The Enemy of Europe

SolarGeneral Proudly Presents...

The Enemy of Europe Francis Parker Yockey

| Index |

Francis Parker Yockey

Hitherto unpublished photograph taken at about the time he finished
IMPERIUM in 1948 and began work on its sequel,
The Enemy of Europe

Dedicated to the Memory of
The Founder of the Francis Parker Yockey Society

Louis T. Byers

An Aryan of the Aryans
Who Also Fought a Good Fight to its Tragic End
22 October 1981

| Index |

Brought to you exclusively by

Powered by:

Holocaust Denial Law

Holocaust Denial Law

Deny the Holocaust anywhere in the world and you could face extradition to Israel.

That is what is says in a law before the Israeli parliament.

It doesn’t mater if you are and American in Long Beach, CA or or an Englishman in London, England or anybody anywhere, if you don't toe the line of the "Chosen" then they want you in jail.

That want it to be illegal anywhere in the world for any "facts" about the holocaust to be questioned in any way, shape, or form.

You must not even query the "six million" figure even though we have shown that this dates back to at least 1902.

This outrageous law is an infringement on the sovereignty of all the nations of the world.

This bill passed its first reading in the Israeli parliament on July 20, 2004.

The following is from the Jerusalem Post July 19, 2004

Holocaust denial may be under Israeli jurisdiction

By NINA GILBERT, Jul. 19, 2004

Holocaust denial committed overseas would be an offense under Israeli legal jurisdiction and serve as grounds for extradition under legislation that is expected to pass a first reading in the Knesset this week.

The government is backing the bill, drafted by MK Aryeh Eldad (National Union). Eldad originally proposed the measure as a move against then Palestinian Authority prime minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) for his doctoral dissertation 20 years ago in which he estimated that the Nazis killed less than a million Jews.

But the bill is unlikely to be anything more than declarative in nature. Countries that do not have laws against Holocaust denial are unlikely to extradite citizens to be tried in Israel for the crime, although Israel's protective measure would not require such a law to be on their books, according to Justice Ministry officials. Another problem is the fact that Holocaust denial is a crime of expression, and most countries treat such crimes liberally.

A more practical implication of the law is that it would deter Holocaust deniers from visiting Israel.

In 1994, Israel extended its legal protection abroad for the state and its citizens to Jews and Jewish institutions, which enables it to obtain justice for them as it does for Israelis. At the time, the idea of including Holocaust denial in Israel's exterritorial laws was considered, but eventually dropped.

Eldad said the amendment to the law in Israel, where Holocaust denial is a crime, is necessary because "almost all" of those crimes are committed abroad.

He said he believes the law is going to be "very practical," since violations would give Israel the right to demand prosecution even if it does not request extradition.

He said it would also enable Israel to file counter suits if Jews are sued for libel for labeling Holocaust deniers.

The law would also "send a signal to a Holocaust denier like Abu Mazen," that if he enters Israel he is a "criminal," Eldad said.

Moreover, he said the passage of the law would send a message that for the Jewish people there is "no statue of limitations" on the Holocaust. "The generation of survivors is dwindling," he noted, emphasizing the need to keep Nazism from rearing again.

Avner Shalev, chairman of the Yad Vashem Directorate, said the passage of the law would provide an "added tool" to fight against the phenomenon of Holocaust denial.

"It sends the message that Israel is against Holocaust denial everywhere and anyone who engages in it is not welcome in Israel," Shalev said.

The bill has the support of Knesset factions on the Left and Right.

Back to the Articles page


NSM88.COM National Socialist Movement, P.O. Box 580669, Minneapolis, MN55458,(651) 659-6307

You must be young because you clearly have not come into contact with a sufficient number of "grown ups" in order to be disabused of your prejudice (in the true meaning of that word, that is "uninformed aversion") towards white people other than Guardian reader types. Many young people go through a phase of imagining that older generations are mainly ignorant and stupid, and that only their lot have all the answers. If only the older generations would take their lessons from the young, and listen to logic and reason then the world could be set to rights! The people who post to these newsgroups have probably all been there and done that, I know I have. Anyway, I have posted below seventeen arguments against multiculturalism and immigration, and I welcome your comments. They are written in no particular order, but I am mainly impressed by numbers 5, 14, and 17. I am waiting with bated breath to see you expose my ignorance and stupidity on this issue. After all, anyone who opposes immigration and multiculturalism must be an ignorant Sun or Mail reader, right? I hope that you will not disappoint. By the way, bad spelling makes a poor impression. A list of arguments against multiculturalism and immigration. 1. The present ethnic composition of the UK, with more than 2,000,000 Muslims settled here, with more than 1,000,000 blacks here, was never intended or planned. Politicians and others in the media talk up the "multicultural society", but this cannot hide the fact that the politicians in the 40's and 50's never intended things to turn out like they have, and indeed no country, in the history of the world, has ever actively sought to achieve a multicultural society of the kind that has been inflicted on the white British people. After all, what possible sense can there be in voluntarily handing resources and power from an indigenous population to other ethnic groups? History has repeatedly shown that it is never a good idea to put different ethnic groups in close proximity. 2 There has been one thousand years of history of conflict between the Christian World and the Muslim World. We witness conflict between Christians and Muslims all over the globe. I have nothing at all against Muslim people, I have worked with them for many years, and in some respects I think I have more in common with them and more respect for them than with the liberal/lefty whites, but it was clearly an act of great stupidity to allow so many Muslims to settle here. It has created a potential for really serious future conflict where none previously existed. Because of the threat of Muslim fundamentalists, new laws are on the way that will limit our freedoms and put more guns in the hands of the police. This is not the kind of society most people want. It is a pity that it has come about, and mass immigration is partly responsible. 3 For different reasons, black people from the Caribbean and from Africa are not suited to living in white society. They are over-represented in many of those negative statistical tables that indicate a failure to adjust to white cultures, and this is true throughout the white world, not just the UK. There is compelling evidence that black people are, genetically, not as well endowed intellectually as white people, which is the obvious explanation of this failure to adapt. Our inner cities are now experiencing high levels of black crime, and many white families who can are moving out. (I did.)This phenomena is known as white flight and is well documented in the USA. 4 Why did we need mass immigration and multiculturalism? Was our society not functioning very well beforehand? This belief seems unwarranted. The white British people were responsible for the Industrial Revolution, one of the most important events in human history, on a par with the Neolithic revolution. The white British people have been at the forefront of almost every scientific, medical, and technological advance over the last few centuries. It would be too tedious to list all of their accomplishments throughout the last few centuries, but around the time of the second world war alone they invented the jet engine, the computer, discovered antibiotics, developed radar, and invented the microwave. The British built the most benign Empire ever, which did more than any other Empire in human history to spread technology (largely created by them) around the world. It does not strike me as at all obvious that the UK needed to import millions of people of ethnically diverse backgrounds. Quite the opposite. If it works, then why fix it? 5 White Europeans have no other homeland. If events take their present course, in 100 years time Africa will still be managed and controlled by Africans, China will be managed and controlled by Chinese people, Japan by Japanese people, India by Indian people, and so on, all around the world. Except that in the traditionally white countries the white indigenous population will have lost control of their destiny. It is simply not fair that white people should not have the security and freedom that comes with owning their own ancestral homeland. No-one wishes to deny this privilege to the Africans, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, etcetera. Don't white people have the same right to their place in the Sun as every other people? 6 Much is made of the USA being a land of immigrants and that the UK should follow this example, but in earlier days one third of the newly arrived immigrants returned home because they were unable to make a go of it. Furthermore, most of them were from Europe. These days, unsuitable immigrants come and stay on because they can exploit the benefits system. They become a burden, not a benefit. Think of the costs of catering for immigrants. Think of all the interpreters in our police stations and welfare offices, the teachers who have special language skills, the leaflets written in half a dozen languages. In 2003 about one third of new Aids patients (800 out of 2400), were people from Africa seeking out free treatments. (One can hardly blame them, but what does the liberal/lefty suggest? Should we be shuttling Jumbo Jets over to Botswana so that a further 500 a day can receive treatment on the NHS?) Anyway, it is surely reasonable to question whether the alleged benefits are outweighed by such social costs as these. 7 Sometimes people mention that we invaded other countries, so now we are being invaded in turn. So immigration is justified as an act of revenge! How vexatious! How can this possibly be a reason for us welcoming immigration? (I have mainly heard this argument from ethnic minority people, which goes to show that they hold a lot of antagonism towards white British people, which is frequently concealed.) 8. It is certainly true that some immigrants are productive citizens. But, if they are unskilled, then this has the effect of driving down the wages of our own unskilled workers, and we should be looking after our foot soldiers and not just the officers! If they are skilled, then how does it benefit 3rd world countries if we deprive them of a proportion of their most useful workers? We could do much more for these countries than this if only we were allowed to have our own country back first. It makes one more reluctant to help the 3rd world when one sees them taking our country from us. And anyway, even if the British were uniquely bone idle and stupid, then this is still no reason why others should be allowed to take over, (Fiji). 9 The power of ethnicity is very strong. We can see this in the situation in Zimbabwe today and in Fiji. Blacks and Asians recognise this and put their own communities first. Whites, on the other hand, are supposed to be colour blind, but then we have advantage taken of us. For example, other ethnic groups will go along with multiculturalism so long as it benefits them, but once they become powerful and multiculturalism no longer works in their ethnic interest then they will reject it. I do not condemn them for this attitude, it is perfectly natural, whites are the ones who are being encouraged to act against the grain of human nature. (It seems that trying to be colour blind is a feature of only the noble white character, - only whites think this way, or at least only whites are expected to think this way by the liberal establishment.) In the future political debate will no longer be motivated by competing ideas about how society should be organized, but will be more to do with ethnic groups in contention for power, (thus in the USA over 90% of black voters vote Democrat). This is not how democratic institutions are supposed to work. Thus democracy is being undermined. 10 Even the most dopey liberal knows that immigration cannot go on forever. But once ethnic groups get a degree of power they will vote for more immigration, in order to bring in more people of their own kind to further strengthen their social and political clout, so the problem will become worse and worse. There is a danger of a snowball effect, with no possibility of our stopping it even when the lefty/liberal establishment realise that enough is enough. 11 It is often said that other cultures can teach us something or enrich our experience. Cuisine is often cited. Here for once I am prepared to give ground to the multiculturalists. I am all for giving other ethnic groups credit where it is due. But what is there apart from cuisine? Worthwhile fashions, art, inventions and discoveries from other cultures are disseminated through books and magazines, through the media, through museums, not through immigrants. Poor immigrants often know very little about the high culture of the countries that they come from, - no more than the average Brit knows about Shakespeare. Anyway, I don't need to buy a Beethoven CD from a German. 12. One of the reasons why the West is prosperous is that the countries that make it up have managed to keep their birth rate down. Countries that have not managed to do this have simply exported their excess population to the countries in the West that have. What message does this send to the developing world? The message is that if you succeed in reducing your birthrate, and thus increase your people's standard of living, then expect that people from foreign lands will want to come and the pressure of world opinion will be such that you won't be able to stop them. 13 Every social change has its benefits and disbenefits, for example, the motor car has liberated us and created affluence, but fumes damage the environment. Obviously, even people reading this who disagree with much of it will nevertheless accept that there must be some challenging aspects to a multicultural society. But for the sake of good race relations,no-one in government or in opposition, indeed no public figure, is permitted to draw attention to any problems or to criticise immigration policy. This is unhealthy and unnatural in a democracy. I mean, if a politician thought that the government's economic policy was wrong then he would have no hesitation in saying so and his remarks would arouse little comment.But it is not like this with respect to race and immigration. No criticism is permitted. Thus our freedom of speech is being compromised. 14. When asked, the majority of British people state that they are opposed to immigration. The mass immigration that has taken place over the last fifty years or so has been against the will of the native people. 15. People prefer to live in close proximity to, work, and socialize with people who are like themselves in certain essential respects. It is very telling that President Clinton sent his own daughter to a private lily white school, and that Tony Blair sent his own son to a school on the other side of London which did not have anything like the racial mix of his local schools. Repeatedly we find that those who talk up the multicultural society live in an all white area of town. The liberal/lefties reading this should ask themselves how many in their network of friends are from ethnic minorities. In an effort to reduce ethnic tensions it has even be suggested that people from different ethnic groups should be compelled to live in the same neighbourhood. This is an affront to our freedom of association and also strikes at the heart of something that gives meaning and significance to our lives, - our own sense of community. 16. If cultural diversity is such a good thing, then why is it not happening more rapidly? In contrast, Broadband Internet connection is highly desirable, and in many rural areas they are organizing petitions to get it up and running locally. But I have never seen a petition demanding that a certain town or network of villages should receive its share of Somali or Afghani asylum seekers. Quite the opposite. What does this tell us about the peoples' view on the enrichment brought about by cultural diversity? 17 Many immigrants, particularly African and Muslim ones, are not exactly progressive when it comes to those social issues most beloved by liberals and lefties. For example, they hold somewhat antiquated beliefs about the place of women in society, are not all that keen on homosexualists, and they also have fairly robust views concerning crime and punishment. Once there are enough Muslim MPs we might see a return of the death penalty. I would welcome the return of hanging, but it looks as though the wheels might well fall off the great liberal/lefty social experiments of the last fifty or so years. I believe that at least some of these arguments are very convincing, and that they should be allowed to enter the public debate, but in the UK at the moment they are not allowed to do so. However, in Europe political parties are beginning to appear that reflect the indigenous people's concerns about race, immigration, and multiculturalism. There is a sea change going on, and this phenomenon is beginning to manifest itself here too. If the BNP does well in the coming elections then this will be because the white British people will have begun to wake up to that fact that future politics in the UK will be based on race and ethnicity, and they need to start fighting their corner. Race and ethnic group based politics will be the legacy of immigration and multiculturalism.

100 Years of Madness

If you could go back in time and tell someone living in the year 1900 that western civilization was about to rush head-long towards the abyss, they’d probably laugh in your face.

The regularity of violent crime, fear of terrorist attacks, the threat of nuclear annihilation, the drug epidemic, AIDS, the environmental nightmare, and a thousand other things that we take for granted were non-existent at the turn of the century.

This isn’t to say that everything was perfect back then, as that definitely wasn’t the case.

Industrial accidents, inhuman working hours (and conditions), child labor, and National Guard troops or Pinkerton detectives shooting down workers striking for a fair wage were very real concerns for anyone who was trying to earn a living.

Plenty of men and women raised their voices against this rotten state of affairs, but the majority wouldn’t listen. This reaction is all too typical of citizens in dying empires, as people might refuse to believe that the future might hold something other than sunshine and green fields.

However, there were many who deserve a great deal of credit for their foresight. Eugene Debs, Jack London, and Bill Haywood come immediately to mind. They didn’t recognize every important aspect of the struggle, but it’s equally true that a lot only became obvious later. Nevertheless, their examples remain inspirational, and are far superior to those the establishment historians would like us to remember from that era.

In any case, brutal reality chose 1914 to make its appearance on the world’s stage.

In April the system ordered its troops to fire on a tent city of striking miners in Ludlow, Colorado. A number of women and children were killed.

Similar incidents weren’t unheard of in other countries, yet within four months the same governments that were responsible for such atrocities would be demanding fanatical loyalty. As always, flag-waving produced the desired result: attention was focused on a demonic external enemy, as opposed to internal (real) problems.

Here’s what happened: In July Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austrian throne, visited Sarajevo. He was shot dead by a teenaged Serbian nationalist. We’re told that this piece of trigger pulling acted as a catalyst for the First World War. No doubt the matter was serious, but it’s unrealistic to believe that it would have led to such widespread slaughter unless latent hostilities already existed between the nations in question. The victors write the history books, so we’re told that the German Kaiser—Wilhelm II—was solely responsible for the war.

In truth, it’s impossible to find a single one of the major participants blameless.

Russians tended to view the Serbs as their little buddies, and more than one or two of the Czar’s top advisors were Pan-Slavists who believed that trouble in the Balkans would offer an opportunity to expand their empire.

The destiny of France rested in the hands of men whose names are no longer remembered, such as Clemenceau, and Poincare. They saw war as an ideal chance to reclaim Alsace-Lorraine, which had been lost to the Germans in 1870-71. An agreement had been signed that promised Russia support in times of armed conflict, and cynical politicians spoke a lot about honor and living-up to their treaty obligations in order to justify involvement in the coming carnage.

Kaiser Willie went sailing in the North Sea during the critical weeks leading up to the first shots, and he allowed some of his more important ministers to go on vacation at the same time. That’s why it’s difficult to believe the stories one hears about him.

Nevertheless, he was hardly innocent. The man was a ridiculous sword-rattler, and that kind of stuff tends to get on people’s nerves. He also wanted to challenge England’s control of world markets, and was in the process of building a large naval fleet to back his play. These actions caused considerable hostility in other nations whose economic well-being depended on foreign goods.

The English were still living in the age of Pitt, and practicing a policy of divide and conquer. As long as a strong rival didn’t arise on the continent, Great Britain would rule the world.

This had worked for them against Bonaparte, but times change. It may well be possible to wage war in good conscience for the economic security of your country, but what made these men criminals was their perverse desire to see all of this as a grand opportunity to steal everything they could get their hands on. This fact, however wasn’t mentioned to the soldiers who would have to do the fighting—and dying. Had it been, these men may have attacked 10 Downing Street instead of sailing for France.

There were many men and women in all of the countries involved who tried to act as the voice of reason. Sadly, their words of wisdom were drowned out by belligerent poseurs with less than noble motivations (and who would never hear a shot fired in anger).

Austria demanded that they be allowed to conduct an investigation of the Archduke’s murder, this would require the military occupation of Sarajevo. The Serbs, having received assurances from their Russian allies, refused the ultimatum. After the usual preliminaries—threats, pleadings, and propaganda designed to create mass hysteria—the blood dance commenced in mid-August.

This sounds crazy, but many believed that the war would be over in a few months and the troops would be home for Christmas. While the Russians pushed towards East Prussia, the Germans brought part of their armies through the Low Countries, entering France in a flanking movement.

Speed was emphasized, as the entire point was to obtain a quick surrender. This was sound thinking, since such a result was the only conceivable way to avoid having to fight on two fronts.

As often happens in war, things didn’t go according to plan.

The top German field commander, Moltke, lacked the type of courage that distinguished his famous uncle’s career. The younger Moltke lost his nerve thinking about the Russians. Their army may have been badly organized, but it was also huge. He weakened his right flank-the offensive spearhead—in order to send troops east.

This decision, combined with tenacious English/French resistance stopped the Germans cold. They were pushed back, stabilized their lines and so began four years of living hell, known as trench warfare. The Russians, who had convinced everyone (especially themselves) that massive numerical superiority would shred the German army, were about to receive a hard lesson. At Tannenberg, the Germans—led by Hindenberg and Ludendorf—executed a classic pincer movement, surrounded the Russians, and proceeded to annihilate them. They wouldn’t recover, and that was the beginning of the end for the politicians in St. Petersburg.

It was soon apparent to all sides that the war couldn’t be ended quickly, and no one was talking about bringing the troops home for Christmas anymore. The Allies realized that more help was needed—but how to get it? That was the question. Hate was the answer.

The propaganda, mainly forgotten these days, having been replaced with other horror stories, spoke of German Huns and butchers. These monsters were cutting off the hands of nurses and nuns, feeding poison candy to children, and raping young girls—as well as the elderly.

The whole world soon knew that what we had here was a battle of absolute good versus pure evil.

Such propaganda served the dual purpose of strengthening the resolve of those already fighting, while at the same time inspiring others to join the holy crusade.

When we remember allied promises of territorial spoils, it’s no great surprise that many were prepared to sacrifice the young men of their countries in this fiasco.

It’s not easy to really grasp the amount of carnage taking place at the time. Both sides would periodically launch offensives. The Grim Reaper wasn’t suffering from boredom, but the only other gain would be a few miles of shell holes.

Six figures worth of casualties in a 24 hour period was hardly unheard of. In the first battle of the Marne, where the British and French blocked the German advance on Paris, both sides totaled around half a million casualties. In 1916, the allies attacked along the Seine and lost 600,000 men.

General Haig, also in 1916, ordered eleven English divisions to advance. Six German divisions greeted them with heavy machine gun fire. Of the 110,000 who attacked, 20,000 were killed, 40,000 more wounded. Haig was promoted.

The people at home weren’t being told the extent of such disasters. England, France, and Germany buried considerable numbers of an entire generation—the best youth their countries had to offer.

To some extent these losses have never been made good. In the east the Czar’s armies were in the process of shedding the most blood of all, and they were going backwards. Numbers alone were keeping them from complete capitulation. This led to mass demoralization, along with hatred towards those responsible for such a crazy adventure.

Not everyone was as foolish as the commanders in Europe. The German, Paul Luttow-Vorbeck, in East Africa and the Englishman, TE Lawrence, in Arabia practiced small unit guerrilla tactics. Neither man had any use for large-scale slaughter games, and both achieved amazing success.

No one felt comfortable facing an adversary who showed up out of nowhere, and disappeared just as fast. It became almost impossible to guard strategic positions against their raids, and even trying to required a great deal of manpower that otherwise could have been used (perhaps decisively) in the European theater.

The year 1917 brought some major developments. America, a nation where the populace leaned towards isolationism, joined the fight.

Back in 1907, prior to becoming President, Woodrow Wilson had said in a lecture at Columbia University: “Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process.” US industrialists and financiers had billions invested in the allies, and they wouldn’t have seen dime one had Germany won.

In 1919 Wilson said: “…the recent war was about business interests.” Stop and think about that for a minute. This isn’t some anti-government radical telling you that wars are waged for profits; no, it’s the President (and CINC of the armed forces) saying the same thing.

The people were told that we were fighting for freedom and democracy, and a lot of good men went into the grave believing that.

The same things are said today, and it’s nothing but a lie.

In any event, Wilson wasn’t kidding around. For example, DuPont averaged six million per year between 1910-1914, and 58 million between 1914-1918 (an increase of 950%). US Steel’s average earnings went from 105 million for the five years before the war to 240 million after shots were fired; Anaconda Copper’s annual profits jumped from 5 to 21 million (and you wonder where the term military/industrial complex comes from!).

The US foot soldier sat in a trench, watching rats eat corpses that had once been his friends, making the princely sum of $30 a month.

America suffered 250,000 casualties, which is minor when compared to other major belligerents, but far too many for a war that wasn’t worth a single drop of blood.

The Czar’s government collapsed in March. He was replaced by a non-entity named Kerensky, who promised to continue the fight. This was explained with the usual justifications: national honor, finishing what we started, not leaving friends in the lurch, etc. The people, sick of war, weren’t buying. They were hungry, their sons, husbands, brothers, and fathers were being massacred in every engagement, and they believed (correctly) that their leaders had betrayed them. In other words, they were ripe for revolution.

Kerensky had his problems with the Bolsheviks (Lenin’s faction after a split within Russia’s communist party), who were promising an immediate peace. Kerensky dealt with this threat by tossing some Marxists into prison, and forcing Lenin to flee to Finland. General Kornilov, who was sort of like what we’d call a Secretary of Defense, picked this moment to make a serious attempt at establishing a military dictatorship.

Kerensky was between a rock and a hard place.

The Bolsheviks, who had influence with the troops, were probably the only ones who could help him. He let them out of prison, armed them, and promised future elections to determine who would govern the country.

The Marxists were happy to beat back Kornilov, but having little use for voting or promises they seized power as soon as the job was done. Russia was out of the war.

One incident from this era should always be remembered. During a two-week Christmas truce in 1914 English, French, and German soldiers came out of the trenches, sang carols, shared food from home, and showed true comradeship for one another. If only the fate of our race had been in the hands of such men, as opposed to the worst sort of schemers, many things could have been different.

This friendship (or at least mutual understanding), expressed by men of Aryan blood who spoke different languages is the type of thing one wishes had taken hold more often and on a wider scale.

In any case, the military leaders of all three nations ordered that such “fraternization” be stopped immediately, and 1918 found the German army with only one enemy left upon the field (the Italian front had followed the Russian example, although their revolution, this time of the Fascist variety, was still a few years off). The German command prepared to launch what they hoped would be the final offensive.

While the Generals leaned over their maps, Berlin factory workers went on strike. This didn’t last long enough to cause major supply problems at the front, but it did demoralize the troops—who really had to wonder what they were fighting for if this was going on at home.

Many in post-war Germany would claim that this incident, and others like it, led to the defeat, but such an opinion is overly optimistic. What no knowledgeable person denies, however, is that without internal problems the German army might have achieved a draw, which would have allowed the peace to be made under better circumstances.

Regardless of what might have been, the offensive failed and Hindenberg, who was the now Supreme Military Commander, informed Berlin that the war could no longer be won.

In November of 1918 Marxist riots broke out in numerous German cities. These were almost always led by Jews, whether Liebknecht, Axelrod, Luxemburg, Fleissner, Levine, Lipinsky, or hundreds of others.

This is a critical point if you want to understand German anti-Semitism. When National Socialists were speaking of Jewish Bolshevism throughout the ‘20’s, they weren’t saying anything that the people didn’t already think. An armistice was signed after all sides agreed to conditions specified in Wilson’s 14-point peace program. This was a humane plan in theory, but it wasn’t followed in practice. Germany remained under a blockade leading to an epidemic of starvation throughout the winter.

So concluded “the war to end all wars”. The victors promptly began bickering over who would get what. They eventually decided to rob Germany of Alsace-Lorraine, parts of the Rhineland, the Sudentenland, Danzig, part of Silesia, and the South Tyrol. The Austrian/Hungarian Empire was broken apart, and new countries—like Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia—were created out of thin air.

The allies, who claimed to be fighting for the right of self-determination for all people, forced entire populations to live under the rule of those who despised them. Slovaks, Croats, Slovenes, Carpo-Ukrainians, Ruthenians, Albanians, and the millions of Germans already mentioned were all effected, and the consequences of this insanity is still being felt throughout the world. Austria, having lost a lot of her farmland, as well as access to a seaport, asked to be united with Germany. The request was denied.

The Germans, with gun to their heads, signed the Treaty of Versailles, which declared them solely responsible for the war and demanded reparations. The problem was that the sums were immense, and land that produced iron, coal, and other natural resources had already been stolen. There was no chance they’d ever be able to pay.

The Treaty also placed strict limits on the strength of their military. This is a world where they were surrounded by well-armed and openly hostile countries. When the National Socialists said that Versailles turned Germany into an international slave colony, the people responded “obviously”. There were a few honorable men in the victor nations who protested this criminal injustice. The foremost being the English statesman Lloyd George, who predicted that such terms would lead to another war.

In fact, the reaction began immediately. In Germany defense organizations of ex-soldiers were formed to fight the Communists, who continued to seize regional power in several cities.

They were never successful, but plenty of blood was spilled in the process.

Of course the most important consequence wasn’t recognized at the time. The war ended with a young German Lance Corporal in a field hospital at Pasewalk. He had fought for four years in the west, earned decorations for bravery, and was recovering from a gas attack that had almost permanently blinded him. His name was Adolf Hitler, and he writes very movingly about this time of his life in his book “Mein Kampf”.

Prior to the war he has wanted to be an artist, but Versailles put an end to that person and created a man who dreamed of restoring his country.

Shortly after leaving the hospital his military superiors ordered him to investigate a newly-formed patriotic organization. They were interested in nationalistic groups, hoping to find one that could give their political view a voice.

Hitler attended a meeting, listened to a lecture on economics, and ended-up speaking against separating Bavaria from Prussia (an idea that was popular at the time). Already viewed as a natural speaker by his war comrades, it’s not surprising that he caught the eye of the party chairman. A few days later he received notice that he’d been accepted as a member.

Hitler didn’t know whether to laugh or be angry about such an odd way of obtaining supporters, but after considering the matter he decided to join, becoming the seventh member of the soon to be renamed National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP).

The world had just changed forever.

Of course no one knew it then. The other nations were too busy watching the initial enthusiasm over the victory turn into concern about economic distress. The 1920s were yet another decade that started with the idea that all was right with the world.

Sure the war had been tough, but the good guys won and it was time to celebrate. This attitude is best expressed in old movies depicting what was known as “The Roaring 20s”. It wouldn’t be long before reality reared its head and high hopes got crushed by the Great Depression of 1929.

In France the mood can only be described as vindictive. They built a massive defense formation, the Maginot Line, on the border with Germany, thereby preventing, the “aggressor” from ever stepping on French soil again.

To prove their good intentions of only preparing to fend off attack, France occupied the Ruhr in 1923. This was done to teach Germany the error of not paying up, and it was also a clear violation of Versailles.

In America about 25,000 workers were killed on the job each year, and another 100,000 permanently disabled. The Klan had at least four million members, and could have been a legitimate threat to the government. But they were burdened by poor leadership and not what we’d call truly revolutionary.

The Soviet Union had been dealing with mass famines, civil war, and the removal of potential opposition. This involved large-scale liquidations and exile to slave labor camps in Siberia.

Conditions in Germany were horrific, as almost everything of value was leaving the country and filling the victor’s pockets. At one point a billion marks was equal to a single US dollar.

Hitler tore a page out of the Marxist playbook, and attempted a Putsch in Munich on November 9th, 1923. Government troops opened fire and Hitler was imprisoned soon after.

Modern historians wonder how a man guilty of high treason could be given such a lenient sentence, and wrongly conclude that the judges shared his ideas. In truth, the judges feared Communism, which was a mass movement in their country. They were well-aware of what the Bolsheviks had done to those who served the state in Russia, and recognized that only the NSDAP was out in the streets fighting this plague.

After teaching Hitler a lesson, they hoped to use him as a counter-weight. The Reds and National Socialists could kill each other to their heart’s content, while the ruling elite would continue in their positions of influence. They were mistaken in the idea that Hitler could be manipulated, but it was a common error at the time, and he was again free and leading his party by 1926.

In England the mood was slightly more realistic, as it became obvious that the war hadn’t exactly been won. Even worse, the policy of not allowing a continental rival had helped create a France that was rapidly becoming more of an economic threat than pre-war Germany. Many important people at the time, including (as odd as this sounds) Winston Churchill spoke of friendship towards Germany and the need to deal with the Communist threat. The problem was that it’s difficult to change feelings fostered by hateful war propaganda overnight, and this in fact was never accomplished. Also, other individuals in England had gained a lot from the war, and they had no desire to speak against a status quo that was serving them so well. That’s how things were. Then the markets crashed, the banks went belly-up, and life for the majority of people became real simple: it was a matter of day to day survival.

This brings us to the 1930s, which began and ended badly. The decade started with the west dealing with severe economic hardships, and it concluded with white nations butchering each other again. By 1933 about 15 million people were unemployed in the US. WWI vets marched on DC hoping to obtain some relief. MacArthur and Patton fed them tear gas instead, as the system proved (not for the last time) that they calculate the post-war worth of their human cannon fodder to be nil. Soviet leaders held similar views concerning their citizens, and eradicated between 3 and 10 million (no one really knows) Ukrainians in a man-made famine, as the food they needed was shipped abroad. Those who objected or tried to fight were eliminated for not appreciating the wonderful benefits and ideal nature of Communism. Stalin, who had replaced Lenin, organized the first of his great purges (there were three: internal political, internal military, external vassal state leaders). Show trials featured the original Bolshevik leaders testifying that they were traitors and vile dogs. This revealed that torture can make almost anyone say almost anything, and perhaps the west should have been wary of those who used such methods. Sadly, this reality only dawned on a few.

The depression threw Germany into even worse economic shape, and no one seemed able to halt the decline. In the elections of 1930 both the Marxists and the NSDAP became major actors on the political stage. Prior to 1933 the National Socialists obtained a majority in Parliament, which legally should have given them the right to form a government. This wasn’t “allowed”, although after seeing nothing else work the establishment politicians tried a crafty move. They offered Hitler power, figuring that he wouldn’t be able to accomplish anything either. On January 30, 1933 he was proclaimed Chancellor, and the Second World War had begun—the guys just hadn’t started firing yet. The problem for those who hated him was that Hitler didn’t fail. He brought the country out of the depression and engineered a social miracle. He stated that Germany didn’t need to be on the gold standard, as they could base their economy on natural resources and productive labor instead. This development was not well-received by those who had been exploiting Germany, nor was his decision to tear up the Treaty of Versailles, which meant an end to reparations. Hitler also destroyed the communist threat—yes, at times by arrest but mainly by providing working class people with what they needed: not just food and housing, but the respect of the community. Let’s see what a contemporary observer had to say:

“Hitler was a man of the people, a man who succeeded in wiping out unemployment, a feat unsurpassed to do this day. Within two years he gave work to six million Germans and got rid of rampant poverty. In five years the German worker doubled his income without inflation. Hundreds of thousands of beautiful homes were built for workers at a minimal cost. Each home had a garden to grow flowers and vegetables. All the factories were provided with sport fields, swimming pools and attractive and decent workshops.

“All these social improvements did not please the establishment big business tycoons and international bankers were worried. But Hitler stood up to them. Business can make profits but only if people are paid decently and are allowed to live and work in dignity. People, not profits, come first.”


“Hitler had observed that Marxist class war had not brought prosperity to the Russian people. Russian workers were poorly clothed, badly housed, badly fed….for Hitler the failure of class war made class cooperation the only just alternative. To make it work Hitler saw to it that one class would not be allowed to abuse the other.

“It is a fact that the newly rich classes emerging from the industrial revolution had enormously abused their privileges and it was for this reason that the National Socialists were socialists.

“National Socialism was a popular movement in the truest sense. The great majority of National Socialists were blue collars. 70% of the Hitler youth were children of blue collar workers. Hitler won the elections because the great masses of workers were solidly behind him. One often wonders why six million communists who had voted against Hitler, turned their back on communism after Hitler had been elected in 1933. There is only one reason: they witnessed and experienced the benefits of class cooperation. Some say they were forced to change; it is not true. Like other loyal Germans they fought four years on the Russian front with distinction.

“The workers never abandoned Hitler, but the upper classes did. Hitler spelled out his formula of class cooperation as the answer to communism with these words: ‘Class cooperation means that capitalists will never again treat the workers as mere economic components. Money is but one part of our economic life, the workers are more than machines to whom one throws a pay packet every week. The real wealth of Germany is in its workers’”.

--Leon Degrelle

Hitler’s socialism meant implementing policies of a 40-hour work week, laws against child labor, protection of pregnant women, profit-sharing, and environmental programs to stop the destruction of nature. Ask anyone who lived through those times and you’ll hear an amazing story that bears very little resemblance to what we’ve seen on TV. What made Hitler particularly odious to some was his racism. He believed that we should pay at least as much attention to who our sons and daughters have children with as we do for our dogs, horses, and cows. The western democracies, being nothing like they are today, couldn’t holler “racist!”, so instead they concocted a story about Hitler wanting to breed nothing but blue-eyed blondes. This is still believed, although even a passing glimpse of many important people in his party makes such a fable seem laughable. It was also stated that he was a dictator. We notice that this accusation was never hurled at Stalin, but it is true that the NSDAP had little use for democracy—which was seen as an irresponsible system that allowed criminals to hide behind the masses. Better one party you could credit (or blame), than hidden forces you can’t even recognize. However one feels about all of this, there can be no doubt that Hitler’s victory unleashed powerful opposition. Samuel Untermeyer, spokesman for the Jewish boycott organizations, issued a declaration of war in 1933, demanded that German goods be avoided, and said in no uncertain terms: “Mark my words, we will destroy medieval little Hitler-land”.

What caused the Second World War? We believe it was economic considerations. National Socialism worked, and the example of what could be scared the capitalist exploiters of humanity to death. Hitler devised a barter system in order to trade with other countries. He’d swap 60K worth of tractors for 60K worth of Columbian coffee beans. The bankers weren’t getting their cut. This enabled Germany to dominate the South American markets and gain a foothold in the Orient. Think about that for a minute. Hitler was the only Western leader not trying to rob these countries blind, but he’s supposed to be an evil bigot! International financiers and big business types were losing money, and we should all know by now how they react under such circumstances. In any event, the excuse used for war concerned territorial matters. Hitler made no secret of his desire to unite into one nation all the Germans who had been torn away at Versailles. This began in 1934 with the re-annexation of the Saar, where over 95% of the population voted in favor of re-unification; the peaceful re-occupation of the Rhineland in 1936; the re-incorporation of Austria in 1938, and the Sudentenland a few months later. We’re told that this constituted the rape of these lands, but even a glance at the documentaries show the people in question screaming in exuberance, surrounded by swastika flags. Whenever voting was involved, it was always 90% or better for a return to Germany.

War was narrowly averted in 1938. What prevented it is known as the Munich Accord, where England and Germany declared their friendship. The British statesman Chamberlain would shortly be run out of office for signing this pact. He was replaced by Churchill, who was now staunchly on the side of armed conflict. It’s hard to get a read on Neville Chamberlain. Many claim that he was sincerely in favor of lasting peace, but others feel that he was only trying to buy time. If his intention was to help keep hostilities from spilling over into war, then it’s impossible not to admire his foresight and courage in standing up to artificially-created public opinion. What finally led to the atrocious slaughter was Danzig—which, as we’ve seen, was a part of Germany that had been given to Poland in 1918. The English and French had guaranteed the integrity of the Pole’s border, although how serious they were about this can be judged by the fact that the entire country was handed to Stalin in 1945. By 1939 50,000 members of the German minority had been driven from western Poland; houses and farms were sacked, and thousands died. Hitler asked for elections to be held, but promised the Poles, a highway through Silesia to a seaport should he be victorious. This offer was rejected probably because the politicians in Warsaw were convinced the French would assist them—but also, as ridiculous as this sounds, because some Polish leaders believed that their armies would be in Berlin within weeks of shots being fired. Hitler ordered the invasion to begin on September 1, 1939. England and France declared war in less than 24 hours.

1939 also saw the German/Soviet non-aggression pact, which allowed Stalin to annex over a third of Poland. Britain and France, so solicitous of Poland’s territorial integrity before, neglected to declare war on the USSR. Hitler had said many times that one of the primary reasons for the existence of National Socialism was to destroy the Marxist threat, but he’d found himself in a tough spot. As much as he wanted peace in the west, that wasn’t to be. He knew that a two front war was suicide, and hoped to settle with England and France quickly. Then it would be possible to return to what seemed like a more essential task. This was almost made possible by the lightening campaign that conquered France in 1940. The problem, however, was that the English escaped at Dunkirk. Hitler had ordered General von Bock to halt his armored divisions ten kilometers from the fleeing expeditionary force. He wrongly assumed that such a magnanimous gesture would allow peace to be made with Britain, and it probably would have if any of the far-sighted Englishmen alive at the time had controlled their countries destiny. They didn’t, and peace proved to be a pipe dream.

1941 brought critical changes. We’re told that Hitler violated his pact with the Soviets, but this is because most people don’t know what the treaty entailed. The Marxists originally broke their promises by invading the Baltic countries and Besserabia—which inched them closer to Rumanian oil, so important for wartime Germany. In November of 1940, the Soviet foreign minister, Molotov, came to Berlin. He was asked why deliveries of much-needed natural resources, specifically iron, were running late and not meeting the quantities agreed upon in the treaty. His answers left a lot to be desired and Hitler concluded that war was inevitable. The German leader saw himself as a defender of the west, and felt that he had a duty to protect those already affected by—or those in the way of—communist aggression. Would it have been a better decision politically to wait? That depends on whether the Soviets could be trusted not to attack. This was an open question before the USSR collapsed, but now the minutes of secret military conferences are open to the public. Let’s see what important Red Army leaders had to say at the time:

“The coexistence between Hitler’s Germany and the Soviet Union is only temporary. We will not make it last very long.”

--Marshal Choponitov

“We now have time to prepare ourselves to be the executioners of the capitalist world while it is agonizing. We must, however, be cautious. The Germans must not have any inkling that we are preparing to stab them in the back while they are fighting the French. Otherwise, they could changed their general plan, and attack us.”

--Marshal Voroshilov

“Hitler is in a hurry to invade us; he has good reasons for it.”

--Marshal Zhukov

On June 22, 1941 the war against the Soviet Union was begun. The German military discovered shocking evidence concerning how the Marxists operated in practice: The Katyn Forest Massacre, where 15,000 Polish officers and intellectuals had been butchered; NKVD (soon to be changed to KGB) torture chambers in the Baltics; and a massive Red Army build-up, which can’t be explained unless Stalin was about to attack towards the west. It took quite a while for the truth to out, but today there are even establishment historians who admit that Hitler’s decision prevented Bolshevism from swallowing Europe. The German offensive had been delayed by a campaign in the Balkans, and this late start proved costly as snow started falling and the ground turned to mud right when the Germans were at Moscow’s front door. Another 14 days of good weather and the world would have been spared every bit of misery that can be attributed to communists since then. That wasn’t to be. Winter hit hard and Siberian reinforcements kept Soviet defenses from cracking. The Germans were forced to halt and maintain their lines.

December 7, 1941 brought America into the war. It is well known that the majority of US citizens wanted no part in the conflict, but their government had other plans. Franklin Roosevelt had been supplying the allies with armaments in a program called Lend-Lease since 1939. This stimulated the economy, filled the pockets of big financiers and businessmen, violated every rational definition of neutrality, and created the same conditions that had existed 23 years earlier: a German victor would cost America billions. Not a huge problem if you have enough people who would never see a red cent of this money willing to die in order to guarantee the desired result. But how to do that? You can’t tell them to sacrifice for the well-being of corporate tycoons; no, reasoned Roosevelt, far better to be a victim. In 1940 there were incidents involving US Naval vessels firing on German shipping in the North Atlantic. Hitler, a man with enough on his plate, refused to take the bait. Roosevelt then worked to cut off Dutch East Indies oil to Japan, and issued Tokyo with an ultimatum to remove their troops from all occupied areas. The Japanese responded with their raid on Pearl Harbor. It’s now known, that Washington had advanced warning of this “sneak attack” but Roosevelt neglected to alert his commanders in the Pacific, preferring instead to sacrifice numerous lives in order to drag an unwilling populace into war. Such are the men who controlled our racial destiny during the twentieth century. The plan worked like a charm, and war-fever swept across America. The people were told that Hitler was preparing to invade their shores, although no one is exactly sure how a man who would have been hard-pressed to invade England, and who had nothing resembling a viable surface fleet, was planning to accomplish this Herculean task. The media propagandists however weren’t overly-burdened by such questions; after all, what’s one more falsehood to those who lie for a living?

1942 began with some minor Soviet breakouts. These were contained, but the Germans weren’t able to achieve a decisive victory. Many of the people who had experienced Soviet rule welcomed the Germans as liberators. Their men rushed to join the struggle, some even entering the ranks of the elite Waffen SS, which was rapidly becoming a Pan-European, anti-communist fighting force. The Waffen SS was made up of Norwegians, Swedes, Danes, Ukranians, Swiss, Dutch, Lithuanian, Flemish, Spanish, French, Walloons, and numerous other volunteers—all combat soldiers standing for Europe against the East. At its height there were around one million men serving in Waffen SS formations, with only 400,000 of them being German citizens. This unity that extended beyond borders shows what could exist if our people would only rid their heads of suicidal tendencies and hatred for other whites who don’t speak their language.

The allies were still talking about the invasion of Europe taking years, but American industry was making its presence felt, as large-scale bombing raids became more common. The idea was to bomb civilian targets in Germany, which was theoretically supposed to weaken morale amongst the populace (plus it’s rather difficult to keep your factories running at peak efficiency when your workers are being slaughtered). The first such attack took place in May of 1940, prior to Hitler’s London blitz. It culminated in the destruction of Dresden, causing the deaths of between 125,000 and a quarter of a million people, mainly non-combatants: women, children, and the aged in a three day fire bombing campaign during 1945. Hitler was a fast knock-out artist. He was a firm believer in speed, because he knew that his country was weak. After all, they were fighting the entire industrialized world, which meant they were out numbered 10-1 in manpower, 144-1 in land area, and thousands to one in natural resources. The fact that Germany lost isn’t surprising; no, it’s the fact that they lasted so long, and the commitment of their people, which is positively amazing. In any case, Hitler figured he had a year to put the USSR on the canvas; after that American deliveries and Soviet numbers would prove irresistible (at least if he couldn’t use the troops that were needed in the west). The Marxists were still on their feet at the end of 1942, as the German 6th Army was encircled at Stalingrad. 16,300 soldiers were taken prisoner between the 10th-19th of January 1943 and another 91,000 after the surrender, for a total of 107,000. Of these, 6,000 had returned home by 1964. The 101,800 missing died after going into captivity. To compare the combatant’s attitudes, the Germans captured 19,800 officers and soldiers of the Red Army during the battle, all of whom were released after the surrender. This was three times as many as the German soldiers who had returned after two decades of imprisonment.

The rest of the war is reasonably well known: allied material superiority did the trick. They were ably assisted by a small—albeit influential—group of traitors in high German military circles (including the head of their intelligence service, Admiral Canaris). These nose-in-the-air, aristocratic representatives of the old order despised Hitler. They didn’t like taking orders from a former corporal, and they hated him even more when he was right time and time again. They also weren’t fond of his social policies, as whoever heard of treating the people as anything other than inferiors? These wonderful gentlemen tried to murder Hitler in June of 1944, which would have been a simple enough task if any of them would have had the heart to stay and detonate the bomb. That seemed a little too risky, as they were too busy dreaming of the important posts the victorious allies would hand them. The ensuing investigation revealed that these men had been feeding Germany’s enemies military information for years, leading to countless deaths on all fronts. Soviet Propaganda Minister Ilya Erenberg ordered communist soldiers to rape German women to “break their racial pride”; the US dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, even though they’d been trying to surrender for months; the forced extradition of millions of Germans in the east; and the USSR ending-up with half of Europe in its grasp.

If you want a better understanding of the feelings involved at the time, check out a book written by Theodore Kauffman in 1941—prior to America’s entry into the war—titled “Germany Must Perish”. The author called for sterilization of the German people, not just in Europe, but wherever they could be found. The NY Times enthusiastically agreed, proclaiming that this would be a wonderful way to ensure peace. While it’s absolutely true that the plan was never put into effect, there were many in government circles who supported Morganthau’s idea of turning Germany into an agricultural state devoid of industry. Adolf Hitler had committed suicide during the final days of the war, but the remaining political leaders, along with numerous soldiers, were put on trial for crimes that didn’t exist under international law at the time they were allegedly committed. “You did the same thing, if not worse” or “I was following orders” weren’t accepted as a defense, even though both statements are completely true. Many were hung or received lengthy prison sentences. German technological patents were stolen en masse, and the country would remain divided for fifty years.

The war was over, but some of the negative effects are still with us today. For example, everything National Socialism stands for—especially race and genetics—is viewed as evil. Whatever one’s opinion of Hitler, it is a bit naïve to believe that all of his ideas were bad. In truth, his record when it comes to providing social justice is far superior to anything that could be claimed by an apologist for capitalism or communism. Nevertheless, after the war everyone who tried to speak about the importance of racial issues was shouted down with cries of “filthy Nazi”. You still can’t watch TV for two weeks without seeing a program about how rotten the Germans are. The hate campaign started in 1933 continues, and the feelings this has fostered makes any attempt at Aryan unity difficult at best. Just talk to a well-informed ‘60’s radical. He’ll know all about big business in WWI, he’ll have every fact concerning the Gulf of Tonkin scam at his finger tips, and he may even have some suspicions about the USS Maine explosion that led to the Spanish-American war. In other words, this guy knows you can’t trust an establishment politician—but just ask him about WWII. Then you’ll hear: “oh well, they lied about everything before and after, but they were on the side of angels while fighting Hitler”. That’s how easy it is to manipulate even the minds of those who should know better.

The Second World War also made it possible for the state of Israel to be created in 1948. This particular land theft was the work of Jews who had recently been gassed in death camps. How the dead came back to life in order to occupy Palestine—a land inhabited by Arabs for a thousand years—remains a mystery. Since 6,000 bodies per day were being disposed of by less than 100 single person cremation ovens, it’s possible that the National Socialists had magical powers—in which case they may have re-animated these dead Jews. Granted this is far-fetched, but it’s no more ridiculous than what we’ve been taught about this period. In any case, the creation of Israel led to the forced exodus of a million Palestinians, which brought about wide-scale hatred throughout the Arab world, and almost certainly acted as a catalyst for numerous conflicts in this region. It’s important to remember that Israel is supported by a massive influx of US foreign aid, as well as billions in German holocaust payments—which is why the Arabs believe that the road to Tel Aviv goes through Berlin and Washington. Of course the worst result of WWII, just like in the first one, was the loss of the best blood amongst the nations involved. When one honestly thinks of how much has been spilled, it’s no wonder that some people believe our race won’t be able to recover from what happened between the years 1914-1945. Fortunately, that doesn’t have to be true. During the Thirty Years War, fought to determine whether the Pope or Luther was the Anti-Christ, Germany lost close to 2/3rds of its population. But they recovered and later prospered. We can too—but let’s not make light of the situation. Right now our race stands at the gates of history’s cemetery, and the grave has been dug. Only if we act as seriously as our responsibilities demand, beginning immediately, will our fate be anything other than horrific misery.

The 1950s don’t exactly reveal how sick the west had become, but signs of decay definitely existed (more people would have noticed if they weren’t busy celebrating having saved the world). The English and French governments started to allow—even encourage—a large influx of foreign immigration, claiming that these aliens were needed as a labor force to replace the war dead. Since these countries (along with the US) practiced a type of segregation, and because the streets were still more or less safe, this wasn’t seen as overly harmful. Today the citizens of these nations are paying dearly for that apathetic attitude. This was also the decade when both Britain and France began liquidating their empires, leaving those who were loyal to Union Jack and Tri-Colors to fend for themselves abroad. We have no use for capitalist imperialism, and even Hitler pointed out that colonialism brought the natives nothing but degeneracy, alcoholism, and disease. First-rate men and women sweated and bled to build empires, and a few big financers and other riff raff made a killing. The people certainly never benefited, as any study of London’s East End during the height of empire will prove beyond a shadow of doubt. The system, however, loves to deflect blame. Some right wing nut will scream about a welfare mother, and the white tax payer, who’s already hard-pressed, will look at her as the problem. But in reality 98% of the money ever collected for welfare was used to assist corporations and to bail out state and local governments. The taxpayer was seeing the wrong enemy, and it’s no different with non-whites in other countries who have been exploited: they don’t just hate the establishment; no, they hate us too. The whites in Kenya, the Congo, Algiers, Rhodesia, etc. found this out the hard way. The same thing could easily happen within 40 years in Europe or America—unless we accept that separation is the obvious prerequisite for reasonably harmonious race relations.

While Europe was trying to recover the US became the new empire builders. In 1941 Roosevelt invested 20 billion in war production, which finally brought unemployment down (to around 8%) and stabilized the economy. The lesson? You can make a killing, while providing enough jobs to prevent any type of worker’s revolt, during times of war. What if you had constant war? The good time would truly have arrived—well, for bankers, the “defense” industry, corporate tycoons, politicians, etc. You might not be so thrilled if your kid lost his legs (or his mind) somewhere no one even heard of across the water, especially if no one could determine exactly why “we” were there. Here is how the scam worked: “Our” dear pal Uncle Joe Stalin became a monster, kind of overnight. The Communists are evil and wanted to conquer the world we were assured. Our job, as the defenders of everything good and just, was to stop them. How to do it? Follow Roosevelt’s example and spend, spend, spend. These geniuses probably don’t realize (and certainly wouldn’t care) that you can get a better effect building schools, hospitals, roads, public buildings, etc., etc. In 1950 the total budget in this country was about 90 billion, and the military part of it was maybe 12 billion. By 1955 the military part was 40 billion out of a total of 62 billion. The heroes of corporate America must have cried their eyes out when the USSR collapsed.

Don’t get me wrong: if you lived in Europe during the 20s or 30s, then communism was the problem and you had every reason to be concerned. But the Soviets buried at least 20 million of their own in WWII, and while they were still strong enough to put a hurt on their vassal states (Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, etc.), they certainly weren’t the economic or military equals of the US—and when you get right down to it, if American politicians cared less about a red menace they would have stayed out of Hitler’s hair. Of course some people in the US thought that Marxism was just nifty: spies like the Rosenbergs, Morton Sobell, Harry Soblin, Klaus Fuchs, Sidney Weinbaum, Judith Coplin, David Greenglass, Abraham Brottman and other Jews would provide the Soviets with atomic secrets, which certainly altered international equations, and which could still have rather serious ramifications in the future. Uncle Sam tried out his new role of war policeman for the first time in Korea. It was the same old story: those who lack integrity fattened their wallets, and a bunch of solid young people, who honestly believed they were fighting for democracy, got killed. There was one difference: this fiasco ended in a draw. Closer to home the US helped overthrow a few democratically elected governments in South and Central America. This was an object lesson to teach sincere (albeit naïve) political leaders to keep hands off property owned by US business interests in their country.

Castro won power in Cuba and confiscated land that belonged to United Fruit—which was apparently enough for the US to back a coup in Guatemala five years earlier. He’s been a pariah ever since. We have no love for Marxism, but who’s kidding who? Does anyone seriously believe that Fidel and his Red Legions (or some such) are a legitimate threat to America? Frankly, we don’t believe it is any of our business what type of government the Cubans prefer. Back in the ‘50s being called a Communist was like being called a Nazi today and this smear was often used to discredit people. Uncle Sam, still madly in love with his despotic war time power, used this as an effective control mechanism. No one is asking you to believe that a country with nukes (the USSR)—or an ideology that simply doesn’t work in practice but can provide millions of committed recruits (Marxism)—isn’t dangerous, but if you can’t imagine “our” politicians exploiting such a situation then you need to take a look at the drug war. Drugs can be dangerous too, but what happened once the slime-drippers in DC got involved? Billions were spent, pockets got filled, prisons were built, the 4th Amendment took a kick in the teeth, a Big Brother police state became something that you no longer needed novels to find—and you can still buy dope in every major city without going two blocks out of your way. A great deal of what is wrong today really began to manifest itself during the 1950s, which happens to be the same decade that television began making it’s presence felt in every home. “Hey, should we worry about our children’s future?” “Naw. Ozzie and Harriet is coming on.” You know how it goes.

They put a man on the moon during the 1960s—which is no mean feat—but this was also the decade when the west would implode. Whenever we come across material from the 1950s it’s hard not to view the entire era as being fake. The power structure telling one lie after another; the church announcing that God, who had said one thing for 1,500 years, had changed his mind; parents and the schools teaching that the murderers of Europe were heroes, etc. We’re not surprised that the kids who came of age in the ‘60s didn’t think much of this example. What’s funny is that the greater majority of adults in the 1950s were bigots. They didn’t think much of non-whites, and they sure as hell didn’t believe in equality. On the other hand, they didn’t care about their own kind, they had no interest in helping out other whites, and they surely didn’t show any respect for their ancestors. The point is that it’s impossible to build on negativity; in fact, this attitude has proven useless even when it comes to the simpler task of holding a line-one that was supported by tradition, no less. Looking at their parent’s empty-headed views on this subject is exactly what made a lot of kids in the ‘60s hostile to racial concerns.

Still, we have to give these young people credit for their idealism. They were arguably the first generation to recognize the extent of political corruption on the Potomac, and even if they didn’t always grasp why things were wrong, at least they realized that something stank. Instead of finding proper guidance—which quite simply didn’t exist—,they were more or less forced into the arms of Jews like Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Alan Ginsburg, etc.—who were at least pretending to be against the system. That is what these kids were looking for, and justly so. They surely had enough sense to avoid the reactionaries who (then and now) thought that Big Brother was nifty and only needed little reform. The older generation wasn’t there for these kids, and they ended-up being manipulated by fakers who called themselves political, but who enjoyed nothing better than mixing ideological principles with drug experimentation, weird sex practices, race mixing (which was a weird sex practice), etc. The final result was a bizarre movement that still provides some entertainment when a TV viewer mistakenly thinks he or she is watching a circus, and which destroyed damn near every bit of the considerable potential these young people possessed.

Where were the older people? Waving the flag. Today they’re afraid to go out at night, afraid the government is going to cut Social Security, afraid the drug companies are going to raise the price of meds through the roof—and they’re still waving the flag. Anyway, the country was divided. Uncle Sam was making war in Vietnam. Why? Who knows? The politicians were apparently playing dominos. If a good government was threatened by Marxists (or capitalists for that matter) we would have no problem being staunch friends to those in need—but we maintain that the choice between a corrupt communist government and a corrupt capitalist puppet government isn’t worth a single drop of blood. Here’s what happened: Vietnam was owned by France before WWII. Some Vietnamese leaders, including Ho Chi Minh, were promised independence for helping out against the Japanese. There war ends; allied promises (as always) aren’t worth two cents. The French are back. The Vietnamese fight. The French need help. Uncle Sam—with his usual unorthodox opinions concerning neutrality—starts financing the entire operation. Then he sends weapons, “advisors”, and troops. Next thing you know there’s a war going on and corporate America is jumping for joy.

Vietnam is divided: Reds up north, US puppets down south. There is no question that the Marxists would have won any type of election had one been held, which is interesting since the spin doctors in DC never tire of claiming that “we” (a list that won’t ever include their names) fight to protect democracy around the globe. Frankly, we’d be less than thrilled to discover Vietnamese influence in a society that we’d call our own, which is why we didn’t blame them for not wanting whites to be in control of their destiny. Ho Chi Minh (North Vietnamese leader), and Vo Nguyen Giap (his right hand) knew they couldn’t defeat the US military—which possessed overwhelming technological superiority—in anything even resembling conventional combat. They basically figured: look, the Americans will kill 10 or 15 of ours and we’ll kill one of theirs—but they’ll tire of it before we do. This analysis hit the nail on the head. The US didn’t lose a single full-scale fight with the VC or NVA, but this proved to be completely irrelevant. Why? Because politicians back in the states loved nothing better than handicapping their own soldiers. The brass-hat big-wigs were worse than incompetent: Men like McNamara and Westmoreland turned the Pentagon into the “Puzzle Palace”, as these cold warriors were seemingly unable to grasp the implications of counterinsurgency warfare—which will always be decided by small-unit combat (in this case a conscript army of men counting the days until they could go home versus Vietminh veterans, some of whom had been fighting together for over a decade). The big brains came up with the nifty idea of dropping Agent Orange all over the place. This was supposed to get rid of leaves and other field of fire obstructions, which it did, but the stuff also had a rather negative side effect, and a bunch of guys who were exposed to this poison ended-up with cancer. Something similar happened in 1991, when soldiers came home from Kuwait/Iraq with Gulf War Syndrome. Uncle Sam denied any responsibility in both instances, making us wonder why anyone would continue supporting the government. In any case, Saigon is today called Ho Chi Minh City, and 58,000 dead Americans eventually got a wall in DC.

Soldiers returning from Vietnam were spit on and called baby killers. This is shocking, and almost impossible to believe for those of us who didn’t live through it. We’ll be the first to agree that there are valid reasons to be opposed to any recent war, but 19-year-old kids don’t decide where to go and who to fight. Not only is such behavior beneath contempt on an ethical level, it also amounts to tactical stupidity. Combat veterans are serious minded, able to overcome obstacles, and plenty of those from the Vietnam era know better that to trust politicians. Had a major effort been made to recruit, educate, and develop these men into a hard-core political cadre, then the course of history in this country could have been altered. Why didn’t this happen? Because the hippie movement (as we’ve seen) was bizarre, and the leadership resembled flim-flam artists more than revolutionaries. The reactionaries (then and now) merely wanted to reform the system, which is why everyone with radical tendencies avoided them like the plague. And the racially aware movement was in its infancy. George Lincoln Rockwell was a former Navy commander who had fought in WWII. He had the foresight to see this country going to the dogs long before it was obvious to everyone else, and he had the courage to do something about it. Rockwell created the American Nazi Party, which cost him his pension, his family and eventually his life. His books and example continue to inspire many, and well they should. Before Rockwell it was typical to call someone a Nazi if they were concerned about racial problems in this country—and such an accusation scared many into silence. Rockwell felt this was cowardice, and probably first thought of using the swastika for its shock value (in order to get media attention, which would then get people who hadn’t heard of the ANP to join). But being an honest man Rockwell made a point of finding out what Hitler really had to say—which anyone can do by reading “Mein Kampf”, but too many prefer to parrot the opinions of others—and he was amazed to discover that National Socialism wasn’t at all like he’d been told. Rockwell deserves full credit for pulling the swastika out of the ashes and breathing new life into the movement. Even though he obviously wasn’t successful in reaching all of his goals, George Lincoln Rockwell should be remembered as one of the greatest men our race has produced in recent times.

The 1970s were a decade of political corruption. Nixon and Watergate is the primary example, but this was worldwide reality, and people started to view all politicians as lying swindlers—none too soon, we might add. Things in the economic sector were no better: by 1977 the top 10% of the populace had an income thirty times that of the bottom 10%; the top 1% owned 33% of the wealth; and the richest 5% possessed 83% of personally owned corporate stock. Unemployment rose, and people were disgusted, which caused many to become demoralized and apathetic, feeling like nothing could be done, and limiting their political participation to voting for the lesser evil. None of this should surprise anyone, since honest and honorable leadership has a positive effect on the majority of the populace, while poor leadership is guaranteed to produce the opposite result. Of course not everyone sat on their hands. In National Socialist circles a man named Joe Tommasi realized that you can’t beat the system at its own game. He began to discuss the armed struggle, and the need to conduct political operations in the same manner as the IRA/Sinn Fein (both legal and convert). Tommasi put his money where his mouth was, and lived for about a year after choosing this path. During that time he had more than one or two of our enemies scared out of their skins, which just goes to show what a few dedicated individuals can accomplish (making one wonder what a few hundred serious-minded men and women might be able to achieve). Tommasi also terrified another group: self-proclaimed white leaders. It’s a fact that Hitler came to power legally. Unfortunately, this is often used as “proof” that the same thing can be done here. Vote, write your congressman, buy books, send cash, etc. People who play this nowhere game see a man like Tommasi as a dangerous boat-rocker. They’ve had 25 years since Tommasi’s death to show us that their way works—and they haven’t managed to take a single step forward. It would be false to claim that Joe Tommasi has had the same amount of influence as Lincoln Rockwell, but it would be absolutely correct to say that National Socialism won’t be going anywhere in this country until he does.

The 1980s were a decade of conservatism. The system recognized that the populace was disillusioned, and concluded that there was a need to restore faith. The primary players in this political charade were Reagan and Thatcher. They offered patriotism, albeit of a narrow-minded variety; empty promises; and half-measures which passed for farsighted policy decisions. In truth, the conservatives were up to their old tricks: chop trees, poison water, pollute skies, spit on workers, lower taxes for the rich, etc. One of Reagan’s first acts was to fire the striking air traffic controllers. In 1980 a corporate CEO made 40 times as much in salary as the average factory worker, but 1989 they were making 93 times as much. Do you remember the hostage crisis? Some demonstrators seized the US Embassy in Tehran. They held American citizens. Jimmy Carter really looked bad over this. In comes Reagan, and the hostages are returned. Everyone thought: “Wow. He put the fear of God into those Iranians. This guy is really something.” It turns out later the Iranians were given weapons in trade, with the profits going to the Contras in Nicaragua. The whole thing was a shifty backroom deal, which is nothing more than business as usual in DC.

On a positive note the ‘80s saw a significant rise in racial awareness. The seeds planted by men like Rockwell and Tommasi had started growing. This was best seen in the widespread skinhead movement. The old “leaders”, who often seem more like profiteers, naturally condemned these young people when they were unable to obtain greater political gains. This was certainly a lot easier than looking in the mirror and asking what else could be done. The sad truth is that our young people didn’t have viable alternatives, nor could they find an overabundance of sound advice. Even if we don’t agree (tactically) with marking yourself in a manner where the system can recognize you as an enemy on sight (which hinders your operational utility), we’ll be the first to praise these young men and women; after all, the fact they accomplished anything—or even came into existence—speaks volumes about their instincts. The mid ‘80s saw a group called The Order (also known as The Silent Brotherhood or Bruders Schweigan) take the fight to the enemy. They had no use for dead end politics, and while mistakes were made (which they admit, and which is only natural in an early attempt at revolution) these men set an example that must be followed before there will be any chance of victory. Their leader, Robert Mathews, was incinerated by federal pigs, and the remaining members were arrested and imprisoned. Despite this tragic ending, these men are true heroes who gave our youth new role models to look up to. Those who survived continue to educate and inspire our people from their prison cells, and generally manage to accomplish far more than many who are in better positions.

Near the end Rudolph Hess died in Spandau prison. Hitler’s deputy had flown to England in 1940. He wanted to make peace, and offered terms that would remove German troops from all occupied areas (excluding land stolen at Versailles). The English people were never given this information, and Hess was imprisoned—often in solitary confinement—until his death. On November 9, 1989 the Berlin Wall came down and Germany was reunited. American real estate tycoon Donald Trump recently took a minute off from cradle-robbing to call this the worst mistake ever in US foreign policy. What right anyone has to keep punishing these people wasn’t mentioned; no, greed and greed alone possessed him to hate these potential economic competitors. The same idiocy that drove us onto the road to suicide in 1914 is clearly still alive and well. It’s no different here at home. The big corporations started downsizing: they were making billions, but cutting the work force. Why? You can make even more by throwing people into the unemployment line, limiting health and retirement benefits, etc. Then some genius figured: “Hey, let’s move the factories abroad. That way we can use slave labor. Where? Mexico. What? The spic bastards are trying to gouge us for $2 a day—after all we’ve done for their economy! Okay, let’s head to the Philippines. What? 75 cents a day per worker! You gotta be kidding me. China is willing to provide all the slave labor we could ever use, and all we have to do is grease the political machine? If that’s Marxism, sign us up, baby.” That is what capitalism amounts to in practice. You’re either against it or you’re against working people—there isn’t any in between.

The USSR collapsed during the ‘90s, and corporate America cried. The so-called Cold War had cost trillions, and fattened a bunch of wallets with defense contracts. More importantly—at least from the system’s perspective—is that this provided them with an enemy (a demonic monster with its finger in every pie). Whites in the US were taught to hate whites in Russia, and the same was true in reverse over there. It was a neat scam: people were terrified of external threats and didn’t notice that their worst enemies were internal (living in their own capitals). Both governments used scare tactics to convince their citizens that a Big Brother police state was completely necessary for security reasons. The one over here has about 1.3 million people behind bars, and during the ‘90s their foot-soldiers engaged in a couple of blatant murders (at Ruby Ridge and Waco). The people in Russia—already familiar with the joys of communism—got the opportunity to experience capitalist bliss. Well, if Nietzsche was right this unemployment, poverty, and starvation should strengthen them. The west at least pretends to have a semblance of free enterprise competition, but Marxism practiced state ownership of industry. When these interests were sold single individuals ended-up with total monopolies in any given field. This allowed the worst sort of human slime to gain significant economic influence (which always translates into political leverage), and today it’s not unusual to see former party apparatchiks living it up as capitalist robber barons. We are, however, pleased to report that nationalism is on the rise, and we can only wish the comrades over there the very best of luck.

The Apartheid government in South Africa came to an end during the ‘90s, and today the country is the rape and murder capital of the world. We’ve made our feelings on colonialism perfectly clear, but that doesn’t change the fact that no one else seems to give a damn about the whites who have been dying en masse in Africa—and no one else is going to care when your day comes. We have ourselves alone and every bit of credit or blame for whatever happens in the future rests squarely upon our shoulders. When the media isn’t blacking-out news about conditions in South Africa, they are busy offering the excuse that the people weren’t ready for self-government, that Apartheid stunted their political development, or some such. This would seem to imply that the blacks shouldn’t have been given total freedom immediately, but isn’t that exactly what this same media demanded for years? Isn’t that exactly what “our” government said would be the only thing that could make the lift economic sanctions? The people over there were promised a paradise, just like we were; a world of brotherhood resembling the Garden of Eden. None of us have seen anything looking remotely like that, and instead it’s the same result each and every time: hate and human misery. How long will you continue to swallow all of these lies?

In Germany the joys of reunification were short-lived, as unemployment and economic hardships became rampant in the former East. The government was allowing a mass influx of asylum seekers while this was happening, which obviously led to greater problems (when there isn’t enough work for your own people, it’s not particularly brilliant to bring in immigrants who further flood the labor market). Young Germans were tired of 50 years of tasting the boot heel, and responded aggressively. This development is inspiring, but it should shame all of us who live in nations where we had more opportunities. Remember that it’s illegal in Germany to possess National Socialist literature, and thousands are in prison for political crimes (telling the truth about the holocaust, etc.). But the comrades over there can put large numbers into the streets, and often outnumber the police and protestors at demonstrations by a few thousand. It’s a sad truth that those of us in other countries can rarely point to similar accomplishments. Uncle Sam ran off to Iraq in ’91. The soldiers figured they were being sent to do a little killing for Exxon. It was an odd situation, as the US was a good friend to Saddam for years. They built his military and sang his praises—as long as he was fighting Iran. Once this was done Uncle Sam decided he was dangerous and wanted to take back their weapons. They bombed Iraq for a month, slapped their troops around some, left Saddam in power, and imposed economic sanctions. You’ve got to figure this will cause problems in the future. China and North Korea developed nuclear capabilities—and who knows where that might lead? And the decade ended with whites making up about 7% of the earth’s population. This figure continues to decline, and one thing is absolutely certain: another hundred years like this past century and our race will cease to exist. There are those who would welcome such an outcome, and it will be the guaranteed result unless we change our thinking immediately.

To begin with, racism isn’t evil, it’s our only hope. That doesn’t mean wanting to harm others, but rather love for our own kind, as well as everything that makes us unique. This has nothing to do with hate, although it does imply hating what threatens those you love—just like you’d hate someone who tried to murder your child. We also need to admit that there are reasons why some people live in huts and others build skyscrapers. This isn’t to say that there is anything wrong with living in huts—or that it has to be a permanent condition—but it should be obvious that people aren’t the same. Pretending that you can build a state on the assumption that everyone is equal has proven to be the worst starry-eyed delusion in the history of mankind. Furthermore, we’ve seen how political corruption has been responsible for numerous disasters during the 20th century. If we want to survive as a race this can no longer be tolerated. Those who serve as leaders must be held accountable for their actions. A system that holds no one responsible—not even for the worst sort of criminal behavior—has to go. The most you can do today is vote someone out of office, generally after the damage has been done, for activities that should have put them in prison—if not up against the wall. What we need are leaders—not politicians in the present sense—to deal with the challenges of the 21st century. We’ve definitely witnessed how materialism has added its contribution to recent tragedies: whether you’re speaking of war time deaths, or the poisoning of our planet for profit, greed has worked plenty hard to bring us to where we are. Clearly a revival of the idealistic spirit is needed. This would help people understand that society is what we make of it, and that we should act in the best interests of our children—as opposed to out of a desire for more wealth. In truth, all the gold in the world doesn’t amount to anything when compared to our young people’s future. We determine the kind of world they’ll live in—and to pretend that this isn’t an important duty, or to ignore that it is your responsibility, reveals a twisted mentality. Simply put, we’re struggling to secure the existence of our people and a future for white children. They deserve every bit of our effort, and the only way we’ll be able to accomplish our goals is with your help. That means not complaining but actually working to create a viable political alternative that is capable of bringing our ideals to victory. Join us today and tomorrow we’ll build a society that a person can be proud of; one that offers hope instead of despair; and one that allows us to turn our backs on the graveyard of the 20th century, while our children set their faces toward the stars.

Back to the Articles page


NSM88.COM National Socialist Movement, P.O. Box 580669, Minneapolis, MN55458,(651) 659-6307