Apr 21, 2015

American Renaissance Conference 2015: The Great Debate Goes on

via Counter-Currents

RamZPaul
The 2015 American Renaissance Conference, April 17-19, had a healthy turnout of nearly 200 attendees, making it AmRen’s biggest confab since 2008. As it has for the past few years, AmRen held it at an inn/conference center in a Tennessee state park an hour’s drive west of Nashville.

The conference/banquet room was vast (actually it was three regular meeting rooms combined into one via slide-away partitions), but still looked near capacity. As the inn’s guest rooms were booked solid four weeks in advance, one imagines that another two dozen people (at least) might have registered if there were another hotel nearby (there isn’t). Banquet speaker Paul “RamZPaul” Ramsey recently remarked on his webpage that if the event gets any bigger it’s going to need a new venue.

One reason for the conference’s success may be RamZPaul himself, whose easygoing brand of satire has been a popular mainstay of the event since 2013. His latest performance, “The Red Pill”—a slide-talk comparing media fantasies about race with the mundane realities—was arguably the most novel and incisive presentation of the whole weekend.[1] And surely the most entertaining.

Another crucial factor in the conferences’ continued success would have to be this location at Montgomery Bell State Park. In 2010 and 2011 the AmRen meetings were called off at the last minute because the host hotels (in the DC area and in Charlotte NC) were harassed and threatened by left-wing protestors to the point that the hotels unilaterally cancelled the booking contracts. Montgomery Bell is a state facility and, at least in theory, cannot deny access to a legal, paying conference, or yield to threats from a pressure group. Even better, it’s off the beaten track, poorly mapped (even on Google Maps), and seriously patrolled by big park guards in tan shirts and olive campaign hats. Thus it’s remote, obscure and secure enough to discourage all but the most determined mischief-makers.

Protestors at AmRen 2015
Protestors at AmRen 2015
Saturday afternoon a sad crowd of about 16 showed up by the parking lot, mainly carefree beatnik types toting crudely lettered signs: e.g., RACISTS ARE BUTTHEADS, HATE OUT OF OUR STATE, and the ever-lovin’ BLACK LIVES MATTER. Curiously there was only one non-Caucasian in the group, an amply proportioned African-American whom an AmRen attendee identified as Daryle Lamont Jenkins of One People’s Project. A half-hour into this listless demonstration, Jenkins (if it was he) suddenly announced that he needed to use the restroom. Thereupon two equally burly parkies marched him, side-by-side, into the indoor facilities.

If this year’s conference had a single marquée event, it was “The Great Debate,” held late Saturday afternoon (April 18). A scrum-style quickie disputation, this featured Peter Brimelow, John Derbyshire, Sam Dickson, and Richard Spencer, all scrunched together at the podium; while Jared Taylor hovered behind as moderator. Question under review was, approximately, “Is the race problem something we can resolve through the political system?”

Arguing for the affirmative were Brimelow and Derbyshire, with Dickson and Spencer saying the democratic system as we’ve come to know it is all washed up. At the end of all the debate presentations and 2-minute rebuttals, the audience was invited to vote. By a small margin, Dickson and Spencer carried the day. Without taking it overly seriously, we could take this as a snapshot of attendee sentiments. No more working within the system; we need a new system.[2]

Now here’s a thumb-sucker. Is there any significance to the fact that the two Yeas on stage were both transplants from the north of England, while the Nays were both American, with at least one of them, Sam Dickson, a notably unreconstructed Southerner? (So unreconstructed that Sam refers to the Stars and Stripes with the delightful formulation, the Yankees’ flag!)

I think there is. It’s not about British vs. American outlook, it’s rather a difference in variety and sum total of experience that the men have witnessed. John Derbyshire, and to an only slightly lesser extent Peter Brimelow, have been witness to, and sometimes victims of, the furious onrush of change in the past half-century—changes in the political economy, in popular culture, and of course technologies. They’ve both lived in at least three different countries and their careers have had rather unlikely, disjointed plot-points. Like Wilkins Micawber they know that something will turn up because past history has shown that—well, Copperfield . . . something always does!

Sam Dickson and Richard Spencer, conversely, see recent history as a kind of unstoppable, straight-line decline, an ever-expanding universe of entropy and Progressivistic barbarism. Tomorrow will be just like today, only worse.

I’m going to start with John Derbyshire’s points, because I had been talking about some of these with him at dinner the night before. Derb has an absolutely Burkean horror of real revolution. Of course like Edmund Burke he does not count the American Revolution as a true revolution; revolution here must mean something along the lines of the French or Bolshie model. (A bourgeois revolution is what the Red Chinese used to call the American War of Independence, Derbyshire likes to remind us.) Working within a stable, if decaying, structure is always preferable to blowing it up, because once you’ve blown it up and lost its protection, there’s a pretty good chance that whoever takes over is not going to be the good guys.[3]

In the debate presentation, Derbyshire gave six key points why we should not give up on the system. I won’t list them all, but the common thread for most was that culture (including technology) moves very quickly and drags politics in its wake. In 1800s England, the Regency era of dissipation and licentiousness was followed a generation later by the upright, stolid Victorians. The two-party system is likely on its last legs now, because the race problem has effectively destroyed the traditional fig-leaf of consensus that sustained it. And then—a bit Strangeloveian but very sexy—you have the likely cultural impact of genomic technology. We’re talking about selecting good genes and deep-sixing the bad ones. Designer babies could have a quantum effect on society and completely overturn the race debate, stating the message loud and clear that babies come in widely varying degrees of quality.

Peter Brimelow’s points were generalized but ran along the same nothing’s-set-in-stone line of argument. He believes that democracies change course, though in his presentation and rebuttals he was a little light on examples, beyond the Reagan Revolution and the effect of Star Wars in bringing down the Evil Empire. (Good examples, actually, but they don’t have much heft for anyone with a working memory shorter than 35 years; and at least a quarter of our attendees were under 30.)

The winning Nays, Sam Dickson and Richard Spencer, were quite adamant in insisting that our current political system is not only ailing and corrupt, it is fundamentally wrongheaded and evil. Dickson is fond of a quotation he attributes to Kaiser Franz Josef, “Democracy expects extraordinary things of ordinary people,” and thus is designed to fail. Democracy has never done anything positive, he argued; “a democratic system is not capable of long-term systematic change,” and “it’s a snare and a delusion and a distraction” to pretend otherwise. Spencer derided thoughts of reform in our political system as “nipping ’round the edges,” a waste of time for us. “Where are we going to put our limited means and resources?” The nonwhite-births tipping-point of 2011, said Spencer, “should have been a clarion call.”

Obviously Spencer and Dickson won the debate because they threw red meat, while the Englishmen by comparison looked like a couple of hesitant fuddy-duddies. (“Wait and see,” said Mr. Asquith.) But neither side challenged the implicit assumption that “working within the political system” means accepting the wretched voting laws and customs of recent years. Nobody suggested changing voting requirements—perhaps raising the voting age to 30, and limiting the franchise to children of native-born citizens, or maybe disestablishing/repealing the Fourteenth Amendment. This struck me as an egregious oversight.

There once was a time, in the early 1930s, when no one thought Prohibition could ever be repealed. No Constitutional Amendment had ever been repealed. The best the anti-Prohibitionists could hope for, they thought, was slowly defanging the Volstead Act, the law that required enforcement of the Eighteenth Amendment. Perhaps, the Wets thought, they could nip ’round the edges, and remove beer and wine from the Volstead definition of “intoxicating liquors”. . . Then suddenly, almost overnight, the wheels all came off the Prohibition wagon, and by the end of 1933 the Eighteenth Amendment was dead. And this didn’t happen because of widespread outrage, or a pullulating herd of grass-roots voters going moo. It happened because there was one well-born, well-dressed society lady named Pauline Morton Sabin who dedicated herself to ridding the country of a ridiculous, shameful law.[4]

The point here is that these things do happen. Laws and paradigms can change very rapidly “within the system,” and the Fourteenth Amendment (for example) could well go the same way. It is too bad that these opportunities were never discussed. Maybe that’s the downside of having two Englishmen debate the Affirmative.

Individual speakers at the conference were a mixed bag. Matthew Tait, formerly of the BNP, spoke of the unfortunate collapse of that party, due to the dominance and controversiality of Nick Griffin; and the practical difficulties Tait has encountered in building political movements (“Tragedy and Hope: Lessons Learned from the Plight of British Nationalism”). Notably there is a lack of basic commitment to the cause among nationalists; instead of building a separate culture with separate values, they continue to live “the comfortable liberal lifestyle.”

Richard Spencer’s talk, “Why Do They Hate Us?” spoke of the widespread, generalized white guilt that is our greatest and most persistent enemy. The they in the title really means other whites.

Peter Brimelow’s presentation was “Immigration—Is This the Breaking Point?” He reviewed his personal and public history since publishing Alien Nation 20 years ago, but really left the question in his title unanswered.

The Latvian nationalist Konstantins Pupurs talked on “Nationalist Movements in the Baltic Republics.” Here was another interesting personal history; he was evicted from Latvia as a young man, as a troublemaker at university, per personal order of Gorbachev. (Amusingly, he later served Gorby as translator when the latter was in Boston on a visit.) Unfortunately the speaker seemed somewhat spooked and disorganized; he ran over his allotted time and there was no chance for questions.

Jared Taylor moved across familiar ground in “What’s Wrong with the Country?,” describing a collective “mental blind spot” that could be addressed with a simple four syllables: Race and IQ. “These four syllables solve mysteries . . . The problem is racial differences, not racism.”

The next day (Sunday, April 19) Taylor gave a touching, somewhat tearful tribute to the late and much-missed Sam Francis, who died ten years ago and was a stalwart of the AmRen conferences for their first decade. There were videotapes of Sam speaking from 1994 onward. (A syndicated columnist and editor of the Washington Times, Sam Francis in fact may have been one of the first people to suffer a career meltdown because of his appearances at AmRen.) Sam Dickson told a number of sprightly anecdotes that painted Mr. Francis at once as brilliant, infuriating, lovable, and repellently gruff.

Dickson then finished up with the conference’s final lecture (“A Benediction for Heretics”), a real stem-winding evisceration of the “freedom” racket that derives from the so-called Whig Theory of History. There is an “Ideology of Freedom” that has come to be used as the explanatory thread throughout all history, and this has led, visibly and inevitably, to the breakdown of society, said Dickson. “We have all these freedoms created that didn’t exist when we were children . . . [The Freedom Ideology] ultimately leads to the atomization of people, it isolates the individual, takes the chicken out of the flock…” Right now, Dickson said, “We are at a turning point in history . . . we can go down in the sludge of the Third World—or we can move to the heights . . . Above all else, we have truth on our side.”

Notes

1. Directly after this speech a well-meaning bartender poured your correspondent a full tumbler of Absolut, the immediate consumption of which vaporized any coherent memory she had of the presentation. But the nonlinearity of a RamZPaul monologue tends to defy description anyway.
2. Because three of the parties present—Taylor, Brimelow, Spencer—had talked on similar topics at the NPI mini-convention at the National Press Club on February 27, your correspondent had some sense of deja-vu.
3. This remark about blowing things up is my just own extrapolation, not Derbyshire’s. I recall a somewhat similar line in A Man for All Seasons.
4. There’s a good treatment of Pauline Sabin in Daniel Okrent’s Last Call (2010), a popular history of Prohibition.

Exploiting People's Fears

via Alternative Right

The latest stand-up UK election debate
(sans Cameron and Clegg)
While stand-up comedians try to "slay" the audience, stand-up politicians have a different target, namely their opponents. "Stand-up politicians," by the way, are just normal politicians coached and brought into the TV studios to participate in stand up debates against their opponents.
The dream is to achieve a knock-out blow that will be replayed over-and-over in subsequent days, by looking one's opponent in the eyes, pausing, then, when everybody is listening, dropping a bombshell on him or her; like Lloyd Bentsen's famous "You're no Jack Kennedy" line, delivered in the 1988 Vice-Presidential debate to a hapless Dan Quayle, who had been nurturing sub-Kennedyesque posturings for some time.
That moment defined Quayle's career until he had a spot of trouble with his spelling a few years later. It is also the only reason that anybody ever remembers Bentsen, who was clearly no Jack Kennedy himself.
One of the joys of watching political debates on TV is to see politicians self-consciously strive for that moment – almost always carefully prepared and rehearsed beforehand – before more often than not mistiming their delivery or fluffing the lines.
In the latest UK election debate – held oddly enough between the leaders of the five main non-government parties (Labour, UKIP, SNP, Plaid Cymru, and the Greens) – we had a moment just like this, when the Labour leader Ed Milliband turned to deliver what he obviously hoped would be a political stake through Nigel Farage's "evil racist heart."
In the previous debate, which also included David Cameron and Nick Clegg of the two parties in the governing coalition, Farage had drawn the ire of the Neo-Marxists who make up the political class in the UK by daring to question the right of AIDs patients from oversees to fly into Britain and freeload on Britain's National Health Service.
When Farage once more mentioned the popular viewpoint that the National Health Service should actually be "national" instead of "international," Milliband got his cue and immediately went for his carefully rehearsed lines with the alacrity of a gunfighter reaching for his pistol. You could almost hear the cogs and gears turning in his head as he modulated his voice and adjusted his posture to sound ever so reasonable and even mildly sympathetic to Farage: 
"Here's the problem I have with you, Nigel. You want to exploit people's fears rather than deal with them."
He then followed up with a string of coded attempts to evoke the image of Farage as a "racist" fear-monger, while oddly staying on first-name terms with him. The irony here is that nothing quite creates the same degree of fear in people today as the merest whiff, hint, and suggestion that one is a "racist."
The real exploiters of fear, therefore, are those skilled at bandying about the R-word and all its many derivatives. This includes Milliband, a man who leads a party that actually oversaw and connived at industrial levels of inter-racial child rape in his party's electoral heartland against its traditional supporters, the White working class, yet who remains poised on the brink of government.
This explains his comment "I don't think we should just dismiss people's concerns as prejudice" and his references to Labour's "hard thinking." These were to serve as a shield against any counter-attack by Farage, who, if he had been more on his toes, could have turned things round by talking about the very real fear that ordinary British people feel whenever the subject of immigration or preserving their country comes up. But Farage is just as much hamstrung by the fear of being seen as "racist" as anyone else, if not more so.
While Farage skillfully plays to the sentiments of those who fear losing their country to mass immigration, UKIP is not actually an anti-immigration party – it can't afford to be. That would paint it as too racist. So, to compensate for its anti-Europeanism and its desire to reduce immigration from the Eurozone, it has to state that it is in favour of more immigration from the former colonies of the Commonwealth. It also has to make a show of fast-tracking any ethnic members it has to prominent positions. Anything to stop the horrible, nasty taunts of "racist," "fascist," "Little Englander," etc.
While most British people fear mass immigration, these fears are not the ones being exploited. If they were, somebody like Farage or even Nick Griffin would now be PM, as the majority have always been against race replacement, the lowering of wages, and the overburdening of social services.
Around 15% of voters intend to vote for "Nazi scum."
Perhaps the only thing comparable to this climate of fear would have been to be called a witch in the 17th-century. The R-word evokes a visceral terror that makes people's palms sweat, their throats dry, and their legs go weak at the knees (now it becomes apparent why these debates are held standing up!).
It is a fear of social ostracism and losing one's job, of just generally being thought of as a "nasty piece of work." It is this fear, inculcated into the people of Britain, that has been exploited again and again by unscrupulous politicians like Milliband, bent on importing an additional electorate, lowering wages, and crowding Britain to maintain property prices. It this fear that drove the BNP into the political wasteland, and it is this fear that leads UKIP to water down its policies and rig its candidate lists in a forlorn attempt to counter the inevitable accusations.
Fake asylum seekers and non-Whites seeking undeserved placement, preference, and legalistic leniency have also jumped on this bandwagon of fear. But worst of all, it has been exploited by the Muslim pedophile rape gangs and their enablers in the police and social services in towns like Rotherham. It is the exploitation of this fear that has allowed the mass rape of English children on an industrial scale for decades, and which ensures that those responsible, like the leadership of the Labour Party, can still pass beneath lamp posts instead of swinging from them.

Israel Pushes to Have 'Anti-Semitism' Made an International Crime

via The Realist Report

Earlier this year, at the behest of the Jewish state of Israel, the organized international Jewish community, and traitorous politicians working for the Jews in the West, the United Nations held an informal plenary session on the alleged "rising tide of anti-Semitism" around the world.

Of course, all respectable mainstream politicians, journalists, and public policy makers agreed that "anti-Semitism" must not be tolerated anywhere in the world, that it should be immediately condemned, and that "anti-Semites" should be ostracized, shunned, and even criminally prosecuted for "hate crimes" and "anti-Semitic speech."

However, some political commentators and international bureaucrats went a step further. They argued that "anti-Semitism" must be confronted and legislated against at the international level, with the German and French representatives openly calling for "a new legal framework at the European Union and internationally to address the diffusion of racist and anti-Semitic speeches and material," The Times of Israel reported.

The tireless efforts of organized international Jewry and the Jewish state of Israel to have "anti-Semitism" acknowledged globally as a "thought crime" are once again making headlines. The Algemeiner, an online Jewish news outlet, recently reported:

Attorney Alan Baker, Israel’s former ambassador to Canada and a legal adviser to the Foreign Ministry wants antisemitism to be treated as an international crime. In a new Israeli initiative, Baker is proposing that international courts be used to combat global hate crimes against Jews.

Baker has drafted an international convention calling on the “Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Antisemitism.” The Convention, which is drafted in the manner of classical international anti-terrorism treaties and those for other crimes, will allow countries to cooperate and exchange information with others, in order to extradite those suspected of acts that meet the definition of antisemitism, Israel’s NRG reported in Wednesday.

“We need to set down clear rules on what constitutes antisemitism and to set up international codes to prevent it. We expect that the initiative will be thoroughly discussed among all entities and countries that are engaging antisemitism on a global scale,” said Baker.

Explaining the need for the Convention, Baker noted that, “everyone knows to condemn antisemitism, but they are not doing what is necessary in order to fight against it on an international legal level.” He added that, “on the other hand, international courts invite people from around the world to account for various crimes. We think that this is precisely the place to also work decisively and unambiguously against antisemitism.”

The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, where Mr. Baker is now a fellow, intends to release a draft of the Convention, during a series of conferences at the United Nations, to other international organizations, international capitals, and among Jewish communities and organizations around the world.

This will be done in order to encourage countries to support the initiative and to submit a draft of the Convention to the appropriate UN organizations, in order to obtain international approval of the Convention.

Baker said that, “if the world really wants to work against this terrible phenomenon, the time has come to line up behind the measures that are necessary to be employed against it.”
Think about the severity of these recent developments folks: the Jews are pushing to have "anti-Semitism" (i.e., stating basic facts about the subversive, criminal nature of organized Jewry and the Jewish state of Israel) internationally recognized as a crime. If the Jews get their way, "anti-Semites" will literally be arrested and extradited to stand trial at an "international court of justice." If this isn't the epitome of total Jewish tyranny implemented on an international scale, I don't know what is.

And consider what the Jews did during the Bolshevik revolution almost as soon as they took over. They criminalized "anti-Semitism" and made it an offense punishable by death.

"As an expression of its radically anti-nationalist character, the fledgling Soviet government issued a decree a few months after taking power that made anti-Semitism a crime in Russia," Mark Weber explains in his excellent treatise detailing the Jewish role in the Bolshevik revolution and subsequent Communist regime. "The new Communist regime thus became the first in the world to severely punish all expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment."

If you dared to criticize or expose Jewish criminality and treachery in the Soviet Union, particularly during and immediately after the Jewish engineered Bolshevik revolution, you'd be imprisoned, tortured, and/or murdered, oftentimes in the most depraved fashion. That's exactly what the Jews are aiming to implement in the 21st century, only on a global scale.

White Independent Nation, Episode 49: Why Nationalism Fails

via John Londen

Podcast No. 49 from White Independent Nation (Part 2)

2015 AmRen Roundup

via TradYouth

I have no idea what the final numbers were, but from all appearances, AmRen appears to be close to outgrowing the venue, a venue which is by all accounts the best conference venue in the circuit. I rode the city bus to my first American Renaissance conference in 2008 in the suburbs of DC, and was the only white guy on the entire bus. Even Spencer’s NPI conference in the Reagan Building in downtown DC, as accommodating and secure as it is, involves the very real risk of being confronted with whimpering faggots and angry blacks when one steps out of the security perimeter to enjoy a smoke between speeches.

Perhaps Jared Taylor will manage to fail upwards yet again when the professional anti-whites find a way to run us out of the state-run venue, but given the picturesque lake view, romantic catwalk stepping out over the lake, dense virgin forest, humble rural Tennessee charm, and over-abundant deer population scurrying about, I really don’t see how. Had it not been for Matt Forney drunkenly shouting “Deer!” each and every time one neared the road, I might have run one down with Matthew Heimbach’s car on the way back from the honky-tonk.

The first thing most folks generally ask about with these events tends to be the opposition presence. Uncomfortably perhaps for both sides, the AmRen attendees were more racially diverse than the anti-white protesters, most of whom Daryl had apparently plucked at random out of bean bag chairs in Nashville’s community college dorm rooms. The first protester to show up a couple hours before the rest carried a poorly crafted sign declaring that, “Racists are Buttheads!”

No. You, sir, are a butthead. The rest of the signs were almost as bad, though none of them were as awful as the one from my previous conference which celebrated the horrific bombing of Dresden. I suppose Daryl’s made some progress with message control, though it’s an uphill battle when his minions are comprised of drug-addled…buttheads…who are only dimly aware of what they’re protesting or why. We attempted to sit down with DLJ for a quiet and gentlemanly discussion and debate which the state troopers chose to disband. All was civil on all sides, and the troopers were imminently professional and courteous with all sides (if disturbingly omnipresent).

Following His Leader
Following His Leader
Daryl is, of course, welcome and invited to continue the conversation about race with us elsewhere, if he chooses.
All in all, big picture, it can’t really be disputed that American Renaissance is growing in size and gaining in momentum while the opposition is losing heart and focus with each passing year that they’re goaded to waste a perfectly good spring day achieving nothing but showcasing themselves as objects of ridicule for both the attendees and locals alike.

Sam Dickson’s well-stocked villa featured a who’s who of celebrities in our circles, including Bulbasaur and Michael Enoch of The Right Stuff‘s very popular Daily Shoah podcast. I’m not quite sure how he manages the logistical feat, given the hundreds in attendance; but it seems that every year just about everybody I’ve spoken with who attends gets to enjoy some brief face-time with Jared himself. The Derb intimidated me multiple times with his classical education, razor-sharp wit, and stuffy accent.

Matt Forney brought a fellow Return of Kings writer with him, and the two managed to concisely demonstrate a “Goofus and Gallant” contrast of the positives and negatives of the Manosphere movement in general. Forney thoughtfully argued his anti-feminist and male-empowering positions until he was too drunk to thoughtfully argue. Meanwhile, his fellow attendee boorishly irritated both male and female attendees alike until he was too drunk to contain his frustration about women and pushed one of the local girls at the nearby bar.

Here I was at the bar vigilantly watching Heimbach to ensure that he wouldn’t make an ass of himself when I felt pushed by a nearby scuffle and saw the short, balding, swarthy guy being physically thrown, black-and-white Western-style, out of the bar. I ran outside and then ran to go stop him from running down the pitch black country road into the night. We kept him off of the property and got him back to the conference safely, then spent the next hour or so effusively apologizing for him, buying the girls drinks right and left, and promising the locals we would avenge their girl in short order.

I briefly considered leading the guy back to the bar to be served what he ordered up while he was sitting there in the grass explaining how the girl was fat and had no right to reject his advances, but I thought better of it when I realized how, since the guy’s (arguably) not exactly white, I would be facilitating the single most bizarre “hate crime” incident in Tennessee’s history. Reportedly, Forney privately handled the situation, which I trust he did, and by all accounts from the locals, the ladies, and my fellow attendees, the matter is now resolved.

The kid’s still young enough to steer himself right. He’s bright. He’s red-pilled. And he’s quite salient on matters not relating to gender issues. I look forward to him having a change of heart, coming to an agreement on matters of basic chivalry, and being welcomed back next year. And that’s kind of my opinion on a lot of the manosphere in general. They’re on the right path in many ways, and they’re correct about more than they’re incorrect about. But they’re missing a critical sense of stewardship and chivalry which the informed gentleman keeps in one pocket while he keeps a keen awareness of the harsh realities of gender politics and the nature of the sexes in his other pocket.

There are some reports that the locals goaded me, Scott Terry, and Matthew Heimbach to sing karaoke the following evening. These allegations are false.

To pick a winner among the speeches would be tough, but I land on Matt Tait’s speech. While RamZPaul blew him and everybody else out of the water with his hilarious and informative presentation, Tait wins in my book because he not only argued for a more neo-tribalist approach to building our strength and numbers but actually managed to demonstrate via video a proof-of-concept of this theory in practice with his British nationalist martial arts studio. He noted in his speech that we can brag all we want to about how awesome whites have been historically, but it’s all for naught if we don’t figure out how to rediscover our vitality and will and deliver that here and now.

There was a panel on whether or not white interests (defined very narrowly) can be achieved through the mainstream political process. While both Sam Dickson and Richard Spencer very intelligently argued the politically pessimistic position, they were up against the positively brilliant John Derbyshire and Peter Brimelow. The fact the Dickson and Spencer were capable of handily defeating the Derb and Brimelow is, in my mind, the final word on the matter. If the Derb can’t manage to convincingly hold the position, despite a vigorous effort, then the position is lost.

Brimelow’s standalone speech was frustrating, as it drove home just how convinced he is that some way, some how, he believes that the American public is going to “wake up” on the immigration issue in time to turn things around for the country as a whole. It’s more than a bit ironic, in this twilight of the United States of America, that the last two men of vision and substance in all of Western Civilization who still hold out hope for America are Englishmen, born and raised in the land we fought to achieve our squandered freedom from.

I missed out on the requiem for Sam Francis which occurred on Sunday morning due to scheduling conflicts, so I’ll note my respect for the man and his contributions and sacrifices for our cause here. He played a pivotal role in my early intellectual development way back into my teens. I never got to meet the man, as he passed away shortly before I became nationally active, but his positive impact on our struggle reverberates into the present and will echo on for generations to come.

Kagan and Nuland, Washington’s Warmongering Jewish Supremacist Power Couple

via DavidDuke.com

The following is an excellent expose of the treacherous and warmongering activities of Washington power Zio couple, Robert Kagan and Victoria Nuland. You will finish the article wondering how on earth Victoria Nuland remains in such an important position in the Obama administration, given her particular set of loyalties.

The only flaw with the article is that it states that Kagan and Nuland are henchmen for the arms industry, which Parry implies runs American foreign policy. The fact is that Kagan and Nuland are part of the leadership of the Jewish elite, and it is the Jewish elite that runs the country. Defense contractors don’t supply the bulk of presidential campaign financing. Arms industry executives haven’t supplied all the leaders of the Fed for the past three decades. They don’t own four out of the five biggest media conglomerates. They don’t occupy three of the nine Supreme Court seats. They don’t fill the top universities with so many of their children that European Americans get squeezed out.

No, Kagan and Nuland do not have fleeting loyalties that they sell to the highest bidder. Their loyalties are not for sale, and they are not to the United States, either. They have tribal loyalties to the Jewish people, and they operate in what they see as being in the best interest of their tribe.

A Family Business of Perpetual War
Published 24-03-2015, 06:45
Robert Parry

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq

Exclusive: Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan have a great mom-and-pop business going. From the State Department, she generates wars and – from op-ed pages – he demands Congress buy more weapons. There’s a pay-off, too, as grateful military contractors kick in money to think tanks where other Kagans work, writes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry

Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, run a remarkable family business: she has sparked a hot war in Ukraine and helped launch Cold War II with Russia – and he steps in to demand that Congress jack up military spending so America can meet these new security threats.

This extraordinary husband-and-wife duo makes quite a one-two punch for the Military-Industrial Complex, an inside-outside team that creates the need for more military spending, applies political pressure to ensure higher appropriations, and watches as thankful weapons manufacturers lavish grants on like-minded hawkish Washington think tanks.

Prominent neocon intellectual Robert Kagan. (Photo credit: Mariusz Kubik, http://www.mariuszkubik.pl)
Prominent neocon 'intellectual'
Robert Kagan
Not only does the broader community of neoconservatives stand to benefit but so do other members of the Kagan clan, including Robert’s brother Frederick at the American Enterprise Institute and his wife Kimberly, who runs her own shop called the Institute for the Study of War.

Robert Kagan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution (which doesn’t disclose details on its funders), used his prized perch on the Washington Post’s op-ed page on Friday to bait Republicans into abandoning the sequester caps limiting the Pentagon’s budget, which he calculated at about $523 billion (apparently not counting extra war spending). Kagan called on the GOP legislators to add at least $38 billion and preferably more like $54 billion to $117 billion:

“The fact that [advocates for more spending] face a steep uphill battle to get even that lower number passed by a Republican-controlled Congress says a lot — about Republican hypocrisy. Republicans may be full-throated in denouncing [President Barack] Obama for weakening the nation’s security, yet when it comes to paying for the foreign policy that all their tough rhetoric implies, too many of them are nowhere to be found. …

“The editorial writers and columnists who have been beating up Obama and cheering the Republicans need to tell those Republicans, and their own readers, that national security costs money and that letters and speeches are worse than meaningless without it. …

“It will annoy the part of the Republican base that wants to see the government shrink, loves the sequester and doesn’t care what it does to defense. But leadership occasionally means telling people what they don’t want to hear. Those who propose to lead the United States in the coming years, Republicans and Democrats, need to show what kind of political courage they have, right now, when the crucial budget decisions are being made.”

So, the way to show “courage” – in Kagan’s view – is to ladle ever more billions into the Military-Industrial Complex, thus putting money where the Republican mouths are regarding the need to “defend Ukraine” and resist “a bad nuclear deal with Iran.”

Yet, if it weren’t for Nuland’s efforts as Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, the Ukraine crisis might not exist. A neocon holdover who advised Vice President Dick Cheney, Nuland gained promotions under former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and received backing, too, from current Secretary of State John Kerry.

Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, speaking to Ukrainian and other business leaders at the National Press Club in Washington on Dec. 13, 2013, at a meeting sponsored by Chevron.
Victoria Nuland, speaking to
Ukrainian and other business leaders
at the National Press Club
Confirmed to her present job in September 2013, Nuland soon undertook an extraordinary effort to promote “regime change” in Ukraine. She personally urged on business leaders and political activists to challenge elected President Viktor Yanukovych. She reminded corporate executives that the United States had invested $5 billion in their “European aspirations,” and she literally passed out cookies to anti-government protesters in Kiev’s Maidan square.

Working with other key neocons, including National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman and Sen. John McCain, Nuland made clear that the United States would back a “regime change” against Yanukovych, which grew more likely as neo-Nazi and other right-wing militias poured into Kiev from western Ukraine.

In early February 2014, Nuland discussed U.S.-desired changes with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt (himself a veteran of a “regime change” operation at the International Atomic Energy Agency, helping to install U.S. yes man Yukiya Amano as the director-general in 2009).

Nuland treated her proposed new line-up of Ukrainian officials as if she were trading baseball cards, casting aside some while valuing others. “Yats is the guy,” she said of her favorite Arseniy Yatsenyuk.

Disparaging the less aggressive European Union, she uttered “Fuck the EU” – and brainstormed how she would “glue this thing” as Pyatt pondered how to “mid-wife this thing.” Their unsecure phone call was intercepted and leaked.

Ukraine’s ‘Regime Change’

The coup against Yanukovych played out on Feb. 22, 2014, as the neo-Nazi militias and other violent extremists overran government buildings forcing the president and other officials to flee for their lives. Nuland’s State Department quickly declared the new regime “legitimate” and Yatsenyuk took over as prime minister.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, who had been presiding over the Winter Olympics at Sochi, was caught off-guard by the coup next door and held a crisis session to determine how to protect ethnic Russians and a Russian naval base in Crimea, leading to Crimea’s secession from Ukraine and annexation by Russia a year ago.

Though there was no evidence that Putin had instigated the Ukraine crisis – and indeed all the evidence indicated the opposite – the State Department peddled a propaganda theme to the credulous mainstream U.S. news media about Putin having somehow orchestrated the situation in Ukraine so he could begin invading Europe. Former Secretary of State Clinton compared Putin to Adolf Hitler.

As the new Kiev government launched a brutal “anti-terrorism operation” to subdue an uprising among the large ethnic Russian populations of eastern and southern Ukraine, Nuland and other American neocons pushed for economic sanctions against Russia and demanded arms for the coup regime. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “What Neocons Want from Ukraine Crisis.”]

Amid the barrage of “information warfare” aimed at both the U.S. and world publics, a new Cold War took shape. Prominent neocons, including Nuland’s husband Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century which masterminded the Iraq War, hammered home the domestic theme that Obama had shown himself to be “weak,” thus inviting Putin’s “aggression.”

In May 2014, Kagan published a lengthy essay in The New Republic entitled “Superpowers Don’t Get to Retire,” in which Kagan castigated Obama for failing to sustain American dominance in the world and demanding a more muscular U.S. posture toward adversaries.

According to a New York Times article about how the essay took shape and its aftermath, writer Jason Horowitz reported that Kagan and Nuland shared a common world view as well as professional ambitions, with Nuland editing Kagan’s articles, including the one tearing down her ostensible boss.

Though Nuland wouldn’t comment specifically on her husband’s attack on Obama, she indicated that she held similar views. “But suffice to say,” Nuland said, “that nothing goes out of the house that I don’t think is worthy of his talents. Let’s put it that way.”

Horowitz reported that Obama was so concerned about Kagan’s assault that the President revised his commencement speech at West Point to deflect some of the criticism and invited Kagan to lunch at the White House, where one source told me that it was like “a meeting of equals.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Obama’s True Foreign Policy ‘Weakness.’”]

Sinking a Peace Deal

And, whenever peace threatens to break out in Ukraine, Nuland jumps in to make sure that the interests of war are protected. Last month, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande hammered out a plan for a cease-fire and a political settlement, known as Minsk-2, prompting Nuland to engage in more behind-the-scenes maneuvering to sabotage the deal.

In another overheard conversation — in Munich, Germany — Nuland mocked the peace agreement as “Merkel’s Moscow thing,” according to the German newspaper Bild, citing unnamed sources, likely from the German government which may have bugged the conference room in the luxurious Bayerischer Hof hotel and then leaked the details.

Picking up on Nuland’s contempt for Merkel, another U.S. official called the Minsk-2 deal the Europeans’ “Moscow bullshit.”

Nuland suggested that Merkel and Hollande cared only about the practical impact of the Ukraine war on Europe: “They’re afraid of damage to their economy, counter-sanctions from Russia.” According to the Bild story, Nuland also laid out a strategy for countering Merkel’s diplomacy by using strident language to frame the Ukraine crisis.
“We can fight against the Europeans, we can fight with rhetoric against them,” Nuland reportedly said.

NATO Commander Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove was quoted as saying that sending more weapons to the Ukrainian government would “raise the battlefield cost for Putin.” Nuland interjected to the U.S. politicians present that “I’d strongly urge you to use the phrase ‘defensive systems’ that we would deliver to oppose Putin’s ‘offensive systems.’”

Nuland sounded determined to sink the Merkel-Hollande peace initiative even though it was arranged by two major U.S. allies and was blessed by President Obama. And, this week, the deal seems indeed to have been blown apart by Nuland’s hand-picked Prime Minister Yatsenyuk, who inserted a poison pill into the legislation to implement the Minsk-2 political settlement.

The Ukrainian parliament in Kiev added a clause that, in effect, requires the rebels to first surrender and let the Ukrainian government organize elections before a federalized structure is determined. Minsk-2 had called for dialogue with the representatives of these rebellious eastern territories en route to elections and establishment of broad autonomy for the region.

Instead, reflecting Nuland’s hard-line position, Kiev refused to talks with rebel leaders and insisted on establishing control over these territories before the process can move forward. If the legislation stands, the result will almost surely be a resumption of war between military forces backed by nuclear-armed Russia and the United States, a very dangerous development for the world. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Ukraine’s Poison Pill for Peace Talks.”]

Not only will the Ukrainian civil war resume but so will the Cold War between Washington and Moscow with lots of money to be made by the Military-Industrial Complex. On Friday, Nuland’s husband, Robert Kagan, drove home that latter point in the neocon Washington Post.

The Payoff

But don’t think that this unlocking of the U.S. taxpayers’ wallets is just about this one couple. There will be plenty of money to be made by other neocon think-tankers all around Washington, including Frederick Kagan, who works for the right-wing American Enterprise Institute, and his wife, Kimberly, who runs her own think tank, the Institute for the Study of War [ISW].

Kimberly Kagan, founder and president of the Institute for the Study of War.
Kimberly Kagan, founder and president of the Institute for the Study of War.

According to ISW’s annual reports, its original supporters were mostly right-wing foundations, such as the Smith-Richardson Foundation and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, but it was later backed by a host of national security contractors, including major ones like General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and CACI, as well as lesser-known firms such as DynCorp International, which provided training for Afghan police, and Palantir, a technology company founded with the backing of the CIA’s venture-capital arm, In-Q-Tel. Palantir supplied software to U.S. military intelligence in Afghanistan.

Since its founding in 2007, ISW has focused mostly on wars in the Middle East, especially Iraq and Afghanistan, including closely cooperating with Gen. David Petraeus when he commanded U.S. forces in those countries. However, more recently, ISW has begun reporting extensively on the civil war in Ukraine. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Neocons Guided Petraeus on Afghan War.”]

In other words, the Family Kagan has almost a self-perpetuating, circular business model – working the inside-corridors of government power to stimulate wars while simultaneously influencing the public debate through think-tank reports and op-ed columns in favor of more military spending – and then collecting grants and other funding from thankful military contractors.

To be fair, the Nuland-Kagan mom-and-pop shop is really only a microcosm of how the Military-Industrial Complex has worked for decades: think-tank analysts generate the reasons for military spending, the government bureaucrats implement the necessary war policies, and the military contractors make lots of money before kicking back some to the think tanks — so the bloody but profitable cycle can spin again.

The only thing that makes the Nuland-Kagan operation special perhaps is that the whole process is all in the family.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

'Good War . . . Better Peace'

via The Occidental Observer

De-Nazification
Author's Note: To help celebrate the upcoming 70th Anniversary of the end of the “Good War” and the beginning of the “Good Peace,” I offer the following from my books, Hellstorm—The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944–1947, and Rape Hate—Sex & Violence in War & Peace.

*****
And so, with the once mighty German Army now disarmed and enslaved in May, 1945, and with their leaders either dead or awaiting trial for so-called “war crimes,” the old men, women and children who remained in the dismembered Reich found themselves utterly at the mercy of the victors. Unfortunately for these survivors, never in the history of the world was mercy in shorter supply.
Soon after the Allied victory in Europe, the purge of Nazi Party members from government, business, industry, science, education, and all other walks of German life commenced. While a surprising number of Nazis were allowed—even compelled—to man their posts temporarily to enable a smooth transition, all party members, high and low, were sooner or later excised from German daily life. In theory, “de-Nazification” was a simple transplanting of Nazi officials with those of democratic, socialist or communist underpinnings. In practice, the purge became little more than a cloak for an orgy of rape, torture and death.

Because their knowledge of the language and culture was superb, most of the intelligence officers accompanying US and British forces into the Reich were Jewish refugees who had fled Germany in the late 1930s. Although their American and English “aides” were hardly better, the fact that many of these “39ers” became interrogators, examiners and screeners, with old scores to settle, insured that Nazis— or any German, for that matter—would be shown no mercy.

One man opposed to the vengeance-minded program was George Patton. “Evidently the virus started by Morgenthau and [Bernard] Baruch of a Semitic revenge against all Germans is still working … ,” wrote the general in private. “I am frankly opposed to this war-criminal stuff. It is not cricket and it is Semitic….I can’t see how Americans can sink so low.”

Soon after occupation, all adult Germans were compelled to register at the nearest Allied headquarters and complete a lengthy questionnaire on their past activities. While many nervous citizens were detained then and there, most returned home, convinced that at long last the terrible ordeal was over. For millions, however, the trial had but begun.

“Then it started,” remembered Anna Fest, a woman who had registered with the Americans six weeks earlier.
Such a feeling of helplessness, when three or four heavily armed military police stand in front of you. You just panic. I cried terribly. My mother was completely beside herself and said, “You can’t do this. She registered just as she was supposed to.” Then she said, “If only you’d gone somewhere else and had hidden.” But I consider that senseless, because I did not feel guilty. . . . That was the way it went with everyone, with no reason given.
Few German adults, Nazi or not, escaped the dreaded knock on the door. Far from being dangerous fascists, Freddy and Lali Horstmann were actually well-known anti-Nazis. Records Lali from the Russian Zone:
I am sorry to bother you,” he began, “but I am simply carrying out my orders. Until when did you work for the Foreign Office?”
    “Till 1933,” my husband answered.
 “Then you need fear nothing,” Androff said…. “We accuse you of nothing, but we want you to accompany us to the headquarters of the NKVD, the secret police, so that we can take down what you said in a protocol, and ask you a few questions about the working of the Foreign Office… .”
We were stunned for a moment; then I started forward, asking if I could come along with them. “Impossible,” the interpreter smiled. My heart raced. Would Freddy answer satisfactorily? Could he stand the excitement? What sort of accommodation would they give him?
“Dont worry, your husband has nothing to fear,” Androff continued. “He will have a heated room. Give him a blanket for the night, but quickly, we must leave. .. .”
There was a feeling of sharp tension, putting the soldier on his guard, as though he were expecting an attack from one of us. I took first the soldier, then the interpreter, by their hands and begged them to be kind to Freddy, repeating myself in the bustle and scraping of feet that drowned my words. There was a banging of doors. A cold wind blew in. I felt Freddy kiss me. I never saw him again.
“[W]e were wakened by the sound of tires screeching, engines stopping abruptly, orders yelled, general din, and a hammering on the window shutters. Then the intruders broke through the door, and we saw Americans with rifles who stood in front of our bed and shone lights at us. None of them spoke German, but their gestures said: ‘Get dressed, come with us immediately.’ This was my fourth arrest.”

So wrote Leni Riefenstahl, a talented young woman who was perhaps the world’s greatest film-maker. Because her epic documentaries— Triumph of the Will and Olympia—seemed paeans to not only Germany, but National Socialism, and because of her close relationship with an admiring Adolf Hitler, Leni was of more than passing interest to the Allies. Though false, rumors also hinted that the attractive, sometimes-actress was also a “mistress of the devil”—that she and Hitler were lovers.

“Neither my husband nor my mother nor any of my three assistants had ever joined the Nazi Party, nor had any of us been politically active,” said the confused young woman. “No charges had ever been filed against us, yet we were at the mercy of the [Allies] and had no legal protection of any kind.”

Leni Riefenstahl
Leni Riefenstahl
Soon after Leni’s fourth arrest, came a fifth.
The jeep raced along the autobahns until, a few hours later …I was brought to the Salzburg Prison; there an elderly prison matron rudely pushed me into the cell, kicking me so hard that I fell to the ground; then the door was locked. There were two other women in the dark, barren room, and one of them, on her knees, slid about the floor, jabbering confusedly; then she began to scream, her limbs writhing hysterically. She seemed to have lost her mind. The other woman crouched on her bunk, weeping to herself.
As Leni and others quickly discovered, the “softening up” process began soon after arrival at an Allied prison. When Ernst von Salomon, his Jewish girl friend and fellow prisoners reached an American holding pen near Munich, the men were promptly led into a room and brutally beaten by military police. With his teeth knocked out and blood spurting from his mouth, von Salomon moaned to a gum-chewing officer, “You are no gentlemen.” The remark brought only a roar of laughter from the attackers. “No, no, no!” the GIs grinned. “We are Mississippi boys!” In another room, military policemen raped the women at will while leering soldiers watched from windows.
After such savage treatment, the feelings of despair only intensified once the captives were crammed into cells.

“The people had been standing there for three days, waiting to be interrogated,” remembered a German physician ordered to treat prisoners in the Soviet Zone. “At the sight of us a pandemonium broke out which left me helpless…. As far as I could gather, the usual senseless questions were being reiterated: Why were they there, and for how long? They had no water and hardly anything to eat. They wanted to be let out more often than once a day…. A great many of them have dysentery so badly that they can no longer get up.”

“Young Poles made fun of us,” said a woman from her cell in the same zone. “[They] threw bricks through the windows, paperbags with sand, and skins of hares filled with excrement. We did not dare to move or offer resistance, but huddled together in the farthest corner, in order not to be hit, which could not always be avoided. . . . [W]e were never free from torments.”

“For hours on end I rolled about on my bed, trying to forget my surroundings,” recalled Leni Riefenstahl, “but it was impossible.”
The mentally disturbed woman kept screaming—all through the night; but even worse were the yells and shrieks of men from the courtyard, men who were being beaten, screaming like animals. I subsequently found out that a company of SS men was being interrogated.
They came for me the next morning, and I was taken to a padded cell where I had to strip naked, and a woman examined every square inch of my body. Then I had to get dressed and go down to the courtyard, where many men were standing, apparently prisoners, and I was the only woman. We had to line up before an American guard who spoke German. The prisoners stood to attention, so I tried to do the same, and then an American came who spoke fluent German. He pushed a few people together, then halted at the first in our line.
Were you in the Party?”
 The prisoner hesitated for a moment, then said: Yes.”        He was slugged in the face and spat blood.
       The American went on to the next in line. 
Were you in the Party?”
 The man hesitated.
 “Yes or no?”
     “Yes.”
   And he too got punched so hard in the face that the blood ran out of his mouth. However, like the first man, he didn’t dare resist. They didn’t even instinctively raise their hands to protect themselves. They did nothing.
They put up with the blows like dogs.
     The next man was asked: “Were you in the Party?”
     Silence.
     “Well?”
No, he yelled, so no punch. From then on nobody admitted that he had been in the Party and I was not even asked.
As the above case illustrated, there often was no rhyme or reason to the examinations; all seemed designed to force from the victim what the inquisitor wanted to hear, whether true or false. Additionally, most such “interrogations” were structured to inflict as much pain and suffering as possible. Explained one prisoner:
The purpose of these interrogations is not to worm out of the people what they knew—which would be uninteresting anyway—but to extort from them special statements. The methods resorted to are extremely primitive; people are beaten up until they confess to having been members of the Nazi Party…. The authorities simply assume that, basically, everybody has belonged to the Party. Many people die during and after these interrogations, while others, who admit at once their party membership, are treated more leniently.
“A young commissar, who was a great hater of the Germans, cross-examined me… ,” said Gertrude Schulz. “When he put the question: ‘Frauenwerk [Women’s Labor Service]?’ I answered in the negative. Thereupon he became so enraged, that he beat me with a stick, until I was black and blue. I received about 15 blows … on my left upper arm, on my back and on my thigh. I collapsed and, as in the case of the first cross-examination, I had to sign the questionnaire.”

American torture pen
American torture pen
“Both officers who took our testimony were former German Jews,” reminisced a member of the women’s SS, Anna Fest. While vicious dogs snarled nearby, one of the officers screamed questions and accusations at Anna. If the answers were not those desired, “he kicked me in the back and the other hit me.”
They kept saying we must have been armed, have had pistols or so. But we had no weapons, none of us….I had no pistol. I couldn’t say, just so they’d leave me in peace, yes, we had pistols. The same thing would happen to the next person to testify…. [T]he terrible thing was, the German men had to watch. That was a horrible, horrible experience…. That must have been terrible for them. When I went outside, several of them stood there with tears running down their cheeks. What could they have done? They could do nothing.
Not surprisingly, with beatings, rape, torture, and death facing them, few victims failed to “confess” and most gladly inked their name to any scrap of paper shown them. Some, like Anna, tried to resist. Such recalcitrance was almost always of short duration, however. Generally, after enduring blackened eyes, broken bones, electric shock to breasts—or, in the case of men, smashed testicles—only those who died during torture failed to sign confessions.

Alone, surrounded by sadistic hate, utterly bereft of law, many victims understandably escaped by taking their own lives. Like tiny islands in a vast sea of evil, however, miracles did occur. As he limped painfully back to his prison cell, one Wehrmacht officer reflected on the insults, beatings, and tortures he had endured and contemplated suicide.
I could not see properly in the semi-darkness and missed my open cell door. A kick in the back and I was sprawling on the floor. As I raised myself I said to myself I could not, should not accept this humiliation. I sat on my bunk. I had hidden a razor blade that would serve to open my veins. Then I looked at the New Testament and found these words in the Gospel of St. John: “Without me ye can do nothing.”
    Yes. You can mangle this poor body—I looked down at the running sores on my legs—but myself, my honor, God’s image that is in me, you cannot touch. This body is only a shell, not my real self. Without Him, without the Lord, my Lord, ye can do nothing. New strength seemed to rise in me.
  I was pondering over what seemed to me a miracle when the heavy lock turned in the cell door. A very young American soldier came in, put his finger to his lips to warn me not to speak. “I saw it,” he said. “Here are baked potatoes.” He pulled the potatoes out of his pocket and gave them to me, and then went out, locking the door behind him.
Horrific as de-Nazification was in the British, French and, especially the American Zone, it was nothing compared to what took place in Poland, behind Soviet lines. In hundreds of concentration camps sponsored by an apparatus called the “Office of State Security,” thousands of Germans—male and female, old and young, high and low, Nazi and non–Nazi, SS, Wehrmacht, Volkssturm, Hitler Youth, all—were rounded up and imprisoned. Staffed and run by Jews, with help from Poles, Czechs, Russians, and other concentration camp survivors, the prisons were little better than torture chambers where dying was a thing to be prolonged, not hastened. While those with blond hair, blue eyes and handsome features were first to go, anyone who spoke German would do.

Moments after arrival, prisoners were made horrifyingly aware of their fate. John Sack, himself a Jew, reports on one camp run by twenty-six-year-old Shlomo Morel:
I was at Auschwitz,” Shlomo proclaimed, lying to the Germans but, even more, to himself, psyching himself like a fighter the night of the championship, filling himself with hate for the Germans around him. “I was at Auschwitz for six long years, and I swore that if I got out, I’d pay all you Nazis back.” His eyes sent spears, but the “Nazis” sent him a look of simple bewilderment. . . . “Now sing the Horst Wessel Song!” No one did, and Shlomo, who carried a hard rubber club, hit it against a bed like some judge’s gavel. “Sing it, I say!”
    “The flags held high . . . ,” some Germans began.

    “Everyone!” Shlomo said.
   “The ranks closed tight. . . .”
    “I said everyone!”
   “Blond!
    Shlomo cried to the blondest, bluest-eyed person there. “I said sing!” He swung his rubber club at the man’s golden head and hit it. The man staggered back.
       “Our comrades, killed by the Reds and Reactionaries… .”
 “Sonofabitch!” Shlomo cried, enraged that the man was defying him by not singing but staggering back. He hit him again, saying, “Sing!”
                 “Are marching in spirit with us…”    
 “Louder!”
             “Clear the street for the Brown Battalions… .”
Still louder!” cried Shlomo, hitting another shouting man.    “Millions of hopeful people… .”
 
“Nazi pigs!”
 “Are looking to the swastika… .”
     “Schweine!Shlomo cried. He threw down his rubber club, grabbed a wooden stool, and, a leg in his fist, started beating a German’s head. Without thinking, the man raised his arms, and Shlomo, enraged that the man would try to evade his just punishment, cried, “Sonofawhore!” and slammed the stool against the man’s chest. The man dropped his arms, and Shlomo started hitting his now undefended head when snap! the leg of the stool split off, and, cursing the German birchwood, he grabbed another stool and hit the German with that. No one was singing now, but Shlomo, shouting, didn’t notice. The other guards called out, “Blond!” “Black!” “Short!” “Tall!” and as each of these terrified people came up, they wielded their clubs upon him. The brawl went on till eleven o’clock, when the sweat-drenched invaders cried, “Pigs! We will fix you up!” and left the Germans alone.
      Some were quite fixed…. Shlomo and his subordinates had killed them.
The next night it was more of the same . . . and the next night and the next and the next. Those who survived the “welcoming committees” at this and other camps were flung back into their pens.

“I was put with 30 women into a cell, which was intended to accommodate one person,” Gerlinde Winkler recalled. “The narrow space, into which we were rammed, was unbearable and our legs were all entangled together. . . . The women, ill with dysentery, were only allowed to go out once a day, in order to relieve themselves. A bucket without a cover was pushed into the cell with the remark: ‘Here you have one, you German sows.’  The stink was insupportable, and we were not allowed to open the little window.”

“The air in the cells became dense, the smell of the excrement filled it, the heat was like in Calcutta, and the flies made the ceiling black,” wrote John Sack. “I’m choking, the Germans thought, and one even took the community razor blade and, in despair, cut his throat open with it.”

When the wretched inmates were at last pried from their hellish tombs, it was only for interrogation. Sack continues:
As many as eight interrogators, almost all Jews, stood around any one German saying, “Were you in the Nazi Party?” Sometimes a German said, “Yes,” and the boys shouted, “Du schwein! You pig!” and beat him and broke his arm, perhaps, before sending him to his cell. . . . But usually a German said, “No,” and the boys … told him,        “You’re lying. You were a Nazi.”
  “No, I never was.”
  “Youre lying! We know about you!”
  “No, I really wasn’t—”
“Du lugst! You’re lying!” they cried, hitting the obstinate man. “You better admit it! Or you’ll get a longer sentence! Now! Were you in the Nazi Party?”
No!the German often said, and the boys had to beat him and beat him until he was really crying, “I was a Nazi! Yes!”
But sometimes a German wouldn’t confess. One such hard case was a fifty-year-old….
Were you in the Party?”
  “No, I wasn’t in it.”
  “How many people work for you?”
  “In the high season, thirty-five.”
  “You must have been in the Party,” the boy deduced.
  He asked for the German’s wallet, where he found a fishing license with the stamp of the German Anglers Association. Studying it, he told the German, “It’s stamped by the Party.”
  Itsnot,” said the German.
   Hedlost his left arm in World War I and was using his right arm to gesture with, and, to the boy, he may have seemed to be Heiling Hitler. The boy became violent. He grabbed the man’s collar, hit the man’s head against the wall, hit it against it ten times more, threw the man’s body onto the floor, and, in his boots, jumped on the man’s cringing chest as though jumping rope. A half dozen other interrogators, almost all Jews, pushed the man onto a couch, pulled off his trousers, and hit him with hard rubber clubs and hard rubber hoses full of stones. The sweat started running down the Jews’ arms, and the blood down the man’s naked legs.
Warstdu in der Partei?”
“Nein!”
    “Warst du in der Partei?”
“Nein!” the German screamed—screamed, till the boys had to go to Shlomo’s kitchen for a wooden spoon and to use it to cram some rags in the German’s mouth. Then they resumed beating him. . . . The more the man contradicted them, the more they hated him for it.
Shlomo Morel
Shlomo Morel
After undergoing similar sessions on a regular basis, the victim was brought back for the eighth time.
By now, the man was half unconscious due to his many concussions, and he wasn’t thinking clearly. The boys worked on him with rubber and oak-wood clubs and said, “Do you still say you weren’t in the Party?”
  “No! I didn’t say I wasn’t in the Party!”
  “You didnt?”
  “No!” said the punch drunk man. “I never said it!”
  “You were in the Party?”
  “Yes!”
The boys stopped beating him. They practically sighed, as if their ordeal were over now. They lit up cigarettes….

  “Scram,one said to the German. The man stood up, and he had his hand on the doorknob when one of the boys impulsively hit the back of his head, and he fell to the floor, unconscious.
   Aufstehen, du Deutsches schwein. Stand up, you German pig,” the boys said, kicking him till he stood up and collapsed again. Two boys carried him to his cell and dropped him in a corner….
Of course, the boys would beat up the Germans for “Yes”es as well as “No”s. In Glatz, the Jewish commandant asked a German policeman, “Were you in the Party?”
 “Of course! I was obliged to be!”
“Lie down, the commandant said, and six weeks later the boys were still whipping the German’s feet.
Some torture sessions lacked even the pretense of an examination. Remembered Eva Reimann:
My cell door opened. The guard, who, because of the foul smell, held a handkerchief to his nose, cried, “Reimann Eva! Come!” I was led to a first-floor room.
He shouted at me, “Take off your shoes!” I took them off.  “Lie down!” I lay down. He took a thick bamboo stick, and he beat the soles of my feet. I screamed, since the pain was very great. . . . The stick whistled down on me. A blow on my mouth tore my lower lip, and my teeth started bleeding violently. He beat my feet again. The pain was unbearable….
The door opened suddenly, and, smiling obligingly, a cigarette in his mouth, in came the chief of the Office, named Sternnagel. In faultless German he asked me, “What’s wrong here? Why do you let yourself be beaten? You just have to sign this document. Or should we jam your fingers in the door, until the bones are broad. . . ?
A man picked me up by the ankles, raised me eight inches above the floor, and let me fall. My hands were tied, and my head hit hard. . . . I lay in a bloody puddle. Someone cried, “Stand up!” I tried to, and, with unspeakable pain, I succeeded. A man with a pistol came, held it to my left temple, and said, “Will you now confess?” I told him, “Please shoot me.” Yes, I hoped to be freed from all his tortures. I begged him, “Please pull the trigger.”
After barely surviving his “interrogation,” one fourteen-year-old was taken to the camp infirmary. “My body was green, but my legs were fire red,” the boy said. “My wounds were bound with toilet paper, and I had to change the toilet paper every day. I was in the perfect place to watch what went on…. All the patients were beaten people, and they died everywhere: at their beds, in the washroom, on the toilet. At night, I had to step over the dead as if that were normal to do.”

When the supply of victims ran low, it was a simple matter to find more. John Sack:
One day, a German in pitch-black pants, the SS’s color, showed up in Lola’s prison. He’d been spotted near the city square by a Pole who’d said, “Fascist! You’re wearing black!” At that, the German had bolted off, but the Pole chased him a mile to the Church of Saints Peter and Paul, tackled him by a gold mosaic, hit him, kicked him, and took him to Lola’s prison. Some guards, all girls, then seized the incriminating evidence: the man’s black pants, pulling them off so aggressively that one of the tendons tore. The man screamed, but the girls said, “Shut up!” and they didn’t recognize that the pants were part of a boy scout uniform. The “man” was fourteen years old.
The girls decided to torture him [with]. . . . fire. They held down the German boy, put out their cigarettes on him, and, using gasoline, set his curly black hair afire.
At the larger prison camps, Germans died by the hundreds daily.
You pigs!” the commandant then cried, and he beat the Germans with their stools, often killing them. At dawn many days, a Jewish guard cried, “Eins! Zwei! Drei! Vier!” and marched the Germans into the woods outside their camp. “Halt! Get your shovels! Dig!” the guard cried, and, when the Germans had dug a big grave, he put a picture of Hitler in. “Now cry!” the guard said. “And sing All the Dogs Are Barking!” and all the Germans moaned,
All the dogs are barking,
All the dogs are barking,
Just the little hot-dogs,
Arent barking at all.
The guard then cried, “Get undressed!” and, when the Germans were naked, he beat them, poured liquid manure on them, or, catching a toad, shoved the fat thing down a German’s throat, the German soon dying.
Utterly unhinged by years of persecution, by the loss of homes and loved ones, for the camp operators, no torture, no sadism, no bestiality, seemed too monstrous to inflict on those now in their power. Some Germans were forced to crawl on all fours and eat their own excrement as well as that of others. Many were drowned in open latrines. Hundreds were herded into buildings and burned to death or sealed in caskets and buried alive.

Near Lamsdorf, German women were forced to disinter bodies from a Polish burial site. According to John Sack:
The women did, and they started to suffer nausea as the bodies, black as the stuff in a gutter, appeared. The faces were rotten, the flesh was glue, but the guards—who had often seemed psychopathic, making a German woman drink urine, drink blood, and eat a man’s excrement, inserting an oily five-mark bill in a woman’s vagina, putting a match to it—shouted at the women . . . “Lie down with them!” The women did, and the guards shouted, “Hug them!” “Kiss them!” “Make love with them!” and, with their rifles, pushed on the backs of the women’s heads until their eyes, noses and mouths were deep in the Polish faces’ slime. The women who clamped their lips couldn’t scream, and the women who screamed had to taste something vile. Spitting, retching, the women at last stood up, the wet tendrils still on their chins, fingers, clothes, the wet seeping into the fibers, the stink like a mist around them as they marched back to Lamsdorf. There were no showers there, and the corpses had all had typhus, apparently, and sixty-four women . . . died.
Not surprisingly, the mortality rate at the concentration camps was staggering and relatively few survived. At one prison of eight thousand, a mere 1,500 lived to reach home. And of those “lucky” individuals who did leave with their lives, few could any longer be called human.

When a smattering of accounts began to leak from Poland of the unspeakable crimes being committed, many in the West were stunned. “One would expect that after the horrors in Nazi concentration camps, nothing like that could ever happen again,” muttered one US senator, who then reported on beatings, torture and “brains splashed on the ceiling.”

“Is this what our soldiers died for?” echoed a Briton in the House of Commons.

Added Winston Churchill: “Enormous numbers [of Germans] are utterly unaccounted for. It is not impossible that tragedy on a prodigious scale is unfolding itself behind the Iron Curtain.”

While Churchill and others in the West were expressing shock and surprise over the sadistic slaughter taking place in the Soviet Zone, precious little was said about the “tragedy on a prodigious scale” that was transpiring in their own backyard.

Among the millions imprisoned by the Allies were thousands of Germans accused of having a direct or indirect hand in war crimes. Because the victorious powers demanded swift and severe punishment, Allied prosecutors were urged to get the most damning indictments in as little time as possible. Unfortunately for the accused, their captors seemed determined to inflict as much pain as possible in the process.

“[W]e were thrown into small cells stark naked,” Hans Schmidt later wrote. “The cells in which three or four persons were incarcerated were six and a half by ten feet in size and had no windows or ventilation.”
When we went to the lavatory we had to run through a lane of Americans who struck us with straps, brooms, cudgels, buckets, belts, and pistol holders to make us fall down. Our head, eyes, body, belly, and genitals were violently injured. A man stood inside the lavatory to beat us and spit on us. We returned to our cells through the same ordeal. The temperature in the cells was 140 Fahrenheit or more. During the first three days we were given only one cup of water and a small slice of bread. During the first days we perspired all the time, then perspiration stopped. We were kept standing chained back to back for hours. We suffered terribly from thirst, blood stagnation and mortification of the hands. From time to time water was poured on the almost red-hot radiators, filling the cells with steam, so that we could hardly breathe. During all this time the cells were in darkness, except when the American soldiers entered and switched on electric bulbs … which forced us to close our eyes.
Our thirst became more and more cruel, so that our lips cracked, our tongues were stiff, and we eventually became apathetic, or raved, or collapsed.
After enduring this torture for several days, we were given a small blanket to cover our nakedness, and driven to the courtyard outside. The uneven soil was covered with pebbles and slag and we were again beaten and finally driven back on our smashed and bleeding feet. While out of breath, burning cigarettes were pushed into our mouths, and each of us was forced to eat three or four of them. Meanwhile the American soldiers continued to hit us on eyes, head, and ears. Back in our cells we were pushed against burning radiators, so that our skin was blistered.
 For thirteen days and nights we received the same treatment, tortured by heat and thirst. When we begged for water, our guards mocked us. When we fainted we were revived by being drenched with cold water. There was dirt everywhere and we were never allowed to wash, our inflamed eyes gave us terrible pain, we fainted continuously.
Every twenty minutes or so our cell doors were opened and the soldiers insulted and hit us. Whenever the doors were opened we had to stand still with our backs to the door. Two plates of food, spiced with salt, pepper, and mustard to make us thirstier, were given us daily. We ate in the dark on the floor. The thirst was the most terrible of all our tortures and we could not sleep.
 In this condition I was brought to trial.
During the Nazi war crimes trials and hearings, almost any method that would obtain a “confession” was employed. Eager to implicate high-ranking German officers in the Malmedy Massacre, American investigator Harry Thon ordered Wehrmacht sergeant Willi Schafer to write out an incriminating affidavit:
Next morning Mr. Thon appeared in my cell, read my report, tore it up, swore at me and hit me. After threatening to have me killed unless I wrote what he wanted, he left. A few minutes later the door of my cell opened, a black hood encrusted with blood, was put over my head and face and I was led to another room. In view of Mr. Thon’s threat the black cap had a crushing effect on my spirits…. Four men of my company … accused me, although later they admitted to having borne false testimony. Nevertheless I still refused to incriminate myself. Thereupon Mr. Thon said that if I continued to refuse this would be taken as proof of my Nazi opinions, and . . . my death was certain. He said I would have no chance against four witnesses, and advised me for my own good to make a statement after which I would be set free. . . . I still refused. I told Mr. Thon that although my memory was good, I was unable to recall any of the occurrences he wished me to write about and which to the best of my knowledge had never occurred.
Mr. Thon left but returned in a little while with Lieutenant [William] Perl who abused me, and told Mr. Thon that, should I not write what was required within half an hour, I should be left to my fate. Lieutenant Perl made it clear to me that I had the alternative of writing and going free or not writing and dying. I decided for life.
Another Landser unable to resist the pressure was Joachim Hoffman:
[W]hen taken for a hearing a black hood was placed over my head. The guards who took me to my hearing often struck or kicked me. I was twice thrown down the stairs and was hurt so much that blood ran out of my mouth and nose. At the hearing, when I told the officers about the ill treatment I had suffered, they only laughed. I was beaten and the black cap pulled over my face whenever I could not answer the questions put to me, or gave answers not pleasing to the officers….I was beaten and several times kicked in the genitals.
Understandably, after several such sessions, even the strongest submitted and signed papers incriminating themselves and others.

“If you confess you will go free,” nineteen-year-old Siegfried Jaenckel was told. “[Y]ou need only to say you had an order from your superiors. But if you won’t speak you will be hung.”

Despite the mental and physical abuse, young Jaenckel held out as long as he could: “I was beaten and I heard the cries of the men being tortured in adjoining cells, and whenever I was taken for a hearing I trembled with fear…. Subjected to such duress I eventually gave in, and signed the long statement dictated to me.”

Far from being isolated or extreme cases, such methods of extorting confessions were the rule rather than the exception. Wrote author Freda Utley, who learned of the horror after speaking with American jurist Edward van Roden:
Beatings and brutal kickings; knocking-out of teeth and breaking of jaws; mock trials; solitary confinement; torture with burning splinters; the use of investigators pretending to be priests; starvation; and promises of acquittal. . . . Judge van Roden said: “All but two of the Germans in the 139 cases we investigated had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. This was standard operating procedure with our American investigators.” He told of one German who had had lighted matchsticks forced under his fingernails by the American investigators to extort a confession, and had appeared at his trial with his fingers still bandaged from the atrocity.
In addition to testimony given under torture, those who might have spoken in defense of the accused were prevented. Moreover, hired “witnesses” were paid by the Americans to parrot the prosecution’s charges.

When criticism such as Utley’s and van Roden’s surfaced, and even as victims were being hung by the hundreds, those responsible defended their methods.

“We couldn’t have made those birds talk otherwise… ,” laughed one Jewish “interrogator,” Colonel A. H. Rosenfeld. “It was a trick, and it worked like a charm.”