Friday, July 8, 2016

Unjustified Claims Regarding "Islamism" and "Fascism"

Equivocation on 'fascism' has been exploited by both "left" and "right": On the left, what is called "corporate fascism" is taken to represent fascism in general, and on the right, every stripe of undesirables is fused with fascism: "feminazis, "ecofascists," and "Islamofascists," to name a few. The Islamofascist trope has been exploited for years, and since the end of the Cold War has increased in use. All of these reflect warped historical views.

Trotsky was among the first to exploit equivocation on 'fascism': a fascist regime emerges in a society, he argued, when its capitalist class succeeds in insulating itself from revolutionary ferment in the working class. The idea of "corporate fascism," as a marriage of big business, police, and military interests, persists on the left. Recently, for example, Jewish media pundit Rachel Maddow argued on one of her shows that fascism is autocratic capitalism, claiming that Sir Mosley's British Union sought to protect business interests above all.

The "right" has been more amorphous in its use of "fascism": "ecofascists," "feminazis" and "Islamofascists" represent fusions of lifestyles or political and social beliefs with "fascism." The Neoconservative right has reserved its greatest animus for "Islamofascism" or "Islamic fascism." Rooted in admixtures of the "Good War" myth and US Middle East foreign policy, it increased in use as the Cold War was ending and the only remaining resistance to Zionist policies in the Middle East was secular Muslim nations, like Saddam Hussein's.

Neoconservatism is as Jewish in its origin as it is in its aims. Its godfather, Irving Krisol, is a Jew. The Wolfowitz Doctrine that it spawned was also parented by a Jew, Paul Wolfowitz. It led to the historical completion the Jewification of Anglo-American world policy.

The Bush Doctrine grew directly out of the Wolfowitz Doctrine. At the core of both is the idea of preemptive military intervention, nominally to prevent terrorism. Its real aim is to secure and expand Jewish interests in the Middle East and to sustain the economic enrichment of an international Jewish and banking elite. As the Cold War ended, Jews like Charles Krauthammer attacked US white "nativism," "isolationism," and "anti-Semitism". Meanwhile, Jewish-themed films, like Schindler's List, subtly encouraged Zionist interests.

Both the Gulf War of 1990-91 and the 2003 Iraq war were partly justified by analogies of Saddam Hussein with Adolf Hitler. The invasion of Iraq was a war for Israel. After 2003, the Bush Administration increasingly tried justifying this defenseless and costly invasion. From 2006, the "Islamofascist" trope was frequently used. Donald Rumsfeld accused critics of the Iraq war with appeasement of a "new type of fascism." Those who opposed this war, he had argued, were like Neville Chamberlain, who had tried to appease Adolf Hitler.

"Islamofascism" was part of a context of promoting "democracy" and justifying Middle East "regime changes." In fact, it was part of a plan to reorder the Middle East to serve the local interests of Israel and open up limitless resources for a Jewish economic elite.

The conflation of "fascism" with "Islam," however either are crudely conceived, also serves the rhetorical and ideological aims of certain European nationalist leaders. French National Front leader Marine Le Pen went on trial in 2015 for comparing Muslims praying in French cities with German occupiers. The analogy was historical and its intended effect rhetorical, but it rests on a more substantive view of alignments of interests. Like US Neoconservatism, this sibling tendency in Europe is also motivated by a desire to appease Jews.

In an interview with Jewish News One, for example, Marine Le Pen remarked:
I think a lot of our Jewish compatriots realize that we are the only ones capable of defending them passionately against the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. No one in French politics dares to do that. Maybe because they are afraid to be treated as Islamophobes. We say things as they are. We are known for that. We have the courage to tell the truth and to propose the necessary solutions.
It is unlikely that all of Marine Le Pen's supporters agree with her that "anti-Semitism" in Europe results solely from Islamification, and that the presence of Muslims in Europe is not correlated with the influence of Jews. Liberalized immigration policies, in the US and in Europe, the historical fundamental reshaping of immigration policy in order to undermine the racial homogeneity of white countries, and the Islamification of Europe and legitimizing of multiracialism are partly the outcome of Jewish influence and pandering to Jews.

The tendency to draw historical analogies between "fascism" or fascist regimes and Islamic regimes is pervasive, and not just an American or European tendency. In late 2015, Russia began targeting Islamic State forces in Syria, and after sustained criticism, justified its aims by comparisons with past Soviet attempts to undermine Hitler's Germany and to turn Western nations against fascism. Comparisons between Hitler's Germany and Islamic State had already proliferated, including analogies with Western support for fascism.

Comparisons have also been made on internal Islamic State policies, including its policies toward youth. Inevitably, of course, comparisons were made with the Holocaust. These were so pervasive and numerous that it even began to draw skepticism on the left.

Russia's perception of World War II is as mythologized as that of the West. It is grounded in the same unchecked lies about Hitler's prewar aims. In reality, Hitler's underlying, prewar foreign policy was fundamentally confined to mapping out German dominance in the East, forging an alliance with Italy and Britain, and building a land empire extending into a defunct USSR and gaining from its soil a new lease on national life through living space. Russian claims that fascism was a monstrous global threat are self-serving and ludicrous.

The comparison of Islamic State with Hitler's Germany in particular and fascism in general is not confined to Russia. In an article titled, "Umberto Eco's Lessons on Ur-Fascism," John Allen Gay remarks that IS-style Islamism and "fascism" draw comparable minds:
... nobody wants to bring back the fascism of old (save for a few oddballs drawn to the taboo: becoming a fascist is the Stuff White People Like version of joining ISIS)...
There are several claims that underlie this identification. One of them is the belief that Hitler occupies a place in history and had aims comparable to al-Baghdadi. In his 2014 sermon in Mosul, al-Baghdadi proclaimed a "worldwide Caliphate," with the aim not only of conquering the Muslim world but also eventually dominating the rest of the world. Hitler, by contrast, had sought to reunify the German people and secure their existence. The latter led to the war in the East, which Hitler really intended to be a one front war not involving the West.

The comparison also rests on the belief that a propensity to engage in terrorism underlies both. Many books have been put out, especially in the last two decades, attempting to lay out an historical connection between Hitler's regime and radical Islam. But the comparison also ignores certain historical particulars. Hitler wanted to avoid civilian bombing, and tried to get the British government to agree to this. It was Churchill that started the practice, and allowed the RAF to terrorize and decimate German civilian targets early in the war.

There is another analogy that underlies the comparison, and it is the rejection of liberalism, globalism, and humanism that underlies radical Islam and fascism. Neither the fascist nor the radical Islamist wants to live in a society that is dominated by these values. This analogy is sound, but it hardly forms the basis of a claim that identifies Islamism as fascism.

Marine Le Pen's comparison of German occupying forces with Muslim immigrants in France is as shallow as Russia's comparison of Hitler's Germany with Islamic State. It was France and Britain that had threatened Germany with war and then declared war. Moreover, it was Britain and France that rejected peace offers from Hitler after war had been declared. If the comparison insists on being made, then one can legitimately ask if Muslim immigrants in France offered to stay home before being invited, 
or to return home after arriving.

More fundamental analogies of "Islamism" and "fascism" have been made, and it these that represent more critical comparisons. Martin Kramer, in "Islamism and Fascism: Dare to Compare," quotes Manfred Halpern, who defends the concept of "Islamic fascism":
They concentrate on mobilizing passion and violence to enlarge the power of their charismatic leader and the solidarity of the movement. They view material progress primarily as a means for accumulating strength for political expansion, and entirely deny individual and social freedom. They champion the values and emotions of a heroic past, but repress all free critical analysis...
Kramer continues quoting Halpern:
... the institutionalization of struggle, tension, and violence. ... the movement is forced by its own logic and dynamics to pursue its vision through nihilistic terror, cunning, and passion. An efficient state administration is seen only as an additional powerful tool for controlling the community. The locus of power and the focus of devotion rest in the movement itself.... so organized as to make neo-Islamic totalitarianism the whole life of its members.
Kramer also quotes the Jewish and Marxist historian, Maxime Rodinson, who described the Iranian Revolution as an "Islamic fascist" coup. Rodinson is quoted in saying:
But the dominant trend is a certain type of archaic fascism (type de fascisme archaïque). By this I mean a wish to establish an authoritarian and totalitarian state whose political police would brutally enforce the moral and social order. It would at the same time impose conformity to religious tradition as interpreted in the most conservative light.
Halpern and Rodinson's claims are more substantial, because they comprise ideological comparisons, while surface level analogies rest on to justifying domestic and foreign policy. But their basic flaw is that they mark comparisons emptied out of form and substance, concentrating solely on function and process. Fascism is not just a process of national and societal transformation. It is also a worldview that encompasses an embrace of narratives of form and structure: Nations, peoples, and families are central to this narrative.

Therefore, to focus on tokens and emblems of process, with tropes and terms from 'mobility' to 'solidarity,' 'expansion,' 'heroism,' 'state' and 'order,' is to misconstrue the real nature of fascism. "Fascism" is not only a set of functions, but an orderly concept of form. It focuses on the narrative of concrete peoples. The history of humanity is the history of struggles between and among types of people. The history of life on Earth is the history of struggles between and among types of organisms. This is contrary to that of "Islamism."

"Radical Islam" or "Islamism" views the history of humanity as the history of struggle among religious worldviews and between "believers" and "nonbelievers." The "nation" enters into this drama as a deviation at best, a distraction from core faith at the very worst.

Christopher Hitchens has taken notice of the disanalogies that I observe, and he has drawn comparisons of his own between "radical Islam" and "fascism." He observes:
Historically, fascism laid great emphasis on glorifying the nation-state and the corporate structure. There isn't much corporate structure in the Muslim world, where the conditions often approximate more nearly to feudalism than to capitalism, but Bin Laden's own business conglomerate is, among other things, a rogue multinational corporation with some links to finance-capital. As to the nation-state, al-Qaida's demand is that countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia be dissolved into one great revived caliphate, but doesn't this have points of resemblance with the mad scheme of a "Greater Germany" or with Mussolini's fantasy of a revived Roman empire?
Hitchens recognizes that the fascist emphasis on "nation" contrasts with Islamist rejection of nation, but then he turns to a weak analogy between fascist love of "empire" and an Islamic nostalgia for a "Caliphate." In other words, just to rescue his already weak analogy between fascism and Islamism, Hitchens resorts to a last ditch comparison of these ideas. It is weak and desperate, apart from being historically disingenuous and extremely simplistic.

Hitchens ignores something very important about the concepts he ridicules: The crude fact of their historical reality and the prominence in recent history. The idea of Greater Germany that was so important for Hitler encompassed territories and land that was in the possession of Germany while Hitler was still young. At the end of World War I, right before Hitler got involved in politics, Germany ruled the lands that Hitler would later seek: Poland, Ukraine, the Baltic States, and other territories quickly stripped from Germany at Versailles.

Hitler and Mussolini might have been hyperbolic in talking about "empire," but empires were commonplace in their time. The fact that Hitler and Mussolini both desires empires made them men of their time. There was nothing "mad" or "fantastical" about Germany and Italy wanting something that, at the time, was something that Britain, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Portugal also had. Each of these nations had great empires.

Sir Oswald Mosley of the British Union of Fascists, in fact, had as a cornerstone of his policy the preservation of the British Empire. Sir Mosley wanted to preserve an Empire that already existed. By emphasizing the rhetorical dimension of Hitler and Mussolini's desire for empire, he exaggerates the concept of empire itself, while also ignoring the fact that fascist leaders elsewhere in Europe were struggling to conserve empires that already existed and were all taken for granted as basic aspects of recent European history. Hitchens is wrong.

Hitchens also seems to imply that the concept of empire was somehow unique to fascism, anymore than the concept of race and folk originated in National-Socialism. Hitler took an idea that had been taken for granted in Europe and made it the core of his policies.

In the same way that Hitchens does not understand the fascist idea of empire, he also does not grasp the concept of a Caliphate. The Ottoman Caliphate had endured for hundreds of years, surviving but diminishing in its territorial holdings. Turkey had allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary, and after World War I the Ottoman Caliphate was forcibly dissolved by the Allies. The point is that the idea of a Caliphate is not some ludicrous idea, but a recent reality. Just because Al-Qaeda or IS want seek one does not relegate it to a fringe.

Hitchens goes on to conclude that the West is obliged to "oppose and destroy" fascist and all other "totalitarian movements." These are, one and all, "threats to civilization and civilized values." This is overreaching. Was Franco's Spain, which survived the war through 1975, a "threat to civilization"? Was Hitler's Germany a threat to Britain and France for having been a threat to the Soviet Union? Would a Mosleyite Britain have been a "threat to civilization," or in fact, in his disavowal of war, a solid pillar in the very support of civilization?

The emphasis on process and method, as well as the pursuit of empire, do not get to the heart of what fascism is. Fascism is not an aggregation of processes. It arises as a native impulse that springs within a unique people, forming in response to the realities of national decline that threaten the future of that people and nation. It does not arise in a void, floating up as an abstraction intent on nullifying "civilized values" or "civilization." In the nations were it arose, it did so as a direct result of peoples intent on averting national decline.

"Civilized values" are irrelevant if they lack bodies and minds to perpetuate them, and the British and French decision to threaten and declare war on Germany was the death knell of a now dying West. Europeans are being replaced by racial aliens with other values.

Fascism does not place values over the priority of the existence of a people or its nation. In extracting process, function, and method from fascist regimes or movements and comparing that to "Islamism," what is fascistic disappears in the outcome. Fascism assumes a world of nations and peoples, who rise and fall on the basis of action. Fascism is the authoritarian recovery of life in its depths, the institutionalization of the survival instinct and the use of the state as an organ to effect the persistence of a people and the nation housing it.

Wednesday, June 8, 2016

Letter to Mussolini from Publisher of AVIATION in 1927

I came across the following interesting letter to Benito Mussolini, apparently left with envoys of Il Duce and translated for his pleasure; it is from the publisher of AVIATION. It serves as a reminder that fascism in general and Mussolini's government in particular had enjoyed a noncontroversial status in the eyes of world leaders, successful businessmen, scientific minds, and other figures the world over prior to the Second World War.

To view a .pdf of a publication of the letter to Mussolini, click here.
I have the honor to convey to your Excellency an expression of the deepest admiration from innumerable Americans who are interested in aeronautical problems. By them, you are considered as a unique leader of the world in aero. nautical progress. Your determination to make Italy impregnable from air attack has been shown in the manner in which you have organized and encouraged Italian aviation. A strong air defense renders aggression through the air an impossibility. 
Americans have observed with the greatest interest the development of the Italian Air Force, and admire greatly the magnificent organ. ization created by you to give wings to the new and glorious Italy. All nations can learn from the progress you are making, which will be a shining example of the advantages that come from a strong and independent aerial arm. 
Excellency, through your efforts, Italy is now a united country, not only politically but in spirit from the peaks of the Alps to the plains of Cyrenaica. The great admiration which you receive from all parts of the world is due, we like to feel, not only to the statesmanship which you have shown but also because you have demonstrated such great belief in aeronautics. Thanks to the extreme courtesy of the Societa Anonima Navigazione Aera, I have been privileged to view the wonders and beauties of your marvelous country from Genoa to Palermo. You deserve the unstinted praise of every traveler for the creation of the Italian air lines and the splendid facilities that you have made available for fol. lowing the most picturesque air route in the world along the Italian coast. 
After traveling over many air lines, I can say without hesitation that I believe aerial travel in Italy has before it an immense future and will bring great advantages to your Commerce and Industry. 
Excellency, I shall be greatly honored to con. vey to your admirers in America a greeting from you, and if I am not asking too much would greatly appreciate receiving your opinion as to the future of aeronautics.
The Leader of Fascist Italy responded in kind to the warm and respectful letter:
Signor Gardner, 
I greatly appreciate the opinion which you expressed with regard to the Italian aeronautical progress. 
I am well aware that the magazine "Aviation" which you edit is the champion in your country of the broadest and most rapid developments of the wings of peace and of war, and so I ask you to convey my greetings to those Americans whose hearts rally around your flag. 
The United States of America are certainly among the most alert vanguards of the development of aviation. 
Your scientists and experts, uniting with a high intelligence the benefit of material means, bring every day to this development an admirable contribution. 
Your pilots are among the first in the world in daring and skill; your leaders of aeronautical enterprises bring also to this latest undertaking, which employs human flight, the positive spirit and breadth of view which distinguish every American organization. 
Thus our aviators and aeronautical experts take pride in competing with yours because the aeroplanes produced by your industry rank high in the excellence of performance, and because your military aviation has attained a remarkable efficiency which is evident to all. 
Thus, from coast to coast and between the busy cities of your vast continent civil aviation has already begun to stretch a met of aerial transport lines, working day and night, and greatly admired all over the world. 
The future of civil aviation is clearly indicated by its brief but vigorous past, by this new means probably the Atlantic will become like a Mediterranean Sea; by it the most impenetrable continents will be opened to the knowledge of man, to the throb, bing fervour of his traffic and to the intellectual and material exchange among the peoples.
Rome–February 1927. 
Anno. Vo.
To view a .pdf of the response of Il Duce to the generous letter, click here.

Thursday, May 26, 2016

"A Real Case Against the Jews" by Rabbi Marcus Eli Ravage

This was published in 1928, and was quoted extensively by National-Socialists through the 1930s and 1940s, and remains a lasting testimony to Jewish and Zionist hubris.

Wednesday, May 25, 2016

David Wolffsohn at the World Jewish Congress in 1904

Dr. David Wolffsohn, a Jew and Zionist, told the world Jewish community at the World Jewish Congress in 1904 that it was their task to subvert the West and use its resources to conquer the world, ten years before the outbreak of World War I.

Monday, May 23, 2016

The USSR Did Not "Save the World" from Fascism; the Soviet Union Was Saved from a One Front War with Germany

In May of every year, the successor state to the USSR inflicts on itself and other nations the exasperated delusion that it "saved the world" from fascism. Had Britain not given Poland a war guarantee, there would have been no war in the West, no German invasion of France or the Low Countries, and above all, no second World War. The USSR, whose Red Army was decimated by purges, would have faced a one front war with Hitler.

Every year, Europe and the world are treated to claims by Russia that the USSR "saved the world" from fascism and National-Socialism. Leftists and, on occasion, conservatives, in the West write articles praising, or at least recognizing, the Soviet Union's "contribution" to the second World War. For example, in a recent article in the Washington Post by left wing writer Ishaan Tharoor, "Don't Forget How the Soviet Union Saved the World from Hitler," the writer summarizes the basic arguments arrayed in favor of this conclusion.

At one point, Tharoor writes and quotes the following:
The Red Army was "the main engine of Nazism’s destruction," writes British historian and journalist Max Hastings in "Inferno: The World at War, 1939-1945." The Soviet Union paid the harshest price: though the numbers are not exact, an estimated 26 million Soviet citizens died during World War II, including as many as 11 million soldiers. At the same time, the Germans suffered three-quarters of their wartime losses fighting the Red Army.
Of course the Red Army bore the brunt of the German war effort: Hitler's primary goal in Europe, from the writing of Mein Kampf through his appointment as Reich Chancellor until the outbreak of war in 1939, was to reunify the German people and secure their existence through living space won at the expense of the USSR. That is why German and Soviet casualties were at their highest in the Eastern front. But Tharoor writes as if these casualties reflect some unique effort on a front as relevant as any other in this war.

While he praises the USSR's contribution to the second World War, Tharoor nonetheless draws attention to Stalin's mistakes and the nature of his regime. Tharoor writes:

For Russia's neighbors, it's hard to separate the Soviet triumph from the decades of Cold War domination that followed. One can also lament the way the sacrifices of the past inform the muscular Russian nationalism now peddled by Putin and his Kremlin allies. But we shouldn't forget how the Soviets won World War II in Europe.
That is to say, although Stalin was brutal and cruel, Tharoor concludes, the Soviet Union must nonetheless be given recognition for having stopped Hitler. And by this is meant, of course, as numerous historians have argued, that Hitler was intent on dominating the world. In reality, Hitler's goal was far more limited and restricted: His continental policy was to restore Germany to great power status, place itself aside the other great powers, and build an empire that would extend eastward into a defeated and occupied USSR.

Tharoor's article and its claims were challenged by Daniel Greenfield, who wrote an article that was titled, "The USSR Didn't Save the World from Hitler, It Allied with Hitler." Rather than granting that the Soviet Union deserves some sort of recognition and respect for being a decisive force in defeating Germany in World War II, he argues that Tharoor's article and claims in particular and "leftist revisionism" in general exaggerate the USSR's historical position. The Red Army was not some heroic vanguard deserving of high appraisal: 
It's not courage. Slaves driven to do something at gunpoint, starving and brutalized are not courageous. Does Ishaan view North Korea as courageous? The USSR under Stalin was no better.
Furthermore, according to Greenfield, the USSR empowered Hitler by entering into an alliance with Germany. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact that exploded onto the world in August 1939 stunned Britain, France, and the West and conveyed very clearly that the Soviet Union would not be enlisted in a Western effort to confront and corner Hitler's Germany. Greenfield claims that this allowed Hitler to occupy western Poland and go on to pursue mastery of the European continent. Again, claims that distort the facts and misrepresent history.

The Soviet regime under Stalin knew differently, and grasped that a primary goal of Hitler was to invade and occupy the Soviet Union. Hitler was intent on moving eastward, anyway, whether the Soviet Union had temporarily aligned itself with Germany, or not. The West, by contrast, increasingly acted on the touted assumption that Hitler was intent on "dominating the world." The USSR encouraged this illusion, and used the time it had gained from its pact with Germany to build up its military and geopolitical position relative to Europe.

And from 1939 through June 1941, that is what occurred. Stalin doubled his troops, tripled his divisions, and doubled his number of available guns, planes, and mortars.

Hitler had not wanted an alliance with the Soviet Union, having only agreed to sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact because Britain gave Poland an unsolicited (that is, unrequested) war guarantee on 31 March 1939. In Mein Kampf, Hitler singles out the Kingdom of Italy and the British Empire as the two "natural" allies of Germany: Britain, for racial and geopolitical reasons and Italy, for ideological and geostrategic reasons. Hitler admired the British people, racially, and respected the stability that their Empire brought to the world.

British policymakers, principally Churchill, knew this, just as they also knew that HItler's aim was to build a land empire extending into a defunct USSR. In 1937, Ribbentrop, serving as German Ambassador, met with Winston Churchill to again stress these aims. Ribbentrop told Churchill that Germany was prepared to recognize the British Empire, and even offered German military support to sustain it. Hitler was ready to contribute to sustaining white rule in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East in return for a "free hand" in Eastern Europe.

That is, Hitler wanted to be able to march against the Soviet Union in exchange for British neutrality during a German-Soviet war. In early 1939, Hitler revived the issue of Danzig with the Polish government. Germany was prepared to let Poland retain economic rights in the city and also join the Anti-Comintern Pact that was militarily directed against the Soviet Union. In return, the Polish government would return Danzig to Germany and allow an autobahn motor highway connecting East Prussia and Germany over Polish soil.

Instead, goaded by Churchill and urged on by Jewish handlers in Washington D.C., above all by William Bullitt, British policymakers decided to derail Germany's efforts to unite Poland and Germany against the Soviet Union. Churchill knew, from his meeting with Ribbentrop in 1937, what Hitler really wanted. But through 1939, Churchill continued lying to Parliament, to the British people, and the world, claiming, in vulgar defiance of the facts and Hitler's obvious aims, that Hitler was intent on destroying Britain and overrunning the West.

The British then handed Poland the war guarantee, which had the dual effect of persuading the Polish government that it could keep Danzig and defy Germany and also placing Britain on a collision course with Germany. Churchill, who detested Germany, would rather have enlisted his own people in a war against Hitler rather than divest the British people of an entirely pointless war and allow Germany and the USSR to enter a war instead. Churchill knew, probably better than any statesman, Hitler's aims did not threaten Britain.

When the war guarantee was given to Poland, Churchill gloated and bragged aloud: "Hitler's path to the East is closed." Now, rather than the Soviet Union facing Hitler alone in a one front war with Germany, Britain was instead hurling itself toward war with Germany.

Sir Mosley of the British Union of Fascists captured the absurdity of his government's future position in an article that he contributed to Fascist Quarterly in 1936:
In fact, the only policy which can logically produce another explosion on the Western frontiers of Germany is the denial of expansion; not only on her Eastern frontiers but in her limited though necessary and natural colonial ambitions. Yet Financial-Democratic policy could not be more perfectly designed to promote that explosion than by the dual policy of denying Germany colonial outlet and of circumscribing her in the East by a menacing Democratic-Soviet alliance.
As Sir Mosley correctly observed three years before the war began, the only cause Hitler would have had to march westward is if Britain denied Hitler's march eastward. The lack of reason in Britain's foreign policy from 1938 baffled him. This is precisely what happened: On the groundless premise that Hitler was out to conquer the world, the British government justified keeping Hitler from marching east against the USSR. Hitler marched east, anyway. Britain and France declared war, spurning several later peace offers from Hitler.

This is why Hitler turned West, and invaded France, Belgium, and the Netherlands.

US President Roosevelt's administration and his Jewish entourage had set Europe against itself. From 1939 through 1941, America supplied Britain with moral and material aid and struggled to keep Britain at war with Germany. When Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, America began supplying the USSR with Lend Lease almost immediately. The war Hitler declared on the US in late 1941 was only a formal expression of a de facto war that America had already been waging on Germany for years, another war Hitler did not want.

Greenfield is mistaken in his claim that Stalin empowered Hitler. Stalin simply took what he had been offered, a temporary alliance, which he then used to rebuild a Red Army ravaged by his purges. Hitler then turned West, away from the USSR, toward the nations that were trying to constrain him. If Britain had not offered protection it could not give to a nation it was unable to save over a Danzig question it did not care about, there would have been no war in the West and no World War II. Stalin was a passive beneficiary of these events.

In refusing to allow Hitler to move East and in rejecting Hitler's many peace offers, the West created the conditions for the temporary German-Soviet alliance and gave the USSR time to prepare for a German attack. The Soviet Union was spared the prospect of facing Hitler both earlier and alone. Despite this, every year the dying populations of a fading West must hear that the USSR saved their nations from Hitler. Meanwhile, their leaders are perpetually engaged in justifying a war whose occurrence is the primary cause of their decline.

Friday, May 20, 2016

Across an Abyss Between the Jew and Its Host...

"At this stage finance and trade had become his complete monopoly. Finally, his usurious rate of interest aroused opposition and the increasing impudence which the Jew began to manifest all round stirred up popular indignation, while his display of wealth gave rise to popular envy. The cup of his iniquity became full to the brim when he included landed property among his commercial wares and degraded the soil to the level of a market commodity. Since he himself never cultivated the soil but considered it as an object to be exploited, on which the peasant may still remain but only on condition that he submits to the most heartless exactions of his new master, public antipathy against the Jew steadily increased and finally turned into open animosity. His extortionate tyranny became so unbearable that people rebelled against his control and used physical violence against him. They began to scrutinize this foreigner somewhat more closely, and then began to discover the repulsive traits and characteristics inherent in him, until finally an abyss opened between the Jews and their hosts, across which abyss there could be no further contact." 
- Adolf Hitler, 'Mein Kampf'

Hitler speaks to the German people...

Tuesday, May 3, 2016

Julius Evola on Perpetuating the Principle of Struggle

"Be radical, have principles, be absolute, be that which the bourgeoisie calls an extremist: give yourself without counting or calculating, don’t accept what they call ‘the reality of life’ and act in such a way that you won’t be accepted by that kind of ‘life’, never abandon the principle of struggle." 
- Julius Evola

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

In the Mind's Eye of Hess During His Flight to Britain

"In my mind’s eye I kept seeing – in Germany and Britain alike – an endless line of children’s coffins with weeping mothers behind them; and then again, the coffins of mothers, with their children clustered behind them." 
- Rudolf Hess, after his "capture" following his flight on 10 May 1941
Rudolf Hess, nestled in his fighter plane; Hess scuttled over the British Channel in early 1941 in a desperate attempt to halt Europe's descent and end the war in the West.

Monday, December 28, 2015

"A Few Remarks on Democracy" by Corneliu Codreanu

In this piece, the founder and leader of the Romanian Iron Guard, Corneliu Codreanu, assails the vices of pluralistic and plutocratic "democracy": Its factionalism, divisiveness, and propensity to elevate Jews and aliens over the interests of a native people and its own nation. He also attacks democracy as lacking perseverance, genuine authority, and for its being beholden to the interests of high finance and big business. He calls for a Romanian fascism that would unite the nation and obliterate Jewish influence.

Corneliu Codreanu (1899-1938), founder and leader of the Legion of the
Archangel Michael, also known as the Romanian "Iron Guard."

From: "Man, State and Society in East European History" Stephen Fischer-Galati, ed. pages 327-330 Translated by Stephen Fischer-Galati from Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, "Pentru Legionuri" (Bucharest: Totul Pentru Tara, l937), pp. 385-87, 396-98.

Source here; source commentary:

The less violent and less visionary solutions proposed by the fascists were more palatable to the East European masses than were the Communist solutions. Among the several brands of fascism that flourished in Eastern Europe between the wars, the most representative of the historical tradition was the Rumanian populist variety expounded by the Iron Guard, which blamed the oppression of the peasant on the Jews and the "Jew-like" ruling establishment. Fascist populism rejected the democratic process and advocated reliance on the "Volk" for the attainment of the fascist revolution in Rumania. The following excerpt from the writings of Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, the leader of the Iron Guard, is characteristic of the views of the Rumanian fascists, who attracted a considerable following in the countryside and among industrial workers and intellectuals in the 1930s.

A Few Remarks on Democracy
Corneliu Zelea Codreanu

I should like to make a few remarks, derived from daily experience, in a manner that can be understood by any young legionary or worker.

We wear the clothes and embrace the forms of democracy. Are they worth anything? We don't know yet. But we do know one thing. We know it for sure. That some of the largest and most civilized nations of Europe have discarded those clothes and have acquired new ones. Did they get rid of them forever? Other nations are doing their best to dispose of them and to get new ones also. Why? Have all nations gone mad? Are the Rumanian politicians the only wise men in the world? Somehow I doubt it.

Those who have changed them and those who want to change them must each have their own reasons.

But why should we concern ourselves with other nations' reasons? Let us rather concern ourselves with the reasons that would make us Rumanians ready to change the clothes of democracy.

If we have no reasons to do so, if the reasons are no good, then we shall keep the clothes, even should all of Europe get rid of them.

However, they are no good for us either, because:
1. Democracy destroys the unity of the Rumanian nation, dividing it among political parties, making Rumanians hate one another, and thus exposing a divided people to the united congregation of Jewish power at a difficult time in the nation's history. 
This argument alone is so persuasive as to warrant the discarding of democracy in favor of anything that would ensure our unity--or life itself. For disunity means death. 
2. Democracy makes Rumanian citizens out of millions of Jews by making them the Rumanians' equals. By giving them the same legal rights. Equality? What for? We have been here for thousands of years. Plow and weapon in hand. With our labors and blood. Why equality with those who have been here for only one hundred, ten, or even five years? Let's look at the past: We created this state. Let's look at the future: We Rumanians are fully responsible for Greater Rumania. They have nothing to do with it. What could be the responsibility of Jews, in the history books, for the disappearance of the Rumanian state? 
Thus: no equality in labor, sacrifice, and struggle for the creation of the state and no equal responsibility for its future. Equality? According to an old maxim: Equality is to treat unequally the unequal. What are the reasons for the Jews' demanding equal treatment, equal political rights with the Rumanians? 
3. Democracy is incapable of perseverance. Since it is shared by political parties that rule for one, two, or three years, it is unable to conceive and carry out plans of longer duration. One party annuls the plans and efforts of the other. What is conceived and built by one party today is destroyed by another tomorrow. 
In a country in which much has to be built, in which building is indeed the primary historical requirement, this disadvantage of democracy constitutes a true danger. It is a situation similar to that which prevails in an establishment where masters are changed every year, each new master bringing in his own plans, ruining what was done by some, and starting new things, which will in turn be destroyed by tomorrow's masters. 
4. Democracy prevents the politician's fulfillment of his obligations to the nation. Even the most well-meaning politician becomes, in a democracy, the slave of his supporters, because either he satisfies their personal interests or they destroy his organization. The politician lives under the tyranny and permanent threat of the electoral bosses. 
He is placed in a position in which he must choose between the termination of his lifetime work and the satisfaction of the demands of party members. And the politician, given such a choice, opts for the latter. He does so not out of his own pocket, but out of that of the country. He creates jobs, sets up missions, commissions, sinecures--all rostered in the nation's budget--which put increasingly heavy pressures on a tired people. 
5. Democracy cannot wield authority, because it cannot enforce its decisions. A party cannot move against itself, against its members who engage in scandalous malfeasance, who rob and steal, because it is afraid of losing its members. Nor can it move against its adversaries, because in so doing it would risk exposure of its own wrongdoings and shady business. 
6. Democracy serves big business. Because of the expensive, competitive character of the multiparty system, democracy requires ample funds. It therefore naturally becomes the servant of the big international Jewish financiers, who enslave her by paying her. 
In this manner, a nation's fate is placed in the hands of a clique of bankers.


When we speak of the Rumanian nation, we refer not only to the Rumanians currently living on the same territory, with the same past and same future, the same habits, the same language, the same interests. When we speak of the Rumanian nation we refer to all Rumanians, dead or alive, who have lived on this land of ours from the beginnings of history and will live on it also in the future.

The nation includes:
1. All Rumanians currently alive.
2. The souls and tombs of the dead and of our ancestors.
3. All who will be born Rumanian.

A people becomes aware of its existence when it becomes aware of its entirety, not only of its component parts and their individual interests.

The nation possesses:
1. A physical, biological patrimony: the flesh and the blood.
2. A material patrimony: the country's soil and its wealth.
3. A spiritual patrimony, which includes:
A. Its concept of God, people, and life. This concept constitutes a possession, a spiritual patrimony. The limits of this domain are set by the limits of the brilliance of the concept. There is a country housing the national spirit, the expectations of that spirit, a spirit resulting from revelation and the nation's own efforts. 
B. Its honor, which shines in proportion to the acceptance by the nation, during its historical existence, of the norms derived from its concept of God, people, and life. 
C. Its culture: the fruit of its life, the product of its own efforts in thought and art. This culture is not international. It is the expression of the national genius, of the blood. The culture is international in its brilliance but national in origin. Someone made a fine comparison: bread and wheat may be internationally consumed, but they always bear the imprint of the soil from which they came.
Each of these three patrimonies has its own importance. All three must be defended by the nation. But the most important of all is the spiritual patrimony, because it alone bears the seal of eternity, it alone transcends all times. The ancient Greeks are with us today not because of their physiques, no matter how athletic--those are only ashes now--nor because of their material wealth, if they had such, but because of their culture.

A nation lives forever through its concepts, honor, and culture. It is for these reasons that the rulers of nations must judge and act not only on the basis of physical and material interests of the nation but on the basis of the nation's historical honor, of the nation's eternal interests. Thus: not bread at all costs, but honor at all costs.


Is it life?

If it be life, then the means whereby nations seek to ensure it become irrelevant. All are valid, even the worst.

The question may thus be asked: What are the norms for international behavior? The nations' animal instincts? The tiger in them? Do the laws of the fishes in the sea or of the beasts in the forest apply?

The ultimate goal is not life. It is resurrection. The resurrection of nations in the name of Jesus Christ the Savior. Creation and culture are only means--not the purpose--of resurrection. Culture is the fruit of talent, which God implanted in our nation and for which we are responsible. A time will come when all the world's nations will arise from the dead, with all their dead, with all their kings and emperors. Every nation has its place before God's throne. That final moment, "resurrection from the dead," is the highest and most sublime goal for which a nation can strive. The nation is thus an entity that lives even beyond this earth. Nations are realities also in the other world, not only on this one. To us Rumanians, to our nation, as to every nation in the world, God assigned a specific mission; God has given us a historical destiny.

The first law that every nation must abide by is that of attaining that destiny, of fulfilling the mission entrusted to it.

Our nation has not abandoned that goal, no matter how long and difficult has been its own Golgotha.

And now we are faced with mountain-high obstacles.

Are we going to be the weak and cowardly generation that will relinquish, under threats, the Rumanian destiny and renounce our national mission?

Saturday, December 26, 2015

Octavian Goga on the Solution to the Jewish Question

"The Jewish problem is an old one here, and it is a Rumanian tragedy." - Quoted in TIME, "Rumania: Bloodsucker of the Villages," 31 Jan. 1938 
"Briefly, we have far too many Jews. For us there is only one final solution of the Jewish problem—the collection of all Jews into a region that is still uninhabited, and the foundation there of a Jewish nation. And the further away the better." - Quoted in The Argus, "Jews Spurned in Romania," 24 January, 1938
Octavian Goga (1881-1938) and Aurel Vlaicu (1882-1913)

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

"America and the World Jews" Responsible for World War II, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain Recounted

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told Joseph Kennedy, then US Ambassador to Great Britain, that "America and the world Jews" pushed Britain and Germany into war with one another. This exchange was documented in The Forrestal Diaries, the published journal of the first US Secretary of Defense, James Forrestal. US Jews, including William Bullitt, used economic and political leverage to foment an Anglo-German war.[1]

Excerpt from LIFE magazine, 15 October, 1951; click on image for a larger version.

The following, reproduced at this site, is an excerpt of The Forrestal Diaries:
Played golf today with Joe Kennedy [Joseph Kennedy, US Ambassador to Great Britain right before World War II and father of future US President John F. Kennedy]. I asked him about his conversations with Roosevelt and Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain’s position in 1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy’s view: That Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it had not been for Bullitt’s [William C. Bullitt, US Jewish diplomat, descendant of Hyam Saloman, then US Ambassador to France] urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said, kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn’t fight, Kennedy that they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war. In his telephone conversation with Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 the President kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain’s backside. Kennedy’s response always was that putting iron up his backside did no good unless the British had some iron with which to fight, and they did not. ... 
To summarize, Forrestal is saying that at the height of positive Anglo-German relations in 1938, US and world Jews in general were working to destroy those relations. In particular, US Jew and envoy, William C. Bullitt, was striving to undermine peace between Britain and Germany. Bullitt put pressure on Roosevelt to harden US diplomacy toward Germany. His pressure on Roosevelt succeeded in putting pressure on Britain. The aim of US and world Jewry was to use Poland to commit Britain to go to war against Germany.

In Freedom Betrayed, by Herbert Hoover, Bullitt is recounted pressuring Poland to refuse a deal of any sort with Hitler that would peacefully return Danzig to Germany:
Further American activities were disclosed after the Germans had invaded Poland in September 1939 and seized the Polish Foreign Office records. The Germans released a mass of documents which certainly indicated that the American Ambassador to France, William C. Bullitt, who could only act on Mr. Roosevelt’s authority, had made a profusion of oral assurances to officials of Poland and France which they could only interpret as a promise of assistance of some kind of force from the United States.
Bullitt left no doubt of the intended effect of US foreign policy toward Britain, Poland, and Germany. US would push Britain into a suicidal war, and the US would finish it:
As Ambassador Bullitt puts it: “If a war breaks out, we probably would not participate in it at the beginning, but we would finish it.”… One thing, however, appears to be certain, namely that President Roosevelt’s policy in the immediate future will tend to … weaken Britain’s tendencies toward a compromise [meaning that Britain would not be allowed to find a peaceful compromise between Poland or Germany, but instead pushed into offering a war guarantee to Poland that would simultaneously ensure no diplomatic deal on Danzig would be reached].
Chamberlain's instinct was to avoid any commitments and to allow Germany and Poland to reach a compromise on Danzig, but Bullitt and Roosevelt were determined:
… Roosevelt and Bullitt were the major factors in the British making their guarantees to Poland and becoming involved in the war. Kennedy said that Bullitt, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the Poles not to make terms with the Germans and that he Kennedy, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the British to make guarantees to the Poles. 
He said that after Chamberlain had given these guarantees, Chamberlain told him (Kennedy) that he hoped the Americans and the Jews would now be satisfied but that he (Chamberlain) felt that he had signed the doom of civilization.
The immediate result of Jewish involvement in British, German, and Polish diplomacy was threefold: 1) It exerted pressure on Roosevelt to increase tensions between Britain and Germany, 2) it directly pressured Britain into making a promise to go to war with Germany, leading to the "war guarantee" of 31 March, 1939, and 3) this, in turn, influenced the Poles to refuse any further negotiations with Hitler for a peaceful resolution to Danzig or the Corridor. Its long term result was, in Chamberlain's own words, the "doom of civilization."

1. I previously posted this research, but it is included again with additional quotes to deepen the historical context. See also this IHR article as well as this research.