100 years of Communist misery.

I’m a day or two late posting this, but we just passed the 100th anniversary of Tsar Nicholas II’s abdication of the Russian throne. I think this is a pretty important event to remember, because this was the incident that directly preceded the rise of the scourge that is Communism, and was arguably the beginning of a series of events that led us to where we are in the world today. RT has posted a video to commemorate the event.

The comments section makes for some very interesting reading.


So yeah, noticing a bit of a theme with the comments there? An awful lot of people seem to blame “the Jews” for Communism. This sort of thing has long been considered an “antisemitic canard“, and is usually brushed off by people who hear it as nothing more than a “Nazi conspiracy theory”. Here’s the thing though, it isn’t technically inaccurate at all. There’s a lot of evidence to suggest that Jews were disproportionately responsible for Communism.

For a start, lets not even waste time with the fact that Marx himself was a Jew and instead, lets take look at this list of the original members of the Bolshevik party, with their ethnic background listed beside their names.


Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew
Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew
Lourie (Larine) Jew
Ouritski Jew
Volodarski Jew
Rosenfeldt (Kamanef) Jew
Smidovitch Jew
Sverdlof (Yankel) Jew
Nakhamkes (Steklof) Jew
Ulyanov (Lenin) Russian
Krylenko Russian
Lounatcharski Russian

9 out of 12, or 75% were Jews


President Ulyanov (Lenin) Russian
Foreign Affairs Tchitcherine Russian
Nationalities Djugashvili (Stalin) Georgian
Agriculture Protian Armenian
Economic Council Lourie (Larine) Jew
Food Schlichter Jew
Army & Navy Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew
State Control Lander Jew
State Lands Kauffman Jew
Works V. Schmidt Jew
Social Relief E. Lelina (Knigissen) Jewess
Public Instruction Lounatcharsky Russian
Religions Spitzberg Jew
Interior Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew
Hygiene Anvelt Jew
Finance Isidore Goukovski Jew
Press Volodarski Jew
Elections Ouritski Jew
Justice I. Steinberg Jew
Refugees Fenigstein Jew
Refugees (assist.) Savitch Jew
Refugees (assist.) Zaslovski Jew

17 out of 22, or 77.27% were Jews.


Sverdlov (president) Jew
Avanessof (sec.) Armenian
Bruno Lett
Babtchinski Jew
Bukharin Russian
Weinberg Jew
Gailiss Jew
Ganzburg Jew
Danichevski Jew
Starck German
Sachs Jew
Scheinmann Jew
Erdling Jew
Landauer Jew
Linder Jew
Wolach Czech
Dimanstein Jew
Encukidze Georgian
Ermann Jew
Joffe Jew
Karkline Jew
Knigissen Jew
Rosenfeldt (Kamenef) Jew
Apfelbaum (Zinovief) Jew
Krylenko Russian
KrassikofSachs Jew
Kaprik Jew
Kaoul Lett
Ulyanov (lenin) Russian
Latsis Jew
Lander Jew
Lounatcharski Russian
Peterson Lett
Peters Lett
Roudzoutas Jew
Rosine Jew
Smidovitch Jew
Stoutchka Lett
Nakhamkes (Steklof) Jew
Sosnovski Jew
Skrytnik Jew
Bronstein (Trotsky) Jew
Teodorovitch Jew
Terian Armenian
Ouritski Jew
Telechkine Russian
Feldmann Jew
Froumkine Jew
Souriupa Ukranian
Tchavtchevadze Georgian
Scheikmann Jew
Rosental Jew
Achkinazi Imeretian
Karakhane Karaim (Jew)
Rose Jew
Sobelson (Radek) Jew
Sclichter Jew
Schikolini Jew
Chklianski Jew
Levine (Pravdine) Jew

41 out of 60, or 68.33% were Jews.


Dzerjinski (president) Pole
Peters (vice-president) Lett
Chklovski Jew
Kheifiss Jew
Zeistine Jew
Razmirovitch Jew
Kronberg Jew
Khaikina Jewess
Karlson Lett
Schaumann Jew
Leontovitch Jew
Jacob Goldine Jew
Glaperstein Jew
Kniggisen Jew
Latzis Lett
Schillenkuss Jew
Janson Lett
Rivkine Jew
Antonof Russian
Delafabre Jew
Tsitkine Jew
Roskirovitch Jew
G. Sverdlof Jew
Biesenski Jew
Blioumkine Jew
Alexandrevitch Russian
I. Model Jew
Routenberg Jew
Pines Jew
Sachs Jew
Daybol Lett
Saissoune Armenian
Deylkenen Lett
Liebert Jew
Vogel German
Zakiss Lett

24 out of 36, or 66.67% were Jews.

Some of the aforementioned people, as well as others who weren’t mentioned.

Keep in mind that even in a country like Russia, which would have had a pretty large Jewish population in comparison to other countries at that time, their population percentage was probably about 5% at best. Even that is probably a generous estimate. To be so over-represented among the leading figures in the Bolshevik party, couldn’t possibly have happened by chance.

Even, if we look at reports from that time period, it more or less confirms that it was pretty common knowledge at the time that the majority of leading Bolsheviks were Jews.

Open in new tab to enlarge.
Open in new tab to enlarge

The thing is though, it doesn’t just stop with Russia. Lets also take a look at Germany for example. In my post about the Berkeley riots, I briefly made reference to the attempted Communist Revolution in Germany in 1918-1919. Take a look at the names of the leaders of the Communists.


Someone else noticed a certain pattern here as well.

Open in new tab to enlarge
Open in new tab to enlarge
Open in new tab to enlarge.

Again, notice how just like in the successful Communist revolution in Russia, the unsuccessful Communist revolution in Germany was overwhelmingly led by Jews, a people who made up a very tiny percentage of both countries’ populations at the time?

Oh, but it doesn’t just stop there. It isn’t even limited to Europe. Lets take a look at China next. Yes, the leader of the Chinese Communists, was the Chinese national, Mao Zedong, but there were plenty of Jews in positions of power in that movement as well.

Jews such as:

And those are just a few examples. Again, for such a tiny minority, does it not seem strange to see so many of their names coming up, even moreso in regard to a country like China? Russia and Germany are one thing. At least those countries had a relatively long history of Jewish settlement, and had fairly large Jewish populations. China is something else entirely though. It makes no sense to suggest that this could just have been a coincidence.

Oh and I’m still not done yet. How about the situation in South Africa, you know, that once successful country that is gradually heading towards failed state status? Everyone is always told about how great Nelson Mandela was and if you didn’t know better, you would think he was nothing more than a peaceful protester who spent decades in prison for political reasons. In reality, he was a Communist terrorist who was willing to use violence to further his goals, and that was why he was imprisoned.


He was even offered an earlier release from prison, if he promised to renounce violence as a method to achieve his goals, and refused. Anyway, I digress. Nelson Mandela isn’t the man I wanted to bring up. No, do you see the man in the picture above on the right (Mandela’s left)? That’s Joe Slovo, another leading member of Mandela’s ANC party, and also a leader of the South African Communist Party. A Lithuanian Jew, many also suspect that he was the real mastermind behind the ANC’s use of terrorism in order to further its anti-Apartheid goals.

You may say that this doesn’t matter, because Apartheid was an evil system, that needed to be abolished by any means necessary. That’s a perfectly reasonable opinion to have (though personally, I reckon Apartheid South Africa was a paradise in comparison to its modern replacement). However when you consider the fact that the only Jew majority state on the planet, Israel, is an Apartheid state itself, and the Palestinians are treated far worse than the black South Africans ever were (black people flocked to South Africa during Apartheid, but nobody flocks to the Palestinian territories), it just really shows the hypocrisy that exists. I don’t believe that someone like Joe Slovo was opposed to Apartheid because he believed in “muh human rights”. I believe he was opposed to it for the same reason the Communist Jews in Russia and Germany were opposed to the systems in those countries… because he wanted to take power for himself and his own kind, and the disenfranchised blacks were a useful battering ram against the existing system, in much the same way that the working class was in Russia in 1917.

And on that note, I’d like to focus a bit more attention on this concept of using certain demographics of society as “battering rams” against the targeted culture. In the years preceding the outbreak of the First World War, it was generally believed by most Marxist intellectuals that if a great war ever broke out in Europe, that the working class all across the continent would eventually refuse to fight and would turn against the capitalists  and aristocracy of their nations, in favour of pursuing their class interests instead. As we saw, that was exactly what did eventually happen In Russia, but in the rest of Europe, the people didn’t rise up at all.

So the leading Marxist intellectuals at the time had to go back to the drawing board. They needed to figure out where their theories went wrong and what should be done differently in order to lead to the global Communist revolution that they wanted. Eventually in the early 1920s, two of these leading Marxists,  Antonio Gramsci of Italy (a Gentile), and Georg Lukács of Hungary (a Jew) both independently came to the conclusion that the reason why Communism failed to take off in Europe, despite the horrors of the war, was because of the strength of Christianity and Western Culture, and the loyalty that the ordinary people had to these things. People were more loyal to their culture than to do their social class. Therefore, Christianity and Western Culture needed to be undermined and eventually destroyed in order to facilitate the gradual transition towards Communism.

This concept of undermining Western Civilisation was adopted by an organisation that became known as the “Frankfurt School” and led to development of the philosophy known as “Critical Theory“. The basic concept behind critical theory was literally to analyse every single norm in society and to criticise it, in the hopes of eventually changing it. The idea behind criticising these norms, was to pathologise them, so that we would eventually be conditioned to lose faith in them, and therefore weaken our loyalty to the culture that spawned them.

By the way, if you were to look at this list of “notable theorists” who were a part of the Frankfurt School…


… with the possible exceptions of Habermas, Schmidt, and Honneth (whom I can’t find confirmation on either way), every single one of these men were Jews.

Anyway, the Frankfurt School was active in Germany in the 1920s and early 1930s. When the Nazis came to power in 1933 their members fled, mainly to America, where they became affiliated with Colombia University. After WW2, some returned to Europe, but others, including Herbert Marcuse, remained in America.

By the late 1960s, the first half of the baby boomer generation (people who were born in the few years following the end of the War and had therefore never experienced any of the hardship associated with either the war itself or the Great Depression that preceded it) were at the age were they would be attending college. Meanwhile, the remaining members of the Frankfurt School (particularly Marcuse), had at this point spent the past 30 years or so, gaining power and influence in the American academic system, and now had plenty of followers to do their bidding. Do you remember how I mentioned before how Communists uses certain demographics as battering rams to achieve their aims, and originally, the working class had been the battering ram of choice? Well, after the working class had failed to live up to expectations, and after realising that the enemy was Western culture, a new battering ram had to be found.

In previous times, the struggle had always been the “working class against the capitalists and aristocrats that exploited them”. Now, the capitalists and aristocrats had been replaced with the architects of Western Culture… straight, white, Christian, men. The working class was replaced with anyone who didn’t fit into those categories. It’s no coincidence that the black civil rights movement, second wave feminism, the gay rights movement, the anti-war movement, and the 60’s counterculture in general, all happened at roughly the same time, and all had their origins on American college campuses. It was all based on Frankfurt School Critical Theory being taught in American Academia and it was actually all about attacking the dominant straight, white, Christian demography of America, under the guise of “progressivism” and “human rights”. The baby boomer college students were the perfect useful idiots to promote it, because they had never experienced any real hardship themselves and were naive enough to buy into it.

Indeed, just to briefly focus on the the Civil Rights Movement specifically, Martin Luther King Jr. was educated in a suspected Communist institute. The real brains behind his speeches and the organisation of his events as well was the Jew, Stanley Levison. This doesn’t necessarily prove that the civil rights movement was entirely a Jewish movement to attack white America in order to bring in Communism, but once again, it’s a very strange coincidence isn’t it? Even the NAACP, an organisation which exists to promote the interests of black people, was actually founded by William English Walling (white man with Jewish wife), Mary White Ovington (white woman), and Henry Moskowitz (Jew), rather than black people. In a country where Jews make up roughly 2% of the population (probably even less at that point in time), this again is a pretty strange coincidence.

I’ve already discussed before how, Jews are widely over-represented in the feminist movement, and are also widely over-represented in the push for multiculturalism in Western societies.

Multiculturalism for everywhere… except Israel of course.

The logic behind these two moves is divide and conquer. By promoting the very worst aspects of feminism, they turn men and women against each other. Women are encouraged to think of Western culture as inherently misogynistic and sexist, and therefore become a battering ram against men. People from different cultural backgrounds (which often times actually ARE misogynistic and sexist) are imported by the millions (whether there is any need or justification for their presence or not) and they are encouraged to think of Western culture as being “racist” and full of “white privilege”. They in turn become a battering ram against the white majority. This instills a sense of guilt and shame in the white majority, and a sense of anger and entitlement in the non-white minorities.

Identity politics in general is played up based on everything you can think of: race, religion, gender, gender identity, sexuality, disability, etc., to the point were there is no unity, and people are left with little faith in the institutions of society. Even today, rather than reporting honestly on anything, the mainstream media (dominated by Jews) fans the flames of organisations like Black Lives Matter, constantly brings up debunked feminist myths such as the “wage gap“, or tries to blame every Muslim terrorist attack on either “mental illness” or as a response to white racism, rather than on an ideology that is completely incompatible with the Western Culture that they wish to destroy. And that is the key point. Everything they currently promote: multiculturalism, globalism, identity politics, etc., is done so as part of a century long plan to destroy Western Civilisation the world over, and replace it with a form of Communism.

I kind of went off on a bit of a tangent in this post. I just saw that video and found the comments pretty interesting and wanted to discuss what they were saying in more detail. I never expected to go this far with it. Nevertheless, I hope I’ve provided an interesting read, and explained properly why the idea of “Jews being responsible for Communism” is not a conspiracy theory at all. It’s simply a historical reality.

Causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire

In case I haven’t made it obvious in some of my previous posts, I’ve always been interested in history. I find it fascinating as it really helps us to understand just why things are the way they are in the world. Every major event couldn’t have happened the way it did if not for something else happening beforehand. The way the world is now, wouldn’t exist if not for World War 2. World War 2 could never have occurred if not for World War 1. World War 1 could not have occurred if not for German unification in 1871. German Unification… well you get my point. It’s amazing to see how everything links together.

Go back even further. There wouldn't be any humans if the dinosaurs hadn't gone extinct seeing as it was their extinction that allowed mammals to thrive.
Go back even further. There wouldn’t be any humans if the dinosaurs hadn’t gone extinct seeing as it was their extinction that allowed mammals to thrive.

Equally amazing is the idea of history repeating itself. I came across an interesting webpage today which discusses the proposed possibilities as to why the Roman Empire (the great power of its time) eventually collapsed. It made for some pretty scary reading. The parallels between Ancient Rome in its final days, and modern Western civilsation today are very disturbing.

Causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire

Causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire – Antagonism between the Senate and the Emperor
One of the main causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire was the Antagonism between the Senate and the Emperor. The Roman Emperor had the legal power to rule Rome’s religious, civil and military affairs with the Senate acting as an advisory body. The emperor had power over life and death. The powerful, spoilt, wealthy Roman Emperors inevitably became corrupt and many lived a debauched, deluded and immoral lifestyle. The Roman Empire saw many examples of antagonism between the Senators and the Emperors. Either the Senators didn’t like the Emperor or the Emperors was at odds with the Senators.

Look at America to see how the Senate and Obama are unable to agree on anything.

Sorry Obama, but you can't have your senators crucified
Sorry Obama, but you can’t have your senators crucified

Causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire – Decline in Morals
One of the main causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire was the Decline in Morals. The decline in morals, especially in the rich upper classes, nobility and the emperors, had a devastating impact on the Romans. Immoral and promiscuous sexual behaviour including adultery and orgies. Emperors such as Tiberius kept groups of young boys for his pleasure, incest by Nero who also had a male slave castrated so he could take him as his wife,Elagabalus who forced a Vestal Virgin into marriage, Commodus with his harems of concubines enraged Romans by sitting in the theatre or at the games dressed in a woman’s garments. The decline in morals also effected the lower classes and slaves. Religious festivals such as Saturnalia and Bacchanalia where sacrifices, ribald songs, lewd acts and sexual promiscuity were practised. Bestiality and other lewd and sexually explicit acts were exhibited in the Colosseum arena to amuse the mob. Brothels and forced prostitution flourished. Widespread gambling on the chariot races and gladiatorial combats. Massive consumption of alcohol. The sadistic cruelty towards both man and beasts in the arena.

Do I really need to explain this one?

As I've always said, political correctness only causes destruction
As I’ve always said, political correctness only causes destruction

Causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire – Political Corruption and the Praetorian Guard
One of the main causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire was the Political Corruption and the Praetorian Guard. The  power of the Praetorian Guard, the elite soldiers who made up the bodyguard of the emperor, led to political corruption and grew to such an extent that this massive group of soldiers decided on whether an emperor should be disposed of and who should become the new emperor! The story of Sejanus, who was the commander of the Praetorian Guard during the reign of Tiberius, illustrates the extent of the power of the Praetorians. At one point the Praetorian Guard sold at auction the throne of the world to the highest bidder.

Sure we live in democracies (allegedly) but lets face the facts, the big political parties are in the pockets of big business. Big business has the financial power to support people they like, and these people in turn are then obligated to make decisions that favour those who helped put them in power. Meanwhile, people who care about the general public, rather than lobby groups don’t have the finances or the profile necessary to run an effective campaign, hence why we never get the leaders we actually need. In a sense, instead of giving power to however pays the most money like the Praetorian Guards did, the modern equivalent give power for favours. You might argue “But in a democracy, we still have choices”. You’re right, but seeing as all the prominent choices are courted and supported by powerful lobby groups, what difference does it make who you choose?

You could say the same thing about the Tories and Labour in Britain, or Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in Ireland.
You could say the same thing about the Tories and Labour in Britain, or Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in Ireland.

Causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire – Fast expansion of the Empire
One of the main causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire was the Fast expansion of the Empire. The rapid growth in the lands conquered by the Empire led to the need to defend the borders and territories of Rome. The people of the conquered lands, most of whom were referred to as Barbarians, hated the Romans. Taxes on the non-Romans were high and constantly increased. Frequent rebellions arose.

There really isn’t a case of fast expansion anymore, but the idea of having people within our borders who hate us is pretty obvious when you look at what multiculturalism has resulted in.

Remember, wearing a t-shirt that hurts their feelings is far more evil than beheading people.
The modern Barbarian invaders

Causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire – Constant Wars and Heavy Military Spending
One of the main causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire was the Constant Wars and Heavy Military Spending. Constant warfare required heavy military spending. The Roman army became over-stretched and needed more and more soldiers. The barbarians, who had been conquered, and other foreign mercenaries were allowed to join the Roman army.

Pretty much describes America since September 11th 2001. Just replace Barbarians in the army with terrorists funded by America to cause chaos in the countries America is against

Such a waste of money. They could have done so much good for their people with it instead.
Such a waste of money. They could have done so much good for their people with it instead.

Causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire – Barbarian Knowledge of Roman Military Tactics
One of the main causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire was the Barbarian Knowledge of Roman Military Tactics. The knowledge that the Barbarians gained of Roman style of warfare and military tactics by serving in the Roman army were eventually turned against the Empire and led to the sack of Rome by the Visigoths led by an ex-army soldier, Alaric.

Thankfully, I can’t think of a specific example of this…yet.

Causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire – Failing Economy and High Inflation
One of the main causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire was the Failing Economy and high inflation. The Government was constantly threatened by bankruptcy due to the cost of defending the Empire, the failing economics, heavy taxation and high inflation was another Causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire. The majority of the inhabitants of the Roman Empire failed to share in the incredible prosperity of Rome. The amount of gold sent to the orient to pay for luxury goods led to a shortage of gold to make Roman coins. Roman currency was devalued to such an extent that a system of bartering returned to one of the greatest civilisations the world had ever known.

2008 crash, anyone?

Causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire – Unemployment of the Working Classes
One of the main causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire was the Unemployment of the Working Classes. Cheap slave labor resulted in the unemployment of the Plebs in Rome who became dependent on hand-outs from the state. The Romans attempted a policy of unrestricted trade but this led to the Plebs being unable to compete with foreign trade. The government were therefore forced to subsidize the working class Romans to make up the differences in prices. This resulted in thousands of Romans choosing just to live on the subsides sacrificing their standard of living with an idle life of ease. The massive divide between the rich Romans and the poor Romans increased still further. 

Importing 3rd world workers while plenty of our own are unemployed. Not to mention, people becoming increasingly dependent on the welfare state to survive, with little incentive to take up minimum wage employment instead.

Hmm, 31 Million Americans are unemployed. I know, lets import more Mexicans.
Hmm, 31 Million Americans are unemployed. I know, lets import more Mexicans.

Causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire – The ‘Mob’ and the cost of the Gladiatorial Games
One of the main causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire was the ‘Mob’ and the cost of the Gladiatorial Games. If the thousands of unemployed Romans became bored this led to civil unrest and rioting in the streets. The ‘Mob’ needed to be amused – spectacular gladiatorial games had to be provided. The cost of the gladiatorial games was born by the Emperors, and therefore the state, and corrupt politicians who sponsored the games to curry favor and support with the ‘Mob’. The cost of the gladiatorial games eventually came to one third of the total income of the Roman Empire.

People have their TVs, their films, their video games, and the internet to distract them these days. Could you imagine what would happen though if a load of unhappy unemployed people didn’t have distractions to occupy them though?


Causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire – Decline in Ethics and Values
One of the main causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire was the Decline in Ethics and Values. Life became cheap – blood shed led to more blood shed and extreme cruelty. The values, the ideals, customs, traditions and institutions, of the Romans declined. The basic principles, standards and judgments about what was valuable or important in life declined. The total disregard for human and animal life resulted in a lack of ethics – a perverted view of what was right and wrong, good and bad, desirable and undesirable. Any conformity to acceptable rules or standards of human behaviour were being lost.

While thankfully, I don’t see people engaging in extreme cruelty, I think it’s safe to say that values have been lost. Christianity, which was once the uniting factor of European societies has more or less collapsed. Very few people take it seriously anymore. However, this means that people have developed a somewhat nihilistic view. People no longer believe in a God or an after life, so really, what’s the point of life?


Causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire – Slave Labor
One of the main causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire was the Slave Labor. The number of slaves increased dramatically during the first 2 centuries of the Roman Empire. The Roman’s dependency on slave labor led not only to the decline in morals, values and ethics but also to the stagnation of any new technology to produce goods more efficiently. Romans could rely on the slave manpower for all their needs but this reliance inhibited technological change and growth. The treatment of slaves led to rebellion and several Servile (Slave) Wars, the most famous being the revolt led by the gladiator slave, Spartacus. In the later centuries of the Empire and the advent of Christianity the attitudes towards slaves changed. With manumission (the act of freeing a slave) the number of slaves declined together with the manpower that Rome was dependent upon.

Dependence on cheap third world labour.

Causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire – Natural Disasters
One of the main causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire were the Natural Disasters. During the time of the Roman Empire there were not only foreign wars, civil wars, street fights, fires and revolts there were also natural disasters such as plagues, famines and earthquakes. As in all periods and societies the people looked for someone to blame and different religions to turn to.

In fairness, this one can’t be helped either way. If a natural disaster happens, it happens. There really isn’t anything we can do to stop this. However, with regard to plagues, that can be helped as long as we aren’t so careless like people were with the ebola outbreak. Letting people travel freely between ebola infected countries and the west was fucking ridiculous. We got lucky that time, but we may not be so lucky next time.

Causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire – Christianity
One of the main causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire was Christianity. Life and the future seemed hopeless for the millions of people who were ruled by Rome where an early death was almost inevitable. Christianity taught the belief in an afterlife which gave hope and courage to the desperate. Eventually the Roman Emperor, Constantine the Great, proclaimed himself a Christian and issued an edict promising the Christians his favor and protection. Attitudes in the Roman Empire changed from being antagonistic to becoming pacifistic.

Christianity has in fact been replaced by the new religion of the West, the religion of political correctness. With this new religion, the old ways of doing things in our societies have been swept away because they are sinful under the new regime.

Click to enlarge. See what I mean?
Click to enlarge. See what I mean?

Causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire – Barbarian Invasion
The last of the causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire was the Barbarian Invasion. Rome had fierce foreign enemies. There were great Barbarian armies consisting of warriors such as the Visigoths, Huns and the Vandals. The final death blow to the Roman Empire was inflicted by these Barbarians. The city of Rome was sacked by the Visigoths in 410 and by the Vandals in 455 signalling the disintegration of Roman authority and the Fall of the Roman Empire.

This is the final step. We already have some Barbarians in our societies working against us, committing acts of terrorism, raping our women and children, murdering people for absolutely no reason. It’s only a matter of time until they overrun us.

So yeah, I know I’m kind of reaching with some of these comparisons, but in fairness, there’s no way that events could be identical. The world has changed a lot in the 1500 or so years since Rome fell. The question however, is have things changed enough.

Something to think about.

The Dresden bombing-70 years ago today.

A few weeks ago we had the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.  In a few short months, we’ll have the 70th anniversary of the end of the European Theatre of WW2. However, as important as it is to remember these events, there’s another important one that doesn’t get the attention it deserves, one which happened 70 years ago today.

Dresden before the bombing.

In case it isn’t obvious from looking at the timeline of events in the latter part of the war:

The Battle of Stalingrad ended with a German defeat in February 1943

The Battle of Kursk ended with a German defeat in August of 1943

D-Day (The Normandy landings) occurred in June 1944.

Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviet Union in January 1945

The Battle of the Bulge ended with a German defeat in January of 1945

Essentially, Germany had been getting crushed on both the Eastern and Western fronts for 2 years by February 1945. Allies had entered German territory on both fronts and their defeat was inevitable. All the allies had to do was keep the pressure on and they were always guaranteed victory just from their sheer numbers and greater amount of resources they had over the Germans. However, they instead chose to commit an act every bit as evil as anything the Nazis themselves have been accused of, an act that was in all honesty, completely unnecessary.

Much has been written about the crimes of the Third Reich and people rightly condemn those actions as being gravely immoral. However, it is simply a reality that history is written by the victors. People tend to have this black and white view of WW2 that the Axis powers were evil and the allies were a force for good. This is completely ridiculous of course just from the fact that the Soviet Union (a member of the allies) was ruled by Stalin (one of the most brutal tyrants in history) alone. However, it wasn’t just the Soviet Union that committed some nasty acts on the allied side. The Dresden bombing is one that the allies would like us to forget.

Bodies of Dresden victims piled up. Every bit as horrific as the images we’ve all seen from the concentration camps.
A family who were killed together in the bombing.
People working in the aftermath of the bombing to clear away rubble and (hopefully) find survivors. Instead what they usually found…
…were horrific sights like this. Reality is truly more terrifying than fiction can ever hope to be.

It’s important to note that Dresden was not some great industrial/military complex for the Third Reich. That’s not to say it had no great industry at all (there was the famous Albertstadt, which incidentally was not targetted during the bombings). For the most part though, Dresden was just a typical highly populated city. Bombing it was utterly pointless in the grand scheme of things. It didn’t help end the war any quicker (which at that point was inevitable anyway). All it did was lead to unnecessary destruction and loss of innocent civilian lives.

While we continue to mourn the deaths of so many innocent people during the second world war, let us also remember all of those innocent civilians who died for absolutely no reason during the Dresden bombings. They’re just as deserving as any other victims of the war.

The Origins of Political Correctness.

The Origins of Political Correctness

A brilliant article that everyone should read. It’s hard to believe this was written 15 years ago. Amazing how accurate it has been at predicting the present. I really can’t do it justice by adding my own thoughts to it so I’ll just post it verbatim (perhaps with a few images thrown in for added impact.)

The Origins of Political Correctness: Bill Lind (February 5, 2000)

An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind

Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA conferences including the 2000 Consevative University at American University

Where does all this stuff that you’ve heard about this morning – the victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it – where does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or homophobic.

The real “politically correct monsters” are the ones who would consider promoting such insanity in real life.

We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this has been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they would be afraid of what words they used. But we now have this situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses, but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Were does it come from? What is it?

Fuck your feelings.

We call it “Political Correctness.” The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.

Kind of makes you think doesn’t it? The man who invented the word racist was the communist mass murderer who was so radical, even his fellow commies got rid of him.

If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.

First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted “victims” groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the college, they face formal charges – some star-chamber proceeding – and punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.

It really is that simple.

Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this philosophy certain things must be true – such as the whole of the history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women. Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and say, “Wait a minute. This isn’t true. I can see it isn’t true,” the power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.

Asking for evidence to back up her figures would be politically incorrect.

Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past is about that one thing.

Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good – feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be “victims,” and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do. Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.

I'm posting this image again because of how well it describes the situation perfectly. Oh look, there's the link to this article there too.
I’m posting this image again because of how well it describes the situation perfectly. Oh look, there’s the link to this article there too.

Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions. When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn’t as well qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation. White owned companies don’t get a contract because the contract is reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism.

The ridiculous myth of “positive discrimination” (an oxymoron if ever I heard one). Who cares if there’s one job going and 10 highly qualified heterosexual white men apply for it? Lets just give it to the the black woman regardless even though her qualifications are inferior.

And finally, both have a method of analysis that automatically gives the answers they want. For the classical Marxist, it’s Marxist economics. For the cultural Marxist, it’s deconstruction. Deconstruction essentially takes any text, removes all meaning from it and re-inserts any meaning desired. So we find, for example, that all of Shakespeare is about the suppression of women, or the Bible is really about race and gender. All of these texts simply become grist for the mill, which proves that “all history is about which groups have power over which other groups.” So the parallels are very evident between the classical Marxism that we’re familiar with in the old Soviet Union and the cultural Marxism that we see today as Political Correctness.

It’s not just old mediums that are effected by this. Even new mediums are under attack. Same methods used. The same standard of research (cherry-picking moments out of context to “prove” their points) and the same lack of evidence, but only the one from the “privileged” class is rightly ridiculed for lying, whereas the one from the “victim” class is treated with respect.
See, most of us are in favour of actual equality. We just get sick of being lied to about our “privilege”. But of course, scientific evidence is irrelevant because “feelings”.

But the parallels are not accidents. The parallels did not come from nothing. The fact of the matter is that Political Correctness has a history, a history that is much longer than many people are aware of outside a small group of academics who have studied this. And the history goes back, as I said, to World War I, as do so many of the pathologies that are today bringing our society, and indeed our culture, down.

Marxist theory said that when the general European war came (as it did come in Europe in 1914), the working class throughout Europe would rise up and overthrow their governments – the bourgeois governments – because the workers had more in common with each other across the national boundaries than they had in common with the bourgeoisie and the ruling class in their own country. Well, 1914 came and it didn’t happen. Throughout Europe, workers rallied to their flag and happily marched off to fight each other. The Kaiser shook hands with the leaders of the Marxist Social Democratic Party in Germany and said there are no parties now, there are only Germans. And this happened in every country in Europe. So something was wrong.

WW1 was the perfect opportunity for Lenin and his Bolsheviks to seize power in Russia. However, the Lenin types in the rest of Europe weren’t so successful, because people there took pride in their cultures.

Marxists knew by definition it couldn’t be the theory. In 1917, they finally got a Marxist coup in Russia and it looked like the theory was working, but it stalled again. It didn’t spread and when attempts were made to spread immediately after the war, with the Spartacist uprising in Berlin, with the Bela Kun government in Hungary, with the Munich Soviet, the workers didn’t support them.

So the Marxists’ had a problem. And two Marxist theorists went to work on it: Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary. Gramsci said the workers will never see their true class interests, as defined by Marxism, until they are freed from Western culture, and particularly from the Christian religion – that they are blinded by culture and religion to their true class interests. Lukacs, who was considered the most brilliant Marxist theorist since Marx himself, said in 1919, “Who will save us from Western Civilization?” He also theorized that the great obstacle to the creation of a Marxist paradise was the culture: Western civilization itself.

Who indeed will save us from Western Civilisation? I mean look at all that beautiful architecture, our art, our wonderful inventions, our civilised laws. Who would want any of that?

Lukacs gets a chance to put his ideas into practice, because when the home grown Bolshevik Bela Kun government is established in Hungary in 1919, he becomes deputy commissar for culture, and the first thing he did was introduce sex education into the Hungarian schools. This ensured that the workers would not support the Bela Kun government, because the Hungarian people looked at this aghast, workers as well as everyone else. But he had already made the connection that today many of us are still surprised by, that we would consider the “latest thing.”

In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about because the very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist and has lots of money to spend. He is disturbed by the divisions among the Marxists, so he sponsors something called the First Marxist Work Week, where he brings Lukacs and many of the key German thinkers together for a week, working on the differences of Marxism.

And he says, “What we need is a think-tank.” Washington is full of think tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back quite a ways. He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt University, established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be known as the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly identified as Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is for people to figure out it’s a form of Marxism. So instead they decide to name it the Institute for Social Research.

The Weimar Republic (Germany between the end of WW1 and before Hitler) was known for two things. Economic instability, and sexual behaviour unlike anything the Western World had ever seen at that point.

Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay the author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the Institute for Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he said, “I wanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to its contributions to Marxism.” Well, he was successful. The first director of the Institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist, concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, “by clearly stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific methodology.” Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the Institute, and that never changed.
The initial work at the Institute was rather conventional, but in 1930 it acquired a new director named Max Horkheimer, and Horkheimer’s views were very different. He was very much a Marxist renegade. The people who create and form the Frankfurt School are renegade Marxists. They’re still very much Marxist in their thinking, but they’re effectively run out of the party. Moscow looks at what they are doing and says, “Hey, this isn’t us, and we’re not going to bless this.”

Horkheimer’s initial heresy is that he is very interested in Freud, and the key to making the translation of Marxism from economic into cultural terms is essentially that he combined it with Freudism. Again, Martin Jay writes, “If it can be said that in the early years of its history, the Institute concerned itself primarily with an analysis of bourgeois society’s socio-economic sub-structure,” – and I point out that Jay is very sympathetic to the Frankfurt School, I’m not reading from a critic here – “in the years after 1930 its primary interests lay in its cultural superstructure. Indeed the traditional Marxist formula regarding the relationship between the two was brought into question by Critical Theory.”

Cultural Marxism combines the theories of Freud and Marx into one.

The stuff we’ve been hearing about this morning – the radical feminism, the women’s studies departments, the gay studies departments, the black studies departments – all these things are branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you’re tempted to ask, “What is the theory?” The theory is to criticize. The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that. They say it can’t be done, that we can’t imagine what a free society would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we’re living under repression – the repression of a capitalistic economic order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression – we can’t even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not the 1960s.

The real reason they never state what the alternative to Western Culture is, is not because they can’t imagine what it is under our oppressive system, but rather because if they actually did think about it, they’d realise that it would be exactly like the world of 1984. For example, the banning of certain politically incorrect words is essentially the same thing as “newspeak”.

Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno, and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political Correctness, and that’s the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse, who in his own writings calls for a society of “polymorphous perversity,” that is his definition of the future of the world that they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm’s view, masculinity and femininity were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined.” Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct.

I'm an open minded guy but come on. I'm perfectly willing to accept people for who they are, but lets not pretend the bottom row is every bit as likely to happen naturally as the top row.
I’m an open minded guy but come on. I’m perfectly willing to accept people for who they are, but lets not pretend the bottom row is every bit as likely to happen naturally as the top row. The bottom row are a still an extreme minority in our modern, open minded world for a reason. Differences between the sexes do exist, and people who go against the traditional roles are the exception, rather than the rule.

Another example is the emphasis we now see on environmentalism. “Materialism as far back as Hobbes had led to a manipulative dominating attitude toward nature.” That was Horkhemier writing in 1933 in Materialismus und Moral. “The theme of man’s domination of nature,” according to Jay, ” was to become a central concern of the Frankfurt School in subsequent years.” “Horkheimer’s antagonism to the fetishization of labor, (here’s were they’re obviously departing from Marxist orthodoxy) expressed another dimension of his materialism, the demand for human, sensual happiness.” In one of his most trenchant essays, Egoism and the Movement for Emancipation, written in 1936, Horkeimer “discussed the hostility to personal gratification inherent in bourgeois culture.” And he specifically referred to the Marquis de Sade, favorably, for his “protest…against asceticism in the name of a higher morality.”

How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled. They fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished there in 1933 with help from Columbia University. And the members of the Institute, gradually through the 1930s, though many of them remained writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German society, destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to Critical Theory directed toward American society. There is another very important transition when the war comes. Some of them go to work for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.

Most of the Frankfurt School members were Jews, so when this guy came to power, they had to flee pretty quickly, but they took their ideas with them to America.

These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels needed theory of some sort. They couldn’t just get out there and say, “Hell no we won’t go,” they had to have some theoretical explanation behind it. Very few of them were interested in wading through Das Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for them, and unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the university, Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School relocated back to Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there – when the student rebels come into Adorno’s classroom, he calls the police and has them arrested – Herbert Marcuse, who remained here, saw the 60s student rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the New Left in the United States.

The perfect cover for the Frankfurt School to infiltrate and spread their ideology was the opposition to the Vietnam War.

One of Marcuse’s books was the key book. It virtually became the bible of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist), repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person Freud describes – the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses, because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can envision a future, if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of “polymorphous perversity,” in which you can “do you own thing.” And by the way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They’re students, they’re baby-boomers, and they’ve grown up never having to worry about anything except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy writing in a way they can easily follow. He doesn’t require them to read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to hear which is essentially, “Do your own thing,” “If it feels good do it,” and “You never have to go to work.” By the way, Marcuse is also the man who creates the phrase, “Make love, not war.” Coming back to the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines “liberating tolerance” as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes back to the 1930s.

The hippies were part of the baby boomer generation (the children of the people who grew up during WW2). Unlike their parents, they lived a life of relative luxury, without any real struggles and were easy targets for Marxist propaganda. Unlike all previous generations who cared about creating a better world for their children, this lot only cared about themselves.

In conclusion, America today is in the throes of the greatest and direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power of the state. In “hate crimes” we now have people serving jail sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it. The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on campus is part of it. It’s exactly what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it’s coming here. And we don’t recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it off. My message today is that it’s not funny, it’s here, it’s growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.

The Normalcy Bias: A potentially fatal trait to have.

The normalcy bias refers to a person’s inability to comprehend the possibility of a disaster occurring, or if one does occur, the inability to realise how serious it is until it’s too late. However, I’m going to steal the term and apply it to another situation to which I think it is suited for.

The vast majority of us would like to think of ourselves as decent, normal people. We believe that what we perceive as good is factually good, and what we perceive as bad is factually bad. There’s nothing wrong with this. The problem occurs when we project our own values on to others. We assume that because such a way of thinking, a way of feeling, or a way of behaving  seems completely rational and normal to us, that everyone else must think the same way. This is flawed and can be disastrous.

Lets look at the lead up to WW2 for an example of the worst case scenario. In the 1930s, when the Nazis came to power, Germany made a rapid economic and military recovery and soon began to flex its muscles once again. The other great European powers (notably France and Britain) were naturally alarmed by this and wanted to make sure that Germany didn’t become a threat again.

However, there was also a sense of sympathy in Britain that perhaps Germany had been unfairly treated by the Treaty of Versailles, so rather than bullying them into submission, Britain chose the approach of appeasement. The British Prime Minister of the time, Neville Chamberlain, worked under the assumption that Hitler, the leader of a civilised European country, would have similar motivations to himself and so, would be just as determined to avoid a war as he was.

Neville Chamberlain after securing “peace for our time”. Little did he know, that peace wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on.

Of course, we all know that didn’t happen. Germany ended up invading Poland and much to the bewilderment of Chamberlain, WW2 happened. So, why am I talking about the normalcy bias right now? Simple, because I think it’s a danger to us in our present situation of borderline unrestricted mass immigration.

Now just to reiterate what I’ve already said (before the accusations of racism start occurring) I have nothing against a sensible immigration policy. I see no problem with letting in a reasonable amount of intelligent, hardworking, and skilled immigrants who are interested in contributing to our countries, and who respect our laws and our culture. Nor do I have a problem with us taking in genuine asylum seekers who are in need of our help. In fact, I reckon most people would share this view.

What I do however have a problem with, is mass immigration, in which millions of non-Europeans are brought into European countries, regardless of their skills, but more importantly, regardless of their respect for our way of life. We think that because we would regard a world of religious oppression and barbaric behaviour to be a bad thing, that everyone would feel that way. Also, we assume that everyone wants to experience Western style freedom. This is despite the blatant evidence to the contrary that exists within our own borders.

Why are these people welcome in our countries? No seriously, can anyone who isn’t a braindead moron justify this?
You don’t like blasphemy? Well, there’s plenty of Sharia hellholes where it’s forbidden that you can go to instead.

We can’t use the excuse of “oh they don’t know any better”. They live in our countries, they know what we’re all about, and yet they CHOOSE the lifestyle of their old countries instead. And more importantly, they want to inflict that lifestyle on us by force. They leave their countries, they come to ours as our guests, and they want to dictate to us how we should live our lives. This isn’t simply immigration, it’s colonisation. The normalcy bias prevents people from seeing the danger that we’re in. We have this idea of “oh, they’re just a minority. They don’t have the numbers to do anything”. Or we think that those with the power to do something about it will come to their senses, and put a stop to it. That kind of thinking is suicidal.

This summarises my fears perfectly.
This summarises my fears perfectly.

The birth rates of Europeans have stagnated. Meanwhile, the people we’re importing en masse are breeding at a much higher rate than us. It’s not racist propaganda to point out the fact that their numbers are growing faster than ours. If people like those in the pictures above get the numbers necessary, you can be sure that they will try to force their way of life on us. Unfortunately, people are too in denial to see this. That’s why, I’m actually glad that they’re acting up already. If people can wake up to the threat now, we might have a chance to stop it. Either that, or we can just stay asleep and go the way of the Native Americans.

Are the stories about Hitler getting too ridiculous to take seriously?

Adolf Hitler, the psychotic crystal meth addict and asexual germaphobe, responsible for the murder of 6 Million Jews. Pictured alongside Eva Braun, who could cause him to orgasm just by lifting her skirt. Oh, did I mention, he only had one testicle and was part Jewish himself?

Despite the fact that the man has been dead for almost seven decades, it seems as if the world can’t stop obsessing about Adolf Hitler. Despite the numerous tyrants that the world has endured before and since, none of them can hold a candle to the level of fascination that Hitler elicits and likely never will. Hitler has pretty much become the personification of evil in the eyes of most of the world, as the media continues in their never ending quest to essentially turn him into a comic book supervillain.

I’m not here to defend the actions of Hitler (I’ll leave that for the neo-nazis and holocaust deniers of the world). However, I do take exception to the fact that so many of the stories we do hear about Hitler are so ludicrous, that they serve, not as a documentation of history, but instead as nothing more than a smear campaign against a man who already has plenty of genuinely bad things that can be held against him.

I mean lets take a look at a few of these stories.

1-He was addicted to Crystal Meth

2-He was an asexual germaphobe

3-He achieved an orgasm just by watching Eva Braun lift her skirt

4-He had only one testicle

5-He was a Jew himself

Some of these stories have already been disproven. Some even contradict each other. However, my point is this. How many more of these ridiculous unproven stories are we going to hear as time goes on, and when are people going to realise that by promoting such stupidity, they’re only lending credibility to the Hitler apologists. Afterall, if some stories are untrue, how are we supposed to believe anything?

How long will it take for some “historian” to use this picture as “proof” that Hitler was also gay, and only hated gays because of his own insecurities. Not long, I bet.

I really think that stuff like this plays into the hands of Nazi apologists perfectly. By giving them such stupidly easy “facts” to disprove, you only serve to open the door for them to start preaching against other things. The holocaust is actually illegal to even question in several EU countries, and Israel (obviously). However, many people (for example, David Irving and Ernst Zundel) continue to do so despite facing persecution. Seeing these men stick to their beliefs, despite facing hefty prison sentences, simply for daring to question the holocaust, makes them seem like martyrs for a cause. I would much rather see holocaust denial being allowed and disproven through facts. I’ve heard the excuse thrown around before that actually taking the time to argue with these people would only serve to legitimise them. I disagree. I think imprisoning them without daring to confront them is what really legitimises them. However that’s a different topic for a different day.

“New evidence suggests that Hitler was a cyborg”~ Historian in the not too distant future.