On the topic of Senator McCarthy, I think he was in many ways a sort of Donald Trump-like figure. Blustering and bombastic, but not Satan incarnate who lives on innocent blood like the media invariably portrays both of them. He was a flawed man, but had good intentions and was honestly trying to help his country, with some success. Tragically, his flaws hurt him as he contended with the very powerful forces that sought to crush him at any cost, and eventually did.

At the same time I’d say you pretty much have to be a thick-skinned, elephant in the China shop sort of character like McCarthy or Trump to ever have a chance to get to grips with them in the first place. The soft-spoken conservative politicians who try to play by the media’s rules are always totally ineffective — even the ones who probably don’t intend it that way at first.

Normal people can also recognize this, which is why they’re often prepared to vote for uncouth “populist” candidates when power struggles in the establishment enable one to make it through the primaries. Like Trump, McCarthy was wildly popular with small town America in his day. Even if the journalists and academics hated his guts.

I personally really don’t think McCarthy was any sort of plant or controlled opposition. It doesn’t fit the pattern of his activity. And moreover, there was (and still is) too much sheer bloodthirstiness and vitriol in the hatred spewn over him. Just as there is with Trump.

McCarthy’s tragedy was rather that he was a poor judge of character, and surrounded himself with shady characters who (wittingly or otherwise) hamstrung his basically sound and pro-American efforts. Roy Cohn et al in the 1950s, Jared Kushner et al in the 2010s.

For those who would like to understand McCarthy better, and the period generally, I really recommend the book by M. Stanton Evans, Blacklisted by History, which our host has already treated. Speaking for myself, I think he sells it a little short. Evans is pro-McCarthy, but that is hardly a sin when it’s sorely needed to balance the dozens of books that portray him with horns and tail. And it goes much beyond McCarthy himself to give a good overview of his times, from the media landscape to the Senate politics and popular feeling in the country.

Evans does have his blind spots as well, admittedly. Especially his treatment of the ethno-religious dimension of the Communist controversies and some of the New Deal background, or rather lack of it. Our host is fair in calling him out on such faults. But that will be so with almost any book from a mainstream publisher. Nevertheless Evans still gives a lot more of the real picture of “McCarthyism” than one is likely to find in any one place elsewhere. As much, perhaps, as he felt he could get away with without being himself blacklisted.

Part the third:

Albert Speer’s blood-chilling account

Albert Speer was saying whatever the Allies wanted him to to save his own neck. All the other Germans at Nuremberg hated him as a sell-out. He is not a credible witness.

What’s more, look at what he actually says. It’s undeniable to anyone that Hitler was a very strongly identified German nationalist. If he was then also such a fanatical anti-Russian racist as Mr. Parker argues earlier, would he say that this supposedly inferior people morally deserved to supplant the Germans on the mere basis of superior numbers of cannon fodder to drown them in? That beggars belief.

What we have here is rather a concoction by Speer, and/or his Allied ventriloquists, presenting a crude caricature of what they think an evil “Social Darwinist” ought to sound like. It’s a mere cheap attempt to discredit Hitler in the eyes of posterity, at a time when he could no longer speak on his own behalf.

That this is so is conclusively proved by Hitler’s own undisputed words in his last days, recorded in his signed and attested last will and testament. There he writes:

In these three decades I have been actuated solely by love and loyalty to my people in all my thoughts, acts and life. They gave me the strength to make the most difficult decisions which have ever confronted mortal man. I have spent my time, my working strength and my health in these three decades.

…

I die with a happy heart, aware of the immeasurable deeds and achievements of our soldiers at the front, our women at home, the achievements of our farmers and workers and the work, unique in history, of our youth who bear my name.

That from the bottom of my heart I express my thanks to you all, is just as self-evident as my wish that you should, because of that, on no account give up the struggle but rather continue it against the enemies of the Fatherland, no matter where, true to the creed of a great Clausewitz. From the sacrifice of our soldiers and from my own unity with them unto death, will in any case spring up in the history of Germany, the seed of a radiant renaissance of the National-Socialist movement and thus of the realization of a true community of nations.

This is the official translation from the prosecution at the Nuremberg Trials, freely available to check online. It’s clumsy and flat out wrong in some places, but I use it so our readers should not have to take any private translation from the German by me on faith. In any case, we can be reasonably sure they are hardly trying to paraphrase things to make Hitler look better.

Even so, not much in the way of disdain for the German people or hopes for it to be supplanted by the “stronger” Russians, is there? Unconditional resistance to unconditional surrender is enjoined, but in a quite different tenor. So far from wanting the Germans destroyed, Hitler is convinced that his people’s sacrifices (and his own) will have meaning precisely because they will one day inspire a better future for them.

Very obviously, the man’s own words weigh heavier than what a turncoat told at second hand to save himself in a kangaroo court.

Finally, whatever we may think about Hitler otherwise, unlike Albert Speer and any number of other cowardly politicians before and since who call on us (but not themselves) to sacrifice everything for their crappy ideologies, he did put his money where his mouth was in the end. He didn’t try to sneak away and hide, or cut some private deal, or plead to be spared. He died for, and with, his fellow Germans.

Despite whatever hollow or empty assertions offered by those who support the Austrian painter so unreservedly, the bottom line is Hitler Lost the War

That he did. The man himself did not dispute it. Nor does anyone else.

What people differ over (and not a little, at that) is the evaluation of his efforts.

Part the second:

Hitler’s absurd decision to declare war on the United States

The coming of the war with America really deserves a special post for itself, if not a whole book, but again that must wait for another time. But I will offer some very brief counterpoints:

First, on November 13 Congress had already voted in favor of armed convoys carrying weapons to Britain. They would go all the way and attack all Germans that tried to stop them. Accepting this meant conceding the blockade and sea war against Britain entirely. Either Germany could resist, or for all intents and purposes surrender without a fight. Those were their only options. Within a few months at most, they would have to make their decision.

Second, Roosevelt had already promised literally to “destroy the Nazi tyranny” in so many words in public speeches, and most famously the Atlantic Charter of August 1941. He was only waiting for the best time to strike. There were no significant public protests against these premeditated threats. The isolationists in America First were still trying to avoid war, but knew they had lost with essentially the whole media in the hands of the war party and the passing of the warmongering law mentioned above. A historian called Justus Doenecke has published a selection of their archives (a book called In Danger Undaunted), and it shows that by this time they already felt depressed and defeated.

Third, a few days before Pearl Harbor, a whistleblower had revealed that Roosevelt was already and at a frantic pace building a huge expeditionary corps of millions of soldiers to invade Europe as soon as possible, which was estimated to be sometime in 1942 or 1943. Such a colossal investment is not made as a mere contingency. Since there was still a little bit of a free press left in America in 1941, this became front page news in the Chicago Tribune on December 4 (this was the one big national newspaper that wasn’t pro-war). Here Hitler had yet more crystal clear evidence, from public sources no less, that FDR et al would attack him at earliest convenience. Whether he declared war on them or not, they were already gearing up for it.

Fourth, Hitler was bound to assist Japan once it came to war with the US. Not by the Axis Pact, which was a purely defensive treaty, but by additional commitments he had made later. Of course, he could have ignored his word. But any questions of personal honesty or honor aside, that would have been absolutely devastating both for German morale, and especially for that of their allies. It would show all the world that Germany was frightened and helpless. And as shown above, Hitler knew it would buy him at best a few months more of “peace” (=undeclared war, as opposed to declared) with the US.

There are many more points like this that should go into a complete treatment of this topic, and the ones given should be expanded and fortified with many more quotes and references. But all the data given are sufficiently basic that a simple search should back them up. At the least this should already suffice to show beyond any possible doubt that whether Hitler’s decision to declare war was mistaken or not, it was certainly not crazy or absurd.

It should of course be emphasized that Hitler himself was very well aware of the fateful nature of this struggle. He went to very great lengths to avoid war with the US, tolerated provocations that no American government would ever have accepted from any country without bombing it to cinders.

But when, finally, he was forced to conclude that FDR and friends didn’t want peace no matter what, but war, he picked what he thought was the least bad moment for Germany to indulge their wishes.

If anything, a rational case can actually be made that both Hitler and Japan were far too timid and tardy for their own good in finally hitting back against the American provocations, attacks and gradually tightening economic strangulation that ultimately doomed their nations. For example, if Japan had seized Indonesia and its oil reserves in 1940 after France fell, instead of after Pearl Harbor in early 1942, their situation would have been infinitely better than it turned out. At that point in time, FDR probably couldn’t have gone to war over someone else’s distant colonial possessions (more time was needed to work on public opinion and boil the frog first), and with those reserves Japan would have been immune to the global embargo in 1941 which in real life forced them to fight or die.

Hitler’s absurd stand-or-die order in the wake of the Battle of Stalingrad

That decision was predicated on the Sixth Army being able to hold out for a time, with emergency supplies by air, until relieved. Hitler was assured by his generals that the resources for this were available. It was not an absurd assessment on the face of it. Earlier in the war, notably on the Moscow front, large German formations had successfully weathered just such situations.

By contrast, an immediate retreat would not only have meant leaving all heavy equipment behind (and suffering personnel casualties as well while withdrawing), but also threatened to open a vacuum in the front that the large Soviet armies held up at Stalingrad could then have exploited. Not least to cut off the forces that were then deep in the Caucasus. Then historians (and Mr. Parker) would no doubt be lampooning Hitler for that “needless idiocy” instead.

In reality, Hitler chose to have the latter pulled back while Stalingrad held. He had two bad options but took the one he thought was less bad. As it turned out the generals were wrong (not enough planes for supply, nor strong enough relief forces available), but of course by then it was too late to reverse course. And Stalingrad became a disaster.

Would it have been better to retreat immediately? Even today with total hindsight we still can’t say for sure, though it’s at least a credible possibility. But Hitler, of course, was not Monday morning quarterbacking a century later. He worked with the information he had at the time. From that perspective, his decision was completely reasonable and anything but absurd.

addiction to opiates, amphetamines, and other illicit substances

Which is a complete smear concocted out of nothing more than rumors and Allied propaganda. We have Hitler’s actual medical journals, published in both German and English by David Irving. His doctor carefully noted everything about his health, from headaches to flus to bad digestion. Also every single pill he was given to cure or alleviate any of his ailments. Nothing is said about oceans of narcotics.

After he was bombed by Stauffenberg in 1944, Hitler had a new doctor for a bit, one Erwin Giesing. He did give him a treatment (a perfectly normal, medically justified one) that included cocaine substances. When Hitler found out, he quit it because he didn’t want to risk developing an addiction.

Which of course agrees with the established fact, Hitler was a vegetarian and health nut who didn’t even drink coffee. Even mainstream books don’t deny that, they just try to make him look silly for it. How then does it make any sense that he would at the same time be a raging drug fiend? Even without contrary documentation, basic critical thinking should tell something is not right when that story comes up.

While Mr. Parker claims to be an independent thinker for rejecting some of the establishment propaganda, his writings show that he still accepts most of it as fact. This is not necessarily to dispute his honesty. But it does render his conclusions quite invalid.

I see that Carlton Meyer has already covered the topic of Czechoslovakia in 1939 in some detail, so I will not go into that here. Although I’ll note in passing, there’s still another dimension to that, involving the US Treasury Department and the Czech gold reserves. A topic for another time.

Taking on now a few critical points.

Part the first:

rally the Russian and other Soviet peoples to resist what were arguably genocidal policies against them

These are completely mythical claims. As the regime apologists for American and Israeli mass murder of civilians in war and peace never tire of explaining to us, “genocide” means intentional destruction of a people. Hitler never wished for this for the Russians.

What happened was that millions did die of starvation under the German occupation. But this was mainly because the Soviet government had launched a campaign of scorched earth warfare that mercilessly destroyed infrastructure, farms and not least food stocks. See this essay, from a far-right source, but anyone can check his references:

https://ihr.org/journal/v06p-91_sanning-html

Stalin’s own order in his own words, confirming what Sanning writes:

In case of a forced retreat by units of the Red Army all rolling railway stock must be taken away without leaving behind even a single locomotive, a single railway carriage, a single pound of grain or a single gallon of fuel for the enemy. Colchoz farmers must take away all their livestock and surrender the grain to the state to be transferred to rear areas. All valuable possessions that cannot be taken away, such as non-ferro metals, grain and fuel must absolutely be destroyed.

In areas occupied by the enemy, partizan units must be established, motorised as well as on foot and sabotage groups must be formed to engage the hostile army, to unleash partisan warfare everywhere, to blow up bridges and roads, to disable telephone and telegraph lines and to set fire to woods, depots and convoys. In the occupied areas, an untenable situation must be created for the enemy and his henchmen, they must be persecuted and destroyed at each step and all their measures must be made to fail.

https://www.tracesofwar.com/articles/4628/Radio-speech-by-Stalin-03-07-1941.htm

Under these conditions, especially in 1941 and early 1942 before they could rebuild things somewhat, the German army could hardly even feed itself. They tried to restore services, but of course they prioritized their own needs over those of the locals. Would any soldier have fought for Germany otherwise? And so, because of the cynical Soviet Communist policy and the inadequate resources of the Germans to respond, there were huge disorders that greatly hampered the German military effort (just as Stalin intended, desperate and starving people created chaos), as well as mass death.

But this was quite contrary to Hitler’s own intentions, as is demonstrated by the following document. The translation comes from the Nuremberg Trials, so it is hardly some forgery by neo-Nazis:

He gave the following reasons for the high mortality: In the great “Kessel” (kettle) battles, the Soviets were contained up to 22 days without any supplies whatsoever. The German armies stormed forward, covering incredibly large distances. The German supply services could bring up to the front only the most necessary ammunitions and living necessities of the fighting troops. Thus, it would have been necessary to feed the Soviet Prisoners of War from supplies of the countryside. However, these supplies had been totally destroyed by the Soviets during their flight-like retreats. The early and abnormal winter did the rest.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120309153932/http://library2.lawschool.cornell.edu/donovan/pdf/Nuremberg_3/Vol_IX_16_15_02.pdf

This is General von Gravenitz, chief of the Wehrmacht supply services, describing the situation to Reich Minister Dr. Goebbels in a top secret, internal conference. There are no lies here for propaganda purposes, it is in fact a very frank report.

There is also reference to a specific order by Hitler that disarmed Soviet POVs should be given adequate rations, so they could be used for unarmed work by the German military:

He [General Gravenitz] quoted the order of the Fuehrer of September 1941 to the effect that Soviet Prisoners of War should be kept in condition to enable them to work.

Apparently Hitler had heard of the poor conditions of the Russians quite early on in the invasion and demanded improvements. However, because of the horrible logistics situation and food shortages caused by Stalin’s officially organized terrorism, this simply was not possible to anywhere near the needed extent. Even though it was Hitler’s own order. So the helpless victims still died in large numbers. But contrary to what Mr. Parker and his sources allege, this was in spite of Hitler’s intentions rather than because of them. As is sometimes the case, authentic German documents tell a different story than the meanderings of biased historian like Richard Evans.

Private debts are especially hard to get at legally, which is why China has a permanent advantage. Many debt instruments are housed in the State Banks and hence are accessible by legal means.

Above is a key feature of China’s superior industrial capitalism. Also, the belt and road will create new markets, and help the road participants acquire raw materials.

The other feature of Industrial Capitalism is that debt instruments always have a twin, the credit that they spawned.

If you have industrial capitalism, then the debt instruments tend to (tend to) have production capability on the other side.

With (((finance capitalism))) of the West, then debt instruments are often finance engineering, and the debt claims are empty calories. They are harvesting already in place assets, rather than building production and capability.

Shoveling around finance paper claims, and holding up their price artificially will not end well for the West.

Any sort of economic theory that cannot separate value from price is something like poking out your eyes. It is a blinding ideology. The West is caught in a loop of false ideology where they think the dollar price is the only measuring stick for the world. The hypnosis is that the world must be indebted and the debt instruments must be priced in Federal Reserve Notes euphemized as dollars (not U.S. dollars – heaven forbid).

Real assets of the world must be turned over to the “international” then be flogged, to then make new debts to pay off old debts, to then pay an oligarchy of hidden string pullers.

The hidden string pullers then emit FUD (Fear Uncertainty Disease) megaphoned with their owned press, to flog the population into compliance.

Why would Jews want to claw their way in to China’s relatively small, collapsing financial system?

China is in full control of their finance system, which is growing, not collapsing.

antibeast explained it better than I can:

_______________________________

https://www.unz.com/mhudson/soros-and-china-the-vocabulary-of-neoliberal-diplomacy-in-todays-new-cold-war/#comment-4908949

One other thing I forgot to mention is that China passed the Foreign Investment Law (FIL) in January 1, 2020, granting ‘national’ treatment to foreign-invested enterprises by abolishing the old foreign investment laws on Wholly-Foreign-Owned Enterprises (WOFE), Chinese-Foreign Joint Ventures (CFJV) and Foreign-Invested Enterprises (FIE). Prior to this new law, the old laws restricted foreign investors to participating only in the above-named three categories of foreign-invested enterprises, barring them from investing in domestic enterprises or raising capital in the local stock markets in China. This restriction forced most Chinese Internet/E-commerce companies to incorporate their holding companies in offshore jurisdictions where they are free to raise capital outside China, as their VCs backers were often foreign firms such as Sequoia who are now free to raise capital inside China, as expressly permitted by the new FIL.

Contrary to popular opinion in the West, China is actually liberalizing its capital markets by allowing foreign firms such as Sequoia, Black Rock and Goldman Sachs to ‘play’ the money game in the Chinese capital markets using RMB funds raised inside China, subject to the juridical authority of the Chinese government. The good ‘ole days of Chinese Internet/E-commerce startups raising USD funds outside China, then listing their offshore VIE shares by doing IPOs in US stock exchanges, subject to the juridical authority of the US government, is now over.

Here’s a graph on the relative share of RMB funds vs USD funds raised by VCs/PEs in China in 2017:

As seen in the graph above, RMB funds have long ago surpassed USD funds in the VC/PE industry in China. The new FIL now allows foreign firms such as Sequoia, Black Rock and Goldman Sachs to access the Chinese capital markets by raising RMB funds from Chinese investors in China.

They are no longer in Wall Street but in China Street.

“The SEAL selection is not primarily based on physical toughness or brute physical strength.”

I never said it was.

I am not an expert on the subject (…never been in military),”

Clearly. I was in the Marines; did 2 westpacs totaling 14 months on two separate LPD’s. Both floats there was a seal team and a force recon platoon on the same boat as us. First of all, not a single negro or mestizo for that matter, in any of the 4 groups. Second, here’s how their typical day went while underway: In the morning – live fire on the flight deck for hours. Afternoon, physical training in the well deck, including boxing, other close combat, weight lifting, running on the flight deck, 12 count body builders, Jack Webbs, burpies (long before they were made cool by crossfit) and any other assortment of calisthenics you can imagine. Every single day. All the SEALS I mingled with were very cool, laid back sufer looking guys. They invited other units up to fire their weapons fairly often. The force recon guys were mostly cool, more intense, but the platoon sergeants for the FR platoons on each float were two of the most insanely scary men I have every seen.

“scrawny looking guys make it, because they can withstand the mental torture SEAL candidates go through:”

This is pure nonsense. The mental and physical strains candidates are submitted to in BUDS are mutually INCLUSIVE, and scrawny guys do not have the physical means to endure the process. You are welcome to provide some visual examples of your argument, but I again refer you to the photo above and observe the physicality of each individual. You may notice a pattern. A 140 pound man will not under extreme duress and fatigue be able to drag or carry or keep afloat his 200 pound partner through any one of the training evolutions required to pass in order to advance. It is a physical impossibility.

While it is certainly true negroes cannot swim (see my comment about their absence from elite swimming competition) they do not make it in Seals or most elite special forces (Rangers are not special forces in the same regard as SEALS, Force Recon, AF Commandos, or Delta; although most Delta come from the Rangers) that is not the only if even the primary reason the don’t make it. They flunk out of the academic portions of BUDS and sustain more injuries during training, and they for sure cannot hump as far or as long or with as heavy packs as the white guys. They also don’t shoot as well.

I know nothing about David Goggins, but one negro who makes it is the exception that proves the rule. Further, taking the word of one single negro (who most certainly opines long and loud about all the discrimination he faced) as gospel about an institution where they have almost zero presence is foolish. The problem is there are scores if not more books written by former Navy Seals, all of which are white guys, but none of them come within a country mile of discussing the racial disparities they themselves observed honestly during their BUDS training and beyond, other than to heap undue and overserved praise on the occasional black who might have made it.

But thanks for pointing out your misconceptions about SEALS and negroes.

Are men actually getting any more? or women behaving any better? since we started lying and telling women that they are just are smart and brave and strong and rational as men and in fact, anything we can do they can do better (including kicking 250lb thugs across the room).

Fertility is certainly down. Most among the social class that hears the most lying.

Maybe a bit of truth telling would work better.

Who among us does not regret “uniting” with people like Andrew Anglin, Azzmador and Weev?

Whether you like them or not Anglin and the Stormer trolls accomplished a lot more for their cause than all the high brow right wing intellectuals who did nothing but keep whining about optics before and during and after 2016. That is simply an objective fact. His brand of ironic Nazism was actually successful in reaching out to young people in the mainstream right. Unsurprising really. Normal people like humor and energy more than crime and IQ statistics and long essays on Spengler and Nietzsche.

Andrew Anglin created Neo-Nazism with a human face. Of course that’s either cool or absolutely horrible depending on whether you think that’s a good thing or not. But for good or ill he was a real marketing genius when he was at the top of his game. You’d think his fellow far right dissidents would appreciate his work. Sour grapes I guess?

The Establishment got so annoyed with Anglin they shut down his site and forced him onto the darknet before he could set up a new Stormer with some shady third world web company. No one else got that treatment. That tells us who they thought was a threat.

Ironically Anglin himself now seems to be depressed and angry and deep into optics cucking (along with ridiculous China shilling). Now he spends almost as many posts whining about how horrible Neo-Nazis are as he does hating white women. So… victory for Team Optics?

As for Richard Spencer. I honestly never got the idea that he was anyone to be taken seriously. I think he tried but he just didn’t have the right stuff. That was his tragedy.

Abolitionism was a religious movement. And the War Between the States was a religious war. Religious wars are always extra destructive because people get so worked up.

Similarly Liberalism is a religious movement. Both World Wars were religious wars of Liberalism versus traditional culture.

Communism is a hardcore subset of Liberalism that’s worse in many ways because more logical and uncompromising. Sort of like Puritanism is a hardcore subset of Christianity.

One big difference between Reconstruction and modern Liberalism though… Reconstruction ran out of steam after only a few years. And then the Establishment allowed the South to run its own affairs again in a moderately sane way when normal people got tired of the Reconstructionist fanatics.

That was possible because there was no powerful organized minority behind Reconstruction. Basically it was a homegrown movement of spontaneous religious fervor that crashed once people realized how useless and dumb it was. By contrast Woke is funded and led by very powerful and organized hostile interests fanning the flames. Thus it might well keep running until it just crashes society.

In the end though reality always wins. The tragedy is what goes before it.

When I see the behavior of America’s ruling elites, I think of someone on LSD, dancing high on a rooftop, shouting “I can fly! I can fly!” and then jumping off…

To a chorus of Unzers below shouting, “Do it! Do it!”

I think Freddie DeBoer has this right;(his bias against ‘corn-fed Wyoming boys’ notwithstanding)

Most of the sensible things DeBoer says about education were said by Charles Murray in Real Education, as in: People vary widely in cognitive ability, and America’s educational system insanely pretends that everybody can learn at a high level, and so is a terrible fit for the actual American population.

You can read Real Education for free here:

https://emilkirkegaard.dk//en/wp-content/uploads/Charles-Murray-Real-Education.pdf

In his The Cult of Smart book, DeBoer does not mention that Murray had pointed out the same things that DeBoer was pointing out.

Murray had sensible recommendations for reforms, along the lines of what Another Dad says here. DeBoer has crazy suggestions.

DeBoer also stressed that, while cognitive variation is obviously largely genetic, he is absolutely sure that BLACKS ARE NOT GENETICALLY MORE STUPID THAN WHITES, NO!, NO!, NO! (I have a vague impression that he isn’t doing this so much anymore.)

White Americans are going to find out what the white South African found out at the beginning of the 20th century. What the Germans discovered after the Armistice. What Russians found after the Bolshevik revolution. What the Hungarians found out under Bela Kun. What the Ukrainian farmer found out in the 19930s. What Germans and Eastern Europeans found out in the forties. What the Palestinians found out in 1948. What the Hungarians found out (again) in the 1950s. What the Egyptians and Syrians and men aboard the USS Liberty found out in the 1960s. What the Arabs found out (again) in the 1970s. What the Lebanese found out in the 1980s. What the Russians found out (again) in the 1990s under the “Russian” ((oligarchs)). And of course, what we’ve all been privy to at the beginning of this, new Jewish supremacist century, following their handiwork on ((9/11)).

But in all that time, white Americans have been on the side lines, only losing a few hundred thousand of their young men in the serial wars for Zion.

All of that is going to change in this new century. The Satanic hatred of the tribe for white Christians is about to be unleashed, here in the ‘Land of the free, and home of the brave’.

The best way to see the mechanizations and motivations of the tribe, is simply to pay attention to their media, and notice what gets hyped, and what gets spiked.

Their id is right on display in their media. But pay most attention to the news that gets spiked.

Like the “parade crash”.

The reason the “parade crash”, (like the Knoxville horror or the Wichita massacre, among many others..), gets hushed up, is because they approve of that event.

It’s as glaring and as obvious as it can get. If you want to see their id on display, simply listen to their media, and nothing speaks so thunderously as the sound of crickets.

In reaction to those cascading accusations of “domestic terrorism,” many Americans are beginning to believe that the country is literally coming apart, …

just consider the charge of “domestic terrorism’, and the man who drove his SUV into a Christmas parade, targeting even children in his murderous race-hatred.

For the Jewish supremacists who own the media and federal government, not only was this not ‘domestic terrorism’, it was a non-event. A “crash”, like so many others. It is approved of, because you don’t hear about it.

Compared to a non-violent protest over removing statues from the town square in Charlottsville, or a parent that doesn’t want their child to be taught to hate themselves in the public schools, or a person non-violently protesting at the capital because he (understandably) believes the vote was rigged.

Those are the “domestic terrorists” for whom the PTB are demanding federal law enforcement crack-downs.

Not the hatred-consumed murderer who drove his SUV into a crowd of white Christians celebrating Christmas,

Because the ((PTB)) approve of what he did, and want to see more of it. (killing anti-Semites/Nazis)

Just as they approve (are joyous, in fact) of everything that was done during the 20th century to untold millions of white Christians in Europe and Russia, just as they approve of what’s being done in South Africa and Palestine and elsewhere today, by their silence.

It is by their silence, that you will know what’s in their genocidal, black hearts.

And white Americans better start listening to that silence, because what’s coming their way, has been done over and over again to just about every other white nation and land. And all too often, by the time those tragic people finally figured it out, it was always too late.

You mean the Bolshevik Jews are doing the same thing they successfully did to the Russian Empire and South Africa are now doing it to the USA? Well why not, most can’t even bear to name the enemy.

Remember the Maine!!!

Remember Lusitania!!

Remember Pearl Harbor!

Remember… Gulf of Tonkin?

Remember… Kuwait incubator babies? Nah don’t remember those. Nothing to see here. Move along.

But don’t worry. We’ll get you something new to Remember one of these days….

The case of Magneto, a villain from the X-Men film franchise, is highlighted as an example of Jewishness being written into a character in order to ameliorate rather than accentuate their evil qualities. Magneto was originally designed in the 1930s as an arch villain with no redeeming qualities until a 1981 edition of the X-Men comic unveiled the character’s past as a “Holocaust survivor,” thereafter making him “less aggressive, less racist, much more complex, and even neurotic and traumatized.”

What makes this one especially odd is that Magneto was originally a Literally Hitler villain who was out to conquer the world for the Master Race. His followers even dressed like literal goose stepping Nazis in the early comics.

Of course once he became a Shoah survivor he quickly became a tragic misunderstood villain rather than a monster. Somehow. Even though he’s still a genocidal tyrant who tortures and murders helpless people at whim… I wonder if there’s possibly some unconscious symbolism there re: Zionism?

Irmin Vinson wrote an essay on the X-Men comics a few years back. It’s a bit on the longish side but a brilliant exposure of just how much conscious and deliberate subversion goes into even seemingly trivial entertainment media like comic books.

https://counter-currents.com/2014/05/a-different-kind-of-holocaust-commemoration/

LOL. “Rational Wiki” is a joke. And an unfunny and unselfconscious one, at that.

“Anti-science” doesn’t mean anything, or, if it means anything today, it’s: “do not question what WE say is science”. A very unscientific way of thinking….

Zachary Smith, eh? Isn’t it Zachary Stein, by any chance?

“Why are you bad-mouthing Hitler by associating him with Dr. Fauci?”

LOL

“I think in order to understand the reaction (to COVID) I think we have to go to Germany (where the unfreedom is greatest). And in order to understand Germany, we have to understand the social engineering that got imposed on Germany after the war. It is this that is responsible for the sidelining of the Catholic church—the Catholic church is hors-de-combat in the COVID strike—and it all goes back to the social engineering that got imposed on Germany first, then America, then the entire English-speaking world.”

I’m not sure I’d paint such a rosy picture of the Roman Catholic Church as Jones does. But on the rest of it he’s on the money.

The pattern to delegitimize and demoralize the German people and their traditional culture was not spontaneous or accidental. It was plotted in great detail by the CIA (back when it was still called the OSS). The names of the chief culprits will be familiar to anyone who has read anything Jones writes.

For some representative examples of termites at work see:

Secret Reports on Nazi Germany: The Frankfurt School Contribution to the War Effort (Raffaele Laudani ed.)
https://spyinggame.wordpress.com/2015/08/19/secret-reports-on-nazi-germany/

The WASP gentlemen who hired the termites to wreck Germany of course thought they could put the genie back into the bottle when that was done. But as we know all too well after the war the same subversion was applied to America as well. Like IIRC it’s said somewhere in the Bible: What you give to others is what you’ll get back…

Home is where the heart is. He who loses his home loses his heart. He who denies his home never had a heart in the first place.

Thus pity the homeless man. And beware the homeless cosmopolitan.

Here is how Robert Lynn Fuller begins his book “The Origins of the French Nationalist Movement, 1886-1914”:

“Poor France. By the opening of the twentieth century her condition had sunk to such a low the nation was no longer recognizable as the France that had for centuries been the cultural center of Europe and had preoccupied the minds of kings and their ministers ever there were kings to fret about France. This once-proud nation had been overrun by foreigners who mercilessly exploited her rich resources and native industry. Foreign workers stole the jobs of hard-working and honest French men and women who asked only to be allowed to toil in their own land for a decent living. The government had fallen into the hands of a cabal of swindlers with a single goal: to bankrupt the state so that foreign and Jewish bankers and speculators could enrich themselves and their corrupt servants. The universities had become captive to a strange breed of aliens who used them to serve these foreign and Jewish masters. These secretive conspirators worked hand in hand with collectivist revolutionary socialists to ruin French industry and commerce, and to reduce all French men and women to slavery….The foreign policy of France was controlled by crooked anti-French cosmopolitans who strove to advance the interest of France’s enemies, above all England. In order to achieve this conquest, the foreigners, speculators, Jews, Protestants and France-hating Frenchmen first had to neutralize the French army, which alone could save France from ruination. However, by 1902 the army was nearly prostrate, demoralized, stripped of her best commanders, starved for funds, and infested by an internal corps of spies serving the Masons. France had not been reduced to such a depraved state since the Hundred Years War…”

Does the above sound uncannily familiar to what is happening today?

Nevertheless the circumstances described in the book spawned not only the worldwide Zionist movement and nationalism but also the almost completely ignored genesis of the secular religion of Progressivism, which the author glosses over.

In particular Fuller’s book addresses the context of the Dreyfus conspiracies and counter-conspiracies better than any other histories I have read. The Greeks or Shakespeare could hardly have written a more tragic melodrama. What was the “Dreyfus Affair”? On its surface it was the highly politically symbolic framing of a Jewish officer by the French army on charges of espionage for which he was unjustly imprisoned for 10 years. But why was anti-Semitism the only explanation when Protestants and Alsatians were also persecuted?

Most of the books on the Dreyfus Affair attribute its singular cause to anti-Semitism. As Fuller points out the criminalization of Dreyfus was a reaction by the French military to the social perception of a takeover of the French economy by bankers, the replacement of Catholicism by anti-Catholic Masons, Protestants and the class of intellectuals coinciding with government defunding of the patriotic military. The Dreyfus Affair was more than a mere “affair” or public spectacle. It was a conspiracy and counter conspiracy in reaction to the rapid modernization and de-traditionalization of France in which both antagonists were more alike in their absolutism. Most of the histories written of the Dreyfus conspiracies are all from the pro-intellectualist, pro-Semitic, Protestant point of view because that is the social class of most historians. Butchers, generals and Bonapartists don’t often write history; intellectuals do (hence the phrase: “history is always written by the winners” – George Orwell; or as Napoleon put it: “History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon”).

Fuller’s account defies the dialectic of “left” and “right” as the pro-Dreyfus camp was comprised of Masons, bankers, Jews, Protestants, anarchists, secularist intellectuals and newspaper journalists against Catholics, the military, Royalists, socialists, small merchants and the working class and university students; although there was much overlap and shifting of these alliances. There was a quasi-religious conflict between the secularist anti-clericalists (anti-Catholics) and anti-Semites. The anti-Dreyfus camp were resisting “what had become modern, ‘Jewish France’”.

The only institution the anti-Dreyfus tradtionalists controlled was the military. The internet of the era was the pneumatic tube network in Paris that could get a letter to another place in the city in two hours but was entirely controlled by the government and banking class up until 1982.

The pro-Dreyfus class wanted to eliminate all institutions between the individual and the state on the grounds they were “anti-Semitic” and replace them with an modernist ideology controlled by the intellectual class and “free market” bankers and global industries. This conflict is epic in that it has been replicated many times by the Spartans versus Athenians in ancient Greece; Caesar versus the Roman Senate and the Second Roman Triumvirate of Brutus, Mark Anthony and Pompey; the Southern Confederacy versus the industrialized North in the US Civil War; and the recent nationalist movements in Egypt, Britain and the US versus globalization.

But what other unifying narrative/foundational myth is there?

as I mentioned earlier in this thread, I choose the name Rurik because of his historical juxtaposition between Russia and Ukraine. But Russia and Europe shouldn’t need any single unifying persona.

Russia and Europe have the same historic blood ties, the same ancient enemies, (the Mongols, Tartars, Muslims, and especially the tribe), and the same spiritual and cultural heritage going back to ancient Greece, Rome, and subsequent Christianity.

In the last century, Hungarians, Russians, Ukrainians, Germans and so many other white, Christian peoples were murdered, tortured, raped and persecuted by the tribe and their assorted goons, (especially Perfidious) that it seems unimaginable that today they wouldn’t feel a powerful kinship with each other, having all endured the same great genocidal ordeal, from the exact same genocidal enemy.

The same enemy that openly spoke of wiping out and sterilizing all Germans. The same enemy that starved millions of Ukrainians to a slow and excruciating death. The same enemy that sent millions of Russians to the gulags, or to the front to slaughter other white Christians, and of course to get slaughtered themselves. ‘Such a deal!’

It’s only because of that enemy’s collective hold on the world’s reserve currency, and hence all the media and other institutions of power, that Russia and Europe are set against each other, exactly as you say.

But it’s Russia that has the power to emasculate the rabid ((pigs)) of war, by simply repudiating the crimes and injustices of the Bolshevik/Soviet era, (of which so many Russians were also victims).

That’s all they need to do. Tell Europe to remove the hated monuments, and the distrust of Russia that is driving so many nations into the treacherous schemes of (((NATO))), would melt away.

It wouldn’t cost a thing, other than a few Russian bruised egos who only cling to the idiotic narrative of the Soviets as liberators, out of a hatred (obviously born of envy) for the German people.

The Russian people suffered under Bolshevism, and they suffered under Stalinism and communism in general, and then after all of those horrors, they see their ‘workers paradise’ replaced by a klepto-crony-‘capitalism’, where a handful of Jews and their stooges, loot the nation of Russia blind, and plunge the Russian people into yet another destitution.

But to this day, these same Russian people can only vent their splean at ‘the Germans’, because to look behind thier own curtain, and see that they too are being used as chumps, (like we Americans obviously are) would be too painful to their vanity.

They’re like the ‘greatest generation’ who cling to the idiocy that they saved the world from Nazism, as America and their progeny are headed to the diversity gallows that the ‘greatest generation’ dutifully constructed.

The Jews must be thanking thier pig god every day that the goyim really are so cow-like.

But then, that’s what things like the Holdomor and gulags and pograms and mass-slaughter of the best of the goyim was all about anyways. To ‘kill the best of the Gentiles’, so that they don’t breed children that can think and fight and act as rivals for dominion over thier own lands.

If you gulag all the best ones, the ones that are left to breed, will be mediocre, as will their children, and easy to rule over. That’s why they murdered those men at Katyn. That’s why they murdered the Kulaks, the best of the Ukrainian stock. So they wouldn’t have strong, intelligent children, who would be rivals to the Jew’s unilateral power.

Ditto the calls to sterilize Germans and enforce diversity upon the Western world.

They want, and are succeeding, at breeding a race of bovine, obedient slaves.

And only Russia has the power to undo all of that, with a simple decree.

‘Destroy the hated monuments to the Soviet era that profane Europa’s sacred soil.’

But what about Asians? Asians are also disappearing in their own countries, and they don’t have Jews.

The Jewish invention of finance capitalism has infected the West, and this mode of economy wants to establish debt instruments everywhere. Even the air would be monetized if it was possible. They may not have jews but they are living in a jew world order, where time is linear, and debts must be paid. Greed is good.

Any K type population, especially one where females have entered the workforce, and housing prices have been pushed, will have fertility collapse.

R type breeder populations (low IQ types mostly) will breed no matter what, as they don’t have a future orientation to their thinking.

The national socialists returned women to the home life to then make room for male labor. Homes were built, and women started having babies.

The Labor Procurement Law provided newlyweds loans of RM 1,000 at one percent monthly interest. The loans came in the form of coupons to buy furniture, household appliances and clothing. To be eligible, the bride had to have been employed for at least six months during the previous two years, and had to agree to leave her job. Returning women to the home vacated positions in commerce and industry, creating openings for unemployed men. For each child born to a couple, the government reduced the loan by 25 percent and deferred payments on the balance for one year. For larger families, upon birth of the fourth child, the state forgave the loan. It financed the program by imposing surtaxes on single men and women. By June 1936, the government approved 750,000 marriage loans.20 Reinhardt described the policy of diverting women into the household economy as “steadily regrouping our German women with regard to the labor market and with respect to social policy. This regrouping alone will … in a few years be sufficient to eliminate unemployment, and bring about an enormous impetus in every branch of German economic life.”

The marriage law released approximately 20,000 women per month from the work force after September 1933. The increase in newlyweds created a corresponding need for additional housing.
More tradesmen found work in new home construction. In the furniture industry, manufacture increased by 50 percent during 1933. Factories producing stoves and other kitchen appliances could not keep pace with consumer demand. The state imposed no property tax on young couples purchasing small single family homes. As Reinhardt predicted, reduced payments in jobless benefits and increased revenue through corporate, income and sales taxes largely offset the enormous cost of the program to reduce unemployment and revive the economy. He stated in Bremen on October 16, 1933, “In the first five months of the present fiscal year, expenditures and income of the Reich have balanced out

Hitler’s revolution by Richard Tedore, page 55

Sailer isn’t as fair as some suggest. He likes to wait 1-2 days sometimes to “moderate” some comments, so that by the time they are visible the discussion has movie on to a more recent post. He flushes at least one of my comments per month; comments that are free of slurs or slander or curses. He has called me a jerk outright for challenging him on his shameful covid beliefs, and for similar reasons, Ron Unz also restricted my original handle to one post per day and deleted any comments I made directly challenging him about it.

Meanwhile obvious trolls are allowed to post, apparently unrestricted even though their content is clearly meant to do nothing but instigate. But I suppose if a single comment from a Chinese or negro troll generates 50 replies, it makes the post and its author look that much more popular.

You haven’t been here long but have become one of my favorite contributors and I thank you for it.

As an autistic person I disown transgenders.

You guys are more along the Pharisees that crucified Jesus!

This line shows that this is a troll and not a real leftist.

Every real leftist knows it’s antisemitic to accuse the Pharisees of crucifying Jesus Christ.

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

Beyond madness, it’s evil. Only the most moronic or complicit can excuse this anti-life agenda. There are no missteps here. They’re squeezing the life out of us, step by step, deliberately.

You should see what is going on currently in countries such as Austria, Germany…

All places locked except for those with a “vaccine certificate”, but there’s no advantage, for people still have to wear masks, and the certificate is valid for six months or so. That doesn’t show much faith in the vaccine, does it. In some locations they are moving to 2G+, which means, vaccine certificate PLUS a test to enter.

It’s all madness. It has nothing to do with any disease, real or imaginary (and in fact several studies have shown that “vaccine passports” are useless to reduce cases of disease, but what do they care? It is obvious by now even to the mentally challenged that this is more about the “passport” part than the “vaccine” one. It is an exclusion and punishment tool.)

But that’s not what’s craziest about it, but the fact that most people simply accept it matter of factly as just another bullshit they have to deal with. I guess, the more totalitarian you get, the more people accept it. Not necessarily because they believe it, but because you’ve been subject to so much abuse, that what’s one more? We’ve had social distancing, mandatory masks, lockdowns, now mandatory vaccines, vaccine passports, everything was pointless, but well, if you accepted all other previous abuses, what’s one more jab, one more crazy rule about how many people you can meet for Christmas?

I can see this going on forever.

I have never lived in a Communist country, but it seems to me that it must have been similar. Although perhaps even the commies were not such control freaks.

Excerpt from, COVID-19 & the Shadowy “Trusted News Initiative”:

The initial Trusted News partners in attendance were the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Facebook, Financial Times, First Draft, Google, The Hindu, and The Wall Street Journal…

The media partners had now expanded to include Twitter, Microsoft, Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, Reuters, and the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

Do you see the common thread running through this network, goy?

Here, I’ll give you a clue:

In July, 2020, Eric Horvitz, Chief Scientific Officer for Microsoft, remarked about authorizing the news: “We’ve forged a close relationship with the BBC and other partners on Project Origin, aimed at methods and standards for end-to-end authentication of news and information.”

Since 1945 (Operation Unthinkable) Heaven is holding back the wind of the WW3. And so it will be until the appointed time. In the Book of Daniel, we read, “And both these kings [Great Britain and Russia. In 1882 British troops occupied Egypt. Great Britain then took the role of “the king of the south”. Around the same time, Russia expanded its influence in the region, which previously belonged to Seleucus I Nicator, and took the role of “the king of the north”], their hearts (will be) to do mischief, and at one table (they) will speak a lie; but it will not succeed. Indeed yet (the) completion to (the) appointed time. And [the king of the north] will go back (to) his land with great wealth [1945. This detail indicated that after the previous victories Hitler will attack the Soviet Union and will fight to the bitter end]; and his heart (will be) against the holy covenant [Soviet Union introduced state atheism and believers were repressed]; and will act [it means a lot of activity in the international arena]; and go back to his own land [1991-1993. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. The troops from the Soviet military bases returned to their country]. At the appointed time (he) will return back [it also means the break-up of the EU and NATO. Many countries of the former Eastern block will return to a military alliance with Russia], and will enter into the south [this will be the beginning of the global nuclear war. The detonator will be the ethnic conflict to the south of Russia’s borders (Matthew 24:7)], but it will not be as the former [2008 – Georgia] or as the latter [Ukraine. Here too, a military response from the West is not to be expected now. However, the next time, after the return of Russia, there will be a military confrontation with the United States], for the dwellers of coastlands of Kittim [the distant West, to be precise – Americans] will come against him, and (he) will break down [will lose hope], and will go back.” (11:27-30a) This time it will be a world war not only by name. This will be a mutual slaughter. “The great power sword” will also be used. (Revelation 6:4) Jesus characterized him in this way: “A frightening things [φοβητρα] both [τε] and [και] extraordinary (related to unusual phenomena) [σημεια] from [απ] sky [ουρανου] powerful [μεγαλα] will be [εσται].” (Luke 21:11)
Some ancient manuscripts contain the words “and frosts” [και χειμωνες].
The Aramaic Peshitta: “וסתוא רורבא נהוון” – “and will be great frosts”. We call this today “nuclear winter”.
In Mark 13:8 there are also words of Jesus: “and disorders” [και ταραχαι] (in the sense of confusion and chaos).
The Aramaic Peshitta: “ושגושיא” – “and confusion” (on the state of public order).
There will be also significant tremors along the length and breadth of the regions, food shortages and epidemics as a result of using this weapon.
Jesus stated: “All these are but the beginning of the birth pains.” (Matthew 24:8) But is it worth accelerating this.

It is amazing how much of what passes for politics in more recent generations is about reinventing the wheel on issues where even people thousands of years ago had not only considered the issues carefully. But often arrived at better answers too than our current oracles.

Fine comment, sir.

I’d submit we’re condemned under our current government(s) to reinventing the wheel, and also to ignoring the wheel (hope that means something) in the name of American exceptionalism, or, much more likely, to satisfy the kleptocratic lust and power lust of our leaders.

We ignore the ancients at our peril.

I do wonder a little at this thing where Steve’s favorite boys like Jack D get to post their comments right away while others have to wait hours or sometimes even days to get theirs published.

It’s a time-saver, as long as you behave. Above all,, be courteous.. Suggestion: if you say something rude, obsessive, or desperate, make sure it disagrees with Steve. Then it will go through! American Renaissance, at least in print, had an explicit policy of holding their opponents to lower standards.

In other words, when your enemy is committing suicide, don’t interfere.

Not entirely sure about that. But anyway they’ve gotta stay in the game and not get WWIII’d before that happens…

The prehistory of the Anglo-German war that started in Poland in 1939 and mutated into a global World War II in 1941 is quite interesting. Again the real story is much more complicated than the intro textbook narrative of “Evil Hitler invaded Poland for no reason because he was evil and that’s all folks.” This is probably not the place to go into that with a big effort post though. Perhaps especially so given the glib response my last post got.

So instead right now I’ll simply offer a book recommendation. “1939: The War That Had Many Fathers” was written by a general in the German Bundeswehr (of the postwar generation so not an ex-Nazi) and originally published in Germany. Since there are strict laws against “defamation” and “holocaust denial” and so on in that country it’s obviously not a work of that type. Instead it’s a reasonably comprehensive history that goes through the political background of the war viewed from multiple sides and offers a quite different perspective on these events than you (or most other readers here) are likely to be familiar with.

It isn’t perfect and doesn’t tell the entire truth of course. No one book ever is or can. But it still contains many startling surprises. Of course statements of fact are usually footnoted so the sources can be checked. And compared to other books.

If you are genuinely interested in the topic I highly recommend it. It’s available in English from Amazon and the other usual sellers.

Thank you. I know that (as Steve’s reply shows) I probably sound like a Martian to mainstream conservatives when I question the “Good War” myths. The pointing and shrieking your post got is an even better case in point. But I hope somehow it will still prove useful to someone in the end.

I do wonder a little at this thing where Steve’s favorite boys like Jack D get to post their comments right away while others have to wait hours or sometimes even days to get theirs published. I haven’t noticed anything similar on most of the other blogs here at Unz. It seems to be a special thing for this one.

It also looks suspiciously like a somewhat subtle means of depriving unpleasant perspectives of oxygen without smothering them outright.

On the other hand Steve usually does let the posts through eventually and doesn’t just ban them. So he should get credit for that much at least. And whether or not he likes me around here I for my part am still glad he’s able to write his blog. Even if he has some issues where he won’t leave the mainstream he too makes valuable contributions to many important discussions that are often censored elsewhere by people with narrower standards.

Do I feel old sometimes when I remember the old Internet before censorship was really a thing…

How anti-racism leads to anti-white racism:

The most important issue to the left is racial inequality. The most important question to them is therefore: “What is the cause of racial inequality?”

They reject the possibility of genetic or cultural differences leading to minorities doing worse.

The only remaining alternative is to scapegoat white people. For every issue, for every way minorities do worse, the problem is always white people.

When you scapegoat a group of people over and over, that psychologically conditions hatred of that group. And of course, it will tend to attract people who are already hateful and looking for a way to legitimize their feelings about white people.

This scapegoating of a class of people was also found in communism, where capitalists were the scapegoat.

Egalitarian ideologies are inherently prone to scapegoating.

One issue that I think plays a role in all of these trials and much else in our society: the feminization of our society.

By “feminization” (Rosie and Alden!), I do not mean how all or even most women actually behave. I mean the stereotypical, long-time meme as to how women behave.

For example: If Emily and Joshua are squabbling, people tend to assume that Mom will not hold a careful trial, with admission of evidence, as to “who started it.” Rather, people tend to assume that Mom will just tend to “smooth things over” and make everyone happy little playmates again.

Similarly, if Joshua has little Emily crying, we tend to think Mom will say, “Well, Joshua, it does not matter that you did not intend to hurt Emily: can’t you see that she is upset?”

And in a family environment, all of that kind of makes sense: people have to live together, conflicts need to be smoothed over, family members need to be attentive to other family members’ feelings.

The famous ethical theorist Carol Gilligan argued that females tend to pursue an “ethics of care” while men tend to pursue an ethic of abstract, objective justice.

To lay it out explicitly:
A) Feelings matter, and matter more than almost anything else.
B) Conflicts are resolved by “smoothing things over” and pretending that the conflicts did not really happen.
C) Caring matters more than justice.
D) Suffering matters more than anything.

Please note: Neither I nor Gilligan is claiming that this distinction is necessarily based on genetic differences between the sexes. However, most people do seem to perceive these differences between the two sexes, and there does seem to be some basis in fact for this perception.

Perhaps the difference is merely due to the fact that women tend to be moms (don’t we want moms to act this way?) and that men tend to spend much of their time outside the family in the larger society. Or perhaps there is indeed some genetic basis.

I’m not sure it matters. The fact is that the “feminine” ethics of caring makes lots of sense within a nuclear family in which everyone knows everyone else extremely well, and can therefore take into account individuals’ specific needs and character (e.g., who tends to lie a lot?).

But the feminized ethics does not make sense in a larger impersonal society in which sociopaths — Jussie Smollett, Elizabeth Holmes, etc. — can hide their character from others for quite a while, simply because no one can possibly know most other people in a large society in the detailed way she know others in her own nuclear family.

I think most people here will agree that we all sort of know this is what is happening: I am just trying to lay it our clearly and explicitly (yes, I know — a very male tendency!).

Does anyone doubt that this explains a lot about the ongoing court trials as well as broader issues in our contemporary society more generally?

When it starts for real, remind The Enemy that they wanted this.

Yes, the anti-Russia narrative has never been rational. It has always been visceral. It can all be traced to certain individuals with an axe to grind and the network surrounding them. The persistence of their caterwauling as carried through the mass media and as reflected in US domestic and foreign policy demonstrates on an almost daily basis the asymmetrical power and influence of these people; and never has their influence ever benefitted the interests of the American people as a whole.

The Chinese speak of their 100 years of shame while subjected to Western colonialism and the cruel whims of Japan.

But what could be more shameful and humiliating than the sense of powerlessness that comes from knowing you are ruled by a handful of Jews, and you can’t ever seem to do a damned thing about it? How painful the knowledge that you are not king, even in your own house.

Here, at least, is one area where you now have a strong lead over the Chinese.

Your degradation is now so blatant, obvious and perfectly complete that many of you welcome the outright collapse or destruction of the US, even if the end is to be nuclear, rather than endure your degradation any more.

The problem could be solved by systematically neutralizing very specific individuals and targeting their network of assets until their stranglehold on power is dissolved. But it is doubtful that this will occur as their influence is now systemic. Diversity was always their strength, not yours; and it has effectively dissolved any cohesion you may have ever had.

The end of China’s century of humiliation came to an end by the late 1940’s with much pain, suffering and radical political shifts. But ultimately it did end, and a new order arose, yet due to events that no one group of people could ever consciously bring about and control.

The effect of time, unintended consequences and events beyond anyone’s control is more than likely how you will ultimately find yourselves emancipated from your subjugation by Jews.

As far as Germany was concerned FDR started the war with them with his “Shoot On Sight” order calling for the US Navy to hunt the U-boats in the Atlantic. By any possible standard that was a blatant act of war. The Germans didn’t reciprocate right away because contrary to the Hollywood stereotype Hitler didn’t want war with America unless they left him no choice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Greer_(DD-145)#The_Greer_incident,_September_1941

Note that this publicly proclaimed order to hunt German submarines together with the British thousands of miles outside American territorial waters was issued months before Pearl Harbor. Amusingly enough on September 11. I wonder why conspiracy theorists don’t make more of that coincidence?

If Germany and Japan had wanted a casus belli they had a rock solid one right there that no lawyer could possibly have objected to. However they didn’t take the bait just yet.

As for Japan they did fire the first shot in the Pacific on December 7. Just as Henry Stimson and FDR had tried their best to make them do. As Stimson reported Roosevelt as saying: “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.” (Stimson Diary as printed in the Congressional special committee Pearl Harbor investigation papers after the war).

Refer again to “Bankrupting the Enemy” and its bibliography. Economic war can be just as bad as real war if you take it far enough. No modern economy can function without fossil fuels. FDR and Churchill gave the Japanese the choice between submission or economic and social collapse with their global oil embargo. Since they weren’t morons (and as the Stimson quote shows) they of course knew what would be the result.

Just as Stimson and FDR had planned the Japanese predictably chose to take their chances fighting (even though they knew their odds were very bad). With the benefit of hindsight we could say that was a mistake. Even so I can’t really say I blame them.

Perhaps it’s a who/whom thing.

For example you seem to be a lot more angry yourself about the millions who were killed by the Nuremberg Nazis than the millions who were killed by Churchill and FDR and Stalin and their minions. Presumably because you identify more closely with the victims of the Nazis than with those of the latter.

Or do you think the war criminals Henry Stimson and Henry Morgenthau (for example) should have been hanged as well? Is it disrespect for their millions of victims not to be angry that they both escaped the gallows and died peacefully? While (for example) Joachim von Ribbentrop was hanged and Rudolf Hess died in prison.

Should Arthur Hays Sulzberger have been hanged for his warmongering hate propaganda in the New York Times like Julius Streicher was for his in Der Stuermer? In that case neither man killed anyone himself. They only incited others to do so.

In my opinion the only just thing would have been to hang the (alleged or real) war criminals on both sides OR neither. Of course I also realize that this would have been politically impossible in 1945 with the American public riled up with years of hate propaganda against Germany and Japan. But morality and politics are very often quite different things.

There can only be one normative public culture

I disagree with this.

Of course you do Jack. You’re a minoritarian. (For the same reason Jews–a middle man minority–have–not irrationally for them–pushed minoritarianism.) You’re just a minoritarian who thinks the thing has gone over the top–particularly with blacks, whom i’ve gathered aren’t your favorite–and is no longer working in your interest.

This explanation just missing the boat:

America has always had all sorts of crazy minorities and regional cultures that cultivated their own public culture. The normative public culture of New Orleans was never like that of Boston. The normative public culture of the Amish was unlike that of the Mormons.

The minorities are just that … minorities. The Amish don’t create the normative public culture anywhere that i’m aware of. (I doubt even in Lancaster county.) The Mormons probably do in large swathes of Utah and maybe some other places in the western US. But elsewhere accommodate themselves to whatever the public culture is and do their own Mormon thing amongst themselves.

The normative public culture isn’t necessarily the same everywhere. New Orleans doesn’t have the same public norms as Minneapolis. That’s obvious. It’s true even in much smaller nations than the US. And easily accommodated by federalism. And why we are supposed to have it. (It’s actually minoritarians that are at war with it.)

But what does not work is you and me and some mestizo and some Muslim and some Asian shopkeeper and George Floyd all interacting in Minneapolis according to our own separate diverse expectations. Some set of public norms has to actually be normative. Or there is simply continual, chaos and conflict.

As I have said before, Washington was more clued in to this over 200 years ago than you are now. In his letter to the Jews of Newport, he, quoting Scripture, said that in the US “every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree” …

I’ll separate this bit. We’ve discussed the George Washington letter–which you love–before. You just don’t seem to understand it.

Washington–a good guy–is just saying he hopes the Jews will be good citizens and be treated well without prejudice by their fellow citizens. Doing their Jewish thing “under his own vine and fig tree”–i.e. in their own business.

Washington is not suggesting the presence of Jews means they get to define the public culture of the United States or any state, nor that it has to be twisted around to accommodate them, nor that that the normative public culture will be anything other than the existing–mostly Anglo-Protestant–culture, that varied regionally.

Washington is not David Brooks–glorying the Jews bursting through the oppressive WASP establishment. Washington is the oppressive WASP establishment.

Basically, his statement here is–sincere and nicely phrased–but the same as mine:
— do your own thing privately as a minority
— be a good public citizen–which of course entails
a) accommodating yourself publicly to public norms
b) being loyal to your fellow citizens
— and your fellow citizens will wish you well.

~~

The 2nd thing is Washington’s letter is not holy writ. I consider Washington a genuine great man. But that doesn’t mean Washington understood everything or got everything right. (No one does. We are humans.)

In retrospect, it’s clear Washington was actually naive about the Jews–or at least the effect of large numbers of eastern Ashkenazi. He did not understand–probably had not thought to much about–the problems associated with having a tribal and majority-hostile religious group, especially a high IQ one. Not the same issue as these questions of varying Christian religious beliefs–and loyalty to Rome–that had bedeviled Europe.

If Washington could actually see late 20th century Jewish behavior, i suspect his 18th century take on Jews would be quite a bit different.

By (abysmally low) Nazi standards he was more cultivated and less personally anti-Semitic than most. But what he did still made him more than worthy of the gallows.

We get all hung up about legalisms introduced after WWII. The reality of the conclusions of most wars is reciprocity plus interest imposed on the losers – *any* losers. WWII was a huge exception. Leaving aside the question of atrocities, if the entire Axis populations had been butchered to the last man, woman and child, the total number would have been a fraction of the deaths on the Allied side. That’s why the bellyaching on the Axis side strikes me as unmanly – they fought a war where they threw away the rule book, yet whined about infinitesimal postwar reprisals, which were, in a limited fashion, what the war crimes trials were all about.

All wars are bloody but what the Axis did in WWII was beyond the pale.

What precisely would you say they did that was worse than what the Allies did? Honest question. Extra bonus points if you can mention anything that wasn’t an alleged or real atrocity against Jews.

On most scores their atrocities don’t seem very exceptional in the context of their times. The Germans bombed cities, shot commissars and generally waged a harsh war in the East. The Japanese waged an even harsher war against the Chinese. But in both cases the Allies did the same things. Only on a bigger scale.

The ethnic cleansing of Eastern Europe of ethnic Germans after World War II was literally the biggest in history. Likewise the firebombing of Japan will be unequaled until we have a real nuclear World War III. For example.

I’m shocked by the people here who appear to take the Japanese side. FDR didn’t make them do human experiments

From what I find in trying to track them down there seems to be little evidence for those except “witness testimonies” by either Chinese regime flunkies or Japanese POWs who had been brainwashed by them.

The exact same authorities (ie Chinese regime flunkies and brainwashed US POWs) later accused the United States of similar crimes in the Korean War:

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

Do you believe them in both cases? Or just in one? If so: Why?

or starve POWs

FDR starved the entire nation of Japan with bombing and unlimited submarine attacks against its shipping. (The exact same thing incidentally that he called piracy when the Germans did it and his minion Jackson tried to have Admiral Doenitz hanged for.) You may not know it but hundreds of thousands of Japanese (at least) starved to death because FDR stole their food.

Schoolchildren were literally taught to try to hunt for wild frogs to eat because the government couldn’t supply their families with rations they could live on. Literally.

It wasn’t nice to starve the Allied POWs but it was a perfectly natural consequence of FDR starving the Japanese. When there isn’t food for your own people, is feeding enemies who hate you the top priority? Should it be? If I were a Japanese soldier I imagine I’d revolt if the government fed the Americans well while my own children starved.

or massacre Chinese.

Did the Japanese treat the Chinese any worse than the Chinese treated them? Or themselves for that matter? The Kuomintang alone killed millions not counting the excesses of the warlords. That’s not going into the crimes of the Chinese communists.

Even using the Chinese propaganda machine’s own numbers the famous “Rape of Nanjing” was a rounding error compared to the domestic Chinese genocides. Yet FDR had no problem with supplying the perpetrators of those with weapons and personnel in direct violation of international law as then understood.

Of course there were also innocent Chinese who did suffer real war crimes from the Japanese. It’s sad that that happened. Just like so much else in those times. Obviously they didn’t deserve that. But the selective moral outrage is tiresome.

The whole “Good War” was one big exhibition of hypocrisy ueber alles. Matched only by the ignorant self righteousness of its latter day defenders.

Wouldn’t the apparent widespread belief in Global Warming among scientists in Europe and other parts of the world be just as strong an argument that it must be true?

not just AIDs and Global Warming and Covid hysteria, but our entire collective consciousness.

The entire world (especially the Germans) believes that the most evil people that ever lived in the history of the world were ‘the Nazis’, because they were racists who collectively murdered people they didn’t like in order to take back some of their lands.

While at the same time, the world’s people (especially the Germans) believe that Israel is a morally immaculate nation of victims who deserve untold billions of tribute and homage for eternity, even as they actually do collectively murder people they don’t like so they can steal their homes and lands.

It’s all a soul-numbing mind fuck, and yet the entire planet’s people and institutions and medias and academia’s all parrot this preposterous insanity as if it were the God’s revealed truth.

Because that’s how it works.

How many actual scientists and academics and foreign government ministers believe the idiocy of ‘Global Warming’, or that Osama blew up building seven or Gaddafi was a dire threat to Libya? Or that Putin is menacing Ukraine or that America wants to spread democracy because America is a good and moral nation?

No one with an IQ above room temperature believes that Putin’s Russia is the aggressor vis-a-vis Ukraine. Or that Osama did 9/11 or that six million Jews were gassed in homicidal gas chambers by Nazis and turned into soap and lampshades.

But you’d be hard-pressed to find even one such ‘respectable’ person to admit any of that on camera.

Because The Narrative comes from the top-down. And we all know who is sitting at the top of that pyramid.

And if they decide that ‘diversity is the Western World’s greatest strength’, then just watch as the leaders in Europe and North America and Oceania all bray the exact same suicidal madness as if it were obviously true.

Like the video of the ‘dueling puppets’, the leaders of Canada and Australia tell the most infamous lies with a straight face, the exact same lies America and England were telling, as a pretext to slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent people, all to benefit the tiny few at the top of that Federal Reserve Note pyramid. And I don’t recall even one Japanese or Chinese or Indian or Brazilian or Mexican academic or government minister of any note whatsoever, ever so much as tepidly challenging those obvious and criminal lies.

Just look at the International Criminal Court at the Hague, “with jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.”

And what does it do there? It prosecutes the victims of the war criminals who break International Laws to wage illegal agressive wars against innocent nations and people.

So that’s the state of the planet, when it comes to fealty to The Narrative, (WWII, Holocaust, 9/11, WMD, AIDs, Covid…) so long as that narrative emenates down from the top of that pyramid.

I like Russians, but I’ve never known a people more psychologically enslaved to ((their worst enemies)).

Even worse than Americans?

If Washington could actually see late 20th century Jewish behavior, i suspect his 18th century take on Jews would be quite a bit different.

My bet is, if he could somehow see that and explain it to his fellow Founding Fathers, the American Jews would soon be emigrating to Russia rather than the other way around.

One wonders how different the world of 2021 would look if the Naturalization Act of 1790 had made citizenship available for “free white Christian persons of good moral character” instead of going by purely racial classifications as it did in real life?

Ironically America might then be the great fortress of racism and anti-Semitism in the world. While the Russian Jews would perhaps have gone to Germany instead and made it a permanent Weimar Republic without the Nazi interlude. Pretty much a “Mirror Universe” compared to history as we know it?

LOL

https://twitter.com/ramzpaul/status/1468610932372815878

The [now-diminished Anglo patriarchy] never wanted to make the slaves US citizens nor did they want universal voting especially females.

This is largely true and very meaningful. The US moved inevitably and irreversibly (((Left))) with the political elevation underachieving negros and emotion-laden females a century ago. Dropping the voting age to 18 in 1971 further diminished our nation’s collective political judgement, since inexperienced and conformist-oriented young people are manipulated easily via mass media and formal education. Broadening ‘voting rights’ also empowered media moguls and academic radicals even more.

The Big Three Blunders

Lincoln’s victory in the War Between the States set the America on the road to ruin. The North’s refusal to allow peaceful secession gave legitimacy to centralized, authoritarian, and militarized power. State independence died with the Civil War. Rapacious Washington on the other hand was born.

The next nail in our political coffin was Washington’s needless entry into WWI. The usual suspects played a pivotal role in dragging America into an unanticipated European melee. The glorious ‘Allied victory’ of 1918 (which was followed up by the unjust Treaty of Versailles) only guaranteed future conflict.

Ironically, the devious (((architects))) of WWII are now sacred and untouchable and leading dumbed-down America over another cliff.

It’s not that big a stretch to think that an admirer of Napoleon might also think Hitler was right. Raches, for one, would agree.

Hitler’s vision, and the new Germany that he built, whatever opinion one might have of it, certainly had a powerful romantic grandeur to it, and was, to some degree, quite original.
Napoleon’s views on government were simply that of technocratic expediency.. at best.
By nearly all accounts, Hitler was a pleasant enough character in-person (if somewhat rigid, distant and overly austere, hence his lack of military promotion, despite model behaviour and personal bravery), and remained loyal to his friends as far as political circumstances allowed (he felt Röhm left him no choice, etc ).

Napoleon on the other hand was a liar, a cheat, incapable of serving anyone except himself. As Tolstoy commented in his research for ‘War and Peace’, if anyone desires to see what fundamental smallness of character looks like, go no further than Napoleon’s memoirs.

What do these people even disagree with Joe Biden about? The degree of CRT in schools? The age that a child should be able to become a tranny?

Social media censorship.

Democrats think it’s great when the State OR Private Corporations censor all views to the right of Mitch McConnell. Republicans don’t think it’s so great when the State censors them, because that could infringe on the inalienable exclusive right of Private Corporations to censor them.

This is an unusually interesting post. I agree with some bits but not others. Hopefully you won’t mind if I reply at some length.

Let us not also forget that in the event of a German victory, the British Empire would come crashing down very violently, which would create additional headaches for Berlin all over the world.

Unless the German victory came early. Say there was peace in 1940. Then Britain would not be exhausted like in real life and the British Empire would collapse a lot less chaotically. There was a strong faction who wanted peace after the fall of France and almost got the upper hand over the Churchill cabal. Some conservative British historians even in real life lament that this wasn’t how things turned out.

On top of that, the issues in Japan would have to be sorted. I doubt China would have lost against Japan, so the war would likely continue in East Asia. You can’t discount that Japan would have been nuked into submission anyway by the Americans.

If the US is in the war at all Germany loses. Simple as that. FDR and his puppet masters were very determined on that point. “Germany First” and “Unconditional Surrender” were their favorite phrases. There is no way there would be a Germany left in place if Japan is not.

Either both of them win their local wars (vs China and/or USSR) without US involvement or both lose with it. There is no realistic scenario for other options IMO. Unless we imagine comic book scenarios where Thor smashes New York with Mjolnir or Amaterasu sinks the US fleets with a divine wind.

Germany could simply not afford to alienate other European peoples and forced Germanisation has clear limits anyway. It is also not obvious that Germany would want all of Eastern Europe (think of how huge Russia is).

All of this means that Germany would have a strong incentive to keep the various European countries under its boot reasonably happy, lest they revolt and thus weaken Germany’s grip on Europe (and thus strengthen the US in the process, which Germany would want to avoid). That is why some kind of liberalisation would be necessary, indeed unavoidable , for Germany even in a postwar settlement, if only for pragmatic reasons of stability.

Agreed. In fact we see a lot of this already during the war. (Even while German rule at home got more tyrannical due to total war pressures.)

In the end, the US would have prevailed, like it did against the USSR. Either because Germany would make ethno-nationalist mistakes, and thus weaken its grip on Europe and invite revolts or because German elites would switch to liberalism in later decades on their own in order to compete with the Americans effectively by promoting stability in the nearby region, which would be a “cultural victory”.

This I can’t see happening in an “Axis Victory” scenario. Asymmetric US prosperity (which depends largely on looting and plunder of the world and domination of Petrodollar and the Bretton-Woods System) would not happen as in real life with Saudi under German control and no Marshall Plan and dollar tyranny over Europe (and/or the Far East if Japan is also still free). And without that asymmetric prosperity the appeal of American culture disappears. Very few people in 1960s or 1980s Europe would want liberalism (=anti-racism and pro-homosexuality) for its own sake if it doesn’t have the image of decadent wealth propping it up.

Germany and even Europe as a whole of course, also were never so far below American standards as the USSR to start with.

In fact in this scenario I think the “Super Axis” would have the advantage in economies of scale, natural resources and etc. It might even be more realistic if the US adapted their culture than the other way. Especially if the right wing isolationists stayed in power after the New Deal failed for whatever reason. Whether it lost in 1940 so the US stayed out or lost for (very implausibly) losing the war somehow after it went into it.

All of this ignores the transcendental logic of capitalism: investing in poorer Eastern European economies for German industry to cut costs and boost profits makes too much sense. Talk of keeping Eastern Europe a pastoral place and underdeveloped place would have quickly been cast aside due to the interests of big business. Would the Nazi state have been able to resist? It is unlikely in my view. Economic interests of elites are extremely hard for any state, any ideology, to counter-act. Even communists struggle mightily against it (CCP is a great example and the Soviets are no more).

Here again I agree this would happen. Of course that wouldn’t be a bad thing even from a German perspective. Eastern Europe certainly would be more prosperous today rather than less. Probably including even Russia without the retarding effects of Communism and the collapse of the 1990s.

As German investments grew, it would’ve made sense to bring them closer politically to protect these investments. Cheap labour influx would also be advocated by German industry once the reality of the demographic situation became untenable by the 1980s and beyond. They would use creative interpretation of “Aryanness” to justify flooding Germany with cheap labour. We can go down the list, but the point is that the world we live in today would have happened regardless who won the war. The major differences would only be seen in the initial decades.

Again I think this is very much too pessimistic. The general trend would be there BUT:

– The Nazis would employ pro-natalist policies so Germany’s demographics wouldn’t look as bad as in real life. (Losses in the war would also be smaller of course so there would be fewer unmarried and bitter feminist women in that generation)

– Mass culture also wouldn’t be full of Hollywood degeneracy with similar beneficial effects.

– Even as Germany allows guest workers it will probably be in a more restrained way than in real life due to pressure from the populist Nazi Party base.

– Finally and most obviously there will be NO official pressure in favor of “diversity” and fewer white men everywhere. The opposite will be the case. Companies will be blamed if their boards of directors are NOT 100 percent white men. No economically useless “refugees” will be invited and those who sneak in anyway will quite probably be physically eliminated. The loony “Refugees Welcome” crowd will either be the fanatical Hitler Youths burning down the concentration camps housing the “refugees” themselves (due to different ideological programming) or they will be living in those camps together with them if they still stick to anti-racism.

Economic pressures alone can explain some of the dislocations of modernity. But our current death spiral of diversity and inclusionism is not economically sound. Corporations don’t benefit from endless diversity hires, bloated HR departments or shakedowns by BLM and friends. Those weren’t their idea. These evils stem from other causes. Causes which Nazi Germany was very assiduous about removing.

Also of course there’s the fact that if the victorious “Super Axis” can hold out against immigrationism for even just a generation or two longer, automation and algorithms will start kicking in and render cheap labor much less desirable. Most likely this will be happening faster than in real life with bigger incentives for it. So a lot of the purely economic arguments in favor of population replacement even in the short term disappears and even turn negative. Can we imagine that the huge net COST (even in purely economic terms) of importing unproductive third world races for society would be a taboo subject in Nazi Germany like it is with us?

Victorious Germany will face some of the same challenges as real life but things most likely will NOT be anywhere near as bad. Even in real life the Soviet Union didn’t collapse because it had failed but only because its leaders lost their will to fight. That could happen in Germany too of course (human weakness is eternal) but examples such as Cuba, DPRK and of course China show that this is by no means an inescapable destiny.

And victorious Germany is far better off than the USSR with a bigger economic base, no need for huge standing armies in Europe, a much weaker US and (most importantly) is not crippled by equalitarian or Marxist idiocy. It’s far more likely for it to turn out like China with extra HBD than to do a Gorbachev IMHO.

The pertinent (and impertinent) question is not, did our leaders know what Japan was about to do, but did they give the Japanese every right to do so?

It’s not even a question. December 7 1941 was the first Foreign Policy Blowback Day, and – as with the later FPBD in 2001, occurred with the foreknowledge of, and to the absolute delight of, the leadership.

Had we already committed acts of war?

Countries cannot claim to be neutral, and then only trade with one side (that’s not explicitly a casus belli though). The US broke a trade agreement with Japan, implemented what amounts to a blockade[1], and provided financial aid to the nation with which Japan was at war. Taken together, those constitute a valid casus belli, by the US’ own acknowledgement, 13 years earlier.

During the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing over the ratification of the Kellogg-Briand Pact[2], Senator Claude A. Swanson (Virginia) posed the following question to Secretary Kellogg:

Swanson : “Suppose a country is not attacked. Suppose there is an economic blockade, and they carry out their obligations under the League of Nations for an economic blockade; would this treaty interfere with it?”

Kellogg: There is no such thing as a blockade without you are in war… An act of war, absolutely.”

(Interestingly: that question was asked, and the answer given, on December 7, 1928. Look it up)

The US whining after each FPBD makes it clear that they have adopted the Jewish Strategy: provoke a response, and then calumniate those you were setting up for an attack.

The schlubs – being 99% imbeciles – fall for that “We wuz wronged” shit every single time.

Notes.

[1] at the show-trial after the war, the Japanese claimed that the US blockade was an act of war. They pointed out that the embargoes applied by the US were designed to cut off supplies that were vital to the civilian life of the nation (remind anyone of sanctions against Iraq 50 years later? Anyone? Bueller?). Among the goods whose import was effectively prohibited:

Cement, aluminum, lead, copper, coal, rice, beans, phosphate rock, fats, oil and oil bearing materials, hides and skin, tanning materials, leather and leather manufactures, potassium salts, wheat and wheat flour, zinc, sugar, lumber, textile machinery, sulphur and sulphuric acid, wool and wool manufactures, marine products, soda, ash and caustic soda, chemical nitrogen, rayon yarn and staple fibre, bicycles, electrical equipment, silk fabrics, cotton textiles, rubber and rubber manufactures, rayon fabrics, and raw cotton

[2] Hearings Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Seventieth Congress on The General Pact for the Renunciation of War signed at Paris August 27, 1928

As Aristotle noted, “Heterogeneity of stocks may lead to faction – at any rate until they have had time to assimilate. A city cannot be constituted from any chance collection of people, or in any chance period of time. Most of the cities which have admitted settlers, either at the time of their foundation or later, have been troubled by faction.”

Have Aristotle and Plato been canceled yet? If not it must surely only be a matter of time and inertia.

I imagine thinking like this was a major influence on the early American Republic when its fathers instituted the Naturalization Act of 1790. If one reads their writings what immediately stands out is the Greek and Roman influence on their thought. Even in the time of Napoleon Cleon and Sulla seem to get mentioned more often than the Emperor himself.

It is amazing how much of what passes for politics in more recent generations is about reinventing the wheel on issues where even people thousands of years ago had not only considered the issues carefully. But often arrived at better answers too than our current oracles.

Thank you Dr. MacDonald, for bringing Durocher’s book to our attention. It looks very interesting.

There was no blockade. Any other country willing to do so could supply Japan. There was an embargo, meaning that we wouldn’t do so any more. There is nothing illegal about an embargo.

It’s true that waging sneaky economic war was not illegal in 1941. But neither was waging an honest war by military means. Only Tojo got hanged for that anyway because our rulers don’t care about morality or law except to use them as another club to beat down anyone who resists them.

FDR colluded with the British (and the Dutch puppet government in their hands) to cut off all oil supplies for Japan. There literally was no one else who could supply them. He’d made sure of it. Don’t take my word for it but do read the book “Bankrupting the Enemy” which has already been mentioned in this thread.

This while he was at the same time supplying weapons and personnel (the “Flying Tigers”) to Japan’s enemy China. Hmmm.

Here is a nice little article published only days ago with a good list of suggestions for further reading for anyone who’s interested. The author’s New Left perspective has some blind spots here and there but he is pretty much on the right track:

https://www.greanvillepost.com/2021/12/06/pearl-harbor-a-surprise-attack/

In short: The choice the bad guys gave to the Japanese in 1941 was: Become a colony or die. Even though they lost and became a colony anyway I’m glad for their sake that they at least chose to fight for their future before submitting.

The embargo came only after Japan had taken a series of agressive steps including allying with Nazi Germany, securing neutrality from Stalin and occupying Indochina, which put it at the doorstep of the Phillipines. Japan had not yet declared war against the US but they were clearly preparing the battlefield and we would have been idiots to sell them the rope that they needed to hang us with (in Lenin’s words).

In the later half of 1941 FDR was placing heavy bombers in the Philippines and gloating with his fellow war criminals Stimson and Morgenthau about how they’d be able to firebomb Tokyo to cinders once they were in place. If we are using some preemptive war argument Japan had far more justice on its side on this angle too.

Japan of course, was in no possible way threatening the continental United States.

See especially the book on the list, “Preventive Strike” by Alan Armstrong. The author is an anti Japanese triumphalist who thinks a sneak attack on Japan would have been a good thing and laments that Japan got the drop on the bombers in the Philippines first. But his facts are real enough.

At the Nuremberg trials, the Nazis claimed that they were just following orders. At Jussie Smollett’s trial, he claimed that he was attacked and had nothing to do with setting it up. You can claim all you want but a lie is still a lie.

A lie is a lie. But the liars in 1941 were FDR and his minions. And the liars today are the people who defend them.

Philip Roth was an utterly disgusting human being and a mediocre writer at best. That he was lauded as some great American author may be the single best bit of proof of ethnic nepotism in the United States.

That said his alternative history was just silly. An isolationist Republican from the Midwest winning the Solid South in 1940? Why not just have them elect Adolf Hitler himself President? It’d make just about as much sense.

If he’d wanted to be a little bit plausible he’d have General George Van Horn Moseley run and win after FDR had a stroke a few years early or something. Moseley actually was the kind of hardcore racialist that Lindbergh always gets smeared as. After his years in Military Intelligence he knew who was behind Communism and treason in America and wasn’t shy about naming them.

https://occidentaldissent.com/2010/01/05/general-moseley-and-the-jews/

Yet he was also popular enough that he got quoted in the Congressional Record and the New York Times when he did. The bad guys actually feared he’d be “The Man on the White Horse” and oust the New Deal crime cartel. That didn’t happen because he got smeared to death by the press (of course). But he was much more of a contender for the title of Literally Hitler than poor Lindy.

For more on Moseley as well as general background on subversive ethnics in interwar America and the brave few who fought a rearguard action against them, see also “The Jewish Threat: Anti-Semitic Politics of the US Army” by Joseph W. Bendersky. The author is a Jewish academic who mines the records for outrage but a lot of the documents he quotes from make very interesting reading for people with quite different viewpoints as well.

Gates is a solid, legitimate string theorist, but not a star. You don’t have to believe me; You can check for yourself. Go to scholar.google.com and search for SJ Gates. You’ll see his publications, ordered by the number of citations. His most cited is a free re-print of a book that he co-wrote, but after that the items are legitimate peer reviewed papers . The most cited has 976, followed by 345, 275, 169, 152, 144, etc.

What constitutes a lot of citations depends on how many people work in a field, and how much they publish. You can get an idea of whether or not his numbers are impressive by clicking on the links associated with his co-authors to see how many citations they have. For example, Rocek, https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=7Dw2wEIAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra one of Gates’ co-authors has 2021, 1335,1218,926,597,… and of course he’s not nearly as well known. A minute of two of browsing will convince you that Gates is solid, but not a star.

The first string of pearls, was Portuguese outposts on their maritime routes.

Of course, Jews were heavily involved, as they were re-stablishing their usury trade in spices and metal money.

The East-West overland caravan routes (formerly haibaru donkey caravaneers) had been overturned by Vasco-de-Gama.

https://historyofyesterday.com/how-vasco-de-gamas-journey-to-india-changed-the-world-f76a6dfeade6

In an impressive journey, he sailed along the African coast, beyond the Cape of Good Hope and managed to destroy the monopoly of Arab and Venetian merchants in the spice trade which was considered a luxury in that period of time.

Jews intermediated trade between Venice and the Arab world, particularly at Arsinoe Canal. Our Jewish Sephardic friends fled Spain after Ferdinand and Isabella kicked them out in 1492.

Sephardic Jews found Portugal as their destination, and then the Southern Route was discovered in 1497.

Essentially the Haibaru Caravaneers took up their ancient usury methods of intermediating spices and metal money from East to West.

To secure the routes, they set up entrepot ports along the route, which were a “string of pearls.”

Silver would be extracted from the West, and Gold from the East. India (the East) also supplied spices. Jews raked off the exchange rate difference by virtue of their role in movement of the metal on trade routes. They effectively controlled the exchange rate.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41105726

When you read the link above, note how Jews are not present in the analysis, yet they were the main actors.

Pepe circles above the target with this comment:

So the whole Yemen story, once again, is essentially a tragic chapter of Empire attempting to plunder Third World/Global South wealth.

Once again, if we don’t follow the Jew, then we have an incomplete view. Atlantacism is Jewish method indurated into practice, especially the practice of arbitraging money and goods on maritime routes. This was done on the caravan routes, in the Mediterranean (Greek era), and later the Jew attached himself to Portugal, and then Amsterdam.

Tragically, Nixon allowed his brain to be infected by the Jews surrounding him, and he should have known better. Kissinger and high level CFR types worked out a strategy to create the petrodollar system, when the trading gold standard was broken in 1971.

The petrodollar/Tbill system is (((international))) credit, using the dollar as a golem. The secret 1973 Agreement with Saudi, established the petrodollar TBill system.

https://www.networkideas.org/featured-articles/2021/07/beyond-the-dollar-creditocracy-a-geopolitical-economy/

Subverting nation states, to then own the money power, has long been a specialty of our friends. Indeed, it is their religion, and the source of the in-group power. If you doubt this, Trajan’s army when it interdicted the Caravan routes caused the Jews to let loose in a frenzy, where they killed thousands of Greeks. Our (((friends))) did not go bezerk when their religious centers were interdicted by Rome. The real religion of our friends is Usury and In-Group control.

Portugal established itself as a creditocracy behind metal money, then later England with the Sterling Zone, and then the U.S. with the dollar. In all cases, the master string pullers were behind the scenes, pushing their most recent form of international credit. One of the key instrumentalities of power is blue water navy projection, and “strings of pearls.” This force projection allows “credits” to be grabbed by power. You don’t pay up, especially by paying up many times the original debt, then meet the gun-boats.

The U.S. creditocracy extends its power with blue water Navy and “Lilipads.”

https://fpif.org/the_lily-pad_strategy_how_the_pentagon_is_quietly_transforming_its_overseas_base_empire_and_creating_a_dangerous_new_way_of_war/

China has its work cut out for it, if it is to overcome this many centuries long cabal, as said cabal will not relinquish their death grip peacefully.

National Socialist Germany met the end of a gun barrel, as they had the temerity to attempt an escape from the Cabal. The Cabal had attacked them in World War, and then attached usurious Versailles debts, with the (((creditors))) intent of making permanent debt slaves.

Yeah it sucks we can’t post screenshots. But anyway, here a sample:

“The Elf cries out in pain as he strikes you.”

“And then for no reason whatsoever, the people of the North Pole elected Rudolf Antler.”

“It’s really weird how Elves make up so much of the toy making industry yet are such a small percentage of the overall population of the North Pole. They also are over represented in the Santa administration and the Deep Sleigh.”

You get the idea.

You scoff but many Black people actually believe that crime stats for Whites would be just as high if only there were as many aggressive cops occupying their neighborhoods and uncovering those crimes. White people are simply getting away with more crimes.
Also that:
The cops are more likely to let White perpetrators go for the same crimes.
Cops are less likely to shoot Whites when attacked by them.
Many crimes attributed to Blacks are committed by White criminals in blackface.
The Man reduces stats in White crimes by falsifying official reports, for example reporting White murder victims as having died in traffic accidents.
Surely, there must be more White crime because all the criminals in movies, TV shows and commercials are White.
James Cagney Angels with Dirty Faces theory of crime. James Cagney became a gangster and Pat O’Brien became a priest because as kids Cagney was arrested and O’Brien got away. Many Blacks are only criminals because they have been arrested and incarcerated. A criminal is a person who has been arrested and jailed, therefore if the popo stopped arresting and imprisoning Blacks, then logically they wouldn’t be criminals.

A few months back there was an interesting story out of the UK. Seems as though genes associated with nearsightedness are on the increase there. I think the idea is that they are being selected for, somehow. (Though as a minor trend when compared to environmental causes, and not necessarily for their effects on eyesight.)

Anyway, it got me thinking what might be the reason for it, as well as what Anatoly’s breeder’s might look like. Maybe, being nearsighted causes you to overlook physical flaws, or become more introverted, and thus able to form more stable relationships? But that last sounds kind of K-selected, and I think the r-crowd is winning out.

That’s interesting. I wonder what the association might be there if true. I’d definitely not expect introversion as such to be adaptative from a reproductive point of view in today’s social climate. Or even that of the last generation or two. Given how nearly all of the old support structures that made courtships and relationships in general easier for introverts in older times have been either drastically weakened or flat wiped out.

Oakland mayor will reverse plans to defund the police amid spike in violent gun crime

Elizabeth “Libby” Schaaf … B.A. in political science from Rollins College and a J.D. from Loyola Law School 🤔

Popular Religions for Oakland, CA

Jewish Percentage : 1.81%

https://www.factsbycity.com/popular-religions/Oakland/statistics.html

Hmm, I’m guessing German-American

https://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-oakland-mayor-defends-decision-to-warn-community-of-immigration-raid/

THE TIMES OF ISRAEL

Jewish Oakland mayor defends decision to warn community of immigration raid

The Jewish mayor of Oakland, California has defended her decision to warn the community in advance of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement raid in Northern California.

Mayor Libby Schaaf on Friday said she felt it was her duty to warn local residents of the impending raid, which ended on Wednesday. Schaaf posted the warning on Twitter in the previous weekend.

The tip-off allowed some 800 illegal immigrants to escape arrest, Thomas Homan, ICE’s acting director, told Fox & Friends without giving details. He said her warning was “beyond the pale” and compared her to a gang lookout who tells people when a police car is arriving…

Every. Single. Time.

I don’t know if there were all killed, but survival rates for Germans captured by the Soviets in the first half of the war (until 1943) were certainly extremely low, and there’s no doubt the Soviets frequently tortured prisoners for information (Harald Welzer is a very dubious character btw, with an anti-German agenda, I’m surprised you mention him in this context).

I thought you’d recognize the name. My point in citing him was of course to underscore that what I was talking about isn’t just some “revisionist” thing. Welzer is definitely not part of that camp.

(I think I had written in an earlier comment I didn’t want to discuss WW2 issues anymore

Sorry then. I must have missed that. In my defense I’m not around here as regularly anymore as I used to back in the good old days.

For what it’s worth I have always appreciated your attempts to look at things objectively in these discussions. I’m probably closer to the “revisionist” side myself on many issues but I have enjoyed interacting with your perspective.

A lot of it is true, obviously German treatment of Soviet pows was inhumane in the extreme, and directly in contravention of Germany’s obligations under the Geneva convention for treatment of pows.

The USSR wasn’t a signatory to the convention though. And mass murdered German prisoners from day one. In many cases with horrible atrocities like torture and mutilation like the Americans did with the Japanese in the Pacific. I think even “mainstream” historians don’t really dispute this (although of course they only mention it in the footnotes). Harald Welzer approvingly quotes one estimate saying 90 percent of the prisoners the soviets took in 1941 were killed.

The German authorities published a rather thick brochure on atrocities by the Red Army, NKVD and Soviet irregulars against German soldiers in 1941 or 1942. It had some clinical but really unpleasant descriptions. Unfortunately I can’t recall the title right now, and it was in German obviously so most of our readers couldn’t read it anyway. But maybe you’ve heard of it?

I think that kind of thing (together with finding huge Soviet mass graves and piles of massacred civilians left behind by the retreating Red Army in places like Lviv in 1941) had a very negative effect on feelings about the Communist authorities in turn. This would go a long way toward explaining things like the enthusiastic implementation of the Commissar Order.

The mass death of Soviet pows in 1941/42 (when about 2 million died) certainly was the Wehrmacht’s responsibility. However I don’t believe in the more extreme interpretations that this kind of mass death of pows had been planned from the start or even before Operation Barbarossa had begun (this is at least controversial even among mainstream scholars, not just disputed by “revisionists”). It was more the result of events interacting with a radicalized mindset among Wehrmacht planners who didn’t put much value on the lives of Soviet pows anyway.

The really big thing was of course that German logistics were inadequate (or nearly so) to supply even their own troops come winter. It’s easy for armchair historians to “forget” that Barbarossa was the largest military operation in history involving millions of people. And also depending on third world grade infrastructure to work. The Soviet road and rail network wasn’t very good to begin with and of course the Red Army also wrecked everything it could while withdrawing as per Stalin’s scorched earth policy.

So the German forces only had just enough food, fuel, clothes, etc for their own use. While still suffering tens of thousands of casualties from malnourishment, frostbite and infectious disease. In that kind of situation it becomes more understandable that feeding prisoners wasn’t the top priority.

Not feeding them was of course a war crime technically speaking and certainly a massive source of human suffering. Even Hitler himself actually complained about it to the generals when he found out the truth (although partly because he wanted to use the prisoners for labor and couldn’t when they were dead). But given the situation it seems pretty clear it wasn’t just genocidal malice like some modern leftists interpret it.

Similarly hundreds of thousands of Japanese starved to death during the American occupation of Japan after World war II. But no one (in the West at least) calls that a genocide.

In other words: I agree with you as far as the facts go but there is a lot of context surrounding them that’s usually kept out of the overview history courses.

I am a regular reader of Mr. Derbyshire’s, and I agree with him on lots of things. After reading this offering I am content to remain a reader. I would hate to have to produce a column when I really have nothing to say.

Semi-tangent: a truly astonishing merger of “”data science”” with relativist postmodernism:

https://themarkup.org/prediction-bias/2021/12/02/crime-prediction-software-promised-to-be-free-of-biases-new-data-shows-it-perpetuates-them

Some woke “quant” types did a massive amount of work to prove that predictive AI …. predicts more crimes in black neighborhoods than in white neighborhoods — and that this IN ITSELF counts as “bias.”

They used to try to hand-wave away higher black crime rates as white people’s fault – no more. The entire piece studiously avoids even mentioning any actual crime rates.

We used to think “woke postmodernism can’t ruin the quantitative fields” — no more. This is what it looks like.

The whole piece is like a clown world version of Run Unz’s article on race and crime — triumphantly pointing to higher crime rates in black neighborhoods as… proof of racist AI!!