How the Japan-Poland Thought-Project Demonstrates Race Is More Essential Than Culture

 

Race or Culture, what is more important to a people?

Many will answer ‘culture’ because race is about biology. Unlike animals that are entirely defined by biology, mankind is more than his biological content. A boy raised by wolves or apes in the wild without connection to human culture may appear even lower than an animal. He seems incomplete, whereas animals are complete in their biological composition. A wolf possesses wholeness as a predatory pack mammal. A chimpanzee is complete as a wild ape making funny sounds and humping anything that moves.

In contrast, man is incomplete with biology alone, as the film THE WILD CHILD(by Francois Truffaut) well illustrates. Hugh Hudson’s arty version of GREYSTOKE: THE LEGEND OF TARZAN also shows the deficiencies of the man of savagery without culture, albeit with the Romanticist twist that man of nature is, in some ways, truer than the man of civilization with his inhibitions, deceptions, and hypocrisies. (If Tarzan begins as a white boy raised in the jungle by apes in the proximity of savage black tribes, it seems modern Britain is committed to importing Jungle to Civilization in the hope that sunshiny fat-lipped black soul will kiss and thaw & liberate the frigid English sensibility.)

Culture is so important to mankind that even savages aren’t really savage in the cartoonish sense(though certain Negro behavior patterns indicate otherwise, ironically in the civilized setting, but then the modern cult of individual freedom has unmoored entire peoples not only from old repressions but simple obligations, a condition that has affected the black community especially negatively as blacks are more prone to act ‘crazy’).

Even among savage tribes in the Amazonian forests, Eskimos in the far north, American Indians hunting bison, and Congo jungle-dwellers, there was a complex culture of language, signs, symbols, stories, craft & expressions, and moral values(that, at the very least, applied to the members of the tribe). Savage folks don’t act like Caveman stereotypes in Hollywood movies where they grunt instead of talk and just shove live animals in their mouths. Even the Neanderthals had customs and rituals.

So, mankind, as we know it, simply isn’t conceivable without culture. Of course, culture has purpose only as an outgrowth of or an application onto life. While mankind, brutish and stupid, can exist without culture(albeit in an ugly way), culture cannot exist without mankind, the diversity of which has been manifested through the various races, or variant rivers of genetic flow.
Culture is always an addition to life, not life itself, though it has a profound impact on life and its future.

Also, culture is shaped by the nature of the organism. Different dog breeds can be taught the same lessons, but they learn and respond differently. Different races of mankind can be instructed with the same lessons, values, meanings, and modes, but they will process them differently in accordance to their racial natures. Teach Christianity to blacks, and it turns into a disco for Jesus. Democracy takes on different forms and characteristics among the various races, even ethnicities(though ethnic identity is largely molded by culture).

Naturally, a race with more stable emotions and higher intelligence tends to make more of democracy(or any other form of political organization) than the races with lower intelligence, especially if given to impulsiveness. Surveying the history of popular music, what blacks did with white music and what whites did with black music goes to show that, despite the cultural origin of the music, the racial processes alter the very character of the expression. A white person may act black but, instead of really becoming black, produces a synthesis of white nature and black style. And when blacks imitated white music, they couldn’t help jiggiting it up a little in tune with their own nature. This may account for white sensory fascination with blackness because blacks tend to add salt-and-pepper to white expression. And even though most blacks are loathe to admit any kind of indebtedness due to their Afrocentric megalomania and/or insecure touchiness(which are two sides of the same coin), the more honest among them do appreciate and admire the greater sophistication, complexity, and refinement that whites often added to black culture.

Anyway, instead of arguing race vs culture, the relevant question here is about Race and Which Culture. To put it simply, is it better to survive racially with the culture of another people than to vanish racially while the culture is preserved by another people. For example, would it be better for the Russian people to become Muslims speaking Arabic(while abandoning or forgetting about their Russian culture) OR for Russian culture, history, and language to be preserved by non-Russians(while real Russians fade into oblivion).

The question clarifies what is more important, race or culture. Now, we accept as given that mankind simply isn’t complete without culture, i.e. there is a need for culture, any culture, even not one’s own, in order for mankind to function as Man(contra the animal). So, even if a Russian knows nothing of Russian culture, history, and language, he can still function as a thinking, feeling, and imaginative being if imbued with some culture, any culture.

Indeed, there are countless examples of such phenomena in the US. Many, or even most, Americans know little or nothing of their cultural origins. Most Italian-Americans can’t speak Italian, have never been to the Old Country, and know little of Italian history and the arts. I’ve known Greek-Americans who know less about Greece, modern and ancient, than I do, and I’m no expert on the subject. So, to be functional as a rational and sociable person, a knowledge of one’s original culture isn’t necessary. When Europeans abandoned their indigenous pagan cultures in favor of Christianity that originated among the Semites, they still remained functional on most levels and even gained in certain areas of morality and spirituality. Over time, plenty of Slavs became citizens of non-Slavic lands and made perfectly fine Germans, Frenchmen, and even Englishmen.

So, it is agreed that there is a need for some culture, any culture, in order for man to be complete as a Man. The white boy abducted by some Amazonian forest tribe in John Boorman’s THE EMERALD FOREST(a kind of a twist on John Ford’s THE SEARCHERS) was also raised in a culture which provided him with meaning, purpose, and sense of place. Even at the primitive level, he was raised in a culture and cosmology.

The crucial question is what is more important, racial preservation or cultural longevity? Upon consideration, the preservation of the race seems of the utmost importance. For starters, whereas culture is something we made in a matter of decades or centuries — most ideas and expressions that have lasted for thousands of years were created within a rather short time frame — , we ourselves were made by the massive forces of nature — geography, geology, climate, fauna, flora — through the eons. In this sense, the difference between race and culture is the difference between a mountain and a man-made mound. While we can seek to understand the origins and meanings of culture, we still can’t wrap our minds around the processes that led to the evolution of mankind and the emergence of the various races through tens of thousands of years across the vastness of the Earth. Culture is what we create, but we are what nature created, and the latter is deeper in mystery and sheer awesomeness.

Whereas the oldest civilization is 6,000 yrs old, human races are at least 200,000 yrs old. European History is traced back to the Greeks around 2,500 yrs ago, but the European races have been around for at least 40,000 years. Of course, even prior to the rise of civilizations, the various primitive tribes had cultures(like the few remaining primitive folk do today), but the racial-biological development of man preceded culture. It is the egotism of the human intellect that tends to put ideology before biology, even at the expense of failing to secure the bio-ethnic survival and preservation of a people. So accustomed to prioritizing BELIEVING over BEING and to modern comforts & conveniences, it’s as if our survival and well-being are guaranteed by a set of values and systems of production; such an outlook totally overlooks the fact that NOTHING matters if a people failed to secure their own survival through reproduction and racial consciousness. So-called ‘reproductive rights’ are not about reproduction per se but about the right to end reproduction in favor of ideology and individual impulse, the promotion of which led to the unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

With so much emphasis on creativity(a cultural matter), there’s hardly any discussion of the importance of procreativity(except as a matter of self-fulfillment, i.e. “career isn’t enough to satisfy me, so I need some kids too”). It has degenerated into Extinction Rights and has nothing to do with real reproduction rights. There’s a lack of understanding of Our History, the very map of ethno-story, i.e. that illustrates the connective links from point A to B to C to D to etc. Without a map, one has no sense of place and direction.

A sense of Our History maps the existence, past-present-future, of a people, and one of the key reasons for Jewish Power is a profound sense of Our History. Jewish Consciousness, religious and secular, have a sense of where the Jews began, how they became what they are, what journeys they underwent, where they met the greatest dangers and found the greatest treasures.

Pathetically, whites allowed their sense of Our History to slip into the control of Jews who interpreted White History as an Evil Narrative; besides, White History is just a myth because ‘whiteness’ is really a modern ‘racist’ idea, and therefore European-ness may be claimed by ANY race. Of course, Jews control the entertainment complex that now fill up any movie or TV show about past European History with Negroes in key roles. According to Jewish media, Russians are not European but recently arrived black Africans most definitely are, indeed so much so that they must be put upon the pedestal as idols and icons above white Europeans, the meaning of whose existence according to globalism is to serve Jews, homos, and Negroes.

Because whites no longer own their own Map of Time, they have no deeper or broader sense of self. They only care about the self or individuality. And if they do feel a need for something bigger than themselves, it’s about the historical sanctity of Jews and Negroes mostly, with homos thrown in for good measure. It goes to show that your people must learn to map their own history because, if left up to others, the map will be manipulated to highlight directions and destinies at odds with those of your people. It’s like the notion of the New World is Eurocentric, as if the natives of the Americas lacked a past and culture of their own before the arrival of the Conquistadors, whose explorations made the Americas known to the rest of the world.

Now, let’s consider why Poland and Japan(or any such ethnically distinct nation) may be useful as a model as to why race matters more than culture. Of course, ideally both the ethnos and the culture of the people should remain intact and survive. Poland should be the land of ethnic Poles with their Polish culture, language, and history, just like Japan should be the land of ethnic Japanese with their Japanese culture, language, and history.

But, let’s do a simple mind experiment whereby Poland can exist as a white nation with a non-Polish culture or a non-white nation with a Polish culture. Imagine a Twilight Zone scenario where the people of Poland remain ethno-racially what they are but take on a different culture. Suppose they all turn Muslim and speak Arabic or turn Hindu and speak Hindi and worship cows. Racially, these hypothetical Polacks are just like real Poles by blood, but they no longer remember Polish history, belong to the Catholic Church, speak the Polish language, have a stupid hatred for Russians, and defer to the book of Dumb Polack jokes(written mostly by Jews) as a cultural manual on thought and behavior. They remain ethno-Poles but minus the Polish culture.

In the other Twilight Zone scenario, Polish language, culture, and history remain, but the Poles have been wholly replaced by ethno-Nigerians. Or ethno-Mongols. Or ethno-Hindus or whatever. For some reason, these people regard themselves as Polish and speak Polish and eat kielbasa, sauerkraut, and pierogis and listen to polka music and third-rate imitation jazz. Poland remains culturally but is racially gone, vanished, or replaced. For the extreme culture-centrists, Poland still remains because Polish culture is still ‘alive’.

Of course, both scenarios are visions of hell for the Poles, but which is worse? Loss of Polish culture or loss of Polish ethno-race? If Poles had to choose between Poland turning into a land of ethno-Poles without Polish culture or a land of non-Poles with Polish culture, which one would they choose? Surely, Polucks(or Polish Cucks) will opt for a Poland with Polish culture but no Polish ethnos, but I’ll bet the majority of Poles would rather choose a Poland with ethno-Poles but no Polish culture. It’s Race before Culture because race is deeper and more real than any culture. Nature(or God for the religiously inclined) created man, whereas man created culture, and nature’s work over eons far outweighs whatever mankind has created in his midst. (Of course, the brown-nosing Polucks care neither for Polish ethnos nor for Polish culture, much like the current Anglucks or Anglo-Cucks have relinquished the right of both race and culture. Polucks and Anglucks don’t care if their lands are remade by other peoples and other cultures. Anglucks are resigned to entire British cities being taken over by immi-vaders who not only racially replace whites but don’t even care to preserve Anglo-British culture, and there are plenty of Polucks who don’t care if Poland is replaced both ethno-racially and histo-culturally. All they care about is being smiled upon by globalist elites whom they regard as their superiors.)

What would be closer to your true self? Suppose you are to be exterminated and you’re offered two choices of continuance after your death. One way is to make a genetic clone of you but without the memory of what YOU were and valued. The other is to embed all your beliefs & memory in the head of another person whose DNA is entirely different from yours. Suppose Baptism matters a lot to you, but your clone is raised to be a Mormon. In contrast, the other person is indoctrinated with your exact take on Baptism. Who is more a continuation of what YOU are? What would be more of a continuation of Tom Cruise? A clone who isn’t into Scientology or a Seth Rogan whose mind is programmed with Cruise-isms?

Now, consider Japan. Which would be more like the real Japan? The continuance of the race but the loss of the culture or the continuance of the culture but loss of the race? In a way, modernization has already answered that question at least halfway. Westernization/Modernization has drastically remade Japan, East Asia, and indeed all of the non-Western World. In terms of ideas, values, methodology, habits, and practices, today’s Japanese have more in common with modern Western folks than with bygone Japanese folks prior to the coming of Commodore Perry’s Black Ships.
Indeed, much of Japanese culture has either been erased or simply forgotten, barely existing as museum exhibits or empty festival rituals. Of course, there are many continuities in language, sense of history, and etc. Still, much of the original culture has been lost, probably forever. Still, Japan remains Japan because the people are ethno-Japanese. In the modernization period, there was even some talk of replacing the Japanese language with a European one, and had such been realized, Japan would still have remained Japan because of the ethno-racial factor. After all, Hindu elites in India are well-versed in English(and some of them even speak it better than Hindi and other Indian languages), but they are still Indian above all due to the blood factor.

Saving culture instead of race is doomed to fail even in its stated goal. In time, the people will come to feel that the culture they’re preserving and practicing isn’t really theirs. Imagine you’re a Nigerian as the New Pole but you look at Polish historical paintings, and the images are of another people. I suppose the Nigerian as New Pole can blacken all the faces in the paintings and pretend Poles were always black, but that’s just a big lie and degrades the culture — it’d be like pretending that black slaves in the American South were white or Hindu OR that Jews in ghettos were a bunch of Hawaiians.

Now, certain cultural ideas and practices can be universalized, but much of the meaning of a culture is closely associated with a particular people, like Shintoism and Japanese customs. Furthermore, even something as universalist as Christianity takes on particularist significance and meaning for different peoples of the Faith. What Catholicism means for Poles is different from what it means to the Spanish or the mestizos of South America. Many Poles regard Catholic Church as the stalwart defender of the nation and culture against foreign oppression. In contrast, many Spanish came to regard the Catholic Church as a tool of Franco’s tyranny. Christianity meant different things to Southern Segregationists and the black(and white) followers of MLK, the nasty lout with the big shout.

So, if Nigerians were to become the New Poles in the cultural domain, the shtick couldn’t last for long. In time, the Nigerians would come to reject the culture as not really their own; or they will change it drastically to render it more palatable to black sensibility, resulting in something that bears little resemblance to the original thing. They will surely make use of the culture but as something to exploit than to protect. It’s the difference between butchering an animal for food and taking care of it as a valued specimen.

Indeed, the problems are obvious with blacks in the US(and EU as well). For centuries, whites tried to acculturate blacks to Western standards. Blacks were forbidden to beat on drums and dance like savages. They were given Western names and had to answer to ‘Toby’ than ‘Kunta Kinte’. They were brought to the Christian Faith. But over time with greater freedom and choice, blacks began to feel, “Dis be some honky-ass shit.” Sure, blacks take advantage of white ideas and values — ‘slavery is an absolute evil’ is a Western moral development — , but they don’t embrace them as their own culture.
Besides, even when a people dutifully try to preserve or recreate the culture of another, the result is far from the real thing. Initially, the Germanic Barbarians sacked Rome but, in time, shouldered the burden of imperial legacy. But it was never the same thing. There really never was a Third Rome despite the ambitions of Charlemagne, the Russian Tsars, and Adolf Hitler.

And for sure, the attempt to Anglo-Americanize or Europeanize the Jews failed miserably. Jews make poor standard-bearers of Americanism because, for all their Zeligish exploitation of American freedoms and opportunities, their main loyalty is to Zion and the Tribe. Thus, when push comes to shove, if having to choose between the Tribe and what’s-good-for-America, Jews will choose the Tribe. Jews may argue that their globalism is in allegiance to a higher calling, namely choosing what is good for the whole world than what is only good for America(or ‘America First’), but Jewish ‘internationalism’ is really about the interests of World Jewry. Just ask the Palestinians and countless Arabs/Muslims destroyed by Zion. Just ask the Eastern Ukro-Russians in the Donbass.

Even if the culture is lost, the survival of the race offers the possibility of cultural recovery or renaissance. In some cases, the culture can be recovered and reunited with the race. Modern/Western Archaeology has had a most profound impact on how peoples around the world regard their own sense of selfhood, history, and heritage. Consider the rediscovery of much of Ancient Egyptian culture that had been forgotten or lost under Muslim rule. Their once forgotten past is now an integral part of Egyptian-ness. Cambodians lost the Angkor Wat to the jungles, but French archaeology rediscovered it, and today’s Cambodians cannot conceive of their heritage and history without it. Christian ‘cultural genocide’ nearly wiped out all vestiges of indigenous paganism of Northern Europe, but some of it survived(mostly in distant Iceland) and later came to serve as inspiration and source of deeper identity to the German Romantics and nationalists. At one time, Hebrew was essentially a museum language, ignored by most Jews. But as long as the Jewish ethnos survived, Hebrew could be revived as the official language of Israel, the Jewish nation-state.

Furthermore, even if the entire culture of a certain race or ethnos is irretrievable, lost and gone forever, the racial nature can nevertheless produce future expressions in ‘mythic’ tune with the lost culture. Consider the American blacks who were cut off from Sub-Saharan Africa and only knew the cotton-picking fields of the South. They knew nothing of African folklore, dances, and music. They didn’t know their ancestors were named ‘Wagabunga’ and had names like ‘George Smith’. Their idea of music was imitating white folks’ songs and dance. Despite all that, their racial culture subconsciously reproduced something imbued with the spirit of Black Africa, which was written into their DNA. When the massuh and overseers weren’t watching, they couldn’t help wiggle their butts, pumping their groins, and hollering like James Brown. Even with church music, their racial nature couldn’t help but junglize it and turn hymns into humping noises. Of course, it wasn’t exactly black African culture(as the jungle tribes didn’t have blues and jazz and the like), but it had a similar blackity oogity-boogitiness. It’s sort of a Jungian thing, the seeds of culture within the racial psyche, whereby even if the culture is wholly lost, something of the same spirit is created from the racial nature. If we erased white minds and put a whole bunch of whites on a hypothetical island to produce a culture from scratch, there’s no guarantee that it will lead to what we know of as ‘Western Civilization’. However, the arising culture will be animated by the same kind of spirit and mythos that fueled the Old Europeans. Likewise, if we were to erase black minds and put black folks on a hypothetical island, the result would likely be something along the lines of Black Africa(or Detroit).

As glorious as the achievements of the West are, if one had to choose between losing all the culture and maintaining the race and losing the race but maintaining the culture(for other races to preserve), the former is always preferable. Because, for all the genius and inspiration, culture is the outward manifestation of what lies deep within the nature of man.

Of course, if whites had to create a new culture out of whole cloth without memory of their past, the results will be different from the achievements of the Greeks, Romans, and other Europeans. Nevertheless, so much of what is expressed will have been inspired and fueled by the same temperament, passion, and imagination.

Likewise, if blacks had to choose between preserving the race but forgetting all about blues, jazz, soul, & rap OR losing the race but having other races appreciate and practice black music, which would they choose? Even if they were to lose their current genres of music, they could create new ones grounded in the same soulfulness, and thus, the essence of blackness would be preserved. But if blacks are gone as a race while black culture is kept alive by other races, what the hell is that? Blacks made that shit but other races be enjoyin’ it while blacks be nowhere to be seen. (Granted, in purely civilizational terms, it might not be bad for the World if blackness vanished racially and lingered only culturally in a few musical genres. A Detroit with rap music but no black people would probably spring back to life as a thriving and mostly safe city.)

And what would Jews prefer? Keeping the race and losing the culture or losing the race and keeping the culture… alive in goy hands? Suppose some super-hitler had killed off every Jew in the world, BUT Jewish culture was still prized and preserved by various goyim. Would Jews prefer that over Jews surviving as a people but forgetting their culture? (Jews don’t seem too happy that goyim in the form of Christians and Muslims adopted much of Jewish culture in sacred text and cosmology.) In the end, cultocide is a lesser horror than genocide. If indeed culture means more than race, a super-Holocaust where all Jews are racially exterminated wouldn’t be so bad. It wouldn’t be the end of Jews because any bunch of goyim could culturally become Jews, and then, Jews are all around once again.

If a city faced the destruction of every building, museum, monument, garden, and institution but kept its population, it would be a great loss, but something similar could rise from the rubble. Paris is a city rich in arts and culture, and it would be an incalculable loss to witness their destruction. Still, as long as French people were around, French civilization could be rebuilt… much like German and Japanese cities were rebuilt after World War II. Same was true of Warsaw, of which 80% was destroyed in the war.

On the other hand, if all the arts and buildings remained intact but the population was replaced by another, it would be a wholly new civilization or a barbarism degenerating into savagery(if blacks were to take over). Warsaw suffered tremendous wreckage in World War II, but the Polish people still lived there, and it rose once again as a Polish city. But imagine if today’s nice and orderly Warsaw were kept intact brick by brick but taken over by the Chinese, Hindus, Arabs, or Africans. Chinese, Hindus, and Arabs could make use of Polish buildings and infrastructures, but their societies wouldn’t be Polish, which would survive only as an empty shell for other peoples to use and exploit. If blacks took over Warsaw, they would turn it into another Detroit. They will dismantle the city brick by brick if left to their own devices. So, race always matters more than culture. Hiroshima was smashed to bits in World War II, but the surviving Japanese rebuilt it. But imagine if today’s Hiroshima were left intact but its native population replaced by blacks. That would be another Detroit.

There are Two Sides to the West: Jewish West and White West — One is Formula for Power, Other is Formula for Weakness — Paradox as to why the West attacks Goy Nations that opt for the Jewish West Formula(way of power & life) while flattering Goy Nations that opt for the White West Formula(way of weakness & death) — Life/Death Paradox of Jewish-run Globalism

The West and the Rest. It is one way to look at the world as, for several centuries, the West has led and the Rest has followed. Because the West, despite its tragedies and setbacks, went from progress to progress and from strength to strength, the Rest has looked to the West as a model of the Future, what to do and how to do it.

Of course, the demarcation between the West and the Rest hasn't always been clear. Parts of the West, like Southern Italy and Greece, have remained as backward as the Third World nations until the 1960s. Turkey, as a bridge and/or barrier between the West and the East, hasn't been easy to define in historical and civilizational terms. And modern Japan, at least for a time, seemed more comparable to developed Western nations than with other East Asian nations(that have since caught up with modernity, more or less).
Germany has been considered as part of the West since the end of World War II, but it wasn't always so. Germans during World War I were regarded as no better than ancient tribes of Huns, and National Socialist Germany is regarded as a historical pariah, an outlier and anomaly, that defies Western categorization. Indeed, especially in the aftermath of World War II, what is often called the 'West'(or part of 'Western Civilization' imbued with 'Western Values') has been narrowly defined in terms of allegiance(and submission) to Anglo-American Hegemony(that, in time, came under the control of Jewish supremacism).

Russia is now perceived by Western elites as part of the Rest. Not that Russians much care about their 'outcast' status. Unlike insecure toady Poles who, as self-loathing Slavs, are ever so eager to win approval from the West, Russians can take pride in their own history and culture. Amusingly enough, the 'West' rejects Russia and denounces it as irredeemable but then gripes about how Russia has drawn closer to Rest, especially China and Iran.

Anyway, what is the Rest to think of the West? In the second decade of the 21st century, what can the Rest gain from the West, as both positive and negative models?

First, we must acknowledge there are Two Wests: The Jewish West and the White West.

And this leads to a paradox. Why? Because the current reality is as follows.

1. The Jewish West is the part of the West as controlled by Jews in service of Zionic hegemony. It is about consolidating Jewish power and bolstering Jewish Identity. Furthermore, it is about pressuring goyim, especially whites, to honor and serve Jewishness & Zionism above their own identities and interests. Indeed, for the lowly goyim, there shall be no interest before Jewish interests, just like Yahweh commanded, "There shall be no gods before Me."
As for non-white goyim, they may nurture their own identities but mostly as weaponized expressions against whiteness but never above or against the identity and interests of Jews. Arab-Americans can take pride in being Arab, but they better not take part in BDS against Zionist supremacism. Chinese-Americans may be proud of being Chinese but must put Jewish Power before Chinese interests... like the whore Amy Chua does.
Jewish West is about Jews expanding their own power and about the goyim, especially whites, praising Jews to high heaven and pledging to obey and serve Jews first and foremost.

2. The White West is the other prominent part of the West. In the past, the White West was dominant. It was Christian and nationalist. And some Western powers were in imperialist and even supremacist mode. Back then, Jews served the White West, especially in the days when the Christian Church, European Nobility, and White Race-ists held the most power and prestige.
But that White West had faded from history. All that is left of the White West is sappy cuckery before Jews who demand that whites surrender to Afromania, Globo-Homo, and of course to the Holy Holocaust Cult. The White West today can never be about white identity or white interests. Indeed, the White West not only denounces white identity and white interests as 'racist' but questions the very concept of whiteness as nothing but a deranged fantasy.
If the Jewish West is about pride, the White West is about shame. If the Jewish West is about how all must honor and defend Jews, the White West is about how all must revile and condemn whiteness.

Of course, there are times when whites are allowed some passion/aggression BUT ONLY WHEN in the service of Jewish Power. So, Jews praise whites for serving as attack dogs of Zion in destroying Arab/Muslim nations hated by Israel. Jews praise white generals, politicians, and pundits for barking loudly at Iran and Russia(and increasingly China). Jews praise 'good whites' for barking at 'bad whites': the 'deplorables', 'white supremacists', and 'insurrectionists'. (Indeed, the loudest passion among many whites is their virulently anti-white hysterics in total obeisance to Jews and Negroes.)
Just like dogs, in having to be so sappy and servile before their master, are grateful on the occasion they're allowed to vent their repressed predatory instincts on rabbits and strangers, white cuckeroos take to barking at the selective enemies(always chosen by their Jewish Master) with wild abandon. It's the only way they can let loose on occasion and 'feel like a man'. John McCain was especially well-heeled in this art of cuck-doggery: Servile dog to Zion but rabid dog to Russia, Iran, Syria, and anything hated by his Jewish Master. Rule goes: Be a servile dog to the master, be an angry wolf to whomever/whatever set against by the master.

So, when we speak of the West, we must specify which 'West' we are talking about. The Jewish West or the White West? They aren't the same and don't follow the same rules.

When the Rest looks upon the West, it's obvious that they should emulate the Jewish West and reject the White West. Why not follow the formula for powerfulness than one for powerlessness? After all, Jewish West is about survival, continuity, pride, power, and unity. It's about Jews working to expand their reach, secure their dominance, and reinforce their sense of heritage & culture. Over the years, the Jewish West has gone from strength to strength based on this formula.
In contrast, the White West is about submission, sorry-ass cuckery, sappy-head wussiness, and utter self-debasement... in other words, the prescription for racial and cultural suicide. As whiteness itself has been called into doubt, it isn't even tenable for whites to say white women and white men belong to one another, that white lands belong to white people, that white industries belong to white workers, that white history and culture belong to whites, and etc. The current way of the White West is a formula for decline and demise.

When we see Hindus and East Asians in the West, the former seems to emulate the Jewish West while the latter the White West. That means Hindus are better positioned for the future. Japanese-Americans, for example, have been successful as individuals but have turned into a total zero as a culture and identity. If anything, they are like yellow whites, utterly deracinated and following in the footsteps of white suicide. In contrast, Hindus have something like a core identity and seem to be aping the Jews in their long-term strategy.

Now, here's the thing. Even though it's obvious the way of the Jewish West leads to power while the way of the White West leads to weakness, the Current West pushes the way of the White West on the Rest. It is the reason for the global paradox.
The formula of the Jewish West is the path to power, BUT the US as lone superpower is hellbent on destroying any part of the Rest that emulates the Jewish West. But, when some part of the Rest emulates the White West, it is showered with praise and favors. In the short term, it has much to gain from the preferential treatment, but it has accepted the formula for decline and demise because the way of the White West can only lead to racial suicide(as can be evinced in the fates of whites in US, EU, and Canada who've taken this road of self-destruction).

Compare Hungary and Japan. Hungary has chosen the way of the Jewish West. It wants to defend its borders, identity, and culture, much like Jews do, especially in Israel. In response, however, Jews have heaped all manner of abuse on Hungary and calls for its isolation, condemnation, and destruction.

In contrast, once racial-minded Japan is now utterly cucked, promotes jungle fever, spreads multi-culti propaganda, and pushes for mass immigration(in the manner of Germany, which is too late to save at this point). As a result, Japan is being praised by the West, and there is short-term gain from this(especially as servile yellows crave approval from the West), but the emulation of the White West will lead to the demise of Japan.

It’s like a doctor reviling a patient for quitting smoking while rewarding a patient for choosing to smoke even more. The Global Order is a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't." If your side chooses to emulate the successful formula of the Jews, it will be targeted for destruction. If your side chooses to emulate the self-destructive formula of the whites, it will be showered with prizes. If you choose the formula of power, you will be hunted down. If you choose the formula of suicide, you will be rewarded with money and trinkets. It's like offering a lifeboat only to those who've chosen to drown themselves. The Life/Death Paradox of Jewish-run Globalism.

Jews want the way of the Jewish West only for Jews. For the Goy West and the Rest, the only approved and mandated path is the way of the White West. (Of course, this doesn't apply to blacks as they're too wild and crazy to care about what anyone thinks. For blacks, whatever-makes-them-feel-good is what matters most. They feel and act more like funky fungus, and that may prove to be a blessing because it takes some degree of intelligence and inhibition to be manipulated by Jewish Propaganda.)

ANTI-WAR SCOTT HORTON SPANKS THE SHIT OUT OF ZIONIST SKUNK WILLIAM KISTROL THE JEWISH SUPREMACIST

Tribalism vs Universalism. And then, there's 'TRIVERSALISM' where a Certain Tribe becomes the Universal Idol for Other Groups to Revere and Worship — BLM as 'Triversal' Identity — Imperialism of Guilt and Its Dangers — Universalization of White Guilt about Jews and Blacks

According to Dr. Steve Turley, there is a silver lining to the rise of BLM as the defining theme of 'leftism'. Unbeknownst to the so-called 'progressives', the hysterical emphasis on the sanctity of black lives uber alles may have a fracturing and alienating effect on the 'political left', especially as the modern left has roots in the universalist and individualist principles of the Enlightenment.

So, what will happen to the Diversity Coalition? Many Non-Black Minorities surely noticed that the Democratic Party and Establishment don’t care about them as black thugs and white antifa retards loot, riot, commit arson, and/or just destroy things, especially the properties and businesses of who rank lower in the Holy-Victim-Hierarchy. All they hear is that ONLY BLACK LIVES Matter from the prevailing mantric Narrative. And prior to BLM-mania, it had mostly been about homos and trannies uber alles. Will such selective favoritism lead to bitterness among Non-Black Minority groups? Will they feel betrayed by the 'Left' that is certainly not colorblind?

According to Steve Turley, the rise of BLM undermines leftism because black tribalism is at odds with the core principles of modernism. (Watch the Video Below.) Though rationalized as something akin to the Civil Rights Movement, a call for racial justice than black supremacism, the blind rage that fuels BLM's fantasy-narrative is inseparable from the blatancy of black identity and black pride. Following Turley’s logic, the rise of BLM will likely lead to fractures within Diversity as each group will cling closer to its own tribalism, just like blacks with BLM.

BLACK LIVES MATTER TAKEOVER OF DEMOCRAT PARTY IS DESTROYING THE LEFT!!! by Dr. Steve Turley



But what if that doesn’t happen? What if a certain tribalism becomes a kind of ‘triversalism’, one where a particular tribe becomes universally adulated by other tribes? In a way, the US was ‘triversal’ from the beginning. Non-Anglos looked up to Anglos as dominant, most powerful, and even most admirable. And so, non-Anglo whites revolved around Anglo identity and power. They sought to emulate Anglo-Americans and become Anglo-ized. This was true even of German Jews in the US; they aspired to be like the Boston Brahmins and Anglicized their Jewish-sounding names.
Anglo culture, language, habits, and values became the standard for other groups. Though sold as Americanism than Anglo-ism, to become an American was essentially to become Anglo-ized in one way or another: Anglo Way Matters. But because Anglo-Americans didn’t nail down Anglo-ness as the essence of Americanism, their star was bound to fade. (Though Islam is a universal faith, it did for Arab culture what Americanism did for Anglo culture, at least for quite a spell. To become a Muslim meant submitting to the ways and customs of the Arab peoples. For a time, Islam was disseminated only through Arabic, deemed a holy language of the Prophet.)

The rise of Jewish Power has been a kind of ‘triversalism’. If we follow Turley’s logic, Jewish ethnocentrism, tribal identity, and even supremacism should have led to rises of similar tribalism among other groups. Instead, what we’ve seen is just about every group in both parties hail Israel, praise Jews, and pledge to do everything for Zion. Instead of boosting their own identity to compete with the Jewish one, they pledged fealty and obedience to the power and prestige of Jews. Indeed, if Liberal homos and Conservative Evangelicals have one thing in common, it is total commitment to praising Jews, remembering the Holocaust, and supporting Israel(because it’s either God’s Land or the nation with the biggest homo ‘pride’ parade). Though the Shoah is remembered as a uniquely Jewish tragedy, it has been ‘universalized’ to the extent that all other peoples are to acknowledge Jews as the most tragic people on Earth, therefore deserving of the most sympathy from all corners of the world; otherwise, you are an 'Anti-Semite'!!

So, it is not true, as Turley argued, that the rise in tribalism of one group necessarily leads to counter-tribalism in other groups. Spanish insisted on the primacy of their culture, language, and identity in the New World, but this didn’t lead to the counter-emergence of indigenous identities. Instead, the native browns submitted to the stronger tribal-centrism of the Conquistadores, and Spanish Identity became the regional ‘universal’ in Latin America. After all, what do Italians in Argentina have in common with browns in some Mexican village? They are united by Latino ‘triversal’ identity.

And consider the rise of homos and the wider cultural consequences. While homos are not really a tribe, they constitute a much-hyped identity and interest group. As homos(and even truer of trannies) are a tiny minority in all nations, one might think their identity and ‘pride’ would mean NOTHING(or even something negative and hostile) to the overwhelming majorities that are straight. Or, in counter to homo identity, straight people should insist even more on their normal identity. But instead, homosexuality and even tranny business have become the unifying ‘universal theme’ among so many straight people the world over. Homos praise themselves, and straights praise homos… just like Jews praise themselves and goyim praise Jews. There are now ‘gay pride’ parades all over the world, not just in US vassal-states but even in Vietnam that lost 2 million in resistance to US imperialism. Even Cuba cucked to globo-homo-mania.

And this also seems to be the case with blacks. By Turley’s logic, the rise of BLM should lead to similar identity movements among other groups: Brown Lives Matter, Yellow Lives Matter, Red Lives Matter, White Lives Matter, and etc. But blacks have gained ‘triversal’ value. They are now seen as so special, tragic, magical, awesome, and/or whatever that so many non-black groups look to blacks as the people deserving of special love, sympathy, and concern by ALL the peoples of the world. Indeed, look at BLM protests and riots no both sides of the Atlantic, even among whites in Europe. Blacks dominate pop music and sports, and that means they are the main heroes and idols of youths all over the world. Chinese boys worship NBA stars as gods. Iranian youths and Vietnamese youths ape American rappers. White women got jungle fever for black dongs, and white male cucks have Jungle Faith in the Magic Negro. Jewish Media promoted black tragedy as the greatest tragedy of all time AFTER the Shoah. Even though the number of blacks killed by lynching is minuscule compared to other tragedies — more Poles died at Katyn in a single event than all the blacks who were lynched by whites over 100 yrs —, but Hollywood and World Media fill the eyes and ears of the world with ‘Muh Holocaust’ and ‘Muh Slavery’ narratives. The cult of White Guilt has been spread by none other than hegemonic US imperialism. And even though there is non-stop narrative about black suffering in US history, there is no discussion of how the US lifted blacks up from savagery in the Dark Continent where they didn’t even have written language and the wheel. Indeed, if the world now believes that slavery is evil, it’s only because hearts-and-minds in all five continents have been colonized with Western Values.

Anyway, the fact that so many non-Jews, non-homos, and non-blacks flock around those three groups as the holy trinity of globalism suggests that not all tribalisms are the same. If all tribes were of the same value, the rise in tribalism in one would likely lead to the rise of counter-tribalism in others. But if a particular tribe is deemed especially great, awesome, noble, and/or magical, its apotheosis might become the unifying idol for other tribes.
Indeed, it's similar among individuals, which is why individualism never leads to egalitarianism. The ascendant prestige of one individual doesn’t necessarily lead to similar or counter-consciousness in other individuals. Rather, the Great Individual becomes the focal point of admiration and fascination for the lesser individuals, a kind of human cenotaph around which other individuals encircle in a state of reverence or ecstasy. The rise of fuhrer-ism in Adolf Hitler didn’t lead to the rise of counter-fuhrer-ism among the German population. Hitler’s super-individuality led to the dissolution of individual agency and pride among other Germans who came to mindlessly shout ‘Heil Hitler’ and pledge undying allegiance to him.

It goes to show that idolatry can be bigger than any ideology. Jews, Negroes, and Homos have attained ‘triversal’ status in the West. As their stars burn brighter, the lesser stars of other groups don’t even aspire to burn equally as bright but slavishly accept the superior radiance of the Holy Three as the defining light of the galaxy.

Promoting BLM all over the world is an example of the Imperialism of Guilt.

Western Powers used to practice an Imperialism of Pride: “We whites are awful proud, and you lesser non-whites must serve our greatness.” In other words, non-white identities should universally serve the higher white identity. Thus, Western Enlightenment Universalism was less the abandonment of all identities and cultures than the suppression or subsuming of lesser identities in service to the greater ones, the peaks of human achievement that all of humanity must universally admire, revere, and serve. And it was whiteness and Western Civilization. And even among those who emphasized Religion or Rationalism than white identity, there was an overwhelming sense that Christianity and Modernity were both nearly synonymous with white greatness and power.

As of now, Western Powers are under Jewish Rule, and they export the Imperialism of Guilt. “We whites are awfully ashamed, and ALL OF HUMANITY must share in our white guilt… even if you peoples had nothing to do with the Shoah or slavery in America.”

So, it went from All the World should follow Whites because Whites have so much to be Proud of … TO… All the World should follow Whites because Whites have so much to Atone for.

Why is this dangerous? Because it forces the particular Guilt of Whites on the entire world. Palestinians were among the greatest victims of this mindset. The Imperialism of Guilt argued “Because whites feel guilty about what was done to Jews in WWII, all the world must share in the guilt and pay the price.” So, Palestinians were made to pay the price of ‘white guilt’ even thought they had NOTHING to do with World War II or the Shoah. And what was said when Palestinians resisted Zionist Imperialism? They were judged in accordance to the logic of the Imperialism of Guilt. They were branded as ‘Anti-Semites’ even though their reason for anti-Jewish resistance had NOTHING to do with European Antisemitism. According to that craven sniveling cuck-historian Andrew Roberts, the ENTIRE WORLD was guilty for not having done enough about the Shoah. How laughable. Most of the world had NOTHING to do with European affairs or the machinations behind WWII. Why should the world share in the European 'guilt' over what befell Jews in WWII? Should the whole world share in the guilt of Mongols who once invaded China, Persia, and Russia?

After the Cold War, the Imperialism of Guilt led to Wars for Israel that killed or destroyed countless lives in the Middle East and North Afrca. But such wars and aggression were justified on grounds of the Imperialism of Guilt. If 'white guilt' means white indebtedness to Jews, all of humanity must share in the moral/financial debt, even though most of the world had nothing to do with ‘antisemitism’. Not only must Germans pay reparations to Jews but so must Palestinians who, indeed, lost their homeland to Jews on grounds that the World owes Jews something. The Imperialism of Guilt imposed the Western Burden of Guilt on the Palestinians even though they had nothing to do with the tragic events of Western History. Not supporting Zionism and Israeli interests would constitute a new antisemitism, the rise of new hitlers, and new holocausts. So, the West feels compelled to support More Jewish Wars. And even though Israel is the most powerful and aggressive nation in the region, we must all stick with the Western Guilt narrative that says Jews are always scrappy underdogs struggling to survive against ‘hate’.

And now, the Imperialism of Guilt is spreading Negrolatry all around. Most nations had nothing to do with blacks, let alone the Atlantic Slave Trade. But the White Guilt Narrative about blacks is being made standard all around the world. Many nations have been made to worship Mandela above their own national heroes, idols, and leaders. They know more about the Negro Victim Narrative than about their own peoples.
So, even browns, yellows, Hindus, and etc. must all share in the special sympathy for blacks. If not, they are ‘racist’. (Indeed, the financial burden of reparations for blacks will largely fall on the non-white immigrant populations who arrived in the US a hundred years AFTER the Civil War. Imperialism of Guilt in action.) What applies to whites due to their ‘historical guilt’ now applies to the whole world. Japan never conquered Africa or brought over black slaves. But if Japan doesn’t open up to blacks, it is deemed ‘racist’. It's as if Japanese must be just as servile to blacks as whites have become. Of course, Cuckpan is doing just that, and its sports idols are being taken over by blacks, and so Japan is over in the long term. In Europe, the result of the Imperialism of Guilt(or more specifically the Imperialism of White American Guilt) is already evident and very dire. Even European nations that had NOTHING to do with overseas imperialism, Atlantic Slave Trade, and the like now share in the White American Guilt. Swedes and Finns feel a need to sympathize with the Noble Negro and open their nations to Africans. If not, they are ‘racist’ just like Southern rednecks.

Now, some people may welcome the Imperialism of White Guilt as a case of the US undermining its own legitimacy and power. After all, if white America is confessing before the world how evil and lowly it is, wouldn’t the self-flagellation undermine the American Hegemonic enterprise? Yes, but ONLY IF the US were still ruled by whites and ONLY IF White Guilt applied equally to all groups, e.g. Palestinians, Syrians, Russians, Iranians, etc.

But the fact is the US is not white-ruled. It is Jewish-ruled, and BLM is merely a Jewish Power Ploy to boost the cult of White Guilt to keep whites subservient to Jewish Supremacist Power. After all, the Narrative of BLM doesn’t focus on Jewish exploitation of blacks, Jewish role in the slave trade, Jewish use of gentrification, Jewish push for the Israelization of US police force, Jewish use of globo-homo to send black interests to the back of the bus, and etc. BLM narrative is all about white working class police ‘brutality’ and ‘white legacy of slavery’. So, BLM is less about black power than about Jewish supremacist power exploiting ‘white guilt’ about blacks to keep whites browbeaten. Jewish Power is saying to whites, “We Jews are holy, whereas you whites are vile and guilty. So, to redeem your ugly white souls that oppressed all those innocent blacks, you whites need to serve us Holy Holocaust Jews in securing Imperialist Hegemony over the world.”

Notice US embassies are not putting up signs that say “Palestinian Lives Matter” or “Syrian Lives Matter” or “Libyan Lives Matter”. Or considering how many Russians died in the privatization or piratization schemes of the 1990s pushed by Jewish-Americans, “Russian Lives Matter.” No, Jews only push Black Lives Matter as a tool of ‘white guilt’ to keep white folks subservient as the cuck-race that blindly supports Jewish supremacist imperialism around the world that has killed or destroyed millions of lives through wars, sanctions, and financial piracy.
This is why those who see the BLM as being fatal to US imperialism are wrong. Sure, it does tarnish America’s reputation by making it seem a ‘racist’ country. But it is a Jewish gambit. Jews know that the MOST IMPORTANT element in the maintenance of Jewish Supremacist Hegemony is white submission to Jewish Power. As BLM will further shame whites, whites will feel even more compelled to serve the Holy Peoples: Jews, blacks, and homos. Indeed, look at Donald Trump. He’s cucking to Jews and siding with the Negroes against the Police.

In some ways, the Imperialism of White Guilt about Blacks will be even more damaging than the Imperialism of White Guilt about Jews. Whereas the latter led to the destruction mainly of North Africa and the Middle East, the Universalization of the Guilt about Blacks will lead to the junglization of entire nations around the world. Canada and UK used to be mostly black-free, but now, it’s deemed ‘racist’ for anyone there to say NO MORE BLACKS. Even though blacks commit the most crimes and cause the most problems, the Imperialism of Guilt about Blacks ensures that the global media will ignore stories of black thuggery/savagery while amplifying any story of a Dead Innocent Negro because Black Lives Matter More, or BLMM according to the Imperialism of Guilt. After all, black military men have been known to rape and even murder Japanese women in Okinawa. But has the US embassy ever held up a sign saying ‘Japanese Lives Matter’? No. Japan and other nations are constantly excoriated for their, as yet, less-than-ecstatic perception of blacks whereas so little is made of out-of-control bad black behavior around the world. The Ugly African makes the Ugly American look mild by comparison… but Jews control the global media and narrative, and Negroes be Holy.

Notes on Ron Unz's American Pravda: Understanding World War II

https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-understanding-world-war-ii/

But now McConnell had heard that Buchanan was planning to release a new book supposedly glorifying Adolf Hitler and denouncing America’s participation in the world war to defeat the Nazi menace.

Where did McConnell get that impression? At most, the book might have been an apology for some of Hitler's decisions, but did he really believe Buchanan would write a book GLORIFYING Der Fuhrer?

Mainstream publications had largely ignored the book, but it seemed to receive enormous praise from alternative writers, some of whom fiercely denounced TAC for having attacked it.

It was reviewed in the New York Review of Books, unfavorably but not entirely negatively. Pat Buchanan was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN for the book. Christopher Hitchens wrote a scathing review in Newsweek, then still a major publication; therefore, the book was not ignored. I mostly agreed with Hitchens' assessment of the book. The problem was not Buchanan's contrarian take on the origins of World War II but the tendency to be harsh on Churchill at every turn while soft-pedaling nearly everything Hitler did. Instead of arguing that Hitler shouldn't have done such-and-such, Buchanan placed most of the blame on those compelled to react to Hitler's moves. John Lukacs was correct in saying that Hitler was the main driver of the forces that led to WWII. Hitler's moves provoked other nations, and even if Poland, UK, and France acted unwisely(at least in hindsight), Hitler should have known that if he plays with matches, he could set off a forest fire.
Hitchens was willing to concede that maybe Buchanan and others were right about the foolishness of UK and France guaranteeing Poland against Germany. From a realpolitik perspective(and especially in retrospect), one might say UK and France acted rashly. But Buchanan goes much further than that in UNNECESSARY WAR. In the earlier book REPUBLIC, NOT AN EMPIRE, Buchanan stopped at events up to 1939. George Kennan, renowned for realism in foreign affairs, wrote him a letter of support. But in UNNECESSARY WAR, Buchanan moves beyond 1939 and keeps blaming the other players more than Germany and Hitler even as he concedes that Hitler was pathological and committed unspeakable crimes. Niall Ferguson, maybe the most famous living British historian, already argued that UK should have stayed out of World War I and let Germans dominate Europe in co-existence with the British Empire. Recently, Peter Hitchens wrote a book on WWII that agrees with the view of people like Buchanan, at least up to events in 1939. The real problem is what happened afterward, and in UNNECESSARY WAR, Buchanan keeps faulting those who reacted to Hitler than faulting Hitler for his proactive(and reckless) decisions. Christopher Hitchens also noted that Hitler was something other than a conqueror in the classic sense. If Napoleon had prevailed over Russia, there would have been at least the spread of Enlightenment values. If Hitler had prevailed over Russia, it would have been like Spartans subjugating the Helots all over again on a massive scale.

I don't think Buchanan was or is pro-Hitler, but he's always been Germano-centric. Ironically, Neocon Jews hate Buchanan because his politics of identity is much like their own. Jews have been known to favor identity over ideology. Capitalist Jews in the US sided with communist Jews in USSR and even Jewish communist spies in the US. Capitalist Jews denounced Joe McCarthy's anti-communism because it disadvantaged their tribal brethren. But Jews who supported leftist Jews also supported nationalist Jews, the Zionists. Jews have operated on the basis of "Is it good for Jews?", and Buchanan has a similar worldview about white folks, especially the Germans, his favorite people. Also, he's half-German and was born with a Teutonic personality.

Buchanan's formative years saw the world divided between godless communism that came to be associated with radical Jews & Slavs(Russians) AND capitalist Anglo-America, Catholic Spain, & fascist Germany. From Buchanan's point of view, it made more sense for democratic capitalist Anglo nations(UK and US) to side with Nazi Germany and Franco's Spain for either racial or religious reasons. Buchanan came of age in a time of much intra-racial tensions among whites. Today, we mainly talk of White People as a single group, but ethnic tensions were riding high through much of the 20th century. World War I was sparked by Pan-Germanism vs Pan-Slavism. In the US, there were many ethnic tensions among Anglos, Irish, Italians, Jews, Poles, Russians, etc. There was a view among Anglos and Germans that they were somewhat better than the Other Whites who were less pure. Apparently, Italians and Spanish had some 'black' blood, and Slavs had some 'Asiatic' blood. The ethnic tensions were made worse by the rise of communism in Russia. Suddenly, the Slavs turned into commie Slavs taking orders from Jews as the new masters. This Soviet Union was not only of the Other(and lesser) White Race but godless. Then, from the POV of people like Buchanan(and his mentors), the Anglo world should have sided with Germans as proper racial cousins and with Franco's Spain as a Catholic power that stood against communism.

Looking back, much of the problems of the West could have been avoided IF these ethnic tensions had been managed better. Buchanan himself errs in thinking Anglos should have sided with Germans against Slavs. The fact is Russians are mostly white, and the thinking should have been Anglos and Germans should have made peace with Russians and sided with them against rise of Asia. John Lukacs was prescient during the Cold War when he said the Soviet Union would be a far less challenge than China. People didn't take him seriously because back then the Soviet Union was a superpower whereas China was a mostly agrarian land of rice-eaters, but the past few decades proved Lukacs was right. Looking back, the Anglos shouldn't have alienated Germans, and Germans shouldn't have alienated Russians and other Slavs. It just ended up with so much white-on-white bloodbath. That said, the rise of communism in Slavic Nations understandably made many people like the Buchanans turn against the Other White World that seemed permanently lost to godless communism and/or Oriental Despotism.

Among other things, he persuasively argued that the German war-guilt was somewhat less than that of most of the other participants, also noting that despite the endless propaganda of “Prussian militarism,” Germany had not fought a major war in 43 years, an unbroken record of peace considerably better than that of most of its adversaries.

Germany didn't fight in a major war in those 43 years because it didn't have a worthy competitor on the continent. But with its surging industry and imperial ambitions(though limited) made it a major candidate for aggression on the world stage. From the British and French perspective, "two's company but three's a crowd." UK and France had fought many bitter wars for imperial supremacy. Brits prevailed in North America, only to see their prize possession go independent with French aid. In the end, UK vs France in the New World ended up with both sides losing. UK lost America, and French monarchy lost its head. So, instead of endlessly fighting for every inch of territory, the UK and France came to an understanding. Brits would be the premier imperial power, and France would be #2. They would tolerate one another. While the Brits usually got the better colonies, the French got a lot too. Over time, they became partners, and both feared the rise of Germany because of its bigger population and expanding industry(that eclipsed British industrial output in just a matter of decades). Now, looking back, it might have been wiser for UK and France to make some room for Germany's place in the world, but at the time, Germany looked like a real rival. Also, Kaiser Wilhelm really was a jerk and an ass. Rash, impetuous, and vain. Difficult man to work with.

However, the bulk of the book focused on the events leading up to the Second World War, and this was the portion that had inspired such horror in McConnell... Buchanan described the outrageous provisions of the Treaty of Versailles.. whereas his democratic Weimar predecessors had failed, Hitler had managed to succeed, largely through bluff, while also annexing German Austria and the German Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia, in both cases with the overwhelming support of their populations.

If Buchanan had only argued thus, it wouldn't have been a problem. Even History 101 in colleges teach that Germany was in bad straits during Weimar years and that there were real achievements under National Socialism, which was popular with Germans. Many people other than Buchanan have pointed to the Versailles Treaty as especially harmful. And if Hitler had only taken Sudetenland, things might have calmed down. But he made a move on the entire Czech territory soon after, and that became the bone of contention. Neville Chamberlain staked his pride, dignity, and reputation on peace with Germany by letting Hitler have his way JUST ONE TIME. Hitler agreed but having gained much with earlier bluffs went ahead and made a move on Poland, and Chamberlain ended up with egg on his face. Buchanan argues in bad faith because, on the one hand, he says Hitler got bolder because UK and France didn't call his bluff early on, but then, on the other hand, says UK, France, and Poland should have conceded to Hitler on just about every demand or maneuver prior to the major outbreak of war. But wouldn't giving-Hitler-what-he-wants made him even more aggressive and reckless?
On the Danzig Question, Buchanan is right that Germans had every right to claim it as their city. But if so, Hitler should have instigated a 'color revolution' in Danzig against the Poles. He should have urged Germans in Danzig to protest and rise up. Then, if the Poles used violence against the Germans, international sympathy might have been with the Germans, and then Hitler could have used his superior power to wrest Danzig from Poland as an emergency measure. I highly doubt if UK and France would have declared war on Germany over Danzig, especially if so many Danzigers were in the streets clamoring for unification with Germany. But what did Hitler do? He conspired with Stalin to tear Poland in half. Nazis bombed civilians in Polish cities, and Stalin sent his henchmen to do much killing. Now, it's true that UK and France declared war on Germany but not on the USSR, and one could fault them on principles, but it made good realpolitik sense. As Germany was nearer to UK and France, it was a bigger immediate threat. Also, their hope was to somehow create a rift between Germany and USSR, something that would have been impossible if UK and France had declared war on both Germany and USSR.

The widespread later claim that Hitler sought to conquer the world was totally absurd, and the German leader had actually made every effort to avoid war with Britain or France. Indeed, he was generally quite friendly towards the Poles and had been hoping to enlist Poland as a German ally against the menace of Stalin’s Soviet Union.

'Conquer the world' has to be taken figuratively. Even the biggest anti-Hitlerians don't literally believe that the Nazis intended to conquer all the world. But Hitler did have grand ambitions. He wrote of how Germans should conquer vast swaths of territory in Russia. So, at the very least, he wanted an empire for the Germans. Still, it's fairer to say Hitler wanted a partnership with nations that had already conquered the world, France and especially UK. He didn't want to displace the British Empire but be partners with it.
Hitler could be diplomatic and courteous with world leaders, including Polish ones, but he didn't have much regard for the Polish people in general. But then, he didn't much care for Slavs, even though a strain of Nazism accepted Poles as fellow Aryans. Still, there was a good reason why Poles rejected the offer of 'alliance' with Germany. It would not have been an equal partnership. It would have been like the 'alliance' of USSR and its satellite states. Also, Poles were correct to assess Hitler as a dangerous character who might cause problems. Who fared better in the long run? Mussolini who forged a close alliance with Hitler or Franco who kept Hitler at arm's length? Poland knew it was wedged between powerful USSR and mighty Germany, and it wanted neutrality. It didn't want to get caught between a fight that might break out between a bear and tiger. If Poland leaned toward Germany, it would have enraged the USSR, and vice versa. Poland came to lean on UK and France because they seemed to the only major powers that might change Hitler's mind.
At any rate, what is the true worth of 'friendliness' in politics? The West was quite friendly with Gaddafi but it wasn't. Hitler offered carrots, but Poles saw the big stick. While it's true that Hitler and Germans in general were angry over lost territories, that issue was also a pretext(at least for Hitler and his cohorts) for larger ambitions. It's like the US raged over Alamo to take over the entire SW. US fumed about Pearl Harbor to dominate all of the Pacific. Similarly, Hitler exploited legitimate issues of territorial disputes in order to use Poland as launching pad than obstacle to his eventual clash with the USSR. While, as Lukacs said, Hitler could be rational and even statesmanlike, his essential personality and worldview was 'artistic' than political. He viewed the world as a stage for his rather Wagnerian and operatic ambitions. Judging by his statements and autobiography and tome MEIN KAMPF, he was clearly megalomaniacal and saw himself as a Man of Destiny. Personality matters in politics, as when Khrushchev found it impossible to deal with Mao because of differences in personality. In contrast, Putin and Xi get along because both are more sober and temperate.

Hitler had always wanted friendly relations with Britain... he therefore offered very magnanimous peace terms../ The British government had been pressured into entering the war for no logical reason and against its own national interests, so Chamberlain and half the Cabinet naturally supported commencing peace negotiations...
But... Churchill remained absolutely adamant that the war must continue... Churchill had had a remarkable record of repeated failure, and for him to have finally achieved his lifelong ambition of becoming prime minister only to lose a major war just weeks after reaching Number 10 Downing Street would have ensured that his permanent place in history was an extremely humiliating one.

But could Churchill alone have been so consequential? Notwithstanding Jewish influence/bribery and Churchill's vanity, wasn't the bigger problem that the Brits had fallen into a mental habit of relying on Balance of Powers as a panacea for all European problems? The policy generally worked out in favor of Britain that formed alliances against whatever happened to be the top Continental Power so as to ensure that Europe could not be united bloc against the island nation. But then, things work until they don't. The iron policy of balance-of-power backfired in a big way in World War I that depleted the British Empire of so many men and money. One could argue it worked in in WWI and WWII to the extent that UK, along with other nations, did manage to suppress the rise of Germany as the dominant continental power, but it was achieved at the cost of British bankruptcy and decline. Germans were defeated, but the Brits hardly gained anything while losing a lot.

...Britain and Germany had signed international conventions prohibiting the aerial bombardment of civilian urban targets, and... Hitler scrupulously followed these provisions. In desperation, Churchill therefore ordered a series of large-scale bombing raids against the German capital of Berlin, doing considerable damage, and after numerous severe warnings, Hitler finally began to retaliate with similar attacks against British cities.

But Hitler had no qualms about raining down mass destruction on Polish and Russian civilian populations. Hitler may have been more restrained with the British out of racial respect, but ironically, it seems Anglos regarded the Germans the way Germans regarded the Slavs: Barely civilized barbarians who only understand ruthless power. Hitler's illusions about the British were as unsound as his sentimentality about Mussolini and dementia about the Slavs. Churchill was a bastard but more focused on what was really at stake.

Churchill’s ruthless violation of the laws of war regarding urban aerial bombardment directly led to the destruction of many of Europe’s finest and most ancient cities.

He was a bastard, but let's not forget what Hitler did to Warsaw and cities & towns across the USSR.

...late in the war during 1944 the relentless Allied bombardment of German cities led to the devastating retaliatory attacks of the V-1 flying bombs against London, and an outraged Churchill became adamant that German cities should be attacked with poison gas in counter-retaliation.

I read V-1 rockets weren't particularly effective. At any rate, war brings out craziness on all sides, especially when desperation and hatred take over. Japanese went crazy in Nanking, and Germans turned to mass-extermination once the tide of war decisively turned against them. Problem with David Irving is he holds Churchill and others like him to the highest standards of ethics while making excuses for Hitler who not only fought ruthlessly also but was possessed of an insane ideology.

Taylor, Irving, and numerous others have thoroughly debunked the ridiculous mythology that the cause lay in Hitler’s mad desire for world conquest, but if the German dictator clearly bore only minor responsibility, was there indeed any true culprit? Or did this massively-destructive world war come about in somewhat similar fashion to its predecessor, which our conventional histories treat as mostly due to a collection of blunders, misunderstandings, and thoughtless escalations.

I agree with Lukacs. No Hitler, no WWII. While Hitler didn't plan to conquer the entire world, he did have dreams of taking a huge chunk of the East(mainly Russia) so as to make Greater Germany about the size of the US or bigger. Though rather successful as a national leader, he was not content with national affairs. In this, he was like the Neocons who aren't satisfied with Jewish wealth and Jewish homeland. They must always have more, and this means meddling in other parts of the Middle East. Neither Hitler nor Neocons were about world conquest. Neocons mainly focus on proxy-empire building(by using the US) in the Middle East and North Africa to ensure Israel's hegemony; they also hunger for control of Russia with its vast resources and 'lazy, dumb, and drunk' Russkies whom Jews regard as worthless dummies.
Similarly, Hitler sought hegemony in the European continent, and the only way he could ensure German imperial predominance was to take huge territories from Russia.

On the eve of World War I, so many people all across Europe wanted war. The general peace for 100 yrs since the fall of Napoleon had made people less aware of the hellishness of war. France did lose to Germany in the Franco-Prussian War, but it had been a swift defeat, and the French had been dreaming of revenge ever since. The Russian Tsar thought war would play a unifying role, and Germans were ready to take on all-comers. At the outbreak of war, no one quite realized that the two sides would be stacked against each other with nearly equal force, thus prolonging the war that also incorporated modern weaponry that had proved so effective against the backward non-West. When used against the non-west, modern weaponry meant quick victory. But when modern weaponry went against modern weaponry in Europe, it led to destruction on an unprecedented scale. But few people foresaw the dangers. So, when war broke out, there were celebrations all throughout Europe.

But, on the eve of World War II, most people didn't want war. Even Germans didn't want it despite Hitler's popularity. If Germans cheered loudly after a victory, it was out of hope that it would be the last conflict, finally the war to end all wars. France didn't want war with Germany. It declared war as a bluff and just dug in and played defense. Chamberlain did try to come to terms with Hitler. Many Brits felt a bit of guilt over Versailles and economic ruin of Germany. As such, they were willing to negotiate with Germany, but Hitler was the sort of person who always regarded concession as weakness and vulnerability that could be exploited for More. He was also devious like Bismarck but without the Iron Chancellor's sense of limits and keen calculation.

We could all agree that if Germany had remained democratic, there would have been no war EVEN IF some nations wanted to pick on Germany. I would also argue that if Nazi Germany had been ruled by someone like Ataturk, Franco, or Putin, there would have been no war. Such a leader would have understood that Germany has legit grievances, but so do other European powers, and therefore, the best bet is some kind of compromise. Or, if he suspected foul play, he would have waited for the other side to make the first move and then make a counter-move, thereby having the moral advantage. But Hitler was incessant in his demands and acted as if Germany was the only aggrieved party when, had Germany won World War I, it too would likely have taken advantage of the situation.
Suppose Hitler died of illness in 1939, and someone like Goering took over. I just don't see World War II happening. Now, if Himmler had taken over, then war might have been even more likely as he was truly nuts. But Hitler was an extreme personality too. MEIN KAMPF is proof of how obsessive and egomaniacal he could be. Turkey after WWI and Russia after the Cold War had tons of legitimate grievances, but Ataturk understood limitations and acted accordingly. Same with Putin in Russia. In contrast, Hitler kept pushing against all sides.

From 1940 onward, FDR had been making a great political effort to directly involve America in the war against Germany, but public opinion was overwhelmingly on the other side, with polls showing that up to 80% of the population were opposed. All of this immediately changed once the Japanese bombs dropped on Hawaii, and suddenly the country was at war.

FDR may or may not have wanted war, but even if he was baiting Germany, would a more sober leader have fallen for the trap? Also, even if FDR was hoping for war to boost the economy or unite the nation(thus ensuring his reelection), the reason he targeted Germany had a lot to do with his genuine loathing of Nazism. As for problems with Japan, it goes back to the confused/contradictory US policy of befriending both Japan and China. On the one hand, UK and US had built up Japan as bulwark against Russia and possibly resurgent China. But the US also postured against European(and Japanese) imperialists as a friendly nation to the Chinese. So, the US was, at once, selling war materials to Japan that was attacking China and professing sympathy for China. This all came to a head with the embargo and what came afterwards. Anyway, FDR inherited this crazy foreign policy in the Asian Pacific. He didn't create it.

But then, there are other considerations. Would Japan have attacked Pearl Harbor if Germany hadn't invaded Russia in the summer of 1941 and seemed poised to win? Didn't Japan wager on German victory. Then, if Hitler had not invaded Russia, Japan might not have acted so boldly and instead come to the table and agree to US terms: Japan keeps Taiwan, Korea, and Manchuria but withdraws from China Proper. That was not a bad deal. Now, it's possible that FDR offered those terms in bad faith and fully planned to renege on them and find some other excuse to choke Japan's economy, thus forcing it into war. We'll never know.

Polish Confidential Report:

Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews who control almost 100% [of the] radio, film, daily and periodical press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents Germany as black as possible... At the present moment most Americans regard Chancellor Hitler and National Socialism as the greatest evil and greatest peril threatening the world... It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign which is conducted above all against National Socialism, Soviet Russia is almost completely eliminated. Soviet Russia, if mentioned at all, is mentioned in a friendly manner and things are presented in such a way that it would seem that the Soviet Union were cooperating with the bloc of democratic states.

I doubt Jewish control of media was as predominant back then as now. If Jews controlled 100% of media back then, they must have made no further gains since then. Anti-Germanism was the product of Jewish concerns coinciding with Anglo interests. But then, anti-Germanism had been extreme in the US even during World War I when Jews had even less power. Anglos and Anglo-Americans had a tendency to look upon Germans as semi-barbarians, indeed as if Anglos were the New Romans and Germans were the same old barbarians, or even the 'Huns'. There was something 'brute' and 'Teutonic' about the Germans that rubbed Anglos the wrong way. Anglos were also into racial ideology and aggression but had perfected a manner of talking around their true feelings. Germans were less refined and 'ironic', and such 'honesty' threatened Anglo conceits of being perfect gentlemen bringing light of progress to the world. Anglo supremacism wore a velvet glove whereas German supremacism put on a boxing glove. Anglos tended to see Germans as akin to mean Irish or rowdy Scots but in charge of a nation bigger and stronger than the UK. As for Jews, they prized Germany as the center of European economy and even culture(eclipsing even France), and they valued their key role in it... before Nazis came along and said No More. Paradoxically, Jews were most upset with Nazi Germans precisely because, among European nations, they felt most at home in Germany.

But there were ideological reasons as well. If Anglo refinement disdained German 'Teutonism', leftist-universalist idealism loathed the brutal honesty of fascism about the nature of power. Fascism was clearly more candid about the nature of power than communism could ever be, but communism's appeal was its dream of the brotherhood of man. Naturally, the well-educated and idealistic(steeped in Christian credo) felt warmer toward communism(despite its brutality) than to fascism that seemed like a 'pornography of power'. While Stalin could be as brutal as anyone, his Soviet empire pontificated about universal justice, whereas Nazi ideology obsessed over the innate specialness of the 'Aryans'. Even for racialist Anglos, that was too much. As racial ideology, it was too crude, vulgar, and philistine. It was political kitsch.

Another reason for the US being friendlier to the USSR had to with realpolitik. It's like the US was warmer toward Mao's China than the USSR in the 70s even though Soviets had moderated considerably while Mao was a mass-killing nut. As the US considered USSR as the main rival, it found ready excuses to paint a friendly portrait of China as a potential ally against the Soviets. Likewise, when Nazi Germany seemed like the epicenter of the world's troubles, it made sense for the US and UK to pretend that USSR wasn't so bad and could be an ally against the Nazis.

During his political rise, Hitler had hardly concealed his intent to dislodge Germany’s tiny Jewish population from the stranglehold they had gained over German media and finance, and instead run the country in the best interests of the 99% German majority, a proposal that provoked the bitter hostility of Jews everywhere.

While Germans had good reasons to be angry with Jewish Power, Hitler went about this in a bad way because he denounced ALL Jews based on extreme racial ideology. Hitler could have avoided much trouble by targeting only radical or disloyal Jews. Mussolini did just that, and he didn't have much trouble with Italian Jews in general. If anything, he later moved against them under German pressure.

Also, while Jewish power was immense back then, it was nothing like what it is today, largely because Anglos who built America passed the reins over to the Jews. Despite Jewish role in Bolshevism, Jews couldn't stop Stalin's mass-killing of Jewish communists(along with others). Jews had a difficult time goading the West into war against Germany. Also, even when the war began, it turned out badly for Jews because (1) Germans totally crushed Poland (2) quickly defeated France and (3) allied with Stalin's USSR, the last hope for many Jews. In the end, Hitler brought ruin upon himself and Germany because he invaded the USSR and then declared war on US after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. He went full Tony Montana since then.
Now, the theory that Germany invaded Russia only upon realizing that Stalin intended to attack first may be compelling when we look at armaments but not when we consider the element of psychology. Stalin wasn't a gambler. Also, he likely placed Soviet tanks and troops into offensive position to force Germans into a defensive one, thereby ensuring that Germans would not attack first. Stalin was surely aware that France gained nothing by fighting an entirely defensive war in 1940. It seemed scared and timid, like a turtle hiding in a shell. In contrast, Stalin might have felt that if Soviet military boldly positioned itself against German forces, Hitler would have had second thoughts about attacking. Also, the fact that Stalin set up so much industry east of Moscow suggests insurance against German invasion.

Lukacs argued that the main reason why Germany attacked Russia was to force UK to make the peace. The reasoning goes as follows. As long as the UK hoped that USSR would turn against Germany, it was unwilling to come to the table. But if Germany crushed Russia, UK would have realized that Germans are the masters of Europe, and that's that; then, UK would have to come to terms with Germany. Now, from a common sense point of view, this makes no sense. UK was dropping bombs but had no means to defeat Germany or even take an inch of European territory on its own. So, why didn't Hitler keep his alliance with USSR and run out the clock with UK? Why create a two-front-war situation, especially when, unlike the UK, the USSR had the means to invade Germany IF the Germans were to fail against Stalin?
But from a psychological point of view, it makes sense because of Hitler's different feelings for Anglos and Russians(and Slavs and untermensch whites). Even when Hitler was livid with the Anglos, he hoped that Anglos and Germans as fellow 'Aryans' would bury the hatchet and rule the world together. In contrast, he really loathed the Slavs and 'lesser whites' of the East. Ideally, he preferred an alliance with Anglos against Russians, but all he could muster was an alliance with Russians against the Anglos. It was the opposite of what he really wanted. Also, considering that it was entry of US army that finished off Germany in WWI, Hitler may have hoped that if he comes to terms with UK, then the US wouldn't enter the European War. It seems Hitler seriously underestimated the power of USSR and the ability of US and UK to supply the Russians with war materials.

In recent years, somewhat similar Jewish-organized efforts at international sanctions aimed at bringing recalcitrant nations to their knees have become a regular part of global politics. But these days the Jewish dominance of the U.S. political system has become so overwhelming that instead of private boycotts, such actions are directly enforced by the American government. To some extent, this had already been the case with Iraq during the 1990s, but became far more common after the turn of the new century.

But Jewish power was considerably less in the 30s and 40s. First, 'antisemitism' wasn't as taboo as it later became. Plenty of politicians all over Europe ran on anti-Jewish issues. In the US, Father Coughlin and Charles Lindbergh were major players. Plenty of Jews were mindful not to rock the boat. 'Antisemitism' was a national pastime in France, and even plenty of French Jews disdained Jews from Eastern Europe. Jews couldn't prevent European nations from making loans to Nazi Germany that made German economic resurgence possible in the 30s. Jews couldn't persuade Stalin not to make a pact with Hitler. Furthermore, if German invaders had mass support from the local population on any particular issue, it was over the Jewish Question. Plenty of locals were willing to hand over Jews to the Germans. Also, Jews have long complained that FDR dragged his feet in really engaging Germany. He let Russia do most of the fighting, and the Western Allies landed on the European continent only in 1944. So, FDR did little to save Jews from the Nazis. While World Jewry did coordinate to destroy Nazi Germany, Hitler really brought ruin to himself with his recklessness. Had he maintained the alliance with Russia, Nazi Germany would have been untouchable as all of Europe except for UK was constituted of allies, partners, or neutral players like Sweden.
At any rate, Jewish Power became especially potent AFTER World War II not only because Jews rose to the top in the US, the premier superpower, but because the cult of the Holocaust elevated Jews into a holy people and vilified 'antisemitism' as the worst possible sin. But up to WWII(and even in the immediate aftermath), Jews weren't so sacred, and plenty of people on both sides of the Atlantic could get away with critical and even condemnatory views of Jews.

Most foreign policy experts have certainly been aware that Jewish groups and activists played the central role in driving our country into its disastrous 2003 Iraq War, and that many of these same groups and individuals have spent the last dozen years or so working to foment a similar American attack on Iran, though as yet unsuccessfully.

While we may find parallels between the fear-mongering about Nazi Germany and scaremongering about Iraq, the truth is Nazi Germany was a genuine great power whereas Iraq in a 2003 was a mere skeleton. If we must draw parallels between Nazi Germany and Hussein's Iraq, it should be during the 80s when Hussein the aggressor attacked Iran and killed scores of people with poison gas. But of course, the US was on the side of that Hussein at war with Iran. Still, prior to the disastrous Gulf War(for Iraq), Hussein's regime was a major power in the region. But by 2003, Iraq was a mere skeleton, and all the Hitler analogies were ridiculous.
That said, Nazi Germany in 1939 was a formidable power genuinely feared by France, UK, USSR, and lesser nations. Mussolini initially disdained Hitler but, alarmed(and impressed) by resurgence of German might, decided an alliance as the safest bet. Stalin felt likewise. If you can't beat em, join em. France and UK figured if bluff worked so well for Hitler, it might work for them as well, and they bluffed with war guarantee for Poland. So, while the Neocon stuff about Iraq in 2003 was all hype and BS, there was genuine fear of Germany among many nations regardless of Jewish effort. It was made worse by Hitler's invasion of Greece to prop up the illusion of Italian prowess. And Nazis were allied with some loathsome groups, like Croatian fascists who went about slaughtering 100,000s of Serbs. Jews fanned the flames of anti-German hatred, but there would have been plenty of it in Europe even without Jews. Similarly, there would have been plenty of anti-Jewish sentiments even without Nazi propaganda. Most Europeans found Germans too brutish and Jews too radical. In a way, it's ironic that Germans and Jews became arch-enemies for reasons both groups were feared and/or hated by most Europeans.

Another striking historical parallel has the fierce demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who provoked the great hostility of Jewish elements when he ousted the handful of Jewish Oligarchs who had seized control of Russian society under the drunken misrule of President Boris Yeltsin and totally impoverished the bulk of the population.

This is true. But despite being attacked and baited by Jewish power that is many times greater than in the 30s and 40s, notice how Putin has played the game with patience and sobriety. If Hitler hadn't been so prone to throwing tantrums and pumping himself up with the Man of Destiny spectacle, he would have weathered the Jewish campaigns against him much better. At any rate, just like Jews tried to unite the world against Germany, Hitler tried to unite all Europeans against ALL Jews. In Italy, a good many Jews had joined the Fascist Movement and were loyal to Mussolini, but under great pressure from Germans, Mussolini decided to turn against even loyal Jews. So, the race war went both ways between Jews and Germans. Just as Jews were trying to recruit every nation against Germany, Germans were urging all peoples to 'hand over your Jews'.

Indeed, over the last few decades, the bitter conflict between Nazi Germany and world Jewry has become such an overwhelming theme of our popular media that this element may be almost the only aspect of the World War II era that is known to many younger Americans.

Actually, if people saw it in terms of a conflict, they would understand it better. But it's not portrayed as a conflict but of one-sided persecution. Instead of Nazi Germany vs World Jewry in an empire-vs-empire struggle, the Narrative says Germans chased down totally innocent, helpless, and clueless Jews who were merely minding their own business. It's like the Jewish-Russian Relations are remembered only in terms of helpless Jews being set upon in pogroms by drunken Russkies and Cossacks. There is no mention of Jewish role in radical politics and how this led to mass deaths of Slavs. While there were many innocent Jewish victims of Germans(just like there were plenty of innocent German victims of Allies and Jews), there was a Jewish Power that constituted a world empire of its own(or a shadow empire that attached itself increasingly to Anglos).

Another obscured fact is that some 150,000 half- and quarter-Jews served loyally in Hitler’s World War II armies, mostly as combat officers, and these included at least 15 half-Jewish generals and admirals, with another dozen quarter-Jews holding those same high ranks.

I don't really think this means anything. Nazis weren't purists when it came to blood. Germans who were 1/4 Jewish were mostly considered as 'Aryan'. And many Germans with partial Jewish blood regarded themselves mainly as Germans and were loyal to Hitler. Just because some American Indians sided with whites against other Indians doesn't negate the fact that White America was generally hostile to the Red Savages who were targeted for removal or destruction.

Meanwhile, although our heavily Jewish-dominated media regularly presents Hitler as the most evil man who ever lived, many of his prominent contemporaries seem to have held a very different opinion.

While Hitler has been made into a cartoon villain, there was no doubt he was pathological and of a maniacal personality plagued with vanity, megalomania, and arrogance. Also, we have the benefit of hindsight whereas contemporaries did not... until they realized what Hitler was really capable of. And same could be said of many world leaders. Mugabe was initially seen as a sane and moderate African leader, but how did he turn out? Idi Amin was initially seen as a fun colorful leader of Uganda before he turned out to be nuts. Many people praised Stalin as a great leader, but now, we know better. He was a mass killer. Many Americans were duped into believing Mao was an agrarian reformer in the 40s. He turned out to be a megalo-nut.

And over the decades, considerable evidence has accumulated that the Gas Chambers and the Jewish Holocaust—the central elements of today’s Nazi “Black Legend”—were just as fictional as all those other items.

Many details of Nazi atrocities have proven to be wrong or exaggerated, but the Eastern Front turned into a total race war, and there is no doubt that Nazis butchered countless Jews and Slavs in their war path. None of this should be surprising given the nature of war and Nazi propaganda. Himmler was especially sinister in this regard. David Irving has been careful not to deny that mass atrocities took place. His shtick has been that Hitler wasn't informed of what was really happening or it was Himmler who really done it. I would argue that such is merely a technicality. It's like it doesn't matter if Mao wasn't fully informed of the disaster of the Great Leap Forward and/or if he didn't order the Red Guards to go totally nuts. What matters is he created a system and set off events that led to mass suffering, and so, he is ultimately responsible. Likewise, we can't excuse Hitler on grounds of ignorance, indifference, or negligence. He created a system that was capable of industrial mass slaughter.

While many of the more lurid accounts of the Holocaust seem dubious, it doesn't surprise me that Germans would have acted that way. Japanese went crazy in Nanking. US, a liberal democracy, was capable of dropping two nukes on Japan(and planned to drop 10 to 12 more if Japan didn't surrender). After the war, anti-German violence was extreme all over Eastern Europe. Tons of Germans were massacred or brutalized in revenge and hatred. People of all stripes are capable of the most horrendous things. The fact is Nazi Germany instilled radical Jew-hatred in an entire generation of men who became soldiers in the bloodiest conflict that further desensitized whatever humanity was left in them. Especially when the fortunes turned against Germany, there was the temptation to take out the violence on easy scapegoats.
That said, it's foolish to count all Jewish dead as victims of the Holocaust. Many Jews surely died from the sheer brutality of war like so many goyim did. It didn't take the Holocaust to kill millions of Poles and Ukrainians. They just got crushed between big powers. So, even if there had been no Holocaust, it's likely many Jews would have died just the same because they were caught in the middle in the bloodlands of war.

By contrast, Irving notes that if the Allies had instead been in the dock at Nuremberg, the evidence of their guilt would have been absolutely overwhelming.

When it comes to UK/US vs Germany, the former did more violence to the Germans because they could. German attacks on UK was limited and ineffective,and Germany had no chance of attacking the US. In contrast, US/UK could drop tons of bombs on Germany. But this had nothing to do with Germans being better or more moral. Rather, most of their energies were directed at the East, and there, German brutality toward Slavs and Jews were worse than Allied bombing of Germany. Allied bombings killed 100,000s of Germans, whereas the Wehrmacht directly and indirectly killed millions.
Same is true of US vs Japan vs China. US war crimes against Japan was worse than vice versa but not because Japanese were better. It was because US had overwhelming force over Japan. But where Japanese had advantage over their enemies in places like China, they were real sons of bitches.
As awful as US/UK bombing of Germany was, for the Western Allies it seemed preferable to losing many more men by prematurely landing troops on the continent. Sure, killing lots of civilians is a dastardly way to fight a war, but World War II was a war without pity, a truly 'existential' war that decided the fate of entire nations.

Although hardly sympathetic to the defeated Nazis, she strongly shared Beaty’s view of the monstrous perversion of justice at Nuremberg and her first-hand account of the months spent in Occupied Germany is eye-opening in its description of the horrific suffering imposed upon the prostrate population even years after the end of the war.

Yes, Nuremberg was a joke, but I think the kind of 'justice' that would have been imposed by victorious Germans especially over Slavic lands would have been many times worse. As compromised and hypocritical as the Nuremberg trials were, the message was that wars of aggression and genocide are evil. I don't think the victorious Nazis would have even come down against genocide, which they likely would have committed against the Slavic populations.

The traditional excuse publicly offered for the virtual absence of any Japanese POWs was that their Bushido code made surrender unthinkable, yet when the Soviets defeated Japanese armies in 1945, they had no difficulty capturing over a million prisoners.

There are key differences. Japanese who fought Americans in all those islands didn't go face to face against an army. They fought more like guerrillas. They were dug into all sorts of places, and so, Americans came upon pocketfuls of Japanese who might leap out of nowhere. Thus, Americans who fought Japanese in the islands had a far more nerve-racking experience than the Soviets did in the plains of North Asia.
In contrast, Japanese in Manchuria and North China fought as an army, and as such, it was easier for them to surrender to the Soviets in an official capacity. In the clash of Soviet armies with armored tanks vs Japanese armies, the latter had no chance and surrendered en masse. Also, Japanese in Manchuria and North China had less incentive to fight with absolute zeal. After all, they were on Chinese soil, not their own. In contrast, the Japanese who fought the Americans in a string of islands were utterly fanatical because they believed they were defending the homeland from US invasion.

By the way, what happened to all those Japanese who surrendered to the Soviets. Most ended up in gulag and Siberia and never saw home again.

American GIs also regularly committed remarkably savage atrocities. Dead or wounded Japanese frequently had their gold teeth knocked out and taken as war-booty, and their ears were often cut-off and kept as souvenirs, as was also sometimes the case with their skulls.

Ugly, but all sides do stuff like this in war.

The American media generally portrayed the Japanese as vermin fit for eradication, and numerous public statements by high-ranking American military leaders explicitly claimed that the bulk of the entire Japanese population would probably need to be exterminated in order to bring the war to a successful conclusion. Comparing such thoroughly-documented facts with the rather tenuous accusations usually leveled against Nazi political or military leaders is quite revealing.

There is one key difference and post-war history vindicates it. US derangement syndrome against Japan was the result of War Fever. In other words, Americans didn't harbor genocidal feelings toward Japan prior to the war or afterwards. So, it was wartime craziness. And even though there were people in government who said, "Let's kill all Japs" their was a minority opinion that was obviously overridden. Once the dust settled, US buried the hatchet and made Japan an ally against USSR.
In contrast, even prior to the war, Nazi German ideology was based on racial supremacism. And even after the war, had the Germans been victorious, anti-Slavic genocide and mass enslavement would have happened just the same. Granted, Germans weren't so vicious to all groups as the French, Dutch, Norwegians, and etc. fared pretty well under German occupation as long as they didn't resist. But no such mercy would have been shown to the Eastern Slavs who were slated for mass destruction. It's all there in Hitler's Table Talk.

For decades, Western propagandists had relentlessly barraged the Soviets with claims that they were keeping back a million or more “missing” German POWs as slave-laborers in their Gulag, while the Soviets had endlessly denied these accusations. According to Bacque, the Soviets had been telling the truth all along, and the missing soldiers had been among the enormous numbers who had fled westward near the end of the war, seeking what they assumed would be far better treatment at the hands of the advancing Anglo-American armies. But instead, they were denied all normal legal protections, and confined under horrible conditions where they rapidly perished of hunger, illness, and exposure.

But the Soviets did use many German POWs for slave labor. Consider German soldiers who surrendered at Stalingrad. Most did not return home. Perhaps, there was a kind of rough justice in this as they were part of an invading army who would have enslaved or mass-slaughtered Russians had they been victorious. But it is true that Soviets held back many German and Japanese POWs, partly out of revenge and partly out of need for manpower given the loss of life and industry in the war.