We are accused of ‘anti-Germanism’, and other similar ‘offences’: Literally, why?

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Monday, 10 August 2015 11:21.

“Literally, why did this even become an argument?”

It’s been brought to my attention that we’re being accused of various things by various people as a result of the article that I posted that was titled ‘English genetic heritage is not German’. It appears that some people, including Carolyn Yeager at The Heretics Hour, have chosen for some reason to seize upon people’s remarks in the comments section of that article to build a characterisation of our position which is very incorrect. DanielS has been accused of being ‘anti-German’, and by proxy I have therefore been accused of abetting ‘anti-German’ thought.

Nothing could be further from the facts. DanielS is not ‘anti-German’, and I’m not abetting ‘anti-German’ thought. In good faith, I’ll assume that Carolyn Yeager’s misinterpretation of my intent is not intentional, and so I’ll explain in the most concise way what my outlook on this is, in the hopes that truth and understanding will prevail.

Heritage and slogans

When I put up the article about how ‘English genetic heritage is not German’, it was entirely for the purpose of showing a way of dispelling the usual liberal sloganeering in the UK that begins with the false appeal to the so-called ‘fact’ of English being all ‘mixed German immigrants’, which is then inexorably extended into a claim that ‘since they are already beyond identification, what is wrong with a little more mixing?’ Obviously the most effective way—a way that is also in accordance with reality—to fight against that kind of liberal sloganeering and to empower the British people to fortify themselves in the belief that the ground they stand on is theirs and that they have a justifiable claim to maintain dominance over their own civic space, is to point out that British people are not merely ‘mixed German immigrants’ of no discernible identity, but in fact they all evolved in the location that they are living in for many thousands of years and as such have a justification to really call themselves ‘British’.

Maintaining this view of a really-existent ‘Britishness’, and suggesting that it should be fashioned into a mass line and propagated to the British people, in no way detracts from the identity of German people, or Germanic peoples as a whole. I don’t see why that should be confusing to some people. It also does not suggest that there should be enmity between Britain and Germany. In fact, it remains our position at Majorityrights that all nations in Europe should stand together while respecting each other’s differences: pan-European regionalism. This is the same position that I also take with regards to Asia and pan-Asian regionalism.

Sometimes mistakes are made

I also get a sense that some of this fury that has been directed toward Majorityrights by the critics, has something to do with the fact that we don’t bow down to Adolf Hitler on every issue, historical and concerning the prosecution of the Second World War. I would say to those people who criticise Majorityrights that it is possible—and this is not a petty-moral statement, it is a statement of cold facts, total administration, and direct geostrategic power concepts—to recognise the structural achievements of the National Socialist movement in Germany and say that it was highly significant in not only raising critical awareness of the influence and threat of Bolshevism, but in fact showing that it was possible to marshal an equally deadly force against them, without having to literally endorse every single ridiculous action and personal preference of Adolf Hitler, every member of the SS, and the general staff of the German Army. Sometimes people do things that are really bad ideas.

It is possible to have a nuanced view, and my view is nuanced.

Obviously, the European war against the Russian Bolshevik regime and its collaborators in Europe, much like the Greater East Asia War against the liberal-capitalist powers, namely, the United States, France, Britain, the Netherlands, and their collaborators, was a crucial moment in history. No alliance in history other than Axis, has been able to unite so many people of diverse ethnic backgrounds against both liberalism and communism at the same time. And no alliance in history has ever come closer to overturning the liberal-capitalist world order in a war of manoeuvre.

These coalitions were to become possible due to the social and economic forces that were activated as a consequence of something like the National Socialist movement of Germany having arisen to power.

Germany rendered assistance to Japan by becoming a viable partner for the duration of the war, and this also engendered a situation where countries like Burma, parts of India, swathes of South East Asia, including Indonesia, Singapore, and others, were able to struggle against their colonial oppressors with the hopes both of independence and of a regional redress of the global systemic inequalities that characterised the liberal-capitalist world order. It also was the case that many Central Asians were enthusiastic about co-operation with Germany as well, particularly some of the Crimean Tatars who must have been relieved to see the 11th German Army under General Erich von Manstein as well as Stay-behind Group D show up in their territory to remove the Russian and Jewish occupiers that had been appearing on their land because of the Soviet incursions into Crimea.

It could be said that in the developing world, the international boundaries and the recognition of ethno-states governed by their own ethnic group’s elites rather than those of another group, is a kind of world that could not have come into existence without the ethno-nationalist consciousness and the live-fire demonstration of the use of deadly force that characterised the Axis approach, particularly in the Pacific.

It wasn’t that any particular person imposed National Socialism onto the German people from above only. It was actually the fact that the liberal-capitalist world view was vying for hegemony over all spheres of human life, and as a result, the ethno-nationalist world view had to fight against it in all spheres of life in order that it could triumph over it. This is the meaning of ‘totalitarianism’ when it is not used as a pejorative by liberals. While being coincident with ‘authoritarianism’, it is not a synonym for it, nor is it a synonym for ‘bad things’. The inauguration of the National Socialist state in Germany, was not the moment that ethno-nationalist world views triumphed. Rather, the inauguration of the National Socialist state was a sign and a consequence of the fact that the ethno-nationalist world view had already triumphed over liberalism among these people, and had in turn given rise to the change in the class character, ethnic composition and loyalties of the persons occupying the big tent known as the state.

This is of course the same logic that applies when talking about Fascist Italy, Right-Socialist Japan, and so on.

I am not necessarily inveighing against that phenomenon.

So with all of that said, where is the argument here? As far as I’m aware, one of the most significant disagreements is largely about the conduct of National Socialist Germany to its East. There are three elements of what happened in that region which are elements of a serious mistake that was made by Germany, a mistake which created excess risk for what—in light of the enormity of what was being fought for by Axis—was relatively little potential gain. Those elements are:

1. The maintenance of Adolf Hitler’s historically romanticised view of getting ‘living-space’ in places where it was not strictly necessary to attack, meant that Germany would be creating a fight against potential Central European allies, in order to occupy the land with pregnant German women and frontiersmen, who would then reap the gestational ‘rewards’ of that action 25 years in the future. Is that really a good sense of prioritisation in the opening moves of a war like that one? No. It looks immediately like it is a product of obnoxious hyper-masculine behaviour, which was not properly integrated with any real strategy.

2. The United States had the starting advantage of having almost an entirely geographically self-contained, defensible, and integrated system of industrial production within the North American continent, and a food supply contained within the Mississippi basin which was also defensible. Europe’s system at the time was by far less integrated, more difficult to defend, and less advanced. Europe already had a difficult task on its hands, and with Germany destroying large swathes of Central European infrastructure, removing social institutions, and dis-integrating supply chains, this was only making it more difficult to carry out efficient military-industrial production within the time scale that would have been required so as to stand a better chance against the United States. Surely it would have been easier to collaborate with Central European governments and businessmen, rather than tearing them all down to the ground and then having to re-build it all while simultaneously fighting war. It was relatively less developed to begin with due to those being fledgeling networks of production, some of which were less than twenty years in existence. Tearing it all down only made it even less developed—in many cases in fact completely destroying all production—and multiplied industrial difficulties.

3. Apparent doctrinal contradictions serving as a de-motivator and de-moraliser for populations in crucial locations. Keep in mind that Central Europeans had not passed into opposition. The generalised views espoused by National Socialists were in great part present within the Central European countries. When Germany began officially denying the existence of nations like Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, and Czechoslovakia, this created a needless divisiveness, and it would be very difficult to explain the German behaviour toward them while simultaneously vouching for the idea of ethno-nationalism. In the absence of (a) an explanation for why government-to-government and military-to-military consultation and collaboration was excluded, and in the absence of (b) even a theoretically consistent justification for ongoing occupation, and in the absence of (c) at least a promise of any future independence, the situation would cause many who were otherwise well-disposed toward the cause to pass into opposition if only to defend the existence of their own ethnic groups in the face of what was a direct assault from Germany.

Now, any one of those reasons standing by itself, might cause someone to argue that they might be able to make it so that the benefit accrued to Germany would outweigh the cost, with respect to the larger agenda of war being conducted against the United States and against Russia.

But with all three points taken together as synergistic and inseparable as a complex system—an ecology—it becomes very clear that the conduct of Germany in Central and Eastern Europe was an inadvisable and unacceptable risk. Taking a preference for disrupting the complex systems that were the Central European nations, for the sake of ‘living-space’, rather than collaborating with the systems as they existed, produced an additional and unnecessary drag against European war-fighting capabilities, which heightened the risk of dis-integration of supply chains and thus heightened the risk of being defeated. You’ve heard of Richard III of England’s line “my kingdom for a horse!”, now try “my empire for the next shipment of ball-bearings within the appropriate time scale.”

This is the way that I look at it, it’s very much an Asian perspective that looks at the ‘big picture’, and it’s a view that I know is at odds with many of the people who criticise Majorityrights. But it is not an irrational view, and I wish that the critics would think about these issues and reflect on the errors where errors exist. I am in no way proposing that this is the sole reason for Axis difficulties in Europe at that time, but I am saying that it is a factor which certainly didn’t help the situation.

A way to the correct line

I would reiterate as well, that this is not a moralising condemnation of Germany, nor is it a moralising condemnation of those who have criticised Majorityrights. I am standing entirely apart from petty-moralist considerations and I am only talking about what I see as a matter of bad risk assessment and bad prioritisation by them when carrying out war of position and war of manoeuvre.

There are no belaboured moral statements or revisionist endorsements here, and so any liberals who are hyperventilating somewhere out there saying “isn’t this too much?”, I’d invite those liberals to take slow, deep breaths, and to not start making noises at me or overreacting.

Most of this post has been about the past, but it also has importance for the future as well, because getting the correct line on this issue of the past, allows people to also get the correct mass line for the future as well and to learn from mistakes. European ethnic-nationalists can be great if they can repair this rift between themselves, with all sides acknowledging errors where errors have occurred. It’s crucially necessary going forward, so that Europe can correctly define its borders and stand as one, as ‘Europe, whole and free’.

I’d like to also add that although the temptation for many to view it this way will be strong, this article should also not be interpreted as a ‘challenge’ issued by me to Carolyn Yeager. There will be no ‘Kumiko Oumae vs. Carolyn Yeager’ catfight-showdown at sunset with knives, so any observers having those thoughts ought to put away the popcorn, at least for now.

This is only an invitation for conversation and perhaps conflict resolution. Something that is characterised less by knives, and more by tea and biscuits. Maybe.

Kumiko Oumae works in the defence and security sector in the UK. Her opinions here are entirely her own.

Tags: Activism, Business & Industry, Cultural Marxism, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, European Union, National Socialism, New Right, Political analysis, That Question Again

Comments:

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:47 | #

While Kumiko is coming to this with a fresh perspective (and certainly not exactly overlapping my perspective), I should probably bring her up-to date on some hypotheses that I’ve suggested as being likely to contribute to the issue of advocating and resurrecting Hitler and Nazi Germany - to not only an unhelpful extent for those who purport to be advocating White nationalism, but to take it to an absurd unanimity which somehow blinds them to the fact that it is an anachronistic concern, that it will be divisive and pit Whites bitterly against one another.

Some of the reasons that I have suggested for the surprising popularity and currency of promoting the (absurd ideas) that we should either all get behind Hitler in complete unanimity, or we should not let a “little thing” like Hitler and Nazi Germany come between us, are:

1. That the White population of the U.S. is by far German(ic). This leaves them more inclined to a perspective that Hitler and Nazi Germany were right as they see things falling apart around them and the Jewish causes of that disintegration. To deny any truth to the anti-Nazi propaganda of bygone decades would also be tempting, as they have less perspective on the guilt trips being laid on German history.

They would be suffering under its direct weight and obstruction of vision and be preoccupied with the sheer effort of trying to unburden themselves of the guilt trips; and attribution of their singular responsibility as the “source of all misdeeds.” It would be easy for those of other nations in particular to see that is not true and that persons of this generation in particular, bear no responsibility for whatever errors there may have been at the time, and understand that even then there were instigating causes, but that more relaxed understanding may not be apparent to German Americans.

The second largest White demographic in America is Irish. Their people were not in line of the Nazi juggernaut, and they have had a history of mutual antagonism with the English which could also feed into a greater tendency to be overly sympathetic to Nazi Germany as they view America being destroyed around them.

Many White Americans are part German and part Irish.

2. William Pierce: Just about everyone who is sold on Hitler to the point of unanimity seems to have come through the William Pierce school. Franklin Raeckert suggested a reason to me as to why that has come about.

That is because Pierce himself did not have the same contempt toward Slavs that Hitler did and therefore projected his own good will onto Hitler incorrectly and sold that false benign view along with selling WN on Hitler altogether.

3. Then the Internet created a bubble wherein the people who want to believe this view that Hitler and Nazi Germany were perfect and anything said about its misdeeds were a lie, could circulate and reconstruct its currency unchallenged by those less sympathetic.

There is also the unfortunate fact of those who will attempt to extract money and popularity by pandering to this niche market and its distortions.

I am sorry to dredge these matters up again, but Kumiko felt it was important to take up from her perspective and I must agree that it is important because it is among the most divisive issues in White nationalism.

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:05 | #

Great points, Daniel. I think that the whole phenomenon of the bubble merits a lot of examination, and it’s good that you’ve taken up the matter of what kind of people would gravitate toward the ‘100% uncritical view of Adolf Hitler’, because it’s key to understand them so that it can be possible to deal with them and show them where the blind spot in their perspective is.

A lot of this activity and echo-chamber talk is going on within the English-speaking world and has been almost like epistemic closure, particularly in the United States which has a large English-speaking population of German-descended people and Irish-descended people, who in fact outnumber the Anglo-Saxons in there now.

So, another point that I would add to the ones that you’ve listed is that there may be a language barrier involved in all of this as well. The language barrier would serve to marginalise many Central and Eastern European voices. Those are precisely the voices that would have been needed in order to foster a balanced approach to Pan-European regionalism, because they would have provided insight into the perspectives and lived experiences of people who are not from Western Europe and whose voices need to be heard in order that intra-regional European interests could be harmonised more coherently.

Posted by katana on Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:09 | #

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Mon, 10 Aug 2015 11:21
DanielS has been accused of being ‘anti-German’, and by proxy I have therefore been accused of abetting ‘anti-German’ thought.

Nothing could be further from the facts. DanielS is not ‘anti-German’, and I’m not abetting ‘anti-German’ thought.

DanielS has, now and then, said that he is not “anti-German” although he has given that strong impression at various times. Let’s just say he’s not “pro-German”.

I think DanielS would stand by that, although qualified no doubt, six ways to Sunday.

When I put up the article about how ‘English genetic heritage is not German’, it was entirely for the purpose of showing a way of dispelling the usual liberal sloganeering in the UK that begins with the false appeal to the so-called ‘fact’ of English being all ‘mixed German immigrants’, which is then inexorably extended into a claim that ‘since they are already beyond identification, what is wrong with a little more mixing?’

OK, but by entertaining the lunatic left/liberal/ and ultimately jew argument that the English are not fully “native” to England because they are made up of an assortment of European blood is to legitimize a stupid and evil argument.

By trying to diminish the “German” component of English ancestry all your article was doing was accepting the evil jew argument that the English people are all basically “immigrants” and shouldn’t therefore mind accepting their country being flooded by Africans. By arguing that the German component is actually less than thought you are giving ammunition to those that want to promote nonsense. No English person would consider themselves less English because of any adjustment of any particular White blood.

…without having to literally endorse every single ridiculous action and personal preference of Adolf Hitler, every member of the SS, and the general staff of the German Army. Sometimes people do things that are really bad ideas.

No one seriously endorses every single “ridiculous action”, etc. This is begging the question and each action needs to be debated on its merits.

It is possible to have a nuanced view, and my view is nuanced.

It can come across as simply leaving everything up in the air and trying to please all.

So with all of that said, where is the argument here? As far as I’m aware, one of the most significant disagreements is largely about the conduct of National Socialist Germany to its East. There are three elements of what happened in that region which are elements of a serious mistake that was made by Germany, a mistake which created excess risk for what—in light of the enormity of what was being fought for by Axis—was relatively little potential gain. Those elements are:

You go on to spout mostly conventional court historian viewpoints.

The unconventional, revisionist view that makes more sense to me is that all of Germany’s war decisions were based upon being caused by the needs of survival, to defend themselves by offensive actions.

Organized jewry had, going aback decades before WWI, decided to destroy Germany. WWII was engineered by them to finish the job that started with WWI. The jews using their proxies, the USA, UK and USSR wanted a war with Germany and any excuse would do.

BTW, Kumiko I’m still waiting for your response on the subject of the controlled demolition of the three main buildings on 9/11.

—————————

For my latest blog post, Henry Ford — Part 9: Wages , click here >>> KATANA

[http://katana17.wordpress.com]

Posted by DanielS on Tue, 11 Aug 2015 15:18 | #

DanielS has, now and then, said that he is not “anti-German” although he has given that strong impression at various times. Let’s just say he’s not “pro-German”.

You are full of it, Katana.

I am pro-all Europeans and their discreet nations.

Part of the reason why I don’t loudly jump on the pro-German bandwagon is because there is already enough of that, overcompensatingly so, in White Nationalism.

But because I am negative on HItler and Nazi Germany you and your kind try to say that is “anti-Geman.” It is a lie and an ad hominum smear.

You can’t prove that I am anti German (or insufficiently pro German) because it isn’t true.

That’s your problem.

Kumiko plans to respond to you on building 7 but has had better things to do - it’s a bit tedious and protracted a homework assignment that you’ve given, tedious to prove a negative especially to one who will not be persuaded.

We have as much chance of persuading you otherwise as getting you to agree that Hitler is not one who should be held up as a figure for all White people to rally behind (absurd as your position is).

If she does answer these questions for you, will you please go worship building 7 and Hitler somewhere else and not accuse me of being “anti-German” because I don’t share your reverence for Hitler and Nazi Germany?

Thank you.

The only reason I put up with you here is because Kumiko wanted a chance to answer you at least once.

I am not going to permit you to come here and try to smear me as “anti-German”, etc among other nonsense that you try to promote.

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:38 | #

Before I respond to you, Katana, I should say yet again that I’ve had to edit your post to insert quote tags, because you decided to write a post without using any and it was indecipherable. Use the quote tags next time.

Also, regarding your question about 11 September 2001, I told you before that I’d give you a response once I’d looked at what you gave me, and it is taking me a while to go through all of it. Furthermore, I generally dislike 9/11 conspiracy theories, so you asking me to go and look at all that and give a response, was basically you creating work for me that I don’t even want to do, because the whole 9/11 conspiracy theorist scene and the rhetoric contained therein, is packed full of raving hyper-American patriotic quasi-libertarian idealists who I’d sooner punch in the face than talk to. So you should be thankful that I’m willing to subject myself to having to read stuff by them at all.

I’ll give you a response eventually, and it will be a full criticism of all of it.

Now to address your comments for this topic:

katana on Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:09 wrote:
DanielS has, now and then, said that he is not “anti-German” although he has given that strong impression at various times. Let’s just say he’s not “pro-German”.

I think DanielS would stand by that, although qualified no doubt, six ways to Sunday.

In other words, he is not ‘anti-German’, which is exactly what I was saying in the first place.

OK, but by entertaining the lunatic left/liberal/ and ultimately jew argument that the English are not fully “native” to England because they are made up of an assortment of European blood is to legitimize a stupid and evil argument.

I did not entertain it, I engaged it and destroyed it.

By trying to diminish the “German” component of English ancestry all your article was doing was accepting the evil jew argument that the English people are all basically “immigrants” and shouldn’t therefore mind accepting their country being flooded by Africans.

No. By arguing that English people are 100% indigenous to the British Isles, I totally and completely destroyed the foundation of the ‘immigrant’ argument.

By removing the foundation of the argument, I make it impossible for liberals to build an argument in the first place. I’m not sure why that should be difficult to grasp.

By arguing that the German component is actually less than thought you are giving ammunition to those that want to promote nonsense.

No, I am not giving them any ammunition, I totally destroyed their argument from its foundation.

No English person would consider themselves less English because of any adjustment of any particular White blood.

Actually, they would indeed consider themselves to be ‘less British’ if they accepted the ‘German immigrant’ narrative, and that is a problem for reasons that should be absolutely obvious.

No one seriously endorses every single “ridiculous action”, etc.

Tell that to Carolyn Yeager. Go and read her site and the sites of others like her, and you’ll discover quite quickly what ‘endorsing every ridiculous action’ looks like.

...each action needs to be debated on its merits.

Yes, which is precisely what I’m doing in my article, and you literally are here sidestepping those arguments because you seem to think that I am making some kind of anti-Axis argument, even though I’m talking about ways in which the Axis cause would have been better served if the Germans had taken different actions on a select number of issues.

The fact that I’m even writing in this way at all, suggests that I am starting from the premise that the Axis cause was beneficial to those who adopted it. Apparently that is not even good enough for you. You want me to be completely uncritical of anything that Germany did. Why?

It can come across as simply leaving everything up in the air and trying to please all.

In what possible way could it ever come across like that? Nothing is left ‘up in the air’. From the perspective of most people, that article I’ve written would not be ambiguous in any way at all. How much plainer would you like me to write? It is literally impossible for me to be any clearer than I already have been.

Rather than everything being up in the air, my position is pretty clear, and everything is nailed down to the floor.

You go on to spout mostly conventional court historian viewpoints.

Really? In which western country would you regard any of that as ‘conventional court historian’? Also, you said that ‘each action needs to be debated on its merits’. I have literally done that, and rather than actually engaging the points that I made, you instead chose to try to dismiss it as ‘conventional court historian viewpoints’.

The point I have been making about Central Europe concerns actions. I argued against some of the actions based on their merits. What’s the problem?

The unconventional, revisionist view that makes more sense to me is that all of Germany’s war decisions were based upon being caused by the needs of survival, to defend themselves by offensive actions.

That’s just a talking point, that doesn’t tell me anything. Everything in the whole world is based on the need to survive, saying that doesn’t tell me a single thing about whether the actions that were taken were workable or non-workable actions.

Organized jewry had, going aback decades before WWI, decided to destroy Germany. WWII was engineered by them to finish the job that started with WWI. The jews using their proxies, the USA, UK and USSR wanted a war with Germany and any excuse would do.

That is just a talking point about the Jews. It’s completely redundant because we all agree already that Jewish groups lobbied within the Allied powers for war against Axis, and that the USSR was run by a Bolshevik regime which was staffed by Russians and Jews.

Reciting that back to me when you know that I know it and I know that you know it, doesn’t tell me anything new and doesn’t address the criticisms that I made of the strategic choices made by Germany.

All you end up doing is bringing a vague accusation against me as though I am being wishy-washy, when in fact you are the one being wishy-washy because you won’t address anything!

Posted by katana on Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:58 | #

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:38

Thanks for your reply.

Before I respond to you, Katana, I should say yet again that I’ve had to edit your post to insert quote tags, because you decided to write a post without using any and it was indecipherable. Use the quote tags next time.

OK, but I did put every quote in “quote marks” and also each item separated by—————lines.

Also, regarding your question about 11 September 2001, I told you before that I’d give you a response once I’d looked at what you gave me, and it is taking me a while to go through all of it.

A couple of weeks have gone by, …

Furthermore, I generally dislike 9/11 conspiracy theories, so you asking me to go and look at all that and give a response, was basically you creating work for me that I don’t even want to do, because the whole 9/11 conspiracy theorist scene and the rhetoric contained therein, is packed full of raving hyper-American patriotic quasi-libertarian idealists who I’d sooner punch in the face than talk to. So you should be thankful that I’m willing to subject myself to having to read stuff by them at all.

I’ll give you a response eventually, and it will be a full criticism of all of it.

As I clarified in subsequent comments I am only asking you to respond to the opinion of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth that the twin towers and WTC were brought down by controlled demolition. There is no “conspiracy theory” involved here so you needn’t hold your nose while looking into it.

[http://www.ae911truth.org/]

It is simply the professional opinion of 2,000 plus qualified architects and engineers that those building were brought down by some form of controlled demolition. There is no “conspiracy theory” discussed, just the science of how those three building were destroyed.

At this stage of the discussion let’s confine it to the above topic and forget about any, “theories”.

Thankfully, yours.

BTW, readers this discussion started here (and I assume will continue there): North Atlantic: You Have Spread Your Dreams Under Their Feet

[http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/north_atlantic_you_have_spread_your_dreams_under_their_feet]

————

For my latest blog post, Henry Ford — Part 9: Wages click here >>> KATANA

[http://katana17.wordpress.com]

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Wed, 12 Aug 2015 17:34 | #

I don’t think that it’s right to characterise your position or that of the AE911 website as ‘not being a conspiracy theory’, given that the entire thing literally reads like a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory which would serve the interests of Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda-inspired groups, by shifting the focus away from them, and onto the US Government as though the US Government is somehow ‘hitting itself’.

I’ll address it in the thread that this had originally started in, as I had intended to do.

Heritage and slogans

Sometimes mistakes are made

A way to the correct line

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments