The admiration of fascism by Western elites in the 1930's is also brought out in Jules Archer's "The Plot to Seize the White House". The book is a highly credible account of an elite plot in 1934 to recruit Gen. Smedly Butler to effectively remove FDR from office. There are ideological parallels with the WEF's Great Reset. "They" keep trying.
I take issue with your blaming humanity, maybe because my background is art and the humanities. Man thrives under freedom, but there always has to be an orderly framework, law, order and protection of ones life and property. Some form of governance is therefore essential. Governments have a tendency to encroach on freedom more than is justified. Humanity becomes the victim, not the cause.
That's a long way of asking the question, Is our constitutional republic a failed experiment? That it's a thing of the past seems certain. The point of our politics is now "situational"--how slippery is the slope we find ourselves on?
Thank you for this important post, but having lived through WW2 I am less alarmed by recent developments. It was clear to me for a long time that England's calculations before the war were based on Germany and Russia cancelling each other out. I recently discovered that powerful people in America were not all that opposed to Hitler. I was a schoolboy during WWII, and we were all so patriotic. I recently came across a book by Charles Higham, "Trading with the Enemy", and it was an eye-opener. Never a fan of FDR, my parents hated him, it was still a shock to find out that as our airmen were being shot down in an effort to prevent the Nazis from replenishing war materials, FDR's crony capitalists were shipping the Germans all the ball bearings and oil they needed. Globalism is not new, but thanks to President Trump and a stolen election most of us have finally caught on. I wouldn't waste much time trying to understand the progressive mind, but I have no doubt that it is a combination of self-rightiousness that permits them to overlook all traditional standards of morality together with a profound ignorance that prevents them from any self-questioning, and the arrogance to assume they are all-powerful. Thanks to this arrogance they are doomed to defeat, but should they manage to pull it off and maintain political power, ordinary people will find the ability to roll with the punches and live a normal family life with only a few pro forma concessions to the ruling class. They have amply demonstrated they have no ability to capture the hearts and minds of thinking people, nor can they enforce total control of our lives given their stupidity. A Third World War would be a disaster for them. This would be a war nobody would fight. A recent poll showed that conservatives would fight to defend the homeland, and liberals not even that. Barring an invasion, our fearless leaders would find themselves without any troops, and would be forced to admit they represent nobody.
I watched the Krainer interview and read his articles. Really fascinating - and disturbing. I can never think of appeasement as a limp-wristed pacifist policy again.
As you say, the interview is rather far-ranging. At around 59:40 he makes remarks about close coordination between the USSR and the West (UK / USA) at the central banker level. He brings up some circumstantial evidence (like USSR adopting the dollar reserve system and USSR moves that served to weaken Russia, like assigning Crimea to Ukraine); but as I said, these are circumstantial evidence. Is there harder evidence of this sort of collaboration? Are we to believe that the USSR was a project of the West intended to destabilize pre-Bolshevik Russia because it was developing in a manner contrary to the designs of Mackinder's three-bloc Heartland policy?
Just WOW if true. Certainly, would explain the desperate attempts of those helicopters into Mariupol. Wonder who else they may have captured. Could the false flag of Bucha be part of a distraction?
Evidently, from comments over at smoothiex12 blogspot (Reminiscence of the Future), it appears that Kiev has sent more helicopters in today and there Are several NATO bigwigs begging Russia for safe passage. Again, no official confirmation from MoD.
Popcorn ready? Definitely interesting and persistent rumors today. where there is smoke there is fire?
One of "them" is named Dustin Moskovitz. You really ought to follow the money trail to this dude. Funded event 201. Here's one of 10 things "you might not know about him:
" 7. He’s an out and proud Democrat
Moskovitz is many things. What he is not is a Trump fan. The long time Democrat supporter came out during the last presidential election to voice his support for Hilary Clinton, and (to put it mildly) his ‘disdain’ for Trump. Speaking to the New York Times at the time, he opined “The Republican Party, and Donald Trump in particular, is running on a zero-sum vision, stressing a false contest between their constituency and the rest of the world.” Putting his money where his mouth is, he subsequently went on to donate $20 million to Clinton’s campaign, becoming the third-largest donor in the 2016 campaign in the process."
Addressing specifically the Munich agreement, it has been a while but I saw many first-hand indications that England was perhaps more concerned about the rise of Bolshevism than the rise of Hitler, and they were taken by surprise when the Germans and Russians signed a pact and the invasion of Poland followed. Even during the war they promoted the invasion of Italy and wanted us to go into the Balkans to counter Russia, strategies that prolonged the war.
I happen to like revisionist history--as opposed to established narrative history written by the winners.
As for whether the Anglo-Sphere affected the rise of Hitler, please refer to the review of Preparata's book that I've linked in a comment on this thread.
Re "discredited historian David Irving", that issue is dealt with in this review:
"Let me try to consider why this book has aroused controversy. ...
"Conjuring History has been criticized for citing the controversial author David Irving. But even Irving’s enemies give him grudging credit for his standard historical writings. And I believe that to write in this field, it is impossible to ignore what Irving has written.
Carroll Quigley was once equally marginalized; but today, thanks partly to the Internet, his reputation for posterity is relatively secure.[2]
...
"There are two other possible objections to the book that have some degree of legitimacy. The first and most surprising is the relative absence of archival sources (with some exotic exceptions). The second is the use of a number of popular works, by problematic authors such as Charles Higham and Eustace Mullins.[4] On the second score, the problem is the same as with Irving. I know from my own experience that there are relevant facts in Higham and Mullins which it is virtually impossible to find elsewhere."
My recommendation is that your should try to get beyond a priori objections to rethinking history. I don't agree with everything that Krainer says, but the general thrust of his argument deserves careful consideration.
I'll add this re David Irving. He was initially highly regarded as an historian of the Third Reich, and in particular for his work in archival material. This is an area that Preparata is well known for--research into Bank of England archives. "Conjuring Hitler" has nothing to do with the Final Solution, so the use of Irving's earlier work should not be controversial--except that his name is tarnished by later events.
That's correct, and he was far from alone in the 1930s. FDR himself, for a while, was enamored of Fascism. Basically, he rebranded it. Now we call it Progressivism.
The admiration of fascism by Western elites in the 1930's is also brought out in Jules Archer's "The Plot to Seize the White House". The book is a highly credible account of an elite plot in 1934 to recruit Gen. Smedly Butler to effectively remove FDR from office. There are ideological parallels with the WEF's Great Reset. "They" keep trying.
I take issue with your blaming humanity, maybe because my background is art and the humanities. Man thrives under freedom, but there always has to be an orderly framework, law, order and protection of ones life and property. Some form of governance is therefore essential. Governments have a tendency to encroach on freedom more than is justified. Humanity becomes the victim, not the cause.
That's a long way of asking the question, Is our constitutional republic a failed experiment? That it's a thing of the past seems certain. The point of our politics is now "situational"--how slippery is the slope we find ourselves on?
Interesting review of "Conjuring Hitler"
https://guidopreparata.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/McGregorConjuringHitler-2016_07_28-21_21_30-UTC.pdf
Thank you for this important post, but having lived through WW2 I am less alarmed by recent developments. It was clear to me for a long time that England's calculations before the war were based on Germany and Russia cancelling each other out. I recently discovered that powerful people in America were not all that opposed to Hitler. I was a schoolboy during WWII, and we were all so patriotic. I recently came across a book by Charles Higham, "Trading with the Enemy", and it was an eye-opener. Never a fan of FDR, my parents hated him, it was still a shock to find out that as our airmen were being shot down in an effort to prevent the Nazis from replenishing war materials, FDR's crony capitalists were shipping the Germans all the ball bearings and oil they needed. Globalism is not new, but thanks to President Trump and a stolen election most of us have finally caught on. I wouldn't waste much time trying to understand the progressive mind, but I have no doubt that it is a combination of self-rightiousness that permits them to overlook all traditional standards of morality together with a profound ignorance that prevents them from any self-questioning, and the arrogance to assume they are all-powerful. Thanks to this arrogance they are doomed to defeat, but should they manage to pull it off and maintain political power, ordinary people will find the ability to roll with the punches and live a normal family life with only a few pro forma concessions to the ruling class. They have amply demonstrated they have no ability to capture the hearts and minds of thinking people, nor can they enforce total control of our lives given their stupidity. A Third World War would be a disaster for them. This would be a war nobody would fight. A recent poll showed that conservatives would fight to defend the homeland, and liberals not even that. Barring an invasion, our fearless leaders would find themselves without any troops, and would be forced to admit they represent nobody.
I watched the Krainer interview and read his articles. Really fascinating - and disturbing. I can never think of appeasement as a limp-wristed pacifist policy again.
As you say, the interview is rather far-ranging. At around 59:40 he makes remarks about close coordination between the USSR and the West (UK / USA) at the central banker level. He brings up some circumstantial evidence (like USSR adopting the dollar reserve system and USSR moves that served to weaken Russia, like assigning Crimea to Ukraine); but as I said, these are circumstantial evidence. Is there harder evidence of this sort of collaboration? Are we to believe that the USSR was a project of the West intended to destabilize pre-Bolshevik Russia because it was developing in a manner contrary to the designs of Mackinder's three-bloc Heartland policy?
https://sonar21.com/bucha-massacre-a-ukrainian-false-flag/
Blockbuster: US 3 Star General Captured Leading Azov Nazis in Mariupol (confirmations coming in)
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2022/04/05/blockbuster-us-3-star-general-captured-leading-azov-nazis-in-mariupol-unconfirmed/
Yeah, no idea if true.
Might explain why Pentagon is so mum about Bucha, saying it can't confirm.
Just WOW if true. Certainly, would explain the desperate attempts of those helicopters into Mariupol. Wonder who else they may have captured. Could the false flag of Bucha be part of a distraction?
If Aleksandr Vindman happened to be captured, I would be thrilled!
That takes some hubris and arrogance.
Evidently, from comments over at smoothiex12 blogspot (Reminiscence of the Future), it appears that Kiev has sent more helicopters in today and there Are several NATO bigwigs begging Russia for safe passage. Again, no official confirmation from MoD.
Popcorn ready? Definitely interesting and persistent rumors today. where there is smoke there is fire?
Their preferred pronouns: them/they. Nothing more specific, like proper names.
"They" wanted it. If we knew who "they" are we might be closer to the answer.
One of "them" is named Dustin Moskovitz. You really ought to follow the money trail to this dude. Funded event 201. Here's one of 10 things "you might not know about him:
" 7. He’s an out and proud Democrat
Moskovitz is many things. What he is not is a Trump fan. The long time Democrat supporter came out during the last presidential election to voice his support for Hilary Clinton, and (to put it mildly) his ‘disdain’ for Trump. Speaking to the New York Times at the time, he opined “The Republican Party, and Donald Trump in particular, is running on a zero-sum vision, stressing a false contest between their constituency and the rest of the world.” Putting his money where his mouth is, he subsequently went on to donate $20 million to Clinton’s campaign, becoming the third-largest donor in the 2016 campaign in the process."
As i recall, Moskovitz gets some attention in RFK jr's book exploring his nefarious role in the Scamdemic.
I'll have to check him out.
The flies were being attracted to, well . . . you know what "the one" is.
A documentary?
It sounded like a snippy soundbite at the time, but now??? Obama's words carry a completely* different level of weight, don't they?
"Never underestimate Joe Biden's ability to f**k things up."
Addressing specifically the Munich agreement, it has been a while but I saw many first-hand indications that England was perhaps more concerned about the rise of Bolshevism than the rise of Hitler, and they were taken by surprise when the Germans and Russians signed a pact and the invasion of Poland followed. Even during the war they promoted the invasion of Italy and wanted us to go into the Balkans to counter Russia, strategies that prolonged the war.
I'll due deference ya and raise ya ...
"revisionist history ... it is ex post facto"
Isn't that what history is? Ex post facto?
I happen to like revisionist history--as opposed to established narrative history written by the winners.
As for whether the Anglo-Sphere affected the rise of Hitler, please refer to the review of Preparata's book that I've linked in a comment on this thread.
Re "discredited historian David Irving", that issue is dealt with in this review:
https://archive.ph/20200210142048/http://guidopreparata.com/press/peter-dale-scott/
"Let me try to consider why this book has aroused controversy. ...
"Conjuring History has been criticized for citing the controversial author David Irving. But even Irving’s enemies give him grudging credit for his standard historical writings. And I believe that to write in this field, it is impossible to ignore what Irving has written.
Carroll Quigley was once equally marginalized; but today, thanks partly to the Internet, his reputation for posterity is relatively secure.[2]
...
"There are two other possible objections to the book that have some degree of legitimacy. The first and most surprising is the relative absence of archival sources (with some exotic exceptions). The second is the use of a number of popular works, by problematic authors such as Charles Higham and Eustace Mullins.[4] On the second score, the problem is the same as with Irving. I know from my own experience that there are relevant facts in Higham and Mullins which it is virtually impossible to find elsewhere."
My recommendation is that your should try to get beyond a priori objections to rethinking history. I don't agree with everything that Krainer says, but the general thrust of his argument deserves careful consideration.
The book I read by Charles Higham, "Trading with the Enemy" is heavily documented.
I'll add this re David Irving. He was initially highly regarded as an historian of the Third Reich, and in particular for his work in archival material. This is an area that Preparata is well known for--research into Bank of England archives. "Conjuring Hitler" has nothing to do with the Final Solution, so the use of Irving's earlier work should not be controversial--except that his name is tarnished by later events.
"the shocking truth." That power mad people are power mad...
But the excerpts from Minister testify that there's continuity--ancient history, but current policy.
That's correct, and he was far from alone in the 1930s. FDR himself, for a while, was enamored of Fascism. Basically, he rebranded it. Now we call it Progressivism.