The Red Pill

Bud: “What drew me to the Orthodox in my youth was how reactionary the core is. I know that’s what Luke loves about it most. If there would have been an alt-right back in the pre-Internet days, he would have just gone WN. But on some level, for someone like Luke, the main thing is the red pill. Whether it’s Jewish or anti-Semitic is secondary.”

Jane: “The truth is the truth. It manifests itself in different ways. I feel like a lot of the things orthodox rabbis said would be considered “anti-Semitic” by a lot of people’s standards.”

Bud: “As a buddy says similarly, “The truth always comes out.” This was the mussar movement bringing good manners to the Ostjuden. Of course, only the Litvaks listened even a little bit.”

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on The Red Pill

Explaining Hitler

I’m rereading Mein Kampf. It seems like he drew the wrong lessons from WWI and that’s why he lost WWII.

Hitler had the usual very incomplete understanding of history. Like a good Marxist, he imagined that he had found the master key to understanding history (Jewish perfidity) when no such key exists. He also grossly distorts to the point of fantasy the role that Jews played in Germany’s defeat in WW1, which is what this book was really all about – coming to terms with that defeat. In fact, the Jews of Germany were in nationalistic terms more German than the Lutheran Germans. They were fierce patriots who fought on the front lines for the Kaiser.

Without the contributions of the Jews, Germany would have lost the war by early 1915. Look up the “Haber Bosch Process” for more on this. Post WW1, Rathenau was a genius at keeping the rest of Europe at bay. But then the idiot Germans assassinated him. Yet he was and could have been a kind of Bismark for that era, helping to revive Germany. And all of this because Hitler failed to win admission to art school in Vienna.

One thing that comes through in this book is that Hitler was bi, I think. I wonder how many BJs he had to give (Jewish?) art collectors just to survive before WW 1. And he may have been haunted by the knowledge that quite possibly, his father was sired by a Jewish lad in the home of family that his paternal grandmother worked for as a maid.

Chaim Amalek writes: “Main reasons he lost the war: Making war on everyone simultaneously. As in, invading the USSR with the UK still in the field opposing him; gratuitously and stupidly declaring war on the USA days after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor without extracting anything from Japan (deep moron move right there); marking the people of Ukraine for enslavement and annihilation and acting accordingly, when he might otherwise have presented himself as their liberator from Bolshevik tyranny and won them to Germany’s side.”

From the Irish Examiner April 7, 2016:

‘The Peculiar Sex Life of Adolf Hitler’ offers insight into the dictator’s gay partners

Hitler had many gay partners, but his attempts at relationships with women proved disastrous, writes Siobhan Pat Mulcahy.

ADOLF HITLER, the man responsible for the deaths of more than 70 million people continues to divide historians and researchers. What was the origin of his evil? How could such a thing have happened?

A few years ago, I wrote an article for CrimeMagazine.com called ‘The real Adolf Hitler’. The article received over 30,000 hits on the internet in the days following publication. It seems people continue to be fascinated by him. During my research, I discovered that the German dictator liked Catholic convent school girls and had many homosexual partners. My interest in his life increased. If a man’s sexuality cannot tell you who he really is or was, then nothing else will.

The Peculiar Sex Life of Adolf Hitler is the culmination of almost two years writing and research. It analyses all the phases of Hitler’s sexual experiences: His early mother fixation, his long-term homosexual phase, and his final years as a “reluctant heterosexual”.

During his childhood, Hitler was beaten viciously and often by his father, Alois, and adored by his gentle mother, who tried to protect him from his father’s whip and belt. Hitler later said that his fondest childhood memories were of “sleeping alone with his mother in the big bed” while his father was away at work. Throughout his life, his devotion to the memory of his mother Klara continued, but he rarely, if ever, spoke of his father.

For most of his life, Hitler was predominantly homosexual. In his teens and early twenties, he had a string of “exclusive male companions”, including August Kubizek, Reinhold Hanisch, and Rudolf Hausler. He shared accommodation with these men in seedy Viennese or Munich backstreets and in “homes for the destitute”.

In his autobiography, Mein Kampf (1925), these early years are hardly mentioned. Instead, he jumps forward from his childhood to his experiences during WW1, describing the soldiers in his regiment as a “glorious male community”.

From the outset of the war, he enjoyed a sexual relationship with fellow dispatch-runner, Ernst Schmidt which lasted almost six years. The relationship was not exclusive, however, and Hitler is believed to have had “sexual relations with a senior officer”. US intelligence later discovered that Hitler was never promoted during WW1 because of his “sexual orientation” and that he was arrested in Munich in 1919 for “pederasty and theft”. Indeed, former Nazi, Otto Strasser said that when Hitler became Nazi Party leader in 1921, “his personal bodyguards and chauffeurs were almost exclusively homosexual”. Two of these bodyguards, Ulrich Graf and Christian Weber, were expected to satisfy their boss’s needs whenever necessary.

Then, in 1924, when Hitler was jailed for treason in Landsberg Castle, he began a love relationship with Rudolf Hess, who was nicknamed “Fraulein Anna” and “Black Emma” by other Nazis. Their sexual relationship endured for many years until Hess, who was prone to hysterics became an embarrassment to the Nazi leader.

However, even when his career was scuppered, Hess remained devoted to “his Führer”, claiming they “had shared a beautiful human experience to the very end”.

By the early 1930s, the homosexual ethos at the top of the Nazi Party was so evident that one anti-Nazi newspaper called the political organisation “The Brotherhood of Poofs”. The media ridicule became so widespread that Hitler decided to do something drastic to change public perceptions.

In a so-called Nazi “book burning ceremony”, he had all the sexual perversion records relating to himself and his Nazi colleagues at a Berlin psychiatric clinic destroyed.

In June/July 1934, he organised the murders and imprisonment of hundreds of Nazi Storm Troopers, including their leader “Queen” Ernst Roehm, who was openly gay.

However, while gay Nazis were being butchered or imprisoned, Hitler was having a secret affair with his Munich chauffeur Julius Schreck. The two were apparently devoted to each other and enjoyed romantic trysts at the Hotel Bube near Berneck, the midway point between Berlin and Munich. Their affair lasted until Schreck’s sudden death from meningitis. When he heard the news, Hitler wept uncontrollably for several days. Schreck had fulfilled Hitler’s fantasies about the great love between a powerful man and his obedient servant. The homosexual Bavarian, King Ludwig II — who had conducted a 20 year affair with his coachman — was one of the German dictator’s heroes.

Hitler ordered a state funeral for his beloved chauffeur, at which he delivered a personal eulogy, with all the Nazi top brass ordered to attend.

Ten years earlier, the 37-year-old German leader had attempted to “go straight”, as he was sick and tired of paying off blackmailers who knew of his homosexuality, but his attempts to have relationships with women proved disastrous. He had a picture of his mother hanging over his bed in Munich, in Berlin, and at his retreat in the Bavarian mountains. Few, if any, of his heterosexual relationships were ever consummated.

Eight of the women he had sexual contact with attempted suicide and six succeeded.

Hitler was attracted to both pubescent teenagers and the actresses he admired on the silver screen.

His first girlfriend (during his mid-teens in Linz) was no more than a figment of his imagination; they never spoke, though he ogled her from a distance for years. The girl, Stephanie Isak, was of Jewish descent and, ironically — along with his “beloved mother” — became the model for “his ideal Aryan woman”.

When he was aged 38, Hitler began a relationship with 16-year-old, convent-educated, Maria Reiter who tried to hang herself (in 1927) when he suddenly lost interest in her. Reiter told Stern magazine in 1959 that, four years after her failed suicide attempt, she shared one night of passion with the man she could never forget, but discovered his “sexual tastes were far too extreme” for her and they never met again.

Hitler then became obsessed with his half-niece, Geli Raubal. Raubal and her “Uncle Alf” conducted a torrid relationship for more than four years, until she shot herself in 1931 with a gun he had given her as a gift. For the last two years of her life, she had been a virtual prisoner in his Munich apartment. Some historians believe Hitler had her murdered when she began telling friends about the “disgusting things” he made her do when they were alone together. After her death, he told Nazi colleagues she was “the only woman he had ever really loved”.

In 1937, film actress Renate Mueller threw herself from a balcony in Berlin after Hitler deliberately ruined her career and ordered the Gestapo to follow her. During their sordid sex sessions, Mueller told friends she was obliged to kick and beat him as he contorted with pleasure on the ground.

When the Second World War broke out in 1939, the English aristocrat, Unity Mitford shot herself in the head with a gun Hitler had given her as a gift. She had participated in orgies with Nazi Party storm troopers, so she could relate the sordid details to the man she called “her messiah”. Mitford wrote in her diary that Hitler said they could only be together sexually in “the afterlife”.

Then, there was the long-suffering and loyal Eva Braun. Hitler was unfaithful to her with both men and women.

She became so sexually frustrated that she asked Hitler’s physician Dr Theodor Morell to give him hormone injections to increase his libido. In the final months of her life, she told girlfriends she regretted not leaving him 10 years earlier (when he wanted to end things).

Instead, she committed suicide with him just 40 hours after their marriage in the Berlin bunker in April, 1945.

Posted in Adolf Hitler | Comments Off on Explaining Hitler

WP: A speech code for lawyers, banning viewpoints that express ‘bias,’ including in law-related social activities

During our Sunday interview, Frame Game Radio, a Jewish New York corporate lawyer, suggested that the following is why Kyle Bristow cucked so badly over the weekend.

A lawyer friend says: “Lawyers like to think of themselves as potential Atticus Finches, or Clarence Darrows, but they are just as craven and conformist as the rest of the population. The ABA code is antithetical to the concept of free speech and the protection of unpopular viewpoints.”

Eugene Volokh writes:

The American Bar Association has adopted a new provision in its Model Rules of Professional Conduct — an influential document that many states have adopted as binding on lawyers in their state. I blogged about it when it was just proposed, in slightly different form, but I thought it was worth repeating my analysis now that the ABA is formally recommending it to state bars and state courts. Here is the relevant text (emphasis added):

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law. This paragraph does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline, or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16. This paragraph does not preclude legitimate advice or advocacy consistent with these rules.

Discrimination and harassment . . . includes harmful verbal or physical conduct that manifests bias or prejudice towards others. Harassment includes sexual harassment and derogatory or demeaning verbal or physical conduct. Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. The substantive law of antidiscrimination and anti-harassment statutes and case law may guide application of paragraph (g).

Conduct related to the practice of law includes representing clients; interacting with witnesses, coworkers, court personnel, lawyers and others while engaged in the practice of law; operating or managing a law firm or law practice; and participating in bar association, business or social activities in connection with the practice of law. Lawyers may engage in conduct undertaken to promote diversity and inclusion without violating this rule by, for example, implementing initiatives aimed at recruiting, hiring, retaining and advancing [diverse] employees or sponsoring diverse law student organizations.

So say that some lawyers put on a Continuing Legal Education event that included a debate on same-sex marriage, or on whether there should be limits on immigration from Muslim countries, or on whether people should be allowed to use the bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity rather than their biological sex. In the process, unsurprisingly, the debater on one side said something that was critical of gays, Muslims or transgender people. If the rule is adopted, the debater could well be disciplined by the state bar:

1. He has engaged in “verbal . . . conduct” that “manifests bias or prejudice” toward gays, Muslims or transgender people.

2. Some people view such statements as “harmful”; those people may well include bar authorities.

3. This was done in an activity “in connection with the practice of law” — Continuing Legal Education events are certainly connected with the practice of law. (The event could be labeled a bar activity, if it’s organized through a local bar association, or a business activity.)

4. The statement isn’t about one person in particular (though it could be — say the debater says something critical about a specific political activist or religious figure based on that person’s sexual orientation, religion or gender identity). But “anti-harassment . . . case law” has read “harassment” as potentially covering statements about a group generally, even when they aren’t said to or about a particular offended person, and the rule is broad enough to cover statements about “others” as groups and not just as individuals. Indeed, one of the comments to the rule originally read “Harassment includes sexual harassment and derogatory or demeaning verbal or physical conduct towards a person who is, or is perceived to be, a member of one of the groups.” But the italicized text was deleted, further reaffirming that the statement didn’t have to be focused on any particular person.

Or say that you’re at a lawyer social activity, such as a local bar dinner, and say that you get into a discussion with people around the table about such matters — Islam, evangelical Christianity, black-on-black crime, illegal immigration, differences between the sexes, same-sex marriage, restrictions on the use of bathrooms, the alleged misdeeds of the 1 percent, the cultural causes of poverty in many households, and so on. One of the people is offended and files a bar complaint.

Again, you’ve engaged in “verbal . . . conduct” that the bar may see as “manifest[ing] bias or prejudice” and thus as “harmful.” This was at a “social activit[y] in connection with the practice of law.” The state bar, if it adopts this rule, might thus discipline you for your “harassment.” And, of course, the speech restrictions are overtly viewpoint-based: If you express pro-equality viewpoints, you’re fine; if you express the contrary viewpoints, you’re risking disciplinary action.

This also goes beyond existing hostile-work-environment harassment law under Title VII and similar state statutes. That law itself has potential First Amendment problems, as I’ve argued and as some courts have recognized (though others have disagreed); see, for instance, the recent “Don’t Tread on Me” controversy. But in most states, it doesn’t include sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status. It also generally doesn’t cover social activities at which co-workers aren’t present; but under the proposed rule, even a solo practitioner could face discipline because something that he said at a law-related function offended someone employed by some other law firm.

Hostile-work-environment harassment law is also often defended (though in my view that defense is inadequate) on the grounds that it’s limited to speech that is so “severe or pervasive” that it creates an “offensive work environment.” This proposed rule conspicuously omits any such limitation. Though the provision that “anti-harassment . . . case law may guide application of paragraph (g)” might be seen as implicitly incorporating a “severe or pervasive” requirement, that’s not at all clear: That provision says only that the anti-harassment case law “may guide” the interpretation of the rule, and in any event the language of paragraph (g) seems to cover any “harmful verbal . . . conduct,” including isolated statements.

Many people pointed out possible problems with this proposed rule — yet the ABA adopted it with only minor changes that do nothing to limit the rule’s effect on speech. My inference is that the ABA wants to do exactly what the text calls for: limit lawyers’ expression of viewpoints that it disapproves of. I’ll blog again shortly on other aspects of the proposal (such as the remarkable implications of banning discrimination based on “socioeconomic status”); but here I just wanted to focus on the new ABA speech code, and why state courts and state bars should resist the pressure to adopt it.

Posted in Law | Comments Off on WP: A speech code for lawyers, banning viewpoints that express ‘bias,’ including in law-related social activities

Newsweek: IS THE ALT-RIGHT DYING? WHITE SUPREMACIST LEADERS REPORT INFIGHTING AND DEFECTION

From Newsweek:

Bristow, a white nationalist lawyer based in Michigan, defected from the movement on Saturday just before his own organization, Foundation for the Marketplace of Ideas, was to hold an event in Detroit on Sunday. The event, which was billed as an opportunity to hash out the direction of the anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic alt-right movement, was cancelled. Spencer, who had been scheduled to attend Bristow’s event ahead of a speaking engagement on Monday at Michigan State University in East Lansing, was forced to hold a small gathering at a private residence as a substitute, he told Newsweek.

“I support Kyle in whatever path he chooses to take,” Spencer told Newsweek. “We’re in touch.”

Spencer spoke at Michigan State University in front of a sparse crowd of fewer than 50 people on Monday. He didn’t address the subject of splintering in his movement, but acknowledged that the alt-right was going through “growing pains.” The meager turnout for Monday’s rally showed a significant decline from rallies the alt-right held as recently as last October, when slightly more than 200 people showed up to a “White Lives Matter” event in Tennessee.

Bristow represented Spencer in his attempts to give speeches at several colleges throughout the country, and argued successfully to allow his client a chance to speak Monday at Michigan State University, his own alma mater. He was also an integral and unifying figure in the so-called racist right going back for the better part of a decade. Bristow published in 2010 a novel called White Apocalypse, which detailed violent fantasies directed at Jewish people, people of color and characters that eerily resembled staffers at the Southern Poverty Law Center. He also voiced big plans of creating his own rights group, as a way to defend the alt-right movement on grounds of free speech, and was in the middle of raising money on the crowdsourcing site Patreon toward that goal. Bristow did not respond to a request for comment, but he blamed his exit from the movement on journalists in a statement.

“In light of the recent relentless and unjustifiable vilification of me, as well as the mischaracterizations of who I am as a person, I have unilaterally made the decision to provide this clarification and to withdraw from politics,” Bristow wrote on Saturday in a parting statement to the alt-right, which was published on his wesbite.

Ryan Lenz of the Southern Poverty law Center told Newsweek Monday that Bristow’s unexpected departure was significant for the movement in part because it would force Spencer to find new representation to continue his current efforts at galvanizing press attention, which typically occur when protesters mobilize to shut down his speaking engagements. Bristow has bragged in the past that Foundation for the Marketplace of Ideas was the “sword and shield of the Alt-Right.” ​

To be sure, recent turmoil in the alt-right movement has spread beyond Spencer’s inner circle. Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website that once served as the de facto homepage for young white supremacists, was uncharacteristically silent Monday about Spencer’s speaking appearance at Michigan State University. When Spencer spoke at the University of Florida in October, in contrast, the website promoted that event. The shift may have something to do with Spencer’s recent alignment with the Traditionalist Worker’s Party, a small, neo-Nazi group that has become a regular fixture at alt-right protests throughout the country over the last few years.

Andrew Anglin, Daily Stormer’s editor, sniped publically at Matt Heimbach, the leader of the Traditionalist Worker’s Party, calling him a “good-natured but socially awkward fat kid” on a popular alt-right forum on Saturday, while denouncing his influence as a leader. Anglin, and his colleague, Andrew “Weev” Auernheimer, took turns ridiculing the presentation of Traditionalist Worker’s Party rallies, suggesting their uniforms and “communist” rhetoric were discouraging people from aligning with their cause.

“Everyone in the alt-right is a malignant contrarian,” Lenz said about the growing divisions in their movement following the united front the alt-right displayed in Charlottesville. “They come from a culture where insults are the coin of the realm.”

Anglin and Auernheimer were in turn criticized in a public way on the same forum throughout Saturday and Sunday for linking the alt-right to overt neo-Nazism, violence and misogyny. Auernheimer has publically praised Atomwaffen, for example, a neo-Nazi group linked to a string of brutal murders, a move that has caused embarrassment to Traditionalist Worker’s Party and members of the “Southern Nationalist” outfit League of the South, two groups that marched in Charlottesville last August. Anglin has spoken in sadistic terms about white women, going so far as to celebrate the idea of them being raped and physically abused.

Daily Stormer are “hypocrites who are clinging to failed reactionary politics,” Heimbach told Newsweek on Monday about the public collapse into infighting.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on Newsweek: IS THE ALT-RIGHT DYING? WHITE SUPREMACIST LEADERS REPORT INFIGHTING AND DEFECTION

Everything You Love Will Burn: Inside the Rebirth of White Nationalism in America

I’ve had difficulty getting through this book.

It’s bad. The virtue signalling, lazy thinking and cheap slurs by the writer take up space on most every page.

People should get smart and when a journo asks a stupid question that reveals stupid thinking, stop wasting your time with them.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on Everything You Love Will Burn: Inside the Rebirth of White Nationalism in America