The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Boyd D. Cathey Archive
The Film “Dunkirk” and What It Says About Our Western Civilization
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Soldiers from the British Expeditionary Forceduring the Dunkirk evacuation.  Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Soldiers from the British Expeditionary Forceduring the Dunkirk evacuation. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Usually every Thursday I join a group of men I used to work with for lunch. Included in that group are a retired Army colonel, a couple of museum specialists, three PhDs, and a former high-level political figure—all of us retired. This past Thursday, after lunch, we went together to an early screening of the film, “Dunkirk.” We had done the same thing a year ago when we went to see “Hacksaw Ridge,” a fine film based on a real event that occurred in the Pacific Theater during World War II.

“Dunkirk” had received some substantial pre-screening hype and praise; but, given the paucity of quality “war” films coming out of Hollywood these days and the nearly uniform politically-correct plot line manipulation so prevalent, we were a bit wary. Yet, none of that holds true for “Dunkirk.” In fact, in many ways “Dunkirk” is the most non-PC film I’ve seen in years.

Director Christopher Nolan is famous for some of his previous films, including “Interstellar,” but nothing prepared me for this incredible cinematic experience.

“Dunkirk” is divided into three overlapping segments, or film perspectives, depicting the famous battle and the miraculous evacuation: on the land, on sea, and in the air. The land sequences center on a famous mole (that is still there) which allowed retreating soldiers to board seagoing ships that required a deeper draught. The sea sequences recount the attempts of hundreds of small boats, mostly piloted by individual citizens, to answer the call of the British government to assist in evacuating the troops surrounded on the Dunkirk beaches. And the air combat features extremely well-done dog fights that compare favorably to the scenes captured in one of my all-time favorite films about the war, “The Battle of Britain.”

The sequences intertwine, switching back and forth, thus giving the impression of concurrent action, and, indeed, that is exactly what happened: action on the Dunkirk beaches, desperate combat on the sea, and dog fights in the skies over the English Channel, all taking place at the same time in an almost dizzying manner.

What is immediately remarkable is that director Nolan eschews, as much as possible, the use of computer graphic imagery (CGI). Indeed, the air combat shots include real period Spitfires, several German Heinkel and Junkers bombers, and other period aircraft carefully disguised as Messerschmidt 109s. Not since “The Battle of Britain” or “Tora Tora Tora” have I seen such realism—very little CGI, you have the immediate impression that you are watching genuine air combat. The impact is overpowering and engulfs the viewer.

However, it is, above all, the plot of “Dunkirk” that singles it out as both unique and memorable. For the first fifteen or twenty minutes the lead character, a British soldier named Tommy (played by young English newcomer, Fionn Whitehead), says absolutely nothing. Rather, what we see on the screen is his desperate escape through the streets of Dunkirk, then to the beaches as bombs land close by, helping another soldier bury a dead comrade, followed by an attempt to get a badly wounded soldier aboard a waiting hospital ship. Finally, when he and another frantic soldier at last climb aboard an ill-fated vessel, he answers a question, but just briefly.

What director Nolan is doing, and doing very effectively, is make the battle, in its three fundamental elements, the real plot, the actual centerpiece of what we are watching. It is the bombs blasting, the mayhem and destruction, the desperation, and, yes, the final and unsuspected triumph of the spirit that underlie the film.

Indeed, except for known actor Kenneth Branagh, who plays the role of Commander Bolton, most of the actors are basically unknown to the general public. Whitehead is just twenty years old, with only a couple of other films to his credit, yet his acting—largely without extensive dialogue—is both understated and utterly compelling. For it is the battle itself that is the overpowering, major character, and as such it sweeps all else before it. The individual personal stories and often fatal images are unusually brief, yet they are each artfully incorporated into the overriding theme of an immense, superhuman struggle. Thus, each short scene, each act of heroism, each excruciating death, is woven into a whole. They are a part of the seamless experience, but do not exaggerate it and do not artificially distract us from the driving, irrepressible movement.

Another unorthodox aspect, certainly surprising to viewers accustomed to a romantic tangent or plotline, is that women play almost no part in “Dunkirk,” except for a nurse or two in the hospital ship. There is no romantic interest subplot, no skimpily-clad sweet young thing (who in most contemporary films depicting historical subjects would bare all in tempestuous R-rated love scenes—think “Titanic” or “Pearl Harbor”). None of that is allowed to stand in the way of the overpowering and inevitable trajectory.

Nor, for that matter, are there any minorities featured. Except for a sprinkling of French soldiers, all the actors are English, and, as any good historian would tell you, that is the way it should be, since it was English (and some French) soldiers who fought on those beaches and who were evacuated by those hundreds of small private boats that answered the call to assist. Of course, a few critics have noticed that. But the simple fact is that the miracle of Dunkirk was a miracle of the English, of Old England, not of Africans or Hispanics, and it reflected a spirit of duty and sacrifice and empire that characterized an England that is now quickly passing away.

That spirit, perhaps, is what is most striking and also most moving about “Dunkirk.” Here on screen we visualize and actually become connected to this incredible historical event. Few words are spoken, but the visual impression brings us in, surrounds us, and enables us to see with the eyes of those who actually experienced the event. No; just a few words are needed: all we require is the knowledge of what is happening—and what did happen. And we are part of it.

As the film enters its final half hour, the score’s composer Hans Zimmer, does something that brings all the action and drama home, underlining both its intensely patriotic subtext and its historical realism. He weaves the theme of one of British composer Sir Edward Elgar’s Enigma Variations, the “Nimrod” variation, into his score. Elgar, of course, was the archetypal late Victorian/ Edwardian composer, most famous to millions of high school and college graduates for his Pomp and Circumstance March Number 1. Yet it is his Enigma Variations, written in 1899, that truly symbolize the golden autumn of Imperial England. “Nimrod” is a majestic and moving piece, in a slowed tempo, and has been widely played since World War I at state funerals, memorial services, and other solemn occasions. It is always played at Whitehall in London on Remembrance Sunday. Like much of Elgar’s music, it offers in a sound picture a deeply felt but always dignified and properly restrained—and very English—emotional punch. Zimmer slows it down even further, to six beats per minute, to emphasize the jumble of emotions and dizzying thoughts of the soldiers taken off the beaches, and, through it all, their resilience.

The final scene is on a train taking Tommy and some of his buddies away from the British coast into the English heartland. They are exhausted, still not comprehending the events that have enveloped them in that historical maelstrom. But as they travel inland and pass several railway stations, they are met by cheering crowds, young boys, old men and women, offering them good English beer and pastries, and waving flags. It has not yet sunk in to them, but to their fellow countrymen they are not only survivors, they are heroes. And, then, Tommy catches a newspaper from a boy near his window, and he reads from it the famous peroration of Winston Churchill: “We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.”

And for the first time, they begin to understand…and they can crack a slight smile.

“Dunkirk,” then, is that rare creation in 2017: a film with no R-rated imagery, no pornographic language, no torrid love scenes, no PC jargon, no ideological manipulation of the past. Rather, it thrusts us back to 1940, to a more heroic time when there were real heroes who defended their country not because they wanted glory, but because it was their duty. “Dunkirk” stands out like an anomaly amongst current cinema: it reminds us of who we once were as a people and the deeds we once achieved, and of an English (and Western) culture and way of life, a civilization, quickly disappearing. And, at times, it seems to ask us if we will ever again possess that courage and that faith.

The answer to that question is still out.

 
Hide 210 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. An Army war veteran friend of mine said it was boring, and “War is Boring” agrees.

    ‘Dunkirk’ Is a Booming, Bloodless Bore
    War has never been this dull

    http://warisboring.com/dunkirk-is-a-booming-bloodless-bore/

    The author here wrote: “and it reflected a spirit of duty and sacrifice and empire that characterized an England that is now quickly passing away.”

    Allow me to correct this:

    “and it reflected a spirit of duty and sacrifice for the empire that characterized an England that is now quickly passing away as a result of pointless wars such as this one.”

    Few Americans know that Anglo-Saxons are Germans, and English is a Germanic language, which is why Hitler allowed the English to escape. A German recently wrote that while Hitler was bad, he would never let Europe be overrun by Africans and Muslims. England should send a BEF to defend Italy today!

    Read More
    • Disagree: Jeff77450
    • Troll: TWS
    • Replies: @Avery
    Great post.
    , @CanSpeccy

    Few Americans know that Anglo-Saxons are Germans, and English is a Germanic language, which is why Hitler allowed the English to escape. A German recently wrote that while Hitler was bad, he would never let Europe be overrun by Africans and Muslims. England should send a BEF to defend Italy today!
     
    The Brits, what's left of them, as they become a minority in their own homeland, are mainly Celts. The Anglo Saxons were an occupying power who imposed their language and legal tradition on the country without exterminating the indigenous population.

    That is true of all the other invasions of Britain prior to the ongoing population replacement project of the Euro-elite and the British Treason class. Romans, Vikings and Normans, all left only a rather small genetic imprint. Not so with the present influx, many of whom display the normal racist contempt for the indigenous people.

    Like this guy:

    Scottish Taxpayers Fund ‘Art Performance’ Calling Whites ‘Inbred Spawn Soon To Die Out’

    Or this guy:

    'All white people are racist': Cambridge University probes head of equality group for saying white men, women and children 'can all get it’ as he heaps praise on London rioters in shocking Twitter outburst

    Presumably, the courts will fine them about five quid each and tell them to be more sensitive about the feelings of the natives. Heck, we don't want an uprising or anything.

    So yes, better a Nazi than the present bunch of Euro-cucks.
    , @anonymous
    "A German recently wrote that while Hitler was bad, he would never let Europe be overrun by ... and Muslims."

    Perhaps you pagan polytheists (essentially spiritual savages) could do with some true monotheism, even if brought forth by perceived "low-lifes"?

    No? Ok, to Hell with the naysayers!
    , @hhsiii
    von Runstedt gave the order to halt the tanks. It's a bandied about theory that Hitler wanted to let the Brits escape but there is little (or no) direct evidence. Guderian and von Runstedt's self-serving claims later aside.

    BTW, about the same number of french soldiers were also evacuated. Most of the little boats were not manned by plain civilians, either, (other than fishing vesels generally speaking) as opposed to naval personnel, merchant marines, etc. The boats were volunteered or commandeered. One of the few boats piloted by a civilian was Charles Lightoller's yacht (the second oficer on the Titanic, himself retired navy).
    , @Jo Ann F
    Some people these days have no capacity to watch anything but action movies. This is also one of the reasons why we allow ourselves to be overrun, because "attention span." We have in many ways become Africans.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Few Americans know that Anglo-Saxons are Germans, and English is a Germanic language, which is why Hitler allowed the English to escape.
     
    Funny, he didn't allow the Dutch, Flemish, Danes, or Norwegians to escape.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /article/the-film-dunkirk-and-what-it-says-about-our-western-civilization/#comment-1951649
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Patriot says:

    Yes, it is a good movie because it tells the story straight, unburdened by all the sex and PC crap they put in movies today. The movie “300″ could have been even more dramatic, inspiring, and successful, than Dunkirk, but Hollywood turned it into a disgusting cartoon oh a movie.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. I used to see quite a lot of a civilised old friend through his 80s and till his death at 96. He was a young English officer at Dunkirk. What a shame he did not survive to see this film. His Australian brother-in-law was wounded and won am MC in the (first succesful) defence of Tobruk. They should have seen it together.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. What director Nolan is doing, and doing very effectively, is make the battle, in its three fundamental elements, the real plot, the actual centerpiece of what we are watching. It is the bombs blasting, the mayhem and destruction, the desperation, and, yes, the final and unsuspected triumph of the spirit that underlie the film.

    Maybe it is that ‘spirit’ that is the problem.

    The spirit of loyalty, duty, service, and sacrifice.

    Those are good values… but on their own, they are directionless. Values need an agenda.

    Loyalty is good but to what? Duty is good but to what? Service is good but to what? Sacrifice is good but for what?

    Virtues can be used against one’s own people, against the good.

    Take Germans. Courage, unity, discipline, and efficiency are good things to have.
    But when Hitler shaped the agenda and direction of Germany, those good virtues were used to evil ends. The very virtues that had done so much for Germany led it over the cliff.
    So, national character, though essential, must be led by national vision that is good and sound.
    Paradoxically, a people of virtue can become worse than people of vice if they come under insane leadership.
    Japanese are a people of virtue, a very diligent and hardworking people. This is why they were so dangerous in WWII. The national character could be summoned for a grand project. It happened to be War and led to much havoc.
    Now, suppose Japanese were a people of vice like those black Africans who have no virtue and drive hippos crazy by chucking spears at them. Japanese couldn’t have amounted to much and would have been no threat to China and never would have had planes and subs to attack Pearl Harbor. If Japanese were a bunch of lazy crazy spear chucking bongo-drum beaters, they would never have become a major power.

    British are also a people of virtue. But because of these virtues of duty, loyalty, deference, service, conscience, and dignity, they can do something really bad on a grand scale IF led astray. Just as Brits can seriously serve the good, they can seriously serve the bad. It’s like BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. Guinness’s character so totally British to the end as he convinces himself and his crew that the bridge they are building is more a monument to British teamwork, work ethic, and ingenuity than an instrument of war for the Japanese. He commits high treason in the name of patriotism. Pride of British Virtues override interests of Britain. (Likewise, the bloody fools who ruled UK in the last 50 yrs have built a bridge for the enemy while fooling themselves that it’s all about sportingly good British values.)

    When UK was ruled by patriots, the masses deferred to the Great National Power.
    But once UK came under sicko globo rule, all those British virtues came to serve the new power.
    The thing about virtues is they are not particularly ideological or intellectual. They don’t come with the batter of agency or autonomy. They are essentially emotional and habitual and seek something to latch onto. Courage, for instance, can serve good or bad. Diligence can be for working to defeat evil or to serve evil.

    It’s like the Kurosawa film THE MOST BEAUTIFUL about Japanese women making lens during the war. They are so hardworking and devoted. But, they never ask what the lenses are for or whether war is right or wrong. They have many virtues but they just follow like dogs. And when Japan lost, they just followed like dogs the new master of Uncle Sam. Japanese virtues shifted from serving Tojo to McCarthur.

    UK is now under Glob Rule, so all the British virtues of duty, diligence, dignity, and etc are committed to serving Diversity as New Agenda.

    I heard there are lots of scenes of soldiers lining up in queues in DUNKIRK. That shows both the positive and negative side of Brits. They are used to following orders and going by rules. This made them better fighters in many occasions, but it also makes them more servile and robot-like before the higher power. This sense of doing everything by the book and together has a muffling effect on the individual who might say ‘shiite!’ British did much to develop modern individualism, but deference to class was always a bit thing in Britain. Form was always important, like when a lower class person had to tip his hat and say “aye guv’nor” to a superior.
    Since the 60s, the class thing went away on the surface. The working class got boorish and then got into punk music and then turned into soccer hooligans. But mindsets die hard. Class deference is gone, but the culture of form-and-deference is still very much alive. Since the New Holy is diversity & decadence, the hoity-toity virtues now defer to Africans, Muslims, and Homos while turning up the nose at good patriotic whites who are tempted to shout ‘darkies go home’. Consider J.H. Rowling, the Harry Potter authoress. She’s a hoiter-toiter in her prim priggish finger-wagging and nose-upturning.

    In a way, the Brits are still in Q-mentality. If Chinese under Manchu rule wore queues, Brits under Glob rule still stand in mental queues.
    Things have gotten so bad that it’s time for Brits to get angry and act like vikings and fight like Viet Cong.
    But they are still into proper form and being dignified. They don’t want to disrupt the order by tearing off their shirt and shouting “Enough is enough”. They don’t want to ruffle any feathers. So, if the Power says the UK is now a ‘nation of immigrants’, then the Brits stand in queue to follow such order. And even those who oppose globalism feel they must stand in queue and then raise their hands and given official approval to say their say. And say it pleadingly… like Oliver Twist asking, “Can I have a little more”. Today, patriots must stand in line and when, finally given approval, ‘Can we have a little fewer of the darkies, guv’nor?’ The Glob, of course, is outraged by even that little request.

    In a way, this negative side of the Brits was evident even in the glory days of the empire.
    After all, why didn’t the British masses ever challenge their leaders who told them to go conquer the land of darkies, call people ‘blood wogs’, and drink tea to excess and pee like mad?
    If Queen and Country told the Brits, GO FIGHT THE RUSSIANS, the Brits just did as told.

    A people who invade other peoples without question are likely to be invaded without question if the Power orders it so.

    Well, the Glob now controls the UK.

    Read More
    • Disagree: SolontoCroesus
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Yep. This is why I've argued that NW Europeans need more tribalism in their DNA. The Japanese, who, as you noted, share many of the deference to authority traits as NE Euros, seem to have enough to protect them against the Glob.

    NW Euros view their governments and other elites as their tribal leaders. That's incredibly dangerous. Being more tribal puts tribe above governments. American Jews don't say, "Yes, sir" if the government pushes a policy. They say, "Is this good for the Jews." If it's not, they fight that policy with everything that they have. The same would be true in Israel if a Jewish politician pushed for open borders. Tribe first.

    NW Euros just accept mass imvasion because their govts and media say that it's the right thing. NW Euros never ask, "Is this good for NW Euros - all NW Euros."

    Until a sizable portion of us can do that, we are truly and utterly screwed. (Btw, the behavior of whites in South Africa, California and Texas doesn't indicate that my cousins will wake up any time soon.)
    , @Joe Wong
    This is the most objective assessment of the western civilization I have ever read. The article does not fit the title "What It Says About Our Western Civilization" but your comment does.

    Your comment about the Japanese is too modest; Japanese is beyond dangerous, they are lunatic, psychotic and beastly. German has conscience because they showed remorse about what they have done wrong, but the Japanese has never shown remorse about what they have done wrong, they are continue denying their war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace since WWII. Japanese is unrepentant war criminal that cannot be remitted back into civilized world.

    People are easily misled by the Japanese virtues, good behavior, hardworking and devoted, and they do not bother to understand the true nature of Japanese; Japanese just follow like dogs, Japanese virtues turned them into ruthless, reckless and efficient beastly butchers and psychopathic war criminals when they follow bad leaders. Since WWII they just followed like dogs to the new master of Uncle Sam. Japanese virtues shifted from serving Tojo to MacArthur and alike.

    , @anonymous
    Interesting. I am put in mind of another film, the first Titanic film "A Night To Remember" when, as the ship was doing down, the string quartet was playing "Nearer My God To Thee." The English, in your telling, appear to be almost indistinguishable from their German adversaries (many of whose genes the English shared) in terms of devotion to duty. And the Japanese. Recall in "Kwai" the scene where William Holden explodes over this very characteristic, referring to how (in the Great War) it was "over the top with nothing more than a swagger stick." Whether German, English, Japanese or American--all took their cue from their "leaders" (Hitler, Churchill, Hirohito, Roosevelt)-who, for good and for ill, were clever enough to shape their nation's virtue to serve what they saw as the nations needs.
    , @c matt
    Have to agree with Priss, not necessarily about the movie, but about "Virtues" as an end or abstract. Like "being principled", it all depends upon to what the virtues or principles are directed. No one can argue that Democrats are principled and have the virtues of loyalty and dedication in spades over Republicans - they are willing to die on their swords over abortion, affirmative action, etc. Republicans wouldn't risk a paper cut over anything.
    , @CanSpeccy
    Agree as far is this goes. But there's more. The Brits and the people of every other Western nation are now in the grip of a massive persuasion machine. The world has never seen a power of persuasion anything like that to which the people of the West are now subjected. Movies, TV, MSM, Schools, Universities, Police, legislatures, all engaged to brainwash the European peoples into a state of self-hate and acquiescence in their own destruction.

    And all this reinforced by the fact that a huge proportion of the population get their livelihood by working for governments, public institutions or corporations that will summarily dismiss them for "racism", i.e., vocally opposing their own national destruction, which is to say their own national genocide.

    , @James N. Kennett

    They don’t want to disrupt the order by tearing off their shirt and shouting “Enough is enough”. They don’t want to ruffle any feathers. So, if the Power says the UK is now a ‘nation of immigrants’, then the Brits stand in queue to follow such order.
     
    In every Western country there is a grave disconnect between the rulers and the ruled. Our rulers behave as if they were governors appointed by a foreign empire. When the rulers fly to Davos to talk to each other and hear about the problems of Somalia and Mali, the people who elected them are a remote embarrassment, an obstacle to progress.

    The key to understanding modern life in Britain is to examine how the Empire used to rule its colonies. It generally found the natives unwilling to work hard, often because it had stolen their land and now wanted them to work for a wage, instead of as landowners. The Empire's solution in many places was to bring in people from overseas, often India. When more and more Indians arrived in Fiji, tribal elders asked whether there are "any limits to hospitality". They never received a reply.

    In European countries today, many people are asking whether there are limits to hospitality. Is there an upper limit to foreign immigration, or, specifically, Muslim immigration? According to a recent statement by Angela Merkel, there is no such limit.

    The question puts leaders in a bind. If they answer with a figure that is double the present Muslim population, they know the "upper limit" will be breached within 20 years. Yet if they give a higher ceiling, perhaps four times the present population, the public will find it unacceptable. At least Merkel's answer is truthful: whether Germany is 30%, 50%, or 90% Muslim, Muslim immigration will continue.
    , @Rev. Spooner
    Why are the British so class conscious? Could it be because they are an Island? Bottom line being " You Fuck with me, You Have Nowhere to Hide" since we both live on an island.
    The same class consciousness is also prevalent amongst the Japanese. They have the bowing down to each other down to a an exact science. Social status and spine bending (bowing) are co-related.
    This same class consciousness is also displayed in American culture. This being excessive deference shown to the flag, to the potus, and the army. Protected by the Atlantic and the Pacific, America is almost an island.
    So who doesn't wrap themselves in the flag? All do. Even Indians do it*.
    These days we are having skirmishes with the Chinese and India will back down.
    *India is a bit like an island. North are Himalayas, South is the Indian Ocean, west is the Arabian Sea and east is the Bay of Bengal.
    Let me know which nation is not bending the knee when the natonal underwear is unfurled.
    , @pogohere
    When you watch Dunkirk, remember that it's a whitewashed version which ignores the bravery of black and Muslim soldiers

    Robert Fisk

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/dunkirk-france-1940-french-soldiers-algeria-commonwealth-white-wash-a7874501.html
    , @Treg
    Wow! Priss Factor! That was worthy of an essay all by itself. Simply Brilliant reply on the Dunkirk movie. And THAT is why I slog through and read the comments section. Re-posting to FB
    , @SolontoCroesus
    Didn't both Ron Unz http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/ and
    Stephen Sniegoski https://www.unz.com/article/the-conquest-of-the-united-states-by-britain/
    inform this forum -- alert us, advise us, educate us -- that the British carried out a massive propaganda campaign to convince otherwise reluctant Americans to get involved in war against Germany?

    Aren't most of the regulars on this forum aware that FDR lied to get USA into war against Germany (and also, possibly, against Japan)?

    Priss Factor has enormous familiarity with movies, but movies are not arguments, they're stories: their purpose is to appeal to emotion and sense-experience sometimes -- frequently -- at the expense of more difficult critical analysis.

    It's great someone like Priss contributes to this forum to point out how the details of so many movies relate to past and current foreign policy.

    But in my view, the American people have had far too much of emotionally charged, agenda-driven, highly impactful sensory stimulation that is cynically called 'history,' and far too little of the hard-headed, less exciting work of challenging the evidence and applying logic, law, morals, and values to hard evidence and then drawing conclusions and making decisions.

    We've all seen the movies, Priss; two or three generations of Americans -- and Germans -- have learned "history" from little more than movies.

    Priss, you wrote:

    "But when Hitler shaped the agenda and direction of Germany, those good virtues were used to evil ends."
     
    EXACTLY -- with exquisite, precise, critical claim and proof -- what WERE those "evil ends," Priss?

    Just came across this video, "Ten Nazi Inventions," that started with this narrative:

    "It's pretty obvious that the Nazis did more evil than good because they were, you know, the Nazis."

     

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bI4YI65tKc

    Dinesh D'Souza is hawking a new book that makes that and several other circular assertions.

    It is not an argument to assert that "Nazis did evil things because everyone knows that Nazis were evil."

    It is, however, what we have been led to believe, at a knee-jerk level, through all of most of our lives, and movies have been one of the primary means of planting that perception in our brains.

    If participants on the Unz forum continue to substitute emotional charges for critical thinking, we are not only doomed, we deserve to be doomed: it might even be necessary that we all fall prey to powers that would kill us and our children, because we will have become worse than useless eaters: we will have become mindless herd animals who willingly -- I should say witlessly -- carry out the truly evil agenda of the same people who, as Rurik noted above, destroyed Dresden https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/groupthink-at-the-cia/#comment-1956057.

    We have to think tougher, and speak out more forcefully and courageously.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. ” it thrusts us back to 1940, to a more heroic time when there were real heroes who defended their country not because they wanted glory, but because it was their duty. ”

    The propaganda value of movies excellently decribed.
    WWII had the same cause as WWI, a Germany extentending its influence to the SE, British fear that this influence might reach the shores of the Mediterranean, thus threatening British communications with the wealth of their empire, wealth of India and SE Asia.
    Balfour already in 1907 confided this to the USA ambassador ‘maybe war was the cheapest way of maintaining the British standard of living’.
    From de decriptions of the movie I do not get the impression that the fact that Hitler let de BEF go, is part of the movie.
    Hitler still hoped for cooperation with GB

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Well said, jilles.

    If Hitler would not have wanted them to escape, they would not have.

    A lot of the French found some way back to France, to join Vichy forces or the SS.

    It amuses me that the writer of this piece mentions The Battle of Britain, and Tora, Tora, Tora as faves, no connection, but the same as I was citing on isteve. I am not even to remember the former well, except the aeroplanes.

    Priss mentions Kurosawa's The Most Beautiful,

    well, I was mentioning it last summer, and gave it that title, from translation. Westerners generally did not know that it even existed.

    Cheap. For bonus points, i have worked at the same place. Of course, Priss is entertaining but will never reply.
    , @jacques sheete

    WWII had the same cause as WWI, a Germany extending its influence to the SE, British fear that this influence might reach the shores of the Mediterranean, thus threatening British communications with the wealth of their empire, wealth of India and SE Asia.
     
    It was a factor, not the cause in the decision of the Brits to wage war against Germany again , the true cause was the same as the cause of ww1 as you noted...

    Why, my fellow citizens, is there any man here or any woman, let me say is there any child here, who does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry…and the reason why some nations went into the war against Germany was that they thought Germany would get the commercial advantage of them. The seed of the jealousy, the seed of the deep-seated hatred was hot, successful commercial and industrial rivalry…

    This war, in its inception was a commercial and industrial war. It was not a political war.

    -Woodrow Wilson, Address at the Coliseum in St. Louis, Missouri, September 5, 1919

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=117365
     
    This concept should be drilled into the skulls of every person who believes he's entitled to an opinion on the subject Unfortunately it never will be.
    , @Matra
    The primary source documents do not back up the argument that the Empire was a major concern of British decision-makers for either World War.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. neutral says:

    I never understand people that worship Churchill (and FDR) as being the “saviors of Western civilization”, they were the destroyers of it. To complain about our modern PC age in the movies and then praise the very same people that made this possible is pure cognitive dissonance.

    You don’t believe me, well then look at the evidence. For centuries Western civilization endured many wars and other disasters, none of those destroyed Western civilization, but now its mostly dead because of what Churchill and FDR created. Western civilization is not democracy and it is not universal values, for if this is the case then you need to call everything that came before something else because for most of its time these things did not exist. Had the Third Reich won, then Western civilization would still exist, you would not have a majority non white London with a mayor named Razib Khan now. Had the soldiers known what the future of their land entailed, they would not only have surrendered at Dunkirk, they would have happily changed sides and fought Churchill.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    You can blame everything on Churchill, but you cannot blame Churchill turning London or UK into multi-colour soup. Churchill is a White supremacist, he did not allow British colonial subjects poured into UK unchecked; British issued two type of passports, one for the White in UK, the other British Passport for the British colonial subjects who cannot abide in UK and need a Visa to go to Britain (the UK).
    , @SD
    "Had the Third Reich won, then Western civilization would still exist, you would not have a majority non white London with a mayor named Razib Khan now. "

    LOL, you mean Sadiq Khan. Our good old genetics blogger Razib Khan has done nothing to harm Western civilization, and he's certainly not mayor of London.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Binyamin says:

    You are off course right. Most soldiers evacuated during Dunkirk were British therefore there was no historical requirement to portray minorities in the film. However, the idea of exclusively ‘English’ soldiers fighting to preserve both their way of life and therefore save ‘England and Western civilization’ from oblivion is historically inaccurate and a myth perpetuated by the revisionist far right. Britain would not have won WW II without the bravery and sacrifices of several million Indian soldiers (from undivided British India), the largest volunteer army in history. These dirt poor foot soldiers, fighting for a country they had never seen and overcoming daily racial humiliations held the lines at El Alamein, Italy, France (post D Day), Kohima, Imphal and Burma. England did not go to war against Nazi Germany, it was the British Empire and without the heroism of the Commonwealth forces Britain would have lost. Brown skinned men helped preserve England’s freedom.

    Read More
    • Replies: @neutral

    Brown skinned men helped preserve England’s freedom.
     
    Nobody alive then would have wanted England to become a brown skinned country. I am glad however that you made your comment here, its a good example to all the die hard cuckservatives here that Churchill destroy the British Empire, Britain and even Western civilization.
    , @woodNfish
    You don't have much reading comprehension, do you? The film is about Dunkirk, not El Alamein, France, Kohima, Imphal or Burma. Your comment is even relevant.
    , @Drew458
    Yes, but very very few were there. Just 4 companies of mule teams I've read. 1000 men. And some of the sailors on the rescue ships. So if they're lost in the crowds that isn't a real surprise.

    There were more than 100,000 Chinese and Annamites in the Allied trenches at the end of WWI. How much coverage did they ever get ... aside from today being the lead suspects in bringing the "Spanish Flu" to the West?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Hubbub says:

    Thanks for the fine review of ‘Dunkirk’. I must see this film.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. Dunkirk is only a next saving of inexistent private Ryan, another fairy-tale about strange war at the Western front. We all understand the match-fixing between Hitler and his sponsors, who ordered or bargained safe evacuation of British personnel. We still know, that the Britons and French still considered bombing USSR in April 1940, months before the French collapsed with very few resistance. So they, with Hitler, hoped to use the Britons and French against USSR, eventually. Comrade Stalin made this not happening. Western propaganda tries to portrait Western Democracies as determined fighters with Nazis from the very beginning, sans reproche. Not so determined, indeed. There is no Anabasis, no glory, nothing to be proud of – Hitler just let this happen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. unit472 says:

    The ‘Miracle at Dunkirk’ probably owes more to Hermann Goering’s desire to give the Luftwaffe a starring role in the 1940 German offensive than any ‘daring’ by the defeated British Army. The German Army and its Panzer Divisions were on scene and likely would have overrun the beach head but were held back so the Luftwaffe could finish off the British.

    The problem was the Luftwaffe was a tactical air force and didn’t have the kind of heavy bombers the British and, later, American air forces possessed. A Stuka dive bomber could only carry a single 550lbs bomb with another handful of 110 lbs bombs. The ‘heavy’ twin engined Heinkel 111′s payload was just over 2000 lbs. This was adequate for taking out an enemy strongpoint but not an ‘area’ target like a port.

    What events like Dunkirk and the Miracle of the Marne, where French taxi drivers were used to ferry troops to the front in WW1, show is the ability of governments to turn ‘defeats’ into propaganda victories. That these same governments failed to field adequate forces to face the threats is forgotten.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    What events like Dunkirk and the Miracle of the Marne, where French taxi drivers were used to ferry troops to the front in WW1, show is the ability of governments to turn ‘defeats’ into propaganda victories.
     
    Churchill, I believe, called Dunkirk not a defeat but "the greatest disgrace to British arms in a thousand years."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. CalDre says:

    I think the most important aspect of Dunkirk is that Hilter allowed those British soldiers to escape. Mind you, after UK had for no good reason declared war on Germany. As a military commander, Hitler should have ordered his numerous nearby Panzer divisions (that routed the free-in-their-homeland French combined army in a few months, imagine what they would have done to lightly-armed, cornered British soldiers, lol).

    Hitler wanted peace with Britain and that is why he allowed the men to escape. That was one of his two biggest mistakes of the war.

    And no – there was no “spirit” of the British. A murderous tribe of global marauders that butchered hundreds of millions for no reason except the “Glory of Her Cuntness”. And no stupid movie can whitewash Britain’s immensely long history of war crimes, though it can entirely ignore the great gift Hitler gave to those who declared war against him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    Excellent comments!
    , @anonymous
    Cuntness indeed! And, surely there were many Dickness too!
    , @Antonin Chigurh
    "after UK had for no good reason declared war on Germany"
    LMAO
    Usually Unz has a very intelligent comment section...usually...
    , @Rurik

    except the “Glory of Her Cuntness”.
     
    and for De Beers and Oppenheimer gold and diamond mines!

    Nathan Mayer Rothschild, Baron Rothschild, of the Rothschild family, funded the development of De Beers
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers

    in fact that's when death camps were invented, to kill off the families of the Dutch farmers who the British were slaughtering in order to steal their country for the benefit of Rothschild

    how little things change, eh?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Hitler was an admirer of the British empire, which is reason enough to dislike the guy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. What director Nolan is doing, and doing very effectively, is make the battle, in its three fundamental elements, the real plot, the actual centerpiece of what we are watching. It is the bombs blasting, the mayhem and destruction, the desperation, and, yes, the final and unsuspected triumph of the spirit that underlie the film.

    Yup, the formula is: hyper-drama for the bored drooling classes. Meanwhile the “real plot,” the vacuous causes of the mayhem most likely go entirely unexamined. See Sassoon’s statement before Parliament, below.

    No; just a few words are needed: all we require is the knowledge of what is happening—and what did happen. And we are part of it.

    Vicarious thrills, perhaps?All that’s needed is, again, probably unmentioned.

    Rather, it thrusts us back to 1940, to a more heroic time when there were real heroes who defended their country not because they wanted glory, but because it was their duty.

    Heroic, my tush. Most of the people never wanted war in the first place, but went off to join the “heroics” anyway, just as masses of them did in ww1. Evidence for that is the ultra sappy fetishization of ww2 which continues even today. They willingly submitted to propaganda propagated by extremely sick minds despite the commonly known truths about the idiocy of ww1.

    If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
    Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
    Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud(12)
    Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
    My friend, you would not tell with such high zest(13)
    To children ardent(14) for some desperate glory,
    The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
    Pro patria mori.(15)

    Wilfred Owen

    8 October 1917 – March, 1918

    http://www.warpoetry.co.uk/owen1.html

    Sassoon’s Statement (1917)

    I am making this statement as an act of willful defiance of military authority, because I believe that the War is being deliberately prolonged by those who have the power to end it.

    I am a soldier, convinced that I am acting on behalf of soldiers. I believe that this War, on which I entered as a war of defence and liberation, has now become a war of aggression and conquest…I am not protesting against the conduct of the war, but against political errors and insincerities for which the fighting men are being sacrificed…

    home.wlu.edu/~keens/warpoets2.htm

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. it reminds us of who we once were as a people and the deeds we once achieved, and of an English (and Western) culture and way of life, a civilization, quickly disappearing.

    And you dare to use the words “culture” and “civilization” in your sappy praise about a vast and hideous, episode of mindless, industrial grade savagery? Get real, sir!

    And, at times, it seems to ask us if we will ever again possess that courage and that faith.

    The answer to that question is still out.

    For one thing, it helps to distinguish between physical and moral courage, which Mark Twain, for one, did years ago, and the answer to the question is NOT still out. You seem old enough that you should know better.

    “We are out of moral-courage material; we are in a condition of profound poverty. “

    Mark Twain (Samuel Clemmens), THE UNITED STATES OF LYNCHERDOM (1901)
    http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/mixed_lit/twain_lyncherdom.htm

    Read More
    • Agree: Rurik
    • Replies: @Willem
    There used to be a time (as a teenager) when I liked movies such as Saving Private Ryan in which comradeship, courage, faith and our civilization were glorified. And then I read Howard Zinn's essay 'Private Ryan saves war' and I changed my mind. Now I find no liking in war movies in which the reason of why this war was fought is not mentioned, and/or is buried under gunghoism and in which the most important question: Will this film help persuade the viewer that such scenes must never occur again? - is not even asked. Dunkirk seems to be a film with all the ingredients of gunghoism and excitement and comradeship in it without any searching as to why these soldiers were there in the first place, for which reason I strongly dislike it.

    Howard Zinn's essay about Private Ryan, can be found here:

    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/PrivateRyan_War.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @CalDre
    I think the most important aspect of Dunkirk is that Hilter allowed those British soldiers to escape. Mind you, after UK had for no good reason declared war on Germany. As a military commander, Hitler should have ordered his numerous nearby Panzer divisions (that routed the free-in-their-homeland French combined army in a few months, imagine what they would have done to lightly-armed, cornered British soldiers, lol).

    Hitler wanted peace with Britain and that is why he allowed the men to escape. That was one of his two biggest mistakes of the war.

    And no - there was no "spirit" of the British. A murderous tribe of global marauders that butchered hundreds of millions for no reason except the "Glory of Her Cuntness". And no stupid movie can whitewash Britain's immensely long history of war crimes, though it can entirely ignore the great gift Hitler gave to those who declared war against him.

    Excellent comments!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Avery says:
    @Carlton Meyer
    An Army war veteran friend of mine said it was boring, and "War is Boring" agrees.

    ‘Dunkirk’ Is a Booming, Bloodless Bore
    War has never been this dull

    http://warisboring.com/dunkirk-is-a-booming-bloodless-bore/

    The author here wrote: "and it reflected a spirit of duty and sacrifice and empire that characterized an England that is now quickly passing away."

    Allow me to correct this:

    "and it reflected a spirit of duty and sacrifice for the empire that characterized an England that is now quickly passing away as a result of pointless wars such as this one."

    Few Americans know that Anglo-Saxons are Germans, and English is a Germanic language, which is why Hitler allowed the English to escape. A German recently wrote that while Hitler was bad, he would never let Europe be overrun by Africans and Muslims. England should send a BEF to defend Italy today!

    Great post.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. In what would have otherwise been an interesting, leisurely and enjoyable read, Cathey does the one thing that makes me, and millions of the Scots, Irish and Welsh either stop reading, listening or watching. or continue with hostility triggered by the use of “England” or ”English” instead of “Britain” or “British”.
    This is all the more galling because it plays right into the hands of the Cultural Marxists who masquerade as nationalists such as the gawdsawful SNP here in Scotland, the vile Sein Fein or woeful Plyde Cymru in Wales.
    This reaction is exacerbated when “English” is used instead of “British” when it’s someone from the higher social strata, as it typifies the arrogance that causes much resentment in their Celtic neighbours.
    Countless times whilst serving have I heard this, and it grates: for me, most memorably when Brigadier, whose English-British regiment, The Glosters, had fought most gallantly in Korea, was addressing my largely Scottish battalion at a base in Stanford c. 1968.

    All was going well until, and his address was being well received and, due to his well-earned reputation, followed with interest and respect until he said “We’re all English soldiers, and as English soldiers,blah, blah, blah….”
    As a lowly Private, I seethed, others around me seethed, and profanities, the volume of which was carefully judged to diminish to incoherence before reaching the ears of officers, were spat out sotto voce.
    This Brigadier continued to use England when he meant Britain, and every time he did, the murmur of discontent from the scum like me in the ranks became a little more audible.
    NCO’s near the mutterer could no longer wisely pretend not to hear, and would hiss offenders into silence.
    I had seen our colonel, himself a Scot who had jumped at Arnhem and who knew his men well, wince when he dropped the first clanger, as did the faces of more junior officers.
    By the time his address was halfway through, the Brigadier had lost us, only military discipline kept us sufficiently hushed.
    Until we were dismissed, that is, when much venting ensued.
    I often wondered if he ever wised up, or was tactfully put straight by our colonel.
    I certainly hope so, because he became the Army CIC Northern Ireland.

    Take note, Cathey: you are doing a great job for the Nats- please stop!

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Have to admit I sometimes use "English" for "British" out of annoyance with the Scotch Nat cucks, who pretend to be nationalists but wish to destroy the United Kingdom, and take Scotland into the intimate embrace of the EU where they will have a much smaller (essential zero) voice than they have in Britain: a Britain that they have often, in effect, ruled through powerful ministers including Prime Ministers MacDonald, MacMillan, Home, Blair, and that Brown turn, wh0 called an old woman a bigot for objecting to the genocidal flood of immigration promoted by Brown's cuck Labor Government.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. iffen says:

    In fact, in many ways “Dunkirk” is the most non-PC film I’ve seen in years.

    You are not any good at reading PC.

    RE: The PC Narrative
    Don’t lock your doors (borders) to keep out dangerous people because you will only traumatize them further and they should not be held responsible (PTSD) for responding to your provocations by committing manslaughter (not even an unkind word about that).

    And as for the PC narrative, most of the common soldiers were downright hurtful toward the Frogs, but of course not the upper class officer who stayed behind to aid in their evacuation.

    The French deserter had stolen the uniform of the soldier that he buried, for all we know he killed him to get it, in order to desert his French comrades and get evacuated. (It’s all good, we’re all the same; French, English, German.)

    Rather than waiting their turn, our “heroes” try to jump to the front of the line. (That’s okay; rules are for fools.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. @Priss Factor
    What director Nolan is doing, and doing very effectively, is make the battle, in its three fundamental elements, the real plot, the actual centerpiece of what we are watching. It is the bombs blasting, the mayhem and destruction, the desperation, and, yes, the final and unsuspected triumph of the spirit that underlie the film.

    Maybe it is that 'spirit' that is the problem.

    The spirit of loyalty, duty, service, and sacrifice.

    Those are good values... but on their own, they are directionless. Values need an agenda.

    Loyalty is good but to what? Duty is good but to what? Service is good but to what? Sacrifice is good but for what?

    Virtues can be used against one's own people, against the good.

    Take Germans. Courage, unity, discipline, and efficiency are good things to have.
    But when Hitler shaped the agenda and direction of Germany, those good virtues were used to evil ends. The very virtues that had done so much for Germany led it over the cliff.
    So, national character, though essential, must be led by national vision that is good and sound.
    Paradoxically, a people of virtue can become worse than people of vice if they come under insane leadership.
    Japanese are a people of virtue, a very diligent and hardworking people. This is why they were so dangerous in WWII. The national character could be summoned for a grand project. It happened to be War and led to much havoc.
    Now, suppose Japanese were a people of vice like those black Africans who have no virtue and drive hippos crazy by chucking spears at them. Japanese couldn't have amounted to much and would have been no threat to China and never would have had planes and subs to attack Pearl Harbor. If Japanese were a bunch of lazy crazy spear chucking bongo-drum beaters, they would never have become a major power.

    British are also a people of virtue. But because of these virtues of duty, loyalty, deference, service, conscience, and dignity, they can do something really bad on a grand scale IF led astray. Just as Brits can seriously serve the good, they can seriously serve the bad. It's like BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. Guinness's character so totally British to the end as he convinces himself and his crew that the bridge they are building is more a monument to British teamwork, work ethic, and ingenuity than an instrument of war for the Japanese. He commits high treason in the name of patriotism. Pride of British Virtues override interests of Britain. (Likewise, the bloody fools who ruled UK in the last 50 yrs have built a bridge for the enemy while fooling themselves that it's all about sportingly good British values.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWJkPbBOXL4

    When UK was ruled by patriots, the masses deferred to the Great National Power.
    But once UK came under sicko globo rule, all those British virtues came to serve the new power.
    The thing about virtues is they are not particularly ideological or intellectual. They don't come with the batter of agency or autonomy. They are essentially emotional and habitual and seek something to latch onto. Courage, for instance, can serve good or bad. Diligence can be for working to defeat evil or to serve evil.

    It's like the Kurosawa film THE MOST BEAUTIFUL about Japanese women making lens during the war. They are so hardworking and devoted. But, they never ask what the lenses are for or whether war is right or wrong. They have many virtues but they just follow like dogs. And when Japan lost, they just followed like dogs the new master of Uncle Sam. Japanese virtues shifted from serving Tojo to McCarthur.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfDwlKMyboE

    UK is now under Glob Rule, so all the British virtues of duty, diligence, dignity, and etc are committed to serving Diversity as New Agenda.

    I heard there are lots of scenes of soldiers lining up in queues in DUNKIRK. That shows both the positive and negative side of Brits. They are used to following orders and going by rules. This made them better fighters in many occasions, but it also makes them more servile and robot-like before the higher power. This sense of doing everything by the book and together has a muffling effect on the individual who might say 'shiite!' British did much to develop modern individualism, but deference to class was always a bit thing in Britain. Form was always important, like when a lower class person had to tip his hat and say "aye guv'nor" to a superior.
    Since the 60s, the class thing went away on the surface. The working class got boorish and then got into punk music and then turned into soccer hooligans. But mindsets die hard. Class deference is gone, but the culture of form-and-deference is still very much alive. Since the New Holy is diversity & decadence, the hoity-toity virtues now defer to Africans, Muslims, and Homos while turning up the nose at good patriotic whites who are tempted to shout 'darkies go home'. Consider J.H. Rowling, the Harry Potter authoress. She's a hoiter-toiter in her prim priggish finger-wagging and nose-upturning.

    In a way, the Brits are still in Q-mentality. If Chinese under Manchu rule wore queues, Brits under Glob rule still stand in mental queues.
    Things have gotten so bad that it's time for Brits to get angry and act like vikings and fight like Viet Cong.
    But they are still into proper form and being dignified. They don't want to disrupt the order by tearing off their shirt and shouting "Enough is enough". They don't want to ruffle any feathers. So, if the Power says the UK is now a 'nation of immigrants', then the Brits stand in queue to follow such order. And even those who oppose globalism feel they must stand in queue and then raise their hands and given official approval to say their say. And say it pleadingly... like Oliver Twist asking, "Can I have a little more". Today, patriots must stand in line and when, finally given approval, 'Can we have a little fewer of the darkies, guv'nor?' The Glob, of course, is outraged by even that little request.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAvCMQ_ok1c

    In a way, this negative side of the Brits was evident even in the glory days of the empire.
    After all, why didn't the British masses ever challenge their leaders who told them to go conquer the land of darkies, call people 'blood wogs', and drink tea to excess and pee like mad?
    If Queen and Country told the Brits, GO FIGHT THE RUSSIANS, the Brits just did as told.

    A people who invade other peoples without question are likely to be invaded without question if the Power orders it so.

    Well, the Glob now controls the UK.

    Yep. This is why I’ve argued that NW Europeans need more tribalism in their DNA. The Japanese, who, as you noted, share many of the deference to authority traits as NE Euros, seem to have enough to protect them against the Glob.

    NW Euros view their governments and other elites as their tribal leaders. That’s incredibly dangerous. Being more tribal puts tribe above governments. American Jews don’t say, “Yes, sir” if the government pushes a policy. They say, “Is this good for the Jews.” If it’s not, they fight that policy with everything that they have. The same would be true in Israel if a Jewish politician pushed for open borders. Tribe first.

    NW Euros just accept mass imvasion because their govts and media say that it’s the right thing. NW Euros never ask, “Is this good for NW Euros – all NW Euros.”

    Until a sizable portion of us can do that, we are truly and utterly screwed. (Btw, the behavior of whites in South Africa, California and Texas doesn’t indicate that my cousins will wake up any time soon.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. neutral says:
    @Binyamin
    You are off course right. Most soldiers evacuated during Dunkirk were British therefore there was no historical requirement to portray minorities in the film. However, the idea of exclusively 'English' soldiers fighting to preserve both their way of life and therefore save 'England and Western civilization' from oblivion is historically inaccurate and a myth perpetuated by the revisionist far right. Britain would not have won WW II without the bravery and sacrifices of several million Indian soldiers (from undivided British India), the largest volunteer army in history. These dirt poor foot soldiers, fighting for a country they had never seen and overcoming daily racial humiliations held the lines at El Alamein, Italy, France (post D Day), Kohima, Imphal and Burma. England did not go to war against Nazi Germany, it was the British Empire and without the heroism of the Commonwealth forces Britain would have lost. Brown skinned men helped preserve England's freedom.

    Brown skinned men helped preserve England’s freedom.

    Nobody alive then would have wanted England to become a brown skinned country. I am glad however that you made your comment here, its a good example to all the die hard cuckservatives here that Churchill destroy the British Empire, Britain and even Western civilization.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Rather, it thrusts us back to 1940, to a more heroic time when there were real heroes who defended their country not because they wanted glory, but because it was their duty. “Dunkirk” stands out like an anomaly amongst current cinema: it reminds us of who we once were as a people and the deeds we once achieved, and of an English (and Western) culture and way of life, a civilization, quickly disappearing. And, at times, it seems to ask us if we will ever again possess that courage and that faith.

    Well, that “Greatest Generation” may have fought well in WWII, but they abysmally failed to defend their countries – UK and US. The “Greatest Generation” crafted and approved the utter dismantling of the English (and Western) culture and way of life. That generation is the one responsible for causing their own culture – their own people – to quickly disappear!

    I’m sick of the Greatest Generation. It is those soldiers at Dunkirk and Normandy and the Battle of Bulge and their wives that through their own actions or an unwillingness to stand up to the actions of others destroyed our civilization and allowed an unprecedented invasion of our lands.

    A 25-year-old soldier in 1945 was 45 in 1965 when the U.S. decided to change our demographics. He was 65 in 1985 when everyone could see that our culture was disintegrating and that illegal immigration was a huge problem. He was 70 in 2000 when it was nearly too late but we still had a chance.

    He caused it all. He stopped nothing.

    My children will be a minority in the land their ancestors built. My children will be discriminated against by their own government. My children will be in danger because of the blacks and browns.

    All because of you Greatest Generation – and your spoiled children, the Boomers.

    May you rot in Hell for your betrayal of your own people. You showed courage as a young man and utter cowardice for the rest of your life.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Sorry, meant that the soldier would have been 75 in 1995.

    And, perhaps, I was a bit harsh for saying that these men should "rot in Hell." However, I stand by my assertion that the Greatest Generation was anything but from ~1960 onwards.

    Gen-Xers and younger generations tend to blame the Baby Boomers for the havoc that surrounds us. And, of course, it's true in part. But they were simply following in the footsteps of the young men and women of WWII. (A typical Boomer was only ~20 years old in 1970 and ~35 in 1985, hardly controlling the levers of society.) No, it was the WWII generation that destroyed out world.

    And for what? What was their reason from starting the process that will bring down civilizations that had endured for thousands of years?

    I cannot look at my children and feel anything but contempt for that generation. Their bravery in WWII makes them worse in my eyes. You were willing to fight and die to stop the Germans, but you wouldn't go to the polls or march to stop your country from being flooded by Pakistanis, Mexicans, Indians, Africans and every other people on the planet.

    You could have stopped this, and, for that, I cannot forgive you. And I certainly won't honor you.
    , @Corvinus
    "A 25-year-old soldier in 1945 was 45 in 1965 when the U.S. decided to change our demographics. He was 65 in 1985 when everyone could see that our culture was disintegrating and that illegal immigration was a huge problem. He was 70 in 2000 when it was nearly too late but we still had a chance."

    Classic case of scapegoating here. In human history, demographics change, by law or by force, for better or for worse. Furthermore, American culture has not "disintegrated"; rather, it changes to reflect the people living in a particular era.

    "My children will be a minority in the land their ancestors built."

    Then they should be able to use our current anti-discrimination laws to their advantage IF they experience discrimination.

    "My children will be in danger because of the blacks and browns."

    Fake News Story.
    , @Oldeguy
    The World Wars, two horrendous traumas, Acts 1 and 2 of the same play, somehow sapped the Western Spirit, apparently beyond reclamation.
    When objective, non-propagandistic histories of the 20th Century are written ( doubtless in Chinese a century or so from now ), I wonder how they, our obvious successors, will explain the collapse of our morals and manners, and utter disregard for the transmission of our magnificent heritage.
    It will require a Chinese polymath.
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    You have a point. But the British were lied to by their leaders, by Heath, Wilson, Thatcher, Blair, Cameron. The current PM is perhaps the most despicable liar since Tony Blair. The same happened in the US, Trump may be the last chance.

    Sadly it may be that the (relatively) high-trust, open and law-abiding Anglosphere contained in itself the seeds of its own destruction, when the very qualities which enabled such progress over the last two hundred years turned out to be an Achilles heel. It wouldn't be the first time that has happened in evolutionary history.

    , @Simply Simon
    Yes, Citizen., I've seen things go to hell in this country over my lifetime of 89 years. No exact date but it seems to me to have started with the counter-culture movement of the 60s. I've felt helpless as all this has unfolded, but tell me Citizen, what would you have done in my place?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Joe Hide says:

    Entertaining and well written. I will probably watch the movie now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    A wonderful essay. This movie is on my immediate bucket list.

    Just before the great battle at Trafalgar (where he would be fatally wounded), the great Lord Nelson told his men “England expects every man to do his duty.”

    Nelson would have been proud of his countrymen on that fateful day in the late spring of 1940.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. Poor old Adolph. He did try, when he stopped the Panzer advance, to bring the English to their senses.

    But he went on and we went on; he, to go out with a bang and we to go out with a melancholy, withdrawing, seventy-five year long whimper.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. Joe Wong says:
    @Priss Factor
    What director Nolan is doing, and doing very effectively, is make the battle, in its three fundamental elements, the real plot, the actual centerpiece of what we are watching. It is the bombs blasting, the mayhem and destruction, the desperation, and, yes, the final and unsuspected triumph of the spirit that underlie the film.

    Maybe it is that 'spirit' that is the problem.

    The spirit of loyalty, duty, service, and sacrifice.

    Those are good values... but on their own, they are directionless. Values need an agenda.

    Loyalty is good but to what? Duty is good but to what? Service is good but to what? Sacrifice is good but for what?

    Virtues can be used against one's own people, against the good.

    Take Germans. Courage, unity, discipline, and efficiency are good things to have.
    But when Hitler shaped the agenda and direction of Germany, those good virtues were used to evil ends. The very virtues that had done so much for Germany led it over the cliff.
    So, national character, though essential, must be led by national vision that is good and sound.
    Paradoxically, a people of virtue can become worse than people of vice if they come under insane leadership.
    Japanese are a people of virtue, a very diligent and hardworking people. This is why they were so dangerous in WWII. The national character could be summoned for a grand project. It happened to be War and led to much havoc.
    Now, suppose Japanese were a people of vice like those black Africans who have no virtue and drive hippos crazy by chucking spears at them. Japanese couldn't have amounted to much and would have been no threat to China and never would have had planes and subs to attack Pearl Harbor. If Japanese were a bunch of lazy crazy spear chucking bongo-drum beaters, they would never have become a major power.

    British are also a people of virtue. But because of these virtues of duty, loyalty, deference, service, conscience, and dignity, they can do something really bad on a grand scale IF led astray. Just as Brits can seriously serve the good, they can seriously serve the bad. It's like BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. Guinness's character so totally British to the end as he convinces himself and his crew that the bridge they are building is more a monument to British teamwork, work ethic, and ingenuity than an instrument of war for the Japanese. He commits high treason in the name of patriotism. Pride of British Virtues override interests of Britain. (Likewise, the bloody fools who ruled UK in the last 50 yrs have built a bridge for the enemy while fooling themselves that it's all about sportingly good British values.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWJkPbBOXL4

    When UK was ruled by patriots, the masses deferred to the Great National Power.
    But once UK came under sicko globo rule, all those British virtues came to serve the new power.
    The thing about virtues is they are not particularly ideological or intellectual. They don't come with the batter of agency or autonomy. They are essentially emotional and habitual and seek something to latch onto. Courage, for instance, can serve good or bad. Diligence can be for working to defeat evil or to serve evil.

    It's like the Kurosawa film THE MOST BEAUTIFUL about Japanese women making lens during the war. They are so hardworking and devoted. But, they never ask what the lenses are for or whether war is right or wrong. They have many virtues but they just follow like dogs. And when Japan lost, they just followed like dogs the new master of Uncle Sam. Japanese virtues shifted from serving Tojo to McCarthur.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfDwlKMyboE

    UK is now under Glob Rule, so all the British virtues of duty, diligence, dignity, and etc are committed to serving Diversity as New Agenda.

    I heard there are lots of scenes of soldiers lining up in queues in DUNKIRK. That shows both the positive and negative side of Brits. They are used to following orders and going by rules. This made them better fighters in many occasions, but it also makes them more servile and robot-like before the higher power. This sense of doing everything by the book and together has a muffling effect on the individual who might say 'shiite!' British did much to develop modern individualism, but deference to class was always a bit thing in Britain. Form was always important, like when a lower class person had to tip his hat and say "aye guv'nor" to a superior.
    Since the 60s, the class thing went away on the surface. The working class got boorish and then got into punk music and then turned into soccer hooligans. But mindsets die hard. Class deference is gone, but the culture of form-and-deference is still very much alive. Since the New Holy is diversity & decadence, the hoity-toity virtues now defer to Africans, Muslims, and Homos while turning up the nose at good patriotic whites who are tempted to shout 'darkies go home'. Consider J.H. Rowling, the Harry Potter authoress. She's a hoiter-toiter in her prim priggish finger-wagging and nose-upturning.

    In a way, the Brits are still in Q-mentality. If Chinese under Manchu rule wore queues, Brits under Glob rule still stand in mental queues.
    Things have gotten so bad that it's time for Brits to get angry and act like vikings and fight like Viet Cong.
    But they are still into proper form and being dignified. They don't want to disrupt the order by tearing off their shirt and shouting "Enough is enough". They don't want to ruffle any feathers. So, if the Power says the UK is now a 'nation of immigrants', then the Brits stand in queue to follow such order. And even those who oppose globalism feel they must stand in queue and then raise their hands and given official approval to say their say. And say it pleadingly... like Oliver Twist asking, "Can I have a little more". Today, patriots must stand in line and when, finally given approval, 'Can we have a little fewer of the darkies, guv'nor?' The Glob, of course, is outraged by even that little request.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAvCMQ_ok1c

    In a way, this negative side of the Brits was evident even in the glory days of the empire.
    After all, why didn't the British masses ever challenge their leaders who told them to go conquer the land of darkies, call people 'blood wogs', and drink tea to excess and pee like mad?
    If Queen and Country told the Brits, GO FIGHT THE RUSSIANS, the Brits just did as told.

    A people who invade other peoples without question are likely to be invaded without question if the Power orders it so.

    Well, the Glob now controls the UK.

    This is the most objective assessment of the western civilization I have ever read. The article does not fit the title “What It Says About Our Western Civilization” but your comment does.

    Your comment about the Japanese is too modest; Japanese is beyond dangerous, they are lunatic, psychotic and beastly. German has conscience because they showed remorse about what they have done wrong, but the Japanese has never shown remorse about what they have done wrong, they are continue denying their war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace since WWII. Japanese is unrepentant war criminal that cannot be remitted back into civilized world.

    People are easily misled by the Japanese virtues, good behavior, hardworking and devoted, and they do not bother to understand the true nature of Japanese; Japanese just follow like dogs, Japanese virtues turned them into ruthless, reckless and efficient beastly butchers and psychopathic war criminals when they follow bad leaders. Since WWII they just followed like dogs to the new master of Uncle Sam. Japanese virtues shifted from serving Tojo to MacArthur and alike.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Japanese is unrepentant war criminal that cannot be remitted back into civilized world.
     
    But the Japs have retained control of their own territory (well except in Okinawa). Better to be a war criminal than to be exterminated by your own globo cuck, Oxford-trained elite.
    , @CalDre

    Japanese is unrepentant war criminal that cannot be remitted back into civilized world. People... do not bother to understand the true nature of Japanese; Japanese just follow like dogs,
     
    Mao murdered substantially more Chinese than Hirohito, yet, statues still idolize him throughout China. Is the Communist Party repentant? Or do the Chinese follow their Communist rulers like dogs?
    , @Priss Factor
    Japanese is beyond dangerous, they are lunatic, psychotic and beastly. German has conscience because they showed remorse about what they have done wrong, but the Japanese has never shown remorse about what they have done wrong, they are continue denying their war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace since WWII. Japanese is unrepentant war criminal that cannot be remitted back into civilized world.

    If Japanese killed millions of Jews, things might be different. The fact is Japanese killed a bunch of Chinese, and the US didn't much care because the people whom the Japanese victimized don't have much power in the US.
    But then, Chinese don't much care about Mao killing all those folks. At any rate, two wongs don't make a white.

    Also, maybe US went a big easier on Japan cuz it nuked it twice, and that was pretty nasty business.

    Another thing. The Cold War made Japan a 'good nation' against against China and Russia.
    And even today, US finds Japan useful against rising China, so US doesn't press too much about WWII. And this is also why the West looked the other way on the Armenian Tragedy. Turkey is too important to alienate. During the election, Obama promised Armenian-Americans that he'd call out on the Armenian 'genocide', but once in office, he said, 'uh Armenian what?'

    And US attitude was pretty much the same with Germany. The reason why Holocaust became a big thing was because of rise of Jewish Power in the US. Suppose Jews have an IQ of 90 and don't control much of elite institutions and industries. Would Holocaust have become such a big deal? Of course not. Victim Politics isn't really about Pity for Victims. It's about having the Power to press for Special Victim Status. (This is why Palestinians get no respect. Other than Edward Said, they never produced many artists, thinkers, businessmen, inventors, entertainers, or athletes.)
    I mean, how did Homomania become so big? Power. If homos were as powerless as incest-sexuals, there never would have been 'gay marriage'.

    And we see same patterns in today's Germany. Germans act so repentant but how sincere are they really? Aren't they just sucking up to Jewish Power?
    After all, there were two holocausts during WWII. Jewish Holocaust and Russian Holocaust.
    Germans treated Poles like crap, but Nazis were reluctantly willing to accept most Poles as 'aryans', if inferior ones. In contrast, Germans planned wholesale extermination of Russians, and the German war on Russia was largely genocidal. That accounts for so many civilian deaths among Russians. Mass killings of Russians wasn't as organized and orchestrated as Jewish Holocaust, but Germans invaded for lebensraum and it didn't matter if millions of Russians were starved or shot. So, millions did die.

    So, where is German guilt about what they did to Russia? If anything, it seems Germans are working with Jewish-controlled US against Russia, a nation they invaded and destroyed in WWII. Germany is just Whore-many.

    Also, where is German conscience on Poland? During WWII, Germans trampled all over Poland and violated Polish sovereignty. So, you'd think they'd feel sorry. But Merkel the globo skank is acting like neo-Kaiseress and throwing her ugly weight around and telling Poles to take in tons of Africans and Muslims to colonize Polish wombs.

    So, in the end, it's about the power.
    , @Wally
    Your proof is what?

    Because a Chinaman says so?

    I'll take Japan over creepy 'Israel' any day.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Priss Factor
    What director Nolan is doing, and doing very effectively, is make the battle, in its three fundamental elements, the real plot, the actual centerpiece of what we are watching. It is the bombs blasting, the mayhem and destruction, the desperation, and, yes, the final and unsuspected triumph of the spirit that underlie the film.

    Maybe it is that 'spirit' that is the problem.

    The spirit of loyalty, duty, service, and sacrifice.

    Those are good values... but on their own, they are directionless. Values need an agenda.

    Loyalty is good but to what? Duty is good but to what? Service is good but to what? Sacrifice is good but for what?

    Virtues can be used against one's own people, against the good.

    Take Germans. Courage, unity, discipline, and efficiency are good things to have.
    But when Hitler shaped the agenda and direction of Germany, those good virtues were used to evil ends. The very virtues that had done so much for Germany led it over the cliff.
    So, national character, though essential, must be led by national vision that is good and sound.
    Paradoxically, a people of virtue can become worse than people of vice if they come under insane leadership.
    Japanese are a people of virtue, a very diligent and hardworking people. This is why they were so dangerous in WWII. The national character could be summoned for a grand project. It happened to be War and led to much havoc.
    Now, suppose Japanese were a people of vice like those black Africans who have no virtue and drive hippos crazy by chucking spears at them. Japanese couldn't have amounted to much and would have been no threat to China and never would have had planes and subs to attack Pearl Harbor. If Japanese were a bunch of lazy crazy spear chucking bongo-drum beaters, they would never have become a major power.

    British are also a people of virtue. But because of these virtues of duty, loyalty, deference, service, conscience, and dignity, they can do something really bad on a grand scale IF led astray. Just as Brits can seriously serve the good, they can seriously serve the bad. It's like BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. Guinness's character so totally British to the end as he convinces himself and his crew that the bridge they are building is more a monument to British teamwork, work ethic, and ingenuity than an instrument of war for the Japanese. He commits high treason in the name of patriotism. Pride of British Virtues override interests of Britain. (Likewise, the bloody fools who ruled UK in the last 50 yrs have built a bridge for the enemy while fooling themselves that it's all about sportingly good British values.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWJkPbBOXL4

    When UK was ruled by patriots, the masses deferred to the Great National Power.
    But once UK came under sicko globo rule, all those British virtues came to serve the new power.
    The thing about virtues is they are not particularly ideological or intellectual. They don't come with the batter of agency or autonomy. They are essentially emotional and habitual and seek something to latch onto. Courage, for instance, can serve good or bad. Diligence can be for working to defeat evil or to serve evil.

    It's like the Kurosawa film THE MOST BEAUTIFUL about Japanese women making lens during the war. They are so hardworking and devoted. But, they never ask what the lenses are for or whether war is right or wrong. They have many virtues but they just follow like dogs. And when Japan lost, they just followed like dogs the new master of Uncle Sam. Japanese virtues shifted from serving Tojo to McCarthur.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfDwlKMyboE

    UK is now under Glob Rule, so all the British virtues of duty, diligence, dignity, and etc are committed to serving Diversity as New Agenda.

    I heard there are lots of scenes of soldiers lining up in queues in DUNKIRK. That shows both the positive and negative side of Brits. They are used to following orders and going by rules. This made them better fighters in many occasions, but it also makes them more servile and robot-like before the higher power. This sense of doing everything by the book and together has a muffling effect on the individual who might say 'shiite!' British did much to develop modern individualism, but deference to class was always a bit thing in Britain. Form was always important, like when a lower class person had to tip his hat and say "aye guv'nor" to a superior.
    Since the 60s, the class thing went away on the surface. The working class got boorish and then got into punk music and then turned into soccer hooligans. But mindsets die hard. Class deference is gone, but the culture of form-and-deference is still very much alive. Since the New Holy is diversity & decadence, the hoity-toity virtues now defer to Africans, Muslims, and Homos while turning up the nose at good patriotic whites who are tempted to shout 'darkies go home'. Consider J.H. Rowling, the Harry Potter authoress. She's a hoiter-toiter in her prim priggish finger-wagging and nose-upturning.

    In a way, the Brits are still in Q-mentality. If Chinese under Manchu rule wore queues, Brits under Glob rule still stand in mental queues.
    Things have gotten so bad that it's time for Brits to get angry and act like vikings and fight like Viet Cong.
    But they are still into proper form and being dignified. They don't want to disrupt the order by tearing off their shirt and shouting "Enough is enough". They don't want to ruffle any feathers. So, if the Power says the UK is now a 'nation of immigrants', then the Brits stand in queue to follow such order. And even those who oppose globalism feel they must stand in queue and then raise their hands and given official approval to say their say. And say it pleadingly... like Oliver Twist asking, "Can I have a little more". Today, patriots must stand in line and when, finally given approval, 'Can we have a little fewer of the darkies, guv'nor?' The Glob, of course, is outraged by even that little request.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAvCMQ_ok1c

    In a way, this negative side of the Brits was evident even in the glory days of the empire.
    After all, why didn't the British masses ever challenge their leaders who told them to go conquer the land of darkies, call people 'blood wogs', and drink tea to excess and pee like mad?
    If Queen and Country told the Brits, GO FIGHT THE RUSSIANS, the Brits just did as told.

    A people who invade other peoples without question are likely to be invaded without question if the Power orders it so.

    Well, the Glob now controls the UK.

    Interesting. I am put in mind of another film, the first Titanic film “A Night To Remember” when, as the ship was doing down, the string quartet was playing “Nearer My God To Thee.” The English, in your telling, appear to be almost indistinguishable from their German adversaries (many of whose genes the English shared) in terms of devotion to duty. And the Japanese. Recall in “Kwai” the scene where William Holden explodes over this very characteristic, referring to how (in the Great War) it was “over the top with nothing more than a swagger stick.” Whether German, English, Japanese or American–all took their cue from their “leaders” (Hitler, Churchill, Hirohito, Roosevelt)-who, for good and for ill, were clever enough to shape their nation’s virtue to serve what they saw as the nations needs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Biff says:

    Small reminder – movies, and especially war movies are not real.
    Kabuki theater.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. Joe Wong says:
    @neutral
    I never understand people that worship Churchill (and FDR) as being the "saviors of Western civilization", they were the destroyers of it. To complain about our modern PC age in the movies and then praise the very same people that made this possible is pure cognitive dissonance.

    You don't believe me, well then look at the evidence. For centuries Western civilization endured many wars and other disasters, none of those destroyed Western civilization, but now its mostly dead because of what Churchill and FDR created. Western civilization is not democracy and it is not universal values, for if this is the case then you need to call everything that came before something else because for most of its time these things did not exist. Had the Third Reich won, then Western civilization would still exist, you would not have a majority non white London with a mayor named Razib Khan now. Had the soldiers known what the future of their land entailed, they would not only have surrendered at Dunkirk, they would have happily changed sides and fought Churchill.

    You can blame everything on Churchill, but you cannot blame Churchill turning London or UK into multi-colour soup. Churchill is a White supremacist, he did not allow British colonial subjects poured into UK unchecked; British issued two type of passports, one for the White in UK, the other British Passport for the British colonial subjects who cannot abide in UK and need a Visa to go to Britain (the UK).

    Read More
    • Agree: Matra
    • Replies: @neutral
    Churchill was fighting for the liberal global order, the liberal global takes it as axiomatic that all races are equal. So Churchill is to blame, had there been no Churchill there would not have been a Razib Khan as mayor of London.
    , @sb
    Didn't Churchill seriously argue for using as an election slogan the expression "Keep Britain White " ?
    But maybe this was after he stood down as Prime Minister
    Still at that time it wouldn't have been too late
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. SD says:
    @neutral
    I never understand people that worship Churchill (and FDR) as being the "saviors of Western civilization", they were the destroyers of it. To complain about our modern PC age in the movies and then praise the very same people that made this possible is pure cognitive dissonance.

    You don't believe me, well then look at the evidence. For centuries Western civilization endured many wars and other disasters, none of those destroyed Western civilization, but now its mostly dead because of what Churchill and FDR created. Western civilization is not democracy and it is not universal values, for if this is the case then you need to call everything that came before something else because for most of its time these things did not exist. Had the Third Reich won, then Western civilization would still exist, you would not have a majority non white London with a mayor named Razib Khan now. Had the soldiers known what the future of their land entailed, they would not only have surrendered at Dunkirk, they would have happily changed sides and fought Churchill.

    “Had the Third Reich won, then Western civilization would still exist, you would not have a majority non white London with a mayor named Razib Khan now. ”

    LOL, you mean Sadiq Khan. Our good old genetics blogger Razib Khan has done nothing to harm Western civilization, and he’s certainly not mayor of London.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    and he’s certainly not mayor of London

    London could use a man like Razib.
    , @neutral
    The mistake is irrelevant, lol all you want but nobody with the surname Khan should ever be mayor of London, even if they mean no harm to Western civilization. To accept the idea of having non Westerners ruling over you is to accept the death of Western civilization.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. c matt says:
    @Priss Factor
    What director Nolan is doing, and doing very effectively, is make the battle, in its three fundamental elements, the real plot, the actual centerpiece of what we are watching. It is the bombs blasting, the mayhem and destruction, the desperation, and, yes, the final and unsuspected triumph of the spirit that underlie the film.

    Maybe it is that 'spirit' that is the problem.

    The spirit of loyalty, duty, service, and sacrifice.

    Those are good values... but on their own, they are directionless. Values need an agenda.

    Loyalty is good but to what? Duty is good but to what? Service is good but to what? Sacrifice is good but for what?

    Virtues can be used against one's own people, against the good.

    Take Germans. Courage, unity, discipline, and efficiency are good things to have.
    But when Hitler shaped the agenda and direction of Germany, those good virtues were used to evil ends. The very virtues that had done so much for Germany led it over the cliff.
    So, national character, though essential, must be led by national vision that is good and sound.
    Paradoxically, a people of virtue can become worse than people of vice if they come under insane leadership.
    Japanese are a people of virtue, a very diligent and hardworking people. This is why they were so dangerous in WWII. The national character could be summoned for a grand project. It happened to be War and led to much havoc.
    Now, suppose Japanese were a people of vice like those black Africans who have no virtue and drive hippos crazy by chucking spears at them. Japanese couldn't have amounted to much and would have been no threat to China and never would have had planes and subs to attack Pearl Harbor. If Japanese were a bunch of lazy crazy spear chucking bongo-drum beaters, they would never have become a major power.

    British are also a people of virtue. But because of these virtues of duty, loyalty, deference, service, conscience, and dignity, they can do something really bad on a grand scale IF led astray. Just as Brits can seriously serve the good, they can seriously serve the bad. It's like BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. Guinness's character so totally British to the end as he convinces himself and his crew that the bridge they are building is more a monument to British teamwork, work ethic, and ingenuity than an instrument of war for the Japanese. He commits high treason in the name of patriotism. Pride of British Virtues override interests of Britain. (Likewise, the bloody fools who ruled UK in the last 50 yrs have built a bridge for the enemy while fooling themselves that it's all about sportingly good British values.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWJkPbBOXL4

    When UK was ruled by patriots, the masses deferred to the Great National Power.
    But once UK came under sicko globo rule, all those British virtues came to serve the new power.
    The thing about virtues is they are not particularly ideological or intellectual. They don't come with the batter of agency or autonomy. They are essentially emotional and habitual and seek something to latch onto. Courage, for instance, can serve good or bad. Diligence can be for working to defeat evil or to serve evil.

    It's like the Kurosawa film THE MOST BEAUTIFUL about Japanese women making lens during the war. They are so hardworking and devoted. But, they never ask what the lenses are for or whether war is right or wrong. They have many virtues but they just follow like dogs. And when Japan lost, they just followed like dogs the new master of Uncle Sam. Japanese virtues shifted from serving Tojo to McCarthur.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfDwlKMyboE

    UK is now under Glob Rule, so all the British virtues of duty, diligence, dignity, and etc are committed to serving Diversity as New Agenda.

    I heard there are lots of scenes of soldiers lining up in queues in DUNKIRK. That shows both the positive and negative side of Brits. They are used to following orders and going by rules. This made them better fighters in many occasions, but it also makes them more servile and robot-like before the higher power. This sense of doing everything by the book and together has a muffling effect on the individual who might say 'shiite!' British did much to develop modern individualism, but deference to class was always a bit thing in Britain. Form was always important, like when a lower class person had to tip his hat and say "aye guv'nor" to a superior.
    Since the 60s, the class thing went away on the surface. The working class got boorish and then got into punk music and then turned into soccer hooligans. But mindsets die hard. Class deference is gone, but the culture of form-and-deference is still very much alive. Since the New Holy is diversity & decadence, the hoity-toity virtues now defer to Africans, Muslims, and Homos while turning up the nose at good patriotic whites who are tempted to shout 'darkies go home'. Consider J.H. Rowling, the Harry Potter authoress. She's a hoiter-toiter in her prim priggish finger-wagging and nose-upturning.

    In a way, the Brits are still in Q-mentality. If Chinese under Manchu rule wore queues, Brits under Glob rule still stand in mental queues.
    Things have gotten so bad that it's time for Brits to get angry and act like vikings and fight like Viet Cong.
    But they are still into proper form and being dignified. They don't want to disrupt the order by tearing off their shirt and shouting "Enough is enough". They don't want to ruffle any feathers. So, if the Power says the UK is now a 'nation of immigrants', then the Brits stand in queue to follow such order. And even those who oppose globalism feel they must stand in queue and then raise their hands and given official approval to say their say. And say it pleadingly... like Oliver Twist asking, "Can I have a little more". Today, patriots must stand in line and when, finally given approval, 'Can we have a little fewer of the darkies, guv'nor?' The Glob, of course, is outraged by even that little request.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAvCMQ_ok1c

    In a way, this negative side of the Brits was evident even in the glory days of the empire.
    After all, why didn't the British masses ever challenge their leaders who told them to go conquer the land of darkies, call people 'blood wogs', and drink tea to excess and pee like mad?
    If Queen and Country told the Brits, GO FIGHT THE RUSSIANS, the Brits just did as told.

    A people who invade other peoples without question are likely to be invaded without question if the Power orders it so.

    Well, the Glob now controls the UK.

    Have to agree with Priss, not necessarily about the movie, but about “Virtues” as an end or abstract. Like “being principled”, it all depends upon to what the virtues or principles are directed. No one can argue that Democrats are principled and have the virtues of loyalty and dedication in spades over Republicans – they are willing to die on their swords over abortion, affirmative action, etc. Republicans wouldn’t risk a paper cut over anything.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. neutral says:
    @Joe Wong
    You can blame everything on Churchill, but you cannot blame Churchill turning London or UK into multi-colour soup. Churchill is a White supremacist, he did not allow British colonial subjects poured into UK unchecked; British issued two type of passports, one for the White in UK, the other British Passport for the British colonial subjects who cannot abide in UK and need a Visa to go to Britain (the UK).

    Churchill was fighting for the liberal global order, the liberal global takes it as axiomatic that all races are equal. So Churchill is to blame, had there been no Churchill there would not have been a Razib Khan as mayor of London.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    My foot, Churchill was fighting for the liberal global order. Churchill was the hard core British Empire imperialist warmonger. If Churchill was fighting for liberty, then Hitler was fighting for justice.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. iffen says:
    @SD
    "Had the Third Reich won, then Western civilization would still exist, you would not have a majority non white London with a mayor named Razib Khan now. "

    LOL, you mean Sadiq Khan. Our good old genetics blogger Razib Khan has done nothing to harm Western civilization, and he's certainly not mayor of London.

    and he’s certainly not mayor of London

    London could use a man like Razib.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. neutral says:
    @SD
    "Had the Third Reich won, then Western civilization would still exist, you would not have a majority non white London with a mayor named Razib Khan now. "

    LOL, you mean Sadiq Khan. Our good old genetics blogger Razib Khan has done nothing to harm Western civilization, and he's certainly not mayor of London.

    The mistake is irrelevant, lol all you want but nobody with the surname Khan should ever be mayor of London, even if they mean no harm to Western civilization. To accept the idea of having non Westerners ruling over you is to accept the death of Western civilization.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SD
    Your concerns are valid. I just wanted to point out what was probably a typo on your part.
    , @iffen
    mean no harm to Western civilization. To accept the idea of having non Westerners ruling over you

    Western civilization is a state of mind.
    , @CanSpeccy

    you want but nobody with the surname Khan should ever be mayor of London
     
    That's what all sane indigenous Brits want. They love diversity: Pakistan for the Pakistanis, Britain for the British.
    , @Moi
    Some folks feel the same way about Obama.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Che Guava says:
    @jilles dykstra
    " it thrusts us back to 1940, to a more heroic time when there were real heroes who defended their country not because they wanted glory, but because it was their duty. "

    The propaganda value of movies excellently decribed.
    WWII had the same cause as WWI, a Germany extentending its influence to the SE, British fear that this influence might reach the shores of the Mediterranean, thus threatening British communications with the wealth of their empire, wealth of India and SE Asia.
    Balfour already in 1907 confided this to the USA ambassador 'maybe war was the cheapest way of maintaining the British standard of living'.
    From de decriptions of the movie I do not get the impression that the fact that Hitler let de BEF go, is part of the movie.
    Hitler still hoped for cooperation with GB

    Well said, jilles.

    If Hitler would not have wanted them to escape, they would not have.

    A lot of the French found some way back to France, to join Vichy forces or the SS.

    It amuses me that the writer of this piece mentions The Battle of Britain, and Tora, Tora, Tora as faves, no connection, but the same as I was citing on isteve. I am not even to remember the former well, except the aeroplanes.

    Priss mentions Kurosawa’s The Most Beautiful,

    well, I was mentioning it last summer, and gave it that title, from translation. Westerners generally did not know that it even existed.

    Cheap. For bonus points, i have worked at the same place. Of course, Priss is entertaining but will never reply.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record

    Priss mentions Kurosawa’s The Most Beautiful,

    well, I was mentioning it last summer, and gave it that title, from translation. Westerners generally did not know that it even existed.

    Cheap. For bonus points, i have worked at the same place. Of course, Priss is entertaining but will never reply.

     

    I'm not quite sure how you can claim copyright for the English translation of the title of Kurosawa's film, unless you also wrote the Wikipedia article.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Most_Beautiful
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Rather, it thrusts us back to 1940, to a more heroic time when there were real heroes who defended their country not because they wanted glory, but because it was their duty. “Dunkirk” stands out like an anomaly amongst current cinema: it reminds us of who we once were as a people and the deeds we once achieved, and of an English (and Western) culture and way of life, a civilization, quickly disappearing. And, at times, it seems to ask us if we will ever again possess that courage and that faith.
     
    Well, that "Greatest Generation" may have fought well in WWII, but they abysmally failed to defend their countries - UK and US. The "Greatest Generation" crafted and approved the utter dismantling of the English (and Western) culture and way of life. That generation is the one responsible for causing their own culture - their own people - to quickly disappear!

    I'm sick of the Greatest Generation. It is those soldiers at Dunkirk and Normandy and the Battle of Bulge and their wives that through their own actions or an unwillingness to stand up to the actions of others destroyed our civilization and allowed an unprecedented invasion of our lands.

    A 25-year-old soldier in 1945 was 45 in 1965 when the U.S. decided to change our demographics. He was 65 in 1985 when everyone could see that our culture was disintegrating and that illegal immigration was a huge problem. He was 70 in 2000 when it was nearly too late but we still had a chance.

    He caused it all. He stopped nothing.

    My children will be a minority in the land their ancestors built. My children will be discriminated against by their own government. My children will be in danger because of the blacks and browns.

    All because of you Greatest Generation - and your spoiled children, the Boomers.

    May you rot in Hell for your betrayal of your own people. You showed courage as a young man and utter cowardice for the rest of your life.

    Sorry, meant that the soldier would have been 75 in 1995.

    And, perhaps, I was a bit harsh for saying that these men should “rot in Hell.” However, I stand by my assertion that the Greatest Generation was anything but from ~1960 onwards.

    Gen-Xers and younger generations tend to blame the Baby Boomers for the havoc that surrounds us. And, of course, it’s true in part. But they were simply following in the footsteps of the young men and women of WWII. (A typical Boomer was only ~20 years old in 1970 and ~35 in 1985, hardly controlling the levers of society.) No, it was the WWII generation that destroyed out world.

    And for what? What was their reason from starting the process that will bring down civilizations that had endured for thousands of years?

    I cannot look at my children and feel anything but contempt for that generation. Their bravery in WWII makes them worse in my eyes. You were willing to fight and die to stop the Germans, but you wouldn’t go to the polls or march to stop your country from being flooded by Pakistanis, Mexicans, Indians, Africans and every other people on the planet.

    You could have stopped this, and, for that, I cannot forgive you. And I certainly won’t honor you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    You were willing to fight and die to stop the Germans, but you wouldn’t go to the polls or march to stop your country from being flooded by Pakistanis, Mexicans, Indians, Africans and every other people on the planet.

    You could have stopped this, and, for that, I cannot forgive you.
     
    Well said. Let every cuck receive a white feather.
    , @jacques sheete

    You were willing to fight and die to stop the Germans...
     
    That is true. And it's important to note that the Germans were among the few who were willing to fight and die to save Western culture and civilization from the Reds of the time who themselves were little more than tools of the moneybags crowd.

    Their bravery was wasted in the service of stupidity on steroids. Used against them in fact and most, wallowing in self praise, still fail to understand that.

    Patton was correct about killing the wrong pigs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Carlton Meyer
    An Army war veteran friend of mine said it was boring, and "War is Boring" agrees.

    ‘Dunkirk’ Is a Booming, Bloodless Bore
    War has never been this dull

    http://warisboring.com/dunkirk-is-a-booming-bloodless-bore/

    The author here wrote: "and it reflected a spirit of duty and sacrifice and empire that characterized an England that is now quickly passing away."

    Allow me to correct this:

    "and it reflected a spirit of duty and sacrifice for the empire that characterized an England that is now quickly passing away as a result of pointless wars such as this one."

    Few Americans know that Anglo-Saxons are Germans, and English is a Germanic language, which is why Hitler allowed the English to escape. A German recently wrote that while Hitler was bad, he would never let Europe be overrun by Africans and Muslims. England should send a BEF to defend Italy today!

    Few Americans know that Anglo-Saxons are Germans, and English is a Germanic language, which is why Hitler allowed the English to escape. A German recently wrote that while Hitler was bad, he would never let Europe be overrun by Africans and Muslims. England should send a BEF to defend Italy today!

    The Brits, what’s left of them, as they become a minority in their own homeland, are mainly Celts. The Anglo Saxons were an occupying power who imposed their language and legal tradition on the country without exterminating the indigenous population.

    That is true of all the other invasions of Britain prior to the ongoing population replacement project of the Euro-elite and the British Treason class. Romans, Vikings and Normans, all left only a rather small genetic imprint. Not so with the present influx, many of whom display the normal racist contempt for the indigenous people.

    Like this guy:

    Scottish Taxpayers Fund ‘Art Performance’ Calling Whites ‘Inbred Spawn Soon To Die Out’

    Or this guy:

    ‘All white people are racist’: Cambridge University probes head of equality group for saying white men, women and children ‘can all get it’ as he heaps praise on London rioters in shocking Twitter outburst

    Presumably, the courts will fine them about five quid each and tell them to be more sensitive about the feelings of the natives. Heck, we don’t want an uprising or anything.

    So yes, better a Nazi than the present bunch of Euro-cucks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    The Celts themselves were probably merely an earlier group of invaders, like them imposing the rule of a small number over the indigenous and assimilating them to their culture and language.

    The primary genetic stock of the British Isles appears to go back to the Stone Age, long before the Celts, who probably arrived sometime around the 1100s, during the same widespread disruption that affected most of the ancient world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. SD says:
    @neutral
    The mistake is irrelevant, lol all you want but nobody with the surname Khan should ever be mayor of London, even if they mean no harm to Western civilization. To accept the idea of having non Westerners ruling over you is to accept the death of Western civilization.

    Your concerns are valid. I just wanted to point out what was probably a typo on your part.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. iffen says:
    @neutral
    The mistake is irrelevant, lol all you want but nobody with the surname Khan should ever be mayor of London, even if they mean no harm to Western civilization. To accept the idea of having non Westerners ruling over you is to accept the death of Western civilization.

    mean no harm to Western civilization. To accept the idea of having non Westerners ruling over you

    Western civilization is a state of mind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @neutral

    Western civilization is a state of mind.
     
    Not its absolutely not a state of mind. Western civilization is ultimately whites, its not about democracy, its not about Plato and Aristotle, its not even about Christianity. I don't consider India Western, even with its democracy. I would not consider a Europe populated with only Africans (that happen to be Christian) Western. I don't consider a Chinese man that believes in the rational world view of Aristotle Western.

    I apply the same logic to others as well, some white guy who is an expert on Confucius and has lived all his life in China is not Chinese.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Priss Factor
    What director Nolan is doing, and doing very effectively, is make the battle, in its three fundamental elements, the real plot, the actual centerpiece of what we are watching. It is the bombs blasting, the mayhem and destruction, the desperation, and, yes, the final and unsuspected triumph of the spirit that underlie the film.

    Maybe it is that 'spirit' that is the problem.

    The spirit of loyalty, duty, service, and sacrifice.

    Those are good values... but on their own, they are directionless. Values need an agenda.

    Loyalty is good but to what? Duty is good but to what? Service is good but to what? Sacrifice is good but for what?

    Virtues can be used against one's own people, against the good.

    Take Germans. Courage, unity, discipline, and efficiency are good things to have.
    But when Hitler shaped the agenda and direction of Germany, those good virtues were used to evil ends. The very virtues that had done so much for Germany led it over the cliff.
    So, national character, though essential, must be led by national vision that is good and sound.
    Paradoxically, a people of virtue can become worse than people of vice if they come under insane leadership.
    Japanese are a people of virtue, a very diligent and hardworking people. This is why they were so dangerous in WWII. The national character could be summoned for a grand project. It happened to be War and led to much havoc.
    Now, suppose Japanese were a people of vice like those black Africans who have no virtue and drive hippos crazy by chucking spears at them. Japanese couldn't have amounted to much and would have been no threat to China and never would have had planes and subs to attack Pearl Harbor. If Japanese were a bunch of lazy crazy spear chucking bongo-drum beaters, they would never have become a major power.

    British are also a people of virtue. But because of these virtues of duty, loyalty, deference, service, conscience, and dignity, they can do something really bad on a grand scale IF led astray. Just as Brits can seriously serve the good, they can seriously serve the bad. It's like BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. Guinness's character so totally British to the end as he convinces himself and his crew that the bridge they are building is more a monument to British teamwork, work ethic, and ingenuity than an instrument of war for the Japanese. He commits high treason in the name of patriotism. Pride of British Virtues override interests of Britain. (Likewise, the bloody fools who ruled UK in the last 50 yrs have built a bridge for the enemy while fooling themselves that it's all about sportingly good British values.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWJkPbBOXL4

    When UK was ruled by patriots, the masses deferred to the Great National Power.
    But once UK came under sicko globo rule, all those British virtues came to serve the new power.
    The thing about virtues is they are not particularly ideological or intellectual. They don't come with the batter of agency or autonomy. They are essentially emotional and habitual and seek something to latch onto. Courage, for instance, can serve good or bad. Diligence can be for working to defeat evil or to serve evil.

    It's like the Kurosawa film THE MOST BEAUTIFUL about Japanese women making lens during the war. They are so hardworking and devoted. But, they never ask what the lenses are for or whether war is right or wrong. They have many virtues but they just follow like dogs. And when Japan lost, they just followed like dogs the new master of Uncle Sam. Japanese virtues shifted from serving Tojo to McCarthur.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfDwlKMyboE

    UK is now under Glob Rule, so all the British virtues of duty, diligence, dignity, and etc are committed to serving Diversity as New Agenda.

    I heard there are lots of scenes of soldiers lining up in queues in DUNKIRK. That shows both the positive and negative side of Brits. They are used to following orders and going by rules. This made them better fighters in many occasions, but it also makes them more servile and robot-like before the higher power. This sense of doing everything by the book and together has a muffling effect on the individual who might say 'shiite!' British did much to develop modern individualism, but deference to class was always a bit thing in Britain. Form was always important, like when a lower class person had to tip his hat and say "aye guv'nor" to a superior.
    Since the 60s, the class thing went away on the surface. The working class got boorish and then got into punk music and then turned into soccer hooligans. But mindsets die hard. Class deference is gone, but the culture of form-and-deference is still very much alive. Since the New Holy is diversity & decadence, the hoity-toity virtues now defer to Africans, Muslims, and Homos while turning up the nose at good patriotic whites who are tempted to shout 'darkies go home'. Consider J.H. Rowling, the Harry Potter authoress. She's a hoiter-toiter in her prim priggish finger-wagging and nose-upturning.

    In a way, the Brits are still in Q-mentality. If Chinese under Manchu rule wore queues, Brits under Glob rule still stand in mental queues.
    Things have gotten so bad that it's time for Brits to get angry and act like vikings and fight like Viet Cong.
    But they are still into proper form and being dignified. They don't want to disrupt the order by tearing off their shirt and shouting "Enough is enough". They don't want to ruffle any feathers. So, if the Power says the UK is now a 'nation of immigrants', then the Brits stand in queue to follow such order. And even those who oppose globalism feel they must stand in queue and then raise their hands and given official approval to say their say. And say it pleadingly... like Oliver Twist asking, "Can I have a little more". Today, patriots must stand in line and when, finally given approval, 'Can we have a little fewer of the darkies, guv'nor?' The Glob, of course, is outraged by even that little request.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAvCMQ_ok1c

    In a way, this negative side of the Brits was evident even in the glory days of the empire.
    After all, why didn't the British masses ever challenge their leaders who told them to go conquer the land of darkies, call people 'blood wogs', and drink tea to excess and pee like mad?
    If Queen and Country told the Brits, GO FIGHT THE RUSSIANS, the Brits just did as told.

    A people who invade other peoples without question are likely to be invaded without question if the Power orders it so.

    Well, the Glob now controls the UK.

    Agree as far is this goes. But there’s more. The Brits and the people of every other Western nation are now in the grip of a massive persuasion machine. The world has never seen a power of persuasion anything like that to which the people of the West are now subjected. Movies, TV, MSM, Schools, Universities, Police, legislatures, all engaged to brainwash the European peoples into a state of self-hate and acquiescence in their own destruction.

    And all this reinforced by the fact that a huge proportion of the population get their livelihood by working for governments, public institutions or corporations that will summarily dismiss them for “racism”, i.e., vocally opposing their own national destruction, which is to say their own national genocide.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Where, or Who, is the American Vladimir Jabotinsky?

    January 27, 1935

    "On the subject of Revisionism, which he has made his life’s work, Jabotinsky is quiet and forceful, with the assured air of a man who sees a sharply defined vision, totally lacking in confusion or compromise, which he knows must be realized.
    That vision is a Jewish nation in Palestine.
    “How can the Jews achieve a true Homeland in the Holy Land?” the reporter asked him.
    “By demanding it,” Jabotinsky said quietly.
    . . .
    "Jabotinsky was surprised when one of his American lieutenants told him word had been received that he was no longer to be barred from Palestine, which he has not visited since December, 1929, when his permanent visa was revoked. He was unable to say whether he would return there for a visit. . . .
    Although he is reputedly a fiery and inspiring orator in his public appearances, this little, almost haggard man is completely without bluster in his personal contacts. His voice has a soft, caressing quality, which carries with it conviction. He peers at you from behind glasses with his shrewd but kindly eyes, asking questions almost as frequently as he answers them.

    “There is one force in the world that really matters,” he said, “and that is the force of moral pressure. We Jews are the most powerful nation in the world because we have that force and know how to use it.”


    http://www.jta.org/1935/01/27/archive/revisionism-is-inevitable-says-jabotinsky-here-for-wide-tour
     

    Instead of being intimidated and exploited by the "moral persuasive" force of Jews, Americans should, in fact must make the same demands for their culture as Jabotinsky made for zionism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    ““Dunkirk” stands out like an anomaly amongst current cinema: it reminds us of who we once were as a people and the deeds we once achieved, and of an English (and Western) culture and way of life, a civilization, quickly disappearing. And, at times, it seems to ask us if we will ever again possess that courage and that faith.”

    The western -aka christian- way of life has always been about Racial Supremacy, Greed and Psychopathy (its success is clearly a direct result of its exceptionality in those “virtues”). The world wars are part proof of that, and nothing has changed ever since.

    Except, after those so-called “great” wars, white supremacist scum, have only wisened to the fact that it is far easier, and definitely more fun, to mass murder other perceived “low-lifes,” than to kill their own kind.

    There is one other most crucial thing about that much vaunted way of life, which its people are totally blind to. It is erected on quicksand; on Paganism (man-gods), Polytheism and Idolatry. And for that, they get to feel proud and boastful for only a blink in cosmic time.

    The more success they get in this world, is yet more proof that they will never accept true monotheism, and will continue to wallow in that cesspool of polytheism, racial bigotry, greed and psychopathy, known as the western/christian way of life.

    In other words, their skin colour, perceived as one of their most valuable gifts (after all their “gods” are white too, right?), will prove to be their biggest curse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    The western -aka christian- way of life has always been about Racial Supremacy, Greed and Psychopathy
     
    Time to go back to the Western -aka Christian- way of life then. Better to be a racial supremacist than to be extinct.
    , @woodNfish
    And yet you write all this BS on a machine that is the direct product of the hard working and productive Western society. The West has given more good to the world to raise peoples above the normal hard scrabble existence of humanity than any other culture in the entire history of humanity. We have no obligation to also commit cultural and racial suicide.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @unit472
    The 'Miracle at Dunkirk' probably owes more to Hermann Goering's desire to give the Luftwaffe a starring role in the 1940 German offensive than any 'daring' by the defeated British Army. The German Army and its Panzer Divisions were on scene and likely would have overrun the beach head but were held back so the Luftwaffe could finish off the British.

    The problem was the Luftwaffe was a tactical air force and didn't have the kind of heavy bombers the British and, later, American air forces possessed. A Stuka dive bomber could only carry a single 550lbs bomb with another handful of 110 lbs bombs. The 'heavy' twin engined Heinkel 111's payload was just over 2000 lbs. This was adequate for taking out an enemy strongpoint but not an 'area' target like a port.

    What events like Dunkirk and the Miracle of the Marne, where French taxi drivers were used to ferry troops to the front in WW1, show is the ability of governments to turn 'defeats' into propaganda victories. That these same governments failed to field adequate forces to face the threats is forgotten.

    What events like Dunkirk and the Miracle of the Marne, where French taxi drivers were used to ferry troops to the front in WW1, show is the ability of governments to turn ‘defeats’ into propaganda victories.

    Churchill, I believe, called Dunkirk not a defeat but “the greatest disgrace to British arms in a thousand years.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Well, this was before the Fall of Singapore.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Jay Igaboo
    In what would have otherwise been an interesting, leisurely and enjoyable read, Cathey does the one thing that makes me, and millions of the Scots, Irish and Welsh either stop reading, listening or watching. or continue with hostility triggered by the use of “England” or ”English” instead of “Britain” or “British”.
    This is all the more galling because it plays right into the hands of the Cultural Marxists who masquerade as nationalists such as the gawdsawful SNP here in Scotland, the vile Sein Fein or woeful Plyde Cymru in Wales.
    This reaction is exacerbated when “English” is used instead of “British” when it’s someone from the higher social strata, as it typifies the arrogance that causes much resentment in their Celtic neighbours.
    Countless times whilst serving have I heard this, and it grates: for me, most memorably when Brigadier, whose English-British regiment, The Glosters, had fought most gallantly in Korea, was addressing my largely Scottish battalion at a base in Stanford c. 1968.

    All was going well until, and his address was being well received and, due to his well-earned reputation, followed with interest and respect until he said “We’re all English soldiers, and as English soldiers,blah, blah, blah....”
    As a lowly Private, I seethed, others around me seethed, and profanities, the volume of which was carefully judged to diminish to incoherence before reaching the ears of officers, were spat out sotto voce.
    This Brigadier continued to use England when he meant Britain, and every time he did, the murmur of discontent from the scum like me in the ranks became a little more audible.
    NCO’s near the mutterer could no longer wisely pretend not to hear, and would hiss offenders into silence.
    I had seen our colonel, himself a Scot who had jumped at Arnhem and who knew his men well, wince when he dropped the first clanger, as did the faces of more junior officers.
    By the time his address was halfway through, the Brigadier had lost us, only military discipline kept us sufficiently hushed.
    Until we were dismissed, that is, when much venting ensued.
    I often wondered if he ever wised up, or was tactfully put straight by our colonel.
    I certainly hope so, because he became the Army CIC Northern Ireland.

    Take note, Cathey: you are doing a great job for the Nats- please stop!

    Have to admit I sometimes use “English” for “British” out of annoyance with the Scotch Nat cucks, who pretend to be nationalists but wish to destroy the United Kingdom, and take Scotland into the intimate embrace of the EU where they will have a much smaller (essential zero) voice than they have in Britain: a Britain that they have often, in effect, ruled through powerful ministers including Prime Ministers MacDonald, MacMillan, Home, Blair, and that Brown turn, wh0 called an old woman a bigot for objecting to the genocidal flood of immigration promoted by Brown’s cuck Labor Government.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Sorry, when I said "the Brown turn" I of course meant to type "the Brown turd".
    , @Jay Igaboo
    @CanSpeccy--agreed on all points!
    I have no love whatsoever fot the traitors, sell-outs and charlatans in Westminster, but. I'm sad to say, I have even less for Holyrood.
    For the avaricous, and venal theives of liberty who are the Brussels scum, I have utter loathing and contempt.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @jilles dykstra
    " it thrusts us back to 1940, to a more heroic time when there were real heroes who defended their country not because they wanted glory, but because it was their duty. "

    The propaganda value of movies excellently decribed.
    WWII had the same cause as WWI, a Germany extentending its influence to the SE, British fear that this influence might reach the shores of the Mediterranean, thus threatening British communications with the wealth of their empire, wealth of India and SE Asia.
    Balfour already in 1907 confided this to the USA ambassador 'maybe war was the cheapest way of maintaining the British standard of living'.
    From de decriptions of the movie I do not get the impression that the fact that Hitler let de BEF go, is part of the movie.
    Hitler still hoped for cooperation with GB

    WWII had the same cause as WWI, a Germany extending its influence to the SE, British fear that this influence might reach the shores of the Mediterranean, thus threatening British communications with the wealth of their empire, wealth of India and SE Asia.

    It was a factor, not the cause in the decision of the Brits to wage war against Germany again , the true cause was the same as the cause of ww1 as you noted…

    Why, my fellow citizens, is there any man here or any woman, let me say is there any child here, who does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry…and the reason why some nations went into the war against Germany was that they thought Germany would get the commercial advantage of them. The seed of the jealousy, the seed of the deep-seated hatred was hot, successful commercial and industrial rivalry…

    This war, in its inception was a commercial and industrial war. It was not a political war.

    -Woodrow Wilson, Address at the Coliseum in St. Louis, Missouri, September 5, 1919

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=117365

    This concept should be drilled into the skulls of every person who believes he’s entitled to an opinion on the subject Unfortunately it never will be.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James N. Kennett

    The seed of the jealousy, the seed of the deep-seated hatred was hot, successful commercial and industrial rivalry…
     
    Funny how the main war aim of the Germans in both World Wars was expansion eastwards.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Joe Wong
    This is the most objective assessment of the western civilization I have ever read. The article does not fit the title "What It Says About Our Western Civilization" but your comment does.

    Your comment about the Japanese is too modest; Japanese is beyond dangerous, they are lunatic, psychotic and beastly. German has conscience because they showed remorse about what they have done wrong, but the Japanese has never shown remorse about what they have done wrong, they are continue denying their war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace since WWII. Japanese is unrepentant war criminal that cannot be remitted back into civilized world.

    People are easily misled by the Japanese virtues, good behavior, hardworking and devoted, and they do not bother to understand the true nature of Japanese; Japanese just follow like dogs, Japanese virtues turned them into ruthless, reckless and efficient beastly butchers and psychopathic war criminals when they follow bad leaders. Since WWII they just followed like dogs to the new master of Uncle Sam. Japanese virtues shifted from serving Tojo to MacArthur and alike.

    Japanese is unrepentant war criminal that cannot be remitted back into civilized world.

    But the Japs have retained control of their own territory (well except in Okinawa). Better to be a war criminal than to be exterminated by your own globo cuck, Oxford-trained elite.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    Do you know there are three hundred US military bases in the Japan homeland? And do you know the Japanese emperor and his cabinet are within the cannon shots of the US armed forces 24/7?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Looks like Martel will one day have to removed cuz he was a ‘xenophobic Islamophobic nationalist race-ist’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Carlton Meyer
    An Army war veteran friend of mine said it was boring, and "War is Boring" agrees.

    ‘Dunkirk’ Is a Booming, Bloodless Bore
    War has never been this dull

    http://warisboring.com/dunkirk-is-a-booming-bloodless-bore/

    The author here wrote: "and it reflected a spirit of duty and sacrifice and empire that characterized an England that is now quickly passing away."

    Allow me to correct this:

    "and it reflected a spirit of duty and sacrifice for the empire that characterized an England that is now quickly passing away as a result of pointless wars such as this one."

    Few Americans know that Anglo-Saxons are Germans, and English is a Germanic language, which is why Hitler allowed the English to escape. A German recently wrote that while Hitler was bad, he would never let Europe be overrun by Africans and Muslims. England should send a BEF to defend Italy today!

    “A German recently wrote that while Hitler was bad, he would never let Europe be overrun by … and Muslims.”

    Perhaps you pagan polytheists (essentially spiritual savages) could do with some true monotheism, even if brought forth by perceived “low-lifes”?

    No? Ok, to Hell with the naysayers!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)
    Your rather enigmatic post (and, after reading it thrice, I am not at all sure what your point is) contains a description of "pagan polytheists" as "(essentially spiritual savages)".

    If you are cheerleading for the Abrahamic Faiths, you might be more effective if you put some meat on the bones of what is basically simply name-calling.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @Che Guava
    Well said, jilles.

    If Hitler would not have wanted them to escape, they would not have.

    A lot of the French found some way back to France, to join Vichy forces or the SS.

    It amuses me that the writer of this piece mentions The Battle of Britain, and Tora, Tora, Tora as faves, no connection, but the same as I was citing on isteve. I am not even to remember the former well, except the aeroplanes.

    Priss mentions Kurosawa's The Most Beautiful,

    well, I was mentioning it last summer, and gave it that title, from translation. Westerners generally did not know that it even existed.

    Cheap. For bonus points, i have worked at the same place. Of course, Priss is entertaining but will never reply.

    Priss mentions Kurosawa’s The Most Beautiful,

    well, I was mentioning it last summer, and gave it that title, from translation. Westerners generally did not know that it even existed.

    Cheap. For bonus points, i have worked at the same place. Of course, Priss is entertaining but will never reply.

    I’m not quite sure how you can claim copyright for the English translation of the title of Kurosawa’s film, unless you also wrote the Wikipedia article.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Most_Beautiful

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    I can assure you that I made the title independently, and with 90% plus confidence, that PrIss only knew of it from my post last summer.

    Also, that I have worked at the same place, so a special resonance,
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @neutral
    The mistake is irrelevant, lol all you want but nobody with the surname Khan should ever be mayor of London, even if they mean no harm to Western civilization. To accept the idea of having non Westerners ruling over you is to accept the death of Western civilization.

    you want but nobody with the surname Khan should ever be mayor of London

    That’s what all sane indigenous Brits want. They love diversity: Pakistan for the Pakistanis, Britain for the British.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Moi
    Let's not forget that Britain at the time was a racist, cruel, colonial empire.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Only the craven would glorify a military retreat where cowards ran from their enemy with their tails tucked between their legs. What’s next, a movie about the US marines fleeing from the Chinese and North Koreans during the battle of the Chosin reservoir?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    Sure, why not?

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045082/

    "Retreat, Hell!"

    The saga of a battalion of U.S. Marines during the Korean War, starting with their training, landing at Inchon in 1950, advance into North Korea and their subsequent retreat back to the 38th parallel.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_f2E-FoN5w
    , @Anonymous
    Defeats make for good drama though. A movie about the Korean retreat would be worth watching.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Sorry, meant that the soldier would have been 75 in 1995.

    And, perhaps, I was a bit harsh for saying that these men should "rot in Hell." However, I stand by my assertion that the Greatest Generation was anything but from ~1960 onwards.

    Gen-Xers and younger generations tend to blame the Baby Boomers for the havoc that surrounds us. And, of course, it's true in part. But they were simply following in the footsteps of the young men and women of WWII. (A typical Boomer was only ~20 years old in 1970 and ~35 in 1985, hardly controlling the levers of society.) No, it was the WWII generation that destroyed out world.

    And for what? What was their reason from starting the process that will bring down civilizations that had endured for thousands of years?

    I cannot look at my children and feel anything but contempt for that generation. Their bravery in WWII makes them worse in my eyes. You were willing to fight and die to stop the Germans, but you wouldn't go to the polls or march to stop your country from being flooded by Pakistanis, Mexicans, Indians, Africans and every other people on the planet.

    You could have stopped this, and, for that, I cannot forgive you. And I certainly won't honor you.

    You were willing to fight and die to stop the Germans, but you wouldn’t go to the polls or march to stop your country from being flooded by Pakistanis, Mexicans, Indians, Africans and every other people on the planet.

    You could have stopped this, and, for that, I cannot forgive you.

    Well said. Let every cuck receive a white feather.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Well said. Let every cuck receive a white feather.

     

    And if they want to know where to stick it, I have a suggestion...!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @anonymous
    "“Dunkirk” stands out like an anomaly amongst current cinema: it reminds us of who we once were as a people and the deeds we once achieved, and of an English (and Western) culture and way of life, a civilization, quickly disappearing. And, at times, it seems to ask us if we will ever again possess that courage and that faith."

    The western -aka christian- way of life has always been about Racial Supremacy, Greed and Psychopathy (its success is clearly a direct result of its exceptionality in those "virtues"). The world wars are part proof of that, and nothing has changed ever since.

    Except, after those so-called "great" wars, white supremacist scum, have only wisened to the fact that it is far easier, and definitely more fun, to mass murder other perceived "low-lifes," than to kill their own kind.

    There is one other most crucial thing about that much vaunted way of life, which its people are totally blind to. It is erected on quicksand; on Paganism (man-gods), Polytheism and Idolatry. And for that, they get to feel proud and boastful for only a blink in cosmic time.

    The more success they get in this world, is yet more proof that they will never accept true monotheism, and will continue to wallow in that cesspool of polytheism, racial bigotry, greed and psychopathy, known as the western/christian way of life.

    In other words, their skin colour, perceived as one of their most valuable gifts (after all their "gods" are white too, right?), will prove to be their biggest curse.

    The western -aka christian- way of life has always been about Racial Supremacy, Greed and Psychopathy

    Time to go back to the Western -aka Christian- way of life then. Better to be a racial supremacist than to be extinct.

    Read More
    • Agree: woodNfish
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @CalDre
    I think the most important aspect of Dunkirk is that Hilter allowed those British soldiers to escape. Mind you, after UK had for no good reason declared war on Germany. As a military commander, Hitler should have ordered his numerous nearby Panzer divisions (that routed the free-in-their-homeland French combined army in a few months, imagine what they would have done to lightly-armed, cornered British soldiers, lol).

    Hitler wanted peace with Britain and that is why he allowed the men to escape. That was one of his two biggest mistakes of the war.

    And no - there was no "spirit" of the British. A murderous tribe of global marauders that butchered hundreds of millions for no reason except the "Glory of Her Cuntness". And no stupid movie can whitewash Britain's immensely long history of war crimes, though it can entirely ignore the great gift Hitler gave to those who declared war against him.

    Cuntness indeed! And, surely there were many Dickness too!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy
    Have to admit I sometimes use "English" for "British" out of annoyance with the Scotch Nat cucks, who pretend to be nationalists but wish to destroy the United Kingdom, and take Scotland into the intimate embrace of the EU where they will have a much smaller (essential zero) voice than they have in Britain: a Britain that they have often, in effect, ruled through powerful ministers including Prime Ministers MacDonald, MacMillan, Home, Blair, and that Brown turn, wh0 called an old woman a bigot for objecting to the genocidal flood of immigration promoted by Brown's cuck Labor Government.

    Sorry, when I said “the Brown turn” I of course meant to type “the Brown turd”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    But however good, bad or indifferent this movie may be, one can be sure that the industry that produced it will never produce a movie covering today’s genocidal war against the European people. Well not until it’s over. Then the cucks, traitors and the Muslim/Hindu/Voodoo settler winners will be the heroes, the British, the French, the Germans, the Italians just a bunch of stinking, wimpering sub-humans (which in view of their present sniveling, defeatist, submission to the forces of political correctness, would be a fair assessment).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. Jeff77450 says:

    Mr. Cathey, great review. I intend to see it and I intend to *pay* to see it so that perhaps more films like it will be made.

    I’m genuinely fond of my Celtic/Roman/Anglo/Saxon/Jute/Frisian(?)/Viking/Norman/Huguenot cousins “across the pond.” In 1991, in Kuwait, I served with some British & Australian troops, sappers mostly, and they were just the greatest guys in the world and very professional soldiers.

    I’m so saddened by what’s happened to Britain over the past ~sixty years. John Enoch Powell warned them, and by extension all of Western Civilization, with his “Rivers of Blood” speech in 1968, but he was ignored and even derided.

    Perhaps this film will inspire my British cousins to do what must be done if they wish to preserve their nation, their race and their culture. It will require sacrifice and the willingness to take casualties, both legal and physical. I wish them the very best. –Jeff York, writing from Houston, Texas

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. neutral says:
    @iffen
    mean no harm to Western civilization. To accept the idea of having non Westerners ruling over you

    Western civilization is a state of mind.

    Western civilization is a state of mind.

    Not its absolutely not a state of mind. Western civilization is ultimately whites, its not about democracy, its not about Plato and Aristotle, its not even about Christianity. I don’t consider India Western, even with its democracy. I would not consider a Europe populated with only Africans (that happen to be Christian) Western. I don’t consider a Chinese man that believes in the rational world view of Aristotle Western.

    I apply the same logic to others as well, some white guy who is an expert on Confucius and has lived all his life in China is not Chinese.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    some white guy who is an expert on Confucius and has lived all his life in China is not Chinese
     
    Hey, will you cut this out. You're just confusing people.

    A woman who says she's a man, is a man. A man who says he's a woman and wins all the women's athletic competitions, is a woman.

    And a Pakistani who says he's a Brit, is as good as any other Brit and probably better, and you're a racist if you say otherwise.

    , @iffen
    You are talking about race, not civilization and the civilization is about Plato, Aristotle, Christianity and democracy (or what passes for it these days).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. In a way, imperialism led to current mindset.

    Before empire, the subjects of European rulers were European masses.

    With empire, non-whites came under the rule of European elites.

    Because European elites needed to conquer non-white lands, they initially needed the support of European masses as soldiers and colonizers. So, white subjects were favored over non-white subjects-to-be.

    But favoring white subjects over non-white subjects was bound to lead to resentment among the non-whites. In order to morally justify their rule over the world, white elites had to move toward Equality of Subjecthood so that all subjects of the empire, white and non-white, would be treated equally. It’s like Roman citizenship conferred rights to Romans and non-Romans alike.

    So, all of this talk of equality is not about equality between elites and masses but about equality as subjects of the elites. It means that in the current west, the elites will treat you, a whitey, like blacks and browns. Equality as Subject.

    But Old Empire didn’t go far enough with this, and it led to mass rebellion against the empire.

    But there was another problem with the Old Empire. Even as white elites recruited comprador collaborator elites, there was a line that separated the whites and the ‘wogs’. So, someone like Gandhi could rise high but not too high. So, this eventually led to resentment among non-white elites who came to lead the non-white masses against the empire. So, empire fell.

    Globalism, as New Imperialism, fixed the bugs in the system of world domination. Look how Fareed Zakaria is given total red carpet treatment and how African elites are welcomed to marry the daughters of white elites. Had he been tossed out of a train like Gandhi, he might not be this shameless agent of globalist world-domination. But he’s been let into the Glob Club, and he just loves to feel the power of the Glob.

    So, as long as you join the Glob Empire, you can have everything.

    In the past, even the rich and educated non-whites were snubbed by whites and felt compelled to emphasize their identity and lead their own people.
    Now, non-whites are welcomed into the Globo Club if they are educated and rich. They can all break bread together. So, why not join with the Elysium than bother with the loser masses of your own kind back home?

    True test of a patriot goes like this.

    Suppose you’re an ordinary Hungarian.
    Suppose one day you become very rich.
    Will you identify more with ordinary Hungarians(who want to preserve their nation) or with rich non-Hungarian elites around the world(who call for open borders for Hungary)?
    If the former, you are a patriot. If the latter, you are a toady to whomever has the power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Yes, a correct analysis.

    The "move toward Equality of Subjecthood so that all subjects of the empire, white and non-white, would be treated equally" was promoted in Britain by non other than Enoch Powell, who in his early days in power represented the Rhodes-Milner faction in the drive for an Anglo dominated world empire. In that phase of his career, Powell was Minister of Health and organized the mass immigration of West Indians to provide cheap labor for the National Health Service.

    Only later did Powell see mass immigration as a disaster. For what reason? Presumably because he really did see that the way things were going would lead to the Tiber, or more likely the Thames, "foaming with much blood," as he put it in a famous speech.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. CalDre says:
    @Joe Wong
    This is the most objective assessment of the western civilization I have ever read. The article does not fit the title "What It Says About Our Western Civilization" but your comment does.

    Your comment about the Japanese is too modest; Japanese is beyond dangerous, they are lunatic, psychotic and beastly. German has conscience because they showed remorse about what they have done wrong, but the Japanese has never shown remorse about what they have done wrong, they are continue denying their war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace since WWII. Japanese is unrepentant war criminal that cannot be remitted back into civilized world.

    People are easily misled by the Japanese virtues, good behavior, hardworking and devoted, and they do not bother to understand the true nature of Japanese; Japanese just follow like dogs, Japanese virtues turned them into ruthless, reckless and efficient beastly butchers and psychopathic war criminals when they follow bad leaders. Since WWII they just followed like dogs to the new master of Uncle Sam. Japanese virtues shifted from serving Tojo to MacArthur and alike.

    Japanese is unrepentant war criminal that cannot be remitted back into civilized world. People… do not bother to understand the true nature of Japanese; Japanese just follow like dogs,

    Mao murdered substantially more Chinese than Hirohito, yet, statues still idolize him throughout China. Is the Communist Party repentant? Or do the Chinese follow their Communist rulers like dogs?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    In 1981 (25 years after the event) Judith Banister at the US Bureau of the Census proposed 30 millions killed in the Great Leap Forward (GLF) based on her “massive death toll” hypothesis, this figure is the mother of all subsequent numbers when the westerns write about the GLF; Frank Dikotter quoted 45 millions murdered in the GLF to win the Samuel Johnson prize for non-fiction; recently Jung Chang and Jon Halliday said 70 millions killed in the GLF in their book “Mao: the Unknown Story.” All of them claimed their number based on secret sources in china. The latest number is 100 millions murdered in the GLF in a lot of western current affairs analysis sites.

    CalDre, how many do you believe deaths (or percentage) would attribute to Mao or polices of the Great Leap Forward?
    , @Joe Wong
    In 1981 (25 years after the event) Judith Banister at the US Bureau of the Census proposed 30 millions killed in the Great Leap Forward (GLF) based on her “massive death toll” hypothesis, this figure is the mother of all subsequent numbers when the westerns write about the GLF; Frank Dikotter quoted 45 millions murdered in the GLF to win the Samuel Johnson prize for non-fiction; recently Jung Chang and Jon Halliday said 70 millions killed in the GLF in their book “Mao: the Unknown Story.” All of them claimed their number based on secret sources in china. The latest number is 100 millions murdered in the GLF in a lot of western current affairs analysis sites.

    CalDre, how many do you believe deaths (or percentage) would attribute to Mao or polices of the Great Leap Forward?
    , @Joe Wong
    "Is the Communist Party repentant?" Sure, the CCP officially admitted Great Leap Forward and Culture Revolution were mistakes, Mao and others were at fault for implementing such ill considered polices, and they vowed not to repeat those mistakes again by reforming the party and constitution with safety check mechanism.

    On the other hand the American and their minions have been bombing, killing and waterboarding on the fabricated phantom WMD allegation that killed, maimed and crippled tens of millions if not hundreds of millions people, families and homes around the world since WWII, have the American and their western democracy partners admit quilts and their wrong doings?

    So far the Americans insist that morality is their birth right, the war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace like color revolutions, regime changes and false flag op initiated reckless wars are all necessary for the good. You tell me who is unrepentant?

    Regarding Chinese following their Communist rulers obediently, I feel it is way better than the Americans and their minions following their morally defunct evil rulers like dogs blindly and committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace on the fabricated phantom WMD allegations as humanitarian intervention.

    You should know Chinese following their leaders and do no harm to the world, while the Americans and their minions following their leaders like dogs doing untold amount harm to the world, yet the Americans and their minions demonize Chinese relentlessly to white wash their crimes, the Americans and their minions are indeed 'God-fearing' morally defunct evil 'inquisitors'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Moi says:
    @CanSpeccy

    you want but nobody with the surname Khan should ever be mayor of London
     
    That's what all sane indigenous Brits want. They love diversity: Pakistan for the Pakistanis, Britain for the British.

    Let’s not forget that Britain at the time was a racist, cruel, colonial empire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Let’s not forget that Britain at the time was a racist, cruel, colonial empire.
     
    So now the British should agree to be genocided by suppressed reproduction and mass replacement immigration. Is that what you're saying?

    But according to that insane, racist logic, just about every nation should commit suicide, including obviously, the Egyptians, the Persians, the Syrians, the Russians, the Chinese, all of the North and South Amerindian tribes. Maybe there was some nation that was not racist, cruel and ready to steal whatever the could from whoever was weak: the Tasmanians, perhaps. But that nation, like the Tasmanian people, has long been deleted from the page of history.

    Anyway how cruel was for the British to prepare the people of India for independence and prosperity in the modern world and then grant them independence under a democratic constitution, as set forth by Lord Thomas Macaulay in his "minute on Indian education" prepared for the first British Governor General of India: a proposal that was followed almost to the letter?

    , @CanSpeccy
    I would bet, from your name, that you are of Kenyan origin. If so, you likely harbor strong feelings about the conduct of British occupation forces during the Mau Mau era. From what I have read of the matter, outrage is indeed fully justified. The behavior of the British forces in Kenya was atrocious. Also stupid, since the idea of maintaining control of East Africa by means of a few gentleman British farmers, in countries with a burgeoning indigenous populations was totally unrealistic.

    But although British imperialism was in many cases ugly, it was no uglier than just about any other imperialism and was to some extent, in some places, at some times, marked by a remarkable degree of idealism and respect for the subject peoples.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Sorry, meant that the soldier would have been 75 in 1995.

    And, perhaps, I was a bit harsh for saying that these men should "rot in Hell." However, I stand by my assertion that the Greatest Generation was anything but from ~1960 onwards.

    Gen-Xers and younger generations tend to blame the Baby Boomers for the havoc that surrounds us. And, of course, it's true in part. But they were simply following in the footsteps of the young men and women of WWII. (A typical Boomer was only ~20 years old in 1970 and ~35 in 1985, hardly controlling the levers of society.) No, it was the WWII generation that destroyed out world.

    And for what? What was their reason from starting the process that will bring down civilizations that had endured for thousands of years?

    I cannot look at my children and feel anything but contempt for that generation. Their bravery in WWII makes them worse in my eyes. You were willing to fight and die to stop the Germans, but you wouldn't go to the polls or march to stop your country from being flooded by Pakistanis, Mexicans, Indians, Africans and every other people on the planet.

    You could have stopped this, and, for that, I cannot forgive you. And I certainly won't honor you.

    You were willing to fight and die to stop the Germans…

    That is true. And it’s important to note that the Germans were among the few who were willing to fight and die to save Western culture and civilization from the Reds of the time who themselves were little more than tools of the moneybags crowd.

    Their bravery was wasted in the service of stupidity on steroids. Used against them in fact and most, wallowing in self praise, still fail to understand that.

    Patton was correct about killing the wrong pigs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. hhsiii says:
    @Carlton Meyer
    An Army war veteran friend of mine said it was boring, and "War is Boring" agrees.

    ‘Dunkirk’ Is a Booming, Bloodless Bore
    War has never been this dull

    http://warisboring.com/dunkirk-is-a-booming-bloodless-bore/

    The author here wrote: "and it reflected a spirit of duty and sacrifice and empire that characterized an England that is now quickly passing away."

    Allow me to correct this:

    "and it reflected a spirit of duty and sacrifice for the empire that characterized an England that is now quickly passing away as a result of pointless wars such as this one."

    Few Americans know that Anglo-Saxons are Germans, and English is a Germanic language, which is why Hitler allowed the English to escape. A German recently wrote that while Hitler was bad, he would never let Europe be overrun by Africans and Muslims. England should send a BEF to defend Italy today!

    von Runstedt gave the order to halt the tanks. It’s a bandied about theory that Hitler wanted to let the Brits escape but there is little (or no) direct evidence. Guderian and von Runstedt’s self-serving claims later aside.

    BTW, about the same number of french soldiers were also evacuated. Most of the little boats were not manned by plain civilians, either, (other than fishing vesels generally speaking) as opposed to naval personnel, merchant marines, etc. The boats were volunteered or commandeered. One of the few boats piloted by a civilian was Charles Lightoller’s yacht (the second oficer on the Titanic, himself retired navy).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Moi says:
    @neutral
    The mistake is irrelevant, lol all you want but nobody with the surname Khan should ever be mayor of London, even if they mean no harm to Western civilization. To accept the idea of having non Westerners ruling over you is to accept the death of Western civilization.

    Some folks feel the same way about Obama.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. … sappers mostly, and they were just the greatest guys in the world and very professional soldiers.

    Somehow, the ‘sap” part is appropriate for those in service of the state that dupes and uses them, and screws with innocent people the world over.

    “The feelings of native freedom among the sons of America, and their own good sense taught them, that they did not need the appendages of royalty and the baneful curse of a standing army to support it.”

    – Mercy Otis Warren, History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution vol. 2

    Or, you could just read Butler’s excellent piece.

    In an effort to PREVENT the war that Churchill called “unnecessary,” (WW2,) this 2 time Medal of Honor recipient wrote…

    “… I spent most of my [33 years in the Marine Corps] being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.

    In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for [crony] capitalism.”

    Major General Butler USMC, War is a Racket, 1935

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  64. Willem says:
    @jacques sheete

    it reminds us of who we once were as a people and the deeds we once achieved, and of an English (and Western) culture and way of life, a civilization, quickly disappearing.
     
    And you dare to use the words "culture" and "civilization" in your sappy praise about a vast and hideous, episode of mindless, industrial grade savagery? Get real, sir!

    And, at times, it seems to ask us if we will ever again possess that courage and that faith.

    The answer to that question is still out.
     

    For one thing, it helps to distinguish between physical and moral courage, which Mark Twain, for one, did years ago, and the answer to the question is NOT still out. You seem old enough that you should know better.

    “We are out of moral-courage material; we are in a condition of profound poverty. “

    Mark Twain (Samuel Clemmens), THE UNITED STATES OF LYNCHERDOM (1901)
    http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/mixed_lit/twain_lyncherdom.htm
     

    There used to be a time (as a teenager) when I liked movies such as Saving Private Ryan in which comradeship, courage, faith and our civilization were glorified. And then I read Howard Zinn’s essay ‘Private Ryan saves war’ and I changed my mind. Now I find no liking in war movies in which the reason of why this war was fought is not mentioned, and/or is buried under gunghoism and in which the most important question: Will this film help persuade the viewer that such scenes must never occur again? – is not even asked. Dunkirk seems to be a film with all the ingredients of gunghoism and excitement and comradeship in it without any searching as to why these soldiers were there in the first place, for which reason I strongly dislike it.

    Howard Zinn’s essay about Private Ryan, can be found here:

    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/PrivateRyan_War.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    why these soldiers were there in the first place

    Patton
    Compared to war, all other forms of human endeavor shrink to
    insignificance. God help me, I do love it so.
    --George C. Scott
     
    , @jacques sheete

    Dunkirk seems to be a film with all the ingredients of gunghoism and excitement...

     
    Yup, it's no doubt all about cheap thrills. I have not seen the thing, never intended to, and most certainly won't after this corny review.

    I wonder how much he was bought off to write such drivel.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @neutral

    Western civilization is a state of mind.
     
    Not its absolutely not a state of mind. Western civilization is ultimately whites, its not about democracy, its not about Plato and Aristotle, its not even about Christianity. I don't consider India Western, even with its democracy. I would not consider a Europe populated with only Africans (that happen to be Christian) Western. I don't consider a Chinese man that believes in the rational world view of Aristotle Western.

    I apply the same logic to others as well, some white guy who is an expert on Confucius and has lived all his life in China is not Chinese.

    some white guy who is an expert on Confucius and has lived all his life in China is not Chinese

    Hey, will you cut this out. You’re just confusing people.

    A woman who says she’s a man, is a man. A man who says he’s a woman and wins all the women’s athletic competitions, is a woman.

    And a Pakistani who says he’s a Brit, is as good as any other Brit and probably better, and you’re a racist if you say otherwise.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Matra says:
    @jilles dykstra
    " it thrusts us back to 1940, to a more heroic time when there were real heroes who defended their country not because they wanted glory, but because it was their duty. "

    The propaganda value of movies excellently decribed.
    WWII had the same cause as WWI, a Germany extentending its influence to the SE, British fear that this influence might reach the shores of the Mediterranean, thus threatening British communications with the wealth of their empire, wealth of India and SE Asia.
    Balfour already in 1907 confided this to the USA ambassador 'maybe war was the cheapest way of maintaining the British standard of living'.
    From de decriptions of the movie I do not get the impression that the fact that Hitler let de BEF go, is part of the movie.
    Hitler still hoped for cooperation with GB

    The primary source documents do not back up the argument that the Empire was a major concern of British decision-makers for either World War.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. iffen says:
    @neutral

    Western civilization is a state of mind.
     
    Not its absolutely not a state of mind. Western civilization is ultimately whites, its not about democracy, its not about Plato and Aristotle, its not even about Christianity. I don't consider India Western, even with its democracy. I would not consider a Europe populated with only Africans (that happen to be Christian) Western. I don't consider a Chinese man that believes in the rational world view of Aristotle Western.

    I apply the same logic to others as well, some white guy who is an expert on Confucius and has lived all his life in China is not Chinese.

    You are talking about race, not civilization and the civilization is about Plato, Aristotle, Christianity and democracy (or what passes for it these days).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. woodNfish says:
    @Binyamin
    You are off course right. Most soldiers evacuated during Dunkirk were British therefore there was no historical requirement to portray minorities in the film. However, the idea of exclusively 'English' soldiers fighting to preserve both their way of life and therefore save 'England and Western civilization' from oblivion is historically inaccurate and a myth perpetuated by the revisionist far right. Britain would not have won WW II without the bravery and sacrifices of several million Indian soldiers (from undivided British India), the largest volunteer army in history. These dirt poor foot soldiers, fighting for a country they had never seen and overcoming daily racial humiliations held the lines at El Alamein, Italy, France (post D Day), Kohima, Imphal and Burma. England did not go to war against Nazi Germany, it was the British Empire and without the heroism of the Commonwealth forces Britain would have lost. Brown skinned men helped preserve England's freedom.

    You don’t have much reading comprehension, do you? The film is about Dunkirk, not El Alamein, France, Kohima, Imphal or Burma. Your comment is even relevant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pachyderm Pachyderma
    You have a lot of nerve to lecture Binyamin when almost all including you go off on a tangent once in a while and besides, a single theater doesn't make a world war... here is a clear case of pot calling kettle black!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @CalDre
    I think the most important aspect of Dunkirk is that Hilter allowed those British soldiers to escape. Mind you, after UK had for no good reason declared war on Germany. As a military commander, Hitler should have ordered his numerous nearby Panzer divisions (that routed the free-in-their-homeland French combined army in a few months, imagine what they would have done to lightly-armed, cornered British soldiers, lol).

    Hitler wanted peace with Britain and that is why he allowed the men to escape. That was one of his two biggest mistakes of the war.

    And no - there was no "spirit" of the British. A murderous tribe of global marauders that butchered hundreds of millions for no reason except the "Glory of Her Cuntness". And no stupid movie can whitewash Britain's immensely long history of war crimes, though it can entirely ignore the great gift Hitler gave to those who declared war against him.

    “after UK had for no good reason declared war on Germany”
    LMAO
    Usually Unz has a very intelligent comment section…usually…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    Hitler wanted to ally with england. Historical fact. Thats why he let them escape. England was afraid of the germans potential, thats why they instigated ww1 and declared war on germany in ww2, they wanted to prevent that late comer to the empire party from establishing themselves.

    England declared war to protect their empire, and it ended up costing them not only their empire, but now its costing them their homeland as well.

    Churchill was a despicable cunt who almost single handedly destroyed western civilisation.
    , @CalDre

    Usually Unz has a very intelligent comment section…usually…
     
    Some people are actually educated and informed and to the brainwashed sheeple they seem stupid and irrational .... As Goethe famously wrote, "None are more enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free". His point: a mental prison is the hardest to break free from, for just as with Plato's Parable of the Cave, the mentally incarcerated have no concept of their own servitude.

    Germany invaded Poland, that was engaged in a steady diet of anti-German pogroms - from German lands that were stolen from Germany following WW I. Certainly if the Irish were (righteously) conducting pogroms against the British aristocracy in Ireland the British would respond with massive force (heck, they attacked innocent countries time and again and again for nothing). Would Germany then have the justifiable right to declare war against UK and bomb their citieis to smithereens, murdering millions of civilians? Because that is what you justify.

    As to the "mutual defense pact" nonsense, USSR also invaded Poland, more or less contemporaneously. And UK did not declare war on them - no, they helped them, gave them weapons and technology. And at war's end, Churchill handed all of Poland to Stalin. What kind of defense of Poland is that? Utter nonsense.

    But keep living in your mental prison. Your masters have spent a fortune building it for you, you should not disappoint them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. woodNfish says:
    @anonymous
    "“Dunkirk” stands out like an anomaly amongst current cinema: it reminds us of who we once were as a people and the deeds we once achieved, and of an English (and Western) culture and way of life, a civilization, quickly disappearing. And, at times, it seems to ask us if we will ever again possess that courage and that faith."

    The western -aka christian- way of life has always been about Racial Supremacy, Greed and Psychopathy (its success is clearly a direct result of its exceptionality in those "virtues"). The world wars are part proof of that, and nothing has changed ever since.

    Except, after those so-called "great" wars, white supremacist scum, have only wisened to the fact that it is far easier, and definitely more fun, to mass murder other perceived "low-lifes," than to kill their own kind.

    There is one other most crucial thing about that much vaunted way of life, which its people are totally blind to. It is erected on quicksand; on Paganism (man-gods), Polytheism and Idolatry. And for that, they get to feel proud and boastful for only a blink in cosmic time.

    The more success they get in this world, is yet more proof that they will never accept true monotheism, and will continue to wallow in that cesspool of polytheism, racial bigotry, greed and psychopathy, known as the western/christian way of life.

    In other words, their skin colour, perceived as one of their most valuable gifts (after all their "gods" are white too, right?), will prove to be their biggest curse.

    And yet you write all this BS on a machine that is the direct product of the hard working and productive Western society. The West has given more good to the world to raise peoples above the normal hard scrabble existence of humanity than any other culture in the entire history of humanity. We have no obligation to also commit cultural and racial suicide.

    Read More
    • Agree: Delinquent Snail
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @CanSpeccy
    Agree as far is this goes. But there's more. The Brits and the people of every other Western nation are now in the grip of a massive persuasion machine. The world has never seen a power of persuasion anything like that to which the people of the West are now subjected. Movies, TV, MSM, Schools, Universities, Police, legislatures, all engaged to brainwash the European peoples into a state of self-hate and acquiescence in their own destruction.

    And all this reinforced by the fact that a huge proportion of the population get their livelihood by working for governments, public institutions or corporations that will summarily dismiss them for "racism", i.e., vocally opposing their own national destruction, which is to say their own national genocide.

    Where, or Who, is the American Vladimir Jabotinsky?

    January 27, 1935

    “On the subject of Revisionism, which he has made his life’s work, Jabotinsky is quiet and forceful, with the assured air of a man who sees a sharply defined vision, totally lacking in confusion or compromise, which he knows must be realized.
    That vision is a Jewish nation in Palestine.
    “How can the Jews achieve a true Homeland in the Holy Land?” the reporter asked him.
    “By demanding it,” Jabotinsky said quietly.
    . . .
    “Jabotinsky was surprised when one of his American lieutenants told him word had been received that he was no longer to be barred from Palestine, which he has not visited since December, 1929, when his permanent visa was revoked. He was unable to say whether he would return there for a visit. . . .
    Although he is reputedly a fiery and inspiring orator in his public appearances, this little, almost haggard man is completely without bluster in his personal contacts. His voice has a soft, caressing quality, which carries with it conviction. He peers at you from behind glasses with his shrewd but kindly eyes, asking questions almost as frequently as he answers them.

    “There is one force in the world that really matters,” he said, “and that is the force of moral pressure. We Jews are the most powerful nation in the world because we have that force and know how to use it.”

    http://www.jta.org/1935/01/27/archive/revisionism-is-inevitable-says-jabotinsky-here-for-wide-tour

    Instead of being intimidated and exploited by the “moral persuasive” force of Jews, Americans should, in fact must make the same demands for their culture as Jabotinsky made for zionism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Yes, instead of whinging about being screwed by Jews, European nationalists should emulate Jewish nationalism, which is not to say that Europeans are not being screwed by Jews. Europeans have been targeted for destruction by the globalist Money Power, and the globalist Money Power has a very large Jewish content.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Joe Wong says:
    @CalDre

    Japanese is unrepentant war criminal that cannot be remitted back into civilized world. People... do not bother to understand the true nature of Japanese; Japanese just follow like dogs,
     
    Mao murdered substantially more Chinese than Hirohito, yet, statues still idolize him throughout China. Is the Communist Party repentant? Or do the Chinese follow their Communist rulers like dogs?

    In 1981 (25 years after the event) Judith Banister at the US Bureau of the Census proposed 30 millions killed in the Great Leap Forward (GLF) based on her “massive death toll” hypothesis, this figure is the mother of all subsequent numbers when the westerns write about the GLF; Frank Dikotter quoted 45 millions murdered in the GLF to win the Samuel Johnson prize for non-fiction; recently Jung Chang and Jon Halliday said 70 millions killed in the GLF in their book “Mao: the Unknown Story.” All of them claimed their number based on secret sources in china. The latest number is 100 millions murdered in the GLF in a lot of western current affairs analysis sites.

    CalDre, how many do you believe deaths (or percentage) would attribute to Mao or polices of the Great Leap Forward?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    There were three massive casualty-causing events: the Communist revolution, the Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution. Because nobody loves killing massive numbers of people like Communists. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot - all massive megalomaniacs who murdered countless people to advance their "vision".

    Doesn't matter the exact death toll. Point is it was high in each case, and Mao still is idolized in China. Work on your own demon worship before attacking Japan with specious racist blood libel. If you bothered looking around you you'd see the Japanese have started no war and caused no mass casualties since 1945, the same absolutely cannot be said about China (though, admittedly, it was too weak to attack others, except Tibet and Vietnam, so it focused on slaughtering millions of its own utterly defenseless and innocent people, guilty of the crime of not wanting to be a lifelong slave to Mao).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Joe Wong says:
    @CalDre

    Japanese is unrepentant war criminal that cannot be remitted back into civilized world. People... do not bother to understand the true nature of Japanese; Japanese just follow like dogs,
     
    Mao murdered substantially more Chinese than Hirohito, yet, statues still idolize him throughout China. Is the Communist Party repentant? Or do the Chinese follow their Communist rulers like dogs?

    In 1981 (25 years after the event) Judith Banister at the US Bureau of the Census proposed 30 millions killed in the Great Leap Forward (GLF) based on her “massive death toll” hypothesis, this figure is the mother of all subsequent numbers when the westerns write about the GLF; Frank Dikotter quoted 45 millions murdered in the GLF to win the Samuel Johnson prize for non-fiction; recently Jung Chang and Jon Halliday said 70 millions killed in the GLF in their book “Mao: the Unknown Story.” All of them claimed their number based on secret sources in china. The latest number is 100 millions murdered in the GLF in a lot of western current affairs analysis sites.

    CalDre, how many do you believe deaths (or percentage) would attribute to Mao or polices of the Great Leap Forward?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Che Guava says:
    @for-the-record

    Priss mentions Kurosawa’s The Most Beautiful,

    well, I was mentioning it last summer, and gave it that title, from translation. Westerners generally did not know that it even existed.

    Cheap. For bonus points, i have worked at the same place. Of course, Priss is entertaining but will never reply.

     

    I'm not quite sure how you can claim copyright for the English translation of the title of Kurosawa's film, unless you also wrote the Wikipedia article.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Most_Beautiful

    I can assure you that I made the title independently, and with 90% plus confidence, that PrIss only knew of it from my post last summer.

    Also, that I have worked at the same place, so a special resonance,

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    Kurosawa has been my director of choice after Sam Peckinpah.

    First Kurosawa film I saw was Kagemusha upon release.

    There was a decent book on Kurosawa by Donald Richie that covered all his works, film by film.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @SolontoCroesus
    Where, or Who, is the American Vladimir Jabotinsky?

    January 27, 1935

    "On the subject of Revisionism, which he has made his life’s work, Jabotinsky is quiet and forceful, with the assured air of a man who sees a sharply defined vision, totally lacking in confusion or compromise, which he knows must be realized.
    That vision is a Jewish nation in Palestine.
    “How can the Jews achieve a true Homeland in the Holy Land?” the reporter asked him.
    “By demanding it,” Jabotinsky said quietly.
    . . .
    "Jabotinsky was surprised when one of his American lieutenants told him word had been received that he was no longer to be barred from Palestine, which he has not visited since December, 1929, when his permanent visa was revoked. He was unable to say whether he would return there for a visit. . . .
    Although he is reputedly a fiery and inspiring orator in his public appearances, this little, almost haggard man is completely without bluster in his personal contacts. His voice has a soft, caressing quality, which carries with it conviction. He peers at you from behind glasses with his shrewd but kindly eyes, asking questions almost as frequently as he answers them.

    “There is one force in the world that really matters,” he said, “and that is the force of moral pressure. We Jews are the most powerful nation in the world because we have that force and know how to use it.”


    http://www.jta.org/1935/01/27/archive/revisionism-is-inevitable-says-jabotinsky-here-for-wide-tour
     

    Instead of being intimidated and exploited by the "moral persuasive" force of Jews, Americans should, in fact must make the same demands for their culture as Jabotinsky made for zionism.

    Yes, instead of whinging about being screwed by Jews, European nationalists should emulate Jewish nationalism, which is not to say that Europeans are not being screwed by Jews. Europeans have been targeted for destruction by the globalist Money Power, and the globalist Money Power has a very large Jewish content.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    European (and especially American) nationalists would find it impossible to "emulate the Jews" in their 'nationalism."

    This is so because Americans are too superficially gung-ho proud/arrogant; Germans have (or had) too much dignity; Italians have/had too much grand history; and the French -- well, they're the French.

    Those people would find it appalling to claim victimhood in order to gain advantage: they're too proud.

    But as Gideon Levy explained in a speech in Washington, DC a few years ago, one of the three strategies that enable Israelis to live in peace and tranquility in the face of its occupation of Palestine --

    "There were more brutal occupations in history, there were longer occupations in history, even tho the Israel occupation gets to quite a nice record.
    But there was never an occupation in which the occupier presented himself as the victim. Not only the victim the Only victim around. This also enable any Israeli to live in peace because we are the victims.
    The other day Prof. Falk spoke about this dual strategy of Israel of being a victim on the one hand and manipulating on the other hand. . ."
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGO3eBxQX7Q

    Americans prefer John Wayne smoking a Camel (!) to claiming victimhood; Germans are too proud, too brainwashed, and too guilt-ridden to claim victimhood.

    But Jews have used victimhood to their advantage for hundreds of years.

    Jabotinsky could exult in Jewish ability to dominate "the force of moral pressure" because Jews have perfected the tactic of playing on other people's guilt and compassion, and they concoct scenarios of Jews being perpetually persecuted and victimized, even as they occupy, terrorize, and kill others.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Antonin Chigurh
    "after UK had for no good reason declared war on Germany"
    LMAO
    Usually Unz has a very intelligent comment section...usually...

    Hitler wanted to ally with england. Historical fact. Thats why he let them escape. England was afraid of the germans potential, thats why they instigated ww1 and declared war on germany in ww2, they wanted to prevent that late comer to the empire party from establishing themselves.

    England declared war to protect their empire, and it ended up costing them not only their empire, but now its costing them their homeland as well.

    Churchill was a despicable cunt who almost single handedly destroyed western civilisation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. iffen says:
    @Willem
    There used to be a time (as a teenager) when I liked movies such as Saving Private Ryan in which comradeship, courage, faith and our civilization were glorified. And then I read Howard Zinn's essay 'Private Ryan saves war' and I changed my mind. Now I find no liking in war movies in which the reason of why this war was fought is not mentioned, and/or is buried under gunghoism and in which the most important question: Will this film help persuade the viewer that such scenes must never occur again? - is not even asked. Dunkirk seems to be a film with all the ingredients of gunghoism and excitement and comradeship in it without any searching as to why these soldiers were there in the first place, for which reason I strongly dislike it.

    Howard Zinn's essay about Private Ryan, can be found here:

    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/PrivateRyan_War.html

    why these soldiers were there in the first place

    Patton
    Compared to war, all other forms of human endeavor shrink to
    insignificance. God help me, I do love it so.
    –George C. Scott

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Corvinus says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Rather, it thrusts us back to 1940, to a more heroic time when there were real heroes who defended their country not because they wanted glory, but because it was their duty. “Dunkirk” stands out like an anomaly amongst current cinema: it reminds us of who we once were as a people and the deeds we once achieved, and of an English (and Western) culture and way of life, a civilization, quickly disappearing. And, at times, it seems to ask us if we will ever again possess that courage and that faith.
     
    Well, that "Greatest Generation" may have fought well in WWII, but they abysmally failed to defend their countries - UK and US. The "Greatest Generation" crafted and approved the utter dismantling of the English (and Western) culture and way of life. That generation is the one responsible for causing their own culture - their own people - to quickly disappear!

    I'm sick of the Greatest Generation. It is those soldiers at Dunkirk and Normandy and the Battle of Bulge and their wives that through their own actions or an unwillingness to stand up to the actions of others destroyed our civilization and allowed an unprecedented invasion of our lands.

    A 25-year-old soldier in 1945 was 45 in 1965 when the U.S. decided to change our demographics. He was 65 in 1985 when everyone could see that our culture was disintegrating and that illegal immigration was a huge problem. He was 70 in 2000 when it was nearly too late but we still had a chance.

    He caused it all. He stopped nothing.

    My children will be a minority in the land their ancestors built. My children will be discriminated against by their own government. My children will be in danger because of the blacks and browns.

    All because of you Greatest Generation - and your spoiled children, the Boomers.

    May you rot in Hell for your betrayal of your own people. You showed courage as a young man and utter cowardice for the rest of your life.

    “A 25-year-old soldier in 1945 was 45 in 1965 when the U.S. decided to change our demographics. He was 65 in 1985 when everyone could see that our culture was disintegrating and that illegal immigration was a huge problem. He was 70 in 2000 when it was nearly too late but we still had a chance.”

    Classic case of scapegoating here. In human history, demographics change, by law or by force, for better or for worse. Furthermore, American culture has not “disintegrated”; rather, it changes to reflect the people living in a particular era.

    “My children will be a minority in the land their ancestors built.”

    Then they should be able to use our current anti-discrimination laws to their advantage IF they experience discrimination.

    “My children will be in danger because of the blacks and browns.”

    Fake News Story.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    The usual white genocide promo from Corvinus.
    , @neutral

    Then they should be able to use our current anti-discrimination laws to their advantage IF they experience discrimination.
     
    What a laughable idea, you think that when whites are in a minority they are going to have other races pandering to them like whites do now ? I think the key word, to show where the fault in your logic lies, is current
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Priss Factor
    In a way, imperialism led to current mindset.

    Before empire, the subjects of European rulers were European masses.

    With empire, non-whites came under the rule of European elites.

    Because European elites needed to conquer non-white lands, they initially needed the support of European masses as soldiers and colonizers. So, white subjects were favored over non-white subjects-to-be.

    But favoring white subjects over non-white subjects was bound to lead to resentment among the non-whites. In order to morally justify their rule over the world, white elites had to move toward Equality of Subjecthood so that all subjects of the empire, white and non-white, would be treated equally. It's like Roman citizenship conferred rights to Romans and non-Romans alike.

    So, all of this talk of equality is not about equality between elites and masses but about equality as subjects of the elites. It means that in the current west, the elites will treat you, a whitey, like blacks and browns. Equality as Subject.

    But Old Empire didn't go far enough with this, and it led to mass rebellion against the empire.

    But there was another problem with the Old Empire. Even as white elites recruited comprador collaborator elites, there was a line that separated the whites and the 'wogs'. So, someone like Gandhi could rise high but not too high. So, this eventually led to resentment among non-white elites who came to lead the non-white masses against the empire. So, empire fell.

    Globalism, as New Imperialism, fixed the bugs in the system of world domination. Look how Fareed Zakaria is given total red carpet treatment and how African elites are welcomed to marry the daughters of white elites. Had he been tossed out of a train like Gandhi, he might not be this shameless agent of globalist world-domination. But he's been let into the Glob Club, and he just loves to feel the power of the Glob.

    So, as long as you join the Glob Empire, you can have everything.

    In the past, even the rich and educated non-whites were snubbed by whites and felt compelled to emphasize their identity and lead their own people.
    Now, non-whites are welcomed into the Globo Club if they are educated and rich. They can all break bread together. So, why not join with the Elysium than bother with the loser masses of your own kind back home?

    True test of a patriot goes like this.

    Suppose you're an ordinary Hungarian.
    Suppose one day you become very rich.
    Will you identify more with ordinary Hungarians(who want to preserve their nation) or with rich non-Hungarian elites around the world(who call for open borders for Hungary)?
    If the former, you are a patriot. If the latter, you are a toady to whomever has the power.

    Yes, a correct analysis.

    The “move toward Equality of Subjecthood so that all subjects of the empire, white and non-white, would be treated equally” was promoted in Britain by non other than Enoch Powell, who in his early days in power represented the Rhodes-Milner faction in the drive for an Anglo dominated world empire. In that phase of his career, Powell was Minister of Health and organized the mass immigration of West Indians to provide cheap labor for the National Health Service.

    Only later did Powell see mass immigration as a disaster. For what reason? Presumably because he really did see that the way things were going would lead to the Tiber, or more likely the Thames, “foaming with much blood,” as he put it in a famous speech.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ossettian
    " Powell was Minister of Health and organized the mass immigration of West Indians to provide cheap labor for the National Health Service. "

    Not this old lie yet again.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Moi
    Let's not forget that Britain at the time was a racist, cruel, colonial empire.

    Let’s not forget that Britain at the time was a racist, cruel, colonial empire.

    So now the British should agree to be genocided by suppressed reproduction and mass replacement immigration. Is that what you’re saying?

    But according to that insane, racist logic, just about every nation should commit suicide, including obviously, the Egyptians, the Persians, the Syrians, the Russians, the Chinese, all of the North and South Amerindian tribes. Maybe there was some nation that was not racist, cruel and ready to steal whatever the could from whoever was weak: the Tasmanians, perhaps. But that nation, like the Tasmanian people, has long been deleted from the page of history.

    Anyway how cruel was for the British to prepare the people of India for independence and prosperity in the modern world and then grant them independence under a democratic constitution, as set forth by Lord Thomas Macaulay in his “minute on Indian education” prepared for the first British Governor General of India: a proposal that was followed almost to the letter?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Moi
    I simply made a comment about the Brit empire. And you're nuts if you think Indian people are grateful for having been ruled by the East India Co. and then the crown. I know that because I am from India.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Joe Wong says:
    @CalDre

    Japanese is unrepentant war criminal that cannot be remitted back into civilized world. People... do not bother to understand the true nature of Japanese; Japanese just follow like dogs,
     
    Mao murdered substantially more Chinese than Hirohito, yet, statues still idolize him throughout China. Is the Communist Party repentant? Or do the Chinese follow their Communist rulers like dogs?

    “Is the Communist Party repentant?” Sure, the CCP officially admitted Great Leap Forward and Culture Revolution were mistakes, Mao and others were at fault for implementing such ill considered polices, and they vowed not to repeat those mistakes again by reforming the party and constitution with safety check mechanism.

    On the other hand the American and their minions have been bombing, killing and waterboarding on the fabricated phantom WMD allegation that killed, maimed and crippled tens of millions if not hundreds of millions people, families and homes around the world since WWII, have the American and their western democracy partners admit quilts and their wrong doings?

    So far the Americans insist that morality is their birth right, the war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace like color revolutions, regime changes and false flag op initiated reckless wars are all necessary for the good. You tell me who is unrepentant?

    Regarding Chinese following their Communist rulers obediently, I feel it is way better than the Americans and their minions following their morally defunct evil rulers like dogs blindly and committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace on the fabricated phantom WMD allegations as humanitarian intervention.

    You should know Chinese following their leaders and do no harm to the world, while the Americans and their minions following their leaders like dogs doing untold amount harm to the world, yet the Americans and their minions demonize Chinese relentlessly to white wash their crimes, the Americans and their minions are indeed ‘God-fearing’ morally defunct evil ‘inquisitors’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @neutral

    yet the Americans and their minions demonize Chinese relentlessly
     
    That is an exaggeration, Russia is being demonized, its harder to do it against China because the Chinese can play the race card.
    , @CalDre

    “Is the Communist Party repentant?” Sure, the CCP officially admitted Great Leap Forward and Culture Revolution were mistakes, Mao and others were at fault for implementing such ill considered polices, and they vowed not to repeat those mistakes again by reforming the party and constitution with safety check mechanism.
     
    Please provide links to these apologies. According to reports I have read yous statement is not true and I cannot find any "apology". The Madman Massmurdering Mao is worshiped in China, that's all that matters anyway.

    On the other hand, the allegedly (according to your constant stream of disinformation) "unrepentant" Japanese have apologized numerous times.

    have the American and their western democracy partners admit quilts and their wrong doings
     
    Indeed apologies are too few, but Obama made an effort at some. On the other hand, if Mao had had the power that the US has, how many billions would your hero have killed to implement his "vision" (that failed even in China)?

    Regarding Chinese following their Communist rulers obediently, I feel it is way better than the Americans and their minions following their morally defunct evil rulers like dogs blindly and committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace on the fabricated phantom WMD allegations as humanitarian intervention
     
    LOL, yeah, sure, that's why the whole world is hoping China becomes the top dog - NOT. US certainly has its long list of crimes, but all of the foreigners the US has killed since WW II is peanuts compared to the Chinese Mao killed. His own people! And you worship him! How pathetic is that? It can't get more pathetic.

    I guess total censorship is what keeps the Chinese like dogs in line. And don't forget your gas mask when you go outside to be spied on by 1 billion cameras and your every action tracked. And don't worry, you don't need Google, Facebook or the tens of thousands of other sites your government believes you are too stupid to read. Perhaps they are right?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Corvinus
    "A 25-year-old soldier in 1945 was 45 in 1965 when the U.S. decided to change our demographics. He was 65 in 1985 when everyone could see that our culture was disintegrating and that illegal immigration was a huge problem. He was 70 in 2000 when it was nearly too late but we still had a chance."

    Classic case of scapegoating here. In human history, demographics change, by law or by force, for better or for worse. Furthermore, American culture has not "disintegrated"; rather, it changes to reflect the people living in a particular era.

    "My children will be a minority in the land their ancestors built."

    Then they should be able to use our current anti-discrimination laws to their advantage IF they experience discrimination.

    "My children will be in danger because of the blacks and browns."

    Fake News Story.

    The usual white genocide promo from Corvinus.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Yes, he's a contemptible cuck.
    , @Corvinus
    "The usual white genocide promo from Corvinus."

    You're still on that schtick? White genocide is not taking place. It is all in your feeble mind.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Joe Wong says:
    @neutral
    Churchill was fighting for the liberal global order, the liberal global takes it as axiomatic that all races are equal. So Churchill is to blame, had there been no Churchill there would not have been a Razib Khan as mayor of London.

    My foot, Churchill was fighting for the liberal global order. Churchill was the hard core British Empire imperialist warmonger. If Churchill was fighting for liberty, then Hitler was fighting for justice.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Joe Wong says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Japanese is unrepentant war criminal that cannot be remitted back into civilized world.
     
    But the Japs have retained control of their own territory (well except in Okinawa). Better to be a war criminal than to be exterminated by your own globo cuck, Oxford-trained elite.

    Do you know there are three hundred US military bases in the Japan homeland? And do you know the Japanese emperor and his cabinet are within the cannon shots of the US armed forces 24/7?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Do you know there are three hundred US military bases in the Japan homeland? And do you know the Japanese emperor and his cabinet are within the cannon shots of the US armed forces 24/7?
     
    And still Japan won't open the floodgates to "Syrian refugees," and all the other swarming mass of the world's surplus population.

    Real tough racists those Japs.

    Good for them. I wouldn't want to live in a world exclusively of Japanese. But what would be the point of Japan occupied by Pakistani, African and Middle-Eastern settlers? It'd be nothing but a replica of suicidal Britain.

    , @Sean
    Yes oppressed Japan gets defended for free. So does Germany. Meanwhile the countries that defeated them are deindustialised.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. CalDre says:
    @Antonin Chigurh
    "after UK had for no good reason declared war on Germany"
    LMAO
    Usually Unz has a very intelligent comment section...usually...

    Usually Unz has a very intelligent comment section…usually…

    Some people are actually educated and informed and to the brainwashed sheeple they seem stupid and irrational …. As Goethe famously wrote, “None are more enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free”. His point: a mental prison is the hardest to break free from, for just as with Plato’s Parable of the Cave, the mentally incarcerated have no concept of their own servitude.

    Germany invaded Poland, that was engaged in a steady diet of anti-German pogroms – from German lands that were stolen from Germany following WW I. Certainly if the Irish were (righteously) conducting pogroms against the British aristocracy in Ireland the British would respond with massive force (heck, they attacked innocent countries time and again and again for nothing). Would Germany then have the justifiable right to declare war against UK and bomb their citieis to smithereens, murdering millions of civilians? Because that is what you justify.

    As to the “mutual defense pact” nonsense, USSR also invaded Poland, more or less contemporaneously. And UK did not declare war on them – no, they helped them, gave them weapons and technology. And at war’s end, Churchill handed all of Poland to Stalin. What kind of defense of Poland is that? Utter nonsense.

    But keep living in your mental prison. Your masters have spent a fortune building it for you, you should not disappoint them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stonehands
    Excellent and concise post Caldre!


    "None are more enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free”.
     
    In the US the idiot box- the "electronic communist" has brainwashed the entire nation. Today Americans would not believe anything unless it first appeared on television.

    And this is the major cause of our downfall. Everything on TV is anti-Christian, anti-white, anti-patriotic and communist orientated, whether it is slanted "news", distorted "entertainment", or advertising. On top of this it is aimed at low grade morons.

    Any human adults who will sit for hours before a TV screen betray the fact that they have no deep purpose in life, that in fact living bores them. Their minds and souls are empty
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @CanSpeccy
    The usual white genocide promo from Corvinus.

    Yes, he’s a contemptible cuck.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Yes, he’s a contemptible cuck."

    The train is just fine, Beefy, the train is just fine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. CalDre says:
    @Joe Wong
    In 1981 (25 years after the event) Judith Banister at the US Bureau of the Census proposed 30 millions killed in the Great Leap Forward (GLF) based on her “massive death toll” hypothesis, this figure is the mother of all subsequent numbers when the westerns write about the GLF; Frank Dikotter quoted 45 millions murdered in the GLF to win the Samuel Johnson prize for non-fiction; recently Jung Chang and Jon Halliday said 70 millions killed in the GLF in their book “Mao: the Unknown Story.” All of them claimed their number based on secret sources in china. The latest number is 100 millions murdered in the GLF in a lot of western current affairs analysis sites.

    CalDre, how many do you believe deaths (or percentage) would attribute to Mao or polices of the Great Leap Forward?

    There were three massive casualty-causing events: the Communist revolution, the Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution. Because nobody loves killing massive numbers of people like Communists. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot – all massive megalomaniacs who murdered countless people to advance their “vision”.

    Doesn’t matter the exact death toll. Point is it was high in each case, and Mao still is idolized in China. Work on your own demon worship before attacking Japan with specious racist blood libel. If you bothered looking around you you’d see the Japanese have started no war and caused no mass casualties since 1945, the same absolutely cannot be said about China (though, admittedly, it was too weak to attack others, except Tibet and Vietnam, so it focused on slaughtering millions of its own utterly defenseless and innocent people, guilty of the crime of not wanting to be a lifelong slave to Mao).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    I guess you believe bombing, killing and waterboarding on the fabricated phantom WMD allegation is indeed humanitarian intervention. Even people presented you with evidence to show that the Americans demonize others relentlessly via manufacturing consent, but you still insist those fake news are real.

    In according to your logic both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are mass murderers too but they are idolized in the USA, is it because you have worked very hard on your own demon worship then attacking Chinese with specious racist blood libel in order to white wash the Americans war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace? Mind you in the eyes of the rest of the world, there are tens of millions if not hundreds of millions people's blood on the American hands since WWII.

    The Americans have looked the other way about the war crime the beastly lunatic Japanese committed against their soldiers in the Philippines as well as their allies like the British and Aussies during the WWII, because the American has turned to the dark side of the humanity, their interests are now aligned with the beastly lunatic Japanese, conquering, enslaving, looting and stealing from Asia are their interests and prime goal since WWII.

    The Japanese are different, they continuously deny about their inhuman atrocities, wrongful acts and invasion during the world wars. The Japanese PM Abe and many political figures there publicly regularly deny what the country had done in WWII. More importantly, his cabinet received overwhelming support from Japanese. This nation and many of its people were not only evil but has lost their conscience to enable them to be a normal person. Such nation and people are a real danger to other countries.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Joe Wong
    Do you know there are three hundred US military bases in the Japan homeland? And do you know the Japanese emperor and his cabinet are within the cannon shots of the US armed forces 24/7?

    Do you know there are three hundred US military bases in the Japan homeland? And do you know the Japanese emperor and his cabinet are within the cannon shots of the US armed forces 24/7?

    And still Japan won’t open the floodgates to “Syrian refugees,” and all the other swarming mass of the world’s surplus population.

    Real tough racists those Japs.

    Good for them. I wouldn’t want to live in a world exclusively of Japanese. But what would be the point of Japan occupied by Pakistani, African and Middle-Eastern settlers? It’d be nothing but a replica of suicidal Britain.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. neutral says:
    @Corvinus
    "A 25-year-old soldier in 1945 was 45 in 1965 when the U.S. decided to change our demographics. He was 65 in 1985 when everyone could see that our culture was disintegrating and that illegal immigration was a huge problem. He was 70 in 2000 when it was nearly too late but we still had a chance."

    Classic case of scapegoating here. In human history, demographics change, by law or by force, for better or for worse. Furthermore, American culture has not "disintegrated"; rather, it changes to reflect the people living in a particular era.

    "My children will be a minority in the land their ancestors built."

    Then they should be able to use our current anti-discrimination laws to their advantage IF they experience discrimination.

    "My children will be in danger because of the blacks and browns."

    Fake News Story.

    Then they should be able to use our current anti-discrimination laws to their advantage IF they experience discrimination.

    What a laughable idea, you think that when whites are in a minority they are going to have other races pandering to them like whites do now ? I think the key word, to show where the fault in your logic lies, is current

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "What a laughable idea, you think that when whites are in a minority they are going to have other races pandering to them like whites do now?

    Haven't you heard, whites are the super race. The non-whites will not "pander" to whites, as the non-whites will not be in control of the political and social arenas. The whites will make sure they are leaders in those areas.

    "I think the key word, to show where the fault in your logic lies, is current."

    Think about it. The "vibrants" of the future rolling back discrimination laws just to get back at whites. That would be an admission that such legislation was a farce to begin with. No, those statutes will be in place in the future.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Sean says:
    @Joe Wong
    Do you know there are three hundred US military bases in the Japan homeland? And do you know the Japanese emperor and his cabinet are within the cannon shots of the US armed forces 24/7?

    Yes oppressed Japan gets defended for free. So does Germany. Meanwhile the countries that defeated them are deindustialised.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Sean says:

    “Dunkirk,” then, is that rare creation in 2017: a film with no R-rated imagery, no pornographic language, no torrid love scenes, no PC jargon, no ideological manipulation of the past. Rather, it thrusts us back to 1940, to a more heroic time when there were real heroes who defended their country not because they wanted glory, but because it was their duty. “Dunkirk” stands out like an anomaly amongst current cinema: it reminds us of who we once were as a people and the deeds we once achieved, and of an English (and Western) culture and way of life, a civilization, quickly disappearing. And, at times, it seems to ask us if we will ever again possess that courage and that faith.

    The answer to that question is still out.

    All we need is a war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  92. @CanSpeccy
    Yes, instead of whinging about being screwed by Jews, European nationalists should emulate Jewish nationalism, which is not to say that Europeans are not being screwed by Jews. Europeans have been targeted for destruction by the globalist Money Power, and the globalist Money Power has a very large Jewish content.

    European (and especially American) nationalists would find it impossible to “emulate the Jews” in their ‘nationalism.”

    This is so because Americans are too superficially gung-ho proud/arrogant; Germans have (or had) too much dignity; Italians have/had too much grand history; and the French — well, they’re the French.

    Those people would find it appalling to claim victimhood in order to gain advantage: they’re too proud.

    But as Gideon Levy explained in a speech in Washington, DC a few years ago, one of the three strategies that enable Israelis to live in peace and tranquility in the face of its occupation of Palestine —

    “There were more brutal occupations in history, there were longer occupations in history, even tho the Israel occupation gets to quite a nice record.
    But there was never an occupation in which the occupier presented himself as the victim. Not only the victim the Only victim around. This also enable any Israeli to live in peace because we are the victims.
    The other day Prof. Falk spoke about this dual strategy of Israel of being a victim on the one hand and manipulating on the other hand. . .”

    Americans prefer John Wayne smoking a Camel (!) to claiming victimhood; Germans are too proud, too brainwashed, and too guilt-ridden to claim victimhood.

    But Jews have used victimhood to their advantage for hundreds of years.

    Jabotinsky could exult in Jewish ability to dominate “the force of moral pressure” because Jews have perfected the tactic of playing on other people’s guilt and compassion, and they concoct scenarios of Jews being perpetually persecuted and victimized, even as they occupy, terrorize, and kill others.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Those people would find it appalling to claim victimhood in order to gain advantage: they’re too proud.
     
    Yeah, well, but that's virtually at an end. No one falls for that crap now, surely.

    What I was referring to was the Old Testament Deutschland-uber-alles Jewish nationalism. The Europeans need to get back to their Christian roots: I mean their Old Testament Christian roots and behave like sensible racist Jews. Spitting on those of alien religion and cucks like Corvinus, as Jews are reported to do in Jerusalem, would be a start.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @Che Guava
    I can assure you that I made the title independently, and with 90% plus confidence, that PrIss only knew of it from my post last summer.

    Also, that I have worked at the same place, so a special resonance,

    Kurosawa has been my director of choice after Sam Peckinpah.

    First Kurosawa film I saw was Kagemusha upon release.

    There was a decent book on Kurosawa by Donald Richie that covered all his works, film by film.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Thx. Priss. I also loved his last, The Rain Lifts or Ame Agaru. The last time I was reading about him in English, people were listing his films as starting with Drunken Angel, I thought 'that is stupid, but I was not wanting to offer a correction.

    Even checked the WP history for The Most Beautiful, used to play around there, to make trouble, good at it, so maybe made or contributed to the article, but no.

    Glad that you also enjoy his first major work.

    A point of interest to me, the actresses are all chubby, not in an unhealthy or obese way, but other people were near starvation and being burnt to death at the time.

    I am always to thinking of that when watching it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @Joe Wong
    This is the most objective assessment of the western civilization I have ever read. The article does not fit the title "What It Says About Our Western Civilization" but your comment does.

    Your comment about the Japanese is too modest; Japanese is beyond dangerous, they are lunatic, psychotic and beastly. German has conscience because they showed remorse about what they have done wrong, but the Japanese has never shown remorse about what they have done wrong, they are continue denying their war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace since WWII. Japanese is unrepentant war criminal that cannot be remitted back into civilized world.

    People are easily misled by the Japanese virtues, good behavior, hardworking and devoted, and they do not bother to understand the true nature of Japanese; Japanese just follow like dogs, Japanese virtues turned them into ruthless, reckless and efficient beastly butchers and psychopathic war criminals when they follow bad leaders. Since WWII they just followed like dogs to the new master of Uncle Sam. Japanese virtues shifted from serving Tojo to MacArthur and alike.

    Japanese is beyond dangerous, they are lunatic, psychotic and beastly. German has conscience because they showed remorse about what they have done wrong, but the Japanese has never shown remorse about what they have done wrong, they are continue denying their war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace since WWII. Japanese is unrepentant war criminal that cannot be remitted back into civilized world.

    If Japanese killed millions of Jews, things might be different. The fact is Japanese killed a bunch of Chinese, and the US didn’t much care because the people whom the Japanese victimized don’t have much power in the US.
    But then, Chinese don’t much care about Mao killing all those folks. At any rate, two wongs don’t make a white.

    Also, maybe US went a big easier on Japan cuz it nuked it twice, and that was pretty nasty business.

    Another thing. The Cold War made Japan a ‘good nation’ against against China and Russia.
    And even today, US finds Japan useful against rising China, so US doesn’t press too much about WWII. And this is also why the West looked the other way on the Armenian Tragedy. Turkey is too important to alienate. During the election, Obama promised Armenian-Americans that he’d call out on the Armenian ‘genocide’, but once in office, he said, ‘uh Armenian what?’

    And US attitude was pretty much the same with Germany. The reason why Holocaust became a big thing was because of rise of Jewish Power in the US. Suppose Jews have an IQ of 90 and don’t control much of elite institutions and industries. Would Holocaust have become such a big deal? Of course not. Victim Politics isn’t really about Pity for Victims. It’s about having the Power to press for Special Victim Status. (This is why Palestinians get no respect. Other than Edward Said, they never produced many artists, thinkers, businessmen, inventors, entertainers, or athletes.)
    I mean, how did Homomania become so big? Power. If homos were as powerless as incest-sexuals, there never would have been ‘gay marriage’.

    And we see same patterns in today’s Germany. Germans act so repentant but how sincere are they really? Aren’t they just sucking up to Jewish Power?
    After all, there were two holocausts during WWII. Jewish Holocaust and Russian Holocaust.
    Germans treated Poles like crap, but Nazis were reluctantly willing to accept most Poles as ‘aryans’, if inferior ones. In contrast, Germans planned wholesale extermination of Russians, and the German war on Russia was largely genocidal. That accounts for so many civilian deaths among Russians. Mass killings of Russians wasn’t as organized and orchestrated as Jewish Holocaust, but Germans invaded for lebensraum and it didn’t matter if millions of Russians were starved or shot. So, millions did die.

    So, where is German guilt about what they did to Russia? If anything, it seems Germans are working with Jewish-controlled US against Russia, a nation they invaded and destroyed in WWII. Germany is just Whore-many.

    Also, where is German conscience on Poland? During WWII, Germans trampled all over Poland and violated Polish sovereignty. So, you’d think they’d feel sorry. But Merkel the globo skank is acting like neo-Kaiseress and throwing her ugly weight around and telling Poles to take in tons of Africans and Muslims to colonize Polish wombs.

    So, in the end, it’s about the power.

    Read More
    • Disagree: L.K
    • Replies: @CalDre

    The reason why Holocaust became a big thing was because of rise of Jewish Power in the US.
     
    That and Jews' capacity to tell the most outlandish lies and scream "hate speech" (through their super-megaphones) at anyone who doesn't fall for the hoax. We have Gorbachev to thank for releasing the "Auschwitz death books" and putting the final nail in the coffin of the Holohoax lie for anyone not brainwashed into a stupor by Jewish mass media, think tanks, writers and other manipulators.

    In contrast, Germans planned wholesale extermination of Russians, and the German war on Russia was largely genocidal. That accounts for so many civilian deaths among Russians.
     
    LOL, this is some Stalin story like that the Germans massacred Polish troops at Katyn Forest, eh? And the Bolsheviks did not commit genocide against Orthodox Christians because, you know, it would make them look bad.

    Frankly, the reason so many Russian civilians died is the same reason so many Russian soldiers died: Stalin. When soldiers wanted to retreat as they were being out-gunned he had them shot (while the Man of Paper himself was hiding like a coward in a bunker 1,000 miles away). And the vast majority of Russian civilians died because of Stalin's "scorched Earth" retreat policy - he cared not one bit about those civilians and when Russian divisions were allowed to retreat they destroyed all fuel and food, leaving the civilians to starve and freeze to death. But of course post-war Communist propaganda conveniently blames the deaths on the Germans (though they do admit the scorched Earth retreat, it really only takes a feeble mind to add two and two together, no?).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Maybe Rachel Dolezal is onto something.

    Maybe whites should be turned into blacks.

    http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/hakeem-kae-kazim-zeus-troy-fall-of-a-city-1202499836/

    Now, the British whites can stand in queue to see movies where classic white heroes are played by blacks into ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  96. neutral says:
    @Joe Wong
    "Is the Communist Party repentant?" Sure, the CCP officially admitted Great Leap Forward and Culture Revolution were mistakes, Mao and others were at fault for implementing such ill considered polices, and they vowed not to repeat those mistakes again by reforming the party and constitution with safety check mechanism.

    On the other hand the American and their minions have been bombing, killing and waterboarding on the fabricated phantom WMD allegation that killed, maimed and crippled tens of millions if not hundreds of millions people, families and homes around the world since WWII, have the American and their western democracy partners admit quilts and their wrong doings?

    So far the Americans insist that morality is their birth right, the war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace like color revolutions, regime changes and false flag op initiated reckless wars are all necessary for the good. You tell me who is unrepentant?

    Regarding Chinese following their Communist rulers obediently, I feel it is way better than the Americans and their minions following their morally defunct evil rulers like dogs blindly and committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace on the fabricated phantom WMD allegations as humanitarian intervention.

    You should know Chinese following their leaders and do no harm to the world, while the Americans and their minions following their leaders like dogs doing untold amount harm to the world, yet the Americans and their minions demonize Chinese relentlessly to white wash their crimes, the Americans and their minions are indeed 'God-fearing' morally defunct evil 'inquisitors'.

    yet the Americans and their minions demonize Chinese relentlessly

    That is an exaggeration, Russia is being demonized, its harder to do it against China because the Chinese can play the race card.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Corvinus says:
    @neutral

    Then they should be able to use our current anti-discrimination laws to their advantage IF they experience discrimination.
     
    What a laughable idea, you think that when whites are in a minority they are going to have other races pandering to them like whites do now ? I think the key word, to show where the fault in your logic lies, is current

    “What a laughable idea, you think that when whites are in a minority they are going to have other races pandering to them like whites do now?

    Haven’t you heard, whites are the super race. The non-whites will not “pander” to whites, as the non-whites will not be in control of the political and social arenas. The whites will make sure they are leaders in those areas.

    “I think the key word, to show where the fault in your logic lies, is current.”

    Think about it. The “vibrants” of the future rolling back discrimination laws just to get back at whites. That would be an admission that such legislation was a farce to begin with. No, those statutes will be in place in the future.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Corvinus says:
    @CanSpeccy
    The usual white genocide promo from Corvinus.

    “The usual white genocide promo from Corvinus.”

    You’re still on that schtick? White genocide is not taking place. It is all in your feeble mind.

    Read More
    • Troll: CanSpeccy
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @Willem
    There used to be a time (as a teenager) when I liked movies such as Saving Private Ryan in which comradeship, courage, faith and our civilization were glorified. And then I read Howard Zinn's essay 'Private Ryan saves war' and I changed my mind. Now I find no liking in war movies in which the reason of why this war was fought is not mentioned, and/or is buried under gunghoism and in which the most important question: Will this film help persuade the viewer that such scenes must never occur again? - is not even asked. Dunkirk seems to be a film with all the ingredients of gunghoism and excitement and comradeship in it without any searching as to why these soldiers were there in the first place, for which reason I strongly dislike it.

    Howard Zinn's essay about Private Ryan, can be found here:

    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/PrivateRyan_War.html

    Dunkirk seems to be a film with all the ingredients of gunghoism and excitement…

    Yup, it’s no doubt all about cheap thrills. I have not seen the thing, never intended to, and most certainly won’t after this corny review.

    I wonder how much he was bought off to write such drivel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Corvinus says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty
    Yes, he's a contemptible cuck.

    “Yes, he’s a contemptible cuck.”

    The train is just fine, Beefy, the train is just fine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Glad to hear. You're still a cuck.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @SolontoCroesus
    European (and especially American) nationalists would find it impossible to "emulate the Jews" in their 'nationalism."

    This is so because Americans are too superficially gung-ho proud/arrogant; Germans have (or had) too much dignity; Italians have/had too much grand history; and the French -- well, they're the French.

    Those people would find it appalling to claim victimhood in order to gain advantage: they're too proud.

    But as Gideon Levy explained in a speech in Washington, DC a few years ago, one of the three strategies that enable Israelis to live in peace and tranquility in the face of its occupation of Palestine --

    "There were more brutal occupations in history, there were longer occupations in history, even tho the Israel occupation gets to quite a nice record.
    But there was never an occupation in which the occupier presented himself as the victim. Not only the victim the Only victim around. This also enable any Israeli to live in peace because we are the victims.
    The other day Prof. Falk spoke about this dual strategy of Israel of being a victim on the one hand and manipulating on the other hand. . ."
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGO3eBxQX7Q

    Americans prefer John Wayne smoking a Camel (!) to claiming victimhood; Germans are too proud, too brainwashed, and too guilt-ridden to claim victimhood.

    But Jews have used victimhood to their advantage for hundreds of years.

    Jabotinsky could exult in Jewish ability to dominate "the force of moral pressure" because Jews have perfected the tactic of playing on other people's guilt and compassion, and they concoct scenarios of Jews being perpetually persecuted and victimized, even as they occupy, terrorize, and kill others.

    Those people would find it appalling to claim victimhood in order to gain advantage: they’re too proud.

    Yeah, well, but that’s virtually at an end. No one falls for that crap now, surely.

    What I was referring to was the Old Testament Deutschland-uber-alles Jewish nationalism. The Europeans need to get back to their Christian roots: I mean their Old Testament Christian roots and behave like sensible racist Jews. Spitting on those of alien religion and cucks like Corvinus, as Jews are reported to do in Jerusalem, would be a start.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Geordie says:

    Even the people in Cumbria, an historically British part of the UK are racially more Germanic (55%) than Celtic, compared to NE England 77% (and the Scottish borders)
    If you don’t agree with these statistics, then the difference in stature and personality between the people in the west country or Wales and the people on the east coast of England is also very noticeable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I didn't get your point. Are the Welsh English or not?
    , @Philip Owen
    WW1 recruits from West of the Severn were 2" shorter than those n the Eastern bank.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. uslabor says:

    There is no romantic interest subplot, no skimpily-clad sweet young thing………..Nor, for that matter, are there any minorities featured. Except for a sprinkling of French soldiers………….the miracle of Dunkirk was a miracle of the English…………..not of Africans or Hispanics.

    Well gee, no shit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  104. CalDre says:
    @Joe Wong
    "Is the Communist Party repentant?" Sure, the CCP officially admitted Great Leap Forward and Culture Revolution were mistakes, Mao and others were at fault for implementing such ill considered polices, and they vowed not to repeat those mistakes again by reforming the party and constitution with safety check mechanism.

    On the other hand the American and their minions have been bombing, killing and waterboarding on the fabricated phantom WMD allegation that killed, maimed and crippled tens of millions if not hundreds of millions people, families and homes around the world since WWII, have the American and their western democracy partners admit quilts and their wrong doings?

    So far the Americans insist that morality is their birth right, the war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace like color revolutions, regime changes and false flag op initiated reckless wars are all necessary for the good. You tell me who is unrepentant?

    Regarding Chinese following their Communist rulers obediently, I feel it is way better than the Americans and their minions following their morally defunct evil rulers like dogs blindly and committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace on the fabricated phantom WMD allegations as humanitarian intervention.

    You should know Chinese following their leaders and do no harm to the world, while the Americans and their minions following their leaders like dogs doing untold amount harm to the world, yet the Americans and their minions demonize Chinese relentlessly to white wash their crimes, the Americans and their minions are indeed 'God-fearing' morally defunct evil 'inquisitors'.

    “Is the Communist Party repentant?” Sure, the CCP officially admitted Great Leap Forward and Culture Revolution were mistakes, Mao and others were at fault for implementing such ill considered polices, and they vowed not to repeat those mistakes again by reforming the party and constitution with safety check mechanism.

    Please provide links to these apologies. According to reports I have read yous statement is not true and I cannot find any “apology”. The Madman Massmurdering Mao is worshiped in China, that’s all that matters anyway.

    On the other hand, the allegedly (according to your constant stream of disinformation) “unrepentant” Japanese have apologized numerous times.

    have the American and their western democracy partners admit quilts and their wrong doings

    Indeed apologies are too few, but Obama made an effort at some. On the other hand, if Mao had had the power that the US has, how many billions would your hero have killed to implement his “vision” (that failed even in China)?

    Regarding Chinese following their Communist rulers obediently, I feel it is way better than the Americans and their minions following their morally defunct evil rulers like dogs blindly and committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace on the fabricated phantom WMD allegations as humanitarian intervention

    LOL, yeah, sure, that’s why the whole world is hoping China becomes the top dog – NOT. US certainly has its long list of crimes, but all of the foreigners the US has killed since WW II is peanuts compared to the Chinese Mao killed. His own people! And you worship him! How pathetic is that? It can’t get more pathetic.

    I guess total censorship is what keeps the Chinese like dogs in line. And don’t forget your gas mask when you go outside to be spied on by 1 billion cameras and your every action tracked. And don’t worry, you don’t need Google, Facebook or the tens of thousands of other sites your government believes you are too stupid to read. Perhaps they are right?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Rurik says: • Website
    @CalDre
    I think the most important aspect of Dunkirk is that Hilter allowed those British soldiers to escape. Mind you, after UK had for no good reason declared war on Germany. As a military commander, Hitler should have ordered his numerous nearby Panzer divisions (that routed the free-in-their-homeland French combined army in a few months, imagine what they would have done to lightly-armed, cornered British soldiers, lol).

    Hitler wanted peace with Britain and that is why he allowed the men to escape. That was one of his two biggest mistakes of the war.

    And no - there was no "spirit" of the British. A murderous tribe of global marauders that butchered hundreds of millions for no reason except the "Glory of Her Cuntness". And no stupid movie can whitewash Britain's immensely long history of war crimes, though it can entirely ignore the great gift Hitler gave to those who declared war against him.

    except the “Glory of Her Cuntness”.

    and for De Beers and Oppenheimer gold and diamond mines!

    Nathan Mayer Rothschild, Baron Rothschild, of the Rothschild family, funded the development of De Beers

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers

    in fact that’s when death camps were invented, to kill off the families of the Dutch farmers who the British were slaughtering in order to steal their country for the benefit of Rothschild

    how little things change, eh?

    Read More
    • Replies: @James N. Kennett
    The British used concentration camps in South Africa during the Second Boer War. Many of the inmates died of disease or malnutrition. Nowadays this would be considered a war crime. However the places were not death camps, whose purpose is to kill nearly all the inmates shortly after arrival.

    The principal of De Beers, and the instigator of the Second Boer War, was Cecil Rhodes, not Rothschild.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. CalDre says:
    @Priss Factor
    Japanese is beyond dangerous, they are lunatic, psychotic and beastly. German has conscience because they showed remorse about what they have done wrong, but the Japanese has never shown remorse about what they have done wrong, they are continue denying their war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace since WWII. Japanese is unrepentant war criminal that cannot be remitted back into civilized world.

    If Japanese killed millions of Jews, things might be different. The fact is Japanese killed a bunch of Chinese, and the US didn't much care because the people whom the Japanese victimized don't have much power in the US.
    But then, Chinese don't much care about Mao killing all those folks. At any rate, two wongs don't make a white.

    Also, maybe US went a big easier on Japan cuz it nuked it twice, and that was pretty nasty business.

    Another thing. The Cold War made Japan a 'good nation' against against China and Russia.
    And even today, US finds Japan useful against rising China, so US doesn't press too much about WWII. And this is also why the West looked the other way on the Armenian Tragedy. Turkey is too important to alienate. During the election, Obama promised Armenian-Americans that he'd call out on the Armenian 'genocide', but once in office, he said, 'uh Armenian what?'

    And US attitude was pretty much the same with Germany. The reason why Holocaust became a big thing was because of rise of Jewish Power in the US. Suppose Jews have an IQ of 90 and don't control much of elite institutions and industries. Would Holocaust have become such a big deal? Of course not. Victim Politics isn't really about Pity for Victims. It's about having the Power to press for Special Victim Status. (This is why Palestinians get no respect. Other than Edward Said, they never produced many artists, thinkers, businessmen, inventors, entertainers, or athletes.)
    I mean, how did Homomania become so big? Power. If homos were as powerless as incest-sexuals, there never would have been 'gay marriage'.

    And we see same patterns in today's Germany. Germans act so repentant but how sincere are they really? Aren't they just sucking up to Jewish Power?
    After all, there were two holocausts during WWII. Jewish Holocaust and Russian Holocaust.
    Germans treated Poles like crap, but Nazis were reluctantly willing to accept most Poles as 'aryans', if inferior ones. In contrast, Germans planned wholesale extermination of Russians, and the German war on Russia was largely genocidal. That accounts for so many civilian deaths among Russians. Mass killings of Russians wasn't as organized and orchestrated as Jewish Holocaust, but Germans invaded for lebensraum and it didn't matter if millions of Russians were starved or shot. So, millions did die.

    So, where is German guilt about what they did to Russia? If anything, it seems Germans are working with Jewish-controlled US against Russia, a nation they invaded and destroyed in WWII. Germany is just Whore-many.

    Also, where is German conscience on Poland? During WWII, Germans trampled all over Poland and violated Polish sovereignty. So, you'd think they'd feel sorry. But Merkel the globo skank is acting like neo-Kaiseress and throwing her ugly weight around and telling Poles to take in tons of Africans and Muslims to colonize Polish wombs.

    So, in the end, it's about the power.

    The reason why Holocaust became a big thing was because of rise of Jewish Power in the US.

    That and Jews’ capacity to tell the most outlandish lies and scream “hate speech” (through their super-megaphones) at anyone who doesn’t fall for the hoax. We have Gorbachev to thank for releasing the “Auschwitz death books” and putting the final nail in the coffin of the Holohoax lie for anyone not brainwashed into a stupor by Jewish mass media, think tanks, writers and other manipulators.

    In contrast, Germans planned wholesale extermination of Russians, and the German war on Russia was largely genocidal. That accounts for so many civilian deaths among Russians.

    LOL, this is some Stalin story like that the Germans massacred Polish troops at Katyn Forest, eh? And the Bolsheviks did not commit genocide against Orthodox Christians because, you know, it would make them look bad.

    Frankly, the reason so many Russian civilians died is the same reason so many Russian soldiers died: Stalin. When soldiers wanted to retreat as they were being out-gunned he had them shot (while the Man of Paper himself was hiding like a coward in a bunker 1,000 miles away). And the vast majority of Russian civilians died because of Stalin’s “scorched Earth” retreat policy – he cared not one bit about those civilians and when Russian divisions were allowed to retreat they destroyed all fuel and food, leaving the civilians to starve and freeze to death. But of course post-war Communist propaganda conveniently blames the deaths on the Germans (though they do admit the scorched Earth retreat, it really only takes a feeble mind to add two and two together, no?).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    Frankly, the reason so many Russian civilians died is the same reason so many Russian soldiers died: Stalin. When soldiers wanted to retreat as they were being out-gunned he had them shot (while the Man of Paper himself was hiding like a coward in a bunker 1,000 miles away). And the vast majority of Russian civilians died because of Stalin’s “scorched Earth” retreat policy – he cared not one bit about those civilians and when Russian divisions were allowed to retreat they destroyed all fuel and food, leaving the civilians to starve and freeze to death.

    Whatever Stalin's orders were, they were defending their own nation from German invaders, and it was the Germans who killed them. Maybe Stalin's orders were inhuman, but Russians were still defending their own turf, and they were gunned down by invading Germans.

    As for civilian deaths, you are right that many died from countless factors. They were not all killed by Germans. But it was overall German policy to wipe out huge numbers of Russians and make room for German settlers.

    And just consider how the Germans treated Soviet prisoners of war. Many were left to starve to death.

    Take Ukraine for instance. That was one part that welcomed the Germans as liberators because Soviets had been so brutal. But it wasn't long before majority of Ukrainians came to hate the Germans. Sure, some Ukrainians joined the German military, especially as Germans were short of men and were finally willing to accept anyone.

    There were bogus moralists who condemned Nazis but made excuses for Stalin.
    There were bogus moralists who condemned Commies but made excuses for Hitler.

    We need to condemn both tyrants.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @anonymous
    "A German recently wrote that while Hitler was bad, he would never let Europe be overrun by ... and Muslims."

    Perhaps you pagan polytheists (essentially spiritual savages) could do with some true monotheism, even if brought forth by perceived "low-lifes"?

    No? Ok, to Hell with the naysayers!

    Your rather enigmatic post (and, after reading it thrice, I am not at all sure what your point is) contains a description of “pagan polytheists” as “(essentially spiritual savages)”.

    If you are cheerleading for the Abrahamic Faiths, you might be more effective if you put some meat on the bones of what is basically simply name-calling.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. Joe Wong says:
    @CalDre
    There were three massive casualty-causing events: the Communist revolution, the Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution. Because nobody loves killing massive numbers of people like Communists. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot - all massive megalomaniacs who murdered countless people to advance their "vision".

    Doesn't matter the exact death toll. Point is it was high in each case, and Mao still is idolized in China. Work on your own demon worship before attacking Japan with specious racist blood libel. If you bothered looking around you you'd see the Japanese have started no war and caused no mass casualties since 1945, the same absolutely cannot be said about China (though, admittedly, it was too weak to attack others, except Tibet and Vietnam, so it focused on slaughtering millions of its own utterly defenseless and innocent people, guilty of the crime of not wanting to be a lifelong slave to Mao).

    I guess you believe bombing, killing and waterboarding on the fabricated phantom WMD allegation is indeed humanitarian intervention. Even people presented you with evidence to show that the Americans demonize others relentlessly via manufacturing consent, but you still insist those fake news are real.

    In according to your logic both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are mass murderers too but they are idolized in the USA, is it because you have worked very hard on your own demon worship then attacking Chinese with specious racist blood libel in order to white wash the Americans war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace? Mind you in the eyes of the rest of the world, there are tens of millions if not hundreds of millions people’s blood on the American hands since WWII.

    The Americans have looked the other way about the war crime the beastly lunatic Japanese committed against their soldiers in the Philippines as well as their allies like the British and Aussies during the WWII, because the American has turned to the dark side of the humanity, their interests are now aligned with the beastly lunatic Japanese, conquering, enslaving, looting and stealing from Asia are their interests and prime goal since WWII.

    The Japanese are different, they continuously deny about their inhuman atrocities, wrongful acts and invasion during the world wars. The Japanese PM Abe and many political figures there publicly regularly deny what the country had done in WWII. More importantly, his cabinet received overwhelming support from Japanese. This nation and many of its people were not only evil but has lost their conscience to enable them to be a normal person. Such nation and people are a real danger to other countries.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)
    "Mind you in the eyes of the rest of the world, there are tens of millions if not hundreds of millions people's blood on the American hands since WWII."

    The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was designed with your kind in mind.

    I do hope I haven't hurt your honorable feelings.

    Here's a little something to cheer you up:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ls5fgD2_bF8

    , @CalDre

    I guess you believe bombing, killing and waterboarding on the fabricated phantom WMD allegation is indeed humanitarian intervention.
     
    Unsurprisingly, you guess wrong. And waterboarding was done to a few hundred at most, that's not even a few hours work for Mao. But he had much better techniques. And the torture techniques your Commie heroes use even today on Falon Gong and other "dissidents" make waterboarding look like a child's game.

    In according to your logic both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are mass murderers too but they are idolized in the USA
     
    George Washington didn't kill countless Americans, he killed British and Native Americans in war. On the other hand Lincoln is guilty as charged, but (i) there is not nearly the idolatry of him as of Mao in China, it is simply incomparable (e.g., aside from a the Lincoln Memorial in Washington built in 1922, I've not seen a single monument or poster for Lincoln, though he is on the penny ($0.01) and the five dollar bill), and (ii) he was fighting a war (i.e., against armed men) to keep a country united (and arguably to defeat slavery, which is the reason China gives for invading Tibet, no?), whereas Mao was mass murdering middle class intellectuals because they were too "bourgeois" (i.e. Mao didn't like them) and peasants because they did not want to be enslaved by the Red Guard. By the millions. Can you spot the difference?

    then attacking Chinese with specious racist blood libel in order to white wash the Americans war crimes
     
    Actually, it was you who started with racist blood libel against Japanese, who unlike the Communists, have often and repeatedly apologized for their role in WW II. Then I simply pointed to how evil MAO was (not all Chinese, you utter moron) and you start with all of this blood libel against Americans. You are obviously an ignorant Communist racist and Chinese supremacist. You are a very poor ambassador for your people.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @Corvinus
    "Yes, he’s a contemptible cuck."

    The train is just fine, Beefy, the train is just fine.

    Glad to hear. You’re still a cuck.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @George Orwell
    Only the craven would glorify a military retreat where cowards ran from their enemy with their tails tucked between their legs. What's next, a movie about the US marines fleeing from the Chinese and North Koreans during the battle of the Chosin reservoir?

    Sure, why not?

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045082/

    “Retreat, Hell!”

    The saga of a battalion of U.S. Marines during the Korean War, starting with their training, landing at Inchon in 1950, advance into North Korea and their subsequent retreat back to the 38th parallel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Wally says:
    @Joe Wong
    This is the most objective assessment of the western civilization I have ever read. The article does not fit the title "What It Says About Our Western Civilization" but your comment does.

    Your comment about the Japanese is too modest; Japanese is beyond dangerous, they are lunatic, psychotic and beastly. German has conscience because they showed remorse about what they have done wrong, but the Japanese has never shown remorse about what they have done wrong, they are continue denying their war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace since WWII. Japanese is unrepentant war criminal that cannot be remitted back into civilized world.

    People are easily misled by the Japanese virtues, good behavior, hardworking and devoted, and they do not bother to understand the true nature of Japanese; Japanese just follow like dogs, Japanese virtues turned them into ruthless, reckless and efficient beastly butchers and psychopathic war criminals when they follow bad leaders. Since WWII they just followed like dogs to the new master of Uncle Sam. Japanese virtues shifted from serving Tojo to MacArthur and alike.

    Your proof is what?

    Because a Chinaman says so?

    I’ll take Japan over creepy ‘Israel’ any day.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. iffen says:
    @Geordie
    Even the people in Cumbria, an historically British part of the UK are racially more Germanic (55%) than Celtic, compared to NE England 77% (and the Scottish borders)
    If you don't agree with these statistics, then the difference in stature and personality between the people in the west country or Wales and the people on the east coast of England is also very noticeable.

    I didn’t get your point. Are the Welsh English or not?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    No. And the English on the East coast were probably there long before the Anglo-Saxons. They invented the horse collar to pull heavy ploughs which allowed them to use heavy clay soils in the Midlands and become the dominant group.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Ossettian says:
    @CanSpeccy
    Yes, a correct analysis.

    The "move toward Equality of Subjecthood so that all subjects of the empire, white and non-white, would be treated equally" was promoted in Britain by non other than Enoch Powell, who in his early days in power represented the Rhodes-Milner faction in the drive for an Anglo dominated world empire. In that phase of his career, Powell was Minister of Health and organized the mass immigration of West Indians to provide cheap labor for the National Health Service.

    Only later did Powell see mass immigration as a disaster. For what reason? Presumably because he really did see that the way things were going would lead to the Tiber, or more likely the Thames, "foaming with much blood," as he put it in a famous speech.

    ” Powell was Minister of Health and organized the mass immigration of West Indians to provide cheap labor for the National Health Service. ”

    Not this old lie yet again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    There's no question Powell was minister of Health between 1960 and 63. Morover, according to Wikipedia:

    "During the early 1960s, Powell was asked about the recruitment of immigrant workers for the NHS, he replied by saying "recruitment was in the hands of the hospital authorities, but this was something that happened of its own accord given that there was no bar upon entry and employment in the United Kingdom to those from the West Indies or anywhere else [in the Commonwealth or colonies]."

    So I stand corrected. Powell did not organize the immigration of NHS workers from the West Indies. Nevertheless, immigration of NHS workers from the West Indies occurred on a presumably substantial scale while Powell was Minister of Health.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @woodNfish
    You don't have much reading comprehension, do you? The film is about Dunkirk, not El Alamein, France, Kohima, Imphal or Burma. Your comment is even relevant.

    You have a lot of nerve to lecture Binyamin when almost all including you go off on a tangent once in a while and besides, a single theater doesn’t make a world war… here is a clear case of pot calling kettle black!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @jacques sheete

    WWII had the same cause as WWI, a Germany extending its influence to the SE, British fear that this influence might reach the shores of the Mediterranean, thus threatening British communications with the wealth of their empire, wealth of India and SE Asia.
     
    It was a factor, not the cause in the decision of the Brits to wage war against Germany again , the true cause was the same as the cause of ww1 as you noted...

    Why, my fellow citizens, is there any man here or any woman, let me say is there any child here, who does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry…and the reason why some nations went into the war against Germany was that they thought Germany would get the commercial advantage of them. The seed of the jealousy, the seed of the deep-seated hatred was hot, successful commercial and industrial rivalry…

    This war, in its inception was a commercial and industrial war. It was not a political war.

    -Woodrow Wilson, Address at the Coliseum in St. Louis, Missouri, September 5, 1919

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=117365
     
    This concept should be drilled into the skulls of every person who believes he's entitled to an opinion on the subject Unfortunately it never will be.

    The seed of the jealousy, the seed of the deep-seated hatred was hot, successful commercial and industrial rivalry…

    Funny how the main war aim of the Germans in both World Wars was expansion eastwards.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Funny how the main war aim of the Germans in both World Wars was expansion eastwards.
     
    Kindly provide evidence to support your claim, and please avoid recycling century old propaganda.

    Meanwhile, here's a primer for ya.


    “… this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler, and about the Japanese, is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this nightmare evidence is either completely untrue or not entirely the truth.

    If people should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler's Germany, then they will begin to ask questions, and searching questions…”

    - Murray Rothbard, Review of The Origins of the Second World War, 1966
    http://mises.org/daily/2592
     

    , @jacques sheete

    Funny how the main war aim of the Germans in both World Wars was expansion eastwards.
     
    Actually, the main war aim of the German leadership was to stay out of war, and that goes for both 1 & 2.

    Nock’s “ Myth of a Guilty Nation” exposes the preparation for war against Germany while pretending it was the only guilty power.

    http://www.unz.org/Pub/LibertarianRev-1974nov-00001a02

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @Joe Wong
    I guess you believe bombing, killing and waterboarding on the fabricated phantom WMD allegation is indeed humanitarian intervention. Even people presented you with evidence to show that the Americans demonize others relentlessly via manufacturing consent, but you still insist those fake news are real.

    In according to your logic both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are mass murderers too but they are idolized in the USA, is it because you have worked very hard on your own demon worship then attacking Chinese with specious racist blood libel in order to white wash the Americans war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace? Mind you in the eyes of the rest of the world, there are tens of millions if not hundreds of millions people's blood on the American hands since WWII.

    The Americans have looked the other way about the war crime the beastly lunatic Japanese committed against their soldiers in the Philippines as well as their allies like the British and Aussies during the WWII, because the American has turned to the dark side of the humanity, their interests are now aligned with the beastly lunatic Japanese, conquering, enslaving, looting and stealing from Asia are their interests and prime goal since WWII.

    The Japanese are different, they continuously deny about their inhuman atrocities, wrongful acts and invasion during the world wars. The Japanese PM Abe and many political figures there publicly regularly deny what the country had done in WWII. More importantly, his cabinet received overwhelming support from Japanese. This nation and many of its people were not only evil but has lost their conscience to enable them to be a normal person. Such nation and people are a real danger to other countries.

    “Mind you in the eyes of the rest of the world, there are tens of millions if not hundreds of millions people’s blood on the American hands since WWII.”

    The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was designed with your kind in mind.

    I do hope I haven’t hurt your honorable feelings.

    Here’s a little something to cheer you up:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @Rurik

    except the “Glory of Her Cuntness”.
     
    and for De Beers and Oppenheimer gold and diamond mines!

    Nathan Mayer Rothschild, Baron Rothschild, of the Rothschild family, funded the development of De Beers
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers

    in fact that's when death camps were invented, to kill off the families of the Dutch farmers who the British were slaughtering in order to steal their country for the benefit of Rothschild

    how little things change, eh?

    The British used concentration camps in South Africa during the Second Boer War. Many of the inmates died of disease or malnutrition. Nowadays this would be considered a war crime. However the places were not death camps, whose purpose is to kill nearly all the inmates shortly after arrival.

    The principal of De Beers, and the instigator of the Second Boer War, was Cecil Rhodes, not Rothschild.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    James N. Kenneth:

    While purposeful deaths may or may not have been desired by the British in either the Boer War or the Irish famine, the end results were the same: actual or incidental genocide!

    , @Rurik

    However the places were not death camps, whose purpose is to kill nearly all the inmates shortly after arrival.
     
    like Eisenhower's death camps for teenage German boys after the war was over?

    No, I suppose the conditions were at least better than that, but not by much. The intention of the camps was to break the spirit of the Boers, so that England ((De Beers, [Rothschild], Ernest Oppenheimer)), could steal the gold and diamonds.

    And to break the spirit of the Boer, the Brits used exposure and starvation of their families.


    According to a British journalist, WT Stead, the concentration camps were nothing more than a cruel torture machine. He writes: "Every one of these children who died as a result of the halving of their rations, thereby exerting pressure onto their family still on the battle-field, was purposefully murdered. The system of half rations stands exposed and stark and unshamefully as a cold-blooded deed of state policy employed with the purpose of ensuring the surrender of people whom we were not able to defeat on the battlefield."
     

    The Welshman, Lloyd George, stated: "The fatality rate of our soldiers on the battlefields, who were exposed to all the risks of war, was 52 per thousand per year, while the fatalities of women and children in the camps were 450 per thousand per year. We have no right to put women and children into such a position."

    An Irishman, Dillon, said: "I can produce and endless succession of confirmations that the conditions in most of the camps are appalling and brutal. To my opinion the fatality rate is nothing less than cold-blooded murder."

    One European had the following comment on England's conduct with the concentration camps: "Great Britain cannot win her battles without resorting to the despicable cowardice of the most loathsome cure on earth - the act of striking at a brave man's heart through his wife's honour and his child's life."
     

    http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-History/+Doc-History-OtherWars&Conflicts/InhumaneBoerWarConcentrationCamps.htm

    that last quote really resonates with me when I consider the actions of Perfidious Albion over the last century and a half.

    'sure (WWI) Germany, we Brits will agree to an honorable peace, you can trust us'- as it plots to starve Germany (who honorably laid down their arms for peace) into slavery and abject wretchedness for trusting Perfidious', where there was/is no honor.

    also note how Perfidious forced the survivors of their 'concentration camps' to fight Germany, who had always taken their side.


    4.2. Called up by the enemy

    It is a bitter irony that during World War I England laid claim to the same boys who survived the concentration camps to fight against Germany, which was well-disposed towards the Boerevolk.
     

    James N. Kennett says:

    The principal of De Beers, and the instigator of the Second Boer War, was Cecil Rhodes, not Rothschild.
     
    from the Wiki link:

    Cecil Rhodes, the founder of De Beers, got his start by renting water pumps to miners during the diamond rush that started in 1869,[13][14] when an 83.5 carat diamond called the 'Star of South Africa' was found at Hopetown near the Orange River in South Africa.[14][15][16] He invested the profits of this operation into buying up claims of small mining operators, with his operations soon expanding into a separate mining company.[17] He soon secured funding from the Rothschild family, who would finance his business expansion.[18][19]... ... the company was the sole owner of all diamond mining operations in the country
     
    now, on whose behalf is the British government willing to go to war for, Rothschild or some Englishman miner?

    on whose behalf did England fight the US in the war of 1812? [clue: Rothschild]

    on whose behalf did England betray and then starve Germany into the infamous Treaty of Versailles? Was it Brits who were lording it over Germans in Germany during the Weimar regime, and turning Berlin into a pedophile's paradise, or was it Jews?

    (Not that Brits at the aristocrat level aren't notorious pedophiles, but that's another story)

    so, let us continue..

    on whose behalf did England declare war on Germany to start WWII?

    (only a complete moron would dispute that England declared war on Germany because of Jewish influence, as it ignored Stalin's Russia (and became its ally) for doing the exact same thing in Poland that Germany had done, [and Germany had a damn good reason]).

    ok, more...

    on whose behalf did England go to war with Iraq? Eh?

    on whose behalf did England help to destroy Libya?

    on whose behalf did England try to attack Syria, until an unprecedented act of the House of Commons finally stopped the insanity?

    on whose behalf is England committing ethnic suicide?

    on behalf of the British people, or the Jews that completely dominate England (and France and Germany and the US, etc..) from top to bottom?

    did England and the British people profit from the Boer war, or did Ernest Oppenheimer and the world's ((diamond merchants?))
    .
    .

    on a personal note, I like the British people, but their leadership, including the rancid hag and her brood, (excepting Harry, I like Harry) are all a filthy, rotten waste of human flesh, and a festering stench emanating from that isle.

    It has been during the reign of that inbred family of pedophiles and traitors that all of this evil has been perpetrated. England is being driven into 'rivers of blood in the streets' by some of the world's most exorable, loathsome rats. From Tony Blair, to Cameron to the 'peerage' all the way to the scum in the palaces.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @Priss Factor
    What director Nolan is doing, and doing very effectively, is make the battle, in its three fundamental elements, the real plot, the actual centerpiece of what we are watching. It is the bombs blasting, the mayhem and destruction, the desperation, and, yes, the final and unsuspected triumph of the spirit that underlie the film.

    Maybe it is that 'spirit' that is the problem.

    The spirit of loyalty, duty, service, and sacrifice.

    Those are good values... but on their own, they are directionless. Values need an agenda.

    Loyalty is good but to what? Duty is good but to what? Service is good but to what? Sacrifice is good but for what?

    Virtues can be used against one's own people, against the good.

    Take Germans. Courage, unity, discipline, and efficiency are good things to have.
    But when Hitler shaped the agenda and direction of Germany, those good virtues were used to evil ends. The very virtues that had done so much for Germany led it over the cliff.
    So, national character, though essential, must be led by national vision that is good and sound.
    Paradoxically, a people of virtue can become worse than people of vice if they come under insane leadership.
    Japanese are a people of virtue, a very diligent and hardworking people. This is why they were so dangerous in WWII. The national character could be summoned for a grand project. It happened to be War and led to much havoc.
    Now, suppose Japanese were a people of vice like those black Africans who have no virtue and drive hippos crazy by chucking spears at them. Japanese couldn't have amounted to much and would have been no threat to China and never would have had planes and subs to attack Pearl Harbor. If Japanese were a bunch of lazy crazy spear chucking bongo-drum beaters, they would never have become a major power.

    British are also a people of virtue. But because of these virtues of duty, loyalty, deference, service, conscience, and dignity, they can do something really bad on a grand scale IF led astray. Just as Brits can seriously serve the good, they can seriously serve the bad. It's like BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. Guinness's character so totally British to the end as he convinces himself and his crew that the bridge they are building is more a monument to British teamwork, work ethic, and ingenuity than an instrument of war for the Japanese. He commits high treason in the name of patriotism. Pride of British Virtues override interests of Britain. (Likewise, the bloody fools who ruled UK in the last 50 yrs have built a bridge for the enemy while fooling themselves that it's all about sportingly good British values.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWJkPbBOXL4

    When UK was ruled by patriots, the masses deferred to the Great National Power.
    But once UK came under sicko globo rule, all those British virtues came to serve the new power.
    The thing about virtues is they are not particularly ideological or intellectual. They don't come with the batter of agency or autonomy. They are essentially emotional and habitual and seek something to latch onto. Courage, for instance, can serve good or bad. Diligence can be for working to defeat evil or to serve evil.

    It's like the Kurosawa film THE MOST BEAUTIFUL about Japanese women making lens during the war. They are so hardworking and devoted. But, they never ask what the lenses are for or whether war is right or wrong. They have many virtues but they just follow like dogs. And when Japan lost, they just followed like dogs the new master of Uncle Sam. Japanese virtues shifted from serving Tojo to McCarthur.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfDwlKMyboE

    UK is now under Glob Rule, so all the British virtues of duty, diligence, dignity, and etc are committed to serving Diversity as New Agenda.

    I heard there are lots of scenes of soldiers lining up in queues in DUNKIRK. That shows both the positive and negative side of Brits. They are used to following orders and going by rules. This made them better fighters in many occasions, but it also makes them more servile and robot-like before the higher power. This sense of doing everything by the book and together has a muffling effect on the individual who might say 'shiite!' British did much to develop modern individualism, but deference to class was always a bit thing in Britain. Form was always important, like when a lower class person had to tip his hat and say "aye guv'nor" to a superior.
    Since the 60s, the class thing went away on the surface. The working class got boorish and then got into punk music and then turned into soccer hooligans. But mindsets die hard. Class deference is gone, but the culture of form-and-deference is still very much alive. Since the New Holy is diversity & decadence, the hoity-toity virtues now defer to Africans, Muslims, and Homos while turning up the nose at good patriotic whites who are tempted to shout 'darkies go home'. Consider J.H. Rowling, the Harry Potter authoress. She's a hoiter-toiter in her prim priggish finger-wagging and nose-upturning.

    In a way, the Brits are still in Q-mentality. If Chinese under Manchu rule wore queues, Brits under Glob rule still stand in mental queues.
    Things have gotten so bad that it's time for Brits to get angry and act like vikings and fight like Viet Cong.
    But they are still into proper form and being dignified. They don't want to disrupt the order by tearing off their shirt and shouting "Enough is enough". They don't want to ruffle any feathers. So, if the Power says the UK is now a 'nation of immigrants', then the Brits stand in queue to follow such order. And even those who oppose globalism feel they must stand in queue and then raise their hands and given official approval to say their say. And say it pleadingly... like Oliver Twist asking, "Can I have a little more". Today, patriots must stand in line and when, finally given approval, 'Can we have a little fewer of the darkies, guv'nor?' The Glob, of course, is outraged by even that little request.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAvCMQ_ok1c

    In a way, this negative side of the Brits was evident even in the glory days of the empire.
    After all, why didn't the British masses ever challenge their leaders who told them to go conquer the land of darkies, call people 'blood wogs', and drink tea to excess and pee like mad?
    If Queen and Country told the Brits, GO FIGHT THE RUSSIANS, the Brits just did as told.

    A people who invade other peoples without question are likely to be invaded without question if the Power orders it so.

    Well, the Glob now controls the UK.

    They don’t want to disrupt the order by tearing off their shirt and shouting “Enough is enough”. They don’t want to ruffle any feathers. So, if the Power says the UK is now a ‘nation of immigrants’, then the Brits stand in queue to follow such order.

    In every Western country there is a grave disconnect between the rulers and the ruled. Our rulers behave as if they were governors appointed by a foreign empire. When the rulers fly to Davos to talk to each other and hear about the problems of Somalia and Mali, the people who elected them are a remote embarrassment, an obstacle to progress.

    The key to understanding modern life in Britain is to examine how the Empire used to rule its colonies. It generally found the natives unwilling to work hard, often because it had stolen their land and now wanted them to work for a wage, instead of as landowners. The Empire’s solution in many places was to bring in people from overseas, often India. When more and more Indians arrived in Fiji, tribal elders asked whether there are “any limits to hospitality”. They never received a reply.

    In European countries today, many people are asking whether there are limits to hospitality. Is there an upper limit to foreign immigration, or, specifically, Muslim immigration? According to a recent statement by Angela Merkel, there is no such limit.

    The question puts leaders in a bind. If they answer with a figure that is double the present Muslim population, they know the “upper limit” will be breached within 20 years. Yet if they give a higher ceiling, perhaps four times the present population, the public will find it unacceptable. At least Merkel’s answer is truthful: whether Germany is 30%, 50%, or 90% Muslim, Muslim immigration will continue.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Ossettian
    " Powell was Minister of Health and organized the mass immigration of West Indians to provide cheap labor for the National Health Service. "

    Not this old lie yet again.

    There’s no question Powell was minister of Health between 1960 and 63. Morover, according to Wikipedia:

    “During the early 1960s, Powell was asked about the recruitment of immigrant workers for the NHS, he replied by saying “recruitment was in the hands of the hospital authorities, but this was something that happened of its own accord given that there was no bar upon entry and employment in the United Kingdom to those from the West Indies or anywhere else [in the Commonwealth or colonies].”

    So I stand corrected. Powell did not organize the immigration of NHS workers from the West Indies. Nevertheless, immigration of NHS workers from the West Indies occurred on a presumably substantial scale while Powell was Minister of Health.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Moi
    Let's not forget that Britain at the time was a racist, cruel, colonial empire.

    I would bet, from your name, that you are of Kenyan origin. If so, you likely harbor strong feelings about the conduct of British occupation forces during the Mau Mau era. From what I have read of the matter, outrage is indeed fully justified. The behavior of the British forces in Kenya was atrocious. Also stupid, since the idea of maintaining control of East Africa by means of a few gentleman British farmers, in countries with a burgeoning indigenous populations was totally unrealistic.

    But although British imperialism was in many cases ugly, it was no uglier than just about any other imperialism and was to some extent, in some places, at some times, marked by a remarkable degree of idealism and respect for the subject peoples.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @James N. Kennett

    The seed of the jealousy, the seed of the deep-seated hatred was hot, successful commercial and industrial rivalry…
     
    Funny how the main war aim of the Germans in both World Wars was expansion eastwards.

    Funny how the main war aim of the Germans in both World Wars was expansion eastwards.

    Kindly provide evidence to support your claim, and please avoid recycling century old propaganda.

    Meanwhile, here’s a primer for ya.

    “… this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler, and about the Japanese, is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this nightmare evidence is either completely untrue or not entirely the truth.

    If people should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler’s Germany, then they will begin to ask questions, and searching questions…”

    - Murray Rothbard, Review of The Origins of the Second World War, 1966

    http://mises.org/daily/2592

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @James N. Kennett

    The seed of the jealousy, the seed of the deep-seated hatred was hot, successful commercial and industrial rivalry…
     
    Funny how the main war aim of the Germans in both World Wars was expansion eastwards.

    Funny how the main war aim of the Germans in both World Wars was expansion eastwards.

    Actually, the main war aim of the German leadership was to stay out of war, and that goes for both 1 & 2.

    Nock’s “ Myth of a Guilty Nation” exposes the preparation for war against Germany while pretending it was the only guilty power.

    http://www.unz.org/Pub/LibertarianRev-1974nov-00001a02

    Read More
    • Replies: @James N. Kennett

    Actually, the main war aim of the German leadership was to stay out of war, and that goes for both 1 & 2.
     
    In that case Operation Barbarossa must have happened by accident.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @CanSpeccy

    You were willing to fight and die to stop the Germans, but you wouldn’t go to the polls or march to stop your country from being flooded by Pakistanis, Mexicans, Indians, Africans and every other people on the planet.

    You could have stopped this, and, for that, I cannot forgive you.
     
    Well said. Let every cuck receive a white feather.

    Well said. Let every cuck receive a white feather.

    And if they want to know where to stick it, I have a suggestion…!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. Oldeguy says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Rather, it thrusts us back to 1940, to a more heroic time when there were real heroes who defended their country not because they wanted glory, but because it was their duty. “Dunkirk” stands out like an anomaly amongst current cinema: it reminds us of who we once were as a people and the deeds we once achieved, and of an English (and Western) culture and way of life, a civilization, quickly disappearing. And, at times, it seems to ask us if we will ever again possess that courage and that faith.
     
    Well, that "Greatest Generation" may have fought well in WWII, but they abysmally failed to defend their countries - UK and US. The "Greatest Generation" crafted and approved the utter dismantling of the English (and Western) culture and way of life. That generation is the one responsible for causing their own culture - their own people - to quickly disappear!

    I'm sick of the Greatest Generation. It is those soldiers at Dunkirk and Normandy and the Battle of Bulge and their wives that through their own actions or an unwillingness to stand up to the actions of others destroyed our civilization and allowed an unprecedented invasion of our lands.

    A 25-year-old soldier in 1945 was 45 in 1965 when the U.S. decided to change our demographics. He was 65 in 1985 when everyone could see that our culture was disintegrating and that illegal immigration was a huge problem. He was 70 in 2000 when it was nearly too late but we still had a chance.

    He caused it all. He stopped nothing.

    My children will be a minority in the land their ancestors built. My children will be discriminated against by their own government. My children will be in danger because of the blacks and browns.

    All because of you Greatest Generation - and your spoiled children, the Boomers.

    May you rot in Hell for your betrayal of your own people. You showed courage as a young man and utter cowardice for the rest of your life.

    The World Wars, two horrendous traumas, Acts 1 and 2 of the same play, somehow sapped the Western Spirit, apparently beyond reclamation.
    When objective, non-propagandistic histories of the 20th Century are written ( doubtless in Chinese a century or so from now ), I wonder how they, our obvious successors, will explain the collapse of our morals and manners, and utter disregard for the transmission of our magnificent heritage.
    It will require a Chinese polymath.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Europe will turn into Zulurope or Banturope.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  126. @CalDre

    The reason why Holocaust became a big thing was because of rise of Jewish Power in the US.
     
    That and Jews' capacity to tell the most outlandish lies and scream "hate speech" (through their super-megaphones) at anyone who doesn't fall for the hoax. We have Gorbachev to thank for releasing the "Auschwitz death books" and putting the final nail in the coffin of the Holohoax lie for anyone not brainwashed into a stupor by Jewish mass media, think tanks, writers and other manipulators.

    In contrast, Germans planned wholesale extermination of Russians, and the German war on Russia was largely genocidal. That accounts for so many civilian deaths among Russians.
     
    LOL, this is some Stalin story like that the Germans massacred Polish troops at Katyn Forest, eh? And the Bolsheviks did not commit genocide against Orthodox Christians because, you know, it would make them look bad.

    Frankly, the reason so many Russian civilians died is the same reason so many Russian soldiers died: Stalin. When soldiers wanted to retreat as they were being out-gunned he had them shot (while the Man of Paper himself was hiding like a coward in a bunker 1,000 miles away). And the vast majority of Russian civilians died because of Stalin's "scorched Earth" retreat policy - he cared not one bit about those civilians and when Russian divisions were allowed to retreat they destroyed all fuel and food, leaving the civilians to starve and freeze to death. But of course post-war Communist propaganda conveniently blames the deaths on the Germans (though they do admit the scorched Earth retreat, it really only takes a feeble mind to add two and two together, no?).

    Frankly, the reason so many Russian civilians died is the same reason so many Russian soldiers died: Stalin. When soldiers wanted to retreat as they were being out-gunned he had them shot (while the Man of Paper himself was hiding like a coward in a bunker 1,000 miles away). And the vast majority of Russian civilians died because of Stalin’s “scorched Earth” retreat policy – he cared not one bit about those civilians and when Russian divisions were allowed to retreat they destroyed all fuel and food, leaving the civilians to starve and freeze to death.

    Whatever Stalin’s orders were, they were defending their own nation from German invaders, and it was the Germans who killed them. Maybe Stalin’s orders were inhuman, but Russians were still defending their own turf, and they were gunned down by invading Germans.

    As for civilian deaths, you are right that many died from countless factors. They were not all killed by Germans. But it was overall German policy to wipe out huge numbers of Russians and make room for German settlers.

    And just consider how the Germans treated Soviet prisoners of war. Many were left to starve to death.

    Take Ukraine for instance. That was one part that welcomed the Germans as liberators because Soviets had been so brutal. But it wasn’t long before majority of Ukrainians came to hate the Germans. Sure, some Ukrainians joined the German military, especially as Germans were short of men and were finally willing to accept anyone.

    There were bogus moralists who condemned Nazis but made excuses for Stalin.
    There were bogus moralists who condemned Commies but made excuses for Hitler.

    We need to condemn both tyrants.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    We need to condemn both tyrants.
     
    We should reserve the most condemnation for FDR and Churchill, who admitted that WW2 was unnecessary, and the bankers and other extremists who profited from the wars including the Jews who declared war on Hitler in 1933, the same year that FDR recognized the USSR which imposed the Holodomor on hapless Ukraine 1932-33.

    Germany had long been surrounded by crackpots and at least had the guts to try and resist becoming another colony of the usual scum. Unfortunately they were overwhelmed.
    , @CalDre

    Whatever Stalin’s orders were, they were defending their own nation from German invaders, and it was the Germans who killed them.
     
    Sorry, but NO. It was Stalin that killed many of them, both before Germany ever got involved and during the war. In fact Stalin killed far more Russians than Hitler and Communism killed vastly more Russians than Nazism, but Russians love Stalin and condemn Hitler. Go figure. Propaganda at work.

    And by the way Bolsheviks were also an invading force. Except it was mainly Jews who invaded as a Trojan Horse, but that makes them no less invaders. And they conquered Russia (just like the Czars, who were Dutch-German and not Slavic, conquered Russia a few centuries earlier) and murdered millions of them who did not want to be enslaved by their new rulers (the czars were not that brutal).

    Maybe Stalin’s orders were inhuman, but Russians were still defending their own turf, and they were gunned down by invading Germans.
     
    At the time of Operation Barbarossa, and as its proximate cause, USSR had amassed nearly 5 million troops two days from Berlin (and very close to the German border, which was near Warsaw) and was continuing a massive build-up of troops, tanks, artillery and airplanes. Hitler believed (rightly or wrongly) that, per the Lenininst doctrine of "international revolution", Stalin was preparing to overrun all of Europe. Recall that, at the time, the Communists had a large following in many European countries - in fact, in the last election before Hitler's Putsch, the Nazis barely beat the Communists in number of seats in the German Bundestag (parliament). In short, Hitler was taking preemptive action to avert all of Europe being enslaved by Stalin. You think he wanted to fight a war on two fronts?

    But it was overall German policy to wipe out huge numbers of Russians and make room for German settlers.
     
    That's neither true nor necessary. It was possible for Germans to settle the vast uninhabited parts of Russia, or to deport the Russians who lived where Germans wanted to live to those places (like Stalin was famous for deporting entire races of people for the "crimes" (of opposing history's worst tyrant) of a few, yes?)

    And just consider how the Germans treated Soviet prisoners of war. Many were left to starve to death.
     
    Unlike the German POWs, who the Soviets treated to massage therapy and facials? Millions of German POWs died in Stalin's camps after the war was over. Not to mention the rape campaigns against young girls and the imposition of his totalitarianism on half of Europe.
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
    German treatment of Soviet POWs was atrocious, without question, but the Soviets were not signatories to the Geneva convention and at least twice rebuffed German offers to negotiate fair treatment of prisoners. The reality is, the Germans had little ability or resources to care for these prisoners, and their fate was indeed tragic.

    Worth keeping in mind, that the huge number of prisoners taken during the opening weeks of the war was due to their positioning in vulnerable, offensive salients. The Soviets were most likely poised for an initial strike of their own, before the Germans pre-empted them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. Dan Hayes says:
    @James N. Kennett
    The British used concentration camps in South Africa during the Second Boer War. Many of the inmates died of disease or malnutrition. Nowadays this would be considered a war crime. However the places were not death camps, whose purpose is to kill nearly all the inmates shortly after arrival.

    The principal of De Beers, and the instigator of the Second Boer War, was Cecil Rhodes, not Rothschild.

    James N. Kenneth:

    While purposeful deaths may or may not have been desired by the British in either the Boer War or the Irish famine, the end results were the same: actual or incidental genocide!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {... incidental genocide!}


    There is no such thing as, quote, 'incidental genocide'.
    It's Genocide when there is Dolus Specialis (specific intent).
    There are war crimes, massacres, war atrocities, deaths as an incidental result of military operations, etc....and there is genocide.

    If everything is genocide, then nothing is genocide: the word becomes meaningless.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @Priss Factor
    Frankly, the reason so many Russian civilians died is the same reason so many Russian soldiers died: Stalin. When soldiers wanted to retreat as they were being out-gunned he had them shot (while the Man of Paper himself was hiding like a coward in a bunker 1,000 miles away). And the vast majority of Russian civilians died because of Stalin’s “scorched Earth” retreat policy – he cared not one bit about those civilians and when Russian divisions were allowed to retreat they destroyed all fuel and food, leaving the civilians to starve and freeze to death.

    Whatever Stalin's orders were, they were defending their own nation from German invaders, and it was the Germans who killed them. Maybe Stalin's orders were inhuman, but Russians were still defending their own turf, and they were gunned down by invading Germans.

    As for civilian deaths, you are right that many died from countless factors. They were not all killed by Germans. But it was overall German policy to wipe out huge numbers of Russians and make room for German settlers.

    And just consider how the Germans treated Soviet prisoners of war. Many were left to starve to death.

    Take Ukraine for instance. That was one part that welcomed the Germans as liberators because Soviets had been so brutal. But it wasn't long before majority of Ukrainians came to hate the Germans. Sure, some Ukrainians joined the German military, especially as Germans were short of men and were finally willing to accept anyone.

    There were bogus moralists who condemned Nazis but made excuses for Stalin.
    There were bogus moralists who condemned Commies but made excuses for Hitler.

    We need to condemn both tyrants.

    We need to condemn both tyrants.

    We should reserve the most condemnation for FDR and Churchill, who admitted that WW2 was unnecessary, and the bankers and other extremists who profited from the wars including the Jews who declared war on Hitler in 1933, the same year that FDR recognized the USSR which imposed the Holodomor on hapless Ukraine 1932-33.

    Germany had long been surrounded by crackpots and at least had the guts to try and resist becoming another colony of the usual scum. Unfortunately they were overwhelmed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    We should reserve the most condemnation for FDR and Churchill, who admitted that WW2 was unnecessary, and the bankers and other extremists who profited from the wars including the Jews who declared war on Hitler in 1933, the same year that FDR recognized the USSR which imposed the Holodomor on hapless Ukraine 1932-33.

    Germans were allowed to take Czech territory. It wasn't like Sudetenland which was mostly German.
    And Hitler promised to behave. Brits made the deal in good faith.

    Hitler cooked up excuse to take Poland, and those who acted in good will in UK ended up with eggs on their face. Churchill was no hero, but there is a reason why anti-Germanists got the upperhand. Hitler just kept pushing things.

    Ideally, after Sudetendland, Hitler should have demanded Danzig, a mostly German city. And then, he should have stopped and focused on building Germany. Then, all would have been well. But the damn fool forged a plot with Stalin to take Poland.

    Even so, not all was lost for Germany. If anything, defeat of France made Germany even stronger. And Stalin was so impressed with German victory that the last thing he wanted was war with Germany. He figured he will just let Hitler and Churchill sling mud at each other.

    But then, the damn fool invaded Russia.

    Hitler was most to blame. He never knew when to stop. Up to Sudetenland, he did most things right and had historical justice on his side as he was gaining control over German territories. But once he moved in Czech territory, he was turning imperialist. He was forgiven for that, but then he moved on Poland.
    , @Old Palo Altan
    The Duke of Wellington of the day put it best, and on the actual day the war was declared: "This war is the fault of the anti-appeasers and the f - ing Jews".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. Avery says:
    @Dan Hayes
    James N. Kenneth:

    While purposeful deaths may or may not have been desired by the British in either the Boer War or the Irish famine, the end results were the same: actual or incidental genocide!

    {… incidental genocide!}

    There is no such thing as, quote, ‘incidental genocide’.
    It’s Genocide when there is Dolus Specialis (specific intent).
    There are war crimes, massacres, war atrocities, deaths as an incidental result of military operations, etc….and there is genocide.

    If everything is genocide, then nothing is genocide: the word becomes meaningless.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Avery:

    Thank you for your response.

    Incidental genocide as used here signifies the result without necessary intent!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @jacques sheete

    We need to condemn both tyrants.
     
    We should reserve the most condemnation for FDR and Churchill, who admitted that WW2 was unnecessary, and the bankers and other extremists who profited from the wars including the Jews who declared war on Hitler in 1933, the same year that FDR recognized the USSR which imposed the Holodomor on hapless Ukraine 1932-33.

    Germany had long been surrounded by crackpots and at least had the guts to try and resist becoming another colony of the usual scum. Unfortunately they were overwhelmed.

    We should reserve the most condemnation for FDR and Churchill, who admitted that WW2 was unnecessary, and the bankers and other extremists who profited from the wars including the Jews who declared war on Hitler in 1933, the same year that FDR recognized the USSR which imposed the Holodomor on hapless Ukraine 1932-33.

    Germans were allowed to take Czech territory. It wasn’t like Sudetenland which was mostly German.
    And Hitler promised to behave. Brits made the deal in good faith.

    Hitler cooked up excuse to take Poland, and those who acted in good will in UK ended up with eggs on their face. Churchill was no hero, but there is a reason why anti-Germanists got the upperhand. Hitler just kept pushing things.

    Ideally, after Sudetendland, Hitler should have demanded Danzig, a mostly German city. And then, he should have stopped and focused on building Germany. Then, all would have been well. But the damn fool forged a plot with Stalin to take Poland.

    Even so, not all was lost for Germany. If anything, defeat of France made Germany even stronger. And Stalin was so impressed with German victory that the last thing he wanted was war with Germany. He figured he will just let Hitler and Churchill sling mud at each other.

    But then, the damn fool invaded Russia.

    Hitler was most to blame. He never knew when to stop. Up to Sudetenland, he did most things right and had historical justice on his side as he was gaining control over German territories. But once he moved in Czech territory, he was turning imperialist. He was forgiven for that, but then he moved on Poland.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    Hitler cooked up excuse to take Poland, and those who acted in good will in UK ended up with eggs on their face.
     
    No excuse was cooked up at all - Poland stole German land after WW I, with Germans still living on it, and then was conducting pogroms against the Germans living there. What leader would not defend his people? He tried by persuasion for years and Poland just kept right on with their pogroms. The radio tower incident was also no "false flag", read the details and you will see it makes no sense whatsoever as a false flag.

    And Stalin was so impressed with German victory that the last thing he wanted was war with Germany. He figured he will just let Hitler and Churchill sling mud at each other.

    But then, the damn fool invaded Russia.
     
    Except USSR had amassed nearly 5 million troops within 2 days of Berlin, and was continuing a massive build-up of troops, tanks, artillery and airplanes as well as taking provocative actions in numerous Eastern European countries. Hitler believed (rightly or wrongly) that, per the Lenininst/Bolshevik doctrine of "international revolution", Stalin was preparing to overrun all of Europe. Recall that, at the time, the Communists had a large following in many European countries - in fact, in the last election before Hitler's Putsch, the Nazis barely beat the Communists in number of seats in the German Bundestag (parliament). No, Communism was on the verge of subjecting all of Europe to its totalitarian yoke, and Hitler was determined to protect Europe from this menace.
    , @SolontoCroesus

    Brits made the deal in good faith.
     
    Not according to historian Michael Korda. Korda claims that Chamberlain was a tough and highly skilled politician; Chamberlain made the deal to buy time: he knew that the top secret radars and gunsights would not be ready until 1940.

    Since it was the greatest secret, there was no way to tell the British that they would have to wait until 1940. But he knew that we had to buy time so he bought time. The British and the French had to buy time.".
     
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?429194-4/alone

    ---

    , @jacques sheete

    Hitler was most to blame.
     
    Wrong.

    Because of Versailles, WW1 never ended and in fact, many of the problems it was supposed to deal with continue today. Additionally, not only were Churchill and FDR itching to be war time heroes, but Stalin was preparing an offensive against his ally, Hitler.

    Also, if there had been no Red agitation, I doubt there would've been a Nazi reaction.

    Regarding existential threats, Hitler was in a position highly analogous to that of an Indian chief or a lot of today's leaders who don't meet the moneybags' requirements of submission.

    Forces similar to those that are putting the screws to present day working classes are the ones to blame. In other words, the imperialists and other ruling classes were not about to suffer any competition or other threats to their profits.


    “… I spent most of my [33 years in the Marine Corps] being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.

    In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for [crony] capitalism.”

    Major General Butler USMC, War is a Racket, 1935

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
     

    It's amazing that even today, people continue to believe war time propaganda.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. CalDre says:
    @Joe Wong
    I guess you believe bombing, killing and waterboarding on the fabricated phantom WMD allegation is indeed humanitarian intervention. Even people presented you with evidence to show that the Americans demonize others relentlessly via manufacturing consent, but you still insist those fake news are real.

    In according to your logic both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are mass murderers too but they are idolized in the USA, is it because you have worked very hard on your own demon worship then attacking Chinese with specious racist blood libel in order to white wash the Americans war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace? Mind you in the eyes of the rest of the world, there are tens of millions if not hundreds of millions people's blood on the American hands since WWII.

    The Americans have looked the other way about the war crime the beastly lunatic Japanese committed against their soldiers in the Philippines as well as their allies like the British and Aussies during the WWII, because the American has turned to the dark side of the humanity, their interests are now aligned with the beastly lunatic Japanese, conquering, enslaving, looting and stealing from Asia are their interests and prime goal since WWII.

    The Japanese are different, they continuously deny about their inhuman atrocities, wrongful acts and invasion during the world wars. The Japanese PM Abe and many political figures there publicly regularly deny what the country had done in WWII. More importantly, his cabinet received overwhelming support from Japanese. This nation and many of its people were not only evil but has lost their conscience to enable them to be a normal person. Such nation and people are a real danger to other countries.

    I guess you believe bombing, killing and waterboarding on the fabricated phantom WMD allegation is indeed humanitarian intervention.

    Unsurprisingly, you guess wrong. And waterboarding was done to a few hundred at most, that’s not even a few hours work for Mao. But he had much better techniques. And the torture techniques your Commie heroes use even today on Falon Gong and other “dissidents” make waterboarding look like a child’s game.

    In according to your logic both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are mass murderers too but they are idolized in the USA

    George Washington didn’t kill countless Americans, he killed British and Native Americans in war. On the other hand Lincoln is guilty as charged, but (i) there is not nearly the idolatry of him as of Mao in China, it is simply incomparable (e.g., aside from a the Lincoln Memorial in Washington built in 1922, I’ve not seen a single monument or poster for Lincoln, though he is on the penny ($0.01) and the five dollar bill), and (ii) he was fighting a war (i.e., against armed men) to keep a country united (and arguably to defeat slavery, which is the reason China gives for invading Tibet, no?), whereas Mao was mass murdering middle class intellectuals because they were too “bourgeois” (i.e. Mao didn’t like them) and peasants because they did not want to be enslaved by the Red Guard. By the millions. Can you spot the difference?

    then attacking Chinese with specious racist blood libel in order to white wash the Americans war crimes

    Actually, it was you who started with racist blood libel against Japanese, who unlike the Communists, have often and repeatedly apologized for their role in WW II. Then I simply pointed to how evil MAO was (not all Chinese, you utter moron) and you start with all of this blood libel against Americans. You are obviously an ignorant Communist racist and Chinese supremacist. You are a very poor ambassador for your people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    Yeah, yeah, yeah, you like all the mentally colonized Americans who have been brainwashed by the 'God-fearing' morally defunct evil 'puritan' from cradle to grave reinforced by excessive flag saluting; you guys always can explain away your crimes with the techniques used by unrepentant war criminal Japanese to white wash their beastly behavior in the last 75 years, denying, twisting fates, red herring, fake news, questioning minute details, manufacturing consent, pointing the fingers, accusing the victims, creating phantom WMD,...

    I was pointing out the trait of the unrepentant war criminal Japanese, it was you jumping in uninvited to bad mouth China with fake news, all I have done is pointing out your fallacy, trolling like the unrepentant war criminal Japanese,and behaving with a mindset belonging to the past, stalled in the old days of colonialism and constrained by the zero-sum cold war mentality.

    Go home Yankee, you are not wanted, not invited and not loved anywhere around the world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. CalDre says:
    @Priss Factor
    We should reserve the most condemnation for FDR and Churchill, who admitted that WW2 was unnecessary, and the bankers and other extremists who profited from the wars including the Jews who declared war on Hitler in 1933, the same year that FDR recognized the USSR which imposed the Holodomor on hapless Ukraine 1932-33.

    Germans were allowed to take Czech territory. It wasn't like Sudetenland which was mostly German.
    And Hitler promised to behave. Brits made the deal in good faith.

    Hitler cooked up excuse to take Poland, and those who acted in good will in UK ended up with eggs on their face. Churchill was no hero, but there is a reason why anti-Germanists got the upperhand. Hitler just kept pushing things.

    Ideally, after Sudetendland, Hitler should have demanded Danzig, a mostly German city. And then, he should have stopped and focused on building Germany. Then, all would have been well. But the damn fool forged a plot with Stalin to take Poland.

    Even so, not all was lost for Germany. If anything, defeat of France made Germany even stronger. And Stalin was so impressed with German victory that the last thing he wanted was war with Germany. He figured he will just let Hitler and Churchill sling mud at each other.

    But then, the damn fool invaded Russia.

    Hitler was most to blame. He never knew when to stop. Up to Sudetenland, he did most things right and had historical justice on his side as he was gaining control over German territories. But once he moved in Czech territory, he was turning imperialist. He was forgiven for that, but then he moved on Poland.

    Hitler cooked up excuse to take Poland, and those who acted in good will in UK ended up with eggs on their face.

    No excuse was cooked up at all – Poland stole German land after WW I, with Germans still living on it, and then was conducting pogroms against the Germans living there. What leader would not defend his people? He tried by persuasion for years and Poland just kept right on with their pogroms. The radio tower incident was also no “false flag”, read the details and you will see it makes no sense whatsoever as a false flag.

    And Stalin was so impressed with German victory that the last thing he wanted was war with Germany. He figured he will just let Hitler and Churchill sling mud at each other.

    But then, the damn fool invaded Russia.

    Except USSR had amassed nearly 5 million troops within 2 days of Berlin, and was continuing a massive build-up of troops, tanks, artillery and airplanes as well as taking provocative actions in numerous Eastern European countries. Hitler believed (rightly or wrongly) that, per the Lenininst/Bolshevik doctrine of “international revolution”, Stalin was preparing to overrun all of Europe. Recall that, at the time, the Communists had a large following in many European countries – in fact, in the last election before Hitler’s Putsch, the Nazis barely beat the Communists in number of seats in the German Bundestag (parliament). No, Communism was on the verge of subjecting all of Europe to its totalitarian yoke, and Hitler was determined to protect Europe from this menace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. CalDre says:
    @Priss Factor
    Frankly, the reason so many Russian civilians died is the same reason so many Russian soldiers died: Stalin. When soldiers wanted to retreat as they were being out-gunned he had them shot (while the Man of Paper himself was hiding like a coward in a bunker 1,000 miles away). And the vast majority of Russian civilians died because of Stalin’s “scorched Earth” retreat policy – he cared not one bit about those civilians and when Russian divisions were allowed to retreat they destroyed all fuel and food, leaving the civilians to starve and freeze to death.

    Whatever Stalin's orders were, they were defending their own nation from German invaders, and it was the Germans who killed them. Maybe Stalin's orders were inhuman, but Russians were still defending their own turf, and they were gunned down by invading Germans.

    As for civilian deaths, you are right that many died from countless factors. They were not all killed by Germans. But it was overall German policy to wipe out huge numbers of Russians and make room for German settlers.

    And just consider how the Germans treated Soviet prisoners of war. Many were left to starve to death.

    Take Ukraine for instance. That was one part that welcomed the Germans as liberators because Soviets had been so brutal. But it wasn't long before majority of Ukrainians came to hate the Germans. Sure, some Ukrainians joined the German military, especially as Germans were short of men and were finally willing to accept anyone.

    There were bogus moralists who condemned Nazis but made excuses for Stalin.
    There were bogus moralists who condemned Commies but made excuses for Hitler.

    We need to condemn both tyrants.

    Whatever Stalin’s orders were, they were defending their own nation from German invaders, and it was the Germans who killed them.

    Sorry, but NO. It was Stalin that killed many of them, both before Germany ever got involved and during the war. In fact Stalin killed far more Russians than Hitler and Communism killed vastly more Russians than Nazism, but Russians love Stalin and condemn Hitler. Go figure. Propaganda at work.

    And by the way Bolsheviks were also an invading force. Except it was mainly Jews who invaded as a Trojan Horse, but that makes them no less invaders. And they conquered Russia (just like the Czars, who were Dutch-German and not Slavic, conquered Russia a few centuries earlier) and murdered millions of them who did not want to be enslaved by their new rulers (the czars were not that brutal).

    Maybe Stalin’s orders were inhuman, but Russians were still defending their own turf, and they were gunned down by invading Germans.

    At the time of Operation Barbarossa, and as its proximate cause, USSR had amassed nearly 5 million troops two days from Berlin (and very close to the German border, which was near Warsaw) and was continuing a massive build-up of troops, tanks, artillery and airplanes. Hitler believed (rightly or wrongly) that, per the Lenininst doctrine of “international revolution”, Stalin was preparing to overrun all of Europe. Recall that, at the time, the Communists had a large following in many European countries – in fact, in the last election before Hitler’s Putsch, the Nazis barely beat the Communists in number of seats in the German Bundestag (parliament). In short, Hitler was taking preemptive action to avert all of Europe being enslaved by Stalin. You think he wanted to fight a war on two fronts?

    But it was overall German policy to wipe out huge numbers of Russians and make room for German settlers.

    That’s neither true nor necessary. It was possible for Germans to settle the vast uninhabited parts of Russia, or to deport the Russians who lived where Germans wanted to live to those places (like Stalin was famous for deporting entire races of people for the “crimes” (of opposing history’s worst tyrant) of a few, yes?)

    And just consider how the Germans treated Soviet prisoners of war. Many were left to starve to death.

    Unlike the German POWs, who the Soviets treated to massage therapy and facials? Millions of German POWs died in Stalin’s camps after the war was over. Not to mention the rape campaigns against young girls and the imposition of his totalitarianism on half of Europe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. Dan Hayes says:
    @Avery
    {... incidental genocide!}


    There is no such thing as, quote, 'incidental genocide'.
    It's Genocide when there is Dolus Specialis (specific intent).
    There are war crimes, massacres, war atrocities, deaths as an incidental result of military operations, etc....and there is genocide.

    If everything is genocide, then nothing is genocide: the word becomes meaningless.

    Avery:

    Thank you for your response.

    Incidental genocide as used here signifies the result without necessary intent!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Jo Ann F says:
    @Carlton Meyer
    An Army war veteran friend of mine said it was boring, and "War is Boring" agrees.

    ‘Dunkirk’ Is a Booming, Bloodless Bore
    War has never been this dull

    http://warisboring.com/dunkirk-is-a-booming-bloodless-bore/

    The author here wrote: "and it reflected a spirit of duty and sacrifice and empire that characterized an England that is now quickly passing away."

    Allow me to correct this:

    "and it reflected a spirit of duty and sacrifice for the empire that characterized an England that is now quickly passing away as a result of pointless wars such as this one."

    Few Americans know that Anglo-Saxons are Germans, and English is a Germanic language, which is why Hitler allowed the English to escape. A German recently wrote that while Hitler was bad, he would never let Europe be overrun by Africans and Muslims. England should send a BEF to defend Italy today!

    Some people these days have no capacity to watch anything but action movies. This is also one of the reasons why we allow ourselves to be overrun, because “attention span.” We have in many ways become Africans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @Priss Factor
    We should reserve the most condemnation for FDR and Churchill, who admitted that WW2 was unnecessary, and the bankers and other extremists who profited from the wars including the Jews who declared war on Hitler in 1933, the same year that FDR recognized the USSR which imposed the Holodomor on hapless Ukraine 1932-33.

    Germans were allowed to take Czech territory. It wasn't like Sudetenland which was mostly German.
    And Hitler promised to behave. Brits made the deal in good faith.

    Hitler cooked up excuse to take Poland, and those who acted in good will in UK ended up with eggs on their face. Churchill was no hero, but there is a reason why anti-Germanists got the upperhand. Hitler just kept pushing things.

    Ideally, after Sudetendland, Hitler should have demanded Danzig, a mostly German city. And then, he should have stopped and focused on building Germany. Then, all would have been well. But the damn fool forged a plot with Stalin to take Poland.

    Even so, not all was lost for Germany. If anything, defeat of France made Germany even stronger. And Stalin was so impressed with German victory that the last thing he wanted was war with Germany. He figured he will just let Hitler and Churchill sling mud at each other.

    But then, the damn fool invaded Russia.

    Hitler was most to blame. He never knew when to stop. Up to Sudetenland, he did most things right and had historical justice on his side as he was gaining control over German territories. But once he moved in Czech territory, he was turning imperialist. He was forgiven for that, but then he moved on Poland.

    Brits made the deal in good faith.

    Not according to historian Michael Korda. Korda claims that Chamberlain was a tough and highly skilled politician; Chamberlain made the deal to buy time: he knew that the top secret radars and gunsights would not be ready until 1940.

    Since it was the greatest secret, there was no way to tell the British that they would have to wait until 1940. But he knew that we had to buy time so he bought time. The British and the French had to buy time.”.

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?429194-4/alone

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. rach1902 says:

    it would have made a lot more sense to have made a film about the Battle of the Somme
    now, that would have answered the question
    “the-film-dunkirk-and-what-it-says-about-our-western-civilization”

    “the Battle of the Somme and-what-it-said-about western-civilization”
    answer :quite a lot, actually

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  138. sb says:
    @Joe Wong
    You can blame everything on Churchill, but you cannot blame Churchill turning London or UK into multi-colour soup. Churchill is a White supremacist, he did not allow British colonial subjects poured into UK unchecked; British issued two type of passports, one for the White in UK, the other British Passport for the British colonial subjects who cannot abide in UK and need a Visa to go to Britain (the UK).

    Didn’t Churchill seriously argue for using as an election slogan the expression “Keep Britain White ” ?
    But maybe this was after he stood down as Prime Minister
    Still at that time it wouldn’t have been too late

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @Priss Factor
    We should reserve the most condemnation for FDR and Churchill, who admitted that WW2 was unnecessary, and the bankers and other extremists who profited from the wars including the Jews who declared war on Hitler in 1933, the same year that FDR recognized the USSR which imposed the Holodomor on hapless Ukraine 1932-33.

    Germans were allowed to take Czech territory. It wasn't like Sudetenland which was mostly German.
    And Hitler promised to behave. Brits made the deal in good faith.

    Hitler cooked up excuse to take Poland, and those who acted in good will in UK ended up with eggs on their face. Churchill was no hero, but there is a reason why anti-Germanists got the upperhand. Hitler just kept pushing things.

    Ideally, after Sudetendland, Hitler should have demanded Danzig, a mostly German city. And then, he should have stopped and focused on building Germany. Then, all would have been well. But the damn fool forged a plot with Stalin to take Poland.

    Even so, not all was lost for Germany. If anything, defeat of France made Germany even stronger. And Stalin was so impressed with German victory that the last thing he wanted was war with Germany. He figured he will just let Hitler and Churchill sling mud at each other.

    But then, the damn fool invaded Russia.

    Hitler was most to blame. He never knew when to stop. Up to Sudetenland, he did most things right and had historical justice on his side as he was gaining control over German territories. But once he moved in Czech territory, he was turning imperialist. He was forgiven for that, but then he moved on Poland.

    Hitler was most to blame.

    Wrong.

    Because of Versailles, WW1 never ended and in fact, many of the problems it was supposed to deal with continue today. Additionally, not only were Churchill and FDR itching to be war time heroes, but Stalin was preparing an offensive against his ally, Hitler.

    Also, if there had been no Red agitation, I doubt there would’ve been a Nazi reaction.

    Regarding existential threats, Hitler was in a position highly analogous to that of an Indian chief or a lot of today’s leaders who don’t meet the moneybags’ requirements of submission.

    Forces similar to those that are putting the screws to present day working classes are the ones to blame. In other words, the imperialists and other ruling classes were not about to suffer any competition or other threats to their profits.

    “… I spent most of my [33 years in the Marine Corps] being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.

    In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for [crony] capitalism.”

    Major General Butler USMC, War is a Racket, 1935

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

    It’s amazing that even today, people continue to believe war time propaganda.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Also, if there had been no Red agitation, I doubt there would’ve been a Nazi reaction.
     
    very true!

    the Nazis were a reaction to genocidal Bolshevism that had taken Russia 'by the hair of the head', and had its sights on Germany as the ultimate prize. When Hitler came to power, the German people had a choice; the Nazis or the communists. A stark choice indeed.

    it's no different than what's going on today

    as the world's Zionists demand two things simultaneously- that Israel become racially pure..

    and..

    that all white nations become flooded with non-Westerners, and forced to blend..

    there is going to be some resistance, and that resistance is eventually going to be called 'Nazism' by those who demand blending.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3SP2PnqkFg

    already the Germans who are objecting to millions of Muslim young men coming into their country and destroying the fabric and character of Germany, are being called "Nazis" by the ((usual suspects)).

    I remember when Israel pulled their ambassador to Austria when Jorg Haider won some election, because he was against massive immigration.

    the lines are being drawn again, only this time it isn't just Germany, but the entire Western world that must bow down to the International Banksters and commit suicide, or resist = become "Nazis"

    And as these fault lines become more and more glaring, its going to look more and more like Germany in the early 1930s. Already they call Trump = Hitler. Just as they call Putin = Hitler.

    it's getting more and more deja vu all over again.

    just as if there were no Bolshevik threat in Germany, there would never have been a Nazi response as a survival mechanism.

    with no demand that the West commit suicide, and allow unlimited immigration, there'd be no anti-immigrant survival response.

    with no Zionism, there'd be no PLO, no Hezbollah, no Hamas.. no suicide bombers in Tel Aviv

    if you threaten people with death or slavery or genocide, (or all three), you shouldn't act shocked when they mount a resistance response to persevere. That's what life-forms do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. As for placing blame, if one accepts the concept that WW2 was an extension of ww1, then here’s another view, and a valid one.

    American entry into World War I in April 1917 prevented negotiated peace between the warring powers, and drove the Allies forward into a peace of unconditional surrender and dismemberment, a peace which, as we have seen, set the stage for World War II. American entry thus cost countless lives on both sides, chaos and disruption throughout central and eastern Europe at war’s end, and the consequent rise of Bolshevism, fascism, and Nazism to power in Europe. In this way, Woodrow Wilson’s decision to enter the war may have been the single most fateful action of the 20th century, causing untold and unending misery and destruction. But Morgan profits were expanded and assured.

    Murray N. Rothbard, Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy.
    This first appeared in World Market Perspective (1984)

    https://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard66.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  141. @Priss Factor
    Frankly, the reason so many Russian civilians died is the same reason so many Russian soldiers died: Stalin. When soldiers wanted to retreat as they were being out-gunned he had them shot (while the Man of Paper himself was hiding like a coward in a bunker 1,000 miles away). And the vast majority of Russian civilians died because of Stalin’s “scorched Earth” retreat policy – he cared not one bit about those civilians and when Russian divisions were allowed to retreat they destroyed all fuel and food, leaving the civilians to starve and freeze to death.

    Whatever Stalin's orders were, they were defending their own nation from German invaders, and it was the Germans who killed them. Maybe Stalin's orders were inhuman, but Russians were still defending their own turf, and they were gunned down by invading Germans.

    As for civilian deaths, you are right that many died from countless factors. They were not all killed by Germans. But it was overall German policy to wipe out huge numbers of Russians and make room for German settlers.

    And just consider how the Germans treated Soviet prisoners of war. Many were left to starve to death.

    Take Ukraine for instance. That was one part that welcomed the Germans as liberators because Soviets had been so brutal. But it wasn't long before majority of Ukrainians came to hate the Germans. Sure, some Ukrainians joined the German military, especially as Germans were short of men and were finally willing to accept anyone.

    There were bogus moralists who condemned Nazis but made excuses for Stalin.
    There were bogus moralists who condemned Commies but made excuses for Hitler.

    We need to condemn both tyrants.

    German treatment of Soviet POWs was atrocious, without question, but the Soviets were not signatories to the Geneva convention and at least twice rebuffed German offers to negotiate fair treatment of prisoners. The reality is, the Germans had little ability or resources to care for these prisoners, and their fate was indeed tragic.

    Worth keeping in mind, that the huge number of prisoners taken during the opening weeks of the war was due to their positioning in vulnerable, offensive salients. The Soviets were most likely poised for an initial strike of their own, before the Germans pre-empted them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fnn
    Hitler met with Molotov in Nov 1940 to try to get the SU to become full members of the Axis. Molotov made what Hitler thought were outrageous demands, pretty much spitting in Hitler's eye (metaphorically). There was suspicion on Hitler's part that the Soviets would switch sides at the opportune moment. Then there was that oft noted heavy build-up of Soviet forces on the Western border near Germany.

    Soviet POWs:
    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/teplyakov.html


    At dawn on June 22, 1941, began the mightiest military offensive in history: the German-led Axis attack against the Soviet Union. During the first 18 months of the campaign, about three million Soviet soldiers were taken prisoner. By the end of the conflict four years later, more than five million Soviet troops are estimated to have fallen into German hands. Most of these unfortunate men died in German captivity.

    A major reason for this was the unusual nature of the war on the eastern front, particularly during the first year -- June 1941-June 1942 -- when vastly greater numbers of prisoners fell into German hands than could possibly be accommodated adequately. However, and as Russian journalist Teplyakov explains in the following article, much of the blame for the terrible fate of the Soviet soldiers in German captivity was due to the inflexibly cruel policy of Soviet dictator Stalin.

    During the war, the Germans made repeated attempts through neutral countries and the International Committee of the Red Cross to reach mutual agreement on the treatment of prisoners by Germany and the USSR. As British historian Robert Conquest explains in his book Stalin: Breaker of Nations, the Soviets adamantly refused to cooperate:

    "When the Germans approached the Soviets, through Sweden, to negotiate observance of the provisions of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, Stalin refused. The Soviet soldiers in German hands were thus unprotected even in theory. Millions of them died in captivity, through malnutrition or maltreatment. If Stalin had adhered to the convention (to which the USSR had not been a party) would the Germans have behaved better? To judge by their treatment of other 'Slav submen' POWs (like the Poles, even surrendering after the [1944] Warsaw Rising), the answer seems to be yes. (Stalin's own behavior to [Polish] prisoners captured by the Red Army had already been demonstrated at Katyn and elsewhere [where they were shot]."

    Another historian, Nikolai Tolstoy, affirms in The Secret Betrayal:

    "Hitler himself urged Red Cross inspection of [German] camps [holding Soviet prisoners of war]. But an appeal to Stalin for prisoners' postal services received a reply that clinched the matter: 'There are no Soviet prisoners of war. The Soviet soldier fights on till death. If he chooses to become a prisoner, he is automatically excluded from the Russian community. We are not interested in a postal service only for Germans'."

    Given this situation, the German leaders resolved to treat Soviet prisoners no better than the Soviet leaders were treating the German soldiers they held. As can be imagined, Soviet treatment of German prisoners was harsh.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @jacques sheete

    Funny how the main war aim of the Germans in both World Wars was expansion eastwards.
     
    Actually, the main war aim of the German leadership was to stay out of war, and that goes for both 1 & 2.

    Nock’s “ Myth of a Guilty Nation” exposes the preparation for war against Germany while pretending it was the only guilty power.

    http://www.unz.org/Pub/LibertarianRev-1974nov-00001a02

     

    Actually, the main war aim of the German leadership was to stay out of war, and that goes for both 1 & 2.

    In that case Operation Barbarossa must have happened by accident.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    It certainly didn't happen because of "Lebensraum" or some other such ideological motivation.
    , @iffen
    In that case Operation Barbarossa must have happened by accident.

    History: an endless and random series of accidents.
    , @jacques sheete

    In that case Operation Barbarossa must have happened by accident.
     
    And what happened before that?

    Next you'll tell me that the Japanese militarists' attack on Pearl was the cause of the war in the Pacific, completely overlooking the fact that FDR and his clowns and controllers waged economic war on Japan long before they made a desperate gamble in a bid for time.


    On Sept. 1, 1939, 70 years ago, the German Army crossed the Polish frontier. On Sept. 3, Britain declared war.

    Six years later, 50 million Christians and Jews had perished. Britain was broken and bankrupt, Germany a smoldering ruin. Europe had served as the site of the most murderous combat known to man, and civilians had suffered worse horrors than the soldiers.

    -Patrick J. Buchanan , Did Hitler Want War?

    http://buchanan.org/blog/did-hitler-want-war-2068
     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Joe Wong says:
    @CalDre

    I guess you believe bombing, killing and waterboarding on the fabricated phantom WMD allegation is indeed humanitarian intervention.
     
    Unsurprisingly, you guess wrong. And waterboarding was done to a few hundred at most, that's not even a few hours work for Mao. But he had much better techniques. And the torture techniques your Commie heroes use even today on Falon Gong and other "dissidents" make waterboarding look like a child's game.

    In according to your logic both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are mass murderers too but they are idolized in the USA
     
    George Washington didn't kill countless Americans, he killed British and Native Americans in war. On the other hand Lincoln is guilty as charged, but (i) there is not nearly the idolatry of him as of Mao in China, it is simply incomparable (e.g., aside from a the Lincoln Memorial in Washington built in 1922, I've not seen a single monument or poster for Lincoln, though he is on the penny ($0.01) and the five dollar bill), and (ii) he was fighting a war (i.e., against armed men) to keep a country united (and arguably to defeat slavery, which is the reason China gives for invading Tibet, no?), whereas Mao was mass murdering middle class intellectuals because they were too "bourgeois" (i.e. Mao didn't like them) and peasants because they did not want to be enslaved by the Red Guard. By the millions. Can you spot the difference?

    then attacking Chinese with specious racist blood libel in order to white wash the Americans war crimes
     
    Actually, it was you who started with racist blood libel against Japanese, who unlike the Communists, have often and repeatedly apologized for their role in WW II. Then I simply pointed to how evil MAO was (not all Chinese, you utter moron) and you start with all of this blood libel against Americans. You are obviously an ignorant Communist racist and Chinese supremacist. You are a very poor ambassador for your people.

    Yeah, yeah, yeah, you like all the mentally colonized Americans who have been brainwashed by the ‘God-fearing’ morally defunct evil ‘puritan’ from cradle to grave reinforced by excessive flag saluting; you guys always can explain away your crimes with the techniques used by unrepentant war criminal Japanese to white wash their beastly behavior in the last 75 years, denying, twisting fates, red herring, fake news, questioning minute details, manufacturing consent, pointing the fingers, accusing the victims, creating phantom WMD,…

    I was pointing out the trait of the unrepentant war criminal Japanese, it was you jumping in uninvited to bad mouth China with fake news, all I have done is pointing out your fallacy, trolling like the unrepentant war criminal Japanese,and behaving with a mindset belonging to the past, stalled in the old days of colonialism and constrained by the zero-sum cold war mentality.

    Go home Yankee, you are not wanted, not invited and not loved anywhere around the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Aww, that's not very nice.
    , @Joe Stalin
    At least one person appreciates America over China:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0ycwS-xyJw

    Exclusive: J. Robert Lunney, U.S. Navy of SS Meredith Victory discuss meeting South Korean President
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @James N. Kennett

    Actually, the main war aim of the German leadership was to stay out of war, and that goes for both 1 & 2.
     
    In that case Operation Barbarossa must have happened by accident.

    It certainly didn’t happen because of “Lebensraum” or some other such ideological motivation.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @Joe Wong
    Yeah, yeah, yeah, you like all the mentally colonized Americans who have been brainwashed by the 'God-fearing' morally defunct evil 'puritan' from cradle to grave reinforced by excessive flag saluting; you guys always can explain away your crimes with the techniques used by unrepentant war criminal Japanese to white wash their beastly behavior in the last 75 years, denying, twisting fates, red herring, fake news, questioning minute details, manufacturing consent, pointing the fingers, accusing the victims, creating phantom WMD,...

    I was pointing out the trait of the unrepentant war criminal Japanese, it was you jumping in uninvited to bad mouth China with fake news, all I have done is pointing out your fallacy, trolling like the unrepentant war criminal Japanese,and behaving with a mindset belonging to the past, stalled in the old days of colonialism and constrained by the zero-sum cold war mentality.

    Go home Yankee, you are not wanted, not invited and not loved anywhere around the world.

    Aww, that’s not very nice.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. iffen says:
    @James N. Kennett

    Actually, the main war aim of the German leadership was to stay out of war, and that goes for both 1 & 2.
     
    In that case Operation Barbarossa must have happened by accident.

    In that case Operation Barbarossa must have happened by accident.

    History: an endless and random series of accidents.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. This article is an excellent dislay of this verity.:

    So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand.

    Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, Book I, 1.21-[3], 431 BC

    Don’t be duped!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  148. @James N. Kennett

    Actually, the main war aim of the German leadership was to stay out of war, and that goes for both 1 & 2.
     
    In that case Operation Barbarossa must have happened by accident.

    In that case Operation Barbarossa must have happened by accident.

    And what happened before that?

    Next you’ll tell me that the Japanese militarists’ attack on Pearl was the cause of the war in the Pacific, completely overlooking the fact that FDR and his clowns and controllers waged economic war on Japan long before they made a desperate gamble in a bid for time.

    On Sept. 1, 1939, 70 years ago, the German Army crossed the Polish frontier. On Sept. 3, Britain declared war.

    Six years later, 50 million Christians and Jews had perished. Britain was broken and bankrupt, Germany a smoldering ruin. Europe had served as the site of the most murderous combat known to man, and civilians had suffered worse horrors than the soldiers.

    -Patrick J. Buchanan , Did Hitler Want War?

    http://buchanan.org/blog/did-hitler-want-war-2068

    Read More
    • Replies: @James N. Kennett
    You seem to be saying that Hitler wanted Germany to expand eastwards, even though he knew this would trigger a war with Britain - but he did not want that war.

    If you are determined to measure a leader's intentions as if he was unaware of the consequences of his actions, you could equally well say that Britain did not want war against Germany. Or that Al Qaeda does not want war, but we force their hand by the provocation of being infidels. There is no end to this kind of specious argument.
    , @James N. Kennett


    In that case Operation Barbarossa must have happened by accident.
     
    And what happened before that?
     
    Germany and the USSR were allies with their border defined by a treaty.
    , @Joe Stalin
    As I recall, there was a little thing called Manchuria going on, and Japan was the first nation to sink an American navy ship through aerial bombardment:

    USS Panay

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WujTPNkjSeM
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Rurik says: • Website
    @James N. Kennett
    The British used concentration camps in South Africa during the Second Boer War. Many of the inmates died of disease or malnutrition. Nowadays this would be considered a war crime. However the places were not death camps, whose purpose is to kill nearly all the inmates shortly after arrival.

    The principal of De Beers, and the instigator of the Second Boer War, was Cecil Rhodes, not Rothschild.

    However the places were not death camps, whose purpose is to kill nearly all the inmates shortly after arrival.

    like Eisenhower’s death camps for teenage German boys after the war was over?

    No, I suppose the conditions were at least better than that, but not by much. The intention of the camps was to break the spirit of the Boers, so that England ((De Beers, [Rothschild], Ernest Oppenheimer)), could steal the gold and diamonds.

    And to break the spirit of the Boer, the Brits used exposure and starvation of their families.

    According to a British journalist, WT Stead, the concentration camps were nothing more than a cruel torture machine. He writes: “Every one of these children who died as a result of the halving of their rations, thereby exerting pressure onto their family still on the battle-field, was purposefully murdered. The system of half rations stands exposed and stark and unshamefully as a cold-blooded deed of state policy employed with the purpose of ensuring the surrender of people whom we were not able to defeat on the battlefield.”

    The Welshman, Lloyd George, stated: “The fatality rate of our soldiers on the battlefields, who were exposed to all the risks of war, was 52 per thousand per year, while the fatalities of women and children in the camps were 450 per thousand per year. We have no right to put women and children into such a position.”

    An Irishman, Dillon, said: “I can produce and endless succession of confirmations that the conditions in most of the camps are appalling and brutal. To my opinion the fatality rate is nothing less than cold-blooded murder.”

    One European had the following comment on England’s conduct with the concentration camps: “Great Britain cannot win her battles without resorting to the despicable cowardice of the most loathsome cure on earth – the act of striking at a brave man’s heart through his wife’s honour and his child’s life.”

    http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-History/+Doc-History-OtherWars&Conflicts/InhumaneBoerWarConcentrationCamps.htm

    that last quote really resonates with me when I consider the actions of Perfidious Albion over the last century and a half.

    ‘sure (WWI) Germany, we Brits will agree to an honorable peace, you can trust us’- as it plots to starve Germany (who honorably laid down their arms for peace) into slavery and abject wretchedness for trusting Perfidious’, where there was/is no honor.

    also note how Perfidious forced the survivors of their ‘concentration camps’ to fight Germany, who had always taken their side.

    4.2. Called up by the enemy

    It is a bitter irony that during World War I England laid claim to the same boys who survived the concentration camps to fight against Germany, which was well-disposed towards the Boerevolk.

    James N. Kennett says:

    The principal of De Beers, and the instigator of the Second Boer War, was Cecil Rhodes, not Rothschild.

    from the Wiki link:

    Cecil Rhodes, the founder of De Beers, got his start by renting water pumps to miners during the diamond rush that started in 1869,[13][14] when an 83.5 carat diamond called the ‘Star of South Africa’ was found at Hopetown near the Orange River in South Africa.[14][15][16] He invested the profits of this operation into buying up claims of small mining operators, with his operations soon expanding into a separate mining company.[17] He soon secured funding from the Rothschild family, who would finance his business expansion.[18][19]… … the company was the sole owner of all diamond mining operations in the country

    now, on whose behalf is the British government willing to go to war for, Rothschild or some Englishman miner?

    on whose behalf did England fight the US in the war of 1812? [clue: Rothschild]

    on whose behalf did England betray and then starve Germany into the infamous Treaty of Versailles? Was it Brits who were lording it over Germans in Germany during the Weimar regime, and turning Berlin into a pedophile’s paradise, or was it Jews?

    (Not that Brits at the aristocrat level aren’t notorious pedophiles, but that’s another story)

    so, let us continue..

    on whose behalf did England declare war on Germany to start WWII?

    (only a complete moron would dispute that England declared war on Germany because of Jewish influence, as it ignored Stalin’s Russia (and became its ally) for doing the exact same thing in Poland that Germany had done, [and Germany had a damn good reason]).

    ok, more…

    on whose behalf did England go to war with Iraq? Eh?

    on whose behalf did England help to destroy Libya?

    on whose behalf did England try to attack Syria, until an unprecedented act of the House of Commons finally stopped the insanity?

    on whose behalf is England committing ethnic suicide?

    on behalf of the British people, or the Jews that completely dominate England (and France and Germany and the US, etc..) from top to bottom?

    did England and the British people profit from the Boer war, or did Ernest Oppenheimer and the world’s ((diamond merchants?))
    .
    .

    on a personal note, I like the British people, but their leadership, including the rancid hag and her brood, (excepting Harry, I like Harry) are all a filthy, rotten waste of human flesh, and a festering stench emanating from that isle.

    It has been during the reign of that inbred family of pedophiles and traitors that all of this evil has been perpetrated. England is being driven into ‘rivers of blood in the streets’ by some of the world’s most exorable, loathsome rats. From Tony Blair, to Cameron to the ‘peerage’ all the way to the scum in the palaces.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James N. Kennett

    on whose behalf did England betray and then starve Germany into the infamous Treaty of Versailles?
     
    The custom of warfare had always been "to the winner, the spoils". It was only after the world realized its mistake at Versailles that this custom changed.

    on whose behalf did England declare war on Germany to start WWII?
     
    On their own behalf, because British policy for centuries had been to fight any Continental empire whose conquests made it large enough to be a threat.

    on whose behalf did England go to war with Iraq? Eh?
     
    The appalling Tony Blair asked God whether he should go to war. God replied to him in the affirmative.

    on whose behalf did England help to destroy Libya?
     
    Libya's civil war destroyed the country. Whoever had won, the outcome was not going to be pretty. All Britain and France did was tip the balance against Gaddafi.

    on whose behalf is England committing ethnic suicide?
     

    on behalf of the British people, or the Jews that completely dominate England (and France and Germany and the US, etc..) from top to bottom?
     
    It is committing not only ethnic suicide, but national/cultural suicide, on behalf of the owners of capital. Some of those are Jewish; most are not.

    Germany is not dominated by Jews for obvious reasons.

    A pertinent question is why politicians on the Left have consistently supported the capitalists on this issue. All it needed was the suggestion that any opposition must be racist. Look, over there are some people who oppose our ethnic suicide and they are racist, aren't they?

    Your own blaming of the Jews, as if they and only they are responsible, plays into the hands of the globalists. You are playing a role in the drama that is necessary to the globalists. They can point to you and say the opponents of globalization are not only racist, they are anti-semitic. If you want to prevent the rapid progress of globalization, the best thing you can do is to either learn more or STFU.


    did England and the British people profit from the Boer war, or did Ernest Oppenheimer and the world’s ((diamond merchants?))
     
    The beneficiaries were Cecil Rhodes and the other shareholders in De Beers, their heirs and successors. Including anyone in the English-speaking world who has had a Rhodes Scholarship.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. fnn says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty
    German treatment of Soviet POWs was atrocious, without question, but the Soviets were not signatories to the Geneva convention and at least twice rebuffed German offers to negotiate fair treatment of prisoners. The reality is, the Germans had little ability or resources to care for these prisoners, and their fate was indeed tragic.

    Worth keeping in mind, that the huge number of prisoners taken during the opening weeks of the war was due to their positioning in vulnerable, offensive salients. The Soviets were most likely poised for an initial strike of their own, before the Germans pre-empted them.

    Hitler met with Molotov in Nov 1940 to try to get the SU to become full members of the Axis. Molotov made what Hitler thought were outrageous demands, pretty much spitting in Hitler’s eye (metaphorically). There was suspicion on Hitler’s part that the Soviets would switch sides at the opportune moment. Then there was that oft noted heavy build-up of Soviet forces on the Western border near Germany.

    Soviet POWs:

    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/teplyakov.html

    [MORE]

    At dawn on June 22, 1941, began the mightiest military offensive in history: the German-led Axis attack against the Soviet Union. During the first 18 months of the campaign, about three million Soviet soldiers were taken prisoner. By the end of the conflict four years later, more than five million Soviet troops are estimated to have fallen into German hands. Most of these unfortunate men died in German captivity.

    A major reason for this was the unusual nature of the war on the eastern front, particularly during the first year — June 1941-June 1942 — when vastly greater numbers of prisoners fell into German hands than could possibly be accommodated adequately. However, and as Russian journalist Teplyakov explains in the following article, much of the blame for the terrible fate of the Soviet soldiers in German captivity was due to the inflexibly cruel policy of Soviet dictator Stalin.

    During the war, the Germans made repeated attempts through neutral countries and the International Committee of the Red Cross to reach mutual agreement on the treatment of prisoners by Germany and the USSR. As British historian Robert Conquest explains in his book Stalin: Breaker of Nations, the Soviets adamantly refused to cooperate:

    “When the Germans approached the Soviets, through Sweden, to negotiate observance of the provisions of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, Stalin refused. The Soviet soldiers in German hands were thus unprotected even in theory. Millions of them died in captivity, through malnutrition or maltreatment. If Stalin had adhered to the convention (to which the USSR had not been a party) would the Germans have behaved better? To judge by their treatment of other ‘Slav submen’ POWs (like the Poles, even surrendering after the [1944] Warsaw Rising), the answer seems to be yes. (Stalin’s own behavior to [Polish] prisoners captured by the Red Army had already been demonstrated at Katyn and elsewhere [where they were shot].”

    Another historian, Nikolai Tolstoy, affirms in The Secret Betrayal:

    “Hitler himself urged Red Cross inspection of [German] camps [holding Soviet prisoners of war]. But an appeal to Stalin for prisoners’ postal services received a reply that clinched the matter: ‘There are no Soviet prisoners of war. The Soviet soldier fights on till death. If he chooses to become a prisoner, he is automatically excluded from the Russian community. We are not interested in a postal service only for Germans’.”

    Given this situation, the German leaders resolved to treat Soviet prisoners no better than the Soviet leaders were treating the German soldiers they held. As can be imagined, Soviet treatment of German prisoners was harsh.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @jacques sheete

    In that case Operation Barbarossa must have happened by accident.
     
    And what happened before that?

    Next you'll tell me that the Japanese militarists' attack on Pearl was the cause of the war in the Pacific, completely overlooking the fact that FDR and his clowns and controllers waged economic war on Japan long before they made a desperate gamble in a bid for time.


    On Sept. 1, 1939, 70 years ago, the German Army crossed the Polish frontier. On Sept. 3, Britain declared war.

    Six years later, 50 million Christians and Jews had perished. Britain was broken and bankrupt, Germany a smoldering ruin. Europe had served as the site of the most murderous combat known to man, and civilians had suffered worse horrors than the soldiers.

    -Patrick J. Buchanan , Did Hitler Want War?

    http://buchanan.org/blog/did-hitler-want-war-2068
     

    You seem to be saying that Hitler wanted Germany to expand eastwards, even though he knew this would trigger a war with Britain – but he did not want that war.

    If you are determined to measure a leader’s intentions as if he was unaware of the consequences of his actions, you could equally well say that Britain did not want war against Germany. Or that Al Qaeda does not want war, but we force their hand by the provocation of being infidels. There is no end to this kind of specious argument.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    If you are determined to measure a leader’s intentions as if he was unaware of the consequences of his actions
     
    What? Where did you get that?

    Talk about specious!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @jacques sheete

    In that case Operation Barbarossa must have happened by accident.
     
    And what happened before that?

    Next you'll tell me that the Japanese militarists' attack on Pearl was the cause of the war in the Pacific, completely overlooking the fact that FDR and his clowns and controllers waged economic war on Japan long before they made a desperate gamble in a bid for time.


    On Sept. 1, 1939, 70 years ago, the German Army crossed the Polish frontier. On Sept. 3, Britain declared war.

    Six years later, 50 million Christians and Jews had perished. Britain was broken and bankrupt, Germany a smoldering ruin. Europe had served as the site of the most murderous combat known to man, and civilians had suffered worse horrors than the soldiers.

    -Patrick J. Buchanan , Did Hitler Want War?

    http://buchanan.org/blog/did-hitler-want-war-2068
     

    In that case Operation Barbarossa must have happened by accident.

    And what happened before that?

    Germany and the USSR were allies with their border defined by a treaty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Germany and the USSR were allies with their border defined by a treaty.
     
    While true, it does show that you have a sense of humor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. Moi says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Let’s not forget that Britain at the time was a racist, cruel, colonial empire.
     
    So now the British should agree to be genocided by suppressed reproduction and mass replacement immigration. Is that what you're saying?

    But according to that insane, racist logic, just about every nation should commit suicide, including obviously, the Egyptians, the Persians, the Syrians, the Russians, the Chinese, all of the North and South Amerindian tribes. Maybe there was some nation that was not racist, cruel and ready to steal whatever the could from whoever was weak: the Tasmanians, perhaps. But that nation, like the Tasmanian people, has long been deleted from the page of history.

    Anyway how cruel was for the British to prepare the people of India for independence and prosperity in the modern world and then grant them independence under a democratic constitution, as set forth by Lord Thomas Macaulay in his "minute on Indian education" prepared for the first British Governor General of India: a proposal that was followed almost to the letter?

    I simply made a comment about the Brit empire. And you’re nuts if you think Indian people are grateful for having been ruled by the East India Co. and then the crown. I know that because I am from India.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    And you’re nuts if you think Indian people are grateful for having been ruled by the East India Co.
     
    LOL. I never said that they were.

    I know very well that some Indian nationalists to this day have a burning hatred for Britain.

    The fact remains, however, that British rule was in many respects more enlightened that the rule of the previous alien occupying power, the Mughal empire. Furthermore, the Brits did not impose their religion on India or attempt to settle India, whereas of course today, Britain is being settled by large number of people from the Indian sub-continent, Pakistani Muslims and Hindu and Muslim Indians, something to which I strongly object. I hope in due course most of them will be induced to return to their native land, and leave Britain's tiny archipelago to the British (and Irish) who have occupied them for thousands of years.

    In any case, be assured that the disdain is mutual.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. Rurik says: • Website
    @jacques sheete

    Hitler was most to blame.
     
    Wrong.

    Because of Versailles, WW1 never ended and in fact, many of the problems it was supposed to deal with continue today. Additionally, not only were Churchill and FDR itching to be war time heroes, but Stalin was preparing an offensive against his ally, Hitler.

    Also, if there had been no Red agitation, I doubt there would've been a Nazi reaction.

    Regarding existential threats, Hitler was in a position highly analogous to that of an Indian chief or a lot of today's leaders who don't meet the moneybags' requirements of submission.

    Forces similar to those that are putting the screws to present day working classes are the ones to blame. In other words, the imperialists and other ruling classes were not about to suffer any competition or other threats to their profits.


    “… I spent most of my [33 years in the Marine Corps] being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.

    In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for [crony] capitalism.”

    Major General Butler USMC, War is a Racket, 1935

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
     

    It's amazing that even today, people continue to believe war time propaganda.

    Also, if there had been no Red agitation, I doubt there would’ve been a Nazi reaction.

    very true!

    the Nazis were a reaction to genocidal Bolshevism that had taken Russia ‘by the hair of the head’, and had its sights on Germany as the ultimate prize. When Hitler came to power, the German people had a choice; the Nazis or the communists. A stark choice indeed.

    it’s no different than what’s going on today

    as the world’s Zionists demand two things simultaneously- that Israel become racially pure..

    and..

    that all white nations become flooded with non-Westerners, and forced to blend..

    there is going to be some resistance, and that resistance is eventually going to be called ‘Nazism’ by those who demand blending.

    already the Germans who are objecting to millions of Muslim young men coming into their country and destroying the fabric and character of Germany, are being called “Nazis” by the ((usual suspects)).

    I remember when Israel pulled their ambassador to Austria when Jorg Haider won some election, because he was against massive immigration.

    the lines are being drawn again, only this time it isn’t just Germany, but the entire Western world that must bow down to the International Banksters and commit suicide, or resist = become “Nazis”

    And as these fault lines become more and more glaring, its going to look more and more like Germany in the early 1930s. Already they call Trump = Hitler. Just as they call Putin = Hitler.

    it’s getting more and more deja vu all over again.

    just as if there were no Bolshevik threat in Germany, there would never have been a Nazi response as a survival mechanism.

    with no demand that the West commit suicide, and allow unlimited immigration, there’d be no anti-immigrant survival response.

    with no Zionism, there’d be no PLO, no Hezbollah, no Hamas.. no suicide bombers in Tel Aviv

    if you threaten people with death or slavery or genocide, (or all three), you shouldn’t act shocked when they mount a resistance response to persevere. That’s what life-forms do.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @jacques sheete

    In that case Operation Barbarossa must have happened by accident.
     
    And what happened before that?

    Next you'll tell me that the Japanese militarists' attack on Pearl was the cause of the war in the Pacific, completely overlooking the fact that FDR and his clowns and controllers waged economic war on Japan long before they made a desperate gamble in a bid for time.


    On Sept. 1, 1939, 70 years ago, the German Army crossed the Polish frontier. On Sept. 3, Britain declared war.

    Six years later, 50 million Christians and Jews had perished. Britain was broken and bankrupt, Germany a smoldering ruin. Europe had served as the site of the most murderous combat known to man, and civilians had suffered worse horrors than the soldiers.

    -Patrick J. Buchanan , Did Hitler Want War?

    http://buchanan.org/blog/did-hitler-want-war-2068
     

    As I recall, there was a little thing called Manchuria going on, and Japan was the first nation to sink an American navy ship through aerial bombardment:

    USS Panay

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    You would also be well advised to review the history of Western colonialism in the Far East and the meddling, of the US in particular, in Japan.

    Manchukuo was Japan's attempt to copy Western methods including the cultivation of poppies for opium as a source of revenue.

    You can bet that the Western dope peddlers were not about to allow any such competition.

    So keep diggin, Joey...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @Rurik

    However the places were not death camps, whose purpose is to kill nearly all the inmates shortly after arrival.
     
    like Eisenhower's death camps for teenage German boys after the war was over?

    No, I suppose the conditions were at least better than that, but not by much. The intention of the camps was to break the spirit of the Boers, so that England ((De Beers, [Rothschild], Ernest Oppenheimer)), could steal the gold and diamonds.

    And to break the spirit of the Boer, the Brits used exposure and starvation of their families.


    According to a British journalist, WT Stead, the concentration camps were nothing more than a cruel torture machine. He writes: "Every one of these children who died as a result of the halving of their rations, thereby exerting pressure onto their family still on the battle-field, was purposefully murdered. The system of half rations stands exposed and stark and unshamefully as a cold-blooded deed of state policy employed with the purpose of ensuring the surrender of people whom we were not able to defeat on the battlefield."
     

    The Welshman, Lloyd George, stated: "The fatality rate of our soldiers on the battlefields, who were exposed to all the risks of war, was 52 per thousand per year, while the fatalities of women and children in the camps were 450 per thousand per year. We have no right to put women and children into such a position."

    An Irishman, Dillon, said: "I can produce and endless succession of confirmations that the conditions in most of the camps are appalling and brutal. To my opinion the fatality rate is nothing less than cold-blooded murder."

    One European had the following comment on England's conduct with the concentration camps: "Great Britain cannot win her battles without resorting to the despicable cowardice of the most loathsome cure on earth - the act of striking at a brave man's heart through his wife's honour and his child's life."
     

    http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-History/+Doc-History-OtherWars&Conflicts/InhumaneBoerWarConcentrationCamps.htm

    that last quote really resonates with me when I consider the actions of Perfidious Albion over the last century and a half.

    'sure (WWI) Germany, we Brits will agree to an honorable peace, you can trust us'- as it plots to starve Germany (who honorably laid down their arms for peace) into slavery and abject wretchedness for trusting Perfidious', where there was/is no honor.

    also note how Perfidious forced the survivors of their 'concentration camps' to fight Germany, who had always taken their side.


    4.2. Called up by the enemy

    It is a bitter irony that during World War I England laid claim to the same boys who survived the concentration camps to fight against Germany, which was well-disposed towards the Boerevolk.
     

    James N. Kennett says:

    The principal of De Beers, and the instigator of the Second Boer War, was Cecil Rhodes, not Rothschild.
     
    from the Wiki link:

    Cecil Rhodes, the founder of De Beers, got his start by renting water pumps to miners during the diamond rush that started in 1869,[13][14] when an 83.5 carat diamond called the 'Star of South Africa' was found at Hopetown near the Orange River in South Africa.[14][15][16] He invested the profits of this operation into buying up claims of small mining operators, with his operations soon expanding into a separate mining company.[17] He soon secured funding from the Rothschild family, who would finance his business expansion.[18][19]... ... the company was the sole owner of all diamond mining operations in the country
     
    now, on whose behalf is the British government willing to go to war for, Rothschild or some Englishman miner?

    on whose behalf did England fight the US in the war of 1812? [clue: Rothschild]

    on whose behalf did England betray and then starve Germany into the infamous Treaty of Versailles? Was it Brits who were lording it over Germans in Germany during the Weimar regime, and turning Berlin into a pedophile's paradise, or was it Jews?

    (Not that Brits at the aristocrat level aren't notorious pedophiles, but that's another story)

    so, let us continue..

    on whose behalf did England declare war on Germany to start WWII?

    (only a complete moron would dispute that England declared war on Germany because of Jewish influence, as it ignored Stalin's Russia (and became its ally) for doing the exact same thing in Poland that Germany had done, [and Germany had a damn good reason]).

    ok, more...

    on whose behalf did England go to war with Iraq? Eh?

    on whose behalf did England help to destroy Libya?

    on whose behalf did England try to attack Syria, until an unprecedented act of the House of Commons finally stopped the insanity?

    on whose behalf is England committing ethnic suicide?

    on behalf of the British people, or the Jews that completely dominate England (and France and Germany and the US, etc..) from top to bottom?

    did England and the British people profit from the Boer war, or did Ernest Oppenheimer and the world's ((diamond merchants?))
    .
    .

    on a personal note, I like the British people, but their leadership, including the rancid hag and her brood, (excepting Harry, I like Harry) are all a filthy, rotten waste of human flesh, and a festering stench emanating from that isle.

    It has been during the reign of that inbred family of pedophiles and traitors that all of this evil has been perpetrated. England is being driven into 'rivers of blood in the streets' by some of the world's most exorable, loathsome rats. From Tony Blair, to Cameron to the 'peerage' all the way to the scum in the palaces.

    on whose behalf did England betray and then starve Germany into the infamous Treaty of Versailles?

    The custom of warfare had always been “to the winner, the spoils”. It was only after the world realized its mistake at Versailles that this custom changed.

    on whose behalf did England declare war on Germany to start WWII?

    On their own behalf, because British policy for centuries had been to fight any Continental empire whose conquests made it large enough to be a threat.

    on whose behalf did England go to war with Iraq? Eh?

    The appalling Tony Blair asked God whether he should go to war. God replied to him in the affirmative.

    on whose behalf did England help to destroy Libya?

    Libya’s civil war destroyed the country. Whoever had won, the outcome was not going to be pretty. All Britain and France did was tip the balance against Gaddafi.

    on whose behalf is England committing ethnic suicide?

    on behalf of the British people, or the Jews that completely dominate England (and France and Germany and the US, etc..) from top to bottom?

    It is committing not only ethnic suicide, but national/cultural suicide, on behalf of the owners of capital. Some of those are Jewish; most are not.

    Germany is not dominated by Jews for obvious reasons.

    A pertinent question is why politicians on the Left have consistently supported the capitalists on this issue. All it needed was the suggestion that any opposition must be racist. Look, over there are some people who oppose our ethnic suicide and they are racist, aren’t they?

    Your own blaming of the Jews, as if they and only they are responsible, plays into the hands of the globalists. You are playing a role in the drama that is necessary to the globalists. They can point to you and say the opponents of globalization are not only racist, they are anti-semitic. If you want to prevent the rapid progress of globalization, the best thing you can do is to either learn more or STFU.

    did England and the British people profit from the Boer war, or did Ernest Oppenheimer and the world’s ((diamond merchants?))

    The beneficiaries were Cecil Rhodes and the other shareholders in De Beers, their heirs and successors. Including anyone in the English-speaking world who has had a Rhodes Scholarship.

    Read More
    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @CalDre

    The custom of warfare had always been “to the winner, the spoils”.
     
    Then how is it that defeated France remained intact and were able to repay their limited reparations in 2 years (in a case where France had actually started the Franco-Prussian War)? How was it that the other defeated powers in WW I were not obligated to pay such massive reparations? And you didn't answer the question, on whose behalf it was done.

    The appalling Tony Blair asked God whether he should go to war. God replied to him in the affirmative.
     
    You can't seriously believe (a) Blair believes in God, or (b) God would speak to that monster. So again you have deflected the question.

    Libya’s civil war destroyed the country.
     
    Except that a foreign-sponsored, foreign-armed, foreign-trained, foreign-formed, foreign-manned band of terrorists causing anarchy is hardly a "civil war". But again, you have deflected the question, apparently in your zeal to conceal what you know to be the truth.

    It is committing not only ethnic suicide, but national/cultural suicide, on behalf of the owners of capital.
     
    Now that is a Communist answer and since Communists serve The Tribe we know exactly where you stand. Clearly it is not just "owners of capital" (which includes, you, no? You have a bank deposit? any stock?) but rather a particular organized group of owners of capital and their foot soldiers.

    A pertinent question is why politicians on the Left have consistently supported the capitalists on this issue. All it needed was the suggestion that any opposition must be racist.
     
    Perhaps because they all serve the same organized "owners of capital" you are trying so hard not to see?

    They can point to you and say the opponents of globalization are not only racist, they are anti-semitic.
     
    Ouch, they'll play the race card! That's a fantastic reason to stick your head in the sand and fight ghosts, isn't it? Because those responsible will defame you for exposing them? LOL. The exact attitude why the globalists are winning and will eventually brutally enslave all remaining humanity (see 20 Deuteronomy 10-15) .

    The beneficiaries were Cecil Rhodes and the other shareholders in De Beers
     
    Let's see, Oppenheimer, who ran De Beers, was a Jew (despite his professed conversion) and De Beers was funded by the Rothschilds and Alfred Beit (another globalist Jew). The Rhodes Scholarship is one of many mechanisms used by this organized cabal of "owners of capital" to find goy servants to use as "fronts" for their globalist operations.
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
    Another person unfamiliar with the concept of conditional expectation.
    , @fnn

    The custom of warfare had always been “to the winner, the spoils”. It was only after the world realized its mistake at Versailles that this custom changed.
     
    Why there are no Francophones in Quebec today.
    , @fnn

    on whose behalf did England declare war on Germany to start WWII?

    On their own behalf, because British policy for centuries had been to fight any Continental empire whose conquests made it large enough to be a threat.
     
    Excerpts from Herbert Hoover's posthumously published magnum opus, Freedom Betrayed:
    http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/05/poland-as-pawn-hoover-identifies.html


    One of these case studies regards Poland. Hoover begins by outlining the behind-the-scenes actions of Roosevelt in convincing Britain to offer the infamous guarantee to Poland, and additionally to convince Poland to not negotiate with either Germany or Russia.

    President Roosevelt had on January 4, 1939 announced what had amounted to a revolution in American foreign Policy. He proposed action by the United States “stronger than words and less than war” on activities of foreign nations with which he disagreed.

    The President at once took action under this new policy with respect to Hitler’s demand of March 21, 1939 on Poland.

    The U.S. Ambassador to Britain, Joseph P. Kennedy, played a supporting role in implementing Roosevelt’s desires. He regularly urged firmness on the part of Britain when it came to dealing with the Germans. The German Charge d’Affaires in London confirmed Kennedy’s position, informing his government on March 20 that:

    …Kennedy…is playing a leading part. He is said to be in personal contact with the Missions of all the States involved, and to be attempting to encourage them to adopt a firm attitude by promising that the United States…would support them by all means (short of war”).

    Further American activities were disclosed after the Germans had invaded Poland in September 1939 and seized the Polish Foreign Office records. The Germans released a mass of documents which certainly indicated that the American Ambassador to France, William C. Bullitt, who could only act on Mr. Roosevelt’s authority, had made a profusion of oral assurances to officials of Poland and France which they could only interpret as a promise of assistance of some kind of force from the United States.

    When these documents were published, their authenticity was denied by both Bullitt and by the Polish Ambassador to the U.S. The Polish Ambassador later informed Hoover that he denied their authenticity at the request of the State Department. Further, Hoover has evidence of the authenticity of these German-released documents via Polish Embassy documents later given to the Hoover Institute. Besides minor differences in translations, these documents confirmed those released by the Germans as authentic. Hoover goes on to quote from a sampling of these documents – documents received directly from the Polish Embassy in Washington. From the Polish Ambassador Potocki to the Polish Foreign Office, dated two months before the British guarantee to Poland, in which he summarizes his conversations with U.S. Ambassador Bullitt:

    …2) the war preparations of the United States on land, sea, and air, which will proceed in an accelerated tempo and will cost the colossal sum of $1,250,000,000. 3) the definite opinion of the President that France and Britain should abandon all policy of compromise with the totalitarian countries and should not enter into any discussion with them which might be directed towards any territorial changes. 4) a moral assurance that the United States is abandoning the policy of isolation and is ready, in case of war, to participate actively on the side of Great Britain and France, placing all its resources, financial and in raw materials, at their disposal.

    In another dispatch, also dated two months before Britain’s guarantee to Poland, from the Polish Ambassador in Paris to the Polish Foreign Office stated:

    As Ambassador Bullitt puts it: “If a war breaks out, we probably would not participate in it at the beginning, but we would finish it.”…One thing, however, appears to be certain, namely that President Roosevelt’s policy in the immediate future will tend to…weaken Britain’s tendencies toward a compromise [over Poland].

    Hoover confirms that documentation from the U.S. State Department on this had not yet been released. However, based on conversation Hoover later had with Ambassador Kennedy, the U.S. positions portrayed in these dispatches were confirmed. During the war, Hoover met with Kennedy approximately 20 times. Kennedy apparently profoundly disagreed with Roosevelt’s foreign policy.
     

    Hoover would document his conversations with the various people he met with. An example is provided of Hoover’s meeting with Kennedy on May 15, 1945. Kennedy indicated he had over 900 dispatches which he could not print without consent of the U.S. Government. He hoped one day to receive such permission as it was Kennedy’s intention to write a book that would:

    …put an entirely different color on the process of how America got into the war and would prove the betrayal of the American people by Franklin D, Roosevelt.

    …Roosevelt and Bullitt were the major factors in the British making their guarantees to Poland and becoming involved in the war. Kennedy said that Bullitt, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the Poles not to make terms with the Germans and that he Kennedy, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the British to make guarantees to the Poles.

    He said that after Chamberlain had given these guarantees, Chamberlain told him (Kennedy) that he hoped the Americans and the Jews would now be satisfied but that he (Chamberlain) felt that he had signed the doom of civilization.

    Kennedy said that if it had not been for Roosevelt the British would not have made this most gigantic blunder in history.

    Kennedy told me that he thought Roosevelt was in communication with Churchill, who was the leader of the opposition to Chamberlain, before Chamberlain was thrown out of office….

    James Forrestal, Under Secretary of the Navy, documented in his diaries a substantially similar conversation with Kennedy.
     
    , @Rurik

    The custom of warfare had always been “to the winner, the spoils”. It was only after the world realized its mistake at Versailles that this custom changed.
     
    except that Germany was lied to and betrayed

    they laid down their arms because the trusted that the allies would honor Wilson's Fourteen Points,

    and then once they were disarmed, then the perfidious liars and treacherous scumbags demanded upon starvation that Germany accept responsibility for the war, that Germany never wanted in the first place, and was trying to end because it was so fratricidal. But then the Balfour Declaration changed all that, and Perfidious Albion stuck the knife in Germany's back.

    On their own behalf, because British policy for centuries had been to fight any Continental empire whose conquests made it large enough to be a threat.
     
    Germany was not a threat, except perhaps to the British pride. Look at them now. British school girls gang raped by orcs. Some "victory".

    The appalling Tony Blair asked God whether he should go to war. God replied to him in the affirmative.
     
    I doubt even Tony Blair considers the Fiend to be God. He sold out England to Mammon, not to God.

    All Britain and France did was tip the balance against Gaddafi.
     
    pure bullshit

    It is committing not only ethnic suicide, but national/cultural suicide, on behalf of the owners of capital. Some of those are Jewish; most are not.
     
    most of the US congress are not Jewish, but they serve Zion with slavish obeisance.

    Germany is not dominated by Jews for obvious reasons.
     
    OMG you could not be more wrong

    they put ninety year old grandmothers in prison for expressing thoughts that Jews don't like. While inviting in an army of Muslims and Africans to destroy the German nation once and for all.

    It's the Morgenthau plan light.

    If you want to prevent the rapid progress of globalization, the best thing you can do is to either learn more or STFU.
     
    LOL

    The beneficiaries were Cecil Rhodes and the other shareholders in De Beers, their heirs and successors.
     
    yea, right

    Rothschild doesn't' exist, huh. He's a conspiracy theory of people who believe in shape shifting lizards and wear tinfoil hats. Gotcha.

    England is committing suicide because "capitalists" want them to. There's no connection between England's suicidal insanity and abased commitment to all things Israel, no .. matter... what - and its simultaneous commitment to do exactly as so many Jews openly pine and wish for all white nations to do- commit ethnic suicide.

    the two things are completely and absolutely unrelated!!!, and anyone who claims otherwise is a hateful anti-Semite! and Nazi!! and horrid person all around!!!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Che Guava says:
    @Priss Factor
    Kurosawa has been my director of choice after Sam Peckinpah.

    First Kurosawa film I saw was Kagemusha upon release.

    There was a decent book on Kurosawa by Donald Richie that covered all his works, film by film.

    Thx. Priss. I also loved his last, The Rain Lifts or Ame Agaru. The last time I was reading about him in English, people were listing his films as starting with Drunken Angel, I thought ‘that is stupid, but I was not wanting to offer a correction.

    Even checked the WP history for The Most Beautiful, used to play around there, to make trouble, good at it, so maybe made or contributed to the article, but no.

    Glad that you also enjoy his first major work.

    A point of interest to me, the actresses are all chubby, not in an unhealthy or obese way, but other people were near starvation and being burnt to death at the time.

    I am always to thinking of that when watching it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. CalDre says:
    @James N. Kennett

    on whose behalf did England betray and then starve Germany into the infamous Treaty of Versailles?
     
    The custom of warfare had always been "to the winner, the spoils". It was only after the world realized its mistake at Versailles that this custom changed.

    on whose behalf did England declare war on Germany to start WWII?
     
    On their own behalf, because British policy for centuries had been to fight any Continental empire whose conquests made it large enough to be a threat.

    on whose behalf did England go to war with Iraq? Eh?
     
    The appalling Tony Blair asked God whether he should go to war. God replied to him in the affirmative.

    on whose behalf did England help to destroy Libya?
     
    Libya's civil war destroyed the country. Whoever had won, the outcome was not going to be pretty. All Britain and France did was tip the balance against Gaddafi.

    on whose behalf is England committing ethnic suicide?
     

    on behalf of the British people, or the Jews that completely dominate England (and France and Germany and the US, etc..) from top to bottom?
     
    It is committing not only ethnic suicide, but national/cultural suicide, on behalf of the owners of capital. Some of those are Jewish; most are not.

    Germany is not dominated by Jews for obvious reasons.

    A pertinent question is why politicians on the Left have consistently supported the capitalists on this issue. All it needed was the suggestion that any opposition must be racist. Look, over there are some people who oppose our ethnic suicide and they are racist, aren't they?

    Your own blaming of the Jews, as if they and only they are responsible, plays into the hands of the globalists. You are playing a role in the drama that is necessary to the globalists. They can point to you and say the opponents of globalization are not only racist, they are anti-semitic. If you want to prevent the rapid progress of globalization, the best thing you can do is to either learn more or STFU.


    did England and the British people profit from the Boer war, or did Ernest Oppenheimer and the world’s ((diamond merchants?))
     
    The beneficiaries were Cecil Rhodes and the other shareholders in De Beers, their heirs and successors. Including anyone in the English-speaking world who has had a Rhodes Scholarship.

    The custom of warfare had always been “to the winner, the spoils”.

    Then how is it that defeated France remained intact and were able to repay their limited reparations in 2 years (in a case where France had actually started the Franco-Prussian War)? How was it that the other defeated powers in WW I were not obligated to pay such massive reparations? And you didn’t answer the question, on whose behalf it was done.

    The appalling Tony Blair asked God whether he should go to war. God replied to him in the affirmative.

    You can’t seriously believe (a) Blair believes in God, or (b) God would speak to that monster. So again you have deflected the question.

    Libya’s civil war destroyed the country.

    Except that a foreign-sponsored, foreign-armed, foreign-trained, foreign-formed, foreign-manned band of terrorists causing anarchy is hardly a “civil war”. But again, you have deflected the question, apparently in your zeal to conceal what you know to be the truth.

    It is committing not only ethnic suicide, but national/cultural suicide, on behalf of the owners of capital.

    Now that is a Communist answer and since Communists serve The Tribe we know exactly where you stand. Clearly it is not just “owners of capital” (which includes, you, no? You have a bank deposit? any stock?) but rather a particular organized group of owners of capital and their foot soldiers.

    A pertinent question is why politicians on the Left have consistently supported the capitalists on this issue. All it needed was the suggestion that any opposition must be racist.

    Perhaps because they all serve the same organized “owners of capital” you are trying so hard not to see?

    They can point to you and say the opponents of globalization are not only racist, they are anti-semitic.

    Ouch, they’ll play the race card! That’s a fantastic reason to stick your head in the sand and fight ghosts, isn’t it? Because those responsible will defame you for exposing them? LOL. The exact attitude why the globalists are winning and will eventually brutally enslave all remaining humanity (see 20 Deuteronomy 10-15) .

    The beneficiaries were Cecil Rhodes and the other shareholders in De Beers

    Let’s see, Oppenheimer, who ran De Beers, was a Jew (despite his professed conversion) and De Beers was funded by the Rothschilds and Alfred Beit (another globalist Jew). The Rhodes Scholarship is one of many mechanisms used by this organized cabal of “owners of capital” to find goy servants to use as “fronts” for their globalist operations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James N. Kennett

    Then how is it that defeated France remained intact and were able to repay their limited reparations in 2 years?
     
    France lost Alsace and Lorraine, against Bismarck's wishes. The Germans should have listened to Bismarck, because the loss only made France eager for another war in 1914.

    (in a case where France had actually started the Franco-Prussian War)
     
    Well, let's say opinion is divided on the matter. Some argue that Bismarck provoked the French because he believed, correctly, that a war would encourage German unification. This was in the days when insulting an ambassador was a casus belli.

    How was it that the other defeated powers in WW I were not obligated to pay such massive reparations?
     
    Austria-Hungary and Turkey lost their empires, which was considered punishment enough.

    And you didn’t answer the question, on whose behalf it was done.
     
    You were talking about Versailles, and I believe I have answered that question.

    You can’t seriously believe (a) Blair believes in God, or (b) God would speak to that monster. So again you have deflected the question.
     
    Blair absolutely believed in God, and he made the common mistake of interpreting his own tortured imagination as the Divine Voice. I have not deflected the question at all: Blair may have been the only person in the country, apart from some neocon journalists, who wanted to fight Iraq.

    Except that a foreign-sponsored, foreign-armed, foreign-trained, foreign-formed, foreign-manned band of terrorists causing anarchy is hardly a “civil war”.
     
    You might be describing Gaddafi's own troops, who were foreign mercenaries because he did not trust his own people.

    But again, you have deflected the question, apparently in your zeal to conceal what you know to be the truth.
     
    I'm genuinely mystified here. Please tell me who the Libyan opponents of Gaddafi were.

    Now that is a Communist answer and since Communists serve The Tribe we know exactly where you stand.

     

    ROTFL!!!! Please tell me what you are smoking, so I can avoid addling my brain as you have.

    One can learn from Marx the economist that the owners of capital have different interests from the workers - and that is precisely the point that is relevant to mass immigration and national suicide. That does not imply approval of Marx the politician, or his brain-dead communist utopianism, or service to the Tribe.

    Someone mentioned in a comment on another thread a study of the economic effects of mass immigration. It causes an increase in GDP - which almost entirely accrues to the immigrants. However, although the net effect on the previous inhabitants of the country is close to zero, there is a redistribution of (in the USA) $100 billion from the masses to the wealthy, through the suppression of wages. This means that the wealthy can spend a billion dollars a year to buy both sides in any political contest and make them pro-immigration - in the knowledge that their investment will be rewarded a hundred-fold.

    Ouch, they’ll play the race card!
     
    For some reason, this strategy is rather effective. It was used in Britain to shut down any opposition to immigration. No one in politics bothered to think of any positive arguments. When after 2003 we had mass immigration from Poland, they could not call racism on anyone who complained because the Poles were the same race as ourselves, and the end result was Brexit. This shows that: (a) people will vote on ethnic/national/patriotic lines; but (b) the accusation of racism is so noxious that it is enough to neutralize any patriotic tendencies.

    De Beers was funded by the Rothschilds
     
    The whole idea of investment banking is to place bets at 4:1, when you know the odds are really 2:1. If Rothschilds is better than Barings at that, we should say "thank you very much" - as long as they pay the right amount of tax on their gains.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @jacques sheete

    We need to condemn both tyrants.
     
    We should reserve the most condemnation for FDR and Churchill, who admitted that WW2 was unnecessary, and the bankers and other extremists who profited from the wars including the Jews who declared war on Hitler in 1933, the same year that FDR recognized the USSR which imposed the Holodomor on hapless Ukraine 1932-33.

    Germany had long been surrounded by crackpots and at least had the guts to try and resist becoming another colony of the usual scum. Unfortunately they were overwhelmed.

    The Duke of Wellington of the day put it best, and on the actual day the war was declared: “This war is the fault of the anti-appeasers and the f – ing Jews”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @James N. Kennett

    on whose behalf did England betray and then starve Germany into the infamous Treaty of Versailles?
     
    The custom of warfare had always been "to the winner, the spoils". It was only after the world realized its mistake at Versailles that this custom changed.

    on whose behalf did England declare war on Germany to start WWII?
     
    On their own behalf, because British policy for centuries had been to fight any Continental empire whose conquests made it large enough to be a threat.

    on whose behalf did England go to war with Iraq? Eh?
     
    The appalling Tony Blair asked God whether he should go to war. God replied to him in the affirmative.

    on whose behalf did England help to destroy Libya?
     
    Libya's civil war destroyed the country. Whoever had won, the outcome was not going to be pretty. All Britain and France did was tip the balance against Gaddafi.

    on whose behalf is England committing ethnic suicide?
     

    on behalf of the British people, or the Jews that completely dominate England (and France and Germany and the US, etc..) from top to bottom?
     
    It is committing not only ethnic suicide, but national/cultural suicide, on behalf of the owners of capital. Some of those are Jewish; most are not.

    Germany is not dominated by Jews for obvious reasons.

    A pertinent question is why politicians on the Left have consistently supported the capitalists on this issue. All it needed was the suggestion that any opposition must be racist. Look, over there are some people who oppose our ethnic suicide and they are racist, aren't they?

    Your own blaming of the Jews, as if they and only they are responsible, plays into the hands of the globalists. You are playing a role in the drama that is necessary to the globalists. They can point to you and say the opponents of globalization are not only racist, they are anti-semitic. If you want to prevent the rapid progress of globalization, the best thing you can do is to either learn more or STFU.


    did England and the British people profit from the Boer war, or did Ernest Oppenheimer and the world’s ((diamond merchants?))
     
    The beneficiaries were Cecil Rhodes and the other shareholders in De Beers, their heirs and successors. Including anyone in the English-speaking world who has had a Rhodes Scholarship.

    Another person unfamiliar with the concept of conditional expectation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. fnn says:
    @James N. Kennett

    on whose behalf did England betray and then starve Germany into the infamous Treaty of Versailles?
     
    The custom of warfare had always been "to the winner, the spoils". It was only after the world realized its mistake at Versailles that this custom changed.

    on whose behalf did England declare war on Germany to start WWII?
     
    On their own behalf, because British policy for centuries had been to fight any Continental empire whose conquests made it large enough to be a threat.

    on whose behalf did England go to war with Iraq? Eh?
     
    The appalling Tony Blair asked God whether he should go to war. God replied to him in the affirmative.

    on whose behalf did England help to destroy Libya?
     
    Libya's civil war destroyed the country. Whoever had won, the outcome was not going to be pretty. All Britain and France did was tip the balance against Gaddafi.

    on whose behalf is England committing ethnic suicide?
     

    on behalf of the British people, or the Jews that completely dominate England (and France and Germany and the US, etc..) from top to bottom?
     
    It is committing not only ethnic suicide, but national/cultural suicide, on behalf of the owners of capital. Some of those are Jewish; most are not.

    Germany is not dominated by Jews for obvious reasons.

    A pertinent question is why politicians on the Left have consistently supported the capitalists on this issue. All it needed was the suggestion that any opposition must be racist. Look, over there are some people who oppose our ethnic suicide and they are racist, aren't they?

    Your own blaming of the Jews, as if they and only they are responsible, plays into the hands of the globalists. You are playing a role in the drama that is necessary to the globalists. They can point to you and say the opponents of globalization are not only racist, they are anti-semitic. If you want to prevent the rapid progress of globalization, the best thing you can do is to either learn more or STFU.


    did England and the British people profit from the Boer war, or did Ernest Oppenheimer and the world’s ((diamond merchants?))
     
    The beneficiaries were Cecil Rhodes and the other shareholders in De Beers, their heirs and successors. Including anyone in the English-speaking world who has had a Rhodes Scholarship.

    The custom of warfare had always been “to the winner, the spoils”. It was only after the world realized its mistake at Versailles that this custom changed.

    Why there are no Francophones in Quebec today.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. fnn says:
    @James N. Kennett

    on whose behalf did England betray and then starve Germany into the infamous Treaty of Versailles?
     
    The custom of warfare had always been "to the winner, the spoils". It was only after the world realized its mistake at Versailles that this custom changed.

    on whose behalf did England declare war on Germany to start WWII?
     
    On their own behalf, because British policy for centuries had been to fight any Continental empire whose conquests made it large enough to be a threat.

    on whose behalf did England go to war with Iraq? Eh?
     
    The appalling Tony Blair asked God whether he should go to war. God replied to him in the affirmative.

    on whose behalf did England help to destroy Libya?
     
    Libya's civil war destroyed the country. Whoever had won, the outcome was not going to be pretty. All Britain and France did was tip the balance against Gaddafi.

    on whose behalf is England committing ethnic suicide?
     

    on behalf of the British people, or the Jews that completely dominate England (and France and Germany and the US, etc..) from top to bottom?
     
    It is committing not only ethnic suicide, but national/cultural suicide, on behalf of the owners of capital. Some of those are Jewish; most are not.

    Germany is not dominated by Jews for obvious reasons.

    A pertinent question is why politicians on the Left have consistently supported the capitalists on this issue. All it needed was the suggestion that any opposition must be racist. Look, over there are some people who oppose our ethnic suicide and they are racist, aren't they?

    Your own blaming of the Jews, as if they and only they are responsible, plays into the hands of the globalists. You are playing a role in the drama that is necessary to the globalists. They can point to you and say the opponents of globalization are not only racist, they are anti-semitic. If you want to prevent the rapid progress of globalization, the best thing you can do is to either learn more or STFU.


    did England and the British people profit from the Boer war, or did Ernest Oppenheimer and the world’s ((diamond merchants?))
     
    The beneficiaries were Cecil Rhodes and the other shareholders in De Beers, their heirs and successors. Including anyone in the English-speaking world who has had a Rhodes Scholarship.

    on whose behalf did England declare war on Germany to start WWII?

    On their own behalf, because British policy for centuries had been to fight any Continental empire whose conquests made it large enough to be a threat.

    Excerpts from Herbert Hoover’s posthumously published magnum opus, Freedom Betrayed:

    http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/05/poland-as-pawn-hoover-identifies.html

    [MORE]

    One of these case studies regards Poland. Hoover begins by outlining the behind-the-scenes actions of Roosevelt in convincing Britain to offer the infamous guarantee to Poland, and additionally to convince Poland to not negotiate with either Germany or Russia.

    President Roosevelt had on January 4, 1939 announced what had amounted to a revolution in American foreign Policy. He proposed action by the United States “stronger than words and less than war” on activities of foreign nations with which he disagreed.

    The President at once took action under this new policy with respect to Hitler’s demand of March 21, 1939 on Poland.

    The U.S. Ambassador to Britain, Joseph P. Kennedy, played a supporting role in implementing Roosevelt’s desires. He regularly urged firmness on the part of Britain when it came to dealing with the Germans. The German Charge d’Affaires in London confirmed Kennedy’s position, informing his government on March 20 that:

    …Kennedy…is playing a leading part. He is said to be in personal contact with the Missions of all the States involved, and to be attempting to encourage them to adopt a firm attitude by promising that the United States…would support them by all means (short of war”).

    Further American activities were disclosed after the Germans had invaded Poland in September 1939 and seized the Polish Foreign Office records. The Germans released a mass of documents which certainly indicated that the American Ambassador to France, William C. Bullitt, who could only act on Mr. Roosevelt’s authority, had made a profusion of oral assurances to officials of Poland and France which they could only interpret as a promise of assistance of some kind of force from the United States.

    When these documents were published, their authenticity was denied by both Bullitt and by the Polish Ambassador to the U.S. The Polish Ambassador later informed Hoover that he denied their authenticity at the request of the State Department. Further, Hoover has evidence of the authenticity of these German-released documents via Polish Embassy documents later given to the Hoover Institute. Besides minor differences in translations, these documents confirmed those released by the Germans as authentic. Hoover goes on to quote from a sampling of these documents – documents received directly from the Polish Embassy in Washington. From the Polish Ambassador Potocki to the Polish Foreign Office, dated two months before the British guarantee to Poland, in which he summarizes his conversations with U.S. Ambassador Bullitt:

    …2) the war preparations of the United States on land, sea, and air, which will proceed in an accelerated tempo and will cost the colossal sum of $1,250,000,000. 3) the definite opinion of the President that France and Britain should abandon all policy of compromise with the totalitarian countries and should not enter into any discussion with them which might be directed towards any territorial changes. 4) a moral assurance that the United States is abandoning the policy of isolation and is ready, in case of war, to participate actively on the side of Great Britain and France, placing all its resources, financial and in raw materials, at their disposal.

    In another dispatch, also dated two months before Britain’s guarantee to Poland, from the Polish Ambassador in Paris to the Polish Foreign Office stated:

    As Ambassador Bullitt puts it: “If a war breaks out, we probably would not participate in it at the beginning, but we would finish it.”…One thing, however, appears to be certain, namely that President Roosevelt’s policy in the immediate future will tend to…weaken Britain’s tendencies toward a compromise [over Poland].

    Hoover confirms that documentation from the U.S. State Department on this had not yet been released. However, based on conversation Hoover later had with Ambassador Kennedy, the U.S. positions portrayed in these dispatches were confirmed. During the war, Hoover met with Kennedy approximately 20 times. Kennedy apparently profoundly disagreed with Roosevelt’s foreign policy.

    Hoover would document his conversations with the various people he met with. An example is provided of Hoover’s meeting with Kennedy on May 15, 1945. Kennedy indicated he had over 900 dispatches which he could not print without consent of the U.S. Government. He hoped one day to receive such permission as it was Kennedy’s intention to write a book that would:

    …put an entirely different color on the process of how America got into the war and would prove the betrayal of the American people by Franklin D, Roosevelt.

    …Roosevelt and Bullitt were the major factors in the British making their guarantees to Poland and becoming involved in the war. Kennedy said that Bullitt, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the Poles not to make terms with the Germans and that he Kennedy, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the British to make guarantees to the Poles.

    He said that after Chamberlain had given these guarantees, Chamberlain told him (Kennedy) that he hoped the Americans and the Jews would now be satisfied but that he (Chamberlain) felt that he had signed the doom of civilization.

    Kennedy said that if it had not been for Roosevelt the British would not have made this most gigantic blunder in history.

    Kennedy told me that he thought Roosevelt was in communication with Churchill, who was the leader of the opposition to Chamberlain, before Chamberlain was thrown out of office….

    James Forrestal, Under Secretary of the Navy, documented in his diaries a substantially similar conversation with Kennedy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James N. Kennett
    You make an argument that Roosevelt and Kennedy used deception to push Britain into war. There are others who argue that Britain used deception to pull America into the war. The truth is that both countries were good enough at diplomacy to understand the different interests that prevailed upon them, and to make the decisions that they believed were in their own best interests. Kennedy was somewhat anti-British, but was above all a realist. In November 1940 he said:

    The whole reason for aiding England is to give us time ... As long as she is in there, we have time to prepare. It isn't that [Britain is] fighting for democracy. That's the bunk. She's fighting for self-preservation, just as we will if it comes to us.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_P._Kennedy_Sr.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @fnn

    on whose behalf did England declare war on Germany to start WWII?

    On their own behalf, because British policy for centuries had been to fight any Continental empire whose conquests made it large enough to be a threat.
     
    Excerpts from Herbert Hoover's posthumously published magnum opus, Freedom Betrayed:
    http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/05/poland-as-pawn-hoover-identifies.html


    One of these case studies regards Poland. Hoover begins by outlining the behind-the-scenes actions of Roosevelt in convincing Britain to offer the infamous guarantee to Poland, and additionally to convince Poland to not negotiate with either Germany or Russia.

    President Roosevelt had on January 4, 1939 announced what had amounted to a revolution in American foreign Policy. He proposed action by the United States “stronger than words and less than war” on activities of foreign nations with which he disagreed.

    The President at once took action under this new policy with respect to Hitler’s demand of March 21, 1939 on Poland.

    The U.S. Ambassador to Britain, Joseph P. Kennedy, played a supporting role in implementing Roosevelt’s desires. He regularly urged firmness on the part of Britain when it came to dealing with the Germans. The German Charge d’Affaires in London confirmed Kennedy’s position, informing his government on March 20 that:

    …Kennedy…is playing a leading part. He is said to be in personal contact with the Missions of all the States involved, and to be attempting to encourage them to adopt a firm attitude by promising that the United States…would support them by all means (short of war”).

    Further American activities were disclosed after the Germans had invaded Poland in September 1939 and seized the Polish Foreign Office records. The Germans released a mass of documents which certainly indicated that the American Ambassador to France, William C. Bullitt, who could only act on Mr. Roosevelt’s authority, had made a profusion of oral assurances to officials of Poland and France which they could only interpret as a promise of assistance of some kind of force from the United States.

    When these documents were published, their authenticity was denied by both Bullitt and by the Polish Ambassador to the U.S. The Polish Ambassador later informed Hoover that he denied their authenticity at the request of the State Department. Further, Hoover has evidence of the authenticity of these German-released documents via Polish Embassy documents later given to the Hoover Institute. Besides minor differences in translations, these documents confirmed those released by the Germans as authentic. Hoover goes on to quote from a sampling of these documents – documents received directly from the Polish Embassy in Washington. From the Polish Ambassador Potocki to the Polish Foreign Office, dated two months before the British guarantee to Poland, in which he summarizes his conversations with U.S. Ambassador Bullitt:

    …2) the war preparations of the United States on land, sea, and air, which will proceed in an accelerated tempo and will cost the colossal sum of $1,250,000,000. 3) the definite opinion of the President that France and Britain should abandon all policy of compromise with the totalitarian countries and should not enter into any discussion with them which might be directed towards any territorial changes. 4) a moral assurance that the United States is abandoning the policy of isolation and is ready, in case of war, to participate actively on the side of Great Britain and France, placing all its resources, financial and in raw materials, at their disposal.

    In another dispatch, also dated two months before Britain’s guarantee to Poland, from the Polish Ambassador in Paris to the Polish Foreign Office stated:

    As Ambassador Bullitt puts it: “If a war breaks out, we probably would not participate in it at the beginning, but we would finish it.”…One thing, however, appears to be certain, namely that President Roosevelt’s policy in the immediate future will tend to…weaken Britain’s tendencies toward a compromise [over Poland].

    Hoover confirms that documentation from the U.S. State Department on this had not yet been released. However, based on conversation Hoover later had with Ambassador Kennedy, the U.S. positions portrayed in these dispatches were confirmed. During the war, Hoover met with Kennedy approximately 20 times. Kennedy apparently profoundly disagreed with Roosevelt’s foreign policy.
     

    Hoover would document his conversations with the various people he met with. An example is provided of Hoover’s meeting with Kennedy on May 15, 1945. Kennedy indicated he had over 900 dispatches which he could not print without consent of the U.S. Government. He hoped one day to receive such permission as it was Kennedy’s intention to write a book that would:

    …put an entirely different color on the process of how America got into the war and would prove the betrayal of the American people by Franklin D, Roosevelt.

    …Roosevelt and Bullitt were the major factors in the British making their guarantees to Poland and becoming involved in the war. Kennedy said that Bullitt, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the Poles not to make terms with the Germans and that he Kennedy, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the British to make guarantees to the Poles.

    He said that after Chamberlain had given these guarantees, Chamberlain told him (Kennedy) that he hoped the Americans and the Jews would now be satisfied but that he (Chamberlain) felt that he had signed the doom of civilization.

    Kennedy said that if it had not been for Roosevelt the British would not have made this most gigantic blunder in history.

    Kennedy told me that he thought Roosevelt was in communication with Churchill, who was the leader of the opposition to Chamberlain, before Chamberlain was thrown out of office….

    James Forrestal, Under Secretary of the Navy, documented in his diaries a substantially similar conversation with Kennedy.
     

    You make an argument that Roosevelt and Kennedy used deception to push Britain into war. There are others who argue that Britain used deception to pull America into the war. The truth is that both countries were good enough at diplomacy to understand the different interests that prevailed upon them, and to make the decisions that they believed were in their own best interests. Kennedy was somewhat anti-British, but was above all a realist. In November 1940 he said:

    The whole reason for aiding England is to give us time … As long as she is in there, we have time to prepare. It isn’t that [Britain is] fighting for democracy. That’s the bunk. She’s fighting for self-preservation, just as we will if it comes to us.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_P._Kennedy_Sr.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fnn

    Kennedy was somewhat anti-British, but was above all a realist. In November 1940 he said:

    The whole reason for aiding England is to give us time … As long as she is in there, we have time to prepare. It isn’t that [Britain is] fighting for democracy. That’s the bunk. She’s fighting for self-preservation, just as we will if it comes to us.
     
    He didn't want the US to enter the war unless attacked. FDR tried to provoke war with Germany via an undeclared naval war in that began (at the latest) on Sep, 1, 1941.

    http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/undeclared-war-in-the-atlantic-the-u-s-navy-versus-the-u-boats/

    In July 1941, in a top secret memo to Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Harold Stark, President Roosevelt authorized the Atlantic Fleet to change from defensive to offensive operations, writing, in part, “…the presence of any German submarine or raider should be dealt with by action looking to the elimination of such ‘threat of attack’ on the lines of communication, or close to it.”
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @Joe Wong
    Yeah, yeah, yeah, you like all the mentally colonized Americans who have been brainwashed by the 'God-fearing' morally defunct evil 'puritan' from cradle to grave reinforced by excessive flag saluting; you guys always can explain away your crimes with the techniques used by unrepentant war criminal Japanese to white wash their beastly behavior in the last 75 years, denying, twisting fates, red herring, fake news, questioning minute details, manufacturing consent, pointing the fingers, accusing the victims, creating phantom WMD,...

    I was pointing out the trait of the unrepentant war criminal Japanese, it was you jumping in uninvited to bad mouth China with fake news, all I have done is pointing out your fallacy, trolling like the unrepentant war criminal Japanese,and behaving with a mindset belonging to the past, stalled in the old days of colonialism and constrained by the zero-sum cold war mentality.

    Go home Yankee, you are not wanted, not invited and not loved anywhere around the world.

    At least one person appreciates America over China:

    Exclusive: J. Robert Lunney, U.S. Navy of SS Meredith Victory discuss meeting South Korean President

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @CalDre

    The custom of warfare had always been “to the winner, the spoils”.
     
    Then how is it that defeated France remained intact and were able to repay their limited reparations in 2 years (in a case where France had actually started the Franco-Prussian War)? How was it that the other defeated powers in WW I were not obligated to pay such massive reparations? And you didn't answer the question, on whose behalf it was done.

    The appalling Tony Blair asked God whether he should go to war. God replied to him in the affirmative.
     
    You can't seriously believe (a) Blair believes in God, or (b) God would speak to that monster. So again you have deflected the question.

    Libya’s civil war destroyed the country.
     
    Except that a foreign-sponsored, foreign-armed, foreign-trained, foreign-formed, foreign-manned band of terrorists causing anarchy is hardly a "civil war". But again, you have deflected the question, apparently in your zeal to conceal what you know to be the truth.

    It is committing not only ethnic suicide, but national/cultural suicide, on behalf of the owners of capital.
     
    Now that is a Communist answer and since Communists serve The Tribe we know exactly where you stand. Clearly it is not just "owners of capital" (which includes, you, no? You have a bank deposit? any stock?) but rather a particular organized group of owners of capital and their foot soldiers.

    A pertinent question is why politicians on the Left have consistently supported the capitalists on this issue. All it needed was the suggestion that any opposition must be racist.
     
    Perhaps because they all serve the same organized "owners of capital" you are trying so hard not to see?

    They can point to you and say the opponents of globalization are not only racist, they are anti-semitic.
     
    Ouch, they'll play the race card! That's a fantastic reason to stick your head in the sand and fight ghosts, isn't it? Because those responsible will defame you for exposing them? LOL. The exact attitude why the globalists are winning and will eventually brutally enslave all remaining humanity (see 20 Deuteronomy 10-15) .

    The beneficiaries were Cecil Rhodes and the other shareholders in De Beers
     
    Let's see, Oppenheimer, who ran De Beers, was a Jew (despite his professed conversion) and De Beers was funded by the Rothschilds and Alfred Beit (another globalist Jew). The Rhodes Scholarship is one of many mechanisms used by this organized cabal of "owners of capital" to find goy servants to use as "fronts" for their globalist operations.

    Then how is it that defeated France remained intact and were able to repay their limited reparations in 2 years?

    France lost Alsace and Lorraine, against Bismarck’s wishes. The Germans should have listened to Bismarck, because the loss only made France eager for another war in 1914.

    (in a case where France had actually started the Franco-Prussian War)

    Well, let’s say opinion is divided on the matter. Some argue that Bismarck provoked the French because he believed, correctly, that a war would encourage German unification. This was in the days when insulting an ambassador was a casus belli.

    How was it that the other defeated powers in WW I were not obligated to pay such massive reparations?

    Austria-Hungary and Turkey lost their empires, which was considered punishment enough.

    And you didn’t answer the question, on whose behalf it was done.

    You were talking about Versailles, and I believe I have answered that question.

    You can’t seriously believe (a) Blair believes in God, or (b) God would speak to that monster. So again you have deflected the question.

    Blair absolutely believed in God, and he made the common mistake of interpreting his own tortured imagination as the Divine Voice. I have not deflected the question at all: Blair may have been the only person in the country, apart from some neocon journalists, who wanted to fight Iraq.

    Except that a foreign-sponsored, foreign-armed, foreign-trained, foreign-formed, foreign-manned band of terrorists causing anarchy is hardly a “civil war”.

    You might be describing Gaddafi’s own troops, who were foreign mercenaries because he did not trust his own people.

    But again, you have deflected the question, apparently in your zeal to conceal what you know to be the truth.

    I’m genuinely mystified here. Please tell me who the Libyan opponents of Gaddafi were.

    Now that is a Communist answer and since Communists serve The Tribe we know exactly where you stand.

    ROTFL!!!! Please tell me what you are smoking, so I can avoid addling my brain as you have.

    One can learn from Marx the economist that the owners of capital have different interests from the workers – and that is precisely the point that is relevant to mass immigration and national suicide. That does not imply approval of Marx the politician, or his brain-dead communist utopianism, or service to the Tribe.

    Someone mentioned in a comment on another thread a study of the economic effects of mass immigration. It causes an increase in GDP – which almost entirely accrues to the immigrants. However, although the net effect on the previous inhabitants of the country is close to zero, there is a redistribution of (in the USA) $100 billion from the masses to the wealthy, through the suppression of wages. This means that the wealthy can spend a billion dollars a year to buy both sides in any political contest and make them pro-immigration – in the knowledge that their investment will be rewarded a hundred-fold.

    Ouch, they’ll play the race card!

    For some reason, this strategy is rather effective. It was used in Britain to shut down any opposition to immigration. No one in politics bothered to think of any positive arguments. When after 2003 we had mass immigration from Poland, they could not call racism on anyone who complained because the Poles were the same race as ourselves, and the end result was Brexit. This shows that: (a) people will vote on ethnic/national/patriotic lines; but (b) the accusation of racism is so noxious that it is enough to neutralize any patriotic tendencies.

    De Beers was funded by the Rothschilds

    The whole idea of investment banking is to place bets at 4:1, when you know the odds are really 2:1. If Rothschilds is better than Barings at that, we should say “thank you very much” – as long as they pay the right amount of tax on their gains.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    France lost Alsace and Lorraine, against Bismarck’s wishes. The Germans should have listened to Bismarck, because the loss only made France eager for another war in 1914.
     
    Fair enough, I overlooked that as it was just a return of land France had pilfered from Germans and was still populated by Germanic people who spoke German (a dialect of course, all Germans spoke dialects at that time, most still do).

    Well, let’s say opinion is divided on the matter. Some argue that Bismarck provoked the French
     
    Sorry, that's ludicrous. Putting some tweaks on the description of a meeting, which was in essence accurately portrayed (France had threated Prussia with war unless Prussia did as France demanded in relation to the Spanish monarchy). That's not starting a war, geez. Grasping for straws, are we?

    This was in the days when insulting an ambassador was a casus belli.
     
    Hardly true, and in any case, it still doesn't alter who started the war one iota. Also thinking if someone attacks you will result in your victory and other benefits is also not starting a war. More grasping at straws, oh, desperation!

    Austria-Hungary and Turkey lost their empires, which was considered punishment enough.
     
    Oh, right, because that affected the average Turk and Austrian - naught. Germany was bled dry for years. Obviously there was some extra punishment and leeching in there and we all know what organized group/tribe was behind that. In case you don't, try looking up some speeches of a certain Benjamin Freedman.

    You were talking about Versailles, and I believe I have answered that question.
     
    No, you haven't. Perhaps you can be more clear: for whose benefit was Germany bled after WW I? You're only (irrelevant) point was giving a lame excuse for why other losers - in fact Austria-Hungary having started the whole mess - did not have to pay.

    Blair absolutely believed in God
     
    LOL. Blair worships Satan, though a lot of Satanists call Satan their God. But more importantly Blair was an agent of a particular organized tribe with tremendous power in England and he did what he did on their behest, pure and simple (as did Bush, who like Blair, was entirely surrounded by the tribe's lieutenants).

    You might be describing Gaddafi’s own troops, who were foreign mercenaries because he did not trust his own people.
     
    Libya used some foreign forces, yes, but yet again that does not answer the question of who was behind the foreign terrorists that destroyed Libya, which was a stalwart against the globalist agenda on many levels. Libya's army were not foreign terrorists trained, brought in, armed and supported by foreigners so, no, I was absolutely not describing them.

    I’m genuinely mystified here. Please tell me who the Libyan opponents of Gaddafi were.
     
    They mainly weren't Libyan. Watch these videos that show Qaddafi's broad appeal (both were shot during NATO's terror campaign): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4AR54BZWwU (Tripoli protest of millions supporting Qadaffi) and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvnM1Dg8pxI (Qaddai motorcade through Tripoli).

    One can learn from Marx the economist that the owners of capital have different interests from the workers – and that is precisely the point that is relevant to mass immigration and national suicide. That does not imply approval of Marx the politician, or his brain-dead communist utopianism, or service to the Tribe.
     
    I didn't mention Marx, I wrote Communist. Two very different things. The term "owners of capital" is ridiculous since anyone with a bank account is an "owner of capital". It's a nonsense word. Obviously you mean something more specific and my point is this "something more specific" is that certain organized cabal of "owners of capital", who own not just a little capital, but a substantial part of the world's capital, in a few hands. And they are not doing it for "profit", if you actually read and understood Marx (particularly in terms of surplus labor and costs of production and the laws thereof) you would understand that. They are doing it as part of a political agenda which is not related to profit. There's no proof whatsoever that illegal immigration increases profits, indeed many economists would argue that, as illegal labor reduces labor costs but no particular capitalist has a competitive advantage in hiring them, it reduces overall profits (as profits are typically a percentage of labor costs) and confers savings (i.e., "profits") to the "consumers" (i.e, the "proletariat").

    This shows that: (a) people will vote on ethnic/national/patriotic lines; but (b) the accusation of racism is so noxious that it is enough to neutralize any patriotic tendencies.
     
    The point is the globalist cabal will demonize anybody for any reason that interferes with their plans. So you might as well come right out with the truth and point out the evil bastards who are pulling the strings, and why.

    The whole idea of investment banking is to place bets at 4:1, when you know the odds are really 2:1. If Rothschilds is better than Barings at that, we should say “thank you very much” – as long as they pay the right amount of tax on their gains.
     
    Irrelevant clap-trap. The Boers was was fought for the globalist Jews (international Jews as Henry Ford put it), at least now you are tacitly admitting it. And Rothschilds paying tax? Surely you jest. And did you ever wonder why the diamond monopoly is exempt from the antitrust laws? And why the "Western mass media" gratuitously promoted the destructive diamond scam throughout the West for the sole profit of globalist Jews? (Hint: Just look who also owns the mass media.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Moi
    I simply made a comment about the Brit empire. And you're nuts if you think Indian people are grateful for having been ruled by the East India Co. and then the crown. I know that because I am from India.

    And you’re nuts if you think Indian people are grateful for having been ruled by the East India Co.

    LOL. I never said that they were.

    I know very well that some Indian nationalists to this day have a burning hatred for Britain.

    The fact remains, however, that British rule was in many respects more enlightened that the rule of the previous alien occupying power, the Mughal empire. Furthermore, the Brits did not impose their religion on India or attempt to settle India, whereas of course today, Britain is being settled by large number of people from the Indian sub-continent, Pakistani Muslims and Hindu and Muslim Indians, something to which I strongly object. I hope in due course most of them will be induced to return to their native land, and leave Britain’s tiny archipelago to the British (and Irish) who have occupied them for thousands of years.

    In any case, be assured that the disdain is mutual.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @CanSpeccy
    Have to admit I sometimes use "English" for "British" out of annoyance with the Scotch Nat cucks, who pretend to be nationalists but wish to destroy the United Kingdom, and take Scotland into the intimate embrace of the EU where they will have a much smaller (essential zero) voice than they have in Britain: a Britain that they have often, in effect, ruled through powerful ministers including Prime Ministers MacDonald, MacMillan, Home, Blair, and that Brown turn, wh0 called an old woman a bigot for objecting to the genocidal flood of immigration promoted by Brown's cuck Labor Government.

    –agreed on all points!
    I have no love whatsoever fot the traitors, sell-outs and charlatans in Westminster, but. I’m sad to say, I have even less for Holyrood.
    For the avaricous, and venal theives of liberty who are the Brussels scum, I have utter loathing and contempt.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. fnn says:
    @James N. Kennett
    You make an argument that Roosevelt and Kennedy used deception to push Britain into war. There are others who argue that Britain used deception to pull America into the war. The truth is that both countries were good enough at diplomacy to understand the different interests that prevailed upon them, and to make the decisions that they believed were in their own best interests. Kennedy was somewhat anti-British, but was above all a realist. In November 1940 he said:

    The whole reason for aiding England is to give us time ... As long as she is in there, we have time to prepare. It isn't that [Britain is] fighting for democracy. That's the bunk. She's fighting for self-preservation, just as we will if it comes to us.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_P._Kennedy_Sr.

    Kennedy was somewhat anti-British, but was above all a realist. In November 1940 he said:

    The whole reason for aiding England is to give us time … As long as she is in there, we have time to prepare. It isn’t that [Britain is] fighting for democracy. That’s the bunk. She’s fighting for self-preservation, just as we will if it comes to us.

    He didn’t want the US to enter the war unless attacked. FDR tried to provoke war with Germany via an undeclared naval war in that began (at the latest) on Sep, 1, 1941.

    http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/undeclared-war-in-the-atlantic-the-u-s-navy-versus-the-u-boats/

    In July 1941, in a top secret memo to Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Harold Stark, President Roosevelt authorized the Atlantic Fleet to change from defensive to offensive operations, writing, in part, “…the presence of any German submarine or raider should be dealt with by action looking to the elimination of such ‘threat of attack’ on the lines of communication, or close to it.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    He didn’t want the US to enter the war unless attacked. FDR tried to provoke war with Germany via an undeclared naval war in that began (at the latest) on Sep, 1, 1941.
     
    Yes this crossed a critical line. The US was never neutral but so long as it was only supplying Britain and Russia with war material the Germans could ignore it. However once American and German sailors began killing each other, full scale war became inevitable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. CalDre says:
    @James N. Kennett

    Then how is it that defeated France remained intact and were able to repay their limited reparations in 2 years?
     
    France lost Alsace and Lorraine, against Bismarck's wishes. The Germans should have listened to Bismarck, because the loss only made France eager for another war in 1914.

    (in a case where France had actually started the Franco-Prussian War)
     
    Well, let's say opinion is divided on the matter. Some argue that Bismarck provoked the French because he believed, correctly, that a war would encourage German unification. This was in the days when insulting an ambassador was a casus belli.

    How was it that the other defeated powers in WW I were not obligated to pay such massive reparations?
     
    Austria-Hungary and Turkey lost their empires, which was considered punishment enough.

    And you didn’t answer the question, on whose behalf it was done.
     
    You were talking about Versailles, and I believe I have answered that question.

    You can’t seriously believe (a) Blair believes in God, or (b) God would speak to that monster. So again you have deflected the question.
     
    Blair absolutely believed in God, and he made the common mistake of interpreting his own tortured imagination as the Divine Voice. I have not deflected the question at all: Blair may have been the only person in the country, apart from some neocon journalists, who wanted to fight Iraq.

    Except that a foreign-sponsored, foreign-armed, foreign-trained, foreign-formed, foreign-manned band of terrorists causing anarchy is hardly a “civil war”.
     
    You might be describing Gaddafi's own troops, who were foreign mercenaries because he did not trust his own people.

    But again, you have deflected the question, apparently in your zeal to conceal what you know to be the truth.
     
    I'm genuinely mystified here. Please tell me who the Libyan opponents of Gaddafi were.

    Now that is a Communist answer and since Communists serve The Tribe we know exactly where you stand.

     

    ROTFL!!!! Please tell me what you are smoking, so I can avoid addling my brain as you have.

    One can learn from Marx the economist that the owners of capital have different interests from the workers - and that is precisely the point that is relevant to mass immigration and national suicide. That does not imply approval of Marx the politician, or his brain-dead communist utopianism, or service to the Tribe.

    Someone mentioned in a comment on another thread a study of the economic effects of mass immigration. It causes an increase in GDP - which almost entirely accrues to the immigrants. However, although the net effect on the previous inhabitants of the country is close to zero, there is a redistribution of (in the USA) $100 billion from the masses to the wealthy, through the suppression of wages. This means that the wealthy can spend a billion dollars a year to buy both sides in any political contest and make them pro-immigration - in the knowledge that their investment will be rewarded a hundred-fold.

    Ouch, they’ll play the race card!
     
    For some reason, this strategy is rather effective. It was used in Britain to shut down any opposition to immigration. No one in politics bothered to think of any positive arguments. When after 2003 we had mass immigration from Poland, they could not call racism on anyone who complained because the Poles were the same race as ourselves, and the end result was Brexit. This shows that: (a) people will vote on ethnic/national/patriotic lines; but (b) the accusation of racism is so noxious that it is enough to neutralize any patriotic tendencies.

    De Beers was funded by the Rothschilds
     
    The whole idea of investment banking is to place bets at 4:1, when you know the odds are really 2:1. If Rothschilds is better than Barings at that, we should say "thank you very much" - as long as they pay the right amount of tax on their gains.

    France lost Alsace and Lorraine, against Bismarck’s wishes. The Germans should have listened to Bismarck, because the loss only made France eager for another war in 1914.

    Fair enough, I overlooked that as it was just a return of land France had pilfered from Germans and was still populated by Germanic people who spoke German (a dialect of course, all Germans spoke dialects at that time, most still do).

    Well, let’s say opinion is divided on the matter. Some argue that Bismarck provoked the French

    Sorry, that’s ludicrous. Putting some tweaks on the description of a meeting, which was in essence accurately portrayed (France had threated Prussia with war unless Prussia did as France demanded in relation to the Spanish monarchy). That’s not starting a war, geez. Grasping for straws, are we?

    This was in the days when insulting an ambassador was a casus belli.

    Hardly true, and in any case, it still doesn’t alter who started the war one iota. Also thinking if someone attacks you will result in your victory and other benefits is also not starting a war. More grasping at straws, oh, desperation!

    Austria-Hungary and Turkey lost their empires, which was considered punishment enough.

    Oh, right, because that affected the average Turk and Austrian – naught. Germany was bled dry for years. Obviously there was some extra punishment and leeching in there and we all know what organized group/tribe was behind that. In case you don’t, try looking up some speeches of a certain Benjamin Freedman.

    You were talking about Versailles, and I believe I have answered that question.

    No, you haven’t. Perhaps you can be more clear: for whose benefit was Germany bled after WW I? You’re only (irrelevant) point was giving a lame excuse for why other losers – in fact Austria-Hungary having started the whole mess – did not have to pay.

    Blair absolutely believed in God

    LOL. Blair worships Satan, though a lot of Satanists call Satan their God. But more importantly Blair was an agent of a particular organized tribe with tremendous power in England and he did what he did on their behest, pure and simple (as did Bush, who like Blair, was entirely surrounded by the tribe’s lieutenants).

    You might be describing Gaddafi’s own troops, who were foreign mercenaries because he did not trust his own people.

    Libya used some foreign forces, yes, but yet again that does not answer the question of who was behind the foreign terrorists that destroyed Libya, which was a stalwart against the globalist agenda on many levels. Libya’s army were not foreign terrorists trained, brought in, armed and supported by foreigners so, no, I was absolutely not describing them.

    I’m genuinely mystified here. Please tell me who the Libyan opponents of Gaddafi were.

    They mainly weren’t Libyan. Watch these videos that show Qaddafi’s broad appeal (both were shot during NATO’s terror campaign): (Tripoli protest of millions supporting Qadaffi) and (Qaddai motorcade through Tripoli).

    One can learn from Marx the economist that the owners of capital have different interests from the workers – and that is precisely the point that is relevant to mass immigration and national suicide. That does not imply approval of Marx the politician, or his brain-dead communist utopianism, or service to the Tribe.

    I didn’t mention Marx, I wrote Communist. Two very different things. The term “owners of capital” is ridiculous since anyone with a bank account is an “owner of capital”. It’s a nonsense word. Obviously you mean something more specific and my point is this “something more specific” is that certain organized cabal of “owners of capital”, who own not just a little capital, but a substantial part of the world’s capital, in a few hands. And they are not doing it for “profit”, if you actually read and understood Marx (particularly in terms of surplus labor and costs of production and the laws thereof) you would understand that. They are doing it as part of a political agenda which is not related to profit. There’s no proof whatsoever that illegal immigration increases profits, indeed many economists would argue that, as illegal labor reduces labor costs but no particular capitalist has a competitive advantage in hiring them, it reduces overall profits (as profits are typically a percentage of labor costs) and confers savings (i.e., “profits”) to the “consumers” (i.e, the “proletariat”).

    This shows that: (a) people will vote on ethnic/national/patriotic lines; but (b) the accusation of racism is so noxious that it is enough to neutralize any patriotic tendencies.

    The point is the globalist cabal will demonize anybody for any reason that interferes with their plans. So you might as well come right out with the truth and point out the evil bastards who are pulling the strings, and why.

    The whole idea of investment banking is to place bets at 4:1, when you know the odds are really 2:1. If Rothschilds is better than Barings at that, we should say “thank you very much” – as long as they pay the right amount of tax on their gains.

    Irrelevant clap-trap. The Boers was was fought for the globalist Jews (international Jews as Henry Ford put it), at least now you are tacitly admitting it. And Rothschilds paying tax? Surely you jest. And did you ever wonder why the diamond monopoly is exempt from the antitrust laws? And why the “Western mass media” gratuitously promoted the destructive diamond scam throughout the West for the sole profit of globalist Jews? (Hint: Just look who also owns the mass media.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Before we get too lachrymose over the treatment of Germany in the Versailles Treaty, we ought to look at how the Germans treated the defeated six months before the war ended, in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

    Those who show no mercy lose their right to demand it be shown to them.
    , @James N. Kennett

    The point is the globalist cabal will demonize anybody for any reason that interferes with their plans. So you might as well come right out with the truth and point out the evil bastards who are pulling the strings, and why.
     
    I get so much anti-racist push-back from intelligent working-class gentiles that I know it is not simply a few evil bastards pulling the strings.

    And did you ever wonder why the diamond monopoly is exempt from the antitrust laws?
     
    The diamond monopoly is exempt from the anti-trust laws (if there are any) in South Africa, because this is in the country's national interest. It is not exempt in the USA, which has tried unsuccessfully to break the cartel. If the executives of De Beers travel to the USA on business, they are likely to be arrested.

    If you replaced "the Tribe" in your demonology with "the ultra-rich", you would be far closer to the truth. Most Jews are not ultra-rich. Most ultra-rich are not Jews.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @CalDre

    Usually Unz has a very intelligent comment section…usually…
     
    Some people are actually educated and informed and to the brainwashed sheeple they seem stupid and irrational .... As Goethe famously wrote, "None are more enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free". His point: a mental prison is the hardest to break free from, for just as with Plato's Parable of the Cave, the mentally incarcerated have no concept of their own servitude.

    Germany invaded Poland, that was engaged in a steady diet of anti-German pogroms - from German lands that were stolen from Germany following WW I. Certainly if the Irish were (righteously) conducting pogroms against the British aristocracy in Ireland the British would respond with massive force (heck, they attacked innocent countries time and again and again for nothing). Would Germany then have the justifiable right to declare war against UK and bomb their citieis to smithereens, murdering millions of civilians? Because that is what you justify.

    As to the "mutual defense pact" nonsense, USSR also invaded Poland, more or less contemporaneously. And UK did not declare war on them - no, they helped them, gave them weapons and technology. And at war's end, Churchill handed all of Poland to Stalin. What kind of defense of Poland is that? Utter nonsense.

    But keep living in your mental prison. Your masters have spent a fortune building it for you, you should not disappoint them.

    Excellent and concise post Caldre!

    “None are more enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free”.

    In the US the idiot box- the “electronic communist” has brainwashed the entire nation. Today Americans would not believe anything unless it first appeared on television.

    And this is the major cause of our downfall. Everything on TV is anti-Christian, anti-white, anti-patriotic and communist orientated, whether it is slanted “news”, distorted “entertainment”, or advertising. On top of this it is aimed at low grade morons.

    Any human adults who will sit for hours before a TV screen betray the fact that they have no deep purpose in life, that in fact living bores them. Their minds and souls are empty

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. Logan says:
    @CanSpeccy

    What events like Dunkirk and the Miracle of the Marne, where French taxi drivers were used to ferry troops to the front in WW1, show is the ability of governments to turn ‘defeats’ into propaganda victories.
     
    Churchill, I believe, called Dunkirk not a defeat but "the greatest disgrace to British arms in a thousand years."

    Well, this was before the Fall of Singapore.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. Logan says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Few Americans know that Anglo-Saxons are Germans, and English is a Germanic language, which is why Hitler allowed the English to escape. A German recently wrote that while Hitler was bad, he would never let Europe be overrun by Africans and Muslims. England should send a BEF to defend Italy today!
     
    The Brits, what's left of them, as they become a minority in their own homeland, are mainly Celts. The Anglo Saxons were an occupying power who imposed their language and legal tradition on the country without exterminating the indigenous population.

    That is true of all the other invasions of Britain prior to the ongoing population replacement project of the Euro-elite and the British Treason class. Romans, Vikings and Normans, all left only a rather small genetic imprint. Not so with the present influx, many of whom display the normal racist contempt for the indigenous people.

    Like this guy:

    Scottish Taxpayers Fund ‘Art Performance’ Calling Whites ‘Inbred Spawn Soon To Die Out’

    Or this guy:

    'All white people are racist': Cambridge University probes head of equality group for saying white men, women and children 'can all get it’ as he heaps praise on London rioters in shocking Twitter outburst

    Presumably, the courts will fine them about five quid each and tell them to be more sensitive about the feelings of the natives. Heck, we don't want an uprising or anything.

    So yes, better a Nazi than the present bunch of Euro-cucks.

    The Celts themselves were probably merely an earlier group of invaders, like them imposing the rule of a small number over the indigenous and assimilating them to their culture and language.

    The primary genetic stock of the British Isles appears to go back to the Stone Age, long before the Celts, who probably arrived sometime around the 1100s, during the same widespread disruption that affected most of the ancient world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Should note, I guess, that some think the Celts arrived a good deal later. But there is very little evidence they replaced the earlier inhabitants genetically.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. Logan says:
    @Logan
    The Celts themselves were probably merely an earlier group of invaders, like them imposing the rule of a small number over the indigenous and assimilating them to their culture and language.

    The primary genetic stock of the British Isles appears to go back to the Stone Age, long before the Celts, who probably arrived sometime around the 1100s, during the same widespread disruption that affected most of the ancient world.

    Should note, I guess, that some think the Celts arrived a good deal later. But there is very little evidence they replaced the earlier inhabitants genetically.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. Logan says:
    @CalDre

    France lost Alsace and Lorraine, against Bismarck’s wishes. The Germans should have listened to Bismarck, because the loss only made France eager for another war in 1914.
     
    Fair enough, I overlooked that as it was just a return of land France had pilfered from Germans and was still populated by Germanic people who spoke German (a dialect of course, all Germans spoke dialects at that time, most still do).

    Well, let’s say opinion is divided on the matter. Some argue that Bismarck provoked the French
     
    Sorry, that's ludicrous. Putting some tweaks on the description of a meeting, which was in essence accurately portrayed (France had threated Prussia with war unless Prussia did as France demanded in relation to the Spanish monarchy). That's not starting a war, geez. Grasping for straws, are we?

    This was in the days when insulting an ambassador was a casus belli.
     
    Hardly true, and in any case, it still doesn't alter who started the war one iota. Also thinking if someone attacks you will result in your victory and other benefits is also not starting a war. More grasping at straws, oh, desperation!

    Austria-Hungary and Turkey lost their empires, which was considered punishment enough.
     
    Oh, right, because that affected the average Turk and Austrian - naught. Germany was bled dry for years. Obviously there was some extra punishment and leeching in there and we all know what organized group/tribe was behind that. In case you don't, try looking up some speeches of a certain Benjamin Freedman.

    You were talking about Versailles, and I believe I have answered that question.
     
    No, you haven't. Perhaps you can be more clear: for whose benefit was Germany bled after WW I? You're only (irrelevant) point was giving a lame excuse for why other losers - in fact Austria-Hungary having started the whole mess - did not have to pay.

    Blair absolutely believed in God
     
    LOL. Blair worships Satan, though a lot of Satanists call Satan their God. But more importantly Blair was an agent of a particular organized tribe with tremendous power in England and he did what he did on their behest, pure and simple (as did Bush, who like Blair, was entirely surrounded by the tribe's lieutenants).

    You might be describing Gaddafi’s own troops, who were foreign mercenaries because he did not trust his own people.
     
    Libya used some foreign forces, yes, but yet again that does not answer the question of who was behind the foreign terrorists that destroyed Libya, which was a stalwart against the globalist agenda on many levels. Libya's army were not foreign terrorists trained, brought in, armed and supported by foreigners so, no, I was absolutely not describing them.

    I’m genuinely mystified here. Please tell me who the Libyan opponents of Gaddafi were.
     
    They mainly weren't Libyan. Watch these videos that show Qaddafi's broad appeal (both were shot during NATO's terror campaign): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4AR54BZWwU (Tripoli protest of millions supporting Qadaffi) and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvnM1Dg8pxI (Qaddai motorcade through Tripoli).

    One can learn from Marx the economist that the owners of capital have different interests from the workers – and that is precisely the point that is relevant to mass immigration and national suicide. That does not imply approval of Marx the politician, or his brain-dead communist utopianism, or service to the Tribe.
     
    I didn't mention Marx, I wrote Communist. Two very different things. The term "owners of capital" is ridiculous since anyone with a bank account is an "owner of capital". It's a nonsense word. Obviously you mean something more specific and my point is this "something more specific" is that certain organized cabal of "owners of capital", who own not just a little capital, but a substantial part of the world's capital, in a few hands. And they are not doing it for "profit", if you actually read and understood Marx (particularly in terms of surplus labor and costs of production and the laws thereof) you would understand that. They are doing it as part of a political agenda which is not related to profit. There's no proof whatsoever that illegal immigration increases profits, indeed many economists would argue that, as illegal labor reduces labor costs but no particular capitalist has a competitive advantage in hiring them, it reduces overall profits (as profits are typically a percentage of labor costs) and confers savings (i.e., "profits") to the "consumers" (i.e, the "proletariat").

    This shows that: (a) people will vote on ethnic/national/patriotic lines; but (b) the accusation of racism is so noxious that it is enough to neutralize any patriotic tendencies.
     
    The point is the globalist cabal will demonize anybody for any reason that interferes with their plans. So you might as well come right out with the truth and point out the evil bastards who are pulling the strings, and why.

    The whole idea of investment banking is to place bets at 4:1, when you know the odds are really 2:1. If Rothschilds is better than Barings at that, we should say “thank you very much” – as long as they pay the right amount of tax on their gains.
     
    Irrelevant clap-trap. The Boers was was fought for the globalist Jews (international Jews as Henry Ford put it), at least now you are tacitly admitting it. And Rothschilds paying tax? Surely you jest. And did you ever wonder why the diamond monopoly is exempt from the antitrust laws? And why the "Western mass media" gratuitously promoted the destructive diamond scam throughout the West for the sole profit of globalist Jews? (Hint: Just look who also owns the mass media.)

    Before we get too lachrymose over the treatment of Germany in the Versailles Treaty, we ought to look at how the Germans treated the defeated six months before the war ended, in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

    Those who show no mercy lose their right to demand it be shown to them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
    Brest-Litovsk is irrelevant in accessing the role Versailles played in German grievances against Britain and France.
    , @Logan
    Ever heard of poetic justice?

    The problem with Versailles is that it was too harsh and too lenient.

    To prevent future problems, one should either destroy an enemy or make a sincere effort to turn him into a friend. Pissing him off while at the same time leaving his basic military potential unencumbered is the classic Bad Idea.

    Amount of reparations in some context:
    Germany imposed on France after winning the Franco-Prussian War reparations of 5B gold francs, equivalent to ~1.5B grams or 1.5M kilos of gold.

    In the treaty of BL, the Germans imposed reparations of 9B gold marks on Russia. That's 3.2M kilos of gold.

    In the Versailles Treaty, the Germans agreed to pay 132B gold marks, but that was a smokescreen to delude the people of the Allies more than an actual amount, which was something in the neighborhood of half that. The actual amount is hard to come at, there were so many modifications and changes. But let's say 70B gold marks.

    That's 25M kilos of gold. Or about 17x the indemnity imposed on the French after the Franco-Prussian War. A war in which the Germans invaded France rather than the other way around. The German economy in 1914 was also about 3x greater than that of France in 1870, bringing the disproportion down to about 6x.


    All the above calculations are subject to revision if anybody can show me where I dropped a decimal. :)

    http://thefederalist.com/2014/07/29/world-war-i-reparations-werent-as-unfair-as-you-think/

    We didn't make the same mistake after WWII. Germany was flat conquered, nobody could claim otherwise. We imposed our values on them, and they haven't been a military problem since. Problems in other ways, to be saure.
    , @CalDre
    Show no mercy? Treaty of Brest-Litovsk did not impose reparations (there was a separate Financial Agreement of 1918 which provided for compensation for Communist renunciation of Tsarist bonds and for stealing foreign property, which is an entirely different matter - plus the German "reparations" were 30 times per citizen greater, as pointed out in another post) nor did it take "Russian" lands from Russia. You might disagree with the last part so let me elaborate.

    The BL Treaty took from Russia: Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine and Lithuania. On the other hand, the V Treaty took from Germany: provinces of Alsace-Lorraine, Czechoslovakia and Poland (including Danzig, Memel, Silesia and Posen). So let's take a quick look at their history, including primarily (1) what ethnicity/culture were the peoples of those lost regions, (ii) how long did those peoples live under the ceding power, and (iii) where did those peoples want to be?

    Well, it is without question that none of Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania wanted to be part of Russia, and especially not part of COMMUNIST Bolshevik totalitarian mass-murdering Red THUGS Russia. And the peoples there were not "Russian". Now, with regard to Ukraine: first, it must be recognized that Ukraine was granted independence, not absorbed into the German Empire. Second, Ukraine had its own delegation at the conferences and sought independence, and happily approved the treaty. Ukrainians, then and now, did not want to be subject to the Russian yoke.

    So, now let's turn to the German cessions. Large swaths of those ceded territories were occupied by ethnic Germans who spoke German and wanted to be part of Germany. Poland gives a fine example. French historian Raymond Cartier estimates that out of 1 million Germans living in Posen-West Prussia in 1921 (already years after war's end), 75%!! had fled their homelands within five years due to Polish harassment.

    So tell me, did 75% of Finns, 75% of Latvians, or even 75% of Ukrainians flee to Russia after obtaining their freedom?

    You really have no clue about reality. Those who show no mercy lose their right to demand it be shown to them. Indeed, you should genuflect on how that statement applies to you. Germany liberated conquered territories from the Bolsheviks. That is not being merciless, how sad, tragic and misinformed that you would write that.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @Logan
    Before we get too lachrymose over the treatment of Germany in the Versailles Treaty, we ought to look at how the Germans treated the defeated six months before the war ended, in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

    Those who show no mercy lose their right to demand it be shown to them.

    Brest-Litovsk is irrelevant in accessing the role Versailles played in German grievances against Britain and France.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. @CalDre

    France lost Alsace and Lorraine, against Bismarck’s wishes. The Germans should have listened to Bismarck, because the loss only made France eager for another war in 1914.
     
    Fair enough, I overlooked that as it was just a return of land France had pilfered from Germans and was still populated by Germanic people who spoke German (a dialect of course, all Germans spoke dialects at that time, most still do).

    Well, let’s say opinion is divided on the matter. Some argue that Bismarck provoked the French
     
    Sorry, that's ludicrous. Putting some tweaks on the description of a meeting, which was in essence accurately portrayed (France had threated Prussia with war unless Prussia did as France demanded in relation to the Spanish monarchy). That's not starting a war, geez. Grasping for straws, are we?

    This was in the days when insulting an ambassador was a casus belli.
     
    Hardly true, and in any case, it still doesn't alter who started the war one iota. Also thinking if someone attacks you will result in your victory and other benefits is also not starting a war. More grasping at straws, oh, desperation!

    Austria-Hungary and Turkey lost their empires, which was considered punishment enough.
     
    Oh, right, because that affected the average Turk and Austrian - naught. Germany was bled dry for years. Obviously there was some extra punishment and leeching in there and we all know what organized group/tribe was behind that. In case you don't, try looking up some speeches of a certain Benjamin Freedman.

    You were talking about Versailles, and I believe I have answered that question.
     
    No, you haven't. Perhaps you can be more clear: for whose benefit was Germany bled after WW I? You're only (irrelevant) point was giving a lame excuse for why other losers - in fact Austria-Hungary having started the whole mess - did not have to pay.

    Blair absolutely believed in God
     
    LOL. Blair worships Satan, though a lot of Satanists call Satan their God. But more importantly Blair was an agent of a particular organized tribe with tremendous power in England and he did what he did on their behest, pure and simple (as did Bush, who like Blair, was entirely surrounded by the tribe's lieutenants).

    You might be describing Gaddafi’s own troops, who were foreign mercenaries because he did not trust his own people.
     
    Libya used some foreign forces, yes, but yet again that does not answer the question of who was behind the foreign terrorists that destroyed Libya, which was a stalwart against the globalist agenda on many levels. Libya's army were not foreign terrorists trained, brought in, armed and supported by foreigners so, no, I was absolutely not describing them.

    I’m genuinely mystified here. Please tell me who the Libyan opponents of Gaddafi were.
     
    They mainly weren't Libyan. Watch these videos that show Qaddafi's broad appeal (both were shot during NATO's terror campaign): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4AR54BZWwU (Tripoli protest of millions supporting Qadaffi) and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvnM1Dg8pxI (Qaddai motorcade through Tripoli).

    One can learn from Marx the economist that the owners of capital have different interests from the workers – and that is precisely the point that is relevant to mass immigration and national suicide. That does not imply approval of Marx the politician, or his brain-dead communist utopianism, or service to the Tribe.
     
    I didn't mention Marx, I wrote Communist. Two very different things. The term "owners of capital" is ridiculous since anyone with a bank account is an "owner of capital". It's a nonsense word. Obviously you mean something more specific and my point is this "something more specific" is that certain organized cabal of "owners of capital", who own not just a little capital, but a substantial part of the world's capital, in a few hands. And they are not doing it for "profit", if you actually read and understood Marx (particularly in terms of surplus labor and costs of production and the laws thereof) you would understand that. They are doing it as part of a political agenda which is not related to profit. There's no proof whatsoever that illegal immigration increases profits, indeed many economists would argue that, as illegal labor reduces labor costs but no particular capitalist has a competitive advantage in hiring them, it reduces overall profits (as profits are typically a percentage of labor costs) and confers savings (i.e., "profits") to the "consumers" (i.e, the "proletariat").

    This shows that: (a) people will vote on ethnic/national/patriotic lines; but (b) the accusation of racism is so noxious that it is enough to neutralize any patriotic tendencies.
     
    The point is the globalist cabal will demonize anybody for any reason that interferes with their plans. So you might as well come right out with the truth and point out the evil bastards who are pulling the strings, and why.

    The whole idea of investment banking is to place bets at 4:1, when you know the odds are really 2:1. If Rothschilds is better than Barings at that, we should say “thank you very much” – as long as they pay the right amount of tax on their gains.
     
    Irrelevant clap-trap. The Boers was was fought for the globalist Jews (international Jews as Henry Ford put it), at least now you are tacitly admitting it. And Rothschilds paying tax? Surely you jest. And did you ever wonder why the diamond monopoly is exempt from the antitrust laws? And why the "Western mass media" gratuitously promoted the destructive diamond scam throughout the West for the sole profit of globalist Jews? (Hint: Just look who also owns the mass media.)

    The point is the globalist cabal will demonize anybody for any reason that interferes with their plans. So you might as well come right out with the truth and point out the evil bastards who are pulling the strings, and why.

    I get so much anti-racist push-back from intelligent working-class gentiles that I know it is not simply a few evil bastards pulling the strings.

    And did you ever wonder why the diamond monopoly is exempt from the antitrust laws?

    The diamond monopoly is exempt from the anti-trust laws (if there are any) in South Africa, because this is in the country’s national interest. It is not exempt in the USA, which has tried unsuccessfully to break the cartel. If the executives of De Beers travel to the USA on business, they are likely to be arrested.

    If you replaced “the Tribe” in your demonology with “the ultra-rich”, you would be far closer to the truth. Most Jews are not ultra-rich. Most ultra-rich are not Jews.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    I get so much anti-racist push-back from intelligent working-class gentiles that I know it is not simply a few evil bastards pulling the strings.
     
    All these gentiles are having their strings pulled by the institutions under the control of the globalist cabal: TV, news media, cable media, music, movies, education (they control the books), politicians, "think tanks", etc. They are entirely brainwashed with a perpetual stream of propaganda. They are the puppets. Leftists in particular are the "change agents" who are the (unwitting) foot soldiers of the cabal. Just look at who sits a top all of those industries.

    The diamond monopoly is exempt from the anti-trust laws (if there are any) in South Africa, because this is in the country’s national interest. It is not exempt in the USA, which has tried unsuccessfully to break the cartel. If the executives of De Beers travel to the USA on business, they are likely to be arrested.
     
    The diamond monopoly essentially ended in 1999, due to a number of changes in the supply landscape (collapse of Soviet Union and huge mine discoveries in Australia, Canada and elsewhere - and in particular the Austrian and Canadian mines decided to circumvent De Beers, which led to the Oppenheimer family selling De Beers in 2011). In 2004 private plaintiffs filed an antitrust lawsuit against De Beers in the US. It was settled a few years later for the paltry sum of $295 million. To put this in perspective, the diamond industry is an $80 billion / year industry. A study of South African showed $3 billion in price fixing of its rough diamond trade from 2005 to 2012 alone (after De Beer's monopoly had already been effectively curtailed by the new supplies). Note the plaintiff lawyers in that "class action" case were - you guessed it, tribalists. This is what lawyers call a "collusive lawsuit" - have a "friend" bring a class action lawsuit, settle it for a penny on the dollar, and put to bed all of the claims.

    Anyway, the overall point: the Oppenheimers and Anglo American plc (which now owns De Beers) officials are free to travel to the US in full luxury and with full honors, without the slightest fear of arrest. All crimes have been ... miraculously "cleansed".

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. Logan says:
    @Logan
    Before we get too lachrymose over the treatment of Germany in the Versailles Treaty, we ought to look at how the Germans treated the defeated six months before the war ended, in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

    Those who show no mercy lose their right to demand it be shown to them.

    Ever heard of poetic justice?

    The problem with Versailles is that it was too harsh and too lenient.

    To prevent future problems, one should either destroy an enemy or make a sincere effort to turn him into a friend. Pissing him off while at the same time leaving his basic military potential unencumbered is the classic Bad Idea.

    Amount of reparations in some context:
    Germany imposed on France after winning the Franco-Prussian War reparations of 5B gold francs, equivalent to ~1.5B grams or 1.5M kilos of gold.

    In the treaty of BL, the Germans imposed reparations of 9B gold marks on Russia. That’s 3.2M kilos of gold.

    In the Versailles Treaty, the Germans agreed to pay 132B gold marks, but that was a smokescreen to delude the people of the Allies more than an actual amount, which was something in the neighborhood of half that. The actual amount is hard to come at, there were so many modifications and changes. But let’s say 70B gold marks.

    That’s 25M kilos of gold. Or about 17x the indemnity imposed on the French after the Franco-Prussian War. A war in which the Germans invaded France rather than the other way around. The German economy in 1914 was also about 3x greater than that of France in 1870, bringing the disproportion down to about 6x.

    All the above calculations are subject to revision if anybody can show me where I dropped a decimal. :)

    http://thefederalist.com/2014/07/29/world-war-i-reparations-werent-as-unfair-as-you-think/

    We didn’t make the same mistake after WWII. Germany was flat conquered, nobody could claim otherwise. We imposed our values on them, and they haven’t been a military problem since. Problems in other ways, to be saure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    In the treaty of BL, the Germans imposed reparations of 9B gold marks on Russia. That’s 3.2M kilos of gold.

    In the Versailles Treaty, the Germans agreed to pay 132B gold marks
     

    Wrong. First the Financial Agreement of 1918 (not part of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk) was not to pay the victors of war but as compensation for Bolshevik repudiation of Tsarist bonds, nationalisation of foreign-owned property and confiscation of foreign assets. Second, it was for 6 billion marks (in fact denominated in marks). Again, this was signed in August 1918.

    Treaty of Versailles was signed nine months later with reparations in the amount of 132 billion marks (as you correctly noted). So this was about 22 times the amount of the 1918 agreement. Population of Russia was 90 million and of Germany 65 million, so in reality the burden was about 30 times per citizen.

    So imagine the debt on your house were $10 million instead of $300,000. Spot the difference?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. The idea that the French constitute a “minority” is rather amusing, particularly in the town of Dunkirk! And of course, the “English” soldiers were in fact British, coming from all parts of the UK. There were no colonial troops at Dunkirk, so it would be silly to have such characters in the film. As for what Americans call “Hispanics”, no Latin American country had entered the war at that point and no Latin American troops ever fought in Europe. In practice, what Mr Cathey is doing is hijacking the director’s commitment to historical accuracy and using it as an instrument to promote his present-day American ideas. Whether that’s justifiable is a matter of opinion and it certainly is an American bad habit. For myself, I’m rather tired of Americans twisting our history to suit their political arguments. Whatever Mr Cathey may mean by “Western” culture, let me assure him that our ancient European culture, including the fine English contribution to it, is alive and well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    "The Brazilian Expeditionary Force or BEF (Portuguese: Força Expedicionária Brasileira; FEB) consisted of about 25,700 men arranged by the army and air force to fight alongside the Allied forces in the Mediterranean Theatre of World War II. This air–land force consisted of (replacements included): a complete Infantry Division, a Liaison flight, and a Fighter squadron.[1]

    "It fought in Italy from September 1944 to May 1945, while the Brazilian Navy as well as the Air Force also acted in the Battle of the Atlantic from the middle of 1942 until the end of the war. During almost eight months of its campaign, fighting at Gothic Line and in the 1945 final offensive, the BEF managed to take 20,573 Axis prisoners, consisting of two generals, 892 officers, and 19,679 other ranks. Brazil was the only independent South American country to send ground troops to fight overseas, losing 948 men killed in action across all three services during the Second World War.[2][3]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Expeditionary_Force

    https://www.pinterest.co.uk/markarchambault/brazil-in-world-war-two/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. CalDre says:
    @James N. Kennett

    The point is the globalist cabal will demonize anybody for any reason that interferes with their plans. So you might as well come right out with the truth and point out the evil bastards who are pulling the strings, and why.
     
    I get so much anti-racist push-back from intelligent working-class gentiles that I know it is not simply a few evil bastards pulling the strings.

    And did you ever wonder why the diamond monopoly is exempt from the antitrust laws?
     
    The diamond monopoly is exempt from the anti-trust laws (if there are any) in South Africa, because this is in the country's national interest. It is not exempt in the USA, which has tried unsuccessfully to break the cartel. If the executives of De Beers travel to the USA on business, they are likely to be arrested.

    If you replaced "the Tribe" in your demonology with "the ultra-rich", you would be far closer to the truth. Most Jews are not ultra-rich. Most ultra-rich are not Jews.

    I get so much anti-racist push-back from intelligent working-class gentiles that I know it is not simply a few evil bastards pulling the strings.

    All these gentiles are having their strings pulled by the institutions under the control of the globalist cabal: TV, news media, cable media, music, movies, education (they control the books), politicians, “think tanks”, etc. They are entirely brainwashed with a perpetual stream of propaganda. They are the puppets. Leftists in particular are the “change agents” who are the (unwitting) foot soldiers of the cabal. Just look at who sits a top all of those industries.

    The diamond monopoly is exempt from the anti-trust laws (if there are any) in South Africa, because this is in the country’s national interest. It is not exempt in the USA, which has tried unsuccessfully to break the cartel. If the executives of De Beers travel to the USA on business, they are likely to be arrested.

    The diamond monopoly essentially ended in 1999, due to a number of changes in the supply landscape (collapse of Soviet Union and huge mine discoveries in Australia, Canada and elsewhere – and in particular the Austrian and Canadian mines decided to circumvent De Beers, which led to the Oppenheimer family selling De Beers in 2011). In 2004 private plaintiffs filed an antitrust lawsuit against De Beers in the US. It was settled a few years later for the paltry sum of $295 million. To put this in perspective, the diamond industry is an $80 billion / year industry. A study of South African showed $3 billion in price fixing of its rough diamond trade from 2005 to 2012 alone (after De Beer’s monopoly had already been effectively curtailed by the new supplies). Note the plaintiff lawyers in that “class action” case were – you guessed it, tribalists. This is what lawyers call a “collusive lawsuit” – have a “friend” bring a class action lawsuit, settle it for a penny on the dollar, and put to bed all of the claims.

    Anyway, the overall point: the Oppenheimers and Anglo American plc (which now owns De Beers) officials are free to travel to the US in full luxury and with full honors, without the slightest fear of arrest. All crimes have been … miraculously “cleansed”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    By the way, something else "interesting" about the De Beers "settlement" in the US.

    First, the case was brought in New Jersey (what does New Jersey have to do with diamonds)? Who was the judge that approved this sham "settlement"? Judge Stanley R. Chesler. The immediate presumption of anyone aware how the cabal works is that he must be a tribalist. His bio doesn't formally indicate his affiliation but - lo and behold - he is featured on Torah Cafe! So not only is he a tribalist but a quite active one. If you have any doubt about the "leaning" of Torah Cafe, just have a look-see at its "Scholars" page.

    Another interesting thing is that the Third Circuit (the appellate court for New Jersey), sitting en banc (extremely rare, this is when all judges of the circuit hear the case instead of the typical three judges - as the initial three judges had rejected the settlement), approved the settlement despite the entire proceeding (entirely apart from the collusive aspect of it) being unlawful under US class action law. See http://www.classactioncountermeasures.com/2012/01/articles/certification/sullivan-v-db-investments-the-third-circuit-takes-on-the-supreme-court-and-itself/ .

    You can begin to see how deep the rabbit hole goes ....

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. oh, yeah, i had lunch with 5 phd’s 4 dr’s of psychiatry, 3 generals, 2 museum curators, and 1 maine potato farmer – all of us still contributing to social security.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  181. CalDre says:
    @CalDre

    I get so much anti-racist push-back from intelligent working-class gentiles that I know it is not simply a few evil bastards pulling the strings.
     
    All these gentiles are having their strings pulled by the institutions under the control of the globalist cabal: TV, news media, cable media, music, movies, education (they control the books), politicians, "think tanks", etc. They are entirely brainwashed with a perpetual stream of propaganda. They are the puppets. Leftists in particular are the "change agents" who are the (unwitting) foot soldiers of the cabal. Just look at who sits a top all of those industries.

    The diamond monopoly is exempt from the anti-trust laws (if there are any) in South Africa, because this is in the country’s national interest. It is not exempt in the USA, which has tried unsuccessfully to break the cartel. If the executives of De Beers travel to the USA on business, they are likely to be arrested.
     
    The diamond monopoly essentially ended in 1999, due to a number of changes in the supply landscape (collapse of Soviet Union and huge mine discoveries in Australia, Canada and elsewhere - and in particular the Austrian and Canadian mines decided to circumvent De Beers, which led to the Oppenheimer family selling De Beers in 2011). In 2004 private plaintiffs filed an antitrust lawsuit against De Beers in the US. It was settled a few years later for the paltry sum of $295 million. To put this in perspective, the diamond industry is an $80 billion / year industry. A study of South African showed $3 billion in price fixing of its rough diamond trade from 2005 to 2012 alone (after De Beer's monopoly had already been effectively curtailed by the new supplies). Note the plaintiff lawyers in that "class action" case were - you guessed it, tribalists. This is what lawyers call a "collusive lawsuit" - have a "friend" bring a class action lawsuit, settle it for a penny on the dollar, and put to bed all of the claims.

    Anyway, the overall point: the Oppenheimers and Anglo American plc (which now owns De Beers) officials are free to travel to the US in full luxury and with full honors, without the slightest fear of arrest. All crimes have been ... miraculously "cleansed".

    By the way, something else “interesting” about the De Beers “settlement” in the US.

    First, the case was brought in New Jersey (what does New Jersey have to do with diamonds)? Who was the judge that approved this sham “settlement”? Judge Stanley R. Chesler. The immediate presumption of anyone aware how the cabal works is that he must be a tribalist. His bio doesn’t formally indicate his affiliation but – lo and behold – he is featured on Torah Cafe! So not only is he a tribalist but a quite active one. If you have any doubt about the “leaning” of Torah Cafe, just have a look-see at its “Scholars” page.

    Another interesting thing is that the Third Circuit (the appellate court for New Jersey), sitting en banc (extremely rare, this is when all judges of the circuit hear the case instead of the typical three judges – as the initial three judges had rejected the settlement), approved the settlement despite the entire proceeding (entirely apart from the collusive aspect of it) being unlawful under US class action law. See http://www.classactioncountermeasures.com/2012/01/articles/certification/sullivan-v-db-investments-the-third-circuit-takes-on-the-supreme-court-and-itself/ .

    You can begin to see how deep the rabbit hole goes ….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. CalDre says:
    @Logan
    Ever heard of poetic justice?

    The problem with Versailles is that it was too harsh and too lenient.

    To prevent future problems, one should either destroy an enemy or make a sincere effort to turn him into a friend. Pissing him off while at the same time leaving his basic military potential unencumbered is the classic Bad Idea.

    Amount of reparations in some context:
    Germany imposed on France after winning the Franco-Prussian War reparations of 5B gold francs, equivalent to ~1.5B grams or 1.5M kilos of gold.

    In the treaty of BL, the Germans imposed reparations of 9B gold marks on Russia. That's 3.2M kilos of gold.

    In the Versailles Treaty, the Germans agreed to pay 132B gold marks, but that was a smokescreen to delude the people of the Allies more than an actual amount, which was something in the neighborhood of half that. The actual amount is hard to come at, there were so many modifications and changes. But let's say 70B gold marks.

    That's 25M kilos of gold. Or about 17x the indemnity imposed on the French after the Franco-Prussian War. A war in which the Germans invaded France rather than the other way around. The German economy in 1914 was also about 3x greater than that of France in 1870, bringing the disproportion down to about 6x.


    All the above calculations are subject to revision if anybody can show me where I dropped a decimal. :)

    http://thefederalist.com/2014/07/29/world-war-i-reparations-werent-as-unfair-as-you-think/

    We didn't make the same mistake after WWII. Germany was flat conquered, nobody could claim otherwise. We imposed our values on them, and they haven't been a military problem since. Problems in other ways, to be saure.

    In the treaty of BL, the Germans imposed reparations of 9B gold marks on Russia. That’s 3.2M kilos of gold.

    In the Versailles Treaty, the Germans agreed to pay 132B gold marks

    Wrong. First the Financial Agreement of 1918 (not part of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk) was not to pay the victors of war but as compensation for Bolshevik repudiation of Tsarist bonds, nationalisation of foreign-owned property and confiscation of foreign assets. Second, it was for 6 billion marks (in fact denominated in marks). Again, this was signed in August 1918.

    Treaty of Versailles was signed nine months later with reparations in the amount of 132 billion marks (as you correctly noted). So this was about 22 times the amount of the 1918 agreement. Population of Russia was 90 million and of Germany 65 million, so in reality the burden was about 30 times per citizen.

    So imagine the debt on your house were $10 million instead of $300,000. Spot the difference?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @Priss Factor
    What director Nolan is doing, and doing very effectively, is make the battle, in its three fundamental elements, the real plot, the actual centerpiece of what we are watching. It is the bombs blasting, the mayhem and destruction, the desperation, and, yes, the final and unsuspected triumph of the spirit that underlie the film.

    Maybe it is that 'spirit' that is the problem.

    The spirit of loyalty, duty, service, and sacrifice.

    Those are good values... but on their own, they are directionless. Values need an agenda.

    Loyalty is good but to what? Duty is good but to what? Service is good but to what? Sacrifice is good but for what?

    Virtues can be used against one's own people, against the good.

    Take Germans. Courage, unity, discipline, and efficiency are good things to have.
    But when Hitler shaped the agenda and direction of Germany, those good virtues were used to evil ends. The very virtues that had done so much for Germany led it over the cliff.
    So, national character, though essential, must be led by national vision that is good and sound.
    Paradoxically, a people of virtue can become worse than people of vice if they come under insane leadership.
    Japanese are a people of virtue, a very diligent and hardworking people. This is why they were so dangerous in WWII. The national character could be summoned for a grand project. It happened to be War and led to much havoc.
    Now, suppose Japanese were a people of vice like those black Africans who have no virtue and drive hippos crazy by chucking spears at them. Japanese couldn't have amounted to much and would have been no threat to China and never would have had planes and subs to attack Pearl Harbor. If Japanese were a bunch of lazy crazy spear chucking bongo-drum beaters, they would never have become a major power.

    British are also a people of virtue. But because of these virtues of duty, loyalty, deference, service, conscience, and dignity, they can do something really bad on a grand scale IF led astray. Just as Brits can seriously serve the good, they can seriously serve the bad. It's like BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. Guinness's character so totally British to the end as he convinces himself and his crew that the bridge they are building is more a monument to British teamwork, work ethic, and ingenuity than an instrument of war for the Japanese. He commits high treason in the name of patriotism. Pride of British Virtues override interests of Britain. (Likewise, the bloody fools who ruled UK in the last 50 yrs have built a bridge for the enemy while fooling themselves that it's all about sportingly good British values.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWJkPbBOXL4

    When UK was ruled by patriots, the masses deferred to the Great National Power.
    But once UK came under sicko globo rule, all those British virtues came to serve the new power.
    The thing about virtues is they are not particularly ideological or intellectual. They don't come with the batter of agency or autonomy. They are essentially emotional and habitual and seek something to latch onto. Courage, for instance, can serve good or bad. Diligence can be for working to defeat evil or to serve evil.

    It's like the Kurosawa film THE MOST BEAUTIFUL about Japanese women making lens during the war. They are so hardworking and devoted. But, they never ask what the lenses are for or whether war is right or wrong. They have many virtues but they just follow like dogs. And when Japan lost, they just followed like dogs the new master of Uncle Sam. Japanese virtues shifted from serving Tojo to McCarthur.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfDwlKMyboE

    UK is now under Glob Rule, so all the British virtues of duty, diligence, dignity, and etc are committed to serving Diversity as New Agenda.

    I heard there are lots of scenes of soldiers lining up in queues in DUNKIRK. That shows both the positive and negative side of Brits. They are used to following orders and going by rules. This made them better fighters in many occasions, but it also makes them more servile and robot-like before the higher power. This sense of doing everything by the book and together has a muffling effect on the individual who might say 'shiite!' British did much to develop modern individualism, but deference to class was always a bit thing in Britain. Form was always important, like when a lower class person had to tip his hat and say "aye guv'nor" to a superior.
    Since the 60s, the class thing went away on the surface. The working class got boorish and then got into punk music and then turned into soccer hooligans. But mindsets die hard. Class deference is gone, but the culture of form-and-deference is still very much alive. Since the New Holy is diversity & decadence, the hoity-toity virtues now defer to Africans, Muslims, and Homos while turning up the nose at good patriotic whites who are tempted to shout 'darkies go home'. Consider J.H. Rowling, the Harry Potter authoress. She's a hoiter-toiter in her prim priggish finger-wagging and nose-upturning.

    In a way, the Brits are still in Q-mentality. If Chinese under Manchu rule wore queues, Brits under Glob rule still stand in mental queues.
    Things have gotten so bad that it's time for Brits to get angry and act like vikings and fight like Viet Cong.
    But they are still into proper form and being dignified. They don't want to disrupt the order by tearing off their shirt and shouting "Enough is enough". They don't want to ruffle any feathers. So, if the Power says the UK is now a 'nation of immigrants', then the Brits stand in queue to follow such order. And even those who oppose globalism feel they must stand in queue and then raise their hands and given official approval to say their say. And say it pleadingly... like Oliver Twist asking, "Can I have a little more". Today, patriots must stand in line and when, finally given approval, 'Can we have a little fewer of the darkies, guv'nor?' The Glob, of course, is outraged by even that little request.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAvCMQ_ok1c

    In a way, this negative side of the Brits was evident even in the glory days of the empire.
    After all, why didn't the British masses ever challenge their leaders who told them to go conquer the land of darkies, call people 'blood wogs', and drink tea to excess and pee like mad?
    If Queen and Country told the Brits, GO FIGHT THE RUSSIANS, the Brits just did as told.

    A people who invade other peoples without question are likely to be invaded without question if the Power orders it so.

    Well, the Glob now controls the UK.

    Why are the British so class conscious? Could it be because they are an Island? Bottom line being ” You Fuck with me, You Have Nowhere to Hide” since we both live on an island.
    The same class consciousness is also prevalent amongst the Japanese. They have the bowing down to each other down to a an exact science. Social status and spine bending (bowing) are co-related.
    This same class consciousness is also displayed in American culture. This being excessive deference shown to the flag, to the potus, and the army. Protected by the Atlantic and the Pacific, America is almost an island.
    So who doesn’t wrap themselves in the flag? All do. Even Indians do it*.
    These days we are having skirmishes with the Chinese and India will back down.
    *India is a bit like an island. North are Himalayas, South is the Indian Ocean, west is the Arabian Sea and east is the Bay of Bengal.
    Let me know which nation is not bending the knee when the natonal underwear is unfurled.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. Rurik says:
    @James N. Kennett

    on whose behalf did England betray and then starve Germany into the infamous Treaty of Versailles?
     
    The custom of warfare had always been "to the winner, the spoils". It was only after the world realized its mistake at Versailles that this custom changed.

    on whose behalf did England declare war on Germany to start WWII?
     
    On their own behalf, because British policy for centuries had been to fight any Continental empire whose conquests made it large enough to be a threat.

    on whose behalf did England go to war with Iraq? Eh?
     
    The appalling Tony Blair asked God whether he should go to war. God replied to him in the affirmative.

    on whose behalf did England help to destroy Libya?
     
    Libya's civil war destroyed the country. Whoever had won, the outcome was not going to be pretty. All Britain and France did was tip the balance against Gaddafi.

    on whose behalf is England committing ethnic suicide?
     

    on behalf of the British people, or the Jews that completely dominate England (and France and Germany and the US, etc..) from top to bottom?
     
    It is committing not only ethnic suicide, but national/cultural suicide, on behalf of the owners of capital. Some of those are Jewish; most are not.

    Germany is not dominated by Jews for obvious reasons.

    A pertinent question is why politicians on the Left have consistently supported the capitalists on this issue. All it needed was the suggestion that any opposition must be racist. Look, over there are some people who oppose our ethnic suicide and they are racist, aren't they?

    Your own blaming of the Jews, as if they and only they are responsible, plays into the hands of the globalists. You are playing a role in the drama that is necessary to the globalists. They can point to you and say the opponents of globalization are not only racist, they are anti-semitic. If you want to prevent the rapid progress of globalization, the best thing you can do is to either learn more or STFU.


    did England and the British people profit from the Boer war, or did Ernest Oppenheimer and the world’s ((diamond merchants?))
     
    The beneficiaries were Cecil Rhodes and the other shareholders in De Beers, their heirs and successors. Including anyone in the English-speaking world who has had a Rhodes Scholarship.

    The custom of warfare had always been “to the winner, the spoils”. It was only after the world realized its mistake at Versailles that this custom changed.

    except that Germany was lied to and betrayed

    they laid down their arms because the trusted that the allies would honor Wilson’s Fourteen Points,

    and then once they were disarmed, then the perfidious liars and treacherous scumbags demanded upon starvation that Germany accept responsibility for the war, that Germany never wanted in the first place, and was trying to end because it was so fratricidal. But then the Balfour Declaration changed all that, and Perfidious Albion stuck the knife in Germany’s back.

    On their own behalf, because British policy for centuries had been to fight any Continental empire whose conquests made it large enough to be a threat.

    Germany was not a threat, except perhaps to the British pride. Look at them now. British school girls gang raped by orcs. Some “victory”.

    The appalling Tony Blair asked God whether he should go to war. God replied to him in the affirmative.

    I doubt even Tony Blair considers the Fiend to be God. He sold out England to Mammon, not to God.

    All Britain and France did was tip the balance against Gaddafi.

    pure bullshit

    It is committing not only ethnic suicide, but national/cultural suicide, on behalf of the owners of capital. Some of those are Jewish; most are not.

    most of the US congress are not Jewish, but they serve Zion with slavish obeisance.

    Germany is not dominated by Jews for obvious reasons.

    OMG you could not be more wrong

    they put ninety year old grandmothers in prison for expressing thoughts that Jews don’t like. While inviting in an army of Muslims and Africans to destroy the German nation once and for all.

    It’s the Morgenthau plan light.

    If you want to prevent the rapid progress of globalization, the best thing you can do is to either learn more or STFU.

    LOL

    The beneficiaries were Cecil Rhodes and the other shareholders in De Beers, their heirs and successors.

    yea, right

    Rothschild doesn’t’ exist, huh. He’s a conspiracy theory of people who believe in shape shifting lizards and wear tinfoil hats. Gotcha.

    England is committing suicide because “capitalists” want them to. There’s no connection between England’s suicidal insanity and abased commitment to all things Israel, no .. matter… what – and its simultaneous commitment to do exactly as so many Jews openly pine and wish for all white nations to do- commit ethnic suicide.

    the two things are completely and absolutely unrelated!!!, and anyone who claims otherwise is a hateful anti-Semite! and Nazi!! and horrid person all around!!!

    Read More
    • Agree: CalDre
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. CalDre says:
    @Logan
    Before we get too lachrymose over the treatment of Germany in the Versailles Treaty, we ought to look at how the Germans treated the defeated six months before the war ended, in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

    Those who show no mercy lose their right to demand it be shown to them.

    Show no mercy? Treaty of Brest-Litovsk did not impose reparations (there was a separate Financial Agreement of 1918 which provided for compensation for Communist renunciation of Tsarist bonds and for stealing foreign property, which is an entirely different matter – plus the German “reparations” were 30 times per citizen greater, as pointed out in another post) nor did it take “Russian” lands from Russia. You might disagree with the last part so let me elaborate.

    The BL Treaty took from Russia: Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine and Lithuania. On the other hand, the V Treaty took from Germany: provinces of Alsace-Lorraine, Czechoslovakia and Poland (including Danzig, Memel, Silesia and Posen). So let’s take a quick look at their history, including primarily (1) what ethnicity/culture were the peoples of those lost regions, (ii) how long did those peoples live under the ceding power, and (iii) where did those peoples want to be?

    Well, it is without question that none of Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania wanted to be part of Russia, and especially not part of COMMUNIST Bolshevik totalitarian mass-murdering Red THUGS Russia. And the peoples there were not “Russian”. Now, with regard to Ukraine: first, it must be recognized that Ukraine was granted independence, not absorbed into the German Empire. Second, Ukraine had its own delegation at the conferences and sought independence, and happily approved the treaty. Ukrainians, then and now, did not want to be subject to the Russian yoke.

    So, now let’s turn to the German cessions. Large swaths of those ceded territories were occupied by ethnic Germans who spoke German and wanted to be part of Germany. Poland gives a fine example. French historian Raymond Cartier estimates that out of 1 million Germans living in Posen-West Prussia in 1921 (already years after war’s end), 75%!! had fled their homelands within five years due to Polish harassment.

    So tell me, did 75% of Finns, 75% of Latvians, or even 75% of Ukrainians flee to Russia after obtaining their freedom?

    You really have no clue about reality. Those who show no mercy lose their right to demand it be shown to them. Indeed, you should genuflect on how that statement applies to you. Germany liberated conquered territories from the Bolsheviks. That is not being merciless, how sad, tragic and misinformed that you would write that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @James N. Kennett
    You seem to be saying that Hitler wanted Germany to expand eastwards, even though he knew this would trigger a war with Britain - but he did not want that war.

    If you are determined to measure a leader's intentions as if he was unaware of the consequences of his actions, you could equally well say that Britain did not want war against Germany. Or that Al Qaeda does not want war, but we force their hand by the provocation of being infidels. There is no end to this kind of specious argument.

    If you are determined to measure a leader’s intentions as if he was unaware of the consequences of his actions

    What? Where did you get that?

    Talk about specious!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. @James N. Kennett


    In that case Operation Barbarossa must have happened by accident.
     
    And what happened before that?
     
    Germany and the USSR were allies with their border defined by a treaty.

    Germany and the USSR were allies with their border defined by a treaty.

    While true, it does show that you have a sense of humor.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @Joe Stalin
    As I recall, there was a little thing called Manchuria going on, and Japan was the first nation to sink an American navy ship through aerial bombardment:

    USS Panay

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WujTPNkjSeM

    You would also be well advised to review the history of Western colonialism in the Far East and the meddling, of the US in particular, in Japan.

    Manchukuo was Japan’s attempt to copy Western methods including the cultivation of poppies for opium as a source of revenue.

    You can bet that the Western dope peddlers were not about to allow any such competition.

    So keep diggin, Joey…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. Drew458 says:
    @Binyamin
    You are off course right. Most soldiers evacuated during Dunkirk were British therefore there was no historical requirement to portray minorities in the film. However, the idea of exclusively 'English' soldiers fighting to preserve both their way of life and therefore save 'England and Western civilization' from oblivion is historically inaccurate and a myth perpetuated by the revisionist far right. Britain would not have won WW II without the bravery and sacrifices of several million Indian soldiers (from undivided British India), the largest volunteer army in history. These dirt poor foot soldiers, fighting for a country they had never seen and overcoming daily racial humiliations held the lines at El Alamein, Italy, France (post D Day), Kohima, Imphal and Burma. England did not go to war against Nazi Germany, it was the British Empire and without the heroism of the Commonwealth forces Britain would have lost. Brown skinned men helped preserve England's freedom.

    Yes, but very very few were there. Just 4 companies of mule teams I’ve read. 1000 men. And some of the sailors on the rescue ships. So if they’re lost in the crowds that isn’t a real surprise.

    There were more than 100,000 Chinese and Annamites in the Allied trenches at the end of WWI. How much coverage did they ever get … aside from today being the lead suspects in bringing the “Spanish Flu” to the West?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. pogohere says: • Website
    @Priss Factor
    What director Nolan is doing, and doing very effectively, is make the battle, in its three fundamental elements, the real plot, the actual centerpiece of what we are watching. It is the bombs blasting, the mayhem and destruction, the desperation, and, yes, the final and unsuspected triumph of the spirit that underlie the film.

    Maybe it is that 'spirit' that is the problem.

    The spirit of loyalty, duty, service, and sacrifice.

    Those are good values... but on their own, they are directionless. Values need an agenda.

    Loyalty is good but to what? Duty is good but to what? Service is good but to what? Sacrifice is good but for what?

    Virtues can be used against one's own people, against the good.

    Take Germans. Courage, unity, discipline, and efficiency are good things to have.
    But when Hitler shaped the agenda and direction of Germany, those good virtues were used to evil ends. The very virtues that had done so much for Germany led it over the cliff.
    So, national character, though essential, must be led by national vision that is good and sound.
    Paradoxically, a people of virtue can become worse than people of vice if they come under insane leadership.
    Japanese are a people of virtue, a very diligent and hardworking people. This is why they were so dangerous in WWII. The national character could be summoned for a grand project. It happened to be War and led to much havoc.
    Now, suppose Japanese were a people of vice like those black Africans who have no virtue and drive hippos crazy by chucking spears at them. Japanese couldn't have amounted to much and would have been no threat to China and never would have had planes and subs to attack Pearl Harbor. If Japanese were a bunch of lazy crazy spear chucking bongo-drum beaters, they would never have become a major power.

    British are also a people of virtue. But because of these virtues of duty, loyalty, deference, service, conscience, and dignity, they can do something really bad on a grand scale IF led astray. Just as Brits can seriously serve the good, they can seriously serve the bad. It's like BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. Guinness's character so totally British to the end as he convinces himself and his crew that the bridge they are building is more a monument to British teamwork, work ethic, and ingenuity than an instrument of war for the Japanese. He commits high treason in the name of patriotism. Pride of British Virtues override interests of Britain. (Likewise, the bloody fools who ruled UK in the last 50 yrs have built a bridge for the enemy while fooling themselves that it's all about sportingly good British values.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWJkPbBOXL4

    When UK was ruled by patriots, the masses deferred to the Great National Power.
    But once UK came under sicko globo rule, all those British virtues came to serve the new power.
    The thing about virtues is they are not particularly ideological or intellectual. They don't come with the batter of agency or autonomy. They are essentially emotional and habitual and seek something to latch onto. Courage, for instance, can serve good or bad. Diligence can be for working to defeat evil or to serve evil.

    It's like the Kurosawa film THE MOST BEAUTIFUL about Japanese women making lens during the war. They are so hardworking and devoted. But, they never ask what the lenses are for or whether war is right or wrong. They have many virtues but they just follow like dogs. And when Japan lost, they just followed like dogs the new master of Uncle Sam. Japanese virtues shifted from serving Tojo to McCarthur.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfDwlKMyboE

    UK is now under Glob Rule, so all the British virtues of duty, diligence, dignity, and etc are committed to serving Diversity as New Agenda.

    I heard there are lots of scenes of soldiers lining up in queues in DUNKIRK. That shows both the positive and negative side of Brits. They are used to following orders and going by rules. This made them better fighters in many occasions, but it also makes them more servile and robot-like before the higher power. This sense of doing everything by the book and together has a muffling effect on the individual who might say 'shiite!' British did much to develop modern individualism, but deference to class was always a bit thing in Britain. Form was always important, like when a lower class person had to tip his hat and say "aye guv'nor" to a superior.
    Since the 60s, the class thing went away on the surface. The working class got boorish and then got into punk music and then turned into soccer hooligans. But mindsets die hard. Class deference is gone, but the culture of form-and-deference is still very much alive. Since the New Holy is diversity & decadence, the hoity-toity virtues now defer to Africans, Muslims, and Homos while turning up the nose at good patriotic whites who are tempted to shout 'darkies go home'. Consider J.H. Rowling, the Harry Potter authoress. She's a hoiter-toiter in her prim priggish finger-wagging and nose-upturning.

    In a way, the Brits are still in Q-mentality. If Chinese under Manchu rule wore queues, Brits under Glob rule still stand in mental queues.
    Things have gotten so bad that it's time for Brits to get angry and act like vikings and fight like Viet Cong.
    But they are still into proper form and being dignified. They don't want to disrupt the order by tearing off their shirt and shouting "Enough is enough". They don't want to ruffle any feathers. So, if the Power says the UK is now a 'nation of immigrants', then the Brits stand in queue to follow such order. And even those who oppose globalism feel they must stand in queue and then raise their hands and given official approval to say their say. And say it pleadingly... like Oliver Twist asking, "Can I have a little more". Today, patriots must stand in line and when, finally given approval, 'Can we have a little fewer of the darkies, guv'nor?' The Glob, of course, is outraged by even that little request.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAvCMQ_ok1c

    In a way, this negative side of the Brits was evident even in the glory days of the empire.
    After all, why didn't the British masses ever challenge their leaders who told them to go conquer the land of darkies, call people 'blood wogs', and drink tea to excess and pee like mad?
    If Queen and Country told the Brits, GO FIGHT THE RUSSIANS, the Brits just did as told.

    A people who invade other peoples without question are likely to be invaded without question if the Power orders it so.

    Well, the Glob now controls the UK.

    When you watch Dunkirk, remember that it’s a whitewashed version which ignores the bravery of black and Muslim soldiers

    Robert Fisk

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/dunkirk-france-1940-french-soldiers-algeria-commonwealth-white-wash-a7874501.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0444182/

    Days of Glory (2006)

    "Algeria, 1943, through Italy and France, to Alsace in early 1945, with a coda years later. Arabs volunteer to fight Nazis to liberate France, their motherland. We follow Saïd, dirt poor, an orderly for a grizzled sergeant, Martinez, a pied noir with some willingness to speak up for his Arab troops; Messaoud, a crack shot, who in Province falls in love with a French woman who loves him back; and Abdelkader, a corporal, a budding intellectual with a keen sense of injustice. The men fight with courage against a backdrop of small and large indignities: French soldiers get better food, time for leave, and promotions. Is the promise of liberty, equality, and fraternity hollow?"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_EuwDYfA-M

    About the only thing I recall from the movie is the paratroop drop using Lockheed military transports.
    , @Anonymous

    Algerians were massacred by the Nazis on racial grounds
     
    I don't remember hearing about this. Fisk has probably confused them with Black Africans who were shot by the Germans for allegedly mutilating German corpses. (Apparently the Africans fought hand to hand with big knives instead of bayonets, which left wounds that resembled deliberate mutilation.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. It’s Tribal vs Trivial.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  192. Floda says:

    This time our enemies have discovered a weapon way more powerful than anything even the Germans ever had. A BIOLOGICAL weapon! One which is guaranteed to destroy not only England but all Europe and beyond. It is a limitless supply of low IQ Muslim Arab and Coal Black males of military age who arrive as ‘migrants’. They will never find permanent employment and will spend every waking moment seeking females to impregnate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  193. Treg says:
    @Priss Factor
    What director Nolan is doing, and doing very effectively, is make the battle, in its three fundamental elements, the real plot, the actual centerpiece of what we are watching. It is the bombs blasting, the mayhem and destruction, the desperation, and, yes, the final and unsuspected triumph of the spirit that underlie the film.

    Maybe it is that 'spirit' that is the problem.

    The spirit of loyalty, duty, service, and sacrifice.

    Those are good values... but on their own, they are directionless. Values need an agenda.

    Loyalty is good but to what? Duty is good but to what? Service is good but to what? Sacrifice is good but for what?

    Virtues can be used against one's own people, against the good.

    Take Germans. Courage, unity, discipline, and efficiency are good things to have.
    But when Hitler shaped the agenda and direction of Germany, those good virtues were used to evil ends. The very virtues that had done so much for Germany led it over the cliff.
    So, national character, though essential, must be led by national vision that is good and sound.
    Paradoxically, a people of virtue can become worse than people of vice if they come under insane leadership.
    Japanese are a people of virtue, a very diligent and hardworking people. This is why they were so dangerous in WWII. The national character could be summoned for a grand project. It happened to be War and led to much havoc.
    Now, suppose Japanese were a people of vice like those black Africans who have no virtue and drive hippos crazy by chucking spears at them. Japanese couldn't have amounted to much and would have been no threat to China and never would have had planes and subs to attack Pearl Harbor. If Japanese were a bunch of lazy crazy spear chucking bongo-drum beaters, they would never have become a major power.

    British are also a people of virtue. But because of these virtues of duty, loyalty, deference, service, conscience, and dignity, they can do something really bad on a grand scale IF led astray. Just as Brits can seriously serve the good, they can seriously serve the bad. It's like BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. Guinness's character so totally British to the end as he convinces himself and his crew that the bridge they are building is more a monument to British teamwork, work ethic, and ingenuity than an instrument of war for the Japanese. He commits high treason in the name of patriotism. Pride of British Virtues override interests of Britain. (Likewise, the bloody fools who ruled UK in the last 50 yrs have built a bridge for the enemy while fooling themselves that it's all about sportingly good British values.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWJkPbBOXL4

    When UK was ruled by patriots, the masses deferred to the Great National Power.
    But once UK came under sicko globo rule, all those British virtues came to serve the new power.
    The thing about virtues is they are not particularly ideological or intellectual. They don't come with the batter of agency or autonomy. They are essentially emotional and habitual and seek something to latch onto. Courage, for instance, can serve good or bad. Diligence can be for working to defeat evil or to serve evil.

    It's like the Kurosawa film THE MOST BEAUTIFUL about Japanese women making lens during the war. They are so hardworking and devoted. But, they never ask what the lenses are for or whether war is right or wrong. They have many virtues but they just follow like dogs. And when Japan lost, they just followed like dogs the new master of Uncle Sam. Japanese virtues shifted from serving Tojo to McCarthur.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfDwlKMyboE

    UK is now under Glob Rule, so all the British virtues of duty, diligence, dignity, and etc are committed to serving Diversity as New Agenda.

    I heard there are lots of scenes of soldiers lining up in queues in DUNKIRK. That shows both the positive and negative side of Brits. They are used to following orders and going by rules. This made them better fighters in many occasions, but it also makes them more servile and robot-like before the higher power. This sense of doing everything by the book and together has a muffling effect on the individual who might say 'shiite!' British did much to develop modern individualism, but deference to class was always a bit thing in Britain. Form was always important, like when a lower class person had to tip his hat and say "aye guv'nor" to a superior.
    Since the 60s, the class thing went away on the surface. The working class got boorish and then got into punk music and then turned into soccer hooligans. But mindsets die hard. Class deference is gone, but the culture of form-and-deference is still very much alive. Since the New Holy is diversity & decadence, the hoity-toity virtues now defer to Africans, Muslims, and Homos while turning up the nose at good patriotic whites who are tempted to shout 'darkies go home'. Consider J.H. Rowling, the Harry Potter authoress. She's a hoiter-toiter in her prim priggish finger-wagging and nose-upturning.

    In a way, the Brits are still in Q-mentality. If Chinese under Manchu rule wore queues, Brits under Glob rule still stand in mental queues.
    Things have gotten so bad that it's time for Brits to get angry and act like vikings and fight like Viet Cong.
    But they are still into proper form and being dignified. They don't want to disrupt the order by tearing off their shirt and shouting "Enough is enough". They don't want to ruffle any feathers. So, if the Power says the UK is now a 'nation of immigrants', then the Brits stand in queue to follow such order. And even those who oppose globalism feel they must stand in queue and then raise their hands and given official approval to say their say. And say it pleadingly... like Oliver Twist asking, "Can I have a little more". Today, patriots must stand in line and when, finally given approval, 'Can we have a little fewer of the darkies, guv'nor?' The Glob, of course, is outraged by even that little request.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAvCMQ_ok1c

    In a way, this negative side of the Brits was evident even in the glory days of the empire.
    After all, why didn't the British masses ever challenge their leaders who told them to go conquer the land of darkies, call people 'blood wogs', and drink tea to excess and pee like mad?
    If Queen and Country told the Brits, GO FIGHT THE RUSSIANS, the Brits just did as told.

    A people who invade other peoples without question are likely to be invaded without question if the Power orders it so.

    Well, the Glob now controls the UK.

    Wow! Priss Factor! That was worthy of an essay all by itself. Simply Brilliant reply on the Dunkirk movie. And THAT is why I slog through and read the comments section. Re-posting to FB

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. @pogohere
    When you watch Dunkirk, remember that it's a whitewashed version which ignores the bravery of black and Muslim soldiers

    Robert Fisk

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/dunkirk-france-1940-french-soldiers-algeria-commonwealth-white-wash-a7874501.html

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0444182/

    Days of Glory (2006)

    “Algeria, 1943, through Italy and France, to Alsace in early 1945, with a coda years later. Arabs volunteer to fight Nazis to liberate France, their motherland. We follow Saïd, dirt poor, an orderly for a grizzled sergeant, Martinez, a pied noir with some willingness to speak up for his Arab troops; Messaoud, a crack shot, who in Province falls in love with a French woman who loves him back; and Abdelkader, a corporal, a budding intellectual with a keen sense of injustice. The men fight with courage against a backdrop of small and large indignities: French soldiers get better food, time for leave, and promotions. Is the promise of liberty, equality, and fraternity hollow?”

    About the only thing I recall from the movie is the paratroop drop using Lockheed military transports.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. @Priss Factor
    What director Nolan is doing, and doing very effectively, is make the battle, in its three fundamental elements, the real plot, the actual centerpiece of what we are watching. It is the bombs blasting, the mayhem and destruction, the desperation, and, yes, the final and unsuspected triumph of the spirit that underlie the film.

    Maybe it is that 'spirit' that is the problem.

    The spirit of loyalty, duty, service, and sacrifice.

    Those are good values... but on their own, they are directionless. Values need an agenda.

    Loyalty is good but to what? Duty is good but to what? Service is good but to what? Sacrifice is good but for what?

    Virtues can be used against one's own people, against the good.

    Take Germans. Courage, unity, discipline, and efficiency are good things to have.
    But when Hitler shaped the agenda and direction of Germany, those good virtues were used to evil ends. The very virtues that had done so much for Germany led it over the cliff.
    So, national character, though essential, must be led by national vision that is good and sound.
    Paradoxically, a people of virtue can become worse than people of vice if they come under insane leadership.
    Japanese are a people of virtue, a very diligent and hardworking people. This is why they were so dangerous in WWII. The national character could be summoned for a grand project. It happened to be War and led to much havoc.
    Now, suppose Japanese were a people of vice like those black Africans who have no virtue and drive hippos crazy by chucking spears at them. Japanese couldn't have amounted to much and would have been no threat to China and never would have had planes and subs to attack Pearl Harbor. If Japanese were a bunch of lazy crazy spear chucking bongo-drum beaters, they would never have become a major power.

    British are also a people of virtue. But because of these virtues of duty, loyalty, deference, service, conscience, and dignity, they can do something really bad on a grand scale IF led astray. Just as Brits can seriously serve the good, they can seriously serve the bad. It's like BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. Guinness's character so totally British to the end as he convinces himself and his crew that the bridge they are building is more a monument to British teamwork, work ethic, and ingenuity than an instrument of war for the Japanese. He commits high treason in the name of patriotism. Pride of British Virtues override interests of Britain. (Likewise, the bloody fools who ruled UK in the last 50 yrs have built a bridge for the enemy while fooling themselves that it's all about sportingly good British values.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWJkPbBOXL4

    When UK was ruled by patriots, the masses deferred to the Great National Power.
    But once UK came under sicko globo rule, all those British virtues came to serve the new power.
    The thing about virtues is they are not particularly ideological or intellectual. They don't come with the batter of agency or autonomy. They are essentially emotional and habitual and seek something to latch onto. Courage, for instance, can serve good or bad. Diligence can be for working to defeat evil or to serve evil.

    It's like the Kurosawa film THE MOST BEAUTIFUL about Japanese women making lens during the war. They are so hardworking and devoted. But, they never ask what the lenses are for or whether war is right or wrong. They have many virtues but they just follow like dogs. And when Japan lost, they just followed like dogs the new master of Uncle Sam. Japanese virtues shifted from serving Tojo to McCarthur.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfDwlKMyboE

    UK is now under Glob Rule, so all the British virtues of duty, diligence, dignity, and etc are committed to serving Diversity as New Agenda.

    I heard there are lots of scenes of soldiers lining up in queues in DUNKIRK. That shows both the positive and negative side of Brits. They are used to following orders and going by rules. This made them better fighters in many occasions, but it also makes them more servile and robot-like before the higher power. This sense of doing everything by the book and together has a muffling effect on the individual who might say 'shiite!' British did much to develop modern individualism, but deference to class was always a bit thing in Britain. Form was always important, like when a lower class person had to tip his hat and say "aye guv'nor" to a superior.
    Since the 60s, the class thing went away on the surface. The working class got boorish and then got into punk music and then turned into soccer hooligans. But mindsets die hard. Class deference is gone, but the culture of form-and-deference is still very much alive. Since the New Holy is diversity & decadence, the hoity-toity virtues now defer to Africans, Muslims, and Homos while turning up the nose at good patriotic whites who are tempted to shout 'darkies go home'. Consider J.H. Rowling, the Harry Potter authoress. She's a hoiter-toiter in her prim priggish finger-wagging and nose-upturning.

    In a way, the Brits are still in Q-mentality. If Chinese under Manchu rule wore queues, Brits under Glob rule still stand in mental queues.
    Things have gotten so bad that it's time for Brits to get angry and act like vikings and fight like Viet Cong.
    But they are still into proper form and being dignified. They don't want to disrupt the order by tearing off their shirt and shouting "Enough is enough". They don't want to ruffle any feathers. So, if the Power says the UK is now a 'nation of immigrants', then the Brits stand in queue to follow such order. And even those who oppose globalism feel they must stand in queue and then raise their hands and given official approval to say their say. And say it pleadingly... like Oliver Twist asking, "Can I have a little more". Today, patriots must stand in line and when, finally given approval, 'Can we have a little fewer of the darkies, guv'nor?' The Glob, of course, is outraged by even that little request.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAvCMQ_ok1c

    In a way, this negative side of the Brits was evident even in the glory days of the empire.
    After all, why didn't the British masses ever challenge their leaders who told them to go conquer the land of darkies, call people 'blood wogs', and drink tea to excess and pee like mad?
    If Queen and Country told the Brits, GO FIGHT THE RUSSIANS, the Brits just did as told.

    A people who invade other peoples without question are likely to be invaded without question if the Power orders it so.

    Well, the Glob now controls the UK.

    Didn’t both Ron Unz http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/ and
    Stephen Sniegoski https://www.unz.com/article/the-conquest-of-the-united-states-by-britain/
    inform this forum — alert us, advise us, educate us — that the British carried out a massive propaganda campaign to convince otherwise reluctant Americans to get involved in war against Germany?

    Aren’t most of the regulars on this forum aware that FDR lied to get USA into war against Germany (and also, possibly, against Japan)?

    Priss Factor has enormous familiarity with movies, but movies are not arguments, they’re stories: their purpose is to appeal to emotion and sense-experience sometimes — frequently — at the expense of more difficult critical analysis.

    It’s great someone like Priss contributes to this forum to point out how the details of so many movies relate to past and current foreign policy.

    But in my view, the American people have had far too much of emotionally charged, agenda-driven, highly impactful sensory stimulation that is cynically called ‘history,’ and far too little of the hard-headed, less exciting work of challenging the evidence and applying logic, law, morals, and values to hard evidence and then drawing conclusions and making decisions.

    We’ve all seen the movies, Priss; two or three generations of Americans — and Germans — have learned “history” from little more than movies.

    Priss, you wrote:

    “But when Hitler shaped the agenda and direction of Germany, those good virtues were used to evil ends.”

    EXACTLY — with exquisite, precise, critical claim and proof — what WERE those “evil ends,” Priss?

    Just came across this video, “Ten Nazi Inventions,” that started with this narrative:

    “It’s pretty obvious that the Nazis did more evil than good because they were, you know, the Nazis.”

    Dinesh D’Souza is hawking a new book that makes that and several other circular assertions.

    It is not an argument to assert that “Nazis did evil things because everyone knows that Nazis were evil.”

    It is, however, what we have been led to believe, at a knee-jerk level, through all of most of our lives, and movies have been one of the primary means of planting that perception in our brains.

    If participants on the Unz forum continue to substitute emotional charges for critical thinking, we are not only doomed, we deserve to be doomed: it might even be necessary that we all fall prey to powers that would kill us and our children, because we will have become worse than useless eaters: we will have become mindless herd animals who willingly — I should say witlessly — carry out the truly evil agenda of the same people who, as Rurik noted above, destroyed Dresden https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/groupthink-at-the-cia/#comment-1956057.

    We have to think tougher, and speak out more forcefully and courageously.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @George Orwell
    Only the craven would glorify a military retreat where cowards ran from their enemy with their tails tucked between their legs. What's next, a movie about the US marines fleeing from the Chinese and North Koreans during the battle of the Chosin reservoir?

    Defeats make for good drama though. A movie about the Korean retreat would be worth watching.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    how about Churchill's cockup at Gallipoli that'd make a great movie. is it true that most of the British fighters were colonials? that should make the SJW happy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. fnn says:

    The outbreak of general European war in 1939 was mainly the work of FDR. FDR’s man Bullitt pressured Chamberlain to make the March 1939 blank check guarantee to Poland and encouraged Poland to refuse to negotiate with Germany. The Danzig and Corridor questions were long-standing disputes were long-standing disputes and not the invention of Hitler. The widespread persecution of ethnic Germans was also not a Hitlerian fantasy, on Aug 17 there were more than 76,000 ethnic German refugees at the Polish-German borders and 18,000 more in the Danzig region.

    Sources on FDR’s responsibility for the war:

    Herbert Hoover:

    http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/05/poland-as-pawn-hoover-identifies.html

    Respected mainstream liberal Zionist Jewish historian:

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1G7H48SQQAXD8/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1557780218

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  198. @Michael Kenny
    The idea that the French constitute a “minority” is rather amusing, particularly in the town of Dunkirk! And of course, the “English” soldiers were in fact British, coming from all parts of the UK. There were no colonial troops at Dunkirk, so it would be silly to have such characters in the film. As for what Americans call “Hispanics”, no Latin American country had entered the war at that point and no Latin American troops ever fought in Europe. In practice, what Mr Cathey is doing is hijacking the director’s commitment to historical accuracy and using it as an instrument to promote his present-day American ideas. Whether that’s justifiable is a matter of opinion and it certainly is an American bad habit. For myself, I’m rather tired of Americans twisting our history to suit their political arguments. Whatever Mr Cathey may mean by “Western” culture, let me assure him that our ancient European culture, including the fine English contribution to it, is alive and well.

    “The Brazilian Expeditionary Force or BEF (Portuguese: Força Expedicionária Brasileira; FEB) consisted of about 25,700 men arranged by the army and air force to fight alongside the Allied forces in the Mediterranean Theatre of World War II. This air–land force consisted of (replacements included): a complete Infantry Division, a Liaison flight, and a Fighter squadron.[1]

    “It fought in Italy from September 1944 to May 1945, while the Brazilian Navy as well as the Air Force also acted in the Battle of the Atlantic from the middle of 1942 until the end of the war. During almost eight months of its campaign, fighting at Gothic Line and in the 1945 final offensive, the BEF managed to take 20,573 Axis prisoners, consisting of two generals, 892 officers, and 19,679 other ranks. Brazil was the only independent South American country to send ground troops to fight overseas, losing 948 men killed in action across all three services during the Second World War.[2][3]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Expeditionary_Force

    https://www.pinterest.co.uk/markarchambault/brazil-in-world-war-two/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @fnn

    Kennedy was somewhat anti-British, but was above all a realist. In November 1940 he said:

    The whole reason for aiding England is to give us time … As long as she is in there, we have time to prepare. It isn’t that [Britain is] fighting for democracy. That’s the bunk. She’s fighting for self-preservation, just as we will if it comes to us.
     
    He didn't want the US to enter the war unless attacked. FDR tried to provoke war with Germany via an undeclared naval war in that began (at the latest) on Sep, 1, 1941.

    http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/undeclared-war-in-the-atlantic-the-u-s-navy-versus-the-u-boats/

    In July 1941, in a top secret memo to Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Harold Stark, President Roosevelt authorized the Atlantic Fleet to change from defensive to offensive operations, writing, in part, “…the presence of any German submarine or raider should be dealt with by action looking to the elimination of such ‘threat of attack’ on the lines of communication, or close to it.”
     

    He didn’t want the US to enter the war unless attacked. FDR tried to provoke war with Germany via an undeclared naval war in that began (at the latest) on Sep, 1, 1941.

    Yes this crossed a critical line. The US was never neutral but so long as it was only supplying Britain and Russia with war material the Germans could ignore it. However once American and German sailors began killing each other, full scale war became inevitable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    Defeats make for good drama though. A movie about the Korean retreat would be worth watching.

    how about Churchill’s cockup at Gallipoli that’d make a great movie. is it true that most of the British fighters were colonials? that should make the SJW happy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @pogohere
    When you watch Dunkirk, remember that it's a whitewashed version which ignores the bravery of black and Muslim soldiers

    Robert Fisk

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/dunkirk-france-1940-french-soldiers-algeria-commonwealth-white-wash-a7874501.html

    Algerians were massacred by the Nazis on racial grounds

    I don’t remember hearing about this. Fisk has probably confused them with Black Africans who were shot by the Germans for allegedly mutilating German corpses. (Apparently the Africans fought hand to hand with big knives instead of bayonets, which left wounds that resembled deliberate mutilation.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. @Geordie
    Even the people in Cumbria, an historically British part of the UK are racially more Germanic (55%) than Celtic, compared to NE England 77% (and the Scottish borders)
    If you don't agree with these statistics, then the difference in stature and personality between the people in the west country or Wales and the people on the east coast of England is also very noticeable.

    WW1 recruits from West of the Severn were 2″ shorter than those n the Eastern bank.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. @iffen
    I didn't get your point. Are the Welsh English or not?

    No. And the English on the East coast were probably there long before the Anglo-Saxons. They invented the horse collar to pull heavy ploughs which allowed them to use heavy clay soils in the Midlands and become the dominant group.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. The most important historical mystery of Dunkirk was ignored in the film– why Hitler refused to capture the British army when he had overwhelming force a few hundred km away. There’s no getting around the fact that Hitler was the hero of Dunkirk. Portraying the British army as heroes for being sitting ducks that had the good luck not to be attacked shows how 70 year old war propaganda contaminates our culture to this day.

    It is well know among historians that next to Germany England was Hitler’s favorite country. The idea that Hitler was planning to conquer England was a propaganda lie to spread fear through the English speaking world and generate support for a war that England had no interest in. David Irving has suggested that Hitler did not want to despoil the Frisians (ethnic Germans in the Netherlands) who were in the path of any attack. Some Historians say that Hitler did not want forclose on the offer he had to Churchill to help him maintain the British Empire at wars end. These facts are of course too controversial to address in mainstream culture eventhough they are probably the reasons for the success at Dunkirk.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Thank God Hitler was as stupid as his latter day worshipers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. Who declared war on Germany? The Britzi’s! Who started bombing German cities? The Britzi’s! Consequently, the Britzi’s “Fire The First Shot! Who did not want to listen to Mr. Hitlers peace proposal ‘s? The Britzi’s! Who invaded Europe? The Britzi’s! Who built long range bombers? The Britzi’s! Who got their citizens to believe they were going to be invaded by another European Nation State? The Britzi’s! Who, at the start of the “Dunkirk Evacuation” did not allow their “Allie” (France) not evacuate with them back to England? The Britzi’s! The German planes, wether bomber or fighter only flew 2 1/2 days of the week long evacuation. Where were the Kriegsmarine U-boats? If the Kriegsmarine U-boats could disrupt military supplies from the U.S. government in Washington D.C. in the Atlantic Ocean, do you not think they could have sunk all those Britzi’s retreating evacuation ships and civilian boats during the week long event? Question: Why is the British invation of Europe and the outcome: Dunkirk event, portrayed as heroic, however, when Germany invaded Poland after more than five years of negotiations, hostile acts of violence towards the German minority people separated from their “Father/Mother land” via a so called peace treaty in 1918 not portrayed as heroic? It was the Britzi’s who in March of 1939 told Poland the government of England will back them if Germany’s government invades Poland? The Britzi’s did not comes to Polands aid! It was England’s political leaders who predicted that a Second World War could start in Poland because the 1918 Versailles treaty did not give “Self Determination” to the German People which was a corner stone of the Armistice. Please read this review of the movie Dunkirk: http://www.tomatobubble.com/dunkirk_movie_review.html , Mike S. King and Sugar (a white cat) wrote “The Bad War: The Truth Never Taught About WWII” a book banded on Amazon/Jeff Bezos.
    Also, read “The Myth of German Villiany” by Benton L. Bradberry and search Dunkirk @ IHR.org.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  206. iffen says:
    @myfacelaunched9ships
    The most important historical mystery of Dunkirk was ignored in the film-- why Hitler refused to capture the British army when he had overwhelming force a few hundred km away. There's no getting around the fact that Hitler was the hero of Dunkirk. Portraying the British army as heroes for being sitting ducks that had the good luck not to be attacked shows how 70 year old war propaganda contaminates our culture to this day.

    It is well know among historians that next to Germany England was Hitler's favorite country. The idea that Hitler was planning to conquer England was a propaganda lie to spread fear through the English speaking world and generate support for a war that England had no interest in. David Irving has suggested that Hitler did not want to despoil the Frisians (ethnic Germans in the Netherlands) who were in the path of any attack. Some Historians say that Hitler did not want forclose on the offer he had to Churchill to help him maintain the British Empire at wars end. These facts are of course too controversial to address in mainstream culture eventhough they are probably the reasons for the success at Dunkirk.

    Thank God Hitler was as stupid as his latter day worshipers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. DanC says:

    as any good historian would tell you, . . . it was English (and some French) soldiers who fought on those beaches and who were evacuated by those hundreds of small private boats that answered the call to assist.

    What historians have you been reading?

    The fighting mainly occurred in a rearguard action in a large cordon around the town. Th