Saturday Afternoon: The Problem With "Nice"

Published by carolyn on Sat, 2013-12-07 12:08

Dec. 7, 2013

Why “nice” is a weak concept among people in the desperate situation we are in. It allows questionable persons, events and organizations to pass unremarked upon because “it wouldn’t be nice” to point out their less than confidence-building behavior. There are many, many like this and they don’t want people noticing, so they rush to the defense of one-like-themselves who is being “investigated.”

Carolyn points out that Adolf Hitler did not believe in “nice,” but he spoke of the importance of selecting the right people who had the courage to make decisions, not for the benefit of an individual, but for the benefit of the whole. At that time, he did the first selecting, so it worked. Today, we don’t have someone with his enormous talent and courage, but we could look to him as a model.  Special topics covered:

  • The fallacy of thinking everyone is working for the same goal
  • Adolf Hiter’s Platterhof Speech: How significant is it?


41 Responses

  1. Burt

    December 7, 2013 at 6:19 pm

    I missed about 25 minutes on the first hearing, but, I can comment that while my intuition is perhaps not as finely tuned as yours, I make up for it, if for no other reason than that time’s a-wastin’, by simply setting aside anyone who is fond of doting on the constructs and conceits of the Jews. That said, I would submit that the ‘no planes’ theory doesn’t live or die based on whether John Friend likes it. I think it deserves a good hearing. Your show wasn’t about 9-11 much, though, from what I heard. You do make me feel guilty for being ten pounds too heavy, though! Laughing

  1. Carolyn

    December 7, 2013 at 6:23 pm

    Thanks for the laugh, Burt. No, my issue with JF is not about 9/11 and I have written that elsewhere. Sorry to disappoint you on that score. I have never really talked about 9/11 at tWn or at Voice of Reason. I think it has become way too convoluted.

  1. VKC

    December 7, 2013 at 6:30 pm

    I appreciate your criticisms and I will use the points you brought up to clarify my own points in my next book. The speech was not “dug up in a cellar.” It is in the German archives and has been cited by several prominent historians in the past.

    In my own behalf, Wilf was okay with his name being in the book you mention here — he never objected and I have all of his emails saved in which he said it was fine. I pointedly asked him more than once if this was okay, so I do not know why he has backtracked. Perhaps he wishes to distance himself from my analysis, which is fine, but he is not being honest in this regard. Moreover, I am always very clear about who writes and translates what in each of my books. None of them are frauds, as you wrote. I have had to do a lot of translating myself since Wilf’s original drafts are nearly unreadable in English.

    You are incorrect that I “disappeared.” I simply ceased doing radio shows owing to the repeated attacks I received on the grizzom blog describing me as a “c*nt” and “muzzie lover,” among other things. One gal on YouTube called me a “stupid lil catholic c*nt.” As such, I simply prefer not to speak to those who think like this. They would not stop posting my shows on grizzom, hence my “disappearance” from Deanna’s fine and respectable show.

    Thank you for reading the part about Hitler saying that a folk is composed of many racial nuclei. That there is his admission that Germans are mixed race, not pure race.

    Take care and all the best.

  1. Charles

    December 7, 2013 at 7:56 pm


    I liked the views you brought to the subject of “nice” and white gullibility this time. I also liked that you stated the obvious: we have no leaders in this movement, and little (may be only a little) can be accomplished without one.

    You handle conflict or being attacked quite well, and that is what is necessary.

    How can anyone lead a movement where every other statement or assertion coming out of said leader needs to be monitored for its “sensitivity” to others.

    Men and women alike need to develop the ability to screen out the irrelevant and focus on the goals more, but, like you said, many are not even working towards the same goals.

    I really found your discussion over Veronica Clark’s books well worth the time spent listening to you analyze her work.

    I thought I found the original Platterhof speech Hitler gave online, and I read it beforehand in order to better appreciate what you might have to say about. I remember you did say that the speech is not online. I will provide the link to a huge PDF of all Hitler’s speeches and the Platterhof speech is there around page 925.

    The thing is the speech doesn’t wholly resemble the Platterhof speech you recited from Veronica Clark’s book, and while you wondered whether Clark’s excerpt was the genuine speech from Hitler, I wondered whether the one I had read in the PDF file in the morning before your radio program was the original one — or whether it too was just another plagiarism.,%20993%20S.,%20Text).pdf

    At any rate, it was two hours that went by swiftly for me, and thanks for making it pleasurably educational.

  1. Carolyn

    December 7, 2013 at 9:00 pm

    Hello VKC! I do appreciate you commenting on what you think are mistakes in my rendition of Wilf’s recall. First, you misinterpreted “seller” for “celler”. What Wilf said was “discovered a seller of old documents, not “old documents in a cellar.” You did say in the book, that the Platterhof document can be obtained from the Institut für Zeitgeschichte. If that is the case, why is it not on the Internet? Perhaps because no one wanted to translate it into English? I find that hard to believe. Does the above-named Institut claim it to be authentic or questionable? I believe it must be the latter, but I would like your answer.

    I simply ceased doing radio shows owing to the repeated attacks I received on the grizzom blog describing me as a “c*nt” and “muzzie lover,” among other things.

    If you consider name-calling on a blog comments page to be “attacks” that cause you to cease doing radio, you are way too delicate. Terrible things are said about me also at Grizzon, even worse. These are common trolls who don’t want people to listen to us. I thought you were protecting yourself too much when you wouldn’t allow Deanna to take phone calls when you were on. That way you don’t have to answer questions about the accuracy of what you’re saying. I wanted to call in and question some things.

    Thank you for reading the part about Hitler saying that a folk is composed of many racial nuclei. That there is his admission that Germans are mixed race, not pure race.

    Okay, I see now what you’re trying to do with this book. You think this part discredits the idea of race in Hitler’s mind … that he no longer had the same ideas on race? You are doing what I wrote to you that you were doing in your article on “Black Nazis” that was published in the Inconvenient History Journal a few years ago. You are claiming as “evidence” something(s) that is not evidence. You did it over and over, and now you’re doing it here.

    The idea of “pure race” does not come from the Nat-Socialists but from their enemies. What group of people today is “pure?” What does pure even mean. It also involves the distinction between “race” and “folk.” Hitler said the volk is made up of several racial strains, as I recall. In order to push an image of Adolf Hitler as you want him to be, you resort to this kind of dishonesty, but luckily your books don’t sell very well.

    Now, would you please tell me, and others who are interested, if you have denounced National-Socialism? Or is that said just for the benefit of your attackers? I suspect your answer is yes, that you reject Nat-Soc but not Hitler. You want to persuade people that Hitler grew past his own earlier beliefs, even growing past his own creation, the NSDAP? If so, that is just a leap in the dark on your part.

  1. Rodney Martin

    December 7, 2013 at 9:24 pm

    Veronica Clark or Emma Goldman (she has used both names on radio) is making a very clever attempt at semantics. She omits key points that conflict with her attempt to blend multiculturalism into Third Reich Lore. Hitler’s very first speech to the “German Workers Party” was in opposition to Bavarian succession from Germany, he said, “we are all Germans”, meaning Bavarians were German, just as Prussians. He felt the same regarding Austrians and Germans scattered as far as the Volga. Hitler was a Nordic, in terms of Racial Worldview, his views on Negrids is well documented, i.e. He did NOT have the same opinion of blacks as Veronica, his comments regarding the mulatto offspring of French Moroccan troops in the Ruhr is an example and his description of “nigger musik” is another. Simply put, Veronica’s statement that Hitler’s speech codifies her “Black Nazi” narrative, is intellectually dishonest and doesn’t stand up to historical fact. Frankly anyone who states they are a proud supporter of the SPLC (as Veronica has) simply is NOT credible on any aspect of the Third Reich, it is liking asking a Jew about the Holocaust Fraud. By the way, regarding “Black Nazis”, “Nazi is not an accurate term in the first place, but I have yet to find a single NON-Aryan member of the NSDAP recorded any where.

  1. Carolyn

    December 7, 2013 at 9:55 pm

    Thanks very much Charles. I appreciate your words.

    What is on that PDF is only a small section of a much, much larger talk, many pages long. I do recognize that part. And the translation captures a more dramatic Hitler, in a more natural form of English. I only read a small part of it on the program.

    Wilf’s translation is a first draft, pretty much … not saying he didn’t do it well, but it’s probably not put into the best English. It must have been very time-consuming as it was.

    Translations are very difficult to get just right – lots of work, and can vary so much. It’s probably good that is true, proving that each language is unique. Wilf is not a professional, so the question comes up: If Veronica edited it to the degree she says, how reliable is the version she has in her book? Of course, I think we have the basic ideas in Wilf’s translation, but probably doesn’t give the full flavor … as they say. There are many idioms in every language.

  1. Burt

    December 7, 2013 at 10:33 pm

    It isn’t really normal as a comment, but may I just thank Rodney Martin for dropping by, as I always enjoy hearing him and knowing that he is up to good stuff.

  1. VKC

    December 7, 2013 at 10:48 pm

    Answers to your questions would require that I divulge a significant amount of personal information, as well as sources, which I do not wish to do. They are all listed in my books in the footnotes and end notes. As well, the answers are too involved for a single blog post.

    As for my analysis of Hitler’s speech, which was praised by my master’s thesis adviser, I stand by it.

    We’re going to have to agree to disagree at this point. I stand by my work and you may stand by yours.

  1. VKC

    December 7, 2013 at 10:56 pm

    Charles Steiner, didn’t you post this PDF on Scribd:

    Your photo used to be beside this PDF and I saved that head shot.

  1. Charles

    December 7, 2013 at 11:47 pm


    Nope. Not me. Never was me. I have never posted a PDF on Scribd. I am not even a subscriber and never was.

    During my Alan Watt phase of alternative news listening five years ago, I would find Alan Watt posting books and PDFs on Scribd or someone who wanted others to think the profile belonged to Alan Watt. Lots of chicanery goes on on the web, don’t you know.

    You can save the head shot (if you really have one) for as long as you like, VKC. I didn’t put it up. I’m not even Polish.

    But that was a nice try, though. Ha ha ha.

  1. Rodney Martin

    December 7, 2013 at 11:53 pm

    Thank you Burt, and I apologize for my typos, I was cooking as I was typing Laughing I might add, praise by a Master’s Thesis Adviser means nothing, the fact is Veronica’s “thesis” is wrong. A Masters Thesis can be praised as to form and substance and still be absolutely incorrect, Carolyn demonstrated this by using the speech itself. I will agree that the Platterhoff Speech was excellent, it showed Hitler’s resolve, especially given the stage of the war, however he did not announce any shift or compromise on his racial views. I might add Hitler reaffirmed his firm racial worldview in his Political Testament the day before he and his wife ended their lives, commanding his successors to remain committed to the racial policies enacted during the regime. Hitler meant what he said.

  1. Dick

    December 8, 2013 at 1:12 am

    Who is Veronica Clark? that thumbnail isn’t her, it’s a German singer: – who’s supposedly a male, but appears to be a female that uses male hormones.

  1. Carolyn

    December 8, 2013 at 1:21 am

    Veronica Clark is someone who likes to keep people guessing.

    Thanks for that information, Dick.

  1. VKC

    December 8, 2013 at 1:35 am

    @Charles Steiner

    Just asking. I thought I saw your name and photo beside it, but if you say you did not upload it I believe you.

    Yes, the avatar is Bill Kaulitz whose twin brother is Tom.

  1. JoshuaF

    December 8, 2013 at 7:22 am

    That so called Platterhof speech is fake.
    When you have an army of conscript soldiers and one of them says, “I will not kill anyone. So I refuse to fight. It is against my religion!”,
    the answer is, ” That is quite all right. We understand. You will take one end of a stretcher and tend to the wounded on the battle field.”
    It goes without saying. That is one of the most dangerous places to be on any battlefield!
    Now Hitler had himself spent a lot of time scurrying around the battlefield in WW1 for which he was awarded two Iron Crosses. Both he and his alleged audience of officers would all have known that is how to deal with conscientious objectors.
    I can’t imagine Hitler setting out to make himself look a complete idiot in front of all those officers!
    Just as the Hitler diaries turned out to be fake, this speech is also fake.
    The faker attempts to set out to make Hitler appear a thoroughly ruthless and callous bastard. Also never spent time in any army. Plus trying to sell the thing for a large sum. It all smells of Kikery to me.

  1. Carolyn

    December 8, 2013 at 11:52 am

    VKC – I am not clear, since your websites keep going down, what your position is on “The Holocaust.” This is important in relation to your position on N-S Germany. And just to be clear, if you won’t answer this question either, then I won’t post any more comments from you.

  1. Carolyn

    December 8, 2013 at 2:33 pm

    Clarification necessary: Listening to this program today, I realized I had not made my comments about Deanna Spingola’s words to me clear. The only comment she told me she made to her “chat room” was the one about JF “slithering into the Truth Movement.” The other comments were made only to me in an email, totally voluntarily given, on Dec. 4th, when she wrote to me saying she liked my Mon. Dec. 1st program.

  1. Nemeth

    December 8, 2013 at 3:55 pm

    Grizzom was quite a hatefest at one point. Veronica wasnt the only one who couldnt handle the abuse. Quite a few male hosts asked for their shows to be removed. It’s a lot more civilised now since they banned anonymous comments. Seems to me that Veronica has identity issues, she claims to be a Paleoliberal on her blog.

  1. Carolyn

    December 8, 2013 at 5:17 pm

    Where the heck is her blog? Everything I see has been “taken down”

  1. VKC

    December 8, 2013 at 10:14 pm


    I announced I have long been Paleoliberal on Deanna’s show. It is no secret.

  1. Carolyn

    December 8, 2013 at 11:48 pm

    VKC – Paleoliberals “tend to be opposed to war, police powers and victimless crimes. They generally believe in protecting personal liberty, both through individualism and state protection. They support self-ownership and privacy. According to Michael Lind, in the late 1960s and early 1970s many “anti-Soviet [American] liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry (“Scoop”) Jackson… preferred to call themselves ‘paleoliberals’“; according to Lind, roughly this group of people later became known as the neoconservatives. The term was used by Alexander Rüstow, to describe ardent laissez-faire liberals like Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek.

    None of this sounds even remotely like Hitler. But tell me, what is the Paleoliberal stance toward “The Holocaust?”

  1. Rodney Martin

    December 9, 2013 at 1:20 am

    Simply put, people who identify as “Paleoliberal” are really Hyper-Libertarians who suffer from from historical, racial, and cultural schizophrenia.

  1. VKC

    December 9, 2013 at 2:33 am


    That is a misrep of Paleoliberalism. Try this:

    As for the NSDAP not adhering to “pure race” notions at any point, I refer you to this:


    By Dr. A.J. Gregor

    “This serious look at the racial policies of the 3rd Reich explains how the vague ideas of Adolf Hitler in the early years of his political struggle developed in the 1930s into an exaggerated obsession with Nordicism. This occured quite separately and with the disapproval of many of the National Socialist leaders. By the late 1930s a far more rational view became official policy. The entire history of these developments are explained by Dr Gregor. What is important about this work is that it refutes the silly media and propaganda allegations by the court historians and demolishes all the lurid tales of “Blond beasts” and “Master races”. Over 100 footnotes are provided giving references and sources.”

    The last point I must add is that Friedrich Berg translated several complicated portions of the speech. The version you read contains Berg’s work, not just Heink’s.

    You do not have to publish this comment; it is FYI. I’ll leave that up to you.

    This is my final post.

  1.  katana

    December 9, 2013 at 9:46 am

    Caroline, you’ve suggested, implied or insinuated that John Friend is a jew. You’ve also told us that Deanna Spingola has told you that she thinks he’s a jew.

    You spent a good amount of time in that first hour talking about how you trust your feeling, and why, on these types of issues, etc. Nothing wrong with all that. It’s just you telling us or just sounding off on what you really feel.

    I’ve been listening to John Friend’s podcasting on a regular basis now for a few months. I certainly don’t agree with a good deal of his material and of his guests. As you note, he has an agreeableness with his guests that I also often find strange, sycophantic and just a big suck-up.

    You made several observations about him, ranging from, his very name, ‘Friend’, him being a bit overweight bringing out a possible jewish appearance, choice of guests and topics, wanting to join up with other White nationalists (I assume as some kind of infiltrator) etc., to support your opinion of his jewishness or his jew agenda.

    The sum total of all this “circumstantial” evidence does, or could, lead one to your suspicions. On the other hand there are innocent explanations for each bit of his behavior. That your insinuations are off track.

    You are an established figure in the White movement, and given the seriousness of your accusations, you really need to give more solid reasons for your opinions on John Friend. So far we have your general feelings, suspicions, and what Spingola has told you.

    I think he’s just a young guy trying to explore the nationalist scene, being Mr Nice guy, and getting carried away with crazy seductive theories. On the other hand maybe my jewdar isn’t developed enough.

  1.  Carolyn

    December 9, 2013 at 11:23 am

    My first response, Katana, is that I wish men would stop calling me Caroline and Carol, when my name is clearly spelled everywhere by me as Carolyn. Sometimes I correct these mistakes myself before publishing. Is there any significance to this lapse?

    Please understand that I am not using Deanna’s remarks as any kind of basis for my own “feeling.” Basically I put the name Friend together with his choice of friends and collaborators, his very quick “conversion” to various “movements” within this larger truth movement, and I come up with “he could be a Jew” and “I see more and more signs that he is consistently too favorable to Jews” even while he is (in a rote, very standard fashion) blaming Jews for everything bad that has happened.

    There is no originality in J. Friend, but he makes himself plenty well known by leaving one-sentence comments all over the Internet, the “Great job – signed John Friend” type. Early on, he had to have his own radio program, and then his own network. He has “on purpose” made himself at home on Rense (not an easy feat), and somehow connected with Jim Fetzer as a “Father figure” – Fetzer being closely associated with Gordon Duff/Veterans Today. He’s also ‘just a boy from Nebraska’ who, after college at U of Neb., selects to go live in San Diego, one of the most expensive areas in the country where he gets a modest job, has an affair with a Philipino girl which results in a child. His ambition is: What? To join the 9/ll Truth movement and bring justice and purity back to the USA?

    You are not an American, katana. Maybe you don’t understand what makes sense in this country and what doesn”t. :-)

    P.S. Edit: On Saturday’s program, I was answering what JF had written in his blog about me. I wasn’t attempting to do a total “job” on him that explains everything. I don’t think he is worth the time and I expect some other people will take up this issue also. If not, and if most, like you, feel good about JF, so be it. I would like to sharpen people’s critical faculties, mainly.

  1.  Carolyn

    December 9, 2013 at 2:45 pm

    Might be, JoshuaF. I appreciate you adding this pov here.

  1.  Charles

    December 9, 2013 at 6:59 pm

    Looks like Dr. A. J. Gregor is saying in “National Socialism and Raace” that the NSDAP’s notion of race went through three distinct phases.

  1.  katana

    December 10, 2013 at 6:49 am

    Thanks for your reply Carolyn and your further info on JF.

    Sorry about misspelling your name. I’ve known a couple of Caroline’s and even shared a house with one many years ago. That’s my excuse.

    With JF, for me, it’s not a matter of feeling good about him. In fact I’ve always been a touch suspicious. When he was ‘outed’ and lost his job nearly a year ago, I think, I thought the whole thing had earmarks of a setup for him to gain credibility. In any case I stopped listening to him until recently where he’s had more interesting guests and topics that have appealed to me.

    He comes across as quite sincere in what he says, yet as you imply, if viewed through a disinfo, jew filter a lot about him doesn’t add up, or does add up if you like.

    In any case you’ve raised the alarm through expressing your real concerns. Maybe you’re right about him, but I’m leaning the other way for now.

    I have to say, I do admire your steadfastness while under fire by all your detractors on the various forums.

    Our race is being destroyed in our faces by jew scheming. We don’t have the luxury to play nice.

  1. Carolyn

    December 10, 2013 at 1:38 pm

    I have to say, I do admire your steadfastness while under fire by all your detractors on the various forums. -katana

    Thanks katana. I appreciate your intelligent, thoughtful comments. I have been under fire from detractors for a long time. I don’t pay any attention anymore as they are mostly jew trolls. Or they are groupies from the chat rooms of people like Charlie Guiliani, Jim Condit and other characters.

    I just took another look at JF’s comment section for his blog post on me (Regarding Carolyn Yeager) and found these gems (and after John announced “no more name-calling, no more annonymous”):

    AnonymousDecember 6, 2013 at 8:23 PM

    Cheers again John – I just realized I called Carolyn Yeager a duplicitous skank. I suppose that may run afoul of your prohibition against derogatory language. If so, I apologize.

    I’m finding it difficult to select descriptive words for Yeager that aren’t derogatory. Hmmm..

    Well, Carolyn seems to be a very choleric and bitter, old lady. Would you consider the word “old” to be derogatory?

    Do you suppose this could be symptomatic of menopause? I would think that Yeager would have passed through that stage long ago – so maybe that’s not it.

    Maybe she’s just pissed because you’re encroaching on her “turf”. Perhaps she views your young, energetic, intelligent investigation of historical issues as threatening to her little pathetic throne upon which she sits along with her numerous cats.

    Of course, I’m just speculating now….

    John Friend December 8, 2013 at 12:35 AM

    Yeah, there is absolutely no need to stoop to Yeager’s level with the ad hominem attacks and character assassinations. There is plenty to criticize without resorting to name calling.

    This proves John “I am so pure” Friend to be a jewified and duplicitous person. Here’s another one, and I’m just copying these today so at this hour he has not removed them (tho he probably will if/when he sees this) BTW, we’re on Eastern time here:

    buelahman December 7, 2013 at 4:43 AM

  2. The QueenHag has spoken, so STFU, fat Jew boy.


    You look old, huh? and out of shape?

    This is pretty funny coming from an old pitiful, fat hag. A self-important hag who feels she is the gatekeeper of some sort of movement. I actually heard her say on an interview somewhere [haha, a little proof please -cy] that she needs to go to different blogs (including yours) [Truth: I have never posted anything on JR's blog, always use my own name, and could not figure out where to post this comment today and could not even find an "Annoymous" option although most post there as Annonymous (??) -cy] and and point out where she disagrees (you know, put her seal of approval or disapproval on the content). As if anyone other than an ass-kissing sycophant could give a rat’s ass what she thinks.

    Her taint destroys her knowledge of certain subjects (which I agree she is knowledgeable about Hitler, the NSDAP and some other areas), but if a person has to fight to gain her “approval” and acceptance into her delusional little hate-filled world, it simply is not worth the effort.

    You and I don’t agree on everything, but I feel that you do things for the right reasons. I feel as if your radio programs dwarf hers (and the Prostinkers). I feel that your radio personality is far more amiable and fair than the hag’s 80 year old sounding scratch. Your program is far more entertaining than anything I ever heard from all of those nut jobs, even on the issues I disagree with, especially the hag’s shows.

    In some ways, you have a similar approach that DeAnna has (and I happen to be a fan of hers, as well).

    I do not see this divide as detrimental. I see it as progress, for I have been saying these freaks are more involved in hate and divide than truth.

    Like I said on the previous post, f#ck ‘em and feed ‘em fish heads.

    John Friend December 8, 2013 at 12:47 AM

    Thanks B’Man! No need to stoop to their level and name call though.

    buelahman December 8, 2013 at 5:15 AM

    Much of it was tongue-in-cheek, you know, what is good for the goose is good for the gander type of rhetoric.

    Although, I have responded to her in another comment section quite some time ago, calling her a “hag”. Unfortunately, I am giving hags a bad rap.

    BTW: I listen to Spingola’s programs with yours in my travels. I have never heard her mention you as a Jew. Not defending her, but I have heard most of her programs.

    I think this is all good, where my friend Noor doesn’t like the divide (I was recently written about at that stalwart “Truther”‘s site, the new ZCF)

    (again, snark).

    I think it is imperative to point out those who appear compromised.

    I don’t know if Yeager has any ulterior motive, other than just being a bitch. But I do think the others you have written about lately have such an ulterior motive (and its not just about personality).

    In any event, there are far better sources for the information that Yeager provides and one doesn’t have to listen to fingers on a blackboard to get it.

    You are one of those sources.

    Now, what am I going to do with all these fish heads?

    I believe the next one is from Margaret Huffstickler (sp) because she said exactly the same thing when she called into John’s “Aftermath” program. It pretty much gives it away, lol. I’d like to say that Nahum Goldmann and Chaim Weizmann “planning” (for) the postwar war crimes trials and the extraction of reparations, in 1941-42, does not qualify as a “PSYOP.” It was not a secret what the Jews wanted out of the war.

    Anonymous December 7, 2013 at 12:15 PM

    It’s interesting that Carolyn takes such umbrage at the idea that the Holo-massive criminal fraud (I don’t like to call it a “hoax” — too innocuous) was a psy-op. She seems to think it just somehow “happened”, and was not planned in advance.

    ON THE CONTRARY — like everything those scumbags do, it was certainly planned in advance, and how is inciting apart of the European community to committing mass murder against the rest and then guilting them all into committing mass suicide not a psy-op? Nahum Goldmann stated clearly that he and Chaim Weizmann had planned the postwar war crimes trials and the extraction of “reparations” early in the war, before the “holocaust” had allegedly even started.

    I’m considering writing my own blog post on John’s dishonesty and immaturity. There is tons of it.

  1. Konrad Rhodes

    December 10, 2013 at 3:51 pm

    Dear Carolyn,
    I just wanted to comment that I found myself amazed when you describe your feelings of intuition during your life and how so often when you perhaps ignored these feelings and then were able to be convinced or persuaded that the person was otherwise from your intuition that a series of interactions/events occurred in which you ultimately found your original intuition proven right! This is so much what has been the case with me throughout life that I too have so often found myself regretting that I so seldom trust my intuition particularly that comes with first impressions of people. It is only because I often enough don’t have any immediate impression of many people, perhaps because I just dismiss them or am caught up in something or there is no real impression to received that I still tend to allow myself to be persuaded by people who I just know, like I am seeing it with my minds eye, are a certain way or ways. At times I knew so much, saw all the negative behaviors and thought patterns of people the moment I first made eye contact with them! only to dismiss them and find every bit of what I knew intuitively was spot on!
    I never have understood where this comes from and I prefer not to be cocky and full of myself so I too seldom assume I am right based on intuition. Though I still think people can choose to change, though most often they don’t or not quickly enough to avoid coming into conflict with them at a personal level, but certain character traits of people just do not change.
    Hitler, I have read and heard in various written accounts and in video interviews of those who knew him is said to have had piercing blue eyes that looked & into through people while also having an immediate sense of any subject up for discussion and understand intimately and so immediately most subjects new to him that it astonished those in his circle. Now I am not saying that the intution you described is the same or at least not at all the same level or quality as that of Der Fuhrer but I see it as being an Aryan quality that other races and most White people even never quite develop let alone grasp.
    Perhaps it is odd but that is what I wanted to comment on and that struck me so much.
    Just to add to this VKC and multi-racialist Third Reich military theme she pushes it is unfortunate that when she quotes the numbers of South Americans even that volunteered she seems to omit the details such as that these were White men almost entirely of Spanish descent. Santiago, Chile had a thriving “Nazi” community before any former German soldiers fled there after WWII that was made up of such ‘Visigoths’ as Miguel Serrano who edited La Nueva Edad and of course those 58 men who died in the Seguro Obrero massacre.

  1. Carolyn

    December 10, 2013 at 8:51 pm

    VKC wrote:


    That is a misrep of Paleoliberalism. Try this:

    The only paleoliberal linked to on that page is Tammy Bruce. Clicking on her name takes you to Libertapedia’s page on Bruce. It says:

    Tammy Bruce is an author and political commentator. She also hosts a syndicated talk radio show, in the United States. She is described on her website as “an openly gay, pro-choice, gun owning, pro-death penalty, voted-for-President Reagan progressive feminist”. A lifelong Democrat, she is a self-described classical liberal. A paleoliberal, most of her views are sharply at odds with the positions of Democratic or liberal activists, whom have embraced the socialist undertone of most modern liberals.

    From 1990 to 1996, Bruce served as president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women (the longest continuous tenure in the chapter’s history) and mobilized activists locally and nationally on a whole range of issues, including women’s image in media, child care, health care, violence against women, economics, and domestic violence.
    * * *
    So I guess that puts the final pieces of the puzzle of VKC together. Explains why she uses that transvestite singer Bill Kaulitz as her current avatar. She likes him! But I guess none of it ever bothered Deanna.

  1. VKC

    December 10, 2013 at 11:24 pm


    You forgot Chris Pohl:

    and Chris Harms (lead singer):

    Who’s Tammy Bruce?

  1. Carolyn

    December 11, 2013 at 12:02 am

    Thanks for coming back. So what is it that you like about these characters? They don’t interest me in the least little bit. And why do you want to write and talk about Adolf Hitler when these are the people you identify with? You are indeed not only bizarre, but unreal.

    Tammy Bruce is given as the only example of a prominent paleoliberal on the page you told me to read. Her name was hyperlinked to her blog. Check it out.

  1. Carolyn

    December 11, 2013 at 6:53 pm

    Here are some more Anonymous jew trolls that John Friend tolerates (welcomes!) on his Blog, while he says he doesn’t. They indicate the level of discourse of John’s supporters. Does he expect these trolls are going to monitor themselves?!** LOL. These two are posts from 5 days ago! It’s just more evidence that JF is a dishonest and immature person.

    Anonymous December 6, 2013 at 4:40 PM

    Why do you suppose Carolyn Yeager is so angry and nasty?

    Could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that she never married and never had any children?

    Now, why is that? Could it possibly be due to her nasty disposition and utter rudeness? Or is she nasty and rude because she never married and never had any children? [I did marry, so this qualifies as a typical jew fantasy -cy)

    Ok - here's the real question: how many cats does she have? 20? 25?


    Anonymous December 6, 2013 at 8:09 PM

    She has repeatedly tried to hook up with white nationalist & revisionist men and failed. One in particular was Lon Kramer. [Lon Kramer! Years ago he got drunk and just about had a nervous breakdown when I told him I wasn't going to meet up with him. It was Friedrich Paul Berg who wanted me to get to know his friend Lon so I emailed with him for awhile, and he also called me. Ask Fritz. -cy] She also emails people in the movement to get them to send her personal information about real and perceived enemies of white nationalism. [Name one example, you pos. -cy]

    One revisionist I know personally described her as “a nutcase.” [haha, you don't know a single real "revisionist]

    She is a bigot. She proclaims the white motherhood deal while she herself can’t even get her hooks into one white man. I think she has a “thing” for Anglin though. She talks about him as though he’s the second coming. [Unworthy of comment]

    So this is what John Friend allows to sit on his blog for 5 days! This tells you everything you need to know about this fake “I have never done anything against anybody” Christian. Like some others I could name, he lets others do the dirty work for him.

    ** Permanent statement from JF’s comment page: Thanks for reading! If you feel compelled to comment, please do. But please – no ad hominem attacks. If you have a criticism to lodge against myself or anyone else, please do so but there is no need for personal attacks. [Unless it's against my detractors, LOL]

  1. VKC

    December 14, 2013 at 3:00 pm

    Dr A.J. Gregor wrote,

    “The tactical expression of this theoretical difficulty revealed itself in a manner which demanded immediate resolve. While it was true that a “true” Nordic (Nordic genotype) could not be distinguished from a “pseudo” Nordic (Nordic only in physical type) it seemed reasonable (at least to Guenther) to presume that where one found a higher incidence of Nordic morphological traits one would find a higher incidence of Nordic psychic traits. Now as long as this remained vague and general not much objection could be raised against it. But again Guenther insisted on “there is but one equality of birth: that based on the equal purity clusion.” “From the racial standpoint,” he informed his readers, “there is but one equality of birth: that based on the equal ***PURITY of Nordic blood***. Racially the nobleman of mixed race is ***NOT*** of equal birth with a Nordic peasant girl.” (89) Thus those who display Nordic physical features must be considered “most worth-while” (90) while mixed types, no matter what their station or capacity, are correspondingly inferior.

    Thus although we cannot definitively identify a “PURE” Nordic we can identify hybrids (people under 170cm. in height, whose cephalic index is over 76, whose nasal index is platyrrhine, whose facial index is under (90), whose hair is brunet or whose eyes are hazel or brown, who are not slender, nor have thin lips nor firm chin). These, Guenther tells us, we must painfully identify as bastards, (91) and as such second class citizens – inferior in worth to the (at least physically) ***”PURE”*** Nordic.” (emphasis added)


  1. VKC

    December 14, 2013 at 7:09 pm

    Mr Martin wrote on 7 December (above):

    “By the way, regarding “Black Nazis”, “Nazi is not an accurate term in the first place, but I have yet to find a single NON-Aryan member of the NSDAP recorded any where.”

    The “Black Nazis” title comes straight from this Ken magazine article (I possess an actual copy of this 1939 edition of Ken):

    As for Mr Martin’s other comment…

    Ahmed Al-Akhdary (“Dory”), a Lebanese man who worked and lived in the Third Reich from 1936 to 1939, was interviewed by Moustafa Assad in 1989. Dory’s interview was published by historian Antonio J Munoz in his book “The East Came West”. Dory informed Assad that he was a member of the NSDAP. He was also recruited by the SS and Germany Army to do special missions.


  1. Carolyn

    December 14, 2013 at 7:38 pm

    Okay, VKC, if you post these links here so we can see where you get your information from. Of course there is some little truth in it, but you know that it is all peripheral to Hitler’s main aims for National-Socialism.

  1. VKC

    December 14, 2013 at 8:46 pm

    “Of course there is some little truth in it, but you know that it is all peripheral to Hitler’s main aims for National-Socialism.”

    Carolyn, I’ll hand you that this “internationalism” (for lack of a better term) was never the initial intent of the NS movement. But I never said that it was. None of my books assert this either.

    I do not intend to encroach on the white movement in any way, as I have never been part of it nor am I interested in it. Having said that, I do have a serious question for you and others in this movement: What makes white nationalists (the white network, if you will) think that they can succeed where Hitler himself failed?

  1. Charles

    December 14, 2013 at 9:43 pm


    Something new is in the air. Where people once identified themselves as German, Italian, Greek, and so on, albeit White, the spreading of consciousness to belonging to a distinct and singular race broadens the playing field greatly. One individual or one ethnic group is no longer an island. This, coupled with awareness of the weaknesses within the race — pathological altruism and gullibility, for instance, greatly enhances chances for winning a battle that Hitler lost perhaps due to some of these same weaknesses. At least, these two developments are what have inspired me, and I do not think I am alone in this assessment. Political consciousness of race matters on a global scale was something Hitler had in situ, embryonically.

  1. Hadding

    December 26, 2013 at 11:34 pm

    My impression is that Hitler was not the kind of person who would hesitate and censor himself to make sure that everything he said was consistent. I think many of his statements just reflected his mood at the moment. Consequently when he says that he would not have undertaken Operation Barbarossa if he had known, etc., you have to consider the context in order to judge whether it really meant anything and how much weight to give to it.

    There was no choice about Operation Barbarossa, because the Red Army was poised to attack.

    As for the story (cited by VKC) of the Lebanese Ahmed Al-Akhdary who had lived in Germany three years and claimed fifty years later in 1989 that he had joined the NSDAP, that story makes no sense on its face. If all the evidence for the story is that he said so, the simple explanation is that it is not true.