Aryan Skynet

Once Aryan Skynet Goes Live It Doesn't Matter Who Pulled The Switch

Hoffman contra the Hitlerites

Hitler

Revisionist History publisher Michael Hoffman stirred a trollstorm this past summer when, in issue 97 of his newsletter, he published an article titled, “Hitler Never Had a Snowball’s Chance in Hell of Conquering Soviet Russia”. In it, he characterizes Hitler as history’s “champion killer of Germans”1 – and, as he was soon to discover, this was triggering to a significant segment of his readership. “After the publication of our study […] we received a number of e-mails and letters running the gamut from criticism to barely concealed exasperation and denunciation,” Hoffman relates in Revisionist History issue 98, adding that “subscription renewals are down due to what we published about Hitler’s war in Russia.”2 What did Hoffman write that got his readers so upset?

“Not wanting to desert my post as watchman on the ramparts, it periodically falls to this writer to sound the alarm about the spirit of neo-Nazism that obstinately calls to the anti-Zionist Right-wing like the fatal sirens of antiquity,” he begins:

The “Hitler’s attack on the USSR was defensive,” and “he nearly defeated Stalin” myths have been given new life on popular Right wing websites and blogs, written by people appalled that the Communists actually shot back when the Nazis stormed into Russia. Hitler’s reputation among revisionists would be reduced to a fraction if the suppressed fact that he invaded a nation which the German military had no real hope of conquering, was better known. […]

Yet because the documentation is not better known on the Right, the Hitler defenders are free to mount their promotion of the legends that he was forced to invade the USSR and that the Germans nearly succeeded in conquering Russia. If we can be made to believe those legends, then a sizeable obstacle to Hitler’s rehabilitation has been removed, since the most ruinous military bungle of his career was Operation Barbarossa. […] Our thesis is that Hitler’s temerarious invasion of Russia on June 22, 1941 guaranteed the defeat of Germany and the subsequent massacre of the German people. […]

  1. Hitler was so rash and delusional that he harbored the unshakable belief that his armies would defeat Stalin’s empire by the end of the summer of 1941 [with the inadequate logistical planning for the invasion being in nonchalant accordance with this lightning-conquest fantasy]. How many are aware of this lunatic self-hypnosis?
  2. What actually happened was that by summer’s end, Sept. 30, 1941, a horrible massacre, more than 185,000 German soldiers – over three times the number of Americans killed in ten years of fighting during the Vietnam war – had died fighting on Soviet soil in just three months. Again, how many are aware of this astonishing datum?

This is a staggering butcher’s bill (the total June to Sept. German casualties were 530,000). 185,000 of the cream of German youth aged 18-30 (on average), were dead in just three months from the time Hitler ordered his forces into Russia in the first phase of his war. […]

Hoffman

Michael Hoffman

Should this early and nearly immediate disaster have signified caution and reassessment? To most people, yes. To Hitler, no. As “Fuhrer” he answered to no one. His decisions were subject to no checks and balances. Responsibility for this Oriental type of despotism cannot be laid at the door of Churchill, Roosevelt or Eisenhower, as the Internet’s Hitler sympathizers have been doing. […]

The Fuhrer convinced himself that the conquest of the vast Soviet territory would take place over the next ninety days (October to December). If another 185,000 German boys had to be killed in striving for Hitler’s goal, then so be it.

On the Internet these days Eisenhower and Churchill are being made culpable for the loss to Stalin of Eastern Europe, and in particular east Germany. The understanding that Hitler’s invasion was doomed to failure and that the Red Army was bound to overrun the Germans and enslave the eastern portion of Europe, did not occur to the Nazi brass and neither does it occur to their partners in failure, today’s defenders of Hitler, for whom the Fuhrer is very seldom held responsible for the apocalyptic defeat that his defective judgment caused.

This is the tune that some segments of the anti-Zionist Right wing have been playing like a Stradivarius for decades: Adolf is seldom, if ever, to blame.3

The establishment, Hoffman contends, “is not unhappy to witness the perpetual attempts to resurrect the Hitler meme, and a false messiah who will once again frog-march white masses to another annihilation in the name of certain victory.” He concedes that “Hitler undoubtedly has a certain appeal”; but he adds that the establishment “is aware of this too, and puts it into play,” continuing:

The appeal is found in this line of reasoning: all the sins of the world it seems are placed upon Hitler’s shoulders by a Satanic system. What Satanists call evil must be good, therefore Hitler must, to some extent, have been good. Scenes of an idyllic Germany in the 1930s are often replayed: the volkish unity, smiling people relieved of the burden of the Versailles Treaty, a nation headed upward to the stars.

This serene image came crashing down after Hitler built his foreign policy and war aims on an absurd faith in the benevolence of the English ruling class, then invaded Russia and declared war on the United States. Germany in flames and brutally occupied was the result of the reign of Adolf Hitler. The people we see smiling in those bucolic photos of Germany in the 1930s were mostly either dead, wounded, burned, raped, homeless or reduced to penury after twelve years of the Third Reich.

We are informed by some on the Right however, that the horrendous ruination of Germany was inevitable given the forces arrayed against it, and the Fuhrer was mostly not at fault. This is the thought process of Talmudists when confronted with damning evidence against the Grand Rabbi.4

For evidence of Hitler’s foolhardiness, one only needs recourse to the man’s own words. “We draw your attention to Hitler’s first speech to the nation since he had ordered the invasion of Russia in June,” Hoffman goes on:

This was given on October 3, 1941 in Berlin […] wherein he predicted the imminent end of the war on the eastern front. Regarding Soviet Russia, Hitler told the German people, “… this opponent has already broken down and will never rise again!” He was so confident of this preposterous delusion that he openly admitted in his speech that he was shifting German industrial production away from the desperate needs of his infantry, an act of criminal incompetence and betrayal of the troops: “Today it is only a question of transport. Today we have taken care in advance so that, in the midst of this war of materiel, I can order further production in many spheres to cease, because I know there is no opponent whom we would not be able to defeat with the existing amounts of ammunition.”

The more we study the more we see that Hitler invaded Russia believing that a triumph of the will would win the war. There was no other basis for optimism. Was he flying high on drugs as early as 1941? The reason we ask is because his impetuous October 3 victory forecast speech, which described Stalin’s Russia as finished, was given after a few Wehrmacht battle victories on the road to Moscow, but before the rasputitsa (Russian winter) set in – which it did only a few days later. So, while the magnificent Wehrmacht had two Soviet armies encircled at Viaz’ma and the smaller Briansk pocket, German tanks and supply trucks were seriously obstructed or stopped altogether by rain, sleet, snow and a deluge of mud. Meanwhile, Hitler had decided the war in the East was won and turned war production toward things like ship engines! […]

Everything had been gambled on a magical, lightning-quick conquest in the summer. When that failed, Hitler envisioned Moscow captured by October. This was sorcery not soldiering.5

“In Operation Typhoon and the invasion of Russia in general, we encounter a shocking lack of preparedness, criminal neglect of contingency planning, and prospects for victory so slim, they were reckless and suicidal,” Hoffman concludes:

Our first reaction is to deny the data because it is difficult to believe that Hitler was so steeped in the occult that he was more of a practicing magician than a statesman or military prodigy. [David] Stahel and other historians like him prove, to our satisfaction anyway (at least until more persuasive contrarian evidence is marshaled), that the Germans had virtually no possibility of conquering Russia, but were made to march to their doom as the sorcerer’s apprentices.

With no significant chance for victory in Russia, the German military could not win the Second World War.

That people who are engaged in the rehabilitation of the Fuhrer’s reputation endeavor to lay responsibility for this unmitigated catastrophe at the feet of anyone other than their idol is itself a species of magical thinking.

What a colossal waste of the devotion to duty of the heroes of the German army who crusaded against Communism from idealistic motives and were betrayed by the gross incompetence of a glorified god […] The German people were far and away the biggest victims of Adolf Hitler.6

“Some detractors wrote to us to repeat a standard tired tale in the expectation that we have not read [Viktor] Suvorov’s Icebreaker or a couple of the other books that seek to absolve Hitler of responsibility for the Russian invasion catastrophe,” Hoffman leads into his counterpoint:

We are conversant with this apologia genre which has not been updated over the years in response to new revelations from the archives. Our article in the July newsletter is predicated on the new findings. It is unfortunate that for some of our readers Nazism is a revered creed and Hitler a great hero. These enthusiasts are afflicted with two unfortunate, self-sabotaging traits: little or no curiosity about historical discoveries that threaten their belief; and what is known as “confirmation bias” – believing only those sources which tend to confirm one’s preconceived ideas.

In 2015, when we published in Revisionist History no. 80 a study of the life of Gregor Strasser and his murder by Hitler, we lost approximately twenty percent of our subscribers. One lady who quit had been a consistent donor and subscriber. She was infuriated by the article. She denied the veracity of our extensive research, mainly because in his book Hitler Democrat, Leon Degrelle had declared that Strasser was a guilty plotter who deserved to be killed. Strasser was no such thing. Colonel Degrelle was repeating Nazi propaganda. What is more useless than the party line? What is more tragic than human beings who swallow it?7

It is the position of Aryan Skynet that Adolf Hitler deserves our contempt and vilification, albeit not for the reasons advanced by our current cultural dictators. It is entirely possible to admire Hitler’s rugged determination, his social thought, aesthetic sensibility, or racial theorizing – to consider him charming, in some ways, or to find in him “a certain appeal,” as Hoffman puts it – but at the same time to conclude that he was history’s biggest and bloodiest blunderer – a figure whose death-stench continues to hang over Europe and Europe’s diaspora like some deity’s undying fart.

“The revisionist vocation is a re-visioning of every human belief in the face of new information when it contradicts the old,” Hoffman reminds his readers.

Some of those who say they are revisionists are not. For them revisionism is a means to an end – rehabilitation of the reputation of Adolf Hitler. The revisionist epistemology itself is of no interest. They undercut it with their assent to virtually any disinformation that buttresses their “side”. Revisionist history takes no sides. It follows the truth wherever it leads, which is what makes it so endlessly fascinating.8

Rainer Chlodwig von K.

Rainer is the author of Protocols of the Elders of Zanuck: Psychological Warfare and Filth at the Movies – the DEFINITIVE Alt-Right statement on Hollywood!

Endnotes

  1. Hoffman, Michael A. “Hitler Never Had a Snowball’s Chance in Hell of Conquering Soviet Russia”. Revisionist History no. 97 (June-July 2018), p. 1.
  2. Hoffman, Michael A. “A Reply to Critics: Hitler & Russia”. Revisionist History no. 98 (August-September 2018), pp. 11-12.
  3. Hoffman, Michael A. “Hitler Never Had a Snowball’s Chance in Hell of Conquering Soviet Russia”. Revisionist History no. 97 (June-July 2018), pp. 1-2.
  4. Ibid., pp. 2-3.
  5. Hoffman, Michael A. “A Reply to Critics: Hitler & Russia”. Revisionist History no. 98 (August-September 2018), pp. 11-12.
  6. Hoffman, Michael A. “Hitler Never Had a Snowball’s Chance in Hell of Conquering Soviet Russia”. Revisionist History no. 97 (June-July 2018), pp. 4-5.
  7. Hoffman, Michael A. “A Reply to Critics: Hitler & Russia”. Revisionist History no. 98 (August-September 2018), p. 12.
  8. Ibid.
Advertisements

About icareviews

Author, Protocols of the Elders of Zanuck: Psychological Warfare and Filth at the Movies

161 comments on “Hoffman contra the Hitlerites

  1. icareviews
    October 13, 2018

    Reblogged this on icareviews and commented:

    Would the world be a better place today if the Germans had won the Second World War? Possibly. But the question is really pointless since Germany’s defeat was inevitable once Operation Barbarossa was initiated.

    Like

    • Richie Rich
      October 13, 2018

      The Nat Soc underestimated the British and American willingness to kill their own kind. The reason for that is the Nat Soc didn’t understand the concept of wordism.

      If the British and Americans had minded their business:

      Germany would have fought itself to exhaustion somewhere inside the Soviet Union and the Nat Socs and Commies would be too busy pushing against each other to be a threat to anyone else.

      Britain would not have lost its empire and would not be an irrelevant island overrun by third worlders.

      America would still be isolationist and without a Cold War to fight, they could have finished off the subversive back home.

      Instead we of being invaded by the third world, we could have ruled it together. I blame wordism.

      Like

      • icareviews
        October 13, 2018

        “The Nat Soc underestimated the British and American willingness to kill their own kind.”

        Then, too, there’s the fact that Germans underestimated Hitler’s willingness to kill his own kind.

        World War II, like all history, is not a matter of good guys fighting bad guys.

        Blame “wordism” if you want. I blame Hitler. Not Hitler alone, of course – and Hitler by no means operated in a political or historical vacuum – but I definitely blame Hitler.

        Like

      • Richie Rich
        October 13, 2018

        Do you know what wordism is? Nat Socs can be wordists if they get fanatical.

        Lebensraum was what brought Hitler undone, because he was utterly fascinated with it. But he was able to fix the economy before anyone else, because he wasn’t interested in economics.

        Like

    • Richie Rich
      October 13, 2018

      You can’t solve real problems with solutions that are fixed by some old ideology you are obsessed with.

      Liked by 1 person

    • volkishblake
      October 13, 2018

      “Would the world be a better place today if the Germans had won the Second World War? Possibly.”

      Come on dude…take a damn side.

      “World War II, like all history, is not a matter of good guys fighting bad guys.”

      It was a matter of our guys fighting their guys. And we lost.

      Like

      • icareviews
        October 13, 2018

        No. It was a matter of our guys fighting OUR GUYS. That’s why we lost.

        Liked by 1 person

      • volkishblake
        October 13, 2018

        When white people start killing for international jewry–especially when they attack the first truly racial nationalist state–then they cease to be “our guys”. They are the enemies guys.

        Like

      • icareviews
        October 13, 2018

        Considering the mileage that international Jewry has gotten out of Hitler’s behavior during World War II, the Germans might as well have been fighting for them, too.

        Liked by 3 people

      • A. Vickstrom
        October 13, 2018

        It was a matter of our guys fighting their guys. And we lost.

        Mate, have you ever talked with a German nationalist or even visited Germany for that matter? German Nationalists don’t view Americans named Blake as being one of them. Most don’t even like Americans and see you as a hostile ‘tribe’ (for lack of a better word). To be perfectly honest German liberals will treat you – as a White non-German – far better than Germany’s National Socialists ever will.

        This is a concept that Americans need to understand. German Nationalists do not give a rat’s ass that you are 30% German due to banished krauts who fled to America in 1848. There is no ‘our guys’ because the Germans do not see you as being one of them.

        This was not an ‘our guys’ vs ‘their guys’ sort of thing. It was German Nationalists allied with Japanese savages vs Anglo-Nationalists allied with Jewish financiers. Neither system was one that I’d wish to live in.

        Liked by 2 people

      • volkishblake
        October 13, 2018

        Old Sour Brit,

        Yes, I talk with German and other European nationalists regularly online. We get along just fine. And we share a common concern for white people in all nations.

        I don’t have any German blood, and I’m not pretending to be German. I just respect what they accomplished and think the values and social/political system they developed is the the best template for all of us going forward.

        If they are going to be provincial, petty nationalists then thats both of our losses. But I suspect that the younger guy are moving away from that.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hipster Racist
        October 13, 2018

        @volkishblake

        Come on dude…take a damn side.

        You’re not on my side, you are anti-American. You are anti-White. Thus, you are my enemy. That is my side.

        The icing on the cake is that you’re a dorky LARPer, an American with a silly (((Hollywood Nazi))) blog, proving that you are a Good Goy. The $PLC thanks you for your support.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Richie Rich
        October 14, 2018

        @volkishblake
        “and think the values and social/political system they developed is the the best template for all of us going forward.”

        If anyone in the movement actually cared what works, they would meet with each other regularly. They would show what innovative method they tried to make whites pro white. They would provide documented proof of their method working, so the others might try it for themselves.

        Of course this never ever happens. The great intellectuals of the movement never use the western scientific method. They keep doing over and over what they’ve lost on for 70 years straight, because they’re enamoured by the words in some dusty old books.

        Ideology is for second-rate intellectuals.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Ton Nuiten
      November 7, 2018

      Okay, I agree that Hitler caused the downfall of himself and Germany by invading Soviet Russia However, Vladimir Lenin (the first red dictator of Russia) had held a speech on March 6, 1920, when he said, “Victory of the Communist revolution in all countries is inevitable. Victory will be ensured in the not-too-distant future”.

      Lenin on December 6, 1920, about inciting fascist Germany against the West, “As soon as we are strong enough to overthrow capitalism completely, we will immediately grab them by the throat”.

      Josef Stalin, Lenin’s successor, declared before the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party in July 1925 the following, “Should the war begin, we will not stand by inactively; we will enter the war, but we will enter as the last belligerent. We shall throw a weight on the scales that should be decisive

      (“Stalin’s War of Extermination 1941-1945 Planning Realization and Documentation”, by Joachim Hoffman (Theses & Dissertations Press) 2001, p.26)

      Here we see that it was the ultimate goal of both Lenin and Stalin to conquer Europe after the war in Europe had begun between Nazi-Germany and the Western nations; when both Germany and the Western nations had exhausted each other, Stalin would bring fresh troops on the battlefield. Now, suppose Hitler had never invaded Soviet Russia. Would it be not logical then that Europe had become a part of the Soviet Union and with its numerous Gulags, prisons etc.?

      And from 1918 till 1932, German-Jewish Bolshevists were active in Germany creating numerous mass strikes, resurrections etc. to make Germany ripe for a Bolshevist takeover. Two of its main leaders were Rosa Luxemburg and Arthur Liebknecht (both Jews) who acted on instructions from the Kremlin in Moscow. The German Imperial Army, however, put together the Frei Korpses with which it attacked the Bolshevists bulwarks in Berlin, Brunswick, Munchen, Bremerhaven, and other German cities and prevented in this way the threat of a Bolshevist takeover. After that, Hitler came on the scene. But again, had Hitler not invaded Soviet Russia, would the West not become Bolshevist? That Hitler caused the downfall of Germany is something which is sure and I agree. But what would be happened with Germany (and West-Europe) when Stalin had succeeded with his plan to conquer all of West Europe without Hitler invading Soviet Russia?

      Like

      • Arch Stanton
        November 7, 2018

        You might want to read this book

        Like

      • icareviews
        November 7, 2018

        “… when Stalin had succeeded with his plan to conquer all of West Europe without Hitler invading Soviet Russia?”

        You mean “if”, not “when” – and it’s a pretty humongous “if”. If the Hitler apologists are 100% correct about Stalin’s intentions toward Germany and western Europe – and quoting Lenin, as if Stalin was a devoted Leninist, does nothing to strengthen this argument – Germany would have stood a better chance of stopping the Red Army with a defensive front that wouldn’t have stretched German supply lines halfway across the continent and exposed its soldiers and materiel to the Russian elements.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ton Nuiten
        November 9, 2018

        Okay, you are right; thanks to the far stretched German supply lines in Russia and the very bad weather conditions, Germany lost the war

        . Which brings us to the Western Alles. I don’t know whether it is true or not but it is alleged that Hitler invaded the Low Countries out of self defense. Here is a site of a “Hitler-defender”, who claims that Belgium and Holland conspired with the Alles (France and Britain.) It was German Foreign minister, von Ribbentrop who alleged this. http://www.tomatobubble.com/ribbentrop.html So, according to Mike King, Hitler had no other choice than to attack the West-European nations.

        Now I have this question: Had Hitler really waged a war of defense against Russia, would this be of any use as (if this might be true) Belgium and Holland conspired with France and Britain against Germany?

        Like

      • icareviews
        November 9, 2018

        I don’t know, man. I’m sure Mike King knows a hundred times as much as me about the Second World War – I’ve never pretended to be an expert – but a lot of these guys in the revisionist crowd just devolve into Hitler fanboyism, and the whole enterprise of reading and writing history for too many white nationalists becomes an exercise in defending the Third Reich rather than arriving at an impartial understanding of the facts. The future success or failure of whites shouldn’t hinge on whether or not every decision Adolf Hitler ever made was 100% justified.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ton Nuiten
        November 10, 2018

        That’s true. I tend also to believe that there was a power struggle going on between two powerful Illuminati families; one was Jewish; the other was not. Both had just one wish: creating a NWO. At first, these two worked together to reach their aim. Henry Ford (part of the non-Jewish Illuminati) for example set up huge factories in the Soviet Union.

        Later on, however, the Jewish faction began to dominate the case; it was then that the non-Jewish faction saw their profits disappear in the pockets of the Jewish faction. The Astors and Windsors against the Rothschilds, for example. Thus ensued a powerstruggle. It was then that the non-Jewish faction began to warn for a Jewish NWO. During this struggle Hitler emerged. The non-Jewish group saw in him a ver useful tool against the attempts of the Jews for a NWO. Henry Ford supported Hitler. Jewish bankers (Jacob Schiff, for example) supported the Soviet Union. There is a whole story behind this so I will be very short about this. We read about thsi the following words:

        “The Morgan groups” (part of the non-Jewish faction) “dabbled in the politics of radical left and lost no time in trying to get a foothold in Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution. But at the game they were no match for their Jewish rivals The rival Wall Street elites were both fired by the ideal and ambition of a “new world order”, but there the similarity ended. The original American establishment, like its British opposite number, was for containing the Soviet Union with its socialist rulers with a view to the ultimate absorption of the Russian Empire into a new world order to be raised on the foundations of the British Empire and which they, as the inheritors of the Rhodes dream, would control. The other, the New Eastern Establishment, was for building up the Soviet Union as an industrial and military giant which would replace the British Empire as the foundation of a new wolrd order. These developmetns in the realm of finance capitalism and power politics came to a climax towards the 1930s, of a social phenomenon misleadingly described as “anti-Semitism”. (“The Zionist Factor The Jewish Impact on Twentieth Century History” by Ivor Bneson (GSG & Associate Publishers) 2000, p. 56-57)

        So, at that time it was a question which of these two groups would reach their ultimate aim: a Jewish NWO or a non-Jewish one. Those supporters of a non-Jewih NWO ssaw in him a useful tool to oppose the Jewish faction. Behind the scenes, however, it was the Rothschilds who dominated both factions; by keeping them divided against each other, they hoped to reach their goal: a Jewish NWO. And the rest is as they say, history; WWI broke out which was, in fact a war between two blocks; a Jewish on and a non-Jewish one. And we know now how this war ended; the Jews won and Germany was completely crushed.

        Today, however, we have the same phenomenon only in another way; there are the so-called Ur-Logdes, super lodges, composed of two factions: Progressive Democratic (PD) and their counterpart, Oligargical Neo-Aristocratic. (ONA) Both want a NWO; the first one want to reach this goal by sowing fear in the hearts of the common people by propaganda; by stealth; they are warning for a WW III so that we will give up our own soverignty. the second group, however, whish to reach the same goal by means of a world war. Both factions are dominated by the Rothschilds who have stand to gain in this by keeping them divided so that they can control both parties much easier; so both groups are arguing with each other about their goal to reach a NWO.

        Here are som examples of people who are a member of some of the many lodges: Vladimir Putin and Angla Merkel: Lodge Golden Eurasia (PD), Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Bill Kristol, Michael Ledeen, Paul Wolfowitz (and others) Hathor Pentalpha Lodge. (ONA)

        This information is from the book, “The 13 Satanic Bloodlines: High Politicians in the Grip of Top Secret Freemason Lodges” (Mayra Publications) 2017 Dutch edition).

        For more information: https://new.euro-med.dk/20160216-dialectic-rothschild-ruled-superlodges-ruling-the-world-dictating-merkels-immigration-non-policy.php

        Like

      • Arch Stanton
        November 10, 2018

        This is disinformation.

        Morgan, like Rockefeller, was a front man for the Rothschilds. During his life, he moved Billions of dollars in pre-twentieth century value around the globe. Yet, when he died, his entire estate was worth a paltry sixty million, a tiny fraction of the wealth he dealt with. The big question of the day among those who knew him was “where did all his money go?” It never went anywhere, it was Rothchild money he was moving.

        Do some research on Rockefeller, try finding out where this former clerk got the funding to make his start in the oil business.

        As for Henry Ford, he saw Hitler’s “economic miracle” of turning Germany around from utter economic dissolution to become one of the most productive nations on the planet; accomplishing this is just a few short years with no gold reserves and in the midst of the “great depression.” As a business man, Ford liked the cut of Hitler’s financial jib.

        However, for people of the numbers like Ford, business always comes first where profit is to be realized and there was huge profit in the emerging Soviet empire lusting for industrialization, manufacturing and modernization. Those very things of which Jews have now shorn America.

        The “non-Jewish” faction to which you refer, was never a “faction.” None of these white men ever even entertained the thought of colluding and conspiring on the same level as Jews. The reason for that is the white man has never had the Jew’s hive mind.

        Like

      • Ton Nuiten
        November 10, 2018

        I am sorry, I have forgotten the name of the author of the book, “The 13 Satanic Bloodlines”; it is Robin de Ruiter, a Dutch researcher.

        Like

  2. A. Vickstrom
    October 13, 2018

    You will never understand Hitler until you’ve been to Germany. The reason for this is fairly straightforward:

    Not all Whites think or act the same.

    If you don’t believe me, I implore you to visit Europe and spend time in middle sized cities. See how the people look and act.

    Keeping this fact in mind, the honest truth about Europeans:

    1. Russians are far more violent than Englishmen (they even raped their Serbian allies during WWII – Yugoslav Communist Milovan Djilas listed this as a key reason behind the Yugo-Soviet Split).

    2. Germans are stubborn, inflexible, and strategically ‘lacking’ (to put it nicely). They are great engineers & tacticians but I’ve never met one of them that didn’t succumb to some degree of Magikal Thinking.

    3. The average German has a strong feeling of superiority towards Brits, Frenchmen, and Poles whereas he holds a deep inferiority complex towards Americans. 90% of German ‘anti-Americanism’ is born out of jealousy (which is quite unlike French anti-Americanism which comes from a fear that French culture will be steamrolled – as Britain’s already has – by corporate America).

    4. What White Americans need to understand is that your only real allies are Brits, Aussies, Canadians, and – to a lesser degree – the French & Belgians. The Germans, Scandinavians, and Dutch do not like you. All of this ‘I wish I wuz a Nazzi’ or ‘I wish I wuz a Russsian’ shite comes across as ridiculous when you know how those people actually view Americans.

    Like

    • eyeslevel
      October 14, 2018

      French intellectuals dropped “French Culture” the minute multiculturalism became fashionable in New York.

      Like

  3. A. Vickstrom
    October 13, 2018

    When white people start killing for international jewry–especially when they attack the first truly racial nationalist state–then they cease to be “our guys”. They are the enemies guys.

    This stupid tripe again?

    1. My people – the English – were deporting darkies in the 1700s (look up the Committee for the Relief of the Black Poor) and we did it again after WWI when America’s nigger soldiers left a litter of mulattos behind. The British homeland was an openly racialist land until 1948 when the HMS Windrush threw a boatload of Jamaicans on our doorstep.

    2. Hitler invaded Greece in 1941 in Unternehmen Marita. Greece was a racial nationalist state that was chasing its Jews off until Hitler’s legions overthrew Metaxas and killed many Greek civilians. Talk to the Greeks about how the Germans treated their ‘fellow Europeans.’

    3. Hitler allied with the Japanese who were busy raping White Dutch & Australian women in Indonesia.

    Hitler was not some sort of White Nationalist messiah – he was a German racialist who wanted Germany to become the dominant state in Europe and he had zero qualms about lying to get what he wanted.

    Like

    • Adolf Hitler
      October 13, 2018

      1. Your people- the English- betrayed Russia for the Turks, pumped China full of opium, put Dutch Boers into concentration camps, and started two wars against Germany to help fill Jewish coffers.

      2. Hitler invaded Greece because it was being occupied by the British.

      3. America and England allied with the bolsheviks who oversaw the worst genocide in human history, against White Christians, and later raped millions of European women.

      Now Europe is on the brink of annihilation because the bad guys won WW2. How about some perspective?

      Like

      • A. Vickstrom
        October 13, 2018

        More lies and fallacies:

        1. The Boers (who are typically 6% or more nonwhite: https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2017/09/22/the-non-european-ancestry-of-afrikaners/ ) were committing guerilla warfare so, naturally, we put them in concentration camps.

        2. The Czarist Russians were brutally subduing their ‘White brothers’ in Ukraine, the Baltics, Finland, and Poland so, naturally, it made sense for us to ally with the weaker Turks than with the expanding Russians. The idea that we have a divine mandate to ally with other Whites – even if such actions would be strategically incompetent – is absurd. It’d be akin to telling Jews that they must ally with all other Semites at all times.

        3. England ‘allied’ with the Soviet Union because Hitler invaded the USSR after he struck France through neutral Belgium, thereby starting a wider war.

        We gave Hitler months to back down:

        He refused and broke the previous conduct code of the war. The BEF & French were holding their punches whereas he invaded a neutral nation (Belgium). Then the Germans started whinging when we took the kid gloves off and started fighting to win.

        Like

      • bob saffron
        October 13, 2018

        On opium, it’s the Sassoon family and Queen Victoria where blame lies.

        Blaming entire countries is pointless, eg. the Germans facilitated Lenin’s return to Russia from Switzerland in 1917 hoping he’d start a revolution and cause Russia to withdraw from WWI.

        Like

    • icareviews
      October 13, 2018

      About Greece, Counter-Currents recently hosted an article by Greek historian Dimitris Michalopoulos that says, in part:

      “If truth be told, Greece was – from the year 1936 onward – the ally of Great Britain. […] It goes without saying that Metaxas did not change Greece’s Anglophilic orientation. Quite the contrary, as soon as he was invested with dictatorial powers, and despite his ‘fascist’ style and methods, he disposed of every pro-German nucleus within the government machinery and the Army.” He also adds, “The Metaxas years [were] the golden age of Greece’s Jewish community.”

      https://www.counter-currents.com/2018/09/the-new-state-in-portugal-spain-greece/#more-85420

      Like

  4. Adolf Hitler
    October 13, 2018

    I was right.

    Like

  5. ct
    October 13, 2018

    Has Hoffmann commented on the Mannerheim tapes?

    Hitler wrote as early as in Mein Kampf about conquering Russia, that is where I think he was heading wrong already. But the Mannerheim tapes seem to show he really believed Stalin was about to attack. Communist take over coup attempts in Germany (November revolution attempts) had made him what he was.

    Like

    • bob saffron
      October 13, 2018

      It’s just as hard to imagine any successful Russian invasion of Germany as the opposite. The Spanish guerrilleros (with some English help) defeated the invader Napoleon and he wasn’t hampered by the millstone of utopian communist ideology. Better moral optics, too, as the Palestinians will confirm.

      Liked by 1 person

    • icareviews
      October 14, 2018

      I don’t know if Hoffman has written about that, but he notes that he has previously discussed Hitler’s decision to invade Russia in issue 82 of his newsletter, which I don’t have.

      Like

  6. bob saffron
    October 13, 2018

    Reactionaries seem to do better when their ambitions are limited to their own countries. Franco, Stroessner, Pinochet, etc..

    Liked by 3 people

    • bob saffron
      October 15, 2018

      Brazil may, in the coming years, put on the khakis again to address its diversity.

      Like

  7. Hipster Racist
    October 13, 2018

    1. The Hitler cult, especially among Americans, is promoted by anti-white Ashkenazis because it’s useful to blunt any criticism of Ashkenazi power and make anyone pointing out Ashkenazi and Zionist power come across as some sort of hateful crazy person.

    2. The people who are truly invested in the Hitler cult are not particularly different than teenage girls who are really into Taylor Swift, or “Big Fans” who worship a particular professional athlete, or any other cult of personality. It’s not Adolph Hitler they are worshipping, it’s a media image created by Leni Riefenstahl. It’s a product of 20th century mass electronic media.

    3. Who cares?

    I wish I had named this blog “Americaaner Skynet.”

    P.S. – “White Nationalism” is for America only. The term “White” is meaningless in Europe. The earliest Americans called themselves “Englishmen” and “Christians.” As the cultural differences between European settlers became less and less important due to the multi-racial population of North America, the racial-ethnic terms “White,” “Black” and “Red” were adopted. Later, when the Chinese came to the West Coast, “Yellow” was added. Since the 1970s, the term “Brown” was added for Mestizos.

    (President Barack Obama is not “Black” – he’s half African, half White. First Lady Michelle Obama, the posterity of the original African slave population of North America, is “Black.”)

    This really isn’t complicated, I don’t know why people seem to have such a hard time with this, or perhaps why they pretend to have a hard time with it.

    I would love it if the term “Americaaner” caught on, but I’d actually prefer if the term “American” would revert back to its original meaning: the posterity of the Europeans who founded America, including those who married into our families.

    The rest of you can fuck right off.

    Liked by 1 person

    • A. Vickstrom
      October 13, 2018

      I would love it if the term “Americaaner” caught on, but I’d actually prefer if the term “American” would revert back to its original meaning: the posterity of the Europeans who founded America, including those that married into our families.

      I’d argue that Americans – the real ones who identify as Americans and have been in the country for a good long while – have essentially become their own unique ethnicity. After all, ethnicities are what happens when a group of people breed among themselves and develop a distinct culture & traits. This has happened in America.

      Americans have a very distinctive ‘energy’ and mentality that simply doesn’t exist among any of their ancestral groups. They don’t act like Brits or Germans because their 300 + years in North America have shaped them into something new.

      This really isn’t complicated, I don’t know why people seem to have such a hard time with this, or perhaps why they pretend to have a hard time with it.

      Because prominent individuals *cough* Richard Spencer *cough* fly to places like Hungary and then try to export this ideology to nations where it has no relevance. I wouldn’t even be surprised if its mainly Ashkenazis that are trying to pump this philosophy into Europe because they know it will end terribly.

      Like

      • bob saffron
        October 13, 2018

        Spencer was also selling pan-Europeanism over there (face palm!). Never send a ship anywhere empty.

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        October 13, 2018

        @A Vickstrom

        Americans – the real ones who identify as Americans and have been in the country for a good long while – have essentially become their own unique ethnicity.

        Of course we have, just like Australians are now their own ethnicity. Both Americans and Australians were originally British but developed their own ethnicity – and we’ve been at it twice as long as the Austrlians have. I can tell the difference between a Brit and an Aussie by looks alone – once they open their mouth it’s 100%.

        300 + years

        400 + years.

        Richard Spencer

        Richard Spencer is a dork, it’s too bad as he had some potential but thankfully he’s gone now and not coming back.

        Like

      • icareviews
        October 14, 2018

        50% of Aryan Skynet will always harbor a place in its heart for Tricky Dick.

        Like

      • icareviews
        October 14, 2018

        Mr. Vickstrom, what is your generational cohort, if you don’t mind my asking? I would suspect that a great number of Gen-X, millennial, and Gen-Z Europeans would disagree with you that Spencer’s thought “has no relevance” to the European situation.

        Like

    • Arch Stanton
      October 13, 2018

      The personality cult is a Jewish mind control technique for controlling the gullible goyim.

      A media created personality can be manipulated in two ways. The personality can ether be used as an authority figure to validate lies, like most of what is seen on TV and in the movies, or the personality can be used to discredit valid information, e.g., “David Duke said that!? And you believe what David Duke says?

      This is why clowns like Paris Hilton and Hollywood nitwits are often asked for their opinions on matters that go far beyond their comprehension and why so many actors are considered worthy of public office.

      Like

    • Richie Rich
      October 14, 2018

      “I wish I had named this blog “Americaaner Skynet.””

      That’s a cool name. I think you should do it. Can’t they redirect the domain name for you?

      Like

    • icareviews
      October 14, 2018

      “‘White Nationalism’ is for America only. The term ‘White’ is meaningless in Europe.”

      This may have been the case a few decades ago, but I think it’s changed with the demographics. Is the term “white” meaningless to Mark Collett, Millennial Woes, the Golden One, or RamZPaul’s Finnish Happy Homelands co-host? Europeans – at least the sane ones – are starting to recognize an identity in each other. Future generations of Europeans will be much more likely to value a white identity overarching their regional ethnic identity.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Richie Rich
        October 14, 2018

        @icareviews
        When “White Supremacy” ends, the rubber hits the road.

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        October 14, 2018

        @icareview

        I doubt that for a couple of reasons. First, America always had a “Year Zero” aspect to it that simply doesn’t exist in Europe, except for maybe the most radical of the radical French revolutionaries, and even then it never really caught on.

        Second, imagine Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, and Vietnamese all identifying as “Yellow” (they would call it “Golden” of course.) Sure, a bunch of “Asians” might feel some sense of community surrounded by Whites, Blacks, and Mexicans in South-Central Los Angeles – but maybe not even then.

        So the idea that Belgians, Siclians and Russians are going to identify, in their own nations, as “White” is simply never going to happen. I would hope that in some World War III against China that all “white” – European – nations would fight on the same side, and that isn’t totally unlikely, but “White” is like “Yellow” or Asian, it’s just too broad of an identity to have any meaning. Hell, Japanese people may very well want to identify as “White” alongside of Russians than ever consider themselves somehow cousins of Thais and Malaysians.

        Americans “Whites” had a unique experience for the last half millenium and it’s not going to happen that way in the future.

        Third, Europe just isn’t facing the same demographic issues that Americans are. Despite the hysteria, Muslims aren’t about to take over Europe any time soon. Consider too that “Muslim” is very much a multi-racial identity, the only thing comparable in Christianity would be “Latino Catholic” in Central and South America and they hate each other as much as Thais, Koreans, and Japanese do.

        The post-war American liberals were right, we need an Atlanticist coalition that hopefully isn’t hostile to Russia – it will exclude Arabs and Turks.

        “White” is, at the end of the day, really just another word for “American.”

        Mark Collett, Millennial Woes, the Golden One, or RamZPaul’s Finnish Happy Homelands

        All those people are only using the term “White” because of American influence, and none of them want to merge all European nations into some sort of generic “whiteness” – RamZPaul’s “Happy Homelands” is quite explicit about that – he says Hungary is for Hungarians, not “Whites” and not Americans like him.

        Travel and globalization does and will have some sort of “pan-White” effect but still, the vast, vast majority of people die in the same place they are born and that isn’t likely to change – it certainly won’t change in our lifetime nor the lifetime of our children or grandchildren.

        Like

      • icareviews
        October 14, 2018

        “… none of them want to merge all European nations into some sort of generic ‘whiteness’ …”

        And I’ve never suggested such a thing. I wrote, “Future generations of Europeans will be much more likely to value a white identity overarching their regional ethnic identity.” This isn’t to say that the sense of white or pan-European identity will replace or dislodge the ethnic identity, but rather enhance and bolster it. To be more precise, I suppose, I ought to have argued that future generations of Europeans will be much more likely to value a white racial identity informing and undergirding their regional ethnic identity – and people like me would aspire to see a white political identity or solidarity coalesce at the overarching level of European interstate politics.

        Muslims may not be at the top of the heap politically, and they may simply be the foot soldiers of “Globo Homo”, but at the street level and in terms of their ability to turn French or English or German neighborhoods and towns practically uninhabitable, they have demographic momentum. Also, if British police, for instance, either can’t or won’t even bother to properly investigate grooming gang operations in notorious instances, then these places might just as well be under kabob hegemony already.

        Like

      • ct
        October 15, 2018

        Nationalists in european nations abstain from mentioning race, because there is no free speech on this issue. For you americans it’s hard to imagine, but why is half your audience european? Because you simply cannot find valid material, articles of european outlets concerning our issue. They close everything down that touches race. That is why Generation identity is raceblind and thus their whole ideology is disconnected from reality. We do not have a term, and even if we had one, we would not use it because it would be against most nations laws here.

        So, Hipster is right in saying maybe european nationalists are suspicious about Spencer to drag them into problems. Race is a taboo here. The jews put the hammer down hard if you talk about it.

        Let’s say we had free speech which term would we use. European is much more likely than white/White and caucasian makes zero sense to us. We are indoeuropeans, aryans… So if you ask me we would go with european since NatSocs burned the term aryan.

        Most europeans implicitly know they’re related to their fellow tribes around them. You can travel from east to west and north to south and find the exact same people, similar people, a little different people and somewhat more different people. Vikings were in Sicily, they had a german king, Goths came to Spain, you find nordic looking Serbs as well as Italians and vice versa for most areas. Yes there are differneces, but there are a lot of similarities.

        Most europeans outside of the programmed sort would have no issue with a child marriying another european from another nation, they feel the child will be quite alright. But an arab, an african, asian etc. would put them off.

        In most european nations you have different racial components, all european, which stretch over and into other nations. North germany is more like dutch or denmark racially, south germany closer to italy and france (even that being only a tendency) etc.

        In most nations we know we consist of different subraces, all european, but different to an extent.

        Spencer has a point when he looks for a european endeavour for the next decades. But Nationalists also have a point.

        Yet, it is almost undeniable that the tiny european nations cannot act alone in any sufficient manner. If we had european nations disconnected nothing would work, outside powers could buy up and rule, conquer our tiny nations.

        So, the solution is a european confederation, modeled after the confederation of Switzerland.

        Giving the nations most possible self-determination culturally, politically. While building a sufficient common protection militarily to set europe safe and sound in global power play.

        Also, we have quite a few european ideas for this, one was of Bernhard Schaub for european action (intel agencies put the hammer down on them), then we have Normal Lowell with a european imperium idea.

        If you’d ask Orban, Salvini etc. if they want to leave the union they would say no. Also hungarians, poles etc. all want to stay in the union.

        So, realistically, the european project is not entirely false, it has potential. But it was invented by Coudenhove Kalergi, Churchill and other sick globalists, then shaped to push mass immigration on european people.

        In a working european alliance every nation could determine if they want open borders for europeans or not. So if France wants to invite other euorpeans and become the USA of europe, go. If Poland wants to stay strictly polish, Estonia estonian etc. alright.

        You americans are so powerful politically you can hardly grasp how powerless our tiny nations are. We know we need to ally to stay safe.

        The problem is the european union is ruled by globalist ambition and rejects what people really would accept: A european alliance for europeans only.

        Liked by 1 person

    • JJ
      October 14, 2018

      @Hipster Racist

      “1. The Hitler cult, especially among Americans, is promoted by anti-white Ashkenazis because it’s useful to blunt any criticism of Ashkenazi power and make anyone pointing out Ashkenazi and Zionist power come across as some sort of hateful crazy person.”

      Speaking of which. Did you hear Matt Heimbach is back and the NSM have appointed him their director of public relations?

      Like

      • Hipster Racist
        October 14, 2018

        @JJ

        Matt Parrott is back on social media too. These types are like a bad case of herpes, you can never get rid of them.

        Thanks to the internet, however, only the stupidest people will fall for this “false flag” media clown stuff – the history is just too well known now.

        Like

    • eyeslevel
      October 14, 2018

      What I don’t get is how European nationalists can possibly think that American white nationalists are a bigger threat than their own governments or the third world masses pouring in. That is just nuts.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Hipster Racist
        October 14, 2018

        @eyeswide

        European nationalists can possibly think that American white nationalists are a bigger threat than their own governments or the third world masses pouring in

        They don’t. What they may be afraid of is that imported American “white nationalism” – which let’s not forget is half the time an FBI and Ashkenazi-led “1488 Hitler” LARP “movement” – is likely to discredit and discourage their own actual European nationalisms movements.

        Jews call anything they don’t like “anti-semitism” – but they don’t call themselves “Semites.” We, rightly, use the term anti-white – but that doesn’t mean that we should therefore identify as “White.”

        In the American context, I’m fine with the terms “White” and “pro-white.” I would strongly prefer “American nationalism” but let’s not argue over terms until we have to. When they attack us “as whites” – we should use the term “anti-white.” Both Russians and Americans are under attack by anti-whites, certainly. But that obviously doesn’t mean that some idiot like Richard Spencer will now lead a movement to unite Russians and Americans under the “White Imperium.” That’s just stupid.

        Maybe I’ll start calling myself a “White Federationalist.” Or for now I’ll just stick to “pro-white.”

        Like

      • Eric H
        October 14, 2018

        @Hipster Racist
        “Jews call anything they don’t like “anti-semitism” – but they don’t call themselves “Semites.” We, rightly, use the term anti-white – but that doesn’t mean that we should therefore identify as “White.”:

        They call themselves Jews, but they call anyone who attacks them anti-semite. They have deliberately made this word their own. Since they wage war on their fellow semites in the Middle East, they have denied their enemies the word anti-semitism, so they can’t defend themselves verbally from attacks by these supremacist Jews.

        They never call themselves Pro Jewish, because that would make them sound a bit like those White Nationalist people whom they want to exterminate, just as much as their cousins in the Middle East.

        They do a similar sneaky thing with Christianity. Calling it Judeo-Christianity over and over, so it could be made to serve them. In turn they never use the phrase Christo-Judaism to describe their religion. Never! Never! Never! That would make them slaves to Christians!

        Jews choose their words very carefully, because they know that when you repeat particular words and phrases millions of times, they can have powerful political effects.

        The problem with whites not being allowed to call themselves white, is by law any third world invader can call themselves American, French, German, British. Norwegian, Italian, and be taken seriously, because our treacherous governments give them citizenship papers calling them by those names. But no matter what papers they are given, they can’t call themselves white and be taken seriously by any sane person.

        Regarding “White” and “white” I understand what you are getting at. I noticed Bob Whitaker always used lower case “white”, despite some complaining about it. I think he was hinting that we can be part of the broader family of whites, but we should still have our own countries where we can live with whites we feel most at home with.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Arch Stanton
        October 14, 2018

        “Jews choose their words very carefully, because they know that when you repeat particular words and phrases millions of times, they can have powerful political effects.”

        Jewish wordsmiths

        BLM? Black Lives Matter or Bureau of Land Management?

        In this example, one finds a yet another reconstituted interpretation for a hoary, Jewish acronym. This provides a good example for the reason Jews are so fond of acronyms and why the English language is now inundated with such Jewish nonsense.

        Prior to the twentieth century, acronyms were limited to British titles and did not exist in popular lexicon. During WWII military acronyms came into common use, even ribald thoughts about the military mysteriously turned into acronyms. “SNAFU” is but one example, Situation Normal – All Fucked Up. While those of more delicate constitution say, “All Fouled Up,” I assure the reader the first interpretation is what came to mind to the WWII solider when using the term.

        In this example, one sees how acronyms are easily modified in the mind of both the speaker and listener (or reader.) Since then, acronyms have proliferated at an absurd pace with each passing year.

        Jews have a penchant for words that have to be understood in context if one is to understand the intended meaning. One such word is “Torah” a word that can mean either instruction, law or both, depending on how a Jew uses the word in conversation.

        There is a classic story about a Jewish lad that hides under the bed while his parents are having sex. His father, a rabbi, hearing the boy gasp (go figure), pulls the boy from under the bed and accuses him of voyeurism (go figure). The Jewish lad responds to the accusation with the statement, “This is not voyeurism, this is Torah!” Vat!? You didn’t zee zat coming?

        Of course, the most famous of all phony, Jewish acronyms is “Nazi.” While not technically an acronym, Jews admit they invented the term as counter to slander and defame the German National Socialist Party that operated under the acronym NSDAP.

        Jewish wordsmiths transmuted “NSDAP” into “Nazi.” Look at how well that bastardized acronym has served the Jew. Is it any wonder the English language has now become moribund it the attempt to labor under the Jewish acronym?

        Around the turn of the 21st century, Jews actually began with the desired acronym that would invoke the desired “hot-button” reaction in the subconscious, and then twisted the definition to fit the acronym.

        The “Patriot” act is a classic example of this type of Jewish wordsmithing, to wit, Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. That’s some twisting eh?

        Such jargon is confusing to those uniformed with the details of the subject matter. Jews however have no care to inform, they only care about programming the mind to react in a desired manner. Their acronym jargon is specifically designed to confuse and program subconscious, knee-jerk reaction.

        What comes to mind when you hear “911”? Does it typically hold the same meaning for the listener the speaker intends? Even if one understands the term in context, does the subconscious mind still interpret it in that manner?

        Jews hate clarity. They feed on the confusion and obscurity of their efforts. They hate concise definitions and work continually to modify and erase the clarity of words so people will misunderstand what is being said.

        Acronyms serve to cloud ones thoughts with a failure to clearly identify the subject being discussed. Confusion and obfuscation are Jewish bywords for keeping the gullible goyim stupid and uninformed.

        My suggestion is to reject, or at least avoid, acronyms in conversation. Insist on having the full meaning spelled out for you. Tell the speaker you want to avoid the confusion acronyms tend to inject into a conversation. Get in the Jew’s face and yell “IDWHAMA!” I Don’t Want to Hear Any More Acronyms!

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        October 14, 2018

        @Arch Stanton

        Oy vey, surely you aren’t suggesting that acronyms were popularized by … The Jews?

        I thought it was because of the telegraph/typewriter…

        I’ll be completely honest with you, Arch Stanton – half of the time I think you’re a Jewish troll. Not even actual Jews are as Jew Supremacist as you are.

        Like

      • Arch Stanton
        October 14, 2018

        It’s a wonder you think half the time. Go with the other half the time. One of my relatives was one of Hitler’s chief administrators. Surely you’ve heard of Rudolph Stanton.

        Pay attention now, I never said Jews invented the acronym, I merely point out (((they))) use it to further their goals and have standardized its use in government. That in turn has bled over into popular culture, adding to the confusion of language.

        So let’s hear your version of how and why we have the babelistic mishmosh of jargon and acronyms confusing our language. No doubt, half the time you think that George Bush came up with the smarmy named acronym “Patriot Act.” Or was it one of those accidents, one of those things that just happens all the time, like the control of the media just happens to be predominately Jewish?

        Here’s a poem I wrote ‘specially for you – well not really.

        These wicked witches and wizards of Wordsmithy mutter foul incantations while crouching over their bubbling cauldrons of verbiage. Their teeth drip red with the blood of Palestinian children as they stir in nasty expletives while croaking, “we think it’s worth it!” Demon Shabbat goy and zombie social warriors grovel at their feet, supplying ever more ingredients that feed a vicious vichyssoise of verbosity.

        Eye of guilt, heart of hate, white genocide will be your fate!
        Lump of lies, sweet words and myths, error from tongue of vulture, a flask of horror with shot of terror, will wreck the white man’s culture. Small twist of humor to top it off, so they won’t know we’re killing them soft.
        We spit in their face, we lie in their ear,
        We smother their world with blankets of fear.
        Holocausts and trade towers to make them flinch,
        We’ve stolen their Christmas with our Grinch.
        Monsanto brings fruit from our vines,
        With genes we’ve spliced like Frankenstein,
        This horror food we sell to you,
        Is gobbled down without a clue.
        Promised health, medical incantation,
        It’s a death of stealth by vaccination,
        Laced with mercury that is so hot,
        These kill and maim like bullets shot,
        They cannot see with their own eye,
        Clear evidence that we deny,
        Those trails of death that cross the sky.
        We drive the Goyim to despair,
        For this, a lie we quote,
        “You have a voice in de-moc-rac-y”,
        “You have the right to vote!”
        Stolen houses from widows, Wall Street deals from hell,
        We fatten our coffers with these sweet words: buy! Buy! BUY! No – sell!
        Stealing from the goyim is like taking a grizzly bear’s honey,
        Be careful, make sure they’re fast asleep, before you debase their money.
        These things from our bag of tricks we play,
        So to the goyim this we say,
        A stake to the heart is our only fear,
        But we’ve stolen your mind and soul, so killing us will cost you dear!

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        October 14, 2018

        @Arch Stanton

        One of my relatives was one of Hitler’s chief administrators. Surely you’ve heard of Rudolph Stanton.

        No, of course I haven’t heard of Rudolph Stanton. Why would I? I’m not obsessed with Hitler and World War II – that would be Germans and Jews who are obsessed with WWII and Hitler.

        Maybe English isn’t your first language, or maybe you’re just a nutjob.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Arch Stanton
        October 14, 2018

        And maybe you’re just bright enough to be a hip hipster. Hip! Hip! Hurray!

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        October 14, 2018

        @Eric H

        This is what I actually said:

        So various people in Europe, who identify as their ethnicity/nationality, are being attacked as “white” by anti-whites. Again, we see “white” is essentially just a negative identity. Notice too they are trying to merge all these various identities into generic “whiteness.”

        I use the term “White” all the time. I spilled a small fortune in digital ink in just this thread explaining the difference between the term “White” in the American context, vs. “white” as used by anti-whites and how it’s used – or not used – in the European context. We have European posters in this very thread – along with hundreds, if not thousands, of European posters – who have made it clear they aren’t interested in American style “WN” or Richard Spencer’s silly “White Imperium” nonsense. Even though anti-EU sentiment is a major focus of white European resistance to globalism and mass immigration, we have American “White Nationalists” pretending that the EU is some sort of institution for White solidarity.

        Regarding “White” and “white” I understand what you are getting at. I noticed Bob Whitaker always used lower case “white”

        Lower-case “white” means Caucasian – that includes Jews and Arabs, whether we like it or not. I capitalize “White” when I’m referring to a) the American ethnic group and b) a theoretical ethnicity that includes Europeans around the world but excludes non-European lower-case “whites” who are nevertheless “Caucasians.”

        I’m being extremely careful in how I use the language precisely because I understand how powerful language is – the basis for propaganda, as Whitaker fans are always telling us is job number one (which I agree with.)

        You and icareviews are arguing with the wrong person here. It’s not *ME* you need to convince, it’s all those Europeans who identify with their nationality, not “white/Caucasian.” It’s also not *ME* who writes the dictionary and defines the terms. I’m just doing a bit of “rectification of the names” here because – YET AGAIN – White people are being derailed into nonsense about Hitler and labels.

        In America, “White Nationalism” has a context. Lower-case “white” is used almost entirely negatively, as eyeslevel so helpfully pointed out with a dozen or so links.

        Like

      • icareviews
        October 14, 2018

        “Lower-case ‘white’ means Caucasian – that includes Jews and Arabs, whether we like it or not. I capitalize ‘White’ when I’m referring to a) the American ethnic group and b) a theoretical ethnicity that includes Europeans around the world but excludes non-European lower-case ‘whites’ who are nevertheless ‘Caucasians.'”

        Dude, stop. These boutique definitions you’re using are meaningful to you and approximately 0% of everybody else on the planet. Nobody reads “white” or “White” and thinks that includes Arabs. When I write “white”, which I never capitalize because it looks pretentious, I mean people who are white – i.e., “us”. For reasons I’ve previously discussed, I exclude Jews/Semites.

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        October 14, 2018

        @icareviews

        Uh, no dude, it’s you that is 100% incorrect here. Virtually 100% of people on earth think Ashkenazi Jews are “white.” Even Ashkenazi Jews think they are “white” and only pretend to believe otherwise when it’s politically useful for them.

        Arabs are absolutely and have always been considered “Caucasian” and “the white race” has almost always been considered a synonym with “Caucasian.”

        Nobody reads “white” or “White” and thinks that includes Arabs

        In Kansas City, sure. In the rest of the world? In India? In China? In Africa?

        99% of people see this picture and without the hoodie she’d be “white” to virtually everyone.

        For reasons I’ve previously discussed, I exclude Jews/Semites.

        That’s because you’re using provincial definitions that have little relevance outside of midwest American culture. If you were to say, “Americans don’t consider Arabs white” – fine. But that is not at all what you are saying, you’re claiming way more than that.

        White people is a racial classification specifier, used mostly and often exclusively for people of European descent. The term has at times been expanded to encompass certain persons of Middle Eastern, North African, and South Asian descent, persons who are often considered non-white in other contexts. The usage of “white people” or a “white race” for a large group of mainly or exclusively European populations, defined by their light skin, among other characteristics, and contrasting with “black people”, Amerindians, and other “colored” people or “persons of color”, originated in the 17th century. It was only during the 19th century that this vague category was transformed in a quasi-scientific system of race and skin color relations. The term “Caucasian” is sometimes used as a synonym for “white” in its racial sense and sometimes to refer to a larger racial category that includes white people among other groups.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race

        It’s YOU using “boutique definitions” that are ahistorical and provincial.

        I had a high caste, light skinned Brahmin Indian go ballistic on me because I accidentally excluded him from the category “white.” I don’t consider Indians “white” – are they even Caucasian?

        When I write “white”, which I never capitalize because it looks pretentious, I mean people who are white – i.e., “us”.

        That might work in Kansas City, but you’re talking to an international audience now.

        Like

      • icareviews
        October 14, 2018

        Dude, the Wikipedia article you quote against me is acknowledging my definition as the standard: “White people is a racial classification specifier, used mostly and often exclusively for people of European descent.”

        It’s been used in the past, as with the “white slave trade” which was largely non-white, to refer to off-white peoples, but most people equate “white” with Europeans. It’s true that most people erroneously include Jews and especially Ashkenazim in the same group, but not Arabs.

        If you want Egyptians or Saudis in the hypothetical white ethnostate, go ahead and run it up the flagpole and see if anybody here or anywhere else salutes. Me, I’m greasing the gates with pork fat.

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        October 14, 2018

        @icareviews

        the Wikipedia article you quote … is acknowledging my definition as the standard

        You are saying that as if it’s a GOOD thing? Is George Zimmerman really a “white Hispanic?”

        most people equate “white” with Europeans. It’s true that most people erroneously include Jews

        Then stop using the term “white” and use the term “European” – unless you are using “white” in a normative way, not a positive way. In which case – good luck getting anyone aside outside of the Breitbart to 1488 axis to understand you.

        If you want Egyptians or Saudis in the hypothetical white ethnostate

        Now you’re just trolling.

        Like

      • Eric H
        October 14, 2018

        @Hipster Racist

        That’s interesting how you associate white and White. When I see White I think of White Multiculturalism. A country with a mishmash of Whites all crammed into it from all over the world. To me it is almost as alienating as non-White Multiculturalism.

        I watched my country go from White British to mud land in my short life and the thin end of the wedge they used against us was White Multiculturalism. So naturally I feel uncomfortable when I see that word capitalized with nothing attached to it.

        The only commandment is Do What Works – in your place and time.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Eric H
        October 14, 2018

        I have spoken to some in a non-racialist forums and they are very supremacist. They say the Whites in the colonies are mongrel Whites. Perhaps they were joking. Perhaps they weren’t. This is a forum known for its trolling.

        However these people were killing Whites in small countries right next door to them not long ago. Eastern European nationalism is like that. It is very hard. They aren’t soft and mushy like the Europeans further in.

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        October 14, 2018

        @Eric H

        1. I use the terms “White” and “white” – capitalized or lower-case – according to the usage of Kevin MacDonald and Andrew Joyce at the Occidental Observer: “White” as a synonym for “European” and “white” as a synonym for “Caucasian.”

        2. Counter Currents chooses to not capitalize “white” – and their editor, Greg Johnson, has explained that editorial decision. He chose to use a different style than MacDonald/Joyce.

        3. The standard “journalistic” usage in America, and most of the English speaking world, is to use lower case “white” to mean “Caucasian” – and almost *always* in a negative sense. E. Michael Jones (correctly) points out that “white” in American usage typically meant “not black.” Even my sainted mother told me I could never marry a “black” but she’d be more accomodating if I married a “Japanese” because they were … “white” …

        4. Hunter Wallace of Occidental Dissent wrote an excellent article tracing the term “white” from the earliest American colonies, including all of the references. My own spin on this is to capitalize these … VERY AMERICAN … usages of the color terms “White,” “Black,” “Brown” and “Yellow/Gold.” These color words are almost *exclusively* meaningful in an American context. Europeans never had these “color” terms until World War II. Most Europeans never saw a “black/African” until the 1800s. The racial concept of “white” was meaningless to the British until the era of colonization … much less the (very American) term “Red Man” until that one particular “savage Indian/Red man” was brought to England in a kind of carnival show. (Sure, the ancient Romans knew of Egypt who knew of Africans but it was a mild curiosity that some educated people knew about, the average Englishmen thought of “race” to mean “English vs. French vs. Irish. vs. German.”)

        5. Don’t blame me for trying to bridge this gap of language. I’m just a white guy – an American – trying to appeal to an international audience and I’m constantly attacked by idiot Hitler fetishists and $PLC employees and literally mentally ill nutjobs like “Pastor Martin Lindstedt” of Kentucky who calls me a “whigger nationalist” because I’m not one of his “Thousand Israelite Warlords” who will take over the government after the “Rapture” – when I’m not being accused of being a “jewr mischling degenerate fornicator.”

        6. Even in this thread I’m attacked for not subscribing to the idea that the confusion between the acronyms of the Bureau of Land Management and Black Lives Matter is a “Jewish” conspiracy.

        You can’t win with these people – they don’t want to win any sort of political or propaganda battle, they just want to attack near, not far.

        I’m being as diplomatic as possible.

        Like

      • Eric H
        October 14, 2018

        My above post was a reply to eyeslevel’s original post.

        Like

    • eyeslevel
      October 14, 2018
      • Hipster Racist
        October 14, 2018

        @eyeswide

        Who are you trying to convince? Me? In Britain, the most pro-white party is called the “British National Party” – not the “White Nationalist Party.”

        If you have a problem with the words they are using, you should try to convince them to change the words, not me.

        Like

      • icareviews
        October 14, 2018

        You’re disregarding the legal context in which British politicians operate. They would likely find themselves in trouble for “fostering racial hatred” or some nonsense like that if they advertised themselves as a “white nationalist” party.

        If HR is right and “white” consciousness is strictly an American thing – and I’m not convinced that it is – then we’re just going to have to be uglier Americans than we’ve been heretofore and conquer these unruly children again – even if only on the battlefield of identity politics. They’ll become white whether they like it or not.

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        October 14, 2018

        @icareviews

        The term “white” is used in the original naturalization law for the United States and “whiteness” was important in America precisely because of the presence of huge numbers of Africans and Indians.

        We even have a Brit right here in this thread pointing out that they don’t want white Polish people mass immigrating to their country, even though I suspect they would rather have Poles than, say, Nigerians.

        Isn’t the slogan of the BNP “Britain for British people?”

        If HR is right and “white” consciousness is strictly an American thing

        The term “American” was forced to included non-whites hundreds of years ago, it’s only recently, for half that time, that British people, or Germans for that matter, were anything other than “Europeans” i.e., “white.”

        “White” is a racial term. Arabs are Caucasians, they are of the same race as we are. But no one thinks Saudis are Europeans.

        The term “White” has a resonance in America that it doesn’t have in Spain. As I even said in this thread, I’d prefer to simply go back to being “American.”

        Like

      • icareviews
        October 14, 2018

        “Arabs are Caucasians, they are of the same race as we are. But no one thinks Saudis are Europeans.”

        Arabs are Semites, a Caucasoid people but “of the same race as we are” only in a broad, unpractical sense.

        The future of Europe’s political resistance is, at least at the implicit level, WHITE.

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        October 14, 2018

        Arabs are Semites, a Caucasoid people but “of the same race as we are” only in a broad, unpractical sense.

        “Semite” is not a race, it’s a linguistic category. There are three races traditionally recognized: Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid. Put an Irishman, an Egyptian, a Thai, and a Nigerian in a line up and the first two would be considered “the white ones.” An Ashkenazi Jew is considered “white” by everyone except for the most hardcore WNs – and, ironically, other Ashkenazis.

        An even more complicated factor is that the worst anti-whites – the ones promoting mass immigration into white countries, and only white countries, are white. Of course I understand the Jewish problem, I’ve always called Jews the intellectual and financial core of the anti-white movement. But if anything this mass immigration/globalism issue is a White Civil War.

        If it weren’t for the White leaders, Europeans could deal with the non-European population in short order – same with Americans.

        In any case, it’s not me you have to convince – I’m pretty much already on board. I’m just expressing why Brits like AV object to some of the language American “WNs” use.

        Like

      • icareviews
        October 14, 2018

        If “Semitic” is today being used by academics as a linguistic category, that doesn’t reflect the word’s traditional use. Semites are a race. Jews aren’t white. The end.

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        October 14, 2018

        @icareviews

        This is a “blue/green” argument.

        Jews and Arabs are Caucasoids, thus “white” by virtually everyone’s definitions. They are not “White” by their or our definition.

        Besides, “Jew” is a social construct. A full blooded medieval Jewess marries a Viking, her daughter marries a Dutch, her daughter marries a German, her daughter marries a Frenchman. Etc., etc.

        The great-great-great-x-x-x grand daughter is .004% Ashkenazi, yet she’s 100% “Jew.”

        But an Eastern Russian with 20% Asiatic/Oriental – including the eye thing – is 100% White?

        The term “Semite” is from the 1700s and it means “Son of Shem” – as in one of Noah’s three sons. The word itself is based on mythology. It has no meaning other than linguistic and in the smear term “anti-semite.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • icareviews
        October 14, 2018

        Ashkenazim are on average approximately 50% Semitic, not “.004%”. That’s a substantial non-white component, although you’re correct that there’s a cultural, or constructed, component to Jewishness – which actually works to make them even more hostilely alien to us than some quarter-Asiatic Russian.

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        October 14, 2018

        @icareviews

        I didn’t say Ashkenazi, I said “Jew.” “Jew” is a social construct.

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        October 14, 2018

        @eyeswide

        So various people in Europe, who identify as their ethnicity/nationality, are being attacked as “white” by anti-whites. Again, we see “white” is essentially just a negative identity. Notice too they are trying to merge all these various identities into generic “whiteness.”

        Like

      • Eric H
        October 14, 2018

        @Hipster Racist
        “Again, we see “white” is essentially just a negative identity.”

        Power politics is not accepting a bad situation as it is. Power politics is changing something that would not have changed had you done nothing.

        To be anti-white is becoming a negative identity, only because certain people have been repeating phrases like “Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white” and raising the issue of white genocide. The minute this work stops, the so called anti-racists will begin to return to their previous power levels.

        Running from whiteness when anti-whites demonise it, is the same as white flight. White flight gives the runners peace for a few years, but eventually diversity chases them down again. And eventually they will run out of places to flee to.

        Liked by 1 person

      • icareviews
        October 14, 2018

        Eric is right. It’s the coalition of the fringes – our enemies – that constitute the “negative identity”, because increasingly the establishment favors whatever is anti-white: whatever suppresses our birthrates, kills us off the fastest, demoralizes us the fastest, and makes us work against each other. You could choose to see “white” as a negation, a cultural or historical whitewashing and making generic what is actually diverse, or you could choose to find in it a oneness around which the disparate European and European-diaspora identities can unite. I choose the latter.

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        October 14, 2018

        @icareview

        You could choose to see “white” as a negation, a cultural or historical whitewashing and making generic what is actually diverse, or you could choose to find in it a oneness around which the disparate European and European-diaspora identities can unite. I choose the latter.

        Hey, these days, you can “choose” to identify as tri-gender and a unicorn. Nevertheless, if you want to communicate with people – in this case, European nationalists – you’re going to have to “choose” to use words that mean something to them. Inventing our own definitions for words is a recipe for further marginalizing pro-White ideas.

        British people are white/Caucasian. I’d be happy if they identified as a part of the “White ethnicity.” I hope they resist the idea of “African British” or “Pakistani British.” But they call themselves “British nationalists,” they want out of the white-run “EU” and they aren’t interested in open borders for Polish workers to undermine their wages.

        I’m not going to insult their intelligence by complaining that they identify as “British” as opposed to “White.”

        Like

      • icareviews
        October 14, 2018

        Fuck these prissy Brits with their reactionary anti-Polish bigotry and counterrevolutionary anti-Euroimperium prejudices. They’re going to take our big Poles and like it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • bob saffron
        October 14, 2018

        “Mr Khan is ‘not acting quickly enough to build new cycling infrastructure, particularly new segregated cycling routes, even where there is public support for them’”.

        I don’t wonder. A good start, with broader implementation over time.

        Like

    • ct
      October 15, 2018

      Arabs are a mixed race with substantial caucasian element. But they’re mixed with african and asian substance, it starts in Turkey and gets more mixed further east. there is remnants of more caucasoid populations (see Assads appearance), but mostly they’re too mixed to be considered of the same race. They are not one of the three races, they are all of them, the mixed area.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. A. Vickstrom
    October 13, 2018

    The icing on the cake is that you’re a dorky LARPer, an American with a silly (((Hollywood Nazi))) blog, proving that you are a Good Goy. The $PLC thanks you for your support.

    On the bright side, at least in America it is the SPLC running the scam rather than the government.

    The last time a rising Brit called these tards out he died under odd circumstances. Look up Jonathan Bowden. He was evicted from the BNP and then died from ‘heart failure’ at the age of 49. He was the first man to restore some semblance of order to our movement after ruthlessly focusing on John Tyndall’s final message:

    Bowden’s core message was that we need a new movement that encapsulates our people’s unique traits. The same is true of Americans – NS has no place in America because Americans aren’t Germans and German philosophy therefore has little sway with them.

    Like

    • Hipster Racist
      October 13, 2018

      @A Vickstrom

      NS has no place in America because Americans aren’t Germans and German philosophy therefore has little sway with them.

      True, but it’s even deeper than that. As you said on my blog, Scots hate fascism as it’s too authoritarian. Well Americans – VERY much Scottish and influenced by Scottish culture – are even more anti-authoritarian than Scots. (As I’ve noted previously, Americanism on the most decentralized, libertarian side is Baptist (in political terms, anarcho-syndicalism) and on the most organized, centralized side, Presbyterian, Presbyterian being the Church of Scotland, after all.) The American republican system of government is governmental/secularized Presbyterianism.

      I know of Bowden, you should look up Lysander Spooner. He was an American original.

      I’d probably say Ben Franklin was the first real American-American, a character unique to the American ethnicity and culture, Andrew Jackson being a close second.

      Like

      • A. Vickstrom
        October 14, 2018

        Very good points, HR.

        Tbh, American only makes sense once you understand the Scottish influence. And it’s immense. Even the majority of English settlers who came to America originated in the far north, typically Liverpool. The locals there are more like Scots than they are like the south English (they call us ‘posh English’ and we almost always vote differently). This is a typical girl from Liverpool:

        Light skin, Scottish words (‘me naan won the lottereee’), Nordic features. Now here’s a man with a midlands accent speaking with a famous glamour model from the south of England:

        She obviously has a spray tan but her accent & facial features are still markedly different than the Liverpool girl. At my secondary school there was only a single redheaded girl.

        I know of Bowden, you should look up Lysander Spooner. He was an American original.

        I just scanned through his Wiki page and it’s honestly incredibly fascinating to see an example of purified Americanism before the Jewish takeover of the early 1900s.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hipster Racist
        October 14, 2018

        @AV

        That Liverpool girl has the exact same coloring of my sister when she was that age, she laughs just like all the girls in my family, and her facial features – nose, eyes, cheeks, mouth, even her forehead – she could very well be my niece or my cousin. The only thing even slightly “foreign” about her is the accent.

        Like

  9. Arch Stanton
    October 13, 2018

    Hoffmann obviously missed a few details

    Even as a youth, I could never understand why at the peak of his success in Europe, Hitler would make the grave tactical error of dividing his forces to attack Russia just before the onset of winter. I figured if I could see that error, how could Hitler have missed it? It made no sense.

    It goes back to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. A true pact between the Germany and Russia two would have created more or less unified, totalitarian control across the entire European continent, at least had the two actually conspired, as Rothschild money men had originally planned before Hitler double crossed them.

    However, the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was a sham for both sides and never a true alliance. For Hitler, the pact provided Germany breathing room to prepare for war with the communist. For his part, Stalin wanted the appearance of cooperation until he could mount his devastating “Operation Icebreaker,” where he planned to sweep into Germany and more importantly its Rumanian oilfields, depriving Germany of its much needed oil reserves.

    Had Icebreaker been successful, it would have brought Germany to its knees, effectively ending the war. The Americans tried it again in 1943 with their bombing campaign against the Polesti oilfields.

    Stalin had quite bit of work to do prior to “Icebreaker” and events were moving quickly. Five layers of defensive fortifications and obstructions had to be cleared before Soviet troops could move across the border. A complex attack campaign had to be planned as well, with massive staging of troops along the border. The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was signed August 23, 1939. The war with Britain began the next month and Stalin’s plan for his “Icebreaker”attack was Spring of 1941.

    Viktor Suvorov challenges the view that Adolf Hitler attacked an unsuspecting USSR on June 22, 1941 with a much superior and better prepared force. Instead, Suvorov argues that the Soviet Union was poised to invade Nazi-controlled territories in July 1941.

    Suvorov claims that, just as Stalin eliminated his political enemies by pitting them against one another, so too was the plan when he gave Hitler the support to attack Poland, knowing that the act would trigger a war between Germany and the United Kingdom and its allies. The principal argument is based on an analysis of Soviet military investments, diplomatic maneuvers, Politburo speeches and other data. Suvorov suggests that Stalin perceived the outcome of World War II as a loss. Suvorov mentions the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact along with its secret auxiliary protocol, existence of both were constantly denied by the Kremlin authorities until 24 December 1989 during Mikhail Gorbachev leadership.

    Of course the Jews have trotted out many “experts” to discredit Suvorov’s claims and produce a vast number of technical reasons why Stalin’s plan to attack Germany would have been “impossible,” but one fact remains, this provides the only possible explanation why Hitler chose to attack Russia in late June, almost to the day of Napoleon’s previous attack that began 24 June 1812, just two months before the onset of the Russian winter.

    Hitler was no fool. No doubt, he would have been familiar with Napoleon’s snowy defeat. The German attack opened up a second front as well, a huge strategic mistake with German forces effectively sweeping over Europe. Outside the need for a preemptive strike, there would have been no reason for Hitler to weaken his victorious forces to repeat Napoleon’s mistake.

    “Operation Barbarossa,” Hitler’s attack on Russia, comes down to this: Either Hitler was the “carpet-chewing madman” Jews claim him to be

    ~ or ~

    the Soviets presented a pressing threat, sufficient to the point Hitler was forced to divide his forces to attack Russia at the worst time of year, as proven by Emperor Napoleon’s attack in the previous century. And wouldn’t you know it, Hitler’s attack on Russia had the very same outcome.

    Now how could Der Führer have missed that?

    Liked by 3 people

  10. bob saffron
    October 13, 2018

    A hell of a watercolor artist, that’s beyond discussion.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. bob saffron
    October 13, 2018

    The drafting of horses in the invasion of France might have given pause.

    Like

  12. bob saffron
    October 13, 2018

    As Hoffman implies, there was no part of the pact with Japan that obliged Germany to declare war on the US in the wake of Pearl Harbor.

    Like

  13. A. Vickstrom
    October 14, 2018

    @Icarereviews

    Mr. Vickstrom, what is your generational cohort, if you don’t mind my asking? I would suspect that a great number of Gen-X, millennial, and Gen-Z Europeans would disagree with you that Spencer’s thought “has no relevance” to the European situation.

    It’s an understandable question. I’m in my early 20s and my views are dominant among my cohort. Most of us know there’s no need to be overly autistic about ethnicity (many Brits have a bit of Irish in them and I favour cooperation with other Europeans) – but the policies Spencer advocates are hurting us. Mass immigration of Eastern Europeans is breaking up our communities and undercutting us on a economic level.

    The ‘White Imperium’ types are intellectuals with little real world following in Britain. Very few UKIP voters even know who Millenial Woes or the Golden One are.

    Like

    • icareviews
      October 14, 2018

      In your experience, do British identitarian intellectuals exhibit much interest in reaching out to aggrieved working class nativists or understanding their concerns? I can’t claim to know much about the history of the BNP, but I am fond of all of those old Jonathan Bowden lectures and his seeming sensitivity to the common man or at least his consciousness of the unfortunate disconnect.

      Like

      • A. Vickstrom
        October 14, 2018

        The gap between the intellectuals & working class is rapidly diminishing. Brexit & Nigel Farage showed us that populism can work. Joe Owens is exposing the Brit equivalent of the HollywoodNazi scam. We are finally starting to make progress and it feels amazing.

        Imo, the one issue that still needs to be overcome is that Britain fell hard over the last 50 years and the intellectuals haven’t accepted this yet. We have 66 million people crammed into an area the size of Oregon. We import half of our food because we haven’t the land to grow it. We have millions of racial aliens in our midst. Knife crime is an epidemic. These are things the older intellectuals can’t understand. Many of the older intellectuals want to relive the glory days of empire rather than focus on practical solutions to our problems circa 2018.

        Like

      • bob saffron
        October 16, 2018

        @ A.Vickstrom:
        Owens raised my suspicions about Jeremy Bedford Turner with his gratuitous Roman salute in from of the cameras and that infelicitous comment about drowning traiterous MPs in the Chunnel. I like “David Yorkshire” of Mjolnir Magazine.

        Like

  14. eyeslevel
    October 14, 2018

    Europeans are not allowed to complain about the non-white invasion. If they do, their doors are literally kicked down and they’re hauled off to prison. So much of that energy goes to complaining about America. It is a national pastime in Europe. They refuse to spend the money or do what it takes to have real sovereignty, starting with paying for their own defense and policing global shipping lanes upon which they are far more reliant than America is.

    When America minds its own business, Europeans call us “isolationist”. When we do something, the call us “imperialist.” Macron recently called us “aggressively isolationist”. Now, only someone who wanted to whine for the sake of whining would come up with an oxymoron like that. This passive-aggressive behavior from childish European “leaders” is something the public there just eats up. Whether they’re on the left or the right, there is some narrative they can latch on to to blame all their problems on America.

    Europeans are a bunch of self-hating whiny babies and it’s about time they grew up.

    Like

  15. eyeslevel
    October 14, 2018

    The pan-European alliance is already forming. Given the fact that whites are being attacked as whites, not as Germans or Poles or Swedes, this is inevitable.

    https://www.politico.eu/article/viktor-orban-matteo-salvini-team-up-to-attack-emmanuel-macron/

    Liked by 1 person

  16. A. Vickstrom
    October 14, 2018

    @Icarereviews, most Europeans know they’re White but in Europe identity exists in layers. Going from strong to weak:

    Ethnic identity -> National identity -> ‘allied ethnicities’ -> White Identity.

    Whiteness is a bit of an abstract concept for us because if, say, Finland becomes an ethno-state then the White race survives. But I’m not a Finn and I don’t speak their language and probably don’t have many shared ancestors with them in the last 8,000 years or more. Finns are civilized White people but they’re not my people in the same way that other Brits are. I don’t want to see Finland swamped with Muslims but I have to focus on my nation.

    ‘White’ has more meaning in America. I’m here studying right now and when an American says he’s a ‘White American’ (rather than a ‘Greek American’ or whatnot) he is saying that he’s part of a distinctive culture & identity.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Arch Stanton
      October 14, 2018

      Why not use the time honored Jewish tradition. One is white If their mother is white. Of course, if the father is from a mud race, like a schvartzer or Palestinian, then one can pretend they’re white to use them against the Jew.

      Speaking of Jews ~

      Quid pro Jew – a contest of terms

      Jews are a special people – a very special people; if you don’t believe it, just ask one.

      Israeli Sephardic leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef said that non-Jews exist to serve Jews, in his weekly Saturday night sermon. “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world; only to serve the People of Israel…Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi [Arabic, meaning lord or master] and eat,” he said to some laughter.

      Jews are human while you are not, if you don’t believe it, read their Talmud.

      “God created them in the form of men for the glory of Israel. But Akum [Gentiles] were created for the sole end of ministering unto them [the Jews] day and night. Nor can they ever be relieved from this service. It is becoming to the son of a king [an Israelite] that animals in their natural form and animals in the form of human beings should minister unto him.” (Talmudic treatise Midrasch Talpioth Folio 225a)

      “With gentiles, it will be like any person: They need to die, but God will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant. That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew,” said the rabbi…

      “The sexual intercourse of a Goy is like to that of a beast.” (Sanhedrin 74b Tosephoth)

      “The seed of a Goy is worth the same of that of a beast.” (Kethoboth 36)

      So it is easy to see that Jews have divide the world into two species – Jews and animals. If it breaths and it is not a Jew, then it is an animal. To accentuate this categorization, Jews have a special word for non-Jews – “Goyim” or “cattle.” In this, one finds the idea that there are only Jews and their cattle, over whom their god has given them “dominion.”

      The problem is non-Jews have no defining word to separate them from Jews. While “goyim” or “goy” is most appropriate in instances where dumbed down, bovine-like creatures that walk upright, live to serve the Jew, not all non-Jews fit into this category. There is “non-Jew,” but hyphenated names are the work of the Jew and besides, it has negative connotations, like Jews are somehow positive while non-Jews have a negative existence.

      So what is needed is a single word identifier for the non Jew, There are ______ and there are Jews. UnJews? Preferably, the word should not include the word “Jew” but should have superior impact to that nasty noun/verb.

      Personally, I like “Human” something Jews are not. Hell, they’re not even animals. According to their biblical legends, they are some sort of demonic, shape-shifting, spawn of the devil. However, “human” is too confusing for the bovine – er, goyim – masses to understand. So I would like to hear some thoughts on how we non-Jews can identify ourselves with an all inclusive term that specifically separates all non-Jews from Jews.

      Like

  17. A. Vickstrom
    October 14, 2018

    Regarding the strategic value of Whiteness vs Ethnic Identity:

    Afrikaners don’t consider British South Africans to be part of ‘their tribe’ and that’s after 150 years living together in South Africa and being outnumbered by Blacks. That’s the reason why the Suidlanders explicitly call themselves a ‘White Afrikaner ethnic survival group’:

    https://suidlanders.org/

    Hell, most Afrikaner types openly dislike British South Africans. White Identity does have value (it’s why we’re talking about the Afrikaner’s in the first place) but it needs to be complemented by cultural & ethnic identity in order to build a mainstream movement.

    It’s all about what allows us to win power the fastest.

    Liked by 2 people

  18. Les
    October 14, 2018

    Stalin gave a speech to Red Army generals in May 1941 stating that the Soviet Union was preparing for offensive war. Straight from the horses mouth! British historian David Irving has written about this.
    http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/04/Stalin_plans.html
    Russian historian Igor Bunich discovered the name of Stalin’s planned offensive against Germany. It was Operatsia Groza (Operation Thunderstorm).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Bunich
    Unfortunately his works on this subject haven’t been translated into English. The best English language book on this subject is The Chief Culprit – Stalin’s Grand Design To Start World War II by Viktor Suvorov. It goes into great detail and is worth reading. This author contends that the Soviet-Nazi non aggression pact was a ruse from day one by Stalin as his intention from the start was to lull Hitler into a false sense of security and then strike when he least expected it. The British and French had sent a delegation to Moscow in 1939 to try for an alliance with the USSR. If Hitler didn’t make a deal with Stalin then they would have tried again. Bear in mind many Anglo-French politicians condemned Hitler for being a dictator yet were perfectly happy to enter into an alliance with the dictator Stalin. There is a very long but interesting and worthwhile thread on Stalin’s plan to attack Germany and Hitler’s preventive measure here – https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999

    Like

    • bob saffron
      October 16, 2018

      When the USSR sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

      With all due respect to Irving, the demoralized Soviet army with its inability to manage resources – economic and human (how many of the finest cadres in the armed forces fell to Stalin in peace-time?), together with the psychological and informational disadvantage borne by the invader would have made Germany impossible to conquer and occupy (think Finland, but infinitely worse).

      Reading Hellstorm one has the impression that the Soviet Central Asian troops were less shock and awe than shocking and awful.

      Liked by 1 person

  19. james
    October 15, 2018

    Interesting, but way too much baggage.

    Like

  20. A. Vickstrom
    October 16, 2018

    @Bob Saffron, regarding your comment about Jez Turner… I agree completely. He’s also part of that clique that runs ‘Western Spring’ (I’m not familiar with all the details) and IMO it is the most shallow case of EnemyFaceTM propaganda ever. Their blog has an article up right now called ‘Whites against the whole non-White world.’

    No thinking person wants to sign up for an apocalyptic race war against the entire planet.

    @Icarereviews, I just saw your ‘Fucks these prissy Brits’ comment and I admit it is humourous. You had me fooled. Anyways, I never intended to start a debate about Polish immigration. I was merely trying to point out that Germans don’t think like White Americans and this is not a ‘Hitler yeah or neigh’ issue. Almost their entire officer corp. thought that invading the Soviet Union was a good idea.Magical thinking is a German cultural weakness (classic example: they tried to ‘go green’ a few years ago and built super advanced solar panels & shutdown their nuke plants… but Germany is cloudy and they still need power so now they burn more carbon fuels than ever).

    If anyone is interested here’s an excellent vid on the weaknesses of the German high command in WWII:

    Like

  21. dgaubatz313
    October 17, 2018

    Hoffman thinks critically about many things. He doesn’t think critically about the Judaic religions (christianity, catholocism, islam, judaism), especially Christianity. I hate all those damn so called holy books, they are full of contradictions and bullshit. The old testament is the worse, but even Jesus in this book tells you to hate your family if you want to follow him.

    Creation is real, but there is no proof these damn books are the word of whoever is responsible for creation.

    Like

  22. Les
    October 17, 2018

    bob saffron wrote – “As Hoffman implies, there was no part of the pact with Japan that obliged Germany to declare war on the US in the wake of Pearl Harbor”. Hoffman ignores Roosevelt’s Rainbow 5 Plan which called for a 5 million man army to wage war against Germany and invade occupied Europe. News of this was leaked to the press in the week before Pearl Harbor. http://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2008/06/16/rainbow-5-roosevelts-secret-pre-pearl-harbor-war-plan-exposed/ So even if the Japanese called off the attack at the last minute FDR was still determined to go to war against Germany. In August 1941 he said to Churchill “I may wage war but I may not declare war. If I did the Congress might argue about it for three months”. In September 1941 Roosevelt ordered the US navy to attack German submarines and they followed his orders even without a declaration of war by the Congress. https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=11338

    Like

    • bob saffron
      October 19, 2018

      I’m well aware of Roosevelt’s determination to make war by hook or by crook. Nevertheless, it’s much harder to conduct a stealth war on an opponent who won’t offer you a casus belli. It might have been difficult if not impossible to mobilize 5m. fighting men on the sly.

      Look at how Bush’s WMD ruse played out, despite him eventually prosecuting his war. Saddam Hussein complied with demands and refused to be goaded into conflict. His reputation is the better for it, despot though he was. Bush and the neocons, on the other hand….

      Liked by 1 person

  23. rerevisionist
    October 19, 2018

    Nobody here (I think; checked quite carefully) has considered the idea that WW2 was orchestrated by Jews. The British (saturated with the Jewish BBC radio, the Jewish press (both the Times and down to the Daily Mirror), the Jewish-based Church of (((England))) etc had been primed to be anti-German. The Germans, whatever Hitler lovers think, were saturated with Jew media including the ‘Social Democrats’, so-called Nazis, German churches etc and ideas of ‘perfidious Albion’ etc. The fact is Jews controlled the USA, the USSR, the UK, and no doubt France, Turkey, China – and Germany. Jews unfortunately has a worldwide overview and could direct propaganda wherever they wanted, in different versions for different countries. Jewish motivation was as per the Talmud aimed to kill as many ‘eneies’ as they could. Hitler was not a single agent acting on his own any more than Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin et al. Jews arranged Japan to fight Russia; then China. The whole thing was Jew money and propaganda vs a bunch of peoples in disarray – as they still are. I’ve made notes in http://www.big-lies.org/how-master-race-won-ww2/ which is incomplete but imho needs at least to be understood and debated. Hitler knew what he was doing and so did his financiers and backers and writers.

    Like

    • Arch Stanton
      October 20, 2018

      Hitler knew what he was doing all right. He took Jewish financing and then double crossed his bloodthirsty financiers.

      Although making their attempt before the conclusion of WWI, Jews could not sell Germans on communism. By the beginning of the 1920’s, Germans had witnessed Jewish communism’s murderous results on their Russian neighbors.

      Ten years before Hitler took power, millions of Russians had already been slaughtered by communist Jews. Since the conclusion of the revolution, Jews had been crowing about “their” victory in Russia. Because of their arrogance, everyone knew Jews were the driving force behind communism.

      The Jews’ idea was to introduce another form of dictatorship that would appear diametrically opposed to Jewish-communism. Later the two would merge by political fiat to form a Jewish totalitarian regime across Europe. The effect would have been much the same as the European Union of later years, but far more openly oppressive and murderous in the manner of the Soviet regime.

      Hitler’s role in the plan was to be the “useful idiot” that would form an alliance with the Jewish-communist. However, Hitler was no “useful idiot.” He double-crossed his Jewish financiers by using their money to further the NSDAP political power and then began removing Jewish influence from Germany.

      This was an unpardonable “sin” in the same manner as Jesus’ “sin” of using the Jews’ religious power to bring down their highly successful financial scheme called the “second Temple.” In the usual manner of an organized criminal mafia, Jews then proceeded to destroy everything connected with the NSDAP by attempting to destroy Germany in its entirety.

      Jewish financiers realized their mistake; becoming aware of the “double cross” early on. This is why Jews declared war on Germany in 1933, just nineteen days after Hitler was elected to the Reichstag on March 5th – before he became dictator, before he had a chance to implement any policy and long before WWII began.

      Charlie Chaplin telegraphed the “double cross” message to the larger Jewish populace in his movie The Great Dictator as evidenced by the movie’s advertising Filming began in September 1939, right after Germany moved into Poland to meet the Jewish communist marching in form the east and finished six months later.

      Like

      • rerevisionist
        October 20, 2018

        Well, that’s the media message. I suggest a look at http://www.mileswmathis.com/putsch.pdf and
        http://www.mileswmathis.com/hiller.pdf

        For evidence that Jews ran the ‘Nazi’ Party. Of course, in view of German feelings, it had to be presented seriously, just as the ‘Cold War’ had to hide the Jewish hands behind the scenes.

        [www.big-lies.org/searchmathis.html is my handy site searcher of mathis on history]

        Like

      • Arch Stanton
        October 20, 2018

        Media message? Where? Show me the “media message” that Hitler double-crossed the Jews. Show me the “media message” that links Chaplin’s movie to Hitler’s act.

        Most everything I read on this subject say at best, Hitler was a willing pawn or unwilling dupe of the Jews. This message of course works in the Jews’ favor by discrediting the honesty and integrity of Hitler’s efforts, as well as supporting the idea of dominating Jewsih control impossible to counter. If that’s the case, why bother with any of this?

        I have some of my work about the raising of Lazarus posted on Big Lies as well, you might want to review it there. Yet big Lies maintains Jesus never existed, but show me one other mythical character with a mythical history Jews hate with the same vehemence Jews maintain for Hitler. Outside Jesus and Hitler, I challenge you show me another individual that successfully attacked and brought down the Jews’ economic control mechanism.

        Big Lies claims nuclear weapons do not exist. Whites are so confused, so distracted by so many misdirected sources, they cannot tell which end they are on. They can no longer see what is right in front of their eyes.

        This is the oldest of Jewish tricks – divide and conquer. One can see it at actively working in the comments sections of many so-called “white” websites. It’s not always Jewish trolls disseminating this disinformation, it is frequently misdirected whites.
        While Whites incessantly argue over minutiae, like how many Jews can dance in a gyoim’s head, or whether or not one should capitalize the word “white,” Jews continue relentlessly on in their destruction of the white man’s race, nation, history and identity.

        No doubt, whites will still be arguing over such minutiae when their Jewish masters open up the FEMA gazzz chambers to begin marching the gullible, ignorant goyim into the yawing abyss. You can be sure those gazzz chambers will not have unsealed wooden doors that open inward or fake showerheads.

        One does the Jews great service by using their hot button term “Nazi.” They love it when the goyim use their invented terminology as such terms subliminally support their lies in the gyoim’s mind.

        Liked by 1 person

      • rerevisionist
        October 20, 2018

        @Arch Stanton — You made a comment below, but the ‘Reply’ button is here, Arch Stanton. You say there ‘… Most everything I read on this subject says… Hitler was a willing pawn or unwilling dupe of the Jews. …’ The Jewish media have their various positions, including lying and sowing confusion. You don’t seem able to realise that their deepest secret MAY be having controlled WW2 all the way through, including positions on Hitler, which vary with audiences and time and policies. Obviously, IF it’s true that Hitler and Mussolini etc were just actors for Jews, while Jews controlled money and propaganda and secret information, they are unlikely to say so. For example, money flows, weapons shipments, and the code systems used by the ‘allies’ as far as I know are still unknown, though hints come out that the ‘allies’ were in sufficient control to know all the German secrets, and presumably, since Jews ran them, US and USSR secrets too.. The Jewish media say Hitler acted on his own, had or didn’t have integrity, etc. I’m presenting you with a new hypothesis, that Jews behind the scenes arranged the whole shebang, with the intention of wrecking the white world, killing many whites, increasing their power. It’s a good hypothesis! I’m disappointed you’re unable to take a few on such things as faked nukes, manufacture of Jesus, and presumably 9/11, Pearl Harbor, AIDS and whatnot, including salt in food, but that’s just another triumph for Jews.

        Like

      • Arch Stanton
        October 20, 2018

        I punch the reply button and the website seems to put the comment where it wants to. There is nothing new in your hypothesis, I’ve been hearing for years that Hitler was a pawn of the Jews – either willing or unwilling.

        Regarding code breaking. Allied efforts in this area are legendary with their attempts to counter the German “Enigma” machine, something they could not do until capturing one. Are we supposed to believe it was all unnecessary, as Jews knew the plans all along and were running the game?

        What about the allies elaborate efforts to misdirect German intelligence with plans like Operation mincemeat (such a Jewish code name) Was all this stage play? Was the allied saturation bombing campaign also stage play?

        From what I know about Hitler I find it impossible to believe he would have intentionally condoned or participated in such plans to obliterate Germany. Hoffman wants us to believe Hitler was some kind of fool that was part of a plan to destroy Germany and the allies.

        This sounds exactly like the kind of thing Jews would jinn up against Hitler. And no, I’m not accusing Hoffman of being a Jew or one of their sycophants, but no doubt they increasingly admire the cut of his jib for promoting ideas of this nature.

        I am much chagrined at the fact that while people on these websites will eagerly entertain the idea of Hitler as a bumbling idiot and pawn of the Jews, they refuse to examine evidence that brings Jesus down from his god pedestal. The standard memes about these men have become Hitler was an incompetent fool and Jesus did not exist. Jesus, like Hitler, was a very real man on a very real mission, a mission identical to Hitler’s, i.e. to deliver their people from oppressive, corrupt elite Jewry. Both accomplished their mission, even if only for a short time.

        Jews have long had tremendous influence in the world and have exerted this influence since the Battle of Waterloo, where they became the defacto rulers of Britain through their financial machinations. Jews did influence the outcome of that battle through their funding efforts, but they did not control the warring powers. They simply used the available resources, primarily gold, to create a favorable outcome for Jews.

        Allow me to illustrate an example of Jewish control then versus now. Jews immediately declared a “holy war” on the all Germany the minute the National Socialists became an elected power. Obviously things were not going according to the Jew plan.

        Contrast the Jews’ action in that situation with their action during Trump’s election. What did the Jews do to counter the “Trump threat”? Why of course, they ran around pulling their hair and gnashing their teeth while screaming incessantly “Nadzeee! Nadzeee! Trump is a Nadzeee!” as if they were powerless to do anything else.

        Really now; such helplessness from a people who murdered a sitting president and countless other lesser leaders around the world? The people that kidnap and assassinate their enemies in foreign countries with impunity and yet all they can do with Trump is cry out in pain?

        Is it believable Jews had no other effective counter measures against Trump outside whining and kvetching about him being another Hitler? How about the IRS? Where was that “holy war” Jews declared on that other Hitler? Hitler was a Jewish lemon from whom the Jews made lemonade. Trump is your “Jewish actor.”

        The fact is, Hitler is dead, the National Socialist are long gone and they ain’t coming back. This kind of misdirection, whether intentional or otherwise, merely diverts peoples’ attention and focus away from present day realities. Jews love it when white men squander their time discussing how many Nadzeees it might have taken to conquer the head of a pin.

        Liked by 1 person

    • dgaubatz313
      October 20, 2018

      I think world war 2 was orchestrated by Jews on ALL sides, even in Germany.

      What do you think about Gottfried Feder (the man Hitler kicked out of office in 1934) and Gregor Strasser (a man Hitler killed in 1934)?

      Gottfried Feder wanted to free us from interest servitude and profiteering. It doesn’t seem like Hitler wanted to after 1934.

      https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/hitlers-finances-and-the-myth-of-nazi-anti-usury-activism/

      Two other good sites are: http://monetaryreform.com/ and http://financialparty.ca/

      Like

      • rerevisionist
        October 20, 2018

        @dgaubatz313 – If you’re asking me re Feder and Strasser, I don’t know in detail. But common sense suggests if Hitler had a deep plan, some executions would be necessary. Just as time delays would be needed: the ‘Phoney War’, and the ‘Nazi Soviet Pact’ allowed juggling of arms and materiel and men. I suspect the easy invasion of France was engineered; the weakened German Luftwaffe (unable to reach Moscow) deliberate. I suspect the intersecting radar beams may have been a cover story to explain the ‘mystery’ of how the British knew where bombing would occur.

        Liked by 1 person

      • rerevisionist
        October 21, 2018

        [Reply to Arch Stanton October 20, 2018] You say ‘There is nothing new in your hypothesis, I’ve been hearing for years that Hitler was a pawn of the Jews – either willing or unwilling. ‘
        ___________________
        You STILL haven’t understood the idea; it seems to be part of your mental outlook to not examine roots.
        ___________________
        I’m not saying Hitler was ‘a pawn’, He was part of the entire package, just as Roosevelt was a secret Jew, Eisenhower, Churchill, Stalin. Hitler PRETENDED to be independent, but like almost all ‘independent’ people, took his ideas from advisors and Jews.
        __________________
        Following this hypothesis, you’d EXPECT a war to be planned, to maximise white deaths, make money for Jews, and be organised through secret military information, secret money information, secret murders etc. The scraps of evidence are likely to be hard to get.
        __________________
        Looking at what happened, we have scraps — Hitler had a group around him, helping eg with Mein Kampf. Miles Mathis has a good deconstruction of the huge prison where Nat Socs were held, fake putsch, etc. It was important to present Germany as becoming wealthy; however this could just have been Jewish money. It’s hard to know. There is long-term BS about ‘usury’, which hides the collaboration between Jews and the Church to give Jews their monopoly. Germany had to be given successes, notably in France, which made it look bigger. The invasion I take it was planned; France was riddled with Freemasons. Then here had to be war threats, which of course there were: at the end, Germany was infuriated by bombings, and tended to believe in their military skill. Meanwhile the poor Russians were inflamed against Germany.
        _______________________
        There are a lot of examples of what might be staged things. This is NOT a matter of Hitler being a ‘pawn of Jews’. It’s Hitler being part of the entire Jewish anti-white underpinning of WW2 (and indeed WW1).
        ______________________
        I’m not saying this hypothesis – Hitler as another Jew figurehead – is true, though it’s highly likely, given Jew infiltrations around the world. But you haven’t even understood it!
        ______________________
        I put your material on Lazarus online, after a comment in the OccidentalObserver, but it was tremendously disappointing (a bit like Michael Hoffman). I’d hoped in both cases for for examples of typical Jewish attitudes and strategy, in practice, in the world, preferable on a wide canvas, and going back in time. Your inability to match Jewish lies on all topics with Jewish lies on ‘Jesus’ seems to be very American but if you’d like me to remove your material I’d be happy to.

        Like

      • Arch Stanton
        October 21, 2018

        He was part of the entire package, just as Roosevelt was a secret Jew, Eisenhower, Churchill, Stalin.

        By definition of the word, would not these men be “pawns” (or maybe knights and bishops) on the elite Jews’ global chessboard?

        Your inability to match Jewish lies on all topics with Jewish lies on ‘Jesus’ seems to be very American but if you’d like me to remove your material I’d be happy to.

        This to me, is confusing. “Matching Jewish lies?” American? Disappointing? How so?

        The work on Lazarus was an excerpt from my book “The Conspiracy of Man.” Taken out of context, it can be a bit confusing. The fact is, Jesus’ raising of Lazarus was a public rebuking of the “Para Aduma,” a very expensive ritual purification required for touching a dead body.

        By definition, the Torah is a book of “legal instruction.” The Bible is all about the laws concerning sacrificial tribute. Would not this make perfect sense, considering the long-standing Jewish mentality towards money?

        All of Jesus’ “miracles” presented unintended consequences to the Temple’s legal demand for sacrificial tribute. However, Christians have muddled the Hebrew definition of the word “miracle,” which was “an unintended outcome to the law.” Like Jesus’ trick of purifying wedding wine without a blessing (Jesus said “it is not yet my time,” meaning he was not ready to be exposed as a Temple priest. That is why he refused to bless the wine. Doing so without charging tribute would not only have brought his presence into question, but the act as well.)

        Blessing the bread of the multitude without demand for tribute (but not the fish that lay outside the sacrificial system. Read the story carefully) “multiplied” the unblessed loaves among the crowd hiding them from a Temple priest. This was by definition, a “miracle.”

        Forgiving the sins of the man living in tombs among the swine, that had been ostracized by the Temple for unstated “crimes” was another “miracle.” The “devils” that were “legion,” refers to the many Temple followers similarly ostracized, a practice common among Jews to the present day.

        Note, all these services were performed by a Temple priest without charge. The Temple made its revenue charging a shiny, sheeny shekel for such services. When Jesus exercised his priestly power at no charge, this went directly against both sacrificial law and custom, thus presenting “an unintended outcome to the law.”

        Christians have confusingly lumped all of Jesus’ acts together as a “miraculous” like his alleged walk across the lake and healing. The only time healing was a “miracle,” was when it was performed on Shabbat, against Temple dictate.

        As for removing my material, I published it online to spread the word. I’m surprised the Observer published it, as the admin no longer allows me to comment there, refusing to answer my inquiries as to why. I suspect it was because of my comments concerning Jews.

        Like

  24. publicsynapsessynopsis
    October 20, 2018

    It seems to me that the position which Aryan Skynet adopts is that of the “alt-lite…” You must realize what an absurd alliance that is. Your “alliance” breeds people like Lauren Southern who will use Jewish articles with enough faith that she will actually believe that Hitler secretly wished he was Muslim. I thought your site was odd with your article on Asians; now I can see how these suspicions are confirmed.

    But I suppose I ought not to protest too much as no doubt you would only publish this stuff if you were absolutely confident you were THE right one. It would be just as much of a problem as trying to talk some sense into the delusional idiot Cesar Tort on The West’s Darkest Hour. Although, not only is he intractable and delusional, he’s positively insane; I suppose that might be an important distinction.

    I’ve been taking note for a while on how your page seems almost geared towards steering nationalism down a very wrong path, a misleading path- a divergence, like with your article “Filthy French.” What do you want white people of non-French ancestry or nationality to think of when they think of French people- a white man covered in filth and mud, or the Eiffel Tower? Whatever “factuality” you might have contained within your article, your focus on such a thing is psychologically wrong, for yourself and for your readers.

    Another problem I have is with your use of Jewish terminology, or otherwise just plain stupid or ignorant terminology for things. “Nazi” is “National Socialist.” “White supremacist” is not how many key nationalists figure or figured themselves to be (for example, William Pierce would deny it).

    And how can you confirm that “ARYAN” is synonymous with “WHITE?” The history has been so muddled that a cursory glance for hopeful contents turns up empty, other than suggesting it is very hard, if not impossible, to say that the Aryan race is the white race. Sure, Hitler announced this with confidence- but if you claim to despise Hitler, why do you use his terminology too?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Arch Stanton
      October 20, 2018

      Hear! Hear!

      On the other hand, whatever Cesar Tort is he, is clearly not an “idiot.” “Right” or “wrong,” Cesar performs a valuable service in providing information critical to understanding the historical perspective absent the Jews’ slant. While Cesar and I disagree on Jesus, we do agree on Christianity and many other subjects.

      Before reading his exposés on Christianity, I considered the religion rather benign. Thanks to Cesar’s efforts, I now realize the full depth of Christianity’s horror, one every bit as vicious and destructive as its hag mother Judaism or their communist abortion.

      I posted my comment on the use of the term “Nazi just seconds before I read yours. I’ll never understand why this isn’t obvious to white people using such terms.

      Like

      • publicsynapsessynopsis
        October 20, 2018

        My main problem is with Cesar’s rather incredible claim of a necessary genocidal program of the vast majority of white people and of all lesser races. For reasons like that, I have trouble with those authors.

        Like

      • Arch Stanton
        October 20, 2018

        I have problems with this “genocidal” approach as well. It is an absurd notion that a white world can be created by eliminating everyone else, including misled whites. What’s more this coincides with Jewish attitudes. Hence one becomes the very monster they are working to defeat.

        While I do not think Cesar actively works for the Jews, I do believe he is misled in this concept that perhaps unintentionally works in their favor. I will credit Cesar with the fact he publishes and discusses comments with which he disagrees.

        Like

    • icareviews
      October 20, 2018

      Dude, you’re utterly tone-deaf. Stop embarrassing yourself on the internet.

      Like

  25. katana17
    October 21, 2018

    From a commonsense point of view, Hoffman’s argument that Hitler must have been on drugs, i.e., totally stupid to think he could win against the Soviet Union, actually lends credence to the view that Operation Barbarossa was an act of necessity — a pre-emptive war against the Soviet Union, before it launched its war against Germany and Western Europe.

    The jewy argument that Hitler was “insane” to launch Operation Barbarossa, which is what Hoffman is repeating, only makes sense if there was no real and present threat to Germany from the Soviets.

    Yet books like “Ice Breaker” explains in detail the Soviet threat, and makes Germany’s attack, one out of desperation and necessity, despite the poor odds.

    Hoffman and others are fantasizing when they think that the decision was Hitler’s alone. It would have been the result of input from the best German brains available to the High Command, since they and fellow Germans were going to be doing the bleeding and dying.

    Here’s the “insane” Hitler scenario played by Hollywood:

    “Addy” was lying in bed one sunny Sunday morning with Eva playing with his hair, when it suddenly occurred to him:

    “You what, Evvie, I think it we ought to invade Russia! I’m bored with all this easy success! Let’s try something a bit more challenging! We’ll be done before winter!”

    “Oh Addy, my darling! I just love the sound of invasion in the morning! It sounds like victory!”

    No. The German invasion of the Soviet Union only makes sense as a desperate defensive move to strike before the Soviets steamrolled across Western Europe.

    Liked by 1 person

    • icareviews
      October 21, 2018

      Yawn.

      Like

      • katana17
        October 22, 2018

        Well, have a good yawn, but then when your brain is in gear, tell us what was so yawn inducing, if you don’t mind.

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        October 22, 2018

        @icareviews

        I totally sympathize with your yawn, but come on – you had to know you would attract these types by writing about Hitler yet again. Writing about Hitler is almost never worth it. It just attracts the wrong crowd, religious cultists.

        Counter-Currents immediately improved when they stopped writing about what Hitler had for lunch.

        Liked by 1 person

      • BMan
        October 23, 2018

        The immediate discounting of someone’s view doesn’t make anyone seem smart. Quite the contrary. It has happened to people that follow me here and its embarrassing.

        katana17 is cool and deserves better treatment by the hosts.

        Liked by 1 person

      • icareviews
        October 24, 2018

        About Hitler the brilliant military strategist who supposedly made all of his decisions out of an urgent necessity for the sake of German national security, here is Hitler in his own words, April 18, 1940, writing to Mussolini about his conduct of the war thus far: “You once had the courage to conduct your action in Abyssinia under the English guns. My situation until today has not been that different; but I have also decided not to follow common sense during these most difficult hours but to appeal to the force of honor, to the sense of duty and finally to the heart.” So don’t take my word for it. Take Hitler’s: by his own admission, he “decided not to follow common sense”.

        Like

    • Arch Stanton
      October 21, 2018

      Tired? Why not go to sleep?

      Like

    • rerevisionist
      October 22, 2018

      ‘… only makes sense ..’ etc. Like ‘Arch Stanton’, AND hOFFMAN, you’re so accustomed to Jew propaganda you’re unable to step away from it. You’re ASSUMING that the Jew presenntation of Russia vs Germany is true. You can’t understand the way propaganda is used. You can’t understand Hitler may have been part of the entire Jew network of money, propaganda, weaponry, and violence. ‘Arch Stanton’ stupidly says it’s the same things as Hitler being a pawn, as though a huge company to which Jews might be compared might not be represented by an actor working for them. It makes perfect sense that Hitler and his cronies could be Jews, because Gemany had been inflitrated for years and many Jews were indistinguishable from Germans, just as many Jews are indistiguishable from Americans ,by many Americans.
      .
      German invasion of the USSR makes sense as an engineered move of world Jews to kill whites.

      Like

      • Arch Stanton
        October 22, 2018

        As I said, by definition.

        Definition of pawn

        2:one that can be used to further the purposes of another.

        Wait a minute – Hitler was a Jew? Really? You mean like Herr Schicklgruber? Here it is, straight from the A Href = “https://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/06/opinion/l-hitler-never-really-was-schicklgruber-016390.html”>Jew York Times. Yet I’m the stupid one subject to Jew propaganda?

        I suppose alien lizard people really do control the world from underneath the Denver Airport or is it evil Nadzeez that escaped to their secret base in the Antarctica?

        Why not just forget the ominous threat of Alien Lizard people and evil Nadzees and move on to more current problems, like why white people have been programmed to disagree on idiotic points of minutiae that do not mean goddamned thing in the overall picture. Why are white (or is it “White”?) men are totally divided on such minor, irrelevant points, when Jews stand together in solidarity to defeat them?

        If one was prone to such accusations, one might think you’re a Jewish troll, like that feller Hitler.

        Liked by 1 person

      • BMan
        October 23, 2018

        It makes perfect sense that Hitler and his cronies could be Jews,

        You have obviously never read Mein Kampf.

        It makes perfect sense that someone that doesn’t know would fall for the jew lies. Are you Jim Condit in disguise?

        Liked by 1 person

  26. BMan
    October 23, 2018

    Why the anti-Hitler fetish at AS? Its not as if all of us who respect the man for what he did think that it could happen again now, but some of what I read here is ridiculous. I wish I could understand why, other than the negative ideas that come to mind. For anyone who thinks Hitler was a jew or was controlled by jews has obviously never read Mein Kampf.

    If anything might be true it is that Hitler used the jew, 100% opposite of what Trump is/does. To me, this is worthy of respect. AS seems it is worthy of scorn.

    Liked by 1 person

    • icareviews
      October 24, 2018

      “Why the anti-Hitler fetish at AS?”

      A better question: why the Hitler fetish among white nationalists?

      As for respecting the man “for what he did”, let’s not forget that “what he did” doesn’t consist solely of leading a national revolution; it also consists of destroying that very revolution and tainting the nationalist cause in the public discourse in ways that continue today. Hitler’s ambition and power of personality were formidable, and he was obviously a brilliant man; but his disregard for our people’s lives is appalling. Of all the people whose reputations we could spend our precious time trying to rehabilitate, why this idiosyncratic mass-murderer and failure? Sure, a lot of the deaths attributed to him are fabricated, but Hitler is, without a doubt, responsible for more of our people’s deaths than George Soros, Benjamin Netanyahu, Henry Kissinger, and Lord Rothschild combined. It’s out of respect for Europe that I hold Hitler in contempt.

      Like

      • BMan
        October 24, 2018

        Right, that evil Hitler caused all the issues we see now. Jews? Eh?

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        October 24, 2018

        @icareviews

        “They” say Hitler is all bad, therefore Hitler is all good. “They” say Hitler is Satan, therefore Hitler is Christ. If a Jew told them to not jump off a cliff, they’d line up and jump.

        To use the recent meme, reactionaries are NPCs. Reactionaries can only react to what someone else is doing. “They” say white, so the right wing NPCs say black; “they” say up, so reactionaries say down.

        Hitler-fetishism comes from the same place as little boys rebelling against mommy. Mommy says “don’t do that” so the little boy wants to do just that.

        That’s why it’s so easy to control these people, just tell them to do the opposite of what you actually want them to do, and they will do exactly what you want them to do.

        Just trace the history from that idiot, George Lincoln Rockwell, to Matt Heimbach. It’s all the same thing, attention-seeking by playing the cartoon “bad guy.” There’s no more thought to it than that.

        I apologize yet again for naming this blog “Aryan” – it was a stupid, rookie mistake. It attracts the wrong crowd.

        Like

      • katana17
        October 25, 2018

        COLONEL BMAN (to KATANA): Captain, you’ve heard of Colonel Icareviews?

        [He shows the photo to KATANA. (INSERT THE PHOTO) It’s an eight-by-ten black-and-white portrait of a blogger wearing a beret.]

        KATANA: Yes, sir. I’ve heard the name.

        [BMAN accidentally drops the dossier. Papers, photos, etc., scatter all over the floor. He stoops down to pick them up.]

        COLONEL BMAN: Jesus! … Operations officer, Aryan Skynet Special Forces.

        GENERAL STANTON: Bman, would you play that tape, for the captain, please? [to KATANA] Listen to it carefully, Captain.

        [BMAN moves to a tape recorder and turns it on.]

        MALE VOICE (ON TAPE) “October 24, 01:40 hours, Sector: Hoffman Contra the Hitlerites.”

        GENERAL STANTON: These were monitored out of the South. It’s been verified as Colonel Icareviews’ voice.

        [All the men, including KATANA, listen in wonder.]

        ICAREVIEWS (ON TAPE) “I imagined my mind, crawling among the razor-like lines of text of a Hoffman newsletter. That’s my dream. It’s my nightmare. Crawling, searching, among his words, and surviving.”

        GENERAL STANTON: Icareviews was one of the most outstanding bloggers this country’s ever produced. He was brilliant. He was outstanding in every way. And he was a good man, too. A humanitarian man. A man of wit and humor. He joined Aryan Skynet, and after that, his ideas, methods, became,… unsound. Unsound.

        COLONEL BMAN: Now he’s crossed the line with this troll army of his, that worship the man like a god, and follow his every blog post, however ridiculous. Well, I have some other shocking news to tell you. Colonel Icareviews was about to be arrested for character assassination.

        KATANA: I don’t follow sir. Assassinated who?

        MALE VOICE (ON TAPE) “Post 88, received ’18, October 25, 14:00 hours, Sector: Comments”.

        ICAREVIEWS (ON TAPE) “Sure, a lot of the deaths attributed to him are fabricated, but Hitler is, without a doubt, responsible for more of our people’s deaths than George Soros, Benjamin Netanyahu, Henry Kissinger, and Lord Rothschild combined. It’s out of respect for Europe that I hold Hitler in contempt.”

        [The TAPE is TURNED OFF.]

        COLONEL BMAN: Icareviews had ordered the character assassination of AH. A man he believed was likely a double agent working for the joos. So he took matters into his own hands.

        GENERAL STANTON: Well, you see, Katana, in this infowar, things get confused out there. Power, ideals, the old morality, and practical internet necessity. But out there with these rubes, it must be a temptation to be God. Because the rational and the irrational, between good and evil. And good does not always triumph. Sometimes, the dark side overcomes what the Fuhrer called the “better angels” of our nature. Every blogger has got a breaking point. You have and I have them. Icareviews has reached his. And, very obviously, he has gone insane.

        [KATANA looks from the colonel to the general to the civilian. They are intensely interested in his response, which they want to be “yes.”]

        KATANA: [carefully] Yes, sir. Very much so, sir. Obviously insane.

        [The three men pull back, satisfied.]

        Liked by 1 person

      • icareviews
        October 26, 2018

        The comments under this post are the internet equivalent of this gas station incident:

        Like

      • BMan
        October 26, 2018

        BTW: Its only a “better question” when one wants to avoid the first question.

        No one except AS people are posting here.

        No one here is posting about rehabilitating Hitler the evil jew warlord for the Rothschilds.

        That is all AS.

        It is quite telling that you are on the same bash Hitler platform as the jews, though.

        Liked by 1 person

      • icareviews
        October 26, 2018

        Dude, stop misrepresenting my views. Doing a couple of anti-Hitler posts in a row hardly constitutes a “fetish”, and I’ve never used words like “evil” to describe him. (Furthermore, it’s plain insulting to be lumped in with all the nuts who have posted bizarre and insane assertions here in the comments over the years. We let anybody comment as long as they don’t get out of hand, advocate violence, or something.) I actually write very little about Hitler, though I am on the record as an unashamed supporter of WW2 revisionism. I have been called a contrarian, however, because of my refusal to subscribe to popular dogmas – and knee-jerk Hitler apologism becomes a religion as silly as the Hollywood version of WW2. Real history isn’t good-guys-vs.-bad-guys, as easy as that would be to understand. History is human and therefore complex. Subscribing to a Good-Guy-Axis-Superheroes vs. Evil-Judeo-Bolshevik-Allies narrative in every facet of the conflict is as lame as “conservative” Republicans vs. “liberal” Democrats partisanship.

        Like

      • Arch Stanton
        October 26, 2018

        Nope, I’m here. Check out the avatar. There are all sorts of newish, subtle Jewish memes spreading poison across the web. The idea is to spread confusion and doubt among the masses sitting on the fence, as well as those that should know better. This is accomplished by subtly changing those concepts antithetical to the Jews that have not been thought of as such until now.

        Here is an example of such subtly.

        I have been called a contrarian, however, because of my refusal to subscribe to popular dogmas – and knee-jerk Hitler apologism becomes a religion as silly as the Hollywood version of WW2. Real history isn’t good-guys-vs.-bad-guys, as easy as that would be to understand. History is human and therefore complex. Subscribing to a Good-Guy-Axis-Superheroes vs. Evil-Judeo-Bolshevik-Allies narrative in every facet of the conflict is as lame as “conservative” Republicans vs. “liberal” Democrats partisanship.

        While Hitler bashing has long been a favorite of the Jews the manner it is being presently approached is just a bit different. No one on these webs sites are screaming “the Nadzees are coming! The Nadzees are coming! Oy Veh! The Nadzeees are coming! in the usual,manner. Instead they pretending they are thoughtfully considering the alternatives, “contrarians” as it were. To wit, “You know Hitler wasn’t really evil but he was stupid.” If you can’t kill them with the hatchet of lies, then do it with the soft poison of doubt.

        What no one seems to comprehends is that spending time on such tired subjects does Jews a real service by distracting people from the present day issue facing them. After all what is going to be accomplished arguing how many Nadzees it might take to conquer the head of a pin – or is that pinheads? This is the old Jewish magician’s trick. i.e. “Look over here. Watch this hand. in doing so, the viewer misses the magic trick being accomplished by the hidden hand.

        Most of the people spreading this poison are young and are unaware they are doing so. Most think they are being “edgy” in taking on new concepts. I said most. And from the Jewish perspective they are. Jews have now corrupted just about every semblance of free exchange on the web with trolls paid to do the job. However, I think they are just doing it more for fun than out of any real fear because the ignorant, bovine masses are already completely duped; unable to see the deadly rise of poison of these ideas killing them.

        Clearly these people are not “idiots” they are young and ignorant, without the benefit of the experience required to see clearly through the Jews’ shams and scams. At the rate things are going, it is doubtful many, if any, will survive long enough to gain that necessary experience.

        Liked by 1 person

  27. rerevisionist
    October 26, 2018

    For evidence on Hitler and ‘Nazis’ as Jews, read mileswmathis.com/hiller.pdf
    .
    Jews controlled the USA, UK, and USSR and France in serious issues of money and weapons and propaganda. There’s nothing to prove that Hitler and his cronies weren’t yet more controlled opposition. It’s true that the Jewish media don’t like the hypothesis. But then they wouldn’t, woud they. The trick is to try to piece together the events, which presuambly must have been some sort of choreographed set of things, including careful wording of Mein Kampf, careful arrangement of threats and weapons etc etc. It would be nice to have a serious debate, but it seems to be all but impossible.
    .
    RIP Faurisson

    Like

    • icareviews
      October 26, 2018

      For evidence that Aryan Skynet’s readership consists of 80% mentally ill people, read the comments.

      Liked by 1 person

      • dgaubatz313
        October 26, 2018

        I hope they eventually realize that Hitler might not have been the hero he’s made out to be. It took me a while to unlearn a lot of the things that were taught as truth. I’ve had to unlearn and learn a lot. The hardest four things for me to break free from were; Christianity, Hitler being a hero, lies in economics and the scam of the monetary system and heliocentrism.

        Like

      • katana17
        October 27, 2018

        So what can us 20% do to help?

        Like

  28. BMan
    October 27, 2018

    @icareviews
    My complaint isn’t about the quantity of your anti-Hitler posts (you can post as many anti-Hitler posts as you like and I assure you that I will never comment on another one). I don’t care that you are anti-Hitler, but I must point out that you rub elbows with jew while doing it. That is on you.

    I didn’t comment until you became rude to someone that didn’t deserve it (someone that may or may not have come here due to my linking). Katana and I have been linked together for much longer that AS and B’Man have been linked together.

    More importantly than quantity is that in comments both you and HR have a tendency to belittle or discount the opposing view, especially regarding Hitler. Its not just the post, but the commentary afterwards. (Its not just the Hitler subject, tho, that garners the drunken ire of HR).

    I promise that I will never misrepresent your view again (although I am pretty sure I am on track). Won’t be possible if I never comment again.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ricardo
      October 27, 2018

      From Icareviews’ reply to BMan above:

      “Why the anti-Hitler fetish at AS?”

      “A better question: why the Hitler fetish among white nationalists?”

      “As for respecting the man “for what he did”, let’s not forget that “what he did” doesn’t consist solely of leading a national revolution; it also consists of destroying that very revolution and tainting the nationalist cause in the public discourse in ways that continue today. Hitler’s ambition and power of personality were formidable, and he was obviously a brilliant man; but his disregard for our people’s lives is appalling. Of all the people whose reputations we could spend our precious time trying to rehabilitate, why this idiosyncratic mass-murderer and failure? Sure, a lot of the deaths attributed to him are fabricated, but Hitler is, without a doubt, responsible for more of our people’s deaths than George Soros, Benjamin Netanyahu, Henry Kissinger, and Lord Rothschild combined. It’s out of respect for Europe that I hold Hitler in contempt.”

      *************************************************************

      Asking why White Nationalists like Hitler, is like asking why Communists like Stalin/Lenin/Marx. It is a silly question.

      Why does Icareviews like Communists, when they murdered so many of their own kind in gulags? Communists killed 100 million of their own kind last century. They murdered more of their own citizens in a century, than has ever been murdered in a century, in the history of mankind.

      Yet Icareviews unashamedly shows his admiration of Communism on this blog, as well as this NasBolshevik crap, straight out of Putin’s Imperial Russia. What kind of American Patriot does that?

      The fact is if the Jews hadn’t won WW2, no one would be saying Hitler screwed up nationalism, because the victors of wars get to write all the history books.

      Next you NazBolsheviks will be telling Southerners to tear down their Battleflags and monuments? Why? Because they lost the Civil War and the (((media))) call them rednecks and racists.

      The only war crime is losing!

      Like

    • Ricardo
      October 27, 2018

      Or to put a better question:

      “You anti-seeeeemites ranting about jews have really screwed up White Nationalism. Why can’t you stop ranting about Jews?”

      Like

  29. rerevisionist
    October 28, 2018

    On the subject of Jews commanding the USA, UK, USSR and others… Recall that AFTER WW1 Jews were in a more powerful position than ever, enriched by the War while others were impoverished, harmed, and had populations injured, starved, and reduced by deaths. Nobody seemed to ask that Jews share any of the disasters. Germany was damaged, but German Jews weren’t. This is why the idea that Jews invented a fake political party is convincing, particularly after the failure of Jews in Germany, Hungary etc to take over.

    Like

  30. rerevisionist
    October 30, 2018

    IMPORTANT: Is there an expert on the ‘Talmud’ out there, able to summarise it as a rule-book, or algorithm, or flowchart? Most people have little idea of ‘Jewish’ beliefs. All they’re offered is absurd complexity, which cannot be the motivation of most Jews.
    .
    A handy summary would help immeasurably to give people the idea of what Jews do. Please.

    Like

Leave a Reply - Your Comment WILL be Moderated.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: