Recommended Reads, Briefly Noted, 9/7/24

There has been a desultory undercurrent of commentary here regarding Tucker Carlson’s championing of Darryl Cooper’s historical revisionism—especially regarding WW2. I did take a look at the podcast, and was underwhelmed. Not that I object to historical revisionism, it’s just that I thought Cooper’s version was factually challenged. Today Sumantra Maitra weighs in on this issue, in a quite worthwhile article. Maitra avoids criticizing Tucker, but clearly is only addressing Cooper’s views because Tucker provided him with such a loud megaphone.

I want to be clear up front that I don’t necessarily agree with everything Maitra says—while I have cited Maitra in the past, I more often disagree with his views. Specifically, with regard to this article, I’m not a fan of Churchill and think that Maitra could be even more critical than he is. Nor am I entirely comfortable with Maitra’s recommendation of AJP Taylor’s work. Nevertheless, Maitra makes a major and penetrating point that deserves earnest consideration by all conservatives.

World War II Revisionism Doesn’t Have to Be Dumb

Revisionism, just like the war itself, is inevitable, but one can do it without sounding like a complete crank.

Maitra covers a lot of ground, but here I’ll simply quote his really big picture overview of what a revisionist view of WW2 should look like. Again, when it comes to the full details, much more could be added, but his fundamental insight is, IMO, sound:

Historical revisionism is an intrinsic and necessary part of history; there have always been good revisionist historians offering a fresh lens on the past—as well as apologists and cranks with hairbrained theories based on cherry-picked anecdotes. It is indeed true that the Second World War has been mythologized into ahistorical nonsense; the myth serves the important purpose of policy-making, with “Hitler, Munich, and appeasement” used as a rhetorical cudgel to browbeat any proponent of a restrained foreign policy in particular and nationalism in general. So far, so good! ...  

At the risk of oversimplification, there is basically one accepted consensus and three revisionist schools of Second World War historiography. The first is what we see: The war was the culmination of the greatest struggle of modernity, and was as simple as it comes. There was a clear evil side and a clear good side, and that’s that. The good side fought for liberty, and the evil side was tyrannical.

The problem with that idea is that it is not quite true, and is an effort of years of mythmaking. There are various evidences to the contrary. 

Churchill was indeed a warmonger. He was also an imperial reactionary through and through and was a connoisseur of grandeur and civilization. He wasn’t that a great strategic thinker, as evident from his performance at Gallipoli. ... 

…

The main revisionist school argues (rightly) that the Second World War was unnecessary, although they don’t go as far to say that Hitler was the good guy or that the war itself did not become inevitable. The founder of this particular magazine [Pat Buchanan], as well as Peter Hitchens in Britain, are the most prominent living members of that tribe. 

The second revisionist school offers straightforward Nazi apologia and a concurrent strain of Holocaust-denial. The first part of that equation is a moral rather than historical question. The second part of that equation fails the standards of richness, rigor, and evidence, not to mention of peer review, and is relegated to crankdom.

OK, here’s where Maitra gets to the nub of things. He correctly identifies liberalism, fascism, and communism as ideological “cousins.” Whoever the winner was going to be, it was not going to be a friend to Western Civilization—as we see from post-WW2 history.

The Nazis were, more than anything else, modernists. They were, if not the same, similar to both liberals and communists—ideological cousins. The Second World War, above all, was primarily a war between three different and competing modes of modernity, all opposed to the old world of feudalism and faith. The older world and the older gods of localism, horse-drawn imperial carriages, and nature—Bilbo-Bagginsism—died in the industrial fires of Europe and the Pacific. The Nazis proposed euthanasia and not just eugenics. Runic and pagan symbolism wasn’t just an aesthetic affectation, nor was the Roman salute. It was the Nazis who experimented on human bodies without the consent of the victim. After the Nazis, the communists carried on all these lines of experimentation in their own sphere. 

It was the old world of European Christendom that opposed both of those and took up arms against them. Guess who are the ones now bringing back both eugenics and euthanasia in civilized discourse under the garb of “science”? The one ideological cousin still standing as a victor over both communism and Nazism. It is the nature of things.

That’s as big picture as it gets: Liberalism, the “ideological cousin” of fascism and communism, emerged the victor. But that was not a victory for mankind in the strict sense, because liberalism, in its own way, pursues the same goal as its cousins—what CSLewis termed The Abolition of Man. In a sense you could say that the world wars have never ended and that the assault on mankind of these three ideological cousins and their various clones continues. In that sense, Elon Musk is correct to speak of a struggle to preserve Western Civilization.

Now, regarding the Neocon pile on as regards Tucker for giving Cooper a platform. I haven’t read those Neocon outlets—life is too short for that. I assume that the main purport of the pile on is that Tucker gave a megaphone to an anti-semite. Again, I was too frustrated by Cooper’s account to get to the point that I could judge his views on WW2 and the Jews—I found his account of the origins of the war to be simply wrongheaded in several ways and turned it off. My assumption is that the ferocity of the Neocon response is due to 1) any revision whatsoever of the current narrative or mythology of WW2 (as described by Maitra, above), and 2) the desire to discredit Tucker for broader reasons—his willingness to to challenge the political establishment of the Uniparty. From my limited exposure to Cooper’s views, I simply don’t think Cooper’s ideas are sound from an historical standpoint.

Next up. If you scroll down lower, past the videos, on Larry Johnson’s blog today you’ll reach his critique of economist Antonio Graceffo’s account of US-China Tensions: A Modern ‘Great Game. Anyone interested in US - China relations should at least check out LJ’s critique. Graceffo addresses military, intel, and economic matters. What you’ll find from a reading of LJ’s critique of the economic aspects is that Graceffo and US China haters—in common, I believe, with many geopolitical thinkers—regard the global economy as essentially a zero sum game. The Anglo-Zionist Empire succeeds by keeping everyone else down, in the status of a colony to be exploited. That goal is pursued by all means, up to and including war. LJ hints at this dynamic:

Why do I characterize [Graceffo’s] analysis as, “lousy?” For starters, he ignores the elephant in the room — i.e., the United States has moved a major portion of its industrial capability offshore and transformed its economy into one dependent on financial activity and social media platforms, while China is emerging as the industrial colossus of the 21st Century.

That was the plan all along—by which the rich in the US would get richer. What was not envisioned was that the Chinese would aspire to be something other than merely the Sweatshop to the World. And would have the gumption to succeed. Conservatives need to understand that keeping China down would not be a victory for Western Civilization, because it would, at this point, simply empower the real winner of WW2 (see above).

You may not agree with everything Johnstone has to say—I don’t—but she’s right about Cheney:

Caitlin Johnstone - Trump Vs. Cheney

Busy.

But please read Caitlin:

It’s The Trump Party Vs The Cheney Party
One of earth’s most evil living beings, Dick “Darth Vader” Cheney, has officially endorsed Kamala Harris for president.

I agree and see nothing that could be done about it.

Posted by b on September 7, 2024 at 15:46 UTC

Andrei Martyanov links to an interesting Russian news account of Russian prosecutors investigating malfeasance on the part of local authorities in the Kursk region. It seems they were provided considerable funding for the purpose of securing the border, but misused those funds. Well, well, well.

Disarray in the West:

DD Geopolitics @DD_Geopolitics

Germany's Economy Plummets: Industrial Crash Far Worse Than Experts Predicted!

German industrial production dropped more sharply than anticipated in July, primarily due to a slowdown in the automotive sector.

This decline has heightened concerns that Europe's largest economy may shrink again in the third quarter. According to the federal statistics office, production fell by 2.4% compared to the previous month, far exceeding the 0.3% decline predicted by analysts surveyed by Reuters. Take that Putin!!!

7:13 AM · Sep 7, 2024

Sputnik India @Sputnik_India

BREAKING: US sanctions Indian firms & vessels linked to Arctic LNG 2 project - State Dept

Gotik Energy Shipping Co and Plio Energy Cargo Shipping targeted as part of plan to botch Russian energy supplies & Arctic exploration

1:03 AM · Sep 6, 2024