Nuremberg

Today Ireland goes to the polls in a General Election. As can be imagined, every possible topic was exhaustively debated during the campaign. Except for one, the most important one. To wit, the mudslide Immivasion  of Europe. Woe betide the candidate who raises such an indelicate subject. Should - let our minds run riot for a moment here - a candidate suggest a race-based system of citizenship the ensuing explosion of outrage would be cosmic. As would the offender's punishment.

"What he suggests directly replicates the notorious Nuremberg Laws of the Nazis, laws used to render Germany's Jews non-citizens and virtually non-humans'.  Drag in  a Holocau$t™ survivor from central casting for added effect and the offender will be lead to his fate: permanent obscurity at best, jail time at worst. And I must concede the validity of the charge because those infamous Nuremberg Laws clearly state that "only those of our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be a countryman."  The Laws also prohibited German Jews from marrying or having sexual relations with 'persons of German or related blood'.

These laws were inspired to a considerable degree by the writings of Julius Streicher, an old comrade of Hitler and publisher of Der Sturmer magazine. Even from an early age Streicher had an uncanny insight into the destructive Jewish 'state-within-a-state' machinations that took me a lifetime to stumble on. And he didn't hold back, producing a stream of vitriolic and inflammatory comment month after month. Despite the immense popularity of Der Sturmer (it had offices in many other European countries) he never served in the German Government and in fact for much of the war was under house arrest arising from internal political differences

Despite this he was convicted at the post-war Nuremberg kangaroo courts trials. Given that he had had no official power, nor had ever engaged in any personal violence against Jews, what could they nail him for? Well, Julius was condemned by his own words. 'My goal was not to harm Jews but to enlighten Gentiles - to put them on guard.'  (Could be the banner for this blog!). And given that he'd done such an effective job he was hanged - or more correctly strangled with a short rope - shortly after the Show Trials had ended. As you can imagine Jews played a central role in the whole charade - as they had previously done in the Soviet Union.  Their roles included that of Chief Prosecutor, judges, the director of the execution process and the hangman himself. The latter devising a gruesome variation whereby the condemned men were slowly strangled rather than being instantly killed.

I digressed a bit here because there's a really interesting sting in the tail regarding the Nazi Nuremberg Hate Laws. (oy vey, the sufferink!!). Here's Julius addressing the Kangaroo Court at his trial.  "I  have written that any further mixture of German blood with Jewish blood  must be avoided. I have written such articles again and again; and in my  articles I have repeatedly emphasised the fact that the Jews should  serve as an example to every race, for they created a racial law for  themselves "the law of Moses, which says, 'If you come into a foreign  land you shall not take unto yourself foreign women.' And that,  Gentlemen, is of tremendous importance in judging the Nuremberg Laws.  These laws of the Jews were taken as a model for these laws. When, after  centuries, the Jewish lawgiver Ezra discovered that notwithstanding many  Jews had married non-Jewish women, these marriages were dissolved. That  was the beginning of Jewry which, because it introduced these racial  laws, has survived throughout the centuries, while all other races and  civilisations have perished." 

And there's living proof of that today in Israel. "The Prime Minister's Office confirmed that many Jews from the [USSR]....can be required to bring DNA confirmation of Jewish heritage in order to be allowed immigrate as a Jew." The Telegraph tells us that 'because they [the would-be immigrants] had only a Jewish father or married into the faith almost 350,000 of them are not recognised as Jewish in their adopted homeland."

No surprise that chutzpah is a Jewish word.

Malice or incompetence?

Even while acknowledging the tsunami of malice directed at White countries through the Third World immivasion project I nonetheless wonder if Napoleon's 'never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence' could have some relevance. Because how else can this be explained?

And how do you explain Gregor Gysy, Leader of Germany's Left Party. His surname does not sound German (even though it originates in Switzerland) and he looks quintessentially Jewish. Which is explained by his father being Jewish. Now you'd imagine as Germany descends into a virtual civil war - due to a Third World invasion sponsored in large part by his fellow Jews - Gysi would keep his head down and discreetly rejoice at the destruction of (cough) 'his' country.

But no. Instead, for whatever reason, he goes on German TV and openly celebrates the impending disappearance of the German people. Beaming with delight he tells the viewers that 'every year more Germans die than are born. That is very fortunate because the Nazis are not very good at having children'.  He goes on then to claim that Germany needs more refugees to offset this decline.

How perverse and counter-productive is this? Your average German citizen, reeling under an onslaught from an army of lawless barbarian parasites, turns on his TV and sees a 'German' Jew celebrating this army's replacement of the viewer's fading people. Can you imagine his reaction?

Beats me. Maybe Napoleon was right after all....

Germany stops the rapefugees

Well that's a  relief. After all those rapes and assaults over the New Year in Germany we were worried about their unfortunate women. But those efficient Germans have developed a stunningly effective solution. Henceforth a scantily clad Fraulein can on her own walk down any side street in any city at any time in complete safety.

Why? Because the rapefugees have been provided with the following compelling and decisive illustrated instructions.

Whereas I personally expect this initiative to be a roaring success there are always cynics and begrudgers. Those who say most of the illustrations are incomprehensible. Others ask why the explanatory text is in German, a language in which the rapefugees have little or no proficiency while one curmudgeon snidely suggested the recommendations resembled something for preschoolers or even the severely handicapped.

While I dismiss such negativity the initiative does bring to mind that of Sheffield Council of a few years ago as they prepared for enrichment by an army of Eastern European gypsies. You can tell the Council didn't exactly have high hopes given their following behavioural pointers:

'Don't defecate or urinate on the street'
'Don't have sex on the street'
'Don't dump your rubbish in your neighbour's yard'
'Don't try to sell your babies'
'Don't shoplift'
'Don't rip out and sell the plumbing and other utilities from your taxpayer-provided housing'

A bit similar in Germany with the enrichers apparently being enjoined not to rape women, nor to dive on top of swimmers and to help someone who's drowning. Maybe all this multicultural thing isn't all it's cracked up to be? If so I offer the following sign, one worth more than all the others combined.

Have the globalists got the dirt on Frau Merkel?

While travelling to Scotland recently my wife - despite carefully divesting herself of potential terrorist weapons (you know, things like nail-clippers) activated the airport scanner. In her sixties, blond and blue-eyed a less likely terrorist would be hard to imagine. Yet she was forced repeatedly to pass through the device before finally being undergoing a humiliating body search. Which predictably revealed nothing.

Meanwhile a few hundred miles to the south hundreds of thousand of swarthy and angry young men with names like Mohammed and Khaled with enough baggage to accommodate a small arsenal swarm across the EU borders without so much as a cursory check from the authorities. This of course is just an extreme example to highlight the inexplicable nature of European politicians' support for the brown tsunami engulfing their countries. Because for the average politician such an influx represents unrelieved bad news. Pressure on social services, further limiting access to already crowded schools and hospitals, more taxes to pay for the parasites etc. And not least the inevitable ethnic strife to come.

The spider at the centre of the current web is of course Frau Merkel. Which in one sense is surprising in that five years ago she publicly admitted that multicultural 'had utterly failed', and that the whole concept whereby 'different cultures live side-by-side simply does not work'. The invasion has lead to most other European leaders realising the same thing. (Or admitting it openly anyway as the realisation must have dawned on them years ago.) So now she's battling bitter opposition on all fronts yet persists in her support.

Why?

My own belief - and that's all it is, a belief - is that the NWO globalists, especially those at the heart of the American Deep State, have the dirt on her. This would also explain her otherwise inexplicable support for America's deranged policies on Eastern Europe and Russia even in the face of outraged reaction from virtually the entire German business sector and much of the public. And she also allowed the country's Federal Intelligence Service collaborate with the N.S.A. in spying on and passing industrial secrets from German advanced technology companies such as EADS and Eurocopter.

Don't forget that Merkel was a staunch Party member under the former Communist regime in East Germany before magically somersaulting into the united country's Chancellorship. Who knows what kind of dirt lies under this particular stone? In support of my theory the New York Times has reported that "the N.S.A., in a practice that dates back to the depths of the Cold War and that has never ended, was recording her conversations and those of other top German leaders. It continued to track Ms. Merkel as she ascended to the top of Germany's political apparatus."

Maybe I'm wrong but I fail to see any other logical reason for Merkel to enforce a policy that she herself admitted doesn't work.

Old comrades reunite

Frau Merkel has made  quite a few bad calls lately. Not just in hastening the destruction of her country but even in terms of her own toxic agenda. Because her opening the floodgate to the African/Muslim invasion has backfired, eliciting a bitter reaction from a hitherto comatose peasantry.

So what's an ex-Communist nation-wrecking apparatchik to do to impose some Ordnung on her restive subjects?  Why, seek out an ex-colleague from the notorious East German Stasi, a secret police force that honed spying on citizens to a fine art. And they didn't just gather information, they also ruthlessly eliminated 'enemies of the state', up to 25,00 according to some sources.

And who did she reach out to? Why our old friend the true German patriot Anetta Kahane. This hideous hag has been exposed as a Stasi informer (codenamed Victoria) who made a handsome living in the old DDR by spying and reporting on her fellow citizens, many of whom we can assume ended up as they say 'liquidated'. But Anetta, you'll be pleased to hear, suffered no sanction for her crimes and now works as a professional "anti-racist" in the New free and democratic Germany.

Yes, in this case at least Frau Merkel appears to have made an ideal choice for a programme that seeks to identify 'xenophobic' and 'hateful' comments on social media. And more important to track down the relevant commentators who'll face face up 120 days in prison if convicted.  So, as one reader on a German site put it "25 years after German reunification, the former DDR citizens, along with west German brothers and sisters, are to be monitored by former Stasi cadres".

Danke, Angela.

Hope from Germany

We seem to be on an optimistic roll these days, what with Peak PC and Narrative Collapse.  But here's something even more inspiring. And it comes from what we had assumed to be the most guilt-ridden and demoralised country in Europe: Germany.  A truly stunning article in the mass circulation Die Welt (referenced in an English-language Greek blog) came straight out and claimed that modern-day Greeks are not the racially pure descendants of the Ancient Greeks.

Wow! just wow!, as libtards are wont to exclaim.

The article claims that 'Greeks are not real Greeks in terms of racial purification' and the blogger sees this as a manifestation of the racial arrogance evinced by northern Europeans towards their southern cousins. Oh deary me. He describes this development as falling 'like a heavy sledgehammer on the heads of those believing that Germany had learned from the fatal mistakes of the past.....and uprooted from its soul the racism of National Socialism'.

And apparently the reader comments are every bit as bad/good. "It is scary but not surprising to see the attitudes of how many supposedly classically educated Germans think in the comments section". This one for instance. "Ancient Greeks were big, blonde and blue-eyed (the horror! the horror!) while modern Greeks were black-haired and brown eyed."

Don't know about you but I find this absolutely stunning. I had no idea that this kind of race realism would see the light of day in a mainstream German publication. And recently on the ARD TV channel (apparently one of the biggest in the world) Ursula Haverbeck gave an interview in which she deconstructed the whole Holocau$t™  narrative.

I tell you. There is hope.

Hitler's Jewish soldiers

We all know, don't we, that during WW 2 the evil Germans made it their business to round up every single Jewish person under their purview. After which they were sent to their doom in the Death Camps. No stone was left unturned.......Germans being Germans and all that.  Anne Frank, The Lady With The Magic Pen, was surely the poster child for this programme. (Anne wrote part of her famous diaries using a ball-point pen. A device which was invented in, er, 1948.)

So who did all the rounding up?  Could it have been these guys?  It seems unlikely because.... well... these guys were themselves Jewish.  Yes, according to the meticulous research of Bryan Mark Rigg no fewer than 150,000 men in the German WW 2 armed forces - including the SS - were Jewish or mischlings (partly Jewish). And they weren't just backroom drones or forced conscripts. They 'included decorated veterans and high-ranking officers, even generals and admirals.'

In fact it gets even better. Erhard Milch reached Field Marshall rank and did more than anyone, including Hermann Goering (to whom he directly reported) to develop the Luftwaffe into the formidable fighting force that it became. This was surprising because you'd imagine being Jewish - which he was - would have been something of a career dampener in the NAZI military command. Actually Hitler thought so much of him that he ordered his Jewishness to be down-played and even promoted him ahead of such legendary and eponymous military aircraft designers as Willy Messerchmitt and Hugo Junkers. 

In 1940, Unteroffizier Dieter Bergmann wrote to his Jewish grandmother, Elly Landesberg nee Moackrauer: 

"Don’t you realize how much I’m with my whole being rooted in Germany. My life would be very sad without my homeland, without the wonderful German art, without the belief in Germany’s powerful past and the powerful future that awaits Germany. Do you think that I can tear that all out of my heart?...Don’t I also have an obligation to my parents, to my brother who showed his love to our Fatherland by dying a hero’s death on the battlefield….Someday, I want to be a German amongst Germans and no longer a second-class citizen just because my wonderful mother is Jewish?" 

His mother being Jewish made him fully Jewish. And yet here he was, in the middle of WW 2, fighting in the ranks of the Wehrmacht.  

Isn't it a strange old world?  Think of the time and effort those super-efficient Germans could have saved had they extracted the Jews serving in their own ranks first. Yet throughout the war there were Jews at every level, from Admiral and Field Marshall right down to the ordinary soldier, all serving valiantly in the German armed forces. Very strange.  Almost as strange as an SS Officer being jailed by an SS Court for ill-treating Jewish prisoners in the Death Camp of Auschwitz. Or Elie Wiesel and his father choosing to travel back with the retreating German forces rather than wait for 'liberation'  by the Red Army advancing on the same Death Camp.

Strange, strange, strange. 

A new series of posts

I'm planning to write  a number of posts on this whole  Holocau$t™  thing.  In each post I'll take some element of the fable, examine it, and demonstrate that the Canonical Narrative comes apart like a cheap suit once subjected to any form of rational inquiry. The label will be The Holocau$t™ and I've already re-labelled some of my existing posts with this tag.

So let's start at the beginning with a review of the Grand Extermination Plan itself.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
That's right. There was no plan. Those silly Germans, who normally document everything to the nth degree, somehow decided to undertake the largest genocide in history without writing anything down.

WW 1's Pearl Harbor

Next Thursday the Co. Cork town where I live will commemorate the centenary of the Lusitania sinking. Everyone knows the story: In flagrant contravention of established maritime warfare principles the fiendish Germans, cackling with glee as only Germans can,  torpedoed and sank a huge defenceless passenger ship with the loss of over 1,200 men, women and children. Contrary to established precedent the attack took place without warning.  (Hitherto submariners allowed those on board non-military craft the opportunity to launch lifeboats before firing their torpedoes.) But not this time.

I can imagine the high-level German representatives at the ceremony shifting uncomfortably under the accusatory glares of the other attendees. But as with this case the blame lies not with the Germans but with their enemies.

The case must be seen in the broader context of  the World War into which Britain desperately sought to embroil America. What better way to outrage the general public than murder over 1,000 innocent civilians? Just days before the sinking Woodrow Wilson's eminence grise, rumoured Rothschild agent 'Colonel' Edward House, met the British Foreign Minister Edward Grey.  House later wrote: "We spoke of the probability of an ocean liner being sunk, and I told him that if this were done a flame of indignation would sweep across America, which would in itself probably carry us into the war." The pair then met King George V who also raised the subject, asking 'suppose they sink the Lusitania, with American passengers on board?"

At all times following the sinking German claims that the Lusitania carried military ordnance (making it a legitimate target) were indignantly denied by the British Government and its shills. But the Germans had sent warnings throughout the USA prior to the Lusitania's departure. Their agents had identified various forms of munitions being loaded under the guise of ordinary cargo.

TRAVELLERS intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her allies and Great Britain and her allies; that the zone of war includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles; that, in accordance with formal notice given by the Imperial German Government, vessels flying the flag of Great Britain, or any of her allies, are liable to destruction in those waters and that travellers sailing in the war zone on the ships of Great Britain or her allies do so at their own risk."

IMPERIAL GERMAN EMBASSY

Washington, D.C. 22nd April 1915

Were they right? Of course they were. Because, thanks to advanced diving technology the truth eventually emerged about thirty years ago with vast quantities of lethal ordnance found on the wreck and scattered about the adjacent ocean floor.

And what about the no-warning attack? More despicable lies. At the beginning of the U Boat campaign the Germans has adhered strictly to maritime convention, surfacing and allowing disembarkation to lifeboats. Even on occasion providing directions and sustenance. So what changed?   Enter war-mongering psychopath Churchill who, in flagrant contravention of every legal  and ethical norm had had commercial vessels secretly armed, the guns hidden under innocuous decking and/or cargo. This resulted in numerous U Boats being sunk with considerable loss of life. Naturally enough the warnings stopped after this.

In any event a very large boat like the Lusitania would under normal circumstances have taken about two hours to sink after being hit by a single torpedo.  But the Lusitania sank within 18 minutes.  Why? Because a massive second explosion - obviously caused by the on-board ordnance - blew away a large part of the hull, rendering any hope of rescue impossible. Several other deeply suspicious events are associated with the tragedy.  The British battle-cruiser Juno, patrolling the area for submarines, was inexplicably withdrawn shortly before the attack. Bear in mind that the Admiralty had cracked German codes and knew that subs were in the area. And to crown it all some of the rescue craft were recalled to Queenstown even when within sight of the struggling victims. After all, the more fatalities the better the propaganda.

One of the most disgusting aspects of the whole case was the deliberate scapegoating of the ship's Master, Captain William Turner.  The Admiralty's Richard Webb wrote to Lord Mersey, who oversaw the 'inquiry' "I am directed by the Board of Admiralty to inform you that it is considered politically expedient  that Captain Turner be prominently blamed for the disaster." How sick and cynical is that? And Churchill enthusiastically partook in the persecution of the unfortunate mariner who, though formally exonerated, never recovered and died a broken man.

We can thus say with confidence that the Lusitania can take its place with Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin and 9/11 as false flags enabled by evil men to widen and prolong vicious wars. And have no doubt there are more on the way.

So on Thursday next the standard pantomime (here's another one) will take place. Even through the truth has been forced out it has not really permeated the public consciousness. So  expect another bash the evil Germans scenario. And maybe even some hitherto undiscovered survivors, of the kind who keep miraculously popping up for Holocau$t™ reparations, will be wheeled out for the occasion.

I need your help again

Just like with the previous post I'm confused and in need of your help. Allow me to explain.

My confusion relates to the widely acclaimed, indeed legendary,  Death Camp testimony by Elie Wiesel called Night. And few writers have been the recipients of so much admiration - and money - as Elie. 'Fearless', 'searing truth', 'unsparing'...how could any self-respecting student of the Holocau$t™ (the Word's Greatest Tragedy) not read this canonical testament? But you see I kept putting it off. Not being a ghoul, how could I bear to read about:

Screaming babies hurled into gas chambers by Dr. Mengele himself

Fountains of blood exploding from the heaving mass of  decomposing bodies buried in mass graves

Prisoners forced to take acid baths 

Pumping prisoners full of water until they exploded. Christ, how lousy is that?

Injections directly into the brown eyes of untermencher to change them to a Teutonic blue

Camp Kommandant Laak tossing babies in the air and shooting them like clay pigeons while his cackling ten year-old daughter wildly applauds.  As only a Germans kid would.

And lots more.  So you can imagine my reluctant to subject myself to such horrors. I wouldn't sleep for a week. But a guy's gotta do what a guy's gotta do.

So with trembling hands I took up 'Night'. And it was every bit as harrowing as I had feared. Mind you there were some puzzling aspects. For instance we learn that Elie was treated in the Auschwitz camp hospital (where incidentally he tells us the quality of food was good) after which the doctor recommended 'a few days rest to recuperate'. And thus my first question. Was not Auschwitz a Death Camp, where mass extermination was the only game in town?  And in case you're wondering, Elie was not some valuable specialist, merely a humble sorting clerk.

Then right at the end of the war we had more strange hospital goings-on.  The Auschwitz medicos were treating Elie's dad in the Death Camp's hospital (even at a time of horrendous German casualties) when word came down that the camp was to be evacuated.  Prisoners were given the choice: Undertake an arduous journey to a new Death Camp......or relax and wait for liberation at the hands of the Red Army  Seems like the ultimate no-brainer. But wait for this...Elie dragged his infirm father out of the hospital and the two of them headed off with the fiendish Germans!

Mind you the Germans were under strict instructions to bludgeon any stragglers to death. I'm sure there's an explanation but, like, if they had given prisoners the option of remaining in Auschwitz why would they then want to kill stragglers?  Anyway, you'll be glad to know that when they arrived at the new Death Camp they were all treated to a hot shower and a 'cauldron of thick soup'. In due course this camp was also liberated, and "early the next day Jewish boys ran off to Wiemar to steal clothing and potatoes. And to rape German shiksas."  Ah well, boys will be boys.  Meanwhile Elie went on to fame and - most definitely - fortune. It could be said he actually created a whole new industry which thrives to this day.

So this is where I need your help. How do we reconcile all of those horrendous Death Camp incidents mentioned at the beginning with Elie's account of the incidents I referred to?  It's not easily explained. I have to confess to an ignoble thought crossing my mind...was he lying? But then I reminded myself that he was, just like Henry Kissinger, Menachim Begin and indeed Barak Obama,  a Nobel Peace Prize laureate.  And could you imagine any of these guys lying?  So I quickly - and shamefully - dismissed that thought.

But that only brings me back to square one. I'm at a loss to explain this conundrum.

Are there any wise readers out there who can clear my mind?

A German Jihad is born

Happy days, a cause for celebration. We sup yet again from the chalice of diversity because a 34 stone (240 kilo) Turkish land-whale in Germany has given birth to a 13 pound (6 kilo) monster which she has suitably named Jihad (Holy War). Can't you just see it in a few years time, mother sticking bloated head of the window and calling 'Holy War, your dinner is ready'. So very Germanic. He'll fit right into the multicultural paradise of the New Germany.

The land-whale reminds me of this creature who I described as "just following the dictates of her Darwinian script and at taxpayer expense eats, drinks, breeds and defecates, wallowing in the putrescence of her chosen state."

But there is an upside to this development as the case has - surprisingly - been afforded extensive coverage in the German media. And what could better exemplify the catastrophe that is multiculturalism than  seeing their taxes showered on a bloated, semi-literate free-loader and her 13 other children, a free-loader so culturally deaf as to name one of her turdlers after the people blowing up the taxpayers' country?

Andreas, a German reader of this blog tells me that reader comments in the local media are almost universally hostile while the number of deleted comments bears mute testimony to the public's feelings.

I close with one question: Did the father of Jihad inseminate the birthing unit by using a fire hose? If not, how?

The Nemtsov killing: Cui bono?

In the normal course of events I'd have assumed that Putin had been involved in the murder of  his opponent Boris Nemtsov either directly or indirectly.  But times are certainly not normal given the constant provocation of Russia by the 'West' - primarily the USA and its lapdog Britain.

Having  applied punitive sanctions, conspired to crash the price of oil.  provoked civil war and bankruptcy in Ukraine  (whose gold has been whipped out to America for 'safe-keeping'), we now learn that oily Dave Cameron plans to send 250 'military advisers' to that unfortunate country. As if they needed more soldiers.

Even Mikhail Gorbachev himself has warned of  the danger of nuclear war if the provocations continue.

On cue the Western MSM, just like they did with flight MH-17 (notice how that story suddenly disappeared once the black box was analysed?) and, without a shred of evidence, assigned responsibility to Putin. And Nemtsov became a fearless national martyr, the Man Who Dared Challenge The Great Dictator. So here's a little offsetting background on our hero Nemtzov. Prominent in Yeltsin's Jewish Mafia, after the fall of Communism he organised the  handing over of numerous multi-billion dollar publicly owned enterprises and resources to the appointed ones for a pittance . Thus he midwifed the birth of the Russian Oligarchs.

Before getting his hands on the loot at national level he had had a dry run as Governor of the Nizhny Novgorod region, a position he reached at the remarkably tender age of 29. Purely on ability, I have no doubt. Yeltsin then catapulted him and another top Jewish Mafioso Anatoly Chubais into "direct unsupervised control" of the state asset disposal. Having duly enriched himself and The Family he then, like Khodorovsky, sought elective political power. This attempt became legend as he made his election appeal - on behalf of the 'common man' - from the lounge of his luxurious private jet.  As you can imagine this didn't go down too well with the newly impoverished nation. His appeal was as a consequence limited and he was nowhere close to being an electoral threat to Putin.

On any occasion such as this one must ask cui bono?  Putin has gained nothing apart from getting rid of an irritating gadfly. But the downside for him is major, providing a propaganda bonanza for his enemies, turning up the volume of the war drums in the West, opening the possibility of a "Maidan Moment" of destabilisation in Moscow, and undermining the chances of a peaceful resolution of the Ukrainian and Syrian crises. So if Putin was indeed behind this he's made a very bad and stupid move. And we don't associate him with bad and stupid moves.

I don't for one minute claim to know what happened or who's responsible. But it looks all too like another dangerous escalation of hostilities by Russia's enemies. I truly believe that the world is in serious danger of a major war, a war without doubt provoked by the ZioCons in America and their British satrap.

Our best hope of avoiding it lies in the European nations showing a bit of backbone for once and telling the ZioCon War Party in America to take a flying fuck.

But I'm not holding my breath.

The silent holocaust

Now that the Auschwitz Show(™) is winding to a close and the exhausted participants return to normality another holocaust from the same time passes off almost unnoticed. Over three days beginning February 13 1945 the beautiful historical city of Dresden  ('The Florence On The Elbe') packed with civilians, refugees from the East and Allied prisoners-of-war was systematically pulverised into rubble. Kurt Vonnegut, a well-treated POW incarcerated there during the fire-bombing, provides a chilling personal account of the atrocity in his novel Slaughterhouse 5, pointing out that "more people died there in the firestorm, in that one big flame, than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined."

This atrocity ticked all the war crime boxes.  David Irving described Dresden as being "not endowed with any one great capital industry like those of Essen and Hamburg, even though Dresden was of comparable size, the city's economy had been sustained in peacetime by its theaters, museums, cultural institutions and home industries."  

So the city had no strategic value, was known to be packed with civilian refugees (it was called der Fleuchtlingsstadt, the 'refugee city'), the war was virtually over and there were no air defences.  It lay utterly prostrate and defenseless before the onslaught. Yet for three days and nights waves of bombers dropped thousands of tons of high explosive, incendiaries and (illegal) phosphorous bombs.  The bombers were followed by fighter planes who strafed the survivors and rescue crews. Wave after wave.

I don't blame the Allied bomber crews who had little choice when carrying out their grisly task.  The true criminals were Churchill and his 'scientific advisor' Frederick Alexander Lindeman, This German-born psychopath seemed obsessed, like so many of his Jewish co-ethnics, with the literal extermination of the German people. He also demonstrated that extraordinary Jewish capacity to appear from nowhere and miraculously land at the right hand side of the seat of power. And Lindeman had a cunning plan. He had calculated that that every 40 tons of bombs dropped on built-up areas would "make 4,000 to 8,000 people homeless." And, as historian Max Hastings drily observed "[h]oped to create a nation of refugees, and no doubt also a good many corpses under the rubble, although he was too genteel to say so."

At a lower level there was at least one other war criminal. Air Marshall Arthur "Bomber" Harris. He expressed his objectives for Dresden thus: "What we wanted to do in addition to the horrors of fire was to bring masonry crashing down on the Boche (Germans), to kill and terrify Boche".  Nice chap. And he never regretted the mass murder he unleashed. In an interview given thirty years after war's end he proudly admitted that he'd 'destroy Dresden all over again' in the same circumstances. You may well ask whether this monster was put on trial like the other war criminals and suffered the same fate. Well no. On the contrary they erected a statue to him, unveiled by no less a personage than HRH the Queen herself.

Now I'm not 100% correct in claiming the Dresden holocaust goes unrecorded. Over the last few years at this time the city has begun to quietly mark the occasion. But it does so within the severe constraints ordained by the Official Narrative. This in effect means that Germans can discreetly mourn their dead but only in the context of the ritual self-abasement that has been inculcated into their psyche over the last half century. Namely that any such mourning be contextualised by the acknowledgement of exclusive German guilt for the whole disaster and that German suffering was in no way comparable to the Official Holocau$t.

Oy vey, only Jews can suffer.

It's the Auschwitz® Show!

Wow, what a show it's been.  Brand Auschwitz in all its gory glory. The great and the good dragged from all over the world to witness the scene of the greatest crime in  the history of humanity. Or so we're lead to believe.

I'd just love if all the orgiastic ones would take some time out from the TV appearances and reparations processing to address these questions. But I'm not holding my breath.

() Why would the Germans utilise costly and scarce fuel, transportation and military resources to bring millions of Jews to Auschwitz from all over Europe only to kill them?  Why not do it in the nearest disused quarry?

() Why did the resident Red Cross unit at Auschwitz fail to notice that little matter of millions being exterminated under their noses?

() Why was there a special court in the camp to try guards accused of ill-treatment of prisoners?

() Why were no "gas chamber" extractor fans visible on the photos taken by Allied planes towards the end of the war?  The chambers could not have been used for cyanide-based gassing (Zyklon B) in their absence.

() Even with the modest cost-effective modern technology it takes about three hours to fully cremate a human body. This would result in the Auschwitz furnaces cremating about 40,000 corpses during its span of operation, assuming a 24x7x365 operation (which isn't technically possible anyway). Now factor in deaths from natural causes and the fact that at least 50% of deaths in the camp were of non-Jews and you get a realistic figure of about 15,000 Jews incinerated there.

() Why did American gas chamber specialist Fred Leuchter find no evidence of lethal-level cyanide residue in the "gas chamber" walls?

() Why kill prisoners when there was there a constant stream of documents from SS HQ demanding higher output from the camp?

() Why did Allied spies in the camp - acknowledged as such after the war - not highlight the supposed mass killings?

() Why did Eisenhower, Churchill and De Gaulle not mention the Auschwitz 'death camp' in their war memoirs?

The answer to the above questions can be found, at least in part, in this post.

An unusual endorsement

The more I research the subject the clearer it becomes that sinister 'Western' forces were intent on fomenting a war with Hitler's Germany. It also becomes clearer that those forces were personified by  international central banking interests, which is another way of saying the Rothschilds. The Reichsbank, despite its name, was actually a privately-owned central bank (like almost all the other CBs) and it vigorously opposed the economic program with which Hitler transformed Germany.

This program resulted, within a couple of years, in the country having a solid, stable currency, no debt, and no inflation, at a time when millions of people in the United States and other Western countries were still out of work and living on welfare. Germany even managed to restore foreign trade, although it was denied foreign credit and was faced with an economic boycott abroad. It did this by using a barter system: equipment and commodities were exchanged directly with other countries, circumventing the international banks. This system of direct exchange occurred without debt and without trade deficits.  

Here's what Richard Tedor (in Hitler's Revolution) said about it.

"Despite objections from Schmidt, president of the Reich’s Bank, Hitler withdrew Germany’s money system from the gold standard…. Hitler substituted a direct barter system in foreign dealings. German currency became defined units of human productivity.

In January 1938, the Soviet diplomat Kristyan Rakovsky commented on the German money system. Rakovsky had held posts in London and in Paris and was acquainted with Wall Street financiers. He explained, “Hitler, this uneducated ordinary man, has out of natural intuition and even despite the opposition of the technician Schacht, created an especially dangerous economic system. An illiterate in every theory of economics driven only by necessity, he has cut out international as well as private high finance. Hitler possesses almost no gold, and so he can’t endeavor to make it a basis for currency. Since the only available collateral for his money is the technical aptitude and great industriousness of the German people, technology and labor became his ‘gold’…. As you know, like magic it’s eliminated all the unemployment for more than six million skilled employees and laborers. “

Germany’s withdrawal from the gold-based, internationally linked monetary system in favor of a medium of exchange founded on domestic productivity corresponded to Hitler’s belief in maintaining the sovereignty of nations. This was an unwelcome development in London, Paris and New York, where cosmopolitan investment and banking institutions profited from loaning money to foreign countries. Germany no longer had to borrow in order to trade on the world market. Foreign demand for German goods correspondingly created more jobs within the Reich.

Rakovsky was wrong in attributing the genesis of the plan to the 'economically illiterate' Hitler rather than to Gottfried Feder but still it's some testament, is it not?

Was this man the greatest war criminal of WW 2?

Dwight D. Eisenhower enjoyed a miraculously successful military and political career despite (like John McCain) finishing close to the bottom of his graduation class at West Point, where he was known as 'that terrible Swedish Jew'. (His father was said to be Jewish but if so was of the crypto variety). But neither that nor repeated subsequent examples of incompetence (MacArthur wanted rid of him) held him back, as some mysterious(?) force at the highest levels in Washington kept the promotions rolling in.  As one of his biographers pointed out 'in only five years he had risen from a lowly lieutenant colonel in the Philippines to commander of the greatest invasion force in history'.

Amazing!

He ended WW 2 as a hero, loved and lionised by the American people, a reaction which he parlayed into becoming a two term President, one of the most admired of the twentieth century.

While he always professed himself appalled at German 'war crimes' and wanted to exterminate the whole German High Command after the war it seems he wasn't beyond a bit of war criminality himself. In fact, and this is not an exaggeration, he could justifiably be described as the greatest war criminal of the twentieth century.  Because there's compelling evidence to suggest that he deliberately and with malice aforethought consigned over one million German prisoners-of-war to their deaths in 1945.

Rense writes about it with great eloquence and passion here, but in essence Eisenhower had German POWs reclassified as Disarmed Enemy Combatants (DECs) the impact of which was to remove the need to provide sustenance and to put them outside the purview of the International Red Cross. Under normal circumstances this mechanism is understandable, the idea being that with the end of hostilities defeated soldiers can be let to their own devices rather than be a burden on their jailers.  However Eisenhower gave explicit instructions for the German soldiers to be imprisoned in camps and to be denied shelter and sustenance. The inevitable result of such a policy was death through starvation, disease or exposure.

Konrad Adenauer, the pro-Western Chancellor of West Germany during the fifties commissioned a report which found that 1.5 million German prisoners in Allied POW camps never came home alive nor were their deaths recorded. The report attributes this to their being 'penned up for weeks without protection from the weather, water or medical care'.  These events were detailed in the book Other Losses by Canadian writer James Bacque (1989) and picked up by journalist Peter Worthington who wrote 'it is hard to escape the conclusion that Eisenhower was a war criminal of epic proportions.'

Naturally enough, once the crime was exposed a team of  house-trained court historians under the leadership of Stephen Edward Ambrose sprang into action. And  dismissed the book as....... (roll of drums)  a conspiracy theory. While there's undoubtedly room for discussion regarding the total figure there's none in relation to Eisenhower's DEC reclassification, his orders to deprive the captives of care and sustenance and the exclusion of the Red Cross from the camps.  Shortage of food cannot be sustained as an excuse as Bacque cites several documents from Allied logistics officers in the region to the effect that plenty of food was available should they have wanted to feed the prisoners and that American soldiers and German civilians were actually prohibited from doing so.

Interestingly, when I was a student in Germany in 1966 I had a drinking friend called Franz.  He had been in the war towards the latter end as a very young man.  He told me one night while in his cups that he and vast numbers of other soldiers had been imprisoned near Cologne with neither food nor shelter and that huge numbers had perished. He admitted that many had got away as security at some of the camps was weak and that many localised camp commanders, disgusted at what was taking place, simply left the DECs escape.

So it seems that Ike got away with mass murder.  Not just that but thrived and prospered and lived into old age, wealthy and admired. Meanwhile the German people have become synonymous with genocide even as the Holocau$t fairytale unravels and the knowledge of detailed plans to literally wipe the German people from the face of the earth  have emerged.  While the winners write the history, that covering the first half of the last century is surely unsurpassed in terms of grotesque misrepresentation.  Never has a people been so unjustifiably traduced as have the Germans.

Let us all in our own way continue our efforts to get the truth out there.

Germans as surrogate for Whites

After becoming awakened to what was being done to us, and by 'us' I mean the White race, I totally gave up watching films. But thanks to Lady savant I couldn't avoid watching the opening scene of one such Hollywood production recently called Murphy's War.  This scene, the only bit I could watch, showed a British merchant ship being sunk by a German submarine and the survivors then being machine-gunned while struggling in the water.

This is of course a gross calumny.  Survivors of such attacks were unanimous in crediting the Germans with not just saving their lives by allowing them to disembark into lifeboats but also providing them with directions to the nearest safe haven.  There are countless individual testimonies to this effect. In fact if we get into the issue of breaking wartime maritime law the main transgressors were the Allies. The British and Americans deployed Q Ships, which, though flying the merchant flag and appearing like merchantmen were actually disguised warships which blew the unsuspecting sub to pieces when it surfaced.

But all of this is by the way. The incident really made me wonder whether this endless demonisation of Germans could actually represent an attack on Whites with the Germans acting as a kind of surrogate or proxy. Think about it. The Germans are always shown or portrayed as blonde with merciless steely blue eyes as they bayonet babies and or undertake some other such favourite German pastime. The reverse psychology and subliminal programming are obvious: Blonde hair and blue eyes equal merciless ruthless killers or at its most basic very bad people.  And they don't have to come straight out and say it, just let the message sink in.

It's at least a strong possibility.

Germany celebrates

I was thrilled to see Germany win the World Cup.  Not just that they were IMHO the best team in the competition but that the victory reinforces the nation's growing national pride.  Never has a nation needed it more. For none has been so unjustly vilified, traduced, maligned, denigrated and slandered. We've been brought up to believe that this fine people represented some unique manifestation of evil. As I sought to demonstrate in this post, nothing could be further from the truth.

For decades Germans have kept their heads down, ashamed of their identity and afraid to demonstrate any semblance of national pride. Their job was to shut up and pay up. The rapidly declining population (I don't include Third World colonisers in this) is one manifestation of this syndrome. Now, national flags proudly wave among massive enthusiastic crowds in the traditional capital of a reunited country as the team brings home the trophy.

Well done lads and let us all hope it leads your country onto even greater achievements and more important, results in hiving off your albatross of unjustified guilt.

"You're a Holocaust denier!"

Such was the charge levelled against me in a conversation with friends and acquaintances last Tuesday evening.  Am I?  Well, you be the judge as I lay out my position.

1. The Jews in Europe did indeed suffer a Holocaust in which vast numbers of them were killed and otherwise lost their lives during WW II.

2.  The numbers come nowhere near the mythical (and it is mythical) figure of six million. I don't know what the number was, maybe nobody does but I suspect it was closer to a tenth of that figure.

3. Other peoples suffered a Holocaust as well during this time, at least as bad as that suffered by the Jews. I have in mind the Poles, Russians, Ukrainians and of course the Germans themselves. The ratio of Tutsis slaughtered in Rwanda dwarfs the ratio of Jews killed in their Holocaust. Yet Jews have cornered the genocide market.

4. There was no plan to exterminate Europe's Jews.  The plan was to get them into work camps, slave labour camps if you will, and at the end of the war expel them to Israel, Uganda, Madagascar or the steppes of Russia.

5. The majority of Jewish deaths resulted from the actions of the Einsatzgruppen and their local allies.  These forces operated behind German lines after Operation Barbarossa to suppress local resistance.  Such resistance was strongly associated with Jews who were in any event an easily identifiable target. Vast numbers were murdered and buried in mass graves. The local forces allied to the Einsatzgruppen undoubtedly took the opportunity to settle many an old score as part of the process. Typhus outbreaks in the camps were also a major contributor...possibly the largest.

6. The idea of the gas chambers as a form of mass slaughter is a complete fabrication.

7. The piles of skeletal bodies as seen in the iconic photos from Belsen and elsewhere represented the victims of typhus and starvation, the latter brought on by the bombing of German supply lines.

I have not arrived at these conclusions casually or quickly. I truly believe that they represent what really occurred.

Explaining the hysteria

I know that Mandela is a special hate figure for many if not most on this blog, especially South Africans.  But I don't see it that way.  You see he fought diligently, relentlessly and highly successfully for his own people.  That was very bad for Whites there and it gets worse by the day.  Yet if Whites had had a Mandela on their side who knows how things might stand today? And sure he was involved in violence where innocent people got killed, but that happens in every rebellion or civil war.  (Why, we  have another black man in the White House who does it daily on a much bigger scale and he has the Nobel Peace Prize on his cupboard.) Mandela was also a man of principle,  enduring many additional years in prison for refusing to renounce his policies.  And finally, in a way unknown in the rest of Africa, he did seek to embrace the country's Whites, albeit being too old ultimately to make much difference.

Having said all of that he was, or should be, a minor world figure. Yes, he 'inspired' his movement from prison, was ultimately successful and held the position of President for a few years. In terms of global importance his country would realistically be ranked mid-range, about the same as say Algeria or Roumania.  Now can you imagine the global reaction to the death of one of their Presidents? A few lines on the back page.   Or let's take Presidents with colossal geopolitical achievements, such as Michael Gorbachev, who oversaw the collapse of the Second World, or Helmut Kohl who rammed through German reunification.  Compare those achievements to that of Mandela who, in effect, lead the majority in a sometimes violent rebellion against a tiny and ultimately doomed minority in a country of little global importance.

Realistically he didn't achieve a lot more than did ben Bella in Algeria or even Mugabe in Southern Rhodesia . But you'd never think that from the MSM in the west.  I don't need to rub your noses in it anymore. But to take just a single example, the front page of the Irish Times yesterday had the paper's logo at the top, while every other single pixel went to make up a giant picture of Mandela (whom many of the cringing and slobbering madia have now taken to calling -excruciatingly -  Madeba.)  Suffice to say I have never - ever -  seen such blanket hagiographical coverage, not even for JFK.

All for the leader of a rebellion in a faraway country of modest importance.

The whole treatment bears an uncanny resonance with that of the Peace Prize Laureate himself, you know the one who starts undeclared wars and makes a list of people to be killed at the beginning of each week.  I remember when he burst on the scene on the basis of his speech to the Democratic National Convention. Now I'm not looking at this with hindsight but I really did think at the time 'ok the guy made a good speech. So what?'  I say the same about any speech from any politician. Because they have highly paid speech writers to create the words while the pol just reads them out. The words are analysed and parsed and run across focus groups interminably before they're finally loaded up onto the speaker's autocue. The 'soaring rhetoric' is someone else's creation

So really we're just seeing another example of the attempt to transmogrify elemental and localised black accomplishments into something profound and global.  And that in turn is part of the broader strategy to make blacks appear good, successful, intelligent and thus attractive brood stock for naïve and credulous White females. Probably 95% of those creaming themselves over 'Madeba' don't realise why they're doing it. But the elite few currently implementing the long-standing programme of White destruction know exactly what's going on. And why. As the following quotation from Mein Kampf underlines, the author was ahead of his time in so very many ways.

“The Jews were responsible for bringing negroes into the Rhineland, with the ultimate idea of bastardizing the white race which they hate and thus lowering its cultural and political level so that the Jew might dominate.”

Couldn't put it better myself.