Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Fighting the ‘Middle State’

By Brad Pearce | The Libertarian Institute | September 10, 2024

From around the middle of the twentieth century, federal agencies tasked with law enforcement, intelligence gathering, and various types of “defense” have accrued overwhelming power in the United States. Democrats, who now worship such agencies, may wail at the term “Deep State” and the idea that they are nefarious. But regardless, the FBI, CIA, and myriad other “three letter agencies” are immensely powerful and reside outside of the political process which the public participates in.

Perhaps the John F. Kennedy assassination was a coup, perhaps it wasn’t. But there is little doubt that in the immortal words of Senator Chuck Schumer, these agencies have “six ways from Sunday of getting back at you.” While President Donald Trump may give lip service to fighting the Deep State, his support of what I called the “Trump-Biden World War III Bill” funding Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan demonstrates that he knows the limits of permitted resistance to their power and that they will ultimately win. While it is probably impossible to fight the Deep State within the legal democratic process, we also have an enemy in “the Middle State,” the administrators who operate in the open, and that can potentially be vanquished from within the system.

It is best to think of this Middle State as playing the role of the clergy under feudalism. In fact, this is a direct parallel since the kind of work they do is called “clerical,” having historically been done by clergy. The lack of formal power of the Catholic Church in the United States means we have never had the clericalism and anti-clericalism of the Latin countries, but perhaps it is time for our anti-clerical moment. You can argue that this is different because the clergy performed a primarily religious function, but this disregards just how much secular liberals worship the government.

Religious or not, the record of gutting the clergy’s power without collapsing into communism is better than that of removing the nobles (who are more akin to the Deep State). Most of northern Europe was able to remove the power of clergy during the reformation, though no example is as striking as Henry VIII of England closing the monasteries. Of course, over time a more powerful secular bureaucracy arose, but it was a long process. In the modern era, President Ronald Reagan was able to fire the federal air traffic controllers for striking, a move no president has survived (be that politically or mortally) making against any intelligence agency. This should give us hope that getting at least some of our country and freedom back is a possibility.

Some months ago The New York Times put out a short video titled, “It Turns Out the ‘Deep State’ is Actually Kind of Awesome,” which was targeted at people whose brains are already mush. The basic premise was to go around talking to people with relatively anodyne government jobs and asking these mundane bureaucrats how it felt to be classified as enemies of the people by Donald Trump. No attention was given to the parts of the government that are secretive or dangerous, and the message was that these are “public servants” and not “unelected bureaucrats.”

While some of these jobs are necessary to run a government, administrative bloat is consuming our society and economy, with our terminally “underfunded” schools, which always have money for new administrators, being just one example. The absurdity of the press telling us to appreciate the selflessness of this class is that salaries, benefits, and pensions are much higher than comparable jobs in the private sector, all with much better job security, so they are not sacrificing anything. As has historically been common in mature states which become ever more corrupt, our clergy’s power has completely outstripped that of the laity in a way which greatly harms the common man. Further, these tax eaters are among the biggest supporters of the growth of government, and are the ones who actually do most of the work of harassing and oppressing us. Reigning this in should be a political priority. The fact that they are generally Democratic partisans is an advantage since it gives the other faction a meaningful self-interest in fighting them; it’s the one time politicians can be incentivized to do something useful.

Though it has been far from perfect, Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter provides a compelling demonstration of the broader situation. He fired over half of the Twitter workforce upon taking power and the website continued to function, even if there has been some problems and Musk’s mercurial nature provides its own annoyances. Like the government and the rest of our society, Twitter had a large class of people who didn’t do anything a normal person could identify as useful. Instead, their job was to harass and control the users in a way that made the experience much worse for the majority in favor of their narrow class interests. They were certainly self-important, but not important in the normally understood sense of the word.

As at Twitter, there is every reason to believe much of our government bureaucracy could be gutted and ultimately do better at their core tasks. Hopefully, this would inspire the private sector to follow suit and purge its own clerics. Regulatory requirements do become a problem in any program to reduce employee numbers, and we know that government career bureaucrats will apply them maliciously in this circumstance, but major cuts to regulations would be a key part of any program to go after the bureaucracy.

It is fair to be “black pilled” about fighting the CIA or getting rid of the warfare state. However, the offense taken about Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance’s “joke” that miserable, childless cat ladies who work for the government are ruining society shows that this class is simultaneously powerful and vulnerable. They may have unions and a sympathetic media and a political party, but the Middle State does not have the power to go around blackmailing, prosecuting, or assassinating everyone of significance who may oppose them. Our entire system is designed to ensure the Deep State maintains power, but it is a different matter for the Middle State. It would require determination and decent political leadership to make it a reality, but the Middle State, major enemies of freedom in their own right, can be defeated within the confines of the current political system, and deserve to be.

September 11, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Full Spectrum Dominance | | Leave a comment

Putin: Russia May Restrict Export of Strategic Materials in Response to Unfriendly Powers’ Actions

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 11.09.2024

Despite slapping Moscow with an unprecedented sanctions regime in 2022, European countries and the United States continue to rely on vast quantities of Russian energy and strategic materials, including gas and uranium, importing them to prevent spiking prices and shortages from wrecking their economies.

Russia is a world leader in the production of an array of strategic minerals, from natural gas, gold and diamonds to uranium, titanium and nickel, and should “think about” whether it’s possible to reduce the export of the latter three resources in response to unfriendly countries’ actions against Russia, President Vladimir Putin has said.

Speaking at a meeting with government ministers on Wednesday, Putin asked Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin to look into the idea and report back, stressing that any proposed restrictions should not be “to one’s own detriment.”

“Mikhail Vladimirovich, I have a request for you: please look at some types of goods that we supply in large quantities to the world market – the supply of a number of goods to us is being restricted. Well, perhaps we should also think about certain restrictions – on uranium, titanium, nickel,” Putin said.

“In some countries, strategic reserves are being created, and some other measures are being taken. In general, if this does not harm us, we should think…about certain restrictions on supplies to the foreign market,” he added.

“I am not saying this needs to be done tomorrow, but we could think about certain restrictions on supplies to the foreign market not only of the goods I mentioned, but also of some others,” Putin said.

The ongoing NATO-Russia proxy war in Ukraine has reduced, but not fully stopped, economic exchange between Russia and Western countries, with the US continuing the purchase of Russian uranium for its vast network of nuclear power plants, and gas continuing to flow via a pipeline in Ukraine to customers in Hungary and Slovakia, and shipped west aboard tankers in the form of LNG. Concurrently, a number of Western companies have refused to leave the Russian market, continuing to sell their wares to Russians despite sanctions and other restrictions put in place by their own governments. Some Russian observers have suggested that it’s long past time for Russia to halt economic cooperation with countries fueling the proxy war in Ukraine, in favor of ramped up trade ties with the BRICS bloc and other friendly countries in the Global South.

September 11, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Russophobia | , , | Leave a comment

UK’s Caroline Dinenage “delighted” to keep embarrassing herself

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | September 11, 2024

The UK has a new/old chair of the parliament’s Culture, Media and Sports Committee – and she is yet another champion of (obliging) Big Tech, and a veteran in the “war on disinformation,” but also attempts to demonetize “disfavored” public figures.

Caroline Dinenage keeps failing upwards: she has just been reelected to this role, after last year embarrassing herself by trying to pressure X and Rumble, and other platforms and media to demonetize actor Russell Brand because of anonymous allegations against him.

The Committee that scrutinizes the activities of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (BBC included), has a Sub-Committee specifically focused on what are considered online harms and disinformation, as well as UK’s sweeping censorship law, Online Safety Act.

It is from this position that Dinenage last fall decided it was a good idea to turn to X with the demand to cut Brand off from his revenue on the platform because of the (to this day unproven) accusations.

X refused. And the company explained why to the British MP in a letter that underscored commitment not only to free speech, but also X’s own terms of service.

“We do not take action on accounts where they have not violated our own rules or local laws (Brand was not at the time, and is still not charged with any crime). This is essential to protect free expression on the service,” the letter read, adding that all, including monetized content, is subject to X’s rules and user agreement.

X wasn’t the only platform Dinenage went to in a bid to swiftly deprive Brand of money: YouTube was one of them, and lo and behold, this one went along, demonetizing Brand in October 2023. All this happened before the alleged victims and the alleged perpetrator had undergone any due process.

And for a British MP to pressure platforms to punish someone essentially based on hearsay at that point is what famed journalist Glenn Greenwald called “preposterous.”

Rumble was another platform Dinenage urged to demonetize Brand last year. That would be a no, ma’am – was the essence of the free speech video platform’s response to Dinenage.

“We regard it as deeply inappropriate and dangerous that the UK Parliament would attempt to control who is allowed to speak on our platform or to earn a living from doing so,” Rumble’s letter said, among other things.

But now, Dinenage – once a recipient of a non-monetary grant from Google – shared that she is “delighted” to continue where she left off with the previous parliament’s Culture, Media and Sports Committee.

September 11, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

US has ‘new tool’ for Georgian elections – Russian spy agency

RT | September 11, 2024

The US wants to use a European election monitor to kickstart mass protests in Georgia after the upcoming parliamentary election, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) has claimed.

Washington is seeking to oust the ruling Georgian Dream party and is using the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in its plan, the Russian agency stated on Tuesday.

One of ODIHR’s key activities is monitoring elections, and it intends to do this during voting in the former Soviet republic, when Georgians will choose a new parliament on October 26. An advance team visited Tbilisi in May to assess the situation.

The SVR expects the body to release a critical preliminary report ten to 20 days prior to the vote, in which the ODIHR will declare that there are “no conditions in the country to hold free and fair elections.”

“After the first results of the ballot are published, it would issue a statement to declare the electoral process not to be up to democratic norms,” the Russian agency claims.

The US Department of State sees the ODIHR as “a tool” and has pre-arranged the content of its statements, the SVR claimed. Georgian opposition forces will cite its criticism to justify “mass protests aimed at seizing power in the country,” the message predicted. The purported arrangement clearly violates the OSCE’s stated mission, the Russian agency added.

”Under the circumstances, the reduction of Russian funding for the OSCE in a bid to at least weaken the destructive activities of this formerly respectable international structure appears justified,” the SVR suggested.

The Georgian government and its ruling party came into Washington’s crosshairs earlier this year due to the passage of a law, which required political and media organizations that receive foreign funding to publicly declare their affiliations. Tbilisi says the legislation was modeled on a similar American law, the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act.

US officials have stated that Georgia is walking down “the wrong path,” and that Washington is preparing sanctions against people whom it deems responsible for that.

The SVR previously warned that the Georgian government was facing a “color revolution” similar to the one that brought former president Mikhail Saakasvili to power in the early 2000s, or a violent coup, similar to what happened in Ukraine in 2014.

September 11, 2024 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | Leave a comment

Pro-War Lobby Attacks Alleged ‘Russian Influencers’

Photo Credit: http://www.kremlin.ru
By Ted Galen Carpenter | The Libertarian Institute | September 10, 2024

In recent weeks, there has been a surge of allegations that Moscow has long orchestrated an illegal campaign to influence U.S. public opinion. On September 4, 2024, the U.S. Justice Department charged two Russian media executives with an alleged scheme that authorities say illegally funneled millions of dollars to a Tennessee-based company called Tenet to create and publish propaganda videos that subsequently racked up millions of views on American social media. In a separate legal action, prosecutors seized thirty-two Russian-controlled internet domains that were used in a state-controlled effort called “Doppelganger” to undermine international support for Ukraine. As an aside to such legal maneuvers, U.S. officials contended that 1,800 Westerners, including twenty-one Americans, were guilty of acting as “influencers” on behalf of Russia.

The Justice Department filed an even more high-profile case the next day, accusing Dimitri Simes, founder of the Center for the National Interest, and his wife Anastasia, of illegally accepting more than $1 million in salary and other benefits from the state-owned Channel One Russia television station and trying to conceal the payments.

The Joe Biden administration is shamelessly hyping the prosecutions to smear anyone who criticizes or even questions U.S. policy towards Russia. Wall Street Journal columnist Holman Jenkins notes that Russian propaganda efforts in the United States have been spectacularly ineffective over the years. Nevertheless, Attorney General Merrick Garland, in announcing the latest prosecutions, asserted that “Russian disinformation is ‘a bigger threat’ than ever.” Garland’s smears were often stunningly vague, though. For example, he conceded that “the Kremlin-influenced U.S. influencers were unaware they were benefiting from Russian money.” That statement comes alarmingly close to contending that pro-Russian “influencers” were unintentional criminals. Garland stated, for example, “subject matter and content of many of the videos published by the company [Tenet] were often consistent with Russia’s interest in amplifying U.S. domestic divisions.” Such a vague standard also gives an administration virtually a blank check to harass its ideological or political opponents.

There were several suspicious aspects about the Justice Department’s moves. One was the timing. The indictments took place just days before the scheduled debate between Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris. The inflammatory tone in media articles from The Washington Post and other establishment publications dealing with these new prosecutions even more strongly suggests that partisanship is at play. For example, the Post’s headline read: “Trump-aligned Russian TV host charged in alleged sanctions scheme.”

However, there also seemed to be more than petty partisanship involved. Dimitri Simes, in particular, had long been an irritant to hawks in America’s national security state. His efforts to improve relations between Washington and Moscow especially were deeply resented by Russia haters in the powerful pro-war lobby. That hostility was magnified because of the prominence that The National Interest had achieved under Simes’ leadership.

The Biden administration’s ongoing campaign to squelch dissent about Russia policy is profoundly menacing and worrisome. I have published several articles in The National Interest over the years and have been a contributing editor to that publication. Given my interactions with Dimitri Simes, I have extensive doubts about whether he is guilty of the charges against him.

But even in the unlikely event that the charges are accurate, there are other, more fundamental issues that should concern all Americans. The statutes that he is accused of violating are sufficiently vague as to pose a threat to freedom of speech, in particular badly needed debates on numerous international issues like the tense relations between Russia and the United States. Could, for example, publishing an article in The National Interest or participating in a discussion sponsored by the Center inadvertently violate pertinent statutes? What about a paid interview? How could an author or participant be confident one way or the other? The mere existence of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and various sanctions laws directed against specific countries pose an intolerable mess to the First Amendment.   

The overall rationale for prosecuting alleged “influencers” should offend every American who believes in freedom of expression. Preventing American citizens from accessing pro-Russian viewpoints is inappropriate in what purports to be a free, democratic society. That is true even if the Russian government is funding and directing such propaganda.

Moreover, Washington’s hypocrisy on the issue is truly breathtaking. The U.S. government directly and through front groups spends billions of dollars each year propagandizing foreign audiences with material that, not accidentally, also frequently ends up impacting domestic opinion. There is credible evidence that both U.S. and foreign journalists have been paid by the CIA to disseminate Washington’s propaganda. Evidence has even emerged that (primarily in Middle Eastern countries) the United States government established bogus “independent” media outlets to serve the same purpose.

Beyond such mundane measures, the U.S. propaganda apparatus has developed an especially close and unhealthy relationship with its Ukrainian counterpart. Washington has even funded and promoted Ukrainian government agencies that target and harass American critics who dare seek an end to NATO’s proxy war against Russia. The latest Justice Department actions suggest that Washington’s ugly campaign remains intact.

It is especially ironic (as well as infuriating) for U.S. officials such as Attorney General Merrick Garland to grouse about Russia’s efforts to reduce U.S. and international support for Ukraine. The Biden administration has waged a massive effort to echo and amplify Kiev’s propaganda in the United States as well as around the world. Most galling of all, the administration has worked with the Ukrainian government to suppress dissent in the United States about U.S. policy on the Russia-Ukraine war. In a truly free society, citizens must not be threatened by their own government for failing to support a particular foreign policy. The latest Justice Department prosecutions violate the most fundamental features of a democratic system.

September 10, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Russophobia | , , | 1 Comment

Demand for Justice: World Council for Health urges the immediate release of Dr. Reiner Füellmich

World Council for Health | September 10, 2024

The international human rights community is rallying to demand the immediate release of Dr. Reiner Füellmich, a lawyer from Germany who has been in pre-trial detention for over 10 months. Arrested under dubious circumstances at Frankfurt Airport on October 13, 2023, Dr. Füellmich’s case has raised serious concerns regarding the legality of his detention and the integrity of the judicial process. Of the initial 18 charges made against Füellmich, only one remains regarding personal loans.

According to German law, the maximum duration of pre-trial detention is six months, as outlined in 121 para. 1 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO). “Special or important reasons for an extension of pre-trial detention beyond the 6 months are not apparent.” This assertion highlights the urgent need for a re-evaluation of Dr. Füellmich’s ongoing detention.

In a significant development, it has come to light that Dr. Christof Miseré, one of the defense attorneys representing Füellmich, obtained a dossier from the German secret services. This document explicitly outlines a directive to halt Füellmich by any means necessary. Alarmingly, it details a strategy to infiltrate individuals within his inner circle of collaborators. Furthermore, the dossier reveals a clear objective: to convict Fuellmich, thereby obstructing any future aspirations he may have for public or political office. This information raises serious questions about the lengths to which authorities may go to silence dissenting voices. This dossier, given to Miseré by a whistleblower, demonstrates that Reiner Füellmich was already under special surveillance as far back as 2021.

Adding to the controversy is the manner of Dr. Füellmich’s arrest. He was reportedly “kidnapped” from Mexico, where he had been residing legally. A German and a European arrest warrant were issued against him, ostensibly to circumvent lengthy international extradition procedures. The Göttingen public prosecutor’s office collaborated closely with officers from Interpol and the Federal Criminal Police, orchestrating a deceptive plan to lure Dr. Füellmich to the Mexican consulate under false pretenses, an act that raises significant legal and ethical questions about the conduct of authorities involved.

Despite multiple assertions from both his defense and Dr. Füellmich himself regarding the illegality of his deportation, these concerns have been largely dismissed in court. Lawyers argue that the circumstances surrounding his abduction and subsequent detention underscore critical national and international legal issues that must be addressed.

Currently held in Rosdorf Prison near Göttingen, Dr. Füellmich faces harsh and isolating conditions. He is segregated from other inmates, permitted only solitary yard time, and restricted in his communication with the outside world, limited to a mere three hours of private visits per month. This punitive environment raises further questions about the treatment of individuals in pre-trial detention, particularly when contrasted with the lack of substantial evidence to justify such measures. On June 11, Reiner Füellmich was once again placed in solitary confinement, a status he continues to endure. This isolation means he is prohibited from any interaction with other inmates. The authorities justified this extreme measure by alleging that Füellmich had been providing legal advice to his fellow prisoners, a situation deemed unacceptable by those overseeing his incarceration. Füellmich is required to eat in isolation and is granted just one hour each day for outdoor activity, which is also spent in complete solitude. He is not allowed access to the gymnasium and can only use the telephone after other inmates have returned to their cells. This strict regimen underscores the severity of his confinement and the restrictions imposed upon him.

The charges against Dr. Füellmich include embezzlement, yet many observers, including his defense, contend that this trial has transcended ordinary judicial proceedings and has become a politically motivated effort to silence a prominent critic of COVID-19 measures. The trial has seen troubling shifts in legal parameters, further complicating the case and undermining the principles of justice.

In light of these serious allegations and the apparent disregard for due process, World Council for Health is calling for the immediate release of Dr. Reiner Füellmich. This situation not only affects one individual but also serves as a stark reminder of the potential for political influence to infiltrate the judiciary, compromising the very foundations of justice and fairness.

As the international freedom movement watches closely, it is imperative that justice prevails and that Dr. Füellmich is granted the freedom he deserves, freedom that is essential not only for him but for the integrity of the legal system itself.

Take action now – Sign the petition calling for the release of Reiner Füellmich

September 10, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

Trump Pledges to Fire Federal Employees Engaged in Censorship Pressure

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | September 10, 2024

Former United States President Donald Trump’s pledge to safeguard the First Amendment was a highlight of his recent campaign rally in Wisconsin. Standing against the Big Tech censorship attempts by the ruling Biden-Harris administration, Trump stated his commitment to protecting the free speech of Americans, “I will sign an executive order banning any federal employee from colluding to limit speech, and we will fire every federal bureaucrat who is engaged in domestic censorship under the Harris regime.”

His remarks come in the wake of heightened debate around safeguarding free speech rights. The First Amendment, recognized as the bedrock of American values and rites, guarantees every citizen the right to voice their opinion, peacefully protest, and practice their religion without intrusion from the government. However, these liberties have come under fire in the online world, with government pressuring social media platforms to censor speech.

Under the Biden-Harris governance, the administration has been accused of muzzling so-called “misinformation.”

Congressional investigations like those conducted by the Select Subcommittee Government Committee on Weaponization and lawsuits against the administration have brought many incidents of censorship pressure to light.

This suppression undermines public trust in institutions by concealing inconvenient information.

In 2022, the administration introduced the short-lived Disinformation Governance Board. The board was shut down following pushback over First Amendment concerns.

September 10, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Germany’s Neglect of National Interests & a Pending Nationalist Backlash

By Glenn Diesen | September 10, 2024

Security competition is the main source of conflict in the international system, as states pursuing national interests and security for themselves often undermine the security of other states. The ability to transcend nationalism by pursuing a more cosmopolitan world order is thus an attractive proposition. For Germany, with its destructive history of radical ethno-nationalism and fascism, idealist internationalism has an immense appeal.

However, is it possible to transcend power competition when the state is the highest sovereign? Should aggressive power politics be addressed by ignoring national interests or managing competing national interests? Cosmopolitanism and liberal idealism do not transcend power politics and create a global village, rather it results in the neglect of national interests and subordination to foreign powers. Aggressive nationalism will likely be the predictable backlash to ignoring national interests.

In the early 19th century, Germans fell under the lure of international idealism and failed to defend national interests. Cultural nationalism and economic nationalism became instruments for the Germans to balance the French and restore dignity and national interests. Two centuries later, Germany is yet again not capable of pursuing national interests until it decouples from American cosmopolitanism, universalism and hegemony. It seems likely, that history will repeat itself as Germany will return to cultural and economic nationalism or be condemned to vassalage and irrelevance.

German Subordination to France

In the late 18th and early 19th century, France represented a cosmopolitan universal civilisation in which development meant becoming more like France. Napoleon could thus find some people willing to support him in all countries, although internationalist initiatives usually served a French national cause.

When Napoleon invaded in the early 19th century, some German princes surrendered their sovereignty and national interests to the French with great enthusiasm. In what became known as the “shame of the princes”, many German rulers welcomed Napoleon’s annexation of the West bank of the Rhine. A combination of receiving economic compensation and fawning over France resulted in the German princes abandoning national interests and their dignity.

The Germans and other Europeans became increasingly concerned about France and the obedience demanded by allies under the Napoleonic Continental System. Under the guise of internationalism and cosmopolitanism, a system developed that was primarily for the benefit of French manufacturers. The cultural fawning over France resulted in Germans failing to further develop their own culture. While the French had promised peace under its leadership, the Europeans instead had constant war as they became instruments of war to be used against the British.

What was the solution? Germany began to pursue cultural sovereignty and economic sovereignty as conditions to restore dignity, national interests, and political sovereignty. The cosmopolitan philosophy of Voltaire and a common path to cosmopolitanism and universal civilisation were challenged by the philosophy of Johann Gottfried Herder, who argued that cultural differences should be preserved to contribute to the richness of humanity.[1] Culture is a specific link between a distinctive people required for social cohesion and societal dignity. Herder cautioned that imitation of foreign cultures made the people shallow, artificial, and weak. In Russia, there were similar concerns that imitating French culture undermined Russia’s unique development and its ability to contribute something new to the world.

Economic sovereignty was also a requirement, as Friedrich List recognised that excessive economic dependence also undermined political sovereignty:

“As long as the division of the human race into independent nations exists, political economy will as often be at variance with cosmopolitan principles… a nation would act unwisely to endeavour to promote the welfare of the whole human race at the expense of its particular strength, welfare and independence”.[2]

German Subordination to the US

Following the Second World War, the pendulum swung in the opposing direction as German national power had to be dressed up in internationalist initiatives. As Chancellor Helmut Schmidt argued in 1978, it was:

“German foreign policy rests on two great pillars: the European Community and the North Atlantic Alliance… It is all the more necessary for us to clothe ourselves in this European mantle. We need this mantle not only to cover our foreign policy nakednesses, like Berlin or Auschwitz, but we need it also to cover these ever-increasing relative strengths, economic, political, military, of the German Federal Republic within the West”.[3]

The pillars of German development were also a prison to ensure its subordination to the US. In the words of Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay, NATO’s first Secretary General, acknowledged that NATO was created to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”.[4] The historical role of Britain and the US had always been to prevent Germany and Russia from getting too close as it would form a centre of power capable of challenging the dominance of the maritime hegemon at the periphery. Peacetime alliances that contain and perpetuate the weakness of adversaries also ensure the dependence and obedience of allies. Much like its French predecessor, the US appeals to cosmopolitanism and universalism to manage an international system that upholds a US national cause.

Germany in Decline

Until recently, Germany had become known as the industrial engine that was driving European economies forward, while it had seemingly learned from its history by attempting to elevate liberal democratic principles above power politics.

This era is seemingly over as Germany has transformed itself in a remarkably short period of time. Germany fails to defend its basic national interests, its economy is deindustrialising, society becomes more pessimistic, the political leadership has rediscovered enthusiasm for war, German tanks are yet again burning in Kursk, there are some signs of political violence to come, the freedom of expression is undermined, and the political upheaval opens the door to political alternatives that the government rejects.

The German economic model has been broken as Germany cut itself off from Russia as a source of cheap energy and a huge export market for manufactured goods. Washington is also increasingly pressuring Germany to sever its economic ties with China as well, resulting in a less competitive economy and excessive reliance on the US. Germany’s submissiveness was demonstrated by the deafening silence when its key energy infrastructure was destroyed by allies (the US and Ukraine), while European allies such as the Czech Republic referred to the attack as legitimate and Poland told Germany to stay quiet and apologise for having built the pipeline. As Germany deindustrialises and its economy declines, the US has responded by offering subsidies to German industries that will move across the Atlantic to the US.

At the heart of the problem is that Germany no longer sufficiently defends its national interests. As the public flees to alternative media and new political parties, the government does not know how to respond. Police appear on the doorsteps of journalists, and protesters are beaten by the police for protesting a genocide in Palestine that Germany has supported with arms shipments. German Foreign Minister felt comfortable declaring that Ukraine will continue to receive support “no matter what my German voters think”. The media is dismissive of political violence against Sahra Wagenknecht on the political left, which is to some extent justified by arguing she is actually on the political right. On the actual political right, the AfD is surging to fill the vacuum left behind by an incompetent government without a plan, and the political-media elites have responded to the surge by discussing whether this opposition party should be banned. The rise of the AfD is compared to the rise of Hitler, yet the AfD is pushing for a negotiated peace in Ukraine while the government has backed military solutions.

The EU is also acting deeply irrationally in the Ukraine War. The Europeans used to recognise that the American ambition to pull Ukraine into the orbit of NATO would result in another European war. In 2008 the Europeans attempted to oppose NATO membership for Ukraine for this reason. In the words of Angela Merkel, Moscow would interpret the attempt to bring Ukraine into NATO as “a declaration of war”. Yet, they went ahead with the promise of future membership in 2008 to appease Washington. After destabilising the Ukrainian government, the Europeans were guarantors for a unity government in Kiev in 2014, but then betrayed this agreement for stability as the US pushed for a coup instead. After a war broke out in Donbas as a direct result of the coup, the Germans and French negotiated the Minsk Peace Agreement but then later admitted it was only to buy time to arm Ukraine. When Russia invaded in 2022, the Europeans were yet again silent as the US and Britain sabotaged the Istanbul Peace Agreement and instead pushed for war.

Even as Ukraine is losing the war, the Europeans do not want to discuss restoring Ukraine’s neutrality. Instead, the incoming EU foreign policy chief argues there should not be any diplomacy with Russia as Putin is a “war criminal”, and she has defined victory as breaking up Russia into many smaller nations. Hungary has attempted to restore diplomacy and negotiations and Orban travelled to Kiev, Moscow and Beijing. The EU responded by punishing Hungary. Subsequently, the EU has limited itself to the unachievable objective of defeating the world’s largest nuclear power and a vital trading partner, while rejecting any diplomatic solutions.

Resolving the problems of Germany and the EU requires some reflection on the European security architecture that was built over the past 30 years. The decision to redivide Europe and incrementally move these dividing lines to the East was a recipe for collective hegemony – not peace or stability. In the words of President Bill Clinton in January 1994, we cannot afford “to draw a new line between East and West that could create a self-fulfilling prophecy of future confrontation”.[5] Expanding NATO triggered a new Cold War over where the new dividing lines should be drawn in Europe. This has nothing to do with liberal democracy, and everything to do with advancing a unipolar world order that has now come to an end. Continuing down this path ensures that Europe will transition from a subject of security to an object of security. Reversing the path to irrelevance requires admitting the mistakes made over the past 30 years that were celebrated as virtuous politics. Without any correction, the EU will tear itself apart and Germany will continue declining in relevance.

A Nationalist Backlash to Come?

The failure to defend national interests leaves a vacuum for nationalist political forces. Nationalism can be a movement for national liberation, sovereignty, freedom and prosperity in the spirit of Johann Gottfried Herder. However, times of crisis can also produce uglier forms of nationalism. Either way, a political correction (or over-correction) will eventually come.

[1] .G. Herder book in 1784 “Ideas of the Philosophy of the History of Mankind”.

[2] List, F. 1827. Outlines of American Political Economy, in a Series of Letters. Samuel Parker, Philadelphia, p.30.

[3] Bundesbank. ‘EMS: Bundesbank Council meeting with Chancellor Schmidt (assurances on operation of EMS) [declassified 2008],’ Bundesbank Archives, N2/267, 30 November 1978.

[4] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_137930.htm

[5] https://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/ga6-940109.htm

September 10, 2024 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Typhon Missile Deployment is Part of US Plans to Maintain ‘Primacy Over the Planet’

Sputnik -10.09.2024

Having previously deployed the medium-range Typhon missile systems – a weapon banned under the now-obsolete INF Treaty – in the Philippines, the United States now moves to station them in Japan in relatively close proximity to China and North Korea.

Washington’s plans to deploy these weapons in Asia are “part of a much wider long-running US strategy to encircle and contain China,” with this move itself being “part of a global post-Cold War strategy to eliminate any peer or near-peer competitor and maintain US primacy over the planet,” geopolitical analyst and former US Marine Brian Berletic tells Sputnik.

The US plans to deploy Typhon missile systems in Europe are also “part of a wider strategy to encircle and contain Russia,” Berletic adds.

According to him, the deployment of these weapons “reveals several important factors regarding US foreign, policy including continuity of agenda.”

For one, Berletic notes, the US pulled out from the INF Treaty during Donald Trump’s presidency, but the deployment of the Typhon missiles in various corners of the globe takes place with Joe Biden at the helm.

“The process of withdrawing from a treaty, developing, and then deploying such systems took place over the course of two presidential administrations, serving one single agenda, regardless of who sat in the White House,” he says.

“The Typhon’s deployment also reveals the true nature of US foreign policy and its disruptive nature for supposed US ‘allies’,” Berletic remarks.

Though both the Philippines and Japan “count China as their largest trade partner,” they both end up hosting US missiles aimed squarely at Beijing, which does little to improve their relations.

“This is just the latest in a long line of provocations complicating what would otherwise be increasingly constructive relations with China,” Berletic explains, arguing that the Philippines and Japan’s willingness to enable such US provocations “reveals the absence of agency in terms of either nations’ foreign policy.”

“It is very clear that this policy of hosting US forces seeking to encircle and contain China is a policy determined in Washington, not Manila or Tokyo, and is a policy serving US interests at the expense of the Philippines and Japan,” he states.

Berletic also deemed ironic the fact that the United States claims that its deployment of weapon systems around the world “is necessary to ensure global peace and stability,” even as the US “consistently demonstrates that it itself is the greatest threat to both.”

September 10, 2024 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , , | 1 Comment

Trump’s Grand-Jury Indictments Don’t Mean Squat

By Jacob G. Hornberger | FFF | September 10, 2024

A recent Los Angeles Times column by Times’s columnist Jackie Calmes entitled “Should a Five-Time Loser with Grand Juries Be President?” displays a woeful lack of understanding regarding grand-jury indictments.

Calmes’s article, of course, is about Donald Trump and argues that the five grand-jury indictments against Trump are a good reason for rejecting his candidacy for president. Adding authority to her argument, Calmes quotes former Justice Department official and MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissmann: “For those counting, FIVE separate grand juries (scores of citizens) have now found probable cause that Trump committed multiple felonies.”

As a former prosecutor, Weissmann should know that grand juries are usually nothing more than rubber stamps for whatever prosecutors want. As Sol Wachtler, chief justice of New York’s Supreme Court, put it, “Any good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.”

Grand juries are normally composed of good, little, patriotic, deferential citizens who look upon prosecutors and judges, especially at the federal level, as gods. When a federal prosecutor enters the grand-jury room armed with a bit of evidence and an indictment, the grand jurors are going to do what he wants them to do.

Keep in mind, after all, that there is no judge in the grand-jury room. There is also no defense attorney representing the person they want indicted. There is no one to challenge or rule out incompetent evidence. The prosecutor can use hearsay evidence, illegally acquired evidence, or even evidence acquired by torture. The grand jury is not going to challenge him on the evidence he is presenting to them. They are simply going to grant his request for an indictment.

Calmes makes a big deal over the fact that a grand-jury indictment is based on “probable cause.” Big deal. What she apparently doesn’t realize is that “probable cause” can be based on hearsay or other evidence that is not admissible at a trial. That makes the indictment worthless in terms of whether the accused is actually guilty of what the indictment charges him with.

The fact is that a grand-jury indictment is nothing more than an accusation. In a court of law, it doesn’t constitute any evidence whatsoever. In terms of determining whether a person is guilty of a crime, an indictment is worthless.

Whatever reasons people might have for rejecting Trump’s quest to be president again, those grand-jury indictments against him are a ludicrous one. Calmes, Weissmann, and the Los Angeles Times should know better than to make such a ridiculous argument for rejecting Donald Trump’s candidacy.

September 10, 2024 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , | Leave a comment

Durov still does not get it

By Stephen Karganovic | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 10, 2024

After being released on bail from a French prison, Russian entrepreneur Pavel Durov made several statements which indicate that he is labouring under grave illusions about the nature of his predicament. He described the action of the French authorities, which resulted in his arrest and detention on French territory, as “surprising and misguided.” He then went on to question the legal premise of his detention and subsequent indictment, which is that he could be held “personally responsible for other people’s illegal use of Telegram.”

It is disappointing to see a thirty-nine years old sophisticated cosmopolitan adult, traumatised as he must be by his recent experiences, reasoning like a child. One should have expected a person of Durov’s wealth to secure competent legal assistance to help him understand the legal “facts of life” pertaining to his case.

There are two basic facts that the lawyer selected by Durov to represent him should have explained to his client. Incidentally, that lawyer is extremely well wired into the French establishment and the judicial system which is persecuting his bewildered protégé. It would not be uncharitable to say that his loyalties are dubious.

The first and most fundamental of these facts is the political nature of the case. Durov’s predicament cannot be properly understood apart from that reality. Recognition of that fact does not exclude entirely the effective use of legal arguments and remedies but it marginalises their practical impact. The second important fact that a conscientious legal professional already in the first interview would have made clear to his client is that in the real world in which Durov is facing grave criminal charges, indulging intuitive notions of justice, including the premise that a person cannot be held criminally liable for third-party acts, is a naïve and utterly misguided approach.

Pavel Durov is a highly intelligent and, in his field, very accomplished individual. But on another level he is just a computer nerd and his incoherent actions and statements are proof of that. Contrary to what he seems to think possible, and as incompatible as that may appear to be with the concept of natural justice, under specific circumstances an individual can be criminally charged for the acts of third parties. Mechanisms that make that possible already are firmly in place. We would not necessarily be wrong to characterise those mechanisms as repugnant to the natural sense of justice, or even as quasi-legal. But formally they are well established and are integral components of criminal law. Tyrannical political systems are free to invoke those instruments whenever they decide to target a bothersome non-conformist such as Pavel Durov.

Whilst on the one track relentless pressure is undoubtedly being applied to the conditionally released but still closely supervised Durov to accede to the demands of deep state structures and turn Telegram’s encryption keys over to security agencies, on a parallel track the legal case against him is being constructed. It will be based on some variant or derivative of the theory of strict liability. The exact contours of that variant are yet to be defined as the case proceeds, and everything will depend on how the defendant responds to the combination of carrots and sticks that are now being put in front of him. Since no evidence is being offered to prove that acting personally in his capacity as Telegram CEO Durov was complicit in any of the incriminating activities listed in the charge sheet, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that some version of strict liability will be the vehicle of choice to make the accusations stick. Unless he capitulates, the objective is to put him away for a long time, or at least to threaten him credibly with such an outcome in order to exact his cooperation. Strict liability is a convenient tool because it offers many shortcuts to the Prosecution. It achieves the desired effect in the absence of proof of specific intent and regardless of the defendant’s mental state, thus eliminating for the prosecution major evidentiary hurdles.

Furthermore, from the beginning of the Durov case groundwork was notably being laid for the application of the Joint Criminal Enterprise [JCE] doctrine as developed by the Hague Tribunal, its category III to be precise. Even seasoned lawyers practicing at the Hague Tribunal were at a loss what to make of that legal improvisation. But their incomprehension did not prevent successive chambers from sentencing defendants to decades of prison, wholly or in part based on it.

Durov is being charged on 12 counts, including complicity in distributing child pornography, drug dealing and money laundering. It should again be recalled that it is not even alleged that Durov personally committed or intentionally participated in the commission of any of those offences. The charges stem from the accusation that Telegram’s lax moderation rules allow for the widespread criminal use of the platform by others, with whom it is not claimed that Durov entertained any direct personal link or that he was even aware of their existence.

But the marvellous feature of the category III JCE doctrine, specially invented by the chambers of the Hague Tribunal to accommodate the Prosecution in situations in which it could not contrive even the semblance of a nexus between the defendant and the crimes being imputed to him, is that it does not require any of those things. A vaguely inferred commonality of purpose, coupled with the assumption that the defendant should have been able to foresee but failed to prevent the illicit conduct of the third parties with whom he is being associated by the Prosecution, and with whom he needn’t have had direct communication or even personal acquaintance, serves as a sufficient link. If in the chambers’ considered judgment the defendant contributed substantially to generating conditions conducive to third-party unlawful conduct, that is enough. Proof that the third parties had committed the charged acts is sufficient basis to convict and no disavowal of criminal liability is practically possible.

If in relation to the third parties the defendant is situated in a position that the court deems culpable, nothing more is needed for liability for their conduct to be imputed to him.

The system’s prosecutors are eager to make those and perhaps some even more ingenious arguments to sympathetic judges. Woe to the person sitting in the dock.

That is precisely the general direction in which the Durov case is moving. In an ominous but highly indicative development, the French prosecutors are highlighting the alleged paedophile offences of an individual user of Telegram, who for the moment is identified cryptically only as “X,” or “person unknown,” and who is suspected of having committed crimes against children. The prosecution’s objective is to individualise and dramatise Durov’s guilt by connecting him to a specific paedophile case, the details of which can be disclosed later. If that sticks, some or all of the remaining charges in due course may even be dropped, without prejudice to the prosecution’s overarching goal of incarcerating Durov for a long period of time, unless he compromises. Paedophilia and child abuse alone merit a very lengthy prison sentence, without the necessity of combining them with other nasty charges.

In that regard, equally ominous for Durov is the activation, as it were on cue, of his ex-whatever in Switzerland, with whom he is alleged to have sired at least three out-of-wedlock children. Prior to his detention in France, Durov had capriciously terminated her 150,000-euro monthly apanage. This was a financial blow which naturally left her disgruntled and receptive to the suggestion of the investigative organs to come up with something to take revenge on her former companion. The woman is now accusing Durov of having molested one of the children that he had conceived with her. That is an independent and serious new charge whose potential for further mischief should not be underestimated.

Pavel Durov should stop wasting his time attempting to lecture his French captors on the wrongfulness of the persecution to which they are subjecting him. They are completely uninterested in the philosophical and legal principles to which Durov is referring. Like their transatlantic colleagues, who display juridical virtuosity by indicting ham sandwiches, with equal facility and with as little professional remorse French prosecutors are prepared to indict bœuf bourguignon, if that is what the system they serve demands of them. Far more than a legal strategy, Durov now needs an effective negotiating position (and perhaps also a crash course in poker) to preserve the integrity of his enterprise and to regain fully his freedom without sacrificing honour. For an excellent introduction to the Western rules based order, Durov need look no further than the woeful predicament of Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, the German-American lawyer who for months has been languishing in a German prison after being targeted on trumped-up charges for exposing the fraud of the recent “health emergency” that we all vividly recall.

Properly understood, the Durov affair should come as a sobering lesson not only for its principal but more importantly for the edification of the frivolous Russian intelligentsia who still entertain adolescent illusions about where the grass is greener and continue to nourish a petulant disdain for their own country, its way of life, and culture.

September 10, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | 1 Comment

Blaming Churchill

By Jim Goad | Counter Currents | September 9, 2024

It’s often been alleged that ever since World War II ended, Holocaustianity emerged from its ashes as the West’s official state religion.

To dare suggest that human history’s bloodiest war didn’t happen exactly the way we have been commanded to think that it happened is to face the sort of social death that stared down European heretics who questioned the resurrection of Christ 1,000 years ago.

Like most Manichaean belief systems, Holocaustianity draws a stark and unbroachable line between good and evil, one that permits no nuance. Hitler was Satan, and Jews were six million rubber-stamped versions of Christ, shedding their innocent blood to forever redeem humanity from its wretchedness.

And yet it didn’t work out so neatly. For one, the Jews didn’t ascend to heaven, and they are eternally condemned to tremble in fear at existential threats at the hands of humanity’s clearly irredeemable dregs.

In this state religion, the distribution of guilt is clearly inequitable: The only person who bears ANY blame for World War II, at least while it was happening, was Adolf Hitler. And then after World War II, the guilt must be shouldered by everyone of European ancestry, no matter their forefathers’ role in World War II—they must suffer. Forever.

It’s truly that ridiculous, and meekly attempting to bring facts and reason into the discussion is to be barked at by a pack of rabid bitches in estrus.

Last Monday, Tucker Carlson hosted Darryl Cooper, whom he referred to as “the most important popular historian working in the United States today,” on his podcast. The two-hour-plus sit-down was titled “Darryl Cooper: The True History of the Jonestown Cult, WWII, and How Winston Churchill Ruined Europe.”

I skipped over the Jonestown segments, but what’s remarkable about the rest of their discussion is how calm and non-“hateful” it was. Then again, unless you’re dealing with brutally bitter anonymous meme-tarded trolls online, this has been my consistent experience for the past three decades, ever since I started paying attention to what most accused “hatemongers” actually have to say. Almost without fail, the people who are accusing them of “hate” are palpably more bitter, unhinged, and malevolent than the “haters” are.

Neither Carlson nor his guest say the word “Holocaust” once, although they both agree on the premise that the official World War II narrative has achieved religious status because, as with Christ’s crucifixion, it involved blood sacrifice. Neither one of them has a positive word to say about Adolf Hitler, either. Nor do they have a negative word to say about Jews.

In Darryl Cooper’s framing, World War II would never have reached the colossal scale that it did­—involving the American empire, the Soviet empire, and even Imperial Japan—without Winston Churchill:

COOPER: I thought 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, but I believe, and I don’t really think, 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 .…

CARLSON: Why don’t you make the case for that? Okay so you’ve made your statement, a lot of people are thinking, “Well, wait a second, you said Churchill, my childhood hero, the guy with the cigar.” Yeah, well, in the next thought that comes into their head is that, “Oh, you’re saying Churchill was the chief villain, therefore his enemies, you know, Adolf Hitler and so forth, were the protagonists, right? They’re the good guys ….

COOPER: That’s not what I’m saying. You know, Germany, look, they put themselves into a position, and Adolf Hitler is chiefly responsible for this, but his whole regime is responsible for it, that when they went into the East 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.

“No plan…camps…millions of people ended up dead there.”

Uttering those words, Cooper committed the unpardonable sin, the modern version of blaspheming the Holy Ghost.

Cooper alleges repeatedly that Germany did not want a war with Western Europe and that Hitler sent a string of peace proposals to both Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill. Despite what has now become an item of canonical faith—that Hitler wanted to “take over the world”—Cooper says that Hitler’s proposals stressed that Germany would allow England to keep all its overseas colonies and that the main international threat that both countries faced was Russian Bolshevism.

Cooper calls Churchill a “psychopath”—another grave transgression when that word is only reserved for Hitler—and portrays him as a bellicose imperialist who kept the war going and bided his time while he corralled other imperial forces into joining the effort:

COOPER: 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, going through and starting to, you know, what eventually became just a carpet bombing, saturation bombing of civilian neighborhoods, you know, to kill, the purpose of which was to kill as many civilians as possible. And all the men were out in the field, all the fighting henchmen were out in the field…. And so this is old people, it’s women and children. And they knew that. And they were wiping these places out. It was gigantic, scaled terrorist attacks, the greatest, you know, scale of terrorist attacks you’ve ever seen in world history.

CARLSON: Why would he do that?

COOPER: Because it was the only means that they had to continue fighting at the time. You know, they didn’t have the ability to re-invade Europe. And so, he needed to keep this war going until he accomplished what he hoped to accomplish. … “We need either the Soviet Union or the United States to do it for us.” And that was the plan and kept the war going long enough for that plan to come to fruition. And to me, that’s just it’s a craven, ugly way to fight a war.

CARLSON: And what was the motive?…

COOPER: There’s all those things but then you get into you know why was why was Winston Churchill such a dedicated booster of Zionism from early on in his life, right? And there’s ideological reasons. In 1920, he wrote a kind of infamous now article called “ZIONISM versus BOLSHEVISM.” …And this is 1920. So, this is shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution. Basically, the point of his paper is he says these people who are over there, they’re all going one direction or the other. They’re going to be Bolsheviks. They’re going to be Zionists. We want them to be Zionists, you know, and so we need to support this. And so that was early on. There’s an ideological component of it. 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…

When I peeked at Churchill’s 1920 essay “ZIONISM versus BOLSHEVISM,” I was blindsided at how Winston Churchill, perhaps history’s most celebrated philo-Semite, trotted out the idea that Russian Bolshevism was primarily a Jewish phenomenon, something that would get him tarred as an “anti-Semite” today:

International Jews

In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort [i.e., Jews who are nationalists in the nations they reside in] rise the schemes of the international Jews.

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews.

Writing for the Mises Institute, Ralph Raico dredges up a Churchill quote from 1937 where Winnie reportedly said that if forced to choose between Nazism and Communism, he’d go with Hitler:

Three or four years ago I was myself a loud alarmist…. In spite of the risks which wait on prophecy, I declare my belief that a major war is not imminent, and I still believe that there is a good chance of no major war taking place in our lifetime…. I will not pretend that, if I had to choose between Communism and Nazism, I would choose Communism.

But then, when Nazi troops lurked on Moscow’s fringes ready to bring down Communism, Churchill sided with Stalin. And when the war was over, Churchill lamented that an “iron curtain has descended over Europe,” seemingly unconcerned that he’d stolen the phrase from Joseph Goebbels.

A strong case could be made that Churchill was a man whose only motivation was the raw acquisition of power regardless of how much blood was spilled. Otherwise, he seemed to have no principles or guiding ideology.

Toward the end of their discussion, Carlson and Cooper marvel at how, rather than saving the West, World War II destroyed it:

CARLSON: So, Germany is this totally self-hating place. It’s depressing as hell, though also wonderful in a way, but it’s going away. But they lost, at least you could say they lost two World Wars in a row. Britain won two World Wars in a row, and if anything, it’s more degraded than Germany. So, like, just to take it back to the first thing I said, and I’ll shut up and let you answer, but if Churchill is a hero, how come there are British girls begging for drugs on the street of London? And the place is, you know, it’s just there. London is not majority English now. Like, what?

COOPER: Well, the people who formulated the version of history that considers Churchill a hero, they like London the way it is now, you know….

CARLSON: But that’s not victory, that’s like the worst kind of defeat, is it not?

COOPER: That is something that ends your existence as a people….

CARLSON: I just can’t get over the fact that the West wins and is completely destroyed in less than a century.

COOPER: Well, the West was conquered. The West was conquered by the United States and the Soviet Union.

CARLSON: Okay, but I’m including the United States in the West. Right. Somehow, the United States and Western Europe won. That’s the conventional understanding. And both have now looked like they lost a World War.

Cooper isn’t the first to allege that Churchill played a pivotal role in escalating WWII beyond a petty squabble over Poland between Russians and Germans. Pat Buchanan said as much in his 2008 book Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World.

Cooper described the vituperations, recriminations, and hyperbole that ensued in the wake of his quietly reasonable discussion with Carlson as “emotional incontinence” and said it is “is proof of my point about the sacred nature of the World War 2 mythos.”

Even the White House got involved. On Thursday, in perhaps the most emotionally incontinent outburst of them all, Senior Press Secretary Andrew Bates fumed at Carlson:

… [G]iving a microphone to a Holocaust denier who spreads Nazi propaganda is a disgusting and sadistic insult to all Americans, to the memory of the over 6 million Jews who were genocidally murdered by Adolf Hitler, to the service of the millions of Americans who fought to defeat Nazism, and to every subsequent victim of antisemitism…. Hitler was one of the most evil figures in human history and the ‘chief villain’ of World War II, full stop… The Biden-Harris administration believes that trafficking in this moral rot is unacceptable at any time, let alone less than one year after the deadliest massacre perpetrated against the Jewish people since the Holocaust and at a time when the cancer of antisemitism is growing all over the world.

In response, Carlson texted CNN:

The fact that these lunatics have used the Churchill myth to bring our country closer to nuclear war than at any moment in history disgusts me and should terrify every American. They’re warmonger freaks. They don’t get the moral high ground.

Color me impressed. That’s like stoically enduring the Battle of Britain in your pajamas, then blithely throwing open your bedroom shutters, stretching, wincing in the daylight, and yawning. We need more hatemongers of this caliber.

Audio version: To listen in a player click here. To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save link/target as.”

September 10, 2024 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | 3 Comments

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »