Counter-Currents
Remembering Charles Lindbergh
February 4, 1902–August 26, 1974
Anthony Bavaria
2,142 words
The life of Charles Augustus Lindbergh is a benchmark of Western Civilization. Sadly, a reading of his resume gives one the feeling that men of this caliber, or the attitudes of the times they lived in, have been permanently relegated to the past. But on his birthday, it’s worth highlighting the achievements of his profound life, both cemented accomplishments as well as those unrealized, and use them as an inspiration and template for our own lives and the future of our civilization.
Personal Feat
“Lucky Lindy’s” famed flight across the Atlantic, something considered impossible by even the most fervent of early aviation pioneers, is obviously well-covered territory, but there are some lesser-known specifics of this iconic triumph that, in my opinion, truly exemplify the above-mentioned bygone attitudes of men from a different era.
Few outside aviation and the aeromedical community are aware of the physical challenges Lindbergh underwent on the world’s first transatlantic flight. The night before his planned departure, foul weather, a talkative bodyguard, and an understandably busy mind kept Lindbergh from falling asleep. This would have kept a normal person from embarking on a planned flight of over 30 hours, but there were competing teams of aviators and aircraft manufacturers also gunning to be the first to conquer the Atlantic; Lindbergh shrugged off the sleep deprivation, packed five sandwiches and a bottle of water, and sputtered down a muddy runway on the plains of Long Island, New York.
Barely a few hours into his flight, the lack of sleep caught up to the young aviator; he found himself incomprehensibly tired, which eventually resulted in routinely nodding off, only to wake and find himself spiraling seaward. Averaging only 100 miles per hour, his flight would be long and arduous. As he checked his navigation calculations, planned milestones of excitement resulted in only dread as he realized how much ocean still lay ahead; he kept busy wondering what he would do if he went down at sea, cursing himself for not bringing a raft or parachute due to weight concerns.
It’s worth reiterating that due to the era’s technological limitations, Lindbergh had no windscreen to look out of; the entire front of his aircraft’s cockpit was a fuel tank, as weight and balance issues precluded it from being built elsewhere. Aside from a side-facing window, all he had to look at was an instrument panel, which was barely a few feet from his face. It wasn’t until he encountered seagulls, an indication that land was nearby, that his deliriousness break. Almost two hours ahead of schedule, Lindberg finally sighted the coast, the southern shoreline of Ireland, right where he had planned. Visual navigation out of his side window proved to be difficult, as it was again night, but Lindbergh did find his way to Paris.
A unification of Westerners, their ideals, and shared love and respect for adventure occurred on a scale so great that Lindbergh actually feared for his life. A crowd of 150,000 Parisians stormed the airfield to greet their American counterpart and congratulate him on his victory. Lindy was torn from the cockpit and hoisted on the Frenchmen’s heads and hands for nearly 30 minutes — “Despite having landed his plane, Lindbergh remained aloft,” says Walter Hixson in his biography on the airman.[1] Eventually, French military aviators and police were able to extricate Lindbergh from the crowd and bring him to safety. After meeting the American ambassador to France and visiting the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, Lindbergh finally rested after more than 60 hours without sleep.
It’s important to note the significance of landing in Paris. Through the early years of aviation, the French were the pioneers of flight, having built some of the best planes and fielded some of the most daring airmen. Several Frenchmen had already tried to cross the Atlantic, and all of them died. Lindbergh made a point to honor those pioneers. After waking to a deafening chant of “Vive Lindbergh” outside his quarters, Lucky Lindy “expressed his sincere admiration for the lost French fliers and declared that they had had to contend with headwinds whereas his own flight, backed by tailwinds, had been ‘easy.’”[2] He even met with the next of kin of several of the deceased aviators.
Politics and War
Like so many before him, Lindbergh sought to transition his newfound fame and fortune into influence. After years in the limelight, the kidnapping and horrible death of his infant son, and living abroad, Lindbergh became the spokesman of the America First Committee (AFC) and a proponent of their stance on non-intervention in the war in Europe. It is because of this that most people almost exclusively know of Lindbergh as a “Nazi sympathizer.” No one echoes this sentiment more acutely and explains it than Bill Kauffman in the introduction to his outstanding book, America First!:
The AFC has received such uniformly bad press for half a century that today it exists, in the public mind, as a ragbag of foaming primitives and goose-stepping German-American beerhall bullies, sprinkled with a pinch of high-toned Mayflower descendants who barred Jews from country clubs. This is a victor’s history, complete with demonization of the vanquished foe, and it is absurd.[3]
It really is amazing how those so ardently against war could be vehemently vilified. Today, an increasingly ridiculous amount of propaganda is required to maintain the illusion that Lindbergh was some raving, foaming-at-the-mouth Nazi. There’s Philip Roth’s 2004 novel, The Plot Against America, portraying a fictional timeline where Lindbergh defeats Roosevelt as President of the United States and installs some sort of bizarre, anti-Semitic utopia. HBO turned it into a miniseries; for an excellent background on it, see Giles Corey’s four-part analysis on Counter-Currents. Another example is a terrible film I recently reviewed, Amsterdam, where only a Black-Jew-Basic Bitch alliance is depicted as capable of defeating Lindbergh-esque domestic American fascism. And of course, there’s the favorite of every fair-weather Second World War enthusiast, The Man in the High Castle; I recently read a funny take on Amazon’s television adaptation, stating the necessity of random portrayals of allegedly mechanized Nazi genocide to cover up the fact that the supposed dystopia in the show is actually more desirable than our current reality.
One need look no further than Lindbergh’s own words on non-intervention and the “Jewish Question” to see how much of a Nazi he really was. In a September 1941 speech in Des Moines, Iowa, Lindbergh stated:
The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration. Behind these groups, but of lesser importance, are a number of capitalists, Anglophiles, and intellectuals . . . I am speaking here only of war agitators, not of those sincere but misguided men and women who, confused by misinformation and frightened by propaganda, follow the lead of the war agitators . . . It is not difficult to understand why Jewish people desire the overthrow of Nazi Germany. The persecution they suffered in Germany would be sufficient to make bitter enemies of any race. No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution of the Jewish race in Germany. But no person of honesty and vision can look on their pro-war policy here today without seeing the dangers involved in such a policy both for us and for them. Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way for they will be among the first to feel its consequences. Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastations. A few far-sighted Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to intervention. But the majority still do not. Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government. I am not attacking either the Jewish or the British people. Both races, I admire. But I am saying that the leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war. We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own interests, but we also must look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction.
Commenting on this speech, Kauffman states,
Just how these remarks qualify as anti-Semitic rhetoric remains a mystery. One may strongly disagree with Lindbergh’s argument but it contains nothing repellent or even incontestably untrue.[4]
I imagine the average White Nationalist or dissident Rightist cannot read the above-cited words without a feeling of tragic despair, as if there was an alternate route that history might have taken that has been permanently lost. What makes it worse is the realization that, at the time of Lindbergh’s speech, a vast majority of the country agreed with him; I’ve read various statistics that around 75-85% of the country wanted absolutely nothing to do with another conflict abroad, particularly in the majority white country’s motherland of Europe . . . again.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s White Identity Politics here.
Sadly, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor changed all of that. Overnight, American warmongers got their wish and the nation pivoted to a fever-pitch of bloodlust. Lindbergh immediately found himself on the outside. Having resigned his commission as a Colonel in the Air Corps Reserves in a gesture of solidarity with his isolationist compatriots, President Roosevelt refused to reinstate him. Instead, Lindbergh sought work in the world of defense contracting and convinced his new employers to send him to the Pacific Theater to train Marine Corps aviators on the flying characteristics of the new-but-flawed Vought F4U Corsair, as well as the Air Corps’ stalwart long-range fighter, the P-38 Lightning. While overseas, Lindbergh flew over 50 combat sorties alongside military pilots, participating in bombing missions, strafing runs, and even shooting down an enemy aircraft.
Later Life and Views on Race
Charles Lindbergh was an unabashedly proud European man. In another speech he stated that “our bond with Europe is one of race and not of political ideology,” and that the preservation of European blood and its associated way of life was paramount to the American aviator. This, too, was a common perception of the era.
Years after his death, it was discovered that Lindbergh had extramarital affairs with several German women, one of whom was an aristocratic East Prussian. He fathered several children from these relationships. Though Lindbergh’s wife, Anne Morrow, was of good birth, when taking Lindbergh’s views on Nordic racial preference into consideration as well as his own Nordic ancestry, it seems as if he wanted to continue this bloodline as much as possible. I liken this behavior to the all-too-common occurrence of a white man who has procreated with an Asian woman, has children, and then discovers the world of white identity politics, realizing that perhaps he should have procreated with someone who shares his background.
A Way Forward
If Lindbergh and his ideas were a threat to the order of his time, then his memory serves as an equal threat to the goals of our current oligarchy, who are the direct descendants of the war-era security state and managerial ruling class. This is why the modern America First movement, as well as Lindbergh’s legacy, must be endlessly tarred-and-feathered. For those engaged in cultural guerrilla warfare, however, we need to use what the enemy discards, as what they consider weak makes us stronger.
Most importantly, Lindbergh set an example of character for us to follow. No one summarized Lindbergh’s stellar disposition better than Wayne S. Cole in his essay “Charles A. Lindbergh and the Battle against Intervention”:
Lindbergh fought with all the strength and ability he could command for a cause that he believed paramount for America and the world — and he lost. He suffered abuse and vilification. But he tried to fight fairly, to focus on the issues, and to avoid ad hominem assaults. He rarely answered critics. Lindbergh’s strength, independence, self-reliance, and courage made him less dependent on public approval than most might be. He said one must expect such attacks in public life. He went on to new challenges and accomplishments. Nonetheless, the attacks surely hurt him deeply, particularly when they came from those he respected and when his motives and views were distorted out of all recognition. Throughout his long ordeal, however, Lindbergh kept his sense of proportion, his integrity, and his pride.[5]
For other ways to donate, click here.
Notes
[1] Walter Hixson, Charles A. Lindbergh: Lone Eagle. (New York: Longman Publishers, 2002), p. 40.
[2] Ibid., 41.
[3] Bill Kauffman, America First! Its History, Culture, and Politics (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2016), p. 18.
[4] Kauffman, America First!, p. 21.
[5] Wayne Cole, “Charles A. Lindbergh and the Battle against Intervention” in Tom D. Crouch (ed.), Charles A. Lindbergh: An American Life (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1977), p. 55.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
32 comments
Sadly accurate
My great-grandfather flew with Lucky Lindy in the 1920s at Lambert Airport when he lived in the area, which became the namesake of his famed aircraft. There are more indirect family ties, but I’ll leave it at that. He was one of the first international celebrities and I believe he developed many of his beliefs after the ‘crime of the century’ and the way the media treated his family. Trump copied more than just his America First! slogan.
Wild that the concept of the “international celebrity” as opposed to a well-known ruler or figure is that recent.
One of the great joys of Counter-Currents for me is the way in which it operates as a resource for further reading. There are two recommendations I’d like to make here.
The first is that Lindbergh later co-operated with a US Navy officer, Philip van Horn Weems, to develop a remarkably practical technique to find longitude using a device called the “Hour Angle Watch”. It uses the same principles as marine navigation but is simplified to allow a solo pilot travelling at over 100 mph to get reliable results.
https://youtu.be/p_xES4W540g
A reminder of when horology was serious technology and watches were precision tools, not bling for rappers, drug dealers and their imitators.
The second recommendation is Modris Eckstein’s Rites of Spring, a cultural history of Europe before and after the First World War which devotes a large section to Lindbergh’s flight. The cultural impact was on the same scale as the Apollo landings.
As ever, huge thanks to the author and all at CC.
Thanks for the recommendations, that second one in particular sounds interesting.
Informative article. Thanks!
In case you were not aware, Wayne Cole also wrote a book: ‘Charles A. Lindbergh and the battle against American intervention in World War II,’ published in 1974. I have not yet read it, but plan to now.
Thanks again.
That’s another one that’s been forever on my ‘need to read’ list… the more I read about this era, the more I’m continually blown away how alien the pre- and post- World War II worlds really are.
For those of you haven’t watched it yet, please watch “The Spirit of St. Louis” starring Jimmy Stewart as Lindbergh. It is the best movie I have ever seen.
Thank you -I’ve added that to my list.
I contemplated mentioning this in the piece. Such a good movie and from an era where it was still ok to glorify people like Lindbergh.
i agree, mr judd
What a wonderful ode to Lindburgh, and for me, an introduction. I have only heard of his life and accomplishments from the usual textbook writers. I am encouraged to read more deeply now into his biography, and this essay has guided me to seek his reasons for his ideals, which might otherwise be distorted by public ‘woke’ nonsense.
One avenue of inquiry that has eluded me about the Holocaust is — exactly what happened within Germany from 1918 to 1939 or so, which caused the German people to dislike the Jewish people so much that they, the common people, had no wish to defend the Jews in any way during that period and to turn their back on the incarceration of the Jews which ultimately resulted in their ‘6 million’ deaths.
What had the Jews done? Does Lindburgh write about that?
I will do my own homework, but if anyone has any guidance on this subject, let me know.
Forgive me for misspelling his name.
Col. Lindbergh says very little about what we now call the Big-H in his memoirs (which are an excellent read). He probably saw most of it as Soviet propaganda. After the war he had VIP access to various places like Nordhausen and toured KL Dora and other V-weapons facilities. He objects to the way that Jews were treated as enemy aliens and forced laborers during the war, and the idea of the cremation of bodies in concentration camps offends his Christian sensibilities.
Like Churchill, de Gaulle, Gens. Eisenhower and Bradley, and everybody else, Col. Lindbergh does not mention gas chambers.
The canonical Six-Million figure was not fully popularized yet either. Remember that some sources like Simon Wiesenthal even like to toss in what I call an “ecumenical” Holocaust figure of 6M Jews + 5M Slavs and others. Not all Jews appreciate this approach.
The Holocaust doyen Raul Hilberg, who testified at the first Zündel heresy trial in Canada, used the (1961) figure of 5.1 million Jews, which is probably the minimum allowable today for any historian by law in most “civilized” countries. If you go lower, you’re a Fascist minimizer.
Hilberg also placed the number of deaths at Auschwitz at just over a million, contrary to the official Soviet claims of about four-million. At the end of the Cold War, the Polish state museum at Auschwitz, whose director Dr. Franciszek pan Piper was interviewed on video by a yarmulke-wearing David Cole, officially revised the figures downwards to meet the Western ones and also admitted that the Krema I gaschamber at the main camp that was conspicuously shown to tourists and Israeli pilgrims was actually “reconstructed” by the Soviets after the war. The iconic crematorium chimney does not even connect to the crematorium building, for example.
There are victimology turf wars even today. Poles and Russians compete, for example, for Holocaust street cred.
No doubt butthurt over their exclusion from the January 27th Auschwitz Red Army Liberation celebrations in Poland, the Russian FSB released some secret document a week or two ago from a Soviet PoW who escaped from Auschwitz and who is listed on German records as missing. His report claims among other things that the Jews shouted “Long Live Stalin” as they were being gassed, which is a real thigh-slapper. It is similar to the Vrba-Wetzler Report and no doubt was derived from it, but is mainly of interest today only because of the throwaway line that Poles were used by the Nazis as “enforcers.”
Historical Revisionism is a vast subject ─ History by its nature has many points-of-view and political outlooks ─ but other than in matters regarding the Holocaust, the orthodoxy and boundaries are seldom starkly laid out by law. Flat-Earthers, and Moon Landing Deniers are not similarly prosecuted or booted out of academia as far as I know.
And considering the popularity of conspiracy-theories in the WN or “Dissident” Right circles, I think teaching good critical-thinking skills is more important than ever. So the subject can’t be ignored.
As far as German attitudes regarding the Jews, the short answer is that even Churchill believed that Bolshevism and Zionism were competing forms of Judaism, and they were clearly cosmopolitan and international in scope.
In the Weimar period, something like 80 percent of lawyers were Jews, who only made up about 1 percent of the German population. Their demographic over-representations in medicine and academia were similar. And even the Western Jews despised the Ostjuden, who came in from Poland or Russia with their carpetbags and garments riddled with lice.
One of these Polish Jews was Herschel Grynszpan, who assassinated a German diplomat in Paris which led to the Kristalnacht “broken glass” riots in Berlin. Other than that Hitler was deemed Time magazine’s 1938 “Man of the Year.” The first so honored was Lucky Lindy after a certain benchmark solo air crossing of the Atlantic in 1927.
Hitler had been trying to project an image of law and order, technological progress and robust military strength in German diplomacy, as when Germany hosted the 1936 Olympics, which was broadcast around the country via television kiosks. David Irving says that Dr. Goebbels got the blame for the pogrom ─ not the best propaganda for export ─ and he was therefore somewhat in the doghouse with Hitler until later in the war, although the good doktor was never sacked.
I’m paraphrasing a bit here, but Hitler states right in Mein Kampf that the Zionism movement had very little to do with Jews actually wanting to live in a homeland of their own. They all want some other good Jew to make Aliyah and go till the soil and fight for their tribal homeland whilst the rest of the Diaspora will just live comfortably as semi-hostile alien elites in the Gentile nations ─ making lots of money, and garnering excessive political and financial influence ─ and just doing their own thing, unless and until they get into trouble and might need to flee to the safety of their own sovereign ethnostate ─ like gangster Meyer Lansky who was never seriously prosecuted for anything more than gambling and tax evasion.
In the Spring of 1918 when British General Haig (of the “lions led by donkeys” meme) gave his “our backs are to the wall” order of 11 April 1918, the German Gen. Ludendorff offensive had broken through the stalemate of the trenches on the Western Front and pushed forward forty miles.
A little more pressure (which the Germans did not have to apply even with the Russians now out of the war) and the Allied armies would have split apart ─ with the French armies going one way to protect Paris and the British expeditionary forces falling back onto the channel ports. (This scenario played out again in 1940 at Dunkirk with the German Generals in disagreement, with Hitler in the middle, over how best to execute the knockout blow in the West.)
The point is that even at a late date in the Great War, the Germans controlled vast tracts of Allied territory and still had a powerful army in the field. Gen. Hindenburg coined the phrase that “Germany was stabbed in the back” with the Armistice, and he was not wrong. A negotiated peace was possible in 1918 but the Allies knew that “every third German was a traitor.” Jews were in the rear with the gear and agitating for world revolution whilst people like Hitler were getting gassed at the front.
Communist coups actually occurred in various places in Germany in the interwar period, although I don’t think an outright Bolshevik revolution had the same danger in Germany, even while exhausted, as it was still an organically sound nation-state compared to the Judaic wormwood and stultifyingly-backward Orthodox Christianity that was hundreds of years of Tsarist rule.
A really good book on how Hitler came to power, although slightly dated (c. 1978) is: Who Financed Hitler: The Secret Funding of Hitler’s Rise to Power, 1919-1933, by James and Suzanne Pool.
The Pool book has been through many printings and still holds up. It does a good job of untangling many complex threads and is not as conspiratorial as it seems from the title.
Basically the book shows how the Germans themselves financed a populist revolt through the widow’s mites of their own, and the National Socialists (or “Nazis” as Goebbels and I prefer) legally played off the impotent Center-Right and the radical Left against each other and thereby gained political control. The book ends in 1933 when Hitler is finally appointed Chancellor by President Hindenburg ─ after the NSDAP having had a plurality in the Reichstag for quite some time.
It is important to note that after the 1929 global stock market crash torpedoed the bourgeois system and Germany’s designated place in the pecking order, all of the German chancellors at this time ruled by emergency decrees or dysfunctional dictatorships ─ but none had any real popular support prior to Hitler.
Scores of millions of lives spent to rescue and establish Communism and give us the postwar Bretton-Woods system. Yeehaw!
Finally, I am not sure how to interpret the revelations of Lindbergh’s new family. But this attitude is not unlike that of the WASP patrician class in those days, who did not believe in divorce and so started new relationships while keeping their old and respectable marriages-of-convenience. I am surprised that Franklin D. Roosevelt (who died on vacation with his mistress) lasted with wife Eleanor as long as he did. She was quite the battle-axe according to her son-in-law, Col. Curtis B. Dall.
I don’t think aviator Charles Lindbergh ever was really cut out for politics but did so as sort of noblesse oblige. He truly understood that internecine and fratricidal warfare in Europe was an unmitigated disaster for Western Civilization ─ which in those days was explicitly defined as Europe and what European peoples have created. He understood that the Anglosphere had no business saving Communism.
The worst possible outcome was for the Japanese to attack the Americans and give FDR an iron-clad excuse for global intervention. And we will all be paying for that mistake for a very long time.
Rather like Neil Armstrong, the first man to set foot upon the Moon, Charles Lindbergh was a thoughtful technocrat who disliked the limelight and the burdens of being a world media celebrity. However, both men fulfilled whatever public duties were asked of them and wore that mantle of national hero with stoic grace and dignity.
It is an incredible outrage that many have suggested that Lindbergh somehow orchestrated the kidnapping and murder of his own two-year-old son. It ranks up there with Kennedy assassination conspiracy-theory. People like to connect dots that just are not there.
I remember when Lindbergh died in 1974. Also there was an old codger in the nursing home living in Idaho in the 1970s named Pete Hill who taught Col. Lindbergh and Admiral Byrd how to fly. They would trot him out to visit the Civil Air Patrol cadets, and people like me would ask questions about the old days. Often we did not really know what were the best questions to ask.
Times change with remarkable speed. Charles Augustus Lindbergh was born into a world where heavier-than-air flight was the realm of the Gods. When he died, Whitey had landed teams on the Moon and safely them returned six times.
🙂
Agree with almost everything you’ve said here but would you care to have a stab at explaining why it’s just gone fifty years since a man has been claimed to walk on the moon? Or why Neil Armstrong always avoided claiming to have been on the moon unless he had no other option? And what did he mean, in this speech., when he told aspiring space workers that ‘there are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth’s protective layers’ ?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mRnOpZWaTgM
Note how carefully he chooses his words to avoid lying about the Apollo missions and how he acknowledges the international space station as a great achievement but he never makes any mention of completed missions beyond Earth orbit, let alone Lunar orbit or Lunar landing, take-off and rendezvous.
I remain agnostic but I don’t have satisfactory answers to these or many other anomalies.
Well, it is not like you can just build a special sailboat and go visit the stars on your own. The space program was a team effort if there ever was one.
Sending a dozen men to walk on the Moon in the 1960s cost tens of billions of dollars to accomplish. At the time NASA was criticized in that they did not select the Burger King Kid’s Club to go, but instead chose White male test pilots with advanced engineering and astrophysics degrees. Both Armstrong and Aldrin had even flown jets in combat in Korea.
Most people think that the Apollo program was the main governmental expense of the day, but it was in fact comparatively minor.
There isn’t really any good commercial reason to go back to the Moon other than for scientific experimentation and further exploration. But getting men to the Moon and back in the 1960s was as difficult as sailing around the Cape of Africa in the 15th century.
Space tourism is a very long ways off, and the idea of space colonization is even more so. Either the gold and spices have to be worth a whole lot more or the technology has to make some quantum leaps in improvement. Nowadays we can just hop onto a jet airliner and reach the antipodes in a day or so.
A new Moon landing program will utilize newer technology than Apollo, and it will not be like reinventing the wheel.
However, the endeavor just won’t interest or inspire most people who would rather gossip about Sportsball or the Kardashians. When I was a kid we were interested in things like building Ham radios, and tinkering with cars and guns. Now the big talk of the day is about weird Japanese cartoons.
With the Artemis program NASA will try for some novelty or “Diversity, Inclusion and Equity” with Affirmative Action hires, but I am not too sure how interesting it will be to have trannies and basketball Americans walking on the Moon.
And future explorers going to Mars will be two or three orders of magnitude more difficult than the Moonshots, and far more expensive than sending robot space probes, so we are unlikely to see much or any of that in our lifetimes.
Lindbergh wasn’t the first to fly across the Atlantic, but he was the first to fly all by himself in a single-engined plane of his own technical specifications. And to some extent he got lucky. If the engine quit, he had to do without a life raft or parachute.
I am not seeing anything wrong with the Neil Armstrong quote. He is paraphrasing the empirical method that to find out nature’s secrets “you must tease them out of her.” I forget which philosopher put it that way. Getting to the core of the truth is sort of like peeling back the layers of the onion. The comments are not meant to be taken too literally. Feminist academics are always horrified about the Science metaphor of “putting Mother Nature on the rack.” They would last about a week without electric air conditioning and soy lattes.
I think that we should avoid getting too nihilistic about things. Yeah, governments do lie but that does not mean that everything is a lie.
Skepticism is healthy, but just because the government did something decent does not mean that they lied about the accomplishment.
I have seen the full gamut of conspiracy theories coming from WN sources that presumably should know better. Just leave the cargo culting to the Blacks. From fake Moonshots to fake viruses, that atomic bombs are fake, blah blah.
It really seems there is no limit to the nonsense reporting, which is about as reliable and rigorous as tabloid journalism about the UFO baby at the checkout counter. I don’t really like the term “Dissident” Right because nihilism aspires to nothing and it accomplishes nothing.
🙂
The Apollo program, like Sputnik and Gagarin before that, were great deeds, but at practical sight they were just big propaganda efforts. Yes, American astronauts and Soviet cosmonauts were very brave good men, the scientists and engineers in both countries have done wonderful work to achieve that, but it was simply propaganda. The humanity has got nothing usable of those manned space flights. The satellites are very useful for all of us, but men and women in the open space are not. Unmanned astronautics is good, manned one is just wasted money.
Thanks for your reply but I don’t see why you feel the need to denigrate people (who should know better) for asking questions which as far as I and many others can see don’t have good answers. The simple truth is that given the technology at the time it would have been a lot easier to fake the evidence of the moon missions than it would have been to carry them out, complete with their miraculous single stage launches from the surface into lunar orbit. And there were strong propagandistic reasons for making sure that Kennedy’s promise should be seen to be fulfilled.
It’s certainly not an issue central to our cause, given the Apollo program’s status as one of the last hurrahs of the traditional American patriarchy but I don’t see questioning it as nihilistic. Faked or legitimate it was an incredible achievement.
I suppose the causes of a new German anti-Semitism of 1920-1930’s were mostly invasion and behaviour of the so-called Eastern Jews, Jews from Poland, SLovakia, Ukraine, Calychina, Belarus, Lithuania, Russia etc. The GERMAN JEWS were assimiliated, civilized and mostly loyal German citizens/subjects, they did much for German progress and development in economy, science, culture and arts, they fought in the Great War. They were good Germans of Jewish origin. The Eastern Jews were aliens, and barbarians. The Germans saw that and GENERALIZED all Jews as a whole (and this was wrong). The same situation was with the supposed “Anti-Slavism” of the German NS’s. Wenden und Sorben, Czechs, Slovaks, Croatians, Slovenians, all Slavs, were OK for Germans before and during the WWII. With Poles they have territorial and ethnic conflict, but not racial one. Another story is with the so-called “Eastern Slavs” who are not Slavs at all, but just multiple non-Slavic barbarian peoples and tribes, speaking Slavic languages (like bro’s in Harlem speak English, but they are not the English). Here we see again an exaple of over-generalization and -simplification.
Some interesting infromation you can got from the book Jewish Domination of Weimar Germany. 1919-1932, published in Germany, in 1933.
It’s indicative of jews how now they vilify Lindy as a nazi; simply an extreme and open way they are re-writing history. Lindbergh was a heroic man, and an early photo of him in his aviators helmet with the flaps makes him look like an ancient Greek warrior, which is how early aviators were seen. Here in St. Louis, he is still revered (Lindbergh Boulevard, Lindbergh High and a dance, the Lindy Hop), and Gore Vidal wrote how Lindbergh inspired many, although for Gore, Amelia Earhart was his heroine, partly because his father was a navigator, and they were good friends. Gore also noted how Lindbergh was vilified for meeting with nazi leaders, although Gore claims it was partly a secret mission to study Germany’s air power. Lindbergh recommended the U.S. start work on a long-range bomber, and the one that became the B-17 had a lot to do with his urging. FDR, typically double-crossed Lindbergh and kept him from any military role, but his work as a civilian advisor has been noted.
Comparing the Jewish novels and TV projects against him, Countercurrents readers might like to read Gore Vidal’s The Smithsonian Institution, a fantasy novel where a boy in 1940 finds the Smithsonian displays come alive after hours, and he winds up being taken by squaw, a woman who is also Grover Cleveland’s wife, and they create a parallel universe, stopping WWI and keeping America out of WWII in Europe, but will fight Japan…the chief of staff is General Lindbergh.
It’s pretty funny, and the Hollywood Night at the Museum films were a very much dumb down version of this book, devoid of any intellectual thought.
It’s funny when in the book a convocation of all American presidents are convened, and they read the riot act to Roosevelt. All except Lincoln, who sounds like Biden…because he did survive the assassination, but the bullet wrecked his brain. he says useless non sequiturs and stares a lot. Lindbergh comes out as a sensible, thoughtful man.
Something Gore recalled s when Lindbergh spoke to him, Lindbergh kept trying to pump a flashlight with an octagonal front instead of a round one. Round ones were always falling or rolling away. What a practical idea.
I’ve read very little Vidal, and I need to fix that; maybe I’ll start with this. Thanks for the recommendation!
It appears highly probable that because Charles Lindbergh was so popular and in agreement with the majority of Americans who did not want to enter war in Europe, drawing large crowds, that the Jewish mafia and their masonic cronies understood that Lindbergh was a real and dire threat to their plots for war. Lindbergh would have won the elections against Rooseveldt. Rooseveldt was a sephardic descendant from the New Christian sort.
This judeo-masonic cult already had intel Lindbergh and his anti-war leanings and therefore they devised the plot to kidnap and murder his son in order to render him useless. It is likely that this plot originated in Hamburg, Germany and that it was carried out by a jewish gang of whom Isodor Fisch was one, who befriended and set up the patsy Bruno Hauptmann. The jews even sent their lawyer Lowenstein to obtain a confession of guilt. They vilified Lowenstein’s rival who was Reilly, Bruno’s attorney.
The fact that they have made a movie about Lindbergh becoming president is a sign that this was a real issue for the warmongering jews and their camp. The Plot against America was not Lindbergh becoming president, but them plotting against America. Ironic, but the truth is stated quite blatantly, all you have to do is invert their messages.
I also believe that it is highly probable that Pearl Harbour was an earlier 9/11, to force Americans to change their minds about spending their money and sending their offspring to suffer and die in the waste of the abomination that causes desolation that is war.
>> I also believe that it is highly probable that Pearl Harbour was an earlier 9/11, to force Americans to change their minds about spending their money and sending their offspring to suffer and die in the waste of the abomination that causes desolation that is war. <<
I agree with that. FDR was doing everything he could to invite a sneak attack and then acted surprised.
However, the Lindbergh kidnapping occurred on March 1, 1932 which was over six months before the presidential election in November, and nearly a year before President Hoover actually left office and Roosevelt was inaugurated.
In mid-March of that year, President Hindenburg (Head of State) ran against Nazi Party Leader Adolf Hitler and won re-election with 86.21% (first round) and 83.45% (second round).
It wasn’t until July, 1932 that the NSDAP won 37 percent of the parliamentary vote and a plurality of seats in the Reichstag by a large margin. The Communist KPD won 15 percent. This meant that the reactionary and bourgeois parties together only held the minority of seats, so Hindenburg’s succession of Chancellors ruled by Emergency Decree or dictatorship to fight the gridlock.
Hindenburg did not finally appoint Hitler Chancellor until 30 JAN 1933, after which the Reichstag effectively gave him dictatorial powers, and the KPD was duly banned. Then “Judea declares war on Germany,” according to the New York Times headline, of 24 MAR 1933.
Hitler was not really on the public radar in the United states when Lindbergh’s baby was kidnapped, and neither Lindbergh nor Mussolini were yet explicitly associated with anti-Semitism.
In fact, early aspects of FDR’s New Deal sought to incorporate “Fascist principles” such as the National Industrial Recovery Act of June, 1933 ─ which was ruled Unconstitutional the next year ─ and the 1935 Wagner Act, which permits collective bargaining in the USA and created the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), according to the Fascist principle that Labor and Management disputes be arbitrated by the State in the public interest.
In any case, I think that there was a (slightly) wider conspiracy to kidnap the Lindbergh boy. For one thing, the boy’s nanny might have been involved. I also think that the evidence shows that Bruno Richard Hauptmann was involved.
But I don’t think it had to do with Germany, Jews, or Hitler. World War II was not even on the radar yet, and Isolationism was very strong in Congress and did not yet need Lindbergh’s support.
Col. Lindbergh was targeted because he was a massive media celebrity. The paparazzi would not leave him alone. The Lindbergh boy was like Lady Gaga’s dogs.
Lada Gaga sang at the 2021 Bidet presidential inauguration, and the next month her two dogs were kidnapped and ransomed by a Negro who shot her dog-walker.
🙂
All great points, particularly about FDR aching to get into the war by the late 30s. Scott’s mention of Hitler being Time’s man of the year (and Lindbergh before that), Churchill’s early praise for Hitler/condemnation of communism and its Jewish influence, Lindbergh’s views on war and pro-European policy aligning with a majority of the country, etc. etc. all point to a major shift of viewpoint in the mid-to-late 1930s—explicitly from being partial or at least neutral to virulently anti-fascism. Obviously geo-political events dictated some of this but, as always, much of it was the orchestration of opinion-makers and the era’s media class (largely the same folks running things today).
Thanks 🙂
Dorothy Thompson interviewed Hitler for the first time in 1931, and I recall a short article on him in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 1929 edition: “Bavarian Politician.” (That was the edition my mother’s parents owned.) When Oswald Mosley was on the cover of TIME in early 1931, he was captioned “Britain’s Hitler.”
So it’s just wrong to say AH wasn’t on American radar pre-1933.
Well, I believe that AH was mentioned by name in the American papers as early as the Beer Hall Putsch and trial. In addition, there are probably some occasional news references to Hitler running against President Hindenburg in 1932.
I am not saying that nobody in the United States knew who Hitler was, or that people who read the newspapers past the headlines never heard that he was the head of a major German political party, whose ranks surged after the 1929 stock market crash.
What I mean by “on the radar” is the hysterical obsession with Hitler in the American media ─ which certainly occurred no later than his becoming German Chancellor in 1933 ─ and which led directly to Sammy Untermyer’s “Judea Declares War” speech that kicked off the Jewish economic boycott of Germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Sectarian_Anti-Nazi_League
References to Hitler in “newspapers of record” like the New York Times in 1933 are going to spike by this point. Big Time.
Comparatively few knew of Charles Lindbergh before his 1927 flight. Then suddenly everybody did.
The same thing happened with celebrity (but not politician) Donald Trump leading up to the 2016 presidential election when it was discovered that he had taken the Republican nomination, and then actually won the general election: “The Donald,” President? Total Libtard meltdown.
The “radar” was not that interested in Trump in the Summer of 2015 when he slid down that Famous Escalator, which was considered a “sick joke” by many pundits at the time.
In politics, this is called being the Dark Horse.
Hitler was definitely a Dark Horse before his 1933 Chancellorship ─ at least in the United States ─ whereas Lindbergh was indeed already the first modern media celebrity at the time of his son’s 1932 New Jersey kidnapping. I think this could easily be shown with a meta-analysis of archival newspapers.
About twenty-five years ago I did an analysis of the word “Holocaust” as it was mentioned in the archival newspapers because its use in the context that everybody thinks of today really only began with the eponymous NBC TV miniseries in 1978. Within four more years, the “Nazi destruction of the Jews” was almost the sole definition of this H-word, and you even had to be careful how you used it.
Prior to 1978, the Jewish angle for the word “Holocaust” was seldom mentioned in the media, and the word Holocaust mainly meant something like pagan burnt offerings, nuclear war, or a great conflagration like in 1871 Chicago or San Francisco after the 1906 earthquake.
What I found going through miles of newspaper microfilm was that I did find a few references to the word Holocaust in Jewish periodicals as early as 1945, and one in the Manchester Guardian in 1968, and a few more in the early 1970s in the NYT. So I confirmed that almost nobody used the term “Holocaust” in its current meaning until 1978. Then everybody did.
The year 1933 is going to be a publicity benchmark for Adolf Hitler as well. The media circus is what is important here as far as the 1932 Lindbergh kidnapping is concerned. Connecting those dots between Hitler or the NSDAP and Lindbergh is anachronistic at best.
There is precisely zero chance that the 1932 kidnapping had anything to do with Lindbergh’s eventual political interests as a spokesman for Isolationism in the latter part of the 1930s ─ when Roosevelt by then was beating the drum about “containing aggressors” and “Dr. Seuss” made a name for himself doing cartoons about Lindbergh as an ostrich along with the other 80 percent of Americans having their “heads in the sand” regarding foreign threats.
Roosevelt’s New Deal had essentially been gutted by the Supreme Court from 1937, and he initially focused on saber-ratting against Japan for his economic and rearmament goals.
Col. Lindbergh was not a pacifist in any case. He was a spokesman for armed neutrality.
Even Lindbergh’s trips to Germany from 1936-38 as a VIP guest of the American Embassy and Hermann Göring ─ inspecting the Luftwaffe, which had officially been created only in 1935 ─ were intended to promote American military aviation, as well as to promote peaceful deterrence.
Hitler and Göring wanted foreigners to assess the German military as modern and strong because it gave Hitler diplomatic leverage. Col. Lindbergh was duly impressed with the Luftwaffe, and reported back honestly about what he found, according to the memoirs of General H.H. Arnold, head of the U.S. Army Air Corps.
🙂
@ Antipodean
I apologize if you feel that I have denigrated present company. I am mainly frustrated about attitudes held by White Nationalists or the “Dissident” Right in the “Movement,” such that it is, where every batshit stupid conspiracy-theory is canonically embraced. I don’t think this rises to the level of controlled-opposition exactly, but it might as well be. It is a slippery slope to nihilism.
I heartily endorse everyone asking questions. And good for you! I did not mean to be snarky or to suggest otherwise.
I very much support open-debate and always have. I’m a Revisionist (historiography is all about revisionism, small-r after all) but CODOH (Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust) had way too much censorship on their discussion forum for my liking ─ although I have heard no complaints about their forum in recent years. I admired the late CODOH founder Bradley Smith, especially his Campus Project, but he just was not interested in affairs related to Online discussion forums, and I couldn’t convince him otherwise, whether the discussion forum part was really moderated too heavily or not.
In fact, Bradley had cancelled his old discussion bbs where I was the top poster when I started my own small message forum. The Institute for Historical Review had also cancelled their academic journal.
So since 2003 ─ despite numerous deplatformings, including the recent jailing in Sweden of our webmaster for an eight-year prison sentence ─ all decent topics, even the Holocaust ─ the Holiest of Holies in the Western World ─ can be debated by all sides there as fairly, and without censorship, as I can make it.
We have had numerous PhDs participating at RODOH (Real Open-Debate of History) over the years. Unfortunately, not all sides don’t really want to seriously debate or discuss the Big-H. In spite of laws in many countries criminalizing one side of such debates and scholarship, I feel that both sides still need a platform or refuge of some kind to discuss the matter openly.
Fortunately there are no laws against discussing Moon Landing conspiracies. Although I feel that this Apollo subject and the Kennedy assassination are settled in favor of the establishment view, and that all serious and relevant questions have already been answered, I also feel that these can be good exercises in critical-thinking and at least they are safe. These less-weighty matters have no high stakes or powerful constituencies that might seriously endanger or scare skeptics off.
So, if there are any serious Moon Landing Deniers, I would encourage them to start a thread over at RODOH, and we can have a discussion. Like David Irving, I get incredibly bored talking about the Holocaust. All topics of history and politics are open at RODOH, and I have a great personal interest in modern history and technology. I only shill my site very rarely, btw. That is not why I am here.
( https://rodoh.info/ )
🙂
@ Kök Böri
I strongly disagree that humanity got nothing useful from the manned space flights. The entire modern electronics and computer industry was developed to enable President Kennedy’s 1961 goal to “put a man on the Moon and return him safely to the Earth.” It was a goal that was necessary “not because it is easy but because it is hard.”
The German rocket scientist Dr. Wernher von Braun went to work for the U.S. Army Ballistic Missile Agency or ABMA after the war along with many German colleagues who had been part of the German V-Weapons program. The Americans had captured parts for about a hundred V2 rockets and fired about sixty from the New Mexico desert in the White Sands area ─ the same range that was used for the first atomic bomb test on July 16th, 1945. I have picked up the green radioactive glass at the Trinity detonation site and been to the nearby rocket museums at Alamogordo and so forth.
Dr. von Braun’s rocket team, based at the Army’s Redstone arsenal at Huntsville, Alabama, which later built the Saturn V rocket there with the Marshall Space Flight Center, could have put an American satellite into orbit almost ten years before the Russian Sputnik of October, 1957. They were specifically ordered by President Eisenhower NOT to do so because he did not want to heat up the arms race with the Soviets.
Whatever one thinks about Eisenhower or Kennedy, Eisenhower established a civilian agency in 1958 called NASA to focus on space exploration, in conjunction with the scientific International Geophysical Year. Eisenhower also warned about what he called the “Military Industrial Complex” when he left office, and that same year (1961) Kennedy attempted to defang the arms race by switching propaganda and focusing efforts to space exploration instead of nuclear war. Kennedy had campaigned for election in 1960 on the (nonexistent) basis of a Missile Gap with the Soviets.
The point is that there was a massive focus on technology in the United States after Sputnik ─ the real kind of technology, not coding video games. This focus on Science & Technology influenced me as well and it lasted until President Nixon, trying to scale back the mounting costs from the Vietnam War cut aerospace funding drastically, shortly before Armstrong stepped onto the Moon for all mankind on July 20th, 1969.
To Nixon’s credit he did not ashcan the entire space program and it did achieve its propaganda goal in 1969, and then five more successful missions, with Apollo 13 being a non-lethal failure. In 1971, elite engineers could barely find work and my Dad and his friends were seriously considering opening up a gasoline service station like the storybook kind they worked in as teenagers. (This would not have worked out with the future oil crisis caused by the October 1973 Arab-Israel War, LOL.) One engineer friend of my Dad’s actually hanged himself like the guy in the 1960s TV drama Mad Men.
Anyway, my Dad and my late Uncle came of age with Sputnik and went into Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering. My Dad’s first job out of college was working on the Minuteman Missile (first deployed in 1961) which was a unique design for the Air Force which used an innovative and initially-unreliable solid propellant technology like the Space Shuttle SRB boosters ─ that blew up in 1986, and for which my Dad was brought back to redesign for reliability.
I initially studied electronics and became a Broadcasting Engineer and I am not nearly as smart as a rocket or nuclear engineer. Plus I initially did not want to work for the Military Industrial Complex.
In any case, I have seen the Minuteman I guidance system computer in a museum. It was a 62 pound digital computer made with discrete transistors and diodes mounted on 75 printed circuit boards. Many wristwatches today have more computing power than this, let alone Smartphones.
The Minuteman was a true intercontinental ballistic missile that had an accuracy comparable to a Stuka dive bomber from WWII, except that it could carry a nuclear warhead of about 300 thousand tons of TNT equivalent. That is quite a deterrent!
The Moonshots would not have been possible with 1961-era computer and electronics technology, and the U.S. government and American industry knew it. By 1965, integrated circuit chips were being built and sold with hundreds or even thousands of transistors ─ and by the dawn of the 1970s, whole micro-processing chips were being made by American manufacturers, which made the personal computer possible a few years later. The Japanese and others were not far behind in electronics but Soviet computers could never compete.
“NASA’s Apollo Program was the largest single consumer of integrated circuits between 1961 and 1965. [fn 19]”
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit )
When Zoomers hear in school that the Moonshots were done with computers less powerful than their pocket devices ─ or their Nïggertech as I call it ─ there is a big disconnect for them because we are not today booking flights to the Moon like it was a trip to Paris. They just don’t understand what sort of an accomplishment it was for the times, and what it really took in developing the broad technological infrastructure to get there.
As a society we need to set similar tough goals for ourselves like Kennedy did in 1961, even if all it amounts to for some people is building “pyramids” for the purposes of propganda.
But I fear that world of real science and technology is long gone ─ and without something like an ethnostate or some kind of “new order of the ages,” I doubt we will ever get it back. When I was a kid it was a world of spaceships and intrepid pioneers like Charles Lindbergh.
When I was coming of age in the 1970s it was a world of race riots, gasoline and energy shortages, and economic stagnation-inflation. Now bronze statues of venerable heroes are being torn down by some of the most execrable rabble.
Anyway, the last three Moonshots had explorers walking on the Moon for much longer times than the first three, where the basic mission techniques were still being developed. There was much real scientific work done then, and the last mission even had an actual Moon scientist in the landing crew. The three final missions (Apollos 18, 19, 20) that were cancelled due to cost and public indifference would have no doubt outdone Apollos 15, 16, 17.
Much was learned and much technology and industrial infrastructure had to be developed from Mercury-Redstone in 1961 to Apollo 17 in 1972. Modern computers and telecommunications as we know them today simply would not exist. Private firms would have never risked their precious capital to develop these things on their own.
Now any cargo cult troglodyte can use the fruits of this technological revolution. And we even have people in our little Movement who venerate homicidal anarchist creeps like the Unabomber, a guy whose cabin in the Montana woods did not even have an outhouse or toilet. That is a pretty low bar indeed.
🙂
Lovely commemoration. Reference is made to Philip Roth’s The Plot Against America, a ludicrous fantasy novel. Actually Roth had a sneaking admiration for Lindbergh, as the O. Henry twist to the plot was that Lindbergh’s son had been kidnapped and held for ransom, and forced to do this or that. So Roth used him as a whipping-boy, while still preserving him as a hero.
Thank you! and yea, “ludicrous fantasy” seems like an accurate description.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.