Having got an "unclassifed" in my history O' level, I am finally getting a decent education! ;)
Do you have citations for this quote:
“the stiffest fight we would have to wage would not be against the enemy nations but against international capital. . . . Break down the thralldom of interest is our war cry." (AH)
and for: "From 1939 onwards, although Germany made at least 28 known attempts at peace without conditions, they were all refused. "
Hi C.J., regarding the Federal Reserve itself (which has never been audited), according to a Committee on Banking, Currency and Housing Staff Report from the House of Representatives in 1976, a few families which owned controlling stock in existing banks caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks at their founding, and examination of the charts and text and the stockholders list of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks show the same families in control in 1976. See here: https://archive.ph/syKMA
Generally speaking, because of the opaque and unaccountable nature of the central bank system one needs to work backwards and look at how the central banks were created and then make inferences based on developing events. "The Creature from Jekyll Island" is a good, dense and well-sourced book on the Federal Reserve origins: https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X
This is ridiculously disingenuous. Didn't Napoleon's conquests lead to the emancipation of Jews throughout Germany and Europe? And the Russian section is hilariously misleading - the bank was founded in 1860, the Stolypin reforms in 1906-11.... which came after the disastrous revolution of 1905.
> "Child labor was abolished over 100 years before it was abolished in Great Britain in 1867."
Umm, Russia literally had slavery-like serfdom until 1861, which of course included employed children.
Regarding the German section - there's usually an argument that the German economic policies were unsustainable, and would later have collapsed. And the effort to paint Hitler as a pacifist is as ridiculous as ever - it was the Anglo-French who were so pacifist, they failed to protect Poland to whom they had given their assurances.
Feel free to pinpoint (where they touched you) what specifically has triggered you so painfully? If I were to guess, it might be not the details of banker chronology, but my admission of Hitler's aggressive posture, and Anglo-French pacifism - that usually bothers the right-wingoids to a hilarious degree. But surprise me, be my guest.
Ah yes...I'll pass on arguing with the witty Communist of the moronic comment, untethered by facts and blinded by his own brilliance that all others fail to see...always ready to make up something else "in response"....
I meant the pacifist attitudes of the Anglo-French during the Interbellum which were so cucked, they allowed Hitler to rise in the first place (and crush Poland with them helplessly watching). Yes, it's paradoxical, more like a futile female hysteria - with the unfortunate difference that they put on the muscle in the 1940s and demolished Germany in turn (before going back to their suicidal ideation).
Of course, a glorious England would have forged an alliance with Germany against both Russia and America. In that scenario, Poland would have died as well, but for based reasons.
1936 - "we're too weak, Hitler is weak, too"
1940 - "we have to smack him, oh wait, he's not playing around, need to make war economy"
1944 - "reeeee, we will kill every German national because they showed us how glorious we could get"
> "They were never “cucked” as they genuinely didn’t want or need to fight a war with a Germany that did not seek to expand one inch to the West."
The potentiality is will, or should be taken as such. As that one Russian Jew said, the Israelis have come to distinguish between capability and intentionality - the Arabs didn't have the capability to demolish Israel in 1973, yet tried anyway.
In the circumstances of 1918, the refusal of genocide Germany was pure cucked soy on the part of the Anglo-French. It is from the weakness of the West that WW2 sprang about. The West couldn't even use the fruits of its own bloody victory. The same as Israel in Gaza. Russia in Afghan. Or America in Japan.
> "The wise course of action in the face of the raw industrial ascension of non-European land powers was for Europe to act together"
That of course was a pipe-dream, considering both that the Europeans had given Asians industry in the first place, and that the Europeans failed to exterminate said Asians - in the Philippines, India or Japan.
> "especially when a Polish-German anti-Soviet pact was a possibility."
To be fair, letting Germany genocide all of Europe would have been a mistake if England had been too cucked to conquer the USA. From the position of such moral weakness, preventing a German dominion over Europe made sense.
(Of course, chances are you're ready to wax poetic about how Germany didn't want genocide/dominion/Russia settled by Nordics, underline the necessary nonsense.)
> "Britain (and France) should have supported a German bulwark against anti-European Judeo-imperialism"
Letting Germany have all the spoils would have been a mistake. Again, I have a suspicion of cuckoldry so commonly found in such arguments. Defence only stems from weakness. Power necessitates offense. Offense leads to subjugation and genocide, cultural obliteration. (The same applies to modern China, by the way, who will kill all Japs and Whites, given the chance.)
My (and Hitler's!) model only makes sense if England had been possessed by the same virile, youthful, beastly spirit as Hitlerian Germany - a spirit eager to munch on soil, to steal, rape and plunder. Unfortunately, England blundered into spilling its rotten brains first over Abyssinia (the collapse of the Streza Front as deterrence against Germany), then over Poland (declaring war against Germany over the murder of Slavs). Instead, England could have been the mistress of the seas, renewing its mastery of the Americas, and eventually genociding India/Japan.
> "Britain and France “cucked” when they declared war against their own immediate interest"
No, that was sperging out after acting cucked.
> "Germany never would have “genocided the whole of Europe”; you must either be a woman or a neurotic Jew"
I mean the Europe from the Oder to the Urals. Are you denying the Holocaust and the murder of 30 million Slavs? Chances are, you are. And arguing with a person making up historical facts would be annoying.
> "Every document shows that up until it was obvious they were facing defeat they supported a pan-European Union of nations against the USSR and USA"
Pan-European my ass, when they didn't grant the Ukraine a sham of independence? It took the Germans until 1944 to even form SS Galizien! And they shied away from putting RONA on the battlefield until March 1945! The Hitlerians were German nationalist and Nordic supremacist. Alexa, go fetch Hitler's quote about EU on Quora.
> "a very Jewish form of ethics, as is calling the 1918 victors “soy” for not seeking to “genocide” Germany in a European war)."
If the Anglo-French had been so based as to exterminate Germany, neither Germany nor Hitler would have been necessary, for the ancient spirit of pagan Europe would have been alive. In that reality, India and Japan would soon have been populated by Europeans.
Thank you, this is very useful.
Fantastic article!
I love this shit!
Thank you!
My preferred social media is currently burning to the ground (Gab) but i will share your article on Poast and Foxhole.
Having got an "unclassifed" in my history O' level, I am finally getting a decent education! ;)
Do you have citations for this quote:
“the stiffest fight we would have to wage would not be against the enemy nations but against international capital. . . . Break down the thralldom of interest is our war cry." (AH)
and for: "From 1939 onwards, although Germany made at least 28 known attempts at peace without conditions, they were all refused. "
Thanks Jasun, the first quote is from Mein Kampf, p. 124. The second is from Stephen Mitford Goodson's book (linked at the top of the post), p. 122.
Who owns the central banks now? Do you have good access to sources on this?
Hi C.J., regarding the Federal Reserve itself (which has never been audited), according to a Committee on Banking, Currency and Housing Staff Report from the House of Representatives in 1976, a few families which owned controlling stock in existing banks caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks at their founding, and examination of the charts and text and the stockholders list of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks show the same families in control in 1976. See here: https://archive.ph/syKMA
Generally speaking, because of the opaque and unaccountable nature of the central bank system one needs to work backwards and look at how the central banks were created and then make inferences based on developing events. "The Creature from Jekyll Island" is a good, dense and well-sourced book on the Federal Reserve origins: https://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X
This is ridiculously disingenuous. Didn't Napoleon's conquests lead to the emancipation of Jews throughout Germany and Europe? And the Russian section is hilariously misleading - the bank was founded in 1860, the Stolypin reforms in 1906-11.... which came after the disastrous revolution of 1905.
> "Child labor was abolished over 100 years before it was abolished in Great Britain in 1867."
Umm, Russia literally had slavery-like serfdom until 1861, which of course included employed children.
Regarding the German section - there's usually an argument that the German economic policies were unsustainable, and would later have collapsed. And the effort to paint Hitler as a pacifist is as ridiculous as ever - it was the Anglo-French who were so pacifist, they failed to protect Poland to whom they had given their assurances.
Typos: [T]he German monetary policy, Reichbank.
Your comment is moronic to anyone who has a clue - why even bother posting such drivel?
Feel free to pinpoint (where they touched you) what specifically has triggered you so painfully? If I were to guess, it might be not the details of banker chronology, but my admission of Hitler's aggressive posture, and Anglo-French pacifism - that usually bothers the right-wingoids to a hilarious degree. But surprise me, be my guest.
Ah yes...I'll pass on arguing with the witty Communist of the moronic comment, untethered by facts and blinded by his own brilliance that all others fail to see...always ready to make up something else "in response"....
I meant the pacifist attitudes of the Anglo-French during the Interbellum which were so cucked, they allowed Hitler to rise in the first place (and crush Poland with them helplessly watching). Yes, it's paradoxical, more like a futile female hysteria - with the unfortunate difference that they put on the muscle in the 1940s and demolished Germany in turn (before going back to their suicidal ideation).
Of course, a glorious England would have forged an alliance with Germany against both Russia and America. In that scenario, Poland would have died as well, but for based reasons.
1936 - "we're too weak, Hitler is weak, too"
1940 - "we have to smack him, oh wait, he's not playing around, need to make war economy"
1944 - "reeeee, we will kill every German national because they showed us how glorious we could get"
> "They were never “cucked” as they genuinely didn’t want or need to fight a war with a Germany that did not seek to expand one inch to the West."
The potentiality is will, or should be taken as such. As that one Russian Jew said, the Israelis have come to distinguish between capability and intentionality - the Arabs didn't have the capability to demolish Israel in 1973, yet tried anyway.
In the circumstances of 1918, the refusal of genocide Germany was pure cucked soy on the part of the Anglo-French. It is from the weakness of the West that WW2 sprang about. The West couldn't even use the fruits of its own bloody victory. The same as Israel in Gaza. Russia in Afghan. Or America in Japan.
> "The wise course of action in the face of the raw industrial ascension of non-European land powers was for Europe to act together"
That of course was a pipe-dream, considering both that the Europeans had given Asians industry in the first place, and that the Europeans failed to exterminate said Asians - in the Philippines, India or Japan.
> "especially when a Polish-German anti-Soviet pact was a possibility."
To be fair, letting Germany genocide all of Europe would have been a mistake if England had been too cucked to conquer the USA. From the position of such moral weakness, preventing a German dominion over Europe made sense.
(Of course, chances are you're ready to wax poetic about how Germany didn't want genocide/dominion/Russia settled by Nordics, underline the necessary nonsense.)
> "Britain (and France) should have supported a German bulwark against anti-European Judeo-imperialism"
Letting Germany have all the spoils would have been a mistake. Again, I have a suspicion of cuckoldry so commonly found in such arguments. Defence only stems from weakness. Power necessitates offense. Offense leads to subjugation and genocide, cultural obliteration. (The same applies to modern China, by the way, who will kill all Japs and Whites, given the chance.)
My (and Hitler's!) model only makes sense if England had been possessed by the same virile, youthful, beastly spirit as Hitlerian Germany - a spirit eager to munch on soil, to steal, rape and plunder. Unfortunately, England blundered into spilling its rotten brains first over Abyssinia (the collapse of the Streza Front as deterrence against Germany), then over Poland (declaring war against Germany over the murder of Slavs). Instead, England could have been the mistress of the seas, renewing its mastery of the Americas, and eventually genociding India/Japan.
> "Britain and France “cucked” when they declared war against their own immediate interest"
No, that was sperging out after acting cucked.
> "Germany never would have “genocided the whole of Europe”; you must either be a woman or a neurotic Jew"
I mean the Europe from the Oder to the Urals. Are you denying the Holocaust and the murder of 30 million Slavs? Chances are, you are. And arguing with a person making up historical facts would be annoying.
> "Every document shows that up until it was obvious they were facing defeat they supported a pan-European Union of nations against the USSR and USA"
Pan-European my ass, when they didn't grant the Ukraine a sham of independence? It took the Germans until 1944 to even form SS Galizien! And they shied away from putting RONA on the battlefield until March 1945! The Hitlerians were German nationalist and Nordic supremacist. Alexa, go fetch Hitler's quote about EU on Quora.
> "a very Jewish form of ethics, as is calling the 1918 victors “soy” for not seeking to “genocide” Germany in a European war)."
If the Anglo-French had been so based as to exterminate Germany, neither Germany nor Hitler would have been necessary, for the ancient spirit of pagan Europe would have been alive. In that reality, India and Japan would soon have been populated by Europeans.
Great article, thanks. Have shared to Facebook (Ha! Haaaaaa!), for what it's worth...
Thank you, will update.