The Jewdicial System and Fake Nuremberg Trials – It’s DUH Law

Uncover the facts about the fake Nuremberg trails and the disgusting, disturbing behavior of jews (and their minions) who, to this day, imprison, torture, and murder innocent people under the color of law. The entire jewdicial system is a FRAUD and needs to be brought down. It is run by kabbalistic jews who cast their spells upon unsuspecting people, getting the masses to hand over their own authority to demons. The medical establishment does exactly the same with their pharmakeia (sorcery) and their death-wielding “diagnostic” and “therapeutic” machines. All of these institutions are run by jews. They all need to crumble into dust.

Jews will destroy this world if we let them. It is time to NAME THE JEW.



The Nuremberg trials were nothing more than a continuation of Judeocommunist show trials of the type carried out by the Soviet Union for many years before and after WWII.

The idea of the show trial has nothing to do with any form of justice. These trials merely served to validate and justify the criminal actions of the draconian, Soviet terror state. The outcome of such trails were always a forgone conclusion as guilt had already been established by tortured confession. Jews rig a “justice” system like they rig their gambling games where the goy can never win unless Jews allow it.

The same form of Jewed show trials are used throughout white, western civilization to prosecute and persecute those people whom Jews do not like (which is everyone not Jewish) in the same manner the Judeocommunists railroaded the German high command with

Nuremberg’s kangaroo court. The trials of people like Ernst Zundel, Monika Schaefer, Arthur Topham, Alison Chabloz and many others too numerous to name, are merely extensions of the Jews’ Nuremberg show trials.
Jews have this thing about law, i.e it <i>has</i>to be legal, for once it has been “legalized,” whatever matter concerned is now fully justified from any and all standpoints. Once DUH LAW has spoken on a matter, nothing can question the outcome. For Jews, all law is sacrosanct as all law is merely adjunct to their sacred, Torah law.

Many talk about the problem with Jews controlling the media. Yet, while Jews might lead the process of social conscience with their media, they cannot force anyone to watch their Talmudic dreck. DUH LAW however is different. DUH LAW is backed with the authority of “gun” totin’ badges that will imprison, torture and finally murder anyone DUH LAW deems undesirable, no matter the innocence or criminality involved.


What the Jews Did to Germany Before Hitler Came to Power

“I fear the Jewish banks with their craftiness and tortuous tricks will entirely control the exuberant riches of America. And use it to systematically corrupt modern civilization. The Jews will not hesitate to plunge the whole of Christendom into wars and chaos that the earth should become their inheritance.”

Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898)

First Chancellor of Germany (1871-1890)

IN AMERICA, the public is given zero information on the “Weimar Republic,” the period in Germany post-WWI that led to the rise of the National Socialists in 1933.

This is deliberate. The period holds too many secrets to the modern world.

This thread will expose those secrets.

First, a tweet on what Germany was pre-Weimar:

As the Holy Roman Empire ended, Germans united throughout the 18th and 19th centuries under strong leadership, loyal monarchs, and good governance.

Germany was a bustling European center of industry, military, culture & Christianity.

Then World War I happened.

“We Jews, we are the destroyers and will remain the destroyers. Nothing you can do will meet our demands and needs. We will forever destroy because we want a world of our own.” - Maurice Samuel

Largely orchestrated by corrupt Global interests, it was a disaster for Germany.

Germany had a string of victories, and sought a peaceful truce.

But Global financiers behind the war would lose money and their agenda, so they brought in America in 1917.

How the war ended is crucial to setting the stage for Weimar.

The German war effort collapsed in 1918 when Communists led strikes in munitions factories and launched a violent Revolution in Germany.

The monarchy fell, the war ended with no truce, and Liberal Elites create Weimar.

Before I get into who comprised this new “Liberal Elite” in Germany, first, a look at who was behind the Revolution:

Rosa Luxemburg
Kurt Eisner
Paul Levi
Leo Jogiches
Ernst Toller
Erich Muhsam
Gustav Landauer
Eugen Levine
Karl Radek

Guess what they all have in common…

At the Treaty of Versailles, a crippled Germany was carved up by the Global Elite, with no opposition from the new Weimar leaders.

Who were the key representatives letting this happen?

Paul Hirsch (Prime Minister of Prussia)
Otto Landsberg (Versailles Delegate)

And they were?


On the initiative of the President of Russia, the whole country was choosing the final name of the Status 6 project. More than 7.5 million Russians took part in the all-Russian People's Choice vote, which lasted 22 days. The name Poseidon had the most votes.

Before the advent of Poseidon, the Pacific and Atlantic oceans were a reliable buffer zone for the United States. But now everything has changed; Putin has flipped the game - the waters on both sides of the North American continent are turning into a source of danger.

The West Coast, where the Juan de Fuca lithospheric plate dives under the continent of North America, becomes especially vulnerable. Up to 30% of the US economy and almost the entire IT industry are concentrated in this region. Poseidon is capable of depriving the United States of economic and political power and throwing the country back decades in economic development with just one strike.

How do you stop a nuclear-powered torpedo designed to bury enemy cities under a tsunami?

Russia's Status-6 "Poseidon" torpedo has excited the fears - or the overactive imaginations - of Russia's enemies. Calling it is a torpedo is a misnomer. While the precise capabilities of the weapon are mysterious, it appears to be about 80 feet long which makes it more like a mini-submarine or an underwater ballistic missile.

Poseidon is propelled by a nuclear reactor to a speed of 115 miles per hour and operates at deep depths up to 3,300 feet. It is armed with a massive 100-megaton warhead powerful enough to generate a giant tidal wave to destroy coastal cities.

How useful such a weapon would be is debatable. Poseidon is too slow, compared to ICBMs and bombers, to be useful in a first strike or an immediate retaliatory strike. Moving at high speeds may make it so noisy that anti-submarine can detect it, and its autonomous nature brings up all the questions about armed robots (especially ones carrying mega-bombs).

Nonetheless, as a psychological weapon, it's brilliant. There is something frightening, like a Hollywood monster movie, about the thought of a robot tsunami-bomb creeping along the sea floor.

But for every vampire, there is a stake waiting to slay it through the heart. H I Sutton, a naval analyst who runs the Covert Shores blog on naval affairs, offers some ideas on technology that NATO can employ to halt Poseidon.

Sutton assumes that Poseidon's "operating modes and route planning will likely be simple (read reliable) and relatively direct, relying on speed and depth for survival."

That being the case, one countermeasure would be to seed the seabed with networks of sensor-mines to detect and destroy Poseidons.

"Ideally the sensor networks would include their own effectors (e. g. torpedo armed mines) to minimize the delay from detection to neutralization, since the targets will be moving much faster than traditional submarine targets," Sutton writes.

Sutton also wonders whether Poseidons could be killed by long-range hypersonic glide vehicles launched by U. S. Navy submarines.

"The payload could be next-generation lightweight torpedo or nuclear depth charge similar to the retired Subroc [rocket-launched anti-submarine torpedo] weapon," he writes.

"The short flight time and long range of this type of system would allow kills far outside realistic ranges for torpedoes and allow submarines operating in the North Atlantic to react to Poseidon launches detected in the Arctic region, hitting the target while it is still reasonably near to the sensor which detected it."

Stopping weapons like Poseidon will likely require Western navies to develop a new generation of torpedoes.

"The current families of US Navy and Royal Navy torpedoes were developed to counter fast deep-diving Russian submarines," writes Sutton.

"While they are highly capable, the even greater combination of speed and depth of Poseidon means that new weapons will need to be developed. These are likely to be characterized by increases in range and autonomy, blurring the distinction with Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs)."

The Real 2nd Declaration of Independence Signed by President Trump 7/4/2020

Please note: This is the 2nd Declaration of Independence!! This was a document done in 2018 that was signed by President Trump. This was completed in secret by 10 people, who email the parchment paper pictures of the whole document to Gene Decode, and he then emailed me in late January 2021. I then transcribed the complete document into Word document so everyone could easily read it. I did post this on Operation Disclosure. This was my great honor and privilege to transcribe this document for all to read. Understand, this document is needed at this time of great transition, to simply let the citizens of the New Republic know what happened and the different tools the Deep State did to keep illegal control of this wonderful country. Yes, this document is really, really needed just as much as the 1st Declaration of Independence. Because we were in a secret war of information and infiltration. This document is extremely needed to legally declare Independence again, and to inform “The People” what has happened to their beautiful country. This is needed for so many reasons, especially to overcome the CIA “Operation Mockingbird” to control all the media in the world from the 1950’s.

For these people who wrote it, were committing treason against the U.S. Corporation, the law since our original U.S Republic Constitution was usurped in 1871 by the illuminati. Understand, Gene Decode and I was involved in release of the 2nd Declaration and stand by it. Naturally, like the Original Declaration of Independence was finally released to the whole world, this Spin-Off is the same thing, Man of God. Neither document has the United States in all CAPS, therefore IT IS NOT A U.S. CORP. document.

I speak for myself and what Gene Decode stated on his live call and recorded video, this week, that this is the signed document of President Trump. From my understanding and released by people inside the New Republic was declared on July 4th, 2020, and the U.S. Corporation is bankrupt. I have seen this document filed in the State of Florida of the U.S. Corporation, and no longer exists. Therefore, as the 2nd Declaration was done behind the scenes, as was the documents for the New Republic had to be done out of the public’s eye. Only, in the near future, we will learn the absolute truth. Everyone should respect other people’s opinion, and respect great sources of true information to help inform “The People” to the truth. I have great respect for Gene Decode’s intelligence and his sources, we all need to honor him to help such a dark time in our country’s history, to see the light. For “We the People” have the great Victory to the Light!! Transcribed by Mark Baughman 2/10/2020 from Parchment Paper Pictures from Original.

In Great Honor of the Patriots that wrote it and President Trump who signed this wonderful document. The Exact words:

Continue reading


By; David Lester Straight, sui juris. in care of / rural route 61037 Groff Road Bend, Oregon Zip exempt

To: Donald J. Trump As: The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Washington, District of Columbia 20530

To: Mike Pompeo As: The SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE UNITED STATES 2201 C Street NW. Washington, District of Columbia 20520

To: William Barr As: The ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, District of Columbia 20530-0001

To: Bev Clarno As: The Secretary of STATE OF OREGON 900 Court Street NE Salem, STATE OF OREGON 97310-0722

To: Alex Padilla As: The Secretary of STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1500 11th Street Sacramento, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 95814

Notice to Agent[s] is Notice to Principal[s], and Notice to Principal[s] is Notice


When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shown, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present (UNITED STATES Corp) is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

So here shall I, Stand...

This shall serve as notice to certify that I; A Living Soul, So called by my Father and Mother since born, David-Lester; of the genealogy of Straight, ancient Streit, was born 20th of April, 1963, in the Sovereign Republic California State. I presently live upon the land of the Sovereign Republic Oregon State. I am not a Resident, Employee or Citizen of the UNITED STATES Government (Corporation), whose situs is Washington, the District of Columbia. My relationship to that Federal entity as far as jurisdiction is that of a non-resident alien to the Corporate United States Government. Also know as an American State National, or Lawful Bloodline American.

I am a free and natural man, described by the Lord God in Genesis 2:7 as a Living Soul, living under God’s law and his grace alone. I have assumed among the Powers of the Earth, granted by the Lord God Almighty, the Separate and Equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle me. Giving me dominion over all things. Therefore, in order to secure the Blessing of Liberty to my posterity and myself, to re-acquire my Birthright as “one” of a member of the Sovereign Social Body of “We the People,” I hereby Asseverate, Repudiate and Revoke my Citizenship, if any ever existed, with the Legal fiction known as the “UNITED STATES” Government (Corporation), USA Inc, and any and all subsidiary corporations both known (STATE, COUNTY, CITY,) and unknown under its control.
Maxim of Law:

No man can renounce the country in which he was born, nor abjure the obligation of his allegiance. Co. LItt. 129. Sed vide Allegiance; Expatriation; Naturalization. (The Nation State Republic is the country state in which you were born and…


How the Frankfurt School Changed American Culture

How many times have you heard someone lament how much the world has changed from the good old days? You know, the simpler pre-PC period when the world operated according to fairly predictable principles.

But then we woke one day in a world with every bastion of what some might call normalcy under attack. Institutions that 100 years ago appeared unassailable—marriage, for example—are increasingly seen as antiquated. Even the idea of a national character is viewed as wrong-minded and, in the successful societies of the West, as exclusionary and even racist.

How did all this come about? Or, more colloquially, what was the number of the bus that hit us?

The 1950s were a simple, romantic, and golden time in America.

California beaches, suburbia, and style. Atlas Shrugged was published, NASA was formed, and Elvis rocked the nation. Every year from 1950–1959 saw over 4 million babies born. The nation stood atop the world in every field.

It was an era of great economic prosperity in The Land of the Free.

So, what happened to the American traits of confidence, pride, and accountability?

The roots of Western cultural decay are very deep, having first sprouted a century ago. It began with a loose clan of ideologues inside Europe’s communist movement. Today, it is known as the Frankfurt School, and its ideals have perverted American society.

When Outcomes Fail, Just Change the Theory

Before WWI, Marxist theory held that if war broke out in Europe, the working classes would rise up against the bourgeoisie and create a communist revolution.

Well, as is the case with much of Marxist theory, things didn’t go too well. When war broke out in 1914, instead of starting a revolution, the proletariat put on their uniforms and went off to war.

After the war ended, Marxist theorists were left to ask, “What went wrong?”

Two very prominent Marxists thinkers of the day were Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukács. Each man, on his own, concluded that the working class of Europe had been blinded by the success of Western democracy and capitalism. They reasoned that until both had been destroyed, a communist revolution was not possible.

Gramsci and Lukács were both active in the Communist party, but their lives took very different paths.

Gramsci was jailed by Mussolini in Italy where he died in 1937 due to poor health.

In 1918, Lukács became minister of culture in Bolshevik Hungary. During this time, Lukács realized that if the family unit and sexual morals were eroded, society could be broken down.

Lukács implemented a policy he titled “cultural terrorism,” which focused on these two objectives. A major part of the policy was to target children’s minds through lectures that encouraged them to deride and reject Christian ethics.

In these lectures, graphic sexual matter was presented to children, and they were taught about loose sexual conduct.

Here again, a Marxist theory had failed to take hold in the real world. The people were outraged at Lukács’ program, and he fled Hungary when Romania invaded in 1919.

The Birth of Cultural Marxism

All was quiet on the Marxist front until 1923 when the cultural terrorist turned up for a “Marxist study week” in Frankfurt, Germany. There, Lukács met a young, wealthy Marxist named Felix Weil.

Until Lukács showed up, classical Marxist theory was based solely on the economic changes needed to overthrow class conflict. Weil was enthused by Lukács’ cultural angle on Marxism.

Weil’s interest led him to fund a new Marxist think tank—the Institute for Social Research. It would later come to be known as simply The Frankfurt School.

In 1930, the school changed course under new director Max Horkheimer. The team began mixing the ideas of Sigmund Freud with those of Marx, and cultural Marxism was born.

In classical Marxism, the workers of the world were oppressed by the ruling classes. The new theory was that everyone in society was psychologically oppressed by the institutions of Western culture. The school concluded that this new focus would need new vanguards to spur the change. The workers were not able to rise up on their own.

As fate would have it, the National Socialists came to power in Germany in 1933. It was a bad time and place to be a Jewish Marxist, as most of the school’s faculty was. So, the school moved to New York City, the bastion of Western culture at the time.

Coming to America

In 1934, the school was reborn at Columbia University. Its members began to exert their ideas on American culture.

It was at Columbia University that the school honed the tool it would use to destroy Western culture: the printed word.

The school published a lot of popular material. The first of these was Critical Theory.

David Bowie was into kabbalah and other Jewish facts about the late icon

It was clear long before the Internet swelled with heartfelt tributes to David Bowie that the late musician was an artistic legend. The 69-year-old Englishman, who died Sunday January 10, 2016 after an 18-month battle with cancer, reinvented himself countless times in a music career that spanned more than five decades. There were stints, too, as a Broadway and Hollywood actor.

From his Ziggy Stardust alter ego to his latest album — a jazzy, avant-garde rock release called “Blackstar” released just two days before his death — Bowie racked up some interesting Jewish connections. Below, we give you five of them.

1. He was into kabbalah, and sang about it.

“Here are we, one magical movement from kether to malkuth,” Bowie sang in his 1976 song “Station to Station.” “Kether” and “malkuth” are two of the 10 elements of the kabbalistic tree of life — the highest and lowest parts, respectively. Despite being high on cocaine for most of the “Station to Station” album’s recording process and describing it years later as the work of “an entirely different person,” Bowie was fascinated with kabbalah during this period (decades before Madonna made it cool). The back cover of the “Station to Station” album features Bowie drawing the kabbalistic tree of life in chalk.

2. His first manager was Jewish.

Les Conn, born to a Jewish family in Stamford Hill, a traditionally Jewish part of London, failed to make much headway in the music business before connecting with the 17-year-old Bowie — then still going by his birth name, David Robert Jones — in 1964 through a mutual acquaintance, washing machine magnate John Bloom. Conn managed to get Jones’ first band some gigs, but he couldn’t sell his talent to The Beatles’ publisher, Dick James. When Conn’s contract with Jones expired, the rocker left for a new band and changed his name to Bowie — and the rest is history.

3. He was close to Jewish rockers Lou Reed and Marc Bolan (in different ways).

Bowie connected with Lou Reed, of the Velvet Underground, and pop artist Andy Warhol on a trip to the United States in 1971. He later produced Reed’s breakthrough solo album “Transformer” in 1972. When Reed died in 2013, Bowie called him “a master.”

Marc Bolan, lead singer of the glam rock band T-Rex, had a more complicated and competitive relationship with Bowie. The two teenagers became close friends early on in their careers when they were both managed by Conn.

Tension ensued when Bolan (who was born Mark Feld and ate Jewish soul food after concerts) found success years before Bowie did. But Bolan’s producer, Tony Visconti, eventually began devoting more of his time and energy to Bowie’s albums, which began climbing the charts as Bolan went downhill into alcohol and drug addiction. Nevertheless, according to the Daily Mail, after Bolan died in a 1977 car crash at 29, Bowie quietly gave financial support to Bolan’s wife and son.

4. He went through a bit of a Nazi phase.

In a drug-induced state leading up to the release of “Station to Station,” Bowie was criticized for saying in an interview that Adolf Hitler was “one of the first rock stars.” In the same month, he said Britain could “benefit from a fascist leader.”

Bowie later assumed a persona called the “Thin White Duke,” which has been described as an “emotionless Aryan superman.” In 1976, he drove up to London’s Victoria Station in a Mercedes convertible and gave what was reported to be a Nazi salute. Bowie denied the reports and later attributed his behavior to the copious amounts of drugs he was taking at the time.

5. He performed in Israel during one of the happiest stages of his life.

“I think I would have to be squeezed real hard to be happier,” Bowie said in 1996, fresh off a performance at Hayarkon Park in Tel Aviv. In a series of videos, Bowie said he and his band were in the midst of one of the best tours of his life. He had recently released the experimental album “Outside” and had several other creative projects in the works. “I’ve been trying to go here for years,” he said in one of the videos with a smile shortly after getting off his plane.

David Bowie’s Singing influence came from Anthony Newley.

"Youth Of The Nation"

Last day of the rest of my life
I wish I would've known
'Cause I didn't kiss my mama goodbye

I didn't tell her that I loved her and how much I cared
Or thank my pops for all the talks
And all the wisdom he shared

Unaware, I just did what I always do
Every day, the same routine
Before I skate off to school

But who knew that this day wasn't like the rest
Instead of taking a test
I took two to the chest

Call me blind, but I didn't see it coming
Everybody was running
But I couldn't hear nothing

Except gun blasts, it happened so fast
I don't really know this kid
Though I sit by him in class

Maybe this kid was reaching out for love
Or maybe for a moment
He forgot who he was
Or maybe this kid just wanted to be hugged
Whatever it was
I know it's because

We are, we are the youth of the nation
We are, we are youth of the nation
We are, we are the youth of the nation
We are, we are youth of the nation

Little Suzy, she was only twelve
She was given the world
With every chance to excel

Hang with the boys and hear the stories they tell
She might act kind of proud
But no respect for herself

She finds love in all the wrong places
The same situations
Just different faces

Changed up her pace since her daddy left her
Too bad he never told her
She deserved much better

Johnny boy always played the fool
He broke all the rules
So you would think he was cool

He was never really one of the guys
No matter how hard he tried
Often thought of suicide

It's kind of hard when you ain't got no friends
He put his life to an end
They might remember him then

You cross the line and there's no turning back
Told the world how he felt
With the sound of a gat

We are, we are the youth of the nation
We are, we are youth of the nation
We are, we are youth of the nation
We are, we are youth of the nation

Who's to blame for the lives that tragedies claim
No matter what you say
It don't take away the pain

That I feel inside, I'm tired of all the lies
Don't nobody know why
It's the blind leading the blind

I guess that's the way the story goes
Will it ever make sense
Somebody's got to know

There's got to be more to life than this
There's got to be more to everything
I thought exists

We are, we are the youth of the nation
We are, we are youth of the nation
We are, we are the youth of the nation
We are, we are youth of the nation

We are, we are the youth of the nation
We are, we are youth of the nation
We are, we are the youth of the nation
We are, we are youth of the nation

The youth of the nation
We are youth of the nation
We are youth of the nation
We are youth of the nation
We are

German Wife And Mother: The Role Of Women In The Third Reich

From Functionaries Of Totalitarian Rule— Part 3 of 'The Face Of The Third Reich' (1999)

Never become ladies, remain German girls and women! — Julius Streicher

Who will ever ask in three or five hundred years' time whether a Fräulein Müller or Schulze was unhappy? — Heinrich Himmler

The National Socialist movement, from the beginning a militant community of like-minded men, had almost no place in its ranks for women. The very first general meeting of members early in 1921 passed a unanimous resolution that 'a woman can never be accepted into the leadership of the party and into the governing committee'.

The Fuhrerlexikon, or index of leaders, among countless names, often of third-rate people, does not list one woman; and during the subsequent years of the Third Reich, in spite of all the organisations of millions of both sexes, there was no true political representation of women. The misogyny of the initial phase, despite all mitigating assurances by the top leadership, remained a basic factor and emphatically differentiated the NSDAP from all other political groups and parties. The type of homeless man, profoundly incapable of bourgeois stability, who gave the movement its shape during the early phase, generally despised attachment to a wife and family along with all other ties. The decisive influences in his life, experience at the front, the years of the Freikorps, the militant alliances in the big cities, had always had the character of a men's society, and the feelings of Comradeship from those years further reinforced this masculine exclusiveness. In the idea of a carefully fostered elite and hierarchy, particularly in the SA and later in the SS, in the ecstatic admiration for the Indomitable leader', the 'heroic friend' and the self-sacrificing comrade' we see a repeated tendency to homosexuality also revealed in the soft, vaguely sentimental tone used to embellish acts of brutality.

It is no coincidence that for years no one found his way into the movement's top leadership who had a family or whose family life matched the image of National Socialist ideology. In countless and tirelessly presented metaphors, pictures, monuments, as well as in the amateurish but officially fostered 'genuinely national poetry', (2) the type is pictured as a heroic figure, preferably on his own land, gazing boldly into the rising sun or standing with legs apart as he offers his strong bare chest to the turbulent waves of life, and leaning against him is his tall, full-bosomed wife; she too is doughty and valiant, but at the same time fervent, profound and gay amid the children to whom she has tirelessly given birth. This erect blond idyll with the unmistakable aura of male sweat and nobility of soul was peculiar to all stylizations of National Socialist ideology, in whatever sphere. Behind the stilted heroism of these pictures there always lurked the sober considerations of power politics, which saw marriage as a 'productive relationship' and graded women according to their 'child-bearing achievements'.(3) Naturally, the prevalent military vocabulary spoke of 'throwing woman into the struggle', of battles fought 'not in the social but in the erotic sphere. The fulfilment of love, happiness in love, conception, and birth are the heroic high-points of female life.'

The woman who 'voluntarily renounced motherhood' was a 'deserter', and Hitler even proclaimed:

'Every child which she brings into the world is a battle which she wins for the existence or non-existence of her nation.'

For the origin and content of National Socialist ideology in respect of women, however, we must look beyond simple considerations of power to Hitler's own problematic attitude to the opposite sex. We can be fairly certain that his personal deviation from the ideal which he set up, like all his decisions and even his private behaviour, was determined in the first place by considerations relating to the psychology of power. As early as 1919 his late mentor, Dietrich Eckart, giving his idea of the future saviour of Germany at the table of a Schwabing tavern, demanded,

'He must be a bachelor! Then we shall bring in the women.'

So, you got some squirley jew blabbing on about the greatness of Israel? It's a problem we've all had. Usually it isn't practical to go into a long winded speech about the evils of israel; you could mention that it's a racial theocracy, its ethnic cleansing, its discrimination,its brutality, its drain on US taxpayers etc... Your audience will likely be uneducated or the jew will put his verbal skills to work and sidestep or mock your arguments with snide (yet ignorant/foolish) comments, that unfortunately work most of the time.

The best way to get your message across is to act like you sympathize with the jew about israels trouble's. This way you can get your important message across without being condemned as an anti-semite. Do this by saying something like the following:

"Yeah, man it sucks that Israel is getting so much bad press for the repression of its native Palestinian population. America had the same problem in the 1800's, but thankfully there weren't TV cameras around then to broadcast it to the world. Our army sent hundreds of thousands of natives on the "trail of tears" to pack them into reservations, or kill them along the way. It's not as bad as Israel's task of expelling millions, but the situation was similiar and it put a strain on our leaders at the time. The american natives didnt have the means to fight back either like the natives in the mideast do with bombs. I hope things get better for Israelis, I think they have a biblical right to establish a land only for people of the Jewish race."

This statement parallels Israel's genocide with a shameful event in American history, and evokes a powerful image in the listener's mind. Most importantly it is short, and since you're supporting Israel with crass assertions, irony causes your message to have the opposite effect of support and makes israel look bad.

*Note: It’s a pleasure to be Anti-Semitic but they are not semites (people from the Middle East) and most of them are Catholics pretending to be Jewish because they are attracted to the money of the Sabbatean Frankish Rothschild suckling pig that everybody feeds off of.


parastic, Whitish looking, chameleon Jew… Just like the continuously changing or mutating HIV virus, Jews are the virus that destroyed the proactive, protective White T-cells of our body poltic… The Jew virus first intected our digestive tract (the money-making apparatus or Federal Reserve) and then sent offspring out into the nervous system and up into the brain (the educational system and mediaj to blind and contuse us with a somnolent-inducing drug called "PC," while keeping us from visiting the doctor (Hitler)."

The European Union, the New jewish Communist Soviet Order

Vladimir Bukovsky explains the Communist nature of the European Union, which is not “Nazi” as shills like Alex Jones would have you believe.

Vladimir Bukovksy, the 63-year old former Soviet dissident, fears that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union. In a speech he delivered in Brussels last week Mr Bukovsky called the EU a “monster” that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fullfledged totalitarian state.

Mr Bukovsky paid a visit to the European Parliament on Thursday at the invitation of Fidesz, the Hungarian Civic Forum. Fidesz, a member of the European Christian Democrat group, had invited the former Soviet dissident over from England, where he lives, on the occasion of this year’s 50th anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian Uprising. After his morning meeting with the Hungarians, Mr Bukovsky gave an afternoon speech in a Polish restaurant in the Trier straat, opposite the European Parliament, where he spoke at the invitation of the United Kingdom Independence Party, of which he is a patron.


To Build a Castle: My Life as a Dissenter (Hardcover)
by Vladimir Konstantinovich Bukovskii (Author), Vladimir Bukovsky (Author)

Soviet Hypocrisy and Western Gullibility (Paperback)

To Choose Freedom (Paperback)
by Vladimir Bukovsky (Author), Alexis Klimoff (Editor), Denise H. Wood (Translator)

Transcript of Mr Bukovsky’s Brussels speech

In 1992 I had unprecedented access to Politburo and Central Committee secret documents which have been classified, and still are even now, for 30 years. These documents show very clearly that the whole idea of turning the European common market into a federal state was agreed between the left-wing parties of Europe and Moscow as a joint project which [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev in 1988-89 called our “common European home.”

The idea was very simple. It first came up in 1985-86, when the Italian Communists visited Gorbachev, followed by the German Social-Democrats. They all complained that the changes in the world, particularly after [British Prime Minister Margaret] Thatcher introduced privatisation and economic liberalisation, were threatening to wipe out the achievement (as they called it) of generations of Socialists and Social-Democrats — threatening to reverse it completely. Therefore the only way to withstand this onslaught of wild capitalism (as they called it) was to try to introduce the same socialist goals in all countries at once. Prior to that, the left-wing parties and the Soviet Union had opposed European integration very much because they perceived it as a means to block their socialist goals. From 1985 onwards they completely changed their view. The Soviets came to a conclusion and to an agreement with the left-wing parties that if they worked together they could hijack the whole European project and turn it upside down. Instead of an open market they would turn it into a federal state.

According to the [secret Soviet] documents, 1985-86 is the turning point. I have published most of these documents. You might even find them on the internet. But the conversations they had are really eye opening. For the first time you understand that there is a conspiracy — quite understandable for them, as they were trying to save their political hides. In the East the Soviets needed a change of relations with Europe because they were entering a protracted and very deep structural crisis; in the West the left-wing parties were afraid of being wiped out and losing their influence and prestige. So it was a conspiracy, quite openly made by them, agreed upon, and worked out.

In January of 1989, for example, a delegation of the Trilateral Commission came to see Gorbachev. It included [former Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro] Nakasone, [former French President Valéry] Giscard d’Estaing, [American banker David] Rockefeller and [former US Secretary of State Henry] Kissinger. They had a very nice conversation where they tried to explain to Gorbachev that Soviet Russia had to integrate into the financial institutions of the world, such as Gatt, the IMF and the World Bank.

In the middle of it Giscard d’Estaing suddenly takes the floor and says: “Mr President, I cannot tell you exactly when it will happen — probably within 15 years — but Europe is going to be a federal state and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with us, and the European leaders, how you would react to that, how would you allow the other Easteuropean countries to interact with it or how to become a part of it, you have to be prepared.”

This was January 1989, at a time when the [1992] Maastricht treaty had not even been drafted. How the hell did Giscard d’Estaing know what was..

Continue reading

Mein Kampf is the autobiography and political treatise of German dictator Adolf Hitler. The title of the book translates to “My Struggle” in German. Published in 1925, the book contains two volumes.


I began my sentence in the Fortress of Landsberg on the Lech, April 1, 1924 resulting from my sentence handed down from the Munich People’s Court.

For the first time in my years of uninterrupted Party work, I was finally able to begin a job that many had asked me to complete and one which I myself felt was useful for the Movement. I decided to write two volumes which would not only explain the aims of our Movement, but also would reveal the birth of the Movement. I believe my story will be more beneficial than a simple historical description.

This work will allow me to describe my own growth in the Movement and assist in crushing the falsehoods about me created by the Jewish press.

My writing is not for strangers, but for those heart-strong supporters of the Movement, and those whose minds need enlightenment.

I know that men are more rarely won over by the written word than they are by the spoken word and that every great movement in this world owes its growth to great speakers, not to great writers.

Still, writing is necessary to create a unified doctrine we can distribute. I must lay down its principles for all time. These two volumes, then, are meant to serve as stones which I hereby add to the foundation of the Movement.

Adolf Hitler
The author
Landsberg on the Lech Prison Fortress

ON NOVEMBER 9, 1923, at 12.30 in the afternoon, in front of the Feldherrnhalle as well as in the courtyard of the former War Ministry the following men fell, with loyal faith in the resurrection of their people:

ALFARTH, FELIX, businessman, b. July 5, I9O1
BAURIEDL, ANDREAS, hatter, b. May 4, I879
CASELLA, THEODOR, bank clerk, a. August 8, 1900
EHRLICH, WILHELM, bank clerk, b. August 19, 1894
FAUST, MARTIN, bank clerk, b. January 27, 19O1
HECHENBERGER, ANTON, locksmith, b. September 28, I 902
KORNER, OSKAR, businessman, b. January 4, I875
KUHN, KARL, headwaiter, b. July 26, I897
LAFORCE, KARL, student of engineering, b. October 28, 1904
NEUBAUER, KURT, valet, b. March 27, I899
PAPE, CLAUS VON, businessman, b. August Id, I904
PFORDTEN, THEODOR SON DER, County Court Councillor, b. May I4, I873
RICKMERS, JOHANN, retired Cavalry Captain, b. May 7, I88I
SCHEUBNER-RICHTER, MAX ERWIN VON, Doctor of Engineering, b. January 9, I884
STRANSKY, LORENZ, RITTER VON, engineer, b. March 14, I889
WOLF, WILHELM, businessman, a. October 19, I898

So-called national authorities denied these dead heroes a common grave.

Therefore I dedicate to them, for common memory, the first volume of this work. As its blood witnesses, may they shine forever, a glowing example to the followers of our movement.

Adolf Hitler

October 16, 1924

Swedish Feminist MP Ripped for Assuming 'All Men Are Rapists'

What about sexually aggressive Africans, Turks, Indians, etc??? They are trying to oppress the whites for the sake of the Jews and elevating blacks and people of Color. No wonder the Jews live Scandinavia! It’s full of leftists who do their bidding for them. The Jews use different races to fight for their causes. Blacks do their street fighting. Whites do their other bidding. We need to find these people who hide in the trenches behind closed doors and hold them to account.

A Swedish Left Party MP has ruffled many feathers by using a one-size fits all approach, labelling all men "rapists" and urging them to take collective responsibility.

Left Party MP Linda Snecker has irked many of her compatriots by claiming that women naturally assume that all men are rapists.

During a parliamentary debate, Snecker also made it clear that men have a "collective responsibility for rape".

"Men's violence against women governs the entire world structure. Men's supremacy, women's subordination", Snecker said in a speech about violent crime.

"We women adapt our lives and our behaviour to men's potential threats of violence. Because we cannot see whether you are a rapist or not, we assume that all men are rapists. That is the brutal truth. That's how a structural problem looks. That is why men must take their collective responsibility. All men", she continued.

"Because I refuse to be afraid, I also refuse that my fellow sisters are afraid. That is why the struggle of feminism is everyone's struggle. The violence of men must be stopped", the Left Party MP explained.

Snecker claimed that sexual oppression cut through all layers of society, with the culprits being men of all possible backgrounds and positions.

Snecker's misandic harangue and sweeping generalisations left a bitter taste in many Swedes' mouth.

"Linda Snecker assumes that all men are rapists and says that all men must take their responsibility. It is a smoke screen to cover up the real causes of the sex crime epidemic", Sweden Democrat Katja Nyberg, member of the Justice Committee, police and investigators at the National Operational Department (NOA), said in a statement on the Swedish Democrats' Facebook page, which gathered hundreds of responses to Snecker's diatribe, mostly negative.

"The Left Party claims that they stand up for women's equal value. But why then insist on hiding the main causes of today's problems with threats and violence against women? They desperately deny the consequences of their own mass immigration policy and instead blame all men, only to hide the facts of rape", Nyberg concluded.

"May I thus assume that all women are prostitutes?" a user inquired, using Snecker's own paint-all-with-the-same-brush approach.

"If I were to stand in parliament and say that all Muslims are terrorists, I would be charged directly. Still, one cannot see for certain if a Muslim is a terrorist or not", yet another user exercised the same logic.

"Is her own husband a rapist too?" another smirked.

"That statement should be classified as slander, right? Should check if it is possible to sue her", yet another one reacted.

With 7,556 reported rapes, 2018 was a record year, according to the Swedish Crime Prevention Council (Brå). While official statistics are yet to include ethnic background, independent reports have indicated a dramatic over-representation and even dominance of immigrants, which raises eyebrows as immigrants constitute about a quarter of Sweden's population.

The Left Party is a socialist and feminist political party. The party originated as a split from the Social Democrats Party in 1917 and was until 1990 known as the Communist Party of Sweden. Although never part of the government per se, the party has frequently collaborated with the red-green governments of the recent decades. Feminism is a prevalent force in left-of-the centre Swedish parties and an integral part of the current government's ideology.

Liberal Democracy versus National Socialism: Thoughts on Richard Tedor’s Hitler’s Revolution

Hitler Youth – The Childhood of Adolf Hitler

Though Adolf Hitler would grow up to be one of the most well-known political leaders of all time, he had very humble beginnings. Looking at his youth, it's difficult to pinpoint where he began to have the deeply disturbing anti-Semitic tendencies that would pervade his every action as Germany's dictator. Adolf Hitler was born on April 20, 1889. He was born in Austria-Hungry. Hitler's parents, Alois Hitler and Klara Polzl had six children, though only Hitler and a single sister would survive to become adults. Hitler's early childhood was very difficult because his father was abusive to his entire family.

Looking back, it's possible to credit Hitler's earliest childhood with many of his character flaws. It's well-known today that abusive parents tend to breed children who are also cruel and abusive. It is interesting to note that Hitler was ashamed enough of his childhood to attempt to lie about it. In Mein Kamph, he paints his upbringing as very idyllic, describing a doting mother and responsible father. With all evidence pointing to the contrary, it seems that this was most likely Hitler's way of painting the appropriate picture for his audience. He supported the nuclear family unit with women giving all their care and devotion to the home.

After Hitler's father died in 1903, Adolf dropped out of school and moved to Vienna to become a painter. Here he worked as a menial laborer. He applied to the Academy of Fine Arts twice with aspirations of becoming famous for his watercolors. Both times, he was rejected. Hitler himself credited his time in Vienna with giving him his first anti-Semitic inclinations. Some scholars believe that his strongest tendencies toward anti-Semitism took hold much later when he become involved in the Nazi party. Either way, it's clear that by the time Hitler gained power in 1933, he blamed the Jews for nearly all of Germany's struggles.

In 1908, Hitler's mother died of breast cancer. He spent the next four years selling watercolor postcards on the streets of Vienna and living in a homeless shelter. In 1913, Hitler took possession of his father's inheritance and moved to Munich. Though he actively avoided Austrian military service, he volunteered to serve in the German army. This was only the beginning of his long relationship with the country which was not actually his own. Hitler was a decorated soldier in WWI. He was furious at the outcome of the war and particularly loathed the Treaty of Versailles. In 1919 he joined what would become the Nazi party and began his climb to leadership.


For half a century, memories of the Holocaust limited anti-Semitism on the Continent. That period has ended—the recent fatal attacks in Paris and Copenhagen are merely the latest examples of rising violence against Jews. Renewed vitriol among right-wing fascists and new threats from radicalized Islamists have created a crisis, confronting Jews with an agonizing choice.

I. The Scourge of Our Time

The French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut, the son of Holocaust survivors, is an accomplished, even gifted, pessimist. To his disciples, he is a Jewish Zola, accusing France’s bien-pensant intellectual class of complicity in its own suicide. To his foes, he is a reactionary whose nostalgia for a fairy-tale French past is induced by an irrational fear of Muslims. Finkielkraut’s cast of mind is generally dark, but when we met in Paris in early January, two days after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, he was positively grim.

“My French identity is reinforced by the very large number of people who openly declare, often now with violence, their hostility to French values and culture,” he said. “I live in a strange place. There is so much guilt and so much worry.” We were seated at a table in his apartment, near the Luxembourg Gardens. I had come to discuss with him the precarious future of French Jewry, but, as the hunt for the Charlie Hebdo killers seemed to be reaching its conclusion, we had become fixated on the television.

Finkielkraut sees himself as an alienated man of the left. He says he loathes both radical Islamism and its most ferocious French critic, Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s extreme right-wing—and once openly anti-Semitic—National Front party. But he has lately come to find radical Islamism to be a more immediate, even existential, threat to France than the National Front. “I don’t trust Le Pen. I think there is real violence in her,” he told me. “But she is so successful because there actually is a problem of Islam in France, and until now she has been the only one to dare say it.”

Suddenly, there was news: a kosher supermarket in Porte de Vincennes, in eastern Paris, had come under attack. “Of course,” Finkielkraut said. “The Jews.” Even before anti-Semitic riots broke out in France last summer, Finkielkraut had become preoccupied with the well-being of France’s Jews.

We knew nothing about this new attack—except that we already knew everything. “People don’t defend the Jews as we expected to be defended,” he said. “It would be easier for the left to defend the Jews if the attackers were white and rightists.”

Mass immigration is on the verge of DESTROYING Europe

SEVERAL millennia were required to build European civilisation but its impending destruction has been the work of just a few years, carried out by a cadre of irresponsible, unpatriotic and deluded politicians led by German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Dressing up their vandalism as compassion and their cowardice as moral superiority, these leaders have created an immigration crisis so profound that the very existence of our European culture and heritage is under mortal threat.

The tragic paradox of the obsession with free movement and the abolition of national identities is that Europe in any meaningful sense will probably cease to exist this century.

As the social revolution accelerates traditional values of democracy, freedom and solidarity will be replaced by conflict, sectarianism, oppression and intolerance.

Increasingly Islamified, barbaric and poverty-stricken, Europe will become indistinguishable from large swathes of North Africa and the Middle East.

Even the stupendously high levels of mass immigration over the past two decades are now dwarfed by the colossal flood of new arrivals that has occurred since the early summer when Merkel made her woefully illconceived pledge that ­Germany would welcome anyone claiming to be a refugee.

She may have thought that the open-door policy would provide a counter to Germany’s appalling record of aggression since the 1860s but in reality by wrecking Europe’s social fabric she has added to the long catalogue of Teutonic crimes.

It is thanks mainly to her that so many African, Asian and Middle-Eastern migrants are coming to our shores. In October alone a record 218,000 of them crossed the Mediterranean, more than the entire total for 2014.

Absurdly some metropolitan elitists complain that Britain has failed to join in this demographic upheaval since our Government has said that we will only take 20,000 refugees from Syria over the next five years.

This ignores the crucial fact that the current annual immigration rate is officially more than 630,000-a-year, with most of the new settlers hailing from outside the EU. How many more are Britain and Europe expected to take?

Read more

“The fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists.” Not WSC. - Winston Churchill

The question

It comes to us frequently of late, and is always the same: “I’m a reporter writing to ask whether a certain quote attributed to Winston Churchill was actually spoken or written by him.

The quote is: ‘The fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists.’ There does not seem to be credible information on the internet linking those words to Churchill, but I would appreciate your input.”

Churchillian Drift

Manufacturing Churchill quotes is a parlor game. Nigel Rees, host of the BBC program Quote…Unquote, describes what he calls “Churchillian Drift.” It’s a proces whereby a quote’s originator “is elbowed to one side and replaced by someone more famous. So to Churchill or Napoleon would be ascribed what, actually, a lesser-known political figure said.” Churchill, Napoleon, Lincoln, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr.—they are all victims. (As is indeed Yogi Berra. “I never said half the things I said,” Yogi said—allegedly.)

Right now, the popular quote about fascists and anti-fascists is almost as frequent as that hardy perennial, “If you’re going through hell, keep going.” Churchill never said either. The Churchill Project has a way to verify this. We have scanned some 80 million published words by and about Churchill into a searchable facility for scholars. Churchill himself accounts for about 20 million (books, articles, speeches, letters, papers), including 23 volumes of The Churchill Documents. There are also 60 million words of biography, specialized studies, related works on the World Wars, and memoirs by Churchill’s associates. Of course some quotes in these secondary sources are hearsay, so one has to consider the source.

Politically, those words are in vogue. It’s a popular reflex to call someone with authoritarian impulses a fascist. Attaching it to Churchill gives it credibility. Like most examples of “Churchillian Drift,” it is quite impossible to track. Some begin with words he said, distorted out of recognition. Others are simply made up. Churchill quotation books and websites abound, but any item without solid attribution is suspect. Nearly 150 are listed on my blogsite—with notes as to their origins (if known).

Fascists and anti-fascists

We are very confident that Churchill made no pronouncement about fascists of the future. Not only because the quotation or parts of it does not come up in digital searches; but because Churchill didn’t use “fascist” in the generic sense—or as a pejorative against political opponents, as so frequently today. In most of the 97 times he used the word, he referred to specific entities. Examples: the pre-World War II Yugoslav Anti-fascist Coalition, or the postwar Italian Anti-fascist Council.

For Churchill to label a political opponent a fascist would be inconceivable. We might think he would have said that, say, about Clement Attlee, his socialist opposite and successor as Prime Minister in 1945. But Churchill would never think of it.

One of the striking things about The Churchill Documents, volume 22 (1945-51) is the civility of their discourse. In debate, Churchill criticized Attlee fiercely and often, and these criticisms are in the volume. Several times in the House of Commons, he called Attlee’s competence into question. Yet they both worked to keep channels open with each other, where mutually aligned in the nation’s interest. Churchill would brook no generic criticism of Attlee, who certainly could be accused of authoritarian impulses. On the floor they went at it hammers and tongs. Off the floor there was mutual respect. It was a relationship of cordiality and fairness.

“The Creeds of the Devil”

There is a third reason why Churchill would not have said this popular phrase. To speak in sweeping terms about “fascists” doesn’t even sound like him. It’s too pat, too simple; not natural nor realistic. Churchill’s views on extreme and tyrannical government were specific. They first occur in a beautiful 1937 essay, “The Infernal Twins.” In it he compares Nazism with Communism, then takes pains to distinguish Italian fascism.

Nazism and Communism imagine themselves as exact opposites. They are at each other’s throats wherever they exist all over the world. They actually breed each other; for the reaction against Communism is Nazism, and beneath Nazism or Fascism Communism stirs convulsively.

Yet they are similar in all essentials. First of all, their simplicity is remarkable. You leave out God and put in the Devil; you leave out love and put in hate; and everything thereafter works quite straightforwardly and logically.

They are, in fact, as alike as two peas. Tweedledum and Tweedledee are two quite distinctive personalities compared to these two rival religions.

Continue reading

Why Did Nazis Burn Thousands Of Books?

In the middle of a Berlin square, lies a small glass memorial, but it isn't to commemorate lost souls.

Whether it's media blackouts, censorship, or burning down libraries, people's attempts to control knowledge and culture are often severe and shocking. There are many different reasons for these practices. Sometimes powerful people or those attempting to gain power, are trying to limit the information and ideas available about themselves or the people who oppose them. In other situations, censorship is an attempt to guard cultures, groups, or societies from exposures to material that is considered dangerous or lewd. Still other acts of censorship are symbolic.

One of most famous instances of book burning occurred on May 10, 1933. On this day, university students in Germany burned over 25,000 "un-German" books as a show of support for the Nazi movement. It was considered a cultural cleansing through fire. Works that were burned included those of socialist Bertolt Brecht, Karl Marx, Austrian playwright Arthur Schnitzler, Ernest Hemingway, and Helen Keller. These burnings proved an ominous sign of atrocities to come.

Although book burnings conducted by the Nazis are perhaps the most well-known, this practice is likely as old as books themselves. According to Time, in 213 B.C., Emperor Shih Huang Ti of China believed that burning all the documents in his kingdom (and killing scholars who taught about them) would make history begin with him. Caliph Omar allegedly ordered his army to burn over 200,000 books from the Library of Alexandria because they would either contradict the Koran or be unnecessary. In more recent times, post-Dust Bowl farmers symobolically burned John Steinback's The Grapes of Wrath in protest of its harsh depictions of agricultural life. In Kern County, California, the book was later banned from county libraries and schools by the board of supervisors.

Book burning has a long and dark history of 2,200 years. It started from ancient china to a bonfire in Germany by nazis but the list of burning books goes on till the 21st century.

To burn books is simply a fundamental suppression of ideas. It shows a factor of censorship from a religious, cultural, or political opposition or group.

In history, the most infamous book burnings were staged under the nazi regime by Adolf Hitler in May 1933.
The German poet Herman Heine well said,
‘‘Where books are burned in the end people will be burned’’
— Herman Heine
Book burning in 1933

In 1933, the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi) came to power in Germany and imposed a dictatorship under the leadership of Adolf Hilter.
Nazis intended to re-establish and organize the german state on the ideology that the german race is the supreme of all races in Europe.

The ministry of propaganda set up various groups to control the specific german art, literature, music, and other types of entertainment and news.

In April 1933, the German students decided to arrange a nationwide book-burning program (Action against the Un-German Spirit) to destroy the international influence, to praise the traditional values, and purify the German race.

Professor, students, and nazi officials gathered, formed specific committees, and decided what kind of books or literature in universities libraries could be anti-national or ‘un german’ so they can burn them.

On May 10, 1933, In each German university city - 34 of them across Germany, students burned over 25000 books.

Written by Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi
Translated by Dimitra Ekmektsis
Narrated by Alexander Sangmoore

The form of constitution that replaced feudalism and absolutism was democracy; the form of government, plutocracy. Today, democracy is a façade of plutocracy: since nations would not tolerate a pure form of plutocracy, they were granted nominal powers, while the real power rests in the hands of plutocrats. In republican as well as monarchical democracies, the statesmen are puppets, the capitalists are the puppeteers; they dictate the guidelines of politics, rule through purchase the public opinion of the voters, and through professional and social relationships, the ministers.

Instead of the feudal structure of society, the plutocratic stepped in; birth is no more the decisive factor for social rank, but income is. Today's plutocracy is mightier than yesterday's aristocracy: because nobody is above it but the state, which is its tool and helper's helper.

When there was still true blood nobility, the system of aristocracy by birth was fairer than that of the moneyed aristocracy today: because then the ruling caste had a sense of responsibility, culture and tradition, whereas the class that rules today is barren of feelings of responsibility, culture or tradition.

Editor's note:

In my travels across the Internet, I have not found an English translation of an important work by a man many consider to be the Father of Modern day Europe entitled Practical Idealism. This book was written by Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi about the direction that modern Europe should take.

When reading this work, there are several things that you should note. This work was translated using Google Translate which produced fairly good results. Needless to say, the reader should at least be able to understand the point that Kalergi makes in the book. A problem has been encountered in the translation of the more archaic phrasing of the book which has left these phrases and certain words in German. This does not affect the overall readability of the text and even in places where this is the case, this is not too big of an issue.

The second note once again surrounds the fact that this is a Google Translation project. I have clarified some small parts of this text, however my edit of the text is ongoing. This means that some sections will appear more readable than others. For those who understand how German as well as most other languages work, at times elements of the phrasing appear to be inverted when translated into English. Some passages of the text do not flow quite as well without having greater edits put into them. I have chosen to keep the page numbers within the Book and these are indicated in brackets for simplicity of referencing should the reader desire.

With all this being said, this translation is readable and gets the point of his argument across in its different sections. This is an important work for those who wish to understand the mindset behind at least one prominent figure within the Pan-European movement. I hope that the readers find its contents enlightening.

The Kalergi Plan to Take Over Europe and the World Executed by the United Nations

The defining political divide of our era, nationalism versus globalism continues to widen.

Chances are that you probably haven’t heard of the UN Migration Pact? If you haven’t, you’re likely not alonel but you may want to ask yourself just why. Not surprisingly, in most western countries, there’s been a virtual media black-out on the topic.

The UN Migration Pact is an alarming declaration to say the least. The pact is nothing less than a brazen attempt to expunge the idea of the traditional nation-state, and acts as a blueprint for a 3rd world invasion of into western countries. In short, the pact seeks to normalize mass migration, and to establish migration as a global human right. After it’s enacted migrants from all over the world will be able to go where they want, when they please, and for whatever reason.

The pact claims that 244 million people world-wide wish to migrate. The pact claims that it would make the migration of this 244 million people “orderly and safe”.

As of now they say that the contract isn’t legally binding; however, many of its critics say that the current form of the pact is a merely stepping stone towards implementing these policies as international law. The contract uses language like “we commit to” or “we agree on”.

Signatory nations will de facto hand over their sovereignty to the un-elected and unaccountable United Nations. Effectively, these signatory nations will be giving up their “nationhood”. As Trump has famously said, “Without borders, we don’t have a nation.” And, for the countries who signed the pact, they will no longer have borders.


by Bertrand L. Comparet

Taken From Your Heritage

Plus Critical Notes

We who live in this land, so blessed with liberty and prosperity, are much too likely to take these conditions for granted, giving no thought to the reasons why they exist. We have inherited them without doing anything on our part to create them or even preserve them, so we place far too low a value on them. We do not think about how our ancestors won them at the cost of their blood. We have even allowed sinister forces, to bar out of our schools, most of the teachings which would tell our children how these things came to be. The liberals say this would discriminate against the Asiatics and Africans who never had, or wanted, such institutions. It would build up in the children a patriotism which would make it harder to brainwash them into the kind of robots who will make good slaves of a world government.

The great ideals upon which our nation was built are no accident, neither are they just the work of men who created them out of nothing. They are our heritage from our remote past, from ancient ancestors who were taught them by the word of Yahweh. They are a part of a far greater plan of racial and national life drawn up for us by our God and set forth in the Bible. Liberty and prosperity are not causes, they are results. You cannot have either one very long unless you keep the righteousness which is the only cause capable of producing them. Whenever we have forgotten this, we have soon lost our blessings.

As both the Bible and the later histories of our race record, we have gone through alternating periods of greatness and decay, liberty and tyranny, prosperity and poverty. The greatness only came when we had leaders of uncompromising righteousness and courage, obedient to Yahweh in all circumstances. It was lost when leadership passed into the hands of opportunists and cowards. Greatness was never conferred upon us by other nations, never could we buy greatness from them. Never did we grow strong by submerging ourselves in a group of other nations, becoming dependent upon others and dancing to whatever tune they piped.

Only when our leaders feared no one but Yahweh, only when they obeyed Him in all things, did we rise to greatness. Men of that stature led us on the paths laid out by Yahweh and we became the mightiest, freest, wealthiest nation world history has ever known. How we have fallen from that height in the short space of several decades! We have been led by little men, incapable of the great visions, led by men without confidence in the God they will not serve. Of course they are careful to be seen, of a Sunday morning, in the great gothic temples of brick and stone, listening to a sermon which never embarrasses them by any mention of neglected duties. They say their prayers for help to Nehru and Tito, they flout the laws of Yahweh and fear only Kosygin.

Do you wonder our prestige in the world has been utterly lost in these few years? A communist dictator can set up an admittedly communist regime just 90 miles off our shores, build bomber airports and rocket bases there. Then we just cringe and whimper for Bolivia, Equador and Nicaragua to do what we dare not to do, remove this menace while there is still time.

We have sunk to this despicable level because it is the level of our leadership. Their highest ideal is to help the wicked, in order to curry favor with them, in the hope the wicked may then allow us to peacefully coexist with them. In this spirit we have given Russia many billions of dollars worth of aid. We have given Tito of Yugoslavia, over 2 billions in aid, although Tito has openly and repeatedly declared when war comes, he will fight on Russia’s side. We have given communist Poland over half a billion dollars in aid. We have knowingly and deliberately strengthened our enemies, who have openly proclaimed their intention to conquer and enslave us. What is even worse, these nations are not merely our enemies but also Yahweh’s enemies.

No nation can align itself with Yahweh’s enemies without becoming one of them! This warning is not new. Over 28 centuries ago, an ancient king of our people was rebuked for this misconduct and told in II Chronicles 19:2, “Should you help the wicked and love those that hate Yahweh? For this reason wrath has come upon you from Yahweh.” It has been in the Bible ever since, as a warning to us. The proper standard is clearly stated in Psalm 26:5, “I have hated the congregation of evil doers; and will not sit with the wicked.” Psalm 139:21-22 states, “Do not I hate them O Yahweh, that hate Thee? and am I not grieved with those that rise up against Thee? I hate them with a perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.”

Continue reading

The Nazi Party and its Violence Against the Jews, 1933-1939: Violence as a Historiographical Concept

In his masterpiece, Behemoth, first published in 1942, Franz Neumann referred to violence as “not just one unimportant phenomenon in the structure of National Socialist society.” Violence, Neumann argued, “is the very basis upon which the [Nazi] society rests.”1 He regarded violence as a technique of dominating the masses from above, and the ministerial bureaucracy, the armed forces, the industrial and agrarian leadership and the Nazi party all aimed to dominate German society by using violence. Violence served, in Neumann’s own words, to establish totalitarian control over German society. From his point of view, violence throughout the Third Reich was used as a rational instrument of political power. Hence, Neumann supported Max Weber’s fundamental insight that, in each political association, violence is an inevitable element for maintaining power.2

Neumann's assumptions concerning the functions of violence for Nazi Germany have been the basis of all historical research on this regime. Indeed, there can be no doubt that Nazi Germany was violent, even, to a striking degree, when compared to other non-democratic regimes in the twentieth century.3 The impact of Nazi violence has been described thoroughly, primarily focusing on the terror and brutality of the Gestapo4 and the SS.5 During the Nazi period, these two agencies were at the center of the violence, with their actions directed against their declared enemies--Communists and Social Democrats, the Catholic Church, Homosexuals, so-called Gypsies, and Jews. Most historical studies on this violence have concentrated on the persecution of the Jews and later on the Holocaust.6 This is not surprising, for the Holocaust marked the pivotal point of all Nazi politics.

As far as the persecution of the Jews between 1933 and 1939 is concerned, little is known about the anti-Jewish violence of the Nazi party, its divisions (Gliederungen) and affiliated organizations (angeschlossene Verbände).7 This is somewhat strange because, after the Nazi rise to power on January 30, 1933, violent acts against Jews were mainly perpetrated by members of the Nazi party. There was also a certain continuity to this anti-Jewish violence from the so-called “time of struggle” (Kampfzeit) of the Nazi party between 1925 and 1932. During this period the SA terrorized Communists, Social Democrats, and Jews.8 Regarding the Nazi party’s rise to the scope of a mass movement before 1933, its antisemitic propaganda seems to have been far more important than most scholars have assumed until now.9 Dirk Walter points out that, after World War I, anti-Jewish violence had been a widespread phenomenon in German society.10 This became even truer of the Third Reich.

This article will analyze the anti-Jewish violence of the Nazi party between 1933 and 1939. It will evaluate both the forms and the functions of violent acts against the Jews as far as the Nazi party, its divisions and affiliates as a political body is concerned. Following the sociologist Heinrich Popitz, I define violence as “every action of power that leads to an intended physical injury of others.”11 His definition of violence includes three power actions: actions that are physically harmful; actions that cause economic damage; and actions that lead to a decreased social participation.12 Popitz, unlike Weber, for example, does not restrict violence to an inevitable act for maintaining power within associations. Popitz defines it as an execution of power actions that inflict pain. With this definition, it is possible to analyze violent actions of individuals or social groups that are institutionalized to a minor degree. The Nazi party was actually a political body whose integrational force, as compared to communist parties, was low.13 The Nazi party only aspired to be a totalitarian organization, but in reality this was never the case.14

Michael Wildt has made an important contribution to the topic of antiJewish violence in Nazi Germany in general.15 His empirical analysis primarily evaluates anti-Jewish violence in the middle Franconian town of Treuchtlingen, looking for the prerequisites for the disintegration of civil values and legal norms that led to violent actions against the Jews. Wildt is interested in how violent actions against Jews spread and in how bystanders were transformed into perpetrators. He thoroughly describes the different forms of violent actions against the Jews in Treuchtlingen, mainly promoted by local SA and SS activists. As far as his questionnaire is concerned, Wildt remains rather vague; nor does he explore the genesis of violent acts against the Jews or offer explanations of the functions of anti-Jewish violence for the Nazi party.

The False God of Equality

In modern political discourse there’s much talk about the political ‘right’ and the political ‘left’, although there’s very little discussion as to what these concepts fundamentally are.

The argument put forward by Paul Gottfried, Professor Emeritus of Elizabethtown College in the United States, is that the key difference between the left and the right is the issue of equality. At face value, that may seem merely an assertion, that equality is the driving force of the political left, but if you look at the thought of leftist political theorists such as Karl Marx, moral theorists like John Rawls, modern politicians like Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn or Julius Malema, the fundamental driver is unquestionably equality to some or other degree. The aforementioned politicians push primarily for equality of wealth, leveling what they perceive to be the excesses of the wealthy and giving the loot to the deserving. But equality isn’t always advocated for on the basis of material wealth.

In the United States there’s been a tremendous amount of pressure from the left for social equality of the transgendered. The push wasn’t that the law should be changed to cease legal oppression against transgender individuals – there is no legal persecution of transgendered persons in the United States, who make up a very, very small portion of the population – but rather that the benighted masses accept their lifestyle and gender dysphoria as equitable with their own with the state hopefully providing the muscle to make that happen.

The push was for transgenderism to not merely be tolerated – which it absolutely is – but heralded and that backwards institutions opposed to such lifestyles be attacked, like the church or other civic organizations and groups of free association. The mere fact that groups existed, which didn’t hold transgenderism to the same esteem as their own in-group practices and beliefs, was a moral outrage that required massive pressure to lobby for state-sponsored sanctions against free association and the use of one’s property as they saw fit. Whether or not the state should have the ability to force people to associate with each other or that people should be told what to do with their property was a question never raised by the left.

In the South African context, the left has pushed for lower fees at university and ultimately-free tertiary education. Why? Because of the belief that it’s an intolerable injustice that some people cannot afford the cost of a tertiary education, already largely subsidized by the state, and money must further be drawn from the taxpayer to provide to the unfortunate poor who, apparently, have a natural born right to a collegiate education.

The ‘Fees Must Fall’ movement was a call for legally-sanctioned equality of experience, in this case university experience, and that the state should make it so that anybody who wishes and who has a knack for book learning be allotted the positive right to study at the expense of others in the name of equality and social justice. Regardless of the policy, whether it’s Malema’s calls to ‘take back the land’ or Sanders’ wish to redistribute wealth from the ‘top 1 percent’, social agitation in the United States for transgender bathrooms in private businesses, or student protests at the University of Cape Town for lower fees or free college, the goal is always the same: equality.

The pull on the left’s political compass – what steers their values and policy prescriptions – is and has always been the pursuit of unbridled equality. Leftist equality is unbridled in that it comes before property rights, legal precedent, thought for unintended consequences, economic implications, or social cohesion. These things must first bow to the god of equality and come following on the coat tails if they can survive.

The right, to varying degrees and for various reasons, rejects the notion of equality as a rebellion against reality, history, culture, and the constraints put upon all of us by existence itself. To the right, inequality is a fact of life, pleasant or not, and in some cases it’s a good thing. A very smart and enterprising person who creates a product or service that improves the lives of millions and employs thousands of people is obviously superior in their knack for business and richer than the average person. There’s an inherent inequality between me and that person, and thank God for that.

That exceptional entrepreneur in effect has benefited an enormous amount of people and effected real change in a way I couldn’t. The doctor who invents a lifesaving medication or surgical practice has a superior knowledge of the human body and a higher demand for his scarce labour than the plumber whose skills are comparatively commonplace.

When are people going to stand up and take action against these Jewish destroyers? Criminalise the Tavistock Institute and destroy all Jewish Institutions.

“We Jews, we are the destroyers and will remain the destroyers. Nothing you can do will meet our demands and needs. We will forever destroy because we want a world of our own.”
— Maurice Samuel

Cultural Marxism Is the Main Source of Modern Confusion—and It's Spreading

While Marxism has largely disappeared from the workers' movement, Marxist theory flourishes today in cultural institutions, in the academic world, and in the mass media.

Another name for the neo-Marxism of increasing popularity in the United States is "cultural Marxism.” This theory says the driving force behind the socialist revolution is not the proletariat—but the intellectuals. While Marxism has largely disappeared from the workers' movement, Marxist theory flourishes today in cultural institutions, in the academic world, and in the mass media.

This “cultural Marxism” goes back to Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) and the Frankfurt School. The theorists of Marxism recognized that the proletariat would not play the expected historical role as a “revolutionary subject.” Therefore, for the revolution to happen, the movement had to depend on the cultural leaders to destroy the existing, mainly Christian, culture and morality and then drive the disoriented masses to Communism as their new creed. The goal of this movement is to establish a world government in which the Marxist intellectuals have the final say. In this sense, the cultural Marxists are the continuation of what started with the Russian revolution.

Lenin and the Soviets

Led by Lenin, the perpetrators of the revolution regarded their victory in Russia only as the first step to the world revolution. The Russian Revolution was neither Russian nor proletarian. In 1917, the industrial workers in Russia represented only a small part of the workforce, which mainly consisted of the peasantry. The Russian Revolution was not the result of a labor movement but of a group of professional revolutionaries. A closer look at the composition of the Bolshevik party and of the first governments of the Soviet state and its repressive apparatus reveals the true character of the Soviet revolution as a project that did not aim at freeing the Russian people from the Tsarist yoke, but rather, was to serve as the launchpad for the world revolution.

Tavistock: The Illuminati's Psychological War on Society

Who are the Fallschirmjäger?

The Fallschirmjäger were the paratrooper (German language: Fallschirmjäger) branch of the German Luftwaffe before and during World War II. They were the first German paratroopers to be committed in large-scale airborne operations and came to be known as the "green devils" by the Allied forces they fought against.[1] Throughout World War II the Fallschirmjäger commander was Kurt Student.

The first attempt to form an SS airborne unit was in 1937 when a small group of volunteers from the Germania Regt. of the SS-Verfügungstruppe (later Waffen-SS) gathered at the Fallschirmschule at Stendal between 23 May and 17 July for jump training. However, the idea suffered crib-death in its infancy, and the troops were returned to their regular units. When the order came down from FHQu. to SS-FHA in late 1943 (post-Skorzeny at Gran-Sasso)to form an SS-Fallshirmjäger-Bataillon, it was decided that there would be an equal percentage of volunteers from both existing Waffen-SS units, and more specifically, for opportunities for officially disgraced officers and enlisted men wishing to redeem themselves from minor disciplinary sentences todo so under fire. Most such cases were at the time imprisoned at the Strafvollzugslager der Waffen-SS und Polizei in places like SS-Straflager Dachau, and at Danzig-Matzkau. The former military prisoners were restored to their rank and standing. They were integrated throughout the new unit while being overseen by a special probationary staff attached to the Battalion HQ, known as Section III (Abt. III), which included an SS Lawyer, and a number of clerks to keep track of the records concerning the disciplinary cases in the unit.

Although SS-Fj.Btl.-500 is commonly referred to as a penal unit, there is apejorative nuance to the term in English (ie. punishment) which the Germansdisdained to use outright for this type of unit. SS-Fj.Btl.500 was a 500 seriesBewährungs or probationary unit in which (as mentioned above) an enlistedsoldier, NCO, or Officer who had dishonored himself by minor infractions of themilitary code could be given the chance to, in the words of a 2.4.1942 Hitler-decree: “…an der Front bewähren, und eine Amnestie verdienenKönnten.” (ie. “…prove oneself by service at the Front, and thereby earnan amnesty.”). In other words, it was a unit where officers and men convicted bycourts-martial of minor infractions and currently in disciplinary straits couldredeem their soldierly honor by participation in hazardous duties and operations.

The 500 series numbering system was also shared by the Heer, but should not be confused with the post-1940 500 series designated divisional units, which were also to be found resurrected in the July-August 1944 Heer 28th, 29th and31st mobilization waves of Grenadier and Volksgrenadier formations. Some battalion-sized unit numbers of the 5xx series had also been formerBewärungs units (z.b.V.- zur besondern Verwendung – for special employment) of the Heer (also, Waffen-SS and Polizei) employed on theEastern Front and integrated into new Grenadier formations in the course of, in this case, the July-August 1944 reorganization of the Feldheer.

In the case of the Waffen-SS men being recruited for the SS-Fj.Btl.500, it would have probably been at one of the harsh SS-Strafanstalten, such as that of the notoriously brutal SS-military prison at Danzig-Matzkau, or the punishment-section for SS personnel at Dachau. Prisons for Wehrmacht personnel directed bythe OKW also existed at the Alte-Festung Gemmersheim, and after 1940 atIngolstadt, and at Fort Alvensleben in Metz, among other places. The Luftwaffe also had a disciplinary section at Prüfungslager (testing center) Leipzig-Schünau, and later at Dedelsdorf in Kreis Gifhorn. The Kriegsmarine established a special section for their disciplinary cases at Hela on the Baltics. The Kriegsmarine also had specific battalion-sized units for its disciplinary cases, the first being the Sonderabteilung der Kriegsmarine (NavalDisciplinary Unit) which after WWII began was renamed the Kriegsonderabteilung(Wartime Naval Disciplinary Unit). Another such unit was formed later in WWIInamed Kriegsonderabteilung Ost. Also during the War, the 30.Schiffstammabteilung and 31.Schiffstammabteilung (30th and 31st Ship Cadre Battalions) were formed; the 30th for use in the North Sea area, and the 31st in the Baltic Sea area. Interestingly enough, if “further education” was not likely, problem men were transferred into a naval company of the Heer Field Disciplinary Battalion.


The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute therefore the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood. A very simple statement; but it involves a principle that has tremendous consequences.

This is probably the first time and this is the first country in which people are being taught to realize that, of all the tasks which we have to face, the noblest and most sacred for mankind is that each racial species must preserve the purity of the blood which God has given it.

And thus it happens that for the first time it is now possible for men to use their God-given faculties of perception and insight in the understanding of those problems which are of more momentous importance for the preservation of human existence than all the victories that may be won on the battlefield or the successes that may be obtained through economic efforts. The greatest revolution which National Socialism has brought about is that it has rent asunder the veil which hid from us the knowledge that all human failures and mistakes are due to the conditions of the time and therefore can be remedied, but that there is one error which cannot be remedied once men have made it, namely the failure to recognize the importance of conserving the blood and the race free from intermixture and thereby the racial aspect and character which are God's gift and God's handiwork. It is not for men to discuss the question of why Providence created different races, but rather to recognize the fact that it punishes those who disregard its work of creation.

Unspeakable suffering and misery have come upon mankind because they lost this instinct which was grounded in a profound intuition; and this loss was caused by a wrong and lopsided education of the intellect. Among our people there are millions and millions of persons living today for whom this law has become clear and intelligible. What individual seers and the still unspoiled natures of our forefathers saw by direct perception has now become a subject of scientific research in Germany. And I can prophesy here that, just as the knowledge that the earth moves around the sun led to a revolutionary alternation in the general world-picture, so the blood-and-race doctrine of the National Socialist Movement will bring about a revolutionary change in our knowledge and therewith a radical reconstruction of the picture which human history gives us of the past and will also change the course of that history in the future.

And this will not lead to an estrangement between the nations; but, on the contrary, it will bring about for the first time a real understanding of one another. At the same time, however, it will prevent the Jewish people from intruding themselves among all the other nations as elements of internal disruption, under the mask of honest world-citizens, and thus gaining power over these nations.

We feel convinced that the consequences of this really revolutionizing vision of truth will bring about a radical transformation in German life. For the first time in our history, The German people have found the way to a higher unity than they ever had before; and that is due to the compelling attraction of this inner feeling. Innumerable prejudices have been broken down, many barriers have been overthrown as unreasonable, evil traditions have been wiped out and antiquated symbols shown to be meaningless. From that chaos of disunion which had been caused by tribal, dynastic, philosophical, religious and political strife, the German nation has arisen and has unfurled the banner of a reunion which symbolically announces, not a political triumph, but the triumph of the racial principle. For the past four-and-a-half years German legislation has upheld and enforced this idea. Just as on January 30th 1933, a state of affairs already in existence was legalized by the fact that I was entrusted with the chancellorship, whereby the party whose supremacy in Germany had then become unquestionable was not authorized to take over the government of the Reich and mould the future destiny of Germany; so this German legislation that has been in force for the past four years was only the legal sanction which gave jurisdiction and binding force to an idea that had already been clearly formulated and promulgated by the party.

When the German community, based on the racial blood-bond, became realized in the German State we all felt that this would remain one of the finest moments to be remembered during our lives. Like a blast of springtime it passed over Germany four years ago. The fighting forces of our movement who for many years had defended the…

Speer und Er (literally "Speer and He", released as Speer and Hitler: The Devil's Architect) is a three-part German docudrama starring Sebastian Koch as Albert Speer and Tobias Moretti as Adolf Hitler. It mixes historical film material with reconstructions, as well as interviews with three of Speer's children, Albert Speer Jr., Arnold Speer and Hilde Schramm.

The appended documentary confronts several interviewees including Wolf Jobst Siedler, Joachim Fest and Speer relatives with evidence that Speer knew in detail that some Nazi concentration camps functioned as killing factories, something he consistently maintained he could have found out but never actually knew.


Created 2 years ago.

526 videos

Category News & Politics

Subscribe to the Patriot Channel


Letters to the Editor, Benjamin Fulford


Hidden History of the Incredibly Evil Khazarian Mafia



Kol Nidre Prayer - God forgives Jews for their duplicity against the goyim.

Report: CIA Tortured 311 Danish Orphans For Two Decades, Violating The Nuremberg Code

State of Mind: The Psychology of Control




A Roadmap for Prosecuting COVID Crimes


Mandatory = Not A Law
Required = Not A Law
Mandated = Not A Law
Requested = Not A Law
Ordered = Not A Law
Ordinance = Not A Law
Decree = Not A Law
Compulsory = Not A Law

Pfizer, BioNTech, Moderna each make $65,000 PER MINUTE on covid “vaccine” scam while people suffer from food shortages, collapsing supply chains

List of Products that use Senomyx (Aborted Fetal Cells)

Fiat Currency = False Money
Credit Cards = False Purchase
Shopping = False Happiness
Brand Names = False Identity
Video Games = False Activities
TV & Movies = False Experiences
News Media = False Information
Celebrities = False Idols
Dating Apps = False Relationships
Porn / Sex = False Intimacy
Processed Food = False Food
Alcohol = False Confidence
Big Pharma = False Medicine
Education System = False Knowledge

The Consent of the Governed Essential Principles

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed . . ."

The United States of America was the first modern state formed around the principle of consent of the governed. The term implies that the people of a country or territory have the right of self-rule and must consent, either in a direct referendum or through elected representatives, to the establishment of their own government. In most modern cases, the form of the state is a repubic, or rule by voting citizens within an agreed-upon constitutional and legal framework. But some monarchies also operate with the consent of the governed, as in the United Kingdom, where over time the monarch has given up most political and administrative functions to elected officials and the government is formed through regular elections.

Government / Aristocracy has no power except the power bestowed upon it by the people.