Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Adolf Hitler on race

Video found via

…I promise you I am quite free of all racial hatred: It is, in any case, undesirable that one race should mix with other races. Except for a few gratuitous successes, which I am prepared to admit, systematic cross-breeding has never produced good results. Its desire to remain racially pure is a proof of the vitality and good health of a race. Pride in one’s own race – and that does not imply contempt for other races – is also a normal and healthy sentiment. I have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilizations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own. They have the right to be proud of their past, just as we have the right to be proud of the civilization to which we belong. Indeed, I believe the more steadfast the Chinese and the Japanese remain in their pride of race, the easier I shall find it to get on with them.

The Political Testament of Adolf Hitler – 13th February 1945


  1. There you go ! It must be a weird synchronicity or something but I read that same quote today before clicking onto your site under "honorary Aryans" on wikipedia and saved it to my quotes file.

    This is basically the same thing that Degrelle was saying about National Socialist racialism in that Waffen SS video, this time right from Adolf himself, it was pro-German and not anti-other-races.

    In retrospect, however, I think passing racial laws or extending them from Jews to all non-Aryans in the 2% non-white minority at that time made them easy to scapegoat later, even if they had no segregation like what went on in the USA but just full citizenship restrictions which prevented advancement beyond the skilled trades (in peacetime, in wartime things changed out of necessity). Even up to the 1960s and passage of the individual rights violating 'civil rights' laws the USA was 90% from white, European extraction. It's only since then that it's down to 73% which shows that the whole thing was forced and not a choice at all, of course, and given a free choice and not the deliberate handicapping of whites by Jewish group-rights laws to go along with loosening of immigration restrictions, it would have stayed the way it was in the 1960s.

    Oddly enough, considering how much xenophobia there is these days spewing from all organs of the Jew press about the Iranians and how much deliberate confusion between Arabs and Persians, Germany's Nuremberg laws did not apply to Iranians at all since they weren't considered semites but Aryans.

    The Germans even had a whole campaign of trying to convince Iranians that they were Aryans and to be proud of their ancient Aryan heritage.

    "Iranians were immune to the racial Nuremberg Laws on the grounds that they were pure blooded Aryans. In 1939, National Socialist Germany provided Iran with what they called a Germany Scientific Library. The library contained
    over 7500 books selected "to convince Iranian readers...of the kinship between the National Socialist Reich and the Aryan culture of
    Iran"(Lenczowski. 1944, p. 161). In various pro-Nazi publications, lectures, speeches, and ceremonies, parallels were drawn between the
    Shah of Iran and Hitler, and praise the charisma and virtue of the Fuhrerprinzip (Rezun. 1982, p. 29).

    In 1941, the Allies forced Reza Shah to abdicate the throne to his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. His pro-Nazi followers in the Iranian government such as Fazlollah Zahedi and Mohammad Hosein Airom shared similar fates"

    In other words, if the Ayatollah Khomeini's dad or Ahmedinejad's grand-dad or any other Iranian that was alive at that time had wanted to come from some village in the third world Iranian backwoods of the time to Germany and live there and mix with a German and have kids, to them that was not race-mixing but those Saudi Arabians and Iraqis were off limits. lol

    Then you also had the 'honorary Aryans' designation like the title Hitler gave to Jews that had served in WWI or the ones he considered loyal to the NSDAP and his favorite Jew composer of German operettas, Emmerich Kalman:

    or the entire Japanese people and that title would also have to entail full citizenship status to to be worth much.

    Photos of the Japanese welcoming the Hitlerjugend to Japan:


  2. There is only one "race" of people. That "race" is Homo sapiens sapiens.

    The researchers of the human genome have unanimously declared, there is only one race—the human race.

    We should refer to "people groups", not "races." People groups would be Germans, Irishmen, Hungarians, Africans etc.

    "If a white person is looking for a tissue match for an organ transplant, for instance, the best match may come from a black person, and vice versa. ABC News claims, “What the facts show is that there are differences among us, but they stem from culture, not race.”

    The bible says all human beings are of “one blood” (Acts 17:26).

    We are all related, as we are all humans and are all descendants of the first man, Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45),15 who was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27).16 The Last Adam, Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:45) also became a descendant of Adam. Any descendant of Adam can be saved because our mutual relative by blood (Jesus Christ) died and rose again. This is why the gospel can (and should) be preached to all tribes and nations.

    “Race is a social construct derived mainly from perceptions conditioned by events of recorded history, and it has no basic biological reality.” The differences that set us apart are cultural, not racial.

    Before Darwin's Judaic theory of evolution came on the scene in 1859, people referred to the "English race" or the "Irish race" or the "German race." Everybody was Christian and everybody was white. The people still lived together in ethnically homogeneous groups as that seemed to work best, but it never really would have worked if the people had not all had the same religion that foundationally "glued" them together. Hungary did not war with Ireland because they were all Christians.

    Ernest Haeckel and Jay Gould and other Judaic "scientists" did all they could to continue the lie of Darwinian evolution.

    Racist attitudes fueled by evolutionary thinking were largely responsible for an African pygmy being displayed, along with an orangutan, in a cage in the Bronx zoo.

    Racism and supremacism are Jewish things.

    NAZIism is socialism is Marxist.

    NAZIism is the antithesis to Marxist Leninest socialist communism. The synthesis will be a one world death and slavery system that will be part Marxist socialist communism and part capitalism. This is the Judaic Hegelian dialectic to continually bring about change to the Luciferian one world death and slavery system.

    There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.
    Galations 3:28

    Dr. E. Michael Jones says "religion", not "race", not skin color, not amount of melanin in a person's skin, not DNA, is the glue that keeps people living together peacefully. Dr. Robert Sungenis is a young-earth creationist just as I am.

    Quotes taken from this article...

    1. While I respect E. Michael Jones and appreciate a lot of what he has to say, he is dead wrong about this. Race is not a social construct. That what the Jews and cultural Marxists would have you believe. There are very real differences between the races - genetic, biological, cultural, social, etc. And that's OK, that's what real diversity is.

    2. "There are very real differences between the races - genetic, biological, cultural, social, etc. And that's OK, that's what real diversity is. "

      You should define "race." The article I referenced says genetically there is amost no genetic differences between what you refer to as "races."

      "Diversity" is definitely a gift of God for the preservation of the "human race", but the Jewish creation of "diversity" ("cultural diversity" etc) is anti-Christ.

      I guess it is all about...

      Who you say He is.

      Sad to see this site, and the good exposure of those of the Jewish revolutionary spirit, going down the road that is set up for most who criticize them to go down. Supremacism, racism, prejudice, lacking in a sense of justice and righteousness.

      God bless us each and every one in the Name of the One Who said He IS Truth.

    3. @ AnonymousDecember 6, 2012 6:12 AM,

      Very sad to read your misguided thinking. Among other things, you not only say that there is no such thing as Race, but you also say there is no such thing as "Male" or "Female".

      I will not attempt to reason with you as any attempt at reasoning with the enemy is futile.

      So when can we expect to see you campaigning for "equal rights" for Down Syndrome people? I'm sure you want to see that "equally employed" as doctors, lawyers and airline pilots......right?

      Or would that be stretching Affirmative Action a bit too far - even by your warped "standards"?

    4. Here are some facts for you that may indicate why there is a problem with “race” here in the US and around the world.

      A study that involved a large number of White and Black children proved the brain-size/IQ correlation and is predictive from birth.

      The National Collaborative Perinatal Study analyzed data from 17,000 White babies and 19,000 Black babies followed from birth to 7 years (Broman et al., 1987). Head perimeters were measured at birth for all children.

      At age 7, head perimeters were remeasured and IQ assessed. For both the Black and the White children, head perimeter measured at birth significantly predicted head perimeter at 7 years, and head perimeter at both ages predicted IQ!

      This studied showed that White children have larger brains and higher IQs than the Black children.

      Tell me - whoever you are - please explain to me what happened as a result of the "Trayvon Martin Shooting"?

      Do you know how many White people were murdered by blacks as a direct result of that incident?

      Can you please explain to us all why there are so many incidents of Violent Black Flash Mobs targeting White people?

      When White people are attacked by Black Flash Mobs and the Blacks yelling things like "This is for Trayvon" - and "The is reparations for slavery" as they assault innocent White people......what does that tell us?

      Have you ever been to Detroit? How about Haiti? What do those places have in common?

      Why is it that I, as a White person, have to sit idly by while Black job applicants are hired ONLY BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK?

      Why is it that I, as a White person, have to tolerate the FACT that blacks routinely score too low to merit hiring or promotion in public sector jobs - yet they are both hired and promoted OVER BETTER QUALIFIED WHITE PEOPLE?

    5. "Sad to see this site, and the good exposure of those of the Jewish revolutionary spirit, going down the road that is set up for most who criticize them to go down. Supremacism, racism, prejudice, lacking in a sense of justice and righteousness."

      You know what? I'm really just and tired of being labeled a "supremacist" and "racist" just for openly discussing the concept of race, ethnicity, and the origins of man.

      I was reading this earlier today, it may help you understand where I'm coming from:

      I will accept as generally true the standard investigation of Carleton S. Coon’s book, The Living Races of Man, published in 1965. Humans are members of the species Homo sapiens, and all the members of this species, regardless of geographic location, can breed together and produce mixed offspring. However, “humans also vary racially to an unusual degree,” and thus it is possible to divide humans into sub-species of races. While there is (still) no general consensus on the number of races, the term “race” is sufficiently precise to allow for a general classification of humans on earth. For the purposes of this paper, it should suffice to mention that, according to Coon, the three major sub-species of races are: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Congoid. He identifies four more races. He also draws further divisions within each of these main racial types to take account of important additional morphological differences, geographical variations, and the ways in which different environments engendered cultures which “profoundly” affected the character of the races. The following succinct statement by Coon is worth quoting:

      A race is a major segment of a species originally occupying, since the first dispersal of mankind, a large, geographically unified, and distinct region, and touching on the territories of other races only by relatively narrow corridors. Within such a region each race acquired its distinctive genetic attributes – both its visible physical appearance and its invisible biological properties – through the selective forces of all aspects of the environment, including culture. After having become differentiated in this fashion, each race filled out its space, resisting, because of its superior local adaptation, the encroachment of outsiders with whom it mixed, from time to time if not continuously, along its borders (p. 10).

    6. This was excellent also:

    7. You continue to write things like this that just astound me in their ignorance:

      "NAZIism is socialism is Marxist."

      Did you listen to my interview with William Finck? If not, you should. You are so wrong about this, and I've explained why numerous times now.

    8. "The bible says all human beings are of “one blood” (Acts 17:26).".....Yeh but it also says about the Jews being the Synagogue of Satan...just pure evil fuckers...if humanity is to survive it has to once and for all deal with the fucking JEW problem....2000 years and we still have this problem?

  3. Any of you have a dog? Is there a difference between a "pure breed" and a "mutt"? Are certain breeds known for certain characteristics of intelligence, temperament, and ability? Is a pure bred Collie as "dangerous" as a Pitt Bull? Is a Mutt as intelligent as a pure bred Collie?

    Guess what? Those things are the expression of Genetics.

    Genetics = Race.

    Know this: If you have an affinity for a specific breed of dog - YOU ARE A RACIST by definition.

    I happen to dislike certain expressions of Genetics that appear among "humans" that identify as low intelligence, violent impulsiveness, lack of abstract thinking skills, lack of higher cognitive skills, social predation, lack of personal responsibility, opportunistic criminality, irresponsible sexuality, etc.

    Among "humans" you generally don't see much of those kinds of thing among, say, Icelanders. But you see a LOT of those things among, say, Haitians.

    I am very aware that certain Genetic Groups exhibit bad behaviors.

    I am a Racist and I do not cower from the label.

    When this issue comes up, I speak in terms of "Genetic Groups" and "Race Behavior". During such conversations, I have frequently seen that spark in peoples eyes that accompanies that moment of instant awareness - as though a magician revealed the workings of a magic trick.

    People get it. They know. Our people just need to the tools to fight the enemies verbal war in their own defense.

    I don't like bad behavior - that makes me a Racist.

    1. All this would not be a problem if people did not have laws passed by Jews FORCING them to act against their own free choice and / or forcing them to bear the burden of immigrants from all over the world while being handicapped against them through welfare and handouts and other such nonsense also enforced through taxes with a gun to your head.

      Look at the USA up until the 1960's. They were 90% white European extraction and did not have a big problem with immigrants. The immigrants adapted to the prevailing dominant European-derived culture here, learned their English, aspired to be Americans and not the other way around. The Europeans who built this country could not be be beat through productivity or competition, they were not out-competed, they were FORCED, through the passage of laws totally inconsistent with what the founders of the country advocated, to act against their own individual self-interests which only then add up to their violated 'group interests' that do not even exist without them.

      Passing racial laws, uses the same principle of protecting 'group rights' but this time FOR the interests of the majority population of an area rather than this or that minority, like the National Socialists did. The Fascists and Mussolini also imitated Hitler by 1938 whereas before that he had no racial laws.

      I don't believe in the principle of forcing people to do anything against their own will, as long as what they're doing is not physically harmful or fraudulent against other individuals.

      I don't believe 'the nation' or 'the government' has the 'right' to stick their nose into somebody's life and tell them, for example, 'hey, if you're a white person and live in this Aryan country here and you choose to start a family and have a kid with a Japanese person or a Chinese or a half-Mexican or half-black / half-white or a Jew or half-Jew or whatever other mixture or mutt, then you will no longer be a full citizen of this country and you and your offspring will be discriminated against BY LAW and by force and you cannot enter the professions or the army or whatever else even if your performance is superior to someone who has not mixed outside of their race, etc.

      In that regard, the smacking of people's heads in forcing them 'for their own good' in defense of something they would not choose on their own, but which does not hurt anyone else except some 'idea of nationhood or race or fatherland,' instead of convincing them by reason and logic and / or rhetoric, I am not on board with the National Socialists at all but with Jefferson when he wrote:

      "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." (Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816)

      ~Negentropic MK II

    2. The government has no business regulating people's free choices by force 'for their own good' with a gun-to-their-head for taxes or anything else. This is the only principled action.

      I don't care if Ayn Rand (Alice Rosenbaum) and then the Libertarians advocated similar positions (you are not a true Libertarian, by the way, unless you START with the repeal of civil rights). This is not an Ayn Randian principle, anymore than socialism was a Marxist principle, this was advocated by Lysander Spooner and before that a Jefferson and who he got it from I don't know. It's an old principle and for people to dismiss it by calling it a 'Jew' or a 'freemasonic' principle designed from the beginning to 'divide and conquer' the white race is straight out absurd. No one was 'conquered' in the 90% white USA until the 1960's and the passage of laws breaking this principle. It made no difference how many kids third world immigrants had compared to whites, they got no automatic welfare and none of the crap that goes on now.

      The business of any government and / or army and these can just as easily be voluntary as anything else is to DEFEND against fraud and force instigated on individuals and the rest will take care of itself.

      If you're not forced to act against your own will, then you can also be as racialist or 'racist' as you want and associate with whoever you want and ostracize the rest. You can be a misanthrope and not associate with any other humans at all like Thoreau or some other hermit and go live in the woods by yourself.

      No one will beat down your door or force you to do anything as long as you haven't forced anyone else to do anything. This Jeffersonian principle worked just fine in the USA even up to the 1960's despite the U.S. being in the hands of the Rothschilds since 1913.

      It doesn't need to go anywhere. It needs to be restored by legitimate and fully-justified collective self-defense force and in that regard and only in that regard I agree with fat boy Jones over there at Infowars and Bill Still and Ryan Dawson and the rest of the Libertarians, not that a compromising wimp like Ron Paul is the proper man for this job.

      ~Negentropic MK III

    3. ~Negentropic MK III,

      You said:

      "I don't believe 'the nation' or 'the government' has the 'right' to stick their nose into somebody's life and tell them, for example, 'hey, if you're a white person and live in this Aryan country here and you choose to start a family and have a kid with a Japanese person or a Chinese or a half-Mexican or half-black / half-white or a Jew or half-Jew or whatever other mixture or mutt, then you will no longer be a full citizen of this country and you and your offspring will be discriminated against BY LAW and by force and you cannot enter the professions or the army or whatever else even if your performance is superior to someone who has not mixed outside of their race, etc."

      I disagree strongly.

      There is a big difference between the interests of the individual and the interests of the Nation.

      As you should know, it is the genetic characteristics of the people who invented the airplane, the internal combustion engine, the transmission of electricity, the transistor, etc. - that made your modern world possible. NONE OF THESE THINGS CAME FROM HAITI, or Haitians.

      Please do some studying on the Science of Genetics and investigate the term "REGRESSION TO MEAN" in the context of Race-Mixing.

      Race Mixing literally destroys and tears down the higher achieving race. That practice is not in the National Interests of an Ethnic Nation.

      If you don't like the concept of an Ethnic Nation - so be it.

      I do like the concept of an Ethnic Nation. It is the only thing that works or that can work.

      You also mentioned that you disagree with barring race-mixed people or aliens from certain professions "even if your performance is superior to someone who has not mixed outside of their race, etc." Look around buddy. Higher performing non-Whites aren't the reason for the disgusting Affirmative Action Laws that falsely enable the UNDER-PERFORMER.

      Unfortunately, there is a correlation between race and Under Performing and lower intelligence. Genetics drives that difference. Race is Genetics in expression.

    4. Rights come from being human and having a bigger brain than apes. This does not imply 'equality' in the size of these bigger-than-apes brains, either amongst the races or within the same race. Just that they qualify as human and not ape.

      Humans have the brain capacity to make choices and therefore to make the RIGHT or WRONG choices.

      If you DENY that humans are able to perceive a complex reality and make choices then you deny that 'rights' exist which is like saying humans are no different than animals and operate only on instinct but the very fact of you even DENYING THAT RIGHTS EXIST prove that you are thinking and making choices as to 'what exists' and 'what does not exist' and therefore you negate yourself.

      The RIGHT choices benefit the organism, the WRONG choices hurt it. This is the root of all MORALITY and ethics, it has nothing to do with 'doing for others,' you 'do for others' only when 'doing for others' is seen by you in the higher light of a longer-term self-interest that you are able to conceptualize as being 'GOOD FOR YOU.'

      Therefore, on a more advanced level, you can spend your whole life teaching others things with very little salary and direct monetary reward and still consider this absolutely rewarding to you spiritually in the longer term, so you keep doing it. The intellectual exercise becomes its own reward and it is perceived correctly by you as 'good for others' and 'good for you' at the same time, if you are an intellectual of this type since an ENTIRE SOCIETY and revolution can be created by your efforts in the future and even this is like a long-term project with each step of the way, each victory being its own reward.

      Capiche ?

      Therefore, PROTECTING your ability to MAKE CHOICES is FUNDAMENTAL. Without free choice, there is no such thing as morality, there is only the morality of the 'right choice' that a 'great leader' or the father of the extended family of the nation is able to make for you IF you are lucky enough to have a 'great leader' and not some corrupt scoundrel.

      And that is the basis for rights being SELF-EVIDENT. There is nothing more to 'prove.'

      This is the ONLY and basic individual right, the right to think and make moral choices unmolested. Property rights are an extension of the 'right thinking' that created wealth versus the 'wrong thinking' that lost it or the 'predatory thinking' which took it from someone who did the 'right thinking.' Therefore, the predator, or the SAVAGE, modern or ancient, is penalized and punished in this system and if he won't learn his lesson, he risks being penalized out of existence.


    5. (continued from previous post)

      A family has a leader, a community has a leader, a town has a Sheriff, militia, etc. and ALL of these communal gatherings of individuals or governmental units for individuals with built-in leaders and followers are VOLUNTARY activities. They absolutely do not need to be forced. Some individuals might stay out of it all but most will see the benefits & voluntarily form communities of mutual win-win interlockings. Their governments are voluntarily organized to watch out for the agressors & defrauders & prosecute them just like the governments or mods of internet forums are organized to prosecute trolls. lol

      What reigns in a society like this ? Only the non-aggression principle.

      Is this principle the reason that America is in the condition it is now ? No.

      That is a result of the OPPOSITE principle of 'group rights' violating the free choice of individuals with the Jew-led civil rights laws and all other 'groups rights' Marxist government enforced re-distribution and equalization campaigns, etc.

      Where is the proof of a country of so much freedom having worked ?

      The USA from Jackson to 1913 & despite the massacre of the civil war & other assorted inhumanities had about 80 to 90% adherence to this basic principle and it became the most economically prosperous nation with the highest standard of living in the world. From 1913 on, this percentage of adherence went down, until a depression hit in the 1930's & after that only war-loot recovered it & for a couple of decades up to the 1960's it was sustained & then went into steep orchestrated by leeches decline. Now, we're probably at 30 to 40% adherence if we're lucky.

      This is the requirement for any advanced civilization and all other things being equal, the more of this freedom you have, the more your society will prosper and progress, however you want to define those two terms.


    6. (continued)

      Needless to add, this principle can ONLY be practiced consistently for any length of time in societies that have stomped USURY into the toilet where it belongs since usury is the UBER-FRAUD of all frauds and initiations of aggression into the very life-blood of nations.

      However, performing surgery on a dying patient to save it from UBER-FRAUD, does not mean surgery becomes a way of life for a healthy nation.

      Not that I'm implying it did necessarily become a way of life for Mussolini or Hitler. Ezra Pound lived under Mussolini, so did Igor Stravinsky. Both of these guys were extremely individualistic, bohemian artists & they did not mind living there at all and praised Mussolini as the savior of Italy and maybe one day Europe. They had to wait for Hitler to follow in Mussolini's footsteps for the Europe part to start & succeed to the point where Mussolini started imitating Hitler, but the job never got finished.

      ~Negentropic MK III

    7. In answer to other points you brought up about race:

      I never said all races are 'equal.' They obviously arent,just look at the IQ test results.

      Equality BEFORE the law, which is the Jeffersonian system, does not imply egalitarianism or equal results at all. Never did.

      It just means all contestants in the 'game' of the economy start as indivdiuals who have the right not to be physically aggressed against or defrauded (indirect form of force) & to go ahead & achieve whatever UNEQUAL RESULTS they can as they inevitably will. Once unequal in achievement in a particular field, then they will obviously have to start the next race (of the many races they run in their lifespan) at the position they ended up in & this would continue to their whole clan & family & race.

      After a while you might have large numbers of one race end up playing basketball & another play Hockey or one drive trucks & another become scientists, etc. THERE IS NO EQUALIZATION by law for unequal results that did not result because of force or fraud but only through people's natural differences, from race to race, & from individual to individual within each race.

      In National Socialism, you had a similar NON-EGALITARIAN socialism which equalized by force but not-too-much & usually for the right reasons which end up being covered by self-defence of individuals anyway since in NS Germany they say this 'hurts' the nation & in a Jeffersonian system they say this 'hurts' the individuals that form the nation. For example, after the Nuremberg laws, Non-Aryans got a free education until junior high but from high-school on they were on their own whereas Aryan education up to college was paid for by the state.

      All the confusion between libertarianism and libertinism has got to end. When you protect individual rights, this does not mean LIBERTINISM, do whatever you want hedonism, it just means the individual has the HARD CHOICE to make to do whatever he wants as long as he's not PHYSCIALLY hurting another & this choice better be the right choice or HE has to bear the responsibility, not the state. He is only protected from the consequences of his foolish actions by those in the community that will voluntarily associate with him. He is not protected by government force in the form of welfare & affirmitive action or any such nonsense. If he goes broke or squanders his money, he has to rely on people's voluntary charity & goodwill & not burn his bridges & wear out his welcome with them.


    8. (continued)

      This is why true freedom is a HARD DISCIPLINE, it has nothing to do with the Jew-promoted idea of do-whatever-feels-good hippie idiocy.

      People really have no idea how honorable a people the Americans used to be. Go read what de Tocqueville wrote 200 years ago about American honor:

      "On one point American honor accords with the notions of
      honor acknowledged in Europe; it places courage as the highest virtue, and treats it as the greatest of the moral necessities of man; but the notion of courage itself assumes a different aspect. In the United States martial valor is but little prized; the courage which is best known and most esteemed is that which emboldens men to brave the dangers of the ocean, in order to arrive earlier in port - to support the privations of the wilderness without complaint, and solitude more cruel than privations - the courage which renders them almost insensible to the loss of a fortune laboriously acquired, and instantly prompts to fresh exertions to make another. Courage of this kind is peculiarly necessary to the maintenance and prosperity of the American communities, and it is held by them in peculiar honor and estimation; to betray a want of it is to incur certain disgrace."

      ~Alexis de Tocqueville - Democracy in America - Chapter XVIII:
      "Of Honor in the United States and in Democratic Communities -"

      If you consider race-mixing very bad for culture, then you can do whatever you want to do, in a Jeffersonian libertarian society, to spread that message. You can even refuse to deal with anyone but whites and stay segregated in your own communities with others who think alike. You can ostracize those from your community that go against your beliefs and get a Thai wife, a Chinese wife like Dennis Fetcho or a Japanese wife like Ryan Dawson or a Jewish wife like Alex Jones, etc.

      What you can't do is put a gun to their head, like they did in NS Germany to the 2% minority who didn't agree with them, and force them out of the professions & the army for the entire nation & make sure they only stay in the skilled trades. This has nothing to do with protecting against UBER-FRAUD or initiated force since all fraud already justifies self-defence force under the Jeffersonian system. This just means NS Germans getting comformity from people by force & law who don't see things their way or the way of the overwhelming majority.

      In your case, in a libertarian system, you can refuse to hire anyone for any reason, etc. but there is no LAW putting a gun to other people's heads to force them to agree with your racial views. Capiche ?

      Show me how the United States up until the 1960's & before the passage of the individual rights violating 'civil rights' communistic, group-rights law was in any way a 'mixed' or brown race ?

      Go look at the statistics: after 400 years of immigration, USA was 90% white European stock at that time & they almost always mixed with each other Irish with Germans and English & such & rarely with the other races & hardly ever with Jews. It was only out in Hollywood that you had starlets hooking up with this or that rich Jew, Marilyn Monroe with Arthur Miller, Elizabeth Taylor with Mike Todd, etc.

      Given a free choice and a free media (no 24 hour a day bombardment & brainwashing by a controlled media), most people stay with their own kind or at least with people on the same intellectual or cultural level 9 times out of 10.

      "Thus, to comprise all my meaning in a single proposition, the dissimilarities and inequalities of men gave rise to the notion of honor; that notion is weakened in proportion as these differences are obliterated, and with them it would disappear."
      ~Alexis de Tocqueville - from Democracy in America - Chapter XVIII: "Of Honor in the United States and in Democratic Communities -"


  4. I didn't take the time to watch the video, because whatever it says it comes from a proven forged document (the 1945 "table talks"). Look into it:

    1. David Irving also says that Goebbels' November 1938 diary entries, which implicate him and the NSDAP 100% for Crystal Night, are GENUINE. However, the BRIZI refused to show the diary entries he allegedly took from Moscow (the copies) to German historian Ingrid Weckert.

      Irving is not peer reviewed. He hasn't been for decades. Who agrees with him that this is an undeniable forgery? He has to prove it...when asked to do so by Weckert, he refused.

    2. Yes, you know much more then David Irving on the matter. Does my sarcasm come through?

      If you must distort things to fit your view, so be it. I did not expect much intellectual honesty when I posted the comment, I just figured I would put it out there. I am sorry if the characters you created in your head do not fit the people they actually were. And in no means do I view Hitler or Goebbels in a negative light... I just rather be accurate.

      More on Goebbels diary:

      But it's all "fake" because you know better, huh?


      I guess in your world in makes sense the most credible historian on the subject, who has been through many trials and tribulations because of his intellectual honesty, would verify the 41-44 transcripts but call the 45 transcripts a fake, because... (insert paranoid theory here).

      Anyways, it must be an easy job to simply write off people who spend their whole lives researching a topic, from you computer chair...

      But, once again, believe what ever you need to believe. I just figured I would add a lil tid-bit of perspective on the topic.

    3. Thanks for the info, I will check into this. And thanks for bringing this to my attention.

      I have to say that I found what Hitler said in the video right in line with what he would have said in Mein Kampf. If it is a forged document, it certainly sounds like something Hitler would have said, or at least felt. But maybe I'm wrong?

      I don't know if you saw my post when David Irving visited San Diego. If not, check it out, and especially see the comments:

    4. As the person who faked it, told Irving: "It sounds like what Hitler would say". Yes it is in line with Hitler's racial beliefs. he was not a "hater" as he is painted by the media, but if we truly seek truth we must accept the whole truth, even when it does not fit our message at times.

      I looked at your link on Irving. Good on you for going to see him, I saw him when he came to town as well (3-4 years ago). I have read a few of his books, and checked out a lot of his speeches. He is by far the fairest professional historian on the subject, hence all the trouble he gets into.

      His comments of the number of dead jews does not surprise me. He has been to court, and to prison over his holocaust stance. I think he and others (including myself)when speaking on the Holocaust and it's validity, mainly point out the lack of evidence of mass gas chambers, the amount killed in the chambers; the lack of logic in the manner it was done, and of course the profit mentality of jewish individuals, who "survived" to tell their fantastic "stories". But make no mistake, jews died, mainly by bullets. How many? I have no idea, nor does it matter to me, they were viewed as a hostile enemy by the Germans,so thus is war, many die. Hitler was no friend of the Slavs as well, for the same reasons.

      I don't think (I could be wrong) that Irving supports the death camp tales tho, and the mass gas chambers etc. BUT, even if he did, it wouldn't discount his 30-40 years of researching this topic.

      You have to put things into context, look at Irving's life; the shit he has been through, and continues to go through, and the lack of support (real support) he has gotten his whole life. If a man is judged by his deeds, I think his speak clearly for his intent. So when he says something is fake, I'll tend to believe him until proven factually wrong.

      Keep up the good work. :)

    5. Was this from a 'Table Talk' or was it written down in his 'Testament' ?

      So is monsieur Irving saying ONLY the 1945 table-talks is not genuine then ?

      I know he has previously authenticated the stuff from 1941 to 1944:

      David Irving:

      “Hitler’s Table Talk is the product of his lunch- and supper-time conversations in his private circle from 1941 to 1944. The transcripts are genuine.

      The table talk notes were originally taken by Heinrich Heim, the adjutant of Martin Bormann, who attended these meals at an adjacent table and took notes. (Later Henry Picker took over the job). Afterwards Heim immediately typed up these records, which Bormann signed as accurate. [...]

      For forty years or more no German original was published, as Genoud told me that he feared losing the copyright control that he exercised on them. I have seen the original pages, and they are signed by Bormann.

      They were expertly, and literately, translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, though with a few (a very few) odd interpolations of short sentences which don’t exist in the original—the translator evidently felt justified in such insertions, to make the context plain. [...]

      The Table Talks’ content is more important in my view than Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and possibly even more than his Zweites Buch (1928). It is unadulterated Hitler. He expatiates on virtually every subject under the sun, while his generals and private staff sit patiently and listen, or pretend to listen, to the monologues.”


  5. Hey "Negentropic" Yes it's only the 1945 documents that he says are forged. And I agree with what he said the best insight to the person Adolf Hitler we have is the 41-44 Table Talks.

  6. Wow anonymous, you sound like a sociopath. But here is Irving saying that Goebbels did indeed order Crystal Night, contrary to what Weckert said. Weckert claims Goebbels was innocent.


    "In the archives I found a document dated the next day, November 10, which shows quite clearly that some kind of order had actually been issued. That morning Goebbels sent the following message to all 42 Nazi party propaganda officials at the provincial level: "The anti-Jewish Aktionen [operations] must now be called off with the same rapidity with which they were launched. They have served their desired and anticipated purpose." These are the key lines in this document, I think, because they do imply that an order had been issued the day before. We don't have that earlier document, but references to it were made during the postwar interrogation of one or two of the Gauleiters, and there's also a hint in his diary that he had given certain orders the previous day.

    Goebbels had to issue this second order calling off the Aktionen because, as we now know (a member of Hitler's private staff confirmed it to me), Hitler was furious when he heard, during the night, about the anti-Jewish outbreaks. Throughout the night, telephone calls came in reporting synagogues blazing across Germany. Hitler sent for Himmler and asked: "What the hell is going on here, Reichsführer?" Himmler replied: "Send for Goebbels, he knows." Hitler summoned Goebbels and raked him over the coals. The following morning Goebbels wrote in his diary: "I went to see the Führer at 11 o'clock, and we discussed what to do next." You can just imagine what kind of conversation took place between Hitler and Goebbels. Of course, Goebbels isn't going to write in his diary "the Führer called me a bloody idiot for having started what I did last night" -- that's not the kind of diary he kept. Instead, he wrote a one-line entry to remind himself that he did have to go to see the Führer. What he did next was to issue the November 10 order calling for an immediate stop to all the anti-Jewish Aktionen.

    Here, I'm afraid, I have to disagree with our colleague Ingrid Weckert; but if a revisionist can't revise another revisionist, I don't know what a revisionist is. Weckert rather exonerates Dr. Goebbels from any blame for the "Crystal Night." [See Weckert's book, Flashpoint, published by the IHR, and her article, "'Crystal Night' 1938," in the Summer 1985 Journal.]

    However, there is no doubt in my mind that on that night, having gotten the news that the German diplomat died, Goebbels -- incautiously, imprudently, and out of a sheer sense of mischief -- ordered the Gauleiters to go out and start raising hell against the Jews. And, of course, it got out of hand."

    So, how am I incorrect? Irving implicates Goebbels and thereby the NSDAP, namely the SA, for Crystal Night. The diary entries he's referring to are in Moscow on plate glass. They are not the same as the one at the Institute for Contemporary History. The 1938 entries in question are MISSING from the German archives. Why is that do you think? And why did Irving refuse to show his copies from Moscow to Weckert?

    Please try not to flip out in a sociopathic rage when you reply. I am not saying Irving is unqualified, only that he is not necessarily THE authority on the matter.

    1. "Sociopathic rage"? Isn't that a oxymoron?

      You just re-posted text from the link I sent you... As some kind of proof against me?

      I careless if Goebbels did, or did not, help get the ball rolling on the backlash, it was well deserved IMO, be it suggested by Goebbels, or not.

      I will say, in my own opinion, that usually spontaneous outburst among groups of people, usually start with a "suggestion", a ball mover so to speak. So, to me at least, it is not out of the realm of belief to believe the reaction of crystal night was induced by Goebbels, and German citizens joined in.

      As far as the particulars go on the questions you asked about why Irving does this or that? I have no clue, you should ask him, he responds to polite discourse, and curiosity.

      You seem to think Irving is wrong on the matter of Goebbels and Crystal night, ok, I must admit, i never paid too much mind to it. Maybe you can suggest me some books and some links on why you think Irving is wrong on the matter.

      Now, what any of that has to do with the issue of the 45 table talk text, I will never know.

      Did you read the link I sent you? If Irving is wrong about the 45 text, then he is not only simply mistaken, but flat out lying about it. So why would he lie about it, while validating 41-44?... Even claimed the forger admitted to it.

      And more importantly what are you offering as a counter point as to why Irving is wrong/lying about the 45 text? Crystal night? Could you see why i would have to question that line of logic?

    2. Irving could be wrong; that's my point.

      Hugh Trevor-Roper said that the 45 TTs are legit. Irving says they're not. Who's correct? This we will never know because we never saw the original evidence.

      In that piece you cited, Irving in one part speaks for Goebbels. He essentially says Goebbels likely said such and such and this is why he later apologized to Hitler. How does Irving know what this apology was about without any direct evidence? Goebbels' admission to CN is not in his diaries anywhere. Irving says he omitted it. Okay, then this means Jews can say Hitler gave the verbal order for the holocaust in like fashion. Do you see the problem here? We cannot speak for someone if there's no evidence. Hence, Irving's need for the Moscow entries to substantiate his claim. He is making the evidence fit his thesis in this case, IMHO.

      Irving says that Genoud told him that the 45 TTs are fakes. Were you there to hear this and verify it beyond any doubt? I wasn't. Unless you were there, you have no idea what is true. This is why I brought up the Moscow entries. If Irving saw that these were genuine and knew so beyond any doubt, why did he refuse to show them to Weckert?

      If the NSDAP orchestrated the CN, then the NSDAP was a criminal regime. That's why it's important. You may be okay with a government that allows some of its citizens to be raped, looted, harassed and murdered (which did in fact happen), but most people are not.

      Good luck trying to justify that, BTW. You'll need it.

  7. Not to stray too far off the subject, here is Irving's stance on Kristallnacht:

    Make sure to click the links on the page as well.

    1. Thank you for posting this link. It reads:

      "Dr Joseph Goebbels was alone to blame."

      If this is true and Weckert is wrong about his innocence, then the SA & SS were indeed a bunch of stupid animals who leaped at the first mention of "pogrom," thus there was not much substance to the movement as a whole. It really does a tremendous amount of damage to the NS idea, because Irving bashes and trashes Goering, Heydrich and Himmler too. Heydrich and Himmler murdered Jews and Gypsies against Hitler's wishes and Irving was just a bumbling greedmonger and elitist (per Irving). If these people were all a bunch of killers and socios, and Hitler was the only decent one in the NSDAP, then what does that say about the overall character of NS and its elite?

      Just for the record, Weckert undoes Irving in her book Flashpoint!, which one can still get on Amazon. We should at least read it and consider her point of view on Goebbels before making a final judgment.

    2. (Part 2)

      By the time CN took place, Jews were not considered full German citizens. Law after law had been passed since 33 restricting the jews from marrying Germans, breeding with Germans, getting into positions of influence and power; "encouraging" jews to leave Germany, and so on... I would say they were at a similar status as the Negroes were in early America when they were considered 1/3 a man by the law, hence not American citizens. So, it is not really like they were a :

      "government that allows some of its citizens to be raped, looted, harassed and murdered"

      They were more like a body that continually tried to remove a leech from off itself without having to resort immediately to the lighter.

      If anything, the examples of "Night of the Long Knives", and the Strasser bothers would fit your descriptions, and concerns more so then Crystal night.

      Now...On to the night in question:

      Is this the theory Weckert puts forth in "flashpoint"?

      That Kristallnacht was a jewish false flag?

      From the very little I have just recently read on her, and her works, the complaints of lack of sources, and valid sources pop up... Is her claim well resourced in her book? Because the claims in the article I just linked are not. If you have a copy of her book, could you provide me her specific claims and the sources for them?

      Now on to Irving's claims on CN:

      First we have the Colonel von Below interview:

      Why would he lie?

      I will not bring the diary excerpts into this, since you question the validity.

      pg. 274 of "Goebbels: Mastermind..." asserts Goebbels sent orders to have SA men to ramp up the protests. Confirmed by Gauleiter Albert Hoffmann.

      Karl Hederich, one of Goebbel's department heads (in response to Goebbels speech that night) felt it conflicted with the tenor og Hitler's speech.

      It is claimed he did specify "jews were fair game, short of looting and plundering" so it's not like he was calling for heads...

      But that's just two people there at the time, who share their personally insight into the CN, there is more, Irving is very well sourced in his books, like i said they are boring reads for the most part, IMO of course.

      My own personal guess on why Goebbels did what he did, is believe it or not, Goebbels was a lil bit more heavy handed on the JQ then Hitler, Personally I felt he was more accurate in his stance on dealing with the JQ then Hitler, but that's a subject for another time... I digress ... So anyways when Hitler says to Goebbels: " The police should not yet crack down on the protests, give the jews a taste of public outrage" (from statement by SA Gruppenfuhrer Max Juttner) in Goebbels mind, that statement from Hitler opens the door to "spice things up" a bit. Because remember, even according to Irving's account it got a bit more out of hand then Goebbels had intended... But that is my own guess as to why Goebbels did so.

    3. (Part 3)

      "Just for the record, Weckert undoes Irving in her book Flashpoint!, which one can still get on Amazon. We should at least read it and consider her point of view on Goebbels before making a final judgment."

      I agree 100%. All things should always be considered and given fair consideration.

      Now the 45 text:

      In this video:

      at the 48 minute mark Irving talks about the issue. If you have not seen the speech before i would recommend watching the full thing when you have the time to do so.

      "Irving could be wrong; that's my point."

      Of course he could be... Irving could be wrong about many things, he is human after all... The point I am trying to hit home with this, is in the the case of the 45 text, it would not be a simple matter of him being wrong, but being a flat out liar... And I just see no reason, or proof of him doing so in this case.

      Anyways thanks for the interesting perspective on this matter, and the book suggestion.

  8. (part 1)
    Ok,since we have morphed into two topics here let us deal with one separate from the other.

    First "The Night of broken glass" Before dealing with "Weckert vs Irving" lets deal with some of the things you said.

    "It really does a tremendous amount of damage to the NS idea, because Irving bashes and trashes Goering, Heydrich and Himmler too. Heydrich and Himmler murdered Jews and Gypsies against Hitler's wishes and Irving was just a bumbling greedmonger and elitist (per Irving). If these people were all a bunch of killers and socios, and Hitler was the only decent one in the NSDAP, then what does that say about the overall character of NS and its elite?"

    Two books sit in front of me as I write this, two books by Irving, "Goebbels: Mastermind of the 3rd Reich" and "Goring : A Biography"...

    Both books are very thick with small print, and IMO Irving writes in a very boring manner, making them even harder to read, but, anyways, these two thick boring books are filled with both positive and negative descriptions of the two people in question, as they were human and subject to acting like humans... And of course depending on the reader, what Irving paints as "negative" could very well be viewed as "positive" by the reader, as "good" and "bad" is highly subjective. There is no need for the dramatic descriptions you painted, when it can all be put into context.

    "It really does a tremendous amount of damage to the NS idea,"

    Have you read the 41-44 Table Talks? If not I highly suggest you do, once again for the sake of context. Let me tell you the life story of my understanding of Hitler and the NSDAP.

    Like any American raised child, I was raised to believe Hitler was a maniac, jew hating, racist, murderer and the "Nazis" were mind controlled robots who lived to kill without emotion... You know... So one day out of sheer curiosity I picked up Mein Kampf, and had my mind blown... "This wasn't the person they told me about" I thought... So I quickly went from one extreme (he was a insert all jewish tales here:________)to another extreme (he was more human then human) almost to a Miguel Serrano extent; from there (through reading, pondering, researching) I have worked my way back to the realistic middle ground. I think many of us go through the same steps, at our own pace, or maybe we don't continue our own research, and we remain at one extreme or another. Whatever the case maybe, when speaking on these things, we must not forget about the context of what we are speaking about. So to simply say if this "person A" kills "person B", "person A" must be a murderer, and bad person, without looking at the why, what, and hows of the murder is disingenuous.

    So with all that said we must understand that when speaking on Hitler and the people around him, we are speaking about PEOPLE, not above "sin", not above knee jerk reactions, not above mistakes, not above bad decisions and so on... If that cannot be understood, then this conversation takes on a religious manner rather then a historical one.

    "If the NSDAP orchestrated the CN, then the NSDAP was a criminal regime. That's why it's important. You may be okay with a government that allows some of its citizens to be raped, looted, harassed and murdered (which did in fact happen), but most people are not."

  9. He deserves a fair hearing. The Jewish lies (I am not saying all Jews) but when they go after someone its relentless and they get away with the most repulsive lies. The fact you are not allowed to question the Holocaust is a red flag in itself.


Thanks for reading! Comments are welcome but are not guaranteed to be published. Please refrain from using curse words and other derogatory language. Published comments do not always reflect the views of this blog.