The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRon Unz Archive
American Pravda: Giants Silenced by Pygmies
Media Suppression of Our Leading Journalists and Scholars
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Glenn Greenwald and The Intercept

During the height of the NSA disclosures a few years ago, Glenn Greenwald probably ranked as the world’s most famous journalist, and his entire career had seemed something out of a left-liberal storybook.

Becoming disenchanted with his corporate law career at a top firm, he co-founded a small practice specializing in First Amendment issues, then started a personal blog denouncing the civil liberties violations of the Bush Administration. He gained such recognition for his insightful commentary that he was hired by Salon, the premier leftist webzine, and a couple of years later was recruited by the liberal Guardian, then at the height of its international reputation. His high-profile writings on governmental abuses drew the attention of Edward Snowden, the young NSA whistleblower, who offered him the story of a lifetime, complete with its James Bond flourishes in Hong Kong, and worldwide fame together with a Pulitzer Prize soon followed. No sooner had the echoes of those establishment accolades begun to fade than he returned to the front-pages as co-founder of a new international media organization aimed at providing honest reporting free from any political restrictions, an enterprise backed by a pledge of \$150 million in future funding from a public-spirited Silicon Valley multi-billionaire. That truly seemed a Cinderella tale complete with happy ending, fit to inspire future generations of liberal young journalists.

However, the story didn’t end at that point. The old Rocky & Bullwinkle cartoons of my childhood always included a “Fractured Fairy Tales” segment, providing a satirical account of what probably happened after the curtain came down, and over the past year Greenwald’s personal trajectory unexpectedly swerved into that territory. In late 2020, he angrily departed the sizable anti-censorship media empire he had helped to create because his own writing was being censored, choosing to return to his roots as an independent blogger on the new Substack platform.

As far as I can tell, none of his ideological positions had shifted more than a whit over the last decade or more, but the same views that had once enshrined him as the conquering hero of liberal and left-liberal journalists have now suddenly rendered him toxic and unwanted in those same quarters, with his sole remaining foothold in the traditional media being his regular appearances on Tucker Carlson Tonight, a FoxNews broadcast regularly attacked as representing the most extreme rightwing fringe still found on television. For at least three generations, American liberals had regarded our national security organs—the CIA, the NSA, and the FBI—as some of their greatest villains, with such hostile sentiments reaching their peak just a few years ago when Greenwald and Snowden revealed the massive scale of illegal NSA spying. Yet these days, former high-ranking CIA, NSA, and FBI officials are regularly featured and employed at liberal CNN and MSNBC, while it is Greenwald and Snowden who have become completely unwelcome. So we have a fable that ends with the brave knight slaying the beautiful princess and marrying the hideous dragon, quite an unexpected turn of events.

 

The breaking point for Greenwald came with the 2020 election. During the Democratic primaries, the reigning political oligarchs of the liberal establishment had faced down the unexpectedly strong Bernie Sanders insurgency by desperately employing every possible connivance to drag the widely unpopular Joe Biden across the finish line, then coupled him with Kamala Harris, a candidate so unappealing that she had dropped out of the presidential race long before the first vote had even been cast in Iowa. These arrogant Democratic kingmakers then discovered to their horror that although Donald Trump was greatly disliked, their own hand-picked candidates fell into the same category. An extremely dishonest racial media narrative had provoked America’s greatest wave of urban riots and looting in two generations, and while 200 of our cities suffered such severe unrest, a number of prominent Democratic activists responded to the scenes of chaos and disorder by loudly proclaiming that the solution was to “defund the police.”

Under such circumstances, many voters understandably began to wonder whether Trump—notwithstanding his disastrous four years in office—might actually be the lesser of the two evils. So to forestall that dangerous possibility, Big Media and Big Tech colluded to ensure that Americans voted the right way, imposing the most extreme political censorship of any modern election, yet even so their efforts nearly fell short.

According to the post-election media headlines, Biden won the 2020 race by a substantial margin and Trump’s claims of a stolen presidential vote represented the final proof of his criminal insanity, blatant lies that eventually provoked his deluded followers into storming the Capitol on January 6th. But as I pointed out a few days after that event, the official vote count told an entirely different story:

Incumbent Donald Trump lost Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin by such extremely narrow margins that a swing of less than 22,000 votes in those crucial states would have gotten him reelected. With a record 158 million votes cast, this amounted to a victory margin of around 0.01%. So if just one American voter in 7,000 had changed his mind, Trump might have received another four years in office. One American voter in 7,000.

Such an exceptionally narrow victory is extremely unusual in modern American history…Indeed, with the sole exception of the notorious “dangling chads” Florida decision of the 2000 Bush-Gore election, no American presidential candidate in over 100 years had lost by so narrow a voter margin as Donald J. Trump…

Not long before the election, the hard drive of an abandoned laptop owned by Joe Biden’s son Hunter revealed a gigantic international corruption scheme, quite possibility involving the candidate himself. But the facts of this enormous political scandal were entirely ignored and boycotted by virtually every mainstream media outlet. And once the story was finally published in the pages of the New York Post, America’s oldest newspaper, all links to the Post article and its website were suddenly banned by Twitter, Facebook, and other social media outlets to ensure that the voters remained ignorant until after they had cast their ballots.

Renowned international journalist Glenn Greenwald was hardly a Trump partisan, but he became outraged that the editors of the Intercept, the \$100 million publication he himself had co-founded, refused to allow him to cover that massive media scandal, and he angrily resigned in protest. In effect, America’s media and tech giants formed a united front to steal the election and somehow drag the crippled Biden/Harris ticket across the finish line.

The Hunter Biden corruption scandal seemed about as serious as any in modern presidential election history and Biden’s official victory margin was just 0.01%. So if the American voters had been allowed to learn the truth, Trump almost certainly would have won the election, quite possibly in an Electoral College landslide. Given these facts, anyone who continues to deny that the election was stolen from Trump is simply being ridiculous.

 

Although Greenwald was certainly the most prominent liberal journalist to find himself censored and left ideologically homeless for remaining true to his longstanding principles, other significant figures shared his plight. During the Financial Meltdown a decade ago, Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone had gained widespread attention for his trenchant description of Goldman Sachs as “a great vampire-squid” and during his years as a Middle East correspondent for the New York Times, Chris Hedges had become a folk-hero to the Left for his incisive reporting on the plight of the Palestinians, with his later books cementing that reputation. In the wake of Greenwald’s angry departure from the Intercept, these two individuals spent a half-hour condemning the severe regime of self-censorship that was increasingly constricting the world of mainstream American journalism, with the conversation taking place on Russia’s RT channel, the only venue that would permit such a candid discussion. And Taibbi soon joined Greenwald in making his new home on Substack.

As the first anniversary of his personal strike for editorial freedom came around, Greenwald published a very long and interesting column analyzing what had happened, including an examination of the underlying problems he had faced at his own publication.

His difficulties had begun in 2015 with the rise of Donald Trump, a development that provoked a hysterical reaction in the establishment wings of both the Democratic and Republican parties, which became far more severe after Trump’s unexpected 2016 victory over Hillary Clinton.

Instead of asking themselves why they and their policies had grown so unpopular that a brash outsider who had been massively outspent on advertising could win, leading Democrats instead curled themselves into a fetal ball, adopting the lunatic excuse that Russian President Vladimir Putin had arranged Trump’s elevation, somehow managing to overcome their multi-billion-dollar presidential campaign with the help of a few thousand dollars of display ads on Facebook.

Only individuals with no sense of reality or no self-respect could swallow such absurdity with a straight face, but those debilitating conditions turned out to be widespread within our establishment media and political worlds, and this bizarre Russiagate narrative dominated the first couple of years of the Trump presidency, reducing American politics to a laughingstock. Those few prominent journalists such as Greenwald who refused to endorse such conspiratorial nonsense and pointed to the total lack of supporting evidence were increasingly ostracized as heretics and excluded from most mainstream outlets.

Greenwald provided a very revealing analysis of the internal dynamics at his own publication, The Intercept, so lavishly funded by its billionaire-donor Pierre Omidyar. All of us have particular areas of focus and expertise, possessing solid knowledge in those matters while remaining ignorant and easily misled in others. So while Omidyar probably had a good personal understanding of technology, business, and investment, he was politically unsophisticated and therefore accepted the overwhelming media narrative that Russia with Trump as its agent was plotting to subvert our American freedoms, just as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN all loudly proclaimed. Over the years I have had a few dealings with individuals very high in the worlds of business and finance, and in most cases I think their political sophistication approximated that of your pleasant next-door neighbor, so Greenwald’s account rings very true to me.

Shrewd political operatives are always seeking out such wealthy, public-spirited individuals, hoping to help lighten the burdensome weight of their excessive bank balances, and Omidyar soon became a leading funder of the various organizations established to save our country from the looming Russian takeover, including those staffed by the Bush Neocons whose horrific policies had originally inspired Greenwald’s own journalism.

Outside observers began noting the considerable irony that Greenwald had become one of the foremost critics of his own patron’s political organizations, and wondered how much longer such apparent insubordination would be tolerated. To Omidyar’s enormous personal credit, he repeatedly emphasized that the journalists he supported had the absolute right to take whatever positions they wished even if these directly contradicted his own personal beliefs, and he never hinted that Greenwald should curb his outspokenness.

But star reporters with global reputations may be willing to take professional risks that their less talented counterparts would shun, and Greenwald was much less kind in describing the behavior of his colleagues on the Intercept, especially the very well paid and top-heavy senior editorial staff. After Greenwald’s departure, his ally Max Blumenthal Tweeted out his outrage at the unjustified salaries of Omidyar’s beneficiaries:

These are difficult times for the journalistic profession, with low salaries and widespread layoffs, but so long as Omidyar’s funding continued, the employees of the Intercept enjoyed lavish compensation, generous expense accounts, and total job security despite the extremely meager readership of their uninspiring output. Therefore, as Greenwald explained, their entire writing became directed at a total audience of one, Pierre Omidyar, who constituted the god of their universe, and they naturally catered to every whim of his views, as regularly revealed on his Twitter feed. If the billionaire’s swarm of courtiers and consultants had persuaded him that Trump and Russia were the greatest twin threats to American freedom, the writers and editors drawing his paychecks would eagerly produce a mountain of words saying exactly that. Applying another one of Greenwald’s metaphors, they realized that they had been lucky enough to win the Omidyar Lottery, and were fearful of risking that golden meal-ticket.

And although he is too charitable to say so, I think Greenwald must have realized that his colleagues probably considered him a dangerous threat to their own job security. By a very wide margin, he was the most prominent journalist on Omidyar’s payroll, and perhaps at some point his argument that Russiagate was indeed a ridiculous hoax might carry the day in the public arena. But if the naive billionaire eventually concluded that he had been hoodwinked, he might grow angry at the legions of his well-paid yes-men who had spent years participating in that deception, and perhaps cancel their generous sinecures.

Julian Assange and WikiLeaks

Greenwald may have been cast into the outer darkness by most of the mainstream liberal establishment, but he ultimately suffered little damage. His angry departure from the Intercept unleashed a media thunderclap, and from the moment he regained his editorial freedom on Substack, he began producing a series of lengthy and remarkably incisive columns, so that within a couple of weeks I read more of his work than I had in the previous five or six years. Others seem to have had the same reaction, and his personal Substack subscription revenue quickly exceeded a million dollars a year, an achievement that surely aroused enormous envy from the multitude of timorous and mercenary journalists content to churn out safe and inoffensive blather.

But while Greenwald probably ranked as the world’s most famous journalist, he was always paired in my mind with the world’s most famous publisher, and the latter had suffered a far worse fate the previous year. On April 11, 2019 British police physically dragged Julian Assange, bearded and disheveled, out of the room in London’s Ecuadorean Embassy that had become his refuge turned prison cell during the previous seven years.

Assange had founded the WikiLeaks website in 2006, allowing disgruntled individuals to anonymously deposit confidential information embarrassing to governments and other powerful entities, with that content then made available to journalists and activists across the world. In 2010, an American intelligence analyst had provided a huge cache of Iraq and Afghanistan War documents and videos that rocketed the website to worldwide fame and inflicted a massive propaganda defeat upon our national security establishment. Assange and his tiny band of volunteer collaborators immediately became the toast of left-liberals in America and throughout the world, hailed as a journalistic pioneer and hero. Such strong public support partly shielded Assange from immediate retaliation, but the minions of our Deep State regarded him as their sworn enemy, and they relentlessly began seeking revenge.

Allegations of Assange’s sexual misconduct while visiting Sweden led to his late 2010 detention in Britain, and his supporters correctly suspected the entire judicial maneuver was merely a ploy to have him extradited to stand trial in America. Facing a losing legal battle, he broke the terms of his bail in 2012 and sought sanctuary at the local Ecuadorean Embassy, whose government granted him asylum. Over the years, Greenwald and numerous others have noted that Assange’s publication of confidential documents was no different than the regular activities of ordinary journalists and in 2013 the U.S. Justice Department even admitted that fact, but our national security establishment still sought to make an example of him as a powerful deterrent to others.

The political landscape drastically changed in 2016 when WikiLeaks published a huge trove of Democratic Party emails, including revelations that the DNC leadership had collaborated with Hillary Clinton to defeat Bernie Sanders. This confidential material proved extremely embarrassing to the Clinton campaign as it was released during the months prior to the November vote and certainly contributed to Trump’s upset victory. As a result, Democratic partisans and the liberal establishment began regarding Assange as their enemy.

Following the disclosures, the DNC claimed that its servers had been hacked by Russian spies, who then provided the material to WikiLeaks in order to assist Trump, and this became a major pillar of the subsequent Russiagate narrative in our media. The CIA and other intelligence agencies publicly endorsed that accusation of Russian involvement in American politics, an important step in the formation of what amounted to a Democrat/CIA/NSA/FBI political alliance hostile to both Trump and Russia.

However, various individuals associated with WikiLeaks suggested a different story. Not long after the original release of the emails, Assange strongly hinted that instead of having been obtained by overseas hackers, the material had actually been leaked by a disgruntled DNC staffer named Seth Rich, who had been murdered soon afterward, and WikiLeaks offered a \$20,000 reward for information on that unsolved DC street killing. Although the mainstream media fiercely denounced such allegations as a ridiculous “conspiracy theory,” they were taken up by many rightwing activists and Trump partisans, and the details of the case fill an entire 10,000 word Wikipedia page entitled “The Murder of Seth Rich,” which includes more than 150 references.

The controversy is a complex one, with enormous numbers of claims and counter-claims, and I haven’t devoted even a fraction of the time necessary to unravel it. But the total collapse of the remainder of the Russiagate narrative leaves me skeptical about this element. Furthermore, Craig Murray, a former British ambassador and close WikiLeaks ally, generally strikes me as a credible individual, and back in 2016 he claimed from personal knowledge that the DNC documents had been leaked by an angry Democratic whistleblower rather than hacked by foreign agents, while last year he further emphasized the highly-suspicious nature of Rich’s murder and the new evidence that the FBI had been taking that theory seriously.

We must consider statistics and unlikely coincidences. There were only 135 DC homicides that year, and the victims were almost entirely restricted to the city’s impoverished non-white population or its criminal underclass. Indeed, although the city is still dangerous it wouldn’t surprise me if in 2016 Rich were the only middle-class white in DC randomly murdered while innocently walking the streets. The fact that he was a DNC insider and a technically-savvy Sanders partisan who died in an unsolved street killing so soon after the documents in his office were leaked certainly raises large suspicions. Billions of dollars were spent to put Hillary Clinton in the White House, and her victory would have meant many thousands of good jobs and appointments for her army of loyal camp-followers, plus oceans of possible graft, so the motive would be a strong one. As I speculated earlier this year:

Incidentally, I’d guess that DC is a very easy place to arrange a killing, given that until the heavy gentrification of the last dozen years or so, it was one of America’s street-murder capitals. It seems perfectly plausible that some junior DNC staffer was at dinner somewhere, endlessly cursing Seth Rich for having betrayed his party and endangered Hillary’s election, when one of his friends said he knew somebody who’d be willing to “take care of the problem” for a thousand bucks…

I should also mention the conclusions of some prominent intelligence experts whose opinion I take seriously. Ray McGovern had served for more than a quarter-century as a CIA analyst, specializing in the Soviet Union, and by the late 1980s was chairing the National Intelligence Estimate and personally briefing President George H.W. Bush, while William Binney had been a top NSA intelligence officer, retiring in 2001. In 2017, the two of them, backed by dozens of other veteran American intelligence professionals, raised serious doubts about whether the WikiLeaks documents had been transferred locally to a thumb-drive rather than pulled across the Internet, suggesting that such technical evidence favored a leak rather than the hack proposed by the Russiagate narrative. Their claims have been disputed and the software evidence challenged, but the fact that such striking findings by these senior experts were almost totally ignored by our mainstream media demonstrated its enormous bias on the subject.

Assange’s dissemination of pilfered Democratic Party materials had probably helped to elect Trump in November 2016, thereby enraging liberals and Democrats. But just a few months later, the continuing hostility of America’s national security apparatus had been reignited when WikiLeaks began releasing the CIA’s “Vault 7” documents, providing the technical details of hacking capabilities and software tools targeting smartphones, computers, and other Internet devices. This represented the largest and most damaging leak in the history of the CIA, and its leadership publicly declared WikiLeaks a hostile intelligence service, while quietly considering plans to kidnap or assassinate Assange.

Democratic Party political operatives and our intelligence services each possess a great deal of influence over the American mainstream media, and with both those groups having become so intensely hostile to Assange’s activities, the rapid transformation of his public image from hero to villain became almost assured. Many of the same journalists or publications that had once lionized him or even benefited from direct collaboration now regularly blackened his name and ignored his difficult plight.

Prof. Stephen Cohen and The Nation

The sudden burst of intense hostility towards Russia that swept through liberal circles during the mid-2010s had earlier eroded the position of another important figure once high within the liberal foreign policy firmament.

For decades Prof. Stephen Cohen of Princeton and New York University had ranked as one of America’s leading Russia scholars, and certainly the most prominent such figure in left-liberal circles. As far back as the 1970s his Sovieticus columns had regularly appeared in the pages of The Nation, our premier leftwing opinion magazine, and during the Gorbachev Era and the ensuing collapse of the USSR, I often saw him on the PBS Newshour, debating America’s Soviet policy with his conservative counterparts. Meanwhile, his numerous scholarly books on Soviet and Russian history were respectfully reviewed in elite mainstream publications. Not only was Cohen clearly the foremost Russia expert within the American Left, but no other name of even remotely comparable stature came to mind, and his 1988 second marriage to Katrina vanden Heuvel, who went on to serve as Publisher and Editor of The Nation for nearly a quarter-century, certainly cemented that impression of his influence.

Cohen had devoted his entire career to fostering an amicable relationship between Russia and America. But when Victoria Nuland and other Neocons gained influence during the late Obama Administration, they shattered that dream in an instant by orchestrating the violent early 2014 uprising and coup that replaced Ukraine’s independent-minded government with what amounted to an American quasi-puppet regime. Not only did this development threaten to push NATO to Russia’s border in absolute violation of the guarantees once given to Gorbachev, but it seemed likely to place the West in control of overwhelmingly Russian Crimea, home to Russia’s most important naval base, and only Putin’s quick moves forestalled that risk by restoring the peninsula to his country through annexation. A violent civil war and secessionist movement in the remainder of Ukraine quickly broke out, costing the lives of many thousands of ethnic Russians over the next few years, while periodically threatening to ignite a full scale war between Russia and the West.

Although this anti-Russian reversal seemed to attract near-unanimous support from America’s political and media establishment, in May 2014 Cohen had joined with his wife in publishing a Nation column denouncing the sudden eruption of this new Cold War against Russia. A few months later, Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 was shot down over Eastern Ukraine, and although I and others emphasized the uncertainty about which side had been responsible, virtually our entire media blamed pro-Russian forces, harshly condemning Cohen when he quietly expressed serious doubts. Indeed, his Wikipedia page catalogs the numerous attacks he endured, even citing a Chronicle of Higher Education article claiming that his writings had provoked the Nation‘s staffers into “openly revolting against the magazine’s pro-Russian tilt.” These lock-step young liberal and left-liberal journalists condemned him for continuing to advocate rational policies towards a Russia whose huge nuclear arsenal could annihilate our own country. After the 2016 election, nearly all Democrats eagerly embraced the Russiagate hoax and the hostility towards naysayers such as Cohen became even more strident. Except for his regular weekly appearances on New York’s John Batchelor radio show, hosted by one of his former Princeton students, he was virtually excluded from the American media.

A lengthy 2017 Slate interview by Isaac Chotiner typified his treatment. The author expressed stunned disbelief that Cohen did not automatically accept the factual claims about Russia, Russiagate, Trump, and Putin that were so universally believed and promoted within mainstream liberal circles, failing to recognize that a scholar with decades of expertise in that country and an ability to read Russian was able to tap non-American sources of information.

Just a few weeks earlier, Times media columnist Jim Rutenberg had published a long article in his own newspaper, describing his own visit to Moscow and his astonishment that the media there presented an “alternative truth” so different from his own belief that the Russian-backed Syrian government had recently launched a poison gas attack against its own people. Days before that article ran, we had published a 6,900 word article by eminent national security scholar Theodore A. Postol of MIT, heavily debunking the reality of that alleged Syrian gas attack, but since such contrary views never penetrated into Rutenberg’s media-bubble, he was entirely unaware of them, and having begun his journalistic career as a gossip-columnist, perhaps he anyway wouldn’t have known the difference. So Chotiner read Rutenberg and Rutenberg read Chotiner, and the resulting incestuous cult of ignorance had no place for the dissenting views of genuine experts such as Cohen or Postol.

In his 2017 Chotiner interview, Cohen emphasized that the combination of a relentless media demonization of Putin’s Russia and the creation of potential military flashpoints in Syria and Ukraine was producing an extremely dangerous world situation, a warning he regularly repeated in his weekly radio discussions. In one of his last broadcasts prior to his death from cancer last year at age 81, Cohen suggested that our current confrontation with Russia might be even more perilous than what we had faced at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, yet almost none of our insouciant media outlets recognized that our government policies were threatening to unleash a new world war.

Unfortunately, the editorial decisions of Cohen’s own magazine may have considerably diminished the impact of his very important message. The scholar was arguing our media and political policies were raising the terrible risk of war with nuclear-armed Russia, yet I don’t recall any Nation cover-stories highlighting that danger, and although its website hosted his weekly podcasts and very occasionally ran his articles, such material was usually buried in obscurity so that it attracted minimal coverage and discussion. Although this defensiveness may have been necessary to avoid a backlash from angry subscribers, the obvious result was to minimize the gravity of Cohen’s message. Why should Nation readers take his dire warnings of global war seriously if Nation editors apparently did not? Indeed, once I made arrangements in late 2019 to begin republishing and regularly featuring Cohen’s columns and radio shows, they attracted far more interest and supportive comments on our website than they did on his own, demonstrating the huge ideological hurdles he had faced from his own community.

Cohen may or may not have been aware of the eerie parallel between his own predicament and a similar situation that had unfolded at that same publication around the time of his birth in 1938. From 1900 to the mid-1930s, the Nation had been owned and edited by Oswald Garrison Villard, a name now almost forgotten but once one of the leading liberal figures of the era, co-founder of the NAACP and grandson of famed Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, while also ranking as one of America’s foremost anti-imperialists and anti-militarists. His father had been a German immigrant, and when he published writings critical of American involvement in World War I, his magazine was legally suppressed by the harsh wartime censorship laws, being temporarily banned from the US mails. But by the mid-1920s, the overwhelming majority of both elite and ordinary Americans had swung around to his position, and concluded that his opposition to our participation in the Great War had been correct all along.

Although he finally sold the Nation in 1935 during the depths of the Great Depression, the magazine he had run for more than three decades continued to feature his weekly commentary, which strongly supported FDR’s New Deal policies and fiercely criticized Hitler and the Nazis. But near the end of the 1930s, he grew alarmed that another world war might be on the horizon, once again involving America, and his anti-war views began sharply diverging from those of the other writers, so that his decades-long column was finally dropped in 1940. Diverting a sweeping ideological tide had proved as difficult for Villard in the late 1930s as it became for Cohen three generations later.

Sydney Schanberg, John McCain, and the Vietnam POWs

Cohen’s dire warnings about America’s anti-Russia policies gained little traction in the public debate, partly because the dismissive placement of his articles severely undercut their impact. About a decade earlier I had come across a very similar example, also involving the Nation:

As the winner of the Pulitzer Prize and two George Polk awards, the late Sydney Schanberg was widely regarded as one of the greatest American war correspondents of the twentieth century. His exploits during our ill-fated Indo-Chinese War had become the basis of the Oscar-winning film The Killing Fields, which probably established him as the most famous journalist in America after Woodward and Bernstein of Watergate fame, and he had also served as a top editor at The New York Times. A decade ago, he published his greatest expose, providing a mountain of evidence that America had deliberately left behind hundreds of POWs in Vietnam and he fingered then-presidential candidate John McCain as the central figure in the subsequent official cover-up of that monstrous betrayal. The Arizona senator had traded on his national reputation as our best-known former POW to bury the story of those abandoned prisoners, permitting America’s political establishment to escape serious embarrassment. As a result, Sen. McCain earned the lush rewards of our generous ruling elites, much like his own father Admiral John S. McCain, Sr., who had led the cover-up of the deliberate 1967 Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, which killed or wounded over 200 American servicemen.

As publisher of The American Conservative, I ran Schanberg’s remarkable piece as a cover story, and across several websites over the years it has surely been read many hundreds of thousands of times, including a huge spike around the time of McCain’s death. I therefore find it rather difficult to believe that the many journalists investigating McCain’s background might have remained unaware of this material. Yet no hints of these facts were provided in any of the articles appearing in any remotely prominent media outlet as can be verified by searching for web pages containing “McCain and Schanberg” dated around the time of the Senator’s passing.

Schanberg’s remarkable material surely constituted one of the greatest American scandals of the second half of the twentieth century but despite his repeated efforts, almost our entire media avoided considering the information. As he recounted in 2010:

In recent years, I have offered my POW stories to a long list of editors of leading newspapers, magazines, and significant websites that do original reporting. And when they decline my offerings, I have urged them to do their own POW investigation with their own staff under their own supervision.

The list of these news organizations includes the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, New York magazine, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, Harper’s, Rolling Stone, Mother Jones, Vanity Fair, Salon, Slate, Talking Points Memo, ProPublica, Politico, and others. To my knowledge, none have attempted or produced a piece.

Their explanations for avoiding the story have never rung true. I have chosen not to use the names of the editors or the texts of their rejection messages, which could embarrass some of them. This is not a personal difference, but a professional one. I have decided instead to summarize their comments.

Some said they didn’t have enough staff to do the story. Others said the story was “old”—even though we have never found out what happened to the missing prisoners. I sensed often that these news people were afraid—that the story was too hot for them to handle because it could cause too many repercussions. Aren’t journalists supposed to look into difficult stories and the wrongdoings of important people? Aren’t they also supposed to expect blowback?

I asked these editors about the mountain of hard evidence attesting to the existence of abandoned men. In particular, I asked about the witness evidence, the 1,600 firsthand live sightings of American prisoners after the war. Did these journalists believe that every last one of the 1,600 witnesses was lying or mistaken? Many of these Vietnamese witnesses were interrogated by U.S. intelligence officers. Many were given lie-detector tests. They passed. The interrogators’ reports graded the bulk of the witnesses “credible.” A few of the journalists I have nudged to go after the story acknowledged that their paper or magazine or TV network had “blind spots.” But again and again, the vast majority have hemmed and hawed and said they had “doubts” about the POW information. Isn’t doing the reporting the best way to confirm or dispel doubts?

I would run through the long gamut of known intelligence—official radio intercepts of prisoners being moved to and from labor camps in Laos, satellite photos, conversations overheard by Secret Service agents inside the White House, ransom offers from Hanoi through third parties, sworn public testimony by three U.S. defense secretaries who served during the Vietnam era that “men were left behind.” The press wasn’t and isn’t interested.

Sen. John McCain had been a central figure in the POW Cover-Up, and his nomination as the Republican candidate for president in 2008 seemed to make it impossible for the media to ignore Schanberg’s remarkable findings as I explained in my introduction to our cover symposium:

In the closing days of the 2008 presidential campaign, I clicked an ambiguous link on an obscure website and stumbled into a parallel universe.

During the previous two years of that long election cycle, the media narrative surrounding Sen. John McCain had been one of unblemished heroism and selfless devotion to his fellow servicemen. Thousands of stories on television and in print had told of his brutal torture at the hands of his North Vietnamese captors, his steely refusal to crack, and his later political career aimed at serving the needs of fellow Vietnam veterans. This storyline had first reached the national stage during his 2000 campaign, then returned with even greater force as he successfully sought the 2008 Republican nomination. Seemingly accepted by all, this history became a centerpiece of his campaign. McCain’s supporters touted his heroism as proof that he possessed the character to be entrusted with America’s highest office, while his detractors merely sought to change the subject.

Once I clicked that link, I encountered a very different John McCain…

Yet what I found most remarkable about Schanberg’s essay were not its explosive historical claims but the absolute silence with which they were received in the mainstream media. In 2008, John McCain’s heroic war record and personal patriotism were central to his quest for supreme power—a goal he came very close to achieving. But when one of America’s most eminent journalists published an exhaustive report that the candidate had instead served as one of the leading figures in a monumental act of national treachery, our media took no notice. McCain’s public critics and the operatives of his Democratic opponent might eagerly seize upon every rumor that the senator had had a private lunch with a disreputable corporate lobbyist, but they ignored documented claims that he had covered up the killing of hundreds of American POWs. These allegations were serious enough and sufficiently documented to warrant national attention—yet they received none.

Despite the enormous relevance to the 2008 Republican presidential campaign, almost every publication in America still shut its doors to Schanberg’s explosive material. As a highly-ideological and partisan magazine, the Nation had hardly been his first choice—or even his fifth—but only its editors eventually agreed to run Schanberg’s massive expose against the Republican candidate whom they were already attacking on all other possible grounds. However, once they did so, they sat on the story and repeatedly delayed publication, apparently fearful of the controversy that the article would unleash, while demanding that the text be cut and cut again. Thus, Schanberg’s landmark expose appeared only in severely mutilated form, slashed by 70% in length and released only a few weeks before the vote. The piece was buried on a couple of inside pages, while the website version was hedged about with the disclaimers of opposing perspectives.

By running the piece in such an attenuated condition and understated manner, the Nation editors were strongly suggesting that they themselves seriously doubted its conclusions, naturally raising the question of why any of their readers should react differently. I think that an article with such massive implications should either appear as a high-profile cover-story or else be rejected outright. And for the record, I should note that the Nation’s Executive Editor at the time was the same Betsy Reed whom Greenwald and his allies would treat with such scorn at the Intercept a dozen years later. The complete version of Schanberg’s work only survived because Hamilton Fish was willing to run it separately on his affiliated Nation Institute website, which is where I encountered it and later arranged for its republication.

Nicholas Wade and the Origins of Covid

A dozen years after Schanberg had encountered such enormous obstacles in getting his important work published, similar difficulties befell one of his former Times colleagues, but this time ending with a surprising twist.

Nicholas Wade certainly ranks as one of America’s most distinguished science journalists, having spent forty-five years at Nature, Science, and the New York Times, including serving as the Science Editor of our national newspaper of record. He is also an award-winning author, whose numerous books that have attracted glowing praise.

After retiring from the Times in 2012, he began focusing entirely upon book projects, but the global Covid epidemic that began in early 2020 naturally attracted his attention, and he gradually became skeptical of the media coverage, which almost uniformly portrayed the virus as natural. Instead, his review of the published sources together with his own analysis convinced him that the virus that had already killed many hundreds of thousands of Americans and millions around the world had probably been produced in a laboratory. Finally, on May 2, 2021, he quietly released his closely-reasoned 11,000 word article on the Medium blogging website, lacking any endorsements or prestigious imprimatur, and it was republished a couple of days later by the low-traffic website of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:

As I described what followed:

Despite such extremely inauspicious beginnings and the cautious and subdued tone of his text, the consequences were dramatic. Although nearly all the facts and evidence that Wade discussed had already been publicly available for most of the past year, his careful analysis and considerable journalistic credibility quickly transformed the intellectual landscape. He began his long article by explaining that from February 2020 onward a huge ideological bubble had been inflated by political propaganda masquerading as science, a bubble that was afterwards maintained through a combination of journalistic cowardice and incompetence. President Donald Trump had proclaimed that the virus was artificial, so our media therefore insisted that it must be natural, even if all the evidence seemed to suggest otherwise.

The floodgates soon opened and over the next few weeks far more was written on that subject than had been produced during the previous twelve months combined. In just one example, Donald G. McNeil, Jr., the forty-five year veteran of the Times who had spearheaded his paper’s Covid coverage, published a striking mea culpa and embraced the lab-leak hypothesis, admitting that he and other Timesmen had previously dismissed the idea as “far right” lunacy, closely associated with “Pizzagate, the Plandemic, Kung Flu, Q-Anon, Stop the Steal, and the January 6 Capitol invasion.”

Within another week, Glenn Greenwald was highlighting the ongoing upheaval in the views of America’s media and scientific establishment:

By May 26th, the White House announced that President Joe Biden had ordered America’s intelligence agencies to produce a comprehensive report on the true origins of the Covid outbreak, and a couple of days later, the Wall Street Journal carried the headline “Facebook Ends Ban on Posts Asserting Covid-19 Was Man-Made.” So in less than one month a self-published article had already changed what nearly three billion individuals around the world were allowed to read and write.

A media analyst subsequently described the stiking impact Wade’s article was having upon other journalists:

Notable left-wing journalists like Thomas Frank (Guardian, 6/1/21) and Jonathan Cook (6/1/21) have cited Wade’s article as having “dynamited” their “complacency” on the debate, with Cook claiming that it “blew open the doors that had been kept tightly shut on the lab-leak hypothesis.”

Considering the millions of deaths and massive disruption, the Covid epidemic is arguably the most important global event since World War II. Wade’s lengthy article was certainly not the sole cause of the sweeping reassessment of its origins, but it did catalyze the process, being widely cited by opinion-leaders to explain their changed perspective. Given the importance of the topic, the magnitude of the public reversal, and the speed with which the transformation occurred, I can think of no other article in recent decades that had a greater immediate impact upon the world.

But there was also a revealing backstory to its appearance. I later learned that during 2021, Wade had actually submitted his seminal piece to a wide range of different publications across the ideological spectrum, all of which rejected it, so that he ultimately abandoned his efforts and simply posted what he had written on the Medium website, where he assumed it would vanish without a trace. Thus, the obstacles he faced were quite similar to those that Schanberg had encountered a decade earlier with his own important analysis, but this time events followed the happy ending of a Hollywood script. Apparently the most significant articles by distinguished journalists are sometimes the ones that meet the greatest resistance from timorous and complacent editors.

Lt. Gen. William Odom and the Iraq War

The crippled version of Schanberg’s important article had appeared in the October 6, 2008 edition of The Nation, buried deep in the back pages. At that time, I was entirely unfamiliar with either the author or his remarkable findings, but by coincidence just the previous week I had published my first article in many years, a cover story in The American Conservative that paid tribute to an individual whose equally fierce determination to speak the truth on crucial matters had led to his own blacklisting from the mainstream media.

My old friend Bill Odom, the three star general who ran the NSA for Ronald Reagan, had spent years as one of the most respected figures on national security issues within the East Coast establishment, directing those studies at the Hudson Institute while serving as an adjunct professor at Yale. But once the Neocons seized control of the Bush Administration in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and moved our country towards its disastrous Iraq War, his strong opposition to that misbegotten project led to his complete media blacklisting, forcing him to publish his dissenting views on a small website rather than in the pages of our most influential newspapers. As a consequence, our country careened towards that foreign policy disaster without any adequate public debate:

The circumstances surrounding our Iraq War demonstrate this, certainly ranking it among the strangest military conflicts of modern times. The 2001 attacks in America were quickly ascribed to the radical Islamists of al-Qaeda, whose bitterest enemy in the Middle East had always been Saddam Hussein’s secular Baathist regime in Iraq. Yet through misleading public statements, false press leaks, and even forged evidence such as the “yellowcake” documents, the Bush administration and its neoconservative allies utilized the compliant American media to persuade our citizens that Iraq’s nonexistent WMDs posed a deadly national threat and required elimination by war and invasion. Indeed, for several years national polls showed that a large majority of conservatives and Republicans actually believed that Saddam was the mastermind behind 9/11 and the Iraq War was being fought as retribution. Consider how bizarre the history of the 1940s would seem if America had attacked China in retaliation for Pearl Harbor.

True facts were easily available to anyone paying attention in the years after 2001, but most Americans do not bother and simply draw their understanding of the world from what they are told by the major media, which overwhelmingly—almost uniformly—backed the case for war with Iraq; the talking heads on TV created our reality. Prominent journalists across the liberal and conservative spectrum eagerly published the most ridiculous lies and distortions passed on to them by anonymous sources, and stampeded Congress down the path to war.

The result was what my late friend Lt. Gen. Bill Odom rightly called the “greatest strategic disaster in United States history.” American forces suffered tens of thousands of needless deaths and injuries, while our country took a huge step toward national bankruptcy. Economics Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz and others have estimated that with interest the total long-term cost of our two recent wars may reach as high as \$5 or \$6 trillion, or as much as \$50,000 per American household, mostly still unpaid. Meanwhile, economist Edward Wolff has calculated that the Great Recession and its aftermath cut the personal net worth of the median American household to \$57,000 in 2010 from a figure nearly twice as high three years earlier. Comparing these assets and liabilities, we see that the American middle class now hovers on the brink of insolvency, with the cost of our foreign wars being a leading cause.

But no one involved in the debacle ultimately suffered any serious consequences, and most of the same prominent politicians and highly paid media figures who were responsible remain just as prominent and highly paid today. For most Americans, reality is whatever our media organs tell us, and since these have largely ignored the facts and adverse consequences of our wars in recent years, the American people have similarly forgotten. Recent polls show that only half the public today believes that the Iraq War was a mistake.

Author James Bovard has described our society as an “attention deficit democracy,” and the speed with which important events are forgotten once the media loses interest might surprise George Orwell.

And Odom was just one of many who suffered that fate as I noted a couple of years ago:

In the patriotic fervor following the 9/11 attacks, few national media figures dared challenge the plans and proposals of the Bush Administration, with Paul Krugman’s column at the Times being the rare exception; expressing “unpatriotic sentiments” as very broadly defined could severely impact a career. This was especially true of the electronic media, with its vastly greater reach and therefore subject to more extreme pressure. During 2002 and 2003, it was very uncommon to find an Iraq War naysayer anywhere on network television or among the fledgling cable alternatives, and even MSNBC, the least popular and most liberal of the latter soon began a sharp ideological crackdown.

For decades, Phil Donahue had pioneered the daytime television talk show, and in 2002 he revived it to high ratings on MSNBC, but in early 2003 his show was canceled, with a leaked memo indicated that his opposition to the looming war was the cause. Conservative Pat Buchanan and liberal Bill Press, both Iraq War critics, hosted a top-rated debate show on the same network, allowing them to spar with their more pro-Bush opponents, but it too was cancelled for similar reasons. If the cable network’s most famous hosts and highest rated programs were subject to summary termination, lesser ranking personalities surely drew the appropriate conclusions about the risks of crossing particular ideological lines.

America’s Great Purge of the 1940s

Although the Internet was merely in its infancy during the years after 9/11 and still lacked the political weight of traditional television and newspapers, it did exist, so individuals purged for their political opinions could make their views known or at least explain what had befallen them. But in previous generations, no such effective means of direct communication was available, and dissenting voices simply disappeared, with few members of the educated public becoming aware of what had taken place.

Even most well-informed Americans have probably lived their lives in considerable ignorance of some of the great ideological purges of their own country’s twentieth century history, notably that of the early 1940s and World War II. Two decades ago I began building a digitized content system incorporating the near-complete archives of many of our leading periodicals of the last 150 years, and the scale of those past events soon became very apparent to me, as I have described:

I sometimes imagined myself a little like an earnest young Soviet researcher of the 1970s who began digging into the musty files of long-forgotten Kremlin archives and made some stunning discoveries. Trotsky was apparently not the notorious Nazi spy and traitor portrayed in all the textbooks, but instead had been the right-hand man of the sainted Lenin himself during the glorious days of the great Bolshevik Revolution, and for some years afterward had remained in the topmost ranks of the Party elite. And who were these other figures—Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Rykov—who also spent those early years at the very top of the Communist hierarchy? In history courses, they had barely rated a few mentions, as minor Capitalist agents who were quickly unmasked and paid for their treachery with their lives. How could the great Lenin, father of the Revolution, have been such an idiot to have surrounded himself almost exclusively with traitors and spies?

But unlike their Stalinist analogs from a couple of years earlier, the American victims who disappeared around 1940 were neither shot nor Gulaged, but merely excluded from the mainstream media that defines our reality, thereby being blotted out from our memory so that future generations gradually forgot that they had ever lived.

A leading example of such a “disappeared” American was journalist John T. Flynn, probably almost unknown today but whose stature had once been enormous. As I wrote last year:

So imagine my surprise at discovering that throughout the 1930s he had been one of the single most influential liberal voices in American society, a writer on economics and politics whose status may have roughly approximated that of Paul Krugman, though with a strong muck-raking tinge. His weekly column in The New Republic allowed him to serve as a lodestar for America’s progressive elites, while his regular appearances in Colliers, an illustrated mass circulation weekly reaching many millions of Americans, provided him a platform comparable to that of an major television personality in the later heyday of network TV.

To some extent, Flynn’s prominence may be objectively quantified. A few years ago, I happened to mention his name to a well-read and committed liberal born in the 1930s, and she unsurprisingly drew a complete blank, but wondered if he might have been a little like Walter Lippmann, the very famous columnist of that era. When I checked, I saw that across the hundreds of periodicals in my archiving system, there were just 23 articles by Lippmann from the 1930s but fully 489 by Flynn.

An even stronger American parallel to Taylor was that of historian Harry Elmer Barnes, a figure almost unknown to me, but in his day an academic of great influence and stature:

Imagine my shock at later discovering that Barnes had actually been one of the most frequent early contributors to Foreign Affairs, serving as a primary book reviewer for that venerable publication from its 1922 founding onward, while his stature as one of America’s premier liberal academics was indicated by his scores of appearances in The Nation and The New Republic throughout that decade. Indeed, he is credited with having played a central role in “revising” the history of the First World War so as to remove the cartoonish picture of unspeakable German wickedness left behind as a legacy of the dishonest wartime propaganda produced by the opposing British and American governments. And his professional stature was demonstrated by his thirty-five or more books, many of them influential academic volumes, along with his numerous articles in The American Historical Review, Political Science Quarterly, and other leading journals.

A few years ago I happened to mention Barnes to an eminent American academic scholar whose general focus in political science and foreign policy was quite similar, and yet the name meant nothing. By the end of the 1930s, Barnes had become a leading critic of America’s proposed involvement in World War II, and was permanently “disappeared” as a consequence, barred from all mainstream media outlets, while a major newspaper chain was heavily pressured into abruptly terminating his long-running syndicated national column in May 1940.

Many of Barnes’ friends and allies fell in the same ideological purge, which he described in his own writings and which continued after the end of the war:

Over a dozen years after his disappearance from our national media, Barnes managed to publish Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, a lengthy collection of essays by scholars and other experts discussing the circumstances surrounding America’s entrance into World War II, and have it produced and distributed by a small printer in Idaho. His own contribution was a 30,000 word essay entitled “Revisionism and the Historical Blackout” and discussed the tremendous obstacles faced by the dissident thinkers of that period.

The book itself was dedicated to the memory of his friend, historian Charles A. Beard. Since the early years of the 20th century, Beard had ranked as an intellectual figure of the greatest stature and influence, co-founder of The New School in New York and serving terms as president of both The American Historical Association and The American Political Science Association. As a leading supporter of the New Deal economic policies, he was overwhelmingly lauded for his views.

Yet once he turned against Roosevelt’s bellicose foreign policy, publishers shut their doors to him, and only his personal friendship with the head of the Yale University Press allowed his critical 1948 volume President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War, 1941 to even appear in print. Beard’s stellar reputation seems to have begun a rapid decline from that point onward, so that by 1968 historian Richard Hofstadter could write: “Today Beard’s reputation stands like an imposing ruin in the landscape of American historiography. What was once the grandest house in the province is now a ravaged survival”. Indeed, Beard’s once-dominant “economic interpretation of history” might these days almost be dismissed as promoting “dangerous conspiracy theories,” and I suspect few non-historians have even heard of him.

Another major contributor to the Barnes volume was William Henry Chamberlin, who for decades had been ranked among America’s leading foreign policy journalists, with more than 15 books to his credit, most of them widely and favorably reviewed. Yet America’s Second Crusade, his critical 1950 analysis of America’s entry into World War II, failed to find a mainstream publisher, and when it did appear was widely ignored by reviewers. Prior to its publication, his byline had regularly run in our most influential national magazines such as The Atlantic Monthly and Harpers. But afterward, his writing was almost entirely confined to small circulation newsletters and periodicals, appealing to narrow conservative or libertarian audiences.

In these days of the Internet, anyone can easily establish a website to publish his views, thus making them immediately available to everyone in the world. Social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter can bring interesting or controversial material to the attention of millions with just a couple of mouse-clicks, completely bypassing the need for the support of establishmentarian intermediaries. It is easy for us to forget just how extremely challenging the dissemination of dissenting ideas remained back in the days of print, paper, and ink, and recognize that an individual purged from his regular outlet might require many years to regain any significant foothold for the distribution of his work.

During that period, pioneer aviator Charles Lindbergh was a national hero of the greatest stature, regularly ranked among the most admired men in America and the anti-war policies he publicly espoused probably had 80% popular support. But he too fell in that political purge:

Alarmed by their growing fear that America might be drawn into another world war without voters having had any say in the matter, a group of Yale Law students launched an anti-interventionist political organization that they named “The America First Committee,” and it quickly grew to 800,000 members, becoming the largest grass-roots political organization in our national history. Numerous prominent public figures joined or supported it, with the chairman of Sears, Roebuck serving as its head, and its youthful members included future presidents John F. Kennedy and Gerald Ford as well as other notables such as Gore Vidal, Potter Stewart, and Sargent Schriver. Flynn served as chairman of the New York City chapter, and the organization’s leading public spokesman was famed aviator Charles Lindbergh, who for decades had probably ranked as America’s greatest national hero.

Throughout 1941, enormous crowds across the country attended anti-war rallies addressed by Lindbergh and the other leaders, with many millions more listening to the radio broadcasts of the events. Mahl shows that British agents and their American supporters meanwhile continued their covert operations to counter this effort by organizing various political front-groups advocating American military involvement, and employing fair means or foul to neutralize their political opponents. Jewish individuals and organizations seem to have played an enormously disproportionate role in that effort.

At the same time, the Roosevelt Administration escalated its undeclared war against German submarines and other naval forces in the Atlantic, unsuccessfully seeking to provoke an incident that might stampede the country into war. FDR also promoted the most bizarre and ridiculous propaganda inventions aimed at terrifying naive Americans, such as claiming to have proof that the Germans—who possessed no large surface navy and were completely stymied by the English Channel—had formulated concrete plans to leap across two thousand miles of the Atlantic Ocean and seize control of Latin America. British agents supplied some of the crude forgeries he cited as evidence.

These facts, now firmly established by decades of scholarship, provide some necessary context to Lindbergh’s famously controversial speech at an America First rally in September 1941. At that event, he charged that three groups in particular were “pressing this country toward war[:] the British, the Jewish, and the Roosevelt Administration,” and thereby unleashed an enormous firestorm of media attacks and denunciations, including widespread accusations of anti-Semitism and Nazi sympathies. Given the realities of the political situation, Lindbergh’s statement constituted a perfect illustration of Michael Kinsley’s famous quip that “a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth – some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say.” But as a consequence, Lindbergh’s once-heroic reputation suffered enormous and permanent damage, with the campaign of vilification echoing for the remaining three decades of his life, and even well beyond. Although he was not entirely purged from public life, his standing was certainly never even remotely the same.

A.J.P. Taylor and David Irving

The controversies surrounding America’s entrance into World War II had toppled some of our most influential figures in journalism and academia as well as politics, but echoes of that Great Purge also continued into later generations as well.

More than twenty years after the start of that worldwide conflict, renowned Oxford historian A.J.P. Taylor published his classic 1961 work Origins of the Second World War. As I wrote two years ago:

Hitler’s final demand, that 95% German Danzig be returned to Germany just as its inhabitants desired, was an absolutely reasonable one, and only a dreadful diplomatic blunder by the British had led the Poles to refuse the request, thereby provoking the war. The widespread later claim that Hitler sought to conquer the world was totally absurd, and the German leader had actually made every effort to avoid war with Britain or France. Indeed, he was generally quite friendly towards the Poles and had been hoping to enlist Poland as a German ally against the menace of Stalin’s Soviet Union.

The recent 70th anniversary of the outbreak of the conflict that consumed so many tens of millions of lives naturally provoked numerous historical articles, and the resulting discussion led me to dig out my old copy of Taylor’s short volume, which I reread for the first time in nearly forty years. I found it just as masterful and persuasive as I had back in my college dorm room days, and the glowing cover-blurbs suggested some of the immediate acclaim the work had received. The Washington Post lauded the author as “Britain’s most prominent living historian,” World Politics called it “Powerfully argued, brilliantly written, and always persuasive,” The New Statesman, Britain leading leftist magazine, described it as “A masterpiece: lucid, compassionate, beautifully written,” and the august Times Literary Supplement characterized it as “simple, devastating, superlatively readable, and deeply disturbing.” As an international best-seller, it surely ranks as Taylor’s most famous work, and I can easily understand why it was still on my college required reading list nearly two decades after its original publication.

Yet in revisiting Taylor’s ground-breaking study, I made a remarkable discovery. Despite all the international sales and critical acclaim, the book’s findings soon aroused tremendous hostility in certain quarters. Taylor’s lectures at Oxford had been enormously popular for a quarter century, but as a direct result of the controversy “Britain’s most prominent living historian” was summarily purged from the faculty not long afterwards. At the beginning of his first chapter, Taylor had noted how strange he found it that more than twenty years after the start of the world’s most cataclysmic war no serious history had been produced carefully analyzing the outbreak. Perhaps the retaliation that he encountered led him to better understand part of that puzzle.

A generation later, a much more extreme fate claimed one of Taylor’s fellow countrymen in the same academic discipline. With the possible exception of Arnold Toynbee, I think that David Irving probably ranks as the most internationally successful British historian of the last one hundred years, and his ground-breaking archival discoveries will surely constitute a central pillar of our future understanding of World War II long after almost all of his current contemporaries have been forgotten. Having now read a dozen of his important volumes, I can certainly attest to the quality of his work.

But his research findings challenged official orthodoxy even far more strongly than did those of Taylor, and while the latter was merely purged from his quarter-century of teaching at Oxford, Irving was denounced, vilified, and blacklisted from all mainstream publishers, then eventually bankrupted and even imprisoned.

Indeed, Irving has now suffered the fate of a double purge. By the late 1990s his relentless enemies had successfully excluded him from the elite newspapers and book publishers that he had once dominated, but after his riveting public lectures began gaining him a renewed following on Youtube a few years ago, these were also purged from the Internet.

Irving’s towering historical scholarship was regarded as so threatening to our ruling elites that gangs of violent young thugs were enlisted to break up his public talks, and the report of such an attack on a private restaurant in Chicago a dozen years ago was probably the first time I had ever seen mention of “antifa” in print.

Now in his mid-80s, Irving stands at the very twilight of his six decade scholarly career, but his dozens of lengthy historical volumes constitute his legacy, while some of his important lectures from thirty years ago are still available for watching on Bitchute:

Video Link

Video Link

Video Link

The Strategy of Dynamic Silence

The long list of cases I have discussed includes many of our most illustrious journalists, academics, and other public figures, and the reasons they received such treatment is hardly difficult to understand.

Sensible people do not let themselves fall prey to rule by authority, and if the arguments advanced by these highly-regarded individuals had been weak or fallacious, they could and should have been effectively refuted. But the problem faced by their powerful opponents was that the evidence and analysis they presented was extremely strong, and backed by their credibility and past record, might easily have carried the day even against the multitude of their public opponents. So the answer was not to debate them—a debate that might easily be lost—but instead to “disappear” them.

The effectiveness of such disappearance techniques has varied considerably with the changes in communication technologies and the acceptable social customs in restricting them. Throughout most of the last century, popular information came from radio, television, and film together with the less ephemeral print media of newspapers, books, and magazines. Ownership of these means of communications was heavily concentrated and huge capital costs were required to launch any new competitor, so our media infrastructure included a series of powerful choke-points on public discussion, with ideological purges being relatively easy to implement.

The rise of the Internet over the last generation completely upended this framework, destroying the power of many existing media organs and allowing individuals to create their own alternative outlets almost on a shoestring. With capital costs so greatly reduced as a factor, credible individuals with important things to say could almost single-handedly launch a significant media operation. A year after leaving the Intercept, Glenn Greenwald today probably has far more public impact through his own Substack columns than does the entire media enterprise he abandoned, despite the later’s many dozens of staffers and \$100 million in invested funding. Two or three decades ago, his situation would have been entirely different.

But over the last few years, new controls have been reimposed upon the once untrammeled Internet through the rise of dominant gatekeepers such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, and the increasing willingness of these corporate monopolies to exercise that power and silence the voices of those who strayed too far outside the acceptable line.

I would hardly place myself in the august company of most of the figures whose media histories I have described, but I have experienced similar obstacles. Just days after writing my first April 2020 article presenting some of the important, unreported facts about the global Covid epidemic, our entire website was suddenly banned by Facebook and deranked by Google. This harsh blow has drastically reduced the distribution of the crucial information I have spent the last year attempting to disseminate:

For example, in 2017 Trump brought in Robert Kadlec, who since the 1990s had been one of America’s leading biowarfare advocates. The following year in 2018 a mysterious viral epidemic hit China’s poultry industry and in 2019, another mysterious viral epidemic devastated China’s pork industry…

From the earliest days of the administration, leading Trump officials had regarded China as America’s most formidable geopolitical adversary, and orchestrated a policy of confrontation. Then from January to August 2019, Kadlec’s department ran the “Crimson Contagion” simulation exercise, involving the hypothetical outbreak of a dangerous respiratory viral disease in China, which eventually spreads into the United States, with the participants focusing on the necessary measures to control it in this country. As one of America’s foremost biowarfare experts, Kadlec had emphasized the unique effectiveness of bioweapons as far back as the late 1990s and we must commend him for his considerable prescience in having organized a major viral epidemic exercise in 2019 that was so remarkably similar to what actually began in the real world just a few months later.

With leading Trump officials greatly enamored of biowarfare, fiercely hostile to China, and running large-scale 2019 simulations on the consequences of a mysterious viral outbreak in that country, it seems entirely unreasonable to completely disregard the possibility that such extremely reckless plans may have been privately discussed and eventually implemented, though probably without presidential authorization.

But with the horrific consequences of our own later governmental inaction being obvious, elements within our intelligence agencies have sought to demonstrate that they were not the ones asleep at the switch. Earlier this month, an ABC News story cited four separate government sources to reveal that as far back as late November, a special medical intelligence unit within our Defense Intelligence Agency had produced a report warning that an out-of-control disease epidemic was occurring in the Wuhan area of China, and widely distributed that document throughout the top ranks of our government, warning that steps should be taken to protect US forces based in Asia. After the story aired, a Pentagon spokesman officially denied the existence of that November report, while various other top level government and intelligence officials refused to comment. But a few days later, Israeli television mentioned that in November American intelligence had indeed shared such a report on the Wuhan disease outbreak with its NATO and Israeli allies, thus seeming to independently confirm the complete accuracy of the original ABC News story and its several government sources.

It therefore appears that elements of the Defense Intelligence Agency were aware of the deadly viral outbreak in Wuhan more than a month before any officials in the Chinese government itself. Unless our intelligence agencies have pioneered the technology of precognition, I think this may have happened for the same reason that arsonists have the earliest knowledge of future fires.

According to these multiply-sourced mainstream media accounts, by “the second week of November” our Defense Intelligence Agency was already preparing a secret report warning of a “cataclysmic” disease outbreak taking place in Wuhan. Yet at that point, probably no more than a couple of dozen individuals had been infected in that city of 11 million, with few of those yet having any serious symptoms. The implications are rather obvious. Furthermore:

As the coronavirus gradually began to spread beyond China’s own borders, another development occurred that greatly multiplied my suspicions. Most of these early cases had occurred exactly where one might expect, among the East Asian countries bordering China. But by late February Iran had become the second epicenter of the global outbreak. Even more surprisingly, its political elites had been especially hard-hit, with a full 10% of the entire Iranian parliament soon infected and at least a dozen of its officials and politicians dying of the disease, including some who were quite senior. Indeed, Neocon activists on Twitter began gleefully noting that their hated Iranian enemies were now dropping like flies.

Let us consider the implications of these facts. Across the entire world the only political elites that have yet suffered any significant human losses have been those of Iran, and they died at a very early stage, before significant outbreaks had even occurred almost anywhere else in the world outside China. Thus, we have America assassinating Iran’s top military commander on Jan. 2nd and then just a few weeks later large portions of the Iranian ruling elites became infected by a mysterious and deadly new virus, with many of them soon dying as a consequence. Could any rational individual possibly regard this as a mere coincidence?

Related Reading:

 
The American Pravda Series
Hide 365 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Great article! Greenwald is great and has his own channel. Here is his latest about the Rittenhouse trial and the anger by what he describes as deranged leftists:

  2. Anon[414] • Disclaimer says:

    Nice try, but no cigar Ron. Not I, nor any Russian, nor any Chinese, nor about two billion other people will trust Greenwald.

    • Replies: @Robert Magill
    , @CCP Dragon
  3. Anon[414] • Disclaimer says:

    Nor will we trust the shabbat goy Derbyshire. Enough said?

    • Replies: @Punch Brother Punch
  4. Your use of the word pygmies reminds me of the wonderful comedian Larry the Cable Guy, before he became “Pixar Famous”. I’ve heard his name mentioned a few times lately in commercial ads, makes me think that the groundhog is looking for his shadow to see if it’s safe to come out? Was Larry the Cable Guy the first casualty of the “woke wars” before they were even a thing?

  5. Mikhail says: • Website

    The US based American contributors (writers) at the Strategic Culture Foundation have been very much singled out in a nouveau McCarthyite manner.

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2021/11/18/us-blacklists-strategic-culture-foundation-in-attack-on-independent-journalism-and-political-dissent/

  6. Biff says:

    A very well written piece, and should be included in every ‘American-journalism-101’ class at its beginning.

    • Agree: mark green, lavoisier, Treg
    • Replies: @lavoisier
  7. What a fabulous piece of work Sir thank you

    So let’s review

    [MORE]

    Bake a yellow cake.

    Media says it is old moldy and rotten

    Buy the media

    Make the media say:. Yellow cake for breakfast with your coffee is good for you
    Which u can do since u own it

    Use yellow cake to pie face any naysayers.

    “How dare you insult my yellow cake…” Because I took so long to bake it and I’ll never have that recipe again since they closed the Disco. Ha

    Then distribute said cake throughout the world making folks ill
    Then say you have to lockdown the whole world in jail due to bad cake. Ha

    Then say you have a cure for burnt cake syndrome. Then distribute cure for free and give folks money to take it if need be.

    Lock up the folks that won’t eat your cake

    Separate out those who deny your freedom to eat cake

    Create an official story

    Code bluewww yellow cake is good for you

    Eat it or else you can’t have your normal life back

    Well you ate the cake you ate the cure for bad cake but we want you to eat more and we’ll shame you in to that

    And if you don’t eat the cake we blow up your heart

    War is peace…

    Freedom is slavery…

    Work sets you free

    • Agree: Treg
  8. Excellent catalog of heroes. You have to be enormously proud to provide a platform to such dissident voices today.

    I’ll add my own note. I am an Amazon reviewer. Though they are certainly among the powers of suppression, they are not nearly as bad as Google/Youtube, Twitter and Facebook, Amazon has, it is true, made Solzhenitsyn’s “200 years together,” translated as “The Crucifixion of Russia,” unavailable and made many others such as Roger Devlin’s “Sexual Utopia in Power,” Rushton’s “Race, Evolution and Behavior” and Frank Salter’s “On Genetic Interests” either unavailable or prohibitively expensive.

    On another wry note, I applaud you for supporting good writers who occasionally disagree with you. Your handling of dissent with regard to Covid has been admirable.

    • Agree: Emslander, Treg
    • Replies: @The Real World
  9. Gee. Liberals are censored? Canceled? Their lives destroyed?

    How could this be?

    Butbutbutbut . . .

    I learned on here that only conservatives are victims.

    Gosh. What happened there?

  10. Are you aware that Craig Murray, whom you mention as a Wikileaks ally, was recently jailed for five months, for alleged contempt of court in commenting upon a contrived scandal involving Alex Salmond, the erstwhile leader of the Scottish Independence Party? Craig’s prison sentence ends soon, as it happens.

    • Agree: emersonreturn
    • Thanks: Skeptikal
    • Replies: @Whataboutery2020
  11. tanabear says:

    Indeed, Irving has now suffered the fate of a double purge. By the late 1990s his relentless enemies had successfully excluded him from the elite newspapers and book publishers that he had once dominated, but after his riveting public lectures began gaining him a renewed following on Youtube a few years ago, these were also purged from the Internet.

    You can also find some of David Irving’s older speeches on odysee.com. Here is an interesting talk he gave where he relays an incident that I had not heard of before…worse than Watergate

    https://odysee.com/@feuerwaffe:9/David-Irving-Corruption-in-the-Courts:7

    • Thanks: Treg
  12. Thank you for this fascinating analysis and powerful conclusions. It seems like the forces of narrative control grow both weaker and more powerful every day.

    • Agree: emersonreturn
  13. The Covid part of this essay fails on the point that the virus itself has really been relatively inconsequential in its effects. All things considered, it’s been about as severe as the Asian Flu and the hong Kong Flu outbreaks of the Fifties and Sixties — a threat to those in very poor health to begin with but not really an obstacle to the normal functioning of society.

    Our response has had formidable effects — but that’s another matter. Could those have been predicted, and even if they could have, whose interests would have been served? I suppose one could posit an awesomely powerful and diabolically inclined Pfizer Corp, but…

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @BaronAsh
  14. Papa says:

    Thanks Ron for keeping dissident voices remembered and alive.

  15. anonymous[271] • Disclaimer says:

    Sadly 2 out of the 3 ‘heroes’ in the photo at the top of this article, are known by all major governments as frauds, as scammers who seem to have helped jail and murder real dissidents, many of whose names we likely will never learn. Assange, Greenwald and Snowden are all hoaxers enabled by intel agencies, tho as better-quality frauds they have done some truthy ‘good’ work to help sell the evil … many maybe silenced or dead after being duped into contacting Greenwald / Wikileaks.

    [MORE]

    – Zbig Brzezinski admitted Assange was intel on PBS television in 2010
    – Bibi Netanyahu told Israeli media Assange was an Israeli asset back then too
    – Rothschild fam sister-in-law Jemima Goldsmith posted Assange bail
    – Rothschild Trust lawyer Mark Stephens worked for Assange
    – Assange helped Rothschild bank destroy rival bank Julius Baer with ‘leaks’
    – People who trusted Assange dead; Peter W Smith, Assange denying getting his files after his killing; Seth Rich; Assange lawyer John Jones ‘suicided’, thrown under train after apparently learning Julian was a scam
    – Seems Assange never really ‘lived’ in London Ecuador Embassy 7 years, police just moved him in & out for photos & videos; likely not in Belmarsh prison now, this is easy fakery for intel boys
    – Assange, Snowden, Greenwald prove their CIA status by refusing to discuss DOJ files on Virginia federal judge political bribery, data which successfully stopped other extraditions to the USA (as well as led Bill Barr to shut down bribery player Robert Mueller) – these files which would make Assange-Snowden extraditions impossible, yet none of this ‘hero trio’ will talk about this
    – Assange & Snowden both anti-9-11 truth, Assange openly shielding Israel
    – Assange, Snowden & Greenwald all ‘made’ by CIA-tied media promotion, ever-lying NY Times & MI5-MI6 UK Guardian, obvious from day one

    – Greenwald, former seller of gay pornography (‘hairystuds’) worked in turn for 3 billionaire families, Bill Gates, Rothschilds, Pierre Omidyar
    – Original Snowden ‘leaks’ were laughably to Dick Cheney’s biographer Bart Gellman at CIA Washington Post, Brzezinski’s daughter Mika promoting … they realised that was too stupid, so Snowden dossier was handed to Rothschild-Guardian’s Greenwald
    – Greenwald’s ‘sources’ get jailed thanks to him, others may be dead
    – Putin openly hints Snowden is fake; Snowden might not be in Russia; old CIA-KGB deal still running, e.g., Putin supports 9-11 scam, USA keeps quiet about Chechnya likely false flags that let Russia hold onto Chechnya-Dagestan oil money
    – Snowden ‘revelations’ not new aside from trivial details, Snowman normalised surveillance really
    – Snowden & Assange de-legitimise real dissidents ‘NY Times & UK Guardian would cover it if true)

    These are very old scams, the model created 50 years ago
    1971 Daniel Ellsberg ‘stolen’ Pentagon Papers, ‘brave Jewish leaker’
    1973 Watergate ‘Deep Throat’, ‘brave Jewish journalist’ Bernstein
    2010 Julian Assange ‘Wikileaks’, Rothschild Israeli asset
    2013 Edward Snowden ‘stolen’ NSA Papers, ‘brave Jewish journalist’ Glenn Greenwald
    2016 Panama Papers ‘leaked’ by Mossad-tied ICIJ (Int’l Consort. Investig. Journos), even the Mossad historian prominent on the ‘brave team’
    2021 Pandora Papers ‘leaked’ by same Mossad-tied ICIJ

  16. Dan Hayes says:

    Until today I was unaware that radio broadcaster John Batchelor was a student of Prof Cohen. Makes sense since Batchelor was a Princeton Russian Studies major. So for once I applaud The Old School Tie!

    Listening to Cohen on Batchelor’s show was a personal revelation in convincing me that the main current threat arises from our Deep State and not the currently emasculated Russian Bear.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    , @Ace
  17. Ghali says:

    One very important factor is missing in this article. The evil role of Jews in controlling Western-US mainstream media and twisting the news to manipulate and misled the public to support their Zion-Fascist agenda.

    • Agree: Carroll price, Treg, Ace
    • Replies: @lavoisier
  18. Ron, they even work at “disappearing” you. That says a lot right there.

    • Agree: some_loon, HbutnotG
  19. The Orakle says: • Website

    I would like to copy and post this article to my blog above so I can then post on FakeBook, where you are banned. Let me know if I have your permission.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  20. Do priests & politicians need journos of every sort? Is publicity publicity and each somehow maintaining the believe in government („a better government“) and authority?

    Are state & paid mercenaries the most dangerous superstition?

    Can there ever be a “good central government” or a “good central agency”?

    E.g. Fox news too needs centrality and concentration of power to make huge profits (taken from the regions).

    The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose:
    “The primary threat to freedom and justice is not greed, or hatred, or any of the other emotions or human flaws usually blamed for such things. Instead, it is one ubiquitous superstition which infects the minds of people of all races, religions and nationalities, which deceives decent, well-intentioned people into supporting and advocating violence and oppression. Even without making human beings one bit more wise or virtuous, removing that one superstition would remove the vast majority of injustice and suffering from the world.”

    • LOL: Marcion
    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  21. JWalters says:

    So who are the pygmies? This impressively extensive collection of evidence is conclusive that behind the scenes the media is (1) a monopoly, and (2) owned by criminals covering up crimes. Where is the fortune that can afford to buy up all the corporate media? In 1915 the J.P. Morgan bank led an effort to control the top 25 newspaper editorial policies. The J.P. Morgan bank was the dominant bank in America because it was an extension of the Rothschild bank, by far the dominant bank in Europe.
    “War Profiteers and Israel’s Bank”
    https://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com/p/war-profiteers-and-israels-bank.html

    • Replies: @Thomasina
    , @CelestiaQuesta
  22. The recent mass censorship and targeted character assassination of many health experts has been just as alarming — and revealing — as the silencing of professional journalists, authors and publishers. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is just one example. Watch here as Rep. Jamie Raskin growls at him on behalf of the Ministry of Truth:

    p.s. It is interesting how some genetic research* indicates people of European ancestry have considerably more susceptibility to Covid 19, while Ashkenazi Jews have practically none. Not that a biological weapon could — or would — ever be engineered to target (via batches) non-Jewish White people, or that treatments offered to might also be part of the warfare. But the coincidence is curious. Never mind. Must be a God thing.

    *New insights into genetic susceptibility of COVID-19: an ACE2 and TMPRSS2 polymorphism analysis, by Hou et al. in BMC Medicine. July 15, 2020

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7360473/

  23. Dumbo says:

    Journalists aways considered themselves somehow superior to people who work in advertising. They saw themselves as “telling truth to power”, while mocked people in advertising as doing the biddings of capitalism.

    Turns out, there is no big difference. Most journalists work in propaganda as well, for the largest advertising agencies ever created called mass media, and both push the same things: gays, trans, racial mixing, immigration, Covid vaccines, etc.

    There are a few who still believe in some kind of ideal of objectivity and remain independent, but they are soon shown their place.

    Forced vaccines and vaccine passes, censorship, arrest of protestors, journalists and cartoonists for all kind of issues. No, not in China or the Muslim world, but in Western “democracies”.

    Let us not kid ourselves. The Western world is not free, and hasn’t been for a while. In a certain sense, the Communists (Judeo-Bolsheviks) won the Cold War. They just moved to the West but applied the same principles.

    • Replies: @Ace
  24. A long, but excellent read!

    • Agree: John Wear, gottlieb
  25. “notwithstanding his disastrous four years in office”

    In your opinion. The “disaster” was created by the left with their endless “beginning of the end” and “another bomb shell” clown show where they treated a creepy porn lawyer, who is now doing time, as some sort of hero

    • Agree: mocissepvis
  26. Rahan says:

    A marvelous piece touching on many important topics in the regular well-thought out style. Thank you.

  27. Congratulations on a masterful exposition of your core American Pravda material and, not least your shrewd avoidance or moderation of your less convincing theories.

    I do not withdraw all my quibbles and suggestions of alternative interpretation or explanations of facts like the medical intelligence report or the deaths in Iran and my Ukrainian friend will take strong exception to some of it but you have pulled together a pattern of media and ruling class behaviour over a long period in a way which supports your general thesis and the cases you proffer as supporting it.

    Stay well.

    • Replies: @Punch Brother Punch
  28. Levtraro says:

    One of your best articles Mr. Unz, thank you. Our system of control builds choke points from perypheral centres of power that are allowed to fluorish, while the commies in Russia attempted to control everything from a single centre of power. Our diversified and colourful system of control has proved more resilient than the monotone and rigorous system built by the Soviets.

  29. Matt Taibbi was just about to join Greenwald at the Intercept, when he finally withdrew. He continued working for Rolling Stone and eventually moved to substack too. Matt Taibbi was another prominent voice who – early on – said, the Russia Hoax was exactly this: One big hoax.
    Free speech is what connects Greenwald, Matt Taibbi and the Unz Review. – And Donald Trump even, who did ask the US colleges and univerisities to support free speech. Joe Biden never did that.

  30. Hans says:

    “Care must be taken not to give a platform for deniers… or seek to disprove the deniers’ position through normal historical debate and rational argument.” — ‘Guidelines for Teaching about the Holocaust’ at the Stockholm International Forum, 2000

    “These Holocaust deniers are very slick people. They justify everything they say with facts and figures.” – Steven Some, Chairman of New Jersey Commission on Holocaust Education, (Newark Star-Ledger, Oct 23, 1996, p 15.)

    “It is impossible to explain how a press usually so eager to exploit the little incidents of life has been able to remain silent about the horrors perpetrated in Russia…and that it should have so little to say concerning a world organization as vast as Russian Communism. This silence…is favored by various occult forces which for a long time have been working for the overthrow of the Christian Social Order” – Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, 1937

    “Anyone who doesn’t know that Bolshevism is Jewish, must be a man who is taken in by our deplorable press.” – historian Hilaire Belloc, G. K.’s Weekly, February 4, 1937

    “There is definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international movement controlled by Jews; communications are passing between the leaders in America, France, Russia & England, with a view toward concerted action.” – Scotland Yard Report to the US Secretary of State, July 23, 1919

    “I don’t care if Americans think we’re running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.” – Joel Stein, Los Angeles Times, 12/19/08

    • Thanks: John Wear
  31. Anon[426] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s always obvious which of my friends and colleagues get their news from TeeVee, NPR, or old print media.

    They believe the most outlandish tales.

  32. This was a great read, Mr. Unz. Thank you.

    Let me see if I can concisely explain why “the left” seems to have changed since the old American “left” of mid-last-century. The “left” of yesteryear at the lower level were the Democrat voters, right up through those who voted D through mid-20th century, really the mid-1960s. They were what would now be called Libertarians, minus the idiotic Open Borders stance of the Reason magazine people. They didn’t want to overturn American society. They wanted to bolster, in fact, the ideas of our Founders, by fighting encroachments on liberty. (The CIA, for example)

    However, the lefties at the top and their useful idiots from the mid-1960’s on were most assuredly NOT liberty-loving supporters of the US Constitution. They were very much for “their rights” when it helped them get out of trouble in court for rioting in the streets, property destruction, that kind of thing. They were against the CIA, FBI, etc, because those groups, though already out of control Constitutionally, were still against the American left. (That has changed drastically since the 1960’s but especially after Trump upset the Deep State recently.)

    The ctrl-left of modern America does not care at all about Constitutional principles such as free speech – the focus of this article. These people never inherently did. They are very different people from those D-voter of yesteryear. It was great when the Constitution and free speech helped the modern ctrl-left out, but free speech does not help them out right now. Therefore, they are dead-set against it.

    I have great respect for Mr. Greenwald, Mr. Assange, and Ed Snowden. These men are patriots, just as courageous and principled as young Kyle Rittenhouse.

  33. God DAMN, you paint a picture, Ron. I know it’s all true, because like the intrepid other reporters’ work on adventures going back 10 decades, they aren’t covered by media 99% of the public read. This Pravda may be your best compilation ever. It gets my vote. Thanks.

  34. Excellent once again,thank you.And congrats,as I am sure you should
    count yourself included in the top tier of censored authors/publishers who
    are on the radars of the totalitarian party.Freedom of speech was put
    first for a reason,it just happens to be mightier than the sword.The power brokers,
    merchants of mayhem and the whole lot of them would quickly be broke without
    controlling the truth…and they know it.
    “Entertain every idea royally,for one of them may be king.”They can blow out a
    candle,but they can’t blow out a fire.Once the flames begin to catch, the wind
    will take it higher.”Stay safe,Happy Holidays and keep up the great job.

  35. @Anon

    Derb is a serious threat. He must be put down!

    • LOL: CelestiaQuesta
  36. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Dan Hayes

    Batchelor has a Jekyll and Hyde element as evidenced by how he has carried on with some of his other guests on Russia related matters.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
  37. @anonymous

    Assange and Snowden are truly “enabled” – that’s why they have to live in prison or exile the rest of their lives. Keep glowing, scumbag.

  38. @Wizard of Oz

    Stay well.

    Is Ron Unz sick? Or are you just writing this because you have been thoroughly trounced in the JFK-article comment sections?

    • Troll: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @Sean
  39. @Colin Wright

    I’m not saying I agree with Ron’s Covid theory but. I do note that you don’t seem to have grasped that he posits an attack on China’s economy, not its people , precisely because it was “relatively inconsequential in its effects”.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  40. Kali says:

    This may be one of your best and most important Pravda articles so far. I hope that it gets the wide readership it deserves. People need to wake up from their establishment media induced slumber right now, at this most critical juncture in our Western history… before the Orwellian “Minisrty of Love” steps in to ensure that the propaganda of the “Ministry of Truth” remains intact and unopposed.

    [MORE]

    Of course it cannot go unstated that, whilst this article is of massive importance in alerting readers to the uses of censorship by the establishment, and the often disasterous consequences of that censorship, it fails spectacularly to expose (or even mention) the censorship underwhich some of our most destingushed scientists and even our frontline medical doctors and nurses are currently experiencing the moment they question the “deadly pandemic” narrative which is being used right now, right this minute, to reduce every single one of us to the status of lab-rat and to, step-by-step bring said “Ministry of Love” into being.

    This constitutes a monumental oversight, given the ongoing implimentation of fascistic control over the entire global commons that this supposed “pandemic” is being used as cover for. Right now! Right this very minute!

    One wonders why the author of the outstanding American Pravda series continues to keep his eyes and ears so tightly closed to the writings and speaches of the growing army of descenting voices proclaming the pandemic to be a hoax, cover for the “gread reset”, and/or a mechanism for population control and depopulation, as the world is placed under unquestionable”global governance” by unelected billionairs, corporations, think-tanks, NGOs and their Ministry if Truth propagandists.

    How can it be possible that such an objective, obviously rational observer such as Ron Unz continues to ignore the blatantly obvious use of a media-induced narrative, in favor of those who would take absolute control of the entire planet and everything on it.

    What gives?

    Best regards,
    Kali.

  41. profnasty says:

    Three consecutive articles on Jewish Hegemony.
    But, Nam prisoners? What’s the point? It might be the only right thing McWrong ever did.
    Why beat a dead horse? Only to set the record straight? What can be accomplished, and by what means?
    Restart the war. Really? Reeelly?? Nam bankrupted US. No can do.
    Jew bank sanctions. Cripple Nam’s economy. Really? As if they haven’t suffered enough.
    Some of the round eyes may have chosen to stay for family or other reasons. Some may have denounced citizenship.
    Drop it.

    • Disagree: Bro43rd
    • Troll: anarchyst
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  42. JackOH says:

    But the problem faced by their powerful opponents was that the evidence and analysis they presented was extremely strong, and backed by their credibility and past record, might easily have carried the day even against the multitude of their public opponents. So the answer was not to debate them—a debate that might easily be lost—but instead to “disappear” them.

    Yes, true. As I learned when I was a smalltime local dissenter, the methods of retaliation and “disappearing” engaged in by our elites are varied, sometimes criminal.

    Elites, even those with little direct interest in a dissenting journalist’s work, will likely be okay with retaliation and “disappearing”, because strong, well-founded dissent disrupts the bandwagoning influence enjoyed by many elites over their inferiors, their courtiers, both current and potential.

    Here’s what I mean. Many readers have been to parties or other public events where important people condescend to their deferential lessers, discoursing casually about subjects about which they, the VIPs, may have little knowledge. The little people won’t openly contradict the VIPs, and the latter darned well like it like that.

    A committed, dissenting journalist may raise sufficient questions in ordinary folks’ minds to deny to some degree the bandwagoning credibility our VIPs believe they ought to enjoy.

    Thanks, also, Ron, for mentioning Seth Rich’s murder–that stank of a hit.

  43. Biff says:
    @anonymous

    Sadly 2 out of the 3 ‘heroes’ in the photo at the top of this article, are known by all major governments as frauds, as scammers

    I’ve got my money on you being the fraud and scammer.

    • Agree: Bro43rd
  44. cohen says:

    Glad to see this article.
    When the Intercept became “Intercepted” it was clear the site was a NSA front. Riley Winter, and the CIA were netted and sent to prison for whistle blowing.

    One thing I never understood why Glen failed to publish all documents provided by Snowden and opted to write a book and filtering information. Now I am back in reading Glen’s post

  45. cohen says:

    Why on earth we call it main stream media?
    Instead of Jewish media. That is more appropriate in my opinion. And it would would a better catch phrase.

    Remember Yellow Jackets in France at the start of movement (easy and catch phrase). Then it was changed to Yellow Vest.

    • Replies: @some_loon
  46. “Only individuals with no sense of reality or no self-respect could swallow such absurdity with a straight face…”

    I was still on Fakebook in 2016 (I only deleted my account in disgust in late 2017), and I recall an Amerikastani individual whom I had known online for most of a decade, and who had been relatively balanced earlier, screaming the “Trump is a Russian agent” thing to the skies. I asked her if she really believed this claptrap. In a private message she admitted she didn’t, but she thought it was the only way Trump could be removed, so she embraced it.

  47. Mr. Unz mentioned everyone except Jimmy Dore. A pot-smoking jack-off comedian who does a popular internet TV show in his garage.

    Greenwald is a regular on Jimmy’s show. Assange’s parents have also appeared on his show. Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate’ also frequent guests.

    • Replies: @yellow squash
  48. ADKC says:

    Very good article.

    The closing extract about Iran may well point to a bio-weapon attack on the Iranian leadership but the consequent of this must mean that the Iranian “outbreak” did not originate from Wuhan (or anywhere else). Rather such an attack would have been carried out in Iran under the cover of the “pandemic”. And, if you accept this as probable, you begin to have real difficulties determining whether there is really a “pandemic” or whether it is all just a “narrative” combined with a number of excess deaths intentionally caused by other actions (e.g. following inappropriate protocols, administering inappropriate treatments, isolation and neglect, and excess use of Do Not Resuscitate [DNR] orders, manipulation of data, as well as occasional assassinations).

    • Replies: @Emslander
  49. Anonymous[661] • Disclaimer says:

    Excellent article, Mr. Unz! Your Pravda series unquestionably makes you a journalistic giant yourself.

  50. Anonymous[976] • Disclaimer says:

    Omidyar probably had a good personal understanding of technology, business, and investment, he was politically unsophisticated and therefore accepted the overwhelming media narrative that Russia with Trump as its agent was plotting to subvert our American freedoms

    I’m no where near the elite cognitive level of a Omidyar yet this Russian collusion media narrative was so obviously, so ludicrously, bogus it didn’t even rise to the level of needing my BS detector. Are elites really this gullible? I’m guessing not and suspect that there’s something else behind this that I’m not privy too.

    Unfortunately, the editorial decisions of Cohen’s own magazine may have considerably diminished the impact of his very important message.

    Stephen F. Cohen is a hero of mine— as are all the guys highlighted in this piece, especially its author Ron Unz— but what I found disturbing was that it was his own wife who was the editor of The Nation up until June 2019 (i.e., through the entire Russian collusion hoax) and she dutifully promoted the Trump-Russia collusion hoax as faithfully as Rachel Maddow.

    And while Cohen seemed like a nice man he also seemed like a man of principle and truth. He must’ve thought, “By my wife going out and publicly promoting this Trump-Russian collusion hoax she’s calling me a fraud or Kremlin agent by implication. Or at the very least she’s saying that I’m married to a fraud.”

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  51. Trinity says:
    @obwandiyag

    (((Emanuel Goldstein)))

    NONE OF THOSE 3 CLOWNS ARE HONEST TO GOODNESS LIBERALS OR CONSERVATIVES. Put Anglin up there as well. He’s a 5-foot GIANT.

    lololol

    • Replies: @Punch Brother Punch
  52. gotmituns says:

    American Pravda: Giants Silenced by Pygmies
    —————————————————–
    I’m just an old letter to the editor writer (certainly no giant). I have used a concept of writing that seems to work. I make statements in question form. If I don’t get too radical, the use of the question form will usually get the essay/letter published.

  53. Hrw-500 says:

    Not directly linked to that article but I saw this blog post about journalists fleeing mainstream media. https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/journalists-fleeing-mainstream-media/

  54. Bullwinkle –
    “hey, Rocky watch me pull a rabbit out’a my hat! ”
    Rocky – again
    Bullwinkle – nothing up my sleeve — presto!
    Bullwinkle proceeds to pull a roaring Bear out of his hat.
    — And there you have it. Move on to Mr Peabody….

  55. You may have missed an angle regarding The Intercept. Pierre was connected to government intelligence agencies prior to funding The Intercept. The whole enterprise may have been a psychological operation and used to capture and kill the Snowden docs.

  56. Schuetze says:

    Stephen Cohen was a snobby douchebag communist who lived his entire privileged life under the protective umbrella of Jewish Power. Even after his fellow Jew Victoria Nuland sold Ukraine down the river to the same ZOG USA that supported Cohen’s privileged existence, and against his more beloved “ex” communist Russia, Cohen could not name the Jew, and he never did his entire life, because he himself was the worst kind of jewish apologist. Cohen spent his entire life lying and propagating talmudic lies to stupid goyim. Cohen was certainly no giant, and it is an insult to place his hideously ugly Jewish face on the same page as a true hero of the truth like David Irving.

    • Agree: neutral
  57. Speaking of who gets published and who gets to speak, and what gets published and what is spoken of, and then on to matters of this very moment — Why do we see no reporting on the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, which started now a week ago? Two short pieces in NYTimes and then absolute silence.

    • Thanks: Trinity
    • Replies: @CelestiaQuesta
  58. @Carlton Meyer

    Greenwald is a homo who once made porno films centered on the pubic haryiness of particular subjects’ balls.

    Assange is a genuine hero who has been languishing for years. Do the math, folks.

    Who deserves your attention?

    • Replies: @CelestiaQuesta
    , @Skeptikal
  59. @Anonymous

    He must’ve thought, “By my wife going out and publicly promoting this Trump-Russian collusion hoax she’s calling me a fraud or Kremlin agent by implication. Or at the very least she’s saying that I’m married to a fraud.”

    Stephen F. Cohen might as well have thought that somebody had to secure the standard of living the couple had been used to.

  60. 1- It would be interesting to have a book about the media and censure and propaganda. Ron Unz doesn’t write here a complete history of this question, but nowhere you will find more cases and details than in this article.

    2- In case this might interest someone, a biography about Charles Beard appeared 3 years ago: Richard Drake, Charles Austin Beard: The Return of the Master Historian of American Imperialism (Cornell University Press). “Drake proposes a restoration of Beard’s professional reputation, which he lost in large part because of his extremely unpopular opposition to America’s intervention in World War II.”

    3- “The Strategy of Dynamic Silence”. This seems to be the most common way to control information. You just don’t mention some people or exclude them from discussions, even if they could contribute to them. Some books are not reviewed, even when these books become best sellers. This is the case of Max Blumenthal. I think his latest books are more or less ignored by the mainstream press.

    4- In Germany this happens very often. People who publish critical books disappear from the public domain, even if they were previously very well known. Albrecht Müller was close to Willy Brandt. He publishes books (the last one was a bestseller) and has a critical website that is similar to UR (but much smaller and not covering all the subjects that we find here). I have never seen him in a talkshow. Jürgen Todenhofer was a conservative politician. He was a falk but one day changed his position and pleads today generally for a pacifist position. He appeared in talkshows speaking against the Iraq war. At that time the German government was against this war. Since then he published several books, but he is not invited anymore to talk shows, although he seems to be a very agreeable person who can speak very well about the subject of his books. Michael Lüders who is an expert about the Middle East appeared many times in the main German television channels. But he hasn’t appeared any more since many years. Interviewers are afraid that he might say something that could cause them difficulties.

    5- Critical books are not published by the bigger publishers and there are no reviews or discussions about them. In 2014 there were many discussions about WW1. Christopher Clark became a star in Germany because he said that everybody had contributed to unleashing the war (I haven’t read his book). Other authors who wrote more critically about England like Douglas Newton (The Darkest Days. The truth behind Britain’s rush to war, 1914) were not even once mentioned. Like Clark he is Australian and meanwhile a retired professor. The new book by Sean McMeekin seems to be practically unknown in Germany.

  61. @thotmonger

    Most likely, what rails Congreesman Rankin is that unlike the South Indian collaborators, e.g. the Surgeon General, Vice Admiral Dr. Vivek Murthy, to the Jewish inspired causes such as lockdowns and mass immunizations, the North Indians, such as Dr. Jay Bhattacharya would not go along with the destruction of America because they don’t in any way feel discriminated against being lighter skinned and belonging to the Indo-Iranian languages of India, whereas, Pramila Jayapal et al, being darker skinned and speakers of Dravidian languages (non Indo-European) do and therefore, actively support the Zionist led crusade against the traditional America.

  62. Great article.

    Beard’s line of interpretation has received some contemporary impetus from Woody Holton. His book–Unruly Americans–takes the economic interpretation and advances it very interestingly with subtle hints of the “who” behind the “why.”

    I recommend it as it is inexpensive and well worth the read. I have never read Beard’s–The Ecomomic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States–however I have a copy I am staring at as I type, and I think it is time for me to put it into my “soon to read” reading list.

    • Replies: @Steve Naidamast
  63. @Anon

    What have you done with The Saker, Ron? Tell all!

  64. “After the story aired, a Pentagon spokesman officially denied the existence of that November report”

    Is that official statment available to view anywhere and who was the official?

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  65. Emslander says:
    @ADKC

    Yes. I don’t get the Iran connection. Maybe all the leaders simply visited the same illegal house of pleasure.

    Nonetheless, a very coherent picture of the omniscient and all-powerful ruling class in the USA.

  66. You’re doing real yoeman’s work, Mr. Unz. Thank you.

  67. I am mildly surprised that Substack isn’t shadowbanned yet. And apparently the owners haven’t been given an offer they can’t refuse. The worst that has been thrown at them, it seems, is a torrent of envious, ineffectual MSM grousing.

    So I am grateful to the Zionists who pressured Patreon to cancel me. If they hadn’t, I might still be on that lousy platform, instead of the far superior Substack. https://kevinbarrett.substack.com/

    • Replies: @CelestiaQuesta
    , @Anonymous
  68. saggy says: • Website

    Hitler’s final demand, that 95% German Danzig be returned to Germany just as its inhabitants desired, was an absolutely reasonable one, and only a dreadful diplomatic blunder by the British had led the Poles to refuse the request, thereby provoking the war.

    Blunder? Typical Zio propaganda. International Jewry had declared war on Germany in 1933. The British had been preparing for war long before it started …. Britain needed an incident and they encouraged Poland to create one .. Unz should catalog this book , written in 1936 – “Left Wing ‘Left Wings Over Europe, or How to Make a War About Nothing’by British man of letters Wyndham Lewis

    [MORE]

    As far as Great Britain is concerned, there is, in 1936, not a shadow of a reason for a war with anybody. It is because that there is no concrete reason that abstract reasons have had to be thought up and trotted out.

    Nationalism may be superseded by the issue between different forms of political structure, between parliamentarism, fascism, and Bolshevism. …. Parliamentarism and Bolshevism seem to feel a remarkable affinity for one another, if for no other reason than that they are both consumed with an equal hatred of fascism.

    No British statesman has ever desired a war with Germany. But they have apparently come to regard themselves as committed to a policy which is violently determined to rid Europe of Hitler. And they are well aware that that cannot be effected without the risk of another world-war. It is not so much ‘fascist dictatorship’ that excites them — for after all they left Mussolini in complete peace for a decade. Neither does Dictatorship , in itself, excite them so much as all that — even accompanied by a permanent Reign of Terror and the massacre of millions of people. For Soviet Russia has been left undisturbed. No, it can only be something about the internal regime of Adolf Hitler that excites in them this implacable mood.

    The Franco-Soviet pact has been ratified and it is highly probable that a Rumano-Soviet pact, on the lines of the military pact between the Soviet and Czechoslovakia, will be signed in the near future. The Austrian Government (which represents a fantastically small fraction of the people of Austria) seems to be moving towards an entente with the Little Entente. So the game of ‘encirclement’ goes on: and all these arrangements — carried on in every case over the heads and usually in contradiction to the wishes of the people — are made possible, and constantly stimulated by British and French gold. The remarks which I have quoted from the Morning Post mean, in plain language, that Great Britain is about to arm the Soviet against Germany. (Marshal Tukachevski stopped behind in England after the funeral of King George to go round the British armament factories to pick his tanks and guns.) There have constantly been rumours of a fifty million pounds British loan to France. That, too, in plain language, is Great Britain arming France against ‘the Hun’

    There is one country where the Englishman is certain of a warm welcome: there is one country whose government never ceases to proffer friendship, and to be accommodating and polite, and that is Germany. Year in and year out, like a love-sick supplicant, Herr Hitler pays his court to the haughty Britannia. Every insult that can be invented even by the resourceful Mr. Churchill is tamely swallowed, every rebuff of Mr. Baldwin’s, every sneer of Mr. Eden, is meekly accepted, by this pertinacious suitor!

    • Thanks: Schuetze, RedpilledAF
    • Replies: @Ukraine Tiger
  69. Dan Hayes says:
    @Mikhail

    Unfortunately I have to agree with you. Case in point: John Bolton whom Batchelor initially denounced for his behavior on leaving the Trump administration but when last heard was being obsequiously interviewed by Batchelor. Nevertheless he did perform well (along with Tucker Carlson) in introducing Cohen to the general public.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
  70. neutral says:
    @obwandiyag

    Conservatives have not had any power for decades, in government, academia, mass entertainment, corporations. So there is no way it can be seriously argued they are doing the censoring.

    When it comes to “liberals”, it is the lunatics, that are entering ever accelerating levels of madness, that are censoring their liberal forbears. The more fanatical liberals consuming the less insane liberals is still a liberal thing however. If you don’t want to call them liberals, then what exactly?

  71. Trinity says:

    The Three (((Stooges.)))

    Cue: Trinidad by Eddie Money

  72. The dystopian world we now live in is moving closer to Armageddon with each passing day. GlobalHomoZioBIGsRxMIC3BLM propaganda is at its peak. We’re told bold black lies while they censor, ban, entrap, de-platform and ruin financially those exposing reality.
    There’s nothing more sickening than watching evil ritualistically dance around each other to hypnotic beats of tribal cRap oblivious to death all around them.
    Major cities are now overrun by armed black snatch and grab hit squads as they shamelessly blame white privilege for their never ending criminal bs, always covering for black hoodrats causing majority of all crime in America, second only to government and their armies of weaponized orcs.
    I’ve been scouting out areas I believe will be safe enough to sustain my family when nukes start falling and government plantation slaves start ravaging the countryside for whites to kill, confiscating everything they own.

    Remember, stay far the Phuc away from First Strike Targets, refugee resettlement camps, majority black neighborhoods. Good luck.

  73. J Daley says:

    Ron Unz

    “I would hardly place myself in the august company of most of the figures whose media histories I have described, but I have experienced similar obstacles.”

    Ron Unz you are far too humble. You indeed stand shoulder to shoulder with the sidelined, and silenced giants of journalism you write about in this remarkable essay. Godspeed!

  74. Absolutely outstanding article. Many great links. Thanks.

  75. Ragno says:

    Like others, I rolled my eyes at Ron Unz shoehorning in that “disastrous” opinion – whatever would you make of his successor’s administration, Ron? – successful? honest as the day is long?

    Nevertheless, it’s always a great day when one of Ron’s longform essay/monographs appears here. I make sure I’m comfortably seated, and reasonably well-caffeinated, before digging in.

    Of course, I’m a bit biased. I’m too grateful to Mr Unz for not just this site, but his yeoman’s work on behalf of the invaluable Internet Archive, to ever approach his American Pravda series with anything remotely like leery disbelief. From the beginning, he’s earned my trust – along with that gratitude – with these fearless and densely-informative longform pieces.

    That our journalism schools, at least to my knowledge, have yet to assign American Pravda to their student bodies might help explain the pure sewage that “American journalism” now routinely stands for.

  76. anonymous[139] • Disclaimer says:

    Is war coming? Does the deep state, inner circle or whatever one chooses to call it, have a plan to drag the US into one at some later date using some false flag? The overall pattern here is that from before WW I to today most of this squelching revolves around wars that were planned and foisted on the American people. While talking peace every president conspired to get into one and dissidents had to be silenced. The nastiness and war criminality that has been the reality of war has to be whitewashed, hence Assange was targeted for his release of videos showing a sample of what was really taking place. The Russiagate hoax was obvious nonsense but pushed nevertheless. The long-running demonization of Russia and Putin seems geared to prepping the American mind to expect bad things from them. Cohen, a rational person, had to be shoved aside to ensure a unanimity of propaganda narrative. In his ‘Homage to Catalonia’ Orwell describes journalists as people paid to lie. The pygmies are on someone’s payroll and there’s a lot of money being thrown around for that. As the US pushes eastward into Ukraine, Georgia and other places the Russians may have a red line about NATO missiles being moved closer as well as other issues such as the ongoing economic and political warfare being waged, all perfectly reasonable yet the propaganda line is that they’re being aggressive. People like Cohen would have warned us but he’s gone. Just about everything has become one big fat lie.

  77. @Kevin Barrett

    I read some excellent minds and creative souls over at substack, but the paywall is a turnoff.
    I’m sick of clickbait. They should offer free schitt with a donation link if you want to support, just as I did and do here at UNZ. That’s my honest opinion.

  78. Charles says:

    TUR is the most important site on the internet.

    Ron Unz has a breadth and depth of knowledge and interests that is (or are?) astounding. For what he means to the fight to discover facts and truth he is one of the most important people in the USA right now.

    • Agree: Orville H. Larson, HdC
  79. @Punch Brother Punch

    In all honesty, if we’re going to have a gay voice against GlobalHomoZioBIGsRxMIC3BLM, I’d rather have Greenwald than Anderson Cooper or Don Lemon.
    But there’s something suspicious about his convergence, or maybe it’s my own paranoia that constantly haunts me.
    There’s too many turncoats among the ranks, you shouldn’t trust anyone in these dark times.

  80. @Wizard of Oz

    ‘I’m not saying I agree with Ron’s Covid theory but. I do note that you don’t seem to have grasped that he posits an attack on China’s economy, not its people , precisely because it was “relatively inconsequential in its effects”.’

    Point taken — but again.

    It is — as several nations demonstrated — perfectly possible to simply ignore the virus, in which case it’s economic effects are decidedly manageable. It’s the hysterical reactions that have cost money.

    …and there, we really would have shot ourselves in the foot, wouldn’t we? After all, our response has been far more prolonged and disruptive than China’s short ‘n sweet, total shutdown — then back to work.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  81. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Dan Hayes

    Regarding S Cohen:

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/09/21/remembering-stephen-cohen/

    I’ll add that some others besides myself have noted a difference between his more establishment leaning wife and himself.

  82. @obwandiyag

    Although the two are usually confused with one another, Liberals like Greenwald who see and discuss both sides of many issues are often censored for that reason.

    Leftist, on the other hand, are never censored as a result of never straying from approved Marxist ideology.

    • Thanks: Nancy
  83. Sean says:

    In 2010, an American intelligence analyst had provided a huge cache of Iraq and Afghanistan War documents and videos that rocketed the website to worldwide fame and inflicted a massive propaganda defeat upon our national security establishment.

    The army is not a police force, it’s a killing machine. Shocking!

    • Replies: @Craig Nelsen
  84. Hg says:

    Add our favorite Unz contributor Mike Whitney to the list! His (apparently) famous semi-daily news rundown “Grasping At Straws” was taken down by blogger this morning:
    MikeWhitneysGraspingAtStraws.blogspot.com

    • Thanks: Kali
  85. @neutral

    If you don’t want to call them liberals, then what exactly?

    Illiberals.

  86. @Matt Lazarus

    The last I read about Ghislaine Maxwell was that she was incarcerated in despicable inhuman conditions unfit for a Queen Madame of powerful and rich pedophiles of the world.
    They’re going to use every cover of darkness and distraction to shield those caught in her orbit of underage sex trafficking.

    The (((P))) In 2SLGBTQQIAPWXYZ stands for pedophile.

    2SLGBBTQQIAPWXYZ+ – Two Spirit, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Beastiality, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Asexual people, and Pedophiles. + added to cover the overlooked.

    In short, GlobalHomo.

    • Replies: @Trinity
  87. Z-man says:

    With respect to the three persons pictured on the heading of this piece;
    Glen Greenwald-Ok for a homo lefty Jew who, good for him, is going after his own tribesman in the MSM. Tucker has him on all the time although I don’t always pay attention.
    The late Steven F. Cohen-‘A Righteous Jew’ when it came to Russia. I don’t know much about his feelings towards the Jew-ish State. I admire his siring a child with Katrina vanden Heuvel later in life.
    Julian Assange-Thank God the Brits put him in a normal jail where he gets conjugal visits otherwise the guy would have been dead. Imagine six years or whatever it was in one room of the Ecuadorian embassy, mind numbing!
    PS. I’m sure this was unintended by the Brits, the number one lackey and outpost of the Anglo Zionist Empire which is based in the good ol’ USA.
    Thanks for the Taibbi video and informing me/refreshing my memory about General Odom.

  88. Trinity says:
    @CelestiaQuesta

    That 3rd grade art student scrawls wonderful pictures of Ghislane.

  89. SafeNow says:

    Silenced by Pygmies

    “Pygmies” in the sense of substantive professional acumen, yes. But formidable in “the con style” sense, and the U.S. embraces the con style. (For definitional purposes, this comprises both the style of the convict, and the style of the snake-oil con man). Examples abound in journalism, politics, and Covid. The essayists and commenters here reject this style, and instead embrace data and informed, logical reasoning. But Philip Roth’s “indigenous American berserk” has emerged, and we are being overwhelmed by it.

  90. Thomasina says:
    @JWalters

    “Where is the fortune that can afford to buy up all the corporate media?”

    BlackRock and Vanguard.

    • Replies: @JWalters
  91. Trinity says:

    “I wish her well.”

    Who was Trump talking about?

    A. Hunter Biden
    B. Nancy Pelosi
    C. Ghislane Maxwell

  92. Trinity says:

    Tucker needs to have Greenwald or the fat Black guy talk about the Ghislane case. Get on it, Tucker. Slay that pomposity, smugness and (((group think.)))

  93. Interesting Ron. You continue to be one of the few voices who look for the actual truth of things, a boring and useless task for most people who are satisfied with the status quo on all things..

  94. @JWalters

    When you own the news, you can pick and choose who stands tall and who falls. It’s always been like that. They all seem to be in lockstep with each other. It’s as if they’re directed by evil dark overlords hellbent on total annihilation of white bloodlines.
    The scary part is, they’ve expedited their plans by militarization of dark orcs and 2SLGBTQQIAPWXYZ to do their leg work with burn loot murder and rape destruction and intimidation.

    • Replies: @JWalters
  95. Though Ron eloquently describes what happened prior to WWII in the following paragraph, he is incorrect when using the word “blunder” by the British…

    >>>
    “Hitler’s final demand, that 95% German Danzig be returned to Germany just as its inhabitants desired, was an absolutely reasonable one, and only a dreadful diplomatic blunder by the British had led the Poles to refuse the request, thereby provoking the war. The widespread later claim that Hitler sought to conquer the world was totally absurd, and the German leader had actually made every effort to avoid war with Britain or France. Indeed, he was generally quite friendly towards the Poles and had been hoping to enlist Poland as a German ally against the menace of Stalin’s Soviet Union.”
    <<<

    This was no blunder but a concerted effort by the British (and fully encouraged by FDR) to have the Poles provoke a war with Germany and was the reason for British military support for the Poles (though the Poles weren't bright enough to figure out that no such support could possibly come in time if Germany attacked them; to add gas to the fire, the British also reneged on getting much needed loans to the Poles quickly) .

    This so called "blunder" took a period of around 18 months before Adolf Hitler was finally forced to relinquish his reticence over such an attack as a result of mounting pressures on him by his lieutenants and the German people to stop the violent, oppressive policies by the Poles towards their German minority.

    • Agree: John Wear, HdC
    • Thanks: Kali
  96. Agent76 says:

    Mar 2, 2021 Glenn Greenwald – Why Privacy Matters

    In excerpts from a 2014 TED talk, commentator/author Glenn Greenwald explains how government seeks to deploy the psychological weapon of privacy invasion as a means to control society.

    Feb 13, 2021 Edward Snowden – LoveInt and Other New Privacy Violations

    Edward Snowden explains the purpose of LoveInt and looks ahead to coming privacy violations as social media giants and government coalesce their spying-tracking-monitoring information.

    • Thanks: Raches
    • Replies: @Raches
  97. @RedpilledAF

    I have his work on the Constitution as well…

    You will be interested to note that two subsequent books came out over the years that more or less corroborated what Charles Beard wrote in his original work…

    Lundberg’s, “Cracks in the Constitution” (1980) and “To Form A More Perfect Union” by McGuire (2003)…

    • Thanks: RedpilledAF
  98. Marcion says:
    @obwandiyag

    All conservatives are censored.
    Tens of millions of us unable to directly state our views.

    A couple of leftists, Taiibbi and Greenwald, have the decency to notice and call out corrupted journalism.

    One per cent of the left abhore the leftist totalitarian slide, and so they are joining with the much larger group of anti-totalitarians on the right.

    List the liberals who believe in freedom of speech here:

    I’ll wait..

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
    • Replies: @Mac_
  99. AReply says:

    Ron Unz:

    //No sooner had the echoes of those establishment accolades begun to fade than he returned to the front-pages as co-founder of a new international media organization aimed at providing honest reporting free from any political restrictions, an enterprise backed by a pledge of \$150 million in future funding from a public-spirited Silicon Valley multi-billionaire. That truly seemed a Cinderella tale complete with happy ending, fit to inspire future generations of liberal young journalists.//

    Ah yes, the arcane Aliester Crowley magjick of a liberalism secured by public-spirited silicon valley oligarchs.

    It’s a dream come true!

  100. some_loon says:
    @cohen

    Remember Yellow Jackets in France at the start of movement (easy and catch phrase). Then it was changed to Yellow Vest.

    I remember the words changing.

    I had thought at the time that it was because someone thought ‘vests’ are a better translation of ‘gilets’ than ‘jackets’, that same someone not knowing the North American term for certain species of wasps, wasps you don’t want to play with.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowjacket

  101. @Colin Wright

    There are still a hundred possibilities. How about a diverse group of old university mates who include a share trader, a hedge fund rising star, a need who happens to have got access to sonebiowaew virus material in its early stage of development, a military athlete etc.? Cp. The Australian case recently where rwo former students were done for insider trading when one, at the ABS would give the other the latest unemployment (?) figures a dew minutes early.

    Just imagine them speculating how to use their little gems and settling on China because of past history, at least as they knew it, from the great plagues to avian flu.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  102. Watching people on Twitter attack him is sickening and enraging. A sea of soulless, barely cognizant golems, some “High IQ” and others Midwits, being fed some command from Up Top and told “Attach the Traitor!”

    Damnation is too good for all of them.

  103. @neutral

    Daemon-worshippers. Dybbuks. Spiritual Vacuums.

  104. @obwandiyag

    Why are your arguments so deliberately illiterate?

    I mean, you already know the answer and the issue with your question. Is this even considered good trolling? Can’t you do better?

  105. Great summary of some of the most conscientious objectors to the war on truth, inquiry and fair debate. This is why I come here.

    Well, that and the fact that this non-paywalled, non-clickbait, and non-ad-ridden site is more readable and navigable than virtually any other.

    For this and other reasons, I could only hope that someone else’s similar summary would likewise include Ron Unz, who only humbly and briefly mentions his own efforts.

  106. @Wizard of Oz

    ‘There are still a hundred possibilities…’

    There are indeed a hundred possibilities. I’m not wedded to any of ’em. It could even have been ye olde wet market/natural origin.

    …not that I would pick that one. My fave — albeit I’d only bet on it if you gave me good odds — is that this was a Chinese germ warfare project that inadvertently slipped out of the lab. That’s the hypothesis that seems to best fit the available data.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  107. Ron Unz says:
    @The Orakle

    I would like to copy and post this article to my blog above so I can then post on FakeBook, where you are banned. Let me know if I have your permission.

    Sure, go ahead.

    • Replies: @anon
  108. Schuetze says:
    @J Daley

    He may stand shoulder to shoulder with the jews in his list of “giants”, like Cohen, Lippman and Greenwald. They, like Ron Unz, have immunity from insatiable the lust for revenge of Jewish Power.

    Of all the “giants” listed in this article, Irving, and perhaps Assange and Lindberg, are in a class of their own. They stood up to Jewish Power. But only Irving truly named the jew.

    • Agree: Jack McArthur
  109. anon[758] • Disclaimer says:

    Why is Unz promoting this Jewish faggot, who supports the official 9/11 coverup, as some kind of “maverick” journalist? Maybe he’s looking for some Jewish solidarity against the coming day of JAJGO = Justified Anti-Jewish Gentile Outrage?

    The key fact behind the 9/11 coverup is to protect the Zionists who perpetrated it. Zionists don’t care if you’re a communist or fascist, left or right, so long as you leave the Zionist Golden Calf untouched and unchallenged.

    Greenwald is a Jewish Zionist degenerate (Tel Aviv is the fag-capital of the world) and he’s trying to fake us out by pretending to be a cultural conservative.

    To their everlasting shame, Unz and Greenwald represent two extremities of Jewish Zionist apologists. Readers beware!

  110. anon[758] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    Why do you need to ask his permission? He takes our data without our knowledge or permission. You can do the same back.

    • Replies: @Ilya G Poimandres
  111. anon[242] • Disclaimer says:

    we can all agree that the diamond path to enlightenment is the bbc.

    [MORE]

  112. Stefan Molyneux was disappeared too. Thanks great article. Thanks for remembering the America First movement.

  113. I never made it to the end because on doing a quick check it seems virtually all the protagonists (including Ron!) are of Jewish ethnicity or through tribe marriages. It brought to mind Abbie Hoffman and the Yiddies with the trial of the Chicago 7 being an entirely Jewish affair, including the judge (and jury?).

    • Replies: @Jack McArthur
    , @Ron Unz
  114. Incidentally, I’d guess that DC is a very easy place to arrange a killing, given that until the heavy gentrification of the last dozen years or so, it was one of America’s street-murder capitals. It seems perfectly plausible that some junior DNC staffer was at dinner somewhere, endlessly cursing Seth Rich for having betrayed his party and endangered Hillary’s election, when one of his friends said he knew somebody who’d be willing to “take care of the problem” for a thousand bucks…

    Your judgement of people is very poor.

    • Replies: @Smashed Squash
  115. @Jack McArthur

    I came across this comment about the Chicago 7 in Times of Israel

    The high concentration of Jews in this story is something impossible to ignore, especially for 1969/70, yet Aaron Sorkin, who is Jewish, not only ignores it, he even obscures it.

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/chicago-7-makes-its-case-but-trials-jewish-history-stricken-from-the-record/

    This sums up what I felt on reading the first part of the article, i.e. this was another interminable Jewish internal argument in a country they have well and truly subjugated.

  116. @anon

    Those of us who have read Mr. Greenwald for more than score of years and have seen him exhibit no rupture in his essential thesis are fools?

    OK, then…

  117. I dislike the title of this essay as much as I like the content and writing. “Giants Silenced by Pygmies” is offensive and wrongheaded. Whether coming from thoughtlessness or mean-spiritedness, it is ugly verbiage. The title associates intellectual and moral inferiority with a maligned ethnic group. I expected better from Ron Unz.

    Many of the maligned Pygmy peoples are highly intelligent and amazingly resourceful, surviving in environments that would kill the average Unz reader and author in a matter of hours. Wikipedia, though unreliable about controversial topics, seems to have useful content on this topic. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_peoples

    I wonder why Ron Unz and others use ‘pygmy’ and related slurs, such as ‘mental midget.’ Such language arrogantly and rather stupidly assumes that tall people — giants — are superior, as they say ‘head and shoulders above’ others. One can call it ‘heightism,’ or ‘size-ism,’ as repugnant as racism, sexism, ageism, and other forms of bigotry and prejudice. Turning the tables, I could say that it was rather tall of Ron Unz to write this way.

    I hope that Mr. Unz will rethink the title of his well-written and valuable essay. Perhaps he and others will also become more aware of similar ugly, all-too-common expressions, avoid them, and condemn their use.

  118. Anonymous[373] • Disclaimer says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    They know that Substack model is not a model of mass dissemination of information. Practically everyone can only subscribe to a few authors. It’s great for the authors, however, with top of them earning good money.

    So, Substack is basically a controlled opposition: The authors can be effectively bought out and their impact can be minimized.

    • Replies: @Jack McArthur
  119. @LinhDinhFan

    Oh God help us. Hopefully you’re just being subtly witty and it went right by me.

  120. Tony Hall says:

    Fair and justified comments by LinhDinhFan identifying anti-Pygmy bigotry.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  121. @Anonymous

    Ron is of Jewish ethnicity.

    In ancient Egypt, especially during the Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom periods, dwarfs and pygmies were seen as people with celestial gifts. They were treated with considerable respect and could enjoy high social positions. During the 1st Dynasty (c. 3150–2900 BC), dwarfs served and worked directly for the king and royal household, and a number have been found buried in subsidiary tombs around those of the kings. In fact, the rather high proportion of dwarfs in the royal cemeteries of the 1st Dynasty suggests some may have been brought into Egypt from elsewhere.

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

  122. lavoisier says: • Website
    @Biff

    A very well written piece, and should be included in every ‘American-journalism-101’ class at its beginning.

    RU is an excellent writer. His essays are always informative, entertaining, and provocative.

    He is one of those rare individuals who values truth above everything else.

    It actually makes sense. Scientists should (at least theoretically) make far better journalists than journalists given their training in rational thought and a commitment to uphold what is true against all comers.

    • Agree: Biff
  123. Trinity says:
    @LinhDinhFan

    Cue: Big Bad John by Jimmy Dean.

  124. lavoisier says: • Website
    @Ghali

    The evil role of Jews in controlling Western-US mainstream media and twisting the news to manipulate and misled the public to support their Zion-Fascist agenda.

    I think it is there if you read carefully.

  125. BaronAsh says:

    I am not persuaded by the Iran point you keep making.
    Of course it is not a coincidence.
    But there is no definitive evidence, I suspect, showing where it came from or even that the virus is the same as what was going around Wuhan. Furthermore, the Israelis might have used the emerging epidemic as cover for spreading a similar virus into the Iranian high command.

    Your points about the Americans attacking the Chinese are persuasive but I think overly simplistic. What do you mean, really, by the word ‘America.’ Sometimes you have said it was the ‘Trump administration’ which liked biowarfare, other times ‘rogue elements’ and so forth. Trump certainly didn’t run either the military or Intelligence (let alone the bankster sector which sits above both). Furthermore, even if it was a concerted attack by American-based instigators of whatever ilk, the way the response has been used to effect worldwide systemic political change seems – to me at least – clearly part of some sort of new world war, albeit one waged asymmetrically without traditional ‘kinetic’ elements (aka soldiers and armies).

    This required and still requires a great degree of global cooperation. The new reset regime seems to be one that will supersede traditional nation state jurisdictions, constitutions and authorities. That emerging ‘techno-feudal’ or ‘GloboCap’ power network is probably the one that instigated the initial viral outbreak.

    It is also possible this was done with the knowledge and collusion of the CCP who could ensure both that the disease did not kill too many Chinese but also – because of Chinese New Year and Wuhan’s travel hub role – that it would rapidly spread world wide through direct person to person transmission before too many people realized what was going on.

    That is just one speculation. There are many more plausible ones.

    So I think you are right to call it out as a deliberately instigated biowarfare attack. But I think you have a long way to go before you can clearly show who was attacking whom both back in 2019 and day to day right now.

    I urge you to dig deeper because when you do you are one of the best at doing so.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  126. Ron Unz says:
    @LinhDinhFan

    “Giants Silenced by Pygmies” is offensive and wrongheaded. Whether coming from thoughtlessness or mean-spiritedness, it is ugly verbiage. The title associates intellectual and moral inferiority with a maligned ethnic group…Many of the maligned Pygmy peoples are highly intelligent and amazingly resourceful…I wonder why Ron Unz and others use ‘pygmy’ and related slurs

    LOL.

    I’d actually considered using “dwarf” or “midget” instead, but the cadence of “pygmy” seemed a little superior. Anyway, I doubt you would have found those words any more acceptable.

  127. Ron Unz says:
    @Jack McArthur

    I never made it to the end because on doing a quick check it seems virtually all the protagonists (including Ron!) are of Jewish ethnicity or through tribe marriages.

    The controversial content and very lightly moderated discussions on this website do tend to attract individuals with strange fixations.

    It’s certainly true that several of the individuals I focused upon were Jewish. For example, I assume that Glenn Greenwald, Stephen Cohen, and Sydney Schanberg come from that background. But Julian Assange, Nicholas Wade, William Odom, John T. Flynn, Harry Elmer Barnes, Charles Lindbergh, A.J.P. Taylor, and David Irving do not, nor (as far as I know) did any of their wives. The individuals more briefly discussed included Oswald Garrison Villard, William Henry Chamberlin, and Charles Beard, none of whom were Jewish.

    Now 3 out of 11 (or perhaps 3 out of 14) is admittedly a substantial ratio, but hardly “virtually all” as you claim.

  128. Aaron Mate is the most prominent among many important voices in exposing the Russiagate hoax from the beginning.
    Russiagate hoax is at or near the top along with lies about Iraq and Syria exposing MSM “journalistic” malfeasance causing irreparable damage to their credibility.
    Vanessa Bealy is the most important among others in shining the light on what is really going on in Syria.

  129. GeneralRipper [AKA "SnidelyWhiplash"] says:
    @LinhDinhFan

    Cue: Short People by Randy Newman

    • Agree: Biff
    • Replies: @Punch Brother Punch
  130. @saggy

    What needs to be understood is that Hitler did not want a war, he wanted his country returned pre Versaille. That includes Danzig. The removal of jews was a necessity given the filth and usury that they were responsible for. Have you read Mein Kampf?

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  131. @Tony Hall

    ‘Fair and justified comments by LinhDinhFan identifying anti-Pygmy bigotry.’

    More humor, I hope.

    • Replies: @Jack McArthur
  132. @Ron Unz

    ‘…Now 3 out of 11 (or perhaps 3 out of 14) is admittedly a substantial ratio, but hardly “virtually all” as you claim.’

    Whatever. It does raise an interesting question: what percentage of the advocates of the various possible points of view in any discussion of political interest are going to be be Jews versus what percentage are going to be Jews taking a particular side?

    To put it differently: okay, Jews are only two percent of the population yet fifty percent of those advocating the annihilation of Western civilization are Jewish — but what percent of those participating in the discussion in any capacity at all are Jewish?

    Granted. Not fifty percent. But not two percent either.

  133. @Ukraine Tiger

    ‘What needs to be understood is that Hitler did not want a war, he wanted his country returned pre Versaille. That includes Danzig. The removal of jews was a necessity given the filth and usury that they were responsible for. Have you read Mein Kampf?’

    Hitler was the good man. Versus: the anti-Hitlers were the good men.

  134. @Ron Unz

    You missed out the tribal marriage links I mentioned. Are you seriously suggesting that the Jewish domination of not just the US but the West is some kind of strange fixation?

    I got to your “breaking point” paragraph and according to quick web searches that alone contains Sanders a Jew, Biden whose family is enmeshed with the tribe through marriage as is Trump’s with Harris also married to a Jew The big tech companies i.e. Facebook Jewish, Google Jewish, the big media (as you point out elsewhere) largely Jewish.

    Beyond that paragraph I may have got as far as Blumenthal (another Jew you do not mention).

    The tribe are in the process of destroying the West and what the NT teaches about who the ruler of this world and who his children are seems true.

    To repeat this seems another Jewish squabble over the proceeds of a robbery. The Jews in their demonic theology believe they are the only true humans. They are spiritually insane which is a product of the devil they worship in the Talmud.

    The issue of censorship is mainly the issue of Jewish domination of the West. Censorship is a symptom and not the cause.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  135. BaronAsh says:
    @LinhDinhFan

    Giants are very, very big. Pygmies are very small.
    Usually in conflict the very big have an advantage over the very small, hence drawing the contrast in sizes.

    It’s very simple and no big deal. Relax!

    (Plus: the pygmies win!)

    • Replies: @Jack McArthur
  136. My thanks to Ron Unz, Linh Dinh, the courageous individuals cited in the essay and many of the posters who make this site a broadly unique perspective on the reality of our current national and international dilemma of how we might escape from the clutches of the ruling financier elite, their primary minions such as Heinrich Kissinger and George \$oro\$ and their endless array of governmental and corporate bureaucrats and shoals of “in it for the money, power and prestige” sought by their fellow travelers and camp followers that comes with going along to get along.

    This day, November 22, 2021 happens to be the 58th anniversary of the assassination by Deep \$tate actors of our last truly American president. Apparently, he perhaps both naively and bravely believed that he was actually in charge. Lesson given on 11-22-63.

    President Kennedy came to the attention of the reading public with his book “Profiles in Courage”. It is the mission and in fact, the duty of we who still believe in liberty and justice for all, to confront power with truth. May the immortal words “and the truth shall set you free” not only ring for those of us who cherish the Unz Review, but may it also chime for people across this plundered planet who hold dear the virtues which signal the deepest spirit of the human race.

    • Thanks: Craig Nelsen
  137. @BaronAsh

    In context the symbolic giants with Ron are people who should be looked up to and respected whereas the pygamies are not. Perhaps there may be another unconscious aspect through Jews seeing themselves as being the only true humans and Ron was born a Jew.

    I posted a quotation a while back in which the then head of the Serphadic Jews likens non Jews to donkeys.

    • Replies: @BaronAsh
  138. Yevardian says:
    @Ron Unz

    Perhaps “Lilliputians” would be sufficiently PC.
    Though I imagine people will find their reasons to tear down statues of Swift, if they haven’t already.

  139. @Ron Unz

    “The controversial content and very lightly moderated discussions on this website”

    And to your credit it is as such, and hopefully it will remain so for as long as possible. This is a wonderful website.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes, BaronAsh
  140. Ron Unz says:
    @Jack McArthur

    I got to your “breaking point” paragraph…

    LOL. So you apparently made it to the fifth paragraph of my 12,000 word article before you gave up in disgust.

    Since you were still towards the beginning of my first section, a section discussing Greenwald, I can now better understand why you decided that “virtually all the protagonists” were Jewish.

    You could have equally well said that you decided that the entire article was only about Greenwald.

    One problem with Twitter is that people who use it too much become unwilling to read anything longer than a couple of hundred characters.

    • Replies: @Jack McArthur
  141. mcohen says:

    Great article.However you broke the golden rule when some mentioned the number of Jews involved

    the rule once again.

    Never complain Never explain

    • Replies: @Jack McArthur
  142. @Ron Unz

    Haven’t these literary cretins attacking your good work (especially the audio version) read Gulliver’s Travels, understood ‎Lilliput and Blefuscu, and appreciate satire? Onward and upward, …

    • Agree: Punch Brother Punch
  143. Ron Unz says:
    @BaronAsh

    What do you mean, really, by the word ‘America.’ Sometimes you have said it was the ‘Trump administration’ which liked biowarfare, other times ‘rogue elements’ and so forth. Trump certainly didn’t run either the military or Intelligence

    This issue it much more appropriate for one of my many Covid articles, where I’ve presented my scenarios, for example:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-truth-and-the-whole-truth-on-the-origins-of-covid-19/#summarizing-the-evidence-for-a-biowarfare-attack-and-outlini

    I think it’s quite likely that the Covid outbreak was due to an American biowarfare attack against China (and Iran), probably orchestrated by some of the Deep State Neocons near the top of the Trump Administration, with Mike Pompeo and John Bolton being the most plausible suspects.

    I’m almost certain that Trump himself was unaware of the operation, and if the President doesn’t authorize a military attack on China, it’s a “rogue operation” by definition.

    I discuss all these issues at great length in my Covid/Biowarfare articles:

    https://www.unz.com/page/covid-biowarfare-articles/

  144. @Ron Unz

    Thanks again, Ron. My take has long been that Trump, who was essentially a political outsider, had little actual choice in the selection of his cabinet and other high-level appointments. You very correctly pointed the finger at Pomposity and Bolton as the probable architects of the ongoing assaults against Iran, in particular, as that aggression deficient nation being the #1 bete noire for the Eretz Yisroel claque amongst the Zionist extremist heirs to those terrorists whose massacres of native Palestinians and ethnic cleansing paved the way for the Zionist state to massively exceed those lands “granted” to them by the Rottenchild ruled Brits.

    Both Bolton and Pompeo could be considered by some as Shabat Goys, but primarily they are psychopathic careerists whose specialties include high crimes against the perceived enemies–or targets–of those finance-based crime clans who currently dominate the self-styled “free world”.

    Slightly paraphrasing here: “We lied, we cheated, we stole” uttered Pompeo, former chief honcho occupying the catbird seat in that headquarters named after a certain “gentleman”, a Skull n’ Bones Eli whose own father was found guilty of aid and comfort to the Hitler regime as the bagman for the Union Bank owned by the Brown and Harriman crime clans.

    That certain gentleman joined the Agency shortly after its founding and his congratulation from Yale and from available evidence was the probable manager of his organization’s Bahia de Cocinos operation. It appears somewhat probable that he also ran the show at Dealey Plaza on 11-22-63. Contrary to GHWB, Pompeo does not even pretend to be a gentleman, but rather has long prided himself in his longtime role as consiglieri primo for the Bank\$ter shotcallers.

    If one takes a read of the late Gary Webb’s “The Dark Alliance”, it becomes easy to discern that both the Department of “Justice” and that of State are altogether subservient to the whispered ukases of that gearbox differential which happens to be the ultimate nadir of the Deep \$tate.

    In terms of meta-political analysis, Trump was a relative babe in the woods, as evidenced by the events of 1-6-21, when a ragtag group of his most dedicated adherents were effectually demonized by the control-media and the various tentacles of the current regime in the Di\$trict of Corruption.

    • Replies: @BaronAsh
  145. @Colin Wright

    this was a Chinese germ warfare project that inadvertently slipped out of the lab. That’s the hypothesis that seems to best fit the available data.

    “(…) inadvertedly slipped out of the lab” – via a wet market. Possible as well. – Maybe not more so than the first hypothesis of yours, but not impossible all the same.

  146. @Ron Unz

    I don’t withdraw any of my congratulations in #27 but I have now listened to about half the David Irving videos and want to say something about your Holocaust coverage which would shore up the defensibility of your hrterodoxies.

    You ought to deal firmly with any suggestion that you deny the willingness of many Nazis, especially leaders, and indoctrinated Germans to countenance and even participate in the killing of Jews because they were Jews (OK also other Untermenschen too).

    Clearly gas was used and it would be foolish to deny the possibility that some autistic needs might have thought it would be a great idea to systematise gassing efficiently and reduce stress on nice German boys and girls. And clearly Hitler would have preferred to solve the Jewish problem without mass murder, just as he didn’t want an unnecessary war with Britain and really only wanted the chance to open up the Soviet Union for Lebensraum with or without cheap labour at the same time Communism was destroyed. You appear to be denying that civilised modern Germans had anything to regret about the way the Nazis dealt with Jews, Slavs and gypsies or be ashamed of in so far as shame and pride are appropriate to one’s national identity. Surely the only appropriate attitude was to be aghast at the failure of the land of Schiller and Goethe to be able to prevent the takeover of their country by Nazis. And that, in the end, is less because Germany was physically destroyed than because so many Germans were brought to the point of actions in support of genocide.

    I am not specifically asserting anything about gas at Auschwitz but gas was used by the Germans to kill people.

    • Replies: @John Wear
    , @Ron Unz
  147. @Ron Unz

    Sorry, I’ve been distracted. I omitted what I think you need to deal with up front . How is the deportation of Jewish women and children and old people from Holland, Belgium and France to Polish camps consistent with any but a seriously damning interpretation of the fate of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis, especially Himmler (and Goebbels after he went to Berlin as noted by Irving).
    Cannot Anna Frank’s survival to near the end of the war be easily explained by her late arrival at Auschwitz and by the fact that, by the time she became too sick to work the SS officers and guards knew the war was lost and weren’t about to risk making things even worse for themselves?

    • Replies: @Anon
  148. Mac_ says:
    @Marcion

    Though I wouldn’t dispute claim of supposed conservative views being less foisted in terms of msm, because most people who have the supposed views have chosen to be irrelevant, whatever news or other expression of supposed views has over time, only ended up stroking lazy people to think they’re ‘good’ because they sit watching other people talk, while they personally let the world cave in. Everyone who failed to protest the filth and wars and bailouts and surveillance and other things the last forty years shows the truth about what supposed views mean, compared to non-effort by most people.

    [MORE]
    Because of the last two years there is a little changing energy, though late and not enough. People need to break ignorance or dependence on media or whatever the problem is. Learn how to share. Though the article is focus on general presence in what’s seen on web or tevee or what have you , in reality, that is narrowed focus. Meaning what’s seen on goob tubes or coming out of plastic boxes, and the premise that conservatives are censored, in reality is false premise, as people yet continue to look to whatever daddy or mommy of the moment is coming out of the plastic boxes to talk ‘for’ them. It is a limited premise as if only what’s seen over electronics is what people are limited to, in terms of steering the future, which leaves out the responsibility of each person, to be our own media. It is on every person, by whatever means there are. For instance can talk, write short letters to others, bumper sticker in car window, sign in yard, talking a bit to everyone we see. So, there is a list of things people can do that aren’t censored, so no excuse for not being our own uncensored media. It is that electronic media and web is censored, either directly or by self-censoring, and further, electronics are surveilled, is way past time to recognize electronic communications are not private. As to why it matters should be obvious, see Glenn’s writings as to that, or his ted talk why privacy matters, also Snowden, and, how many ignored the ‘patriot act’, which put to fore, what in my opinion has been going on all along. I submit none of us has ever had a private phone call. In other words, focus on what is on the web or not, is only partial focus of reality, and if people don’t understand that soon, every street and house will be censored, so can’t do the other things either. On other note, something I think interesting in terms of how we remember things, that sometimes a visual is a further stick, such as when I think of Glenn at first instant is visual of photos he would use from time to time back when he was at Salon, then Guardian, which a few times above his column he would have photo of a predator drone, or another was the million sq ft ‘cyber data center’ in Utah. Is interesting to note mental imaging, how we remember things, and wonder if others noticed or only his writing, which was plenty of itself. Sense of smell is also a memory binder. Last a note on taibbi, which this link makes some point as to at one time he was putting down truthers, 2006 was important time for people to get serious because of trillions ‘military’ spending that let them build more weapons, and though more people should have been pushing on their own, it didn’t help for anyone to be putting down people questioning things, https://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2009/09/rolling-stones-matt-taibbis-911.html This said, however in 2011, he made note on the bailouts, which his position was opposite of nearly everyone in ‘newz’ msm who were pushing it over. https://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/matt-taibbi-why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail – The bailouts another core time to stop the train. Instead, people continued ignoring, sitting on ‘fake house value’. Now is worse. Most core photo I have is at an occupy protest, February 2010, sign in hand, one side said media lies, the other, no wars. In any case I think important to see that no one person in electronic media can do everything, and our computers aren’t going to stop anything. Takes everyone doing a share, where we live. To extent those noted in article made effort in some way, they did theirs. And agree with other comment on Irving being in a special category. How people sit by while others have given so much, I don’t know. Thanks for the article Ron.

  149. @Ron Unz

    I do not use social media and you choose to ignore in my response that in the two key areas which censorship is empowered i.e. politics and the media it is dominated by Jews.

    It is now so dominant that they can brazely allow another Jew to let the goyim know how enslaved they are.

    I do not blame individual Jews and take them as I find them but when I look back I see you published on Christmas day a scarcely disguised attack piece on Christianity, other junk like the revisionist who wants to destroy the historicity of the Church and more lately a demon who hates Jesus.

    We already have a Jewish controlled hollywood to do that (look what they have done to Disney) without your help.

    Do you agree that censorship is a symptom and not the cause? If so what do you identify as the cause?

    • Replies: @Anon
  150. @obwandiyag

    Your comments are to Unz Review like mosquitoes are to summertime.

    • Thanks: Tony massey
  151. @mcohen

    Never complain Never explain

    Maybe one of the most inapproriate uses of the quotation or is this more satire?

    If more people had shouted out at the time the media and poltical class might never have been allowed to be dominated by one small ethnic group to the detriment of the host culture. The ADL certainly do not practice this when it comes to their own narrow interests.

  152. @neutral

    The “liberals” of which you speak are more accurately “shit libs” in the vernacular. Totally fake. Sociopaths that need to wear some sort of disguise. Can’t very well walk around bragging they are a detriment to humanity can they?

    Some old-timey conservative once quipped that “liberal” is what criminals call each other.

  153. @Sean

    The army is not a police force, it’s a killing machine. Shocking!

    The problem wasn’t that he exposed the killing, it was that he exposed the murdering.

    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @Sean
    , @Johnny Rico
    , @Sean
  154. a few years ago when Greenwald and Snowden revealed the massive scale of illegal NSA spying.

    I don’t know about the details, but that had been known for at least a decade.

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

  155. @Triteleia Laxa

    It’s quite accurate. Gentrification is a thing in DC.

    Until all the Reaganite Alex P. Keaton types started flocking to DC with their heads filled with globalism, large swaths of DC remained burnt out from the ’68 riots. Into the early ’80s. That entire H Street corridor south to F Street was devastated.

    I lived near the intersection of F and 3rd NE and three of the four corners were still burnt out shells. That was two blocks from Union Station. There was no SEC building complex. The gravel paved Senate staff parking lot was there and forcible rapes were not uncommon. You had to walk across makeshift pallet paths through the flooded and crumbling Union Station.

    During the ’68 riots, the military set up perimeters using the defense grid designed into the DC street system. Outside that first ring around the capitol building, arsonists burnt and looters looted until the perimeters were expanded.

    That street grid was designed in a era where planners presumed that rioters and revolutionary mobs would be shot down with rifles and the ones who fell would be bayoneted by advancing militia.

    Street crime is a almost a protected profession in DC. They made a farce of rounding up prostitutes once and marched them across the 14th street bridge. I think when Marion Barry was in charge.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
  156. @GeneralRipper

    I love Randy Newman. That’s one Jew I have no problem listening to.

  157. Pornography Is THE great scourge of our time, worse than opioids or fentanyl or anything.

    I continue to object to Ron Unz equating a guy who’s produced pornographic videos to Julian Assange.

    • Replies: @Raches
  158. @Colin Wright

    I was going to mention a scene from Spinal Tap but what stopped me is that over 30 years ago I employed somebody whose little boy died very young. He appeared on the cover of an US owned magazine as he had an extreme form premature aging and was tiny. The Creator can depicted as a dwarf in Ancient Egypt.

  159. @Smashed Squash

    Another lunatic with old man repressed hysteria and paranoid delusions.

    I am sure that you might be able to pay someone to kill someone, but the idea that some junior staffer, or actually anyone in government, did so to get Seth Rich is mental.

  160. @Rowan Berkeley

    for alleged contempt of court

    It wasn’t alleged, he is 100% guilty and deserved his prison sentence.

  161. @anon

    Politeness, humanity – act according to your own principles (that you believe as benefiting yourself and others).

  162. Dumbo says:

    Speaking of journalists, what happened to Israel Shamir?
    He’s been silent for quite a while.
    Is he dead?
    Is he on holidays?
    Has he been banned?

  163. Anon[280] • Disclaimer says:
    @WIzard of Oz

    Excellent question! Carolyn Yeager says that the Germans had a right to view every single Jew in Europe as a potential enemy combatant and to round them up and imprison them. She compares that to the Japanese internment in America. However the Japanese were not forced into slave labor on behalf of The Americans as the Jews were with the Germans. I think your question is most reasonable and important.

    Gordon Duff at Veteran’s Today once wrote that the tragedy is that Hitler took out his anger at a bunch of Jewish bankers in London and New York on Jewish taxi drivers businessmen and housewives across Europe.

    • Thanks: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  164. Anon[280] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack McArthur

    It is now so dominant that they can brazely allow another Jew to let the goyim know how enslaved they are.

    Very well stated. There may be a sinister motive at this site of enthralling people with the power and danger of global Jewry. And to placate them with a handful of Jewish journalists opposed to this power. However with the proviso that none of these journalists questions the official 9/11 cover-up that protects Judeo-Zionism more than anything else!

  165. Sean says:
    @Craig Nelsen

    Chelsea Manning testified in 2013 that the ‘Collateral Murder’ video was not classified. No kind of secret: long known that this is what the armed forces do. In Vietnam, it was not things like My Lai that killed the most innocent people it was the air attacks

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Speedy_Express The U.S. Army claimed 10,899 PAVN/VC dead and 2,579 suspects detained, while 242 U.S. soldiers were killed and 2,385 wounded (a kill ratio of 45:1) and 688 individual and 60 crew-served weapons recovered (a ratio of enemy killed to weapons seized of 14.6:1).[2]

    According to Le Quan Cong, a VC platoon commander operating in the Delta during the operation, “most of the people killed were civilians, because civilians would run, we soldiers held our fighting position so they could not get us, they had wiped out whole villages” […] t has also been asserted that the operation targeted “people running, people in black pajamas, civilians past night-time”

    That is how you win a counter insurgency war. Actually, what are the example of any kind of war in which non combatants were not killed in relatively large numbers?

  166. @Ron Unz

    The controversial content and very lightly moderated discussions on this website do tend to attract individuals with strange fixations

    And yet – you use this podium to regularly feed these strange fixations?

    And not on a one-off basis, in the sense of maybe a media petting-zoo. No no no, this fixation-food, this cognitive fentanyl for the short-bus set is well-featured and prominent, with placement in the masthead or on their own dedicated channels, and entirely routine.

    This article – on point. But the webzine’s publication policy remains mysterious.

    Anyway – take the idea if you want. Create a featured backpage section, call it “Media Petting Zoo”. Nothing in the Media Petting Zoo goes on the masthead – although the section itself might be reached from the masthead, but we stop featuring its content. Giraldi, Anglin, Raches, Dalton, “KMac”, probably more that don’t immediately come to mind – they all get moved to the Petting Zoo. Whatever you want to do, but stop leaving it to doubt. Make it really, really clear: “read if you want, from time to time there’s a chewable morsel you probably won’t find anywhere else, but have no doubt about it: go here and you have entered the Zoo”.

    • Disagree: RedpilledAF
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
  167. John Wear says:
    @WIzard of Oz

    You write: “Clearly gas was used and it would be foolish to deny the possibility that some autistic needs might have thought it would be a great idea to systematise gassing efficiently and reduce stress on nice German boys and girls.”

    My response: National Socialist Germany did not gas Jews during World War II. If you have an interest, please read the following articles:

    https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/9/4/5160

    https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/12/1/7200

    Germany did have a euthanasia program during World War II. If you have an interest, please read my article at https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/9/3/4885.

    • Thanks: RedpilledAF
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  168. Dan Hayes says:
    @SimplePseudonymicHandle

    I doubt that Giraldi who happens to be TUR’s National Security Editor will adopt your magnanimous proposal to be relegated to your media petting zoo!

  169. @Graham Seibert

    I will never think of Amazon the same way again since they removed the commenting on published reviews option on their website circa Summer of 2020.

    That is BEYOND LAME and is intended suppression of speech and dialogue.

    Now, reviewers can claim any damn thing they want and there is no ability for anyone else to concisely refute false claims, dumb info, etc. below the review. Nor can customers pose questions of any reviewer to clarify or seek more detail.

    Amazon = a globalist empire

    Your handling of dissent with regard to Covid has been admirable.

    I guess so. But, when did basic tolerance, open-mindedness and permitting free speech actually become something that needed to be complimented? We should expect it and, instead, intensely thrash those that don’t allow it. Like Amazon….

  170. @John Wear

    Thanks. Will read and will be interested th know how you deal with the stories/reports of the use of CO in sealed trucks.

    Also if you deal with he reasons for deportations from the West.

  171. Anonymous[387] • Disclaimer says:
    @profnasty

    If you don’t understand why the story of the left-behind PoWs is important, I can’t help you.
    But beyond the still-relevant political considerations is the personal — and to my mind the personal is the most important of all.
    Did you ever wear a PoW bracelet? I suppose not. I did. For years. Mine was dedicated to CDR Harley Hall. He, along with his RIO LTCDR Philip A. Kientzler, was shot down on Jan. 27, 1973. Both ejected safely and landed within 100 feet of each other. Both were captured alive. But only Kientzler was returned by the North Vietnamese. Hall’s fate is unknown to this day. Why? What happened to him? We want to know and we will never ever, in your phrase, drop it.

    • Replies: @profnasty
  172. @Anon

    I’d forgotten that Ron Unz too seemed to fall back on a similar what-about argument. But it really won’t do. There must be vast quantities of records relating to such enormous undertakings in several countries. I wonder if Irving ever dealt with them.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  173. Ron Unz says:
    @WIzard of Oz

    I don’t withdraw any of my congratulations in #27 but I have now listened to about half the David Irving videos and want to say something about your Holocaust coverage which would shore up the defensibility of your hrterodoxies….

    Clearly gas was used and it would be foolish to deny the possibility that some autistic needs might have thought it would be a great idea to systematise gassing efficiently and reduce stress on nice German boys and girls…

    Actually, no. As far as I can tell, there’s roughly zero evidence of any significant gassing of Jews or others by the Nazis. I discussed this among many other elements in my very long Holocaust Denial article back in 2018:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/

    Sorry, I’ve been distracted. I omitted what I think you need to deal with up front . How is the deportation of Jewish women and children and old people from Holland, Belgium and France to Polish camps consistent with any but a seriously damning interpretation of the fate of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis

    Well, during that exact same period, America not only sent its own Japanese-American population off to concentration camps, but also persuaded some of the Latin American countries to ship their own Japanese ethnic citizens off to the U.S. internment camps. Does that prove that America was planning to exterminate all ethnic Japanese in the Western hemisphere?

    When this same topic came up earlier this month, I made the following comment:

    In the years immediately following WWII, an academic scholar who had been one of America’s most highly-placed wartime figures in Military Intelligence published a book that included a few pages casually dismissing and ridiculing the “gas chambers” and the “Jewish Holocaust” as a total fraud concocted by the Communists and the Zionists that almost no one still believed. His book became a gigantic American best-seller and received glowing endorsements by a long list of America’s top generals and Military Intelligence commanders. And although Jewish groups attacked his work on all sorts of other issues, none of them ever challenged his claims that the “Jewish Holocaust” was just an absurd, embarrassing hoax.

    How do you explain this?

    I discussed this and closely-related evidence at considerable length in my article:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/#explicit-and-implicit-holocaust-denial-after-world-war-ii

    • Agree: Raches
  174. Ron Unz says:
    @Ukraine Tiger

    “After the story aired, a Pentagon spokesman officially denied the existence of that November report”

    Is that official statment available to view anywhere and who was the official?

    Those denials were quoted in the updated version of the ABC News story:

    The Pentagon did not comment Tuesday, but on Wednesday evening following the publication of this report, the Defense Department provided a statement from Col. R. Shane Day, Director of the NCMI.

    “As a matter of practice the National Center for Medical Intelligence does not comment publicly on specific intelligence matters. However, in the interest of transparency during this current public health crisis, we can confirm that media reporting about the existence/release of a National Center for Medical Intelligence Coronavirus-related product/assessment in November of 2019 is not correct. No such NCMI product exists,” the statement said.

    The White House National Security Council and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment.

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/intelligence-report-warned-coronavirus-crisis-early-november-sources/story?id=70031273

  175. I am sorry, but there are no giants.

    If I have to pick any giants in the media, UNZ review and it’s like are the only ones that is even remotely like it.

  176. Skeptikal says:
    @Punch Brother Punch

    You obviously have only limited “attention” and you are focusing it on hairy balls.

    Get a life.

    • Replies: @Punch Brother Punch
  177. @Kurt Knispel

    China’s Central Government has done pretty well. In China, so long as you are not plotting the overthrow ofthe Government and vivisection of country, you are pretty free, the usual laws being obeyed of course. That really pisses Yankee Doodle Exceptionals.

  178. @Ron Unz

    Never believe anything until it is officially denied.

  179. @Sean

    You really are a nassty pos, aren’t you ‘sean’. Apologias for mass murder of civilians-what’s next. The American Man Boy Love Society?

    • Replies: @Sean
  180. One-off says:

    It was deep into the article before certain tics and references caused me to check the byline. Congratulations, Ron, this is your best AmPra piece to date.

    I have been quite disappointed that you have studiously avoided the likely use of Covid to curtail American civil liberties, but in fairness you have been otherwise aggressive on this story and do belong in the company of the figures you detailed here.

    I have long suspected the IC either pumps funds to publications such as the NATION or inserts staffers on the editorial boards to quash those things most important to them like the new Cold War with Russia. These make perfect forums to deal with the big things, being camouflaged in the normally most hostile terrain.

    You are correct this has been a technique for a long time, and it predates the especially egregious example of Fleet Street crossing the Atlantic to propagandize for American entry into World War I. The original MIC inserted agents into anti-war, pro-Southern Northern newspapers even before Lincoln shuttered them, and in the aftermath we had the appalling lies of Spanish atrocities in the Philippines and Cuba spread far and wide by Hearst.

    This is why the Internet is our best hope for truth and that is why it is so ruthlessly suppressed. It is a battle the State will lose

    Again, great stuff, and here’s to hoping you dive deeper into Covid’s use as a bioweapon against our personal and financial freedom.

  181. @Wizard of Oz

    ‘I’d forgotten that Ron Unz too seemed to fall back on a similar what-about argument. But it really won’t do. There must be vast quantities of records relating to such enormous undertakings in several countries. I wonder if Irving ever dealt with them.’

    Irving’s been all over the place with regards to the Holocaust, but at last sight, he seems to largely grant its reality. Specifically, I recall reading him taking the position that there is incontrovertible evidence that the Germans deliberately did away with at least two and a half million Jews — and he does nothing to rule out the possibility that the number may have been considerably greater.

    As far as I can see, at the moment, Irving’s most recent positions materially differ from orthodox Holocaust historiography in two respects.

    One. He implies that the death toll at Auschwitz remains considerably exaggerated.

    Two. He insists that there is no evidence Hitler ordered, condoned, or was even aware of the whole project.

    I would say that Irving would prefer to believe that that the Germans didn’t commit the Holocaust. However, he’s been forced to admit that it’s a documented fact that they substantially did. He remains insistent that Hitler was unaware of it. He makes an argument for that, but I’m inclined to disagree. Hitler may well have preferred not to be involved in the details. However, I think Himmler was carrying out his wishes, and both of them were perfectly well aware of that.

    In general, while I’m no Irving worshipper, I think he’s a perfectly credible historian. His distortions and biases are no worse than those of a Richard Evans. They’re just considerably less congenial to the mainstream.

    • Thanks: Wizard of Oz
    • LOL: L.K
    • Replies: @Raches
  182. JWalters says:
    @thotmonger

    Thanks for the link on the Covid research. Here are a few key quotes.

    [MORE]

    …..
    “SARS-CoV-2 infection depends on the host cell factors angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) for entry into cells and the host transmembrane serine protease TMPRSS2 for SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein priming [5] (Fig. 1a).”
    …..
    “Here, we investigated genetic susceptibility to COVID-19 by examining DNA polymorphisms in ACE2 (OMIM 300335) and TMPRSS2 (OMIM 602060) genes.”
    …..
    “We found that the distribution of deleterious variants in ACE2 differs among 9 populations in gnomAD (v3).”
    …..
    “Specifically, 39% (24/61) and 54% (33/61) of deleterious variants in ACE2 occur in African/African-American (AFR) and Non-Finnish European (EUR) populations, respectively (Fig. 1b).”
    …..
    “Prevalence of deleterious variants among Latino/Admixed American (AMR), East Asian (EAS), Finnish (FIN), and South Asian (SAS) populations is 2–10%,”
    …..
    “Amish (AMI) and Ashkenazi Jewish (ASJ) populations do not appear to carry such variants in ACE2 coding regions (Fig. 1b).”
    …..
    “Altogether, these comparative genetic analyses suggest that ACE2 genomic variants may play important roles in susceptibilities to COVID-19 and its associated cardiovascular conditions by altering AGT-ACE2 pathway (i.e., p.Arg514Gly).”

    In other words, if this Covid virus was engineered, it may have been engineered to “pass over” the Ashkenazi Jewish population (or the Amish population).

    Cynthia McKinney discusses this possibility and the more general potential for targeting bioengineered viruses at various population, along with past possible cases, with Kevin Barrett.
    “Cynthia McKinney on “When China Sneezes””
    https://www.unz.com/author/kevin-barrett/page/2/

  183. JWalters says:
    @Thomasina

    Agree. And Blackrock and Vanguard were created by an entity with even more money. Camouflage and logistics.

  184. @Ron Unz

    I do now recall your comparison of the Japanese in the US and the Jews in Western Europe and didn’t recall it I suppose because I couldn’t get beyond acknowledging it as a debating point but in the real world inconclusive.

    I suspect that there is a mass of documentation which would include pretty good proof of the differences between Germany and the Jews as against the US and the Japanese. It needs a David Irvung perhaps. One can imagine someone in the US explaining that you couldn’t allow old people to be left behind because, after all, old people could operate radio equipment and send direction signals. That wouldn’t have applied in Western Europe because (a) there was no technological parallel; and (b) anyway the whole Dutch, Belgian and French populations would have been equally suspect.

    As to the use of gas, does anyone deny the experimentation with exhaust fumes in locked trucks?

  185. Jim123 says:

    This is a wonderful essay, the history, good men gone but not forgotten.

    The treatment of public intellectuals by those of the ilk of Bill O’Reilly, following Operation-911 Sept. 11, 2001, similar to Professor Cohen, post Ukraine Coup circa 2014.

    I distinctly remember at the time, having observed treatment of Palestine and Palestinians in US Big Media; how, overnight, Russia all of a sudden was treated like Palestine and Palestinians, during and after “Maidan” to today.

    Professor Cohen, as this essay elegantly and cogently describe, became a pariah, and lost his stature as leading public intellectual. At the time, I had a conversation with a US trained Russia expert teaching at university who speaks Russian. I asked their opinion on Cohen, and the response I got was dismal. And so, I wonder if this professor represented an extreme minority, minority, or instead attitude of many Russia experts in leading US universities. I also thought that this attitude indicative, perhaps: of how career and future prestige are more important to contemporary Russia experts, at expense of the advancement of knowledge. This is part of the “cancer” besetting contemporary Russia scholarship in USA, perhaps.

    The take-down and dismantling of Professor Cohen, as insidious and self-defeating as it was, look like a walk in the park compared to the fate of a leading Palestinian academic, Sami al-Arian, following Operation-911.

    Sami al-Arian, guilty of being a Palestinian, after years in jail, was deported to Turkey, with all charges against him dropped.

    https://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/sami-al-arian-leaves-us-and-goes-to-turkey/2216534/

    Cohen did not endure the amount of distorted persecution as al-Arian, but was essentially erased.

    And now we are seeing this same erasure pattern vis a vis with targeting and censoring and silencing some of the greatest men and women in organized medicine and public health, with Operation-Corona-411-911

    Another expert, and influential, the Russia Expert, Dimitri Simes, targeted by Mueller and his posse — Simes is now residing in Russia with no plans to return to USA.

    The shameful treatment of Cohen, Al Arian, and actual medical and public health experts now related to the Corona operation, is what tyranny and totalitarianism look like.

    PS
    And let’s not forget Harry Elmer Barnes was expertly trained as sociologist [of which was professor at Smith College] and in anthropology; this training and his use of these skills went part and parcel with what motivated his monumental scholarly achievements in the humanities.

    Among his core scholarly goals was “to give the general reader some understanding of the character of the age in which we live, against the background of previous social eras, and to suggest some of the lessons involved for use in solving the dilemmas which encompass us.” Perspective, a key ingredient in pursuit of knowledge. This from June 15, 1948, Barnes, preface to ‘HISTORICAL SOCIOLOGY: ITS ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT/ Theories of Social Evolution from Cave Life to Atomic Bombing’
    -30-

  186. Gilles says:

    Let’s not forget Gary Webb who was ‘suicided’ by two gunshots to the head.

    Gilles

  187. Worth reading more than once, so I did. Your honesty in acknowledging caveats is appreciated and adds to credibility. Thanks for publishing an eclectic mix of voices that should be heard if not necessarily agreed with. Probably the one place where diversity is strength, in the realm of debate and free speech.

  188. @Skeptikal

    Actually, that’s where Greenwald’s (or “Harry Studs,” as he was called) attention was enthusiastically focused.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/washingtonbabylon.com/you-remember-carlos-danger-right-meet-hairy-studs-glenn-greenwalds-alter-ego-it-matters/amp/

    Sorry, I don’t care for gay porn. Call me a puritan.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
    , @AndrewR
  189. DrWatson says:
    @anonymous

    Is that you, Henry Makow? Your allegations would be more credible if not so anonymous. Nevertheless, you provide some ‘food for thought’ (if not evidence).

    This link is interesting: https://www.henrymakow.com/2018/11/assange-snowden-rat-traps.html

    In addition, Julian Assange looks quite wholesome in his latest pic, despite his alleged calvary:
    https://www.theguardian.com/media/julian-assange

    What’s more, he is allowed to marry his fiancee in prison (what kind of prison is that you may wonder): https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/nov/11/julian-assange-allowed-to-marry-partner-stella-moris-in-jail

  190. @Smashed Squash

    Jimmy Dore is a treasure. He’s not terribly bright (which he admits) and he still believes a lot of leftist cant, but he is unfailingly honest and hard-hitting and has excellent guests like Greenwald and Max Blumenthal on his show regularly. And he is being slowly red-pilled, as fast as his South Side of Chicago working class progressive brain will allow.

    • Agree: Biff
  191. @Sean

    Best video of the month. Hilarious. Thank you. Only thing that could have made it better would be Alex Baldwin as narrator.

  192. @Craig Nelsen

    I am thankful you and a great many others here are unable somehow to apply the same lack of objectivity to the Rittenhouse case, for one example. The world and law and order appreciate you.

  193. Rabb says:

    Thank you Ron! This piece, and discussion of same, should be the core of a required high school civics class.

  194. @Dan Hayes

    Giraldi seems to shy away from the delusional WN garbage that gets masthead treatment here so often, but he’s let his mind get warped well enough by related “strange fixations”. Maybe knowing he’s been nominated for the petting zoo will act like cold icy water splashed to the face, there might be hope.

  195. BaronAsh says:

    This is the sort of extraordinarily perceptive, wide-ranging and eclectically sourced article that only Ron Unz can present. I may disagree with certain points made therein etc. but the overall thrust is superlative.

    That said (!), I think Ron is a little behind the curve on what is happening these days which has to do with a concerted push toward mass psychosis/totalitarianism. This is one step beyond analyzing the footprints of corruption in an otherwise orderly world.

    The order of the world is being reset. It’s the elephant in the room.

    A nice little article on it from someone Ron might consider asking to contribute occasionally:
    https://tinyurl.com/yfa2dks2

  196. Sean says:
    @Craig Nelsen

    My God man, you are like a child. The police are not targeted, criminals first thought when seeing them is to run. If the people in the ‘hood’s objective is to ambush the police then the cops are simply not going into that area. There are many exaples of cops behaving thusly with just one active shooter. The official rules of engagement in Iraq were that if an IED went off the American troops could shoot anyone running. Several passengers of the white taxi killed by Wuterich and his squad. After an IED want off they pulled them out a nearby taxi and killed them, explaining it as they and othe bystanders were running (like many people would from the site of an explosion), but they hadn’t been running at all. So he got 25 years in military prison? Not quite:-

    On January 24, 2012, Wuterich was convicted of dereliction of duty according to the plea agreement.[26] Wuterich received a general discharge from the Marine Corps on February 17, 2012.[27]

    It was his job to kill not terribly scrupulously and not worry too much about it: anyone who joins the Marines knows that is what is expected of them. Helicopter gunship crews have absolutely no idea whether the people they are being called in to blast are really combatants.

    The sergeant wrote that the unit’s policy was to shoot not only guerrilla fighters (whom US troops called Vietcong or VC) but anyone who ran. This was the “Number one killer” of unarmed civilians, he wrote, explaining that helicopters “would hover over a guy in the fields till he got scared and run and they’d zap him”

    The ‘Collateral Murder’ video, for MSM use of which Assange charged a fee–was not classified. No kind of secret at all. It may have surprised those expecting the soldiers on their Live Leak screen to be like the soldiers in movies who are all about truth and innocent people as if in a courtroom (a prosecuting attorney is required to be about the search for truth). But if you think about it, absolutely none of the content of film or books is like real life. Entertainment is like a dream, it lets you process things from real life and put them in their proper place in a matrix of meaning, but nobody behaves or even speaks as the players do in works of fiction. Even documentaries alter demeanor clearly, because they know they are being watched. If you want soldiers who don’t want to kill people, then just exclude males from the armed forces’ combat units.

    • Replies: @Craig Nelsen
  197. profnasty says:
    @Anonymous

    I have a Gold Star flag (Nam) in my living room. I am not an enemy of veterans.
    I just think we’re chasing our tail on this one. You, or a hired snoop, can go to Nam and search for our boys; most probably deceased. I intend to speak out against foreign war. Although, since White Patriots have been scrubbed, I may change my position. This, if (They) decide to attack China. Bully!

  198. Sean says:
    @Mulga Mumblebrain

    Greenwald is gay, that is likely a side effect of selection against aggression. Heterosexuals, relatively speaking, like to kill other men (not boys, which is why boys get away with stuff that a man would not). Had Assange did what he did in Sweden in many other countries of the world he would have been lucky not to be shot by irate male relatives of his victims.

    Apologias for mass murder of civilians-what’s next.

    https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2021/06/11/uyghur-tribunal-reveals-horrific-abuses-inside-xinjiang-detention-camps

    Uyghur survivors of detention camps in the Xinjiang region of China have told a London tribunal that prisoners there are routinely raped, tortured and forcibly sterilised. Other detainees, mostly healthy men and women aged between 20 and 30, have disappeared in captivity and are presumed to have died after their organs were removed to service China’s lucrative black-market trade in transplant surgery, witnesses said. The violence against Uyghurs and other Muslim groups in Xinjiang has coincided with a draconian suppression of religious practice in the region and the destruction, defacement or closure of mosques, shrines, Muslim cemeteries and other sacred spaces, experts said. [..]Ethan Gutmann, an award-winning China analyst who has researched transplant abuse in the country for nearly two decades, told the tribunal that satellite images show crematoriums built close to prison camps so that bodies can be burned after operations to remove organs. He estimates that between 25,000 and 50,000 Uyghurs are being killed for their organs every year and that this is “overwhelming crematoria facilities near camps,”

    Ethical Israel has banned its citizens from travelling to China for organ transplants.

    • Troll: L.K, Craig Nelsen
  199. Treg says:

    The Freedom Equation. Ron has in a way, shown the Freedom Equation. The freedom Equation is a relationship, like supply and demand is a relationship. Like the two factors of Supply and Demand, gives us a third thing, Price, so to does the Freedom Equation give us Freedom. So, what are these factors that result in varying degrees of our societal freedoms?

  200. Mr. Ed says:

    I’m addressing this comment specifically to Dr. Unz:

    I;m both a reader of and an admirer of David Irving’s work; I’m also an admirer of and a reader of the work of the recently-deceased conservative Hungarian-American historian John Lukacs; the problem with this, which I cannot resolve, is that Lukacs despised Irving, and made no bones about expressing his dislike.

    Among other charges, Lukacs insisted that Irving was academically untrained as an historian, (i.e., he lacked a grad school degree), and therefore made avoidable errors which rendered his work to a large degree worthless. Maybe I’m just ignorant, but I have always thought that historical writing was either accurate or otherwise, with the qualification that even the best are apt to make errors, both of fact and of judgement.

    Dr. Unz, do you have any opinion on this matter? Thanks in advance.

  201. Raches says: • Website
    @Colin Wright

    Italics original; boldface supplied:

    I would say that Irving would prefer to believe that that the Germans didn’t commit the Holocaust.  However, he’s been forced to admit that it’s a documented fact that they substantially did.

    Interesting word, “forced”.

    Do you mean that he was forced by the weight of the nonexistent evidence to ignore all of the rebutting evidence, plus the historical context which makes many of the alleged events implausible, and others outright preposterous?

    Or do you mean that he was forced by having his career destroyed, being socially ostracized, having his finances drained, being vilified in the media, suffering threats and violence, and being imprisoned for a year and a month? ®

    • Thanks: RedpilledAF
    • Replies: @Yevardian
    , @Colin Wright
  202. Raches says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    By counterexample, this illustrates one of the reasons why I am so focused on Professor Oliver.  He deemed the Jews his “biological enemies”, but he detested the irrationality of many of the Jews’ antagonists.  He once complained to a politically sympathetic intellectual that he didn’t know even a dozen persons with whom he could discuss the topic intelligently and objectively. ®

  203. Skeptikal says:
    @Punch Brother Punch

    Who cares about your self-limiting “preferences” —they are irrelevant to the merits of Greenwald’s journalism in the present day.

    Which are considerable.

  204. Raches says: • Website
    @Agent76

    I had not seen that Snowden interview when I made this:

    That one is short.  I recommend that video-haters should take three minutes to watch it—if nothing else, to see how I am experimenting with video as a medium to reach the masses.  (All that I do has a purpose.)

    I do think that resisting privacy should be advocated aggressively as a women’s issue.  Not that men shouldn’t care—to the contrary, they should care much more than they usually do.

    The full version of the Greenwald talk you embedded is at TED, with a transcript for those who dislike long videos.

    My most succinct answer to the question of “why privacy matters”:  The surveillance capitalists are stealing your soul.  I mean that poetically, without necessarily implying any belief in supernatural phenomena. ®

  205. Ace says:
    @Dan Hayes

    I became a fan of Cohen’s in the last few years. For someone whose journalistic home was The Nation I can only say that he never sounded one sour note. Limited exposure on my part, let it be said. Still, I try to read The Nation and Counterpunch and the general fare offered reeks of leftist arrogance. No thanks.

  206. Ace says:
    @Dumbo

    I know solid conservatives who think the fall of the Soviet Union was a deception operation and that communism is still alive and well there. That’s ludicrous and you’re right on the money with your idea of a transplanted effort. In my view there wasn’t any movement to the West, with the exception of some of the Jewish emigres perhaps. The resident communists with a much stronger, though not exclusively, Jewish input in the ’20s and ’30s weathered the dastardly McCarthy and HCUA and prospered like fungus. It’s their hold on the country that is destroying it.

  207. Yevardian says:
    @Raches

    I frankly don’t see David Irving as a man to ever yield to outside pressure.
    I’m sure he has good reasoning, and moreover, he still strongly maintains that the gas chambers were baloney. But there’s nothing fundamentally implausible about several million Jews being killed on the Eastern Front, especially considering the enormous overall casualties of that theatre.

    The only real issue is the notion that Jewish lives were somehow worth more than any others.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  208. @Sean

    That story of the horrors inflicted on the Uighurs is pure propaganda is it not? It reeks of the 1914 horror stories re Germans in Belgium.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • Disagree: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  209. Raches says: • Website
    @Punch Brother Punch

    This is why conservatives lose.

    Who benefits from attempting to discredit Mr. Greenwald with salacious stuff?

    Since you have made a string of comments in this thread raising facts well-known to the public ever since the New York Daily News reported in 2013 on Mr. Greenwald’s former business interest, and this kind of thing gets trotted out in every Greenwald-related thread, I will quote from what Mr. Greenwald himself said about this.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/26/nsa-revelations-response-to-smears

    The personal side of taking on the NSA: emerging smears

    Glenn Greenwald

    Distractions about my past and personal life have emerged—an inevitable side effect for those who challenge the US government

    Wed 26 Jun 2013 21.21 BST

    When I made the choice to report aggressively on top-secret NSA programs, I knew that I would inevitably be the target of all sorts of personal attacks and smears.  You don’t challenge the most powerful state on earth and expect to do so without being attacked.  As a superb Guardian editorial noted today:  “Those who leak official information will often be denounced, prosecuted or smeared.  The more serious the leak, the fiercer the pursuit and the greater the punishment.”

    One of the greatest honors I’ve had in my years of writing about politics is the opportunity to work with and befriend my long-time political hero, Daniel Ellsberg.  I never quite understood why the Nixon administration, in response to his release of the Pentagon Papers, would want to break into the office of Ellsberg’s psychoanalyst and steal his files.  That always seemed like a non sequitur to me: how would disclosing Ellsberg’s most private thoughts and psychosexual assessments discredit the revelations of the Pentagon Papers?

    When I asked Ellsberg about that several years ago, he explained that the state uses those tactics against anyone who dissents from or challenges it simply to distract from the revelations and personally smear the person with whatever they can find to make people uncomfortable with the disclosures.

    So I’ve been fully expecting those kinds of attacks since I began my work on these NSA leaks.  The recent journalist-led “debate” about whether I should be prosecuted for my reporting on these stories was precisely the sort of thing I knew was coming.

    As a result, I was not particularly surprised when I received an email last night from a reporter at the New York Daily News

    I note that a similar strategy was deployed against Mr. Assange, whom you respect, Mr. Punch.  The smear-attacks against Mr. Assange were also based on wild exaggerations, which I will not do him the disservice of repeating even though they’ve been repeated millions of times all over the Internet.

    Mr. Greenwald briefly had a business interest in a business distributing videos of an explicit homosexual nature, which I myself find quite objectionable.  That’s it.  He might have some trouble, if he lived in a country where I was the supreme authoritarian dictator; but as it stands, I am not inclined to let that get in the way of my supporting his work to fight mass-surveillance.

    In the above-linked article, near the conclusion, Mr. Greenwald said:

    I’m 46 years old and, like most people, have lived a complicated and varied adult life.  I didn’t manage my life from the age of 18 onward with the intention of being a Family Values US senator.  My personal life, like pretty much everyone’s, is complex and sometimes messy.

    Although I do not share his proclivities, I could say the same.  My private life has been complicated, sometimes messy, and even adventurous.  I have occasionally dropped hints about that, and I say so now, just in case I ever get doxed and someone digs for “dirt” on my relationships and little escapades—just in case; I want for anyone with bad intentions to know that I would laugh off the types of standard-issue smear attacks that Mr. Greenwald describes, and it’s impossible to blackmail someone who is emotionally immune to embarrassment.  I am secure and at peace with myself; and if anything, I would take that kind of thing as unintentionally glamorizing me.

    As for Mr. Greenwald, as I told another commentator, I prefer to focus on the excellent work that he has done to fight a thoroughly corrupt system—one which threatens to crush the whole world beneath the weight of an inescapable, irresistible tyranny.  If Hitler tried to make peace with the Bolsheviks to avoid a catastrophic war, and most of all to avoid a two-front war, I can also think in terms of “higher policy”.  Essays covering that point will appear on Proems, when I stop spending my time writing comments. ®

    • Replies: @Punch Brother Punch
  210. @Wizard of Oz

    The Germans executed about 6500 Belgians in 1914. There’s been a lot worse since then, but there were real German atrocities in Belgium.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  211. @Raches

    ‘…Interesting word, “forced”.

    Do you mean that he was forced by the weight of …’

    I mean ‘forced’ by the documentation he himself uncovered; ‘forced’ in the sense that the evidence compels one to admit an aspect of reality one wishes weren’t so.

    For example, I might prefer to believe I’ve just got a cyst — but the x-rays and lab results could ‘force’ me to admit I’ve got a tumor. ‘Forced’ in that sense.

    So one might — for whatever reason — prefer to believe that the Holocaust didn’t happen. However, if one is accessible to evidence and reason, one will eventually be ‘forced’ to admit that it did. One can continue to believe otherwise — but it is simply wishful thinking.

    The truth is the truth. Not what one would like it to be.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @L.K
  212. @Patrick McNally

    ‘The Germans executed about 6500 Belgians in 1914. There’s been a lot worse since then, but there were real German atrocities in Belgium.’

    However, at the time, those atrocities were grotesquely exaggerated.

    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  213. @Colin Wright

    Indeed, and doesn’t the Uighur story smell?

    • Replies: @Sean
    , @Ron Unz
  214. @Colin Wright

    The truth is the truth.

    Ah, c’mon. You must be a bit of a fossil. Isn’t everyone entitled to her own truth, quite a few of them come to think of it?

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  215. @Ron Unz

    It may horrify you, but I think this is perfect for handing to respectable shockable friends to read even if only under a brown paper cover. Still you could further shore up up your respectability at the same time as you justify your enthusiasm for David Irving by expressly accepting Irving’s view that Hitler’s thrust to the East was not pre-emptive and forced on him but part of his essential aim for Lebensraum.

    I don’t accept your analogy between what Germans dis to Jews in/from the West and US treatment of the Japanese and would regard it as frivolous to form a decided view without Irving standard research and documentation. The Irving case that Hitler did not order or even approve the mire ruthless aspects of the Final Solution doesn’t seem to me to make much impact on the view of what Germans proved capable of in killing Jews under the influence of historical antiSemitism, indoctrination under the Nazis and the particular madness of Himmler and, maybe Goebbels and Heydrich. After all Americans killing Japanese prisoners, Abu Ghreib and massacres of indigenes (also by Germans in Namibia) make it all more humanly likely.
    Why, BTW, would one not count as support for the Holocaust story the undoubted massacres of Jews in Latvia, Lithuania etc under the supervision of Nazi Grrmans?

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  216. @Raches

    Well, I don’t really consider myself a “conservative” as that term is currently used. I’m fundamentally opposed to American so-called democracy so out of principle I haven’t voted in years and I identify with neither party.

    I am very much opposed to pornography, particularly in a high-tech, mass media society (as well as a society where I suspect certain elements are pushing porn as a kind of psychological terrorism). I too, look back on “the shipwreck of my ill-adventur’d youth” and recognize the pernicious influence of unhealthy sexual attitudes gleaned from a pornified culture before I was mature enough to know better.

    That said, this article isn’t about porn and bringing up such scabrous subject matter tends to have a derailing effect on the conversation. Frankly, I regret publishing those comments (which were done late at night under the influence of a few spirited drinks).

    I’ll admit I haven’t followed Greenwald’s career as a journalist very closely. I’ve seen him retweeted frequently on Twitter where he seems to frame every take within anti-authoritarianism: a position I consider limited. He also strikes me as milquetoast on race. For instance, I visited his twitter feed just now and see that he’s got a few tweets seemingly approving of the Ahmad Arbery verdict – a verdict I consider a travesty.

    I’d also be suspicious of whatever “networks” he may be tapped into (including possibly ones from his adult film days) and what their true goals are. I see dubious spectres of the likes of Peter Thiel and the Koch Brothers hovering around his past and present.

    All that said if he’s critical of Israel, champions Assange, exposes the lies and tactics of the mainstream media, etc. – all this is obviously to the good, but I’ve generally come to be very skeptical of social media conservative celebrities whether its alt-light grifters or “clean your room and stand up straight” gurus or journalists/pundits with the latest hot takes.

    Whether Greenwald falls into the latter category or is a genuinely great journalist I’ll let others decide. I’ll be busy reading Andrew Joyce.

  217. Sean says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Uighurs in Xinjiang don’t dare speak to journalists, because talking to anyone from outside the region can get them sent to one of those detention complexes, which in total hold a million people. Those camps are not part of China’s criminal justice system, they are completely extra-judicial. Absolutely anything can happen to those who are sent to them, and being the relative of someone who is in a camp gets Chinese officials to come and live in your house. And do whatever depraved things they like. China appears to be happy with that

    In September 2020, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) reported in its Xinjiang Data Project that construction of camps continued despite government claims that their function was winding down. </i>

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  218. @Sean

    You appear to have a point!

  219. BaronAsh says:
    @Colin Wright

    Medically it has been overblown (though many would disagree including Ron Unz) but geopolitically it is shaping up to be more significant than any event since …. French Revolution? In case you haven’t noticed, looks like soon all the constitutional republics and democratic rule of law nation states are about to go the way of the dodo.

    And most of us are so bafflegabbed by cognitive dissonance on a literally global scale that we don’t even see what’s happening all around us every day.

  220. BaronAsh says:
    @Jack McArthur

    Ha Ha! Thanks for setting me straight. I didn’t get the title. I thought he meant that the pygmies like Assange had silenced the Big Boys by exposing them.

    I must confess to getting a bit lost in this article and although impressed by many of its components am not really sure what it’s all about.

  221. BaronAsh says:
    @Ron Unz

    Fair enough. But are you also assuming that those rogue elements were not acting in concert with various ‘globalist’ networks including quite likely the CCP and/or rogue elements within the CCP. Making my simple point still relevant: terms like ‘China’ and ‘America’ in a sentence like ‘America perpetrated a biowarfare attack on China’ have become worse than meaningless and devolved into being outright obfuscatory.

    Discussing Covid19 as a purely medical event serves to distract from its far larger import as a major thrust in what is clearly a globally waged asymmetric war.

    But war between who and whom? That’s the big story now, but rarely is it covered in any depth of detail. Indeed, have yet to see it covered anywhere.

    It seems clear to me that covid is/was a biowarfare attack, though I would say on the world, not on China per se.
    And the Pravda issues you raise in the article are part and parcel of the plutocratic ‘techno-feudal’ Big Money Deep State (etc etc) powers increasingly emerging from the shadows as they more overtly Put their Boot down on our collective Heads in order to finally establish whatever it is they are (hell) bent on imposing.

    So both the censorship and biowarfare issues are part of the same overall dynamic which has to do with a serious, concerted push to change the entire world political order. Let us hope the Pygmies, like a couple of hobbits with a One Ring tactic, can prevail. But it ain’t gonna be easy and as with happened in Russia, it might take generations before the ship is righted and in the meantime millions of innocents and much of the core culture and society may be deeply damaged, and much far beyond any repair or reparations.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  222. Ron Unz says:
    @Yevardian

    I frankly don’t see David Irving as a man to ever yield to outside pressure.
    I’m sure he has good reasoning, and moreover, he still strongly maintains that the gas chambers were baloney.

    Well, over a couple of decades Irving went from being one of the most celebrated British historians of his generation to being blacklisted, vilified, and bankrupted, with the loss of his grand central London home. A few years later, he was arrested and held incommunicado for weeks in Austria, so that his family assumed he was dead, then served a year in prison, much of it in solitary confinement, and narrowly escaped spending the rest of his life behind bars. While imprisoned, his family became homeless and the historical archives he had spent a lifetime accumulating were seized and probably destroyed.

    Offhand, that seems to me more serious than anything that actually happened to Galileo, so if the astronomer did “yield to outside pressure” why wouldn’t the historian? Think of all the academics who these days curtail or shift their views merely for fear of being denounced on their campus or vilified on Twitter.

    But there’s nothing fundamentally implausible about several million Jews being killed on the Eastern Front, especially considering the enormous overall casualties of that theatre.

    I’m hardly an expert on the subject, but a detailed demographic analysis published almost 40 years ago seemed to very strongly suggest otherwise:

    As an important example of IHR efforts, in 1983 the organization published The Dissolution of Eastern Europe Jewry, a very detailed quantitative analysis of the underlying demographics and population movements around the period encompassed by World War II, apparently the first such study undertaken. The author, writing under the pen-name Walter N. Sanning, sought to revise the extremely simplistic population analysis casually assumed by Holocaust historians.

    Before the war, millions of Jews had lived in Eastern Europe, and after the war, those communities had mostly vanished. This undeniable fact has long stood as an implicit central pillar of the traditional Holocaust narrative. But drawing upon entirely mainstream sources, Sanning persuasively demonstrates that the situation was actually far more complicated than it might seem. For example, it was widely reported at the time that vast numbers of Polish Jews had been transported by the Soviets to locations deep within their territory, on both voluntary and involuntary terms, with future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin being including in those transfers. In addition, huge numbers of heavily urbanized Soviet Jews were similarly evacuated ahead of the advancing German forces in 1941. The exact size of these population movements has long been uncertain and disputed, but Sanning’s careful analysis of postwar Soviet census data and other sources suggests that the totals were likely towards the upper end of most estimates. Sanning makes no claim that his findings are definitive, but even if they are only partially correct, such results would certainly preclude the reality of traditional Holocaust numbers.

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/#the-rise-and-suppression-of-holocaust-denial

    I remember that in the early 1990s, the NYT carried various stories reporting on the uncovering of numerous mass graves from that general era in parts of the Ukraine or nearby regions. But in every case, the victims turned out to be those of Stalin.

    • Agree: John Wear
    • Thanks: Raches, RedpilledAF
  223. Ron Unz says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Indeed, and doesn’t the Uighur story smell?

    The “genocide” of the Uyghurs endlessly repeated in our media is obvious nonsense, and the whole notion of a vast array of “concentration camps” seems equally ridiculous propaganda.

    A Taiwanese-American friend of mine who’s very solid and reliable pointed out that for many years the whole Xinjiang region has had huge amounts of tourism, including foreign tourism.

    Admittedly, it’s a large and complex subject, whose detailed investigation really requires a good knowledge of Chinese. So let’s focus on a much smaller one, namely all the recent MSM headlines about that Chinese tennis star who supposedly reported a “sexual assault” by a top PRC official and has been “disappeared” as a consequence. Here’s a recent post by the MoA blogger that argues the entire story is garbage:

    https://www.moonofalabama.org/2021/11/new-york-times-invents-sexual-assault-case-to-blame-china.html

    Basically, the Western MSM has negative credibility on almost everything regarding China, and if they say that concentration camps holding a million Uyghurs exist, that’s evidence that they don’t.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @RedpilledAF
  224. Ron Unz says:
    @BaronAsh

    But are you also assuming that those rogue elements were not acting in concert with various ‘globalist’ networks including quite likely the CCP and/or rogue elements within the CCP…It seems clear to me that covid is/was a biowarfare attack, though I would say on the world, not on China per se.

    Well, with regard to the Covid outbreak, various people claim there’s actually a global conspiracy, with the leadership of China, America, Russia, Israel, Iran, and every other major country secretly working together as part of a plot. I just don’t see any evidence of that. All I can say is if America’s top leaders are secretly allied with the ones in China, they’ve certainly fooled me. Do you also believe that Victoria Nuland and the Neocons are secret allies of Putin?

    Based upon everything I see, the dominant political elites in America have become very hostile towards China over the last few years and have taken a wide range of political, economic, and military measures to harass and weaken China, just like they were doing with Russia before that. Given this confrontation, it’s hardly implausible that rogue elements in the Trump Administration, perhaps led by Pompeo or Bolton, might have decided to stage a biowarfare attack. Kadlec, the leading biowarfare advocate that Trump hired in 2017, has always emphasized that one of the great advantages of biowarfare is that it’s highly “deniable.”

    • Replies: @BaronAsh
    , @BaronAsh
    , @Skeptikal
  225. Anonymous[907] • Disclaimer says:

    SUPERB work Sir!!
    Bernays seminal work on propaganda needs a mention I think.

    There is some indications that the pendulum is starting to swing as indicated here.

    Thanksgiving = Giving thanks for the tide is turning and the left is losing.
    https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2021/11/25/give-thanks-that-the-left-is-losing-n2599596

  226. BaronAsh says:
    @Emerging Majority

    “In terms of meta-political analysis, Trump was a relative babe in the woods, as evidenced by the events of 1-6-21, when a ragtag group of his most dedicated adherents were effectually demonized by the control-media and the various tentacles of the current regime in the Di\$trict of Corruption.”

    Agree totally. I played golf with a VA EQ15 (?.. top level civil servant) and asked him what he thought. Was curious since Trump championed veterans so much. ‘Inexperienced’ was all he said. Basically, he entered a jungle without teeth, claws or any hunting experience.

    He was and still is, I believe, ‘controlled opposition.’ Better than any politician, he serves as a vessel for mainstream flyover middle of the road Americans who feel increasingly displaced in their own country and yearn for that feeling (and state) to go away. It’s not so much nostalgia as course correction. But since the Powers that Be are bent on destroying the old order before Building a new one ‘Back Better,’ their selection of Trump as champion will always prove disappointing.

    According to Patrick Byrne of overstock dot com who wrote a series of articles after the election which he helped try to verify, Melania received credible death threats shortly before January 6th. On that day he and Flynn and others were scheduled to give detailed speeches about why the certifications should be sent back to the States. Apparently Pence had agreed with this but some time around 18:30 on Jan 5th he was persuaded to change after which Trump’s team changed the format of the meeting on Jan 6th attended by something like 800,000 people (acc to police there familiar with large DC crowds). So it went from being a substantive and persuasive presentation following which they would march down to Congress waving flags etc. into just another political rally which on that day made no sense. It was arguably one of the worst speeches Trump ever made.

    Then they let 800,000 people wander around a place teeming with hostile bad actors. They must have known this. They basically let this happen. There is simply no excuse for what happened on Jan 6th. It’s not that his supporters stormed the Capitol for 90% of the ‘storming’ was clearly staged and a couple of hundred actual Trumpistas were invited in, walked around, and some have been in solitary every since (including some who witnessed the bludgeoning to death of an innocent woman apparently). What is unforgivable is allowing all that to happen by not having clear crowd control in place if only leadership within the supporters to ensure nothing like a false flag insurrection would succeed.

    No. Trump is controlled opposition and I feel sorry for any of the Deplorables who continue to place their trust in him. As long as they do, the Great Reset will roll on without any substantive resistance apart from the taking over a handful of school boards and maybe one or two States cleaning up (but only partially) their election procedures. Because they will hope for deliverance in 2022 and 2024 and thereby live in a state of suspended hope until then – aka hopium addiction.

    The irony is that a Great Reset is needed. The old ways were sclerotic and corrupt and more a plutocracy than a representative republic, with Europe being essentially in the same boat. But the wrong power networks are leading the charge and the next model is probably going to prove far worse than the bad old model.

    And so it goes…

    For a broader take on both the medical and geopolitical context (which without mentioning him puts him in his place, i.e. as a fringe player at best), I recommend this recently published ‘letter to friends’ by a good substack author:
    https://tombreidenbach.substack.com/p/a-letter-to-my-family-and-friends

    • Agree: RedpilledAF, Skeptikal
    • Replies: @res
  227. BaronAsh says:
    @Ron Unz

    Maybe. But anyone who thought they could launch a biowarfare attack around travel hub Wuhan just before Chinese New Year and have it contained in China is a total idiot. I don’t find this thesis in the slightest plausible.

    Where’s the evidence of a global conspiracy? All around. Did you not notice how nearly all developed nations jettisoned millenia of received epidemiological wisdom by quaranting the healthy and decimating their biggest engines of employment (the small business private sector)?

    Indeed it is SO obvious that most people cannot see it. If you read the entire section on the Big Lie the process is explained quite well. When a lie is big enough, most ordinary decent people cannot even begin to conceive of it as such and therefore accept it. Similarly, people accepted ‘experts’ espousing lock downs and flimsy surgical or cloth masks, washing Amazon parcels, rubbing their hands with alcohol and all the other silly things (including now giving unproven gene therapy to young children who until now neither caught nor spread the virus) without being able to consider that the whole thing was a form of mind control. To this day many otherwise intelligent writers continue to believe that most of the senior people in drug companies, government health departments and the media etc. actually wish us all well and are trying to make things better.

    Maybe when we are all goosestepping together on our way to work details in the gulags more of us will wake up. Until then, let us hope that you are right and there is no concerted push for a new global socio-political ‘techno-fascist’ order.

    • Agree: Skeptikal
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  228. BaronAsh says:
    @Ron Unz

    “Based upon everything I see, the dominant political elites in America have become very hostile towards China over the last few years and have taken a wide range of political, economic, and military measures to harass and weaken China, just like they were doing with Russia before that.”

    Maybe. I find the entire Trump Presidency Mondo Bizarro (albeit they all are in different ways come to think of it) but I got the impression that he had some actual input and impact viz:
    a) China-US trade policies inc. imposition of tarrifs
    b) after much obstruction building a border wall but also making substantive deals with Mexico
    c) deregulation which kick-started a lot of things including historically low unemployment with rising wages for working classes

    Everything to do with institutional DC like DOJ, State, Military, Intelligence etc. it seems he was kept out of the loop on. So his trade team did do things viz China but his CIA and State Dept under Pompeo (aka Pomey) was undermining him in other ways.

    Also, the rise of China and their 500 billion trade deficit: was this not facilitated by the plutocrats running the US and Europe? The Chinese did all that on their own? For decades? I find that hard to believe. Also we know there was significant Western financial input to helping create the large industrial base building up in China since the 70’s.

    And most of the seeming conflict is done for the benefit of the Military so they keep getting almost a trillion a year so their suppliers have contracts. Every few years they drop a lot of ordinance somewhere so they can get new orders. I will never forget a Russian General in Baghdad predicting almost to the day how long the ‘Shock and Awe’ bombardment would last. How did he know? He explained on CNN that they had good intel on the amount of old ordinance needed to be used up, plus no doubt several new models to be tested before putting together the next wave of orders to keep them busy until the next ordinance dump a few years later.

    In any case, what is going on now is the deliberate implosion of the western civilizational order. Exactly which department is doing what to which international counterpart is something that might have made sense to analyze twenty years or so ago (but even then only maybe) but now, I humbly suggest, is largely irrelevant because it is talking about a paradigm which has already ceased to function and is now far beyond resuscitation or repair. This is why I keep saying in response to some of your speculations that terms like ‘China’ and ‘America’ are increasingly meaningless – or at the least obfuscatory.

    • Agree: Skeptikal
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  229. Trump was widely disliked among the Dimocrat “elites” because he turned on them after the utter idiocy of the two previous administrations. The voters of the left felt the same way, but it wasn’t enough to defeat him at the polls. Even in 2020 the Dims had to cheat to beat him, and boy did they cheat.

    Nuland is not a neocon. She’s a typical leftist.

    • LOL: L.K
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  230. @Wizard of Oz

    ‘Ah, c’mon. You must be a bit of a fossil. Isn’t everyone entitled to her own truth, quite a few of them come to think of it?’

    The thought of the Holocaust Deniers hanging out with the ‘social construction’ set is pretty amusing.

  231. @Wizard of Oz

    ‘Hitler’s thrust to the East was not pre-emptive and forced on him but part of his essential aim for Lebensraum.’

    Note that these aren’t mutually exclusive propositions. I think we approach the truth if we modify this to read:

    ‘Hitler’s thrust to the East was pre-emptive and forced on him and part of his essential aim for Lebensraum.’

    I need to get a present for a friend who likes a good bottle of wine. There are some excellent wineries in the area, and I like a good wine-tasting myself. My daughter’s up for Thanksgiving.

    So tomorrow, we hit the wineries. Am I doing this to find a bottle of wine, to entertain my daughter, or to cop a bit of a buzz myself?

    Maybe all three? It doesn’t have to be one and only one.

    • Troll: L.K
    • Replies: @Not Raul
  232. L.K says:
    @Colin Wright

    I mean ‘forced’ by the documentation he himself uncovered

    And what would that be, you pathetic LIAR? You have been hanging around this webzine for too long to be making such false statements in good faith. You are a LIAR. You would not know the truth if it hit you across the face… you don’t care about facts at all… but let’s look at some of the FACTS now. Most people are led to believe in regards to the ‘holocaust’, that there is abundant proof of the alleged crime, i.e. extermination program, largely carried out at extermination centers in homicidal gas chambers, victim count of around 6 million.
    This is absolutely NOT THE CASE.

    Already in 1951, the Jew Léon Poliakov, who had been part of the French delegation at the Nuremberg show trials (1945-1946), stated his conclusion that we had at our disposal an overabundance of documents for all points of the history of the Third Reich, with the exception of one point alone: the “campaign to exterminate the Jews”. For this, he wrote, “No document remains, perhaps none has ever existed” (Bréviaire de la haine, Paris, Calmann-Lévy, 1974 [1951], p. 171; English version: Harvest of Hate, New York, Holocaust Library, 1979, revised and expanded edition).

    In 1988 Arno Mayer, the anti-revisionist American professor of Jewish origin teaching contemporary European history at Princeton University, wrote on the subject of the Nazi gas chambers: “Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable” (The “Final Solution” in History, New York, Pantheon Books, p. 362).

    In 1996 the French historian Jacques Baynac, a staunch anti-revisionist since 1978, ended up admitting, after due consideration, that there was no evidence of the Nazi gas chambers’ existence. One could not fail to note, wrote Baynac, “the absence of documents, traces or other material evidence” (Le Nouveau Quotidien de Lausanne [Switzerland], September 2, 1996, p. 16, and September 3, 1996, p. 14). But he said that he carried on believing in the existence of those magical gas chambers.
    Prof. Faurisson stated:  All in all, J. Baynac says: “There is no evidence but I believe”, whereas a revisionist thinks: “There is no evidence, therefore I refuse to believe and it is my duty to dispute.”
    [12]

    During an interview to the Canadian STAR, 27 December 2009, prominent Jewish holocaust “historian” and Auschwitz ‘expert’, the fanatic Robert Jan van Pelt, stated:

    We have no material or forensic evidence to support eyewitness reports of gassings…
    Ninety-nine per cent of what we know we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove

    Comparing the “evidence” for the official tales re Auschwitz to the AR camps, the same van Pelt, in his ‘The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial’, p.5, writes:

    “The evidence for the role of Treblinka, Belzec, and Sobibor[…] is much LESS abundant(than Auschwitz).”There are very few eyewitnesses, no confession that can compare to that given by Höss, no significant remains, and few archival sources.

    So, the evidence for Auschwitz is next to nothing – plus there is abundant evidence refuting the atrocity propaganda – but the evidence for the Aktion Reinhardt camps is, according to Pelt himself, even much less than at Auschwitz, which is just about zero. Concerning the ‘confessions’ of Höss though, another famous holocaust “historian”, the miserable Shabbos goy, Christopher Browning, in his ‘The Origins of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy’, September 1939-March 1942 (University of Nebraska Press and Yad Vashem 2004), p.544 note.169, writes:“…the testimonies of especially Höss and to some extent Eichmann are confused, contradictory, self-serving, and not credible.”

    The above are but just a few examples… and that, Mr. Shill, is the reason for all the ferocious censorship around the holocaust, the most taboo subject of all… but you knew that already.

    • Thanks: RedpilledAF
    • Troll: Colin Wright
  233. Not Raul says:
    @Colin Wright

    I’ve been wondering why Stalin didn’t strike German forces preemptively (perhaps to make a dash for Romanian oilfields, attack German aircraft on runways, etc.) in May or June of 1940, while most German forces had their hands full in the West.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Colin Wright
  234. Ron Unz says:
    @BaronAsh

    Maybe. But anyone who thought they could launch a biowarfare attack around travel hub Wuhan just before Chinese New Year and have it contained in China is a total idiot.

    Well, sure, they turned out to be idiots. But it really wasn’t so obvious at the time. After all both SARS and MERS had been entirely contained in their local outbreak regions and never significantly impacted either the US or Europe. Furthermore:

    (1) At the time, international organizations ranked America as #1 in the world for being able to handle a major epidemic, while China was considered quite vulnerable:

    (2) As I mentioned in my article, America’s top biowarfare expert, Robert Kadlec, ran an eight month long national drill preparing federal and state authorities to defend themselves against a sudden outbreak of a dangerous respiratory virus in China, with the drill ending just a couple of months before the Covid outbreak “unexpectedly” began in Wuhan.

    (3) Once the Covid outbreak began, the DIA distributed a secret report to all our top officials and NATO allies notifying them of the “potentially catastrophic” disease outbreak taking place in Wuhan. The report was written at a time when maybe a dozen people were starting to feel a little sick in Wuhan and many weeks before anyone in China was aware of what was happening. The secret report warned them to prepare themselves so it wouldn’t hit them.

    Despite all these preparations, Trump and our top governmental leaders were so incompetent and lackadaisical that we were hit 1000x harder than China. But nobody would have predicted that at the time.

    This really isn’t the thread to be discussing this. You probably should take a look at all the articles I’ve published over the last 18 months on exactly this subject, conveniently available as an eBook:

    https://www.unz.com/page/covid-biowarfare-articles/

    • Replies: @res
  235. Ron Unz says:
    @Quartermaster

    Nuland is not a neocon. She’s a typical leftist.

    Hmm… Maybe you should tell her husband, Robert Kagan, one of the leading Neocon foreign policy intellectuals, and a key intellectual architect of George W. Bush’s Iraq War.

    Basically, during most Republican Administrations, everyone follows the policies of Robert Kagan. Then, when the Democrats come in, under Obama or Biden, his wife Victoria Nuland plays the same role.

    That’s what it means to have a “bipartisan” foreign policy…

  236. Ron Unz says:
    @Not Raul

    I’ve been wondering why Stalin didn’t strike German forces preemptively (perhaps to make a dash for Romanian oilfields, attack German aircraft on runways, etc.) in May or June of 1940, while most German forces had their hands full in the West.

    Stalin was a pretty cautious fellow, and he assumed that Hitler and the Allies would wear themselves out fighting each other, allowing him to then swoop in. He’d only begun his massive military buildup in late 1939, and would have a vastly more powerful arsenal of tanks, planes, and other forces in another year or so.

    Also, around May/June 1940, the British and French were on the very verge of actually attacking the USSR, launching a huge strategic bombing offense to destroy the Soviet oilfields and maybe try to topple Stalin’s regime. From his spies, Stalin knew all about it, and probably massacred the captive Polish officer corps for that reason. Obviously, if the Allies might be about to attack him, he wouldn’t have wanted to simultaneously attack Germany. I discussed the situation in one of my articles a couple of years ago:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-hitler-saved-the-allies/

  237. Ron Unz says:
    @BaronAsh

    This is why I keep saying in response to some of your speculations that terms like ‘China’ and ‘America’ are increasingly meaningless – or at the least obfuscatory.

    That’s a strange way of looking at it. The Chinese government reacted brilliantly, imposed a short but very sharp lockdown, and quickly stamped out the virus. Within a few weeks, life in almost the whole country was completely back to normal.

    The US and Europe followed a totally different approach and failed miserably at it, which is why the problem is probably now permanent. If China and the West were secretly cooperating, why did they act so differently?

    Also, the rise of China and their 500 billion trade deficit: was this not facilitated by the plutocrats running the US and Europe? The Chinese did all that on their own? For decades? I find that hard to believe. Also we know there was significant Western financial input to helping create the large industrial base building up in China since the 70’s.

    I think you’re new here, so you really should read some of my own major articles on China and the China/America relationship. Back a century ago, all our leading thinkers expected China to become as successful as it now has, and it certainly would have happened with or without Western “plutocrats”:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/chinas-rise-americas-fall/

    https://www.unz.com/runz/how-social-darwinism-made-modern-china-248/

    • Replies: @Eagle Eye
  238. @Not Raul

    ‘I’ve been wondering why Stalin didn’t strike German forces preemptively (perhaps to make a dash for Romanian oilfields, attack German aircraft on runways, etc.) in May or June of 1940, while most German forces had their hands full in the West’

    They seem to have come close to doing that — it’s possible the Germans won while the Russians were still expecting them to be fully engaged.

    As it was — and as I recall — the Germans rather pointedly airlifted 22. Luftlande to Ploesti in August 1940.

    • Replies: @L.K
    , @Not Raul
  239. @Ron Unz

    ‘Stalin was a pretty cautious fellow, and he assumed that Hitler and the Allies would wear themselves out fighting each other, allowing him to then swoop in. He’d only begun his massive military buildup in late 1939, and would have a vastly more powerful arsenal of tanks, planes, and other forces in another year or so.

    Also, around May/June 1940, the British and French were on the very verge of actually attacking the USSR, launching a huge strategic bombing offense to destroy the Soviet oilfields…’

    Yes on (1), no on (2). Operation Pike was merely an idle thought-experiment — and one reason it never got off the ground is that the logistic realities of the situation were such that the Allies couldn’t have mounted ‘a huge strategic bombing offense’ in that part of the world in 1940.

    The British weren’t even able to mount effective air raids on Germany — four-five hundred miles from their bases in Britain — until 1942. You’re positing a ‘huge strategic bombing offense’ in the Caucasus in 1940?

    Please. That notion rests on a careful refusal to look at the practicalities of the situation.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
    , @Ron Unz
  240. res says:
    @BaronAsh

    I played golf with a VA EQ15 (?.. top level civil servant)

    Did you mean GS-15?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Schedule_(US_civil_service_pay_scale)

    That is the top of the GS schedule, but worth noting there is another level above that.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senior_Executive_Service_(United_States)

    Then there is this.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Schedule

  241. res says:
    @Ron Unz

    It is fun to contrast that map with a similar map showing COVID-19 mortality per 100k. Easy to create using data from
    https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
    And this web application
    https://app.datawrapper.de/select/map

  242. L.K says:
    @Colin Wright

    I offer the statements grudgingly conceded by some of the most important holocaust ‘historians’.

    They have admitted that there is NO documentary or material evidence for the holocaust atrocity-propaganda claims. You obviously don’t like that, it makes you look like the FOOL and the TROLL that you really are. You have nothing to offer beyond fact-free haughtiness.
    I bet if you are alive 5 years from now you’ll be repeating the same garbage you posted under this thread, which is the same crap you posted a couple of years ago.

    You don’t even know the parameters of the discussion because you NEVER bothered studying it, the typical behavior of an asshole.

    Now, I myself, on the other hand, like to base what I say on evidence. For instance, not long ago you were attempting to justify the US nuclear strikes against Japan as a military necessity, which is nothing more than US propaganda… I offered you EVIDENCE this was not so, you just ignored it, since it does not fit your American-partisan worldview. That is also the reason you NEED the holocaust atrocity tales to be true…

    BTW, here, just for you:

    “Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why the Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it.

    The author of the above quote: J. Samuel Walker, chief historian of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “The Decision to Use the Bomb: A Historiographical Update,” Diplomatic History, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Winter 1990).

    I bet you ‘know’ better than the chief historian of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission too.

    And let’s not forget what you have said about US troops, good old apple-pie Colin always covering up for American war crimes, while pointing his dirty little finger at others…

    Colin Wright: Unlike gloating Israelis, the American gunship pilot[in Iraq] is doing his job. Yes, he’s brutal and uncaring — but what do you want? At least he’s not deliberately targeting children, nor is he openly kvelling about doing so.

    Hmm… As if US troops have not DELIBERATELY targeted civilians, including women and children in their wars of choice:

    After “forty months of war duty and five major battles” in which Edgar L. Jones served as “an ambulance driver, a merchant seaman, an Army historian, and a war correspondent,” he wrote an article dispelling some myths about the Americans’ role in the war. “What kind of war do civilians suppose we fought, anyway?,” he told readers of The Atlantic monthly.
    “We shot prisoners in cold blood, wiped out hospitals, strafed lifeboats, killed or mistreated enemy civilians, finished off the enemy wounded, tossed the dying into a hole with the dead, and in the Pacific boiled the flesh off enemy skulls to make table ornaments for sweethearts, or carved their bones into letter-openers.”

    Edgar L. Jones, “One War is Enough,” The Atlantic, Feb. 1946. Also quoted in P. Fussell, Thank God for the Atom Bomb and Other Essays (New York: 1988), pp. 50-51.

    • Thanks: RedpilledAF
    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  243. @Ron Unz

    ‘…Basically, the Western MSM has negative credibility on almost everything regarding China, and if they say that concentration camps holding a million Uyghurs exist, that’s evidence that they don’t.’

    In principle at least, I’m skeptical of the logic here.

    For decades, the argument against the theory that the Soviets had executed tens of thousands of Poles at Katyn in 1940 was essentially that it was the Nazis who were claiming it had happened — so it hadn’t happened.

    Well, it turns out it did happen. So whatever one may think of the mainstream media, it doesn’t follow that the Chinese therefore haven’t been oppressing the Uighers.

    I’m pretty confident they have been oppressing the Uighers — and doing at least most of the other misdeeds attributed to them. It’s perfectly possible for both sides to be evil. Ask George Orwell.

    • Replies: @Raches
    , @Mulga Mumblebrain
  244. JackOH says:

    Well, I have something of a morbid thought this Thanksgiving evening. It’s been gnawing at me for a few days after reading these pages, so here goes:

    If I were charged with murdering, say, 1 million of America’s currently incarcerated men and women in a fairly quick and efficient manner, my go-to methods would likely be firearms, execution teams, backhoes to dig mass graves, gasoline for pyres, etc.

    The idea of high-capacity gas chambers, if a subordinate were to present it to me, America’s chief executioner, would strike me as, well, preposterous. The rigmarole of developing specifications, requesting bids, establishing budgets and even a separate bureaucracy, testing prototype facilities and prototype organization, etc. Why bother?

    If orders came down from an American Fuehrer or General Secretary to begin gratuitous mass killing of already incarcerated people, I gather the handguns and long guns and personnel available in our prisons and jails would be enough to start the grisly task within a few weeks. With gas chambers? A year–I don’t know.

    I’m not much of a student/scholar of Jewish suffering during the 1933-1945 period. The bad treatment of Jews during that period that is irrefutable is, well, irrefutable. Discriminatory laws, expropriation and incarceration, malnutrition, overwork, and disease in camps.

    I guess those critics who’ve raised questions about the veracity of mass gas chambers have hooked me a bit.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Skeptikal
  245. Raches says: • Website
    @Colin Wright

    For decades, the argument against the theory that the Soviets had executed tens of thousands of Poles at Katyn in 1940 was essentially that it was the Nazis who were claiming it had happened — so it hadn’t happened.

    Well, it turns out it did happen.  So whatever one may think of the mainstream media, it doesn’t follow that the Chinese therefore haven’t been oppressing the Uighers.

    The analogy is inadmissible:  Unlike the American mainstream media, the German National Socialist government had a strict policy against lying.  They presented facts artfully, to their own best advantage, with the emphasis that suited them; and they accompanied this with impassioned rhetoric.  But they did not make factually false statements.

    This is acknowledged in Western treatises on propaganda, which are hostile to the “Nazis” and try to spin it as if Dr. Goebbels had evil motives for being so truthful.  Needless to say, a treatise on propaganda makes its own propaganda.

    So, the argument that “it was the Nazis who were claiming it had happened — so it hadn’t happened” is completely idiotic—whereas the American mainstream media are chock full of falsehoods and misinformation (e.g., Russiagate).  The two situations are not comparable.  (This is beside the point that IIRC, the Germans invited neutral observers to watch them dig up bodies at Katyn, and the Soviets subsequently accused the Germans of having committed the massacre; but you imply that someone denied it had happened at all?)

    I do not reach the point about the Uighers, save to note that some of the stuff I have seen in the American media, and especially also the American right-wing “alternative” media (Breitbart, et al.), looks like classic atrocity tall-tales.  I haven’t looked into the matter, beyond some reports that pique my interest for other reasons (e.g., tracking via mobile phones), because I don’t consider it to be my business to police what the Chinese do within their own borders.  After all, China is a sovereign nation—at least, that is my opinion. ®

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  246. @Ron Unz

    Well this is certainly a quiet contradiction of the Rezun-thesis. The whole point of Icebreaker was the claim that Stalin had been planning to invade and conquer the whole of Europe starting in July 1941, about 3 weeks after Barbarossa started. So now you’re saying that, no, Stalin did not intend to move until 1942 and Rezun was wrong. Fine. What about the notion that Stalin intended to eventually overrun all of continental Europe without reaching any understood partition with Churchill or Roosevelt? Would you still attribute that level of carelessness to Stalin?

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  247. @Colin Wright

    One can legitimately debate how effective would Operation Pike have really been had Hitler not started the offensive in the west. But it’s not open to dispute that the Allies did intend such an operation, that Stalin would have known about it through intelligence sources, and that the Soviet command would have taken the whole thing very seriously. You seem to think that just because you don’t regard the plan as effective that Moscow wouldn’t have either. In fact, Stalin’s long-running tendency of paranoia would have made him take Operation Pike more seriously, not less.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  248. @JackOH

    You don’t have to be an engineer to know that it would be easy enough th improvise effective gas chambers. After all the Black Hole of Calcutta did a pretty good job even without gas.

    And the standard version seems to be that some German boys were upset by shooting women, children and old people in a way that, it seems, Baltic State police were not. As I said, it is not hard to imagine some nerdy autistic type coming up with gas as the answer, especially as it had been tried out with exhaust gases.

    • Replies: @Raches
    , @JackOH
    , @Skeptikal
  249. @Colin Wright

    The Western MSM lie ALL the time. Western ‘intelligence’ agencies lie ALL the time. The Atlanticist Reich is involved in a struggle to the death to ‘bring China down’ ie destroy it, in order to preserve the 500 year domination of White, European, Western, JUDEO-christian man 0ver all humanity. Any lie, no matter how vile, is grist to that mill, and the contrary evidence, in this case truckloads of it, will be ignored or denied by every Western MSM presstitute that values its job.
    The US has financed armed and trained, in collaboration with the Sauds, Turkey and others, Uighur terrorist butchers who have committed numerous atrocities inside China. Any country would defend itself from such vermin. Meanwhile, the Uighur salafists, brain-dead from Saud Wahhabist genocide ‘religion’, have been unleashed on Syria, where they are infamous for their butchery and cruelty.
    Uighur youths, brainwashed in Wahhabist genocide ideology, have been de-programmed in schools in Xinjiang, which the West vilely calls ‘concentration camps’. And they lie about slave or forced labour, when all that happens is that Uighurs are found PAID employment in other partysof China. This campaign of lies is about as vicious as human villainy comes, and it is ubiquitous in the West. What does that tell us about the ‘Moral Values’ of the West?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  250. @L.K

    The current crop of Pentagoon psychopaths are still calling the blowing to pieces of seven children in Kabul, in a drone attack, a case of ‘mistaken identity’ of a car, a ‘righteous’ act. At least it tells you a lot about US ‘religion’.

  251. Baron says:

    Here’s the thing:

    Only one sector of the once famous manufacturing might has remained in the American Republic – the design, manufacture, maintenance and servicing of the military gear, it’s in each and every one of the 50 States, it employs one in seven of the US workforce (directly or indirectly), it’s the largest contributor to the GDP after services, the stock of the companies engaged in the sector (Lockheed Martin and such) can be found in virtually every 401(k).

    It’s this sector that formulates US foreign and domestic policies, compels the Republic to initiate and support world conflicts. The military gear and ammo are no different from any consumer or perishable articles, a tank or a box of ammo has to be ‘spent’, consumed or amortised just as a fridge, a car or a box of chocolates, it cannot be stored.

    The leadership of the sector is made up largely from former politicians, high ranking apparatchiks and retired military. The military-industrial (now also financial) complex rules.

    The great Ike did warn the plebeians of America about the complex way back in 1961, google for it, it’s still on u-tube, nobody seems to have listened to him, it’s too late now, the set up will have to implode for the country to renew itself.

    (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyBNmecVtdU

  252. Eagle Eye says:
    @Ron Unz

    The Chinese government reacted brilliantly, imposed a short but very sharp lockdown, and quickly stamped out the virus. Within a few weeks, life in almost the whole country was completely back to normal.

    As always, thank you, Mr. Unz, for hosting this site.

    Many readers may be unaware that international travel to and from most advanced countries including China and Russia has been and remains drastically curtailed, under a variety of excuses that seem closely coordinated.

  253. Raches says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    As I said, it is not hard to imagine some nerdy autistic type coming up with gas as the answer,

    The Holohoax in a nutshell.  The next step is to search for evidence, and filter whatever you find through the lens of confirmation bias.

    ——————————

    Apropos the same subject, I have a reply to Yevardian earlier (which needs adjustment since Mr. Unz already covered most of the key points better than I did), and my own reply to JackOH.  Keeping this one short, and ignoring a few key points, so that it gets posted. ®

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  254. vulcan says:

    Please explain how Seymour Hirsch did a retrospective tour and then went crickets. Chris Hedges is an ass puppet looking for a Shill hand to enter him and dervish for his supper! Greenwald should have divulged the entire Snowden file, but that troika tried to play footsie. Same with Assange, these truth warriors thought portioning was the order of battle, I only wisjh I could take PYROS back from the ignorant.

  255. Ron Unz says:
    @Patrick McNally

    Well this is certainly a quiet contradiction of the Rezun-thesis. The whole point of Icebreaker was the claim that Stalin had been planning to invade and conquer the whole of Europe starting in July 1941, about 3 weeks after Barbarossa started. So now you’re saying that, no, Stalin did not intend to move until 1942 and Rezun was wrong.

    Not at all. You should read my words. Stalin had begun his massive military build-up in late 1939 and I simply said he wasn’t ready in May/June 1940, eight or ten months later, and required another year or so. By mid-1941, he had achieved gigantic, overwhelming superiority in tanks, planes, and troops, and might well have decided to attack in July or August, though that’s not certain. A number of the steps and decisions he was taking at that point make it less likely he would have waited until 1942.

    • Agree: John Wear
  256. Ron Unz says:
    @Colin Wright

    Operation Pike was merely an idle thought-experiment

    The Allies were already violating Soviet airspace, sending unmarked planes to do aerial reconnaissance and select the best targets for their attack. They had spent months negotiating with the Turks and Iranians to participate in the attack against the Soviets. They firmly believed that their strategic bomber offensive—the largest in the history of the world—would be able to totally Soviet oil production and quite possibly trigger the collapse of the USSR. They were very likely wrong about these assumptions, but lots of countries attack under similar misconceptions.

    It’s all thoroughly documented in the very solid Osborn book and also covered quite extensively in McMeekin’s excellent volume. Obviously, an Allied attack on the USSR in 1940 would have been the turning point in World War II and ensured an Allied defeat, and for that reason has been covered up in virtually all Western WWII histories for 70 years:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-hitler-saved-the-allies/

  257. Ron Unz says:
    @Raches

    Unlike the American mainstream media, the German National Socialist government had a strict policy against lying…But they did not make factually false statements.

    This is acknowledged in Western treatises on propaganda, which are hostile to the “Nazis” and try to spin it as if Dr. Goebbels had evil motives for being so truthful. Needless to say, a treatise on propaganda makes its own propaganda.

    I’m extremely skeptical of those claims. I’d regard David Irving as a highly-authoritative source, and in his 1996 Goebbels book (p. 258), he relates that the propaganda minister bragged about the lies and dishonesty he used in his anti-Czech propaganda inventing stories of atrocities against the Sudeten Germans. The issue came up because one of the villages he used was the home of the Sudeten press chief, who objected that the Germans and Czechs there got along fine and nobody would believe the story. Goebbels replied: “So three hundred people know we are lying. But the rest of the world still has to find out.”

    Although this incident was particularly telling, the book is filled with numerous other examples of Goebbels’ wild exaggerations or lies, just as one might expect from a very successful political propagandist.

    I do agree that Nazi propaganda in WWII was generally much more honest and less willing to outright lie than that of their opponents, but I think the main reason for that was that Allied media was so much more powerful and globally dominant. When your media is very strong, you can get away with many more total lies and fabrications, while when your opponent has the upper hand, you need to be much more factually-careful since you’ll be under much tighter scrutiny.

    That’s exactly the same reason that American propaganda these days is so much more dishonest these days than the propaganda of our opponents such as Russia, China, and Iran.

    • Agree: L.K, John Wear
    • Replies: @res
    , @Raches
  258. @Ron Unz

    ‘…They firmly believed that their strategic bomber offensive—the largest in the history of the world—would be able to totally Soviet oil production and quite possibly trigger the collapse of the USSR…’

    To be blunt, if one is aware of the logistical realities of that part of the world in 1940, and of the technological realities of the French and British air forces as of 1940, that sentence is completely detached from reality.

    The French and British — by dint of heroic effort and at enormous diplomatic cost — might somehow have attacked Baku with perhaps twenty bombers carrying a ton of bombs each. Judging by the effects of the much larger Ploesti and Grozny raids later in the war, that would have had negligible effects on production, but have brought Russia into the war as an active participant in the war on the German side.

    That’s why, in reality, after idly considering the idea, they dropped it. This wasn’t some colossal secret; the Allies were stymied as to how they could get at the Germans without actually fighting them, and bombing Baku was one of several such proposals. As I’ve pointed out before, A.P. Herbert’s satirical poem, Baku, or the Map Game, was openly published in 1940.

    Bombing Baku was something something the Allies would have liked to do in 1940. But at the end of the day, when all was said and done, they couldn’t, in essence. I’d say that here you’re a victim of relying on one revisionist source without a sufficient awareness of the other aspects of the question.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  259. @Raches

    You yourself illustrate a common way in which the human mind corrupts its reasoning. Not perhaps precisely confirmation bias but a pretty good way of making sure you miss the point. My point was simply that Ron’s and other anti-gas fixations should give way to the fact that there would be lots of people capable of thinking up gas trucks or gas chambers as a technical solution which engrossed their attention to the exclusion of moral arguments or human sympathy. So, no one should rule out gas as remotely improbable.

  260. Ron Unz says:
    @Colin Wright

    To be blunt, if one is aware of the logistical realities of that part of the world in 1940, and of the technological realities of the French and British air forces as of 1940, that sentence is completely detached from reality.

    The French and British — by dint of heroic effort and at enormous diplomatic cost — might somehow have attacked Baku with perhaps twenty bombers carrying a ton of bombs each.

    I’m not going to dig through the Osborn book to check the numbers, but I think the air fleet they were planning to use was much, much larger than that. Anyway, they seemed absolutely convinced their forces would be sufficient to set all the oil fields on fire with a few weeks of attacks and totally destroy them.

    Obviously, the reality of WWII and the later Ploesti and other air raids proves that they were mistaken. But countries quite often launch military attacks that turn out to be wildly over-optimistic, especially when new military technologies are involved. For example, some of the Polish generals at the beginning of WWII thought they might be able to beat the Germans and occupy Berlin.

    There seems absolutely overwhelming historical evidence that the Allies came very close to attacking the USSR during the first half of 1940, including a strategic bombing offensive against Baku. The total silence of 70 years of Western history books merely proves how totally unreliable they are.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  261. ‘…There seems absolutely overwhelming historical evidence that the Allies came very close to attacking the USSR during the first half of 1940, including a strategic bombing offensive against Baku. The total silence of 70 years of Western history books merely proves how totally unreliable they are…’

    But this is apparently all drawn from the Osborne book…which is largely my point.

    You happen to be heading directly into several of my rather haphazard areas of expertise here.

    Available airbases, the technology of the time, the ability to support a prolonged military effort in that part of the world, the attitude of the Turks, the mentality of the British and French in that year, Russian defenses, the practical impact on the constellation of forces…

    This just wasn’t going to happen. It was basically an idle thought, a never-inflated toy balloon that your Osborne has apparently blown up into a zeppelin.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  262. JackOH says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Wiz, thanks. For simplicity, I imagined myself in the America of 2021, under a shit regime that offered a “permissive political environment” for the offing of “undesirable” peoples who are already in confinement.

    We have a federal (USA) prison about 20 miles from me. There are 1600 inmates. I’m the warden/mass murderer. I get the order to kill the inmates in an efficient and orderly manner. I’m promised protection from inquiry, and advancement for making “good progress”. I think within 72 hours, if pressed, I could come up with an overtime schedule that would offer aggressive guards promotion opportunities by executing, say, 10 inmates an hour. In a week, I’ve “emptied” my prison. I don’t need a gas chamber to do the dirty work within my ambit.

    Wiz, I’m not sure what I’m getting at. Maybe nothing. I do want to understand, to the extent possible, the positions of the pro-Holocaust, anti-Holocaust, and “in-betweens”. There seems to me to be way too much bad faith among interested parties in the standard-issue Holocaust narrative to take much at face value unless absolutely nailed down.

    As I mentioned, I recognize the horror visited upon Germany’s Jews by an errant government. We need to understand, in my opinion, whether that horror included deliberate and knowing mass murder by means of gas. I’m just not there yet.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
    , @Ron Unz
  263. @Ron Unz

    ‘…There seems absolutely overwhelming historical evidence that the Allies came very close to attacking the USSR during the first half of 1940, including a strategic bombing offensive against Baku. The total silence of 70 years of Western history books merely proves how totally unreliable they are…’

    You are right in a sense.

    After endless dithering, the French and British were finally working themselves up to ‘aiding the Finns’ — partly as a pretext for invading Norway and blocking German iron ore supplies, partly as a way of doing something without actually reviving the dread Western Front of the previous war, and partly as a way of actually opposing yet another instance of totalitarian aggression.

    However, to the extent that all this was a serious plan, it was about Finland, not about Baku. Bombing Baku was something that might have happened in an alternate timeline somewhere around 1942 — not in 1939-40, and not under any set of circumstances that historically came to pass.

  264. @Ron Unz

    “Basically, the Western MSM has negative credibility on almost everything regarding China, and if they say that concentration camps holding a million Uyghurs exist, that’s evidence that they don’t.”

    I would add Iran, as well, to the list of nations or entities that one should not believe what is reported on in Western MSM.

  265. @Ron Unz

    ‘…By mid-1941, he had achieved gigantic, overwhelming superiority in tanks, planes, and troops, and might well have decided to attack in July or August, though that’s not certain. A number of the steps and decisions he was taking at that point make it less likely he would have waited until 1942…’

    My impression is the contrary. Stalin had just reorganized his army, and many of his formations were in the process of reequipping themselves — and it all fitted with a 1942 start date, not 1941. This is one reason the Germans met with such overwhelming success in the summer of 1941. The Red Army was almost literally caught with its pants down: multiple formations half-equipped, mid-way through reorganization, etc.

    One hypothesis I’ve read — that makes sense — is that for 1941, Stalin planned to finish off Finland (pun’s unfortunate, but…). First, that was unfinished business. Second, it would cut Germany off from its source of nickel. Third, it would test whether the Soviet army had been cured of the glaring deficiencies that had been revealed in the first attack on Finland.

    …but everything points to the main event being planned for 1942, not 1941. And of course, to be fair to Stalin, all such plans are contingent upon developments. He might never have attacked at all. I think he certainly intended to be ready for war by 1942. What he would have actually done will remain forever unknown.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  266. @JackOH

    There’s no doubt that gassings would have been technically possible, although many of the common descriptive scenarios offered are pretty silly. But, for example, Friedrich Paul Berg has pointed out that railway cars to such a camp as Treblinka would have been necessarily deloused, and this could have offered the perfect way of executing prisoners. Instead the story given was that the prisoners were taken off the train and later exposed to fumes from what was for decades claimed to be diesel engines, although at some point a correction was made in some places claiming that gasoline engines were used instead. Apparently diesel exhaust seemed too inefficient, although I believe that Richard Evans still has stuck with the diesel engine story. But driving a railway car into a delousing chamber with the prisoners still there could surely have been an efficient way of accomplishing things. That just has not been the traditional story.

  267. Not Raul says:
    @Colin Wright

    They seem to have come close to doing that — it’s possible the Germans won while the Russians were still expecting them to be fully engaged.

    That seems quite likely; but why wait more than a month to attack?

    I can understand hoping that the war in the west would take a lot longer; but that would have been a stupid thing to count on, especially considering that, if the Germans had stuck more closely to the original plan, World War I might have ended quickly in the West. It would have been stupid of Stalin for him to have expected the Germans to repeat the same mistakes.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  268. res says:
    @Ron Unz

    When your media is very strong, you can get away with many more total lies and fabrications, while when your opponent has the upper hand, you need to be much more factually-careful since you’ll be under much tighter scrutiny.

    That’s exactly the same reason that American propaganda these days is so much more dishonest these days than the propaganda of our opponents such as Russia, China, and Iran.

    Hopefully it is obvious to everyone how that applies WITHIN the US as well.

  269. @Colin Wright

    “I think he certainly intended to be ready for war by 1942.”

    That’s a perfectly rational assessment. It seems somehow kind of odd that while RU takes Operation Pike more seriously than you do, he ends up being the one convinced that Stalin was ready to move. I still remain a bit unclear on whether he actually believes the Rezun-script which views Stalin as attempting a mass-Sovietization of continental Europe or merely a preemptive strike against Hitler.

    More important than the actual results of Operation Pike had it been attempted, as it seems likely it would have been if not for Hitler’s own stab into France, is how this reflects the circumstances which Stalin would have been assessing. Somewhat related is Operation Unthinkable, for which Joathan Walker authored a book with that title. This was Churchill’s attempt to persuade his staff in early 1945 that they should be ready to launch a war against the USSR by July 1945. His staff argued that this was unrealistic and he was forced to give way. But Churchill wanted to go to war over Poland in July 1945, and it is out of the question that he would have quietly sat back if Stalin had attempted what Rezun has claimed. Even if Stalin had merely invaded Germany in 1941 and then stopped there, there is every reason to believe that Churchill would have begun demanding a Soviet withdrawal from Poland with the threat of war if this was not done.

    Nor is there any reason to expect differently from Roosevelt. A long-running canard is that Roosevelt’s administration was controlled by Soviet agents. A much clearer assessment is given by Frank Costigliola in Roosevelt’s Lost Alliances. Roosevelt had reconciled himself to the fact that a victory over Hitler would make Stalin the big power in eastern Europe. But he still retained the hope that diplomacy could induce Stalin to eventually lighten things up, and even if this had not gone as fast as one would like the possibility was that after Stalin’s passing away a different environment than the Cold War might have allowed Khrushchev to go further than he did. But Roosevelt would certainly never have sat still while Stalin gobbled up the whole continent as Rezun claims he was about to.

    There’s an obvious inconsistency in the way that people will readily cite John T. Flynn charging Roosevelt with wanting a war, but then claim that Roosevelt would have taken a benign attitude towards Stalin sweeping across the continent. Flynn is certainly correct that Roosevelt was looking for a war, although he underestimates the importance of Hitler occupation of Czechoslovakia in creating the Polish crisis of 1939. But if we take Flynn seriously when charging that Roosevelt was looking for a war as an exercise in military Keynesianism then it is clear that Roosevelt would still need a war after Stalin swept across Europe.

    Nor would it be possible to use Japan for this. If Stalin had invaded Germany before Hitler got in the first blow then Japan would have gone to war against the USSR. The occupation of Indochina happened on July 24. At this time both German and Japanese leaders believed that Hitler was coasting towards Moscow. So Japan considered it safe to press south. The occupation of Indochina brought about US sanctions on Japan and opened the way to Pearl Harbor. But if Stalin had struck across Europe first then Japan would have attacked the USSR in the east and people like Harry Truman would not have tolerated sanctions on Japan. That would mean no good excuse for a war against Germany and Japan, but a logical rationale for Churchill and Roosevelt to go to war against Stalin. Not only is this the logical outcome of a Rezun-scenario, but it is the type of outcome which Stalin himself would be likely to predict.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  270. AndrewR says:
    @Punch Brother Punch

    Not so much a puritan than a retard

    • Replies: @Punch Brother Punch
  271. SailerFan says:

    @Ron Unz, what is your content archiving software called? Is it a rival to archive.org?

  272. @Not Raul

    ‘That seems quite likely; but why wait more than a month to attack?’

    I think that Stalin — quite reasonably expecting a repeat of the First World War — was waiting for Germany to get firmly mired in a Western Front and Britain and France irretrievably committed to war with Hitler. Then, he would not necessarily strike, but start making ever-more exorbitant demands of a Germany helpless to turn against him. He’d want Finland. he’d want Romania, he’d want more of Poland…

    As part of this process, and in reaction to the catastrophic showing of the Red Army in 1939-40, he was reorganizing and reequipping his military so as to be a fit instrument for pursuing such a policy — and 1942 seems to have been the year he had in mind to start cracking the whip.

    It’s speculation of course as to what Stalin would have done and when — he didn’t make his intentions public — but that’s my guess.

    • Thanks: Not Raul
  273. Ron Unz says:
    @Colin Wright

    But this is apparently all drawn from the Osborne[sic] book…which is largely my point…This just wasn’t going to happen. It was basically an idle thought, a never-inflated toy balloon that your Osborne[sic] has apparently blown up into a zeppelin.

    The Osborn book runs 250 pages and appeared in a respected academic military series. The author is a professional government archivist, and it’s based upon his very extensive scholarly research. The book became the basis for a couple of long, widely-discussed articles in The National Interest. Meanwhile, you claim to be a retired house-mover who hangs around my website. Maybe Osborn is entirely wrong and you’re correct, but if I had to bet, I’d bet the other way.

    Anyway, the French plans for Operation Pike were captured by the victorious German army in 1940, and they published in translation and original facsimile copy to embarrass the Allies for propaganda purposes. Pretty soon, every knowledgeable person in the world was aware of it, so that the eminent journalist Sisley Huddleston casually mentioned it in his postwar memoirs, which is how I first discovered it.

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-hitler-saved-the-allies/

    You’re just making yourself look very foolish by denying this enormous mass of scholarly material without being able to cite a shred of evidence on the other side.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  274. Ron Unz says:
    @JackOH

    As I mentioned, I recognize the horror visited upon Germany’s Jews by an errant government. We need to understand, in my opinion, whether that horror included deliberate and knowing mass murder by means of gas.

    It’s sometimes useful to reason by analogy. Anyone who absorbs today’s American MSM would certainly “recognize the horror visited upon” blacks in today’s America by racist police, Southern rednecks, and Trump supporters. Indeed, I think polls have shown that a substantial fraction of the population believes that “thousands” of unarmed, innocent blacks are slaughtered every year by our police, which was obviously the whole reason for the enormously popular Black Lives Matter movement and the political effort to “defund the police.”

    By a totally remarkable coincidence, this widespread current narrative was promulgated by exactly the same sort of people who similarly promote the account of the horrors inflicted upon Jews in Nazi Germany. If you haven’t already done so, you really might want to read one of my articles from a couple of years ago:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-jews-and-nazis/

    This section of my long World War II article might also be very helpful:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-understanding-world-war-ii/#the-black-legend-of-adolf-hitler-and-nazi-germany

    • Replies: @JackOH
  275. Ron Unz says:
    @Patrick McNally

    But Churchill wanted to go to war over Poland in July 1945, and it is out of the question that he would have quietly sat back if Stalin had attempted what Rezun has claimed…If Stalin had invaded Germany before Hitler got in the first blow then Japan would have gone to war against the USSR.

    In 1941, the British had only feeble land forces and the Japanese had already been crushed by the Russians in 1939. Meanwhile, the Soviets had by far the best tanks in the world and and several times more of them than every other army in the world combined, including the Germans. The same for roughly true for tactical air power.

    If the Soviets had struck first as they intended, they would have crushed the Germans and absolutely no other military forces in Europe could have even put up a fight. They’d even produced thousands of amphibious tanks probably capable of crossing the English Channel, and their air fleet was many times larger than that of the British. What in the world could have stopped them?

    A long-running canard is that Roosevelt’s administration was controlled by Soviet agents.

    Of course a network of Soviet agents had enormous influence in FDR’s White House and federal government. For example, when they discovered the Venona project, they ordered it shut down and all the evidence of Soviet espionage destroyed. They even had a great deal of influence in the OSS, and probably helped to arrange Patton’s assassination:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-our-deadly-world-of-post-war-politics/

    Someone who denies the massive influence of Soviet agents in 1930s and 1940s America is like someone denying the influence of the pro-Israel Neocons in the Bush Administration.

    • Agree: L.K
  276. @Ron Unz

    ‘Maybe Osborn is entirely wrong and you’re correct, but if I had to bet, I’d bet the other way.

    Lol. You’d lose.

    ‘You’re just making yourself look very foolish by denying this enormous mass of scholarly material without being able to cite a shred of evidence on the other side.’

    I’m beginning to understand how I get banned so often, from so many sites.

    No, Ron. I’m not the one who’s making himself look foolish.

    More seriously, you take many iconoclastic, contrarian positions — and often defend them brilliantly.

    This is not one of those times. Wisdom will dictate that I stop arguing with you about this at some point — but you’re wrong.

    I promise.

    • Disagree: Biff
  277. @Sean

    That is how you win a counter insurgency war.

    Your example is Vietnam

  278. @Sean

    https://craignelsen.com/video/index.php

    You tell me. These were men standing on a street in their country and we slaughtered them. They posed no threat to us. Our gunship was so far away they didn’t know it was there. The bullets hit them before the sound of the gunfire so the head of the guy you are talking to suddenly explodes. Our gunners were hesitating and the order had to repeatedly be given to “fire”. “Light ’em up.” We have no business doing that. We are the bad guys. We are the evil in the world, or, rather, we are their enslaved zombies.

    Watch that video. That was murder, pure and simple. And the gunner knew it.

    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @Sean
  279. @Sean

    Had Assange did what he did in Sweden in many other countries of the world he would have been lucky not to be shot by irate male relatives of his victims

    The woman has since recanted.

    • Replies: @Sean
  280. @Patrick McNally

    ‘One can legitimately debate how effective would Operation Pike have really been had Hitler not started the offensive in the west…’

    Not really, no: one can’t legitimately debate about the feasibility of Operation Pike in 1940.

    It’s one of a thousand schemes that were idly floated throughout history — and abandoned, because they couldn’t have worked.

    Operation Pike ranks with Churchill’s First World War scheme to build shallow-draft battlecruisers to invade the Baltic, and the German plan to seize Iceland, and the American proposal to launch a 1942 invasion of France, and God knows what else.

    It was an idea that was advanced, briefly considered, and abandoned in light of the innumerable and insuperable practical objections to it. It was literally ridiculed in a contemporary piece of doggerel. It was that manifestly frivolous. It involved using aircraft that didn’t exist, to mount an operation in a part of the world that didn’t have the infrastructure to support it, in pursuit of a goal that couldn’t have been realized, in defiance of the catastrophic consequences that would have ensued had it been attempted.

    …and so, after brief consideration, it was dropped. It not only didn’t happen, it wasn’t going to happen.

  281. JackOH says:
    @Ron Unz

    Ron, I used “horror” because I got tired of writing “discriminatory laws, expropriation and incarceration, malnourishment, overwork, and disease” and suchlike, about which, I think, there is no controversy at all. The question of whether mass gassing of concentration camp inmates occurred is at issue, and I think the folks who’ve raised questions about that have done a pretty credible job. Whether that part of the standard-issue Holocaust narrative is a con job seems to me still up in the air.

    Anyone who absorbs today’s American MSM would certainly “recognize the horror visited upon” blacks in today’s America by racist police, Southern rednecks, and Trump supporters.

    You’re preaching to the choir with that one, Ron.

    • Replies: @Boomthorkell
  282. Raches says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    Propaganda

    Unlike the American mainstream media, the German National Socialist government had a strict policy against lying…But they did not make factually false statements.

    This is acknowledged in Western treatises on propaganda, which are hostile to the “Nazis” and try to spin it as if Dr. Goebbels had evil motives for being so truthful.  Needless to say, a treatise on propaganda makes its own propaganda.

    I’m extremely skeptical of those claims.

    Well, I suppose it would behoove me to cite something.  I have made similar statements before; but I am generally circumspect about my reading list.¹  I should also appropropately qualify my terse statement, which will require elaborating on it.

    What I have had in mind is Jacques Ellul, Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, an English translation published in the United States by Knopf and later by Random House—not exactly “Nazi propaganda” outlets.  Quoting therefrom, with italics in the original and boldface supplied:

    There remains the problem of Goebbels’s reputation.  He wore the title of Big Liar (bestowed by Anglo-Saxon propaganda) and yet he never stopped battling for propaganda to be as accurate as possible.  He preferred being cynical and brutal to being caught in a lie.  He used to say:  “Everybody must know what the situation is.”  He was always the first to announce disastrous events or difficult sitations, without hiding anything.  The result was a general belief, between 1939 and 1942, that German communiqués not only were more concise, clearer, and less cluttered, but were more truthful than Allied communiqués (American and neutral opinion)—and, furthermore, that the Germans published all the news two or three days before the Allies.  All this is so true that pinning the title of Big Liar on Goebbels must be considered quite a propaganda success.

    During the War, Ellul himself illegally fought the Germans as a member of the criminal French “Resistance”.  In 2001, Ellul was proclaimed a “Righteous Gentile” by Yad Vashem (link is to PDF).  Ellul was a French professor of history, a theologian, a “social justice” intellectual strongly influenced by Karl Marx, and a Christian anarchist.  Needless to say, he is hostile to the German National Socialists.

    I do not take his word as gold about them—to the contrary.  Knowingly or not, Ellul says many things about them that I believe are untrue, including some things that are regularly debunked here at The Unz Review.  Rather, I read this as a sort of an admission against interest:  If Ellul, as Goebbels’ enemy, states clearly and repeatedly that Goebbels had a policy of factual accuracy in propaganda, I take that as a fact he thought he had no choice but to admit after extensive scholarly study of the topic.  When I see Ellul admitting that Goebbels based his propaganda on the truth, it seems almost as if I were seeing the New York Times say something good about Hitler.

    [MORE]

    The above-quoted admission is buried in a footnote (at p. 54[38],² part of a long footnote continued from the previous page), in a text that is overall very negative towards Goebbels.  The beginning of the footnote is affixed to a statement in the text that essentially repeats the standard Big Lie that Hitler advocated the Big Lie, although Ellul, the scholar of propaganda, is subtler than this:  On p. 52[37], ironically under the heading “Propaganda and Truth”, he states:

    The most generally held concept of propaganda is that it is a series of tall stories, a tissue of lies, and that lies are necessary for effective propaganda.  Hitler himself apparently confirmed this point of view when he said that the bigger the lie, the more its chance of being believed.

    This is an uncited reference to Mein Kampf, where Hitler stated this principle to condemn those who apply it (and to accuse the Jews of exploiting it).  I see that Ellul is careful not to say that Hitler advocated the Big Lie, but he does dishonestly insinuate it.

    On the subsquent p. 53[37], Ellul says (irrelevant footnote omitted, boldface mine):

    For a long time propagandists have recognized that lying must be avoided.  “In propaganda, truth pays off”—this formula has been increasingly accepted.  Lenin proclaimed it.  And alongside Hitler’s statement on lying one must place Goebbels’s insistence that facts to be disseminated must be accurate.²

    The footnote marker (²) affixed to a statement about Hitler and Goebbels, leads to a very long, multi-paragraph footnote, which begins by attributing truthfulness to the propaganda of the United States, and to the Communist bloc—specifically, Mao.  (Remember that Ellul was a Marxist intellectual.)  The footnote spills onto the next page, where Ellul eventually reaches Goebbels in the paragraph quoted above.  I am curious to know how much of this was arranged by the American translator and publisher, and whether the French original follows the same print layout.  Regardless, much of propaganda is in the presentation of information for emphasis or de-emphasis.  Casual readers will not follow this, as I just did.

    In a footnote 3 on the facing page 55[38] (here quoted with my emphasis), Ellul speculates that “Goebbels’ lies could be on the successes achieved by German U-boats, because only the captain of the U-boat knew if he had sunk a ship or not.  It is easy to spread detailed news on such a subject without fear of contradiction.”  I should add that it is equally “easy” to defame someone with speculation on such a subject—“without fear of contradiction”.

    ——————————

    In my own opinion, Ellul twists himself into knots to condemn Hitler’s government and represent it as evil.  But he admits to the Goebbels policy of truthfulness—and he wrestles with this issue repeatedly, often (albeit not always) in footnotes that the printer set in very tiny text.  When, amidst his extended discussion of why propagandists must use truth whilst putting their own spin on it, he states that Goebbels had a policy of truthfulness in between attacks on Goebbels and denunciations of him, I take that as Ellul, a scholar of propaganda, applying the method that he describes:  Admitting the truth that Goebbels was truthful, whilst putting his own spin on it.

    This endorsement of Goebbels’ truthfulness is not unalloyed.  For example, Ellul cites Hermann Rauschning, whom I believe is discredited, to accuse the Hitler government altogether of “falsehood in depth” (p. 60[41]), which he qualifies with a footnote accusing Goebbels of using falsehood “very subtly to discredit the enemy; he secretly disseminated false news about Germany to enemy intelligence agents; then he proved publicly that their news was false, thus that the enemy had lied.”  Well, even if so, a similar accusation could be made against Alan Sokal and the Grievance Studies academic trolls; and I don’t know of any sophisticated government in the world that doesn’t feed disinformation to “enemy intelligence agents”, a matter distinct from public propaganda even if ultimately exploited by it.  I do find it telling that, according to my recollection that I just confirmed with a keyword search on “Goebbels”, Ellul does not allege even one instance of Goebbels telling lies to the public.  Instead, he attacks Goebbels’ motives and character.

    To be clear, I am speaking of false statements—misinformation.  Goebbels sometimes did withhold information from the public—especially in wartime, which is necessary for every government.  He declared openly that he did this in some of his propaganda that I have seen from 1943.  Even Stoddard’s book on his visit to Germany found much wartime secrecy, which I think is quite reasonable; and in a totalitarian state, I would expect for some information to be suppressed in peacetime, too.  Ellul gives several examples of Goebbels suppressing information.

    In some ways, I gained a greater respect for Goebbels from Ellul than I had even from sources sympathetic to the National Socialists, some of which unfortunately try to pretend that Hitler had a perfection impossible to mortal human beings.  For example, Ellul said in n. 9 at p. 41[31]:

    9. But in this straining toward the future the propagandist must always beware of making precise promises, assurances, commitments.  Goebbels constantly protested the affirmations of victory emanating from the Führer’s headquarters.

    It would be interesting to follow up on Ellul’s sources.  The bibliography in the English edition of Propaganda is very limited, only six pages long, with a publisher’s note explaining that it lists “only those works which are readily available in American libraries”.  Ellul’s sources should be more fully listed in the French original, Les Propagandes (n.b. the plural; 1962).  I do not have the French edition, and I don’t see it on LG or Archive.org.

    Those who wish to obtain Ellul’s Propaganda may download it from Archive.org or LG #798137, md5:6ce5d2f8f9270b1474bc9ca9e2080622.  These are the same files, with sha256:a6052e8cbf7367e7adffa2037787effddf22deb3b76578734cc65567e8ccee95.  It is a low-quality scan; my OCR software mangles the tiny text of the above-quoted footnotes, requiring many manual corrections from images that my eyes can barely read.  As I didn’t know until I had already made my own OCR for writing this comment, someone has made an ebook out of it (unfortunately, with ugly sans-serif font, but that is easy enough to adjust in the epub file).

    For those who want a deadtree copy, I hate to link to Amazon—but for this, I will do it:

    My thanks to Revilo P. Oliver for the reference to Ellul.  Oliver cited Ellul several times in America’s Decline, and later in some of his articles in Liberty Bell.

    ——————————

    I note that the American edition translating Ellul’s book is introduced with propaganda based on deceptively selective information.  One of the two English translators, Konrad Kellen, wrote in 1965 at p. iii[2]:

    Most people are easy prey for propaganda, Ellul says, because of their firm but entirely erroneous conviction that it is composed only of lies and “tall stories” and that, conversely, what is true cannot be propaganda.  But modern propaganda has long disdained the ridiculous lies of past and outmoded forms of propaganda.  It operates instead with many different kinds of truth—half truth, limited truth, truth out of context.  Even Goebbels always insisted that Wehrmacht communiqués be as accurate as possible.

    Kellen’s statement exemplifies what it says:  In the text, Ellul says that Goebbels was accurate as to the facts, without limiting this statement; but for the introduction, Kellen selectively limits this to “Wehrmacht communiqués”.  The propagandistic impression to the reader, especially to a reader with an anti-Goebbels bias, should be obvious on a moment’s thought.

    ——————————

    The foregoing is, perforce, only brief sketch of part of Ellul’s treatment of the German National Socialists.  In a treatise on modern propaganda first published in France in 1962, it is no surprise that the subject arises not infrequently; indeed, upon seeing your comment, my first inclination was simply to cite Ellul passim, without bothering to attempt to summarize or excerpt.  The attempt is necessarily incomplete.  I encourage people to read the book.

    Thus launched a wider discussion of Ellul, and the relevance of his book to this American Pravda thread, plus some other remarks on Goebbels and/or on propaganda.  This comment ran 3,600 words—not including the beginning of a draft about Irving, which I had already split off into a separate file for reasons of length and timeliness.  Perhaps I should take it up on my blog, and link to it from here.  It is relevant here.

    Despite my disagreements with Ellul politically, with his negative mischaracterization of the German National Socialists, and with the usual “official history”, plus my critique (which I cut here) of Ellul’s attempt to reconcile propaganda with democracy, I I narrowly endorse his book as an excellent treatise for those who wish to understand propaganda.  To cut my lengthier discussion, I will abruptly conclude hereby with a quote from Ellul (p. 113[67]):  “The greater a person’s knowledge of political and economic facts, the more sensitive and vulnerable is his judgment.  Intellectuals are most easily reached by propaganda, particularly if it employs ambiguity.  The reader of a number of newspapers expressing diverse attitudes—just because he is better informed—is more subjected than anyone else to a propaganda that he cannot perceive, even though he claims to retain free choice in the mastery of all this information.” ®

    ——————————
    Notes

    1. By a prudent habit long established, I am generally circumspect about my reading list.  I deem it very private profiling information—my web browser history and the list of books that I have read, alike.  That is why I have avoided covering Ellul before (and only even mentioned his name after another commentator did).  But as I have become committed to The Unz Review, I have been opening up on certain relevant points.

    2. I myself have suffered much frustration when I need to dig through a text to find and verify a specific quote.  To save my readers from similar frustration, when I reference a specific widely-available PDF scan, I habitually place the sheet number of the PDF in brackets after the page number.

    • Thanks: RedpilledAF
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  283. @AndrewR

    Not so much a puritan than a retard

    I think you mean “…as a retard.” If you’re going to insult me, please use proper grammar.

    And I disagree. I’m far more puritanical than I am retarded.

  284. @Ron Unz

    They’d even produced thousands of amphibious tanks probably capable of crossing the English Channel, and their air fleet was many times larger than that of the British. What in the world could have stopped them?

    Amphibious tanks. LOL. Clueless as always.

    “But muh much reading said they was dangerous and muh historian sold a lot of books making these sensationalist claims.”

    Yes, but again, this is why you need expertise to evaluate sources and you have none. Amphibious tanks crossing the Channel is a complete fantasy. The type of idiotic idea that Hitler would salivate over in his bunker while his Generals would cringe and try to avoid eye contact. Why is every argument of yours riddled with such impossibly bad judgement?

  285. @Mulga Mumblebrain

    Interesting that you are sharing the 5000 year fantasy, normally Chinese, with Westerners. Is that now part of the Wolf Warrior playbook? But maybe you know something interesting. We think we know how Saudi money has spread Wahabism to many countries but how could that include China? BTW are you sure Uighurs are Sunni?

    • Replies: @Mevashir
  286. Mevashir says:

    I would encourage Ron Unz to offer a subscription service to his website. Charging \$10-\$20 a month to give us unlimited and uncensored commenting privileges. I would be more than happy to pay such an amount for such an amazingly informative website. I think if people are paying they also might be more responsible in their commenting behavior.

    Merry Christmas to everyone on the Unz Review!

  287. Mevashir says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    I had a Uyghur friend who was a graduate student at the local American University. He was a devout Muslim and definitely Sunni.

    Remember that they are Turks in nationality and I believe all Turks are Sunni is well.

    • Thanks: Wizard of Oz
  288. Sean says:
    @Craig Nelsen

    How Will WikiLeaks Transform Mainstream Media? – Scientific …https://www.scientificamerican.com › article › wikileaks…
    1 Dec 2010 — Feldstein suggests the relationship between traditional and new media “is a symbiosis that’s in a certain sense good for both sides. WikiLeaks benefits from getting the imprimatur of credibility of elite journalist organizations, drawing public attention all over the world to their documents, and they get fact-checking done, as well as provide nuance and context. News organizations benefit by getting access to a treasure trove of secret documents with relatively little risk to themselves—had they been dealing directly with a whistleblower, they might be at more risk of prosecution or the government getting an injunction against publishing.”

    Assange was in partnership with mainstream outlets.

    WikiLeaks Taps Power Of the Press – The New York Timeshttps://www.nytimes.com › 2010/12/13 › business › media
    12 Dec 2010 — By shading his radicalism and collaborating with mainstream outlets, Mr. Assange created a comfort zone for his partners in journalism.

    So what went wrong? “The editor in chief of WikiLeaks, former hacker Julian Assange, has indicated to Forbes that the group will go after the private world, too, with its next big target being a major U.S. bank. “

    WikiLeaks cables: Julian Assange says his life is ‘under threat’https://www.theguardian.com › world › dec › bank-of-…
    18 Dec 2010 — WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says Swedish rape case against him is ‘a travesty’ … Bank of America blocks WikiLeaks payments

    I am sure it is just a coincidence the sky fell on him after he went after the financial hubs, After all the CIA run everything, not the banks. Right?

  289. @Ron Unz

    ‘The Allies were already violating Soviet airspace, sending unmarked planes to do aerial reconnaissance and select the best targets for their attack…’

    That much appears to be a matter of historical fact.

    I have to concede that there was more to this than I thought — but at the same time remain skeptical that there was as much to it as you claim and Osborne apparently implies.

  290. @Ron Unz

    The ability of Soviet agents to influence some aspects of what went on during the Roosevelt administration was always bound to the Soviet strategy of remaining in the background and allowing Hitler to make the first move. Once the Third Reich was defeated it very quickly started to happen that high level officials in the Truman administration began looking into reports of Soviet infiltration by 1947. If Stalin had done something so ludicrous as zipping across the whole continent of Europe in 1941 then there would have been nothing which any real Soviet agents could do to contain the impact. People like Harry Truman, Herbert Hoover, Charles Lindbergh and many other notables would have been calling for action.

    Roosevelt himself, being a canny politician and on the lookout for a war that would justify military spending, would very quickly have placed himself at the head of the crowd. This would surely have led to earlier investigations of Soviet moles who weren’t looked at until 1947, and probably caused some level of scandal for Roosevelt. But he was a skilled politician and would have handled it deftly while positioning himself at the head of a new war effort.

    Inflating the capacity of people like Harry Dexter White, Lauchlin Currie and others to actually control the political course of events in the USA following such a stupid move by Stalin is obviously crucial to all Rezunists. Nothing known about Stalin supports the idea that he would ever consider something so stupid. This is the kind of arrogance which came natural to Hitler who tended to think of all of his victories as irreversible. But if Stalin done something like sweeping across Europe in the summer of 1941 then one can be certain that by December the USA would have been at war with the USSR and nothing David Greenglass or Julius Rosenberg were capable of doing would have prevented this. By the summer of 1945 the atomic bomb would have been used against the USSR.

    No neocons in the Bush administration ever had the influence to cover over something like this. This would be analogous to Israel launching major nuclear missile strikes against all of the west European capitals in the summer of 2001, while neocons in Washington try to cover it up. That couldn’t be done at all. You’re greatly exaggerating the actual influence of real networks where they have existed.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  291. Ron Unz says:
    @Raches

    What I have had in mind is Jacques Ellul, Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes

    Sure, Ellul’s book said that Goebbels wasn’t the totally pathological “Big Liar” that Allied propaganda made him out to be, and indeed that he generally tried to be accurate.

    That’s certainly correct, and pretty much what I’d said. In fact, I think Goebbels once argued that the best propaganda was built upon truth.

    But that’s very, very different than your foolish claim that Goebbels never told a lie and had prohibited dishonesty. Based upon the 700 page David Irving book, that simply isn’t correct. He was a very successful government propagandist, who naturally shifted his tactics based upon the situation he faced, including the overwhelming Allied superiority in global media during WWII.

    • Agree: John Wear
  292. Ron Unz says:
    @Patrick McNally

    If Stalin had done something so ludicrous as zipping across the whole continent of Europe in 1941 then there would have been nothing which any real Soviet agents could do to contain the impact. People like Harry Truman, Herbert Hoover, Charles Lindbergh and many other notables would have been calling for action.

    Well, sure. If Stalin’s armies had swept across the borders in 1941 and conquered all of Europe, including Britain, America would surely have become “suspicious” of his motives, and most of his agents in our government would probably have been removed. But by then, Stalin would have controlled Europe and probably conquered most of the rest of Eurasia shortly afterwards. So it’s not at all clear to me what America could have done about it except initiate a global Cold War a few years earlier than happened.

    Indeed, with the Soviets controlling most of the world and its industrial base, perhaps his powerful supporters in the US might actually have been strengthened politically. Don’t forget that FDR was in poor health and VP Henry Wallace was totally under the influence of Stalin’s agents, whom he later promised to place in charge of a Wallace government. So maybe FDR would have been struck down by a “lone nut” assassin or suddenly died from his numerous health problems, putting Stalin’s stooge in charge of the American government.

    • Agree: John Wear
    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  293. @JackOH

    Pary of the issue here is to what extent Jews (specifically) were deliberately mistreated in the camps vs. war time ration issues. With the allies having run similar camps where millions starved and suffered, it wasn’t a uniquely German operation. Even then, German efforts weren’t directed solely at Jews, and inasmuch as they were, this was quite in line with historical practices in regards to “nationalist” policies against singularly wealthy or powerful minorities, whether Tocharians in Tang China, Chinese in modern Malaya, Parsis in parts of India,nPolish nobles in Galicia under Joseph II, or Jews during the Khlmentsky Uprising (which of course also targeted Poles/local polonized nobility, but Jewish middle-men were closer at hand.)

    As for the expropriations, definitely, but again, the allies expropriated much from non-Jewish groups, pre, inter, and post-war.

    • Thanks: JackOH
  294. @Ron Unz

    It would have meant a hot war, not a cold war. It’s amazing how selectively you apply specific arguments by someone like John T. Flynn. Flynn’s central argument was that Roosevelt was looking for a chance to enter a big war because Republicans like Robert Taft placed serious limits on the New Deal. While Flynn greatly exaggerates the idea of Roosevelt creating the conflict in Europe when it was Hitler’s occupation of Czechoslovakia which led to Chamberlain’s guarantee to Poland, he does have a valid point about Roosevelt looking around for a war.

    It certainly is clear that Churchill would have been advocating for a hot war against the USSR. We can also assume that most of the isolationists who later on supported the Cold War would have been won over to Churchill’s view on this very fast. This isn’t something that would have been avoided by quickly bumping off Roosevelt to be replaced by Wallace.

    It shows the schizophrenic way that Rezunists will jump back and forth between on the one hand emphasizing how suspicious many ordinary US citizens were of entering into alliance with the USSR before Pearl Harbor, but then talking as if someone like Henry Wallace could have engineered things in Stalin’s favor after a Roosevelt assassination. The people who would have been leading the charge for a war against the USSR in these circumstances would have been the same ones who led the Cold War later. People like George Marshall, Dean Acheson and the like. It would have been an incontrollable backlash occurring under circumstances where the US was bound to develop the atomic bomb before the USSR.

    Not only would this scenario certainly have ended in hot war against the USSR, but Stalin himself was fully prone to grasp that fact. The idea that Stalin would place a bet on the hope that somehow Henry Wallace could contain a backlash like this is preposterous. Stalin was a cautious politician who would have known very well that what you’ve suggested is a road to total disaster.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  295. Brilliant, exhaustive, incredibly well researched from the Wizard of Unz..

  296. Ron Unz says:
    @Patrick McNally

    It would have meant a hot war, not a cold war. It’s amazing how selectively you apply specific arguments by someone like John T. Flynn. Flynn’s central argument was that Roosevelt was looking for a chance to enter a big war…Not only would this scenario certainly have ended in hot war against the USSR, but Stalin himself was fully prone to grasp that fact… Stalin was a cautious politician who would have known very well that what you’ve suggested is a road to total disaster.

    You misunderstand the historical situation entirely…

    In 1938, America’s industrial base and resources—especially combined with those of its likely allies—vastly exceeded that of Japan or Germany, so that provoking a war against either of those countries would have been seen as a very “safe” means of boosting the American economy, which is exactly what ultimately happened. The tricky part was getting the American people on board given that 80% of them were opposed.

    However, consider the situation in 1941 after Stalin’s gigantic army has crushed Germany, swept across the rest of Europe and seized Britain. I can’t see why Stalin wouldn’t have then quickly conquered most of the rest of Eurasia, including the oil rich Middle East. What other military force could have possibly stopped him? And at that point, Stalin’s Greater Soviet Union would have had a far larger industrial and natural resource base than America, as well as an experienced and victorious military that was many, many times larger.

    Obviously, the US would have been protected from outright invasion by its navy and the oceans, but starting a war against a much larger and more powerful empire controlling half the world would have been exceptionally risky. Plus Stalin’s agents near the top of the American government would certainly have found it very easy to enlist additional supporters who wanted to get on what was obviously the “winning side.”

    Stalinist Communism didn’t work well in producing consumer goods, but it was extremely good at producing military might, and the isolated US would have been totally outmatched in any global conflict, even if it had allied with the only surviving non-Soviet states, such as Japan and the Latin American countries.

    Your mistake is a typical one made by many Americans. They always vaguely assume that America is by far the “larger” power in any conflict, and that such size will compensate for any early failures or other mistakes. That’s almost always been the case over the last century or more, but wouldn’t have applied in 1941, nor does it apply with regard to our current potential conflict with China.

    • Agree: John Wear
  297. @Ron Unz

    All that it would have meant was that the eventual atomic bomb would have played a bigger role in a final Allied victory. But Stalin was well aware of the fact that the USA in 1941 was well on its way towards developing an atom bomb. That awareness is itself a prime reason would never have done something so stupid as to attempt to occupy the whole of Eurasia. This whole line of argument is based on projecting Hitler’s foolish recklessness onto Stalin. Hitler assumed that his past victories were permanent. Stalin would have instead calculated the way that a temporary military victory gained by Soviet troops rushing to the tip of Portugal could be easily crushed when the war took on the form of a US-UK-Japan alliance against the USSR with the US developing the a-bomb in the background.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @Ron Unz
  298. @Patrick McNally

    …But Stalin was well aware of the fact that the USA in 1941 was well on its way towards developing an atom bomb…’

    I’m not sure of that on a couple of scores.

    On the one hand, as of 1941, wasn’t ‘the bomb’ still something of interest to a few physics professors? It was as of 1942 that it first became a serious government project.

    At the same time, wasn’t the Stalinist position still that E=mc2 was ‘capitalist physics’? Obviously, at some point the Russians decided they’d better rethink that drink — but I’d guess it was well after 1941.

    • Replies: @HbutnotG
    , @Patrick McNally
  299. @Ron Unz

    ‘…However, consider the situation in 1941 after Stalin’s gigantic army has crushed Germany, swept across the rest of Europe and seized Britain. I can’t see why Stalin wouldn’t have then quickly conquered most of the rest of Eurasia, including the oil rich Middle East. What other military force could have possibly stopped him? And at that point, Stalin’s Greater Soviet Union would have had a far larger industrial and natural resource base than America, as well as an experienced and victorious military that was many, many times larger…’

    I think you underestimate the practical difficulties in the way of this. For starters, the Red Army just wasn’t very good. Until 1943, it was only able to even stop the Germans if they were so good as to exhaust themselves first. There was a whole lot of learning by doing that had to take place before there was going to be a Red Army that was worth much.

    Obviously, a lot of the variables change if we’re talking about a Soviet Union striking first, but at the same time…it took the Soviets a long time to learn to wage war competently, and they never were much good at the hearts and minds routine.

    It’s not a Risk game. The Ruhr in 1942 Soviet hands doesn’t just magically keep making the same guns Krupp did.

    My guess is that Stalin wouldn’t have tried to strike west to the Atlantic — he was more of the incremental demand type — but if he had…

    …given the limitations of the Soviet war machine of the era, and the horror its behavior would have evoked, the advance would have come to a grinding halt somewhere well short of the Rhine, stopped by a united humanity.

    Somewhat ironically, you could wind up exactly where you did anyway — with a glittering America protecting a grateful humanity from the Red menace.

  300. Skeptikal says:
    @Ron Unz

    “various people claim there’s actually a global conspiracy, with the leadership of China, America, Russia, Israel, Iran, and every other major country secretly working together as part of a plot. I just don’t see any evidence of that. ”

    Yeah, there is very little evidence of such a plot, which is maybe why your mentioning such an absurd thesis.

    Who are these “various people”? I’ll make a point of ignoring their paroles in the future.

    Not even very deft misdirection, Mr. Unz.

    It is funny, actually.

  301. Skeptikal says:
    @JackOH

    “The rigmarole of developing specifications, requesting bids, establishing budgets and even a separate bureaucracy, testing prototype facilities and prototype organization, etc. Why bother?”

    Your “rigmarole” list—developing specifications, requesting bids, establishing budgets and even a separate bureaucracy, testing prototype facilities and prototype organization—covers pretty much exactly what was done, whether you think it is preposterous or not! Special multi-baffle ovens were developed, etc.

    Pretty well documented, e.g., specifications, instructions, invoices, etc.
    Certainly in German sources.

    However, at Auschwitz the gas-and-burn operation was at peak efficiency for a limited period of time, in 1943, I believe.

    • Replies: @JackOH
  302. Skeptikal says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Some nerdy autistic type?
    Hardly.

    “Während der Abwesenheit von Höß vergaste sein Stellvertreter, SS-Hauptsturmführer Karl Fritzsch, eigenmächtig sowjetische Kriegsgefangene in einem Keller. Fritzsch bezeichnete sich deshalb danach als „Erfinder der Zyklon B-Methode“. Nach dem erfolgreichen Einsatz von Zyklon B durch Karl Fritzsch einigten sich Höß und Eichmann auf den Einsatz dieses Produktes zur Judenvernichtung. ”

    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaskammern_und_Krematorien_der_Konzentrationslager_Auschwitz#Beginn_der_Vergasungen

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  303. @Skeptikal

    Thanks but my German isn’t up to it. Can you tell me how to use Google Translate (or whatever) on it or link an English version. I am now reading the last footnoted article in it which is in English.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  304. Anonymous[387] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    They’d even produced thousands of amphibious tanks probably capable of crossing the English Channel…

    You mean one of these? Crossing the English Channel? Okay.

    …and their air fleet was many times larger than that of the British.

    Polikarpov I-16s defeating Spitfires? Sure.

  305. HbutnotG says:
    @Colin Wright

    Actually Hitler deliberately let the Normandy invasion proceed almost unhindered because he knew the US was very close to having a nuclear bomb and he was not interested in getting one of those dropped on Berlin.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @JackOH
  306. JackOH says:
    @Skeptikal

    Skeptikal, thanks.

    FWIW–I think any honest, well-intended examination of the standard-issue Holocaust narrative, and, in the States, the standard-issue slavery/Jim Crow narrative, risks undermining the politics of vendetta practiced by Zionist/AIPAC folks and by some Blacks in the US.

    At least as I’m seeing things, there’s some sort of vicious cycle in the hyper-politicization of history. Researcher X unknowingly and maybe innocently says something that undermines the Holocaust or slavery/Jim Crow narrative. He’s denounced as an anti-Semite or racist. The viciousness of the denunciation prods fairly disinterested persons into asking their own questions about the Holocaust or slavery/Jim Crow narrative, which, I suppose, contributes to a toxic anti-Semitic or racist environment. That requires further denunciations, further “awareness”, further “education”.

    There’s a part of me that naively wants to see a non-partisan authoritative commission settle these things, but that’s a pipe dream.

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  307. @Ron Unz

    I have learned a lot since you brought back David Irving to centre stage. I was almost completely ignorant of his work. Now I would like to contribute to your making UR reliable, even authoritative, on WW2. Please acknowledge that, as Irving makes clear, Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union was not a pre-emptive strike, Hitler’s belief that Stalin would attack Germany eventually not being critical in the light of the undoubted facts that Hitler greatly underestimated the Soviet military capacity and that Lebensraum and the reduction of Slavs to the status of cheap labour while Aryan Germans created an equivalent to the USA in the East was this great vision from 1919. or thereabouts.
    Also, surely plain fact: no one that mattered anticipated the collapse in the West so Stalin would have undoubtedly assumed he had time to prepare his forces to do much better than in the war with the Finns.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @Colin Wright
  308. @HbutnotG

    Evidence of Hitler’s thinking on this please.

  309. JackOH says:
    @HbutnotG

    My understanding comes from Guderian’s memoir that the debate among the Germans was whether to defend on the beaches, where the Anglo-American forces enjoyed an enormous advantage in naval artillery, or to defend farther inland, where the Germans enjoyed superiority in mobile operations against green troops.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  310. Ron Unz says:
    @Patrick McNally

    All that it would have meant was that the eventual atomic bomb would have played a bigger role in a final Allied victory. But Stalin was well aware of the fact that the USA in 1941 was well on its way towards developing an atom bomb. That awareness is itself a prime reason would never have done something so stupid as to attempt to occupy the whole of Eurasia.

    I think you’ve now reached the point of self-satire…

    You seem to admit that by 1941 Stalin had assembled an absolutely gigantic offensive military force capable of conquering the entire Eurasian landmass, and has poised it right on the German border, only awaiting his order to attack.

    Yet you argue what was deterring him was his fear that several years later in 1945, America might have produced an atomic bomb, thereby giving them the upper-hand.

    Surely you know that at that date in 1941, FDR hadn’t even approved the start of the Manhattan Project to build that bomb, which wasn’t actually begun until 1942. Moreover, the man leading that future project was Robert Oppenheimer, who personally had a Communist background, and several of whose friends and relatives were Communists loyal to USSR. Moreover, even leaving aside Oppenheimer’s circle, the atomic project was laced with Soviet spies, and as McMeekin’s recent book documents, the other Stalinist agents near the top of the American government arranged for large quantities of nuclear materials to be quietly shipped to the USSR.

    Anyway, consider that by 1945, America did explode a couple of atomic bombs, demonstrating that we had them when no one else in the world did. Yet just a couple of years later, Stalin’s Chinese Communist allies crushed the Nationalists and seized control of the largest country in Asia, while we made no use of our nuclear monopoly. So what leads you to believe that if Stalin had successfully conquered Eurasia in 1941, we would have used our hypothetical nuclear weapons against him four or five years later?

    This theory of yours is just as totally ridiculous as your regular claims that no Chinese famine was produced by Mao’s Great Leap Forward, and it’s just a hoax promoted by the American media and CIA.

  311. Ron Unz says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Please acknowledge that, as Irving makes clear, Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union was not a pre-emptive strike, Hitler’s belief that Stalin would attack Germany eventually not being critical in the light of the undoubted facts that Hitler greatly underestimated the Soviet military capacity and that Lebensraum and the reduction of Slavs to the status of cheap labour while Aryan Germans created an equivalent to the USA in the East was this great vision from 1919. or thereabouts.

    I think your problem is that you’re gradually starting to realize that you’ve lived your entire long life in thrall to what amounts to a propaganda-hoax and are loath to admit that reality, hence your focus on Mein Kampf, which really doesn’t have much to do with the issue.

    There are two versions of the question at hand. According to the Strong Suvorov Hypothesis, Hitler discovered that Stalin had amassed a gigantic army on his border and was preparing to attack, so he desperately preempted him. This doesn’t seem to be evidence for this, and it’s probably incorrect.

    However, the Weak Suvorov Hypothesis is that although Hitler was unaware of the exact details of Stalin’s looming invasion, he had (correctly) recognized that Stalin was ultimately planning to attack based upon his other hostile moves. Moreover, he understood the extreme vulnerability of Germany’s military to an quick Soviet seizure of the Rumanian oil fields. This is the position taken by McMeekin’s excellent book, and is very likely correct.

    • Agree: John Wear
  312. Resartus says:
    @Ron Unz

    Anyway, consider that by 1945, America did explode a couple of atomic bombs, demonstrating that we had them when no one else in the world did.

    Rumors of the Japanese testing a bomb also in ’45…..
    Kinda like NKs first poor example….

    Notice that USSR continued the war against Japan, until they occupied the island
    the Japanese atomic study/test occurred on…..

  313. @Colin Wright

    The Soviet Union was certainly well aware of the atomic bomb as a possibility, but didn’t rush as fast into trying to make it as some other states which were already at war did. But the bomb was never lightly dismissed as mere “capitalist physics.” It just did not seem like an immediately necessary priority in 1940. But it’s not as if Soviet officials weren’t aware of western attempts to build such a bomb or dismissed them as inconsequential. It simply wasn’t a priority as long as the USSR adhered to its policy of seeking to be the last power to enter the war (in practice the US was the last such power). However if we are going to seriously entertain a scenario in which Stalin overextends himself by occupying almost the entirety of Eurasia, with possible invasions of Britain and Japan being contemplated, then the issue of the atomic bomb would certainly come up as a consideration. David Holloway, Stalin and the Bomb, is probably the best source for tracking Soviet attention to the a-bomb.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  314. Resartus says:

    David Holloway, Stalin and the Bomb, is probably the best source for tracking Soviet attention to the a-bomb.

    Does it get into anything about Stalin worrying over Germany getting the bomb……

    Lots of stuff on the UK/US freaking out big time about it….
    Not one peep, I’ve ever heard out of the USSR about a German Bomb…..

    Or did the west keep that hush hush, so Stalin wouldn’t take an interest in German research……

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  315. @Ron Unz

    I certainly did not make any admission that Stalin was ready in practice to achieve an occupation of Eurasia. I merely pointed to a consideration which Stalin would definitely have weighed had he ever even considered such an idea. With a lot of these issues it’s not really a question of what was an arm of the military really prepared to do, but moreso what did the leaders think. Operation Pike would surely have failed, but the Allied commanders appear to have taken it seriously until Hitler’s strike in France made it impossible. Hitler expected that Operation Barbarossa would be done within a few months as the Soviet Union collapsed like a house of cards, but clearly that did not happen. Since you’ve put forward the totally unsupported thesis that Stalin was expecting to achieve an overwhelming occupation of much of Eurasia following a swift strike against the Third Reich, I’ve simply underscored some of the obvious considerations which Stalin really would have taken seriously when weighing this idea.

    The notion that a small network of Soviet sympathizers in Washington would have been able to control the political response to such a brazen move by Stalin in absurd. Most of these people had only joined the Soviet network out of anti-Hitler sentiment. A Lithuanian Jew like Harry Dexter White certainly favored aid to the USSR against the Third Reich before the United States had come close to entering the war. But he would not have had the resources or the incentive to attempt to cover up something like a gigantic Soviet occupation of Eurasia even if such a thing had ever been possible.

    Of course this would not have been possible and if we do imagine a scenario in which Stalin strikes first in early June one can lay out the most likely scenario. First, Japan would go to war against the USSR. There would be no Japanese occupation of French Indochina, because Japan only dared to become embroiled in that on July 24 when it seemed like the USSR was finished. Second, after some initial advance, the Soviet army would likely be halted somewhere within the borders of 1939 Poland. With this as the scenario, isolationist sentiment would now grow all the more within the US. People like Harry Truman would reject the idea of Roosevelt giving any aid to Stalin or imposing any sanctions on Japan. It’s hard to imagine that Roosevelt would even dare to propose anything of this sort. Meanwhile, with the Soviet army bogged down in Poland, Churchill would likely have offered Stalin an alliance against Germany, while remaining neutral towards Japan as Japanese and Soviet troops fought in the far east.

    That is certainly the most plausible scenario in such a hypothetical context of Stalin attacking first. But if we’re going to assess likely strategies planned by Stalin under the hypothesis that he really did imagine that he was going to achieve a sweeping conquest of Eurasia, then the atomic bomb definitely arises as an issue. He would not have imagined that he could overlook this while conquering the whole continent.

  316. @Ron Unz

    The Chinese PLA was not a force under the thumb of Moscow and this fact was appreciated by all of the State Department personnel who watched the events there. It was understood far in advance that any Soviet-Chinese alliance would be a brittle thing and not last. Mao simply waited for Stalin to pass away before denouncing Khrushchev as a capitalist-roader. This is not at all comparable to a Soviet conquest of the whole of advanced industrialized Europe.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  317. @Resartus

    It seems likely that intercepts of British intelligence would have been a main source for Soviet information about the German project. No, it doesn’t seem like Stalin was all that worried about a German bomb being suddenly made.

    “The decision to start a nuclear project was taken in while the battle of Stalingrad was being fought…”

    “The small project Stalin in initiated in 1943 could not lead quickly to a Soviet bomb…”

    “Besides, the Soviet Union was receiving intelligence about the German atomic project, doubtless from sources in Germany, but also from its agents in Britain. British intelligence had an excellent source on the German project in Paul Rosbaud, editor at the Springer publishing house in Berlin, who supplied reliable information about the state of German nuclear research in 1942… Stalin should have known enough about the progress of research in other countries not to regard the Soviet atomic project as crucial to the outcome of the war with Germany. The project he started is best understood as a rather small hedge against future uncertainties.”
    — Holloway, pp. 89-90.

  318. @Ron Unz

    Thanks. Fortunately I haven’t been in thrall to the vague assumptions I made from practically no books on WW2 events, non existent conversations with veterans (including POW uncle who hated Japanese and father who respected the Germans enough – unlike the Italians – to send me there to stay before Oxbridge). I didn’t see anything about it on TV or film. I have had absolutely no emotional commitments but, in recent years plenty of intellectual stimulus from analysing new controversies (including ones that I might have even aware of much earlier if I had read Irving e.g. and the Holocaust deniers). For that reason I can be quite dispassionate in noting what I think is a bit of a blind spot about Hitler who seems, well before Mein Kampf, to have articulated views that made the eastern thrust for Lebensraum and the destruction of (Jewish) Bolshevism a perfectly rational corollary. I am progressing toward the Irving view that he really had no vision for destroying the British Empire and would have happily shared the world with it (and no doubt the French). I think the perception of Hitler’s untristworthuness after Munich and the takeover of Czechoslovakia is an absolutely huge objective fact that virtually compelled some perhaps unwise and unfortunate collective decisions. That seems true independently of what Irving describes of the possibly distorting influences on and by Churchill
    I should mention that my first boss who spent some years during WW2 getting close to people like Acheson and Frankfurter in DC ar a senior diplomatic level had been a critic of the Churchill war party before the war. Sadly I was not knowledgeable or interested enough to follow it up. I suppose I felt it would be embarrassing to probe what must have looked (I may have supposed) like an error in retrospect.

  319. Irving believes Hitler was straight, so he’s questionable there. Still, we don’t censor anti-Stratfordians or Velikovsky adherents.

    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  320. @Patrick McNally

    ‘…But it’s not as if Soviet officials weren’t aware of western attempts to build such a bomb or dismissed them as inconsequential. It simply wasn’t a priority as long as the USSR adhered to its policy of seeking to be the last power to enter the war (in practice the US was the last such power)…’

    Leaving aside Soviet attempts to dismiss Einstein’s physics, the reasoning here strikes me as unconvincing.

    Germany, for example, did not pursue the bomb more energetically simply because she was in the middle of the war and couldn’t afford to waste resources on something that would take years to yield results and might never do so at all. The bomb was, after all, only a theoretical possibility until the Trinity test (bets at the time ran from nothing at all happening on up). Sure, everyone knew a bomb was theoretically possible — but…

    If Russia, on the other hand, was planning to sit it out and be the last man in, then she’d have had the leisure to explore it. But she didn’t; Russia didn’t even have the sort of tentative projects Germany and Britain had.

    So I’d say Russia simply hadn’t thought about it — and didn’t, until the US jumped in with both feet.

    Note here, incidentally, that even given the plans, Russia had major difficulties building a bomb — it took her four years. For example, she couldn’t make the vacuum tubes necessary for the primitive computer required to carry out the calculations required. She was incapable of refining graphite to the level of purity required for the reactor to enrich the plutonium.

    She had to develop those industrial processes first. Russia obviously didn’t take the bomb seriously until we did. If the situation had been otherwise, it seems obvious she would have used her anticipated leisure to develop the ultimate weapon known to man.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  321. @Colin Wright

    The idea of entering a war last was something which Lenin occasionally thought when envisioning future imperialist wars. But no one who had read Mein Kampf and then saw Hitler’s victories in 1940 would have thought that the USSR had an option of leisurely pursuing a superweapon that would not be ready for many years. None of that means that the USSR would have been unaware of the development of the a-bomb in the US. They simply would have sought to preserve a tentative alliance with Roosevelt for as long as they could.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  322. @Patrick McNally

    ‘The idea of entering a war last was something which Lenin occasionally thought when envisioning future imperialist wars. But no one who had read Mein Kampf and then saw Hitler’s victories in 1940 would have thought that the USSR had an option of leisurely pursuing a superweapon that would not be ready for many years. None of that means that the USSR would have been unaware of the development of the a-bomb in the US. They simply would have sought to preserve a tentative alliance with Roosevelt for as long as they could.’

    Your dates are off here. There was no particular development of the atomic bomb in the US — not until 1942. It was only after we started that Russia herself seriously pursued the idea — and then she didn’t let much stand in her way.

    I don’t think Russia didn’t pursue the bomb in 1940-1942 because she felt she didn’t have the time or whatever. She didn’t pursue it because it didn’t occur to her that it was worth pursuing.

    Here, it would be relevant to look at when Beria called a halt to persecuting physicists. When was that? It would suggest at what point Russia started to see the bomb as something that might actually happen.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  323. @JackOH

    Thanks. Amazing what interesting facts can come up on UR threads. It takes me back to when I was in my teens and read of the sdvantage Napoleon got from the Quick (and Double?) March when the once dominant Prussians were still slow marching into line.

    • Thanks: JackOH
  324. Ron Unz says:
    @Patrick McNally

    The Chinese PLA was not a force under the thumb of Moscow and this fact was appreciated by all of the State Department personnel who watched the events there.

    You’re being ridiculous. Sure, some Ivy League professors and State Department apparatchiks thought Mao would probably be independent of Stalin, but virtually everyone else in America agreed that “the Communists” had conquered China. You do remember the political slogan “Who Lost China?”

    So in 1947/48 we weren’t willing to use our post-1945 nuclear weapons monopoly to stop the Communists from conquering the largest country in the world, but you believe that Stalin was deterred in 1941 by his prognostication that we’d have nukes in 1945 even though FDR didn’t start the project until 1942? You seem to have read lots of books but done very little clear thinking.

    In 1941 Stalin had massive, massive military superiority over the Germans, and a sudden attack would have smashed their forces and seized the Rumanian oil fields. How could the Germans have continued to resist without oil? And with the Germans crushed, what military force would have prevented the near-total conquest of Eurasia? Stalin probably had something like 20-to-1 superiority over the British. Or do you think the Turks or the Iranians could have stopped him?

    It would have been game, set, and match, and Stalin would have begun Sovietizing Eurasia just like Lenin and the Bolsheviks had always originally planned.

  325. Skeptikal says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Jeez, I think you kind of blew your cover as a bigtime expert on the Holocaust/hoax/whatever you wanna call it.

    German Wiki contains far more detailed and documented info than English Wiki. That is why I cite it. So far our “disappearing gas chambers” experts have been mum—I suppose because these experts on Germany don’t speak German. Here you go:

    “Während der Abwesenheit von Höß vergaste sein Stellvertreter, SS-Hauptsturmführer Karl Fritzsch, eigenmächtig sowjetische Kriegsgefangene in einem Keller.

    “During Höß’s absence, his deputy, SS-Hauptsturmführer Karl Fritzsch, arbitrarily gassed Soviet prisoners of war in a cellar.

    Fritzsch bezeichnete sich deshalb danach als „Erfinder der Zyklon B-Methode“. Nach dem erfolgreichen Einsatz von Zyklon B durch Karl Fritzsch einigten sich Höß und Eichmann auf den Einsatz dieses Produktes zur Judenvernichtung. ”

    Fritzsch therefore described himself as the “inventor of the Zyklon B method”. After the successful use of Zyklon B by Karl Fritzsch, Höß and Eichmann agreed on the use of this product for the extermination of Jews. ”

    After this point ensued many refinements of the techniques for getting the people into the gas chambers, getting the gas into the gas chambers without becoming activated too soon, in an amount and form that would distribute itself throughout the gas chamber efficiently and kill all of those in the gas chamber within 20 to 30 mins, then getting the corpses out of the gas chamber by commandos wearing gas masks, then getting the bodies to the crematorium, located above the gas chamber (this was the most efficient setup that was developed; and was in operation for maybe a year).

    • Troll: L.K
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  326. Skeptikal says:
    @JackOH

    “a non-partisan authoritative commission ”

    IMO that comes down to a “fact-checker” mentality for “settling” complex historical issues. The fact-checkers having no qualificationns to “settle” anything. And, of course, they have paymasters to satisfy.

    I don’t think there is any way to escape an ongoing process of revisionism except by a shutdown of historical inquiry and interpretation. In a healthy debate, where the refutation of X overshoots to a total denial of any relevant factors in the X version (which is quite understandable where there is emotional investment), even if the new Y version is more or less accepted, the original X story is modified, but not buried. It is still alive and there is a dialectic (to use a fancy word—not one I am an expert in using, but I think it is an appropriate use) whereby new formulations and interpretatoins cross-fertilize. IMO an areas where such a process is long overdue is the relationship of slavery in Africa to trans-Atlantic slavery.

    We seem to be at a point where the Y revision has become orthodox and cannot be modified or even discussed. I see this in the whole ‘mourning Thanksgiving” thing. I think it is well documented and an accepted view of North American history that Native Americans got screwed. But now according to this orthodoxy (at least in my community, with a strong Wampanoag presence) it has become impossible to discuss the actual history and phenomenon of what happened when a technologically backward society encountered a technologically advanced one. Many of the former were thrilled at the new intellectual, practical, and also spiritual opportunities this offered them. And of course the contemporary descendant communities see no historical irony in their reliance on all of the technology that Western culture offers while stomping about in feathers, etc. From my reading I know that many Native Americans were very happy to get out from under the oppression of their shamans and learn the Christian teachings. They loved to hear European hymns. Etc. I just wish it were possible even to have a conversation about this reality, in the past and in the present. But the only acceptable narrative now is the 100% victim narrative.

    A big digression. But similar to the impossibility of an open debate to understand better what actually went on in Germany, in the Reich, how people experienced it, how were the concentration camps actually run, to what extent do Jews (as compared to other targeted groups) deserve to “own” the Holocaust, etc. Unfortunately those who are bent on pushing their Holohoax agenda do not have the chops to understand most of the actual info available in a number of languages. They are incapable of a nuanced, informed debate, and all they can do is shout Holohoax!!

    • Agree: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @JackOH
  327. Ron Unz says:
    @Skeptikal

    German Wiki contains far more detailed and documented info than English Wiki. That is why I cite it. So far our “disappearing gas chambers” experts have been mum—I suppose because these experts on Germany don’t speak German. Here you go:

    Ha, ha, ha. The German Wikipedia!

    Doesn’t Germany give you a five or ten year prison sentence if say otherwise? Don’t German lawyers get thrown into prison if they (vigorously) defend clients accused of such heresy? Didn’t David Irving narrowly escape spending the rest of his life in an Austrian prison for once having made some “edgy” historical remarks a decade or two earlier? Presumably, you would cite the 1939 Edition of the Soviet Wikipedia as proof that Trotsky was a Nazi agent.

    You’ve always struck me as one of the more gullible even empty-headed commenters on this website, and your current remarks certainly confirm that impression.

    I don’t read German and certainly won’t bother looking at the garbage you cited on German Wikipedia. But how would you respond to the specific points I raised upthread?

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-giants-silenced-by-pygmies/#comment-5024596

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Skeptikal
  328. @Wizard of Oz

    …Please acknowledge that, as Irving makes clear, Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union was not a pre-emptive strike, Hitler’s belief that Stalin would attack Germany eventually not being critical…’

    I don’t see it quite that way.

    Hitler did indeed see a war of conquest in the East — as opposed to his unwanted war with Britain in the West — as necessary to fulfilling his scheme for securing Germany’s place in the sun as a world power. And Judeo-Bolshevism was evil incarnate. So the concept of war with the Soviet Union was perfectly congenial to him.

    But it hadn’t exactly been scheduled. It was kind of like how I want to buy five acres on the river. I hope to…some day.

    Then, in the summer of 1940, as Hitler found himself baffled by British obstinacy and stuck in a war he didn’t even want, Stalin started making increasingly aggressive and threatening moves in the East. Like, Germany felt it necessary to airlift troops to Romania to ensure Russia didn’t seize Germany’s primary source of oil. So Hitler started considering striking East instead. After all, then Britain’s position would be obviously hopeless. And it is what he’s always wanted to do…

    So now, there’s this attractive plot on the river and the owner might sell…okay, we’re thinking about it. Hitler orders plans to be drawn up. One memoirist even recounts that at the time at OKW, at desks in the same room, people were simultaneously working on plans for the invasion of England, plans to demobilize the army, and plans to invade Russia. So now Russia’s a real possibility…but not for sure.

    Then comes Molotov’s visit to Berlin in November 1940. No, Russia’s not interested in putting pressure on Britain by advancing into southern Asia. In fact, Russia wants the nickel mines at Petsamo — I think that was one of his demands. Russia even wants a naval base in Denmark.

    Okay. That’s it. Russia is definitely a threat. Let’s take her out.

    We can do this. Fine: we’ll buy the land. At the end of 1940, Hitler comes to a final decision to attack Russia.

    Hitler was led by circumstances to decide that 1941 was the time to fulfill this element of his program. Had Russia behaved differently, he might have done it eventually — or he might never have gotten around to it.

    Kind of like my five acres on the river. Only on a bigger scale.

    With more tanks.

    • Thanks: Wizard of Oz
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  329. @Ron Unz

    Is not the weak Suvarov hypothesis consistent with Hitler believing in the inevitability of war with the Soviet Union for a long time and certainly wanting to get in first before Stalin completed the rebuilding of his armed forces? Although an opportunist he always had in mind the long term benefits of destroying the Communists, reducing the Soviet Union to a size and condition that no longer threatened Germany in those days of still exploding populations, and achieving Lebensraum for his Aryan people. So, after Hitler disregarded the Munich Agreement the French and British were rationally entitled to treat him as an untrustworthy aggressor and were in a very difficult position from which I do not yet find it obvious that they chose the least intelligent option in what they were entitled to put first, namely the security of their own people against a rearmed and rearming Germany.

  330. @Ron Unz

    This is the the English language article I found linked under all that German.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20070206194202/http://www.auschwitz.org.pl/html/eng/aktualnosci/czerwony_domek.html

    What do you make of it?

    As to your reasons for deriding the German version of Wikipedia I think you exaggerate the force of your argument which posits fear of stepping out of line. I can agree with not giving absolute trust to it but even honest scholars being careful should provide material that can lead towards the truth through testing with the right questions.

    Forgive me if you have covered the ground previously but I would be interested to see a number of questions tested by Irving standard research for original documents. For example that story of the first gas chamber at Auschwicz in my link above. For example too the comparative documentation for the herding Japanese families in a way you rather glibly equate to German treatment of Jews from the West (and Hungary). There must be many evidences of motive and rationalisations which were in writing when really thorough research amongst official dociluments, diaries and letters are examined. (How about “I asked about giving them time to lock up the their furniture safely but Major X said ‘they’re not coming back!’”” or “they say all these Jews are our enemies and must be sent East where they can’t do any harm, but that’s just as true of every Dutchman that hasn’t actually signed up to fight for us and I don’t see 85 year old grandmothers sending secret signals”.)
    For yet another example aren’t there a lot of design documents which are clearly contemporary with those that would have been necessary for building the alleged last four gas chambers?

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  331. @Reg Cæsar

    Hitler was a coprophile. If Irving thinks that is ‘straight’, then I’m confused.

  332. @Colin Wright

    I suspect you underestimate the importance of getting in before Stalin’s renovation of his armed forces, we known about, and we’ll under way, could be consummated. But also the chiming in of inevitability and his adult lifelong dream of establishing a super power or world ranking empire that would not have to fear you Soviet Union.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  333. JackOH says:
    @Skeptikal

    There’s a part of me that naively wants to see a non-partisan authoritative commission settle these things, but that’s a pipe dream.

    Skeptikal, that was my actual comment in full to which you replied. I do think such a commission is a pipe dream, but I’m not sure if the idea has ever been tried in good faith.

    You raise good points in the balance of your comment on the difficulty of debate, especially when one or more of the parties are psychologically vested in and gain present-day political concessions and in-group prestige by protecting the historical turf against disinterested and innocent inquiry. But, the “politics of vendetta”–as I styled them–are regarded as okay when engaged in by Zionist/AIPAC folks and Black Supremacists, and there’s not much to be done about it. FWIW-I do regard the “politics of vendetta” as a bad thing.

  334. @Wizard of Oz

    ‘I suspect you underestimate the importance of getting in before Stalin’s renovation of his armed forces, we known about, and we’ll under way, could be consummated…’

    If Hitler was aware of that renovation, then it indeed would have given him an additional reason to strike in 1941.

    …but there was yet another reason to strike in 1941 — how conscious Hitler was of it I have no idea.

    Nazi Germany — like most states — rested on popular approval. That massive mobilization — a large chunk of Germany’s young men — could only be justified for so long absent conflict. If there was no one to fight in the West — and Britain was awkwardly shielded by the English Channel — then Hitler was going to have to fight someone in the East.

    …that or face pressure to demobilize some of those troops. Germany could only stay fully mobilized for so long.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  335. @Colin Wright

    Good thinking. (I didn’t grow up with that expression, any more than I did with “exactly right”. I think they could be described perhaps as “low brow patronising” n’est-ce pas?😉).

    • Thanks: Colin Wright
  336. Skeptikal says:
    @Ron Unz

    “Ha, ha, ha. The German Wikipedia!”

    Ha ha ha yourself.

    Let me see, I am “gullible.”
    And Ron knows that stuff he can’t read is garbage.
    Because German.
    Because Wikipedia.*

    Who looks like the bigger fool?

    According to Ron’s logic, the existence of the law cited (which I obviously do not support) automatically invalidates any documentation provided in any German source, whether it be invoices, engineering drawings, technical specs, etc. or information in say, German sites about the T4 program.

    This is ridiculous, but I am not surprised.
    I expected some kind of Wikipedia gotcha.
    I am not as dumb as he supposes.
    I also knew there wouldn’t be any specific refutation.

    Not reading German Ron is well qualified to judge that a German text is garbage.

    As the host he is of course free to insult his guests, but he kind of makes a fool of himself.

    *German Wikipedia has completely different entries from English Wiki.

    • Troll: L.K
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  337. Skeptikal says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    From the article you linked, regarding the Little Red House,

    ” The Nazis made its four rooms into two, removed the windows, sealed the doors, and knocked holes in the walls for the introduction of Zyklon B. Concealed among the trees, situated somewhat off to the side of Auschwitz II Concentration Camp, or Birkenau, the provisional gas chamber was used by the Nazis for only a year, from spring 1942 to spring 1943. It is estimated that more than 100,000 people were gassed there. The Little Red House was demolished when it became unnecessary, upon the completion of the four massive gas chambers and crematoria in the Birkenau camp.”

    This info regarding the little red house is pretty much in line with the detailed information provided at the German Wikipedia link about the development and history of gas chambers at Auschwitz (an entry that is nonexistent in English Wiki) that I cited earlier. It was a spotty business, crammed into a short period of time (which many seem to disregard). It was not “one thing.”

    The serious can search for “Gaskammern und Krematorien der Konzentrationslager Auschwitz” (surely a UR commenter can figure that out . . . ). There is a “translate this page” button, and you can read the whole account for yourselves in English.
    For those who are too lazy to do even that, here is the translation URL:
    https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Gaskammern_und_Krematorien_der_Konzentrationslager_Auschwitz?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc

    • Thanks: Wizard of Oz
  338. Ron Unz says:
    @Skeptikal

    Not reading German Ron is well qualified to judge that a German text is garbage…
    *German Wikipedia has completely different entries from English Wiki.

    My reasoning for ignoring German Wikipedia is pretty straightforward.

    I’d guess that 99% of the writers and editors on German Wikipedia are living in either Germany or Austria. In those two countries, anyone caught questioning any details of the Holocaust goes to prison for many, many years. How can I possibly trust anything written by people living under such legal constraints?

    Would you trust the entries of a Soviet Wikipedia written by people living under Stalin?

    English Wikipedia is bad enough on those sorts of “touchy” issues, and in some English-speaking countries you would be sent to prison, but in many others, you wouldn’t.

    You claim that the entries in German Wikipedia are very different than those in English Wikipedia. Given the considerable legal differences, aren’t you a little suspicious about the cause of the discrepancies?

    Probably 20-30% of all the commenters on this website who discuss this topic would be serving time under German law. If they all suddenly disappeared, wouldn’t that change the tone of the debate?

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  339. @Ron Unz

    You may not have noticed yet by Ukraine Tiger is not yo be trusted. I’ve just found opining that the absence of reference to the Nazi killing of Jews in Roosevelt’s memoirs is proof of something..

  340. starthorn says:

    Snowden is no hero. He thought he would make suitcases of cash selling American secrets to China, they laughed him out of Hong Kong. He started covering his a** “whistleblowing” as he fled to Russia, literally and figuratively not receiving the warm welcome he expected.

  341. @Ron Unz

    “Who lost Chima?” was a scam slogan used by the Right to attack the Truman administration. China was never theirs to lose. Dean Acheson and George Marshall had hoped that Chiang would agree to an arrangement like that followed in France and Italy. The Communist parties there came out of the war with huge followings. But Stalin realized that if they had attempted to seize power then this would have destroyed his own hopes of working out spheres of influence in Europe. Therefore Stalin ordered the leaders of these parties to cooperate with the Allies in establishing a working bourgeois republic and restrict there Left-wing programs to classical labor demands without attempting to push a Leninist model.

    In China Acheson and Marshall attempted to work something similar out and Stalin did indeed five orders to Mao that he was not to upset things himself. Mao did not like the idea because following such a program would have meant that the Chinese Communist Party would have to restrict itself to the forms followed by the French and Italian parties and not enact a Bolshevik seizure of power. Stalin nonetheless urged to play along. As it was, Chiang rejected such an idea of permitting the Communist Party to sit in a legal parliament and civil war resumed. This played well to Mao’s advantage insofar as he could claim that the break was forced by Chiang, since it was.

    But equating this revolution with a Soviet military occupation of western Europe is absurd. No one in the US really wanted to get sucked into a Chinese-scale version of Vietnam, which is what a US intervention in the Chinese civil war would have been. But the same people who rejected that insanity would have clamored for a war to liberate Europe if Stalin had done something so stupid as Rezun asserts.

  342. @Colin Wright

    “Most nuclear scientists abandoned their research to work for the war effort. The Academy’s Physics Institute was evacuated from Moscow to Kazan’, where its nuclear group adapted its knowledge and techniques to the development of acoustic apparatus for the detection of aircraft, and to quality control of arms production. The Institute of Chemical Physics also moved to Kazan’, and Khariton and Zel’dovich dropped their research on fission chain reactions.”
    — Holloway, p. 75.

    The point is that research had gone on before Barbarossa got going. It wasn’t a high priority, but the Soviet leadership was certainly aware of it as a background issue before Barbarossa.

  343. Skeptikal says:
    @Ron Unz

    “You claim that the entries in German Wikipedia are very different than those in English Wikipedia.”

    Yes, different entries, content, and sources (in many cases).

    The entry I cited relies somewhat heavily on Danuta Czech’s Auschwitz Kalendarium.There are those who say Czech made it all up. Including the photos, I suppose . . . . Virtually every entry in that book is documented by a primary source in a smaller-type block in the margin. Esp. imp. sources are the logbooks of different blocks and camps (women’s camp, Gypsies’ camp, etc.) and copies of administrative documents and lists made by prisoner-clerks—held in Poland. Someone who does not read Polish probably cannot understand what these sources say, so as to check up on Czech. But the endless lists are pretty self-explanatory.

    Blanket distrust of anything that comes from German Wikipedia or any German source is a convenient shortcut to justify ignoring material you don’t want to deal with, and not even making the minor effort to hit “translate” and read for yourself. It’s comfortable but it a weak ad-hom argument of a mental couch potato with a superiority complex. Apparently your starting premise is that there were no gas chambers and crematoria in Auschwitz, period. Any evidence that there were gas chambers in Auschwitz is thus a priori suspect, regardless of the conclusions to be drawn from the actual information provided. You justify this view with the German laws against Holocaust denial, which per your weak logic negates ALL evidence. It is all made up to uphold the official Holocaust/Jewish narrative. If you can’t be bothered to read the material you have decided is garbage, I sure can’t be bothered to explain the obvious gaping holes in your own logic.

    Your Soviet Wikipedia argument, however, is just too easy to invert. Surely the Soviets hid their crimes and attempted to whitewash them and would not list them in Soviet Wikipedia. Isn’t that your point? (Of course it becomes a bit fuzzy after Khrushchev’s 1953 speech . . .)
    Oh, but the SS-men who were running Auschwitz didn’t do like the putatively dissembling “Soviets.” If the former didn’t leave on-site evidence of the atrocities they had committed, it is because there was none to leave!! No fibbing allowed! It was not because, with the Red Army rapidly approaching from the east, they torched what incriminating evidence they could as they abandoned ship pellmell to the west. It was not because, in earlier years, when various temporary measures were upgraded and replaced, they didn’t destroy anything but left an “archaeological” site with all layers intact.
    Yeah.
    Such faith in the stewardship of the SS-men who ran the camps is touching.

    And, the Poles were equally good stewards! Off course no changes in the terrain ensued in the postwar years, before the mid-seventies and the world started to obsess about “the Holocaust.” The Poles of Oswiecem left everything exactly as it had been when the camp was in operation, like a museum! They didn’t do the normal things and reclaim for their own use their farmland that had been appropriated by the SS.. They didn’t destroy “archaeological” evidence when they took up the threads of their lives. Oh, no, they didn’t do these things. LOL.

    For some reason Ron is eager to tar me with the “holocaust industry” type of identity—no gray here.
    There is absolutely no basis for such tarring to be found in any of my UR comments on this and related subjects.
    “Gullible”? Gut. Ich goenne es ihm.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    , @L.K
  344. Ron Unz says:
    @Skeptikal

    Blanket distrust of anything that comes from German Wikipedia or any German source is a convenient shortcut to justify ignoring material you don’t want to deal with

    I just find it exceptionally suspicious that all that important Holocaust evidence found on German Wikipedia is nowhere to be found on English Wikipedia. Is English Wikipedia controlled by Holocaust Deniers? Are the hundeds (thousands?) of English-language Holocaust researchers too lazy to just look at German Wikipedia?

    Here’s an alternate explanation. As I’m sure you’re aware, there’s been a vast quantity of now absolutely established fraud with respect to Holocaust documentation. Suppose new such examples of fraud are added to German Wikipedia. I suspect that individuals living in Germany or Austria would be extremely cautious about attempting to debunk it lest they be prosecuted and sent to prison. From what I recall, people have been successfully prosecuted merely for merely challenging Holocaust myths that have long been rejected by the leading Holocaust scholars.

    Anyway, that’s my guess as to why you’ve found such large differences between German Wikipedia and English Wikipedia, and why I’d pay little attention to the former.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  345. @Ron Unz

    ‘…Here’s an alternate explanation…’

    There’s another alternate explanation.

    Perhaps to argue with Holocaust deniers is to legitimize their thesis — and it’s certainly to plunge into a dispute that demonstrably will never end.

    If someone is determined to believe a given claim, you’re unlikely to dissuade him. Else we would have all settled on one and only one religion several hundred years ago.

    There are several issues related to the Holocaust where I differ radically with the orthodoxy. However, in my opinion, the event itself obviously happened — and happened substantially as described.

    What should be read into that is a different matter.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
    , @Wielgus
  346. L.K says:
    @Skeptikal

    Yes, different entries, content, and sources (in many cases).

    The entry I cited relies somewhat heavily on Danuta Czech’s Auschwitz Kalendarium.

    BLAH, BLAH

    So WHAT?? Wikipedia does have different entries, content, etc, for many subjects in different languages.

    What matters is the actual content, which comes exclusively from official exterminationist holocaust sources, while completely ignoring all the evidence mustered by the other side… which wikipedia, in ANY language, only ever mentions in order to demonize.
    You go on mentioning Danuta Czech, or the statements made by Rudolf Höß, etc, as if the holocaust revisionist researchers have never dealt with these issues…

    The problem is that you don’t even know the parameters of this discussion because you NEVER studied it. Go ahead, tell us which books by holocaust revisionists you have read. My guess is ZERO.

    The fact of the matter is, as I posted upthread in response to the colin wright shill, that several important holocaust historians have grudgingly admitted there is no documentary or material evidence to support their extermination stories.
    They are forced to rely on pesky testimonies from alleged eye-witnesses. In this connection, for ex, Princeton University Prof. Arno Mayer concedes about such post-war testimonies:

    Most of what is known is based on the depositions of Nazi officials and executioners at postwar trials and on the memory of survivors and bystanders. This testimony must be screened carefully, since it can be influenced by subjective factors of great complexity.

    I would not be surprised if your ‘knowledge’ of the official story comes solely from wikipedia or other websites either. BTW, when you are pushing your absurd notions about the Covid pandemic, your anti-vaxx stuff, do you rely on wikipedia, German or otherwise?

    Also, just desist with this nonsense about Ron Unz or whoever not speaking German.
    Many holocaust revisionists are NATIVE German speakers, many others who are not are otherwise fluent.

    The following website contains the largest library of holocaust revisionist books in German.
    http://holocausthandbuecher.com/index.php?main_page=1

    Here is an entire tome dedicated exclusively to Rudolf Höß;
    Rudolf Höß: Kommandant von Auschwitz
    http://holocausthandbuecher.com/index.php?page_id=35

    In English:
    http://holocausthandbooks.com/

  347. @Colin Wright

    If someone is determined to believe a given claim, you’re unlikely to dissuade him. Else we would have all settled on one and only one religion several hundred years ago.

    This is true. L.K’s jumping in on this is only to try to convince others that he has some skin in the game (which he doesn’t) – to polish his imaginary credentials.

    There are several issues related to the Holocaust where I differ radically with the orthodoxy. However, in my opinion, the event itself obviously happened — and happened substantially as described.

    This tells us nothing if you don’t define what is “the event.” You need to describe in pretty thorough terms what you mean by ‘the Holocaust’ (or the Event).

    Because I can describe it, and I am very sure it DID NOT happen “as described.” So you need to itemize just what you differ about, and what you believe happened. BTW, I don’t use the word “believe” for myself; I use the word “know.”

  348. ‘This tells us nothing if you don’t define what is “the event.” You need to describe in pretty thorough terms what you mean by ‘the Holocaust’ (or the Event).’

    Okay. I mean the deliberate extermination, by gassing, shooting, and starvation, of approximately five million Jews by the Germans and some of their allies, between 1941 and 1945.

    • Replies: @Carolyn Yeager
  349. Wielgus says:
    @Colin Wright

    Well, the Third Reich hated Jews, as did the governments allied to it. Even a cursory examination of their propaganda and public statements makes this clear. In these Covid days, it is interesting to me that Jews could even be accused back then of spreading typhus as a result of being lice-ridden.
    For commissars, a kill order issued.
    For British commandos, a kill order issued.
    For partisans, a kill order issued.
    For Jews, unlike the other categories, no specific order has come to light but I don’t think the Third Reich’s attitude was “Let’s be nice to them”.

  350. @Colin Wright

    Thank you. So you believe that approx. 5 million Jews were exterminated by gassing, shooting, or starvation by “Germans” and some of their allies between 1941-1945.

    Well, that leaves a lot we still need to know from you. On what do you base this belief? How did it happen in a 4-year span during a war for their survival, in the minds of the Germans you cite as the perpetrators of this enormous crime? Are you relying solely on “belief” because others, some being major authority figures, say it happened? Is this a matter of loyalty to or sticking with “my side” (the Allies) in a political sense, or have you looked at all the evidence and convinced yourself the proof is there?

    If the latter, you should be able to tick some off. I will say my non-belief is based on the following facts:

    [MORE]

    1) No bodies, decaying corpses, skeletons or ashes of even a fraction of this number have been found/discovered in the places where the murder is said to have taken place.
    2) No serious attempt has been made to uncover these mass graves in said locations by those who claim the greatest injury, plus many have been made inaccessible to investigation. That goes against logic.
    3) The physical impossibility of disappearing millions of bodies/corpses with the cremation facilities available and/or burning over grills or in pits.
    4) Learning that the mythical “gas chambers” the believers point to invariably turn out to have been shower, morgue and bomb shelter rooms, inside or close to crematories, reconstructed after the war to be called a gas chamber. None had all the characteristics required for a true homicidal gassing chamber.
    5) The “extermination” literature, including survivor stories, is found upon examination to be full of lies and misinformation. I am not the first to expose these lies, by a long shot, but here are some of my own investigations into “surlievers” — a term I coined.

    https://carolynyeager.net/fifth-diamond-special-jewel-genre-holocaust-horror-stories
    https://carolynyeager.net/denis-avey-man-who-would-be-righteous
    https://carolynyeager.net/new-website-challenge-elie-wiesel-auschwitz-tattoo-and-identity
    https://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/another-surlievor-memoir-more-dr-mengele-smoking-chimneys-and-senseless-murder-from-yehuda-bacon/
    https://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/would-elie-wiesel-have-joined-saul-friedlander-in-threatening-to-quit-the-u-s-if-donald-trump-is-elected-in-november/
    https://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/a-septuagenarians-holocaust-memories-are-dangerous-to-youth-and-wrong-as-history/
    https://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/child-survivor-paul-argiewicz-and-the-missing-five-years/
    https://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/history-teacher-who-outed-holocaust-fraudster-joseph-hirt-calls-for-apology-or-criminal-prosecution/
    https://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/i-want-to-see-joshua-kaufmans-auschwitz-tattoo-109023/
    https://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/martin-gray-another-polish-jew-surlievor-who-wanted-his-people-to-be-seen-as-heroic/
    https://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/max-hamburger-says-he-is-the-man-in-the-lower-bunk/
    https://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/naftali-furst-claims-to-be-a-12-year-old-boy-in-the-famous-buchenwald-photo/
    https://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/survivor-stories-are-a-genre-that-prove-the-holocaust-is-a-jewish-hoax/

    I could continue but I’ll stop with this for now. I don’t expect you to read all my articles but you might look at them. It does show that I am knowledgeable about survivors and the (false) stories they tell. Jews can be described as a race of Story-tellers and the ‘Holocaust’ is their greatest story of all, although maybe it comes after their “God’s Chosen People” story. Take your pick. Have they really fooled you or are you just “taking sides,” as I suggested above?

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  351. @Ron Unz

    Surely you overstate your case when you write

    In 1941 Stalin had massive, massive military superiority over the Germans

    Quality over quantity was enormous still in 1941 in both arms and leadership.

    That is not to say that Hitler might not have rationally feared a mass attack on Romania which was focussed on destroying oil fields and refineries. No doubt Hitler had considered the German response and it might have been, without the benefit of Irving standard research to verify it, the expectation that German forces would surround and destroy the invader while also aiming straight for Baku.

  352. @Carolyn Yeager

    ‘…Have they really fooled you or are you just “taking sides,” as I suggested above?’

    Given those choices, I would say they’ve ‘really fooled’ me. I’d actually prefer it if the Germans hadn’t committed the Holocaust; I identify as German to some extent (several such — albeit one may have been Jewish — in my family tree, along with a Dane, a Scot, several Englishmen, and a probable Norwegian), and I’m ambivalent about the Nazi Regime. There was a lot to be said for it. In fact, my mother lived there at least twice in the course of a rather eccentric childhood: once in 1933-34, again in 1938-39. The first time she was unhappy; the second time she loved it.

    …but the Holocaust happened — whether I find that congenial or not.

    Obviously, you believe otherwise. In my view, this conversation has exactly the same prospects of developing constructively as when a Christian tries to convert me. I’m no more going to get drawn into arguing about the permanence of human remains than I am to start debating about whether one can see evidence of Divine design in the leaves of a tree.

    • Agree: Wielgus
  353. …but the Holocaust happened —

    Well, this is where you started. You still have not, cannot, go beyond “belief” — and now you won’t use the word! Your knowledge stops at

    “in my opinion, the event itself obviously happened — and happened substantially as described.”

    You won’t commit yourself to saying why you believe it happened. You resort to “this conversation has exactly the same prospects of developing constructively as when a Christian tries to convert me.” But I’m not trying to convert you. Only trying to get you to state your real reasons for believing in an unproven “event.”

    This is not a religious question. It’s a question of physical evidence, which you’re now trying to say is only about “the permanence of human remains.” You should know that human remains (in any form) can certainly be detected even after 80 years — not to mention they were never searched for. In the few small attempts that were made, nothing in the way of mass graves was found, except for Germans and some of their allies, mostly Croatians. See https://carolynyeager.net/search-wwii-mass-graves

    I went to your website and saw you have a History category along the top menu, but it contains no content! Also the most recent postings at your site are from 2020. Yet you have over 13,000 comments here. Do they all display the same evasion? It’s amazing that people keep addressing or replying to you. Well, you’re in like company. I have yet to find anyone here at UR that, when I ask for specific reasons for their stated “belief” in the standard Holocaust narrative, that can or will give it. They don’t know! They ignore the question or just don’t reply at all. End of conversation. Every time.

    I think you answered incorrectly in the beginning. I don’t think they fooled you as much as that you’re taking sides. Since you have no reasons at all for believing except to be on the side you’re on, it’s impossible for you to give reasons.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  354. @Carolyn Yeager

    …Also, the most recent postings are from 2020…’

    July 2021, actually.

    ‘…I have yet to find anyone here at UR that, when I ask for specific reasons for their stated “belief” in the standard Holocaust narrative, that can or will give it. They don’t know!’

    Perhaps, as is the case with me, it’s more a matter that they can foresee the development of any such conversation, and realize there’s no point. I actually could give several excellent arguments for the certainty that the Holocaust happened — just as I could give several excellent arguments to a believer for doubting God’s existence.

    It’s just that in both cases, there’s no point. I know my interlocutor won’t be swayed, and I’m perfectly familiar with the counter-arguments they’ll offer — and I won’t be swayed. I’m not going to engage in a dispute that (a) will go on indefinitely, (b) is unlikely to offer anything at all of novelty or interest, and (c) is virtually certain to change neither my mind nor yours.

    • Agree: Wielgus
    • Replies: @Wielgus
  355. Anonymous[369] • Disclaimer says:

  356. Wielgus says:
    @Colin Wright

    For me, given that the Third Reich hated Jews and blamed them for everything from Communism to capitalism to typhus and even the very outbreak of WW2 itself, why wouldn’t it kill them? Especially when Jewish emigration became impossible or near-impossible with the outbreak of war?

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  357. @Ron Unz

    “Stalin would have begun Sovietizing Eurasia just like Lenin and the Bolsheviks had always originally planned.”

    Since this lie is at the core of a lot of Rezun-claims, it helps to go back and compare Lenin’s actual words with Hitler’s declared aims.

    From Lenin’s discussions with Raymond Robbins:

    [MORE]

    “Therefore, Colonel Robbins, we look with confidence at the future. You may destroy us in Russia. You may destroy the Russian Revolution in Russia. You may overthrow me. It will make no difference. A hundred years ago the monarchies of Britain, Prussia, Austria, Russia, overthrew the government of revolutionary France. They restored a monarch, who was called a legitimate monarch, to power in Paris. But they could not stop, and they did not stop, the middle-class political revolution, the revolution of middle-class democracy, which had been started at Paris by the men of the French Revolution of 1789. They could not save feudalism.”

    “Every system of feudal aristocratic social control in Europe was destined to be destroyed by the political democratic social control worked out by the French Revolution. Every system of political democratic social control in the world today is destined now to be destroyed by the economic producers’ social control worked out by the Russian Revolution.”

    “Colonel Robbins, you do not believe it. I have to wait for events to convince you. You may see foreign bayonets parading across Russia. You may see the Soviets, and all the leaders of the Soviets, killed. You may see Russia dark again as it was before. But the lightning out of that darkness has destroyed political democracy everywhere. It has destroyed it not by physically striking it, but simply by one flash of revealment of the future.”

    This speech given to Raymond Robbins encapsulates Lenin’s view perfectly. The revolution is destined to spread regardless of whether or not the Bolsheviks themselves are crushed temporarily. The growth of the revolution is part of a world historic process which the Bolsheviks have merely helped to activate. But the process goes on regardless of what may happen to them. Rather than contemplating a military conquest by the Red Army, Lenin focuses on the likely military defeat of his own forces and explicates why the longer term political victory of his cause is inevitable.

    That didn’t mean that Lenin was unwilling to use the Red Army as a means of extending the revolution. Far from it. Georgia was a small state which declared independence of Russia under the leadership of the Mensheviks, the Bolsheviks former rivals from the Russian Social Democratic Party. Lenin was quite willing to apply military methods to replace the Menshevik-led government with a Bolshevik one which subsequently joined the Soviet Union. But Georgia, and much of southwest Asia, was in a region where the traditional rival power of Czarist Russia, the Ottoman Empire, had been defeated in the war. The Allies who took over management of certain regions of the former Ottoman Empire were also exhausted by 4 years of war. This created enough of a vacuum for the Soviet Union to easily retain the old authority of Czarist Russia. Lenin was quite willing to use this fact to his advantage.

    In contrast, Lenin made loud declarations of support for the independence of Finland and Poland at a time when the risk was that Marshals Mannerheim and Pilsudski might be won over to supporting the Whites in the early beginnings of the Russian Civil War. Since people like Kornilov and Kolchak refused to grant national independence to territories of the Czarist Empire, this prevented the Whites from receiving aid which Finland and Poland could have given. But for Lenin the wider goal of seeing the influence of the Russian Revolution expand across the globe was always treated on a different level from Soviet territorial conquests.

    The Soviet Union was, according to Lenin, the first bastion of the coming world revolution, and as such it was important to be ready to strengthen the Soviet state where this could be safely accomplished as in Georgia, a region which fit very easily into a traditional Russian sphere of influence. But the wider goal of seeing the revolution spread across the world is too big to be thought of in military terms. It proceeds because or world historic forces which are far beyond the reach of Soviet military power, whether in 1918 or at any time in the future.

    By contrast, Hitler explicates in his Second Book that Germany should “adopt a clear, far-sighted policy of space.”

    “It thus turns away from all international industrial and international trade policy attempts and instead concentrates all of its strength on marking out a way of life for our people through the allocation of adequate Lebensraum for the next one hundred years. Because this space can be only in the East, the obligation of a naval power takes a back seat. Germany again attempts to fight for its interests by forming a decisive power on land. This goal corresponds equally to the highest national and ethnic requirements. It also presumes great military power resources for its implementation, but does noy necessarily bring Germany into conflict with all the European great powers.”

    This is a clear declaration of goals which can only be attained through the military conquest of land in the East that is to be used for Lebensraum for the next 100 years. That requires a sweeping military triumph as its core methodology for implementation. The reason why A.J.P, Taylor regards this as consistent with his claim that Hitler had not planned a great war is because Taylor notes Hitler’s underestimation of what such a task of conquering living space would entail:

    “He imagined that he could defeat Soviet Russia without serious effort as he had defeated France. German production of armaments was not reduced merely during the winter of 1940-41; it was reduced still more in the autumn of 1941 when the war against Russia had already begun.”
    — P. 287 of the Fawcett paperback edition, The Origins of the Second World War.

    Taylor wasn’t blind to the way that Hitler’s aims of Lebensraum tended naturally towards a military conflict in the East. He simply observed how Hitler greatly underestimated the real implications of his own policy. But Lenin was not like that at all. Even as he envisioned with rapture the future spread of world revolution, and even when he willingly exercised the Soviet army as a tool for taking over Georgia, he remained very much wary of stumbling his way into a giant war the way that Hitler easily did. Nothing from Lenin’s writings and speeches, when honestly quoted, anywhere supports the idea that he would have advocated for such a stupidly reckless policy as what Rezun claims Stalin was about to attempt. That kind of blundering was much more typical of Hitler.

    • Troll: L.K
  358. @Wielgus

    ‘For me, given that the Third Reich hated Jews and blamed them for everything from Communism to capitalism to typhus and even the very outbreak of WW2 itself, why wouldn’t it kill them? Especially when Jewish emigration became impossible or near-impossible with the outbreak of war?’

    Indeed. Add that as the conflict spiraled into total war, that argument could have only become more compelling.

    If it’s kill or be killed, and ultimately, it’s the Jews that are your enemy, then logically, one should kill the Jews.

    That’s literally the argument that the commander of Reserve Police Battalion 101 offered his unit in Christopher Browning’s Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Holocaust in Poland when they were ordered to massacre the Jews of Josefow in Poland.

    The Jews are bombing our cities back home and killing our wives and children there; therefore, we should kill the Jews here. All one has to do is to fail to distinguish between the Jews there and the Jews here, and the logic becomes compelling.

    I’d say that people engage in Holocaust Denial not because the evidence actually says the Germans didn’t kill the Jews, but because they would prefer that the Germans hadn’t killed the Jews. I can sympathize; but I try to recognize that reality isn’t what I would prefer it to be.

  359. ‘I’d say that people engage in Holocaust Denial not because the evidence actually says the Germans didn’t kill the Jews, but because they would prefer that the Germans hadn’t killed the Jews. I can sympathize; but I try to recognize that reality isn’t what I would prefer it to be.’

    On reflection, I’d add the compulsive contrarians; for some people, the official story can never be the truth. Just as the moon landings were faked and Princess Di was murdered by MI-6, so the Holocaust didn’t occur.

    Sometimes, the official story is a lie — but not always. The Holocaust really did happen.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Unz Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement