Dr. Alan Sabrosky Speaks with Press TV on Direct Israeli Involvement in 9/11

Israeli Espionage Against the U.S.: A Long History

The Memorial Day Mobs

The Memorial Day Mobs
By Jim Goad
Source: Takimag.com

Though few Americans realize it, Memorial Day has roots that are partially racial in nature. It was originally called “Decoration Day” and was first celebrated by a group composed entirely of black Freedmen in Charleston, SC, to honor Union soldiers—nine in ten of whom where white—who’d died in the Civil War.

This past Memorial Day weekend was anything but civil, but in many places it looked like a war. And people may remember—or even commemorate—this year’s “festivities” a hundred years from now.

Crowd situations in multiple American cities came so unglued that massive police intervention was required to shut down activities at beaches, water parks, and street festivals—places normally intended for lighthearted summer recreation rather than violent mob pandemonium.

In all the news footage I’ve seen and every online account I’ve read of these events, the troublemakers—the ones throwing gang signs and roving in huge packs and attacking random strangers and often planning such mayhem on Twitter and Facebook—were somewhere in the ballpark of 99 to 100 percent black.

From all the footage I’ve seen over the past couple years, this is what a white flash mob looks like, and this is what a black flash mob looks like.

Forgive me, Lord, for what mine own eyes hath seen is racist.

A recap of this year’s Memorial Day weekend mob violence, starting with the least intense and getting worse from there:

A series of “fights…between teenagers” led to the shutdown of a water park in Decatur, AL. An “unruly crowd” that included “people jumping the fence to get into the park, creating chaos inside the park” and leading to “several fights” prematurely closed down Nashville’s Wave Country water park for the first time in 30 years.

In Milwaukee, police “mistakenly” closed a city beach after overestimating traffic and pedestrian “congestion.” At least that’s what they said. However, eyewitness Shaylen McCaskill—who is black and therefore cannot be racist—told TV reporters, “They was jumping on cars and jumping around and throwing up gang signs.”

“These digitally orchestrated and monolithically black mob attacks only seemed to start after Obama was elected.”

In Long Beach, NY, a “melee involving hundreds of people…spilled out onto the streets and a nearby bus depot…and continued for several hours” until police finally regained the upper hand.

Police in Rochester, NY, shut down a beach park near the city’s annual Rib Festival “when fights broke out among at least 100 youth.” A female witness said “There was a group of young gentleman [sic] running through the parking lot, saying something like someone’s getting beat up, and next thing you know there are 20 cops, ambulances, fire trucks….”

Chicago cops said they shut down North Avenue Beach because tiny-fingered Mayor Rahm Emanuel claimed they’d received a “tremendous amount” of calls regarding heat exhaustion. But the high temperature in Chicago on Memorial Day was only 88 degrees and only four people were taken from North Avenue Beach to local hospitals for heat-exhaustion relief. And none of Chicago’s numerous other beaches were closed that day. The mayor’s “heat exhaustion” alibi has lost so much credibility, even CBS News is beginning to question it. Before the beach was shut down, callers to local radio station WLS said they saw “dozens of gang bangers pushing people off their bikes.” Reputed eyewitness descriptions on the Chicago crime blog Second City Cop were more graphic (comments reprinted as they were typed):

I was at the lake front today and here is what I saw; A completely out of controll group of “teens” at the Oak St. Beach and at the Olive Park Beach. They were knocking people from their bikes at the Oak St. beach and then laughing and high-fiving each other. The nice northsiders were completly taken aback when the “teens” would push them from their bikes.

There were over 2,000 teenagers (being PC) who flocked to the beaches and proceeded to fight, attack others, rob, and destroy anything they could get their hands on.

In one eight-hour span in Myrtle Beach, SC, during Black Bike Week, police were called to respond to reports of a stabbing, a shotgun being pointed at a security guard, a shooting, and a quintet of armed robberies. Nevertheless, the NAACP is suing a restaurant for alleged discrimination against black bikers.

Three times over four days, Boston police were called to quash large-scale disturbances on the south side’s Carson Beach to break up gang fights among “1,000 youths who have used social media sites like Facebook to plan unruly gatherings….” Carson Beach became famous back in 1977 when segregation-busting South Boston police escorted black sunbathers there to protect them from presumably racist Southie whites.

In Charlotte, NC, early Sunday morning after the Speed Street festival, “things got chaotic” amid a crowd estimated at 30,000, leading to “many fights” that culminated in the shooting death of 22-year-old Antwan Smith. Another 22-year-old, Durante Kavon James, was shot in the leg. Police made over 70 arrests.

Also early on Sunday morning, shots rang out during Miami’s Urban Beach Weekend, which draws an estimated 300,000 visitors who are “almost exclusively African American” and whose presence nearly doubles the city’s population. Gunplay ensued after one overeager reveler allegedly tried running over a group of police and pedestrians with his car. At least seven people were injured, including three policemen, and the accused vehicular assailant was shot dead. Around the same time, a black Miami poet was murdered outside his café in what was thought to be a deliberate hit. When local gay activist Herb Sosa complained that he saw “six cars parked on my block with their mirrors ripped off, their antennas ripped off” and called for an end to all future Urban Beach Weekends, he was called a racist.

All of the above happened on the opening weekend of what may be America’s longest, hottest summer.

Violent black mob rampages arranged via social media seem to have started around May 2009 in Philadelphia when a group of “youths” beat a 53-year-old white bicyclist unconscious. During the attack as the cyclist went into a seizure, one of his assailants was described as “kind of entertained” by his victim’s violent twitching. Philly would endure a half-dozen or so similar events during the next two years, hitting a maniacal apex in March 2010 when black mobs swarmed South Street and were heard chanting BLACK BOYS! and BURN THE CITY! A 27-year-old white woman was swarmed by male and female blacks who “split her upper lip so severely that much of it was hanging from her face and she was unable to speak.” Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, who is black, said the mob attacks were “silly” and spurred by “bad decision-making,” but he insisted there was “no racial component” to them.

In Kansas City last April, “between 700 and 900 juveniles” invaded the Country Club Plaza. Multiple fights and attacks ensued, with one white couple reportedly being robbed while the husband was thrashed by an estimated 15 “youths” at once.

At the Iowa State Fair last August, a roaming black mob numbering 30-40 loudly announced it was “Beat Whitey Night.” A police report described “a large fight with black male and female juveniles assaulting white citizens.” One victim was hospitalized with “severe injuries to his eyes, cheekbones, and nose.”

Over the past few years there has also emerged a pattern of all-black “smash-and-grab” robberies in places such as Atlanta, Saint Paul, Washington, D.C., New York, and Chicago.

As Buffalo Springfield sang, “There’s somethin’ happenin’ here. What it is ain’t exactly clear.”

Or maybe it’s exactly clear but too horrible to ponder.

The pimply and pasty progressive Poohbahs tell us not to worry. In fact, they lecture us that to even mention this troubling pattern is racist to the core.

Right-side blogger Matt Drudge runs a Top 100 website by doing little more than aggregating news links. Last week when he grouped together these Memorial Day mob stories on his home page, the sole mention of race was that violence had broken out at Black Bike Week, so named because that’s what black bikers call it. At Gawker, John Cook dismissed it all as “run-of-the-mill summer crime stories.” He shrugged his scrawny white shoulders and wrote that “young people in large groups often make poor decisions.” And he concluded that it wasn’t the roving packs of black youths pillaging everything in their path who were the racists or terrorists—it was people such as Drudge, who, “since the president of the United States is a black man,” were trying to “inculcate fear and apprehension” among white voters.

At Salon, Alex Pareene accused Drudge of waging a “disgusting race war awareness campaign.” He even insisted that none of this was really happening: “…this world of race riots and constant violent attacks on innocent Caucasians exists only in the imaginations of Matt Drudge and the paranoid suburban and exurban white people he wants to keep terrified.” Drawing the most laughable false equivalency in recent memory, he added that “drunk, rowdy white kids commit a lot of crimes, in a lot of places!”

You got that right, buddy. So let’s see the footage of white wolfpacks a thousand strong who bash through everything in sight and randomly attack blacks. Clips from The Birth of a Nation don’t count.

People who deny reality for too long have a way of getting trampled under its feet. This is what Salon’s Alex Pareene looks like. And here’s Gawker’s John Cook. Don’t they ooze the hot sticky sap of Ghetto Knowledge? They are prime specimens of what has become The Only Acceptable Kind of White Male—feminized, soaked in historical guilt, and so consummately weak-looking, they’d be the first to get cold-cocked by any stampeding black flash mob, even an all-gay one.

And as far as trying to “inculcate fear and apprehension” goes, these street mobs are doing a bloody good job of it. Even prior to Barack Obama’s election, there was some concern that if he didn’t win, blacks across America would riot. Perched high in their glass cages, the left may be turning a blind eye to this sort of bloody racial street theater—or even winking approvingly at it—because a National Black Flash Mob in 2012 if Obama isn’t reelected might scare the living freaking sweating bleeding shit out of white voters.

These digitally orchestrated and monolithically black mob attacks only seemed to start after Obama was elected. And they seem devoid of any political message beyond brute, ugly, triumphal racial intimidation through group power and group force. America’s black Attorney General refers to other blacks as “my people” and refuses to prosecute slam-dunk cases of voter intimidation when his peeps are the perps. And all these events are passively enabled by a media that largely sticks its own head up its ass and pretends that everything smells peachy. If anyone complains, even while their teeth are being kicked out of their mouth, they’ll get called the worst word in the world.

Philadelphia Mayor Frank Rizzo said a long time ago that “A conservative is a liberal who got mugged the night before.” If that’s true, expect to see a lot more conservatives very soon.

Rhonda Garelick and the Jewish Hatred of Aryan Beauty

Rhonda Garelick and the Jewish Hatred of Aryan Beauty
By Kevin MacDonald
Source: The Occidental Observer

Rhonda Garelick, an English professor at the University of Nebraska, has a comment on John Galliano’s outburst in a Paris bar (“High Fascism“; NYtimes,  3-7-2011). Garelick can’t resist finding Galliano’s behavior symptomatic of fascist/Aryan tendencies deeply rooted in French culture—despite the fact that Galliano was fired and now faces persecution for uttering a racial insult. (Of course, one might argue that these recent events simply indicate the triumph of the culture of critique in post-WWII Europe.) The French are evil because during the German occupation, French women continued to dress fashionably:

“Every woman in Paris is a living propaganda poster, the universal function of the Frenchwoman is to remain chic,” wrote one fashion journalist in the early 1940s. “Frenchwomen are the repositories of chic, because this inheritance is inscribed in their race,” wrote another.

That’s not the worst of it:

And as Vichy continued to toe the Nazi line about Aryan physical fitness, more French fashion magazines began focusing on exercise and diet for women.

Ah, the horrors of National Socialism, encouraging women to eat well and be physically fit.

But even more horrifying than physical fitness, these Aryan standards of beauty are still with us. After all, who won the war anyway?

And although we insist on the racial diversity of fashion’s current standards of beauty, the fascists’ body ideal has persisted and expanded far beyond Europe. The hallmarks of the Nazi aesthetic — blue eyes, blond hair, athletic fitness and sharp-angled features — are the very elements that define what we call the all-American look, still visible in the mythic advertising landscapes of designers like (the decidedly non-Aryan) Ralph Lauren and Calvin Klein.

This is a fairly routine exercise emanating from the highest reaches of the mainstream media expressing Jewish hatred and revenge seeking against Whites and especially Nordic-looking Whites. One is tempted not to make too much of it except that the issue of physical beauty and health goes to the heart of the long conflict between Jews and non-Jews over the construction of culture. There is a long history of  Jewish hostility to Western concepts of physical beauty, going back to the war of the Macabees against the Greeks commemorated at Hanukkah. The standard Jewish interpretation is that it was a rebellion against the Greek concept of physical beauty as a value in itself, as opposed to Jewish “holiness” as the ultimate virtue (which, being a bit cynical, I would parse as group commitment). Especially abhorrent to the Jews was the Greek practice of honing their bodies in gymnasia.

Tom Sunic has written extensively about this topic for  TOO: “The Artful Race” and his 5-part series, “Beauty and the Beast.” The ideal of Aryan physical beauty was an aspect of 20th-century racial science, and during the National Socialist period there was a revival of classical art:

Numerous German sculptors worked on their projects while benefiting from the logistic and financial support of the National Socialist political elite. Their sculptures resembled, either by form, or by composition, the works of Praxiteles or of Phidias of ancient Greece, or those executed by Michelangelo during the Renaissance. The most prominent German sculptors in the Third Reich were Arno Breker, Josef Thorak,  and Fritz Klimsch….

In “The Artful Race” Sunic mentions the Frankfurt School as dedicated to subverting Western images of physical beauty–a theme also of Elizabeth Whitcombe. (My chapter on the Frankfurt School discusses a different kind of subversion of the healthy: family life. Children with strong ties to their parents and a sense of pride in their families are said to be forerunners of fascism and anti-Semitism.) Lasha Darkmoon illustrates the subversion of the beautiful by Jewish critics and art collectors in her ”The plot against art“). And Michael Colhaze juxtaposes images of women by Lucian Freud and Sandro Botticelli.

Garelick’s little article is in the tradition of Jewish antipathy toward the physical beauty of Europeans and for the value that Europeans place on physical beauty. I suspect that these traits of Europeans are an aspect of European individualism. Peter Frost has argued convincingly that there was sexual selection for traits like blond hair and blue eyes (Peter Frost, “European hair and eye color: A case of frequency-dependent sexual selection?“ Evolution and Human Behavior 27 (2006) 85–103). This means that traits like blond hair and blue eyes were seen as sexually attractive—like the peacock’s tail, so the became more common in the population because they were sought after in mates.  Frost associates sexual selection among Europeans with monogamy as a marriage system, selected for in the northern areas where Whites evolved because of the need for fathers to provision children. Rather than marry on the basis of known kinship relations and family dictates, marriage is based on individual choice. And one criterion of importance (among others) is physical beauty.

Such selection pressures would also lead Europeans to value love as the basis of marriage–analysed as a trait that makes close relationships between spouses mutually rewarding. John Murray Cuddihy remarked on how love was seen as foreign by Jews emerging from the ghetto, resulting in theories like Sigmund Freud’s where love was analyzed as repressed sexuality—little more than a neurosis.* Nor was physical beauty in marriage partners valued among Jews. A passage in the Talmud says that physical appearance was not to be a critical resource for a woman: “For ‘false is grace and beauty is vain.’ Pay regard to good breeding, for the object of marriage is to have children.” Instead of personal attraction, arranged marriages were common into the modern era.

Hence the culture clash exemplified by Garelick, abetted by Jewish historical grudges against the West.

And as for why White standards of beauty still predominate, there’s still quite a few of us around who appreciate the aesthetic exemplars of our race and we buy stuff. Try selling clothes with Lucian Freud-type models.

*This is the passage from Chapter 4 of CofC, p. 138:

Although high-investment parenting was an important aspect of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy, conjugal affection was not viewed as central to marriage with the result that, as Cuddihy (1974) notes, a long line of Jewish intellectuals regarded it as a highly suspect product of an alien culture. Jews also continued to practice consanguineous marriages—a practice that highlights the fundamentally biological agenda of Judaism (see PTSDA, Ch. 8)—well into the twentieth century whereas, as we have seen, the Church successfully countered consanguinity as a basis of marriage beginning in the Middle Ages. Judaism thus continued to emphasize the collectivist mechanism of the social control of individual behavior in conformity to family and group interests centuries after the control of marriage in the West passed from family and clan to individuals. In contrast to Jewish emphasis on group mechanisms, Western culture has thus uniquely emphasized individualist mechanisms of personal attraction and free consent (see PTSDA, Ch. 8).

AIPAC 101 – What Every American Should Know

The Banishment of Beauty

The Banishment of Beauty
by Kevin Alfred Strom
Source: KevinAlfredStrom.com

Here is an amazing four-part video series ([approximately 56 minutes total] and well worth the time) by the painter Scott Burdick. Don’t be put off by the fact that Burdick goes out of his way — way, way out of his way — to show traditional Western art, some of it his own, that depicts non-Whites. It’s as if he’s saying “see how non-racist I am,” to deflect attention from the fact the the rising Art Underground he depicts is substantially Whiter than rural New Hampshire. He nevertheless masterfully skewers the modern art establishment and their hatred for beauty — and their literal banishment of it from their galleries, museums, and literature. With calm logic he analyzes the common characteristics of the paintings that are sought out by these culture-distorters, and those that they reject.

It isn’t abstract versus representational art — it isn’t nudity, or the human form or its absence — it isn’t fine-grained versus rough materials; none of these determine what is accepted and what is rejected. In the “intellectual” theories (with Jewish / Frankfurt School roots, though Burdick doesn’t say so) that must be internalized by anyone wishing to rise in the modern art world today, it is beauty itself that must be rejected and ugliness or nothingness which must be praised, especially if the artist pays obeisance to the “intellectuals” and their “theories.”

The Last Days of the Big Lie

Goebbels and World War II Propaganda

Goebbels and World War II Propaganda
By Mark Weber
Source: Institute for Historical Review

Apart from Hitler himself, perhaps the most fascinating figure of Third Reich Germany is the regime’s chief publicist and spokesman, Joseph Goebbels. He is widely portrayed as a master of lies and deceitful propaganda. But this familiar image, which is particularly entrenched in the United States, is itself a propaganda falsehood.

He was raised in a middle-class, Roman Catholic family in a medium-size city in the German Rhineland. He had a first-rate education, and was an outstanding student. At the age of 24, he earned a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Heidelberg. After an unsuccessful effort to find employment as a writer for major national daily papers, and a nine-month stint working at a bank in Cologne, he became an activist in the fledgling National Socialist Party.

In 1926, at the age of 29, Hitler appointed him party district leader, or Gauleiter, of Berlin. He lost no time taking firm control of the small and feuding Party organization in the nation’s most important city, and infusing it with new dynamism. He quickly proved himself a quick-witted and sharp-tongued public speaker, and a courageous, skilled and creative organizer.

In early 1933, six weeks after Hitler became Chancellor, the 35-year-old Goebbels was named “Reich Minister for Propaganda and Popular Enlightenment.” In this newly-created position, and then as President of the “Reich Culture Chamber” (Reichskulturkammer), he exercised wide control over Germany’s newspapers, radio broadcasting, motion pictures, magazines and book publishing. More than anyone else, he set the parameters and tone of the nation’s mass media and cultural life.

During the first years of the Second World War, 1939 to 1942, his job was relatively easy. With an almost unbroken string of German and Axis military victories, maintaining public morale was not difficult. His greatest challenge came during the final two years of the war, as Germany’s armies suffered ever more terrible military reverses, and as her great cities were battered into ruins under a growing storm of murderous British-American bombing. It was during this period, as utter defeat loomed, that Goebbels most strikingly proved his skill as a master molder of public opinion. In spite of the drastically worsening situation — both on the front lines and at home — he largely succeeded in maintaining public morale, confidence in Hitler’s leadership, and even hope.

One of the best profiles of this man is the biography by German historian Helmut Heiber. Although his portrayal is highly critical and generally unflattering, the author nonetheless acknowledges his subject’s extraordinary talents and abilities. Goebbels, he notes, “was able, until the very last minute, to encourage and exploit a blind trust in Hitler and his genius. It is indeed one of the macabre phenomena of the Third Reich that even in their country’s agony the mass of the German people remained docile and faithful to Hitler’s banner … In spite of everything they had experienced, they kept the faith.”

After the great defeat at Stalingrad in early 1943, Goebbels was the first official forthrightly to acknowledge the gravity of the peril that faced the nation and Europe, and frankly to concede that Germany could lose the war. His frankness and even courage during these increasingly difficult months won him a measure of popular admiration. Writes Heiber: “As other influential Nazis began to creep into their shells, Goebbels could dare to appear before a mob and not only gain a hearing, but even arouse faith and hope …”

As the war dragged on, Goebbels’ front-page editorial essays in the weekly paper Das Reich played an increasingly important role in sustaining public morale. They were widely reprinted and routinely read over the radio. “His articles in Das Reich were indeed excellent, brilliantly written, and full of bright ideas,” Heiber writers. He goes on: “Goebbels’ articles were carefully worked out more than a week before they were to appear, written in excellent, polished German, stylistically enjoyable and relatively discriminating in content; often they seemed illumined by the lofty wisdom of a great thinker. Their very titles were reminiscent of philosophical treatises: `On the Meaning of War,’ `The Essential Nature of the Crisis,’ `On the Work of the Spirit,’ `On Speaking and Being Silent,’ `The Indispensability of Freedom,’ `About National Duty in War.’ … It is all very well turned and very solid. These articles made an impression, and Goebbels knew it.”

During this period, he also directed German newspapers, magazines and newsreels to stress the themes of continental unity and a common European destiny, and the goal of building a peaceful and prosperous community of nations. (One notable exception to this was a kind of official silence regarding Poland and the Poles. And, of course, the German media was vehemently anti-Jewish.)

In keeping with the outlook of Germany’s wartime leadership, Goebbels instructed the German press, radio and newsreels to portray other nations and ethnic groups tactfully, and with regard for the sovereignty and national character of other peoples. He stressed the importance of treating other nations and peoples with tact and respect.

This outlook was laid out in confidential guidelines to the German media In February 1943, Goebbels issued an internal directive in which he ordered:

“The entire propaganda work of the National Socialist Party (NSDAP) and the [German] National Socialist state must accordingly be organized to make clear, not just to the German nation, but also to the other European peoples, including the peoples in the occupied Eastern territories, and in the countries still under [Soviet] Bolshevik rule, that the victory of Adolf Hitler and of German arms is in their own most basic self interest.

“It is therefore inappropriate to hurt the feelings of inner self-worth of these peoples, directly or indirectly, especially those of the eastern nationalities, particularly in public speeches or writings … Stalin and the Bolshevik system should be attacked as bestial, but not the peoples who have been subdued by them.

“Similarly inappropriate is any discussion of the future new order of Europe that might create the impression among people of foreign nationality that the German leadership intends to maintain any long-term relationship of subjugation .

“Completely out of place are any remarks suggesting that Germany might set up colonies in the East or carry out a colonial policy, or would treat the land or its inhabitants as objects of exploitation . …

“Following their systematic destruction by the Bolsheviks [in accord with Stalin’s `scorched earth’ order of July 1941], the occupied Eastern territories will be rebuilt under German leadership. With the riches of the soil, this will secure, for the long-term future, freedom in food and raw materials, as well as the social advancement for Germany and all of Europe, and, thereby, also for the peoples living in the East.”

A few weeks later, in mid-March 1943, Goebbels reinforced these “guiding principles” in a talk to foreign journalists about the “new Europe.” He said:

“The severe measures that Germany has been forced by the war situation to introduce in the occupied Eastern territories are valid only for the duration of the war. The new Europe will be held together not by compulsion, but rather it will be built on the basis of free will. There will be no dictatorship over the various nations of Europe. Individual national identity will not be extinguished … No European country will be obliged to introduce any particular social-political system. If countries want to hold on to their traditional democracy, that’s their own business.”

One of the most emotionally moving and enduring chapters of the Second World War is the mass killing at Katyn and other places in April 1940 by Soviet secret police of some 14,000 Polish officers and Polish intellectuals, who had been captured and rounded up when eastern Poland was invaded and occupied by the Soviets half a year earlier. For decades this has been an especially painful subject for the Polish people, because this was the annihilation not merely of thousands of fellow Poles, but of a significant portion of the nation’s intellectual, political and military leadership. (This grim story is movingly dramatized, for example, in the 2007 Polish feature film, titled Katyn.)

In April 1943 Germany announced to the world that a mass grave of murdered Poles had been discovered in the Katyn forest, near Smolensk, in occupied Russia. Goebbels saw to it that this sensational news was prominently highlighted in the German media. In accord with his instructions, newspapers and magazines devoted great attention to the story, giving it weeks of detailed, often front-page coverage.

In London, officials of the Polish government in exile took a keen interest in this discovery, because for several years Soviet officials had refused to provide any information to Polish authorities about the fate of the thousands of Polish officers that the Soviets had taken prisoner in 1939, and of whom all trace had been lost since the spring of 1940. Shortly after the German announcement, Polish officials in London asked the International Committee of the Red Cross in neutral Switzerland to investigate. The German authorities quickly agreed. This prompted the Soviet government to accuse the Poles of collusion with the Germans, and then to break relations with the Polish government in London.

Goebbels traced the unfolding of this story in his diary. In the entry of April 14, 1943, he noted: “We are now using the discovery of 12,000 Polish officers, murdered by the GPU [Soviet secret police], for anti-Bolshevik propaganda on a grand scale. We sent neutral journalists and Polish intellectuals to the spot where they were found … I give instructions to make the widest possible use of this propaganda material.” (In fact, the number of Poles killed was about 14,000, of whom some 4,500 were shot and buried at Katyn. Most were killed by the Soviets at two other sites.)

Three days later, he noted: “The Katyn incident is developing into a gigantic political affair which may have wide repercussions. We are exploiting it in every manner possible.” In the dairy entry of April 27, he reports: “The Katyn incident has taken a really sensational turn through the fact that the Soviets have broken off diplomatic relations with the Poles, giving the attitude of the Polish government-in-exile [with regard to the Katyn matter] as the reason.”

The next day, in the entry of April 28, Goebbels remarked with some pride: “The most important theme of all international discussion is naturally the break between Moscow and the Polish émigré government. All enemy broadcasts and newspapers agree that this break represents a one hundred percent victory for German propaganda and especially for me personally. The commentators marvel at the extraordinary cleverness with which we have been able to convert the Katyn incident into a highly political question …One can speak of a complete triumph of German propaganda. Throughout this whole war we have seldom been able to register such a success.”

And the next day, in the entry of April 29, Goebbels noted: “The Polish conflict still holds the center of the stage. Seldom since the beginning of the war has any affair stirred up so much public discussion as this. The Poles are given a brush-off by the English and the Americans as if they were enemies. It is admitted that I succeeded in driving a deep wedge into the enemy…”

The break in relations between the Soviet and Polish governments was major diplomatic and public relations setback for the Allied war effort. It made an embarrassing mockery of the goals proclaimed by the Allied leaders. It underscored the pretense and hypocrisy of the claims of the British, American and Soviet governments that they were fighting for freedom and democracy. In his skillful and energetic treatment of the Katyn massacre story, Goebbels contributed significantly to a major Allied political defeat — and thereby scored what was perhaps his greatest single wartime propaganda achievement.

It’s worth comparing how the Katyn massacre was dealt with in the German wartime media, which was under Goebbels’ supervision, with how it was treated in the American media during this same period. Not only in Germany, but across Europe, the press and other media gave prominent and detailed attention to this story, and to the break in relations between the Polish and Soviet governments that it triggered.

In the United States, newspapers and magazines understandably gave much less attention to the Katyn affair, but they could not entirely ignore it, especially after it brought on an embarrassing break in the Allied coalition. The American media, acting in harmony with the views and interests of the US government and of America’s most important military ally, the Soviet Union, basically treated the Katyn matter as a German propaganda lie.

The tone for how this was handled in the US media was set by the Office of War Information, an official US government propaganda agency. Its director, Elmer Davis, spoke about Katyn in a radio broadcast on May 3, 1943, in which he dismissed the German reports on this as a great propaganda hoax.

American newspapers echoed this official view. Writing in The New York Times, foreign affairs commentator Anne O’Hare McCormick, explained to readers of that influential daily that there was no proof that the officers had even been killed. William L. Shirer, a prominent American journalist, who is perhaps best known for his best-selling but historically deceitful book, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, dismissed the Berlin reports on Katyn as “German propaganda.”

The United Press, a major US wire service news agency, dealt with the matter in a dispatch that appeared in many American newspapers. This UP item, which was typical of American press treatment of the matter, referred to what it called the “alleged” disappearance of the Polish officers which, it went on, “has been used by the Berlin radio for propaganda purposes. The Germans claim the men were killed.”

Another prominent American daily paper explained that the German reports about Katyn had been “concocted with diabolical cunning.” In the US capital, The Washington Post told readers that “the assumption of loyal members of the United Nations [that is, the alliance headed by the US, Britain and the Soviet Union] must be that they [the Poles] were killed by the Germans.”

While Germany’s wartime media was not always entirely accurate or fair, with regard to this very important chapter of World War II, Goebbels and the German media told the truth, while American officials and the US media told lies.

In addition to his work as the nation’s chief spokesman and propagandist, Goebbels took on ever greater organizational and policy-making responsibilities during the war, playing an increasingly important role in keeping the nation’s industrial and social machinery functioning.

In the summer of 1944 Hitler named him “Reich Plenipotentiary for the Total War Mobilization.” Thus, during the final catastrophic months of the war, Goebbels — along with Armaments Minister Albert Speer — directed Germany’s human and material resources for maximum war production, while simultaneously seeing to the continued operation of the nation’s electric power and water plants, transportation and telephone systems, food and fuel supply networks, public schools, radio broadcasting and daily newspaper publishing.

This organizational feat of keeping essential social and community services functioning, while at the same time maintaining and even increasing armaments production — in spite of devastating aerial bombardment and an ever worsening military situation — is an achievement without historical parallel.

His final radio address to the nation, broadcast over what remained of a tattered network, was delivered on April 19, 1945, twelve days before his death. As he had done every year since 1933, he spoke on the eve of Hitler’s birthday. Even on this occasion, when the terrible end was glaringly obvious to all, Goebbels spoke with eloquent, controlled passion. While frankly acknowledging the supreme gravity of the situation, he was still able to persuade and inspire.

Contrary to the propaganda image that millions have come to accept, Goebbels was successful as a publicist and spokesman not because he was a master of the “Big Lie,” but rather as a result of his regard for accuracy and truth.

As biographer Heiber notes: “Goebbels was accordingly able to celebrate his information policy as being not only superior to the enemy’s in its monolithic character, but also of a `seriousness and credibility’ which `simply cannot be surpassed.’ The boast could be made with some justification: Seen in the long view, Goebbels preached, the best propaganda is that which does no more than serve the truth. Goebbels’ real lies, his conscious lies, always pertained to mere detail … Goebbels’ lies were more in the nature of those equivocations and evasions by which government spokesmen everywhere seek to ‘protect’ the ‘national interest’.”

The postwar image of Goebbels as a master dissembler is itself a propaganda distortion, explains French scholar Jacques Ellul in his classic study, Propaganda. He writes:

“There remains the problem of Goebbels’ reputation. He wore the title of Big Liar (bestowed by Anglo-Saxon propaganda) and yet he never stopped battling for propaganda to be as accurate as possible. He preferred being cynical and brutal to being caught in a lie. He used to say: `Everybody must know what the situation is.’ He was always the first to announce disastrous events or difficult situations, without hiding anything. The result was a general belief between 1939 and 1942 that German communiqués not only were more concise, clearer and less cluttered, but were more truthful than Allied communiqués … and, furthermore, that the Germans published all the news two or three days before the Allies. All this is so true that pinning the title of Big Liar on Goebbels must be considered quite a propaganda success.”

In a letter to his stepson written just days before his death, Goebbels expressed confidence that truth would ultimately prevail: “Do not let yourself be disconcerted by the worldwide clamor that will now begin. There will come a day, when all the lies will collapse under their own weight, and truth will again triumph.”

This is an edited text of an address given by Mark Weber on April 23, 2011, at a meeting in southern California.

Sources / For Further Reading

Benjamin Colby, ‘Twas a Famous Victory (Arlington House, 1975), esp. chap. 6.

Jacques Ellul, Propaganda (New York: 1965, 1973)

Joseph Goebbels, The Goebbels Diaries, 1942-1943. Edited by Louis P. Lochner. (Doubleday & Co., 1948)

Helmut Heiber, Goebbels (New York: 1972, 1983)

David Irving, Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich (St. Martin’s Press. 1996)

Walter Lipgens, ed., Documents On The History of European Integration: Plans For European Union (De Gruyter, 1985, 1991), Vol. I , esp. pp. 118-119, 121-122.

Mark Weber, “Goebbels’ Place in History,” The Journal of Historical Review, 1995.

Century of the Self

If you are a Revisionist, a free, critical thinker, or if you already possess a strong sense of historical truth at odds with that of the establishment and its mainstream media organs, I highly recommend viewing this documentary film. If you’re a gullible simpleton or a lazy academic, however, who automatically trusts as truth whatever you’re taught/told concerning the “Nazis” (or other historical “devils” for that matter), you’re rather unlikely to reap the reward of this four-hour investment. Intentionally or otherwise, the BBC misses the mark with respect to its peripheral mention of Joseph Goebbels and National Socialist propaganda (allegedly inspired by Bernays, which is rubbish)… But in this day and age, I could hardly expect otherwise. To their deserved credit, they do manage to get much correct and, in the course of their exploration, come much closer to certain forbidden truths than they likely intended. Thoughtfully counterbalance the information presented through this documentary with what you’ve (hopefully) already studied of the occupied news and entertainment media, the Neoconservative movement, the Zionist Power Configuration (Z.P.C.), the Frankfurt School/Political Correctness, the international “bankster gangsters”, and the chief proponents and beneficiaries of the wars of the last 100 years (as well as the unseen catalysts, historical deceptions, and false-flags which, more often than not, lead us there), and the value of its core-message will more than triple. -W

The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear

To what extent have the “Politics of Fear” shaped the last decade of our lives? Knowing the roots of the Neoconservative movement will get you more mileage out of this documentary. Awaken! -W.

Part 1. “Baby it’s Cold Outside”
Part 2. “The Phantom Victory”
Part 3. “The Shadows in the Cave”