Majorityrights News > Category: History

ALT-RIGHT LIES: THE DRESDEN MYTH

What the Alt-Right literally believes

by Colin Liddell, 13 Feb 2019:

One of the myths commonly trotted out on the Alt-Right at this time of year is the Dresden Myth.

According to this meme, trope, narrative, or whatever you want to call it, the bombing of Dresden on and around the 13th of February, 1945, was one of the most horrendous war crimes ever. Indeed, it was so bad that it stands right up there with the Holocaust—which, of course, many in the Alt-Right deny—and the atom bombing of the Japanese as some kind of ultimate and delegitimising evil.

Of course it was bad, but in war all sorts of terrible things happen as a matter of course. So, using Dresden in this way is rather a hard sell. The normies just don’t get it. To them it’s just one more example of a bombing raid, hardly a rare occurrence in WWII.

Even when the Alt-Right exaggerate the casualty figures and throw in some colourful details about low flying bombers machine gunning fleeing civilians, etc., the reaction is still pretty much “meh.”

This doubtlessly has something to do with the fact that the Germans were pioneers in the mass bombing of civilian centres themselves. Here’s a screenshot of an interactive bomb map of London from the Blitz.

Go to the site and check it out for yourself.

So, everybody bombed someone. So what?

But this is where the second part of the myth kicks in. In order to make you care about this particular bombing, we are told that the war was already over when Dresden was bombed, so that, unlike Warsaw in 1939, Rotterdam in 1940, and London, the bombing of Dresden was not a “normal” act of war, but instead just an act of gratuitous cruelty and sadism.

Here is a typical anonymous comment from a Facebook group putting forward this point of view:

Dresden was a civilian massacre. Call it what it is man, the war was OVER….germany’s infrastructure was finished a year before Dresden was torched. Germany’s rail system was bombed to shit, they had no resources and the army was done.

Yes, indeed, if the war was truly over by February 1945, that would make Dresden somewhat worse. Although, it could also be argued that even if the war was “effectively over” it would have been quite hard for people to just shrug off years of war conditioning and start acting normally as rational, humane beings in the flick of a switch.

But was the war effectively over as is claimed?

Of course, in the sense that Germany could no longer win against the massive forces arrayed against it, or even achieve some kind of negotiated peace, the war was definitely over. But in terms of brutal fighting and high casualties for both sides, it was still very much an ongoing affair.

This can be proved simply by looking at data—y’know that old-fashioned way of resolving arguments and variant viewpoints.

First here is a map of the military situation in the middle of February 1945. As you can see, the Nazis still control almost all of Germany and large areas of other countries. Millions of men were still under arms, and the Western allies had yet to cross the Rhine.

Now, in case someone thinks this is just a big map of nothing, and that the millions of German soldiers under arms were just wandering aimlessly around looking for someone nice to surrender to, let’s look at the monthly casualty figures just for the US Army. The figures for the Soviet army, if they were available and reliable, would probably paint and even more convincing picture that the war was still very much at its peak.

Starting from June 1944, when the D-Day landings took place, here are the month-by-month casualty figures of the US Army in Europe (including the Army Air Corps). These figures come from the Department of the Army’s final report on “Army Battle Casualties and Nonbattle Deaths in World War II (7th December 1941 - 31st December 1946). A copy of that report is online here.

Note, casualties include killed and wounded at roughly the proportion of three wounded to one killed.

        1944
        June 49,061
        July 61,454
        August 49,458
        September 54,937
        October 47,725
        November 65,918
        December 80,994

        1945
        January 70,560
        February 43,603
        March 56,282
        April 49,706
        May 2,201
        June 82

As we can see from these figures, US Army casualties were at their highest in December 1944 and January 1945, the months preceding the bombing of Dresden, which occurred in the middle of February. In those months the Western allies had received a nasty shock with a surprise German offensive in the Ardennes (The Battle of the Bulge), when German forces threatened, albeit briefly, to break through to the Channel again.

Also note that US casualties were higher in March and April 1945 than they were in June 1944, the month of the famous D-Day landings and subsequent battles in Normandy, when German forces were at their peak in opposition to American forces. This is so counter-intuitive to what most people know about the war that it needs emphasising: In both the months following Dresden, German military efforts against the Americans were more intense and took a higher toll than they did in June 1944.

The idea that Germany was “militarily finished” when the Dresden bombings happened is thus clearly absurd.

So why does the lying Alt-Right push this retarded myth? The most obvious answer is that they want to evoke sympathy for Nazi Germany. But this raises a further question: Why do they want to evoke sympathy for Nazi Germany?

Knee-jerk hatred of Jews is the obvious answer, but another possible and highly nefarious possibility is that they want to attach White identitarianism, White nationalism, and European self-determination to what is an extremely toxic brand in order to poison it.

They know that people who are attracted to these healthy forms of self-determination are likely to be more open-minded about history and less inclined to believe establishment narratives. Thus they are more likely to be taken in by blatant lies like the Dresden Myth. If that is the intention, then it is clearly an evil one, designed to keep nationalism on its knees as a pathetic victim identity and confined to a Nazi ghetto.

DanielS goes into the enemy camp, continually hesitant, but inserts the time bombs that will bring down their campaign against White sovereignty and systemic homeostasis.

I’ve never seen Luke Ford so stressed (as I did the first time that I hung out with him briefly at the end of a hangout) and I’ve never seen him look so glum (the second time, when he gave me the floor with just him as an interlocutor). Actually, I take no delight in that. I’m sure that he felt pressure given his own position in defense of Jewry and from the Jewish friendly community around him to try to limit my message exposing the “objectivist” anti-“left” marketing campaign. Even so, I was able to say around 80% of what I’d planned - and some ideas will act like time bombs having gotten in there.

This was my first “HANGOUT” and not having opportunity to practice and get feedback as to how I might sound beforehand, I did not realize how persistently hesitant I was and how it was coming across. It was hard even for me to listen to myself the first time around in this uniquely bad delivery of mine. I hesitate constantly, but nevertheless, the content is there and I realized that the second time around listening to it - that it wasn’t all that bad for that reason. I take solace in the fact of knowing that I don’t have to speak that way and don’t usually, in normal conversation. I was in enemy territory, resources at risk, and that is cause for hesitation. But knowing that my position and resources are robust, it was alright to go ahead - I know that my program works now, it can’t be destroyed by the enemy. The best they can hope to do is distract from it, obstruct and try to bury it.

I am honestly not happy to see Luke looking so glum. It’s telling that he adds a link to Cofnas’ critique, like holy water against a goyim assault (I wasn’t impressed by Cofnas’ critique, BTW).

I come on at (2:20:47) and am confronted by Bob, the “bad cop”, the one with one dark eye-glass, lower right.

I had tested the water with him a few days before, on the evening of December 30th, in a Hangout called the “Victory of Social Justice Warriors.”

Seeing the Jewish sponsored meme that’s been promoted since 2008 - you don’t want any of that social justice warring, do you? - I saw it as occasion to join the conversation, which I do, late in the hangout (2:20:47) having just woken up (I’m in a completely different time zone).

(((Kyle))), comes on and tries to intimidate me with a strawman soliloquy

They had a little test or trap (depending upon how you look at it) waiting for me - three antagonistic, young interlocutors. One Jewish kid named (((Kyle))) was supposed to intimidate me with his brilliance. (((Kyle))) is a rather simple fellow, really, even if he can elaborate extensively on his simple cause - advocating his Jewish people (down with their program against “the left”). He interrupted my flow and straw manned me with soliloquys (he acted like I was “confused” - a typical Jewish canard), to clear up my “confusion” about Cochran, making some big deal about how I supposedly didn’t understand Cochran when he knew nothing about what I know, with my having made a few offhand, half joking remarks not intending any elaboration.

Luke Ford flanked by his good cop/bad cop

Then came a little “good cop /bad cop” pair against me. This Bob guy, goy, a Christian of the “irony bro” ilk (Irony Bro means obnoxious trolling with no pretense of trying to understand what the person you are trolling is trying to say, just bury them). Bob is the one with one dark eye glass - a flaming asshole who was attempting to bludgeon me with antagonism from the get go - “here, take this I.Q. test while you are waiting.” Sure Bob, I’ll do that. “Everything you say comes from 4-Chan” - going to show how he knew nothing about me, whipping out a comment perhaps applicable to Andrew Anglin. I have been to 4-chan briefly two or three times and derive literally none of my ideas from it; but that is the kind of immediate accusation this guy was rendering. He went on to say, “I can understand nothing you say” ...I rejoined that maybe his I.Q. isn’t high enough, idiot. (bad cop)

Salty Sage the “good cop” who tries to tell me that he’s on my side - yeah, right.

At the same time they had this other guy, “Salty Sage”, who claimed to be on my side. I don’t know where his two comments are now; but in the hangout and comments, Salty Sage would “kindly”, condescendingly, ‘re-interpret’ me for the others to understand on “friendly terms”. Then he added in the comments, that my “misdirection” (tries to turn the game around on me, as if I am the one giving misdirection, not Jewry; no, Salty Sage, I am the one diagnosing mis-direction), he tries to suggest that I am the one that is giving misdirection and that he sees it “sympathetically” as stemming from necessary contortions of circumstance..

When I called attention to the fact that Gottfried instigated this marketing campaign against “the left”, another “friend”, Ruston, said that I had a thing against Gottfried, thinks he’s great, and that everyone should read him. Then Salty Sage says he’s on my side (good cop). He groans when I say that Christianity is bullshit, then says he’s on my side (good cop Salty Sage is “on my side”, yeah right).

Anyway, that’s the context of my first hangout with Luke:(2:20:47); I make a few points that I don’t make in my subsequent talk, which is mostly me talking and Luke adding a few rejoinders. I didn’t get to say half of what I’d like to say, but the chat encouraged Luke to use the plausible excuse of my bad delivery to prevent me from subverting their position any further. Listen here: DanielS from Majorityrights talks with Luke on the topic of whether Jews are good for Western Civilization (and Europeans generally); you can listen here or Download the MP3: https://soundcloud.com/luke-ford-666431593/are-jews-good-for-western-civilization - Pinned by Luke Ford.

Brundlefly

Norvin Hobbs

One of Luke‘s frequent guests, “Brundlefly” (Jewish wife, Jeff Goldblum Avitar) tries his best to put the damper on my position in the comments (which I re-post under the fold) and was probably one of those who got Luke to shut down the discussion more quickly than he normally would (Luke typically allows discussions to go on for a couple hours and I had expected to say all I had planned to say, but wasn’t given the time). Brundedlefly starts-off amicably enough, while giving away the fact that he knows nothing about me, given his surprise that I am familiar with Norvin Hobbs.

Brundlefly, 1 day ago (edited): Lmao at this guy knowing about Norvin Hobbs

After some commentators who agree with me that Jewry is NOT good for Western Civilization, things get more antagonistic and I defend myself. Only two people seem to be directly on my side, “Kat Ruby” and “Jewel Citizen”, who seems almost like Soren Renner, but I’m not sure who it is….

ARE JEWS GOOD FOR WESTERN CIVILIZATION?

Iskandar
23 hours ago
No

Mephistopheles Ghost
22 hours ago
No

The Antagonist
23 hours ago
“Are Jews Good For Western Civilization?”. NO!

Sam Browne
22 hours ago
The answer is no….No they’re not.

United States of Post America
21 hours ago
Whites and Blacks have lived together in the South for 400 years.

United States of Post America
21 hours ago
Majority Rights is hard to listen too.

PersistentPatriot
16 hours ago
Are Termites good for log cabins?

Vegtam Returns
12 hours ago
If.by “good” you mean, enabling the mass invasion of Europe by hostile religious fanatics with low IQs then yes - Jews are very good!

gurugeorge
19 hours ago (edited)
Yes and no.  The question is really: are they a net good?  NAJALT, plus many great contributions to civilization have been made by Jews, so the question is whether the harm that’s been done by Jewish bad apples (as canvassed in, say, Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique ) outweighs the benefits brought by their fellows (e.g. the great academics, entrepreneurs, storytellers, technologists, etc.), or vice-versa.

The situation is rather comparable to the situation re. Muslims: survey after survey has found that while of course NAMALT, a worryingly large minority do wish ill on the host culture, or are at least willing to turn a blind eye.  It’s like that with the Jews: some good people who are very, very good, some troublemakers who are very, very bad, and a worryingly large minority who do wish ill on the host culture; so the question is whether the trade-off is worth it.  At the moment, it’s not looking good. 

All this is why wise people in the past always thought of the Jewish Question as a really, really thorny problem.  If you eject Jews from your culture, you risk losing many benefits and becoming something of a backwater; if you don’t eject them, you risk being subverted and having your culture and civilization destroyed from within.

General Patton
23 hours ago
The question can easily be decided by looking at one single issue; immigration.
Jews are, for the most part, open borders lunatics, hell bent on wrecking western nations with massive third world immigration.

Kat Ruby
19 hours ago
After listening from beginning to end, I get the impression that Luke doesn’t like you, Daniel. He uses PC gotcha, ‘you don’t like Jews’ which sets you up in a political correct world as a bad man. But Luke is civilized enough and his perspective as one of Jew’s step-brethren can be enlightening.

Brundlefly
14 hours ago
Kat Ruby probably because Daniel is so devoid of charisma that he felt like his time was being wasted.

Daniel Sienkiewicz
9 hours ago (edited)
@Brundlefly We’ll see if I am “void of charisma” and especially if the content I’m producing is a “waste of time”

99hoolio
20 hours ago
This guy is the anti-KMG. I don’t think I’ve heard a less fluent speaker.

Daniel Sienkiewicz
19 hours ago (edited)
It;s hard even for me to listen to my constant hesitations. It’s a shame because the content is there; but being aware of the frustrating delivery, I’ll be sure to be more fluid in the future.

rollo clevich
16 hours ago
@Daniel Sienkiewicz I now why you delivered a prepared script when you were on Sunic’s VOR show many years ago.

Brundlefly
14 hours ago
Daniel Sienkiewicz you need to raise your energy level bud. Also the bumping microphone is distracting.

Daniel Sienkiewicz
10 hours ago
Raise my energy level? The bumps and hesitance in my presentation were due mostly to a lack of experience in hangouts. I had (and have) energy enough for much more that I need to say. You sound like Donald Trump in your low energy criticism. Don’t worry, he had enough energy level to complete the raison d’etre of his presidency - to undo the Iran Deal for his people.

Brundlefly
10 hours ago (edited)
Daniel Sienkiewicz you speak in a low monotone. You have the charisma of a paper bag. Go back and read the chat to see how the audience reacted to your presentational style.

I went back and listened a second time, and I found your perspective unique and interesting. However, your presentation is so poor that I doubt you’ll get many opportunities to share it.

Daniel Sienkiewicz
9 hours ago
@Brundlefly I listened a second time as well, and didn’t think it was bad the second time around; and I have much more to say. I think your perspective is overly harsh because it is influenced by the fact of your Jewish wife. It is wishfully negative therefore - “the charisma of a paper bag.” I won’t bother looking at the chat because it is full of HASBRA-like trolls,  Christians, etc. They will take as antagonistic a view of me as possible. I may not get many opportunities here to share my view some more if the likes of you and your Jewish friends can help it, but its your loss. I will go elsewhere and they will be better off for it.

Brundlefly
9 hours ago
Daniel Sienkiewicz Lmao keep making excuses for being terrible radio. You pontificate for 25 minutes, Luke speaks for 5 seconds and you’re already cutting him off.

Daniel Sienkiewicz
9 hours ago (edited)
@Brundlefly I didn’t cut him off, he can speak all he wants*. I’m not making excuses. The content is there and there is more to come. I’m sorry for your predicament with your wife, but it’s not my problem. You can try disinformation on the basis of criticizing me and my style, but the content is there, it is informative “radio”, and there is more to come, probably with better style as well. 

*You’re talking about the moment when I didn’t want to be tarred with the singular idea that Jews “are parasites” In fact, I got derailed from saying that they are generally antagonistic as a pattern - a different matter from parasitism and also reason to separate from them.

AJC B
9 hours ago
Daniel Sienkiewicz Pop a couple of Modafinils two hours before the show. Wash them down with a double espresso or two but don’t forget the L-theanine!

Brundlefly
7 hours ago
Daniel Sienkiewicz I have no criticism of your ideas. I already said I thought they were unique and interesting. I’m offering you the constructive criticism that your presentation is bad and you should work on it if you care about influencing others with your ideas.

Regarding your poor interpersonal skills, you kept interrupting every single time Luke broke in.  Apparently, speaking uninterrupted for tens of minutes at a time in a sloth-like cadence isn’t enough for you.

Daniel Sienkiewicz
7 hours ago (edited)
@Brundlefly Thank you. I’m glad that you like my ideas and there are more to be heard. I have heard many intelligent things from you as well. I already readily acknowledged in my very first comment that it was even hard for me to listen (to me) for all the hesitancy in my speech (maybe because I’d “been out on the town” the night before) but whatever would be my excuse, I have already said that I will concentrate on doing better. Regarding my interpersonal skills, ultimately, Luke spoke, said everything that he intended to say and would speak every time he wanted. And that’s is perfectly fine with me.

ovfuckyou
6 hours ago
@Brundlefly “I think your perspective is overly harsh because it is influenced by the fact of your Jewish wife.” LOL

Daniel Sienkiewicz
6 hours ago
@ovfuckyou Yes, I think that motivated some of his harsh criticisms - charisma of a paper bag, snails pace, shit like that.

Brundlefly
1 hour ago
Daniel Sienkiewicz where’s the lie? You can’t refute my observations so you resort to ad hominem.

Daniel Sienkiewicz
36 minutes ago (edited)
@Brundlefly My very first comment was an acknowledgement that the presentation should have been better. I was unaware of how I was coming across with my continually hesitant speech in this, my first hangout. I said I’d be sure to do better in the future. You agreed that the content was there. ..but produced a flurry of comments under this and other comments - making ad hominum attacks ON ME: You were surprised that I knew who Norvin Hobbs was. Which means that you barely know who I am. But then you went on to draw full conclusions about me from this, my fist hangout - that I “have no charisma” - which you added to Kat Ruby’s comment below,; that I have “the charisma of the paper bag”, that you doubted that I’d get more opportunities to present my ideas because of my poor delivery” - I believe these “observations” are heavily influenced by the fact that my views are a threat to Jewish participation in White advocacy - and perhaps those married into Jewry, as you are. Recognizing the threat, the chat was probably encouraging Luke to truncate my message - I had about twenty percent remaining of what I planned to say - important stuff - would have headed off some of the misdirection that Halsey et al. were trying to put across in the subsequent podcast . But I have lots more more to say and don’t need to say it here; if you are going to insist on blocking me based on conclusions that you try to draw about “my lack of charisma” when, in fact, you know little about me. I was being attacked from the onset in my brief entry to the hangout the other day - so, the people here are not exactly rooting form me - and it is to be expected as I am in Jewish territory replete with trolls and trolling that will seize upon anything that they can to limit my message.

Brundlefly
28 minutes ago
Daniel Sienkiewicz I’m not blocking anyone. If you think this audience is hostile to your message, then you don’t understand the audience.

Daniel Sienkiewicz
1 second ago
@Brundlefly I disagree. I do understand the audience and the context.

Jewel Citizen
15 hours ago
There are two words in your title that do not belong in the same sentence let alone next to each other and I’m not referring to ”Western Civilisation”…

READ MORE...

Press image above or here for video, Part 4: If we take a historical perspective of ethnonationalists acting in good faith as opposed to that of the empires that were in control of Europe just prior to the World Wars, we can see that it was imperialism, not nationalism, that in fact spawned these wars. If we want to do justice to the homeostatic systemic correction that ethnonationalism affords against runaway liberal internationalism, we need to take advantage of interactive correctability through a more honest historical frame of reference, to locate where ethnonationalism lost homeostatic correctiive reference and became subject to imperial stasis.

That would mean beginning at least at the point where (Germanic) imperialism became a dominant paradigm in and through (central/eastern) Europe, a period issued in by Frederick The Great - when the Polish ethnostate was dissolved, Germanization imposed by the imperial Austro-Hungarian and German/Prussian partitions, while imperial Russia controlled the rest of it.

As far as ethnostatism goes in fact, Germany remained huge following Versailles, retaining a great deal of what is now western Poland, including Breslau (now Wroclaw) and East Prussia, which is now Kaliningrad and parts just south.

We’ll go into the roots of these ethnonational travails, including mistakes on the Polish side, but not focusing there for now, since that’s what you’ve been hearing in the PC of so called WN, in exaggerated form.

Typically disregarded is the Versailles committee’s valid reasoning for areas granted to Poland and of the Sudetenland retained for Czech by the Treaty of St. Germain.

Historical examination will show that Danzig and the Sudetenland (there in green) form a crucial historical frame of ethnonational borders.

Nazi Germany understood this, as Britain’s Daily Telegraph* wrote in 1939:

“Today we realise the truth of Bismarck’s saying that he who possesses the Bohemian chain dominates Europe.

Are we to realise soon the significance of Frederick the Great’s words, “Who rules over the mouth of the Vistula, rules over Poland better than the King of Poland himself”?

Herr Hitler received a birthday gift of the freedom of Danzig. It remains to be seen whether this will involve Danzig’s receiving the “freedom” of Herr Hitler”

Though historically disputed and shifting in demographics, Danzig was occupied by Germans at that time.

In fact, Danzig is ground zero both in the framrwork of World War II and historically, of German / Polish conflict, and international intervention. It is there we need to begin overcoming shallow and mistaken Hitler apologist talk that he just wanted Danzig back -as if it was simply German and rightfully theirs, given to those stubborn Poles, when if fact Poland was merely given a stake in a Danzig made neutral by Versailles for historical and logistical reasons.

Of course these were mere pesky contentions to Hitler, which would one day be made historically incidental when his Plan East was effectively concluded. For the time being, propaganda was necessary to justify this plan and get it underway.

Thus, with regard to allegations made by the Nazis of Polish abuse of German civilians within the the corridor, we absolutely cannot assume the veracity. Even cursory glance at footage of interwar Danzig does not indicate a beleaguered German population under anything like abject duress - on the contrary, it shows as remarkably comfortable and thriving population, commercial well being despite this being during the throes of world wide economic depression.

Whatever cruelties that did in fact come of Polish nationalism toward Germans did not come in a vacuum, as they were responses to having their people and nation subject to cruel repression under the Teutonic Order and Frederick the Great’s Prussia - anti Polinism and programs of Germanification.

Again, its important to note in the abstract, that for whatever grievances the Germans may have had in regard to the response of Polish nationalists in their newly reformed nation upon Versailles, Hitler and Nazism more than made up for it, through policies such as killing 10 times the number of Poles for any German killed by Polish partitions; and retaliations far worse in the overview of their war policy and practice against Poles and Poland - such as the murdering of Polish civilians in the Warsaw ghetto uprising - in far greater number than civilians were killed in the Dresden fire bombing a year later, speaking of more than making up for grievances.

But before we re-animate a German - Polish conflict, as we are ethnonationalists of good will - before adopting the appearance of being motivated to attribute retroactive guilt then - let us reinvoke principle once again.

One of the main reasons why we are confronted with having to deal with this issue of Nazism, so divisive and stigmatic of Whites, is because of PC guilt-tripping of Whites… and a direct backlash against that guilt tripping ...particularly by those among groups not of a perspective where Nazi Germany was directly antagonistic…

And again, there has been much pandering to counter that guilt tripping in order to gain audience and backing among American Whites in particular.

It is key therefore to invoke this antidote to guilt tripping to underscore first of all, that it is history, nobody alive should be made to suffer and pay with their lives and nationhood.

__________________________

* Correction, I had accidentally said, “Daily Mirror.” This quote is actually from a Daily Telegraph article, 5 May 1939.

Audio of Part 3

Hitler and Nazism were Not White Nationalism, Part 3

Thus we have established a first principle of this discourse, a positive tautology that the World Wars are history, the people of today are not to blame and should not be subject to the collective punishment of losing their peoplehood and corresponding nations.

There is a second principle that we will invoke at this point, one which the internet has provided for in spades, but which White Nationalists have not utilized to anything like its full potential.

That is correctability, the correctability of ideas and understanding through interactive participation, whether through comments or speaking directly to people and engaging correction.

To date, what has been imposed as if correction, has largely been World War II revisionism - which tends to be dishonest excuses and apologetics for Nazi imperialism where not outright recitation of Nazi propaganda that could be falsified rather easily if they cared to do it.

Misrepresentation and omissions of important facts can remain if would-be interlocutors are not of good faith, don’t really want to pursue the truth, though Nazi apologetics usually claim the truth as their mission.

On the other hand, taking interactive correctability for granted and expecting the voices of correction to chime-in has left me susceptible to allow oversights to linger, because many would-be WN, who’ve accepted the rightist identity and its own political correctness will not say “boo” and alert me to oversights, especially when calling attention to these matters will call negative attention and shoot holes in their pro-Hitler/Nazi position.

Graudenz, Kulm, Thorn and Bromberg, a would-be occlusive salient. To the south of those cities, Poznan and Gniezno are the cradle of Polish nationhood.

There is a third and ancillary tautology to be invoked which is that for whatever grievances that either side had of the times, they were more than made up for.

We will apply this as a third tautological principle then, after ‘it’s history and nobody had anything to do with it’, and after correctability, that is, the tautology that for whatever complaints of the time, “they more than made up for it in retaliation.”

We will take a critical perspective on grievances and injustices alleged by the Nazi apologists, such as allegations made against Polish nationals and partisans, since those allegations have tended to go uncorrected within the philoNazistic PC of so called White Nationalism.

But we need to circle back to our second principle at this point, which is interactive correctability and the fact that so called WN has not been acting in good faith to call matters to attention, especially when they would reflect badly on Nazi Germany.

In previous discussions of Hitler’s complaints over where Versailles borders were drawn, I have made the claim that there were really only three cities of significance lost by Germany - Poznan, Bromberg and Thorn and one made neutral, Danzig (made neutral, not Polish, as in something the Poles could unilaterally return to Germany as misinformed Hitler apologists often claim they should have); and there were some village areas in the corridor and near the Versailles established border where Germans were caught in Polish territory, and we must add that there were Poles caught in German territory. But though Danzig was at the time occupied by Germans, it was a historically disputed city and a strategic city for all concerned, thus justifiably deemed neutral by Versailles. Cities to the south of the corridor, such as Poznan, Gniezno and Leszno, should not have been considered anything remotely but Polish.

While it is true that in previous discussions of this issue I had neglected to mention two cities of significance in the Polish corridor which were inhabited by Germans, Graudenz and Kulm , known in Polish as Grudziądz and Chelmno, it does not change the thesis.

First of all, circling to principle three (mis-spoke; it is “principle two”, correctability that is invoked here) again, that the comment section has been open and feedback of good will is expected to correct oversights such as that.

More fundamentally, these cities being under German political jurisdiction would only extend the salient that would be formed by Bromberg and Torun to obstruct and potentially occlude crucial strategic and economic sea access for Poland.

In addition, Graudenz and Klum were formed of brutal Teutonic and Prussian imperialism on cities that were originally Polish.

Finally, it is a history that only provides more examples of the enormous toll that the Nazis took against impositions of Polish patriotism in these areas; invoking principle three, that they more than made up for it.

Thus, it is no wonder that the Hitler redemptionists didn’t particularly care to take me up on my open offer to correct whatever prior oversights of mine…

No, the Hitler redemptionists, in their claim to be after the truth of history, tend to begin history at or about World War I. And of course, Germany was a sheer victim of the rest of the world, from the Schiff’s backing of the Trotskies, to the Balfour Declaration to the Treaty of Versailles.  But really, to do enthnonationalism justice, we need to go further back in history…

Big Brother, the boomer generation, is not watching, is not looking after your interests. He has disingenuously allowed the once more relevant fear of collectivism to be over-extended in his selfish interests at the expense of our group survival - not looking-after, but blocking “Little Brother,” viz., generation Xers corrective concern regarding atomization - the obvious vulnerability and destruction of our individuals and group, systemic survival thereupon.

And now these selfish pigs are aligning with right-wing Jewish interests - either naively or disingenuously - to bypass the ethnonational left corrective of gen-Xers, to instead mainline the parasite’s directives directly for an advanced stage take-over through generation internet bubble - instant experts, ‘knowing-it-all’ thanks to taking Big Brother’s (((directed vigilance))) against “The Left.” ...the YKW don’t want the gentiles to get any grass-roots union organizing ideas now that they have hegemony in all elite niches; they just want right-wingers who disingenuously or naively comply with thwarting those nascent Left Ethnonationalist challenges to them (let alone any coalition building of ethnonationalisms against them).

Little Brother’s Concerns are Not being looked-after.

... that is to say, necessary philosophical corrections of the Gen-Xers are not.

“The attempt to sideline positions such as this as on one side or the other of the “individual vs collective” divide is, itself, a most egregious Cartesian attack.”

The Hermeneuticist doesn’t side track issues by balancing concern for individual and collective (for example), in circulating corrective of Cartesian runaway, in this case of the boomer generations’ emphasis, which is now an over-emphasis on concerns over collectivization - but rather recognizes that the emphasis for our people now has to be more directed toward correcting our atomization as a people resulting from the rupture of ethnonationalist unionization and accountability thereof; which is destroying the very grounds even of what distinct individualism that European species affords.

                               
All American highschoolers of the 50s and 60s were assigned (((Kafka’s))) book, with a sci-fi nightmare culmination in eusocial take-over. They were also assigned Orwell’s 1984 story of the negative utopian horrors of collectivism, to where the YKW had taken accountability, that is to say, accounts requested, beyond all reason (producing the insanity of the Stasi and a Merkel).

It is apparent now, that the parasite is encouraging WN in right-wing reaction against the so called left (against the cartoon exaggerations of their international left as disingenuously lumped with proper White and non-Jewish left ethnonationalism); that right wing reactions that double down in the reaction against YKW abuse of left conceptualization of the social and group, are being encouraged, where not prescribed by them as the parasite merges with the host Whites to drive over the top and to ultimate dissolution those aspects which will not be totally merged and controlled by its Jewish agenda for thorough supremacy over the “gentiles.”

        The WN Right-Wing merges with and then reacts in accordance to the parasite’s directives and drives.

Discourse analysis of David Cole Stein’s (((narrative control))) as promoted through Robert Stark’s kosher forum.

Cole-Stein is going to talk about how the porn-industry is “the last refuge of political incorrectness”, how “unlike the ‘Leftist’ controlled media, it simply and objectively caters to the desires of its ‘fan-base.”

Robert Stark: This-is-Robert-Stark. I am joined here with-uh, David Cole. Uh David, great having you back on the show.

David Cole-Stein: It’s a pleasure to be back, Robert! It really is. I enjoyed our first go-round and I’m looking forward to doing it again.

Robert Stark: And I’m also joined here with my ‘Alt-of-Center’ co-host, ah, Mathew Pegus.

Stark seems to provide/be provided with a different kosher co-host every few shows or so.

Mathew Pegus: Great to be here Robert. Thank you for having me.

David Cole-Stein: Speaking of ‘Alt’, I want to apologize to you, Robert; because I know, a couple months ago in one of my Taki-Mag pieces, I kind-of mischaracterized you in my description of you ...and you were very polite about it, you were very nice about it; but I don’t like when I do that, because, number one, I don’t like to make errors in print, but also I don’t like it when people mischaracterize me or affix labels to me that I don’t want or don’t deserve. So I want to just apologize to get things started here, one on one here: I’m very sorry - I think I called you “Alt-Righty.” ...and uh..

Robert Stark: Or like “Extreme Alt-Right” or “Hard-Core Alt-Right.” ...(chuckles)

David Cole-Stein: Uh, Ok. Yeah, rub it in! Go ahead! That, that, here - here’s a man trying to like, grovel; and you take that salt and you rub-it right in! Yes, I made a grievous error, a grievous error! and I apologize for it.

Robert Stark (chuckles): So uh, lets start with your recent article, “Lessons From My Porn-Girl” ..and just as kind of an overall theme, is how pornography is the one area in our culture where one is allowed to be ah, politically incorrect. So by-basically to start things off, by ‘porn-girl’ you’re referencing this woman that you used to know…

David Cole-Stein: Well, a woman who lived with me. A woman whose porn-name is Kirsten Lee; ah, her real name is Kera. That - I’m not outing anybody, she has, she has outed herself. So this is not me, ah doing anything (coughs) like outing or doxxing. Kera lived with me for almost two years and was pretty much my partner in crime. She was twenty one when I uh, met her and uh…and I, basically, my role in her life was to try to help her out of the porn-biz. It’s a business that has never interested me but it was fascinating during that first year that she and I were together before she got out of it because by the second year she was fully out. You know the, the amazing thing about a porn girl is that once you give them free rent and utilities and food, ah they no longer feel the need to seek money; ah and well, they can just get right out of porn at that point - it’s really a miraculous formula; uh, they, they, once they don’t have any needs or bills to pay or anything like that, well getting out of porn seems pretty simple at that point.

The White Left will emphasize this point of social safety net to help prevent mud-sharkery in the first place.

Robert Stark: So, you-you touch on the theme of how pornography is the one, the one uh, aspect of media where politically incorrect content is uh, not only tolerated but promoted; and garners massive amounts of hit-counts in profits. What was the specific case with her and her ah, politically incorrect attitudes about sexual relations in porn.

Cole-Burner Stain

David Cole-Stein

David Cole-Stein: Well I, um, I was amazed, really quite amazed by the people I mixed with during that first year while she was still knee deep, neck deep in the business. Uh, on racial matters, the kind of stuff that is the most taboo for the rest of us to talk about, on racial matters porn is just insanely honest. I’m not affixing a good or bad label to it, or healthy or unhealthy - just saying its incredibly honest: White girl comes in and White girl says, “I’m not going to blow an N-word”, and uh, and the producers of porn companies are like, ‘great, you don’t do the N-word porn’. Um, Kera, my porn-girl, made most of her money doing interracial stuff, because since she was so young and very thin and kind of pristine for lack of a better word; uh, it was kind of rare to have a White girl like that do interracial because ah, normally it was the older women who put on a few pounds who’d do the interracial; uh, but for a blond girl, blue eyes, twenty one years old and looking like she’s just come right-off the fiords, it was, she made a great-deal of money at that.

Note that Cole-Stein is marking a transition, there was a time when this didn’t happen, or not much among working class women and certainly not much in the public space. It is not a time in memorial truth of societal behavior; and it’s not as if it is a sheer discovered fan base - but he’s normalizing and institutionalizing it as a given fact apart from negotiative components of societal incentive - particularly, money and a Jewish anti-White agenda.

His argument - “a fan base”, as in, “this is what people agentively want” - is up against the involuntary high contrast tropism and need to gauge genetic distance and competition, not a mere expression of a ‘fan base’ catered-to. As a high contrast tropism, it is simply harder to ignore highly contrasting sounds and sights such as interracial; and the genetic call to grapple with the incitement to competition and deal with its vast, destructive genetic distance. It doesn’t necessarily mean this is what people want. Furthermore, there are elective, i.e., not merely catered-to, non-interracial taboos that are very popular also which can serve as an antidote to the destructive effects of this “catered-to” tropism.

David Cole-Stein (continues): But yet in her private life, she would never do interracial. That was the thing that fascinated me most was how she was able to compartmentalize the racial thing. When she’s at work and she gets $8,000 to go down on a black dude, well that’s just work, she just does it. And then when we’re out in club and some black guy tries to hit on her and maybe comment on her porn, and she’ll let loose just a stream of expletives, ah ‘you friggin’ N-word’, ‘you N-word this and N-word that’ (Stark giggles) uh, there’s, huh, in her mind, its just, hey, I’m at work, I’m at work and my work right now is blowin’ a black guy; and then when we’re out at a club later that night - hey, this is my private time, I don’t want to talk to a black guy…so..

It’s at work, ‘it’s ok then’. As with Hannah Arendt, he is shifting an ethnic basis for discrimination to the abstract, individual basis of “public and private.” He is trying to create a distancing effect, ‘this is play’ - to create a distancing effect from the actual participation of the actresses.

David Cole-Stein (continues): But the whole industry was just sort of honest that way. Ah, most of the women, would - including black girls too and the Latino girls - they were just very honest, ‘cuz you can talk about race in porn in a way that you can’t in real life. It’s, I make the point in my article - where else in American society right now can pay-scale be determined by your race? I mean, if any other business, if Amazon were to say, ‘we’re going to be paying uh, White programmers more than uh, Asian ones’, well of course it would be a huge thing and I’m not advocating that at all. But in porn, White girls who are willing to do black guys make more; uh, White girls who only want to do other White girls make the least. Because that’s, that’s, hell, any White girl will kiss another White girl these days, that’s ...in my day that was barely titillating and I think everyone kind of does that now.

So.. and then the Mexican dudes, there were some Arab dudes - and they get paid different based on race ..eh that doesn’t happen anywhere else. I mean, its kind of astounding when I was looking at it. I spent years writing about racial politics and racial law and discrimination laws. And I’m like, wow, this, this is the wild-west, this is a part of the entertainment industry - and a profitable one - that has yet to be touched by that Leftist hand of politically correct social justice bullshit.

READ MORE...

In his defense of group evolutionary strategy, KM has done better in articulating the biological aspect of out-marriage as part of the group systemic strategy - both in infiltrating and weakening other group’s cohesion. Jewish group evolutionary strategy uses both top down directives and (prescriptive) rule structures, and bottom up biological patterns and (descriptive) rule structures.

The Jewish group evolutionary system/strategy is characteristically that Cohen’s give Zionist and/or ultra loyalist directives and Ashkenazi (especially Ashkenazi) are more free and prone to out-breed, infiltrate, liberalize, weaken opposing groups in their evangelizing as “light unto the gentiles.”

According to Jewish convert, Luke Ford, Cofnas has presented the first serious challenge against Kevin MacDonald’s work, “so effective as to call its validity into question entirely.”

One does not have to have but a passing acquaintance with MacDonald’s work and his concern to know that to call its validity into question entirely or even in large part, simply is not possible. Nor do they have to look beyond the absurdity of Ford’s claim that Cofnas does such “irreparable damage” to MacDonald’s efforts to see immediately that Ford’s pro-Jewish bias is over-the-top; and examples cited of Nathan Cofnas’s supposedly detached analysis, indicate rather clearly a heavy pro-Jewish bias, motivated and prone to crude straw manning of MacDonald’s work.

Anyway, this is the first public defense by MacDonald of this “first serious academic critique of ‘The Culture of Critique.”

Me ne frego - episode 22, with Kevin MacDonald

Professor Kevin MacDonald joins the show to discuss Nathan Cofnas’s recent paper, ‘Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy: A Critical Analysis of Kevin MacDonald’s Theory’, which is the first ever academic attempt to refute Professor MacDonald’s theory as presented in his 1998 book, The Culture of Critique. The first 45 minutes are in English; after the music break we wrap it up in Swedish.

READ MORE...

Jews want to be able to blame Poles/Poland for the holocaust, and if Poles/Poland won’t go along with it, the USA should suspend relations with Poland. LOL.