"As a zealous anti-Communist, [John Beaty] regarded much of America’s Jewish population as deeply implicated in subversive activity, therefore constituting a serious threat to traditional American freedoms. In particular, the growing Jewish stranglehold over publishing and the media was making it increasingly difficult for discordant views to reach the American people, with this regime of censorship constituting the “Iron Curtain” described in his title. He blamed Jewish interests for the totally unnecessary war with Hitler’s Germany, which had long sought good relations with America, but instead had suffered total destruction for its strong opposition to Europe’s Jewish-backed Communist menace."
"Beaty also sharply denounced American support for the new state of Israel, which was potentially costing us the goodwill of so many millions of Muslims and Arabs. And as a very minor aside, he also criticized the Israelis for continuing to claim that Hitler had killed six million Jews, a highly implausible accusation that had no apparent basis in reality and seemed to be just a fraud concocted by Jews and Communists, aimed at poisoning our relations with postwar Germany and extracting money for the Jewish State from the long-suffering German people."
"Furthermore, he was scathing toward the Nuremberg Trials, which he described as a “major indelible blot” upon America and “a travesty of justice.” According to him, the proceedings were dominated by vengeful German Jews, many of whom engaged in falsification of testimony or even had criminal backgrounds. As a result, this “foul fiasco” merely taught Germans that “our government had no sense of justice.” Sen. Robert Taft, the Republican leader of the immediate postwar era took a very similar position, which later won him the praise of John F. Kennedy in Profiles in Courage. The fact that the chief Soviet prosecutor at Nuremberg had played the same role during the notorious Stalinist show trials of the late 1930s, during which numerous Old Bolsheviks confessed to all sorts of absurd and ridiculous things, hardly enhanced the credibility of the proceedings to many outside observers."
Well, I'll say this: Hitler did not deal with those who disagreed with him the way Trump does. Whatever else you can say about them, Hitler and his National Socialist regime were a tyranny of epic proportions, as were the other Axis powers -- including the Soviet Union, of course, which was a Hitler ally until Hitler stupidly launched Operation Barbarossa.
That's not to say Hitler wasn't fighting the ancient Money Powers and so on; just that none of us here would want to be living in Hitler's Germany (or Japan or Italy etc of the time).
During World War II, Hitler's Germany executed between 15,000 and 77,000 opponents of the regime. The Gestapo arrested and imprisoned up to 800,000 for political reasons. Almost everyone who ended up in its cellars was beaten and tortured.
And two, the General staff planners had calculated they could be fighting a mobile war for 3 months only.
When did the tank battle of Kursk play out? 1943? How many months?
So ... question: how did they do that?
The 1941 Winter indeed brought everything to a halt. It slowed to advance. What would have happened, had Operation Barbarossa commenced 2 months earlier, as had been the plan?
And it, the tank battle at Kursk, was just months after the debacle of Stalingrad in 1942/1943. All they had to do was hold out.
Considering these things, one had to wonder, whether indeed was "stupid" as you claim. The more so, since Joseph Mustache Stalin blurted out to FDR in 44, when the latter claimed Hitler to be stupid: You really think a stupid man can get to a Great Leader like me? I considered becoming a NSDAP gauleiter, because on a personal level: Adolph likes me.
Stalin knew, it was only by the skin of the teeth of the soviet slaves ....
What would have happened, had Operation Barbarossa commenced 2 months earlier, as had been the plan?
No one knows, because that's not when the invasion was launched. Two months earlier certainly would have given the Germans more time before the notorious Russian winter got into full swing. But that's not when Hitler chose to go.
And of course the invasion turned a friend and ally into an enemy: the country with the largest land mass of any on Earth and with a huge population was now an implacable enemy with an endless supply of soldiers. As Stalin once pointed out, in reference to the relatively low-quality of most Soviet weapons compared to the finely machined guns (early in the war, at least) of the Germans: "Quantity has a quality all its own."
I don't see any reason to change my opinion of Hitler.
friend? wow .... temporary local common interest. The scourge of commie propaganda and terrorism was rampant.
And besides, as for choice, The commitment of troops and material was jinxed by Italian fuck ups in Greece and the Balkan. To secure the flank, something had to be done.
As far as your opinion is concerned, you are under no obligation to change that.
stupid: mentally slow, lacking ordinary activity of mind, dull, inane,
The scourge of commie propaganda and terrorism was rampant.
That's always the way with Communists. Pretty much the same with the Nazis, of course. R.J. Rummel spent his career researching Death by Government (the title of his book, first published in the 1980s). He found the Nazis were #3 on the mass-murder list of the 20th century, behind the Soviets and the Communist Chinese (the Chinese Nationalists weren't exactly choir boys either).
61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime
(etc)
As for Hitler's stupidity: I repeat that launching Barbarossa when he did (or at all, frankly) was probably stupid, even if "something had to be done" at that point in time. For that matter, starting World War II wasn't such a great idea either. If not stupid, then certainly psychopathic; something like 70 million people died and many more than that were injured, orphaned, traumatized, made homeless, or harmed in some other way. And there's no denying that things did NOT go the way Hitler planned or hoped: so probably not a smart choice.
Hitler's "stupidity" wasn't a lack of brain power; it was the kind of stupid that has its roots in emotional damage. Bad choices, warped views, too much action based on old feelings being expressed towards things in the present, and so on. Just my opinion, of course.
Of course. It is not necessary to label government with infamous names. All government is the leading cause of death.
There is an interesting book: Tax Revolt. It delineates all known tax revolts. hahaha, it lines up perfectly with history. Either governments revolt against a tribute, resulting in war, or try to exact tribute from another country, with rape, pillage, death and disease on its heals.
On a smaller scale, people do the same thing. Protesting tax, levies, tributes, robots [ corvee, service in kind], draft, you name it. Why is that? We' ll get to that a little later[1].
Who started WOII? I am not sorry to say so, but you are typically deep into the: we good guys always pardigm. No, UK, USA played a very foul ploy and the continuation of the war AFTER Dunkirk was totally unnecessary from a logical point of view. A peace proposal with far reaching concessions by Germany was made. Alas, drunk Churchill would think differently. But really, his money masters thought differently.
In a sense, comparing the Peloponnese War, especially the part played by Athens in the Delos confederacy, it is quite clear that when government goes into the direction of forcing its people to support something, instead of the other way around, shit happens. In Athens, it meant twice the downfall of Athens. In this case: twice the downfall of the UK. [we are watching the last vestiges of it][2]
As Freeman Dyson, a former member of bomber command succinctly said with shame: the [fire]bombing orders were unnecessary.
Yet, people followed orders. Only a few said no, and were executed, or sentenced to long prison sentences.
But ... it is logic when look at from a different perspective: This war was wanted by money interests. Since 1933, these interests have frustrated, boycotted, sabotaged any process that lifts people up from despair.
You think FDR with his green new deal was a success? Or typically American? It is a shameful program that has made everyone dependent on big gov, grew the federal government out of proportion and set the people up to participate in the war they wanted on the wings of incessant propaganda. And many among the American people fell for it. The hate the left exudes towards those who think different is difficult to describe, but currently you can see it iteration.
When you would compare contemporary writings of Marx and Stirner, the differences could not be starker. And as usual, socialist / commie policies revolve around the perpetration of unlawfulness.
And this is why people protest taxes, levies, robots, etc. Because it IS unlawful. It is theft, often based on warped reasoning, sucking life-force from those choosing to give in. And this is why governments protests tribute. For the very same reason.
If this would have been your reason to say: stupid, I would have agreed with you.
[2] I am not a psychologist. As far as I am able to analyze things, and I have listened to many of Hitlers speeches, and read his book, and some other source material, he was quite aligned with himself, living out his design. It does not mean I judge his policies, for good or bad, it is just a observation from a human perspective.
When it comes to things he was in favor of, or against, there is much, I am reluctant to admit, I agree with. And this brings me to means and methods.
It seems to me, that he has curbed his idealism with pragmatism, and not shying away from paying in kind. He was politically savvy enough. Many of the process steps on the international arena, reminds me of what Putin is doing. Step 1, step 2, etc, careful, always trying to not escalate, while pushing through ruthlessly his own agenda, driving hard bargains.
I think it would be easy to compare the Munich 1938 agreement with the Minsk II accord. It is almost the same type of agreement and subsequent behavior from those resisting a movement against their predatory schemes.
A populist is in essence connected to the general senses of the population. He does not try to mold, direct, change, redirect, the morality of the people, but tries to connect to it, embody it. An ideologue, be they Marxist or worse: Straussian or simply: power hungry [Macchiavellian], tries to mold, direct, change, redirect, the morality of the people by repression, distinction, double standards, blowing up the very fabric of society, creating havoc and superimposing his own solutions to the problems he himself created.
It explains why the current clique is vehemently anti-populist. Stalin, FDR, Churchill were no populists. They were ideologues or in the service of ideologues.
No, UK, USA played a very foul ploy (in starting the war, I assume you mean)
Yes, I know that and agree. That's not to say I agree with Hitler's actions leading to the war, including invasion of other countries.
the [fire]bombing orders were unnecessary.
Absolutely. Leveling entire cities, and firebombing entire cities especially, in both Europe and Japan -- not to mention the nukes on Hiroshima and and Nagasaki -- was not just unnecessary but breathtakingly evil.
the continuation of the war AFTER Dunkirk was totally unnecessary . . . A peace proposal with far reaching concessions by Germany was made
Did not know that, but if so, it follows the pattern of the Japanese trying to surrender but America refusing supposedly because the Japanese insisted on keeping the Emperor as a figurehead . . . then after we dropped the two nukes we LET THEM KEEP THE EMPEROR anyway.
Yet, people followed orders. Only a few said no, and were executed, or sentenced to long prison sentences.
Yes, that's always the way with government. Sooner or later, evil and corruption gain control of the mechanisms of Power and shit like that happens: Vile, inhumane, and simply WRONG orders are given and people who refuse are punished. That's one reason I'm an Abolitionist / Voluntaryist; the Ring of Power really MUST be destroyed because it both corrupts the innocent and ATTRACTS the corrupt to itself. It is also Hellishly addicting. And it never ends well; the relatively small ember of Power embedded in the Constitution is what grew to the tyranny we now live under.
You think FDR with his green new deal was a success? Or typically American?
Good Lord, no. MOST American presidents have been wrecking balls, battering away at the (mostly) positive elements framed in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. As you know, FDR was far from the first; Woodrow Wilson (also not the first) is the one who signed off on the Federal Reserve and the income tax. And even before the avalanche of fiat those horrors unleashed to the Cabal, the US military was used as "thugs for corporate interests in Central America" (and elsewhere) as Smedley Butler put it. In War is a Racket, He confessed that:
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909–1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
A populist is in essence connected to the general senses of the population. He does not try to mold, direct, change, redirect, the morality of the people, but tries to connect to it, embody it. An ideologue, be they Marxist or worse: Straussian or simply: power hungry [Macchiavellian], tries to mold, direct, change, redirect, the morality of the people by repression, distinction, double standards, blowing up the very fabric of society, creating havoc and superimposing his own solutions to the problems he himself created.
From the interview:
"As a zealous anti-Communist, [John Beaty] regarded much of America’s Jewish population as deeply implicated in subversive activity, therefore constituting a serious threat to traditional American freedoms. In particular, the growing Jewish stranglehold over publishing and the media was making it increasingly difficult for discordant views to reach the American people, with this regime of censorship constituting the “Iron Curtain” described in his title. He blamed Jewish interests for the totally unnecessary war with Hitler’s Germany, which had long sought good relations with America, but instead had suffered total destruction for its strong opposition to Europe’s Jewish-backed Communist menace."
"Beaty also sharply denounced American support for the new state of Israel, which was potentially costing us the goodwill of so many millions of Muslims and Arabs. And as a very minor aside, he also criticized the Israelis for continuing to claim that Hitler had killed six million Jews, a highly implausible accusation that had no apparent basis in reality and seemed to be just a fraud concocted by Jews and Communists, aimed at poisoning our relations with postwar Germany and extracting money for the Jewish State from the long-suffering German people."
"Furthermore, he was scathing toward the Nuremberg Trials, which he described as a “major indelible blot” upon America and “a travesty of justice.” According to him, the proceedings were dominated by vengeful German Jews, many of whom engaged in falsification of testimony or even had criminal backgrounds. As a result, this “foul fiasco” merely taught Germans that “our government had no sense of justice.” Sen. Robert Taft, the Republican leader of the immediate postwar era took a very similar position, which later won him the praise of John F. Kennedy in Profiles in Courage. The fact that the chief Soviet prosecutor at Nuremberg had played the same role during the notorious Stalinist show trials of the late 1930s, during which numerous Old Bolsheviks confessed to all sorts of absurd and ridiculous things, hardly enhanced the credibility of the proceedings to many outside observers."
...the "heart of the matter"...
Before I read it, tell me what he thinks about Stalin, and I will tell you really how red pilled he is!
...no shortcuts...
...listen the interview...
Confess it. You didn't really listen to it that far did you? ;)
...material like this, I let play in the background while I dig up more stuff...
...there is a transcript if you want to go that route...
Looks like very minimal in terms of Stalin's real role.
...that is what I gathered...
...which leads to the next question...
...In an essay that names names and steps on toes...
...why were the actions of one of the principal players glossed over?
...there are no coincidences...
Tell me if he thinks the nazis were left or right wing.
Well, I'll say this: Hitler did not deal with those who disagreed with him the way Trump does. Whatever else you can say about them, Hitler and his National Socialist regime were a tyranny of epic proportions, as were the other Axis powers -- including the Soviet Union, of course, which was a Hitler ally until Hitler stupidly launched Operation Barbarossa.
That's not to say Hitler wasn't fighting the ancient Money Powers and so on; just that none of us here would want to be living in Hitler's Germany (or Japan or Italy etc of the time).
https://theins.ru/en/history/259425
Also:
https://yandex.com/search/?text=The+White+Rose+resistance
https://search.brave.com/search?q=Soviet+Union+allied+with+Hitler+early+on
What if there was no other option?
And two, the General staff planners had calculated they could be fighting a mobile war for 3 months only.
When did the tank battle of Kursk play out? 1943? How many months?
So ... question: how did they do that?
The 1941 Winter indeed brought everything to a halt. It slowed to advance. What would have happened, had Operation Barbarossa commenced 2 months earlier, as had been the plan?
And it, the tank battle at Kursk, was just months after the debacle of Stalingrad in 1942/1943. All they had to do was hold out.
Considering these things, one had to wonder, whether indeed was "stupid" as you claim. The more so, since Joseph Mustache Stalin blurted out to FDR in 44, when the latter claimed Hitler to be stupid: You really think a stupid man can get to a Great Leader like me? I considered becoming a NSDAP gauleiter, because on a personal level: Adolph likes me.
Stalin knew, it was only by the skin of the teeth of the soviet slaves ....
No one knows, because that's not when the invasion was launched. Two months earlier certainly would have given the Germans more time before the notorious Russian winter got into full swing. But that's not when Hitler chose to go.
And of course the invasion turned a friend and ally into an enemy: the country with the largest land mass of any on Earth and with a huge population was now an implacable enemy with an endless supply of soldiers. As Stalin once pointed out, in reference to the relatively low-quality of most Soviet weapons compared to the finely machined guns (early in the war, at least) of the Germans: "Quantity has a quality all its own."
I don't see any reason to change my opinion of Hitler.
friend? wow .... temporary local common interest. The scourge of commie propaganda and terrorism was rampant.
And besides, as for choice, The commitment of troops and material was jinxed by Italian fuck ups in Greece and the Balkan. To secure the flank, something had to be done.
As far as your opinion is concerned, you are under no obligation to change that.
stupid: mentally slow, lacking ordinary activity of mind, dull, inane,
That's always the way with Communists. Pretty much the same with the Nazis, of course. R.J. Rummel spent his career researching Death by Government (the title of his book, first published in the 1980s). He found the Nazis were #3 on the mass-murder list of the 20th century, behind the Soviets and the Communist Chinese (the Chinese Nationalists weren't exactly choir boys either).
(etc)
As for Hitler's stupidity: I repeat that launching Barbarossa when he did (or at all, frankly) was probably stupid, even if "something had to be done" at that point in time. For that matter, starting World War II wasn't such a great idea either. If not stupid, then certainly psychopathic; something like 70 million people died and many more than that were injured, orphaned, traumatized, made homeless, or harmed in some other way. And there's no denying that things did NOT go the way Hitler planned or hoped: so probably not a smart choice.
Hitler's "stupidity" wasn't a lack of brain power; it was the kind of stupid that has its roots in emotional damage. Bad choices, warped views, too much action based on old feelings being expressed towards things in the present, and so on. Just my opinion, of course.
Of course. It is not necessary to label government with infamous names. All government is the leading cause of death.
There is an interesting book: Tax Revolt. It delineates all known tax revolts. hahaha, it lines up perfectly with history. Either governments revolt against a tribute, resulting in war, or try to exact tribute from another country, with rape, pillage, death and disease on its heals.
On a smaller scale, people do the same thing. Protesting tax, levies, tributes, robots [ corvee, service in kind], draft, you name it. Why is that? We' ll get to that a little later[1].
Who started WOII? I am not sorry to say so, but you are typically deep into the: we good guys always pardigm. No, UK, USA played a very foul ploy and the continuation of the war AFTER Dunkirk was totally unnecessary from a logical point of view. A peace proposal with far reaching concessions by Germany was made. Alas, drunk Churchill would think differently. But really, his money masters thought differently.
In a sense, comparing the Peloponnese War, especially the part played by Athens in the Delos confederacy, it is quite clear that when government goes into the direction of forcing its people to support something, instead of the other way around, shit happens. In Athens, it meant twice the downfall of Athens. In this case: twice the downfall of the UK. [we are watching the last vestiges of it][2]
As Freeman Dyson, a former member of bomber command succinctly said with shame: the [fire]bombing orders were unnecessary.
Yet, people followed orders. Only a few said no, and were executed, or sentenced to long prison sentences.
But ... it is logic when look at from a different perspective: This war was wanted by money interests. Since 1933, these interests have frustrated, boycotted, sabotaged any process that lifts people up from despair.
You think FDR with his green new deal was a success? Or typically American? It is a shameful program that has made everyone dependent on big gov, grew the federal government out of proportion and set the people up to participate in the war they wanted on the wings of incessant propaganda. And many among the American people fell for it. The hate the left exudes towards those who think different is difficult to describe, but currently you can see it iteration.
When you would compare contemporary writings of Marx and Stirner, the differences could not be starker. And as usual, socialist / commie policies revolve around the perpetration of unlawfulness.
And this is why people protest taxes, levies, robots, etc. Because it IS unlawful. It is theft, often based on warped reasoning, sucking life-force from those choosing to give in. And this is why governments protests tribute. For the very same reason.
If this would have been your reason to say: stupid, I would have agreed with you.
[2] I am not a psychologist. As far as I am able to analyze things, and I have listened to many of Hitlers speeches, and read his book, and some other source material, he was quite aligned with himself, living out his design. It does not mean I judge his policies, for good or bad, it is just a observation from a human perspective.
When it comes to things he was in favor of, or against, there is much, I am reluctant to admit, I agree with. And this brings me to means and methods.
It seems to me, that he has curbed his idealism with pragmatism, and not shying away from paying in kind. He was politically savvy enough. Many of the process steps on the international arena, reminds me of what Putin is doing. Step 1, step 2, etc, careful, always trying to not escalate, while pushing through ruthlessly his own agenda, driving hard bargains.
I think it would be easy to compare the Munich 1938 agreement with the Minsk II accord. It is almost the same type of agreement and subsequent behavior from those resisting a movement against their predatory schemes.
A populist is in essence connected to the general senses of the population. He does not try to mold, direct, change, redirect, the morality of the people, but tries to connect to it, embody it. An ideologue, be they Marxist or worse: Straussian or simply: power hungry [Macchiavellian], tries to mold, direct, change, redirect, the morality of the people by repression, distinction, double standards, blowing up the very fabric of society, creating havoc and superimposing his own solutions to the problems he himself created.
It explains why the current clique is vehemently anti-populist. Stalin, FDR, Churchill were no populists. They were ideologues or in the service of ideologues.
Yes, I know that and agree. That's not to say I agree with Hitler's actions leading to the war, including invasion of other countries.
Absolutely. Leveling entire cities, and firebombing entire cities especially, in both Europe and Japan -- not to mention the nukes on Hiroshima and and Nagasaki -- was not just unnecessary but breathtakingly evil.
Did not know that, but if so, it follows the pattern of the Japanese trying to surrender but America refusing supposedly because the Japanese insisted on keeping the Emperor as a figurehead . . . then after we dropped the two nukes we LET THEM KEEP THE EMPEROR anyway.
Yes, that's always the way with government. Sooner or later, evil and corruption gain control of the mechanisms of Power and shit like that happens: Vile, inhumane, and simply WRONG orders are given and people who refuse are punished. That's one reason I'm an Abolitionist / Voluntaryist; the Ring of Power really MUST be destroyed because it both corrupts the innocent and ATTRACTS the corrupt to itself. It is also Hellishly addicting. And it never ends well; the relatively small ember of Power embedded in the Constitution is what grew to the tyranny we now live under.
Good Lord, no. MOST American presidents have been wrecking balls, battering away at the (mostly) positive elements framed in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. As you know, FDR was far from the first; Woodrow Wilson (also not the first) is the one who signed off on the Federal Reserve and the income tax. And even before the avalanche of fiat those horrors unleashed to the Cabal, the US military was used as "thugs for corporate interests in Central America" (and elsewhere) as Smedley Butler put it. In War is a Racket, He confessed that:
Nicely put.
...compelling addendum...