Eminem’s new album Kamikaze is said to be available on Spotify and the digital music website Pirate Bay.
Marshall Mathers, better known by his stage name “Eminem,” grew up as a victim of anti-White racism in the “nigger-ridden hellhole” of Detroit, Michigan.
As his frustration mounted over the years, Eminem resolved to make it his life’s work to prove that “anything that niggers do, whites can do ten times better.”
He was able to accomplish this goal with relative ease by simply making a few politically incorrect rap comedy albums that made him both the best-selling rapper of all time and widely renowned as the most skilled of his genre.
After a brief stint with anti-racist, anti-Trump raps in 2017, during which he was presumably having a midlife crisis, Em has returned to his white supremacist roots with this week’s Kamikaze.
“[Kamikaze] is music for Trump’s America,” soyboy journalist Jonny Coleman writesat The Hollywood Reporter. “He’s reinforcing the most traditional white male American tropes through a classically black medium.”
Fucking BASED!
/ourwigger/
Kamikaze also features an endorsement for Bitcoin, the well-known Nazi currency, and vicious attacks on journalists (possibly as a way of Em giving his implicit approval to the upcoming Trump-inspired #DayoftheBrick).
Last year’s critical lashing has inspired some of Em’s most intricate wordplay and spirited flows in years, as he reckons with his own place in the industry and takes jabs at a wave of up-and-coming artists. Sadly, it hasn’t inspired him to check his most vile behavior or outdated stylistic choices at the door, which prevents the album from being the outright win Eminem desperately needed right now.
Kamikaze kicks off promisingly with the blistering “The Ringer,” a lyrical tour de force that finds Eminem acknowledging the L’s he took last year and putting everyone from mumble rappers to journalists on blast. “Do you have any idea how much I hate this choppy flow everyone copies though? Probably no,” he raps, dipping into rap’s omnipresent triplet flow for comedic effect before reverting back to his full-bodied attack.
Eminem has been an inspiration for young shitlords for years given his God-like trolling skills and woke views on women, faggots and race.
When a tape from his youth surfaced in 2003, in which he called a black woman a “nigger,” his trollish response was:
Or spoke to the “Oh Foolish Pride” girl But I’ve heard people say they heard the tape and it ain’t that bad But it was: I singled out a whole race And for that I apologize, I was wrong ‘Cause no matter what color a girl is, she’s still a ho
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ALL WOMEN ARE WHORES, NOT JUST NIGGER WOMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
lol cry moar faggots
He writes off Lil Pump and Lil Xan as Lil Wayne ripoffs, calls his Donald Trump-trashing freestyle cypher from last year’s BET Awards “garbage,” and exposes critics who “skim through the music to give sh*t reviews to get clicks.”
Em even went so far as to remix his anti-Trump freestyle into a scathing and controversial track in which he endorses white nationalism and exterminationism and calls on President Trump to “build that wall.”
The remix was released on Kamikaze as a hidden track, which most are unable to find. Thankfully, someone has uploaded it to YouTube as well:
This has been a welcome change for the underground Nazi community which, while still considering him a source of inspiration and a symbol of obvious Aryan superiority, had become disheartened by the direction he seemed to be moving in last year.
The “40-Year-Old Boomer” meme, popular on racist internet message boards such as 4chan, was largely inspired by Eminem’s cringy 2017 mid-life crisis.
While Eminem may seem an odd candidate for a Nazi to look up to, given his specialty is what most of them call “jungle music” and “nigger shit,” in fact he has been what some observers have called a “Nazi hiding in plain sight” and has been one of the few mainstream figures willing to stick up for white people in the face of hatred and discrimination for many years.
Liberal author Shmuley Ben Shekelheim, in his 2016 book “Eminem History X,” documents many instances of what he calls “Eminem’s frequent and virulent displays of racism, misogyny, homophobia and toxic white machismo.”
A couple of the songs which feature lyrics that Shekelheim highlights as being “problematic” are:
“Criminal” (2000)
From the Marshall Mathers LP, “Criminal” is full of, Shekelheim explains, “shockingly homophobic and insensitive rhymes” such as the following:
My words are like a dagger with a jagged edge
That will stab you in the head
Whether you’re a fag or les’
Or the homo-sex, hermaph’, or a trans’a’vest’
Pants or dress, hate fags? the answer’s “yes”
Homophobic? Nah, you’re just hetero phobic
Starin’ at my jeans, watchin’ my genitals bulgin’ (ooh!)
That’s my motherfuckin’ balls, you’d better let go of ’em
They belong in my scrotum
You’ll never get hold of ’em
Hey, it’s me, Versace
Whoops, somebody shot me!
And I was just checkin’ the mail
Get it, checkin’ the ‘male’?
“As the World Turns” (1999)
On this track off of the Slim Shady LP, according to Shekelheim, Eminem engages in “virulent fat-shaming”:
…I told this bitch in gym class That she was too fat to swim laps, she need a Slim Fast (Who? Me?) Yeah, bitch, you so big You walked into Vic Tanny’s and stepped on Jenny Craig She picked me up to snap me like a skinny twig Put me in a headlock, then I thought of my guinea pig I felt the evilness and started transformin’ It began stormin’, I heard a bunch of cheering fans swarmin’ Grabbed that bitch by her hair, drug her across the ground And took her up to the highest diving board And tossed her down Sorry coach, it’s too late to tell me stop While I drop this bitch face down and watch her belly flop
“This is the type of virulent bigotry one expects to find at the [Neon-Nazi website] Daily Stormer, not on the records of a multi-Diamond selling, mainstream artist,” Shekelheim writes.
Much of the rest of the book centers around Shekelheim’s uncovering of Eminem’s “hatred for women.”
At a United States Senate hearing, Lynne Cheney criticized Eminem and sponsor Seagram for “promot[ing] violence of the most degrading kind against women”, labeling him as “a rap singer who advocates murder and rape” . . .
On October 26, 2000, Eminem was to perform at a concert in Toronto’s SkyDome. However, Ontario Attorney General Jim Flaherty argued that Canada should stop Eminem at the border. “I personally don’t want anyone coming to Canada who will come here and advocate violence against women”, he said. Flaherty claims to have been “disgusted” when reading transcriptions of Eminem’s song “Kill You”, which includes lines like “Slut, you think I won’t choke no whore/till the vocal cords don’t work in her throat no more?” . . .
A 2001 and 2004 study by Edward Armstrong found that of the 14 songs on The Marshall Mathers LP eleven contain violent and misogynistic lyrics and nine depict killing women through choking, stabbing, drowning, shooting, head and throat splitting. According to the study, Eminem scores 78% for violent misogyny while gangsta rap music in general reaches 22%. Armstrong argues that violent misogyny characterizes most of Eminem’s music and that the rapper “authenticates his self-presentations by outdoing other gangsta rappers in terms of his violent misogyny.”
It’s no wonder that Eminem, the self-proclaimed “nemesis to a feminist,” is practically worshipped by countless right-wingers in every so-called “dark corner” of the internet.
The Alt-Right, the “Manosphere” and the MGTOW movement all consider him to have been ahead of his time in being “redpilled on the female menace.”
Shekelheim concludes his book with a chapter about the “harrowing” experience he was forced to endure on Twitter after “Nazi trolls” discovered he had been criticizing one of their “icons”:
I woke up every morning for a week straight with my inbox filled with memes of myself in a gas chamber and Eminem in a Nazi uniform hitting a button that said “gas.” “Shove your psychoanalysis up your ass, you filthy kike,” read one message from an anti-Semitic troll who goes by the pseudonym “FashyHaircut88.” Another, apparently thinking he was being clever, wrote in an ominous and very offensive message: “Keep pushing, kikes. Please keep pushing. You have Nazi anything yet.”
It’s considered an “open secret” that “FashyHaircut88,” who frequently posts on the TRS forum, is the boyfriend of Eminem’s hot daughter, Hailie Jade, though this has yet to be 100% confirmed.
For many, it comes as a relief to see Eminem regain his crown as the “#1 rapper of the Alt-Right.” Some of the most notable chapters of the Daily Stormer Book Club(SBC) are named after him such as the “Sons of Marshall” and the “8-Mile Division.”
This time last year it was a topic of heavy debate whether or not the Alt-Right should disavow Eminem for his anti-Trump antics, with official SBC spokesman Azzmador going so far as to claim that Eminem is “now just another SJW commie-faggot.”
Azzmador, who is the host of Daily Stormer’s The Krypto Report and himself an aspiring Nazi rapper, has now gone back on this statement, praising “the return of the Great White Hope”:
I was an outspoken critic of Eminem last year, due to all signs pointing to his transformation into a no-talent bitch-wigger with the sensibilities of an ugly 12-year-old girl and the politics of a castrated antifa who recently underwent a botched lobotomy. But based on these new revelations, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and celebrate his coming out as likely having always been an undercover Neon-Nazi with a decades long mission to infiltrate the Jew-run nigger rap industry.
As a leading Neon-Nazi rapper myself, I would like to extend an offer to help revive his now-anemic career by doing a joint single with him I have written called “Hitler Did Nothing Wrong, You Dumb Jigaboo.”
Welcome back to the fold, Mr. Mathers. 1488!
Watch for the debut album by Azzmador and the TKR Wrecking Crew™️ (featuring Eminem?) to drop early 2019! Hot! Hot! Hot!
Prohibition era cartoon from the Duluth Rip-saw, August 18, 1917.
* * *
Ten thousand Jews are making booze In endless repetition To fill the needs of a million Swedes Who wanted prohibition
– Walter Liggett
This is the little known story of the law that almost crushed free speech in America in the 1920s and 30s, and the all-but-forgotten heroes who fought tooth and nail to get it overturned.
It begins with a little Minnesotan tabloid called the Duluth Rip-saw and ends in the Supreme Court of the United States.
The DuluthRip-saw and the “Gag Law”
The discovery of the Mesabi Iron Range, with its seemingly endless supply of iron-ore, caused an economic and population boom in northern Minnesota around the turn of the 19th century. People from all over Europe emigrated there with the hope of making a fortune, or at least a good living.
The area quickly degenerated into a hotbed of criminal activity. Booze, gambling and prostitution were rampant. Prohibition on alcohol, which hit Minnesota in 1917, greatly exacerbated the already widespread corruption and lawlessness by forcing the sale of liquor underground.
Minnesota was the crossroads for liquor transport between Canada, St. Louis and Chicago, and as such the buying off of politicians and police officials so they would look the other way was a necessity for bootleggers to operate without landing themselves in prison. As a result, the area became virtually ruled by criminals and gangsters, especially those of the Jewish persuasion.
A fundamentalist Christian who was disgusted with the systemic corruption in his town, John L. Morrison, began a biweekly newspaper called the Duluth Rip-saw as a means of fighting against it.
John L. Morrison
The paper helped to bring down the corrupt chief of police Robert McKercher and city auditor “King” Odin Halden, and did serious damage to many others that landed in its sights. Eventually, some big shots who had been targeted by the Rip-saw got fed up and decided to strike back against Morrison and his paper.
The first two, Judge Bert Jamison and Victor Power, simultaneously sued Morrison for libel, and both won after convincing a jury that the charges leveled against them by the Rip-saw had been false. Morrison retracted the statements, paid a $100 fine and issued a public apology.
The third to retaliate, Minnesota State Senator Mike Boylan, did not sue for libel but instead opted to draft a law that would effectively shut the Rip-saw–and any other paper like it–down for good. He and his political colleagues alleged that libel laws were not enough to protect them from “malicious, scandalous and defamatory” tabloids, such as Morrison’s.
So, in 1925, the Public Nuisance Law, better known as the “Minnesota Gag Law,” quietly passed in the Minnesota Senate 41-0, and in the House 87-22. The law was virtually unknown by the public at large as it went entirely unreported by the press. The “Gag Law” was a very broad, and very insidious piece of legislation–it made it so one judge, without a jury, could order a paper shut down simply by ruling it a “nuisance.”
One year almost to the day of the passing of the law, Morrison printed a story attacking the Mayor of Minnesota and was arrested and an injunction to shut down the Rip-saw on the grounds of the Nuisance Law was issued, but Morrison fell ill and died before getting the chance to contest the charge in court. Thus the Rip-saw petered out of existence, and the “Gag Law” sat unused for many years, as the corruption was so pervasive that all newspaper men were either paid off or too scared to say anything about it.
Almost all newspaper men, that is.
The Saturday Press
In 1916, Howard Guilford hired reporter Jay M. Near to help with his newspaper the Twin City Reporter, which Guilford had already been operating for a few years. Guilford and Near used this platform to fearlessly hammer away at the morally bankrupt political landscape of Minneapolis week after week with increasingly scathing exposés. The paper saw a bit of success and was mildly popular and influential but, of course, it made Near and Guilford no friends among the rotten-to-the-core political establishment of Minnesota.
The only known photograph of Jay M. Near.
A year later, in 1917, Guilford sold the Twin City Reporter to Near and a shady character named Jack Bevans. Shortly after that, Near bailed out of his share and moved to California, realizing that Bevans was a despicable creature who had been using the paper for blackmailing purposes.
Over the next decade Bevans teamed up with local Jewish gangster Mose Barnett and Police Chief Frank Brunskill on a gambling house and continued using the paper for extortion and blackmail along with his new business partner, an Irish gangster named Ed Morgan.
A deal was struck: if Chief Brunskill allowed the game to go on unhindered then the gangsters would ensure that no robberies would occur in his district. Chief got a cut of the profits and no bank robberies and Bevans, Morgan and Barnett got to run their lucrative gambling outfit.
Near returned to Minneapolis in 1927 and upon reuniting with his friend Guilford, who wasn’t doing much at the time, they decided to launch another tabloid, which they would call the Saturday Press. They did so with the explicitly stated objective of using it to take down the circle of corruption surrounding their old paper, the Twin City Reporter.
As soon as word hit the street about the Saturday Press and its aims, Chief Brunskill ordered it banned, making it the first paper ever to be banned before a single print even went to press. Near and Guilford ignored this asinine order and continued to move the project forward as previously planned.
“I have withdrawn all allegiance to anything with a hook nose that eats herring.” – Howard Guilford, after being shot by Jewish gangsters.
The first issue, as promised, exposed the criminal network of Barnett, Bevans and Co. and also reported on a threat they had received in an attempt to scare them away from publishing, in which their enemies had warned them: “Just a moment, boys, before you start something you won’t be able to finish.”
The following Monday, Guilford was ran off of the road by Jewish gangsters who then riddled his car with bullets, severely wounding him in the leg and gut.
Again, the Saturday Press didn’t even miss a beat and was on newsstands as scheduled the very next week. Guilford, still bleeding in his hospital bed, wrote the following in mocking defiance of the kosher thugs who tried to murder him: “I headed into the city on September 26, ran across three Jews in a Chevrolet; stopped a lot of lead and won a bed for myself in St. Barnabas Hospital, wherefore, I have withdrawn all allegiance to anything with a hook nose that eats herring.”
Jay Near also had some select words for who he called “the ochre-hearted rodents who fired those shots into the defenseless body of my buddy.” He let them know that if they “thought for a moment that they were ending the fight against gang rule in this city, they were mistaken.”
In other words, it was going to take a whole lot more than a few bullets and threats from some greasy, gefilte-fish eating gangsters to stop these two righteous men from standing up against evil.
Going After the Jews
The owner of a dry cleaning business named Sam Shapiro was shaken down, beaten and had his business vandalized by Jew gangster Barnett and his thug henchmen who were operating on behalf of the Twin Cities Cleaners and Dryers Association, which was attempting to “set prices” on dry cleaning. Shapiro could only find one person with the nerve to report on his case: Jay Near. The fact that everyone in the city was too cowardly to even mention Mose Barnett’s name, and that the police wouldn’t even indict him for harassing Shapiro, filled Near with indignant rage. He accused Brunskill of being complicit in the crime by protecting Barnett.
This prompted Brunskill to again order a ban on the Saturday Press, invoking an obscure city ordinance against obscenity. Of course, this charge was silly, as there was nothing obscene about the Saturday Press whatsoever. Near, who was in charge of the paper as Guilford was still in the hospital, again scoffed at Brunskill’s nonsensical order without even considering compliance. In fact, not only did Near ignore the chief’s order, he once again boldly attacked the crooked pig in the following issue.
No criminal, badge or no badge, was safe from the wrath of the Saturday Press.
On November 19th, in the 9th issue of the Saturday Press, Near published an article titled “Facts Not Theories,” which targeted corrupt Hennepin County Attorney Floyd B. Olson, who would soon become his arch-nemesis. Olson, whom Guilford had previously (correctly) labeled as a “Jew-lover,” was a Yiddish speaking, actual shabbos goy:
The North Side neighborhood where Olson grew up was the home of a sizable Orthodox Jewish community, and Olson’s friendships with some of the local Jewish families led him to serve as a shabbos goy, assisting Jews on the Sabbath by performing actions they were not permitted to do. (Source: Wikipedia)
Near had been threatened to shut up by a Jew gangster on Olson’s behalf, prompting him to angrily respond by writing: “’I am a bosom friend of Mr. Olson’ snorted a gentleman of Yiddish blood, ‘and I want to protest against your article,’ blah, blah, blah, ad infinitum, ad nauseam,” adding that he was not “taking orders from men of Barnett faith, at least right now.”
Floyd B. Olson: shabbos goy extraordinaire.
“There have been too many men in this city and especially those in official life, who HAVE been taking orders and suggestions from JEW GANGSTERS,” Near charged, “therefore we have Jew Gangsters, practically ruling Minneapolis.”
He then noted the fact that it had been Jews who shot his buddy Guilford, Jews who assaulted Sam Shapiro, Jews who were behind just about every robbery, and Jews who were behind countless murders. It was “a gang of Jew gunmen who boasted that for five hundred dollars they would kill any man in the city,” he snarled, and it was “Mose Barnett, a Jew, who boasted that he held the Chief of Police of Minneapolis in his hand—had bought and paid for him.
“Practically every vendor of vile hooch, every owner of a moonshine still, every snake-faced gangster and embryonic yegg in the Twin Cities is a JEW.
“I simply state a fact when I say that ninety percent of the crimes committed against society in this city are committed by Jew gangsters.
“It was a Jew who employed JEWS to shoot down Mr. Guilford. It was a Jew who employed a Jew to intimidate Mr. Shapiro and a Jew who employed JEWS to assault that gentlemen when he refused to yield to their threats. It was a JEW who wheedled or employed Jews to manipulate the election records and returns in the Third ward in flagrant violation of law. It was a Jew who left two hundred dollars with another Jew to pay our chief of police just before the last municipal election, and:
“It is Jew, Jew, Jew, as long as one cares to comb over the records.”
He then threw down the gauntlet, making it perfectly clear that neither he, nor Guilford, would “step one inch out of our chosen path to avoid a fight IF the Jews want to battle.”
Guilford, writing in that same issue, warned the “Yid” gangsters and their shabbos goy accomplices that “up to the present we have been merely tapping on the window. Very soon we shall start smashing glass.”
Gag Law Invoked, Saturday Press Shut Down
Going after the Jews and the powerful Floyd Olson was the straw that broke the camel’s back for Near and Guilford. Three days after the issue containing the article quoted above hit the streets, Olson invoked the infamous “Gag Law” in an attempt to have the Saturday Press shut down as a “ public nuisance” for having an “overly anti-Semitic tone.”
Olson requested that there be a temporary restraining order against the paper until it could be officially shut down, a request that was promptly granted by Minnesota Judge Mathias Baldwin. Baldwin’s decision ordered the stoppage of Near and Guilford “producing, publishing, editing, circulating, having in their possession, selling and giving away” the Saturday Press, or any other similar publication.
Near and Guilford demurred on the grounds that the “Gag Law” was clearly unconstitutional. Baldwin refused to appeal but eventually allowed the case to go to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which unanimously upheld the ruling. In a statement reminiscent of the Great Holocaust Trial of Ernst Zundel over half a century later, wherein a prosecutor yelled that “the truth is no defense,” the Supreme Court Judge of Minnesota told Near and Guilford that “there is no constitutional right to publish a fact merely because it is true.”
The fight was far from over though. Near was well aware that the law had been passed specifically to silence the Duluth Rip-saw and that Morrison had “sighed and passed on” before he was even able to fight against it. Near, ever-the-fighter, assured his opponents that he had “no intention of being so accommodating”
Near and Guilford Vindicated
Before going further with our story, I believe it worthy to note how Near and Guilford–the writers who had been condemned by so many–were vindicated on many of their charges before and after the silencing of the Saturday Press.
In 1920, Howard Guilford had gotten county attorney William “Bud” Nash removed from his position after ousting him as a bribe taker with the Twin City Reporter. Floyd Olson, who was assistant county prosecutor at the time, moved up into Nash’s former position (so, in a way, ironically, Olson had Guilford to thank for his job).
Shortly after the Saturday Press was shut down by the “Gag Law,” none other than Chief Brunskill became the target of a Grand Jury probe on the same charges that Near and Guilford had repeatedly accused him of in the Saturday Press, proving they had been correct all along.
Seventy-five people were charged in the Shapiro case, as well as Jew thug Mose Barnett and three other gangsters, again showing that Near and Guilford had been scrupulous and correct in their assertions.
Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, these revelations had no bearing on Near and Guilford’s case nor the gag order, which still stood.
Brunskill was eventually revealed to be a slimy criminal, just as Near and Guilford had charged.
The Case Finds Help
Guilford eventually dropped out of the battle, wounded and discouraged by the slow pace of the litigation, but Near was determined to fight to the bitter end and take it all the way to the top. He contacted the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in New York and they sympathized with his struggle and agreed to help, recognizing the implications that the law had on American freedoms.
Colonel Robert McCormick, an American hero.
The ACLU was ill-funded though, relying solely on donations, so it was going to be an uphill–probably losing–battle. But fortunately the case also soon caught the attention of another man, one with much more resources than the ACLU: Colonel Robert “Bertie” McCormick, millionaire owner of the Chicago Tribune.
Robert McCormick was a right-wing, anti-communist, freedom-loving American man who probably didn’t care much for Jews either. McCormick was horrified at the idea of the restriction of freedom of speech and had already previously been engrossed in two bitter court battles revolving around it.
McCormick consulted with his lawyer Weymouth Kirkland on the matter, who told him “Bert, the mere statement of this case makes my blood boil. Whether the articles are true or not, for a judge without jury, to suppress a newspaper without writ of injunction, is unthinkable. If this decision stands, any newspaper in Minnesota which starts a crusade against gambling, vice or other evils, may be closed down . . . without a trial by jury.”
McCormick, after convincing the American Newspaper Publishers Association (ANPA) to back him, decided to jump into the battle with both feet and do whatever it took to overturn this vicious assault on the most basic and fundamental of all American freedoms.
To the Supreme Court
After being turned down by the Minnesota Supreme Court twice, and with the help of McCormick, Kirkland and the ANPA, on April 26, 1930, Near’s case was officially docked by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Shortly thereafter, something happened that can almost be seen as an act of God: upon convening court on March 8, it was announced that Associate Justice Edward T. Sanford had died suddenly after collapsing in his dentist’s chair. Five hours later it was learned that a second member of the court, William Howard Taft, former President of the United States who was then serving as Chief Justice, had also died after slipping into a coma at his home.
The honorable Charles Evan Hughes narrowly lost a bid for Presidency to the treasonous Jew puppet Woodrow Wilson in 1916.
These two deaths were without a doubt an important factor in the final decision. Sanford and Taft voted as a block with the four other conservatives, known as the “Four Horsemen,” against three dissenters, almost without fail. The two deaths thus knocked down the likely predestined vote of 6-3 to 4-3, with Sanford and Taft’s replacements holding the decisive votes.
Associate Justice Sanford was replaced by Owen J. Roberts and Chief Justice Taft was replaced by Charles Evan Hughes. Hughes was generally of the opinion that aside from certain regulations during wartime or “falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater,” all speech was justly protected by the 1st and 14th Amendments.
Ultimately, after a court drama split nearly down the middle, Hughes and Roberts both voted against the Nuisance Law, making the decision, which was handed down on June 1, 1931, as narrow as it gets: 5-4.
Had it gone in the other direction, the results would have been catastrophic for freedom of speech. As mentioned before, it would have made it so one judge could single-handedly silence any dissent. Furthermore, bringing the case to the Supreme Court virtually guaranteed that if the Minnesota law had been upheld, the other 49 states would’ve soon passed similar laws, and the Supreme Court precedent would’ve made them very hard to overturn.
McCormick, in a full page headline the next day, rejoiced:
“The decision of Chief Justice Hughes will go down in history as one of the greatest triumphs of free thought. The Minnesota gag law was passed by a crooked legislature to protect criminals in office and supported by a state court as feeble in public spirit as it was weak in public acumen.
We must not blind ourselves to the fact that subversive forces have gone far in this country when such a statute could be passed by any legislature and upheld by any court, and must be on guard against further encroachment.”
It was a close call.
Two Murders
Near had the Saturday Press, the “paper that refused to stay gagged,“ back in print in October of 1932. He and Guilford, partnering up off and on, continued to relentlessly expose Olson, who was now governor of Minnesota, as being a criminal and willing tool of the Jews.
Guilford decided to run for office a couple of years later and announced on the radio that he was going to “tell the truth about Governor Floyd Olson’s connections with the underworld.” The very next day, Sep. 6, 1934, he was killed in a professional hit. An assassin pulled up next to him at an intersection and shot him point blank in the head with a shotgun. The police barely investigated the crime, and even actively worked to cover it up by turning away important witnesses and leads.
Fifteen months later, another crusader against government crime and corruption, nationally acclaimed journalist Walter W. Liggett, was shot dead in front of his family while unloading groceries out of his car at his home. Liggett also, like Guilford, had been a fierce opponent of Floyd Olson.
“I suppose it is in my blood to attack corruption wherever I meet it. I belong to that breed which wants to improve society.” – Walter Liggett, in response to a friend who had asked him why he didn’t stop, despite the mounting danger.
In a letter to a friend a few days before his murder, Liggett had written: “I have determined to drive Olson and his gang out of public life if it is the last thing I do. It will be a tough job—but I have already weakened his popularity and in another year I think I can finish him off—that is, if he doesn’t have me shot in the meantime as he did poor Howard Guilford. There is always that danger.”
Previously, as a result of his formidable opposition to high-level criminals such as Olson, Liggett had been repeatedly stalked (at least once by the notorious Jewish “Purple Gang”), issued death threats, harassed by public officials, had his phones tapped, his machines sabotaged, and was even arrested and dragged through the courts on the filthy trumped up charge of abducting two teenage girls and then sodomizing one in front of the other – a charge later shown to have been completely false (the girls were both juvenile delinquents, and one later admitted to being blackmailed with jail time to tell the phony story).
While awaiting trial for the trumped up charge, Liggett was viciously beaten by notorious Jewish crime boss of Minneapolis Kid Cann and seven of his gangster buddies after they solicited a bribe that he categorically rejected. The judge maliciously refused to extend the trial, forcing Liggett to go to court so badly injured that he could barely stand up or speak. Nevertheless, the trial was a farce and a jury found him not guilty.
After he was murdered Liggett’s wife Edith, who was a direct witness, immediately fingered Kid Cann as the triggerman, but Cann was never convicted because he had an alibi that gave the jury reasonable doubt. Edith suspected the shabbos goy Jew puppet Floyd Olson as being the one who ordered the hit until the day she died.
Both Harold Guilford and Walter Liggett had waged an unrelenting campaign against corruption in Minnesota, both refused to stay quiet in the face of evil, and both paid the ultimate price.
Pig-faced Jew gangster Kid Cann smirking after being let off for the murder of Liggett, despite being identified by Liggett’s widow who witnessed the murder. Kid Cann, after beating multiple murder wraps, would eventually get indicted in a case involving white sex-slavery—a typical Jewish practice.
Legacy
Guilford and Liggett’s murders, with Liggett’s being the tipping point, prompted a crack down on corruption in Minneapolis, resulting in dozens of bootleggers and corrupt officials being arrested.
Journalist Will Irwin wrote of Liggett: “Living he may have failed. But dead, he may go down as the man who led the way for a clean-up.”
Jay Near continued to crusade against corruption until the day he died (of natural causes) on Apr. 17, 1936. He was 62.
I hope that one day, when America is restored to sanity, the statues of this traitor will be razed to the ground and replaced by ones of Howard Guilford, Jay M. Near, and Walter W. Liggett.
Floyd B. Olson served three terms as Governor of Minnesota and died of stomach cancer at 44 on Aug. 22, 1936, cutting short his political career which ultimately had its sights on the White House. He is an icon of the liberal left and there are numerous statues of him erected around Minnesota.
Although Near died virtually penniless and Guilford and Liggett were brutally assassinated, and all of them are condemned by history, with many accounts even accusing them of being blackmailers–a ludicrous libel that doesn’t correspond with any of what is known of their lives–these brave men made a mark on America that reverberates to this very day, and for this we all owe them a debt of gratitude.
“The precedent of Near v. Minnesota,” writes Fred Friendly, in his definitive book on the “Gag Law” case, Minnesota Rag, “has withstood onslaughts from Presidents, legislatures and even the judiciary itself in its attempts to enforce basic rights which seemed to clash with the First Amendment.”
This fascinating story highlights just how fragile our freedoms really are and how quickly we can lose them unless we are willing to fight.
Some of the people who countersignal the concept of American Nationalism do so because they have an agenda that is entirely different than the majority of what we call the “Alt-Right.”
They either belong to a foreign religion that Americans have never subscribed to in significant numbers, are Southern Nationalists who want to bring back the Confederacy and think Yankees are worse than Jews, will accept nothing less than overt National Socialism, or are only interested in terrorism and violent revolution.
Therefore, it’s becoming clear that it is futile to try and find common ground with these people. They are not, and will probably never be, on the same page as us, and it’s a shame they have caused a debate over whether or not we should consider ourselves American Nationalists to go on for this long.
While most of these people are indeed “pro-white,” that alone is not sufficient to justify a formal alliance when the extent of our differences are considered (though we can certainly have mutual respect with some while doing our own things). At best we will just repeatedly butt heads, at worst they will use our popularity and what we have built for their own personal gain.
Others, I assume, are none of the above, but have been gaslit by those who are. It is for this reason I will address some of the more common arguments put forth against American Nationalism, and further show why I think being anti-American is antithetical to common sense and counterproductive to what we are trying to accomplish.
This land is ours.
The more sophisticated of these arguments involves the formulation of a narrative that paints America as having had a Civic Nationalist foundation from its very inception. They claim that America was based on Enlightenment principles that essentially sealed its fate as a multiracial state.
I will not spend much time refuting this, as it seems to come mainly from Southern Nationalists who hate Yankees and are still mad about the Civil War and the destructive racial policies that were imposed on them by the North.
It goes without saying, for those of us without a historical grudge against our own people, that critiquing our Founding Fathers (who were, clearly and demonstrably, white nationalists and traditionalists) as crazy liberals who laid the foundation for the later destruction of their own nation and people is a transparently self-defeating strategy.
When one considers the source, it’s hard for one to believe that this view was arrived at through honest intellectual inquiry rather than a desire to deliberately undercut American identity at its roots, similar to the “critical theory” of the anti-American left that seeks to “deconstruct whiteness.”
The same technique could be used to form a similar narrative against the South (who wanted to import even more blacks prior to the Civil War), or any other white country or area, if one were so inclined, just as it could be used to blame Christianity, rather than the Enlightenment, for our racial decline.
We are not doing that, though, because we consider Southerners, Christians and all whites worldwide as our brothers and see no benefit in tearing down the very people we are trying to save.
Demonizing our history and delegitimizing us as a people is a tactic the left uses to blackpill us into submission – to get us to accept our own displacement. This kind of negativity has no place in a pro-white movement.
We are trying to uplift our people and build better men and give them something to fight for, not fill them with despair.
Though there is much for us to learn from Fascism and National Socialism, the American system wasn’t always the shitshow that it is today. Originally, voting was restricted to educated, land-owning white males over the age of 21 – those who had a direct “stake in society.”
Only about 1.8% of the population are estimated to have voted in the first Presidential election (unanimously for Washington), with a maximum of 6% being eligible at that time. Jews were excluded.
Even Oswald Mosley – one of our greatest thinkers – wrote that his British Union of Fascists were only against the “perversion of democracy” and that
democracy in its true sense — government of the people, by the people, for the people, as an expression of the natural, healthy will of the people when free from the deception of financial politics — was exactly what we wanted.
The Founding Fathers were only egalitarians in the sense of equality under the law and equality of opportunity, based on the Enlightenment concept of meritocracy. As Mosley explains:
Equality of opportunity is a fundamental thing. Let those rule who are fitted to rule. Let no man rule because his grandfather proved himself fitted to rule. [The Enlightenment] was a revolt against privilege, an affirmation that the man of talent and of capacity should be the man to conduct the affairs of a great nation.
It was only later that “all men are created equal” was deliberately misinterpreted to mean men are equal in ability, or that the races are equal. In the Founding Fathers’ time, blacks weren’t even considered human, much less “equal.” That idea is patently absurd.
"Slave owning Founding Fathers thought the niggers they owned as cattle were equal."
The American system as it was originally intended is not at all incompatible with fascism. In fact, there are fasces all over the place in America. They symbolize the Roman concept of “strength through unity,” thus stand as a living testament that the Jewish idea that “diversity is our strength” is what is truly incompatible with Americanism.
Fasces were still being incorporated into architecture well into the 20s and 30s, as many Americans at that time openly admired Mussolini and what he had done for the Italian people.
Fasces in America.
In contrast to the confusing, esoteric gibberish about the Enlightenment that these anti-American racialists push, the Alt-Right generally has a much simpler message: we have a Jewish problem.
That doesn’t mean that we deny having problems of our own, or that Jewish subversion didn’t require already existing flaws in our society. It means that we recognize that a distinct racial enemy has infiltrated every level of our society and has demonstrably – in many cases admittedly – remolded it and reinterpreted our history to suit his own ends.
Even if Jews aren’t the original sickness that is killing our race (maybe that is our individualist nature – who knows), no honest person can deny that they have accelerated it to a frightening degree, and are the ones found blocking the way toward any solution.
There is not a racial disaster in this country since the Civil War in which you don’t see the Jews front and center.
It was Jews who led the Civil Rights movement. It was Jews who invented the concept that “race is a social construct.” It was a Jew who invented the idea of America as a “Melting Pot,” and it was a Jew who invented the concept of “cultural pluralism” i.e. “multiculturalism.”
Jews founded and run the ADL, and they dominate the SPLC and the ACLU.
The Jews have pushed, and continue to push, nonstop anti-white vitriol using their vast propaganda network which includes major publishing houses, academia, the mainstream media and the entirety of Hollywood.
With their hypersensitive racial consciousness they hunt down and enforce political correctness on anyone who even mildly questions them, keeping the populace in a constant state of fear as everyone knows – whether consciously or unconsciously – that if they step out of the bounds of the anti-white, Jewish narrative their reputation and career will be swiftly and ruthlessly destroyed.
This pernicious influence is the number one problem facing our people today, and working to free them from it – rather than merely blaming ourselves for our current predicament – is an act of fierce patriotism and nationalism; an act of love for our race that is perfectly in keeping with the spirit of our Founding Fathers who hated and fought against lies and tyranny with every fiber of their being.
America was by no means “destined” to become what it has become. In fact, there’s every reason to believe that we were well on our way to correcting the racial blunder of the Civil War, had the Jews not repeatedly thrown a stick in our spokes.
The science of race didn’t really come into focus until the latter half of the 19th century, following the theories of Darwin and de Gobineau (which Southern intellectuals, by the way, simply used to make absurd justifications for slavery). Like many of the mistakes of the Founding Fathers, it was an “unknown,” therefore hardly something that can be held against them.
Following the Civil War (for which there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides), Northerners and Southerners alike allied in support of the American Colonization Society, which had been created in 1816 and was initially supported by leading American Founders such as Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and James Madison, and which had as its mission sending American blacks back to Africa.
After the release of Madison Grant’s book The Passing of the Great Race in 1916, scientific racism became the dominant view among the American elite. Theodore Roosevelt wrote of it in Scribner’s magazine:
The book is a capital book; in purpose, in vision, in grasp of the facts our people most need to realize. It shows an extraordinary range of reading and a wide scholarship. It shows a habit of singular serious thought on the subject of most commanding importance. It shows a fine fearlessness in assailing the popular and mischievous sentimentalities and attractive and corroding falsehoods which few men dare assail. It is the work of an American scholar and gentleman; and all Americans should be sincerely grateful to you for writing it.
Its influence reached much further than just America, though. Hitler, for instance, called the book his “Bible.” The seminal chapter in Mein Kampf, “Race and People,” which so much informed Nazi policy, was essentially just a summary of the Grantian worldview.
Around this same time, a black nationalist named Marcus Garvey was making significant headway in America. Garvey, who admired the nationalistic passion of both Hitler and Mussolini, wanted to instill racial pride in his people by leading them toward self-determination. His organization, the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA), founded in 1917, boasted 2 million members by 1919, and as many as 6 million by 1926 (when the black population of the United States was no more than 11.5 million).
Madison Grant, whose main mission in life was to secure the existence of the white race, naturally wanted the blacks shipped back to Africa as well, so he formed a strong alliance with Garvey following a back-to-Africa speech Garvey made in Madison Square Garden in 1920.
Garvey originally modeled himself on Theodor Herzl and was sympathetic to Jews early in his career, but he grew increasingly anti-Semitic as he saw the Jews thwarting his mission at every turn.
The radical Jewish-led NAACP, which with their mulatto figurehead W.E.B. DuBois promoted integration over separation, dedicated much of their energy to destroying Garvey (just as Jews would later promote communist integrationist Martin Luther King Jr. over popular black nationalist Malcolm X).
When Garvey had visited NAACP headquarters in 1917, he famously “stormed out” muttering about its being a “white [which he would later realize actually meant “Jewish”] organization.”
Garvey was, unfortunately, eventually destroyed – and his movement rendered stillborn – after being tried and convicted for mail fraud.
The Judge who convicted him, Julian Mack, was the former head of the American Jewish Congress and the Zionist Organization of America. “When they wanted to get me,” Garvey complained, “they had a Jewish judge try me, and a Jewish prosecutor. I would have been freed but two Jews on the jury held out against me ten hours and succeeded in convicting me, whereupon the Jewish judge gave me the maximum penalty.”
Marcus Garvey
Garvey’s meteoric rise is clear evidence that racial self-determination is the natural and desirable state for all peoples, and his downfall shows yet another example of the Jews’ historically being the primary agitators against such an arrangement, even while they hypocritically support their own racially exclusive State of Israel.
Elite American racialists, led by Grant, also desired to deport the Jews, but saw that as a much more difficult task than deporting blacks, given the power that the Jews had already accumulated.
Eugenicist Charles Davenport, in a letter to Grant in 1925, suggested jokingly that he thought maybe it would be best to just incinerate the Jews as the Puritans did the witches, but unfortunately it was “against the mores to burn any considerable part of our population.”
Charles Davenport: Total Shitlord.
Grant’s main nemesis was the Jewish immigrant Franz Boas, who was driven by the fear that race science would lead to increasing levels of anti-Semitism. This fear was not unfounded.
In The Passing of the Great Race, Grant wrote that the Polish Jew’s “dwarf stature, peculiar mentality and ruthless concentration on self-interest” was being “engrafted upon the stock of the nation,” and warned of the consequences of race-mixing as follows:
Whether we like to admit it or not, the result of the mixture of two races, in the long run, gives us a race reverting to the more ancient, generalized and lower type. The cross between a white man and an Indian is an Indian; the cross between a white man and a Negro is a Negro; the cross between a white man and a Hindu is a Hindu; and the cross between any of the three European races and a Jew is a Jew.
This passage was quoted or paraphrased in hundreds of other anthropological and scientific works following the release of The Passing of the Great Race, and eventually helped lead to the “shutting out” of the Jews with the Immigration Act of 1924.
Boas, though, was a very committed and formidable foe, and world historical events would eventually turn things in his favor in a big way – as we’ll see in the third and final part of this article.
There has been a sustained, nonstop assault on DS ever since we suggested the Alt-Right should present itself more explicitly as American Nationalist – as the only movement who has the true interests of white Americans at heart – by those who are opposed to such a stance.
Everything has seemingly fallen into place for this to be the next logical step: We became famous for a rally that, despite its setbacks, showed us to be the only ones with the courage to stand up against the toppling of our national monuments. At the same time the country has become, and continues to become, increasingly racially polarized.
Black football players take a knee to spite our National Anthem, our President is called a “Nazi” and a “racist” constantly and the Jews and their allies are now overtly attacking America as an inherently white supremacist nation.
The fact that even after 6 months we have been crippled in this strategy not by the left, but by those who are ostensibly on our side, has been quite a shocking thing to behold, to say the least.
If anything, it has brought to the surface the inherent folly of a “big tent” strategy, which may ultimately be a positive in the long term, despite the inescapable growing pains. Better for the fallout to come now rather than later, I suppose.
Many (but not all) critics of the American Nationalist stance seem to think that presenting ourselves as anything less than unironic, hardcore National Socialists is somehow a form of cucking.
It’s true, of course, that ever since WWII any time a white person has advocated for their own interests they have been roundly smeared as a “Nazi,” and that this has been a frighteningly effective way of silencing any and all opposition to the anti-white system.
For this reason, it was necessary to neutralize this tactic of our enemies. The Alt-Right accomplished this, brilliantly, through the use of ironic and semi-ironic Nazism, trolling, and refusing to go on the defensive.
Thanks to the far-reaching and tireless spreading of edgy, educational memes and Alt-Right internet culture in general – which Daily Stormer has played, and will continue to play, a large role in – young white males have been thoroughly desensitized to the stigma attached to the “Nazi” label.
Now that this taboo is broken, and we have forced the world to take notice of us and the “Alt-Right” is a household name, it just makes sense to change tack in order to broaden our outreach – to move into a more serious, but still fun, “phase two,” if you will.
This is quite similar to what the founder of white nationalism himself, George Lincoln Rockwell, had been doing in his time. He used Nazi imagery and shock tactics to make himself irresistible to the media, who otherwise just ignored him. This made him a household name, but was only “phase one” of a clearly laid out four phase plan (which in hindsight was not without its flaws, to be sure).
Shortly before he was assassinated, he moved into “phase two.” This entailed dropping the Nazi uniform, changing the name of his party from the American Nazi Party to the National Socialist’s White People’s Party and using the fame and attention he had acquired to educate the public on the plight of the white race in America.
Dr. William Pierce, who was the editor of Rockwell’s journal, only formally joined the party after the name change. Following Rockwell’s untimely death, Pierce still wanted to move forward with the more serious “phase two” strategy, but the movement instead rapidly reverted back to the “Hollywood Nazi” type approach, causing him to split.
He later said of Matt Koehl, who ended up being Rockwell’s successor:
Koehl was an admirable guy in some ways. For one thing, he was very reliable–but he wasn’t very imaginative. To figure out what to do he would take out Mein Kampf or see how Hitler did it in 1928. I said, ‘Jesus, Matt, we’ve got a different situation now.’
After the split, and shortly before the official founding of the “National Alliance” – by far the most successful American white nationalist organization in history – Pierce wrote the essay “Prospectus for a National Front” (1970), in which he advocated for a more American-tailored approach and advised against “isolating ourselves from the public with programs and images so radical that only a small fraction of one percent will respond.”
He said to his biographer, Robert Griffin, about this change in direction:
I was certain there were many people around who didn’t think of themselves as National Socialists who were concerned about the same degenerative trends in politics and demographics as I was, and I wanted to find them.
By 1967 Rockwell had dropped the Nazi outfit and was wearing a suit.
That many white racialists become enamored with National Socialism is quite understandable. We all get redpilled on the state of the world, we see the Jews ruling over us and how our race is being destroyed, and then it dawns on us that Hitler was openly fighting against it.
What this has resulted in is a thread of thought in the Alt-Right, and the White Nationalist community in general, that Germany was the one country to stand up to the Jews, and that the rest of our people and nations were completely enslaved to them, even back then.
This is a very simplified, and in my view poisonous, view of an extremely complex history. First off, it must be kept in mind that what brought the Nazis to power was a unique set of historical circumstances that just weren’t present in America or elsewhere.
Germany had been defeated in WWI and were humiliated and crushed by the Versailles Treaty, genocidal, Godless communism was at their doorstep and Jewish power and subversion was much further advanced and entrenched there than anywhere else.
America back then was still a traditional, wholesome white society. Degeneracy was outlawed pretty much across the board, Jews were looked down upon and blacks, who were our primary racial problem, were more or less kept in check.
So, while our ideology does indeed parallel that of the Nazis in many ways, it isn’t necessarily more German or National Socialist than it is American.
Non-whites used to be seen as a source of lulz for American whites, not as real people.
Hitler had many great ideas – but not many of them were particularly original. Race and eugenics, for instance, were mainstream, accepted science at that time.
Of the most influential early racial thinkers, really only one was a German: Ernst Haeckel.
Hitler, and the Nazis in general, were heavily influenced by certain American personalities and American racial laws.
Alfred Rosenberg, in his The Myth of the 20th Century – probably the second most influential ideological book of the Third Reich, next to Mein Kampf – wrote this:
The United states of America, according to the universal agreement of all travellers, is the magnificent land of the future. It has the great task of throwing aside all outworn ideas which date from before its foundation. It can proceed with youthful strength to set up the new idea of the racial state, such as some awakened Americans have already apprehended, like Grant and Stoddard.
They saw the necessity for the expulsion and resettlement of the Blacks and the Yellow men, the handing over of east Asiatic possessions to Japan, the working toward a Black colonisation in central Africa, and the resettlement of the Jews to a region where this entire group can find a place.
The Nazi writer Albrecht Wirth, in a 1934 book designed to teach Germans global history through a racial lens, Völkisch World History, wrote the following:
The most important event in the history of the states of the Second Millennium—up until the [First World] War—was the founding of the United States of America. The struggle of the Aryans for world domination received thereby its strongest prop.
A second book of the same nature, The Supremacy of the White Race, written by Wahrhold Drascher in 1936 called America “the [leader] of the white peoples” and said its Founding was “the first fateful turning point” in the struggle for global White Supremacy. “[A] conscious unity of the white race” would have never emerged without it, Drascher contended.
Comments such as these among the Nazis are countless. Hitler himself, though very critical of America at times as well, had much praise for and drew much inspiration from America in regard to his racial views and policies. He writes explicitly of the 1924 Immigration Act in Mein Kampf:
At present there exists one State which manifests at least some modest attempts that show a better appreciation of how things ought to be done in this matter. It is not, however, in our model German Republic but in the U.S.A. that efforts are made to conform at least partly to the counsels of commonsense. By refusing immigrants to enter there if they are in a bad state of health, and by excluding certain races from the right to become naturalized as citizens, they have begun to introduce principles similar to those on which we wish to ground the People’s State.
In his unpublished second book, Hitler commended America for rejecting the Jewish “Melting Pot” idea and shifting immigration policy so that the majority taken in were Northern Europeans, the original founding stock.
The 1924 Immigration Act, also known as the “National Origins Act” or the “Johnson-Reed Act,” was explicitly pro-white – and implicitly anti-Jewish – legislation. It passed in the House by a vote of 308 to 62, and in the Senate 69 to 9.
During the run up to the passing of the bill, Madison Grant, who was the main driving force behind it and the most influential racial author of the time, said to then sitting President, Howard Taft:
vast floods of utterly alien races and types are pouring in, and the great cities are being swamped by the Polish Jews from Eastern Europe. Anyone who scientifically faces the facts can understand the extremely inferior and immoral structure of these latter, and it is universally admitted and deplored in private conversation.
Grant said that the influx of Eastern European Jews was “by far the most serious immigration matter that now confronts us” and that the Act was “the only chance of our life time to shut out the Jews. It is now or never.”
US foreign service officials, according to Jonathan Spiro’s biography of Grant, warned that the Jews were “filthy and ignorant and the majority are verminous”; that they were “abnormally twisted, . . . un-American, and often dangerous in their habits”; and that they were a “thoroughly undesirable” class of immigrant and unquestionably “unassimilable.”
Burton J. Hendrick publicly admitted in 1923 that the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 was “chiefly intended—it is just as well to be frank about the matter—to restrict the entrance of Jews from eastern Europe.”
Albert Johnson, one of two main architects of the Act, brought State Department cables before the Senate Immigration Committee which warned that the Jews preparing to sail to America were “evasive, dishonest, and . . . do not have the moral qualifications for American citizenship.”
Johnson read aloud to the House fresh consular cables provided by the State Department, warning that the majority of European Jews embarking for the United States were “subnormal,” “twisted,” “deteriorated,” and full of “perverted ideas. . . . These are not those who hewed the forests, . . . conquered the wastes, and built America. These are beaten folk” who, “besides being as a class economic parasites, . . . are impregnated with Bolshevism.”
In short, according to the U.S. State Department, “this type of immigrant is not desirable from any point of view at this time.”
The 1924 Immigration quotas held even as Jews were being increasingly persecuted under Hitler. In 1939, even following Kristallnacht, only 8% of Americans polled said they wanted to accept more Jewish refugees. That same year, the final attempt to increase the quota – the Wagner-Rogers bill, which called for refuge for Jewish children specifically – was soundly defeated.
“One year later,” writes Spiro, “a similar bill to admit British children was introduced into the U.S. Congress. It was quickly approved.”
In fact, no Western nation would accept an increase in Jews. In 1938, representatives from 32 countries organized the Évian Conference to decide what to do about the ones then living under Nazi rule. The one Jewish representative who was invited to the conference, Golda Meir, wasn’t even allowed to speak.The only two countries in attendance that were willing to take in Jewish refugees were non-white – the Dominican Republic and Costa Rica.
Jews who were liberated from concentration camps following the war, far from being given refuge en masse, were instead put into displaced persons camps, where they had to stay for indefinite periods of time until they could be repatriated to their countries of origin. As many Jews feared persecution in those countries, they were forced to continue their underground network to Palestine (which was illegal at the time, as the British had barred their further immigration).
This shows us that, aside from a few treacherous elites such as FDR, Americans (and other Europeans) had no special love for the Jews. Most Americans, having little to no contact with Jews, were probably indifferent to them at best.
Blacks, who whites had much more experience with, were at the time of WWII still almost universally seen as inferior and as a mortal danger to whites.
There was no official legislation targeting the Jews by name in America, but they were effectively shut out of higher institutions by quotas and other regulations specifically designed to limit their numbers, just as the Immigration Act was.
For example, the dean of Harvard law school, Roscoe Pound (1916-1936), who is one of the most cited legal scholars in American history, was an open admirer of Hitler, saying he “was a man who can bring [Austria and Germany] freedom from agitating `movements.’”
Lawrence Lowell, who was president of Harvard until 1933, also admired the Nazis – sending representatives to Nazi Universities even as their ongoing persecution of the Jews was well-known – and worked feverishly to limit Jewish and black enrollment at Harvard. He also led the Secret Court of 1920, which purged the institution of homosexuals.
The most popular radio personality during the 30s was Father Charles Coughlin, whose broadcasts were openly anti-Semitic. At its peak his show had a listenership of up to 40 million (out of a population of roughly 120-130 million).
Father Charles Coughlin
Hitler’s private train, which took him to his “Eagle’s Nest” retreat, was code named Amerika, because he so much admired US industrial strength and transportation ability.
He especially admired the great American industrialist Henry Ford, who was also a highly vocal and influential anti-Semite. Hitler praised Ford by name in Mein Kampf, had a life sized portrait of him next to his desk, and modeled the Volkswagon on the Model T.
“You can tell Herr Ford that I am a great admirer of his,” Hitler told Prince Louis Ferdinand as he departed for the United States. “I shall do my best to put his theories into practice in Germany.”
In 1937, on Ford’s 75th birthday, Hitler awarded him the Grand Cross of the German Eagle – the highest honor that could be given to a foreigner.
Ford spent millions of his own money to wake the world to the Jewish menace, printing a total of 91 anti-Semitic articles in his Dearborn Independent, which he gave out free to every customer.
Henry Ford receiving the Grand Cross
Even Baldur Von Schirach, head of the Hitler Youth, was redpilled on the JQ by the Dearborn Independent articles when he was 17.
They influenced Hitler’s view on the Jews as well, and are quoted in Mein Kampf. Theodor Fritsch, Germany’s leading anti-Jewish publisher, translated and distributed them widely in Germany.
A core tenet of Hitler’s ideology was German expansionism: lebensraum. He was openly inspired in this endeavor by the conquest of America – “Manifest Destiny” – and the British Empire. He considered Americans as well as the British as cousins to the Germans, as being cut from the same superior racial stock, and thus deserving of world mastery.
Germany, in his eyes, belonged at the apex alongside these two Nordic superpowers, as it was prior to WWI. He was playing catch up, not blazing any trails.
"In 1928, Hitler praised the Americans for having 'gunned down the millions of Redskins to a few hundred thousand'"
The infamous 1934 “Nuremberg Laws” were heavily influenced by – and wouldn’t have come into existence without – America’s “anti-miscegenation” laws, which banned marriage between a white and a non-white in 30 states.
Virginia – the land of Jefferson – was home to the infamous Racial Integrity Act of 1924. This Act designated people as non-white by the “one-drop rule,” This was significantly more hardcore than the Nuremberg Laws – “too racist” for the Nazis to copy.
These laws were lobbied for, and inspired by, the fiercely patriotic Madison Grant, whose lifetime achievements are absolutely breathtaking. He counted multiple U.S. Presidents as his friends including fellow white racialist Teddy Roosevelt (1901-1909) and Herbert Hoover (1929-1933).
Aside from popularizing race science and getting an impressive amount of pro-white legislation passed, Grant also led the way in creating the conservationist movement. The American bison, and dozens of other animals, would be extinct today if it weren’t for Grant.
In 1899, he founded the Bronx Zoo, which was four times larger than any other existing Zoo in the world and the first to attempt to recreate the animals’ natural habitats.
An African Pygmy, Ota Benga, was displayed in the Zoo as a semi-human evolutionary curiosity.
Ota Benga
Now I have to ask: How does using an African as a zoo exhibit jive with the assertion, made by many who are ostensibly on our side, that America was destined to be cucked or is the inevitable outcome of the phrase “all men are created equal”?
It doesn’t. Our biggest problem – our true fatal mistake – according to the bulk of the Alt-Right, has not been a handful of later-misinterpreted Enlightenment-inspired platitudes, but that we allowed Jews in our midst and then failed to deal with them properly.
After giving much thought as to why the above described period of our history is generally blacked out or glossed over, even while liberals love to beat us over the head with our “racist legacy,” I’ve concluded that it is because America has become such an engine of progressivism they prefer it to seem as though our history has been an uninterrupted, if slow-going, move toward egalitarianism, and these facts shatter that myth.
Therefore, those on the right who cherry pick quotes by the Founding Fathers to craft a narrative of American history being essentially a straight line to the left, from the signing of the Declaration of Independence to today, are in that regard undeniably marching in lockstep with the anti-American liberal left.
These points will be addressed further in the second half of this article.
Luke Ford is a pretty unique and interesting character.
In the one hand, he became obsessed with pornography in his younger years and was so enamored by the religion of Orthodox Judaism he converted to it.
On the other, he is a white man racially, so while considering himself a Jew and being immersed in Jewish culture and the Jewish community, he has an inborn intellectual honesty that’s not found among his adopted spiritual kinsmen.
This results in him straddling the contradictory position of being ideologically pro-Jewish while not being anti-white, and indeed sympathizing with the pro-white position and frequently giving a platform to people like Kevin Macdonald (whose thesis Ford finds to be accurate) and Mike Enoch.
When Ford wrote a book about the history of pornography (the only one that exists), he noticed that which he wasn’t supposed to notice:
Though only 2 percent of the American population, Jews dominate porn. Most of the leading male performers through the 1980s had Jewish parents. Leading Jewish pornographers include Wesley Emerson, Paul Fishbein, Lenny Friedlander, Paul Norman, Bobby Hollander, Rubin Gottesman, Hank Weinstein, Fred Hirsh and his children Steve and Marjorie, Steve Orenstein, Theodore Rothstein, and Rueben Sturman.
Here we have him quoting one of his Jew friends as saying “Kevin MacDonald has cracked our code.”
This is why I said a couple days ago that Culture of Critique is the book the Jews fear the most.
Claim the “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” is a real document, accuse the Jew of using the blood of Christian children for his matzo bread, and he will remain unfazed. The accusation will run off him like a raincoat, and he will probably mock you.
But tell them you have read the Culture of Critique and watch how he recoils, how he suddenly shrinks back: “the goyim have cracked our code.”
Here is the video. The entire conversation is pretty good, but the quote in question is @42:40, which is timestamped (here is the isolated audio clip).
