"I have been reading your amazing blog and listening to some of your podcasts with Carolyn. Not sure how I haven't run across your work before. Amazing stuff." (reader's comment, 10 May 2016)
Come chat with us! Download and install an IRC-client -- Hexchat is recommended -- and go to the channel #National-Socialism on the Undernet server.

22 July 2017

Schacht and Hitler

Hjalmar Schacht had a high regard for the economic policy of the first four years of Hitler's rule in which he played a key role, when deficit spending was used to create jobs and increase production, without generating inflation.

Schacht was critical of the period from 1937 forward. The problem with Hitler's deficit spending in that later period, according to Schacht, was that Germany had already reached full employment. The theory is that for as long as deficit spending corresponds to increases in employment and production, it is not inflationary. But once full employment has been achieved, further deficit spending cannot produce further employment, and therefore will be inflationary.

Accelerated rearmament, however it might be funded, had become indispensable, however, because of the threat posed by growing Soviet military might and the Franco-Soviet Mutual Assistance Pact.

In the program posted here there are about 20 minutes of lecture about Hjalmar Schacht's relationship to Hitler's agenda, followed by 20 minutes of discussion. 

The discussion seemed mostly to go in circles, elliptically orbiting around two questions: (1) whether an increase in the supply of money necessarily causes inflation and (2) whether inflation consists in an increase of the money-supply or (as Hitler says) in a rise in prices that might result therefrom.

By all accounts Hitler's accelerated rearmament of Germany through deficit spending beginning in 1937 did not seem to produce inflation (as Schacht had predicted) while Hitler's government still existed.

This avoidance of inflation, or the effects of inflation, was accomplished partially through price-controls, but public loyalty and the expectation that Hitler would eventually find a way to cover the deficit, and thus maintain the value of the Reichsmark in the long term, may have been important factors. Hitler intended to cover the deficit with minerals from conquered Soviet territory (and if Germany did not win the war, an unsound currency would be the least of her worries).

It seems legitimate to say that if the quantity of money only temporarily outstrips production without causing a change in the perception of that money's value before the deficit is covered, then there was no inflation. That is a justification of how Hitler defined the word.

Schacht says that Hitler's deficit spending caused inflation of the Reichsmark after the war, but really, how could he tell? The effects of Anglo-American bombing and postwar looting on Germany's productive capacity surely overshadowed entirely any imbalance between currency and production caused by a few years of deficit spending. 

Hitler's position was this:

"The thing has got to be done. No State has ever gone bankrupt for economic reasons — but only as the result of losing a war!"[Table Talk, 22 April 1942]

It turns out that Schacht's opposition to this accelerated rearmament was not entirely a matter of fiscal scruples. Schacht, with his connections in England and the United States, was bent on hindering Germany's rearmament because he was disloyal. He admitted this in his book, The Magic of Money (1967).

An American diplomat, Donald R. Heath, wrote to Schacht in 1959 to inform him of how he had vouched for his collaboration with the U.S. government during the war:

I told [American prosecutor Robert] Jackson not only should you never have been brought before that tribunal but that you had consistently been working for the downfall of the Nazi regime. I told him that I had been in touch with you consistently during the first part of the war and Under Secretary of State Wells through me, and that you had passed on to me information adverse to the Nazi cause.... [D. Heath quoted by H. Schacht, The Magic of Money (1967), p. 107]

In any case, for purposes of assessing National-Socialism as such, it ought not to be overlooked that Schacht, an economist who placed supreme value on maintaining the stability of a currency, found the economic reality of National-Socialism quite praiseworthy prior to the period of accelerated rearmament that commenced in 1937.


18 July 2017

Most Serial Killers Are Black

Source: Serial Killer Statistics

There is an old canard that serial killers are always White and that Blacks are never serial killers. This myth has been so powerful that some criminal investigations (for example, about the murders of Derrick Todd Lee from 1992 to 2003) have been hindered by the presumption that the perpetrator, since he is a serial killer, must be White. 

In fact, as this chart reveals, Negroes have always been overrepresented in serial murder as in other violent crimes -- just not as much.

Until 1980 the total number of serial killers classified as White exceeded the total number of serial killers identified as Black in each decade, but that is no longer the case. For three decades now statistics have shown more Black than White serial killers.

Since the statistical shift happens to coincide with the invention of DNA profiling in 1984, it seems entirely likely that improved detection, rather than a sudden change in Negro behavior, is the main reason why so many more Black serial killers are now appearing in statistics.

07 July 2017

Ann Coulter Awakening to the Jewish Problem

The creativity of Alt Right trolls is gradually introducing suppressed truth into mainstream discussion. Through President Trump's retweeting of a GIF that represented him pummeling CNN, and CNN's overreaction -- and the subsequent piling-on against CNN by Trump's supporters -- the world became acquainted with other things posted or reposted by HanA**holeSolo, things that say nothing extraordinary from a White Nationalist perspective, but are revolutionary to almost everybody else. 

In this interview on 710 WOR (New York City) on 5 July 2017, Ann Coulter talks as if she genuinely did not know that mass-media in the United States were dominated by Jews.  She also talks as if she were unaware of the taboo against pointing it out.

This is not the first breakthrough caused by such a graphic presentation. Recall that a very similar image, about Jewish involvement in promoting gun-control, was promoted by rock-guitarist Ted Nugent in early 2016. (He subsequently apologized, but the damage was done.)

03 July 2017

The Holocaustian Propaganda-Campaign Against Bashar al-Assad

The Holocaustian establishment, especially the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, has been heavily involved and highly influential in the campaign of warmongering against the legitimate government of Syria, imparting spurious credibility and moral force to accusations and characterizations that cannot withstand scrutiny. Read more.

02 July 2017

Who started the Second World War?

The entire show from which this segment was taken can be heard here.

29 June 2017

The Profit-Motive as a Cover for Jewish Subversion

Recently it was revealed by Project Veritas, in a (covertly recorded) conversation with CNN's supervising producer John Bonifield, that CNN has been perpetuating for most of a year now the story of Russian meddling in the American presidential election knowing full well that there was no evidence for it. It was done at the insistence of the CEO of CNN, (((Jeffrey Zucker))). 

The explanation for this behavior -- which seems not to be widely questioned -- is that it was done for ratings. In other words, the false story of Russian manipulation of the U.S. presidential election was perpetuated month after month because it was profitable.

But the fact that Bonifield offered "ratings" as an explanation for Zucker's insistence that CNN harp ad nauseam on the Russian conspiracy story does not necessarily mean that this was in fact Zucker's motive. It is not a very convincing explanation.

First, if profit was a motive, it clearly was not the only motive for CNN to perpetuate the Russian conspiracy story.

The general hostility of  mass-media toward Donald Trump's presidential campaign, and the general hostility of Jews, underlying the hostility of mass-media, are well known. Rabbi Eric H. Yoffe wrote in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz last year that Jews were "panicking" and "terrified" at the prospect of a Trump presidency, and that 90% of Jews in the United States would be voting against Trump (E. Yoffe, Ha'aretz, 22 July 2016). There was and still is an agenda to stop Donald Trump and the civic nationalist agenda that he represents.

There is also a conspicuous Zionist hostility toward Russia that has been evident since September 2013, when Vladimir Putin, through diplomatic efforts, deflated the planned overthrow of the legitimate government of Syria. Immediately an anti-Putin vendetta became apparent. It was only five months later that the elected president of the Ukraine, friendly to Putin and pro-Russian, was overthrown and replaced with an anti-Russian government. The granting of diplomatic recognition to Cuba and the deal with Iran were done hastily as attempts to pry away more of Russia's allies, and the price of fuel, on which the Russian economy depends, was driven down to unanticipated lows. Meanwhile a new Cold War, or even a potential hot war, was generated with talk of Putin's being another Hitler.

So, let us not pretend that this incessant drumbeat of anti-Russian and anti-Trump propaganda was motivated only by ratings and profit.

Furthermore, if CNN had wanted to invent stories for profit, they should not have obsessed over this one story to the point of running it into the ground. Tabloids that specialize in sensational stories always manage to find or invent a variety of new ones every week. If CNN was inventing the Russian conspiracy story, they could easily invent a variety of other stories to generate even greater interest.

In fact, CNN had put so much time into the Russian conspiracy story that CNN's own editor-at-large Chris Cillizza observed that the public was getting tired of hearing about it (C. Cilliza, CNN, 22 May 2017).

Ratings and profit was not the reason why CNN put so much time into the Russian conspiracy story. They did it because there is a Jewish vendetta against both Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, and CNN happens to be controlled by Jews. Jeffrey Zucker is a Jew.

The profit-motive has been invoked again and again as a cover-story for Jewish machinations.

A good example of this is the so-called War on Terror. The cover story promoted for people who object to all these foreign wars is that oil-companies, or companies that profit from war, had wanted these wars because they expected to profit from them.

But the USA did not get any oil from the invasion of Iraq. Donald Trump complained about this when he was campaigning for president. After going to all that trouble, why didn't we take the oil? he asked. Ultimately it has become clear that the invasion of Iraq was not about oil.

As for companies that profit from war, there is no reason for their sakes that all those wars have to be against enemies of the State of Israel -- but for some reason that's how it almost always happens.

The overwhelming power of the Zionist motive in U.S. foreign policy has been widely recognized at least as long ago as Professor John Mearsheimer's (U. Chicago) and Professor Stephen Walt's (Harvard) book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, which appeared in 2007.

In December 2016, former CIA officer Philip Giraldi commented about the Israel Lobby:

Its ready access to the mainstream media to spread its own propaganda provides it with cover for its actions. [P. Giraldi, The Unz Review, 6 December 2016]

How do the media cover the Israel Lobby's actions? Zionist wars, for those who object, are explained as capitalist wars, and when the mainstream media's Zionist lies are uncovered, they are explained as capitalist lies.

There are no Jews and no Jewish motive behind any of this, you see? It's just the effect of competition in the capitalist system.  

That's what they want us to believe.

Cowards and professional talking heads, with their moistened finger forever in the breeze, will of course happily parrot such falsehoods -- if it allows them to avoid the discomfort of blaming Jews. 

But our people need to know the real causes of events. They need to know who is pushing these things.

When you hear people parroting this nonsense about the profit-motive being the cause of foreign wars and the cause of lies that serve a Zionist agenda, call them out. Do not let them continue to obscure the Jewish motive behind these events.

24 June 2017

Public Healthcare and Forced Eugenic Sterilization

The entire program in which this segment was originally heard is here.

What Would Hitler Do? – Radical Agenda, 23 June 2017

  Socialized Medicine and Racial Hygiene

Hadding Scott 
Nationalized healthcare has been in the news recently. I am going to talk about aspects of the National-Socialist approach to this.

Socialized medicine in Germany had its beginnings under Bismarck in 1883.

An important impetus to socialized medicine, and to socialism in general, was German militarism. It was observed by Gustave Le Bon in his Psychology of Socialism that the military is in effect a socialist institution, and that men who serve in the military become habituated to socialism.

Bismarck had another motive for creating Germany's welfare-state, which was to take the wind out of the sails of the Marxists.

Bismarck's system of compulsory health-insurance became the model for socialized medicine in other countries.

Much of Adolf Hitler's agenda consisted of doing the same as Bismarck but more of it. That was the case also with socialized healthcare.

It should not be surprising that a racial state would have socialized medicine, since such a state is strongly concerned with the hereditary constitution and quality of its people. Such a state has an interest in what kind of person you marry and how many children you have. Preferably you should produce children without any outlandish racial mixture and without hereditary defects, because the future of the whole society is affected by this.

There are some possible objections to socialized medicine, however, apart from the general objection to socialized everything. These objections are really objections to healthcare per se.

One objection, that Americans are mostly afraid to state, is that non-Whites might benefit more than Whites from free healthcare. This consideration is a source of White opposition to all sorts of public amenities.

In Germany that was not a problem.

Another objection, especially in the United States, is a general distrust of government, and a tendency to assume that anyone who has any dealings with the government is using it to pad his own pockets at public expense.

This problem also does not exist in Germany. German civil servants are known for being efficient and conscientious.

The main criticism of healthcare in Germany was that it aided the survival of the unfit, since the unfit will have the greatest need of healthcare, while congenitally healthy people will have relatively little need of it.

In the introduction to the 1895 book in which he coined the term racial hygiene, Alfred Ploetz, a Social-Democrat who 42 years later joined the NSDAP, stated some objections to healthcare. This is an excerpt.

At first glance one could suppose that the conditions for the prosperity of a race were the same as the conditions for the prosperity of every single member of it, that the care for the health of the race and the customary healthcare of the individual were one and the same. This is not the case however without something further, and there are excellent researchers who even want to acknowledge a deep conflict between modern healthcare and racial well-being.


Actually the demand of most Darwinians entails that the struggle for existence must be maintained within human society....

Let the words of Darwin himself suffice:
“As every other beast, man has without doubt reached his present exalted state through a struggle for survival as a consequence of his rapid multiplication, and if he shall progress even higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle.”

In any case it is apparent from the remarks of these men, including even the mild-mannered Darwin, that the view that the wellbeing of our race would be best attained through the improvement of living conditions for all individuals, is certainly not universally accepted.
Therefrom follows the necessity to balance the concept of healthcare in the usual sense, individual hygiene, with another concept, that of the hygiene of a human collectivity. Thus one could speak of the hygiene of a nation, of a race in the narrower sense, or of the entire human race.

Ploetz indicates that the ancient Pagan Germans practiced a kind of racial hygiene:

The idea of racial refinement lay also at least partly at the base of the custom of the ancient Germans, to allow the father to kill feeble, ugly, or otherwise displeasing newborns.

Ploetz blames Christianity and democracy for the sidelining of racial hygiene, but in the intellectual elite of late-nineteenth-century Germany, whose thinking is not governed by Christianity, the idea has returned:

Christianity and modern democracy with their doctrine and demands of equality have so diminished the sense of race in the masses that the conflict between humanitarian socialist demands and racial wellbeing indeed no longer penetrates their consciousness. In the masses, I say.

In the small circle of leaders and researchers, through the advent of Darwin and the political advance of Social Democracy, the racial interest has become very vital again, and the sword-blows of great and small knights of the mind rattle merrily through the springtime air of modern science.

As a socialist informed by Darwinism, Ploetz advocates that the state assist the individual, but at the same time that the state should balance this with racial hygiene.

Ploetz advocates measures not only to prevention of racial deterioration, but improvement of the race:

The escalation of our brain-talents is the most necessary condition that we know for an improvement of our conditions of happiness.

Eugenic laws started in the United States. In 1896, Connecticut enacted a law forbidding the marriage of any person who is "epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded."

Since a ban on marriage did not prevent the “imbecile or feeble-minded” from reproducing, the logical next step had to be forced sterilization of people whose reproduction was undesirable. In 1907 the American state of Indiana became the first state to have a eugenic sterilization law.

Although 30 states adopted eugenic sterilization laws, the actual implementation of eugenic sterilization in the United States was limited because of lawsuits.

In Germany, with Hitler as the autocratic ruler, eugenic sterilization could be implemented on a grand scale.  There were however safeguards to make sure that it was not done without justification. Lothrop Stoddard visited Germany in 1940 and reported on what he saw.

From Lothrop Stoddard, Into the Darkness:

As the Nazis saw it, they had a two-fold task: to increase both the size and the quality of the population. Indiscriminate incentives to big families would result largely in more criminals and morons. So they coupled their encouragements to sound citizens with a drastic curb on the defective elements. That curb was the Sterilization Law.

The object of the statute is set forth in its official title: An Act for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring. The grounds for sterilization are specifically enumerated. They are: (1) Congenital Mental Deficiency; (2) Schizophrenia, or split personality; (3)Manic-Depressive Insanity; (4) Inherited Epilepsy; (5) Inherited (Huntington's) Chorea; (6) Inherited Blindness; (7) Inherited Deafness; (8) Any grave physical defect that has been inherited; (9) Chronic alcoholism, when this has been scientifically determined to be symptomatic of psychological abnormality.

It should be understood that all these defects and diseases have been proven to be hereditary by scientists throughout the world. It was estimated that at least 400,000 persons in Germany were known to be subjects for sterilization. But the law specifically forbids sterilization for any non-hereditary cause. Even mentally diseased persons, habitual criminals, and ordinary alcoholics cannot be sterilized [if it is not shown to be hereditary].

Each case up for sterilization must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt before special district courts, and appeals from their verdict can be taken, first to a regional court of appeals, and ultimately to the High Appellate Court sitting in Berlin.

Such are the provisions of the Sterilization Law. So many charges have been made outside Germany that it is being used to sterilize politically undesirable persons that I particularly welcomed the opportunity to study at first-hand the High Court's proceedings.


Germany's Eugenic Supreme Court sits in an impressive building at Charlottenburg, one of Berlin's western suburbs. I arrived just as court was opening. On the bench sat a regular judge in cap and gown. At his right was the celebrated psychopathologist, Professor Zutt, a typical savant with mild blue eyes and a Vandyke beard. At the judge's left was a keen-eyed younger man who was a specialist in criminal psychology and beside whom I sat during the proceedings. All three courteously explained points to me at frequent intervals.

Since this was the court of last resort, all matters came up to it on appeal from lower courts, and thus tended to be "hairline" cases.

The thing that struck me most was the meticulous care with which these cases had already been considered by the lower tribunals. The dossier of each case was voluminous, containing a complete life-history of the subject, reports of specialists and clinics, and also exhaustive researches into the subject's family history. In reaching its decision, the High Court not only consulted the records of the case but also personally examined the living subjects themselves.

The first case I saw looked like an excellent candidate for sterilization. A man in his mid-thirties, he was rather ape-like in appearance -- receding forehead, flat nose with flaring nostrils, thick lips, and heavy prognathous jaw. Not vicious-looking, but gross and rather dull. His life-history was mildly anti-social -- several convictions for minor thefts and one for a homosexual affair with another boy when a lad. In early manhood he had married a Jewess by whom he had three children, none of whom had showed up too well. [...] He was now seeking to marry a woman who had already been sterilized as a moron. The law forbids a non-sterilized individual to marry a sterilized person; so he was more than willing to be also sterilized. The lower court recommended sterilization.

All three members of the High Court interrogated the man at length. Questions disclosed the fact that he conducted a newspaper delivery route in the suburbs, that he was able to run this simple business satisfactorily, and that he answered the Court's queries with a fair degree of intelligence. The Court concluded that sterilization had not been proven mandatory and sent back the case for further investigation.

Case Two was obviously unbalanced mentally, though not an asylum case. Swinging a cane like a fine gentleman, he entered Court with an "air," which went incongruously with his shabby-genteel clothes and the battered felt hat tucked under his left arm. There was no doubt that he should be sterilized. The lower courts had decided he was either a schizophrenic or a manic-depressive, and both defects came under the law. But which of the two it was had to be clearly determined before the operation could be legally performed.... The Court inclined to think him a manic-depressive, but they also detected schizophrenic symptoms. Since they were not absolutely sure, the case was remanded for further clinical investigation.

Case Three was an eighteen-year-old girl. A deaf-mute, she talked through an interpreter. She was obviously not feeble-minded, but had a poor family record. The parents, who also appeared, were most unprepossessing. Her case had first come before the lower court two years ago. It then decided against sterilization because no hereditary deafness was shown in the family record. Recently it had recommended sterilization because several unfortunate hereditary factors in the family had been disclosed by further investigation. The High Court ordered the girl sent to a clinic for observation. It also ordered more research into the family record.

Case Four was a seventeen-year-old girl. The issue was feeble-mindedness. She certainly looked feebleminded as she sat below the bench, hunched in a chair, with dull features and lackluster eyes. Left an orphan at an early age, she had had a haphazard upbringing. The record showed her to have been always shy, backward, and unable to keep up with normal schooling.


The members of the High Court examined this poor waif carefully and with kindly patience. She had no knowledge of or interest in even the most elementary current events. For instance, she barely knew there was a war going on. But the psychologist discovered that she was able to make change for small customers' bills in her restaurant and that she could perform other duties of her humble job. So the Court finally concluded that, despite her most unprepossessing appearance and her simple, childlike mind, she was not a moron within the meaning of the law and therefore should not be sterilized.

There were other cases that day, all conducted in the same painstaking, methodical fashion. I came away convinced that the law was being administered with strict regard for its provisions and that, if anything, judgments were almost too conservative. On the evidence of that one visit, at least, the Sterilization Law is weeding out the worst strains in the Germanic stock in a scientific and truly humanitarian way.

That is excerpted from Lothrop Stoddard's book Into the Darkness (1940). Stoddard then discusses the measures whereby the National-Socialists have succeeded in dramatically increasing Germany's birthrate. 

So, What Would Hitler Do?

In a state like pre-1945 Germany, without large unassimilated and unassimilable racial minorities, of course Hitler would go all out with socialized medicine, but also introduce eugenic sterilization to ensure that the hereditary quality of the nation does not deteriorate as a consequence.

Our case in the United States however is different. We have those large unassimilated and unassimilable minorities, and a very weak sense of community because of it.

In a state that has a large unassimilated racial minority, Hitler I believe would try to solve that problem before expanding services to the people.

After that, it might be possible to increase public-spiritedness and reduce mutual distrust so that the presumption of waste and corruption in government will disappear.

Then, finally, the groundwork might be laid for socialized medicine to function well in the United States.