Starship Troopers: Spaced Out Fascists

If there is anything Hollywood hates more than anything else, it's fascism. The reason is very simple: fascism is de-humanizing and with Hollywood being obsessed with humanism, this makes fascism very evil. So they have to tell their audience just how very evil fascism is every few years. Usually this means making a movie about Nazis or the Ku Klux Klan, but more likely a movie about Nazis: you can have more kick-ass explosions that way so as to ensure that your audience is not only impressed, but also thoroughly distracted from a rational approach to the subjects of your film.

Every other blue moon or so, Hollywood actually gets creative enough to make a satire (something a bit more complex than just the straightforward goof-ball comedy), and wouldn't you know it, in the Fall of 1997 they did just that: they made a big satire. To be more precise they made a satire about fascism called Starship Troopers. The originality is just a thin veil here and it is quite obvious that the message still is: "just reminding you of how evil Nazis are." The only bit of true creativity here is showing this from an unconventional point of view, which is the one truly good thing about this film.

However, given the typical film audience, they'll be lost in the rest of the film's creativity, which is confined to the extensive special effects - sights and wonders meant to keep the brain confined to the predetermined arena of thought. Thus, all in all, this is just another serving of the same old fodder from Hollywood.

Subversive Engineering
The very first sequence of the film shows us an eagle logo and a propaganda commercial encouraging young men and women to sign up for military service. The soldiers pictured all wear grey uniforms and that eagle logo is their outfit's main emblem, thus from the very start it is not hard to put two and two together.

Funny thing is that the real version is so much better.

The film then cuts to a battle scene as seen by an embedded news crew. Things quickly go bad, as some horrifyingly huge insects start to dice everyone up. Eventually we see one of the wounded soldier's points of view as one of those bugs jumps on him, with his scream the shot fades to an image of space with the title card: One Year Earlier. However, this view of the stars is next seen to be, as the shot pulls back, a computer screen on which a student is drawing. Aside from a relatively standard way that movies employ to build suspense, this beginning is suggestive of an engineered reality. Namely, the news crew's imagery and the scenes of the battle have just been juxtaposed with a student's doodling in class.

This theme of staged and fake media is apparent throughout the entire film. There are frequent news flashes as part of the story and just like the opening propaganda ad, they seem very staged. Even when Johnny Rico, the main character, talks to his parents via video-phone, or when he gets video-mail from his girlfriend, the shots seem deliberately staged. And not staged by the people Johnny is stalking to or gets a message from; due to them standing far away from the camera and some pretty bad acting, the whole event seems deliberately and hastily put together. Now, some films have bad acting, but with these media sequences it's too consistent to be an actor's fault - so either the director specifically wanted crappy acting or edited the bad takes into the final cut - the pattern is intended.

One media clip shows a missionaries' outpost decimated by the Bugs (mankind is at war with this arachnid species) and there are numerous close-ups of mutilated bodies. This raises two questions: if the planet was crawling with the Bugs, how did the missionaries go so far as to set-up their outpost? Wouldn't they we attacked pretty much right when set foot on a hostile planet? And how is the crew filming so much footage? It all looks like it may have very well been staged to further the constant message of "fear the Bugs." After all, with such a large war and with so much military equipment, it would be very inconvenient to not have a use for it all of a sudden.

Not Exactly Fascism Either
Well, as it turns out, this vision of the future is actually a vision of Zion. In the aforementioned classroom, where the student, who ends up being Johnny Rico, was doodling, there is a philosophy class in session. Professor Rasczak giving the lecture makes on point very clear: "When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force my friends is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived." In this world, only citizens can vote and citizenship is granted after military service with the idea that those selfless enough to put their needs aside for the preservation of the human race can make the best decisions about things. A seemingly good idea, but there is something critically wrong with the definition of "violence" used. Violence is not force, it can be, but at its root it is not. Violence is a "lack of consent" - the truest sense of the concept of violation.

Rasczak also describes how democracy failed and the military veterans swooped in and created the current order that has kept stability for a long time, presumably several generations. This draws a parallel to the film Equilibrium where there is a strong suggestion that the war that brought about the creation of Libria was engineered so that a Zionist system could be put into place with the impression that it "saved" humanity from total destruction. In this film, the background course of events is also the "order out of chaos" routine, however, in this vision of Zion there is less flavor of 1984 as in Equilibrium and more of Brave New World as there are enough pleasurable distractions in the Federation so as to make no real need for a brutal, ever-present police force. Still, the root of this fictional state is un-Aryan and therefore not National Socialist, and so the film's satire of the Third Reich is just spawned from ignorance. "Fascism" (as seen in Hollywood movies) is the ZC approved version of National Socialism as it exaggerates certain traits (e.g. militarism) making them seem all pervasive in their most basic form, distorts some of them (e.g. duty) giving the impression that people are motivated by promises of greater comfort and/or fear, and just outright lies about the rest as we see in the society's approach to science and the military. There is no mention of Aryan ideals, let alone how people can work to achieve those goals, which is something that Adolf Hitler made a major, if not the most all-encompassing, part of his platform as Fuhrer of the Third Reich.

With all of this in mind, the film is really not a satire and we can see that it was not really made out of ignorance, at least not on part of the producers. The director, Paul Verhoeven, may very well be a useful idiot who grew up "hating Nazis" and was employed for his approved views and ability to put a film project together, however the producers in Hollywood, from whom the $100 million budget came from, knew what they were doing. They presented a careful distortion of the thing they fear most.

Irrational Science
For a large future state that seems to be enjoying prosperity, it's quite odd that its approach to science is so base and primitive. Right after the philosophy lecture, the students go to a science class where they dissect large bugs. Not the ones the humanity is fighting a war against, but also a species alien to Earth. The professor here, a stereotypically geeky looking science teacher, is talking about how wonderful and perfect examples of evolution these creatures are and names that one of their admirable traits is the ability to reproduce in large numbers, thus ensuring the survival, or rather preservation, of the species. This idea is a key as it is an apt concision for the principle motivations of the Human Federation and this is another element that makes the fictional state thoroughly un-Aryan - one of the film's planned distortions.

Next, there is a scene where Johnny and his friend Carl are attempting mind reading and psychic tricks. In the background is a picture of Albert Einstein, who has been hailed as a king of reason and has become the face of scientific progress during the 20th Century. Only Jews would boast about such a man who was nothing more than a plagiarizing Zionist racist. Carl then places a kernel of popcorn at the entrance of a maze and watches his pet ferret navigate its way out and eat the little treat. He says that he trained the critter for this and even shows that he can "dispatch" it to run upstairs and annoy his mother. The ferret goes upstairs because Carl has conditioned it to believe that there is a treat up there. Carl states in this scene that he wants to experiment on people, the card trick he attempts with Johnny is his own pilot project for this goal. Effectively, this brief episode is an allegory for the rise of Zion - from controlling small creatures and then working its way up to dominating mankind. The appearance of Einstein suggests manipulative Jewish science, more than anything else, and of course, in this scene they are basically doing the classic carnival card trick, the only thing that's missing is the "pay to play" robbery scheme. With Johnny getting every card wrong (and Carl even making fun of him for it) he would have lost a lot of money.

Of course, the filmmakers didn't intend this scene to be read this way - Einstein is practically a saint to scientists - and the intention is to show the audience how cool all this is. Things get even more ridiculous as we see military science and technology.

Army Toys
For a state that was founded by veterans and is in a life-or-death war against another species able at combat, the Federation's Military is absurdly insufficient. We start at basic training and first get our obligatory scenes showing us just how evil and brutal fascists are: Drill Sergeant Zim breaks a recruit's forearm and pins another recruit's hand to a wall with a throwing knife just to make a point. It is procedural for military instructors to take their recruits to their max in physical endurance, but this is just absurd. Military training is just that, training, the teaching of skills, not blunt sadism and pointless machismo. Added to the fact that such traits are the base Gentile tribal preservation mechanisms and would have no place in a true Aryan National Socialist State.

Not exactly a subtle difference

The characters in the film can be seen on the right of the above photo with one exception: there are no white supremacists in the film, which is a good thing (and true to authentic NS), but everyone is still brutishly stupid. Also, the Federation's military is so equal that even women train along side men. While it is true that women are very able to serve in the military, even in combat roles, but full training equality is absurd. This goes back to the fundamental anatomical differences between the sexes and in the real World, to this day, basic training is kept gender segregated for this reason. Note that even sports events have different categories for male and female athletes - this is a fundamental law of nature, but Zion apparently thinks that it can break it or convince us to break it. Well, as with most things, it's a lie.

The training that the recruits do is also fairly ridiculous. Not only does the basic training facility look like a cheap movie set (continuing the media deception theme) but the recruits engage in no exercises that seem anything like the real combat that they will go on to face. Boot Camp cannot fully simulate combat scenarios, but they should at least engage in drills that resemble fighting giant bugs. Here, they play capture the flag with laser-tag guns and do a live-fire exercise that is so ridiculous that the accident that happens during it (a recruit gets his head blown off) should have been seen from a mile away. Also, the instructors should have been considered negligent for authorizing such a thing.

Things get even worse when we find out that the Federation's scientists actually know how to effectively combat the Bugs. Carl, who went into Military Intelligence, appears in a media clip, and this scientist quickly and effectively blasts a Bug's limb off and then gets a kill shot, while shooting from a distance at a Bug in a cage. He even says, "here's a tip, aim for the nerve center for a quick kill" before killing the caged creature. It sounds like he's giving advice on how to beat a video game. Not surprisingly, we next see a propaganda ad with kids squashing roaches as their mother fanatically cheers them on. Killing bugs, it's kid's play.

More Than A Bug Problem
This is then very much contrasted in the film's long and extremely gory combat scenes where apparently trained soldiers can't kill the Bugs in any sort of swift way, thus proving their training was poorly designed. The scientist took out the caged bug in two quick, well-aimed bursts of rifle fire, but the troops in the field literally spend hundreds of round on just one bug. And there are swarms of these things.

What's more, is that the Federation's military seems to fight by 1915 standards: deploy soldiers to a field, line them up, and charge! No tanks, no air support, no artillery, just rifles, grenades, though they do have nuclear powered bazookas. Once again, the educated National Socialist will see past the folly of this Zionist slam on what was without a doubt the best designed military of its time. The only one that didn't resort to blunt force trauma in both of the wars that have been used to label it as "infamous." If anyone still doubts that this is a slam on the German Military, then may they read this official trivia entry from IMDB: Nearly every military uniform has WW2 German military and SS paramilitary uniform references.

And this is a table with the shoulder boards of the Starship Troopers uniforms.

Hmm... guess to what they are alluding...

It is not just the training, but also the general activity that the soldiers engage in. When Johnny meets up with Carmen, who had gone to flight school, he is a bit jealous of her co-pilot, Zander who just so happens to be a former sports rival of Johnny's. The main thing here is the fact that Zander also clearly likes Carmen and proposes that he and Johnny duke it out to resolve their differences. Zander is clearly drunk in this scene as he hands off a whiskey glass to Carmen before the two start fighting in the middle of a crowded bar. Considering that Zander is an officer, this is shockingly bad conduct and would have seen him demoted if not booted from the service. The fight ends without another officer breaking it up (oddly, there's none in the huge crowd) and the two brawlers go their separate ways. To be more precise, Johnny goes to a tattoo parlor with some of his comrades and they all get skull tattoos with "Death Before Dishonor" written on them - another base reference to the Schutzstaffel. Perhaps this next part is coincidental, as it is a bit of a stretch, but Death Before Dishonor is a also an action film from 1987, one that vilifies Islam - ZC makes many such films!

ZioDelusion
The film's first major combat scene, which is also part of the introductory sequence, but cuts to "One Year Earlier" as a soldier sees his last. Well, it actually ends that said soldier is Johnny Rico at the end of a disastrous assault on a bug planet. Johnny is listed as KIA yet we see him to be alive in an advanced healing facility, more specifically in a pod that resembles a womb in which he floats and is reconstructed from his injuries. This also serves as another indicator of technological absurdity - advanced healing technology contrasted with the pitiful weapons technology that the soldiers use. However, there is another thing at play here: Johnny may very well be dead and living out a dream as this seems to suitably explain the rather ridiculous happy ending. The film's ending is also shown as a media event, and we already know that all media in the film is staged. Thus, Johnny is dead, but reborn via media propaganda and this allows him to carry out some of those crazy heroics that we see him do: like single handedly taking out that thing in the background.

Big Bug Problem

On the day that Johnny, Carmen and Carl agree to sign up for military service, they promise each other that they'll "always be friends." Given the large scale events that go on throughout the movie, the events that bring them together once again, are fairly far-fetched and seem more like a dream playing out. A dream where ZioFascism triumphs over disgusting bugs - Johnny's own media-deluded mind is just playing out a fantasy.

The reporter who dies in the very beginning of the film, and later when the sequence replays from Johnny point-of-view, is also the only one in the film who questions the purpose of the war on the Bugs. The invasion in the film starts when a large meteorite destroys Buenos Aires. We get the "news" from one of the many media clips throughout the film and it is obviously engineered with fire graphics to make an impression. Then graphic clips of destruction are used to pump everyone up for a war. It is pretty ridiculous to think that a meteor, from half a galaxy away, could be set on a course to impact Earth. Given the anti-meteor technology that the humans have (boasted about in one of the media propaganda clips) it makes one wonder why it conveniently failed to work this time. The one reporter who questions the Bugs' real motivations (the same one who gets diced in one of film's more graphic deaths), says that the Bugs only attack human settlers after they've stepped onto a Bug planet - hence, with the Aryan definition of violence, it is the humans who are guilty of it here and it is initiatory violence, which makes it all the more un-Aryan and not true National Socialist. This key part is, of course, not addressed by the film and we just see pumped up Ziofascists scream "kill 'em all!"

Conclusion
This was meant to be a slam against National Socialist Militarism, but it obviously is just a self-defeating flop from ZC Propaganda Inc. The film wasn't a hit at the box-office so at least this is one pack of lies that ZC didn't profit from. However, due to the high gore content, as well as some nude scenes, this film has found a niche in cult following and several video game versions have been made as well. Basically, something dumb has been made dumber, but with the current low state of the World's masses what can you really expect? The film just focuses on blunt sensationalism. Director Paul Verhoeven was born in 1938 in the Netherlands, thus had first hand experiences with Nazi occupation, though seeing that he was just a young boy, it is no surprise that he misunderstood pretty much everything that was going on around him. The impressionable young mind of his was then molded by decades of Zionist propaganda that made each and every hardship suffered during the occupation and war years seem like deliberate German treachery.

This film version also deviates considerably from the source novel, which goes into much more depth and discussion of the fictional world, the politics and philosophies of the Federation and the like. The book is often called more daring than the film for it examines a bit more thoroughly the concepts of fascism and the potential values of militarism (instead of just straight up vilifying it), but it is still far removed from being an Aryan literary work as it doesn't see the ideals let alone provide thoughts on how to work toward them as Hitler and the NSDAP did.

Verdict: The film is calculated reverse bluff from the minds of Zion. They try to show the audience how evil "fascists" are, but by breaking their empirical information monopoly, it can be seen that the Zionists are just trying to cover their own asses. And they fail.

The Boromirs Among Us: Occidental Observer

Response to this 12/26/2010 article by Edmund Connelly in The Occidental Observer.

Connelly makes some accurate observations about Zionist crime that is intrinsically tied to the supremacist and hate perpetuating ideology of Judaism, but his article is only a brushing on the dirty surface and not an exposing of the rotten core.

Connelly begins by clearly pointing out that the United States should in no way consider Israel an allied nation and names the Lavon Affair (with a link to the Wikipedia article, nonetheless) as the reason. From reading about such an event we can assume that most truly inquisitive readers (as are those who veer away from mainstream information) will then go on to see that the Lavon Affair was but the start of an era of hidden Israeli aggression against the United States and the West.

Connelly then suggests that there is actually a far more constant and far more subtle war going on and that is one of "laying the mental threads." Citing several example of documentary works that have investigated the portrayal of Arabs (and all Muslims, really) in film, as well as referring to the 1998 movie The Siege, which is likely a part of this grand anti-Arab propaganda campaign, Connelly makes his point that Hollywood is actually a "Jewish fiefdom" that is working to manipulate all Americans into hating Arabs and Muslims.

Now, is Connelly genuinely concerned about the racism that is directed at these people? One would think so, but unfortunately Connelly then fumbles with the following contradiction:

"The issue is not really whether these images have a substantial element of truth. Muslims are indeed the most likely people on the planet these days to be terrorists."

And so, Connelly has not only spotted racist propaganda, but he has also eaten his fair share - he bought it hook, line and sinker!

First off, Connelly is going by the ZC prescribed definition of terrorist, which essentially means "angry looking Muslim." If we look at the word "terrorist" with a bit of rationalism we can come to the simple conclusion that a "terrorist" is simply someone who frightens people. Fear of death is the most effective way to do this, thus they result to displays of large-scale violence and make sure that those casualty figures are well publicized. This definition fits a whole lot better with the Israeli Defense Forces than it does with a group of rebels who launch flimsy homemade rockets at their oppressors that have starved and occupied them since 1948. However, those oppressive criminals have a well oiled PR machine and media backing them up and shifting blame, thus Connelly should have said: "Muslims are indeed the most likely people on the planet to be shown as terrorists." This is the Zionists' most effective weapon of mass destruction.

Connelly seems to, more or less, acknowledge this fact in the article when he shows the 2008 film Taken and the popular television show 24 to be nothing more than Jewish manipulations to get Westerners to hate Muslims. This is, by and large, true: Taken had a Jewish screenwriter and 24, a Jewish producer. They were just doing their part to get Westerners to despise Muslims. So, Connelly is back to pointing out Jewish crimes and he even points out the sly inversion presented in Taken: the slave trade is actually more of a Jewish crime, than it is a Muslim one. He uses this story from the Jerusalem Post to point out a key aspect of Jewish racist double-standard: in Israel, slavery is legal if it involves non-Jews. The main victims are young Slavic women who are conned into going to Israel with bogus job prospects. Connelly also mentions that Jews, a disproportionately influential minority, seem to not mention themselves in the movies and stories that they produce.

Connelly then ends his article with a bit of xenophobia by saying that the film Taken "provides a useful function by again alerting Americans, French, and other Westerners to the risk posed by the presence of alien elements amongst us." He is back to buying the propaganda that the Jew never ceases to sell. Oddly, in the same paragraph he seems to scold many of the aforementioned Westerners for "worshipping" Jews and Israel.

In the end, Connelly's article is an uncoordinated blast off into the general right direction - he recognizes his enemy, but doesn't realize many of his potential allies. He also doesn't attack the core of Jewish thinking, but rather just presents empirical observations about how Jews manipulate the world - that fact that he doesn't attack Jewry on ideological ground is his article's great fault. Added to the fact is that he is, in effect, using Jewry's methods against Jewry, thus will never really change anything. Things are doomed to forever be done in the immoral and nefarious Talmudic way unless those very methods are destroyed.

Connelly is a fine example of the Boromir Syndrome - "Let's use the enemy's weapon against him!" That's like saying you don't agree with Israelite usury and then round up all your friends so as to out-compete the moneychangers. Even if you win, the Beast lives on in you.

Connelly also writes, "While terrorism is one clear risk, it is not the only one, as Taken shows." Again, not fully false, but not fully true. Even Boromir realized that Sauron must be destroyed, but he just didn't see the correct way how to do it. "Terrorism" is a problem, yes, but does Connelly see the bulk of it as a Jewish media created mirage and/or Israeli false flags? He mentions skepticism for the official 9/11 story and the Lavon Affair, yet at the same time he still seems to believe the official hogwash stories and "explanations" - Connelly sees Taken as propaganda, but then actually buys its Jewish message.

With the examples of Jewish double-standards that Connelly provides, it is really hard to grasp why he doesn't wrap up the article with the point that Judaism is fundamentally immoral. It is the oldest lie-to-get-ahead scheme in the World. He doesn't mention that Jews view all non-Jews as "goys" - an exploitable resource in the form of sentient beings. He opposes the Jew, yet he doesn't hit him where it will deal the most effective strike to the Jewish lies. From this, we can see that he is, in all probability, being led by the Jew and doesn't even know it.

---------------------------

A Spoke in the Goy Wheel
---------------------------

Alternate version of the rebuttal HERE

One Example of Idiocy in the Mass Media

One of my dense Polish-American kin, Alex Storozynski, wrote this article on his Huffington Post blog. I used to respect Storozynski as he is passionate promoter of Polish culture in the New York area. He usually tries to get Polish-Americans to reconnect with their native land and culture without too much in your face nationalist pandering. However, with this little number, he has proven himself to be a hopeless goy, doomed to delusion.

The media's slander of Poland: Ignorance, lazy editing, or malicious libel?
By Alex Storozynski

The New York-born Chief Rabbi of Poland, Michael Schudrich, says, "Accusing Poles of participation in the Holocaust is a sin." Yet on a regular basis, American journalists do just that by calling Auschwitz a "Polish concentration camp." This is Holocaust revisionism.

SoE: The correct term here would be "incorrect" or "inaccurate Holocaust revisionism." The reasons for this are, of course, way above Storozynski's head which is packed with gas chamber myths and other assorted nightmares. Also it is worth noting that Storozynski automatically assumes revisionism is a bad thing.

The Nazi concentration camps were built by Germans, run by Germans, and guarded by Germans. The victims of those camps were Polish. Newspaper editors justify use of the term "Polish concentration camp" as geographical shorthand for "a German concentration camp in occupied Poland." But this shorthand is Orwellian doublespeak that turns victim into perpetrator and distorts history. It perpetuates ignorance about the Holocaust and gives impressionable readers the idea that Poles built the camps. The Auschwitz killing factory was a product of German engineering, and both Polish Jews and Catholics were murdered there.

SoE: Actually they were built by prisoners of the Germans, which included Poles and Jews. Victims (of the typhus epidemic) were everyone, though the Polish Jews with their fear of showering and general lack of cleanliness succumbed to disease more than others in the supposed "killing factory" that they helped build.

Ironically, Storozynski is the victim and perpetuator of Orwellian doublespeak as he holds myth as reality and fails to see it. Goy.

On Sept. 1, 1939, the German blitzkrieg stormed into Poland to burn down cities, enslave the populace, build gas chambers to murder Jews and execute Christian Poles that helped them. Two weeks later, Soviet Russia sent tanks into eastern Poland to execute the leadership and destroy its capitalist system. Poland fought Nazi Germany longer than any other country and the Germans used Auschwitz to kill Polish soldiers and political prisoners, before constructing gas chambers to murder Jews.

SoE: So now the Germans invaded Poland just so they could build gas chambers? Despite the fact that they had their own, ones they NEVER used for murder. Read up on the German company Degesch that manufactured large gas chambers for fumigating rail cars and then see that those small stone rooms in Auschwitz, Majdanek and other camps look nothing like them.

At least, Storozynski is right in saying that the USSR invaded Poland, it's true, but he fails to see why the great Western Allies didn't declare war on the Soviet invader like they did on the German.

And actually, the USSR fought Germany longer than Poland, as did the Western Allies, but maybe Storozynski just used shorthand for "Poland fought Nazi Germany longer than any other country at the start of war" despite the fact that he admitted to not approving of shorthand due to the inaccuracies it causes.

Adolf Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, "in the big lie there is a certain force of credibility, because the broad masses of a nation are easily corrupted ... and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie."

SoE: Yes, Hitler did write that, but maybe you'd care for context and accuracy? That part of the quote DOES NOT end with a period, there is a comma and the quote continues:

"...since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. Such a falsehood will never enter their heads and they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others; yes, even when enlightened on the subject, they will long doubt and waver, and continue to accept at least one of these causes as true. Therefore, something of even the most insolent lie will always remain and stick-a fact which all the great lie-virtuosi and lying-clubs in this world know only too well and also make the most treacherous use of.

The foremost connoisseurs of this truth regarding the possibilities in the use of falsehood and slander have always been the Jews; for after all, their whole existence is based on one single great lie, to wit, that they are a religious community."

Der Fuhrer was talking about the Jew's method of lying and not about his own Noble Kampf. Goys never learn.

Hitler vowed to get rid of "Jews, Polacks and riff-raff." He would be pleased that today American newspapers blame Poles for his Nazi death camps rather than the Germans. The Nazis themselves gave the camp a German name, "Auschwitz" and then hung a sign over the entrance in German, "Arbeit Macht Frei." Calling it Polish is either lazy or malicious.

This past week, on Oct. 20, The New York Times ran an obituary of Dr. George Mathe, which said that he had been sent to "a Polish concentration camp in a cattle car." The shifting blame is getting so bad that in June, The Los Angeles Times even ran a piece in which its "Culture Monster" reviewer F. Kathleen Foley used the phrase "Nazi Poland." This is libelous. The Los Angeles Times corrected the mistake on its web site. In May, The Wall Street Journal used the phrase "Polish concentration camp." Polish-Americans protested outside the newspaper's offices, however The Wall Street Journal refuses to remove the defamatory phrase from its web site. The Polish Consul General in New York, Ewa Junczyk-Ziomecka wrote a letter to the editor saying that the Journal is "indicating that Poland was a participant in the Nazi crime. In reality, my country was Hitler's most brutalized victim with more than six million Polish citizens losing their lives during the war."

Of the six million Poles killed during World War II, about half were Jewish while the rest were Christian. German soldiers also transported Jews from 27 other countries into Nazi occupied-Poland to be murdered in deaths camps like Auschwitz. Because Poland resisted Germany, Hitler ordered his army to bomb and burn Warsaw to the ground.

SoE: More "death camp" nonsense. Also, it's a tough pill to swallow, but Poland could have saved herself by not ignoring Hitler and actually negotiating with him on his demands. Love him or hate him, Hitler was your neighboring leader and instead of making shady deals with Churchill and DeGaulle, my dear and beloved, but sometimes painfully naive Homeland, you should have not ignored your neighbor. One who proved to be very capable and who could have helped you fend off Soviet aggression.

This issue of historic accuracy was taken up by the United Nations, and in 2007, UNESCO officially changed the name of the Auschwitz to "The Auschwitz-Birkenau German Nazi Concentration and Extermination Camp (1940-1945)."

SoE: Well that's an unpleasant mouthful that the Jews force fed us.

Jewish leaders have also spoken out on this issue. In Jan. 2005, Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee, David A. Harris, issued a statement which said in part, "We would also like to remind those who are either unaware of the facts or careless in their choice of words, as has been the case with some media outlets, that Auschwitz-Birkenau and the other death camps, including Belzec, Chelmno, Majdanek, Sobibor and Treblinka, were conceived, built and operated by Nazi Germany and its allies. The camps were located in German-occupied Poland, the European country with by far the largest Jewish population, but they were most emphatically not 'Polish camps'. This is not a mere semantic matter. Historical integrity and accuracy hang in the balance."

SoE: LOL! A nightmare perpetuating Zionist Jew talking about "historical accuracy." This may very well have just made my day.

In April 2006, Executive Director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham H. Foxman, wrote: "As an agency which prioritizes remembrance of the Holocaust, we share Poland's concerns over the frequent description of the camp as a "Polish" camp. Such a description implies that the camp was built in the name of the Polish people. As you know, this is manifestly not the truth. Auschwitz stands as a monument to the barbarity of Nazi Germany. We therefore respectfully request that the camp be officially referred to as the 'Former Nazi German Extermination Camp, Auschwitz-Birkenau.' "

While there were Poles who committed atrocities against Jews during and after World War II, the Polish government convicted and executed those who killed Jews. The Polish underground established the Council to Aid Jews, Zegota, which rescued thousands of Jews. Irena Sendler saved 2,500 Jewish children from the Warsaw ghetto. Jan Karski sneaked through enemy lines to beg Churchill & Roosevelt to stop the Holocaust. They did nothing. Polish Army Captain Witold Pilecki volunteered to be arrested by the Germans and sent to Auschwitz to try to organize a prison break. The Germans executed thousands of Poles who tried to save Jews. The phrase "Polish concentration camp" desecrates their memory.

SoE: Goy Storozynski has been effectively conditioned to believe that disgust with Jews is completely unfounded and irrational. He also thinks that ethnic Russians (albeit Soviets) were responsible for the massacre at Katyn, which decapitated the leadership of Poland. It was, in fact, atheistic Jews that were the majority of Soviet Commissars. He also fails to see that Germans could have easily done the same kind of mass-killing in their half of newly conquered Poland, but didn't.

The Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita has published editorials calling for legal action against newspapers that use these defamatory phrases. But it doesn't have to end this way. Newspaper publishers and the Associated Press can easily rectify this situation by changing their stylebooks to banish the phrase "Polish concentration camps."

Some editors justify the use of this phrase as a geographic location of the camps. But while editors can find lots of reasons to avoid doing the right thing and banning these phrases from news stories, there are six million reasons why they should.

SoE: The only reason these phrases are "defamatory" is because your perception of WW2 is hopelessly misguided. The phrases should be corrected, yes, but not to stop defamation, but to make them accurate. This also involves getting rid of death camp lore. Six million lies is enough.

---------------------------------------------------------
Article originally published on October 24th, 2010 in the blog section of The Huffington Post.
---------------------------------------------------------

The Carnegie Deli: A Den of Jewish Indulgence

New York City, a sprawling metropolis, there are so many places and things to see here that it would take probably a lifetime. There is one particular little locale, however, that I would like to bring to my fellow Aryanists’ attention. It is some ten blocks up 7th Avenue from Times Square, right by the southwestern corner of the intersection with 55th Street. A new visitor is likely to spot the huge sign to the Wellington Hotel just across the street from this place, but there is a red awning that extends out onto the sidewalk with the sign: Carnegie Deli. There is even another small sign just above it reading: World’s Best. Seeing how it’s in the middle of New York City, some blunt capitalist jargon is not really all that out of place.

Inside is where the place starts to actually get interesting. There is a delicatessen where a customer can by something like they do in a market, but most people proceed to the restaurant that makes up most of the locale’s interior. I’ve been inside three times at various hours from early afternoon to evening and the place has always been packed. The first thing that can be seen here are the pictures on the wall, they’re everywhere, virtually every bit of wall space had a framed photo of a celebrity who was here at some point. Certainly a unique interior design choice, not many places that I’ve been to have it, but it also hit me that this is perfect appeal to the vanity and attention obsessed Facebook generation, which was made possible by digital photography; copious amounts of pictures can be taken and loaded up online for display and delusions of fame. Popular media also is keen on covering celebrity stories and what movie stars do with their personal lives, what they wear, and where they go out. So this business, keen on trends, made sure to tap into that and maximize profit.

However, the real meat of the matter is just that, meat. Lots of it. A sickening amount of it. Not only is nearly every dish meat based, the portions are, to put it lightly, absolutely absurd. Ironically, "carne" is a root meaning "meat." Now, I used to eat meat, I used to like meat, but even during the times when I found great enjoyment in a steak dinner or any well-made meat dish, I still found the portions here insane.

Just take a look at one of their sandwiches:

Kosher, meaning “Gluttonous Indulgence from Slaughter”

To any Aryanist, it should be no surprise that this Den of Indulgence is Jewish themed. The whole menu is kosher and one of the house specialty dishes is called “The Woody Allen” referring to one of New York’s most famous Jewish residents. The free appetizer given to each table is a set of pickles, which are very common in Eastern European Slavic culture, but did you actually expect the Jews to not plagiarize or manipulate something?

I usually talk about films here, but I found this restaurant relevant, since the place overall does convey a message, a most un-Aryan message, and one that can be summed up as: “Consume you goyim!” The monstrous portions, appeal to superficiality, mounds of kosherized flesh all amount to ZC approved culture. This isn’t the only place to do so, but from this example, an Aryanist should easily be able to see others like it, even if they do not contain all of the elements that this place does. The trend of large portions is especially popular in American restaurants and people are actually asking questions like “Why is there so much obesity?” This is when Aryanists usually facepalm.

Also, I have sort of confessed to eating at this kosher lair a few times, two times was before I became an Aryanist. The last time, however, was not too long ago and that’s when I got the idea for this article. I wanted to show a friend of mine something “exclusively New York” but soon realized it was a mistake. I ordered the Central Park Garden Salad, one of few dishes without meat and the only one I remember having no goy-products, though for an extra $8 they’ll serve it to you with grilled chicken! Another facepalm.

This may be a weird suggestion to my fellow Aryanists, but you should check this place out. If you eat, it’ll probably be that salad I had, but the point is to see everything our movement disapproves of and seeks to correct with human civilization. This may help you see your own position better, a “know thy enemy” sort of thing. I, for one, wrote this little essay due to my last (and it will remain my last) visit there. Though, there is no shortage of locales like this one, so if you do not wish to feed the ZC Beast, which is probably a smarter move, then may I suggest, going on an investigative trip to any other restaurant of your choosing. It may seem obvious or even pointless, but a closer inspection at the very apparent lack of Aryan Frugality in our civilization just may tell you something that was too obvious to take note of in the first place. This goes for many of the issues we face. But noting such a thing, often results in something useful, even if just on a personal level. Aryanism is not just a spiritual or political movement, as Der Fuhrer spoke many many years ago, it is the will to recreate mankind anew! Thus, there is nowhere we shouldn’t look for possibility improvement.