Counter-Currents
3,330 words
In order for white Europeans to finally escape the hole they have dug for themselves, they must reevaluate the Second World War. This was the war in which Europe was conquered by the forces of liberal democracy coming from the west, and the forces of communism coming from east—two sides of the same globalist coin. Ultimately, whites were the big loser in that conflict, with over ten million needlessly slaughtered. But this was all for the good, we’ve been taught. This was all to crush a great evil, one we were told we’d do much better without. Only now, we are beginning to realize that we not doing any better without this so-called evil. With Europe and America being invaded by the Third World, and with this catastrophe being funded, enabled, and cheered on by the very inheritors of the victors of the Second World War, we’re beginning to discover an evil greater than the one we eradicated in 1945.
I would say reevaluating the Second World War ranks higher in importance than being versed in race realism, the Jewish Question, or white identity, as crucial as all of these things are. Fortunately, former Fox News personality and independent journalist Tucker Carlson is doing just this. Recently, he hosted historian and podcaster Darryl Cooper for an interview on X to discuss the Jonestown massacre and Cooper’s upcoming and sure-to-be-controversial project on WWII. Given the million-plus views and ten thousand comments their conversation has garnered, revisionist notions are suddenly, miraculously back in play in the American mainstream. As I listened to this engrossing podcast, I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.
Starting off, Carlson could not have praised Cooper more effusively—so much so that what followed will be impossible for him to walk back. Darryl Cooper, according to Carlson, is “the most important popular historian working in the United States today” thanks to his “relentless curiosity and honesty.” As it turns out, Cooper’s curiosity and honesty have led him to some rather scandalous opinions on the Second World War, which he correctly described as “the founding mythology of the order that we’re all living in.” You can say what you want about other historical events, but to deviate from the accepted narrative on this one is to violate some serious taboos. And one way to ensure a topic remains poorly understood is to slather it with taboos.
I mean, again, like a historical event like World War two, where I mean, the one rule is that you shall not do that. You shall not look at this topic and try to understand how the Germans saw the world. Like how the whole thing, from the First World War on up to the very end of the war, how these people might have genuinely felt like they were the ones under attack. That they were the ones being victimized by their neighbors and by all these, by the Allied powers. You know, and you can handle that with a sentence, you know, you can wave it off and say, well, you know, they’re justifying themselves, their rationalizing their evil, or whatever you want to say. But again, I think we’re getting to the point where that’s very unsatisfying . . .
So Cooper wishes to understand the German perspective regarding the war. That in and of itself is not terribly scandalous. Then again, never once did he say that the German perspective was necessarily correct or moral. He understands that there are layers upon layers here—nothing one can uncover in a two-hour podcast. But like a good historian, he also knows that demonizing one side of a conflict isn’t right.
And so if you start talking about the interwar period and how Weimar, the Weimar culture, you know, after the First World War led to something like, the rise of the National Socialists and why the people who embraced that movement did embrace it. . . . You know, you had this country, Germany, a sophisticated cultural super power. That was fine. And then they all turned into demons for a few years, and now they’re fine again. Like, that’s sort of the official story. And I think deep down, we all know that makes no sense.
If he refuses to demonize the German people, that’s one thing. But at least Cooper has the sense to demonize Adolf Hitler, right? Well, not so fast:
Churchill was the chief villain of the Second World War. Now, he didn’t kill the most people. He didn’t commit the most atrocities[…] I think when you really get into it and tell the story right and don’t leave anything out, you see that he was primarily responsible for that war becoming what it did, becoming something other than an invasion of Poland.
Cooper argues further that Hitler, after achieving victory over Poland, fired off peace proposals to France and England, begging them to rescind their war declaration. Hitler even flew planes over England to drop leaflets expressing Germany’s desire for peace. According to messages like these, Hitler not only wanted peace, he wanted England to remain strong—with all of its colonies intact—in order to thwart the great communist menace in the Soviet Union. All sadly fell on deaf ears.
The reason I resent Churchill so much for it is that he kept this war going when he had no way, he had no way to go back and fight this war. All he had were bombers. He was literally, by 1940, sending firebomb fleets, sending bomber fleets to go firebomb the Black Forest. Just to burn down sections of the Black Forest. Just rank terrorism, you know […] What eventually became the carpet bombing, the saturation bombing of civilian neighborhoods […] the purpose of which was to kill as many civilians as possible. And all the men were out in the field. All the fighting age men were out in the field. And so this is old people. It’s women and children. And they knew that.
Sort of like how the Allies starved 850,000 Germans—old people and children, mostly—during their naval blockade at the end of the First World War. Of course, the Germans remembered that. Of course, they would scoff at any Allied notions of human rights after that. One thing that Cooper does not mention however was that Churchill had been egged on by none other than President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in Washington. FDR had desperately wanted war with Germany and had pressured Churchill’s predecessor Neville Chamberlain during the late 1930s into provoking one—as it turned out, by propping up Poland with a “blank check.” According to Robert Stinnett in Day of Deceit FDR had goaded Japan into war for this very reason due to Japan’s alliance with Germany. And those long-range heavy bombers which Cooper mentions? They were manufactured for the very purpose of bombing German civilians by the supposed appeaser Chamberlain throughout 1938 and 1939.
As for Churchill’s motive, Cooper delves into the man’s inflated vision of himself and need for redemption after the Gallipoli disaster he engineered during WWI. He calls Churchill a psychopath and a drunk, and relates how as an adult he would play with war toys and action figures in his bedroom. Then, after touching upon Churchill’s preference of Zionism over Bolshevism as career paths for young Eastern-European Jewish radicals, he hits one of the third rails of revisionist WWII history:
But then as time goes on, you know, you read stories about Churchill going bankrupt and needing money. Getting bailed out by people who shared his interests, you know, in terms of Zionism, but also, his hostility […] Put it this way, I think his hostility to Germany was real. I don’t think that he necessarily had to be bribed to have that feeling. But, you know, I think he was, to an extent, put in place by people, the financiers, by a media complex that wanted to make sure that he was the guy who, you know, who was representing Britain in that conflict for a reason.
So without explicitly naming the Jew, Cooper relays one very important historic undercurrent of the Second World War—that during the 1930s, Winston Churchill had been financed by Jews who shared both his interests in Zionism and war lust against Nazi Germany. This is real David Irving territory. And it gets better (or worse, depending on your perspective). Cooper actually commits the sin of delving into Nazi atrocities in Eastern Europe without mentioning the Jewish Holocaust. Instead, he frames the atrocities as the German forces being unexpectedly overwhelmed with millions of prisoners and not being able to feed them.
In 1941, they launched a war where they were completely unprepared to deal with the millions and millions, of prisoners of war, of local political prisoners and so forth that they were going to have to handle. They went in with no plan for that. And they just threw these people into camps, and millions of people ended up dead there. You know, you have like, letters as early as July, August, 1941 from commandants of these makeshift camps that they’re setting up for these millions of people who were surrendering or people that are rounding up […] So it’s two months after, a month or two after Barbarossa was launched, and they’re writing back to the high command in Berlin, saying we can’t feed these people, we don’t have the food to feed these people. And one of them actually says, rather than wait for them all to slowly starve this winter, wouldn’t it be more humane to just finish them off quickly now?
Three things need to be noted here. First, Cooper never claims that this scenario explains all the atrocities committed by the Germans during the war, nor does he exonerate German high command of ever ordering atrocities to be committed in the first place. Thus to claim he is denying any aspect of the Jewish Holocaust during this interview is unfair to say the least.
Second, he is taking the Germans to task for making this mistake. That they invaded the Soviet Union without a plan to care for millions of prisoners is on them alone. He does this even while giving oxygen to Hitler’s rationale for invading—to protect oil fields in Romania from a seemingly imminent Soviet surprise attack. And this was a real concern.
Finally, Cooper’s mode of expression is the podcast rather than the written word. He posts hours and hours of podcasts on X on a variety of subjects—32 alone for the Jonestown event, which both men discuss for the first half hour of their discussion. As far as I can tell, he is still working on his World War Two episodes, and so to judge him based on a relatively brief discussion on a work he hasn’t completed yet is a bit premature.
Of course, we can agree or disagree with Cooper’s assessment. He could be right or wrong. But his fearless and iconoclastic approach to history should be encouraged since it will help override taboos and present a clearer picture of what happened during the most critical period of the twentieth century. Unfortunately, the oppressive shadow of the Second World War remains long within the minds of our status quo guardians. Many lined up to attack or refute both Cooper and Carlson—conservative, liberals, it didn’t matter. As with Cooper, they could be right or wrong. But when people start lobbing ad hominem and calling for his censorship or cancellation—as well as Carlson’s—that’s when you cross a line. This is how you suppress history, and, by extension, the people to whom the history belongs. Ultimately, it’s about power in the here and now, and not whether Operation Razzle proved successful in the Black Forest in 1940. Kevin MacDonald breaks down the response of New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg quite nicely. I, on the other hand, would like to respond to Cathy Young of The Bulwark.
Young starts off classy with an ad hominem in the title of her recent piece, “Tucker Carlson and the Beer Hall Putz.” (If Darryl Cooper is a “putz”, does that make Cathy Young a midwit anti-white yenta?) She also applies scare quotes to Cooper’s profession (“historian”), insinuates that he is a Nazi, and trots out a number of mainstream historians to refute Cooper’s admittedly incomplete presentation of history. You’d think a disinterested observer would say, “Let’s wait and see what this Cooper fellow has up his sleeve once his podcasts are completed.” But no. It’s as if our status quo guardians were chomping at the bit to personally slag off anyone who even whispers against their precious orthodoxy.
While Victor Davis Hanson at least had the decency to stick to the facts, Young does what Jewish anti-whites often do: they amplify everything even superficially negative about their victims while ignoring everything good. For example, in their conversation Cooper as well as Carlson express real sympathy for mostly-black victims of the Jonestown massacre as well for the Eastern European victims of communist brutality after the Second World War. Cooper also describes his civil interactions with Jewish listeners. Cooper is clearly knowledgeable, passionate, and thoughtful about history. All good things, right? One would think that a fair-minded critic would withhold judgment or maybe give him the benefit of the doubt. Cooper could be wrong about this or that, but does he deserve to be demonized? Cathy Young seems to think so. Therefore, she ignores any positives Cooper brings to the table.
Instead she accuses him of having an “obsessive hatred of Judaism,” which her X link does not support. Cooper simply claims Yahweh of the Old Testament perpetrated unsurpassed brutality. This is something that can be evaluated through a comparative analysis of scripture, and hardly qualifies as hatred. She then dredges up his interpretation of the Bible in which he claims that “God sent the Romans to destroy the leprous temple and put an end to the Israelite religion for all time.” This is the self-justifying hardline that true believers of any religion should take. In the same X post, Cooper makes it clear that according to Christian dogma, Jews (who are no different than any other people) should embrace Christ since their task as imparted by God was complete by the time of the Second Temple’s destruction in 70 AD. Again, Cooper could be right or wrong and his exegesis may or may not be controversial, but this is certainly not “hatred of Judaism” since his conclusions apply to all non-Christian religions. It seems like the only obsessive hater here is Cathy Young when she attacks Christians who take their religion seriously. Conveniently for her, she ignores all the vile anti-Christian and anti-gentile language in ancient Hebrew scriptures as well.
She then hits Cooper for a for a joke he told on X about Hitler not being in hell:
Well, given that during 1920s and 30s—i.e., peacetime—Lenin, Stalin, and the Bolsheviks were more destructive and murderous than the Nazis were, yet are not demonized nearly as much by our neo-Bolshevik elite, the joke is pretty funny.
Finally, Young takes Cooper to task for claiming that the Nazi occupation of France was preferable to the cultural degeneracy which has taken over much of the West these days, as exemplified by the blasphemous drag-queen display from this past Olympics in Paris.
Yes, mainstream sources claim that the Nazis had rounded up around 75,000 Jews and sent them to their deaths—and I am sorry about that. But that was still far fewer than, say, the 200,000 or so killed by the Soviets, the United States’ ally, back in the early 1930s during the Jewish-led construction of the Belomar Canal. So if Cathy Young is going to use the N-word to describe Darryl Cooper for presenting the German perspective during the Second World War, then one can opine that Young, by boosting the Allied perspective while suppressing the German one, is an anti-white Bolshevik who feels that the tens of millions killed in the Holodomor and Gulag Archipelago deserved to die. (Then again, perhaps I should be careful since if you link Jews to early Soviet atrocities, Cathy Young might call you an anti-Semite.)
What Young doesn’t understand is that the degeneracy exemplified by the Olympics and mass-third-world immigration are threatening to take down all of Western civilization. If you look at history cyclically as Oswald Spengler and others did, this is how civilizations behave before they decline into ruin. What she sees as merely “tacky,” people like Cooper see as an existential insult. Drag queening the Olympics is anti-Christian, and quite possibly anti-white as well. So yeah, maybe things would have been better had France had remained occupied by the Germans. And if so many European Jews hadn’t had such a sick penchant for left-wing radicalism which murdered over 15 million people before the Second World War, maybe the Nazis would have shown them a little more discretion in Vichy France.
What Young, Goldberg and others in the Jewish elite find so offensive about Cooper and Carlson’s conversation is how the pair inherently placed white interests above Jewish ones. Many Jews view this as an existential insult since they quite falsely see themselves as the victims rather than the victors of the Second World War. Of course, we can go back and forth about how exaggerated the Jewish Holocaust was or was not, but ultimately the war boiled down to two super powers led disproportionately by Jews utterly destroying one super power which refused to be led by Jews. That is the western theater of WWII in a nutshell. If a white person today has any sympathy for the losing side, that is tantamount to his not wanting to be led by Jews—which is as blasphemous to Cathy Young as the drag queen display is to Darryl Cooper.
The problem is that Cooper is being reasonable and Young is not. Sexual degeneracy, whether straight or gay, leads to civilizational decline. This has been shown by the research of JD Unwin. So Cooper had good reason to make the comparison he did. On the other hand, all peoples have a right to lead themselves and resist foreign influences. All peoples have a right not to engage in war if it is in their interest not to do so. This is why Cooper and Carlson deserve tremendous credit for asking all the right questions about the Second World War. Was it in our interests to fight it? What did we ultimately get out of it? Here’s Carlson:
So Churchill is this great hero, defender of the West, savior of the West, the toughest man in world history. The only reason we’re not speaking German. And he won the Second World War. Like that’s what you ask anybody, that’s just a fact. And yet if I go to his country, like, regularly . . . it doesn’t really even exist in any recognizable way. It’s totally degraded. I try not to go there because it’s so depressing. It’s just so sad. It’s so broken. It’s not the country of victors. It’s a completely defeated country that’s subsequently been invaded. And so, like, how did that happen? . . . I go to Japan and it’s full of self-respect and order and cleanliness and like it doesn’t look like it lost. It’s like, what is that?
Yes, what is that? It’s what happens when you get bamboozled into contributing to the worst mass carnage in history for somebody else’s benefit and then realize years later that you’ve been had. In fifty years, Western Europe will no longer be majority white, which will fundamentally and permanently change it for the worse—and this is largely the result of the Second World War. All the crime, chaos, and degeneracy we are witnessing today will increase exponentially until everything becomes unrecognizable. Darryl Cooper and Tucker Carlson see this happening and wish to stop it. Cathy Young stands in their way because she doesn’t.
It’s as simple as that.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
23 comments
“In order for white Europeans…”. For the umpteenth time, “white Europeans” is redundant as Europeans are White. Also, by combining those two words it implies that non-Europeans can be European & they cannot.
Facing the complexities of World War 2 is perhaps even harder for most than facing the reality of Jewish power.
I am a Boomer, raised by a generation that fought in WW2, which included the death of an uncle in Europe, from which my grandparents never recovered. Visiting Ephesus in current day Turkey with my parents, my mother walked fast way from a tour group because they were Germans and she could not handle hearing the language of The Enemy. Everything and everyone around me made it clear that if there was ever a battle between Good and Evil, WW2 was it.
And as we know here, the tribal powers who run all our media have made the figure of Hitler and the Nazis so undeniably evil that while you can now make a sympathetic TV series about Lucifer himself, any such project for the Fuhrer remains utterly unthinkable.
This grounds the bizarre narrative where the most wealthy, powerful and influential tribe in the West gets to play eternal victim of Adolph and all White men.
The WW2 narrative has been hard-wired into our identities. Cooper has his work cut out for him.
This was another excellent post from Quinn, but while it’s great for the causes of both truth and the West to get the real story about WW2 into public conversation as much as possible, prioritizing WW2 revisionism as the primary white racial debrainwashing tool is just silly. Perhaps this goes back to the old debate about the best ideological way forward: attack your enemy at his strongest redoubt, or his weakest. There is no permanent answer; I think it depends upon the human quality of your own side. That quality for us today is extremely poor (I refer to whites here, not prowhites specifically).
Whites in general are not only more comprehensively subjected to racially destructive brainwashing than ever before, they are also clearly of lower (intellectual and character) quality than previous generations. They seem to be more cocooned in their own egalitarian illusions, and thus more resistant to plain facts, than at any known time. To make this concrete: I can have a considered conversation, even about very ‘incorrect’ issues, with older liberals and leftists I know (and I’m friends with a few). I have yet to meet a person under 50 except avowed rightwingers (even if not always racial rightists) with whom I could even broach the topics discussed at CC. The intellectual weakness of even the no longer so young is born of an underlying, perhaps feminist engendered, psychological weakness which manifests as an inability to be challenged argumentatively (I assert that this is likely in part a product of feminism because it reminds me of how so many women I’ve known responded to disagreement: by accusing me or others of “attacking” them, as opposed to challenging their position; put another way, it’s well known that women as a whole often prefer consensus, even in falsehood, to the rigorous pursuit of truth).
Prowhites desperately need continuing political victories, even if small, to gain the kind of psychological momentum that will be needed to sustain a prowhite movement for the long haul (“the long haul” defined as the racial liberation of Europe – ie, the remigration/expatriation of all non-Europeans – and the creation of one or more New World Ethnostates). It is very easy for prowhites simply to give up, especially when so many of their own people are so a) blatantly, maddeningly brainwashed, and b) ungrateful for, and, even obviously hostile to, our efforts.
How are we going to get those victories needed to build out our movement? By attacking an enemy position that requires our brainwashed people to make the largest possible psychological and moral “leap of faith” (ie, getting them to reevaluate “The Good War”) – or by pointing out that Haitians treasonously allowed across our borders are eating their pets?
This statement of Quinn’s
I would say reevaluating the Second World War ranks higher in importance than being versed in race realism, the Jewish Question, or white identity, as crucial as all of these things are
could not possibly be more wrong. Reevaluating WW2 is the very very last piece of the white preservationist puzzle. A degraded people who cannot even muster the will to acknowledge black crime or to halt a land invasion across a deliberately opened border (to take two racial issues in which public consensus favors conservatives) is not going to be able to conduct or appreciate the subtleties involved in any moral recalibration of the Third Reich.
First things first. As I’ve been infuriatingly arguing since the 80s, that first thing (in both importance and ease of accomplishment) is halting the immigration invasion. I actually am dumbfounded that this is even still an issue – and worse than ever. But if we can’t muster the popular will to seal the border, we can’t do anything, nor will we.
Propaganda is needed at all levels.
Tucker cleverly linked WWII to the apparent defeat of racial replacement in England. From an authoritative source and with a bit of repetition, the mind control about the “good war” will be broken for some. The curious will wonder how it was they were so deluded and this may give cause for reevaluation of many other certainties.
I’ll delete this post after the typo is corrected. I believe
Cooper argues further than Hitler, after achieving victory over Poland
should be
Cooper argues further that Hitler, after achieving victory over Poland
First of all, let me say this was a great and timely article. However, I’m not sure what to think about this:
I would say reevaluating the Second World War ranks higher in importance than being versed in race realism, the Jewish Question, or white identity, as crucial as all of these things are.
And yet, the author makes it clear that from a White Nationalist perspective, ‘revaluating the Second World War’ cannot occur from a White Nationalist perspective unless these matters are included int the revaluation.
There is no way to make sense of WWII from a pro-White perspective without weaving in the role of the jews.
The simple narrative of WWII is:
WWII in the European theater of war was Whites slaughtering Whites.
Consequently, White people as a whole were the ultimate losers of WWII European theatre of war.
The reality of this fact has been obscured by WWI, WWII and post-WWII propaganda.
WWI and WWII were not struggles between ‘ideas’ but a struggle initiated by one people – the jews – to harm their enemies: White people.
Since WWI – and accelerating with WWII – the condition of Whites and their culture have been eroded in the name of ‘equality’ and ‘universal values’.
The chief promoters – both intellectually and financially – of ‘equality’ and ‘universal values’ is jews who benefit the most by having Whites not defend their race or cultures while assiduously defending their own.
The jews were the big winners of WWII.
The jews were the architects of WWI and WWII because it benefited the jews.
Appeals to ‘WWII values’ – ‘equality’, ‘human rights’, ‘Never Again’ – serve to perpetuate jewish supremacism in the post-WWII era.
To truly understand how jewish Zionists function, we need look at two facts: During WWII Churchill was collaborating with Zionists to accelerate war against Germany.
Prior to WWII, the NSDAP of Germany was collaborating with Zionists to repatriate German jews to ‘Palestine’.
The jews were working both sides at the same time.
I recall, but cannot find, an article that Greg Johnson wrote years ago about the Jewish strategy of “splitting the camp,” having a presence on both side of a battle to ensure that whatever the outcome, Jewish interests will be paramount. Greg referenced the Old Testament story of the antagonist brothers Jacob and Esau, in Genesis 32.
You can certainly see it in the US, where the massive Jewish presence among the liberal left is “balanced” by the powerful presence of Jewish “conservatives” like Ben Shapiro, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, etc. who join with White conservatives on all their issues as long as blind support for Israel is in the package and “anti-semitism” remains a taboo.
That quote of the Jacob and Esau story was in the interview Greg did in 2016. There are transcripts of the interview, and it is in part 6: https://counter-currents.com/2019/08/decline-of-the-west-part-6/
I encourage you to listen to the whole interview, found here: https://counter-currents.com/2018/07/a-lost-interview/
While the Jews were a major force behind the causes of WW2, I have my doubts about WW1. This is not to say that they had no impact at all, for example helping to sway American Opinion against Germany after the Balfour Declaration. But from what I’ve read, there were other groups that probably played a greater role in starting that conflict, namely the Russians, Serbs, and Austrians. If I am wrong, please send me book recommendations. Thanks.
I have no citation to offer. I just assume that ‘Russians’, ‘Serbs’ and ‘Austrians’ were largely jewish.
England had been propagandising her population against Germany since the turn of the century, conscious of her looming eclipse as an industrial power. After much negotiation in July 1914, following the murder of the Austrian crown prince, England agreed to join France in her support of Russia on account of a secret protocol concluded by Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey several years earlier. This left Russia free to mobilize which led in turn to German mobilisation. Naturally it was all Germany’s fault. Apart from Russia all four of the great European powers were heavily Jewish influenced. From a Jewish point of view the war had been long anticipated and although they planned to limit Jewish involvement in the fighting (Jews did fight on most sides, sometimes with distinction) their war aim was the deposing of the Tsar and the wresting of Palestine from the Turks. Some no doubt hoped for a Jewish-communist takeover of the whole continent. As reported by Benjamin Freedman, with the Tsar deposed in early 1917, Jewry turned on Germany in return for Arthur Balfour’s commitment to Zionism. American media became very hostile to Germany and within eighteen months two more authoritarian monarchies were toppled. According to Hitler it was evident that a change of heart had come over much of German Jewry. This is the source of the Dolchstoß “legend”.
Nonsense. The most solid take on Zionism ever is right in Mein Kampf, where Hitler says that the last thing the Jews want Israel for is to actually live there. They have other reasons, which the Nazis are wise to.
The Jews will impudently proclaim Jewish nationality or pretend to be assimilated, but ultimately they can only rule over bastardized peoples, which is why, for example, they brought Negroes into the Rhineland.
It’s in Vol. 1 Chapter XI: Race and People.
The idea that Jews were a people without a land wanting Palestine as a land without a people has zero to do with the Third Reich.
In fact, some Jews were settling in Palestine long before the the Nuremberg Laws, and the British had already promised Palestine to both the Arabs and the Jews in return for support against the Ottoman Empire in World War I.
🙂
Hamburger Today is correct. The Nazis did work with Zionists to repatriate German Jews to Palestine.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2023/04/08/edwin-blacks-the-transfer-agreement/
Yes, and my response is “So What?”
The Institute for Historical Review reviewed the Edwin Black book on the Transfer Agreement since the 1980s and have also done various articles.
Wikipedia says:
“The Transfer Agreement rescued some 60,000 German Jews.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transfer_Agreement
One IHR article on this from 1993 concludes with:
“The jews were working both sides at the same time.”
Oh, wait! That was what Hamburger Today said in the post above, which you seem to be agreeing with, with respect to the Third Reich.
The 1993 IHR article actually concludes with:
“In spite of the basic hostility between the Hitler regime and international Jewry, for several years Jewish Zionist and German National Socialist interests coincided. In collaborating with the Zionists for a mutually desirable and humane solution to a complex problem, the Third Reich was willing to make foreign exchange sacrifices, impair relations with Britain and anger the Arabs. Indeed, during the 1930s no nation did more to substantively further Jewish-Zionist goals than Hitler’s Germany.”
I’ve often had differences of opinion with Mark Weber, but I don’t quite see how the Joos were “playing” both sides here in any case ─ or at least the implication that the Nazis were compromised somehow on the Jewish Question or Zionism.
I am adamantly opposed to a dime of American largesse going into the coffers of Israel or Zionist causes ─ but I’m also definitely NOT in the “oh muh poor Palestinians” camp of White Nationalism. Gaza is bad but it ain’t our fight. At best it is an anti-White distraction that won’t help us.
At least it is not anti-White Antifa idiots dousing their hated pale features with gasoline and then setting themselves on fire in front of the Israeli embassy.
🙂
The jews were playing both sides because at the same time some (Zionist) jews were working with the NSDAP German government, another group of jews (diaspora international bankers) were were working with Britian and America implementing a proxy war on Germany (first sanctions, then embargoes, then blockades, the firebombing campaigns) to restore jewish banking to its rightful place at the top of the institutional food-chain.
The Germans were seeking the most human method of removing ‘ethnic jews’ from their population but the real crime was the NSDAPs policies on national banking that excluded jewish influences as much as possible.
The banking jews of the Diaspora treated the entirely of European jewry as collateral damage in a war to restore jewish hegemony in Germany.
The banking jews repackaged this act of selective concern about the lives of jews as ‘the Holocaust’ to get gullible Whites to pay ‘reparations’ for a situation the diaspora banking jews instigated and that resulted in the needless deaths of hundreds of millions of Whites and millions of jews.
If we are serious about White nationalism, we cannot endlessly repeat anti-communism. Whatever we think of the Bolsheviks, at least they were trying something new and striving for independence from the liberal oligarchy. Adolf’s biggest problem was precisely that he fanatically hated the Bolsheviks, even though they were his natural allies against the Western capitalists in England and the USA. The Bolsheviks, on the other hand, were obsessed with “anti-fascism” and didn’t understand that their main problem was the Wall Street moneybags. If a white nationalist preaches anti-communism, it means he just wants the status quo and to keep today’s oligarchy in power.
Sorry, but I just don’t see why we need to rehabilitate evil dictatorships just to get our homelands back.
Bolshevism was Jewish. That was its most salient feature. This is not the only form that Internationalism can take, of course, but Jews can be both tribal and cosmopolitan at the same time. Whether Bankers or Bolsheviks, they will always be the enemies of Gentile nationalism and racial integrity other than their own.
🙂
I say that the differences are too irreconcilable. Communism features internationalism, we feature nationalism. They’re about equality, we’re about quality. Also, they weren’t much of a counterweight to globalism, but rather a competing brand of it. Our own Deep State was in bed with them, up until McCarthy took them out to the woodshed and it became unfashionable.
White identity is more important than race in general, the Jewish problem, World War Two, and many other issues combined. If you don’t understand that you are White and that this is important, you think regarding all the other issues, “what has this to do with me?”
Nobody goes around and tells White children, “you are White and this is something you must always be loyal to and proud of. These are things we will do for you so that you know that you are in the White tribe and that this is important. You must pass these on to other Whites as a sacred heritage.”
Without firm and positive White identity we are a helpless individualist rabble, set up to lose.
With regard to World War Two, we don’t all agree on the proper interpretation of it, but what we should all agree is that this is part of our history, the history of our ancestors.
Without this knowledge, that we are a people, a race, and that this should matter to us, the rest is irrelevant.
Brilliant and detailed recap of some ephemeral fuss that I found a real head-scratcher. Ho-hum, I thought, here we go again. Reading that Cathy “Always on the Wrong Side” Young had eagerly jumped in with her quiver of slurs and clichés, got me interested enough to look up her little essay. And a toxic waste dump of golden oldies it is. Still, this is all yesterday’s news and I’ve now had my fill—urrp.
Jews hate White people and seek our destruction, it’s no more complicated than that.
That is the best working hypothesis for understanding jewish influence.
If you have Paywall 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.