Adolf Hitler on ‘Jewish Democracy’ and ‘The Importance of the Spoken Word’


IT ISN’T THE AIM OF OUR MODERN DEMOCRATIC PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM to bring together an assembly of intelligent and well-informed men. The aim rather is to bring together a group of non-entities who are dependent on others for their views, and who can be all the more easily led, the narrower their mental outlook. This is the only way that party policy—according to the evil meaning it has today—can be put into effect.

Only in this way is it possible for the wire-puller, who exercises real control, to remain in the dark, so that he personally can never be held accountable. Under such circumstances, none of the decisions taken, no matter how disastrous they may be, can be laid at the foot of the scoundrel who is truly to blame. All responsibility is shifted to the shoulders of the party as a whole.

In practice, no actual responsibility remains. It arises only from personal duty and not from the obligations that rest with a parliamentary assembly of empty talkers.

The parliamentary institution attracts liars and moles, people who shun the light of day. No upright man, who is ready to accept personal responsibility for his acts, will be attracted to such an institution.

That’s the reason why this brand of democracy has become a tool in the hand of that race that, because of its inner goals, must shun the open light—as it has always done and always will do. Only the Jew can praise an institution which is as corrupt and false as himself.

By contrast, consider a truly German democracy. Here the leader is freely chosen and is obliged to accept full responsibility for all his actions and omissions. Problems are not put to a majority vote, but they are decided upon by the individual. As a guarantee of responsibility for those decisions, he pledges his worldly belongings, and even his life.

The objection may be raised here that, under such conditions, it would be very difficult to find a man who would be ready to devote himself to so risky a task. There is only one answer to that.

Thank God that our German democracy will prevent the chance careerist, who may be intellectually worthless and a moral slacker, from coming to power in devious ways. The fear of undertaking such far-reaching responsibilities, under German democracy, will scare off the ignorant and the incompetent.

But if it happens that such a person sneaks in, it will be easy enough to ruthlessly identify and challenge him—somewhat as follows: “Be gone, you scoundrel! Don’t soil these steps with your feet; these are the steps of the Pantheon of History, and they are not meant for status-seekers but for men of noble character!”

Such were the views I formed after two years of attending the sessions of the Viennese Parliament.

Then I never went back.

Adolf Hitler in Landsberg prison at the time he dictated his memoir.

Previous to the following passage, Hitler had been speaking about his strong interest in two political parties centered in Vienna: the Pan-German party and the Christian-Socialist party, and what caused each to fail.


Mass meetings in public became rarer and rarer, though these are the only means of exercising an effective influence on people. Here, the influence comes from direct personal contact, and earns the support of large numbers.

Once the parliamentary platform was substituted for the beer-hall table, where thousands were addressed, and once speeches were no longer addressed to the people directly but to the so-called ‘chosen’ representatives, the pan-German movement lost its popular character. It soon degenerated to the level of an academic discussion club.

Thus, the misleading impression created by the press was no longer corrected by personal contact with the people through public meetings, wherein a true account might be given. The end result of this neglect was that the word ‘pan-German’ came to have an unpleasant sound in the ears of the masses.

The knights of the pen and the literary snobs of today must realize that the great transformations that have taken place in this world were never conducted by a goose-quill!

No, the task of the pen must always be reserved to that of presenting the theoretical foundations.

The force that has ever and always set in motion great historical avalanches of religious and political movements is the magic power of the spoken word.

The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force. All great movements are popular movements. They are the volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotions, stirred into activity either by the ruthless Goddess of Distress or by the torch of the spoken word cast into the people’s midst. In no case have great movements been set afoot by the syrupy effusions of literary aesthetes and drawing-room heroes.

A nation’s destiny can be averted only by a storm of hot passion. But only those who are passionate themselves can arouse passion in others.

It’s only the capacity for passionate feeling that, like hammer blows, will open the door to the hearts of the people.

Published in: on April 16, 2018 at 1:03 am  Comments (1)  

14 Apr 1941


Nordafrika, Flakgeschütz

Australian infantry outside Tobruk, Libya reported the sighting of a number of “long-barrelled guns on strange carriages”. This was the first indication that the Germans were deploying the dreaded 88-mm anti-tank gun in the Western Desert.

Published in: on April 14, 2018 at 9:42 pm  Comments (1)  

German Mayors Protest Neo-Nazi Festival Celebrating Hitler’s birthday


Dozens of German mayors signed a joint declaration on Friday as an act of protest against a neo-Nazi music festival set to take place in the eastern town of Ostritz on April 20 to mark the birthday of Adolf Hitler.

The Shield and Sword Festival is scheduled to begin on April 20, the birthday of Adolf Hitler, in Ostritz in Saxony.

Polish and German nationalists identified a common enemy and  the aim of the Blood and Honor movement is the livelihood of the white race and the fight for  Aryan cultural tradition.


A message from the festival organizers. –

Dear inhabitants of Ostritz, dear fellow citizens and neighbors!

As you have already learned from the medial waves, our festival will take place from 20.04. until 21.04.2018  on the grounds of the Hotel Neisseblick. We are pleased to have brought this event to our hometown. Even if due to the premature release of the venue, as well as the questionable initiative of various institutions, our city receives more attention than necessary.

Certain forces in our country have leased the outrage and counter-protest, against anything that does not fit into their eccentric ideology, and try to profile themselves at the expense of the citizens and their security.

Once again the citizens should be stretched before the carts of these left-wing ideologues! The tax money that would have been misappropriated would be in better hands, for example during the renovation of the war memorial (Hutberg), the gym or the clubs.

There are quite critical voices regarding the security in Ostritz loud, if you observed “counter-events” of the left camp in recent years. However, we know that our police are in control and that left-wing violence will not stand a chance. Rather, Ostritz will be the safest place in Saxony this weekend, with no theft and burglaries that are otherwise on the agenda. Only an increased traffic volume in the direction of “Neißeblick” will lead to adverse effects on our part.

We would therefore like to thank you for your understanding as well as the hospitality and support shown. Especially for the help of the various craft companies and the receptiveness of the many pensions and hotels in the region, which despite official request not to allow national guests to rent, have recognized the opportunity for the region and tourism and now offer our boys and girls  rooms.

For this reason, we would like to ask all true Easterners, who are much under-noticed in the media, to attend our festival on Friday evening or on Saturday. If they identify themselves as real Ostritzer at the entrance, they are donation-free our guest and can make themselves on-site a picture of our political will. Incidentally, this festival is a cross party. Many parties, organizations and associations will introduce themselves.Visit us and make yourself a picture on site. We look forward to you!


Of course, we will be providing stalls for you from all areas of national politics and national shipping.

Parties and political organizations from Germany and Europe, Battle of the Nibelungen, NPD Material Service, Erik and Sons, Werkcode, German department store, APF, Ansgar Aryan, Nordlandverlag, NS Today, Front Records, and many more will be there to inform about their political activities ,
For your physical well-being, comrades will take care of the whole weekend. In addition to many beer and wine stalls will also grill specialties and a baguette wait for you. Our culinary products at the Shield and Sword Festival have been freshly produced exclusively by comrades in the area.

Your Ostritzer shield and sword crew

Published in: on April 14, 2018 at 8:39 pm  Comments (2)  

Ernst Zundel interviews David Irving

Published in: on April 14, 2018 at 8:05 pm  Comments (1)  

Oswald Mosley-100 Questions


READ PDF 100-questions-about-fascism-oswald-mosley-2006-politics

Published in: on April 14, 2018 at 1:17 am  Leave a Comment  

Adolf Hitler on ‘The Majority Principle’


Passage from Mein Kampf .

SEVERAL VOLUMES WOULD BE NEEDED IF ONE WERE TO GIVE an adequate account of all its hollow fallacies. But if we pass over the details and look at the product itself while in operation, I think this alone will sufffice to open the eyes of even the most innocent and naive person, so that he may recognize the absurdity of this institution by looking at it objectively.

This human aberration is as harmful as it is absurd. In order to see this, the best and easiest method is to compare democratic parliamentarianism with a genuine German democracy.

The remarkable characteristic of the parliamentary form of democracy is the fact that a number of persons, let us say 500—these days, including women also—are elected to parliament and invested with authority to give final judgment on everything. In practice, they alone are the governing body; for although they may appoint a cabinet that outwardly seems to direct state affairs, this cabinet has no real existence of its own. In reality this so-called government can’t do anything against the will of the assembly. It can never be called to account for anything, since the right of decision is not vested in the cabinet but in the parliamentary majority. The cabinet always functions only as the executor of the will of the majority. Its political ability can be judged only by how far it succeeds in adapting to the will of the majority, or in persuading the majority to agree to its proposals.

But this means it must descend from the level of a real governing power to that of a beggar, one who has to beg for the approval of a majority. Indeed, the main job of the cabinet is to secure for itself the favor of the majority then in power or, failing that, to form a new majority that will be more favorably disposed. If it should succeed in either of these efforts, it may go on ‘governing’ for a little while. If it should fail to win or form a majority, it must resign.

For all practical purposes, responsibility is abolished.

The consequences of such a state of affairs can easily be understood from the following simple considerations:

Those 500 deputies who have been elected by the people come from various dissimilar callings in life; they show widely varying degrees of political capacity, with the result that the whole picture is incoherent and deplorable. Surely nobody believes that these elected representatives of the nation are the choice spirits or first-class intellects! […]

The absurd notion that men of genius are born out of universal suffrage cannot be too strongly repudiated. In the first place those times may be really called blessed when one genuine statesman appears among a people. Such statesmen don’t appear by the hundreds or more. Secondly, the broad masses instinctively display a definite antipathy towards every outstanding genius. […]

Throughout world history, exceptional events have mostly been due to the driving force of an individual personality.

But here, 500 persons of sub-par intellectual qualities pass judgment on the most important problems affecting the nation. They form governments, that in turn learn to win the approval of the illustrious assembly for every legislative step—which means that the policy to be carried out is actually the policy of the 500.

And that’s just what it usually looks like.

But let’s pass over the intellectual qualities of these representatives and ask what is the nature of the task set before them. If we consider the fact that the problems to be addressed are variable and diverse, we can very well realize how inefficient a governing system must be that entrusts the right of decision to a mass assembly, one in which only very few possess the requisite knowledge and experience to properly deal with the matters. The most important economic measures are submitted to a tribunal in which not more than 10 percent have studied economics. […]

The same holds true of every other problem. It’s always a majority of ignorant and incompetent people who decide on each measure. The composition of the institution does not change, while the problems to be dealt with come from the most varied spheres of public life. An intelligent judgment would be possible only if different deputies had the authority to deal with different issues. It’s out of the question to think that the same people are qualified to decide on transportation questions as well as, say, on questions of foreign policy—unless each is a universal genius. But scarcely more than one true genius appears in a century.

Here we are scarcely ever dealing with real thinkers, but only with dilettantes who are as narrow-minded as they are conceited and arrogant—intellectual prostitutes of the worst kind. That’s why these honorable gentlemen show such astonishing levity in debating matters that would demand the most painstaking consideration, even from great minds. Measures of momentous importance for the future existence of the state are discussed in an atmosphere more suited to the card-table. Indeed, the latter would be a much more fitting occupation for these gentlemen than that of deciding the destinies of a race.


Of course, it would be unfair to assume that every member in such a parliament was endowed by nature with such a small sense of responsibility.

No,by no means.

Published in: on April 14, 2018 at 1:12 am  Leave a Comment  

8 Apr 1941


German 2nd Panzer Division crossed from southern Yugoslavia into northern Greece near Dojran Lake. Elsewhere, German 73rd Infantry Division moved into the Monastir Valley and captured Prilep, Yugoslavia and prepared to move south toward Salonika, Greece. German 6th Mountain SS Division penetrated the Metaxas Line by crossing a 7,000 feet mountain range.

gr-yu3 Hotchkiss-Yugo1941



Published in: on April 9, 2018 at 12:30 am  Comments (1)  



by Dr. William L. Pierce

A common belief among defenders of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is that the National Socialist government of Germany under Adolf Hitler did not permit the private ownership of firearms. Totalitarian governments, they have been taught in their high school civics classes, do not trust their citizens and do not dare permit them to keep firearms. Thus, one often hears the statement, “You know, the first thing the Nazis did when they came to power was outlaw firearms,” or, “The first thing Hitler did in Germany was round up all the guns.”

One can understand why many American gun owners want to believe this. They see in the current effort of their own government to take away their right to keep and bear arms a limitation of an essential element of their freedom and a move toward tyranny, and they want to characterize the gun-grabbers in the most negative way they can. Adolf Hitler has been vilified continuously for the past 60 years or so by the mass media in America, and certainly no politician or officeholder wants to be compared with him. If the gun-confiscation effort can be portrayed convincingly as something of which Hitler would have approved, it will have been effectively tarred.

This identification of the inclination to deny citizens the right to keep and bear arms with National Socialism and Adolf Hitler has been strengthened recently by clever magazine advertisements which show Hitler with his arm outstretched in a Roman salute under a heading: “All in favor of gun control raise your right hand.” A Jewish group, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), quite noisy for its size, has been especially zealous in promoting the idea that the current gun-control effort in America has its roots in Germany during the Hitler period. This group has gone so far as to claim in several articles published in popular magazines read by firearms enthusiasts that the current restrictive legislation being proposed by the U.S. government is modeled on a gun-control statute enacted by Germany’s National Socialist government: the German Weapons Law (Waffengesetz) of March 18, 1938.

Again, one can understand the motivation of the JPFO. Many non-Jewish firearms owners are well aware that the movement to restrict their rights is led and promoted primarily by Jews, and anti-Jewish feeling has been growing among them. They know that the controlled news media, which are almost unanimously in favor of abridging or abolishing the Second Amendment, are very much under the influence of Jews, and they know that the most vocal anti-gun legislators in the Congress also are Jews. It is natural for a group such as the JPFO to mount a damage- control effort and attempt to prevent anti-Jewish feeling from becoming even stronger among gun owners. Their strategy is to deflect the blame from their kinsmen in the media and the government and direct it onto their most hated enemies, the National Socialists — or at least to create enough smoke to obscure the facts and keep the gun-owning public confused.

Unfortunately for those who would like to link Hitler and the National Socialists with gun control, the entire premise for such an effort is false. German firearms legislation under Hitler, far from banning private ownership, actually facilitated the keeping and bearing of arms by German citizens by eliminating or ameliorating restrictive laws which had been enacted by the government preceding his: a left-center government which had contained a number of Jews.


It is not just that the National Socialist firearms legislation was the opposite of what it has been claimed to have been by persons who want to tar modern gun-grabbers with the “Nazi” brush: the whole spirit of Hitler’s government was starkly different from its portrayal by America’s mass media. The facts, in brief, are these:

  • The National Socialist government of Germany, unlike the government in Washington today, did not fear its citizens. Adolf Hitler was the most popular leader Germany has ever had. Unlike American presidents, he did not have to wear body armor and have shields of bulletproof glass in front of him whenever he spoke in public. At public celebrations he rode standing in an open car as it moved slowly through cheering crowds. Communists made several attempts to assassinate him, and his government stamped down hard on communism, virtually wiping it out in Germany. Between upright, law-abiding German citizens and Adolf Hitler, however, there was a real love affair, with mutual trust and respect.
  • The spirit of National Socialism was one of manliness, and individual self-defense and self- reliance were central to the National Socialist view of the way a citizen should behave. The notion of banning firearms ownership was utterly alien to National Socialism. In the German universities, where National Socialism gained its earliest footholds and which later became its strongest bastions, dueling was an accepted practice. Although the liberal-Jewish governments in Germany after the First World War attempted to ban dueling, it persisted illegally until it was again legalized by the National Socialists. Fencing, target shooting, and other martial arts were immensely popular in Germany, and the National Socialists encouraged young Germans to become proficient in these activities, believing that they were important for the development of a man’s character.
  • Gun registration and licensing (for long guns as well as for handguns) were legislated by an anti-National Socialist government in Germany in 1928, five years before the National Socialists gained power. Hitler became Chancellor on January 30, 1933. Five years later his government got around to rewriting the gun law enacted a decade earlier by his predecessors, substantially amel ior a ting it in the process (for example, long guns were exempted from the requirement for a purchase permit; the legal age for gun ownership was lowered from 20 to 18 years; the period of validity of a permit to carry weapons was extended from one to three years; and provisions restricting the amount of ammunition or the number of firearms an individual could own were dropped). Hitler’s government may be criticized for leaving certain restrictions and licensing requirements in the law, but the National Socialists had no intention of preventing law-abiding Germans from keeping or bearing arms. Again, the firearms law enacted by Hitler’s government enhanced the rights of Germans to keep and bear arms; no new restrictions were added, and many pre-existing restrictions were relaxed or eliminated.
  • At the end of the Second World War, American GIs in the occupying force were astounded to discover how many German civilians owned private firearms. Tens of thousands of pistols looted from German homes by GIs were brought back to the United States after the war. In 1945 General Eisenhower ordered all privately owned firearms in the American occupation zone of Germany confiscated, and Germans were required to hand in their shotguns and rifles as well as any handguns which had not already been stolen. In the Soviet occupation zone German civilians were summarily shot if they were found in possession of even a single cartridge.

Jews, it should be noted, were not Germans, even if they had been born in Germany. The National Socialists defined citizenship in ethnic terms, and under Hitler Jews were not accorded full rights of citizenship. National Socialist legislation progressively excluded Jews from key professions: teaching, the media, the practice of law, etc. The aim was not only to free German life from an oppressive and degenerative Jewish influence, but to persuade Jews to emigrate. The German Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, specifically excluded Jews from manufacturing or dealing in firearms or munitions, but it did not exclude them from owning or bearing personal firearms. The exclusion of Jews from the firearms business rankled them as much as any other exclusion, and in their typically ethnocentric fashion they have misrepresented the law involved as an anti-gun law in an effort to cast their enemies in a bad light.
It should be noted in passing that the restrictions placed on Jews by the National Socialists had the intended effect: between 1933 and 1939 two-thirds of the Jews residing in Germany emigrated, reducing the Jewish population of the country from 600,000 when Hitler became Chancellor in 1933 to 200,000 at the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939. Jews in the United States, looking at this period from their own narrowly focused viewpoint, have described these peacetime years of the National Socialist government as a time of darkness, terror, and regression, whereas for the German people it was a time of hope, joy, and spiritual and material renewal.

Much the same type of distortion is seen in the portrayal of the United States in the early 1950s: the so-called “McCarthy Era.” Senator Joseph McCarthy (Republican, Wisconsin) used his position as chairman of the Senate’s Government Operations Committee to expose the widespread communist infiltration of the U.S. government and other U.S. institutions which had taken place during the Second World War. A substantial majority of the communists who were dragged reluctantly out into the light of day by his efforts were Jews. As a result, the controlled media always have portrayed the period as one of terror and repression, when everyone was frightened of Senator McCarthy’s “witch-hunt.” Of course, it was nothing of the sort to non-Jewish Americans, who were not intimidated in the least. History viewed through a Jewish lens — i.e., through media controlled by Jews — always is distorted in a way corresponding to Jewish interests and concerns.

Both the German Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, enacted by the National Socialists, and the Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 12, 1928, which was enacted by an anti-National Socialist government, are given below in full, first in facsimile and then in English translation. A little background information first, however, may help the reader to understand their significance. After Germany’s defeat in the First World War (a defeat in which Germany’s Jews played no small part, demoralizing the home front with demonstrations and other subversive activity much as they did in America during the Vietnam war), the Kaiser abdicated, and liberals and leftists seized control of the government in 1918. Hitler, recovering in a military hospital from a British poison-gas attack which had blinded him temporarily, made the decision to go into politics and fight against the traitors he felt were responsible for Germany’s distress.

The tendency of Germany’s new rulers after the First World War was much the same as it is for the liberals in America today: they promoted cosmopolitanism, internationalism, and egalitarianism. By 1923 economic conditions in Germany had become catastrophic, and there was much public unrest. The communists had made major inroads into the labor movement and were a growing threat to the country.

Hitler had indeed gone into politics, and his National Socialists battled the communists in the streets of Germany’s cities and gradually came to be seen by many patriotic Germans in the working class and the middle class as the only force which could save Germany from a communist takeover and total ruin. Hitler’s National Socialists continued to win recruits and gain strength during the 1920s. The communists, with aid from the Soviet Union, also continued to grow. The political situation became increasingly unstable as the government lost popular support.

The government’s response was to substantially tighten up restrictions on the rights of German citizens to keep and bear arms. The Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 12, 1928, was the most substantial effort in this regard. This law was enacted by a left-center government hostile to the National Socialists (the government was headed by Chancellor Wilhelm Marx and consisted of a coalition of Socialists, including many Jews, and Catholic Centrists).

Five years later, in 1933, the National Socialists were in power, Hitler headed the government, and the communist threat was crushed decisively. The National Socialists began undoing the social and economic damage done by their predecessors. Germany was restored to full employment, degeneracy and corruption were rooted out, Jews and their collaborators were removed from one facet of national life after another, and the German people entered a new era of national freedom, health, and prosperity.

Finally, in 1938, the National Socialist government got around to enacting a new firearms law to replace the one enacted by their opponents ten years earlier. The highlights of the 1938 law, especially as it applied to ordinary citizens rather than manufacturers or dealers, follow:


  • Handguns may be purchased only on submission of a Weapons Acquisition Permit (Waffenerwerbschein), which must be used within one year from the date of issue. Muzzle- loading handguns are exempted from the permit requirement. [The 1928 law had required a permit for the purchase of long guns as well, but the National Socialists dropped this requirement.]
  • Holders of a permit to carry weapons (Waffenschein) or of a hunting license do not need a Weapons Acquisition Permit in order to acquire a handgun.
  • A hunting license authorizes its bearer to carry hunting weapons and handguns.
  • Firearms and ammunition, as well as swords and knives, may not be sold to minors under the age of 18 years. [The age limit had been 20 years in the 1928 law.]
  • Whoever carries a firearm outside of his dwelling, his place of employment, his place of business, or his fenced property must have on his person a Weapons Permit (Waffenschein). A permit is not required, however, for carrying a firearm for use at a police-approved shooting range.
  • A permit to acquire a handgun or to carry firearms may only be issued to persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a permit. In particular, a permit may not be issued to:


  1. persons under the age of 18 years;
  2. legally incompetent or mentally retarded persons;
  3. Gypsies or vagabonds;
  4. persons under mandatory police supervision [i.e., on parole] or otherwise temporarily without civil rights;
  5. persons convicted of treason or high treason or known to be engaged in activities hostile to the state;
  6. persons who for assault, trespass, a breach of the peace, resistance to authority, a criminal offense or misdemeanor, or a hunting or fishing violation were legally sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than two weeks, if three years have not passed since the term of imprisonment.


  • The manufacture, sale, carrying, possession, and import of the following are prohibited:


  1. “trick” firearms, designed so as to conceal their function (e.g., cane guns and belt-buckle pistols);
  2. any firearm equipped with a silencer and any rifle equipped with a spotlight;
  3. cartridges with .22 caliber, hollow-point bullets.

That is the essence. Numerous other provisions of the law relate to firearms manufacturers, importers, and dealers; to acquisition and carrying of firearms by police, military, and other official personnel; to the maximum fees which can be charged for permits (3 Reichsmark); to tourists bringing firearms into Germany; and to the fines and other penalties to be levied for violations.

The requirements of “trustworthiness” and of proof of need when obtaining a permit are troubling, but it should be noted that they were simply carried over from the 1928 law: they were not formulated by the National Socialists. Under the National Socialists these requirements were interpreted liberally: a person who did not fall into one of the prohibited categories listed above was considered trustworthy, and a statement such as, “I often carry sums of money,” was accepted as proof of need.

The prohibitions of spotlight-equipped rifles and hollow-point .22 caliber ammunition were based on considerations that the former were unsporting when used for hunting, and the latter were inhumane.

Now read the German firearms laws for yourself, either in the original German exactly as they were published by the German government in the Reichsgesetzblatt or in the complete English translations which are provided here. If you want to skip over most of the legal gobbledygook and go directly to the most pertinent part of the National Socialist Firearms Law — the part pertaining to the purchase, ownership, and carrying of firearms by private citizens — turn to page 35 (Part IV of the Law). Note, as already mentioned above, that two separate and distinct types of permits are referred to: a Weapons Acquisition Permit (Waffenerwerbschein), required only for purchasing a handgun; and a Weapons Permit (Waffenschein), required for carrying any firearm in public. Interestingly enough, as also mentioned above, a hunting license could take the place of both these permits.

When you have read the two laws mentioned here, you will understand that it was Hitler’s enemies, not Hitler, who should be compared with the gun-control advocates in America today. Then as now it was the Jews, not the National Socialists, who wanted the people’s right of self- defense restricted. You will understand that those who continue to make the claim that Hitler was a gun-grabber are either ignorant or dishonest. And you will understand that it was not until 1945, when the communist and democratic victors of the Second World War had installed occupation governments to rule over the conquered Germans that German citizens were finally and completely denied the right to armed self-defense.

Published in: on April 9, 2018 at 12:19 am  Comments Off on MYTH OF GUN CONTROL IN GERMANY, 1928-1945  

Free Matt Hale


As a direct result of Matt Hale filing document 211, and the ongoing petition campaign to have President Trump commute his sentence, the USA Maximum Security Prison in Florence Colorado has severely limited Matt’s already negligible human rights.

They have taken away his calls to his mother for 6 months and taken his personal property out of his cell, including his writing supplies. He is also not allowed to use the law library.

Write the warden at this address:           
Warden Paul Klein
U.S. Penitentiary Max
P. O. Box 8500
Florence, CO 81226
And sign the petition at link below.
Published in: on March 26, 2018 at 7:09 pm  Leave a Comment  

RIP Fernand Kaiser Gruber


We are lowering the flags and calling for the last appeal

We call the volunteers, the last of the walloon people who fought alongside Leon Degrelle.

Unterscharführer Fernand Kaiser Gruber (1923-2018) from Belgium, on 16.03.2018 was recalled to the his rightful place among the heroes of his people, in Valhalla .

Honor His memory, may he rest in peace.

Published in: on March 23, 2018 at 7:31 am  Comments (1)