Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘wwii’

In The World Wars, There Were No “Good Guys”

Thursday, August 10th, 2017

Viewing historical events not as clashes of “sides” as in a football game but as complex interactions of cause and effect achieves a greater clarity than one can have with the “political” view that selects for good guys versus bad guys. The latter view will always be more popular in democracy because of its need to create emotional motion among the masses in order to get anything done.

Looking more closely into these wars, it is easy to see that principles were the essence of the conflict, which imitated the Napoleonic Wars and ensuing disruption of European history through the fallout from the French Revolution. It is also easy to criticize some events, such as genocides, but more important to view those as inevitable consequences of decisions made to mobilize masses. National Socialism, for all of its appearance of being totalitarianism, required the same mass-culture mobilization as the democratic West did, and this required simple symbolism such as attributing all the problems of the world to a race of oily hook-nosed creatures. That in turn set into motion events that compelled the seemingly autonomous leadership to act out policies which helped defeat them.

At the same time, looking into the supposedly “good guys” reveals that the same type of demonization occurred, and resulted in a tacit acceptance of everyday war crimes:

”You didn’t have to go down the street and enroll in some courses at the University of Pennsylvania to know what he meant,” Sheeran explains. ”It was like when an officer would tell you to take a couple of German prisoners back behind the line and for you to ‘hurry back.’ You did what you had to do.”

When seen through this lens, the world war period — since the two wars were continuations of the same conflict, itself arising from the instability brought on by the French Revolution — indicts not one side, but mass culture itself. Wherever groups of people must be emotionally manipulated for political ends, things end badly for humankind.

WWII Ruined America

Monday, July 24th, 2017

Future history books will record that the United States lost the second world war because although she defeated her opponent, she damaged herself so much in the process that she collapsed.

Most people suffer from what I call the fundamental fallacy, which is the thought that the world they know will not change broadly even if they alter it. For example, people in the 1960s thought they would continue living in the old America, just with more Leftism, and were shocked in the 1990s when it actually changed at a basic level because of what they did to it.

Americans in WWII thought that American stability was a blank check. To them, they could bet on everything being the same, and could manipulate this population into achieving their immediate objectives without losing the vitality that made America powerful. Instead they killed the goose that laid golden eggs by savaging the founding population and replacing it with incompetents.

For example, consider the Frankfurt School. The Americans wanted some kind of philosophical justification for the war and so they went to a group of ex-European, mostly-Jewish academics and asked for ideas contiguous to the Renaissance, Enlightenment™, and French Revolution. What came out of there was a mandate for why Hitler was wrong and America was right, but it shaped America in turn.

This shaping took them by surprise. Most people have zero idea how much they are programmed. Language consists of concepts; these are taken as assumptions, and then deductive logic is applied. For example, if society is dedicated to individual freedom, why should marijuana be illegal? If America is dedicated to equality, why does that not apply to African-Americans? If people are “equal” — whatever that means — then how can some end up rich, and some poor, without “us” fixing that?

So America shaped itself by what it had to do to justify getting through the war, and then when people got home they were not interested in fixing yet another big problem, so they did what humans and other primates always do, which is blow it off. Then the next generation, looking for a cause to rebel against the greedy postwar mania for middle class values of profit and personal advancement, dusted off those old documents and took them as a starting point.

Cause to effect. Yesterday’s effect is today’s cause, like an eternal chain of events. If you whack a ball with a croquet mallet, and it rolls into another ball, it transfers momentum there. If you start with a pot of tomato sauce, and add onion, the possibilities open to you have narrowed to only some of the recipes possible with tomato sauce (if you add shrimp, the pool is even smaller). And so, the American dogma that won them the war then conquered them.

The other problem the Americans faced was that democracies are lazy and so will keep around a program that seems to “work” even if it has bad side-effects until something better — enriching the middle class more, perhaps — comes along. This meant that many programs which seemed to do well under wartime were carried into peace, making the peace more like perpetual warfare, which is generally how repressive regimes keep their people motivated. An enemy to the front, and machine guns at the rear.

In fact, people loved the sense of actual motivation through war. To see why requires looking back at recent history proximate to them. After WWI, America launched into la-la land with the 1920s, which were — like the 1950s to come — obsessed with wealth and prestige and privilege and all those other good middle class fetishes. But the mania did them in. Out of an urge to become wealthy, Americans poured money into the stock market and then engaged in herd behavior, which made them easy to manipulate by cynical investors, leading to the sheep getting fleeced as they always do. It also created such market momentum that the crash which invoked the Great Depression was all but inevitable.

The next decade consisted of people looking for scapegoats. It could not be that the greed and stupidity of the average investor brought about this crisis, oh no. It must be that some evil force is at work, perhaps even capitalism itself! Both in the US and Europe, everyone turned a bit “commie” during the 1930s, at least among the middle classes, where the bolshi “educated” people looked down on those sun-reddened lower middle class types who clung to God, nation, guns and distrust of socialism.

Once the next war kicked in, Americans were sort of glad for it. After the last war they had become much more powerful than other European-descended nations, and there was no reason to expect this one to be any different. Not to mention that they knew that to end the Great Depression, the country would need a new gold rush and also, some reason to stick together, since now that the Irish, Italians, Greeks, Jews, Russians, and Negroes had the vote, America was essentially many different groups at war, tearing the nation-state apart.

So war it was. War brings togetherness, and also, fat government contracts. Those in turn pay obese paychecks to the middle class. Those in turn spend those obese paychecks on whatever they could, which during rationing was mostly war bonds, which paid off handsomely as well. The cycle seemed like a perfect terrarium, where government dumped money in at top and then sealed the system and it kept that money in circulation, gaining value each time because someone wanted it badly enough to raise the price they were willing to pay.

They forgot traditional American and European wisdom, which is TANSTAAFL — there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch — and the notion that productivity is better than “re-financialization,” or making money by selling existing assets as investments. After all, you must plan for the next moment in order to survive the last and live in the current, and so planning for productivity in the future is the only way to ensure that your money is safe today.

On top of that, they had to engage in a number of hacks, little ad hoc adjustments which did not fit within the overall plan but helped keep it hitching along, in order to keep the terrarium thriving. First, since all the men were at war, they hired women, and found that women are in fact ideal employees.

For those who are mature enough to realize that every race, ethnic group, caste, and sex has its own advantages and disadvantages, we can talk plainly about women. Women have a certain mentality that works really well for some things, but becomes an invisible pitfall in others. For example, women love plans. You can tell a woman, “Honey, for the next six months we are going to eat nothing but bear fat and onions, but then, we will have enough oregano to head to the big time and we’ll got to Vegas” and she will relax and be happy. After all, there is a plan. The fact that it is a mentally defective plan may occur to her later, but for the time being, she is glad for stability. And it is that desire for stability that makes women so dangerous in the workplace: they act toward stability, everyone getting along, and doing what the instructions say, even when the instructions are a bit cracked.

A woman then becomes the perfect employee. Tell her what to do, and she does it. She feels comfortable the more carefully planned everything is, and shies away from those ad hoc male-style behaviors. She loves procedure and is comfortable taking time to go through the pro forma activities that protect workplaces from legal liability and too much dynamic change. If she is single, she will work long hours because being at work is better than staying at home, pining for some guy to call who is away at war anyway. In women, the American workplace found robotic little fanatics who were less likely to rock the boat and therefore, were a boon to job stability for middle managers.

Women working meant that the home was no longer the home. It was a place to be when you were not working. And even that changed, as women found they had more spending money and nothing to do but flirt around with the few men who were available. This changed American attitudes toward sex and dating, and created a precedent that a man should not know the history of his woman, mainly because he might be upset by what he finds. “With a corporal? In the coat room? Eeeyack!”

The seeds of divorce were sewn in these years. Children became accustomed to having two working parents: one was working at war, the other in the factory. Women became bossy and prone to throw their weight around, since they had paychecks too, now. Men came to view women not as perfect angels, but as properties, ranking them just like their bosses did when it came time to assess raises. Many widowed women meant that remarriage and dating became common parts of the landscape. Sudden influxes of young men back from the front created money-making opportunities that many women just could not ignore. Oral sex went mainstream because of the wartime experience.

Other changes were just as vast. People adapted to the fact that there were propaganda posters everywhere, exhorting people to do everything from buying war bonds to reporting that neighbor who might just be a German spy. Since these posters reflected real fears along with the usual government nonsense, people began to trust them, just like they trusted government and media to be telling them the truth, which brought newspapers back into renown after their reputation had taken a hit during the yellow journalism scandals of the previous century. Censorship of movies was accepted, but more damagingly, insertion of message into movies was accepted: it was generally recognized as okay and fine that Hollywood films urged us to the same things that were found in the propaganda posters. Movies, media, and government working together laid down a framework that was recognizable clear into the 1980s, when the 1920s-born people who fought the war were hitting their 60s.

As part of this acceptance of message, another framework emerged: the idea that you could not say “no” to. When the entire country is united in fighting a war, the answer is always “support the troops!” and anyone who resists is seen as in effect saying they oppose the war. At that point, the entire structure is threatened. If the war is bad, government is bad, movies are bad, and the new mass culture and its behaviors are bad. A whole roomful of scared angry faces turn on the dissenter. And so, just as in Soviet Russia the right answer was “for the Party, of course, comrade!” in America the right answer was “for the war effort, of course, brother!”

With this came the idea of diversity, or a violation of the commonsense xenophobia of all natural species by accepting certain foreign groups as “good” because they were on our side. Chinese, long the scourge of the American West for their tendency to seize who labor markets and set up opium dens and whorehouses, were suddenly the good guys, as were those Russians who had seemed a thorn in our side before. And the negroes that most people feared because of crime, unpredictable behavior, licentiousness and being genetically different? They were our negroes again because they were on our side, and so they were good, and how could we have segregated facilities for these brave men who helped us fight National Socialism?

But even more destructive was the idea that our side was not our side at all. It was the “right” side. This meant that we threw aside the old wisdom, which was that each group was self-interested just as individuals are, and if you want stability you have to manage those competing interests, and replaced it with the illusion of world government. There was a Right Way, and those who resist that are backward and outdated and evil, and so we will crush them not because we are greedy raiders, but because we are the Good Guys. Only a population drunk on profits and scared out of its mind by a real war would believe that one, but it became part of our landscape of assumptions, and persists to this day. Barack Obama’s “the arc of history” and “the right side of history” are expressions of this fundamentally progressive myth, which was adopted in order to con large segments of a population into accepting fratricidal wars.

American mass culture — different than organic culture, which is thoroughly Western European and is basically an English sentimentality balanced by a German practicality — still lives in the house that WWII built. We are surrounded by propaganda constantly through advertising, and much of it pitches to political virtue, or the art of being seen as virtuous by a herd steeped in egalitarian propaganda. We are accustomed to working women, de facto prostitution, movies with political messages, obedience at work, questions we cannot say “no” to, and other parts of the hangover of the second world war. The only difference is that back then, they recognized those as expedients toward a purpose, where now, they are purposeless assumptions that form the basis of our way of life.

World War Two Was A War Best Avoided

Monday, July 3rd, 2017

It seems like heresy to say that America should have avoided participation in WWII, but a sensible conservative position would have kept America out of the conflict:

The Weekly Standard, a conservative journal, quoted Mr. Dondero further: Mr. Paul “does not believe that the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler. He expressed to me countless times, that ‘saving the Jews’ was absolutely none of our business.”

…This apparent reluctance to wage war on Nazi Germany goes beyond Mr. Paul. In his 2008 book Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War, controversial author Pat Buchanan (who himself once ran for the Republican presidential nomination) documents this dark, enduring niche in American conservatism. Mr. Buchanan blames Churchill, not Hitler, for the Second World War.

It is unclear how much “saving the Jews” factored into public calculus of entering the war, since the details of the Nazi anti-Jewish campaign were not widely revealed until the year after the war ended.

However, the broader question is whether we should fight wars against other European powers if not strictly necessary, given that we as European-descended peoples are a tiny majority worldwide.

Even more, we should ask whether we should ever fight an ideological war, that is one where we defend democracy and liberalism against those who are more Right-wing than us.

It is clear that wars like Vietnam, Iraq and Korea have a certain sensibility to them in that they check the spread of ideologies which like a disease consume nearby nations and then grow more powerful as a result. Islam and Communism have a lot in common because both are mass manipulation based on ignoring the differences between people, so long as they affirm the ideology.

But what, really, do we care if parts of Europe remain monarchies or Right-wing governments? We can still interact with them, and approve of the good they do while rejecting the bad.

As in the French Revolution, where the rise of Leftism began a campaign to take over the world so that it could be reformed in the Leftist manner, American wars like WWII resemble ideological crusades more than practical actions.

And when we look over the vast fields of the dead, realizing how we condemned the best of two generations to die for beliefs that have self-destructed in our time, we can reconsider and realize that the World Wars were mistakes and nothing more.

Why No One Should Commemorate D-Day

Tuesday, June 6th, 2017

Every June 6th, the media and patriotic brain-dead conservatives fawn over D-Day, the event that occurred 73 years ago when the Allied forces invaded Fortress Europe. Instead of celebrating reputable holidays, we commemorate a People’s Holiday for a war no one won.

It does not require us to be National Socialists, or even to have felt that the National Socialists offered a better alternate because on the whole they did not, to notice that World War Two was a war for democracy, which is essentially the antechamber to Communism.

As Plato wrote 2400 years ago, democracy naturally leads to tyranny of the sort promised by Communism: a revolt of the plebes, overthrow of social order and caste structure, and its replacement with many equal people dependent on government. When this happens, the intelligent and good die out and are replaced by the kind of thoughtless, short-term, high time preference and low foresight people found in the third world.

Democracy arises from a long chain of events that occur with the pitfall of success. When one task is vanquished, another one arises, and this one is invisible because it is intangible. A society that thrives must find a long-term purpose other than its citizens and their individualistic wants, or it falls prey to egalitarian thinking.

The West succeeded beyond all other civilizations in recent history, but by doing so, it bred and attracted people who wanted simply to participate instead of participating in an active culture. These went into cities, started businesses and became prosperous, and quickly — i league with the Church, foreign groups and secret societies — began agitating for power over those above them in the hierarchy.

With prole revolt, the West overthrew the social order that had worked so well for it, and began a thousand-year fall into Leftism, which triumphed with the end of WWII and since that time has ravaged this society so thoroughly it is unrecognizable. Leftism is egalitarianism, which arises from individualism, which comes from hubris or the “me first” attitude that denies the natural hierarchy of ability.

On D-Day, democracy won its greatest victory since the French Revolution, and a mere twenty years later the people of the West — drugged on postwar economic booms and Leftist self-congratulatory rhetoric — voted for their own ethnic replacement. They were not aware that this was what they were doing, but this is the failing of democracy: voters are not personally accountable, nor do they experience direct consequences, so they treat voting like going to the circus and choose whatever they think makes them appear to be wise, compassionate, generous and most of all, egalitarian. Democracy always goes Leftward for this reason.

As happened in World War One, the West sacrificed many of its best to destroy those who opposed democracy, and drugged itself with talk of freedom, equality, liberty, tolerance, pluralism, justice and peace as a way to explain away the obvious collapse of civilization. Generations despaired. Culture faded away. Religious faith died, and the family was hollowed out.

After 1945, the West still had Communism to keep it in check. Leftism cannot advance when there is an example of how bad Leftism will inevitably become if not opposed, and the rampant murders and genocide of the Stalinist years made it clear that the Soviets had to fall for the Leftist mental virus to continue unchecked. As the 1980s closed and the Soviets fell, Leftism flew free like a pandemic.

Since that point, the West has gone so far democratic and Leftist that it would be unrecognizable and hated by those who stormed the beaches on that first D-Day. As usual, what the politicians promise is an illusion, but like all victims of scams, the voters delude themselves. WWII was a slaughterhouse like the war before it, and we all lost for what the West has become.

For that reason, there is no point celebrating D-Day; it is a tomb, both for those on all sides who lost life and limb in the conflict, and for the West itself. No one won, and the West will never win again until it abandons the arrogant and greedy prole revolt that is democracy.

There Were No “Good Guys” In World War Two

Thursday, May 18th, 2017

Many of us flinch when we see Nazi imagery pop up whenever there is political strife. It is not just that we detest neo-Nazis / white supremacists / white nationalists, who seem to specialize in forming cliques and driving normal people away, but also that we have doubts about Hitler himself.

After all, in his hands Germany was defeated in a costly war, her women raped and her cities bombed into ruin. There were also Jewish people left in German custody who, through neglect or mistreatment, perished en masse. Many of us see this as the opposite of what our people stand for, which is conquest without cruelty and establishment of lasting social order.

In addition, National Socialism had some fatal flaws. It depended on dictatorship and near-totalitarian conditions. It stood in the way of restoring aristocracy. Worst of all, perhaps, it refused to leave behind modernistic thinking, basing itself in both socialism and the idea of treating people as equal units to be stamped with official dogma and made into perfect citizens.

No, leave me out of the HitLARPing, please. It just makes me ill. Not all lost causes are bad, but the best lost causes are those which could have won and endured, not those which were unstable and prone to self-destruct even if their enemies had fallen at their feet.

But with the same spirit of honesty that we criticize Hitler, we should also acknowledge that there were no good guys in WWII. The Soviets were genocidal idiots; the Americans nuked civilians; the British delighted in fire-bombing citizens. On top of that, the Allies were an ecological disaster:

German munitions were dumped in the sea on the orders of Allied forces following their victory over Adolf Hitler in 1945. The US, Britain and France also dumped large amounts of weaponry off their coasts.

Although the majority of the German weaponry dumped was conventional (explosives or fire ammunition), about 40,000 tons contained chemicals including mustard gas, phosgene – a chemical weapon that gained infamy during World War I – and arsenic.

We have fallen so far that terms like “incendiary” for ammunition are now baffling to most readers. You have to distill it to a simple term, like they see on Taco Bell sauce packets. It’s “fire ammunition” now in Democracy-speak.

The war ends, and the victorious Allies — aware of how the voters are tired of the whole thing and want it to just go away — avoid the costly task of disposing of munitions by instead dumping them into the Baltic Sea. Out of sight, out of mind, just like every other pollution control under democracy.

Seventy years later, fish are mutating thanks to this massive dump of toxic stuff (this is unrelated to the term “toxic dump” as used in the context of Taco Bell):

They believe the cancerous growths found on the species known as the common dab could be linked to the estimated 1.6 million of tons of armaments that were dumped at the bottom of the Baltic and North Seas at the end of World War II.

As usual, in democracy the safest bet is to sweep the problem over the rug and to pass it on to future generations. Even if you know the disaster will become a problem eventually. In fact, certain future problems are a great idea to create. That way, you have an excuse to seize power in the next dozen generations as well as the current one.

American Establishment Tries, Fails to Revive Cold War

Sunday, December 11th, 2016

It is hard to tell whether the American media is an organ of its government, or the government an organ of its press. Either way, this group took the original idea of American liberty, which was egalitarian, and converted it into the type of end-times-of-Rome egalitarianism to which any degree of liberalism inevitably expands. They now act together as an ideological bloc that we call the Establishment or Cathedral.

Currently, this Establishment wants you to believe that the Russians interfered with the American election, relying on earlier dubious statements attributing the Wikileaks dump of Democrat emails to the Russians. Official state organ Pravda-On-The-Potomac issued the following communiqué:

The Post’s report cites officials who say they have identified individuals connected to the Russian government who gave WikiLeaks emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee and top Hillary Clinton aide John Podesta. One official described the conclusion that this was intended to help Trump as “the consensus view.”

The report highlights and exacerbates the increasingly fraught situation in which congressional Republicans find themselves with regard to Russia and Trump. By acknowledging and digging into the increasing evidence that Russia helped — or at least attempted to help — tip the scales in Trump’s favor, they risk raising questions about whether Trump would have won without Russian intervention.

This shows us the uncanny insect-like persistence of the Left. They have combined two agendas: overthrowing the election, which they spent $1.2 billion to lose, and unifying their base by creating a new Emmanuel Goldstein. That character was the constant state enemy in 1984, a book written by Leftists to disclaim the more disturbingly accurate Brave New World, an anti-modern diagnosis by Aldous Huxley that argued it was not totalitarianism but mob rule that would do us in.

Leftists have tried several strategies to subvert this election. First, they announced and then performed almost a week of riots which failed because the only people they could recruit were in Leftist stronghold cities, and burning those down bothers very few, since the cost is socialized to insurance and taxes, which is a Leftist tenet anyway. Next, they tried claiming Trump was a Nazi again. When that failed, they announced the recount. Since the recount backfired as voter fraud appeared back on the public television screen, they are trying a new angle.

The Left intends to argue that Trump stole the election with the help of a foreign power, and that therefore, the courts should intervene. It is a simple strategy based on the Leftist majority at the Supreme Court, and it is as dishonest as it is clear. The point is to invent a plausible excuse for overthrowing the election, and then to demand that all goodthinkers get excited about it and demand it, putting pressure on those who do not want to be excluded from the Left-herd to do their duty as good Commu– Democrats.

Naturally, this will also fail. If Russia leaked emails and these unnerved people so much they voted for the other side, that is hardly a convincing case for intervention. The media is hoping always that it can present two stories side by side and then by shaking up the narrative, get them to blur together. One story is that the digital voting machines were interfered with; this is the recount myth. The other is that Russia leaked emails. Blur them, and you get “Russia hacked our computers and helped Trump steal the election,” which is exactly the kind of slogan that demagogues want to see carried in filthy little hands during the next round of riots.

Their second agenda is more insidious. The Left, following its birth from peasant revolutions and the French Revolution, always needs a symbolic enemy; this takes the form of the enemy-who-is-not-the-threat. In Revolutionary France, for example, the actual threat was overpopulation and continued European conflict; the false target, or official state enemy, was the King. During WWII, the actual threat was the Soviet Union, but the fake enemy was Hitler, who was not concerned with the USA except as an intervening party in a European conflict against Leftism.

With the rise of Trump, the fake enemy of Hitler finally fell. This was helped by Brexit and the populist revolt in the EU which essentially affirmed that Hitler was right about diversity and Leftism: both were paths to a uniquely European doom. The Lügenpresse came out all guns blazing to call Trump and his supporters racists, KKK, Nazis, Hitler, etc. and the Trump team shrugged it off. They had no guilt, and their supporters, who had witnessed the rise of extreme Leftism — a.k.a. moderate Leftism given power — under Barack Obama and the ensuing war on whites and anyone else with money, simply did not care. So the old enemy, Hitler, fell, and the Left has to vary it up a bit.

Our new pseudo-enemy in Russia takes after not the Reagan years of fighting Communism, but a far earlier political myth. As with the French Revolution, America was born of overthrowing a monarchic power ruling over it, but the Americans, being savvier to the ways of humans than the French, did not go full democracy because they feared and specifically stated that they feared mob rule. But, a revolution requires a tyrant or it is illegitimate, so the Americans cooked up George III as not just a tax-greedy leader, but a true-blue Platonic tyrant.

This turned out to be half-right, mostly because George III was in an impossible spot owing to British politics, which were no longer monarchic except in name, and in order to keep the UK’s own overpopulation problem in check, and satisfy the wealthy interests that now routinely bumped the elbows of the Crown, he was in a difficult political situation involving apparently unending wars and domestic instability. The “tyranny” imposed on America was mostly that it was taxed to pay for England’s needs, including a union with near-white disaster state Ireland, and that it was ruled from afar by sailing ship, which meant that any command of the king was obsolete long before it arrived at its destination.

In Putin, the Left has found an enemy. He is not a weak leader, which makes him a possible threat. He is not a Leftist leader — the Russians have less than fond memories of their flirtation with moderate Leftism given power — and he has made rumbles of creating an alternative to the Americanization project that is the EU (not NATO, as most Rightists incorrectly identify). His European project is the idea of European cultural unification, not political unification. Most importantly, he has turned down the shibboleths of Leftist goodthink obedience, such as championing gay marriage and diversity.

How much he believes any of this is hard to say. An intelligent realist sees each country as a self-interested actor, and the self-interest of Eastern Europe has always been the conquest of the West. Eastern Europe is formed of those who fled feudal service in the West and, like Satan reigning in Hell, they are mostly content — but always seek to validate themselves and justify their choices by reconquering the higher authority that rejected them. A Revolution, if you will, in parallel to France, but this time comprised of recapturing territory once made off-limits.

The Soviets, never fools, tapped into this mythos among the Russian people when the West became its enemy. The Russians love the idea of finally getting to own Germany, much as they tried to by retaining control and destroying Eastern Germany. They adore the thought of being able to crush Germany again and rape its women. This fulfills a hole in their own souls: the knowledge that they were those who could not make it in Germany or were exiled, as after the Peasant Revolts, fills them with resentment which they think physical conquest can master.

Pure Machiavellian questions also arise. Eastern Europe is broke and starving despite having vast oil reserves, massive amounts of land, and plenty of talented scientists. Prole-rule does not work after all, and in Eastern Europe, the states are all dysfunctional because too many of the people are dysfunctional, as is the condition in Southern Europe and third-world states everywhere. As a result, political myths are more important than reality, which is everyone eating beets after making all of the potatoes into vodka from now until eternity.

Not being fools, or completely fools, the Left have resurrected Putin-as-Hitler instead of Putin-as-Soviet because they need a new Cold War but know it cannot be against Communism. The Americanization project, based in the idea of equality and diversity, is the new Comintern, and the American system is essentially Communism plus working grocery stores — they learned from last time — so if we exhume the Cold War, it will become apparent that we are the new Soviets and the Russians are not really the new Nazis. So we dug up George III, implied he was Hitler and the Confederacy at once now, and hope to send people off to fight the new racist, sexist, xenophobic, ableist, saneist, elitist, realist myth-monster in the political sky.

This puts us at an interesting juncture in history. The Leftist attempts to unseat the presidency have failed for a simple reason: most people, even if they voted against it, are OK with it, especially as signs of health and order return after the positively Soviet Obama years. Trump has ably defeated the slurs against him by treating them as the tantrums of spoiled children, which they are, and the recount effort ended in shambles and the knowledge that Jill Stein just legally defrauded her donors to the tune of millions. The Left is disunified at the failure of its magic words — “racism,” “sexism,” “homophobia” — to cow its adversaries and unite its base.

And so, in the grand tradition of banana republics everywhere, something must be done to tie us all together and most importantly, distract from the fact that we are an empire in decline, a bag of special interests instead of a people cooperating toward a goal we all share. The distraction enemy must avoid the real threat, which is the decline of our civilization and its impending third-world status, by focusing us toward a scapegoat. And so, a new Cold War hybrid with World War Two is born, and yet it is stillborn, and we remain desperate, seeking an escape from reality and an explanation for our failure that does not involve the obvious: the real enemy is, as always, us.

Hitler won and the Holocaust is about to happen

Tuesday, January 27th, 2015

ruins_of_war

WWII ended in 1945 but we fight it every few years in metaphorical form. Like the archetypes upon which it was built, the French Revolution in Europe and the Civil War in the USA, it was the well-intentioned inclusionists versus the evil not so sociable people and this message united the “free world” to truck off to war yet again.

But as we celebrate 70 years at Auschwitz it becomes clear that Hitler won the argument, even if he lost the war, and that for all that the Holocaust was terrifying, it was merely a precursor to the actual genocide of the Jewish people which will use less terrifying methods but be absolute in its success. Like the philosophers and artists who inspired him, Hitler and the German Nazis were always outnumbered and knew they could not win on the basis of strength because the mob always wins. What took the NSDAP down was not superior fighting ability of their enemies, but greater numbers and more materiel, allowing the Allies and their Soviet cohorts to essentially spam German forces with too many targets to shoot and then bomb them into submission.

This mirrors the situation with humanity as a whole: a few smarter people note problems, but are outnumbered. Not just the average person but most except a very few want to keep kicking the can down the road and keep themselves enfranchised in the system even if it collapses. They just want it to collapse after they are done with it, sort of like shoppers hoping for an going-out-of-business sale at their favorite shop.

The Jewish people now face a greater threat not just in Europe but worldwide than they ever did under the Holocaust. This threat comes from the Left who, being far more populist and popular than the right, mask their opinions under moralism and then use that to — much as in the Civil War or WWII — justify destruction of those who disagree. The Left has turned the Palestinians into the new denizens of Auschwitz and will gladly do everything it can to deny the Jewish people in Israel any recourse. The UN, the media, academia and most NGOs have now turned on Israel and by extension, the Jewish people, who by wanting to exist as a people seem to exhibit the kind of nationalist sentiment that enrages liberals about Israel. This dovetails with a general process of assimilation by Jews in their host countries through outbreeding, secularization and most of all, a lack of belief in culture itself as leftism takes over and makes ideology, not culture and social order, the basis of society.

Hitler could be viewed as a philosopher or artist who chose statecraft as his medium. He advanced many ideas, but the biggest were these:

  1. Equality is suicide. The quest to make everyone equal is not only mathematical nonsense, but leads to a complete breakdown of social order. Men and women need different roles, as do different castes in society, and we all benefit when the best are on top.
  2. Internationalism is a failure. Internationalism is the same idea as multiculturalism and diversity: that we can form nations from arbitrary groups. Hitler thought nations needed an identity made from culture and race, and that the “proposition nation” united by ideology and economics was a farce controlled by commercial and oligarchic interests.
  3. People need more than self-interest. Liberalism wants us to aim for “happiness” through enlightened self-interest, but in reality happiness is not found through the self but through discovering how the individual can affect something larger than itself, even if only through participation.
  4. Humanity needs a quest. The idea of humanity as many individuals content to be comfortable is a modern invention. In reality, people need a goal that makes them accept their sufferings and ignore them because they feel that these are trade-offs in order to work toward something better.

While I find his methods abhorrent, and consider Holocaust I to be one of the worst moments of humanity, the fact is that Hitler’s goals are near realization through the hands of his enemies. Thanks to liberalism, Europe and the USA have obliterated themselves financially in pursuit of the egalitarian dream. Although Hitler’s goal was not destruction of worldwide Jewry — he originally planned to relocate them to Madagascar — in Europe and the USA, “diversity” means that many groups who co-exist hate each other as part of their DNA, and so Jews are under attack and now are not protected by the liberal media establishment. Most will simply outbreed and raise their children as atheists, anglicize (or more likely, translate to Spanish) their names and forget any Jewish past. The Jewish people will be obliterated. Already the fruits of diversity have become visible even to a bunch of latent Reds like the BBC:

Ronald S Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress, told the commemoration: “Jews are targeted in Europe once again because they are Jews…

“Once again young Jewish boys are afraid to wear yarmulkes [skullcaps] on the streets of Paris, Budapest, London and even Berlin.”

For the last seven decades we have fought ourselves in the West to avoid admitting in any way that anything Hitler did was right. He is our Emmanuel Goldstein after all, the official state Enemy who must be blamed for all ills and destroyed wherever he, like an ancient god of disease, appears in avatar form. It’s an amusing superstition based in our fear that he might be right after all. Even more than the money we sacrificed on the Cold War, we have sacrificed the wealth of several generations on social programs, civil rights, lawsuits and regulations. We have sabotaged education and turned our children into Soviet-style political actors who will report their parents for a racist joke. Racial equality is but one part of the egalitarian dream which has turned our social experience sour. Everywhere we are surrounded by incompetents and endless rules, bureaucracy and ugly commercialism. These things are necessary for us to all be equal, we are told, so we do not protest. We cannot — to do so is to be called Hitler and fired from our jobs, ostracized and left in homeless camps.

Our society is miserable. Our daily lives are stained by the ugliness of a society that insists on illusions and, when they fail, prefers to sacrifice everything it has instead of admitting that these ideas are non-workable and therefore, the ideology might be wrong. We grind on, crushing ourselves into dust with boring jobs and no-culture living that is unfulfilling, caught up in a neurosis of sexual liberation and obedience to dogma that makes us miserable. You wonder why no one is intervening to stop the disaster. The answer is that they want it to get worse and they want this world to die in flames.

Well, this is a fine state of affairs. I never wanted to arrive at such conclusions, but “I must speak as I find.” I don’t have to like it however. Years of observation have impressed upon me the notion that the misery of modern first-world people is exceeded only by their fanatical and fundamentalist insistence on not admitting that, since to do so is to lose what they have and to realize how much of their lives they have wasted. Seven decades later, we still fight WWII, and like everything else we do, we lose the battle even when we win the war. All of this conceals the real question, which is as simple as it is profound: but how do we fix this?

Recommended Reading