And in this world inescapably governed by lies and violence, as explained below, elite Jewry now governs with the lies that both the Weenied Left (Frankfurt School anti-fascism) and the 'tarded Right (Hollywood History anti-fascism) are quite pleased to hear.
Long gone are the days when a King (Alexander or Caesar) and his host combined both the intellect and aptitude for domination and the manhood for personal combat, in campaigning for conquest and gain unrationalized by such ideological nonsense and fantasy.
For the past century, rather, our contemptible neighborhood sissy nerds (Weenies) have been raised to piously but unwittingly front for the Elders - in comfortable official positions remote from conflict - and our jocks and morons ('tards) have been ceremoniously marched off to heroically do the cowards' bidding in battle - believing it's for the Weenie meliorists' One-World Nanny-State Utopia, on the one hand, or for the 'tarded militarists' Apple-Pie America Uber All those who deplorably are not yet Americanized, on the other.
But in fact it's all been for the sake of crypto-anarchist Judeo-Communism - or for megalomaniacal Judeo-Fascism - in any campaign that was seen through to a nominal "victory".
It wasn't so good
ReplyDeleteby Justin Raimondo, September 04, 2009
I write these words on September 3, 2009, seventy years to the day since Britain and France declared war on Germany – an occasion observed, if not exactly celebrated by the leaders and opinion-makers of the West, as the beginning of "the good war." The War Party just loves WWII because it’s the one war where all agree we had no choice but to fight and win a war to the death. Well, not quite all, but on this question dissent is simply not tolerated.
Take, for example, Pat Buchanan, who marks this anniversary with a reiteration of the theme of his excellent book, The Unnecessary War, which makes the case that war was never inevitable, and that only the pernicious idea of "collective security" – the Franco-British "guarantee" to Poland – made it so. Buchanan also makes the indisputable point that if only the Poles had given Danzig back to Germany, from whom it had been taken in the wake of the disastrous Treaty of Versailles, a negotiated peace would have been the result – a much more desirable one than 56,125,262 deaths and the incalculable toll taken by the war in terms of resources and pure human misery.
Oh, but no: to the "bloggers," left and right, this is a case of "Pat Buchanan, Hitler Apologist." In the political culture constructed by these pygmies, any challenge to the conventional wisdom – especially one that involves questioning WWII, the Sacred War – is something close to a criminal act, one that separates out the perpetrator from the realm of polite society and consigns him to an intellectual Coventry, where he can do no harm. And of course attacking US entry into WWII is considered a "hate crime" because – well, what are you, some kind of "Hitler apologist"?!
[continued, next comment]
[continued from previous comment]
ReplyDeleteBut of course WWII was not inevitable, and Hitler was indeed amenable to negotiations: he never wanted to go to war with the British — whom he admired — and the French, whose influential native fascist movement had good relations with their German co-thinkers. Instead, his gaze was fixed on the East, specifically the Soviet Union, and the lands of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire. This is stated quite plainly in Mein Kampf, where the whole idea of lebensraum was broached: Hitler envisioned the Nazi empire bestriding the Eurasian landmass, basically replacing Russia as the preeminent transcontinental power.
As it was, antiwar sentiment in the years prior to Pearl Harbor was the dominant trend in America, so much so that not even Franklin Roosevelt dared go up against it: in the course of the 1940 election, with war a looming possibility, he infamously declared:
"I have said before, but I shall say it again and again and again: your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."
FDR was a much better liar than George W. Bush, but you’ll never get anyone over at TPM or the Center for American Progress to admit it. Or, maybe you will: maybe they’ll take the line of historian Thomas A. Bailey, who admired Roosevelt and wrote: "Roosevelt repeatedly deceived the American people during the period before Pearl Harbor." Oh but it was a Good Lie, because: "He was faced with a terrible dilemma. If he let the people slumber in a fog of isolationism, they might fall prey to Hitler. If he came out unequivocally for intervention, he would be defeated" in the 1940 election. The people need to be lied to by a Wise Leader if it’s for their own good: that’s the consensus in Washington, D.C., at any rate, and nothing appears to have changed since that time.
In any case, the "Good War" was neither good nor inevitable: it was, instead, a war that saw its prelude in the Spanish Civil War, where the international left actively supported the Spanish "Republicans," i.e. Stalinist Communists and their socialist and left-anarchist allies, and labored mightily to get the West to intervene on their comrades’ behalf. In spite of the official Communist party line that WWII was an "imperialist war," the groundwork for a fulsomely pro-war tack had already been laid as the commies and their liberal-leftie friends agitated mightily on behalf of "Republican" Spain and drummed up Western ire against Japan in the form of economic boycotts and attempted economic strangulation (a tactic that limned the later US embargo on steel and oil imports and provoked the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor).
[continued, next comment]
[continued from previous comment]
ReplyDeleteIf not for the Polish insistence on keeping Danzig, the Holocaust could conceivably have been averted – and the Cold War would most definitely have been avoided. For Hitler was determined to destroy the hated Bolsheviks, and it was only US entry into the conflict – engineered by FDR, in alliance with the Brits, the Communists, and the left in general – that saved the "workers’ paradise" from Germany’s sword.
Like two scorpions in a bottle, the two collectivist powers of Europe would have fought it out to the death – and eventually destroyed each other. Or, at least, one would have been so weakened by "victory" that collapse would have followed soon after.
It is always risky to engage in the construction of alternate histories, but it seems highly unlikely, in any event, that the Third Reich could have survived much beyond Hitler’s lifetime. There was no procedure to ensure the Nazi succession: rival aspirants to the Fuehrer-ship would have arisen, swiftly followed by civil war and the break-up of the "thousand-year Reich." In all likelihood, the last Nazi would have been strangled over the bones of the last Bolshevik.
Unhappily, it didn’t turn out that way. Instead, we got an Allied "victory" that ensured the survival of the USSR and half a century of "Cold War" — followed by an American attempt to ensure its permanent hegemony over the whole earth. In short, what we got was perpetual war – and a thoroughly militarized American state that can’t make a decent car but is geared to project force all over the world.
How did this happen? Writing in Salon, columnist Glenn Greenwald lays out the historical record:
"There was a time, not all that long ago, when the U.S. pretended that it viewed war only as a "last resort," something to be used only when absolutely necessary to defend the country against imminent threats. In reality, at least since the creation of the National Security State in the wake of World War II, war for the U.S. has been everything but a "last resort." Constant war has been the normal state of affairs. In the 64 years since the end of WWII, we have started and fought far more wars and invaded and bombed more countries than any other nation in the world — not even counting the numerous wars fought by our clients and proxies. Those are just facts. History will have no choice but to view the U.S. — particularly in its late imperial stages — as a war-fighting state."
[continued, next comment]
[continued from previous comment]
ReplyDeleteThe "Good War," in short, was the launching pad for the American Imperium, and ever since we’ve been marauding all over the world, likening our foes to Hitler, and building up a mighty apparatus of mass murder answerable to no one and nothing – certainly not to the American people. As Greenwald puts it:
"As became clear with Iraq, the ‘mere’ fact that a large majority of Americans oppose a war has little effect — none, actually — on whether the war will continue. Like so much of what happens in Washington, the National Security State and machinery of Endless War doesn’t need citizen support. It continues and strengthens itself without it. That’s because the most powerful factions in Washington — the permanent military and intelligence class, both public and private — would not permit an end to, or even a serious reduction of, America’s militarized character. It’s what they feed on. It’s the source of their wealth and power."
People wonder why I continue to rail on about WWII as the unnecessary war: that’s a hard case to make, they say, so why not leave it alone? Content yourself with opposing the Iraq and Afghan wars, they counsel. But it’s precisely because I oppose both those wars, and all the wars to come, that I persist in trying to get past the mythology and emotion-driven made-in-Hollywood version of "history" which rationalizes and even glorifies a war that killed over 50 million human beings and consigned whole nations to privation and tyranny.
Because you’ll note how every war is likened to WWII: every attempt at negotation is derided as "another Munich," and every tinpot dictator is yet another "Hitler." It worked so well in 1940 that the War Party keeps reenacting the same scenario: the Iranians, we are told, are crazed anti-Semites who want to create another Holocaust by nuking Israel. Saddam Hussein, we were told, was a Middle Eastern version of Hitler, and even Manuel Noriega – remember him? – was likened to the German dictator. Hitler – that’s the image they want to keep in front of our faces, the one that evokes hatred and a desire to kill, and even somehow justifies the deaths of multi-millions.
The power of this historical narrative is uncanny. The other day, I got into an argument with a friend of a friend, a nice liberal chap who dutifully supported Obama, and considers himself a good "progressive" with enlightened liberal views. This guy claimed that the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was "necessary" in order to "win" WWII. He made this argument as our mutual Japanese friend sat there and listened, impassively – doubtless quite used to Americans rationalizing the mass murder of his countrymen.
Ah yes, the "good war," just like the Afghan war that liberals are following their Dear Leader blindly into – although, it seems, more than a few outside the parameters of Washington, D.C. are beginning to question its alleged goodness.
It takes time, but the truth eventually comes out: it did in the case of the Iraq war, and our alleged "war of necessity" in Afghanistan which is being debunked in record time. World War II, however, remains ensconced in popular mythology as a kind of storybook narrative where Good confronted Evil and the latter was utterly and finally defeated. This myth of the "greatest generation" will likely persist for a while longer, overshadowing our contemporary debates about which wars to fight and why, but it cannot last forever. Eventually, the truth will out, as it always does, and then we can begin the process of dismantling its monstrous progeny, the National Security State.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/09/03/the-good-war/
Yeshua of Nazareth promised to return in power and glory before the last of the present generation had passed, and Saul of Tarsus promised his followers that they would meet Yeshua in the air. But this didn't happen - as it never does - and so arose the witch-hunting, heresy-punishing, inquisitorial, and sect-exterminating Catholic Church to deal with the universal disappointment at the non-event of the Second Advent and at the non-emergence of the promised Kingdom of God on Earth.
ReplyDeleteAnd Karl Marx, in his day, anticipated an inevitable proletarian revolution to end the oppression and repression of the lower orders of Western industrial society - and Comrade Lenin later saw worldwide Western colonialism as provocation for the participation of all oppressed peoples in this great rebellion against ordered existence on the planet. Thus Stalin's megacidal totalitarian and hypertrophic military terror state became the predictable and ironic response to the "Russian" failure to deliver the slave-moralists' righteous utopia that the French Revolution and Terror had failed to deliver in its own day.
But just as the corruption of the rotten Church led to the Protestant reaction and to the Counter-Reformation - so the depredations of the Stalinist regime gave rise to a fundamental reformation in Soviet Socialist Republican policy:
Since it was noticed that the two World Wars had, respectively, instantiated and greatly advanced the cause of institutional Communism (via creation and expansion of the transient "dictatorships of the proletariat") - the only true "victors" in those episodes - and that the "mysterious material forces of production" seemed to be located in North America under Fifth Column control - a return to that old-time Marxist revolutionary religion and to Leninist subversive tactics was indicated as a primary policy toward achieving the final, eschatonic, victory. Now - if only a third World War could be arranged without doing too much damage to themselves.
But that would mean displacing the mass of Western forces to theaters far removed from proper defensive positions and convincing Western leaders that no reason for a defensive posture exists - no reason even for a military frontier that would interdict the passage of tactical nuclear weapons to placement next door to all Western land-based military installations.
So - it remains only to wait for the eventual retirement of the threatening and invulnerable ballistic missile submarine fleet, if suitable technical countermeasures cannot be developed in the interim...
Lay this on your 'tards (who think "we're doing good" in Iraq):
ReplyDelete"What really draws one’s attention is Petras’s insistence that we are witnessing a premeditated 'systematic elimination of intellectuals in Iraq.' Alert readers will immediately recognize this brutal tactic, as it has been employed by the same tribe in both smaller and larger cases.
For instance, during and after the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, the heavily Jewish leadership eliminated millions of competing non-Jewish leaders and members of the middle- and upper-middle class, as Yuri Slezkine so brilliantly exposed in The Jewish Century."
Petras:
"To establish long-term dominance and sustain ethno-religious client rulers, the entire pre-existing cultural edifice, which had sustained an independent secular nationalist state, was physically destroyed by the US and its Iraqi puppets. This included destroying the libraries, census bureaus, and repositories of all property and court records, health departments, laboratories, schools, cultural centers, medical facilities and above all the entire scientific-literary-humanistic social scientific class of professionals. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi professionals and family members were driven by terror into internal and external exile. All funding for national, secular, scientific and educational institutions were cut off. Death squads engaged in the systematic murder of thousands of academics and professionals suspected of the least dissent, the least nationalist sentiment; anyone with the least capacity to re-construct the republic was marked."
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/
"The President began his Navy Day address by recalling that German submarines had torpedoed the U.S. destroyer Greer on 4 September 1941 and the U.S. destroyer Kearny on 17 October. In highly emotional language, he characterized these incidents as unprovoked acts of aggression directed against all Americans. He declared that although he had wanted to avoid conflict, shooting had begun and "history has recorded who fired the first shot." What Roosevelt deliberately failed to mention was the fact that in each case the U.S. destroyers had been engaged in attack operations against the submarines, which fired in self-defense only as a last resort. Hitler wanted to avoid war with the United States, and had expressly ordered German submarines to avoid conflicts with U.S warships at all costs, except to avoid imminent destruction. Roosevelt's standing "shoot on sight" orders to the U.S Navy were specifically designed to make incidents like the ones he so piously condemned inevitable. His provocative efforts to goad Hitler into declaring war against the U.S. had failed and most Americans still opposed direct involvement in the European conflict."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p125_Weber.html
The Judeo-Bolshevik Frankfurter regime, fronted by the class-traitor, FDR, was planning the bombing of its enemy, National Socialist Germany, well before Pearl Harbor and before Hitler's patience with the front man's provocative lies and acts of war ended with the success of the attempt "to maneuver the Japanese into firing the first shot" - the "Back Door to War":
ReplyDelete"The genesis of the B-36 can be traced to early 1941, prior to the entry of the U.S. into World War II. At that time it appeared that there was a very real chance that Britain could fall, making a strategic bombing effort by the U.S. against Germany impossible. A new class of bomber would be needed to fill this role, one offering trans-Atlantic range so it could bomb targets in Europe from bases inside the continental USA. The United States Army Air Corps opened up a design competition for the very long-range bomber on 11 April 1941,..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-36