How Can Alt-Right Women Exist in a Misogynistic Movement?

A woman holding her baby at a Klan meeting in Beaufort, South Carolina, 1965. (Harry Benson/Getty Images)

By , 22 August, 2017

Days before the events in Charlottesville, Harper’s published the cover story from their September issue about the prominent women of the alt-right: Women who want to bring others into a movement that is misogynist at its very core. In the piece, “The Rise of the Valkyries,” Seyward Darby profiles Lana Lokteff, the “queen bee” of the alt-right who David Duke has described as a “harder-hitting” Ann Coulter with a “movie-star quality.” Lokteff finds likeminded women online and promotes them via Red Ice, a white nationalist media company she runs with her husband. But for women to have a voice in the alt-right, let alone be prominent in the movement, is its own paradox, as Lokteff admonishes women to give counsel to men and embrace classic notions of femininity. I spoke with Darby about what it takes to interview a subject whose very existence appears to undermine her own claims.
I was listening to an interview with Elle Reeve, the Vice News Tonight correspondent who embedded herself with the white nationalists in Charlottesville, and she says that shared misogyny, usually online, is often what brings white supremacists together — that misogyny is a kind of gateway to white supremacy. How does Lokteff understand the role misogyny plays in the alt-right?
I think Elle did a great job in that Charlottesville segment; I was impressed with her access and poise throughout. The question you pose is the one that drew me to this story in the first place: How can alt-right women exist — or, going a step further, be vocal advocates — in such a misogynistic movement? The answer isn’t simple. Lokteff and other sources provided several different responses, revealing complicated — or confused — views of gender dynamics.
First, they do not agree that the rhetoric uttered by movement leaders like Richard Spencer is misogynistic. (I quote him in the story as saying that women should not be able to make foreign policy because “their vindictiveness knows no bounds.”) They insist this language is merely cognizant of biological, predetermined, symbiotic differences between men and women: Men are strong and assertive, while women are soft and emotional; men should lead and women should follow, providing their men with support and counsel. To protect the white race, men should run countries, make policy, and fight wars, while women should perpetuate bloodlines, nurture family units, and inculcate new generations with pro-white beliefs. I remember one source telling me what people outside the alt-right might find misogynistic she thinks is “just true.”
The corollary to this answer is that these women detest feminism. Many of them came to the alt-right as anti-feminists first, not unlike the men you mention. Their reasons were myriad, but at base I think a lot of them felt ostracized by, angry with, or otherwise disappointed in feminism, which they would define in caricature: an ideology that celebrates man-hating, racially diverse, fat, ugly women demanding whatever they want from the world. The women I examined believe that the progressive feminist agenda castigates traditional wives and mothers and depicts the white man as public enemy number one. (They would call that real racism.) They argue that feminism, which they see as the spawn of washed-up, Marxist, lesbian, and/or Jewish women in the early 1900s has perverted the natural gender order by convincing women to be more like men and men to be more like women.
When I described to Lokteff my personal concept of feminism — very roughly, it advocates women having the same rights and opportunities as men to choose to be what they want to be and do what they want to do — she told me that white women already had that before feminism came along, because white men have “propelled us like crazy.” Which, of course, circles back to the whole men lead, women follow thing: Women succeed thanks to men giving them the platform to do so.
Another answer I heard is that men’s rights activists (MRAs) and men going their own way (MGTOW), the most virulent of internet misogynists, aren’t really alt-right. Lokteff told me that to be alt-right, a man cannot disdain women; he must love and cherish them, because otherwise how will the white race reproduce and thrive? This raises all kinds of questions about who gets to claim the alt-right mantle, which was forged in the depths of the internet with minimal organization and maximum self-amplification. I don’t think men who identify as MGTOW and alt-right would be thrilled to hear a woman tell them, “You’re not one of us.” I’ve seen as much — but said far more crudely and cruelly — in some comments sections attached to Lokteff’s videos.
The last thing I’ll say about this question is that my sources insist that the mainstream media intentionally depict the alt-right as misogynistic in order to degrade it, to make it seem like it isn’t and couldn’t ever be a real political force. They want white women to know that the movement has their true interests at heart, that it’s a sorority where they can feel safe and accepted. Any which way they spun it, the responses boiled down to, “You’re wrong about us.”
So much of what you describe with Lokteff reminds me of the character of Serena Joy, as she is rendered in the television adaptation of The Handmaid’s Tale. Serena is as much of an architect of the new government that her husband is, but when the revolution comes, she finds herself forced to live the life she preached — one of subservience — shut out of the political life she aspired to. How does Lokteff understand her own place between femininity and power?
I’m so glad you asked this question. I started working on this story in January, and over the next four months I read The Handmaid’s Tale and watched the Hulu series. It was a bizarre experience to see everything I was researching dramatized in a worst-case scenario. In the episode about Serena Joy’s backstory, I had to hit pause on my remote because all I could think was, “Oh my gosh, that’s Lana.” The parallels were eerie.
I put the question of femininity versus power to Lokteff and she said a few things worth noting. First, she described herself as having “guy brain,” or masculine tendencies toward assertiveness and leadership, which makes her unusual among women. On the whole, she thinks most white women want to be beautiful, adored, married with kids, living in a nice home, and maybe fulfilled in a career. (But that’s secondary.)
The other thing she said is that the alt-right believes it’s currently fighting a war for the soul of Western civilization — a grand sociopolitical battle to save the white race from destruction. All hands are needed on the frontlines promoting the cause and recruiting acolytes, including women. The implication, I think, is that women who are outspoken today would take a step back once the white ethno-states that many in the alt-right wish to create finally exist. They would shift back to the natural position that they want — or say they want — to be in anyway.
Lastly, the women I examined view femininity as a form of power in its own right. Lokteff talked about white women — namely, their sexuality and vulnerability —as inspiring men to fight for and protect them. This is one of the reasons alt-right women place a high premium on aesthetics: The more beautiful you are, the more likely men will be to take care of you, personally and existentially. I heard several women say that they can get away with saying things that alt-right men can’t; they think that femininity makes racist, anti-Semitic, or otherwise offensive ideas more palatable.
You describe an alt-right podcast hosted by a white nationalist couple (“Good Morning White America”) as having calculated “bubblegum” tone. It’s a tone that’s similar to Lokteff’s physical presence: equal parts cheerful and hateful. How did this come across as you interviewed her? Did it affect the kinds of questions you asked?
Another reason I did this story is because I wanted to sit down face to face with people I don’t agree with. It’s easy from a distance to dehumanize such people as thoughtless, malevolent, and not worth an ounce of your time. I wanted to challenge myself to see women of the alt-right as fully-formed people, no matter how much I found what they said to be abhorrent.
The women I spoke to were friendly, articulate, and accommodating. Lokteff offered to pick me up from the Charleston airport, to drive me back to my hotel after our interview, and to appear in a debate on Red Ice. (I declined all three.) I didn’t hide who I was, save briefly divorcing my husband on Facebook because he is half-Jewish and I wanted to maximize the chance that women would talk to me — not a foregone conclusion at the start of this research. They were aware that I am liberally minded and do not support Donald Trump. I was told that some of the women who declined to speak to me or never responded to interview requests did so because they saw on Twitter that I support refugees, which I guess was a non-starter for them.
I tried to be cordial and measured in my interviews. One rule I had was to not get into arguments. I knew there was no way they would change my mind, nor was there much chance I could change theirs. I also knew that I would be pointing out what I disagreed with — or letting repugnant views speak for themselves — in the final article. So I endeavored to keep the dialogues going for as long and into as much depth as I could, in order to wrap my head, and hopefully my readers’ heads, around their zeitgeist. That kept the combativeness on a pretty low burn, even if on the inside I was angry or alarmed (which I was a lot of the time). This approach only affected my questions insofar as I tried to pose them anthropologically, for lack of a better word. And because I didn’t get into fights, I was able to ask more questions than I think I otherwise would have.
The perverse side of all this is that the women’s friendliness is, to a certain degree, calculated. If they want the alt-right to have a real civic future, which many of them do, it’s in their interest to seem normal and reasonable. It’s also in their interest because, from a recruitment perspective, they want to make potential converts comfortable with the idea of becoming alt-right. They promote themselves as being on the side of truth and light on matters of race, gender, and nationality. They depict their critics as aggressive, nasty, and violent — hence all the rhetoric about antifa and other leftists post-Charlottesville.
The last thing I’ll say about this is that there are exceptions: There are online female pundits and trolls who are crass, sarcastic, and impatient with “normies” (people outside the movement). I certainly encountered some of that, though it came mostly from anonymous pundits.
You include in your piece a short history of women within white extremist groups. It seems like they fare best within tight organizational structures like the Klan. Does Lokteff see her role in the alt-right as an organizer? Or is she more interested in adding women’s voices to the movement’s purposeful disorganization?
She demurred about this when I asked. I don’t think she would ever outright say, “I’m a leader of the alt-right.” But she would say that among women in the movement she’s more vocal and deeply involved in generating propaganda. I think she knows that the more female voices she can harvest from YouTube, Twitter, Gab, and other platforms to promote via her media company, Red Ice, the better. Not to create purposeful disorganization, but to convey momentum. The alt-right is concerned with showing that it has strength and numbers. Its shrewdest leaders realize that a critical piece of the project is proving that they aren’t just a bunch of slovenly white guys on their computers in their moms’ basements. They want to seem like smart, virile white men and smart, beautiful white women who’ve finally realized what’s in their best interests.
As for the historical comparisons, I found these very striking. No, the alt-right isn’t a tightly organized structure like the Nazi party or the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s. It’s an umbrella term for a motley cluster of hate groups, internet personalities, quasi-intellectuals, and trolls — all of whom believe in the cause of white nationalism. But the way that believers talk about women’s roles in their movement today is very similar to how predecessor groups talked about the same topic. I found myself underlining and highlighting bits of speeches and articles from nearly a century ago because they rang so familiar to what I was reading online or hearing said in interviews.
You say that the alt-right is notoriously cagey when it comes to talking to the mainstream media. When Lokteff agrees to meet with you, she invokes a sense of female empathy—that you wanted to hear her out—and then immediately revokes it. (“It’s not because you’re a woman.”) How did this play out in your interaction with her?
She rejected female empathy, but then invoked it again when she compared herself to me, saying we’re both vocal women who are interested in politics. So her line on the issue wasn’t a straight one. One of the things I found most striking about how she approached the interview was that she showed up with her husband, without mentioning in advance that he’d be there, and recorded me at the same time I was recording her, on equipment that was much more sophisticated than mine.
I gathered that there were two reasons for this: First, she wanted to make sure she had a precise record of everything she and I said, so that she could call me out on any discrepancy in what I published. (Several people I asked to interview said they would only do so if they could get questions in advance, record me simultaneously, or respond in writing.) The second reason is that she sees herself as a journalist just as much as I see myself as one. One with an agenda, to be sure, but a truth-teller and muckraker all the same, out to upend the mainstream media narrative.
The majority of white extremists at the Charlottesville march were men — men who were willing to show their face in public, who were emboldened to transform their talk online into the public space. Do you get the sense that Lokteff and the women she mentors want to enter a public sphere? Or would they rather remain online?
Some do, and some don’t. Some want to do so now, others claim they aren’t ready. Some insist that they can’t go public because they risk their careers, reputations, and so on; this is a piece of a broader narrative they try to spin about the alt-right being the new counterculture, the renegades of the 21st century. But to me, the bottom line is that the internet is a fertile space for this ideology because it offers anonymity, room for hate speech, and connections across wide geographies. (The alt-right is a transatlantic movement, with a strong presence in parts of Europe.) Many alt-right acolytes feel emboldened by Trump’s election and are stepping out into the world, as we saw in Charlottesville. The internet, though, is home base.


Why people follow these brainwashed women is beyond me, they are definitely traitors to the womenfolk.

Quote Alt-Right

A Straight Look at the Second World War

WHAT FOLLOWS IS AN ATTEMPT to set the historical record straight, without influence from the powers that be. By this phrase, I do not exclude the influence and power of organized Jewry, which is heavily involved in the sad history of the Aryan West. Further, I believe that liberals who do not recognize this influence are a part, knowing it or not, of the cosmopolitan array dedicated to exterminating our race forever.(1)
It is now 67 years after the holocaust known as World War II. Perhaps it is time to look at it truthfully. America is in big trouble. The unpayable national debt is only a small part of it. Fact is, the white world is in big trouble. Not only America, but Europe—the homeland of the white race—is facing mortal danger. It’s life or death for the white race—the race that for all its faults created Western civilization.(2)
The so-called victors of World War II won that costly struggle for the survival of Stalinist Russia and killed the very movement in Europe that was specifically dedicated to—and was accomplishing—the destruction of Communist Russia—the National Socialist movement created and led by Adolf Hitler.
Worse, the Allies—Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin then proceeded to perpetrate crimes upon the survivors unparalleled in Europe since Genghis Khan. Probably 3 million innocent Europeans perished from torture, murder, exposure and starvation after the hostilities ended.(3)
These atrocities were directed by the Allied supreme commander, Dwight Eisenhower, a protégé of financier Bernard Baruch,(4) known at the time as “king of the Jews.” It was Baruch who influenced Roosevelt to promote Eisenhower, a desk bureaucrat who had never seen combat, over the heads of 1,109 officers superior to him in experience, competence and seniority to take supreme command of the hostilities. Ike’s superior was in fact not FDR but the “king of the Jews.”
At least 55 million people were killed in Europe in this war, not counting at least 60 million who were killed by the Communists for political or racial reasons in the Soviet Union before and during WWII. This number includes the gifted and handsome Russian aristocracy. Of these martyrs, almost all were non-Jewish Aryan.(5)
The Allied supreme commander, Eisenhower, illegally crowded a million captured German soldiers into open fields surrounded by barbwire in subfreezing weather. Without shelter, without food, without even toilet facilities, they died in misery. Civilians who tried to feed them were shot, on direct orders from Ike.
Of course, Wehrmacht soldiers who surrendered to the Russians fared as badly—most died in Siberia or were tortured. The Soviet Union never signed the Geneva Conventions. See Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago.
James Bacque, in his Other Losses, documents this horror with the appalling facts. Giles MacDonogh—heavily prejudiced against Germans—cannot deny what happened in his After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation. Dr. Austin App has written more than one short booklet about American atrocities visited upon helpless German civilians. (See bibliography at end of article.)
Edward L. van Roden served in World War II as chief of the Military Justice Division for the European theater. Van Roden was appointed in 1948 to an extraordinary commission charged with investigating the claims of abuse during U.S. trials in Germany. Here is an excerpt of what van Roden wrote:
American investigators at the U.S. court in Dachau, Germany used the following methods to obtain confessions: Beatings and brutal kickings. Knocking out teeth and breaking jaws. Mock trials. Solitary confinement. Posturing as priests. Very limited rations. Spiritual deprivation. Promises of acquittal…. We won the war, but some of us want to go on killing. That seems to me wicked…. The American prohibition of hearsay evidence had been suspended. Second-and third-hand testimony was admitted….
Lt. Perl of the prosecution pleaded that it was difficult to obtain complete evidence. Perl told the court. “We had a tough case to crack, and we had to use persuasive methods.” He admitted to the court that the persuasive methods included various “expedients including some violence and mock trials.” He further told the court that the cases rested on statements obtained by such methods.
The statements which were admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement for three, four and five months. They were confined between four walls, with no windows and no opportunity of exercise. Two meals a day were shoved in to them through a slot in the door. They were not allowed to talk to anyone. They had no communication with their families or any minister or priest during that time….
Our investigators would put a black hood over the accused’s head and then punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses. Many of the German defendants had teeth knocked out. Some had their jaws broken. All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. This was standard operating procedure with American investigators. Perl admitted use of mock trials and persuasive methods including violence and said the court was free to decide the weight to be attached to evidence thus received. But it all went in.
One 18-year-old defendant, after a series of beatings, was writing a statement being dictated to him. When they reached the 16th page, the boy was locked up for the night. In the early morning, Germans in nearby cells heard him muttering: “I will not utter another lie.” When the jailer came in later to get him to finish his false statement, he found the German hanging from a cell bar, dead. However, the statement that the German had hanged himself to escape signing was offered and received in evidence in the trial of the others.
One of the most remarkable persons in European history was born in the small town of Linz, Austria, on April 20, 1889. From boyhood his friends knew that he was special. His closest friend was August Kubizek, whose book The Young Hitler I Knew is a fount of information concerning this person, and it is highly recommended for interested parties.
Kubizek relates incidents where Hitler would—as if seeing visions—tell his friend how he intended to rebuild Linz and his architectural plans for the entire area.
Art was Hitler’s chosen calling and he supported himself before World War I in Vienna by selling his. A Texan, Billy Price, has published a book containing about a thousand of these interesting pencil sketches and watercolors.
Many of Hitler’s attributes are acknowledged, such as his incredible memory, his physical courage, his speaking ability, his ability to charm persons on a one-on-one basis and his political acumen.
What writers who are unfriendly do not wish to recognize, however, are his profound and detailed knowledge of history and historical personalities, his strong sense of fairness, his pronounced interest in art and architecture, his talent as a first-class military strategist, his idealism and his justified determination to redress the punitive Versailles Treaty that had crippled Germany after World War I.
In 1919, with the outbreak of war, Hitler enlisted in the German army and by so doing made the political statement that he detested the Austrian royal leadership and considered himself German.
Hitler’s military record is outstanding. This was before tactical commanders could use telephone or radio to issue orders or otherwise communicate to coordinate the army’s units. To get messages from commanders to commander required a soldier of uncommon dependability and courage. Hitler volunteered for this job and went through every major battle during that harrowing period, repeatedly going through the worst of the fighting. He was gassed in 1914 and wounded in the leg in 1916. These battles includeYpres (Oct. 14-17, 1914), Neure Chapelle (March 10-13, 1915), Arras (April 9 June 16, 1917), Passchendalle (July-Nov., 1917) and Somme (Oct. 1916).
In contrast, neither Roosevelt nor Churchill ever served a day in combat. Churchill was a newspaper reporter and was captured in South Africa in 1899 by Boers, but all he did was to hold up his arms and surrender.
After the war, the British blockaded Germany in order to starve to death as many Germans as possible. Realizing that only leadership could meet this mortal crisis, Hitler looked around for a political movement, a movement with capable leadership that he could support .After considerable effort, he found a fledgling party, the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; NSDAP). He joined as member No. 7. Meanwhile, at least 763,000 Germans were purposefully starved to death.
Soon, he discovered that he had a talent for public speaking and political leadership. The subsequent story of the growth of the NSDAP is fantastic. Before long, meetings at which Hitler spoke were attended by thousands. Communists—who were well organized—tried to break up the meetings and the outdoor rallies using brutal violence but the NS membership was always ready for these tactics and, in defending their right to exist, developed their own street army, the Sturmabteilung (SA).
Many German workingmen who had been beguiled by the well-financed Communists gravitated to the NSDAP with its strong message of nationalism and patriotism.
Britain’s traditional policy regarding the continent was “balance of power,” meaning that it would support the weaker nation or coalition on the mainland and play off the power combines against each other, thus freeing Britain to further aggrandize itself on the 17/20ths of the globe it then controlled.
In spite of these facts, Hitler had no animus against Britain, and he made it clear in his Mein Kampf as well as in many speeches and in his foreign policy that he wanted peace with this nation, whose Anglo-Saxon and Keltic peoples were so closely related to Germans. Let the British rule their empire on which the Sun never set and give him a free hand on the continent so that he could turn his attention to the vital job of keeping the Soviet Union at bay. Hitler knew that Stalin’s strategy was to conquer Europe (including the British Isles) and add it to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Hitler was far too smart to entertain any idea of “conquering the world.” His motives, in other words, were good.
Hitler wanted peace, but his sin was that he recognized the corrosive, destructive influence of the Rothschild-Zionist-Jewish presence in Europe and tried to do something about it. In their eyes, this was intolerable, and the British declaration of war against Germany on Sept. 3, 1939 was the answer to the perceived problem.
Today there are few if any historians who do not agree that the Versailles Treaty imposed on Germany after World War I was extremely one-sided and practically guaranteed another war.
Following its traditional policy, on Sept. 3, 1939, England allied itself with Communist Russia and declared war on a Germany that did everything possible to avoid hostilities. Rothschild-Jewish pressure on England was irresistible. And while Roosevelt was promising America over and over again in his fireside chats, “I say to you again and again and again that your boys will not be sent to a foreign war,” he was scheming with Churchill to do precisely that.
Before the war, Jewish organizations—supported by the international press—screamed that Hitler was exterminating Jews by the millions. This is exactly what the Jews claimed during World War I, and they used the same number then: 6 million. [See The First Holocaust by Don Heddesheimer.]
Of course, this was a blatant lie. True, Hitler imprisoned some minorities who were opposed to his policies, including Communists and religious zealots, to avoid sabotage of the German war effort, exactly as FDR imprisoned the Japanese in camps across the United States.
The Big Lie of the so-called “Holocaust” has netted Jews not only billions of dollars in U.S. and German coin but additional billions in German goods, such as highly advanced submarines and weapons, not to mention a very valuable piece of real estate in Palestine plus the tearful sympathy of American and European media and politicians.
Hitler’s war aims were to defend Germany from England’s (and later, America’s) invasion and to exterminate Soviet Communism. He and the German foreign minister, von Ribbentrop, made every conceivable diplomatic effort to placate England, Hitler finally resorting to sending his deputy Rudolf Hess as a last-ditch effort for peace in the West. When Hess arrived in Britain in May 1941, Churchill refused to see him. Hess was locked up for the rest of the war and the rest of his life. Failing to die naturally, he was murdered by a British assassin in his cell in 1987 at Spandau Prison at the age of 92.
Why would America enter the European war when no interests of the country were remotely threatened? The simple answer is that the Roosevelt administration was heavily laden with Jews, as has been documented by Elizabeth Dilling in her books and newsletters of 1934 and later. And Roosevelt was guaranteed a third and fourth term.
Mrs. Dilling, a concert-level harpist, mother and socialite in Chicago, traveled to Russia in 1931 to see the great Communist experiment for herself. Deeply shocked by what she saw, and the conditions the people had to endure, she dedicated her life to exposing Communism, especially its influence in America. In 1936 she wrote The Roosevelt Red Record and Its Background, and in it listed over 100 extreme liberals/Communists in the Roosevelt administration, most of them Jewish.
Numerous times Hitler warned Britain that entering the hostilities would bankrupt England and cost it its empire. Hitler regarded the British Empire, like the Catholic Church, as an element of world stability. His words were lost in the Jewish cacophony for war. The Britons Oswald Moseley, John Amery, Arnold Leese and others made similar arguments directly to the British people.
Hitler’s far-seeing strategy was anathema to the lords of England as well as to the powerful Rothschild-Jewish entity that ruled the Bank of England and its separate enclave, the City of London, which most definitely is not that big metropolis on the Thames River but another entity entirely—the financial hub of the Rothschild world empire.
Meanwhile, for the most part, the American media was conditioning the public for war, to the extent of telling gullible taxpayers to draw their window shades at night so as to not permit light from the lights inside their houses to be seen and so guide Nazi bombers to them. Yes, we had blackouts in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Fort Wayne was 4,000 miles from Germany, making a round trip of 8,000 miles—a feat impossible for any airplane of the day. But what citizen would bother to dispute the facts reported in their daily paper? Would the “free press” lie so blatantly?
Unfortunately, white Americans have a messianic complex and publicists can easily manipulate them into spending billions for crusades for everlasting peace if they support an internationalist foreign policy, so profitable for the war makers. Who wants to be called an isolationist? Thus, today we have troops in 135 countries around the globe interfering in the domestic affairs of people who wish to be left alone. This is worse than useless; it sows seeds of mistrust and hatred and manufactures terrorists and more war. But it also feeds the profits of corporations that manufacture tanks, guns, planes, ships and other war materiel. Bankers love war and debt financing, and war pays the salaries of thousands of bureaucrats who work in the Pentagon and offices around the globe.
There are at least 8,000 bureaucrats employed in the Pentagon. Many drive 200 miles each day to and from work. While the rest of America wallows in unemployment and recession, the Washington, D.C. area is prosperous. War and debt mean prosperity for millions, no matter that our bipartisan foreign policy is programmed for defeat and national bankruptcy.
FDR wanted a third and then a fourth term, and he knew the only way this could be accomplished would be to get America into war. As stated, with Churchill, he plotted exactly that.
Tyler Kent, an American citizen, was a code clerk stationed in London. He transmitted communications between Churchill and Roosevelt and was very alarmed, seeing that the two were plotting war. He kept copies, planning to give them to senators, such as Burton K. Wheeler, who were leaders in the effort to keep America out of war. His plan was discovered, and he was arrested by Churchill’s orders and illegally kept in a British jail without trial for the duration of the war. Nothing could be permitted to stand in the way of war.
Knowing that Hitler had no intention of attacking the U.S. or even England, Roosevelt adopted a devilish scheme: He would take “the back door to war” (the title of Dr. Charles Callan Tansill’s magnum opus) and get the Japanese to attack the U.S.
Japan needed oil, and the closest was in the South Pacific. FDR knew that was the pressure point to bend Japan to his will—to leave no other option to Japan but to attack the United States.
FDR’s scheme—with which Churchill was totally familiar—worked. Roosevelt knew that the Japanese would do almost anything to avoid war with the U.S. because American code breakers were monitoring all of Japan’s secret communications between Tokyo and their diplomats. Through its Ambassador Kichisaburo Nomura, Prince Konoye and Minister of Foreign Affairs Yosuke Matsuoka, Japan made every effort to ensure friendly relations with the U.S.
FDR knew well in advance that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor, and he cheerfully sacrificed the lives of 3,000 men, four battleships and much more, including the reputations of Adm. Husband Kimmel and Gen. Walter Short, who he criminally blamed for the attack, permitting his treason to go unknown and unpunished. As Roosevelt said, Dec. 7, 1941 is indeed “a day which will live in infamy”—Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s infamous treason.
Roosevelt knew that the American people were overwhelmingly opposed to war. His plan was not merely a contemptuous repudiation of the electorate, but done with full knowledge that the war would cost millions of American, German and other lives. But his unnatural lust for a third term seized him.
His partner in this crime was Winston Churchill, prime minister of Great Britain. In his sober moments, which were very few, Churchill was a master of words. Churchill loved war and killing for the sport of it.
By 1938, when he was 64 years old, Churchill had so lived beyond his means that his creditors prepared to foreclose on him. He was faced with the prospect of the forced sale of his luxurious country estate, Chartwell.
At this hour of crisis a dark and mysterious figure entered Churchill’s life. He was Henry Strakosch, a multimillionaire Jew who had acquired a fortune speculating in South African mining ventures after his family had migrated to that country from eastern Austria. Strakosch stepped forward and advanced Churchill a loan of 150,000 pounds sterling just in time to save his estate from the auctioneer. In the years that followed, Strakosch served as Churchill’s adviser and confidant but miraculously managed to avoid the spotlight of publicity, which thenceforth illuminated Churchill’s again-rising political career.
It must be said that hard thought was never Churchill’s forte because he was always either drunk or nearly so. Alcoholism was not the only eccentric characteristic of this strange man, who would often greet visitors stark naked. But Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin were the warlords of World War II, and to them must go the primary responsibility for the results—the greatest disaster in the history of Europe and the white race.
Every time he was told that German bombers were en route, and even though he initiated the policy of bombing civilians, a policy Hitler abhorred, Churchill fled London.
The two leaders were both manifestly unfit for power. FDR was sick in body and mind, and Churchill was a sot.
British and American bombers carpeted German cities with millions of explosives and incendiary bombs. They made little effort to target railheads, factories, docks or military installations. They deliberately killed millions of civilians. The flames of a burning Hamburg were a mile high. According to David Irving, Dresden—an undefended art city—was totally destroyed along with at least 18,375 inhabitants, mostly children, women, and cripples, 16,130 were injured and 350,000 people made homeless; 35,000 were missing. No one knows how many of these were killed.
Such mass murder (genocide) is supposedly outlawed by the Geneva Convention, but that meant nothing to Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin. In one leaflet headlined Kill, Soviet propagandist Ilya Ehrenburg incited Soviet soldiers to treat Germans as subhuman. The final paragraph concludes:
The Germans are not human beings. From now on the word German means to us the most terrible oath. From now on the word German strikes us to the quick. We shall not speak anymore. We shall not get excited. We shall kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day…
If you cannot kill your German with a bullet kill him with your bayonet. If there is calm on your part of the front, or if you are waiting for the fighting, kill a German in the meantime. If you leave a German alive, the German will hang a Russian and rape a Russian woman. If you kill one German, kill another there is nothing more amusing for us than a heap of German corpses. Do not count days, do not count kilometers. Count only the number of Germans killed by you.
Kill the German—that is your grandmother’s request. Kill the German—that is your child’s prayer. Kill the German—that is your motherland’s loud request. Do not miss. Kill.
The war that followed—as was World War I—must be seen as a civil war in the West; 8.5 million American, British and continental European troops were killed in WWI and 43 million in WWII. The civilian count in WWI is about 13 million and 38 million in WWII. The dysgenic effect of these needless wars is incalculable. Before birth control became feasible and popular, losses like this would be made up naturally by the high birth rate. But not today.
Many millions of white children of the dead have never been born. Their absence has to a large extent been made up by non-white immigrants into America and Europe, both legal and illegal, and the influx of nonwhites grows daily. No more is America a white, Aryan nation; in fact, today the dialog regarding immigration forbids the factor of race from even being mentioned in our Jewish-controlled media. The Marxist rule of political correctness is the norm.
Lenin, Stalin and the other (mostly Jewish) leaders in Communist Russia murdered some 60 million Russians, particularly the pro-Western Aryan aristocracy, symbolized by the Christian royal family of Czar Nicholas. Regardless of persons like Tom Brokaw (who refers to WWII as “the good war,” it was unnecessary, and all belligerents—Great Britain, America and Russia included lost. American Francis Yockey pointed out that to win a war, a power must gain resources, strength and prosperity. Since 1939, all three major powers who started and fought it have declined into a pit of escalating inflation, unpayable debt, national bankruptcy, loss of national character, the immigration of millions of aliens and a highly questionable future.
The mass killing of Germans and other Europeans has paved the way for the legal and illegal immigration of not only Muslims but black Africans, even to countries as far removed from Africa as Finland. This has vastly increased the welfare budget and crime. European cities that once were clean and orderly today are ridden with trash and derelicts. A former resident of London reports that the streets resemble those in Nairobi, Kenya. Manfred Roeder reports that the EU plans to bring to Europe some 60 million more black Africans. Any plan to halt this torrent to Europe of this plague is attacked by the media as “Hitlerism.”
To most Americans, war is an exciting game. They watch the suffering and the action safely on television, radio, newspapers and magazines with the “Tom Brokaws” exulting.
But what do they profit? Death, debt and the ever-tightening yoke of Jewish political and economic supremacy.
Any sensible white person, if aware at all of what is happening, has to acknowledge the truth. His race, which is responsible for Western civilization, is on the defensive and retreating before an army of racial and cultural aliens.
The racial crisis cannot be ignored further. Whites must brave the Bronx cheers and profanity from liberals and Jews and face the problem squarely or civilization is lost.
The future for the U.S. seems clear: The McCarran-Walter immigration law has been repealed and no more are immigrants let into America mainly from Europe. Today, America is taking in millions of non-whites from everywhere, legal and illegal. These invaders have no cultural or racial compatibility with the Aryan whites who founded, civilized and developed this continent. Without racial and cultural homogeneity, there can be no rational government in any country, only efforts to arbitrate among groups until the inevitable anarchy.
Is the future therefore hopeless? Is the white race doomed? Of course not, just the opposite. Today, whites are confronted with major difficulties, and that is good, not bad. The problems we have are a trumpet call to awaken. At last we have a challenge. It is literally life or death for our kind. Political liberalism is a thing of the past. Jewish influence is intolerable and must be quashed by whatever means. We mean to survive and that means only this: Unconditional defeat for our enemies and unconditional victory for the next phase of white aggrandizement.
APP, DR. AUSTIN: History’s Most Terrifying Peace, 1946.
The Six Million Swindle 1973, Boniface Press.
A Straight Look at the Third Reich, 1975, Boniface Press.
BACQUE, JAMES: Other Losses, 1999, Little Brown & Co.
BARNES, HARRY ELMER: In Quest of Truth and Justice, 1972, Ralph Myles.
Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, 1953, Caxton Printers.
Pearl Harbor: After a Quarter Century, 1968, Inst. for Historical Review.
BAUR, HANS: Hitler at My Side, 1968, Eichler Publ. Co. chief pilot and friend to Adolf Hitler, was a WWI ace, pioneer mail pilot, Lufthansa flight captain, companion to the Fuehrer in the Soviets after WWII. What a life. His autobiography is an adventure story.
BEARSE, RAY & READ, ANTHONY: Conspirator, 1992, Papermac.
CHAMBERLIN, WILLIAM HENRY: America’s Second Crusade, 1950, Henry
COLBY, BENJAMIN: Twas a Famous Victory, 1974, Arlington House.
COLE, WAYNE S.: Charles Lindbergh and the Battle Against American
Intervention in World War II, 1974, Harcourt Brace.
CROCKER, GEORGE N.: Roosevelt’s Road to Russia, 1959, Henry Regnery.
DOENECKE, JUSTUS D.: Not to the Swift, 1979, Associated University Presses
DUKE, DAVID: Jewish Supremacism, 2003, Free Speech Press.
EGGLESTON, GEORGE T.: Roosevelt, Churchill and the World War II Opposition, 1979 Devin-Adair.
EPSTEIN, JULIUS: Operation Keelhaul, 1973, Devin-Adair.
GANNON, MICHAEL: Pearl Harbor Betrayed, 2001, Henry Holt.
GREAVES, PERCY L.: Pearl Harbor: The Seeds and Fruits of Infamy, 2010, Ludwig Mises Institute.
GRENFELL, CAPT. RUSSELL, R.N.: Unconditional Hatred, 1958, Devin-Adair.
HEDDESHEIMER, DON: The First Holocaust, TBR, 2011.
IRVING, DAVID: Destruction of Dresden, 1963, Holt, Rinehart. The War Path, 1978 the Viking Press.
Churchill’s War 1987, Veritas Publishing.
Hitler’s War, 1977, Macmillian.
The War Between the Generals, 1981, Penguin Books.
Hess, the Missing Years, 1987, Macmillian.
Apocalypse 1945, Parforce.
KEMP, ARTHUR: March of the Titans, 2000, Ostara Press.
KUBIZEK, AUGUST: The Young Hitler I Knew, Greenhill Books, 2006.
LEESE, ARNOLD S.: The Jewish War of Survival, 1945, Historical Review Press.
LINGE, HEINZ: With Hitler to the End, 2009, Skyhorse.
MACDONOGH, GILES: After the Reich, 2007, Basic Books.
MARTIN JAMES J.: Revisionist Viewpoints, 1971, Ralph Myles.
NEILSON, FRANCIS: The Makers of War, 1950, C.C. Nelson.
How Diplomats Make War, 1952, Henry Regnery.
SNOW, JOHN H.: The Case of Tyler Kent, 1982, Long House.
STURDZA, PRINCE MICHEL: The Suicide of Europe, 1968, Western Islands.
TANSILL, CHARLES CALLAN: Back Door to War, 1952, Henry Holt.
THOMAS, W. HUGH: The Murder of Rudolf Hess, 1979, by author.
WEDEMEYER REPORTS: Gen. Albert Wedemeyer, 1958, Henry Holt.
  1. In whatever civilization they have lived for some 3,000 years, the Jews have always considered themselves separate and distinct from their host people. Their Talmud, as well as the Old Testament, is authority enough for this. Thus, historians and observers cannot logically consider them as an integral part of the community.
  2. Arthur Kemp’s classic March of the Titans: A History of the White Race is strongly recommended.
  3. Bibliography and see Dr. Austin App’s writings.
  4. According to respected historian Eustace Mullins, Bernard Baruch was the force behind the creation of the atomic bomb. He lived in Manhattan. Hence the name “Manhattan Project.”
  5. See the Sept./Oct. 2008 issue of THE BARNES REVIEW for “Russia & the Jews” by Udo Walendy, “Nobel Prize Winner’s Writings Still Banned” which describes the prejudice against Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, a Russian. Solzhenitsyn was imprisoned for a total of 11 years by Stalin for his anti-Communist writings including his factual histories of the support that Jews gave to the system. His writings in the U.S. are difficult if not impossible to be found.