|
|
|
Postcivil Society: The “Youth” Vectors of London This Is London reports that:
So the free travel decreases problems? Think again…
Empty the cities now. Comments:2
Posted by Englander on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 11:18 | # (Plymouth, for GW’s sake) That’s very close to where I live… So kids get into disputes with bus drivers over fares, commit crimes including spitting, and the answer is to give them free bus rides? That makes perfect sense. 3
Posted by Anon on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 14:49 | # Considering that about half of England’s black population is now in the DNA database (I think. Please correct me if i am wrong), it pretty much narrows down who these disgusting individuals are. And no joke, but don’t they cane people in Singapore for spitting? It is a filthy, disgusting habit that 3rd worlders are prone to, especially the blacks in the US. If only we could cane people that do that here and other stuff as well. Of course some leftist here in NJ probably thinks that the free bus rides are just the solution and I’ll be paying for it. Is it too early for a drink? 4
Posted by Hank on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:06 | # You ought to see the niggers at the highschool my wife 5
Posted by gongstar on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 16:13 | # Here are some more examples of Britain’s vibrant multicultural yoof at play. In many cases the driver wouldn’t challenge them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/crimewatch/reconstructions_ealing.shtml
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20060108/ai_n15993100 6
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 16:36 | # Pat, a retired cleaner and mum of six, said: “I won’t let these cowards ruin my life. It’s important that ordinary people make a stand against this sort of behaviour.” Easy for someone who will have the sympathy of a jury to say. If a heterosexual white male “took a stand” against “youths”, every image from academia and media of the illegitimacy of heterosexual white male authority would lie in wait in the amygdalae of the jurors resulting in a presumption of guilt. Empty the cities now. 7
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:49 | # Anon, they do cane ‘spitters’ in Singapore. That well-run city-state is a liberal’s nightmare, e.g., caning for illegal immigrants, no restrictions on employing a person from the race of your choice and the fact that the minority Malays arent allowed to serve in the Air Force or in the Intelligence Service. Because of the existence of condign punishments the crime rate is low and this is impressive as Singapore is the world’s most densely populated sovereign state. 8
Posted by gongstar on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 22:33 | #
Nick Griffin was white, male and (as far as the jury probably knew) heterosexual, but was still acquitted twice on his race hate charges. It depends where in the country jurors are drawn from. 9
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 08:45 | # Aside from the fact that we are talking about violent confrontation between an “oppressor” and a member of a “victim class”—rather than mere “hate speech” violations—Griffin _was_ convicted in 1998. 10
Posted by Steve Edwards on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 10:58 | # Lee Kwan Yew was easily THE greatest prime minister in the second half of the 20th Century, anywhere in the world. Name a single leader in Asia who had a comparable record (only Asia can be admitted to the data set - almost every single Western leader since 1945 has been either mediocre or a disaster - and the less said about the remaining continents, the better). On this note, I’d like to suggest an MR poll - “who was the greatest Western leader of all time?” Anyone want to second Charles Martel? 11
Posted by Steve Edwards on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 11:01 | # Americans essentially have a choice of two obnoxious, treasonous family dynasties - Bush and Clinton. To date, it would appear the Clinton dynasty is the least malign of the two; nevertheless, both have been explicitly criminal. Far more damage has been done to the United States under either Clinton or Bush than any other President in history. 12
Posted by Scimitar on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 12:44 | # LBJ was worse: Immigration Act of 1965, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965, Civil Rights Act of 1968, Executive Order 11246, Vietnam, Great Society. No other American president approaches LBJ in sheer awfulness. 13
Posted by Kenelm Digby on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 13:52 | # Lee Kwan Yew, is of course (as it is blindingly obvious) an ethnic Chinese. 14
Posted by gongstar on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 16:38 | #
I’m not sure: if the confrontation were clearly caused by the vibrant victims, a white hetero male could get sympathy. I can’t think of a good example, perhaps because in this country whites try to avoid confrontation with misbehaving ethnics—and adults with misbehaving children. Class can determine whether or not sympathy is given. There was a big reaction to the murder of a middle-class male lawyer in London by two blacks, because middle-class white journalists gulped and thought: “That could have been me / my husband / fiancé / boyfriend.” Working-class whites don’t get sympathy like that.
Of hate speech violations. In London, IIRC, not Leeds. But his hate speech was about jews, not Muslims, and jews have definitely programmed the white amygdala in their favour. 15
Posted by wjg on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 23:12 | # Speaking of the worst US presidents, I have to disagree that Clinton or Bush are in the top 5 worst. A leader’s impact must be evaluated within the context of where things were when he took over and where things were when he was done AND being reasonable about what he could have done less bad or more good. Using those criteria I am torn between either Wilson or FDR being the worst. Wilson started (or greatly accelerated) the process of the US becoming an aracial materialistic empire and FDR finished it. Once FDR was done I don’t see much, short of truly GREAT leadership, that could have reversed our course. Truly great leadership is absolutely impossible within the current judeo anarcho-tyranny that now rules us. Probably the last US president who could have possibly reversed our slide into oblivion was Nixon but he proved the value of conservatism to our ongoing dialectic of “progress”. He just made all LBJ’s crimes palatable. Here are my 10 worst US presidents from the perspective of Euro American interests: 1. Wilson (WWI, Ideological Empire, Federal Reserve, Income Tax) Both Slick Willie and Jug Ears are deserving of a short rope and a tall tree but they were intentional mediocrities along the lines of Britain’s Blair and Major. The election of great men is no longer possible until ZOG dies. Regarding the greatest US Presidents I’d consider Washington or Jefferson. Teddy Roosevelt was probably the best 20th Century President though his vanity gave us Wilson in 1912. 17
Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 03 Jun 2007 01:23 | # The Civil Rights Movement made virtually no progress under Wilson or FDR (who created the toothless FEPC). The executive branch didn’t embrace civil rights reform until Truman. Wilson resegregated the federal government for the first time since Reconstruction. He was also the most racist president of the twentieth century. 18
Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 03 Jun 2007 01:31 | # Here is my list: 1.) LBJ 19
Posted by wjg on Sun, 03 Jun 2007 02:02 | # Scimitar, What good is resegregating the military when that more effective Aryan military prowess is used by a Jewish head to kill our own racial brethren in Europe? If the Negro regiments were sent to the Europe to be mowed down like cord wood then it might have done some good but the blacks ended up as support staff while our blood was left behind. Wilson was a do-gooder of the worst sort, trying to make the world “safe for democracy”. He started the “America as the world’s kosher cop” empire. At that time America could have avoided that path. Now we are trapped. He was the first overt shabbas goy in our Oval Office. I don’t think Truman was so bad because he at least used the A-Bomb to save scores of thousands more of our troops from death and maiming against the wishes of its jewish developers. He had to try to end the awful catastrophe Frankenstein Delano Roosevelt started. FDR not in the top 10? What the hell is your criteria? 20
Posted by wjg on Sun, 03 Jun 2007 02:11 | # BTW, all the anti-racialist activism by Presidents from Truman on was directly the result of the rhetoric of FDR in defying the National Socialists. He created, more than anyone else, the fog out of which no ordinary leader could emerge to guide us as a nation instead of a multi-racial empire. Look to the source for our current troubles, not at symptoms. 21
Posted by wjg on Sun, 03 Jun 2007 02:24 | # Scimitar, I misspoke before re. Wilson segregating the “military” since it was still segregated at that time. Truman desegregated it - which for the reasons I mentioned - I think was a good thing at that time. 22
Posted by Scimitar on Sun, 03 Jun 2007 04:32 | #
Just because FDR was anti-Hitler doesn’t mean he was an anti-racist. In fact, aside from the FEPC (which had little enforcement power), he did relatively nothing to advance civil rights reform. FDR disliked A. Philip Randolph, Walter White, DuBois and the other civil rights agitators. He couldn’t even bring himself to endorse federal anti-lynching legislation. It was the Republicans under Wilkie and Dewey who ran on civil rights reform in 1940 and 1944. Churchill was also anti-Hitler, but like FDR he wasn’t an anti-racist. He believed blacks were an inferior race, supported the maintenance of white supremacy across the Empire, and opposed third world immigration to the U.K. during the 1950s.
I wouldn’t have supported American intervention in European wars, but the U.S. won both conflicts and came out of them relatively unscathed. Neither FDR or Wilson did much for civil rights on the domestic front. In fact, Jim Crow grew stronger under Wilson, and remained strong under FDR.
That’s true. Hollywood movies aside, blacks saw little in the way of combat action during WW1 and WW2. Blacks played less of a role in WW1 than they did in the Spanish-American War and less of a role in that war than the Civil War. This coincided with the growth of the belief amongst whites that Reconstruction had been a failure.
The U.S. never joined Wilson’s League of Nations. Personally, I don’t think an international organization charged with abolishing war was such a bad idea. The humiliating peace treaty imposed on Germany wasn’t the fault of Wilson either. The British and French insisted on a punative treaty. Wilson ended up leaving Paris in disgust and returned to the United States. He hoped the flaws of Versailles would later be revised in a permanent settlement through his League of Nations. The U.S. signed an independent peace with Germany and retreated into “splendid isolation” for the next twenty years.
He mired the U.S. in the Korean War (which he didn’t win), dropped two unnecessary atomic bombs on a defeated Japan, desegregated the military, endorsed civil rights reform in the Fair Deal, became the first president to address the NAACP, established a permanent FEPC, committed the U.S. to a forty year global crusade against communism in the Truman Doctrine, lost China, split the Democratic Party at its 1948 convention, recognized Israel, and surrendered U.S. sovereignty to NATO. He left office with one of the lowest approval ratings of any American president. I don’t see much to admire about the man. His presidency was an unmitigated disaster.
The New Deal was focused on class based reforms, not civil rights. FDR did virtually nothing to support civil rights reform. Immigration to the U.S. dropped to its lowest point in decades under FDR. Aside from WW2 (which the U.S. won), FDR wasn’t that bad of a president. His Good Neighbor Policy towards Latin America put an end to decades of U.S. interventions in that region. The TVA brought electricity to impoverished Southern farms. New Deal government spending brought jobs and development to the South. His economic reforms were pro-labor, curtailed the power of big business, and redistributed wealth from the rich to the poor. 23
Posted by wjg on Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:42 | # Scimitar, Things happen in degrees. That FDR didn’t see the logical conclusions of his own materialistic worldview as an Anti-Nazi (hence, unavoidably philo-semitic) just reveals that maybe his political shrewdness was not as great as his apologists claim. Of course Jewry didn’t want him to promote Civil Rights in the midst of a war that they really wanted to win. Defeating the Nazis from their perspective meant total efficient war, not delusions about Negro equality. Once we slaughtered ourselves and our racial brethren to make the world safe for Judeo-capitalism then the grosser inanities of liberalism could be pushed by the stooges in the White House. “Aside from WW2 (which the U.S. won), FDR wasn’t that bad of a president.” Aside from the assassination Mrs. Lincoln how was the play? There is no “aside from WWII”. It is the calamity that more than anything else has put us where we are today. Regardless of one’s views on FDR’s domestic policies WWII is what he is deservedly judged by. And as far as winning: the US as a Judeo-Capitalist empire did win the war; the US as Euro-Nation State was destroyed, though the final touches couldn’t be implemented except over the following decades. Once all the good ole boys from Dixie got done “keelin the eevil natseez” how could they long withstand making the Negro their equal? They couldn’t, mainly because Jewry was, by then, ensconced firmly in all the institutions that conveyed values and they were not about to overlook the change to ruin more of their Aryan enemies. I agree that the US “could have” defeated Germany and stayed institutionally racist IF they had not surrendered moral authority to Jewry but they did. The other disaster of the war was the loss of genetic treasure: ours and Europe’s. Regarding Truman, he was following in the footsteps of FDR so he couldn’t reverse the trend of progress now could he? Yes, most all the things you mention are negatives but the path had largely been set. I disagree that the A-bombs were unnecessary. We were planning to invade the home island since the Japanese were not about to surrender. If we had invaded, the loss of American life would have been monstrous using Iwo Jima and Okinawa as guides. Also, Japanese losses would have far exceeded the A-bomb deaths. FDR started the Pacific War and Truman finished it as best as possible under the circumstances. Remember even after the bombs the Emperor’s planned surrender was still almost averted because of a coup attempt. The Japanese, like the Germans, were worthy and honorable foes. Wilson’s racism was held by everyone then so it is hardly the mark of an exceptional man. W is a worthy heir of Wilson, now making the world safe from tyranny. Again, we must judge president’s by what they did within the context of their times and what sort of foundation they left for those who followed. Wilson and FDR are the bases upon which the modern disasters you list are built. BTW, you sound like a twin of Daedalus. I might have missed the name change. 24
Posted by wjg on Sun, 03 Jun 2007 16:15 | # Fred, Bush is bad but to critique him as Gadiel does from the patriotard Right is a losing proposition from the perspective of White interests. The patriotard Right accepts all the anti-racial propositions of liberalism and just tries to haggle over words. Until we no longer flinch from the words “Anti-Semite” or “Racist” Euros are going nowhere politically. The problem with immigration is neither its legality or possible terrorism primarily. The problem is genocide. But to proclaim this one must be willing to be a racist. No disagreement from me that Bush is a traitor who deserves far more than just impeachment. 25
Posted by wjg on Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:05 | # “Why, exactly, was unconditional surrender necessary?” Your point is well taken. Given that unconditional surrender was a demand the A-bomb was a good option. Why was UCS necessary? It wasn’t if this had been an old-style war among brothers. It was more evidence that “we” had already been taken over re. our entire worldview. “Even more would have been saved by agreeing to something other than unconditional surrender.” Yes, and even more again by not going to war at all. The whole scenario shows the dilemma of what should be done within a mess not of our own making. The ways out are always least worse. 26
Posted by wjg on Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:13 | # Fred, You are right on regarding Jews views on Blacks. They are purely a tool that is tolerated so long as it is valuable. If and when Euros are blended into a new coffee-colored mass-man Blacks will have served their purpose. If they think they will be tolerated by the Master Race at that point they are dumber than even we estimate. 27
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 01:18 | #
I recently switched to this username. I’m also using it at the OCD blog.
FDR was a reform liberal. His primary concern was ameliorating the more destructive effects of capitalism while saving free enterprise and private property from the radical left (a crusade which had been launched by his racist cousin TR several decades earlier). FDR’s New Deal was modeled on the Square Deal. His reforms were class based, not race based. Indeed, throughout the 1920s and early 1930s, liberals saw civil rights agitation as a distraction and obstacle that got in the way of achieving this objective. It was Hitler who associated racialism with concentration camps, mass murder, radical ethnic chauvinism, and world war. While it is true that liberalism would have probably taken a more anti-racist turn anyway, Hitler provided a focal point around which racialism could be demonized that otherwise would not have existed. In this respect, he was a major contributor to racialism’s sudden demise. As GW pointed out, across Europe, Hitler associated racialism with German racial superiority, fascist conquest, and exploitation; all of which were perceived negatively by the vast majority of Europeans. The communists came to power on their own in Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia due to the popularity they had gained as resistance fighters during the occupation.
FDR could have ran on a strong civil rights platform if he had been inclined to do so. Once again, Wilkie and Dewey did just that in 1940 and 1944. His wife was also a vocal supporter of civil rights reform. There were also members of his administration like Ickes who sympathized with blacks. The fact that he chose not to do so and caught considerable political flak for his decision (from both the Republicans and the press) sets FDR apart from his successors. Furthermore, as I pointed out above, FDR personally did not like civil rights agitators; unlike, say, JFK.
FDR was never “controlled” by the Jews. He actually kept the Jews at arms length throughout the war. Jews had also been financing the NAACP for decades. They did not put aside their more radical beliefs because of the war in Europe. The Republicans had no problem supporting civil rights reform during the war.
It didn’t work out like that, although that is a plausible alternative scenario. If Hitler had never existed, the West would still have degenerated eventually because of liberalism. Racialism didn’t slowly fade away, though. Rather, it became immediately taboo after the war. Racialism = Hitler = WW2 was the equation that had been made in the minds of Americans and Europeans, a formula that Hitler himself in no small part contributed to.
Sure there is. FDR had already served two terms as president before the U.S. entered the Second World War. It was only during his third term that foreign policy began to overshadow his domestic challenges. Any fair assessment of FDR must concern itself primarily with his response to the Great Depression.
I disagree. FDR should be judged like any other president by the totality of his actions, not his stance on any specific issue. Bush is a horrible president, but his awfulness goes beyond immigration or the War in Iraq.
That’s not the point I was making. In terms of blood sacrifice, the U.S. was extremely fortunate relative to other nations. Whereas only a few hundred thousand Americans died in WW2, over 20 million Russians lost their lives. Russia was devastated. The U.S. mainland, however, incurred no physical damage on the homefront aside from a few trivial forest fires. It is true that race and ethnicity were eventually subtracted from the American national identity, but this is a legacy of the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ years.
Southerners came away from WW2 more determined than ever to maintain segregation. There is no evidence that fighting the Nazis in WW2 had any deleterious effect upon white Southern racial attitudes. In fact, Southern liberals became ever more unpopular in the postwar period, as Al Gore’s father discovered when he lost his Senate seat.
Whose fault is that though? During the 1920s and 1930s, Jews were the most despised minority in America. And no, Jews were not firmly ensconced in “all the institutions that conveyed values” prior to WW2. In fact, most Ivy League colleges had taken steps to restrict Jewish enrollment. Jewish representation at elite American colleges (in both student body and faculty) was down from historic highs reached before 1922. Hitler came along and changed all of this. We have good polling data that proves this. American anti-semitism peaked in 1944 and had collapsed by 1947. It was the discovery of Hitler’s grotesque concentration camps in Europe by the Allies that transformed American and European attitudes towards the Jews. Whereas criticism of the Jews had been widespread in both the U.S. and U.K. before the war, after the war it was associated with Nazism and the Holocaust, and by extension became immoral by definition.
It was above all else resistance to Nazism in Europe that popularized anti-racism. The very word “racism” emerged out of anti-fascist circles. If you want to seriously examine postwar European anti-racism, you should start by looking at the biggest supporters of it: the communists. 28
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 02:25 | #
Hitler’s insane foreign policy is largely to blame for that. If his goal had been merely to reunite the German populations of contiguous countries with their fatherland, he would have gotten his way. In Austria, he won. In the Sudetenland, he won. But after Hitler violated the Munich agreement and occupied the rump Czech state, he lost all credibility in the West and made Chamberlain look foolish. Which is why he issued his guarantee of Poland.
Truman was no FDR. In fact, FDR choose him as his running mate in order to balance his ticket. The two men had widely different views and were never close. As a Senator from Missouri, Truman had been a critic of FDR. Fact is, Truman broke with FDR on several key issues: he shattered the New Deal coalition by embracing civil rights, he broke with FDR’s foreign policy in antagonizing the Soviets, he dismissed FDR’s advisors and replaced them with his own people, he launched the Red Scare in the United States, and he assisted the French in reestablished their colonial empire; American involvement in Vietnam dates back to Truman.
This issue has been dealt with in recent years by numerous historians. The decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan was a political one. Truman’s own military advisors were against the idea. Japan was trying to negotiate a surrender through the Soviets (with whom they had a non-aggression pact).
It is doubtful that FDR would have antagonized the Soviets by dropping the bomb on Japan if he had lived through the summer of 1945. He had shown no inclination to race the Soviets to Berlin in Europe. Why would he have done so in East Asia? FDR wanted a permanent peace with the USSR. In 1933, he recognized the Soviet Union and ended the first Cold War that had begun under Wilson. In contrast, Truman started the second Cold War in 1947 with the Truman Doctrine.
If Wilson was such a warmonger, why did he wait until 1917 to intervene in WW1? If he was so anti-German, why did he offer Germany such reasonable terms, which the German military rushed to embrace?
This simply isn’t true. Woodrow Wilson was a segregationist. He was easily the most racist president of the twentieth century. As the Governor of New Jersey, Wilson signed a eugenic sterilization bill into law. The Wilson administration was the apogee of Jim Crow. If W.E.B. DuBois could speak to us here from his grave, he would be shocked to hear this theory of yours that Wilson laid the foundation of the present racial order. In many ways, FDR was Wilson’s successor, but it would be accurate to say that he followed in Teddy’s footsteps. FDR did not share Wilson’s sincere aversion to war (during the 1920s, he posed as an isolationist). Like his more famous cousin, FDR was a political realist who was hardly averse to using war to advance what he perceived to be American interests. His economic policies had been ideas floating around in progressive circles for decades. He was no crusader for civil rights either, although he was repulsed by racial brutality. The leaders of the Civil Rights Movement during FDR’s presidency were under no illusions that he was any ally of their cause. After all, FDR was a Democrat allied to the segregationsts who campaigned throughout the South as an “adopted son of Georgia” (in 1945, FDR died in Warm Springs). In their view, he was a gross hypocrite who railed against the excesses of Nazi racialism in Europe while turning a blind eye to more serious infractions in the U.S. In this respect, FDR differed little from Southern white supremacists who saw no contradiction between anti-Nazism and their own beloved “domestic institutions.” It was the Cold Warriors like Truman and Acheson, Eisenhower and Dulles, JFK and RFK, LBJ, and Nixon who dismantled segregation in the South for the sake of “fighting communism” abroad. Numerous examples of this come to mind: the State Department amici brief in Brown, the reaction to Little Rock, the Civil Rights Act of 1957, Kennedy’s reaction to Birmingham, LBJ and Vietnam. FDR had little interest in pinning the Soviets down in their own backyard and threatening them with a hostile military alliance perched on their doorstep. Both his domestic racial policies and his foreign policy viz the USSR reflect this. 29
Posted by wjg on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 04:00 | # Scimitar, Blaming the Nazis for making racism disrespectable is more evidence of the pernicious effects of Jewry. The Germans rose from the toxic ashes of Weimar and cast off their oppressor. That we now see nothing but calumny cast at the Nazis shows not their evil but that they were right for who is the source of the vitriol but the very tribe that the German’s overthrew for 12 years. Why are German concentration camps - simply a means of quarantining collective misanthropy - so bad for racism but Soviet gulags and mass murder (on a much grander scale) not bad for leftism/liberalism? Because of who controls how those events are interpreted. It is the very McCarthyism/guilt by association these hypocrites always pin on their enemies. The truth is the truth regardless of who says it, at least to the Aryan mind. Until one comes to the conclusion that WWII was a war between Jewry and Europe the interpretations are hopelessly provincial. You are very learned in the details and to be commended. The problem is in seeing the forest and not getting hung up on the trees. The reason this discussion is so important is not because of the past (though I do want to see the real traitors reviled and the now unpopular visionaries praised) but the future. What happens if the fledgling Russian Nationalism under Putin leads to official anti-Semitism? Will we dwindling Euros listen to our governments and condemn Russia? Will we boycott her? Will we go to war? What if the “West” succeeded in agitating satellite states or peripheral ethnies (like Chechnya) to demand independence knowing full well it may lead to escalations? What will we do against such Russian “aggression”? There are all kind of superficial reasons that the US might have for intervening in such a situation covertly or overtly but until Euros see it as an attack by Judah against the Goy we will continue our well deserved slide towards extinction. Rest assured that for whatever reason there is a slave revolt against the Master Race and its tools the motives will be described to the cattle as malignant and any who hold parallel views will be disrespectable if not illegal. Will it be fair to blame Russia in such an eventuality? How dare they rise up and try to be free! They have given a bad name to nationalism! It’s like kicking someone and then blaming them for your broken toe. There are many layers to conflicts allowing us to be distracted but we allow ourselves to continually be hoodwinked at our own peril. Aryans must catch on to something every other race fully grasps and that is blood trumps words. This also ties back to my criticism of the myopia of both Wilson and FDR. They did not foresee that they had made a deal with the devil: they collected a small principal and we are paying the interest. Whatever their words or motivations at that time regarding any concern for our people they are far outweighed by the implications of their actions. 30
Posted by MMR on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 05:48 | # This also ties back to my criticism of the myopia of both Wilson and FDR. They did not foresee that they had made a deal with the devil: they collected a small principal and we are paying the interest. The causation works the other way: FDR did not select Baruch—Baruch selected FDR, and had handlers mentor FDR for years before his 1933 presidency (see the book by his son-in-law, Colonel Dall.) No doubt something similar is true of the Wilsons, Blairs, and Bushes of the world. The old mental model has the president/king as numero uno; today, the powerbrokers who appoint the the Bushes and Wilsons for four-year contracts are king. 31
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 11:21 | #
The Nazis really do share a large part of the blame for demonizing racialism. It was the Nazis who seared into the minds of millions of Europeans the identification of racialism with the racial supremacy of the Herrenvolk, German military conquest, and industrial scale mass murder of the Jews. I would be the first to agree with you that other factors were involved (if the West had not been so liberal, would it have reacted to Hitler so negatively?), and that Allied propaganda played no small part in this, but the Nazi role in destroying the respectibility of racialism is indisputable and well established. Fifty years later the linkage between racism and fascism, which Hitler created, remains as strong as ever.
And in throwing off the oppressor, Hitler had to occupy Bohemia and Moravia, declare war on Poland, attack Greece and Yugoslavia, invade Russia, throw the Jews in concentration camps, and send his armies to the deserts of North Africa? The truth of the matter is that Hitler’s ambitions went far beyond reannexing the German minorities in neighboring countries and ridding Germany of Jewish influence. He was determined to establish German hegemony over the European continent and more than willing to risk a world war to get his way. It should be noted that Britain and France had their own geopolitical ambitions in Eastern Europe, and this is no attempt to excuse their actions there either.
I would say the Czechs, Poles, Russians, Serbs, and Ukrainians have every right to resent the brutal conquests of their countries by Nazi Germany. Eastern Europeans suffered more under Hitler than the Jews ever did. While there are aspects of the Third Reich that I find admirable, Hitler’s foreign policy is not amongst them. OTOH, I strongly disagree with demonizing the Third Reich. That’s uncalled for. In their motivations and ambitions, the Nazis were not all that different from the Allies.
Because the Third Reich actually went to war with the West whereas the Soviet Union did not. Much of the atrocity propaganda against the USSR is also overblown. Most Russians regret the demise of the Soviet Union. Journalists also tend to be left-of-center and see communism as a noble, if misguided cause, whereas they do not see Nazism in the same light.
Explain. If Hitler simply wanted to reunite German minorities with the Fatherland, why did he turn a blind eye to the plight of the Germans of Alsace and Lorraine in France, South Tyrol in Italy, or North Schleswig in Denmark? Why did he plan to resettle these minorities, not to mention Dutchmen and Scandinavians, in occupied Poland and Ukraine?
Hitler’s own words in Mein Kampf, the Zweites Buch, and the Table Talk, not to mention his actual policies in the occupied east, lay bare his motivations and intentions. His goal was to establish a German racial empire in Mitteleuropa at the expense of the Czechs, Poles, and Russians. In order to do so, he was willing to risk war with France and Britain. He was convinced that Chamberlain was a worm ridden pacifist and would back down over Poland at the last moment, as he had done at Munich. The British and French sought to 1.) maintain the legitimacy of the League of Nations and 2.) contain German ambitions in Eastern Europe. FDR sought to take advantage of the situation and prevent Britain from losing the war. The Jews, of course, opposed Hitler for obvious reasons.
I would have more sympathy for the Nazis if base territorial greed had not been such a powerful motivating factor in their foreign policy. From what I know of FDR, I am also convinced that he was not under Jewish control, and that his actions are best explained by his own beliefs. In his memoirs, Churchill also said virtually nothing about the Jews or the Holocaust.
Wilson and FDR were both liberals. I have written extensively about how much I dislike that ideology here. The difference between us seems to be that you see the turning point coming under FDR whereas I see it happening under Truman. I also fully agree that the West would have degenerated eventually even if Hitler had never existed. In their endorsement of liberalism, FDR and Wilson contributed to the decline of white racial identity in America, even if their overt actions were not as serious as those of Truman, Kennedy, or LBJ. The disease is and always has been liberalism. The catalyst was Nazism. It brought into sharp focus the incompatibility of liberalism with racialism. 32
Posted by Scimitar on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 11:49 | # FDR’s greatest political asset was his family name. His cousin TR was a former president of the United States. FDR did not need the assistance of wealthy German Jews to attain political power. He was born into the highest circles of privilege in America and attended the most elite boarding school and university in the country. After his election as president, FDR’s popularity rose to such heights that he became almost invulnerable to political attack. See his crushing landslide victory over Landon in 1936. Who were FDR’s handlers amongst his political entourage? The meek and submissive Morgenthau? Hopkins the social worker? 33
Posted by wjg on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:48 | # “It was the Nazis who seared into the minds of millions of Europeans the identification of racialism with the racial supremacy of the Herrenvolk, German military conquest, and industrial scale mass murder of the Jews.” HOW was this seared into their minds and WHY? Not by ESP that’s for sure. That it was is not to be doubted. If the mass media had wanted the lesson of WWII could have been that the Nazis weren’t racist enough. That was the conclusion of some American eugenicists like Lothrop Stoddard. Bottom line is the Jewry already knew what they were going to sear into the minds of their slaves regardless of what actually happened. “Fifty years later the linkage between racism and fascism, which Hitler created, remains as strong as ever.” If the mass media had wanted to create a linkage between racism and peanut butter consumption George Washington Carver would no longer be America’s most famous inventor. Your proving my point that “we” no longer are in control of our own thoughts. They are directed from without. You make good points about Germany trampling on some of her neighbors but some of it was unavoidable, at least in the short term. Whether a victorious Reich would have been a more benevolent master than the subsequent Judeo-communist and capitalist overlords is to me easily answered yes. But my point is not to defend Germany/Hitler/NS in the details but rather in the overarching conflict. Regarding the control over FDR, it is much more complex and subtle than some Svengali whispering in his ear (a la “Lord” Levy and Tony Blair). Wilson, it is rumored, was directed in his paths by some spicy knowledge known to his trusted adviser and future Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. I have not heard of any similar leverage by which FDR was directed. That being the case Jewry had to more creatively employ its arts of control. Doubtless his vanity was indulged. Bleating about “making America great” and helping our longtime ally Great Britain and being a defender of freedom. Can’t you just hear some close adviser (such as Bernard Baruch) saying… “Your legacy, Franklin, is being put to the test. Will you be worthy of standing beside Washington and Lincoln by defying tyranny at this trying time? Was our blood shed at Lexington and Gettysburg only to be wasted under the dark tide of fascism? We can do our part by providing loan capital and books, pamphlets, and films to inform our people. You win and America wins. America needs you Franklin.” This is complete speculation but most men (excluding the truly great) in over their heads can be manipulated either with the carrot, the stick, or both. FDR may have thought he was using Jewry to achieve his ends (and America’s) but hindsight clearly shows that it was they who achieved theirs. 34
Posted by Scimitar on Tue, 05 Jun 2007 02:26 | #
The simplest explanation tends to be the true one. Why is it so difficult to believe that FDR was his own man and that his reaction to Hitler is best explained by his own beliefs? Aside from Marxists, few historians have any problem believing this in the case of Hitler. From a very early age, FDR had been suspicious of German militarism. As Assistant Secretary of the Navy under Wilson, he witnessed the German invasion of France first hand. His liberal political beliefs were already well established by the time he ran for vice president under Cox in 1920. FDR also sought to emulate his cousin TR in everything from his style of dress to his economic policies to his belligerence towards Germany. Is there anything especially surprising about FDR’s foreign policy given what we know about him (which would necessitate positing a puppetmaster behind the scenes)? I don’t think so. His closest political advisors were Morgenthau and Hopkins. He dominated them both, utterly. Also, from what I gather, there was no confusion amongst other members of his administration that FDR was “the boss.” Sure, FDR took advice from those around them, as all presidents do, but the critical decisions made were ultimately his. The notion that FDR was a puppet of his Jewish entourage was Hitler’s idea. Hitler had never in his life even visited either the U.S. or Britain and deeply misunderstood both countries. This is especially true of the British. After all, it was his fatal miscalculation that Chamberlain would not go to war over Poland that landed him in WW2 in the first place. All the warning signs were there: Britain’s willingness to alienate Mussolini over worthless Ethiopia, the condemnation of Japan over its invasion of Manchuria, Britain’s reaction to the Spanish Civil War, two decades of British foreign policy re: the League of Nations. Hitler could not bring himself to believe that the British foreign policy was motivated by factors other than naked self interest. Thus, he deluded himself into believing that he could actually form an alliance with the Britian of Baldwin, MacDonald, and Chamberlain, as if he were Frederick William III and they were Grenville, and with France playing the role of Napoleon! The Fuhrer wasn’t much of a foreign policy genius. He allied himself with Italy, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania while declaring war on the Soviet Union and United States (what was he thinking?). In doing so, he tore up his treaty with the USSR, which was supplying him with all the raw materials he needed. He went to war with Canada, sent hordes of U-boats into the Atlantic, and allied himself with Japan in the Pacific (America’s major enemy for twenty years). His actions guaranteed a hostile response from the United States. He vastly overestimated the military strength of Japan (which could not take impoverished China in a dozen years) while underestimating the industrial capacity of the U.S. He thought the Soviets would fold after his invasion. Above all else, he was willing to start a world war over largely worthless territory in rural Eastern Europe; a war he himself knew Germany wasn’t prepared for, and fought it in a way he himself swore he would never do.
It was precisely Hitler’s aggressive foreign policy that occasioned the Second World War in the first place. Was it really unavoidable? I will have to disagree with you here. Hitler did not have to violate the Munich agreement and take Bohemia and Moravia. He did not have to start a war over Poland either. He simply thought he could get away with it, and in his mind, that licensed his actions. Suppose for a moment that Hitler had squatted for a decade after his annexation of the Sudetenland. International tensions would have relaxed. Germany could have built up a stronger army. A new British prime minister might have been more willing to negotiate over Poland. Most importantly, FDR would have been dead, and without him in control of the U.S., it is doubtful a less talented American president could have gotten America involved in another European war. If He had waited a few more years, Stalin would have been gone too. There is no reason Hitler could not have become an old man like Franco.
It was kind of difficult not to notice all the German troops in their streets or German bombs falling from the sky during the Blitz.
The Nazis were in control of the media in occupied Europe. For all their propaganda, Western Europeans were never enthusiastic about the German occupation. See the failure of NS parties in occupied Denmark, Norway, or the Netherlands.
It’s not that simple. Media influence is only one vehicle of socialization.
Point granted.
It was more of an alliance of convenience. The Jews had their own reasons to despise Nazism. FDR was motivated by other factors. This can be clearly seen in how he managed the war effort. Jewish priorities like liberating the concentration camps or expanding American immigration quotas to allow Jewish refugees into the U.S. were not pressing concerns. In contrast, look at how FDR bent over backwards to save the British who were staring defeat in the face, or how he used the Pacific Fleet to shield Australia from Japanese attack. If FDR was under Jewish control, why did he send the St. Louis back to Europe, or prevent the USAF from bombing the railways leading to Auschwitz? 35
Posted by Scimitar on Tue, 05 Jun 2007 02:32 | # This thread is way off-topic. I will post future responses [url=http://blog.occidentaldissent.com/?p=26[here[/url]. 36
Posted by wjg on Tue, 05 Jun 2007 13:58 | # Scimitar, I’d say going from infected spit to FDR is definitely “on-topic” No? Alright, I concede. Post a comment:
Next entry: New HP Labs Director: ‘I may be in US, but my heart is in India’
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Retew on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 08:56 | #
About thirty years ago, in the city I grew up in in England (Plymouth, for GW’s sake) a policeman aged about 30 was killed by being spat on (he died of meningitis), so this is not a trivial matter.
Back in the 70s when I was at school I remember being told off by a classmate at school for spitting on the school’s tarmac for reasons of TB, and I never did it again.