ALT-RIGHT LIES: THE DRESDEN MYTH

What the Alt-Right literally believes

by Colin Liddell, 13 Feb 2019:

One of the myths commonly trotted out on the Alt-Right at this time of year is the Dresden Myth.

According to this meme, trope, narrative, or whatever you want to call it, the bombing of Dresden on and around the 13th of February, 1945, was one of the most horrendous war crimes ever. Indeed, it was so bad that it stands right up there with the Holocaust—which, of course, many in the Alt-Right deny—and the atom bombing of the Japanese as some kind of ultimate and delegitimising evil.

Of course it was bad, but in war all sorts of terrible things happen as a matter of course. So, using Dresden in this way is rather a hard sell. The normies just don’t get it. To them it’s just one more example of a bombing raid, hardly a rare occurrence in WWII.

Even when the Alt-Right exaggerate the casualty figures and throw in some colourful details about low flying bombers machine gunning fleeing civilians, etc., the reaction is still pretty much “meh.”

This doubtlessly has something to do with the fact that the Germans were pioneers in the mass bombing of civilian centres themselves. Here’s a screenshot of an interactive bomb map of London from the Blitz.

Go to the site and check it out for yourself.

So, everybody bombed someone. So what?

But this is where the second part of the myth kicks in. In order to make you care about this particular bombing, we are told that the war was already over when Dresden was bombed, so that, unlike Warsaw in 1939, Rotterdam in 1940, and London, the bombing of Dresden was not a “normal” act of war, but instead just an act of gratuitous cruelty and sadism.

Here is a typical anonymous comment from a Facebook group putting forward this point of view:

Dresden was a civilian massacre. Call it what it is man, the war was OVER….germany’s infrastructure was finished a year before Dresden was torched. Germany’s rail system was bombed to shit, they had no resources and the army was done.

Yes, indeed, if the war was truly over by February 1945, that would make Dresden somewhat worse. Although, it could also be argued that even if the war was “effectively over” it would have been quite hard for people to just shrug off years of war conditioning and start acting normally as rational, humane beings in the flick of a switch.

But was the war effectively over as is claimed?

Of course, in the sense that Germany could no longer win against the massive forces arrayed against it, or even achieve some kind of negotiated peace, the war was definitely over. But in terms of brutal fighting and high casualties for both sides, it was still very much an ongoing affair.

This can be proved simply by looking at data—y’know that old-fashioned way of resolving arguments and variant viewpoints.

First here is a map of the military situation in the middle of February 1945. As you can see, the Nazis still control almost all of Germany and large areas of other countries. Millions of men were still under arms, and the Western allies had yet to cross the Rhine.

Now, in case someone thinks this is just a big map of nothing, and that the millions of German soldiers under arms were just wandering aimlessly around looking for someone nice to surrender to, let’s look at the monthly casualty figures just for the US Army. The figures for the Soviet army, if they were available and reliable, would probably paint and even more convincing picture that the war was still very much at its peak.

Starting from June 1944, when the D-Day landings took place, here are the month-by-month casualty figures of the US Army in Europe (including the Army Air Corps). These figures come from the Department of the Army’s final report on “Army Battle Casualties and Nonbattle Deaths in World War II (7th December 1941 - 31st December 1946). A copy of that report is online here.

Note, casualties include killed and wounded at roughly the proportion of three wounded to one killed.

        1944
        June 49,061
        July 61,454
        August 49,458
        September 54,937
        October 47,725
        November 65,918
        December 80,994

        1945
        January 70,560
        February 43,603
        March 56,282
        April 49,706
        May 2,201
        June 82

As we can see from these figures, US Army casualties were at their highest in December 1944 and January 1945, the months preceding the bombing of Dresden, which occurred in the middle of February. In those months the Western allies had received a nasty shock with a surprise German offensive in the Ardennes (The Battle of the Bulge), when German forces threatened, albeit briefly, to break through to the Channel again.

Also note that US casualties were higher in March and April 1945 than they were in June 1944, the month of the famous D-Day landings and subsequent battles in Normandy, when German forces were at their peak in opposition to American forces. This is so counter-intuitive to what most people know about the war that it needs emphasising: In both the months following Dresden, German military efforts against the Americans were more intense and took a higher toll than they did in June 1944.

The idea that Germany was “militarily finished” when the Dresden bombings happened is thus clearly absurd.

So why does the lying Alt-Right push this retarded myth? The most obvious answer is that they want to evoke sympathy for Nazi Germany. But this raises a further question: Why do they want to evoke sympathy for Nazi Germany?

Knee-jerk hatred of Jews is the obvious answer, but another possible and highly nefarious possibility is that they want to attach White identitarianism, White nationalism, and European self-determination to what is an extremely toxic brand in order to poison it.

They know that people who are attracted to these healthy forms of self-determination are likely to be more open-minded about history and less inclined to believe establishment narratives. Thus they are more likely to be taken in by blatant lies like the Dresden Myth. If that is the intention, then it is clearly an evil one, designed to keep nationalism on its knees as a pathetic victim identity and confined to a Nazi ghetto.

Confirmed: Israel Using DNA Tests to Racially-Screen Would-be Immigrants

TNO 9 Feb 2019:

Israeli rabbinical courts are regularly using DNA tests to test the claims of Jewish racial descent by would-be immigrants in Israel, confirming that Jews are in a fact a biological race, a new report in the Israeli Haaretz newspaper has confirmed.

News of the use of DNA tests has been known as far back as July 2013, when an official statement from the Israeli Prime Minister’s office in Tel Aviv, said that the Jewish government was about to introduce DNA testing to ensure that no non-Jews from Russia enter the country.

       

The new admission in Haaretz is however the first confirmation that the policy is actively being implemented, and is being used to prevent those who cannot prove that they are biologically descended from Jewish mothers, from marrying pure Jews.

According to the new report, in “cases where the Jewishness of individuals seeking to marry is in doubt,” individuals are being asked to “undergo genetic testing” to confirm their Jewishness.

READ MORE...

TruthDig.Org., “The Venezuela Myth Keeping Us From Transforming Our Economy”, 7 Feb 2019:

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is getting significant media attention these days, after Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said in an interview that it should “be a larger part of our conversation” when it comes to funding the “Green New Deal.” According to MMT, the government can spend what it needs without worrying about deficits. MMT expert and Bernie Sanders adviser professor Stephanie Kelton says the government actually creates money when it spends. The real limit on spending is not an artificially imposed debt ceiling but a lack of labor and materials to do the work, leading to generalized price inflation. Only when that real ceiling is hit does the money need to be taxed back, but even then it’s not to fund government spending. Instead, it’s needed to shrink the money supply in an economy that has run out of resources to put the extra money to work.

Predictably, critics have been quick to rebut, calling the trend to endorse MMT “disturbing” and “a joke that’s not funny.” In a Feb. 1 post on the Daily Reckoning, Brian Maher darkly envisioned Bernie Sanders getting elected in 2020 and implementing “Quantitative Easing for the People” based on MMT theories. To debunk the notion that governments can just “print the money” to solve their economic problems, he raised the specter of Venezuela, where “money” is everywhere but bare essentials are out of reach for many, the storefronts are empty, unemployment is at 33 percent and inflation is predicted to hit 1 million percent by the end of the year.

Blogger Arnold Kling also pointed to the Venezuelan hyperinflation. He described MMT as “the doctrine that because the government prints money, it can spend whatever it wants . . . until it can’t.” He said:

To me, the hyperinflation in Venezuela exemplifies what happens when a country reaches the “it can’t” point. The country is not at full employment. But the government can’t seem to spend its way out of difficulty. Somebody should ask these MMT rock stars about the Venezuela example.

I’m not an MMT rock star and won’t try to expound on its subtleties. (I would submit that under existing regulations, the government cannot actually create money when it spends, but that it should be able to. In fact, MMTers have acknowledged that problem; but it’s a subject for another article.) What I want to address here is the hyperinflation issue, and why Venezuelan hyperinflation and “QE for the People” are completely different animals.

What Is Different About Venezuela

Venezuela’s problems are not the result of the government issuing money and using it to hire people to build infrastructure, provide essential services and expand economic development. If it were, unemployment would not be at 33 percent and climbing. Venezuela has a problem the U.S. does not, and will never have: It owes massive debts in a currency it cannot print itself, namely, U.S. dollars. When oil (its principal resource) was booming, Venezuela was able to meet its repayment schedule. But when the price of oil plummeted, the government was reduced to printing Venezuelan bolivars and selling them for U.S. dollars on international currency exchanges. As speculators drove up the price of dollars, more and more printing was required by the government, massively deflating the national currency.

It was the same problem suffered by Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe, the two classic examples of hyperinflation typically raised to silence proponents of government expansion of the money supply before Venezuela suffered the same fate. Professor Michael Hudson, an actual economic rock star who supports MMT principles, has studied the hyperinflation question extensively. He confirms that those disasters were not due to governments issuing money to stimulate the economy. Rather, he writes, “Every hyperinflation in history has been caused by foreign debt service collapsing the exchange rate. The problem almost always has resulted from wartime foreign currency strains, not domestic spending.”

Venezuela and other countries that are carrying massive debts in currencies that are not their own are not sovereign. Governments that are sovereign can and have engaged in issuing their own currencies for infrastructure and development quite successfully. I have discussed a number of contemporary and historical examples in my earlier articles, including in Japan, China, Australia and Canada.

Although Venezuela is not technically at war, it is suffering from foreign currency strains triggered by aggressive attacks by a foreign power. U.S. economic sanctions have been going on for years, causing the country at least $20 billion in losses. About $7 billion of its assets are now being held hostage by the U.S., which has waged an undeclared war against Venezuela ever since George W. Bush’s failed military coup against President Hugo Chávez in 2002. Chávez boldly announced the “Bolivarian Revolution,” a series of economic and social reforms that dramatically reduced poverty and illiteracy as well as improved health and living conditions for millions of Venezuelans. The reforms, which included nationalizing key components of the nation’s economy, made Chávez a hero to millions of people and the enemy of Venezuela’s oligarchs.

Nicolás Maduro was elected president following Chávez’s death in 2013 and vowed to continue the Bolivarian Revolution. Recently, as Saddam Hussein and Moammar Gadhafi had done before him, he defiantly announced that Venezuela would not be trading oil in U.S. dollars following sanctions imposed by President Trump.

The notorious Elliott Abrams has now been appointed as special envoy to Venezuela. Considered a war criminal by many for covering up massacres committed by U.S.-backed death squads in Central America, Abrams was among the prominent neocons closely linked to Bush’s failed Venezuelan coup in 2002. National security adviser John Bolton is another key neocon architect advocating regime change in Venezuela. At press conference on Jan. 28, he held a yellow legal pad prominently displaying the words “5,000 troops to Colombia,” a country that shares a border with Venezuela. Clearly, the neocon contingent feels it has unfinished business there.

Bolton does not even pretend that it’s all about restoring “democracy.” He blatantly said on Fox News, “It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela.” As President Nixon said of U.S. tactics against Salvador Allende’s government in Chile, the point of sanctions and military threats is to squeeze the country economically.

Killing the Public Banking Revolution in Venezuela

It may be about more than oil, which recently hit record lows in the market. The U.S. hardly needs to invade a country to replenish its supplies. As with Libya and Iraq, another motive may be to suppress the banking revolution initiated by Venezuela’s upstart leaders.

The banking crisis of 2009–10 exposed the corruption and systemic weakness of Venezuelan banks. Some banks were engaged in questionable business practices. Others were seriously undercapitalized. Others still were apparently lending top executives large sums of money. At least one financier could not prove where he got the money to buy the banks he owned.

Rather than bailing out the culprits, as was done in the U.S., in 2009 the government nationalized seven Venezuelan banks, accounting for around 12 percent of the nation’s bank deposits. In 2010, more were taken over. Chávez’s government arrested at least 16 bankers and issued more than 40 corruption-related arrest warrants for others who had fled the country. By the end of March 2011, only 37 banks were left, down from 59 at the end of November 2009. State-owned institutions took a larger role, holding 35 percent of assets as of March 2011, while foreign institutions held just 13.2 percent of assets.

READ MORE...

A court today heard Louella’s boyfriend, Ceon Broughton, pictured with Louella above,  gave her a ‘bumped up’ dose of the class A substance and ‘failed to act’ for six hours. Court shown harrowing footage of Louella as she overdosed. Rapper sent texts to friends as girlfriend died.

Daily Mail, “Rapper boyfriend of Holby City star’s daughter ‘filmed her dying and called her a drama queen after he gave her psychedelic drug at Bestival - but didn’t call 999 in case he was arrested”, 5 Feb 2019:

- Ceon Broughton, 29, denies the manslaughter of Louella Fletcher-Michie, 25

- He ‘filmed Louella during and after she died but said she was a drama queen’

- She was found unresponsive on edge of festival site, at Lulworth Castle, Dorset

- Her father John Michie raced to camp after hearing her ‘screeching’ on phone

The daughter of Holby City actor John Michie was left to die from a drugs overdose by her rapper boyfriend who didn’t seek help ‘because he didn’t want to be arrested’, a court heard today.

Former Coronation Street star Michie, 62, and his wife Carol Fletcher made a 130-mile dash to musical festival Bestival as their daughter Louella Fletcher-Michie was dying after taking party drug 2C-P.

A court today heard Louella’s ex-boyfriend, Ceon Broughton, gave her a ‘bumped up’ dose of the class A substance and ‘failed to act’ for six hours despite her needing urgent medical care.

Instead Broughton, 29, stayed in a secluded wooded area with Louella as her condition severely worsened and made a series of video recordings of her on his mobile phone. 

Louella and Ceon (bottom right together) at a family dinner with, clockwise from left: Her actor father John, his wife Carol, brother Sam, sister Daisy and her boyfriend Jamie Jamieson.

Her brother, Sam, contacted Broughton urging him to seek medical help. But Broughton sent Sam a message which said ‘call back in an hour’ and referred to Louella as a ‘drama queen’, the court heard.

Broughton, who has recorded with top rap artists Skepta and Wiley, even filmed Louella after she died - an hour before her 25th birthday.

Jurors were today shown 15 minutes of the shocking footage, in a series of clips. At one point he recorded non-stop for 51 minutes of the evening. Louella could be seen shouting loudly, repeating incoherent sentences and even hitting herself.

The hospital area of Bestival in Lulworth Castle, Dorset, was just 400 metres from the wooded spot where Louella died.

Prosecutor William Mousley QC said Broughton had been given a suspended sentence a month before the incident on September 10, 2017, and didn’t seek help as he ‘didn’t want to be arrested’.

Mr Mousley QC said Broughton ‘put his own liberty before her life’ and said his ‘failure to get her treatment was borne out of selfishness and self-preservation’. He also revealed medical experts believe Louella would have had a 90 per cent chance of survival if she had been given treatment.

Louella Fletcher-Michie was found dead after taking party drug 2CP at the Bestival siteLouella’s boyfriend, Ceon Broughton, gave her a ‘bumped up’ dose of the class A substance and ‘failed to act’ for six hours despite her needing urgent medical care, the court heard.

Louella could be seen shouting loudly, repeating incoherent sentences and even hitting herself in a series of clips

Jurors were shown videos of dancer Louella visibly distressed from the effects of 2C-P and heard Broughton had texted a friend saying ‘I can’t get bagged’ in reference to being arrested.

He also ignored messages from Mr Michie and Louella’s brother urging him to get help after he had spoken to Mrs Fletcher-Michie on the phone and she realised her daughter was unwell.

READ MORE...

LONDON (AP): Liam Neeson says he’s ashamed to admit he had violent thoughts about killing a black person after learning that someone close to him had been raped.

Neeson says that after being told the attacker was black, he “went up and down areas with a cosh [stick or truncheon]” hoping a black person “would come out of a pub and have a go at me about something, you know? So that I could kill him.”

THE GAME IS OVER. THE PATRIOTS LOST: Though I cannot recommend Matt Parrott for his foolish and unwarranted misdirection away from and against the platform here, he is clever enough to turn a good phrase, as in this article, where the issue isn’t too deep for him. However, for one thing, he needs to understand that the Christards are playing a suckers game in line with propositional nationalism, and being beaten badly for it as well.

Since the time in the late 80’s when I prioritized racial interests over the entertainment of sports and music, when I do observe race mixed sporting events or statistics, I root for the individual performance of White players and against individual black players.

Over at Amren, Paul Kersey entitles an article, “Root for the Patriots in the Superbowl”

Although there is something to be said for the Patriots success while using White players in positions usually associated with black skills, as rather an expression of White selection and identity, betraying negrophila some along with its taken for granteds, the teams are still mercenary, not particularly representing a place or race. Thus, I can’t agree with his conclusion that Whites should feel ok about rooting for mixed race teams as it perpetuates the idiot cuckoldry of White fandom and support of the race mixing agenda through one of its most seductive means - visually exciting sports, adulation of athletic skills beyond merit, way beyond real world value and just reward, while ensconced in the deceptive, soothing pretext of passive objectivity.

Kersey writes:

The white quarterback, Tom Brady, along with white wide receivers Julian Edelman and Chris Hogan, white tight end Rob Gronkowski, and white running backs Rex Burkhead and James Develin, are an anomaly in the “vibrant” NFL. They have a vast overrepresentation of skilled white players who not only excel, but dominate.

[...]

With all this whooping about diversity, an anomaly does not go unremarked: the whiteness of the New England Patriots during their historic run under Tom Brady. For this year’s Super Bowl in Atlanta, all eyes are on Mr. Brady, the 41-year-old quarterback, who will be playing in his unprecedented ninth championship game in 18 seasons (this will be his third consecutive shot at the Lombardi Trophy, and Mr. Brady holds a 5-3 record in the Super Bowl).

With that, he suggests:

Root for the Patriots in the Superbowl

It’s OK to be white.

On Sunday, more than 110 million Americans will huddle around their television sets and watch the 53rd Super Bowl, a matchup between the Los Angeles Rams and New England Patriots.

After two seasons marred by black NFL players taking a Colin Kaepernick-style knee or raising a ‘Black Power’ fist during the National Anthem, television ratings slightly improved during the 2018 season.

[...]

So even if you are not a fan of the NFL, or don’t like the antics of black players who knelt during the National Anthem, there’s nothing wrong with rooting for the New England Patriots and Tom Brady to win Super Bowl 53. In a league where 72.6 percent of the players are POC, there’s nothing wrong with cheering for a team that looks a little more like you.

It’s the white thing to do.

He supplies one good reason NOT to root for the Patriots or any NFL team, here:

Ibid. That year, largely because of pressure from the owners of NFL’s 32 franchises, the league saw only a handful of black athletes—who account for 69.7 percent of the players—take a knee during the anthem. A recent poll of NFL fans shows only 24 percent of white fans strongly support the anthem protests, while 59 percent of blacks do (47 percent of white fans and 7 percent of black fans strongly oppose them). Though the kneeling stopped, the owners did create an $89 million fund for the players to hand out to “improve social justice and racial equality in our country.

Related at Majorityrights:

Seduction of NFL Films, Appeal of L.A. Rams 60’s, 70’s, dodging legacy of sports-fan cuckoldry

Our football coaches weren’t Marxists imposing black integration