The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenters to FollowHide Excerpts
By Authors Filter?
Andrei Martyanov Andrew J. Bacevich Andrew Joyce Andrew Napolitano Boyd D. Cathey Brad Griffin C.J. Hopkins Chanda Chisala Eamonn Fingleton Eric Margolis Fred Reed Godfree Roberts Gustavo Arellano Ilana Mercer Israel Shamir James Kirkpatrick James Petras James Thompson Jared Taylor JayMan John Derbyshire John Pilger Jonathan Revusky Kevin MacDonald Linh Dinh Michael Hoffman Michael Hudson Mike Whitney Nathan Cofnas Norman Finkelstein Pat Buchanan Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Paul Gottfried Paul Kersey Peter Frost Peter Lee Philip Giraldi Philip Weiss Robert Weissberg Ron Paul Ron Unz Stephen J. Sniegoski The Saker Tom Engelhardt A. Graham Adam Hochschild Aedon Cassiel Ahmet Öncü Alexander Cockburn Alexander Hart Alfred McCoy Alison Rose Levy Alison Weir Anand Gopal Andre Damon Andrew Cockburn Andrew Fraser Andy Kroll Ann Jones Anonymous Anthony DiMaggio Ariel Dorfman Arlie Russell Hochschild Arno Develay Arnold Isaacs Artem Zagorodnov Astra Taylor Austen Layard Aviva Chomsky Ayman Fadel Barbara Ehrenreich Barbara Garson Barbara Myers Barry Lando Belle Chesler Beverly Gologorsky Bill Black Bill Moyers Bob Dreyfuss Bonnie Faulkner Brenton Sanderson Brett Redmayne-Titley Brian Dew Carl Horowitz Catherine Crump Charles Bausman Charles Goodhart Charles Wood Charlotteville Survivor Chase Madar Chris Hedges Chris Roberts Christian Appy Christopher DeGroot Chuck Spinney Coleen Rowley Cooper Sterling Craig Murray Dahr Jamail Dan E. Phillips Dan Sanchez Daniel McAdams Danny Sjursen Dave Kranzler Dave Lindorff David Barsamian David Bromwich David Chibo David Gordon David North David Vine David Walsh David William Pear Dean Baker Dennis Saffran Diana Johnstone Dilip Hiro Dirk Bezemer Ed Warner Edmund Connelly Eduardo Galeano Ellen Cantarow Ellen Packer Ellison Lodge Eric Draitser Eric Zuesse Erik Edstrom Erika Eichelberger Erin L. Thompson Eugene Girin F. Roger Devlin Franklin Lamb Frida Berrigan Friedrich Zauner Gabriel Black Gary Corseri Gary North Gary Younge Gene Tuttle George Albert George Bogdanich George Szamuely Georgianne Nienaber Glenn Greenwald Greg Grandin Greg Johnson Gregoire Chamayou Gregory Foster Gregory Hood Gregory Wilpert Guest Admin Hannah Appel Hans-Hermann Hoppe Harri Honkanen Henry Cockburn Hina Shamsi Howard Zinn Hubert Collins Hugh McInnish Ira Chernus Jack Kerwick Jack Rasmus Jack Ravenwood Jack Sen James Bovard James Carroll James Fulford Jane Lazarre Jared S. Baumeister Jason C. Ditz Jason Kessler Jay Stanley Jeff J. Brown Jeffrey Blankfort Jeffrey St. Clair Jen Marlowe Jeremiah Goulka Jeremy Cooper Jesse Mossman Jim Daniel Jim Kavanagh JoAnn Wypijewski Joe Lauria Johannes Wahlstrom John W. Dower John Feffer John Fund John Harrison Sims John Reid John Stauber John Taylor John V. Walsh John Williams Jon Else Jonathan Alan King Jonathan Anomaly Jonathan Rooper Jonathan Schell Joseph Kishore Juan Cole Judith Coburn K.R. Bolton Karel Van Wolferen Karen Greenberg Kelley Vlahos Kersasp D. Shekhdar Kevin Barrett Kevin Zeese Kshama Sawant Lance Welton Laura Gottesdiener Laura Poitras Laurent Guyénot Lawrence G. Proulx Leo Hohmann Linda Preston Logical Meme Lorraine Barlett M.G. Miles Mac Deford Maidhc O Cathail Malcolm Unwell Marcus Alethia Marcus Cicero Margaret Flowers Mark Danner Mark Engler Mark Perry Matt Parrott Mattea Kramer Matthew Harwood Matthew Richer Matthew Stevenson Max Blumenthal Max Denken Max North Maya Schenwar Michael Gould-Wartofsky Michael Schwartz Michael T. Klare Murray Polner Nan Levinson Naomi Oreskes Nate Terani Ned Stark Nelson Rosit Nicholas Stix Nick Kollerstrom Nick Turse Noam Chomsky Nomi Prins Patrick Cleburne Patrick Cloutier Paul Cochrane Paul Engler Paul Nachman Paul Nehlen Pepe Escobar Peter Brimelow Peter Gemma Peter Van Buren Pierre M. Sprey Pratap Chatterjee Publius Decius Mus Rajan Menon Ralph Nader Ramin Mazaheri Ramziya Zaripova Randy Shields Ray McGovern Razib Khan Rebecca Gordon Rebecca Solnit Richard Krushnic Richard Silverstein Rick Shenkman Rita Rozhkova Robert Baxter Robert Bonomo Robert Fisk Robert Lipsyte Robert Parry Robert Roth Robert S. Griffin Robert Scheer Robert Trivers Robin Eastman Abaya Roger Dooghy Ronald N. Neff Rory Fanning Sam Francis Sam Husseini Sayed Hasan Sharmini Peries Sheldon Richman Spencer Davenport Spencer Quinn Stefan Karganovic Steffen A. Woll Stephanie Savell Stephen J. Rossi Steve Fraser Steven Yates Sydney Schanberg Tanya Golash-Boza Ted Rall Theodore A. Postol Thierry Meyssan Thomas Frank Thomas O. Meehan Tim Shorrock Tim Weiner Tobias Langdon Todd E. Pierce Todd Gitlin Todd Miller Tom Piatak Tom Suarez Tom Sunic Tracy Rosenberg Virginia Dare Vladimir Brovkin Vox Day W. Patrick Lang Walter Block William Binney William DeBuys William Hartung William J. Astore Winslow T. Wheeler Ximena Ortiz Yan Shen
Nothing found
By Topics/Categories Filter?
2016 Election 9/11 Academia AIPAC Alt Right American Media American Military American Pravda Anti-Semitism Benjamin Netanyahu Blacks Britain China Conservative Movement Conspiracy Theories Deep State Donald Trump Economics Foreign Policy Hillary Clinton History Ideology Immigration IQ Iran ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jews Middle East Neocons Political Correctness Race/IQ Race/Ethnicity Republicans Russia Science Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Vladimir Putin World War II 1971 War 2008 Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 23andMe 70th Anniversary Parade 75-0-25 Or Something A Farewell To Alms A. J. West A Troublesome Inheritance Aarab Barghouti Abc News Abdelhamid Abaaoud Abe Abe Foxman Abigail Marsh Abortion Abraham Lincoln Abu Ghraib Abu Zubaydah Academy Awards Acheivement Gap Acid Attacks Adam Schiff Addiction Adoptees Adoption Adoption Twins ADRA2b AEI Affective Empathy Affirmative Action Affordable Family Formation Afghanistan Africa African Americans African Genetics Africans Afrikaner Afrocentricism Agriculture Aha AIDS Ain't Nobody Got Time For That. Ainu Aircraft Carriers AirSea Battle Al Jazeera Al-Qaeda Alan Dershowitz Alan Macfarlane Albania Alberto Del Rosario Albion's Seed Alcohol Alcoholism Alexander Hamilton Alexandre Skirda Alexis De Tocqueville Algeria All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable All Traits Are Heritable Alpha Centauri Alpha Males Alt Left Altruism Amazon.com America The Beautiful American Atheists American Debt American Exceptionalism American Flag American Jews American Left American Legion American Nations American Nations American Prisons American Renaissance Americana Amerindians Amish Amish Quotient Amnesty Amnesty International Amoral Familialism Amy Chua Amygdala An Hbd Liberal Anaconda Anatoly Karlin Ancestry Ancient DNA Ancient Genetics Ancient Jews Ancient Near East Anders Breivik Andrei Nekrasov Andrew Jackson Androids Angela Stent Angelina Jolie Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anne Buchanan Anne Heche Annual Country Reports On Terrorism Anthropology Antibiotics Antifa Antiquity Antiracism Antisocial Behavior Antiwar Movement Antonin Scalia Antonio Trillanes IV Anywhere But Here Apartheid Appalachia Appalachians Arab Christianity Arab Spring Arabs Archaic DNA Archaic Humans Arctic Humans Arctic Resources Argentina Argentina Default Armenians Army-McCarthy Hearings Arnon Milchan Art Arthur Jensen Artificial Intelligence As-Safir Ash Carter Ashkenazi Intelligence Ashkenazi Jews Ashraf Ghani Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians ASPM Assassinations Assimilation Assortative Mating Atheism Atlantic Council Attractiveness Attractiveness Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Austro-Hungarian Empire Austronesians Autism Automation Avi Tuschman Avigdor Lieberman Ayodhhya Babri Masjid Baby Boom Baby Gap Baby Girl Jay Backlash Bacterial Vaginosis Bad Science Bahrain Balanced Polymorphism Balkans Baltimore Riots Bangladesh Banking Banking Industry Banking System Banks Barack H. Obama Barack Obama Barbara Comstock Bariatric Surgery Baseball Bashar Al-Assad Baumeister BDA BDS Movement Beauty Beauty Standards Behavior Genetics Behavioral Genetics Behaviorism Beijing Belgrade Embassy Bombing Believeing In Observational Studies Is Nuts Ben Cardin Ben Carson Benghazi Benjamin Cardin Berlin Wall Bernard Henri-Levy Bernard Lewis Bernie Madoff Bernie Sanders Bernies Sanders Beta Males BICOM Big Five Bilingual Education Bill 59 Bill Clinton Bill Kristol Bill Maher Billionaires Billy Graham Birds Of A Feather Birth Order Birth Rate Bisexuality Bisexuals BJP Black Americans Black Crime Black History Black Lives Matter Black Metal Black Muslims Black Panthers Black Women Attractiveness Blackface Blade Runner Blogging Blond Hair Blue Eyes Bmi Boasian Anthropology Boderlanders Boeing Boers Boiling Off Boko Haram Bolshevik Revolution Books Border Reivers Borderlander Borderlanders Boris Johnson Bosnia Boston Bomb Boston Marathon Bombing Bowe Bergdahl Boycott Divest And Sanction Boycott Divestment And Sanctions Brain Brain Scans Brain Size Brain Structure Brazil Breaking Down The Bullshit Breeder's Equation Bret Stephens Brexit Brian Boutwell Brian Resnick BRICs Brighter Brains Brighton Broken Hill Brown Eyes Bruce Jenner Bruce Lahn brussels Bryan Caplan BS Bundy Family Burakumin Burma Bush Administration C-section Cagots Caitlyn Jenner California Cambodia Cameron Russell Campaign Finance Campaign For Liberty Campus Rape Canada Canada Day Canadian Flag Canadians Cancer Candida Albicans Cannabis Capital Punishment Capitalism Captain Chicken Cardiovascular Disease Care Package Carl Sagan Carly Fiorina Caroline Glick Carroll Quigley Carry Me Back To Ole Virginny Carter Page Castes Catalonia Catholic Church Catholicism Catholics Causation Cavaliers CCTV Censorship Central Asia Chanda Chisala Charles Darwin Charles Krauthammer Charles Murray Charles Schumer Charleston Shooting Charlie Hebdo Charlie Rose Charlottesville Chechens Chechnya Cherlie Hebdo Child Abuse Child Labor Children Chimerism China/America China Stock Market Meltdown China Vietnam Chinese Chinese Communist Party Chinese Evolution Chinese Exclusion Act Chlamydia Chris Gown Chris Rock Chris Stringer Christian Fundamentalism Christianity Christmas Christopher Steele Chuck Chuck Hagel Chuck Schumer CIA Cinema Civil Liberties Civil Rights Civil War Civilian Deaths CJIA Clannishness Clans Clark-unz Selection Classical Economics Classical History Claude-Lévi-Strauss Climate Climate Change Clinton Global Initiative Cliodynamics Cloudburst Flight Clovis Cochran And Harpending Coefficient Of Relationship Cognitive Empathy Cognitive Psychology Cohorts Cold War Colin Kaepernick Colin Woodard Colombia Colonialism Colonists Coming Apart Comments Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Conflict Of Interest Congress Consanguinity Conscientiousness Consequences Conservatism Conservatives Constitution Constitutional Theory Consumer Debt Cornel West Corporal Punishment Correlation Is Still Not Causation Corruption Corruption Perception Index Costa Concordia Cousin Marriage Cover Story CPEC Craniometry CRIF Crime Crimea Criminality Crowded Crowding Cruise Missiles Cuba Cuban Missile Crisis Cuckold Envy Cuckservative Cultural Evolution Cultural Marxism Cut The Sh*t Guys DACA Dads Vs Cads Daily Mail Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Dalliard Dalton Trumbo Damascus Bombing Dan Freedman Dana Milbank Daniel Callahan Danish Daren Acemoglu Dark Ages Dark Tetrad Dark Triad Darwinism Data Posts David Brooks David Friedman David Frum David Goldenberg David Hackett Fischer David Ignatius David Katz David Kramer David Lane David Petraeus Davide Piffer Davos Death Death Penalty Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Debt Declaration Of Universal Human Rights Deep Sleep Deep South Democracy Democratic Party Democrats Demographic Transition Demographics Demography Denisovans Denmark Dennis Ross Depression Deprivation Deregulation Derek Harvey Desired Family Size Detroit Development Developmental Noise Developmental Stability Diabetes Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders Dialects Dick Cheney Die Nibelungen Dienekes Diet Different Peoples Is Different Dinesh D'Souza Dirty Bomb Discrimination Discrimination Paradigm Disney Dissent Diversity Dixie Django Unchained Do You Really Want To Know? Doing My Part Doll Tests Dollar Domestic Terrorism Dominique Strauss-Kahn Dopamine Douglas MacArthur Dr James Thompson Drd4 Dreams From My Father Dresden Drew Barrymore Dreyfus Affair Drinking Drone War Drones Drug Cartels Drugs Dry Counties DSM Dunning-kruger Effect Dusk In Autumn Dustin Hoffman Duterte Dylan Roof Dylann Roof Dysgenic E.O. 9066 E. O. Wilson Eagleman East Asia East Asians Eastern Europe Eastern Europeans Ebola Economic Development Economic Sanctions Economy Ed Miller Education Edward Price Edward Snowden EEA Egypt Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Electric Cars Elie Wiesel Eliot Cohen Eliot Engel Elites Ellen Walker Elliot Abrams Elliot Rodger Elliott Abrams Elon Musk Emigration Emil Kirkegaard Emmanuel Macron Emmanuel Todd Empathy England English Civil War Enhanced Interrogations Enoch Powell Entrepreneurship Environment Environmental Estrogens Environmentalism Erdogan Eric Cantor Espionage Estrogen Ethiopia Ethnic Genetic Interests Ethnic Nepotism Ethnicity EU Eugenic Eugenics Eurasia Europe European Right European Union Europeans Eurozone Everything Evil Evolution Evolutionary Biology Evolutionary Psychology Exercise Extraversion Extreterrestrials Eye Color Eyes Ezra Cohen-Watnick Face Recognition Face Shape Faces Facts Fake News fallout Family Studies Far West Farmers Farming Fascism Fat Head Fat Shaming Father Absence FBI Federal Reserve Female Deference Female Homosexuality Female Sexual Response Feminism Feminists Ferguson Shooting Fertility Fertility Fertility Rates Fethullah Gulen Fetish Feuds Fields Medals FIFA Fifty Shades Of Grey Film Finance Financial Bailout Financial Bubbles Financial Debt Financial Sector Financial Times Finland First Amendment First Law First World War FISA Fitness Flags Flight From White Fluctuating Asymmetry Flynn Effect Food Football For Profit Schools Foreign Service Fourth Of July Fracking Fragrances France Francesco Schettino Frank Salter Frankfurt School Frantz Fanon Franz Boas Fred Hiatt Fred Reed Freddie Gray Frederic Hof Free Speech Free Trade Free Will Freedom Of Navigation Freedom Of Speech French Canadians French National Front French Paradox Friendly & Conventional Front National Frost-harpending Selection Fulford Funny G G Spot Gaddafi Gallipoli Game Gardnerella Vaginalis Gary Taubes Gay Germ Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians Gaza Gaza Flotilla Gcta Gender Gender Gender And Sexuality Gender Confusion Gender Equality Gender Identity Disorder Gender Reassignment Gene-Culture Coevolution Gene-environment Correlation General Intelligence General Social Survey General Theory Of The West Genes Genes: They Matter Bitches Genetic Diversity Genetic Divides Genetic Engineering Genetic Load Genetic Pacification Genetics Genetics Of Height Genocide Genomics Geography Geopolitics George Bush George Clooney George Patton George Romero George Soros George Tenet George W. Bush George Wallace Germ Theory German Catholics Germans Germany Get It Right Get Real Ghouta Gilgit Baltistan Gina Haspel Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Global Terrorism Index Global Warming Globalism Globalization God Delusion Goetsu Going Too Far Gold Gold Warriors Goldman Sachs Good Advice Google Gordon Gallup Goths Government Debt Government Incompetence Government Spending Government Surveillance Great Depression Great Leap Forward Great Recession Greater Appalachia Greece Greeks Greg Clark Greg Cochran Gregory B Christainsen Gregory Clark Gregory Cochran Gregory House GRF Grooming Group Intelligence Group Selection Grumpy Cat GSS Guangzhou Guantanamo Guardian Guilt Culture Gun Control Guns Gynephilia Gypsies H-1B H Bomb H.R. McMaster H1-B Visas Haim Saban Hair Color Hair Lengthening Haiti Hajnal Line Hamas Hamilton: An American Musical Hamilton's Rule Happiness Happy Turkey Day ... Unless You're The Turkey Harriet Tubman Harry Jaffa Harvard Harvey Weinstein Hasbara Hassidim Hate Crimes Hate Speech Hatemi Havelock Ellis Haymarket Affair Hbd Hbd Chick HBD Denial Hbd Fallout Hbd Readers Head Size Health And Medicine Health Care Healthcare Heart Disease Heart Health Heart Of Asia Conference Heartiste Heather Norton Height Helmuth Nyborg Hemoglobin Henri De Man Henry Harpending Henry Kissinger Herbert John Fleure Heredity Heritability Hexaco Hezbollah High Iq Fertility Hip Hop Hiroshima Hispanic Crime Hispanic Paradox Hispanics Historical Genetics Hitler HKND Hollywood Holocaust Homicide Homicide Rate Homo Altaiensis Homophobia Homosexuality Honesty-humility House Intelligence Committee House M.d. House Md House Of Cards Housing Huey Long Huey Newton Hugo Chavez Human Biodiversity Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genomics Human Nature Human Rights Human Varieties Humor Hungary Hunter-Gatherers Hunting Hurricane Hurricane Harvey I.F. Stone I Kissed A Girl And I Liked It I Love Italians I.Q. Genomics Ian Deary Ibd Ibo Ice T Iceland I'd Like To Think It's Obvious I Know What I'm Talking About Ideology And Worldview Idiocracy Igbo Ignorance Ilana Mercer Illegal Immigration IMF immigrants Immigration Imperial Presidency Imperialism Imran Awan In The Electric Mist Inbreeding Income Independence Day India Indians Individualism Inequality Infection Theory Infidelity Intelligence Internet Internet Research Agency Interracial Marriage Inuit Ioannidis Ioannis Metaxas Iosif Lazaridis Iq Iq And Wealth Iran Nuclear Agreement Iran Nuclear Program Iran Sanctions Iranian Nuclear Program Iraq Iraq War Ireland Irish ISIS. Terrorism Islamic Jihad Islamophobia Isolationism Israel Defense Force Israeli Occupation Israeli Settlements Israeli Spying Italianthro Italy It's Determinism - Genetics Is Just A Part It's Not Nature And Nurture Ivanka Ivy League Iwo Eleru J. Edgar Hoover Jack Keane Jake Tapper JAM-GC Jamaica James Clapper James Comey James Fanell James Mattis James Wooley Jamie Foxx Jane Harman Jane Mayer Janet Yellen Japan Japanese Jared Diamond Jared Kushner Jared Taylor Jason Malloy JASTA Jayman Jr. Jayman's Wife Jeff Bezos Jennifer Rubin Jensen Jeremy Corbyn Jerrold Nadler Jerry Seinfeld Jesse Bering Jesuits Jewish History JFK Assassination Jill Stein Jim Crow Joe Cirincione Joe Lieberman John Allen John B. Watson John Boehner John Bolton John Brennan John Derbyshire John Durant John F. Kennedy John Hawks John Hoffecker John Kasich John Kerry John Ladue John McCain John McLaughlin John McWhorter John Mearsheimer John Tooby Joke Posts Jonathan Freedland Jonathan Pollard Joseph Lieberman Joseph McCarthy Judaism Judicial System Judith Harris Julian Assange Jute K.d. Lang Kagans Kanazawa Kashmir Katibat Al-Battar Al-Libi Katy Perry Kay Hymowitz Keith Ellison Ken Livingstone Kenneth Marcus Kennewick Man Kevin MacDonald Kevin McCarthy Kevin Mitchell Kevin Williamson KGL-9268 Khazars Kim Jong Un Kimberly Noble Kin Altruism Kin Selection Kink Kinship Kissing Kiwis Kkk Knesset Know-nothings Korea Korean War Kosovo Ku Klux Klan Kurds Kurt Campbell Labor Day Lactose Lady Gaga Language Larkana Conspiracy Larry Summers Larung Gar Las Vegas Massacre Latin America Latinos Latitude Latvia Law Law Of War Manual Laws Of Behavioral Genetics Lead Poisoning Lebanon Leda Cosmides Lee Kuan Yew Left Coast Left/Right Lenin Leo Strauss Lesbians LGBT Liberal Creationism Liberalism Liberals Libertarianism Libertarians Libya life-expectancy Life In Space Life Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happyness Lifestyle Light Skin Preference Lindsay Graham Lindsey Graham Literacy Litvinenko Lloyd Blankfein Locus Of Control Logan's Run Lombok Strait Long Ass Posts Longevity Look AHEAD Looting Lorde Love Love Dolls Lover Boys Low-carb Low-fat Low Wages LRSO Lutherans Lyndon Johnson M Factor M.g. MacArthur Awards Machiavellianism Madeleine Albright Mahmoud Abbas Maine Malacca Strait Malaysian Airlines MH17 Male Homosexuality Mamasapano Mangan Manor Manorialism Manosphere Manufacturing Mao-a Mao Zedong Maoism Maori Map Posts maps Marc Faber Marco Rubio Marijuana Marine Le Pen Mark Carney Mark Steyn Mark Warner Market Economy Marriage Martin Luther King Marwan Marwan Barghouti Marxism Mary White Ovington Masha Gessen Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Mate Choice Mate Value Math Mathematics Maulana Bhashani Max Blumenthal Max Boot Max Brooks Mayans McCain/POW Mearsheimer-Walt Measurement Error Mega-Aggressions Mega-anlysis Megan Fox Megyn Kelly Melanin Memorial Day Mental Health Mental Illness Mental Traits Meritocracy Merkel Mesolithic Meta-analysis Meth Mexican-American War Mexico Michael Anton Michael Bloomberg Michael Flynn Michael Hudson Michael Jackson Michael Lewis Michael Morell Michael Pompeo Michael Weiss Michael Woodley Michele Bachmann Michelle Bachmann Michelle Obama Microaggressions Microcephalin Microsoft Middle Ages Mideastwire Migration Mike Huckabee Mike Pence Mike Pompeo Mike Signer Mikhail Khodorkovsky Militarized Police Military Military Pay Military Spending Milner Group Mindanao Minimum Wage Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study Minorities Minstrels Mirror Neurons Miscellaneous Misdreavus Missile Defense Mitt Romney Mixed-Race Modern Humans Mohammed Bin Salman Moldova Monogamy Moral Absolutism Moral Universalism Morality Mormons Moro Mortality Mossad Mountains Movies Moxie Mrs. Jayman MTDNA Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Multiregional Model Music Muslim Muslim Ban Muslims Mutual Assured Destruction My Lai My Old Kentucky Home Myanmar Mysticism Nagasaki Nancy Segal Narendra Modi Nascar National Debt National Differences National Review National Security State National Security Strategy National Wealth Nationalism Native Americans NATO Natural Selection Nature Vs. Nurture Navy Yard Shooting Naz Shah Nazi Nazis Nazism Nbc News Nbc Nightly News Neanderthals NED Neo-Nazis Neoconservatism Neoconservatives Neoliberalism Neolithic Netherlands Neuropolitics Neuroticism Never Forget The Genetic Confound New Addition New Atheists New Cold War New England Patriots New France New French New Netherland New Qing History New Rules New Silk Road New World Order New York City New York Times Newfoundland Newt Gingrich NFL Nicaragua Canal Nicholas Sarkozy Nicholas Wade Nigeria Nightly News Nikki Haley No Free Will Nobel Prize Nobel Prized Nobosuke Kishi Nordics North Africa North Korea Northern Ireland Northwest Europe Norway NSA NSA Surveillance Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear War Nuclear Weapons Null Result Nurture Nurture Assumption Nutrition Nuts NYPD O Mio Babbino Caro Obama Obamacare Obesity Obscured American Occam's Razor Occupy Occupy Wall Street Oceania Oil Oil Industry Old Folks At Home Olfaction Oliver Stone Olympics Omega Males Ominous Signs Once You Go Black Open To Experience Openness To Experience Operational Sex Ratio Opiates Opioids Orban Organ Transplants Orlando Shooting Orthodoxy Osama Bin Laden Ottoman Empire Our Political Nature Out Of Africa Model Outbreeding Oxtr Oxytocin Paekchong Pakistan Pakistani Palatability Paleoamerindians Paleocons Paleolibertarianism Palestine Palestinians Pamela Geller Panama Canal Panama Papers Parasite Parasite Burden Parasite Manipulation Parent-child Interactions Parenting Parenting Parenting Behavioral Genetics Paris Attacks Paris Spring Parsi Paternal Investment Pathogens Patriot Act Patriotism Paul Ewald Paul Krugman Paul Lepage Paul Manafort Paul Ryan Paul Singer Paul Wolfowitz Pavel Grudinin Peace Index Peak Jobs Pearl Harbor Pedophilia Peers Peggy Seagrave Pennsylvania Pentagon Perception Management Personality Peru Peter Frost Peter Thiel Peter Turchin Phil Onderdonk Phil Rushton Philip Breedlove Philippines Physical Anthropology Pierre Van Den Berghe Pieter Van Ostaeyen Piigs Pioneer Hypothesis Pioneers PISA Pizzagate Planets Planned Parenthood Pledge Of Allegiance Pleiotropy Pol Pot Poland Police State Police Training Politics Poll Results Polls Polygenic Score Polygyny Pope Francis Population Growth Population Replacement Populism Pornography Portugal Post 199 Post 201 Post 99 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Post-Nationalism Pot Poverty PRC Prenatal Hormones Prescription Drugs Press Censorship Pretty Graphs Prince Bandar Priti Patel Privatization Progressives Project Plowshares Propaganda Prostitution Protestantism Proud To Be Black Psychology Psychometrics Psychopaths Psychopathy Pubertal Timing Public Schools Puerto Rico Punishment Puritans Putin Pwc Qatar Quakers Quantitative Genetics Quebec Quebecois Race Race And Crime Race And Genomics Race And Iq Race And Religion Race/Crime Race Denialism Race Riots Rachel Dolezal Rachel Maddow Racial Intelligence Racial Reality Racism Radical Islam Ralph And Coop Ralph Nader Rand Paul Randy Fine Rap Music Raqqa Rating People Rationality Raul Pedrozo Razib Khan Reaction Time Reading Real Estate Real Women Really Stop The Armchair Psychoanalysis Recep Tayyip Erdogan Reciprocal Altruism Reconstruction Red Hair Red State Blue State Red States Blue States Refugee Crisis Regional Differences Regional Populations Regression To The Mean Religion Religion Religion And Philosophy Rena Wing Renewable Energy Rentier Reprint Reproductive Strategy Republican Jesus Republican Party Responsibility Reuel Gerecht Reverend Moon Revolution Of 1905 Revolutions Rex Tillerson Richard Dawkins Richard Dyer Richard Lewontin Richard Lynn Richard Nixon Richard Pryor Richard Pryor Live On The Sunset Strip Richard Russell Rick Perry Rickets Rikishi Robert Ford Robert Kraft Robert Lindsay Robert McNamara Robert Mueller Robert Mugabe Robert Plomin Robert Putnam Robert Reich Robert Spencer Robocop Robots Roe Vs. Wade Roger Ailes Rohingya Roman Empire Rome Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Rooshv Rosemary Hopcroft Ross Douthat Ross Perot Rotherham Roy Moore RT International Rupert Murdoch Rural Liberals Rushton Russell Kirk Russia-Georgia War Russiagate Russian Elections 2018 Russian Hack Russian History Russian Military Russian Orthodox Church Ruth Benedict Saakashvili Sam Harris Same Sex Attraction Same-sex Marriage Same-sex Parents Samoans Samuel George Morton San Bernadino Massacre Sandra Beleza Sandusky Sandy Hook Sarah Palin Sarin Gas Satoshi Kanazawa saudi Saudi Arabia Saying What You Have To Say Scandinavia Scandinavians Scarborough Shoal Schizophrenia Science: It Works Bitches Scientism Scotch-irish Scotland Scots Irish Scott Ritter Scrabble Secession Seduced By Food Semai Senate Separating The Truth From The Nonsense Serbia Serenity Sergei Magnitsky Sergei Skripal Sex Sex Ratio Sex Ratio At Birth Sex Recognition Sex Tape Sex Work Sexism Sexual Antagonistic Selection Sexual Dimorphism Sexual Division Of Labor Sexual Fluidity Sexual Identity Sexual Maturation Sexual Orientation Sexual Selection Sexually Transmitted Diseases Seymour Hersh Shai Masot Shame Culture Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Shanghai Stock Exchange Shared Environment Shekhovstov Sheldon Adelson Shias And Sunnis Shimon Arad Shimon Peres Shinzo Abe Shmuley Boteach Shorts And Funnies Shoshana Bryen Shurat HaDin Shyness Siamak Namazi Sibel Edmonds Siberia Silicon Valley Simon Baron Cohen Singapore Single Men Single Motherhood Single Mothers Single Women Sisyphean Six Day War SJWs Skin Bleaching Skin Color Skin Tone Slate Slave Trade Slavery Slavoj Zizek Slavs SLC24A5 Sleep Slobodan Milosevic Smart Fraction Smell Smoking Snow Snyderman Social Constructs Social Justice Warriors Socialism Sociopathy Sociosexuality Solar Energy Solutions Somalia Sometimes You Don't Like The Answer South Africa South Asia South China Sea South Korea South Sudan Southern Italians Southern Poverty Law Center Soviet Union Space Space Space Program Space Race Spain Spanish Paradox Speech SPLC Sports Sputnik News Squid Ink Srebrenica Stabby Somali Staffan Stalinism Stanislas Dehaene Star Trek State Department State Formation States Rights Statins Steny Hoyer Stephan Guyenet Stephen Cohen Stephen Colbert Stephen Hadley Stephen Jay Gould Sterling Seagrave Steve Bannon Steve Sailer Steven Mnuchin Steven Pinker Still Not Free Buddy Stolen Generations Strategic Affairs Ministry Stroke Belt Student Loans Stuxnet SU-57 Sub-replacement Fertility Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africans Subprime Mortgage Crisis Subsistence Living Suffrage Sugar Suicide Summing It All Up Supernatural Support Me Support The Jayman Supreme Court Supression Surveillance Susan Glasser Susan Rice Sweden Swiss Switzerland Syed Farook Syrian Refugees Syriza Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Tale Of Two Maps Taliban Tamerlan Tsarnaev TAS2R16 Tashfeen Malik Taste Tastiness Tatars Tatu Vanhanen Tawang Tax Cuts Tax Evasion Taxes Tea Party Team Performance Technology Ted Cruz Tell Me About You Tell The Truth Terman Terman's Termites Terroris Terrorists Tesla Testosterone Thailand The 10000 Year Explosion The Bible The Breeder's Equation The Confederacy The Dark Knight The Dark Triad The Death Penalty The Deep South The Devil Is In The Details The Dustbowl The Economist The Far West The Future The Great Plains The Great Wall The Left The Left Coast The New York Times The Pursuit Of Happyness The Rock The Saker The Son Also Rises The South The Walking Dead The Washington Post The Wide Environment The World Theodore Roosevelt Theresa May Things Going Sour Third World Thomas Aquinas Thomas Friedman Thomas Perez Thomas Sowell Thomas Talhelm Thorstein Veblen Thurgood Marshall Tibet Tidewater Tiger Mom Time Preference Timmons Title IX Tobin Tax Tom Cotton Tom Naughton Tone It Down Guys Seriously Tony Blair Torture Toxoplasma Gondii TPP Traffic Traffic Fatalities Tragedy Trans-Species Polymorphism Transgender Transgenderism Transsexuals Treasury Tropical Humans Trump Trust TTIP Tuition Tulsi Gabbard Turkheimer TWA 800 Twin Study Twins Twins Raised Apart Twintuition Twitter Two Party System UKIP Ukrainian Crisis UN Security Council Unemployment Unions United Kingdom United Nations United States Universalism University Admissions Upper Paleolithic Urban Riots Ursula Gauthier Uruguay US Blacks USS Liberty Utopian Uttar Pradesh UV Uyghurs Vaginal Yeast Valerie Plame Vassopressin Vdare Veep Venezuela Veterans Administration Victor Canfield Victor Davis Hanson Victoria Nuland Victorian England Victorianism Video Games Vietnam Vietnam War Vietnamese Vikings Violence Vioxx Virginia Visa Waivers Visual Word Form Area Vitamin D Voronezh Vote Fraud Vouchers Vwfa W.E.I.R.D. W.E.I.R.D.O. Wahhabis Wall Street Walter Bodmer Wang Jing War On Christmas War On Terror Washington Post WasPage Watergate Watsoning We Are What We Are We Don't Know All The Environmental Causes Weight Loss WEIRDO Welfare Western Europe Western European Marriage Pattern Western Media Western Religion Westerns What Can You Do What's The Cause Where They're At Where's The Fallout White America White Americans White Conservative Males White Death White Helmets White Nationalist Nuttiness White Nationalists White Privilege White Slavery White Supremacy White Wife Why We Believe Hbd Wikileaks Wild Life Wilhelm Furtwangler William Browder William Buckley William D. Hamilton William Graham Sumner William McGougall WINEP Winston Churchill Women In The Workplace Woodley Effect Woodrow Wilson WORDSUM Workers Working Class Working Memory World Values Survey World War I World War Z Writing WTO X Little Miss JayLady Xhosa Xi Jinping Xinjiang Yankeedom Yankees Yazidis Yemen Yes I Am A Brother Yes I Am Liberal - But That Kind Of Liberal Yochi Dreazen You Can't Handle The Truth You Don't Know Shit Youtube Ban Yugoslavia Zbigniew Brzezinski Zhang Yimou Zika Zika Virus Zimbabwe Zionism Zombies Zones Of Thought Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Nothing found
All Commenters • My
Comments
• Followed
Commenters
All Comments / On "Carroll Quigley"
 All Comments / On "Carroll Quigley"
    Academic historians dislike the concept that history is often made by groups of individuals plotting together in confidence, even though one obvious way to get big things done is to make plans with your friends and allies while keeping your rivals in the dark as long as possible. One exception is the late Georgetown history...
  • @German reader
    What happened in 1915/16?
    After so much bloodshed, the "people" demanded victory, on both sides. Had the monarchs still been in charge, both in fact and in the minds of their peoples, the war would have been ended swiftly.
    Later it got worse, and again on both sides. You will find in me no defender of the pagan Ludendorff. But the worst of all was Clemenceau, who combined within himself the very worst of French bitterness against Germany and a devilish hatred of Catholicism and thus the Habsburgs.
    And then along came Wilson ...

    Amen about the bias against Germany so often displayed on this site.

    Are you sure you haven’t submitted this comment to the wrong website?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • American conservative writer Steve Sailer has written a balanced critique of what is widely termed the Rhodes/Milner ‘secret society’, ‘Milner’s Kindergarten’, or the ‘Round Table Group’ among ‘conspiracy theorists’.[1] Mr. Sailer provides an objective examination that is often missing, especially from American writers. The review is based on Carroll Quigley’s 1949 book The Anglo-American Establishment,...
  • @Hrw-500
    It could be interesting to wonder what if Carroll Quigley had lived a bit longer, if he could had written more on the subject?

    On a off-topic sidenote, I spotted some links who talk of various conspiration theories about the assassination of Hendrik Verwoerd, who was prime minister of South Africa, in 1966 on the following blogs.
    http://hendrikverwoerd.blogspot.ca/p/conspiracy.html
    http://gumshoenews.com/2015/04/15/1960s-assassinations-dr-hendrik-verwoerd-vs-john-f-kennedy-and-rfk/
    http://drvitelli.typepad.com/providentia/2008/12/the-verwoerd-assassination.html
    as well as on these books like "Unfinished Business: South Africa Apartheid and Truth" and "Really inside BOSS: A tale of South Africa's late intelligence service".

    http://drvitelli.typepad.com/providentia/2008/12/the-verwoerd-assassination.html

    Looks like that link don’t work anymore, but there a archived copy located on Archive.is.

    https://archive.is/7fDWV

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Academic historians dislike the concept that history is often made by groups of individuals plotting together in confidence, even though one obvious way to get big things done is to make plans with your friends and allies while keeping your rivals in the dark as long as possible. One exception is the late Georgetown history...
  • […] example, Georgetown professor Carroll Quigley was convinced that the proteges of Cecil Rhodes, such as Alfred Milner, had conspired to exercise […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] Message: Prepare For Totalitarianism Welcome Aboard, But First US Marshals Will Scan Your Retina Carroll Quigley’s Conspiracy Theory: The Milner Group Science Fiction and the Hidden Global Agenda by Carl James Zitate zur Neuen Weltordnung Prof. […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] [unz.com] – Carroll Quigley’s Conspiracy Theory: The Milner Group [wikipedia.com] – Carroll Quigley [amazon.com] – Quigley, Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time [amazon.com] – Quigley, Anglo-American Establishment [deepresource] – Britain Masterminded WW1 […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] the “centrist” Brookings Institution – heard a call to arms. It was almost as if Cecil Rhodes, the British imperialist and original founder and financier of the Council on Foreign Relations, […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] the “centrist” Brookings Institution – heard a call to arms. It was almost as if Cecil Rhodes, the British imperialist and original founder and financier of the Council on Foreign Relations, […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] fellow at the “centrist” Brookings Institution – heard a call to arms. It was almost as if Cecil Rhodes, the British imperialist and original founder and financier of the Council on Foreign Relations, […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] the “centrist” Brookings Institution – heard a call to arms. It was almost as if Cecil Rhodes, the British imperialist and original founder and financier of the Council on Foreign Relations, […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] fellow at the “centrist” Brookings Institution – heard a call to arms. It was almost as if Cecil Rhodes, the British imperialist and original founder and financier of the Council on Foreign Relations, […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] fellow at the “centrist” Brookings Institution – heard a call to arms. It was almost as if Cecil Rhodes, the British imperialist and original founder and financier of the Council on Foreign Relations, […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] at the “centrist” Brookings Institution – heard a call to arms. It was almost as if Cecil Rhodes, the British imperialist and original founder and financier of the Council on Foreign […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] with the particular piece of work, Steve Sailor did a very useful write up at the Unz review here, but curiously left out some very interesting quotes and opinions of which I will cover […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] Murray Rothbard, in 1984, wrote a stunning monograph that traced the Power Elite in the United States in the 20th century; from the Morgan house bankers and the Fed to the rise of the Rockefeller interests in Asia to the post-World War Two solidifying of the new political order.  He recognized that the roots of this order took place with the Fabian socialists in England.  Largely informed by the unofficial historian of the European elite themselves, Bill Clinton’s Georgetown Professor Carroll Quigley, Murray Rothbard observed that the Fabian circles began to work in unison with the secret societies funded and maintained by John Ruskin’s student Cecil Rhodes, whose gigantic diamond-sourced wealth allowed him to have an impactful influence in British politics.  In describing the influence on the American power elite from the other side of the Atlantic, Rothbard pointed out that Cecil Rhodes had in mind a British re-incorporation with the United States.  And thus, Rhodes took his magnificent riches and funded all sorts of powerful international “groups” and organizations that provided “expertise” on all matters foreign policy and banking and “public policy.”  These groups, labelled by Cecil Rhodes as Round Table Groups included the British versions (Royal Institute of International Affairs) and the American versions as well (Council on Foreign Relations).  But they largely reflected the same worldview and the same power elite.  For more on Cecil Rhodes and Carroll Quigley, see Steve Sailer’s overview here. […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] Murray Rothbard, in 1984, wrote a stunning monograph that traced the Power Elite in the United States in the 20th century; from the Morgan house bankers and the Fed to the rise of the Rockefeller interests in Asia to the post-World War Two solidifying of the new political order.  He recognized that the roots of this order took place with the Fabian socialists in England.  Largely informed by the unofficial historian of the European elite themselves, Bill Clinton’s Georgetown Professor Carroll Quigley, Murray Rothbard observed that the Fabian circles began to work in unison with the secret societies funded and maintained by John Ruskin’s student Cecil Rhodes, whose gigantic diamond-sourced wealth allowed him to have an impactful influence in British politics.  In describing the influence on the American power elite from the other side of the Atlantic, Rothbard pointed out that Cecil Rhodes had in mind a British re-incorporation with the United States.  And thus, Rhodes took his magnificent riches and funded all sorts of powerful international “groups” and organizations that provided “expertise” on all matters foreign policy and banking and “public policy.”  These groups, labelled by Cecil Rhodes as Round Table Groups included the British versions (Royal Institute of International Affairs) and the American versions as well (Council on Foreign Relations).  But they largely reflected the same worldview and the same power elite.  For more on Cecil Rhodes and Carroll Quigley, see Steve Sailer’s overview here. […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • American conservative writer Steve Sailer has written a balanced critique of what is widely termed the Rhodes/Milner ‘secret society’, ‘Milner’s Kindergarten’, or the ‘Round Table Group’ among ‘conspiracy theorists’.[1] Mr. Sailer provides an objective examination that is often missing, especially from American writers. The review is based on Carroll Quigley’s 1949 book The Anglo-American Establishment,...
  • […] hinaus hätte ich von K.R. Bolton eine Erwiderung auf den Artikel, den Sailer vorlegte, und zwar hier unter dem Titel “Alfred Milner and His ‘Group’ – Some Myths About the ‘Anglo-American […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Academic historians dislike the concept that history is often made by groups of individuals plotting together in confidence, even though one obvious way to get big things done is to make plans with your friends and allies while keeping your rivals in the dark as long as possible. One exception is the late Georgetown history...
  • […] Den ausgewogenen Artikel finden Sie hier. […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • American conservative writer Steve Sailer has written a balanced critique of what is widely termed the Rhodes/Milner ‘secret society’, ‘Milner’s Kindergarten’, or the ‘Round Table Group’ among ‘conspiracy theorists’.[1] Mr. Sailer provides an objective examination that is often missing, especially from American writers. The review is based on Carroll Quigley’s 1949 book The Anglo-American Establishment,...
  • @Deduction
    Yet no-one can answer what these people supposedly want...

    It is certainly not fame haha.

    For a group that is supposed to be a SD smarter than any other group, it sure as hell is taking them a long time to accomplish whatever objectives that do have in mind.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Grafström
    The british elites were double natured. That is why they were able to fool everybody and later repeat the tricks and fool everybody again in WWII. The word honour has no applicability. Illusionism would be more fitting. But they are good actors. Like the commenter Levantine I recommend Docherty & Macgregors book and website for a wealth of examples.
    Mr Bolton correctly observes that the americans didnt seriously fight the bolsheviks. But omits that neither did the british. They even deliberately sabotaged the white side. They sent useless equipment and when they were set to use french tanks, which unlike the british, were fine, they refused to move to the frontline saying tanks are for frightening the enemy from a long distance not for taking part in battles.
    Source: A novel by A Kuprin, an eye witness from outside Petersburg in 1919.
    [The title was The Dome of st Isaac of Dalmatia, ch. XVIII, retreat (1928) (in russian)]
    Officially blame was put on british workers for having refused to take part in the shipments to the enemy of the reds. But of course the elites would have had no difficulty in circumventing that obstacle.
    Very important in connection with the angloamerican support for socialism of all kinds is the Fabian society, discussed by Quigley, who outlines that it was intended for the control of all progressives. However it went deeper. One might even view it as the origin of the CFR and all its siblings RIIA and a host of others, since the Fabians had the same imperialistic aim as those later organizations. And Fabianism aimed to extend the hold on people knowing marxism ( also developed under protection of the british) alone couldnt.
    Ioan Ratiu, The Milner Fabian conspiracy (2013) explains more about these interrelated elite groupings.
    Pierre de Villemareste, Facts and Chronicles denied to the public, vol2, The Secrets of Bilderberg (2004 ) - (fr original from 2003)
    explains how the Bilderbergs was intended to counter the antisocialist tendencies to keep everybody aligned in the march towards world government.
    This topic is extremely subtle and the difficulty of telling the different genres of socialists appart caused problems for some conservative critics like Mr Bolton mentions.
    Senator Mccarthy was not paranoid, there was massive influence of leftleaning people but it wasnt Moscow's conspiracy, the angloamerican establishment was behind it in the shape of the Fabians. David Rockefeller was one and even wrote a positively held treatise on socialism.
    In order to determine whether or not it is a jewish conspiracy, it will be necessary to know whether or not the freemasons are separate from the jews or dominated by them at the top level.
    There is no doubt that the freemasonic networks acted on behalf of the bankers. And that the freemasons took the decision to force the destruction of tsarrussia.
    Milner was a 33rd degree. That level is supposed to communicate internationally among lodges and in those days also said to have the maxim 'permanent revolution'

    Yet no-one can answer what these people supposedly want…

    It is certainly not fame haha.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    For a group that is supposed to be a SD smarter than any other group, it sure as hell is taking them a long time to accomplish whatever objectives that do have in mind.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The british elites were double natured. That is why they were able to fool everybody and later repeat the tricks and fool everybody again in WWII. The word honour has no applicability. Illusionism would be more fitting. But they are good actors. Like the commenter Levantine I recommend Docherty & Macgregors book and website for a wealth of examples.
    Mr Bolton correctly observes that the americans didnt seriously fight the bolsheviks. But omits that neither did the british. They even deliberately sabotaged the white side. They sent useless equipment and when they were set to use french tanks, which unlike the british, were fine, they refused to move to the frontline saying tanks are for frightening the enemy from a long distance not for taking part in battles.
    Source: A novel by A Kuprin, an eye witness from outside Petersburg in 1919.
    [The title was The Dome of st Isaac of Dalmatia, ch. XVIII, retreat (1928) (in russian)]
    Officially blame was put on british workers for having refused to take part in the shipments to the enemy of the reds. But of course the elites would have had no difficulty in circumventing that obstacle.
    Very important in connection with the angloamerican support for socialism of all kinds is the Fabian society, discussed by Quigley, who outlines that it was intended for the control of all progressives. However it went deeper. One might even view it as the origin of the CFR and all its siblings RIIA and a host of others, since the Fabians had the same imperialistic aim as those later organizations. And Fabianism aimed to extend the hold on people knowing marxism ( also developed under protection of the british) alone couldnt.
    Ioan Ratiu, The Milner Fabian conspiracy (2013) explains more about these interrelated elite groupings.
    Pierre de Villemareste, Facts and Chronicles denied to the public, vol2, The Secrets of Bilderberg (2004 ) – (fr original from 2003)
    explains how the Bilderbergs was intended to counter the antisocialist tendencies to keep everybody aligned in the march towards world government.
    This topic is extremely subtle and the difficulty of telling the different genres of socialists appart caused problems for some conservative critics like Mr Bolton mentions.
    Senator Mccarthy was not paranoid, there was massive influence of leftleaning people but it wasnt Moscow’s conspiracy, the angloamerican establishment was behind it in the shape of the Fabians. David Rockefeller was one and even wrote a positively held treatise on socialism.
    In order to determine whether or not it is a jewish conspiracy, it will be necessary to know whether or not the freemasons are separate from the jews or dominated by them at the top level.
    There is no doubt that the freemasonic networks acted on behalf of the bankers. And that the freemasons took the decision to force the destruction of tsarrussia.
    Milner was a 33rd degree. That level is supposed to communicate internationally among lodges and in those days also said to have the maxim ‘permanent revolution’

    Read More
    • Replies: @Deduction
    Yet no-one can answer what these people supposedly want...

    It is certainly not fame haha.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • If there is a world Jewish conspiracy, what is its aim?

    Or rather, what are the main aims of the people involved?

    After all, no two people have the exact same motivations, nor really does one person remain one hundred percent constant from one day to the next.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @rabbitbait
    This is a curious article that seems to have been written to try and tamper down revelations from the so called "conspiracists." Here are a few random points that came to mind while reading it.

    The name of Judah Benjamin seems to be coming up more and more these days. Writers such as the one who penned this article downplay Benjamin's influence on the Confederacy and his connections to the Rothschilds. This writer also downplays the Rothschild support of the Confederacy which was absolutely essential for the financing of its participation in such a long and costly war despite being one of the poorer, almost entirely rural and almost completely un-industrialized regions of the US. On the other hand, Lincoln, leader of the much more prosperous north, had to issue his "greenbacks" specifically because international bankers had sought to essentially sabotage the northern war effort by insisting on crippling interest rates on loans it issued. The south doesn't seem to have suffered from similarly usurious loan demands. In addition, If the Rothschilds were not so heavily connected with the Confederacy why then did the head of the English branch of the Rothschild family, Lord Rothschild, risk his life and limb by running the northern naval blockade during the war in order to visit the Confederacy.

    Should I also mention the fact that Judah Benjamin was forced to flee from North
    America to England after the surrender of the Confederacy because he alone, among all the high Confederate officials, was afraid of being implicated in the murder of Abraham Lincoln? Benjamin, later as a "curiously prosperous" lawyer in the UK where he had fled,, worked for the legal defense when the southern states, as plaintiffs , sought to reclaim Confederate assets which had ended up in English hands. Among these assets was probably gold that Benjamin had been rumored to have removed from the Confederate treasury before fleeing from North America.

    The author mentions J.P. Morgan, the ultimate front man. After Morgan's death, his will revealed that he owned just 13% of the bank that he was thought to have owned outright. His two silent partners, both with connections to the Rothschild, owned the other 87%. Morgan was just a shill.

    Probably the biggest financial travesty of the twentieth century, the establishment of The Federal Reserve Bank was long thought to have been thought up by a coterie of northern bakers (including J.P. Morgan,) meeting at Jekyll Island in 1910. It turn out that the entire bill had been written by Rothschild agent Paul Warburg and associates beforehand. The other attendees at this meeting simply rubber stamped it. It turned out later that few if any of the other attendees had actually read the entire construct. or knew its implications.

    Just like what happened when later politicians approved the Patriot Act without having read it.

    The fact that J.P. Morgan was just a Rotshchild front man in the US is something that I found recently, its curious that there was never a “official” Rotshchild family branch in America.

    Its likely that Judah P. Benjamin was involved the in Abraham Lincoln’s assassination conspiracy, he was the South connection with the Rothschild and the London finance world.

    The way I see it’s that Lord Alfred Milner and Cecil Rhodes were British Imperialists that got outwitted by jewish financiers in their plans for a New World Order.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    You've never heard of Spengler's "Prussianism and Socialism"? Never read Decline of the West, or Hour of Decision? Never read Anthony Ludovici? When I refer to conservatism I am meaning precisely that; not the neo-Whiggery that today is miscalled conservatism especially in the USA and Britain. I don't suppose you have read Karl Marx's support for Free Trade either?

    You’ve never heard of Spengler’s “Prussianism and Socialism”?

    Never. I found it online and started reading. I got to these lines and stopped. Maybe someday when I have read all the history books that I have lined up I can get back to it.

    I say German socialism, for there is no other. This, too, is one of the truths that no longer lie hidden. Perhaps no one has mentioned it before, but we Germans are socialists. The others cannot possibly be socialists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    From what I can remember from my high school history classes, William Jennings Bryan seems to fit the bill of social conservative/fiscal liberal.

    You may be right, I sometimes forget that a lot of people equate contemporary American liberals with socialists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Tim Howells
    I would recommend that anyone who believes that Lord Milner represented a healthy ethical conservatism study his role in the Boer War, which disgusted even Lord Kitchener, and the central role of the Society of the Elect in bringing about World War One. Two good References on the latter:

    1) Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War. Docherty and MacGregor.
    http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-History-Secret-Origins-First-ebook/dp/B00CPR6IWK/ref=sr_1_2?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1440405850&sr=1-2&keywords=hidden+history

    2) Lord Milner's Second War: The Rhodes-Milner secret society; the origin of World War I; and the start of the New World Order. Cafferky.
    http://www.amazon.com/Lord-Milners-Second-War-Rhodes-Milner-ebook/dp/B00BZX5R6S/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1440406066&sr=1-1&keywords=lord+milner%27s+second+war

    I also recommend a careful reading of Quigley's Anglo-American Establishment re the role of the Society of the Elect in the rise of Hitler and fomenting World War Two.

    Re Quigley, it is important to understand that he was under great pressure and had to choose his words carefully. See this interview with a friendly journalist:

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

    Near the beginning Quigley says:

    "I'll put this on tape, but look, you have to be discreet - you have to protect my future as well as your own."

     

    Later on he starts talking about Milner's successor, Lionel Curtis and says he found it strange that he was so important because he was undistinguished academically (from about 24:30):

    "Nobody had ever heard of him. Furthermore he had been Lord Halifax's roommate at All Souls for years. And then I discovered that this fella is behind everything that's going on! Lionel Curtis, you see. Now I don't think we should talk too much about that."

     

    The background was that around 1947 Quigley was investigating the role of the Milner Group in setting up the CFR etc, and also in establishing the post-war world order. Pretty sensitive subjects apparently.

    I should have gone a little further with Quigley’s comments in that interview, because he goes on to comment about the Milner Group’s activities in Germany during the interwar period. This is in the context of Quigley’s discussions with historian Alfred Zimmern circa 1947:

    “He [Zimmern] said ‘I resigned [from the Roundtable Group] in 1923 because they were determined to build up Germany against France.’ He said ‘I wouldn’t stand for it so I resigned.’ Now when I [Quigley] met Lord Brand later and asked him about this he had never seen the letter of resignation. Now … so I’d better stop talking because you see this gets into all kinds of things.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Lew
    Bolton has done tremendous work at the white nationalist site Counter Currents Publishing. Start with Bolton's essays on Charlie Hebdo and Stalin.

    I started reading a long Bolton piece comparing in measured tones the argument for saying that neither tear gas or some more noxious gas was used in Iraq under Churchill’s auspices as Colonial Secretary with the attempts to arrive at similar conclusions wrt to gassings at Auschwicz.

    Can you tell me where he ends up on that. As he does seem to be a careful scholar (and I haven’t yet come across anyone who makes me doubt the essence of the Holocaust story seriously) I wonder whether I should go on tuning up my questions such as
    1. Were Jews targeted in a way no other ethnic group or nationality (even gypsies) were by the Nazis?
    2. Did approx 6 million (or 4 million as I remember getting into trouble for quoting circa 1975) European Jews die unnaturally during WW2?
    3. Did not the mass shootings (and burnings and carbon monoxide gassings) of Jews in 1941 and early 1942 attest to a
    a policy of killing Jews just to eliminate Jews?
    4. Were not Himmler’s and Eichmann’s actions to cause the deaths of a vast proportion of the Jews who were deported or, within Poland, relocated, Hitler’s responsibility and consistent with his writings?
    5. Were women with children, children and the elderly not separated on arrival at Auschwicz and shortly after dead and cremated?

    You see I am trying to find out what respectable doubts there might be about so much of the Holocaust story as is needed to explain German acceptance of guilt. A young Jewish lawyer with whom I used to do business had a blue eyed fair-haired mother who had an Auschwicz type tattoo on her arm but had survived because she had been able to hide with Christian peasants in Poland until 1945. My young friend I am sure never had reason to believe that there was no systematic gassing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @rabbitbait
    This is a curious article that seems to have been written to try and tamper down revelations from the so called "conspiracists." Here are a few random points that came to mind while reading it.

    The name of Judah Benjamin seems to be coming up more and more these days. Writers such as the one who penned this article downplay Benjamin's influence on the Confederacy and his connections to the Rothschilds. This writer also downplays the Rothschild support of the Confederacy which was absolutely essential for the financing of its participation in such a long and costly war despite being one of the poorer, almost entirely rural and almost completely un-industrialized regions of the US. On the other hand, Lincoln, leader of the much more prosperous north, had to issue his "greenbacks" specifically because international bankers had sought to essentially sabotage the northern war effort by insisting on crippling interest rates on loans it issued. The south doesn't seem to have suffered from similarly usurious loan demands. In addition, If the Rothschilds were not so heavily connected with the Confederacy why then did the head of the English branch of the Rothschild family, Lord Rothschild, risk his life and limb by running the northern naval blockade during the war in order to visit the Confederacy.

    Should I also mention the fact that Judah Benjamin was forced to flee from North
    America to England after the surrender of the Confederacy because he alone, among all the high Confederate officials, was afraid of being implicated in the murder of Abraham Lincoln? Benjamin, later as a "curiously prosperous" lawyer in the UK where he had fled,, worked for the legal defense when the southern states, as plaintiffs , sought to reclaim Confederate assets which had ended up in English hands. Among these assets was probably gold that Benjamin had been rumored to have removed from the Confederate treasury before fleeing from North America.

    The author mentions J.P. Morgan, the ultimate front man. After Morgan's death, his will revealed that he owned just 13% of the bank that he was thought to have owned outright. His two silent partners, both with connections to the Rothschild, owned the other 87%. Morgan was just a shill.

    Probably the biggest financial travesty of the twentieth century, the establishment of The Federal Reserve Bank was long thought to have been thought up by a coterie of northern bakers (including J.P. Morgan,) meeting at Jekyll Island in 1910. It turn out that the entire bill had been written by Rothschild agent Paul Warburg and associates beforehand. The other attendees at this meeting simply rubber stamped it. It turned out later that few if any of the other attendees had actually read the entire construct. or knew its implications.

    Just like what happened when later politicians approved the Patriot Act without having read it.

    What a shockingly modern PC idea that politicians should actually read the Bills they vote for. And I don’t mean that it is surely enough that some taxpayer funded staff member is willing to say he has read it, or knows someone whose sister has, and has done the necessary calculations of associated donations.

    No I refer to the evidence of the Westminster system’s First, Second & Third Readings (all now purely nominal) that in the good old days elected men of the (propertied) people weren’t assumed to be able to read at all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website
    @iffen

    ethical socialism that is intrinsic to conservatism as the basis for national unity and a healthy people.
     
    It is true that I don't get out much, but I have never heard of socialist conservatives before.

    You’ve never heard of Spengler’s “Prussianism and Socialism”? Never read Decline of the West, or Hour of Decision? Never read Anthony Ludovici? When I refer to conservatism I am meaning precisely that; not the neo-Whiggery that today is miscalled conservatism especially in the USA and Britain. I don’t suppose you have read Karl Marx’s support for Free Trade either?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen

    You’ve never heard of Spengler’s “Prussianism and Socialism”?
     
    Never. I found it online and started reading. I got to these lines and stopped. Maybe someday when I have read all the history books that I have lined up I can get back to it.

    I say German socialism, for there is no other. This, too, is one of the truths that no longer lie hidden. Perhaps no one has mentioned it before, but we Germans are socialists. The others cannot possibly be socialists.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • This is a curious article that seems to have been written to try and tamper down revelations from the so called “conspiracists.” Here are a few random points that came to mind while reading it.

    The name of Judah Benjamin seems to be coming up more and more these days. Writers such as the one who penned this article downplay Benjamin’s influence on the Confederacy and his connections to the Rothschilds. This writer also downplays the Rothschild support of the Confederacy which was absolutely essential for the financing of its participation in such a long and costly war despite being one of the poorer, almost entirely rural and almost completely un-industrialized regions of the US. On the other hand, Lincoln, leader of the much more prosperous north, had to issue his “greenbacks” specifically because international bankers had sought to essentially sabotage the northern war effort by insisting on crippling interest rates on loans it issued. The south doesn’t seem to have suffered from similarly usurious loan demands. In addition, If the Rothschilds were not so heavily connected with the Confederacy why then did the head of the English branch of the Rothschild family, Lord Rothschild, risk his life and limb by running the northern naval blockade during the war in order to visit the Confederacy.

    Should I also mention the fact that Judah Benjamin was forced to flee from North
    America to England after the surrender of the Confederacy because he alone, among all the high Confederate officials, was afraid of being implicated in the murder of Abraham Lincoln? Benjamin, later as a “curiously prosperous” lawyer in the UK where he had fled,, worked for the legal defense when the southern states, as plaintiffs , sought to reclaim Confederate assets which had ended up in English hands. Among these assets was probably gold that Benjamin had been rumored to have removed from the Confederate treasury before fleeing from North America.

    The author mentions J.P. Morgan, the ultimate front man. After Morgan’s death, his will revealed that he owned just 13% of the bank that he was thought to have owned outright. His two silent partners, both with connections to the Rothschild, owned the other 87%. Morgan was just a shill.

    Probably the biggest financial travesty of the twentieth century, the establishment of The Federal Reserve Bank was long thought to have been thought up by a coterie of northern bakers (including J.P. Morgan,) meeting at Jekyll Island in 1910. It turn out that the entire bill had been written by Rothschild agent Paul Warburg and associates beforehand. The other attendees at this meeting simply rubber stamped it. It turned out later that few if any of the other attendees had actually read the entire construct. or knew its implications.

    Just like what happened when later politicians approved the Patriot Act without having read it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    What a shockingly modern PC idea that politicians should actually read the Bills they vote for. And I don't mean that it is surely enough that some taxpayer funded staff member is willing to say he has read it, or knows someone whose sister has, and has done the necessary calculations of associated donations.

    No I refer to the evidence of the Westminster system's First, Second & Third Readings (all now purely nominal) that in the good old days elected men of the (propertied) people weren't assumed to be able to read at all.
    , @Chiron
    The fact that J.P. Morgan was just a Rotshchild front man in the US is something that I found recently, its curious that there was never a "official" Rotshchild family branch in America.

    Its likely that Judah P. Benjamin was involved the in Abraham Lincoln's assassination conspiracy, he was the South connection with the Rothschild and the London finance world.

    The way I see it's that Lord Alfred Milner and Cecil Rhodes were British Imperialists that got outwitted by jewish financiers in their plans for a New World Order.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @iffen

    ethical socialism that is intrinsic to conservatism as the basis for national unity and a healthy people.
     
    It is true that I don't get out much, but I have never heard of socialist conservatives before.

    From what I can remember from my high school history classes, William Jennings Bryan seems to fit the bill of social conservative/fiscal liberal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    You may be right, I sometimes forget that a lot of people equate contemporary American liberals with socialists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Bolton has done tremendous work at the white nationalist site Counter Currents Publishing. Start with Bolton’s essays on Charlie Hebdo and Stalin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I started reading a long Bolton piece comparing in measured tones the argument for saying that neither tear gas or some more noxious gas was used in Iraq under Churchill's auspices as Colonial Secretary with the attempts to arrive at similar conclusions wrt to gassings at Auschwicz.

    Can you tell me where he ends up on that. As he does seem to be a careful scholar (and I haven't yet come across anyone who makes me doubt the essence of the Holocaust story seriously) I wonder whether I should go on tuning up my questions such as
    1. Were Jews targeted in a way no other ethnic group or nationality (even gypsies) were by the Nazis?
    2. Did approx 6 million (or 4 million as I remember getting into trouble for quoting circa 1975) European Jews die unnaturally during WW2?
    3. Did not the mass shootings (and burnings and carbon monoxide gassings) of Jews in 1941 and early 1942 attest to a
    a policy of killing Jews just to eliminate Jews?
    4. Were not Himmler's and Eichmann's actions to cause the deaths of a vast proportion of the Jews who were deported or, within Poland, relocated, Hitler's responsibility and consistent with his writings?
    5. Were women with children, children and the elderly not separated on arrival at Auschwicz and shortly after dead and cremated?

    You see I am trying to find out what respectable doubts there might be about so much of the Holocaust story as is needed to explain German acceptance of guilt. A young Jewish lawyer with whom I used to do business had a blue eyed fair-haired mother who had an Auschwicz type tattoo on her arm but had survived because she had been able to hide with Christian peasants in Poland until 1945. My young friend I am sure never had reason to believe that there was no systematic gassing.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “That is not to say that the rest of Quigley’s book has much of interest. It does,”

    The first sentence belies the second , or vice versa.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Are K.R. Bolton and Kerry Bolton the same people? I was just reading a Kerry Bolton piece yesterday and I’ve never seen him on unz before.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @iffen

    ethical socialism that is intrinsic to conservatism as the basis for national unity and a healthy people.
     
    It is true that I don't get out much, but I have never heard of socialist conservatives before.

    Socially liberal and fiscally conservative?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Ivan K.

    Ultimately, Quigley states that The Group, so far from being a pervasive conspiracy over the world, was by late 1945 ‘in eclipse’, and it is ‘not clear what is happening’. .... Conclusion
    1. There is no ‘Anglo-American Establishment’ for world rule, serving a ‘network of international bankers’.....
     
    If so, who and why suppressed "Tragedy and Hope"? How could copies of "Tragedy and Hope" disappear from library shelves across the whole country, a fact which anyone could check, and many did? [0] Why did Quigley came to believe that his publisher Macmillan had suppressed his book? [1] Why did the Macmillan editor of whom Quigley speaks, "I am grateful to the patience, enthusiasm, and amazingly wide knowledge of my editor at The Macmillan Company, Peter V. Ritner." - commit suicide at age 49? [2] He did it by plunging from a window. Why the same choice of suicide among prominent people? "The phenomena became so common that it gave rise to a new term “defenestration”, meaning the avoidance of testimony, and a suitable warning to others who might think of talking." [3] "Duggan was an official of the Institute of International Education ..... In his haste to get to the window, he tore off one shoe, and he left his office in shambles as he fought his way across it." [3]

    What you did, Mr Unz, was to clarify what Quigley actually stated in his 1966 book, as opposed to wild speculations that abuse his name.
    What your article stops short from is deal with
    - What Quigley thought after 1966? How did his views evolve?
    - What is the actual truth of the matter, indepedently of Quigley? Quigley himself says in this book that "it is not clear what is happening."

    [0] like John Taylor Gatto, as he stated in his public speeches

    [1] https://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig8/burris9.html

    [2] http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A07E7DD153EE334BC4051DFB667838D669EDE

    [3] Eustace Mullins, "The World Order," Chapter Seven

    The author of the above article is KR Bolton, I mistakenly addressed him as Mr Unz. Apologies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • In “The Anglo-American Establishment” Quigley shows that the Milner Group was associated with the “Cecil Bloc”. The Cecil Bloc consisted of the family members and friends and supporters of the Cecil family. Its probably fair to say the Cecils dominated the British Conservative party in the late 19th century and early 20th century. The patriarch was Lord Salisbury, Prime Minister for much of the last years of the 19th century. He was succeeded by his nephew, Lord Balfour, Prime Minister from 1902 to 1905, and who much later issued the famous Balfour Declaration.

    It’s probably fair to say the association with the Cecils magnified the power of the Milner Group.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Ultimately, Quigley states that The Group, so far from being a pervasive conspiracy over the world, was by late 1945 ‘in eclipse’, and it is ‘not clear what is happening’. …. Conclusion
    1. There is no ‘Anglo-American Establishment’ for world rule, serving a ‘network of international bankers’…..

    If so, who and why suppressed “Tragedy and Hope”? How could copies of “Tragedy and Hope” disappear from library shelves across the whole country, a fact which anyone could check, and many did? [0] Why did Quigley came to believe that his publisher Macmillan had suppressed his book? [1] Why did the Macmillan editor of whom Quigley speaks, “I am grateful to the patience, enthusiasm, and amazingly wide knowledge of my editor at The Macmillan Company, Peter V. Ritner.” – commit suicide at age 49? [2] He did it by plunging from a window. Why the same choice of suicide among prominent people? “The phenomena became so common that it gave rise to a new term “defenestration”, meaning the avoidance of testimony, and a suitable warning to others who might think of talking.” [3] “Duggan was an official of the Institute of International Education ….. In his haste to get to the window, he tore off one shoe, and he left his office in shambles as he fought his way across it.” [3]

    What you did, Mr Unz, was to clarify what Quigley actually stated in his 1966 book, as opposed to wild speculations that abuse his name.
    What your article stops short from is deal with
    - What Quigley thought after 1966? How did his views evolve?
    - What is the actual truth of the matter, indepedently of Quigley? Quigley himself says in this book that “it is not clear what is happening.”

    [0] like John Taylor Gatto, as he stated in his public speeches

    [1] https://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig8/burris9.html

    [2] http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A07E7DD153EE334BC4051DFB667838D669EDE

    [3] Eustace Mullins, “The World Order,” Chapter Seven

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivan K.
    The author of the above article is KR Bolton, I mistakenly addressed him as Mr Unz. Apologies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Whites are devils

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • It could be interesting to wonder what if Carroll Quigley had lived a bit longer, if he could had written more on the subject?

    On a off-topic sidenote, I spotted some links who talk of various conspiration theories about the assassination of Hendrik Verwoerd, who was prime minister of South Africa, in 1966 on the following blogs.

    http://hendrikverwoerd.blogspot.ca/p/conspiracy.html

    http://gumshoenews.com/2015/04/15/1960s-assassinations-dr-hendrik-verwoerd-vs-john-f-kennedy-and-rfk/

    http://drvitelli.typepad.com/providentia/2008/12/the-verwoerd-assassination.html

    as well as on these books like “Unfinished Business: South Africa Apartheid and Truth” and “Really inside BOSS: A tale of South Africa’s late intelligence service”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hrw-500

    http://drvitelli.typepad.com/providentia/2008/12/the-verwoerd-assassination.html

     

    Looks like that link don't work anymore, but there a archived copy located on Archive.is.
    https://archive.is/7fDWV
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Wizard of Oz
    It is hard to imagine a Fellow of All Souls being "academically undistinguished" even before WW2 when Oxford would have had fewer than 3000 undergraduates. That someone might have thought him so is interesting enough for one to want to understand the people involved better. It also occurs to me that academic distinction might once have been of less significance in the election of Fellows of All Souls than it has been since WW2.

    It is hard to imagine a Fellow of All Souls being “academically undistinguished”

    Yes, this was one thing that puzzled Quigley. Most of Curtis’ circle were highly distinguished – so who was this guy? Unfortunately Quigley only provides hints, but Curtis was definitely flying under the radar and intended to keep it that way – at least that is my interpretation of Quigley’s cryptic comments on the subject. Curtis was central to the formulation of the Commonwealth of Nations which replaced the idea of a British Empire. Based on Quigley’s comments I gather that he was very active in the US in the early post-WWII years. He died in 1955.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • ethical socialism that is intrinsic to conservatism as the basis for national unity and a healthy people.

    It is true that I don’t get out much, but I have never heard of socialist conservatives before.

    Read More
    • Replies: @OutWest
    Socially liberal and fiscally conservative?
    , @Anonymous
    From what I can remember from my high school history classes, William Jennings Bryan seems to fit the bill of social conservative/fiscal liberal.
    , @Anonymous
    You've never heard of Spengler's "Prussianism and Socialism"? Never read Decline of the West, or Hour of Decision? Never read Anthony Ludovici? When I refer to conservatism I am meaning precisely that; not the neo-Whiggery that today is miscalled conservatism especially in the USA and Britain. I don't suppose you have read Karl Marx's support for Free Trade either?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @jimbojones
    Good article.

    Here's a copy of Ruskin's 1870 speech that so inspired Milner and Rhodes:
    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19164/19164-h/19164-h.htm#LECTURE_I

    And here's Ruskin's most famous essay, "Unto This Last":
    http://www.efm.bris.ac.uk/het/ruskin/ruskin

    Thank you for that second link (I haven’t got the first working yet).

    What stamina those Victorians had. More than I could muster to finish the whole though I aspire to finish it. We seem to have bypassed Ruskin’s moral preaching by establishing welfare states that allow crass and greedy employers to behave in the manner he anathematises without too much social discord or desperate poverty.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Tim Howells
    I would recommend that anyone who believes that Lord Milner represented a healthy ethical conservatism study his role in the Boer War, which disgusted even Lord Kitchener, and the central role of the Society of the Elect in bringing about World War One. Two good References on the latter:

    1) Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War. Docherty and MacGregor.
    http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-History-Secret-Origins-First-ebook/dp/B00CPR6IWK/ref=sr_1_2?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1440405850&sr=1-2&keywords=hidden+history

    2) Lord Milner's Second War: The Rhodes-Milner secret society; the origin of World War I; and the start of the New World Order. Cafferky.
    http://www.amazon.com/Lord-Milners-Second-War-Rhodes-Milner-ebook/dp/B00BZX5R6S/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1440406066&sr=1-1&keywords=lord+milner%27s+second+war

    I also recommend a careful reading of Quigley's Anglo-American Establishment re the role of the Society of the Elect in the rise of Hitler and fomenting World War Two.

    Re Quigley, it is important to understand that he was under great pressure and had to choose his words carefully. See this interview with a friendly journalist:

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

    Near the beginning Quigley says:

    "I'll put this on tape, but look, you have to be discreet - you have to protect my future as well as your own."

     

    Later on he starts talking about Milner's successor, Lionel Curtis and says he found it strange that he was so important because he was undistinguished academically (from about 24:30):

    "Nobody had ever heard of him. Furthermore he had been Lord Halifax's roommate at All Souls for years. And then I discovered that this fella is behind everything that's going on! Lionel Curtis, you see. Now I don't think we should talk too much about that."

     

    The background was that around 1947 Quigley was investigating the role of the Milner Group in setting up the CFR etc, and also in establishing the post-war world order. Pretty sensitive subjects apparently.

    It is hard to imagine a Fellow of All Souls being “academically undistinguished” even before WW2 when Oxford would have had fewer than 3000 undergraduates. That someone might have thought him so is interesting enough for one to want to understand the people involved better. It also occurs to me that academic distinction might once have been of less significance in the election of Fellows of All Souls than it has been since WW2.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tim Howells

    It is hard to imagine a Fellow of All Souls being “academically undistinguished”
     
    Yes, this was one thing that puzzled Quigley. Most of Curtis' circle were highly distinguished - so who was this guy? Unfortunately Quigley only provides hints, but Curtis was definitely flying under the radar and intended to keep it that way - at least that is my interpretation of Quigley's cryptic comments on the subject. Curtis was central to the formulation of the Commonwealth of Nations which replaced the idea of a British Empire. Based on Quigley's comments I gather that he was very active in the US in the early post-WWII years. He died in 1955.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I would recommend that anyone who believes that Lord Milner represented a healthy ethical conservatism study his role in the Boer War, which disgusted even Lord Kitchener, and the central role of the Society of the Elect in bringing about World War One. Two good References on the latter:

    1) Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War. Docherty and MacGregor.

    http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-History-Secret-Origins-First-ebook/dp/B00CPR6IWK/ref=sr_1_2?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1440405850&sr=1-2&keywords=hidden+history

    2) Lord Milner’s Second War: The Rhodes-Milner secret society; the origin of World War I; and the start of the New World Order. Cafferky.

    http://www.amazon.com/Lord-Milners-Second-War-Rhodes-Milner-ebook/dp/B00BZX5R6S/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1440406066&sr=1-1&keywords=lord+milner%27s+second+war

    I also recommend a careful reading of Quigley’s Anglo-American Establishment re the role of the Society of the Elect in the rise of Hitler and fomenting World War Two.

    Re Quigley, it is important to understand that he was under great pressure and had to choose his words carefully. See this interview with a friendly journalist:

    Near the beginning Quigley says:

    “I’ll put this on tape, but look, you have to be discreet – you have to protect my future as well as your own.”

    Later on he starts talking about Milner’s successor, Lionel Curtis and says he found it strange that he was so important because he was undistinguished academically (from about 24:30):

    “Nobody had ever heard of him. Furthermore he had been Lord Halifax’s roommate at All Souls for years. And then I discovered that this fella is behind everything that’s going on! Lionel Curtis, you see. Now I don’t think we should talk too much about that.”

    The background was that around 1947 Quigley was investigating the role of the Milner Group in setting up the CFR etc, and also in establishing the post-war world order. Pretty sensitive subjects apparently.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    It is hard to imagine a Fellow of All Souls being "academically undistinguished" even before WW2 when Oxford would have had fewer than 3000 undergraduates. That someone might have thought him so is interesting enough for one to want to understand the people involved better. It also occurs to me that academic distinction might once have been of less significance in the election of Fellows of All Souls than it has been since WW2.
    , @Tim Howells
    I should have gone a little further with Quigley's comments in that interview, because he goes on to comment about the Milner Group's activities in Germany during the interwar period. This is in the context of Quigley's discussions with historian Alfred Zimmern circa 1947:

    "He [Zimmern] said 'I resigned [from the Roundtable Group] in 1923 because they were determined to build up Germany against France.' He said 'I wouldn't stand for it so I resigned.' Now when I [Quigley] met Lord Brand later and asked him about this he had never seen the letter of resignation. Now ... so I'd better stop talking because you see this gets into all kinds of things."
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Congratulations Ron on publishing this in The Unz Review. I can’t call to mind any article which would rate higher for thoroughness, logic and lucidity on a profoundly interesting topic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Good article.

    Here’s a copy of Ruskin’s 1870 speech that so inspired Milner and Rhodes:

    http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19164/19164-h/19164-h.htm#LECTURE_I

    And here’s Ruskin’s most famous essay, “Unto This Last”:

    http://www.efm.bris.ac.uk/het/ruskin/ruskin

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Thank you for that second link (I haven't got the first working yet).

    What stamina those Victorians had. More than I could muster to finish the whole though I aspire to finish it. We seem to have bypassed Ruskin's moral preaching by establishing welfare states that allow crass and greedy employers to behave in the manner he anathematises without too much social discord or desperate poverty.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Academic historians dislike the concept that history is often made by groups of individuals plotting together in confidence, even though one obvious way to get big things done is to make plans with your friends and allies while keeping your rivals in the dark as long as possible. One exception is the late Georgetown history...
  • […] Carroll Quigley is well known for being the historian for the Anglo-American Establishment. Steve Sailer gives an overview of one of Quigley’s Power Groups, called The Milner Group.  Link is here. […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Interesting. Quality research I guess.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] The theory of conspiracy. Related: Conspiracy in action: the Milner Group. […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Milner’s Bright Boys resemble Thomas Cromwell’s ‘Roaring Boys’. Fueled by reformist zeal this layer of gentry cadre infiltrated the institutions of state.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Seraphim
    @Hitlers secret dealings with the british reassured him that the British wouldnt attack

    We cannot be sure that there were "secret dealings", but we can clearly see that the the Germans were duped into starting the war against Russia by the deception that Britain would not intervene. In WW1 the Germans were convinced that they in fact were defending themselves against Russian aggression. And it was the same person behind, Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill.

    Logic tells us that Hiltler had forehand info. Appart from some sources saying so. Everything that happened and what Hitler said and did is in perfect agreement with the thesis. How did the French campaign evolve where the British betrayed their ally and Hitler a little later let them escape at Dunquerk if Hitler and Churchill didnt have a solid understanding about it. As Hitler et al aided the rebels in Spain he later came to ask Franco to join the axis powers but Franco refused knowing Hitler was just a stooge for the British and that the British had payed Hitlers expences. The British had brought Franco from his exile when he was to take over in Spain and Franco knew who was his and Hitlers master.
    Moreover the vast sponsoring of Hitler came with strings attached and that necessitates frequent communication. The money was forehand payment for a share in the natural resources of the USSR. It is absurd to think the british like sir Henry Deterding of Royal Dutch Shell wouldnt make the conditions perfectly clear. The £20 million said to come from that source are far from the total Hitler must have gotten. In addition the British aithen Germany’s economy by upholding a negative trade balance with them – the economic miracle as it were. Of course the industrious german people worked for it but the usual pattern is never to be fair – if it was there would never have been a WW1.
    As Hitlers cassier gave himself up on the allied side at the end of the war he made sure to destroy 90% of his pedantically kept records in order to improve his chances of a favorable treatment. So the proof of foreign sponsors comes from other sources among other things from logic since his expences cannot be explained by the amounts claimed to come from german sources. In addition most of the money from german businesses were from those which had americans on the board.
    And there are at least two suspects. Edward VIII and Samuel Hoare. Edwards abdication was planned while Britain and the Us were planning for a war in Canada. I dont know the details for Britain in that late phase but the Us had long gone plans up until around 1936. The British discussed recruiting 6 million men to attack the Us before WW1. The Us planned for a british attack during and after WW1 expecting the British force to be 8million. And the planning continued for decades.
    Anyway Edwards abdication is supposed to be about marrying a divorced american woman. How sweet, he married for love. Do you believe that?
    She took the name of Warfields I believe. Just like that. There is a high probability in my view that the abdication was mainly aimed at fooling Hitler to believe that the ‘nazi’ Edward might take over the power in Britain later and that then Germany and Britain would fight shoulder to shoulder against the bolsheviks. Second marrying an american woman might milden the differences between the Us and Britain – extremely well hidden by the court historians. That woman was probably a Us agent. Edward went to Austria but later to Spain which is more likely to have been where Hitlers helper met with Edward.
    Hitler was to believe that there were different teams among the British but that was just a con-game. The british pattern of forming alliances and later betray the ally is so persistent that there is no reason to believe they ever really sympathized with Hitler.
    But it made sense to fool Hitler.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @syonredux

    “Pershing wasn’t ruling the USA in 1917-18″

    I mistook what was meant by “military dictatorship,” I suppose.
     
    Military dictatorship is what it says on the tin: a dictatorship by the military

    But let it be noted Pershing wasn’t in charge of the military; Wilson was.
     
    And Wilson was a civilian.

    Wilson also exerted extra-constitutional control domestically on the basis of wartime emergency.
     
    Germany was less democratic than the USA and the UK in 1913, and the same holds true for 1917-18.

    “And Wilson was a civilian.”

    He was Commander-in Chief. And he ruled as a dictator. (The Palmer raids, the jailing of Eugene Debs)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Luke Lea
    re: start of WWI

    syon, I must say that was an impressive overview of the background of the outbreak of WWI, better, clearer, more comprehensive than anything else I have ever read. What is your background?

    The only thing I would add, or suggest, is a conclusion I came to some years back when I looked into the issue of ultimate responsibility. I decided that it finally came down to the fact that the ultimate decisions to go to war were in the hands of hereditary monarchs who were intellectually and temperamentally incompetent to possess such authority. This was especially true of Kaiser Wilhelm II, a man with an inferiority complex and a lot of other personality defects. I know less about his cousin the Czar, and even less about Austrian emperor. In any case, on one level WW I is a monument to the folly of hereditary monarchies. It was only a matter of time before fools were in charge, which given the industrial revolution meant wholesale tragedy.

    Compare those monarchs to our sainted Woodrow Wilson.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @anonymous
    "Compare with your plaintive request in comment 346:

    [Could you lay out those reasons for those of us not capable of that little amount of thought?]

    See, it’s not so hard."



    You have confused me (posting as anonymous) with someone else (posting as Bad memories). See post 346. It's even possible the site software contributed to your confusion, it's actively under development and that sort of thing happens:


    "346. Bad memories
    says:

    July 30, 2015 at 6:39 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @5371

    ...

    Could you lay out those reasons for those of us not capable of that little amount of thought?"

     

    I was not trying to participate in this (sub)-thread in which you were already engaged and was not even aware of it at the time I posted my original comment (post 325) to which you first replied. I was answering a much earlier question, which I took to be a simple question as to what France actually did when Germany invaded Poland. I was not attempting to engage in speculation about who could have done what or why anybody did what they did, or that sort of thing. I just found the history itself interesting, in particular as it is not widely known.

    My knowledge of the Saar Offensivr, prior to looking at the wikipedia article, was sketchy at best. Because it was just a point of interest about history, I was making no argument and had no cause, thus my bewilderment at your replies.

    Yes, 346 originally appeared under the same moniker as your comments.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Bad memories
    You said:

    The British and French could not have mounted an effective offensive on the western front in September 1939; a little sober thought would have convinced the Poles or, for that matter, you of that.
     
    The article quoted seems to be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Offensive

    That article said that they did not mount and effective offensive, not that they could not.

    If you have an argument that shows that in 1939 anyone could have known, with a little thought, that the British and the French could not have mounted an effective offensive against Germany you should state that argument.

    It may well be that until they assembled the forces and tried to assemble the logistical support the British and French did not know themselves, at least at a political level, that they could not mount an effective offensive.

    Perhaps you are simply a blowhard, but then perhaps you know that already.

    The British and French did not try hard to fool anyone that they could mount a serious offensive. When the Poles asked for credits to buy British weapons they were told by HMG that the UK’s economic staying power was a vital factor in war and nothing could be done to impair it. When Gamelin was asked about the allies’ prospects he said that he did not doubt they would win in the end, not that they could do anything in the near term.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Grafström
    The reason why Quigley is important is because he told the truth about essential matters entirely hidden by mainstream historians. Unfortunately most comments here simply base their outlook on mainstream history. Quigley explained why you will never find out by that road since the conspirators he described have made sure to control it. It is futile to pose questions from that point of departure. In many cases marginalized historians actually do answer those questions in a logical manner but then all that is left of the mainstream narrative is a conspiracy by the finance and corporate sector causing the main instigator of the war(s) Britain not to try to shorten it, and often not even to try to win battles but sometimes the opposite in order to widen the conflict and to make sure the enemy has the resources needed to continue. None of the facts make sense in the murky construct erected by mainstream historians and only as you realize the financial and corporate elite has investments on both sides it does indeed make sense. But then mainstream historians need to hide lots of facts. In both world wars Sweden remained neutral, but this was convenient for Britain since they exported vital resources to Germany, and used Sweden for cover.
    In WW2 they wanted Germany to have access to swedish iron ore so they pretended they wanted to occupy Norway in an attack setup to fail but made sure the Germans got a hold of their plans and had the time to prevail.
    Example of mainstream historical misrepresentations:
    Steven says 'they screwed up badly appeasing Hitler'. Well not really since that would imply they were interested in peace. Hitler was precious to the British after pooring so much money over him to make sure the german people would look up to him and to allow Hitler the former stateless foreigner(!) to have a payed private army. The purpose was to have the anglophile Adolf bring them the price of conquering the USSR.
    This anomalous situation was what faced the genuine part og Germany's military: A foreign sponsored fanatic protected by a militarized sect. When Chamberlain arrived in Munich he didnt appease a strong partner, he saved him from being removed from power by the real german military elite. The british came to save Hitler because the german generals had already selected german soldiers who were just waiting for the order to attack (on the same day it appears) and the british knew because the germans contacted them and asked for their backing. The generals were caught between two fires: one the very probable defeat waiting for Germany if they followed Hitlers order and conquered Czechoslovakia whereafter Britain and France would strike against Germany; and two: being wiped out by the nazis if they removed Hitler without any seeming threat from Britain and France. Hitlers secret dealings with the british reassured him that the British wouldnt attack but the generals didnt know the full picture and might not have trusted it anyway.
    Therefore Chamberlain acting on behalf of the British elites 'saved' the profitable WW2 for the (indeed international)financial and corporate elites. In both WW1&2 this angle is key while the strategic military angle where opposing nonintertwined entities are struggling to undo the other frustrates those who try to make sense of it.

    @Hitlers secret dealings with the british reassured him that the British wouldnt attack

    We cannot be sure that there were “secret dealings”, but we can clearly see that the the Germans were duped into starting the war against Russia by the deception that Britain would not intervene. In WW1 the Germans were convinced that they in fact were defending themselves against Russian aggression. And it was the same person behind, Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Grafström
    Logic tells us that Hiltler had forehand info. Appart from some sources saying so. Everything that happened and what Hitler said and did is in perfect agreement with the thesis. How did the French campaign evolve where the British betrayed their ally and Hitler a little later let them escape at Dunquerk if Hitler and Churchill didnt have a solid understanding about it. As Hitler et al aided the rebels in Spain he later came to ask Franco to join the axis powers but Franco refused knowing Hitler was just a stooge for the British and that the British had payed Hitlers expences. The British had brought Franco from his exile when he was to take over in Spain and Franco knew who was his and Hitlers master.
    Moreover the vast sponsoring of Hitler came with strings attached and that necessitates frequent communication. The money was forehand payment for a share in the natural resources of the USSR. It is absurd to think the british like sir Henry Deterding of Royal Dutch Shell wouldnt make the conditions perfectly clear. The £20 million said to come from that source are far from the total Hitler must have gotten. In addition the British aithen Germany's economy by upholding a negative trade balance with them - the economic miracle as it were. Of course the industrious german people worked for it but the usual pattern is never to be fair - if it was there would never have been a WW1.
    As Hitlers cassier gave himself up on the allied side at the end of the war he made sure to destroy 90% of his pedantically kept records in order to improve his chances of a favorable treatment. So the proof of foreign sponsors comes from other sources among other things from logic since his expences cannot be explained by the amounts claimed to come from german sources. In addition most of the money from german businesses were from those which had americans on the board.
    And there are at least two suspects. Edward VIII and Samuel Hoare. Edwards abdication was planned while Britain and the Us were planning for a war in Canada. I dont know the details for Britain in that late phase but the Us had long gone plans up until around 1936. The British discussed recruiting 6 million men to attack the Us before WW1. The Us planned for a british attack during and after WW1 expecting the British force to be 8million. And the planning continued for decades.
    Anyway Edwards abdication is supposed to be about marrying a divorced american woman. How sweet, he married for love. Do you believe that?
    She took the name of Warfields I believe. Just like that. There is a high probability in my view that the abdication was mainly aimed at fooling Hitler to believe that the 'nazi' Edward might take over the power in Britain later and that then Germany and Britain would fight shoulder to shoulder against the bolsheviks. Second marrying an american woman might milden the differences between the Us and Britain - extremely well hidden by the court historians. That woman was probably a Us agent. Edward went to Austria but later to Spain which is more likely to have been where Hitlers helper met with Edward.
    Hitler was to believe that there were different teams among the British but that was just a con-game. The british pattern of forming alliances and later betray the ally is so persistent that there is no reason to believe they ever really sympathized with Hitler.
    But it made sense to fool Hitler.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Compare with your plaintive request in comment 346:

    [Could you lay out those reasons for those of us not capable of that little amount of thought?]

    See, it’s not so hard.”

    You have confused me (posting as anonymous) with someone else (posting as Bad memories). See post 346. It’s even possible the site software contributed to your confusion, it’s actively under development and that sort of thing happens:

    “346. Bad memories
    says:

    July 30, 2015 at 6:39 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Could you lay out those reasons for those of us not capable of that little amount of thought?”

    I was not trying to participate in this (sub)-thread in which you were already engaged and was not even aware of it at the time I posted my original comment (post 325) to which you first replied. I was answering a much earlier question, which I took to be a simple question as to what France actually did when Germany invaded Poland. I was not attempting to engage in speculation about who could have done what or why anybody did what they did, or that sort of thing. I just found the history itself interesting, in particular as it is not widely known.

    My knowledge of the Saar Offensivr, prior to looking at the wikipedia article, was sketchy at best. Because it was just a point of interest about history, I was making no argument and had no cause, thus my bewilderment at your replies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Yes, 346 originally appeared under the same moniker as your comments.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @5371
    [(A reading of the article quoted will show that even that was done with great difficulty.)]

    Compare with your plaintive request in comment 346:

    [Could you lay out those reasons for those of us not capable of that little amount of thought?]

    See, it's not so hard.

    You said:

    The British and French could not have mounted an effective offensive on the western front in September 1939; a little sober thought would have convinced the Poles or, for that matter, you of that.

    The article quoted seems to be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Offensive

    That article said that they did not mount and effective offensive, not that they could not.

    If you have an argument that shows that in 1939 anyone could have known, with a little thought, that the British and the French could not have mounted an effective offensive against Germany you should state that argument.

    It may well be that until they assembled the forces and tried to assemble the logistical support the British and French did not know themselves, at least at a political level, that they could not mount an effective offensive.

    Perhaps you are simply a blowhard, but then perhaps you know that already.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    The British and French did not try hard to fool anyone that they could mount a serious offensive. When the Poles asked for credits to buy British weapons they were told by HMG that the UK's economic staying power was a vital factor in war and nothing could be done to impair it. When Gamelin was asked about the allies' prospects he said that he did not doubt they would win in the end, not that they could do anything in the near term.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The reason why Quigley is important is because he told the truth about essential matters entirely hidden by mainstream historians. Unfortunately most comments here simply base their outlook on mainstream history. Quigley explained why you will never find out by that road since the conspirators he described have made sure to control it. It is futile to pose questions from that point of departure. In many cases marginalized historians actually do answer those questions in a logical manner but then all that is left of the mainstream narrative is a conspiracy by the finance and corporate sector causing the main instigator of the war(s) Britain not to try to shorten it, and often not even to try to win battles but sometimes the opposite in order to widen the conflict and to make sure the enemy has the resources needed to continue. None of the facts make sense in the murky construct erected by mainstream historians and only as you realize the financial and corporate elite has investments on both sides it does indeed make sense. But then mainstream historians need to hide lots of facts. In both world wars Sweden remained neutral, but this was convenient for Britain since they exported vital resources to Germany, and used Sweden for cover.
    In WW2 they wanted Germany to have access to swedish iron ore so they pretended they wanted to occupy Norway in an attack setup to fail but made sure the Germans got a hold of their plans and had the time to prevail.
    Example of mainstream historical misrepresentations:
    Steven says ‘they screwed up badly appeasing Hitler’. Well not really since that would imply they were interested in peace. Hitler was precious to the British after pooring so much money over him to make sure the german people would look up to him and to allow Hitler the former stateless foreigner(!) to have a payed private army. The purpose was to have the anglophile Adolf bring them the price of conquering the USSR.
    This anomalous situation was what faced the genuine part og Germany’s military: A foreign sponsored fanatic protected by a militarized sect. When Chamberlain arrived in Munich he didnt appease a strong partner, he saved him from being removed from power by the real german military elite. The british came to save Hitler because the german generals had already selected german soldiers who were just waiting for the order to attack (on the same day it appears) and the british knew because the germans contacted them and asked for their backing. The generals were caught between two fires: one the very probable defeat waiting for Germany if they followed Hitlers order and conquered Czechoslovakia whereafter Britain and France would strike against Germany; and two: being wiped out by the nazis if they removed Hitler without any seeming threat from Britain and France. Hitlers secret dealings with the british reassured him that the British wouldnt attack but the generals didnt know the full picture and might not have trusted it anyway.
    Therefore Chamberlain acting on behalf of the British elites ‘saved’ the profitable WW2 for the (indeed international)financial and corporate elites. In both WW1&2 this angle is key while the strategic military angle where opposing nonintertwined entities are struggling to undo the other frustrates those who try to make sense of it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    @Hitlers secret dealings with the british reassured him that the British wouldnt attack

    We cannot be sure that there were "secret dealings", but we can clearly see that the the Germans were duped into starting the war against Russia by the deception that Britain would not intervene. In WW1 the Germans were convinced that they in fact were defending themselves against Russian aggression. And it was the same person behind, Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @Boomstick
    There's a fine line between "conspiracy" and "civic mindedness" and there were a lot of civic-minded people in that era. In the prior two centuries empires had been made by re-arranging social orders; who's to say it wouldn't continue?

    On the other side of the fence HG Wells was talking about an "open conspiracy" to implement socialism.

    Then they would say, “What are we to do with our lives?”

    And then, “Let us get together with other people of our sort and make over the world
    into a great world-civilization that will enable us to realize the promises and avoid the
    dangers of this new time.”

    It seemed to me that as, one after another, we woke up, that is what we should be
    saying. It amounted to a protest, first mental and then practical, it amounted to a sort of
    unpremeditated and unorganized conspiracy, against the fragmentary and insufficient
    governments and the wide-spread greed, appropriation, clumsiness, and waste that are
    now going on. But unlike conspiracies in general this widening protest and conspiracy
    against established things would, by its very nature, go on in the daylight, and it would be
    willing to accept participation and help from every quarter. It would, in fact, become an
    “Open Conspiracy,” a necessary, naturally evolved conspiracy, to adjust our dislocated
    world.
     

    here’s a fine line between “conspiracy” and “civic mindedness”

    rel=”nofollow”>It’s a fine line between pleasure and pain

    It’s a fine line between pleasure and pain
    You’ve done it once you can do it again
    Whatever you’ve done don’t try to explain
    It’s a fine, fine line between pleasure and pain (it’s all the same)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @anonymous
    "You seem very offended that I looked for some coherent argument in your comment."

    I didn't make an argument about anything and I wasn't trying to. There is no argument to be found. What are you presuming that I am making an argument for? Were you responding to some other thread? You won't find an argument in that post because I was simply adding some facts to the discussion, what happened and some things said about it. Slightly interesting facts because they are not that commonly known. I even extracted to illustrate that although the French plan called for 40 divisions attacking, they only used 11. (A reading of the article quoted will show that even that was done with great difficulty.)

    [(A reading of the article quoted will show that even that was done with great difficulty.)]

    Compare with your plaintive request in comment 346:

    [Could you lay out those reasons for those of us not capable of that little amount of thought?]

    See, it’s not so hard.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bad memories
    You said:

    The British and French could not have mounted an effective offensive on the western front in September 1939; a little sober thought would have convinced the Poles or, for that matter, you of that.
     
    The article quoted seems to be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Offensive

    That article said that they did not mount and effective offensive, not that they could not.

    If you have an argument that shows that in 1939 anyone could have known, with a little thought, that the British and the French could not have mounted an effective offensive against Germany you should state that argument.

    It may well be that until they assembled the forces and tried to assemble the logistical support the British and French did not know themselves, at least at a political level, that they could not mount an effective offensive.

    Perhaps you are simply a blowhard, but then perhaps you know that already.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “You seem very offended that I looked for some coherent argument in your comment.”

    I didn’t make an argument about anything and I wasn’t trying to. There is no argument to be found. What are you presuming that I am making an argument for? Were you responding to some other thread? You won’t find an argument in that post because I was simply adding some facts to the discussion, what happened and some things said about it. Slightly interesting facts because they are not that commonly known. I even extracted to illustrate that although the French plan called for 40 divisions attacking, they only used 11. (A reading of the article quoted will show that even that was done with great difficulty.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    [(A reading of the article quoted will show that even that was done with great difficulty.)]

    Compare with your plaintive request in comment 346:

    [Could you lay out those reasons for those of us not capable of that little amount of thought?]

    See, it's not so hard.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @guest
    "Well, Bush was pretty bad in Iraq. And LBJ in Vietnam. Still these are not in the same league as WWI, which still looks like it may have brought down Western civilization."

    I'm perplexed as to why you left WWII off the list, as it was clearly worse. Then again, you could argue WWI caused WWII. Though I don't believe that to be strictly so, it is tempting. Also, nothing in history strikes me as so great a tragedy as the rise of Bolshevism, and WWI definitely caused that.

    Then again, the whole story that WWI doomed Western Civilization is a gross exaggeration. It's a convenient historical marker and a watershed event, but not a world destiny-altering turning point. Plenty of effects attributed to it actually predate it, as everyone'd realize if they paused for a few minutes to think about it.

    Take how WWI supposedly demoralized High Art, caused artists to despair, and gave us the decadence of modernism, from which we've never recovered. Poppycock! As if anything could be more decadent than fin de siècle culture. Nearly every important artist, school, or that figured in or prefigured the modern swamp came before the war: Symbolism, primitivism, serial composition or atonalism, expressionism, futurism, cubism, dada, stream-of-consciousness, imagism, Picasso, Cezanne, Duchamp, Malevich, Debussy, Stravinsky, Schonberg, Joyce, Proust, Kafka, Pound, Woolf, and so on. I don't know enough about architecture to say for sure, but Corbusier, Gropius, and Van der Rohe have gotta be close. Certainly concrete and steel had triumphed and the modernist box couldn't have been caused by world war alienation.

    Even warfare wasn't fundamentally changed by WWI. Basically everything but specific technologies was prefigured by our Civil War. We had no flame throwers, tanks, or mustard gas, but we did have fierce ideological motivation, unwillingness to pursue negotiated peace, the "unconditional surrender" that WWI didn't quite manage but WWII did to our doom, open warfare on civilians, mass industrial mobilization, heavy use of railroads and telegraphs, heavy casualties from direct charges on massed fire, and eventually trench warfare.

    “Take how WWI supposedly demoralized High Art, caused artists to despair, and gave us the decadence of modernism, from which we’ve never recovered. Poppycock! As if anything could be more decadent than fin de siècle culture. Nearly every important artist, school, or that figured in or prefigured the modern swamp came before the war: Symbolism, primitivism, serial composition or atonalism, expressionism, futurism, cubism, dada, stream-of-consciousness, imagism, Picasso, Cezanne, Duchamp, Malevich, Debussy, Stravinsky, Schonberg, Joyce, Proust, Kafka, Pound, Woolf, and so on. I don’t know enough about architecture to say for sure, but Corbusier, Gropius, and Van der Rohe have gotta be close. Certainly concrete and steel had triumphed and the modernist box couldn’t have been caused by world war alienation.”

    Weimar culture would have happened even if there had been no Weimar Republic. We know this, since all the major themes of the Weimar period, the new art and revolutionary politics and sexual liberation, all began before the war. This was a major argument of the remarkable book, RITES OF SPRING, by the Canadian scholar, Modris Ekstein. There would still have been Bauhaus architecture and surrealist cinema and depressing war novels if the Kaiser had issued a victory proclamation in late 1918 rather than an instrument of abdication. There would even have been a DECLINE OF THE WEST by Oswald Spengler in 1918. He began working on it years before the war. The book was, in fact, written in part to explain the significance of a German victory.

    http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/ifgermany.htm

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] It is really difficult to tell where conspiracy ends and “conspiracy” begins. […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Luke Lea
    "How many fools have been in charge of democracies and other non-monarchical forms of government since, and how many foolish wars have they started or bungled, and how much industrial-scale damage have they caused?"

    Well, Bush was pretty bad in Iraq. And LBJ in Vietnam. Still these are not in the same league as WWI, which still looks like it may have brought down Western civilization.

    “Well, Bush was pretty bad in Iraq. And LBJ in Vietnam. Still these are not in the same league as WWI, which still looks like it may have brought down Western civilization.”

    I’m perplexed as to why you left WWII off the list, as it was clearly worse. Then again, you could argue WWI caused WWII. Though I don’t believe that to be strictly so, it is tempting. Also, nothing in history strikes me as so great a tragedy as the rise of Bolshevism, and WWI definitely caused that.

    Then again, the whole story that WWI doomed Western Civilization is a gross exaggeration. It’s a convenient historical marker and a watershed event, but not a world destiny-altering turning point. Plenty of effects attributed to it actually predate it, as everyone’d realize if they paused for a few minutes to think about it.

    Take how WWI supposedly demoralized High Art, caused artists to despair, and gave us the decadence of modernism, from which we’ve never recovered. Poppycock! As if anything could be more decadent than fin de siècle culture. Nearly every important artist, school, or that figured in or prefigured the modern swamp came before the war: Symbolism, primitivism, serial composition or atonalism, expressionism, futurism, cubism, dada, stream-of-consciousness, imagism, Picasso, Cezanne, Duchamp, Malevich, Debussy, Stravinsky, Schonberg, Joyce, Proust, Kafka, Pound, Woolf, and so on. I don’t know enough about architecture to say for sure, but Corbusier, Gropius, and Van der Rohe have gotta be close. Certainly concrete and steel had triumphed and the modernist box couldn’t have been caused by world war alienation.

    Even warfare wasn’t fundamentally changed by WWI. Basically everything but specific technologies was prefigured by our Civil War. We had no flame throwers, tanks, or mustard gas, but we did have fierce ideological motivation, unwillingness to pursue negotiated peace, the “unconditional surrender” that WWI didn’t quite manage but WWII did to our doom, open warfare on civilians, mass industrial mobilization, heavy use of railroads and telegraphs, heavy casualties from direct charges on massed fire, and eventually trench warfare.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    "Take how WWI supposedly demoralized High Art, caused artists to despair, and gave us the decadence of modernism, from which we’ve never recovered. Poppycock! As if anything could be more decadent than fin de siècle culture. Nearly every important artist, school, or that figured in or prefigured the modern swamp came before the war: Symbolism, primitivism, serial composition or atonalism, expressionism, futurism, cubism, dada, stream-of-consciousness, imagism, Picasso, Cezanne, Duchamp, Malevich, Debussy, Stravinsky, Schonberg, Joyce, Proust, Kafka, Pound, Woolf, and so on. I don’t know enough about architecture to say for sure, but Corbusier, Gropius, and Van der Rohe have gotta be close. Certainly concrete and steel had triumphed and the modernist box couldn’t have been caused by world war alienation."

    Weimar culture would have happened even if there had been no Weimar Republic. We know this, since all the major themes of the Weimar period, the new art and revolutionary politics and sexual liberation, all began before the war. This was a major argument of the remarkable book, RITES OF SPRING, by the Canadian scholar, Modris Ekstein. There would still have been Bauhaus architecture and surrealist cinema and depressing war novels if the Kaiser had issued a victory proclamation in late 1918 rather than an instrument of abdication. There would even have been a DECLINE OF THE WEST by Oswald Spengler in 1918. He began working on it years before the war. The book was, in fact, written in part to explain the significance of a German victory.
     
    http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/ifgermany.htm
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @5371
    You seem very offended that I looked for some coherent argument in your comment. The British and French could not have mounted an effective offensive on the western front in September 1939; a little sober thought would have convinced the Poles or, for that matter, you of that.

    The British and French could not have mounted an effective offensive on the western front in September 1939; a little sober thought would have convinced the Poles or, for that matter, you of that.

    Could you lay out those reasons for those of us not capable of that little amount of thought?

    The Germans seemed able to mount such an offensive with arguably weaker weapons, at least in the tank department and fewer divisions. Of course, they did know maneuver warfare and they did know how to do combined arms warfare.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @guest
    " In any case, on one level WW I is a monument to the folly of hereditary monarchies. It was only a matter of time before fools were in charge, which given the industrial revolution meant wholesale tragedy."

    How many fools have been in charge of democracies and other non-monarchical forms of government since, and how many foolish wars have they started or bungled, and how much industrial-scale damage have they caused? Or did the smashing of the dynasties back in 1918 result in World Peace, and I missed it?

    “How many fools have been in charge of democracies and other non-monarchical forms of government since, and how many foolish wars have they started or bungled, and how much industrial-scale damage have they caused?”

    Well, Bush was pretty bad in Iraq. And LBJ in Vietnam. Still these are not in the same league as WWI, which still looks like it may have brought down Western civilization.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "Well, Bush was pretty bad in Iraq. And LBJ in Vietnam. Still these are not in the same league as WWI, which still looks like it may have brought down Western civilization."

    I'm perplexed as to why you left WWII off the list, as it was clearly worse. Then again, you could argue WWI caused WWII. Though I don't believe that to be strictly so, it is tempting. Also, nothing in history strikes me as so great a tragedy as the rise of Bolshevism, and WWI definitely caused that.

    Then again, the whole story that WWI doomed Western Civilization is a gross exaggeration. It's a convenient historical marker and a watershed event, but not a world destiny-altering turning point. Plenty of effects attributed to it actually predate it, as everyone'd realize if they paused for a few minutes to think about it.

    Take how WWI supposedly demoralized High Art, caused artists to despair, and gave us the decadence of modernism, from which we've never recovered. Poppycock! As if anything could be more decadent than fin de siècle culture. Nearly every important artist, school, or that figured in or prefigured the modern swamp came before the war: Symbolism, primitivism, serial composition or atonalism, expressionism, futurism, cubism, dada, stream-of-consciousness, imagism, Picasso, Cezanne, Duchamp, Malevich, Debussy, Stravinsky, Schonberg, Joyce, Proust, Kafka, Pound, Woolf, and so on. I don't know enough about architecture to say for sure, but Corbusier, Gropius, and Van der Rohe have gotta be close. Certainly concrete and steel had triumphed and the modernist box couldn't have been caused by world war alienation.

    Even warfare wasn't fundamentally changed by WWI. Basically everything but specific technologies was prefigured by our Civil War. We had no flame throwers, tanks, or mustard gas, but we did have fierce ideological motivation, unwillingness to pursue negotiated peace, the "unconditional surrender" that WWI didn't quite manage but WWII did to our doom, open warfare on civilians, mass industrial mobilization, heavy use of railroads and telegraphs, heavy casualties from direct charges on massed fire, and eventually trench warfare.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @guest
    "Pershing wasn’t ruling the USA in 1917-18"

    I mistook what was meant by "military dictatorship," I suppose. But let it be noted Pershing wasn't in charge of the military; Wilson was. Wilson also exerted extra-constitutional control domestically on the basis of wartime emergency.

    “Pershing wasn’t ruling the USA in 1917-18″

    I mistook what was meant by “military dictatorship,” I suppose.

    Military dictatorship is what it says on the tin: a dictatorship by the military

    But let it be noted Pershing wasn’t in charge of the military; Wilson was.

    And Wilson was a civilian.

    Wilson also exerted extra-constitutional control domestically on the basis of wartime emergency.

    Germany was less democratic than the USA and the UK in 1913, and the same holds true for 1917-18.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    "And Wilson was a civilian."

    He was Commander-in Chief. And he ruled as a dictator. (The Palmer raids, the jailing of Eugene Debs)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sunbeam
    "Dear fellow, I’m quite peace-minded.Indeed, that’s one of the reasons why I find the Southern Fire-Eaters so hard to understand.Surely that kind of martial fervor is at least a second-cousin to madness…"

    You confuse me Syon. I read some of your stuff; some I don't.

    But who the hell do you like? I ask that as an honest question.

    I can make a LONG list of people and groups you dislike.

    Are you like some kind of singularity? I honestly can't think of anyone you approve of.

    You know what's funny? I recently helped my niece with an assignment in school. She was writing a review of a Stephen Crane short story, "Three Miraculous Soldiers." I won't bore you with the details, but reading this short story - well I really felt the need to go fight Yankees.

    Forget Hell. I still want a pound of flesh from the Brits for sticking Americans on those hellish prison ships in Charleston Harbor.

    Even if it doesn't make sense, "A Lannister always pays his debts."

    I can make a LONG list of people and groups you dislike.

    Are you like some kind of singularity? I honestly can’t think of anyone you approve of.

    “You don’t love because: you love despite; not for the virtues, but despite the faults.”

    William Faulkner

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @anonymous
    "You discredit your own case more thoroughly than any of your opponents could have done, by showing how ridiculous were some of the things said by defendants at the Nuremberg trials."


    I'm confused as to what you think my case is. If I have one I don't know it. I'm just extracting a few interesting facts about the Saar offensive from two wikipedia articles, one of which repeats two things two German generals said. These are just facts that can be looked up and things that people said.

    My guess is that what the German generals are really saying is that the German Army was in Poland, so it wasn't in the Rhine able to fight the French (and any Allies), and 22 versus about 150 divisions, or something like that on paper, was a very unequal contest.

    There is no cause, case, or point to be made here. It's just an interesting event that is not widely know, that France briefly and tepidly invaded Germany at the start of WWII. These articles are not motivating any particular point of view, as far as I can tell. They just described things that happened, things that pretty much seem to have been the Allied military response to the German invasion of Poland, which someone wondered about.

    Perhaps you are a blogbot? They say AI is taking over...

    You seem very offended that I looked for some coherent argument in your comment. The British and French could not have mounted an effective offensive on the western front in September 1939; a little sober thought would have convinced the Poles or, for that matter, you of that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bad memories

    The British and French could not have mounted an effective offensive on the western front in September 1939; a little sober thought would have convinced the Poles or, for that matter, you of that.
     
    Could you lay out those reasons for those of us not capable of that little amount of thought?

    The Germans seemed able to mount such an offensive with arguably weaker weapons, at least in the tank department and fewer divisions. Of course, they did know maneuver warfare and they did know how to do combined arms warfare.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @syonredux

    “Germany was a de facto military dictatorship by 1917″

    Who wasn’t back then? Are you familiar with the Wilson administration?
     
    Pershing wasn't ruling the USA in 1917-18. Nor, for that matter, were Haig and French the co-rulers of the UK.In contrast, Hindenburg and Ludendorff were the de facto co-rulers of Imperial Germany from 1916 to 1918

    “Pershing wasn’t ruling the USA in 1917-18″

    I mistook what was meant by “military dictatorship,” I suppose. But let it be noted Pershing wasn’t in charge of the military; Wilson was. Wilson also exerted extra-constitutional control domestically on the basis of wartime emergency.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    “Pershing wasn’t ruling the USA in 1917-18″

    I mistook what was meant by “military dictatorship,” I suppose.
     
    Military dictatorship is what it says on the tin: a dictatorship by the military

    But let it be noted Pershing wasn’t in charge of the military; Wilson was.
     
    And Wilson was a civilian.

    Wilson also exerted extra-constitutional control domestically on the basis of wartime emergency.
     
    Germany was less democratic than the USA and the UK in 1913, and the same holds true for 1917-18.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “You discredit your own case more thoroughly than any of your opponents could have done, by showing how ridiculous were some of the things said by defendants at the Nuremberg trials.”

    I’m confused as to what you think my case is. If I have one I don’t know it. I’m just extracting a few interesting facts about the Saar offensive from two wikipedia articles, one of which repeats two things two German generals said. These are just facts that can be looked up and things that people said.

    My guess is that what the German generals are really saying is that the German Army was in Poland, so it wasn’t in the Rhine able to fight the French (and any Allies), and 22 versus about 150 divisions, or something like that on paper, was a very unequal contest.

    There is no cause, case, or point to be made here. It’s just an interesting event that is not widely know, that France briefly and tepidly invaded Germany at the start of WWII. These articles are not motivating any particular point of view, as far as I can tell. They just described things that happened, things that pretty much seem to have been the Allied military response to the German invasion of Poland, which someone wondered about.

    Perhaps you are a blogbot? They say AI is taking over…

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    You seem very offended that I looked for some coherent argument in your comment. The British and French could not have mounted an effective offensive on the western front in September 1939; a little sober thought would have convinced the Poles or, for that matter, you of that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @syonredux

    Syon can think. One must think in order to lie.
     
    Quite true.People with low IQs make poor liars.They also make poor poets and novelists

    He takes, in bad faith, any objection to Lincoln’s foolishness as a defence of slavery.
     
    MMM, perhaps I do overestimate the intellect and the knowledge of my pro-Confederate interlocutors.Perhaps they are stupid and ignorant enough to believe that slavery had nothing to do with the South's attempt to secede....

    I don’t see anyone here defending slavery.
     
    Again, perhaps I am assuming too much of the pro-Confederates here.Perhaps they do dwell in Cloudcuckooland...

    He then accuses others of sophistry, while sophistry is his stock and trade. And he is an enthusiastic supporter of blood-letting for its own sake.
     
    Dear fellow, I'm quite peace-minded.Indeed, that's one of the reasons why I find the Southern Fire-Eaters so hard to understand.Surely that kind of martial fervor is at least a second-cousin to madness...

    Like all coward armchair-warriors, he is a nasty bloody-minded little creep.
     
    Come now, as a true Burkean, I extol the pacific virtues, the unbought grace of life, etc

    “Dear fellow, I’m quite peace-minded.Indeed, that’s one of the reasons why I find the Southern Fire-Eaters so hard to understand.Surely that kind of martial fervor is at least a second-cousin to madness…”

    You confuse me Syon. I read some of your stuff; some I don’t.

    But who the hell do you like? I ask that as an honest question.

    I can make a LONG list of people and groups you dislike.

    Are you like some kind of singularity? I honestly can’t think of anyone you approve of.

    You know what’s funny? I recently helped my niece with an assignment in school. She was writing a review of a Stephen Crane short story, “Three Miraculous Soldiers.” I won’t bore you with the details, but reading this short story – well I really felt the need to go fight Yankees.

    Forget Hell. I still want a pound of flesh from the Brits for sticking Americans on those hellish prison ships in Charleston Harbor.

    Even if it doesn’t make sense, “A Lannister always pays his debts.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    I can make a LONG list of people and groups you dislike.

    Are you like some kind of singularity? I honestly can’t think of anyone you approve of.
     
    “You don’t love because: you love despite; not for the virtues, but despite the faults.”

    William Faulkner
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @The Man From K Street

    That figure of 113,000+ military deaths by “other” seems very high, and I am not sure what the basis is for distinguishing it from “combat” deaths.
     
    If you're going from a production rate of <3,000 aircraft per year (the US in 1939) to an industrial framework to support building almost 300,000 aircraft (what US factories churned out by 1945), and are training the requisite number of men to pilot and navigate those planes, you can be sure of a hell of a lot of training (and transit) accidents.

    It isn't as "glorious" as knowing your great-uncle died on the beaches of Anzio or in some Solomon Islands jungle, but a lot of those gold stars on peoples' window flags were from crashes on airfields near places like Wichita or Fort Walton Beach, or the thousand and one airstrips built during the war that are now commuter or general aviation airports.

    Details. Details. No good money making movies there.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I funny coincidence: Alain Soral’s site over in France has a video and book promotion today for the French translation of Carroll Quigley’s Anglo-American Establishment, or “The Secret History of the Anglo-American Oligarchy” as they call it:

    http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Pierre-Hillard-presente-Histoire-secrete-de-l-oligarchie-anglo-americaine-de-Carroll-Quigley-34247.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @guest
    “'Appeasement' can only be viewed as a 'massive screw-up' if one views its opposite — the British aggression which began WW2 and resulted, after much slaughter and carnage and cultural destruction, in the collapse of the British Empire and the present control of Britain by a hostile elite steadily extirpating the traditional inhabitants of Britain — as a massive success"

    This is accomplished by the insane way we have of severing the war from its outcome, as if all wars were about were winning wars, hence nonsense like "winning the peace." One wonders why you'd start wars in the first place if the only point of war is to win the war. But we can smother that worry by pretending every damn conflict is existential, and that if we weren't fighting and winning we'd all be dead or slaves. Hence nonsense like Churchill saying he'd put in a good word for the devil in parliament if Hitler invaded hell. Why, in the name of sanity? That's not an idle question, for just around the bend was another devil, Stalin, and it's astounding to me that it never occurred to anyone that Hitler and the Japanese weren't the only problems in the world. Of course, everyone knew. They just plugged their ears and charged forward, which makes them fools.

    Russia had actual war aims, besides winning and World Peace. They were the smart ones. Britain lost every damn thing it pretended to be defending, including the demise of Germany, part of which was propped up as a bulwark against Russia shortly after the slaughter, dismemberment, starvation, enslavement, and looting. Gone was Britain's empire, eminence in world power, the balance of power in Europe, even its independence of foreign policy. Then there was the effort, money, blood, and time invested in the losing venture. Churchill himself admitted as much in his memoirs. The only excuse was to pretend like the war and its peace were two different things. Which, as I said, is insane.

    Precisely. It’s very worthwhile to look at the writings and public remarks of those who saw this at the time and who tried to prevent the calamity. Charles Lindbergh and Ezra Pound are two. The defeat of their courageous efforts by mendacious politicians and their usurious owners is tragic, for each of them personally, and for all of us who live in the vile and dysgenic anti-civilization they sought to forestall.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @guest
    "Germany was a de facto military dictatorship by 1917"

    Who wasn't back then? Are you familiar with the Wilson administration?

    “Germany was a de facto military dictatorship by 1917″

    Who wasn’t back then? Are you familiar with the Wilson administration?

    Pershing wasn’t ruling the USA in 1917-18. Nor, for that matter, were Haig and French the co-rulers of the UK.In contrast, Hindenburg and Ludendorff were the de facto co-rulers of Imperial Germany from 1916 to 1918

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "Pershing wasn’t ruling the USA in 1917-18"

    I mistook what was meant by "military dictatorship," I suppose. But let it be noted Pershing wasn't in charge of the military; Wilson was. Wilson also exerted extra-constitutional control domestically on the basis of wartime emergency.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Luke Lea
    re: start of WWI

    syon, I must say that was an impressive overview of the background of the outbreak of WWI, better, clearer, more comprehensive than anything else I have ever read. What is your background?

    The only thing I would add, or suggest, is a conclusion I came to some years back when I looked into the issue of ultimate responsibility. I decided that it finally came down to the fact that the ultimate decisions to go to war were in the hands of hereditary monarchs who were intellectually and temperamentally incompetent to be given such authority. This was especially true of Kaiser Wilhelm II, a man with an inferiority complex and a lot of other personality defects. I know less about his cousin the Czar, and even less about Austrian emperor. In any case, on one level WW I is a monument to the folly of hereditary monarchies. It was only a matter of time before fools were in charge, which given the industrial revolution meant wholesale tragedy.

    ” In any case, on one level WW I is a monument to the folly of hereditary monarchies. It was only a matter of time before fools were in charge, which given the industrial revolution meant wholesale tragedy.”

    How many fools have been in charge of democracies and other non-monarchical forms of government since, and how many foolish wars have they started or bungled, and how much industrial-scale damage have they caused? Or did the smashing of the dynasties back in 1918 result in World Peace, and I missed it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Luke Lea
    "How many fools have been in charge of democracies and other non-monarchical forms of government since, and how many foolish wars have they started or bungled, and how much industrial-scale damage have they caused?"

    Well, Bush was pretty bad in Iraq. And LBJ in Vietnam. Still these are not in the same league as WWI, which still looks like it may have brought down Western civilization.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @syonredux

    I don’t think so. The Prussian military class, which would have been the most natural power center of a victorious Germany, was Christian, monarchist, and no great fans of the Nazi ethos or for that matter surrealists. A victorious Germany probably would have been authoritarian but not totalitarian, annexed some territory in the west, annexed Ukraine per the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and dominated Eastern Europe. Throw in some inconsequential African colonies, such as Uganda and something French in West Africa. Probably heavy economic penalties for France and the UK as well.
     
    I dunno; Germany was a de facto military dictatorship by 1917.I'm far from confident that things would have just reverted back to how they were in 1913....

    Plus, German dominance over the East would have made things highly unstable in the long term.If Germany had won in 1918, another war (10, 15, 20 years down the road) would have been a virtual certainty.

    “Germany was a de facto military dictatorship by 1917″

    Who wasn’t back then? Are you familiar with the Wilson administration?

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    “Germany was a de facto military dictatorship by 1917″

    Who wasn’t back then? Are you familiar with the Wilson administration?
     
    Pershing wasn't ruling the USA in 1917-18. Nor, for that matter, were Haig and French the co-rulers of the UK.In contrast, Hindenburg and Ludendorff were the de facto co-rulers of Imperial Germany from 1916 to 1918
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Whiskey
    Appeasement WAS a massive screw up because contemporaries at the highest levels of the Reich, in the General Staff, in Hitler's bureaucracy, wrote at the time that if Britain and France had invaded during say, the remilitarization of the Rhineland, the German government would have collapsed because the Army existed only in theory, and the Luftwaffe and Navy not at all. Hitler only really became powerful at around 1938. Certainly in 1934 or 35 he could have been easily crushed without too much trouble.

    Your statement about British aggression is profoundly stupid, as it was German aggression, i.e. invading and occupying Poland, that kicked off WWII (in Europe, anyway). Nor was mass third world immigration into Britain much of anything until the late 1960s, a full twenty years on after the END of WWII.

    This is the problem with WN -- their hatred of a certain ethnic group makes them stupid. Hitler was possibly the most stupid leader any nation ever produced. He managed to take a winning hand and turn it to ashes. The Western allies were desperate for a counter-weight to Stalin, who was a real threat (this explains Appeasement). In turn, Germany had interests in keeping war and conflict far away from them, and not creating a massive, very un-German slave empire to the East (the motivation for Hitler's invasion of Poland). A smart leader would have pocketed Allied support, extorted money from them, propped up border nations and pointed them straight East on their own accord. Waiting for Stalin to die of bad diet and alcoholism, and see far less ruthless and able leaders succeed the dictator.

    I understand WHY the Allies wanted to appease Hitler. They thought he was not insane, and Stalin was a threat. Unfortunately none seems to have read Mein Kampf and realized Hitler wanted desperately to construct a massive Roman-style slave Empire in Europe. He wasn't Napoleon, or Mussolini, or Franco, or your average tyrant. That's why appeasement failed. Hitler could never be satisfied with this territory or that nation -- he wanted EVERYTHING.

    “Appeasement WAS a massive screw up because contemporaries at the highest levels of the Reich, in the General Staff, in Hitler’s bureaucracy, wrote at the time that if Britain and France had invaded during say, the remilitarization of the Rhineland, the German government would have collapsed because the Army existed only in theory, and the Luftwaffe and Navy not at all. Hitler only really became powerful at around 1938.”

    When people speak of “appeasement” usually they’re talking about 1938. Of course they could’ve gotten rid of Hitler at various previous points. Why not assassinate him back in 1923, for instance? But then you’ve set yourself up for unintended consequences, because there’s always another Hitler to kill, and maybe worse than Hitler. Plus, who wants to be eternally vigilant over such a thing as the Versailles Treaty. Can you imagine Britain and France willing to invade Germany ever time anyone ever threatened any clause of it from then unto forever? It was a ridiculous position to place themselves in.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @SFG
    I think the problem is there are so few old-media jobs you need an in to get one. When there's a huge surplus of qualified people over positions, connections become much more important. The notorious Thomas Friedman (Zip! Bing! Globalization!) comes from a connected family too.

    This will actually become less important as a generation that's used to getting its information outside the traditional media ages into prominence and the people who had to watch TV/read newspapers age out. Of course, these are also the people who listen to Twitter.

    “there are so few old-media jobs you need an in to get one. When there’s a huge surplus of qualified people over positions, connections become much more important”

    I’m surprised this article didn’t bring up, at least in passing, the telling fact that Chelsea Clinton worked for NBC, considering Bill came up a couple of times. Not that her position was important, nor that it necessarily had anything to do with an ongoing Anglo-American world domination plot, nor necessarily any conspiracy at all. It’s just that there’s no reason apparent reason that in the natural course of events such a thing as becoming a “special correspondent” for a prominent national news outlet would happen to such a person as Chelsea, unless it’s because of the reason we shall not name.

    Speaking of Clintons, is there any other reason we’d be facing the distinct possibility of another Clinton-Bush election, if not for the existence of conspiracies in these modern times? Maybe, but I don’t want to think of how depressing a place the world would have to be if that sort of thing just happens.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @TheLatestInDecay
    "Appeasement" can only be viewed as a "massive screw-up" if one views its opposite -- the British aggression which began WW2 and resulted, after much slaughter and carnage and cultural destruction, in the collapse of the British Empire and the present control of Britain by a hostile elite steadily extirpating the traditional inhabitants of Britain -- as a massive success. We are instructed to so view the situation by today's Establishment, but it is odd to find that position declared incontrovertible in this forum.

    “’Appeasement’ can only be viewed as a ‘massive screw-up’ if one views its opposite — the British aggression which began WW2 and resulted, after much slaughter and carnage and cultural destruction, in the collapse of the British Empire and the present control of Britain by a hostile elite steadily extirpating the traditional inhabitants of Britain — as a massive success”

    This is accomplished by the insane way we have of severing the war from its outcome, as if all wars were about were winning wars, hence nonsense like “winning the peace.” One wonders why you’d start wars in the first place if the only point of war is to win the war. But we can smother that worry by pretending every damn conflict is existential, and that if we weren’t fighting and winning we’d all be dead or slaves. Hence nonsense like Churchill saying he’d put in a good word for the devil in parliament if Hitler invaded hell. Why, in the name of sanity? That’s not an idle question, for just around the bend was another devil, Stalin, and it’s astounding to me that it never occurred to anyone that Hitler and the Japanese weren’t the only problems in the world. Of course, everyone knew. They just plugged their ears and charged forward, which makes them fools.

    Russia had actual war aims, besides winning and World Peace. They were the smart ones. Britain lost every damn thing it pretended to be defending, including the demise of Germany, part of which was propped up as a bulwark against Russia shortly after the slaughter, dismemberment, starvation, enslavement, and looting. Gone was Britain’s empire, eminence in world power, the balance of power in Europe, even its independence of foreign policy. Then there was the effort, money, blood, and time invested in the losing venture. Churchill himself admitted as much in his memoirs. The only excuse was to pretend like the war and its peace were two different things. Which, as I said, is insane.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TheLatestInDecay
    Precisely. It's very worthwhile to look at the writings and public remarks of those who saw this at the time and who tried to prevent the calamity. Charles Lindbergh and Ezra Pound are two. The defeat of their courageous efforts by mendacious politicians and their usurious owners is tragic, for each of them personally, and for all of us who live in the vile and dysgenic anti-civilization they sought to forestall.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “Academic historians dislike the concept that history is often made by groups of individuals plotting together in confidence”

    Not true. Think of the politics of Medieval Europe, for instance. History then is all courtly intrigue, dynastic struggles, factional infighting, etc. Partly that’s because there’s not much else to go on; your alternatives are big picture stuff, “social” history, or “micro” history (whatever the heck that is) and biography. And people tire of that easily.

    We also are infinitely more likely to talk about courtly intrigue of the relatively recent past if it happens to have been what you might call Evil History. Nazis plotting the Holocaust, for instance, McCarthy plotting McCarthyism (but not communists plotting anything during McCarthyism, no, no, no), or just how in the heck we bungled Vietnam. With unpopular wars it’s perfectly acceptable to talk about the Military Industrial Complex.

    Why is that? Why do orthodox historians allow conspiracy theories for olden times and for evil times, but not for regular contemporary times? One reason is because we live in the Democratic Age, when government is by the people, for the people, and blah, blah, blah. Consent of the governed is necessary for at least some things, and there’s only so much backroom, cigar-chomping, incrowd stuff they can afford to let us believe in. We can’t believe in secret forces behind the Civil War or WWII, for instance, because they remain primary justifications for a lot of our domestic and foreign policies. Vietnam or the Robber Barons (so long as we tell the story that they didn’t buy government but were slew by the valiant Roosevelts), for instance, can have hatched or been hatched by as many schemes as conceivable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Mr. Anon
    Syon can think. One must think in order to lie.

    He takes, in bad faith, any objection to Lincoln's foolishness as a defence of slavery. I don't see anyone here defending slavery. He then accuses others of sophistry, while sophistry is his stock and trade. And he is an enthusiastic supporter of blood-letting for its own sake.

    Like all coward armchair-warriors, he is a nasty bloody-minded little creep.

    Syon can think. One must think in order to lie.

    Quite true.People with low IQs make poor liars.They also make poor poets and novelists

    He takes, in bad faith, any objection to Lincoln’s foolishness as a defence of slavery.

    MMM, perhaps I do overestimate the intellect and the knowledge of my pro-Confederate interlocutors.Perhaps they are stupid and ignorant enough to believe that slavery had nothing to do with the South’s attempt to secede….

    I don’t see anyone here defending slavery.

    Again, perhaps I am assuming too much of the pro-Confederates here.Perhaps they do dwell in Cloudcuckooland…

    He then accuses others of sophistry, while sophistry is his stock and trade. And he is an enthusiastic supporter of blood-letting for its own sake.

    Dear fellow, I’m quite peace-minded.Indeed, that’s one of the reasons why I find the Southern Fire-Eaters so hard to understand.Surely that kind of martial fervor is at least a second-cousin to madness…

    Like all coward armchair-warriors, he is a nasty bloody-minded little creep.

    Come now, as a true Burkean, I extol the pacific virtues, the unbought grace of life, etc

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    "Dear fellow, I’m quite peace-minded.Indeed, that’s one of the reasons why I find the Southern Fire-Eaters so hard to understand.Surely that kind of martial fervor is at least a second-cousin to madness…"

    You confuse me Syon. I read some of your stuff; some I don't.

    But who the hell do you like? I ask that as an honest question.

    I can make a LONG list of people and groups you dislike.

    Are you like some kind of singularity? I honestly can't think of anyone you approve of.

    You know what's funny? I recently helped my niece with an assignment in school. She was writing a review of a Stephen Crane short story, "Three Miraculous Soldiers." I won't bore you with the details, but reading this short story - well I really felt the need to go fight Yankees.

    Forget Hell. I still want a pound of flesh from the Brits for sticking Americans on those hellish prison ships in Charleston Harbor.

    Even if it doesn't make sense, "A Lannister always pays his debts."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Mr. Anon
    "The purest truth, dear fellow.No slavery, no attempt at secession.Confederate troops killed in the name of owning people.Everything else is sophistry."

    Accusations of sophistry are rich, coming from you. Everything you write is sophistry. And all in defence of blood-letting. You really are a nasty, lisping little creep.

    “The purest truth, dear fellow.No slavery, no attempt at secession.Confederate troops killed in the name of owning people.Everything else is sophistry.”

    Accusations of sophistry are rich, coming from you. Everything you write is sophistry.

    Quite the opposite, dear fellow.That’s why I bring up uncomfortable truths like the Cornerstone Speech

    And all in defence of blood-letting.

    Dear fellow, you are the one who is defending the South’s willingness to kill their fellow Americans in the name of owning people….

    You really are a nasty, lisping little creep.

    MMMM, and here I’ve always thought that I had excellent diction….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @anonymous
    "By the way, how did that principled Allied defense of Poland work out?"

    The French invaded Germany, but:


    "...was to have been carried out by roughly 40 divisions, including one armored division, three mechanised divisions, 78 artillery regiments and 40 tank battalions....

    ...Eleven French divisions, part of the Second Army Group, advanced along a 32 km (20 mi) line...

    ...against weak German opposition. The French army advanced to a depth of 8 km (5.0 mi) and captured at least 12 villages and towns...

    ...four Renault R35 tanks were destroyed by mines...

    ...On 10 September there was a small German counter-attack...

    ...The half-hearted offensive was halted after France occupied the Warndt Forest, 3 sq mi (7.8 km2) of heavily-mined German territory...

    ...The attack did not result in any diversion of German troops....

    ...On 12 September, the Anglo French Supreme War Council gathered for the first time at Abbeville in France. It was decided that all offensive actions were to be halted immediately. ... Poland was not notified of this decision. Instead, Gamelin informed Marshal Edward Rydz-Śmigły that half of his divisions were in contact with the enemy, and that French advances had forced the Wehrmacht to withdraw at least six divisions from Poland...

    ...German reports acknowledge the loss of 196 soldiers, plus 114 missing and 356 wounded. They also claim that 11 of their aircraft had been shot down as far as 17 October. The French suffered around 2,000 casualties between dead, wounded, and sick."

     

    The Phoney war then lasted for the next 8 months, before the Germans invaded France:


    "...At the Nuremberg Trials, German military commander Alfred Jodl said that "if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions."

    General Siegfried Westphal stated, that if the French had attacked in force in September 1939 the German army "could only have held out for one or two weeks." ..."

     

    You discredit your own case more thoroughly than any of your opponents could have done, by showing how ridiculous were some of the things said by defendants at the Nuremberg trials.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “By the way, how did that principled Allied defense of Poland work out?”

    The French invaded Germany, but:

    “…was to have been carried out by roughly 40 divisions, including one armored division, three mechanised divisions, 78 artillery regiments and 40 tank battalions….

    …Eleven French divisions, part of the Second Army Group, advanced along a 32 km (20 mi) line…

    …against weak German opposition. The French army advanced to a depth of 8 km (5.0 mi) and captured at least 12 villages and towns…

    …four Renault R35 tanks were destroyed by mines…

    …On 10 September there was a small German counter-attack…

    …The half-hearted offensive was halted after France occupied the Warndt Forest, 3 sq mi (7.8 km2) of heavily-mined German territory…

    …The attack did not result in any diversion of German troops….

    …On 12 September, the Anglo French Supreme War Council gathered for the first time at Abbeville in France. It was decided that all offensive actions were to be halted immediately. … Poland was not notified of this decision. Instead, Gamelin informed Marshal Edward Rydz-Śmigły that half of his divisions were in contact with the enemy, and that French advances had forced the Wehrmacht to withdraw at least six divisions from Poland…

    …German reports acknowledge the loss of 196 soldiers, plus 114 missing and 356 wounded. They also claim that 11 of their aircraft had been shot down as far as 17 October. The French suffered around 2,000 casualties between dead, wounded, and sick.”

    The Phoney war then lasted for the next 8 months, before the Germans invaded France:

    “…At the Nuremberg Trials, German military commander Alfred Jodl said that “if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions.”

    General Siegfried Westphal stated, that if the French had attacked in force in September 1939 the German army “could only have held out for one or two weeks.” …”

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    You discredit your own case more thoroughly than any of your opponents could have done, by showing how ridiculous were some of the things said by defendants at the Nuremberg trials.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Whiskey
    Appeasement WAS a massive screw up because contemporaries at the highest levels of the Reich, in the General Staff, in Hitler's bureaucracy, wrote at the time that if Britain and France had invaded during say, the remilitarization of the Rhineland, the German government would have collapsed because the Army existed only in theory, and the Luftwaffe and Navy not at all. Hitler only really became powerful at around 1938. Certainly in 1934 or 35 he could have been easily crushed without too much trouble.

    Your statement about British aggression is profoundly stupid, as it was German aggression, i.e. invading and occupying Poland, that kicked off WWII (in Europe, anyway). Nor was mass third world immigration into Britain much of anything until the late 1960s, a full twenty years on after the END of WWII.

    This is the problem with WN -- their hatred of a certain ethnic group makes them stupid. Hitler was possibly the most stupid leader any nation ever produced. He managed to take a winning hand and turn it to ashes. The Western allies were desperate for a counter-weight to Stalin, who was a real threat (this explains Appeasement). In turn, Germany had interests in keeping war and conflict far away from them, and not creating a massive, very un-German slave empire to the East (the motivation for Hitler's invasion of Poland). A smart leader would have pocketed Allied support, extorted money from them, propped up border nations and pointed them straight East on their own accord. Waiting for Stalin to die of bad diet and alcoholism, and see far less ruthless and able leaders succeed the dictator.

    I understand WHY the Allies wanted to appease Hitler. They thought he was not insane, and Stalin was a threat. Unfortunately none seems to have read Mein Kampf and realized Hitler wanted desperately to construct a massive Roman-style slave Empire in Europe. He wasn't Napoleon, or Mussolini, or Franco, or your average tyrant. That's why appeasement failed. Hitler could never be satisfied with this territory or that nation -- he wanted EVERYTHING.

    Thanks for the heads-up about the German invasion of Poland. I must have dropped the comic book in the bathtub before I got to that part, and by the time I picked up the thread of the story Sgt. Nick Fury and his Howling Commandos were already on the scene kicking Nazi ass and Winston Churchill was sitting up in bed in his pajamas to make a rousing speech about not judging s man by the color of his skin but by the content of his character.

    It sounds as though you’ve learned all you need to know on the subject from the works of Mel Brooks, but if you want to go deeper you can try FREEDOM BETRAYED by conspiracy theorist Herbert Hoover. THE TRIUMPH OF PROVOCATION by Jozef Mackiewicz is also worth a look.

    Far be it from me to suggest that Adolf Hitler was a man without flaws or failings. As an account of what went wrong Drieu La Rochelle’s “Notes sur l’Allemagne” (1945) is astute.

    By the way, how did that principled Allied defense of Poland work out?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @charlie
    Well, as a card-carrying member, let me reassure everyone that conspiracies and deep states don't really work. At least in the US. Rather like why fraternity membership doesn't really make you into a master of business. It may help along the way, but it is very attenutated.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/07/09/confessions-of-an-american-illuminati/

    If you place Quigley into a broader painting of the 20th century, he looks a lot like Lyndon LaRouche and other Catholic anti-freemasons. I'm pretty sure the Mason's haven't been running the country since 1830 or when Andrew Jackson threw them out. France and Italy -- maybe that happened later.

    That said, this is fun read:

    http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/ownership.html


    I'd say we all are victims of larger atomic splitting project -- remove race, remove gender, remove religion, remove tribe, remove family, remove well I'm not sure what is left. But again I'm pretty sure that isn't the freemasons.

    “— remove race, remove gender, remove religion, remove tribe, remove family, remove well I’m not sure what is left”.

    The goal is the centralization of political, economic and military power into smaller blocs of international federations (like the EU) with these groupings able to fight amongst and align themselves for various flavors of dictatorial power not requiring consensus from individual nations. Zbigniew Brzeziński’s book, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era reads like an update to Carrol Quigley’s magnum opus. His sons were advisers to both the Obama and McCain 2008 presidential campaigns, and his daughter is one of the AM gatekeepers on MSNBC.

    A strong, moral and traditional USA were the greatest roadblocks to achieving this type of global order, and Cultural Marxism and economic globalization have been the most effective tools for weakening the US and trust in it’s once hallowed institutions. Your list covers most of the things required to effectively bring a nation to it’s knees.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Cesare
    WWI was probably inevitable. If it hadn't been the archduke it would have been something else. These years were a time of continual international crises and alarms, any one of which could have led to war. The real question is why the war wasn't ended circa 1915/1916 when all parties realized it was going to be a long hard fight with uncertain outcome.

    As for WWII, Hitler had two possible choices: a war of revenge against Poland/France/Britain in alliance with Russian communists, or an anti-communist crusade against the USSR in alliance with Polish/French/British conservatives. He tried to do both things at the same time and fell between stools.

    What happened in 1915/16?
    After so much bloodshed, the “people” demanded victory, on both sides. Had the monarchs still been in charge, both in fact and in the minds of their peoples, the war would have been ended swiftly.
    Later it got worse, and again on both sides. You will find in me no defender of the pagan Ludendorff. But the worst of all was Clemenceau, who combined within himself the very worst of French bitterness against Germany and a devilish hatred of Catholicism and thus the Habsburgs.
    And then along came Wilson …

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Amen about the bias against Germany so often displayed on this site.
     
    Are you sure you haven't submitted this comment to the wrong website?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Cesare
    WWI was probably inevitable. If it hadn't been the archduke it would have been something else. These years were a time of continual international crises and alarms, any one of which could have led to war. The real question is why the war wasn't ended circa 1915/1916 when all parties realized it was going to be a long hard fight with uncertain outcome.

    As for WWII, Hitler had two possible choices: a war of revenge against Poland/France/Britain in alliance with Russian communists, or an anti-communist crusade against the USSR in alliance with Polish/French/British conservatives. He tried to do both things at the same time and fell between stools.

    No, he fell between fools.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Kylie

    Little of this is deeply understood because so few Anglos and as good as no Americans are comfortable with that magnificent instrument which is the German language.
     
    Ein gleiches

    Über allen Gipfeln
    Ist Ruh,
    In allen Wipfeln
    Spürest du
    Kaum einen Hauch;
    Die Vögelein schweigen im Walde.
    Warte nur, balde
    Ruhest du auch.

    Listen to it set to music by Schubert, another of those troublesome German speakers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Bad memories

    Everyone knows about slavery in the North.
     
    Indeed, but not everyone can think.

    The difference is that the North took steps to eliminate slavery during the period stretching from 1777 (Vermont) to 1804 (New Jersey).
     
    No. The difference is that the North took steps to eliminate slavery after it was no longer economically necessary. That, I believe, is the thesis of the book I suggested.

    Can we agree then, that if some people in Africa were not willing to sell their co-ethnics into slavery, the War of Northern Aggression would not have occurred, or would there have been forms of economic friction between the North and the South.

    Syon can think. One must think in order to lie.

    He takes, in bad faith, any objection to Lincoln’s foolishness as a defence of slavery. I don’t see anyone here defending slavery. He then accuses others of sophistry, while sophistry is his stock and trade. And he is an enthusiastic supporter of blood-letting for its own sake.

    Like all coward armchair-warriors, he is a nasty bloody-minded little creep.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Syon can think. One must think in order to lie.
     
    Quite true.People with low IQs make poor liars.They also make poor poets and novelists

    He takes, in bad faith, any objection to Lincoln’s foolishness as a defence of slavery.
     
    MMM, perhaps I do overestimate the intellect and the knowledge of my pro-Confederate interlocutors.Perhaps they are stupid and ignorant enough to believe that slavery had nothing to do with the South's attempt to secede....

    I don’t see anyone here defending slavery.
     
    Again, perhaps I am assuming too much of the pro-Confederates here.Perhaps they do dwell in Cloudcuckooland...

    He then accuses others of sophistry, while sophistry is his stock and trade. And he is an enthusiastic supporter of blood-letting for its own sake.
     
    Dear fellow, I'm quite peace-minded.Indeed, that's one of the reasons why I find the Southern Fire-Eaters so hard to understand.Surely that kind of martial fervor is at least a second-cousin to madness...

    Like all coward armchair-warriors, he is a nasty bloody-minded little creep.
     
    Come now, as a true Burkean, I extol the pacific virtues, the unbought grace of life, etc
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “The purest truth, dear fellow.No slavery, no attempt at secession.Confederate troops killed in the name of owning people.Everything else is sophistry.”

    Accusations of sophistry are rich, coming from you. Everything you write is sophistry. And all in defence of blood-letting. You really are a nasty, lisping little creep.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    “The purest truth, dear fellow.No slavery, no attempt at secession.Confederate troops killed in the name of owning people.Everything else is sophistry.”

    Accusations of sophistry are rich, coming from you. Everything you write is sophistry.
     
    Quite the opposite, dear fellow.That's why I bring up uncomfortable truths like the Cornerstone Speech

    And all in defence of blood-letting.
     
    Dear fellow, you are the one who is defending the South's willingness to kill their fellow Americans in the name of owning people....

    You really are a nasty, lisping little creep.
     
    MMMM, and here I've always thought that I had excellent diction....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Reg Cæsar

    The sad thing, of course, is that slavery was slowly turning the South into something quite non-Anglo
     
    "Slowly"?! South Carolina and Mississippi were 40% white a few censuses before 1861.

    ““Slowly”?! South Carolina and Mississippi were 40% white a few censuses before 1861.”

    Yeah. As a Southerner I think the antebellum South was doomed. To use a phrases it had all sorts of “Inherent Contradictions” built into it.

    Not that I am a big fan of the busybody North. But my take is the planters were doomed in the not so long run.

    I can also tell you that pre-fertilizer farming in the South was a very untenable thing in some areas. Louisiana and anywhere around the Mississippi have very fertile soil. South Carolina was played out.

    To be blunt though if you are making your living farming, the South isn’t a very good agricultural province. Iowa is a good agricultural province. So is Ohio though we really don’t think of it that way.

    But it wasn’t so easy to make a living doing it in vast areas of the South.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Bad memories

    Everyone knows about slavery in the North.
     
    Indeed, but not everyone can think.

    The difference is that the North took steps to eliminate slavery during the period stretching from 1777 (Vermont) to 1804 (New Jersey).
     
    No. The difference is that the North took steps to eliminate slavery after it was no longer economically necessary. That, I believe, is the thesis of the book I suggested.

    Can we agree then, that if some people in Africa were not willing to sell their co-ethnics into slavery, the War of Northern Aggression would not have occurred, or would there have been forms of economic friction between the North and the South.

    No. The difference is that the North took steps to eliminate slavery after it was no longer economically necessary. That, I believe, is the thesis of the book I suggested.

    It’s very hard to make a case that slavery was much of an “economic necessity” in the North.In Massachusetts, for example, slaves never exceeded approx. 2% of the population.

    Can we agree then, that if some people in Africa were not willing to sell their co-ethnics into slavery, the War of Northern Aggression would not have occurred, or would there have been forms of economic friction between the North and the South.

    Without the active participation of Black African rulers, the Atlantic Slave Trade would have been vastly smaller.Vastly.

    As for what the South would have looked like sans huge numbers of Blacks….That’s tricky.The obvious method would be to use “White Man’s Counties” (areas in the backcountry South that had few to no slaves and were frequently actively hostile to slavery) as models, but those areas existed in relation to the slave-holding areas of the South.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Stealth
    Did you go for the "quality over quantity" approach yesterday, Mr. Sailer? I guess one could say that this entry covers both, though. Very good.

    I always wanted to read Tragedy and Hope, but never got around to it. Quigley ought to get more attention among conspiracy theorists.

    I wrote “Tragedy and Hope 101″ for those, like yourself, who don’t have the time to read 1300 pages of small print. You can read it, for free, at http://www.TragedyAndHope.INFO

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • WWI was probably inevitable. If it hadn’t been the archduke it would have been something else. These years were a time of continual international crises and alarms, any one of which could have led to war. The real question is why the war wasn’t ended circa 1915/1916 when all parties realized it was going to be a long hard fight with uncertain outcome.

    As for WWII, Hitler had two possible choices: a war of revenge against Poland/France/Britain in alliance with Russian communists, or an anti-communist crusade against the USSR in alliance with Polish/French/British conservatives. He tried to do both things at the same time and fell between stools.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    No, he fell between fools.
    , @German reader
    What happened in 1915/16?
    After so much bloodshed, the "people" demanded victory, on both sides. Had the monarchs still been in charge, both in fact and in the minds of their peoples, the war would have been ended swiftly.
    Later it got worse, and again on both sides. You will find in me no defender of the pagan Ludendorff. But the worst of all was Clemenceau, who combined within himself the very worst of French bitterness against Germany and a devilish hatred of Catholicism and thus the Habsburgs.
    And then along came Wilson ...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.