turncoats so anguished about?

Trump calls the Iraq War many of them championed an historic blunder. Trump says that, while a supporter of Israel, he would be a “neutral” honest broker between Israel and the Palestinians in peace negotiations, as was Jimmy Carter at Camp David.

Trump says he would “get along very well” with Vladimir Putin, as Richard Nixon got along with Leonid Brezhnev and Mao Zedong.

Trump would launch no new crusades for democracy. He would not oppose Russia bombing ISIS. He would build that wall on the border. He would transfer from U.S. taxpayers to rich allies more of the cost of defending themselves.

Do not most Americans agree with much of this?

Yet this neocon ultimatum about deserting should the voters nominate Trump testifies eloquently to their loyalty.

With every ex-president and ex-nominee repudiating Trump, and foreign policy elites going rogue, the GOP hierarchy is saying: We will cut Trump dead, just as the Rockefeller-Romney crowd cut Barry Goldwater dead.

This is pure my-way-or-the-highway politics.

But it raises anew the question: Can the establishment stop Trump?

Answer: It is possible, and we shall know by midnight, March 15. If Trump loses Florida and Ohio, winner-take-all primaries, he would likely fall short of the 1,237 delegates needed for nomination on the first ballot.

How could the anti-Trump forces defeat him in Ohio, Florida and Illinois? With the same tactics used to shrink Trump’s victory margins in Virginia, Louisiana and Kentucky to well below what polls had predicted.

In every primary upcoming, Trump is under a ceaseless barrage of attack ads on radio, TV, cable and social media, paid for by super PACs with hoards of cash funneled in by oligarchs.

But Trump, who is self-funding his campaign, has spent next to nothing on ads answering these attacks, or promoting himself or his issues. He has relied almost exclusively on free media.

Yet no amount of free media can match the shellfire falling on him every hour of every day in every primary state.

Our Principles PAC, backed by Nebraska’s billionaire Ricketts family, has poured millions into trashing Trump. American Future Fund is dumping $1.75 million in Florida this week; Club for Growth $1.5 million.

Hedge-fund billionaire Paul Singer is backing the Conservative Solutions PAC, which has dumped millions into anti-Trump ads and plans to spend more than $7 million between March 1 and 15, with $4 million of that going into Florida. The super PAC pile-on is unprecedented.

How well Trump fares in Michigan and Mississippi, measured against how well he was doing in polls last week, will reveal just how successful super PAC savagery has been in changing hearts and minds.

Can millionaires and billionaires who back open borders, mass immigration, globalization and the disappearance of nation states into transnational collectives overwhelm with their millions spent in ads the patriotic movements that arose this year to the wonderment of America and the world?

Has that proud 18th century boast of Americans, “Here, sir, the people rule!” given way to the rule of the oligarchs?

Taking Care of One’s Own

via Counter-Currents

Tied closely with Barack Obama’s reelection campaign in 2012 was the song “We Take Care of Our Own” by Bruce Springsteen. The song was played throughout President Obama’s campaign, during the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, NC, and after the President’s victory speech in Chicago. Mr. Springsteen profited handsomely from this exposure, as sales of the song spiked 409% after the convention.

A cursory glance at the lyrics reveals why President Obama would want to be associated with such a song. Looking past the song’s rousing anthemic melody, “We Take Care of Our Own” is essentially a guileless call for mercy and for helping others. It is also a lament that many Americans have hardened their hearts to the problems of others. So that’s what Democrats do, apparently. They help others, unlike their hard-hearted, Republican opponents.

Mr. Springsteen seems to define “our own” as Americans, since he makes several references to a flag being flown and twice repeats the famous “America the Beautiful” lyric “from sea to shining sea.” But do Americans really feel this way? Can today’s Americans overcome their numerous racial and ethnic differences to see themselves as a single people they must “take care of?” Well, perhaps during an election cycle according to President Obama. Beyond that, however, it looks fairly grim.

By now, we should all know what happened during the Super Bowl 50 Half Time show. The singer Beyoncé appeared, flanked by female dancers dressed as Blank Panthers, and sang the song “Formation.” At one point, the performers raised their fists in the air in a black power salute. The song itself is a muddled and pornographic affirmation of black female identity (Beyoncé’s at the very least), and its video has some overtly political images, such as a black boy in a hoodie dancing before a line of police in riot gear and graffiti on a wall saying, “Stop shooting us.”

Beyonce

The anti-cop tone was very clear, and police across the nation were understandably appalled and disgusted that such messaging would be aired before millions during the Super Bowl. Many officers also vowed not to work security for Beyoncé concerts during her upcoming stadium tour. Some have even called for a boycott of Beyoncé’s shows, a futile gesture since Beyoncé’s tickets sales have not flagged one bit because of this controversy.

While this may seem like news-click ephemera of a racially-charged America, what happened shortly afterwards was quite telling. Louis Farrakhan, the black supremacist head minister of the Nation of Islam, offered to step in where the police wouldn’t. Mr. Farrakhan said he would offer his Fruit of Islam paramilitary foot soldiers as replacement security.

Now, we all know why he did this. We also know why all news outlets except for some of the more conservative ones either embargoed the story or failed to condemn Mr. Farrakhan for this blatant act of disrespect towards the police. Mr. Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam is a hyper-partisan tribalist who is concerned first and foremost with the interests of his tribe (black people) and has contempt for the interests of other tribes, particularly those of whites and Jews. This is so well known that, for most, it is not even news. However, his actions and the failure of most whites to accuse him of racism reveal a tremendous disconnect between the America Mr. Springsteen sings about and the America that really is. People do take care of their own, only not in the way Mr. Springsteen describes.

Of course, it is well-known that modern white liberals and progressives turn the other cheek to the kind of crude racial partisanship exhibited by Mr. Farrakhan. For them, history is an inexorable march forward, and they diagnose such ugliness as artifacts of a supposedly uglier era when whites were perfectly unashamed of asserting their racial dominance over nonwhites in America. Given time and enough Marxist social engineering, so the theory goes, blacks like Mr. Farrakhan will one day overcome their racism and attain a post-racial nirvana just like whites have. Considering that these liberals refuse to even consider biological causes for the current and former racial hierarchies indicates there is no reasoning with them. Blacks can take care of their own and whites can’t. Because of slavery. The end. If not the end, then you are a racist. Because of racism.

On the mainstream right, the people are less pig-headed, and their blunders less, well, blunderous. But blunders they still are. It is tempting to join the conservative chorus and condemn Mr. Farrakhan for being crass enough to place tribal interests before the American dream. Such conservatives (bless their hearts) fetishize the mythological melting pot and wish to do away with multiculturalism and all this petty and undignified racial business. For them, it is not race but rule of law, free markets, constitutional rights, democracy that make America great. And those can belong to anyone, even to races with average IQ’s a standard deviation lower than that of whites. They argue, quietly correctly, that less gifted people do better in America than anywhere else since the American system allows for more freedom and wealth and therefore more job opportunities. All these poor people have to do is simply learn to live with the vast inequalities that come with free markets, and all will be fine.

The mainstream conservative blunders come in two flavors. One we’ll call “chocolate,” since the brown and black people of America will never reconcile themselves to income disparities with whites, no matter how much they benefit from the free market Shangri-La. Human ego and stubbornness should never be overlooked when discussing such touchy subjects as politics and economics.

The other blunder we will call “vanilla,” and here’s why: Mainstream conservatives err because, having grown up at a time when whites were still something of an 80 to 90 percent majority in America, they have forever internalized that majority. They have taken it for granted and assume that the Pax Caucasica will last forever. By believing that rule of law, free markets, constitutional rights, and democracy produced Pax Caucasica and not the other way around, they put the cart before the horse. An easy mistake to make when you’re surrounded by freedom-loving white people your whole life. But when you are not, as we soon won’t be, things will start to unravel and these conservatives will be left in the wilderness waving pages of Adam Smith or the Constitution in the air and wondering how it all went wrong. The racial origin of this great Pax will become increasingly clear the closer it gets to that final day when it will be too late to do anything about it.

So, if we are to be honest with ourselves, we really shouldn’t condemn Louis Farrakhan for being tribal. For being a vicious, hateful, short-sighted villain, sure. But for being tribal, no. After all, it is only natural. Louis Farrakhan is doing essentially what Bruce Springsteen says he should. He takes care of his own. And, given the increasing anti-white hostility from people like Beyoncé and her legion of fans, whites should take care of our own as well.

Mark Weber's Dereliction of Duty as Director of the IHR, Part 2

via CODOH

Part 1

Mark Weber (right) with David Irving
In the first part, I showed that Mark Weber, in his interview with Jim Rizoli (10 February 2016), consistently tried to avoid acknowledging any findings of Holocaust Revisionism, and also tried to conceal his past acknowledgment of such findings. In this part, the focus is on Weber's attempts to justify his retreat from Holocaust Revisionism.

Mark Weber gives several arguments to justify his current refusal to support the revisionist findings that he once supported in regard to the Holocaust. I was able to discern the following, somewhat contradictory arguments, listed here in ascending order of absurdity:

1. The question of whether the Holocaust-story is true or false is no longer relevant.
2. Although the truth about the Holocaust is relevant (contradicting the previous point) it should not be relevant!
3. There is no point in disputing the Holocaust because Jews really were gassed!


Mark Weber Claims that the Holocaust is Irrelevant (37:30-51:35 et passim)

This is a position that Mark Weber publicly declared with an essay, "How Relevant is Holocaust Revisionism?" that appeared in January 2009. He claims that the Holocaust is no longer relevant because it was so long ago. Young people, he says, are no longer interested in it.

Weber, however, notably does not avoid discussing decades-old history in general, only the Holocaust. You will find much work by Mark Weber about the Second World War and National-Socialist Germany online that was done after he proclaimed the irrelevance of Holocaust Revisionism (e.g. his Worldwatch podcasts for Voice of Reason). The rationale that Weber gives for not discussing the Holocaust -- that nobody is interested anymore because it was so long ago -- is patent bunk.

Even if there had been a decline of interest in the Holocaust, it would not be a reason for the director of the IHR to avoid the subject as Mark Weber clearly does. In fact, the director of the IHR does not have the right to avoid Holocaust Revisionism, because it is the reason why the IHR was established.

For some, the Holocaust itself is still very relevant. Tell the nonagenarian former camp-guards recently put on trial in Germany that the Holocaust is no longer relevant.

More important than the Holocaust itself, however, are the so-called "lessons of the Holocaust," which are very influential, and affect not only nonagenarian Germans but the entire world.

Weber opines that the Jewish-Zionist power is waning (39:32-39:44). Even if this is true, the false “lessons of the Holocaust” that this power has established as dogma must still be combatted because of their destructive effect. Why wait for that Jewish-Zionist power to disappear before challenging its “lessons”?

Today we are seeing what may be the death of Europe, and it is clear that the "lessons of the Holocaust"  have much to do with it. In the United States, Donald Trump, as a nationalist politician like Enoch Powell before him, is targeted with invidious comparisons to Adolf Hitler because he wants to curb some forms of immigration. All of this propaganda derives its force fundamentally from belief in the Holocaust.

Comparisons to Adolf Hitler and references to the Holocaust have also been used to motivate unnecessary wars. Weber says that the “Jewish-Zionist power” causes these wars (1:23:31-1:24:05), but Weber is playing a word-game when he says this. The Holocaust is the tool that they use. Labeling some foreign leader as "another Adolf Hitler" and, if necessary, presenting spurious evidence of "another Holocaust" has become the standard method of generating moral pressure to go to war. Think especially of Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, and the war against Bashar al-Assad's government that would have happened in 2013 if Vladimir Putin had not interfered.

The fact that the Holocaust is a cherished myth of the "Jewish-Zionist power" that Weber claims to want to attack is already a reason to dispute it (given that the falsity of the Holocaust story is easily shown). It is a way to expose that "Jewish-Zionist power" as dishonest or delusional.

If the Holocaust were no longer relevant, then Mark Weber should have had a relaxed attitude toward the subject, instead of carefully avoiding saying that Robert Faurisson and Ernst Zündel were ever right about anything -- as if such an affirmation would have amounted to stepping on a landmine. Mark Weber certainly knows that the Holocaust is still relevant.

In response to Weber’s belittlement of Holocaust Revisionism, Rizoli asks Weber:
“”What should we be doing then, now? What should we be attacking? ... Are we wasting our time talking about the Holocaust, with all those aspects of it, or should we just go off in another direction on another part of the Jews?" (1:21:34-1:22:09)
What Rizoli clearly means is: what should we be saying, in lieu of disputing the Holocaust?

Thereupon, Weber delays with a flood of verbiage that dims the memory of Rizoli's question, finally telling Rizoli that since he has a capacity for making videos, he should do that -- which obviously does not answer the question as Rizoli intended it.
If, as Weber says, mass-media are compelling the public to think about the Holocaust, the most feasible way to oppose that propaganda is not to try to resist thinking about it, but rather, in a judo-like maneuver,  to use the enemy’s own power against him by thinking about the Holocaust more than they want anyone to think about it -- thinking it through to the point of destroying it. Trying not to think about the Holocaust is no answer when Jewish influence through mass-media is so great. Every presentation of Holocaust-propaganda, however, is also an occasion to challenge that propaganda with compelling facts and logic.

While trying to maintain that the Holocaust is irrelevant, Weber nonetheless directly admits that it is relevant: "It's also a source of power in that it's referred to, to justify what Israel is doing, of course."


Although the Holocaust is relevant, it should not be relevant (1:19:30-1:21:28)

Weber asserts that giving indulgence to people who claim to have been victimized is stupid.
"And I think it's childish and stupid to take the view that, well if Hitler killed six million Jews, that means we should all be friends of Israel or like Netanyahu, but if he killed 100 thousand Jews then it's okay to say  Netanyahu's the bad guy. That's just ridiculous. I mean Israel's policies, or the policies and actions of the Anti-Defamation League or the World Jewish Congress, should be evaluated in and of itself, regardless of how many Jews died or were killed during the Second World War.  The whole notion implicit in this victimization narrative of our society that people are somehow morally better if they've been victimized is a stupid one."
Weber understands, when he says that it is "childish and stupid" to be "friends of Israel" because of the Holocaust, that this is in fact what happens. He is saying that people should not react the way they do react. He is saying that people should be other than how they are.

Some individuals may find this kind of exhortation to pitilessness appealing, but among people of European descent in general this does not seem to be a very good solution. Surely it is easier to show people that a story is false than to coax them (using what?) to act contrary to their character and upbringing.


Mark Weber claims to believe that Jews were Gassed (51:36-1:18:23)

During the 1990s Mark Weber developed the habit of telling interviewers, "We don't deny" the Holocaust. What Weber meant by that however was unclear. He had copied the phrase from Professor Robert Faurisson, who meant that as a revisionist scholar he does not merely deny, but affirms based on evidence that there was no Holocaust. It was not clear however what Weber meant when uttering the same words. Was Weber conceding that the Holocaust was fact?

In 1995 Weber became director of the Institute for Historical Review. In December 2003 when Faurisson asked the director to clarify his position on the legend of "Nazi gas-chambers," Weber gave this response:
"I do not like to say that 'the Nazi gas chambers never existed,' in part because I do not regard myself as any kind of specialist of 'gas chambers,' and in part because I avoid making such categorical statements (on any subject)."
It was after this evasive response from Director Weber that Faurisson resigned from the IHR. ( R. Faurisson, "Mark Weber Must Resign" )

In 2016, however, when Jim Rizoli asks Weber whether he believes that Jews were gassed, Rizoli gets the clear answer that Faurisson never got. Weber says:
"My view about the gas-chambers or gassings is the same essentially as David Irving. And I believe that Jews were gassed. Yes." (52:06-52:18)
More specifically, Weber says:
"My belief, based upon my best assessment [shakes his head] of the evidence, is that large numbers of Jews were killed at Sobibor, Belzec, and Treblinka, most likely by gassing." (54:40-54:55)  
After that he repeats that his position is the same as David Irving's (55:09-55:12).

This alignment with David Irving seems to be an important point for Weber. It is significant that Weber does not say that David Irving's position is the same as his, rather the reverse. It is Irving who has influenced Weber.

Weber says that "the balance of evidence" supports his (and Irving's) conclusion. But the evidence that Weber cites to Rizoli is really no evidence at all.

First, it should be noted that Mark Weber realizes that all alleged documents that are supposed to prove claims related to the Holocaust have a cloud of doubt around them, because many have been proven false. Weber gives an example of this when he tells Rizoli that the number of Jewish deaths claimed in the reports of the Einsatzgruppen is certainly false: "It's certainly not as large as the reports themselves, issued between 1941 and 1943, might indicate."

Nonetheless, in this interview Weber refers to an alleged document as proof of the Holocaust: specifically a passage in the so-called Goebbels Diaries,
Weber had testified to the inauthenticity of the so-called Goebbels Diaries in 1988, as follows (quoted by R. Faurisson, "Mark Weber Must Resign"):
"The later entry, which I think is the 27th of March [1942], is widely quoted to uphold or support the extermination thesis. It is not consistent with entries in the diary like this one of March 7th, and it is not consistent with entries at a later date from the Goebbels diaries, and it is not consistent with German documents from a later date."
"[...] there is a great doubt about the authenticity of the entire Goebbels diaries because they are written on typewriter. We have no real way of verifying if they are accurate, and the U.S. Government certified, in the beginning of the publication, [...] that it can take no responsibility for the accuracy of the diaries as a whole."
"[...] I think again it is worth mentioning that the passage of the 27th of March is inconsistent with the passage of the 7th of March and the one from April, and I don't remember the date exact (Transcript, p. 5820-5821). Goebbels had no responsibility for Jewish policy. He wasn't involved in that. He was the Propaganda Minister. He was involved only to the extent that there were Jews in Berlin and he was responsible for Berlin (p. 5822-5823)."
Weber's testimony about contradictions in the Goebbels Diaries, and his observation that Goebbels (even if he had written those things) was not in a position to know about secret gassings of Jews, is now supposed to be negated by David Irving's discovery in Soviet state archives (euphemistically called "Russian archives" by the Mark Weber of 2016) of photographic plates that include previously published and some unpublished sections of the supposed Goebbels Diaries. (56:02-57:57)

But it is not apparent how David Irving's discovery of old photographic plates would eliminate the contradictions that Mark Weber has noted in the sections already published. It cannot.

It also does not put Goebbels in a better position to know about secret gassings. (Recall that it has been David Irving's position since the late 1970s that Hitler himself had no knowledge of such doings. Especially in that context, the claim that Goebbels did have such knowledge is astounding.)

When Rizoli makes the point that photographic images of alleged diary-pages are unverifiable as to authorship, and that the Soviet government is untrustworthy as a source, Weber responds as follows:
"The glass plates are a kind of primitive form of microfilm, but we also have the papers from which the glass plates were made. That's what's important. If that was the only evidence, that would be one thing, but these plates, the finding of these plates, is a confirmation of what was already known from other archives." (59:10-59:36)
The "papers" to which Weber refers are typed pages that have been in the United States since 1947. They are currently held by the Hoover Institution in California. Weber was already aware of those typed pages when he gave his testimony against their authenticity in 1988.

In fact, all "Goebbels diaries" dated later than July 1941 are typewritten. This means that all alleged pages from alleged Goebbels diaries that could be adduced as contemporary evidence for the Holocaust, including the ones that Weber now adduces, are typewritten, and thus absolutely unverifiable as to authorship.

David Irving pretends, in a speech that he gave at an IHR conference in 1994, that the discovery in Soviet state archives of photographic plates that include images of the typed pages held by the Hoover Institution somehow proves that those pages come from an authentic Goebbels Diary. (quoted by Mark Weber, "Faurisson's Unfair Rebuke", 21 April 2009 )

It proves no such thing. It proves only that the typed pages were in Soviet possession before they came into American possession. This in no way vouches for their authenticity: rather the opposite.

Weber merely copies David Irving in espousing this pretended proof. It is a non sequitur that can accepted as a valid argument only by someone too confused, or too overawed with David Irving's manner, to take it apart. It means that David Irving knew that he was pulling a fast one when he started making this argument for the authenticity of the Goebbels Diaries in the 1990s, and that Mark Weber too, unless there is an affliction to his brain that he did not suffer 25 years ago, must also know that he is pulling a fast one by repeating what Irving says.

Another argument that Weber offers in support of the Holocaust is that there could have been gassings in the Aktion Reinhardt camps because there are no structural remains in those places that could be used to produce the kind of debunking represented by a Leuchter Report or Rudolf-Gutachten. "There's nothing really to investigate at Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka because the camps have been razed," says Weber (1:04:25-1:04:31).

Weber thus pretends that there is no way to attack the accusations relating to those camps, and that they must therefore be accepted as true. Note that Weber gives the benefit of the doubt to the accusers rather than the accused, and, beyond this, ignores the general damage to the credibility of such stories that revisionists have already inflicted.

In the absence of physical evidence, it is still possible to criticize the specific claims about how gassings are supposed to have occurred in those places. Rizoli points out that gassings in the Reinhardt camps, according to so-called witnesses, were done with diesel-exhaust, which is not practical. Weber says that he knows it. When Rizoli then asks Weber how he thinks Jews were killed in those camps, Weber says:
"I don't know." (52:54-53:59)
Weber thus supports an accusation of mass-murder by gas that is utterly void of details, even the detail of what kind of gas is supposed to have been used.

Rizoli asks Weber how many Jews he thinks died in the Holocaust (1:06:30-1:10:24). Weber embarks on a lengthy digression (echoing Faurisson) about the distinction between "Jews who died" and "Jews who were killed" -- which turns out to be pointless, because Weber ultimately makes no such distinction. This digression seems to be a delaying tactic and an attempt to sound at least a little bit like a Holocaust Revisionist toward an interviewer who has been probing him about his hypocrisy. Finally, Weber's embarrassing response is:
"The number of Jews who died is probably between two and four million."  (1:08:30-1:08:41)
Rizoli objects that if Weber claims that 4 million might have died, then he must think that a much larger number of Jews lived in the German sphere of influence, since so many Jews survived. Weber then admits that the number of Jews in German-dominated Europe was "probably not even four million," which is inconsistent with what he had just said.

It is clear that Weber's assertion, that 2-4 million Jews "died," and that some were gassed, is gratuitous, since he cannot even say how that gassing is supposed to have occurred, and when he states the supposed number of Jewish dead, a contradiction results.

Whereas in 2003 Weber told Robert Faurisson that he did "not like to say" that the Nazi gas chambers never existed, it becomes clear in 2016 that Mark Weber -- despite the repeated declarations of his own superior disinterestedness and objectivity -- does like to say that the Nazi gas chambers did exist. Furthermore, Weber likes to state a number of Jewish deaths that, like Gerald Reitlinger's 1953 estimate of 4.2-4.7 million, deviates only moderately from the mythical six million and does not constitute a rejection of the Holocaust as such.


Mark Weber is a Follower, not a Leader

Mark Weber has copied his current general position on the Holocaust from David Irving. Both, the reliance on a "Goebbels Diaries" that Weber himself once denounced, and the eager acceptance of the claim that Jews were somehow gassed in those camps where little physical evidence can be adduced, were copied from David Irving.

David Irving's retreat from general skepticism about the Holocaust during the 1990s makes sense in terms of Irving's economic motives, since, as a formerly celebrated author, when he embraced the Leuchter Report and gave testimony for Ernst Zündel in 1988, Irving suddenly had difficulty getting major publishers to accept his work. Irving was a latecomer to Holocaust Revisionism and bailed out of it to the extent that he could when he saw what it cost him.

The IHR, however, was created to go against the grain. The director of the IHR (in theory, at least) does not have the same motives as a commercial author like David Irving, and should not be following David Irving as a role-model, nor invoking his name as a defense.

Today Irving and Weber together, along with "Jewish Revisionist" David Cole, assert that there were gassings in the Aktion Reinhardt camps. While it is to be expected that a commercial author and a Jew would find it convenient to retreat from the full controversy of revisionist findings, Mark Weber, as director of the Institute for Historical Review, is the one who absolutely should not be doing this. If Mark Weber is in his essential character a follower rather than a leader, and feels that he must retreat from this controversy, then he is unfit for the position that he occupies and ought simply to resign.

What Is so "European" about the European Union?

via Traditional Britain Group

Summary: As Britain prepares for the long-promised EU referendum, one writer questions the European credentials of the pro-Brussels side.

The years 1991-93 saw the country – and the Conservative Party (once again) – in turmoil over the question of Europe, with the Maastricht Treaty of that time promising an “irrevocable European Union”, and Tory Prime Minister, John Major, supporting it. At the height of the battles over Maastricht, Major famously remarked: “I want Britain to be at the heart of Europe…” – a sentiment which our present Premier echoes, despite calling for a reformed Union.

Then, as now, the Conservative press took the Eurosceptic side, The Sunday Telegraph leading the weekly assault against the irrevocable political system which the bureaucrats of Brussels had in store for us. One of the most vocal of the Fleet Street polemicists was the author and leading columnist of the time, Paul Johnson, who penned an extraordinarily emotional piece – entitled, ‘Farewell to the England I loved’ – which certainly rallied all romantic Englishmen and Britons against our federalist enemies. However, perhaps more interestingly, he made the observation that in the grey, conformist, nationless EU, the “culture of Europe was dying as surely as that of England” – a prophetic comment indeed, especially in the light of what we now know and see around us: Greece in chaos, Germany (once an invader) overwhelmed by armies of people pouring across the continent from the Middle East, and a liberal EU elite unable to do anything about it – save for uttering the usual liberal cries of the age.

The Europe of 2016 seems to have lost all sense of European integrity and culture, imprisoned as it is within its own sterile landscape, and run from impersonal plate-glass buildings and banks. A dreary blue flag with yellow stars flutters above this continent of Charlemagne and Wagner – and Europe’s citizens exchange their Euro banknotes, each piece of paper bearing a bland design: pictures of “bridges that go nowhere and windows that open into nothingness”, to quote a former Eurosceptic French politician, Jean-Pierre Chevènement.

When our politicians gather at their Euro-summits (the Prime Minister of Great Britain usually reduced to begging for crumbs from the table), how many of them truly look like leaders of a great continent? Do they stand to sing Europe’s anthem, set as it is to a noble tune from the final movement of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony? Is there a reading from Goethe before proceedings get underway? Do they meet in a chateau, overlooking the Rhine or the Rhône? Sadly, European gatherings resemble the shareholders’ meetings of banks, or at best, a dull sales conference – an explanation, perhaps, as to why so few people feel enthused about the EU. Our pro-Brussels politicians keep telling us that they are “passionate Europeans”, yet I wonder how many can speak more than a sentence of a European language – or can name more than two or three French or German, or Danish or Spanish composers or artists?

The current EU referendum is, of course, long overdue, but even this event seems to have left the British electorate cold and (at present) indifferent. The media, of course, is portraying the argument as one between old-fashioned patriots, neurotic and anxious about “change”, fearful of the “the other”; as opposed to the forward-looking Europeans who are truly embracing a better future. Yet our media seem to forget that in 1992, it was the Danish electorate which resoundingly rejected the Maastricht Treaty – with France, a year later, registering a 49 per cent vote against the creation of this more regimented, tightly-controlled EU system of government.

The truth is that Europe, which should belong to all of us – in a community of nations – has fallen into the hands of an establishment, characterised by the “you-will-do-as-you-are-told” mentality, which tends to be common to all superstates. Rather than voting to stay in or leave the EU, we should be working out a way to create – not a bloc – but an alliance; a civilised club of sovereign countries which seek to maintain their bedrock identities, economic stability and general way of life at a time of globalisation and uncertainty. Sadly, this Europe is beyond us, but might come into being at some point in the distant future – especially if the world continues on its current path (environmental degradation, terrorism, over-population and possible fuel and food shortages, to name but a few problems building up on the horizon).

In the meantime, the people of what Churchill described as “the old and famous states of Europe” should think again about the political configuration extending from the Atlantic coast to the borders of Russia. Does it truly represent us: does it truly represent you? As we in Britain prepare to vote on whether to maintain our place in the “irrevocable” European Union, we must ask: how European is the current EU?