I recently made the point that, in terms of racism, white supremacism and belief in eugenics, Britain in the 1930s was “just as bad” as Germany in the 1930s. It was also just as sexist, homophobic and transphobic. The same is true of America in the 1930s. This makes it somewhat strange that Britain and America went to war with Germany supposedly to defend equality, human rights and anti-racism (answer: they didn’t), but it also explains how the contemporary Left is able vilify 1930s Britain and America as “Nazi” even though they fought the Nazis.
Seems to me like an entire foundational myth came about at the end of WWII. Gee have we coined a term for that yet?
The entirety of Europe was gaslit into believing right-wing politics were bad because Mustache Man replaced Satan as the greatest evil. Because he did the 6 gorillion or something.
It's almost like he had to be made an example of by subjecting his legacy and his people to this blood libel, and then put through a humiliating and demoralizing "denazification" psyop afterwards, to put whitey in his place.
What was the difference between Churchill and Hitler?
Churchill did what the globalist bankers wanted him to do.
The war was all about geopolitics and security for britain and world trade.
Germany decided on her own accord to invade eastern europe for it wanted to become economically self-sufficient and also the 1st world power. From that position it could have done whatever it wanted.
I don't know what I hate these people more for. Their laziness (not being able to cook the food themselves and needing some non-white person to cook shit for them), their gluttony and hedonism, or their xenophilia (they need "the other" to enrich themselves because they're boring as living hell).
I think it's their gluttony and hedonism.
Imagine thinking your entire life revolves around food and being a fat piece of shit, because you have no other purpose in your life than consuming.
If I was dictator, I would force these people to eat the most boring bland chicken and broccoli, with salt and pepper for seasoning, and a glass of water (they can have a slice of lemon with the water because I'm so nice). Oatmeal or eggs in the morning. And force them to run 12 miles a day like the paternalistic asshole I am.
They think their life is enriched, but they're the most bland people in existence. The most interesting people, I find, eat what is considered bland healthy food, because health is paramount.
Chicken and broccoli? Eggs? That's most of what I eat on a regular basis already. You can keep the oatmeal though. I might be part Scottish, but I have no need for pointless carbs in my diet thank you very much.
Some people do well, healthwise, on unrefined carbohydrates such as oatmeal. We aren't all pre-diabetic. Some of us have a functioning digestive system and don't need to eat restricted diets. As long as we get enough protein and fat, the carbs are good for us.
Outside of nursing infants, humans have no need for exogenous carbs. Bodybuilders consume them because in order to make unnaturally large gains they require an energy source that is more readily convertible when pushing their bodies to extremes. Likewise some distance runners, who need a faster energy source while undertaking unnaturally long distances for competition, will often use carbs as a quicker energy source. The majority of people do not require carbohydrates. There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate. There are essential fatty acids and essential amino acids, not carbs. The amount of blood glucose required to keep a healthy human body ticking over is around a teaspoon - this amount is produced by the body itself via gluconeogenesis. Ingestion of carbohydrates is something that the body can do, but I wouldn't recommend it from a health perspective. In order for the body to cope with the excess glucose, as it is transported into the cells that line the endothelium, each molecule of glucose requires a molecule of water to be drawn in with it. This causes the endothelial cells to swell and frequently rupture, which then requires a kind of "band-aid" to be produced to repair the rupture. That "band-aid" is made up of cholesterol, calcium and other lipid factors and over time builds up (like a form of spackle) and is what we know as the substance that causes arteries to narrow. Continued consumption of carbohydrate causes more ruptures, requiring more repair, making narrower and narrower arteries. This substance is what breaks off and travels to the heart or brain in the form of embolism, causing stroke or heart attack.
Outside of carbohydrate consumption, nicotine is the other substance that causes the rupturing of the endothelial cells, also requiring that "band-aid" to be produced by the body. It's why vaping is also dangerous and not the "safe" alternative to smoking that it was touted as. It's slightly safer than smoking but not "safe". The consumption of carbohydrates in the western diet, combined with the onset of smoking by the masses, is what caused Ancel Keys to make the incorrect assumption that the subsequent presence of a white, waxy, fatty substance - found in the arteries of individuals who recently died from stroke or heart attack - was due to the consumption of fat. He saw a fatty substance and laid the blame incorrectly at the feet of the consumption of fat, when naturally saturated, animal fats (that we had been consuming forever as a species) were perfectly healthy. Because of him, the demonization of fat (and the corollary of which was the promotion of incorrectly labelled "heart healthy" carbohydrates) led to dangerous misinformation that not only had people ingesting more harmful carbohydrates, but reducing their intake of fats.
We are now at a point in time where we are seeing a huge increase in dementia and Alzheimer's disease - something many doctors are now touting as Type 3 diabetes, because of its roots in chronic overconsumption of carbohydrates. A generation of individuals who thought that they were eating healthily, increased their carbohydrate intake and reduced their fat consumption, causing a twofold form of damage to the brain. With sugar damaging not just the blood vessels, but causing overall inflammation and having less fat which the brain needs to stay healthy, that generation of people found themselves at a far greater disadvantage than their ancestors 50 years ago and we're now seeing the instances of degenerative brain disease skyrocket in these people.
So while you may think that the body "can" consume carbohydrates, it does not mean that it is healthful nor optimal for longevity. Of course there will always be trade-offs when taking one's health and lifestyle into account, but I have no desire to consume that which I know will cause my body damage - especially when I have zero need for them. It isn't just being pre-diabetic from a Type II diabetes that concerns me; it's the overall damage of atherosclerosis (and subsequent embolism), higher blood pressure, oxidative stress and degenerative brain disorders that I have no desire to exacerbate. (And that's even before I take the cancer-feeding property of sugars into account - cancer being something that is incredibly common in my family.)
And just because a carbohydrate is unrefined, does not change the fact that it is broken down in the body into glucose, with some stored in the muscles as glycogen, but the majority transported around the body into cells, with a molecule of water for every molecule of glucose. You will still incur endothelial swelling and rupture, and have the same inflammatory response that drinking a can of soda will cause. That our bodies can use carbs for fuel, does not mean that we "do well" on them, merely that for most people the damage is slower and cumulative, rather than immediately noticeable. Like I said, I have no need for pointless carbs in my diet. Most people don't....they just like the way they taste or see them as a cheap way to feed themselves. By all means make informed choices and trade-offs based on what you're willing to forgo versus what you're not willing to cut out; it's a free world and all that. But there's still no such thing as an essential exogenous carbohydrate.
@Bad Girl Bex. (Cute name!) That's quite a response and I thank you for your trouble, especially the story of fat, carb, cholesterol and plaque in the arteries. I am not so sure about your statement that with the exception of certain athletes, humans have "no need" for exogenous carbs. The reality is that no one wants and subsequently eats "protein" or "carbs" or "fats": we crave the totality, known as "food" and God help those who try to eat purely according to scientific theories and perceptions, as I suspect there will be a sting in the tail down the line.
The desire and need for carbs starts with mother's milk (or a properly constituted formula), which you refer to here. Then suddenly, after weaning, we are supposed to pretend that carbs never existed? Try feeding a just-weaned baby on fat and protein. I am not a far Northerner (socalled Eskimos), a people who've adapted to what was available around them and I am not going to pretend I am. Consumption of carbs in the form of grain (the dreaded grain!), along with the cooking of food, promoted an important mental developmental shift in humans. If you are opposed to civilization (it does have its flaws but so does the paleolithic way of life) then you will say that the discovery of wild grains was a tragedy.
However, I don't really care too much about any of that. I want food which appeals to me on every imaginable level and concepts such as are being discussed here are at the bottom of the list, though I do not ignore them either. No one, and I mean no one, eats because of ancient developmental history; too much time and adaptation have occurred. To you, 12,000 years of carb consumption is somehow illegitimate and irrelevant, some kind of a mistake. Maybe, maybe not, though.
Some folks' health vastly improves when they eat their "broccoli and chicken" type of diet, but broccoli also contains carbohydrate. You made no mention of human constitutional types - and they exist. We are not all made the same. The protein/fat combo is great for people with incipient blood sugar (too high) problems, at least for a time; there is likely nothing better dietarily speaking for them and for you. I'm not arguing with success. But other people tend toward too low blood sugar and all that fat and protein, combined with lack of carbohydrates, will make them either crazy, violent, passing out, or on the ground with seizures. For them, protein, some carbohydrate + low fat (not no fat) is more suitable. Fat retards the stomach's emptying time, which is bad for someone shaky with low blood sugar. And then there's all the folks who are inbetween.
I am grateful that you took the time and trouble to reply to me with your viewpoints, which you will of course claim is all science-based and I cannot disagree. But while I am here, I must say that science is not a direct line to The Whole Almighty Truth; it is merely our particular age's attempt to understand things, to explain the world - and it, too, is flawed. Eat as you wish; I know I do, and anything "wrong" with me (or other people) I don't attribute solely, if at all, to diet. There is way too much other stuff going on - genetically, environmentally and culturally - and that is why we find endless "reasons" to eat the way we do - after the fact, of course.
This is why the dissident right has been able to claim such countercultural power. Instead of responding "We're not racist!" to accusations of racism, it says "Thanks for noticing!" with a shit-eating grin on its face. The left's entire schtick relies on their marks agreeing with them that racism, sexism, and so on are bad things. If the premise is rejected they are morally defanged. Which isn't to say they don't retain coercive state power ... but by stripping their moral force from them they are forced to rely on naked force ... which strips their moral legitimacy even further, and exposes to more white people that the high ideals of anti-racism are really nothing more than resentful anti-white ethnocentrism, grounded in the same instinctive patterns of human behavior the anti-racists claim to oppose.
Only just subscribed Woes, despite first stumbling across your YouTube channel in 2014, passively listening and free-loading you and everyone else since. What you have just written is the most thought provoking and original piece of work I've encountered since being sucker punched in the gut and falling to my knees in 2017 after watching an eye-opening twelve hour long video. Maybe you've seen it yourself. Sorry mate but this is going to take a couple of rereads and a few days thought before I can fully absorb it.
If Britain was just as facistic, racist and national socialist as Weimar Germany why was Moseley such a fringe figure?
If Britain and the US were just as anti semitic as Weimar Germany why did Jews flee Weimar Germany and seek refuge in Britain and the US?
Seems like you start with the drift of the present day Tories towards the centre left (as they follow the culture and therefore the votes) and drum that up in to some century long plan to disparage Britains happy past when they were all nazis under Churchill - or something like that.
I don't think Mosley was a very fringe figure. He had great standing among the aristocracy and had many of them on board with his ideas and a plan for Britain's future, and was the leader of a movement which (as far as I know) only failed because he was imprisoned. To the extent that he was fringe, I think it was because of Churchill working against him.
You compare Britain and America's anti-Semitism to that of Weimar Germany, not the Third Reich. Jews fled from the Third Reich. As far as I know, they didn't flee from Weimar Germany.
There's a colourable case to be made, and has been made for long time now, that the moral cause for the Allies in the second world war was only dreamt up afterwards. The war was fought for all the usual political and economic reasons. Only in the aftermath did it turn out it was a fight against antisemitism and the gas chambers.
I don't remember hearing many claims that those fighting the second world war were fighting against homophobia, imperialism, white supremacism or eugenics. If that claim is being made it's a new one to me.
Your argument seems to be that the drift of conservatism towards the centre and even the centre left has happened because conservatives actually believe the war was about all those things and as a consequence they have had to work hard to dissociate themselves from them.
You say that in the time since the war this charge has been taken more and more seriously and conservatism has had to do more and more to distance it self from it.
That charge - that everyone from Margaret Thatcher to Charlie Haughey to Boris Johnson and all who ever voted for them - were a bunch of racists, homophobes, privileged whites etc is made by more extreme leftists for sure. But I don't think most of the people they're accusing take it seriously. The accused haven't internalised it. How many people do you know who are actually worried about their whiteness.
In fact, since 1945, the culture has drifted towards the left for a lot of reasons other than what you describe. Greater wealth all round, influence of media, undermining of religion, undermining of culture and tradition, what have you.
Conservatives have just followed the voters. As they should - the alternative is marginalisation.
Aren't their pictures of the ex Queen doing a certain salute in the gardens of Buckingham Palace? And the England football team certainly did it when playing Germany in May 1938.
Fascism, isn't just not liking non-white people and having a homogenous atavistic nativist country. That's what Nationalism is.
Fascism is a radical rebirth of a nation into a new future imperium lead by a leader. A complete rejection of democracy and liberalism at its core. The belief in autocracy. The belief in militarism. The belief in hierarchical idealism. The belief in an organic state. The belief in ultranationalism (not nationalism). The belief in totalitarianism. The rejection of materialism, hedonism, and degenerative state of being (mental, physical, spiritual). The belief in heroism. The belief in ideas like duty, sacrifice, fatherland. The rejection of the individual (to some extent) and embrace of collectivism (which is shares with Nationalism). A 3rd position philosophy which rejects the current revolution but also rejects simply going back to the past like a reactionary does (reactionaries back then were Monarchists).
Nationalism is just we want a nice quaint nation that keeps "the other" out and is homogenous. If it's homogenous and xenophobic, isolationist (even this is debatable with British and French colonialism but whatever), it follows everything would be okay. That is what most modern Nationalists tend to argue more or less (and whatever special snowflake version of it).
If Fascism was simply Nationalism, there would be no need for the word "Fascism" as Nationalism already existed as a word and concept. However, they called themselves Fascists for a reason.
Despite being racist, homophobic, sexist, transphobic as these countries were, they were still Liberal, thus not Fascist. There were Fascist movements in these countries (like BUF), but that's besides the point.
This is a very difficult concept for most modern people to wrap their heads around due to the revisionism we have today surrounding the past and how we incorrectly apply politics (blame our shitty education system from Boomers onwards). It even took me awhile.
Also, Mosely wasn't that fringe. I haven't done much research on his exact popularity. However, I do know his anti-war position was quite popular (of course many opposed him as well). He wasn't as popular but after the "battle" of cable street (where he didn't battle but just walked away lol) he gained more popularity. I think he dwindled in popularity after the war?
And like Woes said, there's different degrees to these concepts as well. There's "We think Jews are money grubbing, always trying to swindle, etc, etc," anti-semitism. Then there's "We are in an existential war for the destiny of the world with the Jews, as the Aryan Race. Each race embodies certain essential attributes. This racial struggle has been going on between the two races for thousands of years and will end with one being finally victorious," anti-semitism. Anti-semitism, just like race, existed in the Weimar, America, etc. However, the NS dialed it up to 11. It's the best way I can break it down to you.
I can see the idealism, the urgent desire for a solution, in what you write.
I don't understand the need to go to the extreme - I'm wondering where it's coming from. You're not looking to nationalism as it would have been expressed by our grandparents, you're not looking for a return to religion. You see the need for something much more radical. Where is that coming from.
Is it because a return to traditional conservatism seems so hard so unattainable, that you may as well go whole hog unrestrained by the need to be practical. Is there some feeling of futility or desperation about it.
Or is it an exploration. Is it a way of showing the current powers that be that you reject their liberal pieties - you don't care what can and can't be said. You're unashamedly embracing the verboten.
One can only imagine the horrors that the lack of fine cuisine in pre-1945 Europe brought to the public. Maybe that explains the endless wars. Can it be a coincidence that since fried chicken, kebabs and curries arrived there hasn't been a single major conflict between Britain and Germany or Germany and France?
Terrible final thought there, but I have to agree that at least some people would like to solve what they think is the problem of European racism by just disappearing with Europeans. Reminds me of a comment by a popular leftist youtuber, where he responded to the charge that leftists are destroying European history via accusations of racism, by saying that only current European racists would be bothered by attacks on racist Europeans in the past, so don't be racist and you are safe. Of course, all Europeans of the past are racist by his definition, so he is demanding that Europeans have no connection to their ancestors and their history, which is genocidal rhetoric.
Europeans need to recognize as morally good expressions of European ethnocentrism/tribalism/particularism, and then act on it to defend their group interests, otherwise things are going to get ugly, well they're already ugly, but they're going to get worse.
One thing I would like to add nuance to is the idea that Europeans in the past were racist. Yes, they were racist by today's standards, but they were civilized racists, one might say, and not cruel to other races. Leftists will never recognize this, but, for example, Imperialism was justified as a liberal/civilizing project to help non-European races. Yes, considering non-European civilizations as inferior is racist nowadays, but at the time, Europeans had the idea that they were elevating non-Europeans, by introducing non-Europeans to European civilization. Of course, preventing slavery was a major impetus. The British Empire spent many resources to police against slavery at sea. The Belgians took pride in abolishing slavery in their territories, and so on.
Looking at the US, we see that many of the country's founding fathers considered slavery immoral, and in the 19th century, a giant political and moral movement against slavery developed in the North. The civil war ensued, and blacks were freed and given citizenship. Soon after, Amerindians were also given American citizenship, all this long before WW2. So there was an obvious tendency towards liberalization in European countries before WW2, there was a lot of discussion and different views on how to treat other races, but overall, Europeans were definitely nicer and more capable of moral imagination than other races.
An interesting example of Anglo racism is in the character of Ian Smith, famous leader of Rhodesia which is now the shithole of Zimbabwe. Smith wrote a book, where he says that he always planned to hand over the country to the black majority, but only after they were able to run the country. Smith is resentful, not because he lost power, but because the country turned into a shithole after he was forced to hand the country over to a population that wasn't ready for the business of civilization. Now, one might say that blacks were never going to be prepared for this, but I think it's interesting that Smith understood himself as a guardian of the civilization of the country's population.
It reminds me of when certain more radical anti-racists who argue about white privilege, whiteness, structural and institutional racism (some truth but issues with it) is perpetuated by colorblindness because we're blind to how these structures oppress minorities. That colorblindness was created by racists. But, in fact, colorblindness is the first anti-racist theory brought into existence which argued, that by not seeing color, racial equality would come about. Colorblindness WAS the anti-racist position! It was argued by anti-racists of the 60's! Now newer groups done a 180 and argues that not seeing color helps perpetuate racial inequality (some truths but a lot of issues with it). This change occurred, because colorblindness failed to create a racially equal society, so a new theory to explain had to be introduced. They shit on their own earlier group unaware of the ideological connective tissue between them and the past.
The whole racist European civilizing comes from the white man's burden/white saviorism to make other groups more like white people (at least to some extent). The idea of equality that "they can be just like us" persisted. This has some egalitarian element to it embedded in the supremacy paradoxically enough. It's now racist. That strain still exist today with groups of white people who again see themselves as white saviors and it's their white man's burden to raise groups up to an ideal equal reality.
The only institutional racism nowadays in Western countries, is anti-European institutional racism, and the only privilege, is that of blacks and browns.
An example of what you're talking about today's progressives denouncing yesterday's progressives as racists, is that 100 years ago progressives thought that taking Aboriginal children from their families and putting them in European schools was a progressive thing because it would teach these children to behave better, and perhaps even integrate into mainstream society. Also, these families were and still are extremely abusive, so even today countries like Australia have to remove many Aboriginal children from their parents.
But you don't even have to believe that non-Europeans can be equal to Europeans to believe that European governance would improve non-Europeans' lives. I think some were more realistic, and the fact is that, yes, if, for example, Haiti and Congo nowadays were ruled by Europeans, those countries would most likely be much better off, nothing perfect or close to it, because the masses would still be African, but better off with Europeans ruling.
Many non-whites seem fascinated by whites, as if they don't see them as human but rather something else, something potentially dangerous. You'll see a place full of e.g. Turks glance indifferently at an Indian or African, or even a Japanese, but sit up if a European walks in (especially a woman). Most whites don't realise how "alien" they seem to non-whites. That basic fascination usually becomes a predatory interest, or simmering resentment at "white privilege".
Even if every white were to become a self-hating martyr it wouldn't help: just by existing, whites will perplex and infuriate a certain portion of non-whites. It's not about white racism: it's about whites.
I would suggest that the internet is responsible for putting Whites and their successful societies under a microscope, thereby creating tremendous amounts of envy and anti-white hate among non-whites.
They are not literally calling for "for white people to be eradicated" but for "whiteness" to be eradicated. Now any intelligent person will notice that these amount to the same thing, but this distinction nevertheless is a tactic that allows them to use genocidal language without attracting critical attention. I think this is a missing step in your argument.
Also there is the Robin DiAngelo solution to "whiteness", which is not an overt genocide as such, but a continual psychological management of whiteness by whites themselves. Of course this is an impractical and ineffective solution to a fake problem, but nevertheless it is currently an important part of their plan/system.
Interesting and insightful essay, especially as to the myths spun concerning Allied involvement in World War II. One thing, though, that I would push back on is the extent to which America and the West were racist and antisemitic during the 1960s and on. In terms of cultural influencers, musicians, comedians, actors, athletes, and other public figures, a lot of Jews and blacks were widely celebrated. I grew up in the 80s and 90s, and wanting to "be like Mike" wasn't just an advertising catchphrase; lots of white boys deeply admired and even emulated Michael Jordan and other black athletes. Michael Jackson was the biggest celebrity of the 80s by a wide margin (including before he de-blackified himself), and the Cosby Show was hugely popular and its characters beloved by millions of white people. Other examples abound. As for Jews, individuals from that tribe have been loved and celebrated in America going back to the Marx Brothers (1930s), so even if the upper-crust WASPs discriminated against them, plenty of regular non-Jewish white folk had Jewish friends (e.g., Elvis's "Memphis Mafia" -- his buddies from his pre-celebrity days -- included some Hebrews) and admired Jewish celebrities. So I do think it's a lot more nuanced than simply saying Americans were racist and antisemitic. That said, however, your overall points are compelling and undercut the mythology spun about America and the West after World War II.
Yes, I agree. The point wasn't to deny Jewish domination of late 20th C media, but that, even then, Aryan-looking models and actors were plentiful. And that's not surprising: we prefer them, but so do the Jews! Epstein apparently expressly wanted "Nordic looking girls".
Mirror what I've wrote before. I agree for the most part.
However, to push back (a little) I wouldn't say they're just like the Nazis. The Nazis were far more radical and revolutionary on race. If it was a scale, 1 not racist and 10 being uber racist, most countries were a 7 out of 10 (Maybe an 8? You get the idea). The Nazis would be a 14. But that breaks the scale, you say? Precisely. The National Socialists broke the scale when it came to race. They believed in far more radical and revolutionary ideas with the ideas of race. Just like there can be revolutionary ideas with anti-racism- from basic colorblindness to say beliefs in institutional and structural racism, elimination of whiteness, etc, there can be revolutionary racist beliefs of the opposite direction.
The National Socialists didn't just believe in preservationism (sort of basic bitch tier ethno and racial nationalist positions preserving demographics, preserving culture, etc. some basic essentialism. you get the idea). They believed in a radical racial rebirth of the German and Aryan race. This rebirth would destine the race to supremacy, (along with an Empire lead by a leader) etc. Concepts like the idealized Aryan man (and woman) which reach new heights in racial idealism- tall, square-jawed, physically athletic, certain nose shape, etc. More radical Nazi theorists started making hierarchy within the hierarchy of their "master race." Ideas like blonde hair and blue eyes, were superior, to brown hair and red hair (which people who are considered Aryan [like Hitler] would not have). Which gets into color psychology of yellow being synonymous with celestial (along with whiteness) and blue being vastness and depth (the sky). Colors like black are associated with death and evil, red is associated with blood/violence and lust/love (color psychology is a fascinating thing I suggest you look into it). Color symbolism would play a larger role. They weren’t just about simple preservationism you found with different Nationalist stripes. They had that element but they believed in so much more. This is a more progressive racialism that you don't see as far as race is concerned.
I would say the race was a strong element of the Allies (with other Liberal ideas from the Enlightenment) whereas in NS Germany, race was the core of it. This doesn’t get into the Nationalist Socialists problems with America on racial grounds too, I'll explain it slightly. Segregation for instance, was seen as a temporary stupid half-way measure, with some facilities not being shared, and not ideal of a truly unified homogenous country, etc, thus to be avoided. The NS were not fond of America, often citing how convoluted it was, standing at the precipice to be “negrofied” and jewified” the European Aryan stock was becoming (adoption of cultural elements of other racial groups they found unfavorable [think modern idea like a wigger] and the racial degradation occurring). A famous poster of WW2 from NS Germany depicts the dominant NS view of America, called “Liberators (go look it up).” The poster depicts a Frankenstein monstrosity of different parts. You can notice a KKK hood and a cage with a black monkey-man caricature in a cage (they were not fond of the KKK for a lot of reason [KKK was an America First supporting organization isolationist and neutral and was not Pro-Axis like the American German Bund]). The racial views that the NS had of America was not a positive one, as racist as the country was. Again, they took a more radical racist position from the opposite side. So this is a very complex issue.
Of course the anti-semitism goes much further (I haven't really discussed the differences specifically). As well as, other elements like rejection of democracy and the Organic State and other things found in Fascism (be it Italian variant or otherwise). But I'll stop here, I'm sure you'll get sick of reading, as I'm sick of typing!
But on the whole, with some minor pushback (if you don’t mind), I still agree with you that anti-racist revisionism has created this idea that that Allies were anti-racists fighters or something. Churchill, as you say, rejected Hitler peace offering twice (I think twice?), thought British people should rule more savage groups and was a big proponent of colonial empire.
The Left goes into a schizo mode, being convoluted ahistorical contradictory mess. On one hand when fighting conservatives, they're talk about how white supremacists, sexists, homophobic, etc, these countries and groups are. On the other hand, they'll say how anti-racist, pro-gay, such groups are are if they're fighting anyone who is Nationalist and above (racial, ethno, clerical, basic nationalism, ultranationalist, Fascist, Nazi, etc). Often citing (poorly) the non-white groups that fought under US black army units (ignoring segregation in said army, lack of rights, largely homogenous country, etc), or in Britain non-white colonial subjects (ignoring again they were colonial subjects who even said this was a white man's war [Japan was the only major exception of this]). They'll flip flop when it suits them with who they're debating. But to maintain their hegemony, they need to appropriate the victors of the war and make them more in their own image for current political clout. “No OUR ancestors fought against racism, transphobia, homophobia, and bigotry LIKE US!” You get the idea. They need some ancestor acquisition (despite being so “anti-traditionalist”). This mythos serves as a core to validate and justify their motivations.
Ironically, the most "woke" anti-racist, despite the amount of shit they get, are the most historically accurate anti-racists, getting really close about how the Allies were racist (at least this topic is concerned), and try to tear down Churchill statue (to conservative dismay). However, they don’t DARE make the obvious final jump that the people who fought the Nazis would therefore be disgusted at what their societies have become and most likely join the Nazis based upon their views. This risk delegitimizing the entire mythos they have, and thereby legitimizing racist groups. This revisionist mythos has been built up well post-WW2, and is absolutely foundational to their post-WW2 myth and democracy.
You are bought into the "boomer truth" mindset about WWII so deeply that even after Woes points out the ridiculous nature of the thing, you still attempt to claw back some post hoc semblance of rationale for the war. You, in fact, are the very type of person this article is lampooning.
GOOD GUYS VS BAD GUYS
That is the only possible take on your wall text.
You lot have to constantly attempt to distance yourselves from the Nazis no matter how infantile your arguments become. It is hilarious! Your confirmation of my degrees statement, and subsequent indignation, is a telling example of your inability to see what is right in front of you. There are no DEGREES in what is happening, has happened, the choice is binary.
Did you even read the article?
The whole thing was about how we lost everything by gradually capitulating to the incremental, ever growing howls of "you are just like the Nazis", and the feeble response of "nuh uh, we're not like the Nazis, here's why".
And you did just that! In a response to this article!
Why move to Liberia when you can move Liberia to London?
To hop on the gravy train
Seems to me like an entire foundational myth came about at the end of WWII. Gee have we coined a term for that yet?
The entirety of Europe was gaslit into believing right-wing politics were bad because Mustache Man replaced Satan as the greatest evil. Because he did the 6 gorillion or something.
It's almost like he had to be made an example of by subjecting his legacy and his people to this blood libel, and then put through a humiliating and demoralizing "denazification" psyop afterwards, to put whitey in his place.
What was the difference between Churchill and Hitler?
Churchill did what the globalist bankers wanted him to do.
Holocaustianity.
I think bankers made less money due to WWII.
The war was all about geopolitics and security for britain and world trade.
Germany decided on her own accord to invade eastern europe for it wanted to become economically self-sufficient and also the 1st world power. From that position it could have done whatever it wanted.
But Woes. The food. It's so fucking delicious.
I know. And the sheer RANGE of it!
I like curry, I do... but now that we've GOT the recipe....
I dunno, thank Columbus that a good prater pie will pull you through! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AV0SVAhaF0
I don't know what I hate these people more for. Their laziness (not being able to cook the food themselves and needing some non-white person to cook shit for them), their gluttony and hedonism, or their xenophilia (they need "the other" to enrich themselves because they're boring as living hell).
I think it's their gluttony and hedonism.
Imagine thinking your entire life revolves around food and being a fat piece of shit, because you have no other purpose in your life than consuming.
If I was dictator, I would force these people to eat the most boring bland chicken and broccoli, with salt and pepper for seasoning, and a glass of water (they can have a slice of lemon with the water because I'm so nice). Oatmeal or eggs in the morning. And force them to run 12 miles a day like the paternalistic asshole I am.
They think their life is enriched, but they're the most bland people in existence. The most interesting people, I find, eat what is considered bland healthy food, because health is paramount.
Chicken and broccoli? Eggs? That's most of what I eat on a regular basis already. You can keep the oatmeal though. I might be part Scottish, but I have no need for pointless carbs in my diet thank you very much.
Some people do well, healthwise, on unrefined carbohydrates such as oatmeal. We aren't all pre-diabetic. Some of us have a functioning digestive system and don't need to eat restricted diets. As long as we get enough protein and fat, the carbs are good for us.
Outside of nursing infants, humans have no need for exogenous carbs. Bodybuilders consume them because in order to make unnaturally large gains they require an energy source that is more readily convertible when pushing their bodies to extremes. Likewise some distance runners, who need a faster energy source while undertaking unnaturally long distances for competition, will often use carbs as a quicker energy source. The majority of people do not require carbohydrates. There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate. There are essential fatty acids and essential amino acids, not carbs. The amount of blood glucose required to keep a healthy human body ticking over is around a teaspoon - this amount is produced by the body itself via gluconeogenesis. Ingestion of carbohydrates is something that the body can do, but I wouldn't recommend it from a health perspective. In order for the body to cope with the excess glucose, as it is transported into the cells that line the endothelium, each molecule of glucose requires a molecule of water to be drawn in with it. This causes the endothelial cells to swell and frequently rupture, which then requires a kind of "band-aid" to be produced to repair the rupture. That "band-aid" is made up of cholesterol, calcium and other lipid factors and over time builds up (like a form of spackle) and is what we know as the substance that causes arteries to narrow. Continued consumption of carbohydrate causes more ruptures, requiring more repair, making narrower and narrower arteries. This substance is what breaks off and travels to the heart or brain in the form of embolism, causing stroke or heart attack.
Outside of carbohydrate consumption, nicotine is the other substance that causes the rupturing of the endothelial cells, also requiring that "band-aid" to be produced by the body. It's why vaping is also dangerous and not the "safe" alternative to smoking that it was touted as. It's slightly safer than smoking but not "safe". The consumption of carbohydrates in the western diet, combined with the onset of smoking by the masses, is what caused Ancel Keys to make the incorrect assumption that the subsequent presence of a white, waxy, fatty substance - found in the arteries of individuals who recently died from stroke or heart attack - was due to the consumption of fat. He saw a fatty substance and laid the blame incorrectly at the feet of the consumption of fat, when naturally saturated, animal fats (that we had been consuming forever as a species) were perfectly healthy. Because of him, the demonization of fat (and the corollary of which was the promotion of incorrectly labelled "heart healthy" carbohydrates) led to dangerous misinformation that not only had people ingesting more harmful carbohydrates, but reducing their intake of fats.
We are now at a point in time where we are seeing a huge increase in dementia and Alzheimer's disease - something many doctors are now touting as Type 3 diabetes, because of its roots in chronic overconsumption of carbohydrates. A generation of individuals who thought that they were eating healthily, increased their carbohydrate intake and reduced their fat consumption, causing a twofold form of damage to the brain. With sugar damaging not just the blood vessels, but causing overall inflammation and having less fat which the brain needs to stay healthy, that generation of people found themselves at a far greater disadvantage than their ancestors 50 years ago and we're now seeing the instances of degenerative brain disease skyrocket in these people.
So while you may think that the body "can" consume carbohydrates, it does not mean that it is healthful nor optimal for longevity. Of course there will always be trade-offs when taking one's health and lifestyle into account, but I have no desire to consume that which I know will cause my body damage - especially when I have zero need for them. It isn't just being pre-diabetic from a Type II diabetes that concerns me; it's the overall damage of atherosclerosis (and subsequent embolism), higher blood pressure, oxidative stress and degenerative brain disorders that I have no desire to exacerbate. (And that's even before I take the cancer-feeding property of sugars into account - cancer being something that is incredibly common in my family.)
And just because a carbohydrate is unrefined, does not change the fact that it is broken down in the body into glucose, with some stored in the muscles as glycogen, but the majority transported around the body into cells, with a molecule of water for every molecule of glucose. You will still incur endothelial swelling and rupture, and have the same inflammatory response that drinking a can of soda will cause. That our bodies can use carbs for fuel, does not mean that we "do well" on them, merely that for most people the damage is slower and cumulative, rather than immediately noticeable. Like I said, I have no need for pointless carbs in my diet. Most people don't....they just like the way they taste or see them as a cheap way to feed themselves. By all means make informed choices and trade-offs based on what you're willing to forgo versus what you're not willing to cut out; it's a free world and all that. But there's still no such thing as an essential exogenous carbohydrate.
@Bad Girl Bex. (Cute name!) That's quite a response and I thank you for your trouble, especially the story of fat, carb, cholesterol and plaque in the arteries. I am not so sure about your statement that with the exception of certain athletes, humans have "no need" for exogenous carbs. The reality is that no one wants and subsequently eats "protein" or "carbs" or "fats": we crave the totality, known as "food" and God help those who try to eat purely according to scientific theories and perceptions, as I suspect there will be a sting in the tail down the line.
The desire and need for carbs starts with mother's milk (or a properly constituted formula), which you refer to here. Then suddenly, after weaning, we are supposed to pretend that carbs never existed? Try feeding a just-weaned baby on fat and protein. I am not a far Northerner (socalled Eskimos), a people who've adapted to what was available around them and I am not going to pretend I am. Consumption of carbs in the form of grain (the dreaded grain!), along with the cooking of food, promoted an important mental developmental shift in humans. If you are opposed to civilization (it does have its flaws but so does the paleolithic way of life) then you will say that the discovery of wild grains was a tragedy.
However, I don't really care too much about any of that. I want food which appeals to me on every imaginable level and concepts such as are being discussed here are at the bottom of the list, though I do not ignore them either. No one, and I mean no one, eats because of ancient developmental history; too much time and adaptation have occurred. To you, 12,000 years of carb consumption is somehow illegitimate and irrelevant, some kind of a mistake. Maybe, maybe not, though.
Some folks' health vastly improves when they eat their "broccoli and chicken" type of diet, but broccoli also contains carbohydrate. You made no mention of human constitutional types - and they exist. We are not all made the same. The protein/fat combo is great for people with incipient blood sugar (too high) problems, at least for a time; there is likely nothing better dietarily speaking for them and for you. I'm not arguing with success. But other people tend toward too low blood sugar and all that fat and protein, combined with lack of carbohydrates, will make them either crazy, violent, passing out, or on the ground with seizures. For them, protein, some carbohydrate + low fat (not no fat) is more suitable. Fat retards the stomach's emptying time, which is bad for someone shaky with low blood sugar. And then there's all the folks who are inbetween.
I am grateful that you took the time and trouble to reply to me with your viewpoints, which you will of course claim is all science-based and I cannot disagree. But while I am here, I must say that science is not a direct line to The Whole Almighty Truth; it is merely our particular age's attempt to understand things, to explain the world - and it, too, is flawed. Eat as you wish; I know I do, and anything "wrong" with me (or other people) I don't attribute solely, if at all, to diet. There is way too much other stuff going on - genetically, environmentally and culturally - and that is why we find endless "reasons" to eat the way we do - after the fact, of course.
This is why the dissident right has been able to claim such countercultural power. Instead of responding "We're not racist!" to accusations of racism, it says "Thanks for noticing!" with a shit-eating grin on its face. The left's entire schtick relies on their marks agreeing with them that racism, sexism, and so on are bad things. If the premise is rejected they are morally defanged. Which isn't to say they don't retain coercive state power ... but by stripping their moral force from them they are forced to rely on naked force ... which strips their moral legitimacy even further, and exposes to more white people that the high ideals of anti-racism are really nothing more than resentful anti-white ethnocentrism, grounded in the same instinctive patterns of human behavior the anti-racists claim to oppose.
The watershed for me was, "its okay to be white" memes.
The reaction to that was just *chefs kiss*.
Only just subscribed Woes, despite first stumbling across your YouTube channel in 2014, passively listening and free-loading you and everyone else since. What you have just written is the most thought provoking and original piece of work I've encountered since being sucker punched in the gut and falling to my knees in 2017 after watching an eye-opening twelve hour long video. Maybe you've seen it yourself. Sorry mate but this is going to take a couple of rereads and a few days thought before I can fully absorb it.
Seems very confused.
If Britain was just as facistic, racist and national socialist as Weimar Germany why was Moseley such a fringe figure?
If Britain and the US were just as anti semitic as Weimar Germany why did Jews flee Weimar Germany and seek refuge in Britain and the US?
Seems like you start with the drift of the present day Tories towards the centre left (as they follow the culture and therefore the votes) and drum that up in to some century long plan to disparage Britains happy past when they were all nazis under Churchill - or something like that.
These are good points.
I don't think Mosley was a very fringe figure. He had great standing among the aristocracy and had many of them on board with his ideas and a plan for Britain's future, and was the leader of a movement which (as far as I know) only failed because he was imprisoned. To the extent that he was fringe, I think it was because of Churchill working against him.
You compare Britain and America's anti-Semitism to that of Weimar Germany, not the Third Reich. Jews fled from the Third Reich. As far as I know, they didn't flee from Weimar Germany.
Thanks for the reply.
There's a colourable case to be made, and has been made for long time now, that the moral cause for the Allies in the second world war was only dreamt up afterwards. The war was fought for all the usual political and economic reasons. Only in the aftermath did it turn out it was a fight against antisemitism and the gas chambers.
I don't remember hearing many claims that those fighting the second world war were fighting against homophobia, imperialism, white supremacism or eugenics. If that claim is being made it's a new one to me.
Your argument seems to be that the drift of conservatism towards the centre and even the centre left has happened because conservatives actually believe the war was about all those things and as a consequence they have had to work hard to dissociate themselves from them.
You say that in the time since the war this charge has been taken more and more seriously and conservatism has had to do more and more to distance it self from it.
That charge - that everyone from Margaret Thatcher to Charlie Haughey to Boris Johnson and all who ever voted for them - were a bunch of racists, homophobes, privileged whites etc is made by more extreme leftists for sure. But I don't think most of the people they're accusing take it seriously. The accused haven't internalised it. How many people do you know who are actually worried about their whiteness.
In fact, since 1945, the culture has drifted towards the left for a lot of reasons other than what you describe. Greater wealth all round, influence of media, undermining of religion, undermining of culture and tradition, what have you.
Conservatives have just followed the voters. As they should - the alternative is marginalisation.
Aren't their pictures of the ex Queen doing a certain salute in the gardens of Buckingham Palace? And the England football team certainly did it when playing Germany in May 1938.
Because it wasn't Fascist.
Fascism, isn't just not liking non-white people and having a homogenous atavistic nativist country. That's what Nationalism is.
Fascism is a radical rebirth of a nation into a new future imperium lead by a leader. A complete rejection of democracy and liberalism at its core. The belief in autocracy. The belief in militarism. The belief in hierarchical idealism. The belief in an organic state. The belief in ultranationalism (not nationalism). The belief in totalitarianism. The rejection of materialism, hedonism, and degenerative state of being (mental, physical, spiritual). The belief in heroism. The belief in ideas like duty, sacrifice, fatherland. The rejection of the individual (to some extent) and embrace of collectivism (which is shares with Nationalism). A 3rd position philosophy which rejects the current revolution but also rejects simply going back to the past like a reactionary does (reactionaries back then were Monarchists).
Nationalism is just we want a nice quaint nation that keeps "the other" out and is homogenous. If it's homogenous and xenophobic, isolationist (even this is debatable with British and French colonialism but whatever), it follows everything would be okay. That is what most modern Nationalists tend to argue more or less (and whatever special snowflake version of it).
If Fascism was simply Nationalism, there would be no need for the word "Fascism" as Nationalism already existed as a word and concept. However, they called themselves Fascists for a reason.
Despite being racist, homophobic, sexist, transphobic as these countries were, they were still Liberal, thus not Fascist. There were Fascist movements in these countries (like BUF), but that's besides the point.
This is a very difficult concept for most modern people to wrap their heads around due to the revisionism we have today surrounding the past and how we incorrectly apply politics (blame our shitty education system from Boomers onwards). It even took me awhile.
Also, Mosely wasn't that fringe. I haven't done much research on his exact popularity. However, I do know his anti-war position was quite popular (of course many opposed him as well). He wasn't as popular but after the "battle" of cable street (where he didn't battle but just walked away lol) he gained more popularity. I think he dwindled in popularity after the war?
And like Woes said, there's different degrees to these concepts as well. There's "We think Jews are money grubbing, always trying to swindle, etc, etc," anti-semitism. Then there's "We are in an existential war for the destiny of the world with the Jews, as the Aryan Race. Each race embodies certain essential attributes. This racial struggle has been going on between the two races for thousands of years and will end with one being finally victorious," anti-semitism. Anti-semitism, just like race, existed in the Weimar, America, etc. However, the NS dialed it up to 11. It's the best way I can break it down to you.
Very thoughtful, well expressed comment.
I can see the idealism, the urgent desire for a solution, in what you write.
I don't understand the need to go to the extreme - I'm wondering where it's coming from. You're not looking to nationalism as it would have been expressed by our grandparents, you're not looking for a return to religion. You see the need for something much more radical. Where is that coming from.
Is it because a return to traditional conservatism seems so hard so unattainable, that you may as well go whole hog unrestrained by the need to be practical. Is there some feeling of futility or desperation about it.
Or is it an exploration. Is it a way of showing the current powers that be that you reject their liberal pieties - you don't care what can and can't be said. You're unashamedly embracing the verboten.
Love an insight.
Huh? I’m just explaining the differences to you (as far as I understand it).
One can only imagine the horrors that the lack of fine cuisine in pre-1945 Europe brought to the public. Maybe that explains the endless wars. Can it be a coincidence that since fried chicken, kebabs and curries arrived there hasn't been a single major conflict between Britain and Germany or Germany and France?
But seriously, fascinating article Woes.
Wonderfully and honestly said
Terrible final thought there, but I have to agree that at least some people would like to solve what they think is the problem of European racism by just disappearing with Europeans. Reminds me of a comment by a popular leftist youtuber, where he responded to the charge that leftists are destroying European history via accusations of racism, by saying that only current European racists would be bothered by attacks on racist Europeans in the past, so don't be racist and you are safe. Of course, all Europeans of the past are racist by his definition, so he is demanding that Europeans have no connection to their ancestors and their history, which is genocidal rhetoric.
Europeans need to recognize as morally good expressions of European ethnocentrism/tribalism/particularism, and then act on it to defend their group interests, otherwise things are going to get ugly, well they're already ugly, but they're going to get worse.
One thing I would like to add nuance to is the idea that Europeans in the past were racist. Yes, they were racist by today's standards, but they were civilized racists, one might say, and not cruel to other races. Leftists will never recognize this, but, for example, Imperialism was justified as a liberal/civilizing project to help non-European races. Yes, considering non-European civilizations as inferior is racist nowadays, but at the time, Europeans had the idea that they were elevating non-Europeans, by introducing non-Europeans to European civilization. Of course, preventing slavery was a major impetus. The British Empire spent many resources to police against slavery at sea. The Belgians took pride in abolishing slavery in their territories, and so on.
Looking at the US, we see that many of the country's founding fathers considered slavery immoral, and in the 19th century, a giant political and moral movement against slavery developed in the North. The civil war ensued, and blacks were freed and given citizenship. Soon after, Amerindians were also given American citizenship, all this long before WW2. So there was an obvious tendency towards liberalization in European countries before WW2, there was a lot of discussion and different views on how to treat other races, but overall, Europeans were definitely nicer and more capable of moral imagination than other races.
An interesting example of Anglo racism is in the character of Ian Smith, famous leader of Rhodesia which is now the shithole of Zimbabwe. Smith wrote a book, where he says that he always planned to hand over the country to the black majority, but only after they were able to run the country. Smith is resentful, not because he lost power, but because the country turned into a shithole after he was forced to hand the country over to a population that wasn't ready for the business of civilization. Now, one might say that blacks were never going to be prepared for this, but I think it's interesting that Smith understood himself as a guardian of the civilization of the country's population.
It reminds me of when certain more radical anti-racists who argue about white privilege, whiteness, structural and institutional racism (some truth but issues with it) is perpetuated by colorblindness because we're blind to how these structures oppress minorities. That colorblindness was created by racists. But, in fact, colorblindness is the first anti-racist theory brought into existence which argued, that by not seeing color, racial equality would come about. Colorblindness WAS the anti-racist position! It was argued by anti-racists of the 60's! Now newer groups done a 180 and argues that not seeing color helps perpetuate racial inequality (some truths but a lot of issues with it). This change occurred, because colorblindness failed to create a racially equal society, so a new theory to explain had to be introduced. They shit on their own earlier group unaware of the ideological connective tissue between them and the past.
The whole racist European civilizing comes from the white man's burden/white saviorism to make other groups more like white people (at least to some extent). The idea of equality that "they can be just like us" persisted. This has some egalitarian element to it embedded in the supremacy paradoxically enough. It's now racist. That strain still exist today with groups of white people who again see themselves as white saviors and it's their white man's burden to raise groups up to an ideal equal reality.
The only institutional racism nowadays in Western countries, is anti-European institutional racism, and the only privilege, is that of blacks and browns.
An example of what you're talking about today's progressives denouncing yesterday's progressives as racists, is that 100 years ago progressives thought that taking Aboriginal children from their families and putting them in European schools was a progressive thing because it would teach these children to behave better, and perhaps even integrate into mainstream society. Also, these families were and still are extremely abusive, so even today countries like Australia have to remove many Aboriginal children from their parents.
But you don't even have to believe that non-Europeans can be equal to Europeans to believe that European governance would improve non-Europeans' lives. I think some were more realistic, and the fact is that, yes, if, for example, Haiti and Congo nowadays were ruled by Europeans, those countries would most likely be much better off, nothing perfect or close to it, because the masses would still be African, but better off with Europeans ruling.
Many non-whites seem fascinated by whites, as if they don't see them as human but rather something else, something potentially dangerous. You'll see a place full of e.g. Turks glance indifferently at an Indian or African, or even a Japanese, but sit up if a European walks in (especially a woman). Most whites don't realise how "alien" they seem to non-whites. That basic fascination usually becomes a predatory interest, or simmering resentment at "white privilege".
Even if every white were to become a self-hating martyr it wouldn't help: just by existing, whites will perplex and infuriate a certain portion of non-whites. It's not about white racism: it's about whites.
I would suggest that the internet is responsible for putting Whites and their successful societies under a microscope, thereby creating tremendous amounts of envy and anti-white hate among non-whites.
They are not literally calling for "for white people to be eradicated" but for "whiteness" to be eradicated. Now any intelligent person will notice that these amount to the same thing, but this distinction nevertheless is a tactic that allows them to use genocidal language without attracting critical attention. I think this is a missing step in your argument.
Also there is the Robin DiAngelo solution to "whiteness", which is not an overt genocide as such, but a continual psychological management of whiteness by whites themselves. Of course this is an impractical and ineffective solution to a fake problem, but nevertheless it is currently an important part of their plan/system.
Interesting and insightful essay, especially as to the myths spun concerning Allied involvement in World War II. One thing, though, that I would push back on is the extent to which America and the West were racist and antisemitic during the 1960s and on. In terms of cultural influencers, musicians, comedians, actors, athletes, and other public figures, a lot of Jews and blacks were widely celebrated. I grew up in the 80s and 90s, and wanting to "be like Mike" wasn't just an advertising catchphrase; lots of white boys deeply admired and even emulated Michael Jordan and other black athletes. Michael Jackson was the biggest celebrity of the 80s by a wide margin (including before he de-blackified himself), and the Cosby Show was hugely popular and its characters beloved by millions of white people. Other examples abound. As for Jews, individuals from that tribe have been loved and celebrated in America going back to the Marx Brothers (1930s), so even if the upper-crust WASPs discriminated against them, plenty of regular non-Jewish white folk had Jewish friends (e.g., Elvis's "Memphis Mafia" -- his buddies from his pre-celebrity days -- included some Hebrews) and admired Jewish celebrities. So I do think it's a lot more nuanced than simply saying Americans were racist and antisemitic. That said, however, your overall points are compelling and undercut the mythology spun about America and the West after World War II.
That's not the point he was making.
Yes, I agree. The point wasn't to deny Jewish domination of late 20th C media, but that, even then, Aryan-looking models and actors were plentiful. And that's not surprising: we prefer them, but so do the Jews! Epstein apparently expressly wanted "Nordic looking girls".
Excellent article! Especially the emphasis put on the Left being more honest about WW2 than the Right.
The WW2 narrative is a Gordian knot binding our culture into a morbid paralysis. Some swordsman needs to cut it and soon.
Hey. Back again. Hope you won't mind my input.
Mirror what I've wrote before. I agree for the most part.
However, to push back (a little) I wouldn't say they're just like the Nazis. The Nazis were far more radical and revolutionary on race. If it was a scale, 1 not racist and 10 being uber racist, most countries were a 7 out of 10 (Maybe an 8? You get the idea). The Nazis would be a 14. But that breaks the scale, you say? Precisely. The National Socialists broke the scale when it came to race. They believed in far more radical and revolutionary ideas with the ideas of race. Just like there can be revolutionary ideas with anti-racism- from basic colorblindness to say beliefs in institutional and structural racism, elimination of whiteness, etc, there can be revolutionary racist beliefs of the opposite direction.
The National Socialists didn't just believe in preservationism (sort of basic bitch tier ethno and racial nationalist positions preserving demographics, preserving culture, etc. some basic essentialism. you get the idea). They believed in a radical racial rebirth of the German and Aryan race. This rebirth would destine the race to supremacy, (along with an Empire lead by a leader) etc. Concepts like the idealized Aryan man (and woman) which reach new heights in racial idealism- tall, square-jawed, physically athletic, certain nose shape, etc. More radical Nazi theorists started making hierarchy within the hierarchy of their "master race." Ideas like blonde hair and blue eyes, were superior, to brown hair and red hair (which people who are considered Aryan [like Hitler] would not have). Which gets into color psychology of yellow being synonymous with celestial (along with whiteness) and blue being vastness and depth (the sky). Colors like black are associated with death and evil, red is associated with blood/violence and lust/love (color psychology is a fascinating thing I suggest you look into it). Color symbolism would play a larger role. They weren’t just about simple preservationism you found with different Nationalist stripes. They had that element but they believed in so much more. This is a more progressive racialism that you don't see as far as race is concerned.
I would say the race was a strong element of the Allies (with other Liberal ideas from the Enlightenment) whereas in NS Germany, race was the core of it. This doesn’t get into the Nationalist Socialists problems with America on racial grounds too, I'll explain it slightly. Segregation for instance, was seen as a temporary stupid half-way measure, with some facilities not being shared, and not ideal of a truly unified homogenous country, etc, thus to be avoided. The NS were not fond of America, often citing how convoluted it was, standing at the precipice to be “negrofied” and jewified” the European Aryan stock was becoming (adoption of cultural elements of other racial groups they found unfavorable [think modern idea like a wigger] and the racial degradation occurring). A famous poster of WW2 from NS Germany depicts the dominant NS view of America, called “Liberators (go look it up).” The poster depicts a Frankenstein monstrosity of different parts. You can notice a KKK hood and a cage with a black monkey-man caricature in a cage (they were not fond of the KKK for a lot of reason [KKK was an America First supporting organization isolationist and neutral and was not Pro-Axis like the American German Bund]). The racial views that the NS had of America was not a positive one, as racist as the country was. Again, they took a more radical racist position from the opposite side. So this is a very complex issue.
Of course the anti-semitism goes much further (I haven't really discussed the differences specifically). As well as, other elements like rejection of democracy and the Organic State and other things found in Fascism (be it Italian variant or otherwise). But I'll stop here, I'm sure you'll get sick of reading, as I'm sick of typing!
But on the whole, with some minor pushback (if you don’t mind), I still agree with you that anti-racist revisionism has created this idea that that Allies were anti-racists fighters or something. Churchill, as you say, rejected Hitler peace offering twice (I think twice?), thought British people should rule more savage groups and was a big proponent of colonial empire.
The Left goes into a schizo mode, being convoluted ahistorical contradictory mess. On one hand when fighting conservatives, they're talk about how white supremacists, sexists, homophobic, etc, these countries and groups are. On the other hand, they'll say how anti-racist, pro-gay, such groups are are if they're fighting anyone who is Nationalist and above (racial, ethno, clerical, basic nationalism, ultranationalist, Fascist, Nazi, etc). Often citing (poorly) the non-white groups that fought under US black army units (ignoring segregation in said army, lack of rights, largely homogenous country, etc), or in Britain non-white colonial subjects (ignoring again they were colonial subjects who even said this was a white man's war [Japan was the only major exception of this]). They'll flip flop when it suits them with who they're debating. But to maintain their hegemony, they need to appropriate the victors of the war and make them more in their own image for current political clout. “No OUR ancestors fought against racism, transphobia, homophobia, and bigotry LIKE US!” You get the idea. They need some ancestor acquisition (despite being so “anti-traditionalist”). This mythos serves as a core to validate and justify their motivations.
Ironically, the most "woke" anti-racist, despite the amount of shit they get, are the most historically accurate anti-racists, getting really close about how the Allies were racist (at least this topic is concerned), and try to tear down Churchill statue (to conservative dismay). However, they don’t DARE make the obvious final jump that the people who fought the Nazis would therefore be disgusted at what their societies have become and most likely join the Nazis based upon their views. This risk delegitimizing the entire mythos they have, and thereby legitimizing racist groups. This revisionist mythos has been built up well post-WW2, and is absolutely foundational to their post-WW2 myth and democracy.
Ahhh, now I get it...
The Allies had to go to war with Nazi Germany, because the Nazis were racister and antisemiticer than them.
It was all about degrees of white supremacistizm and hatred for the color of the skin, but those ebil Nazis were just totes over the top, man!
Your logic is impeccable, pal. Have a great day. XD
The brain of 10 year old. I didn't say they went to war for those reasons.
I'm trying to make the distinction between Allied Countries and Nazis, because I don't think they're identical in their position.
I mean it was exactly that, degrees. Fuck off.
I was making fun of you, and rightly so.
You are bought into the "boomer truth" mindset about WWII so deeply that even after Woes points out the ridiculous nature of the thing, you still attempt to claw back some post hoc semblance of rationale for the war. You, in fact, are the very type of person this article is lampooning.
GOOD GUYS VS BAD GUYS
That is the only possible take on your wall text.
You lot have to constantly attempt to distance yourselves from the Nazis no matter how infantile your arguments become. It is hilarious! Your confirmation of my degrees statement, and subsequent indignation, is a telling example of your inability to see what is right in front of you. There are no DEGREES in what is happening, has happened, the choice is binary.
Did you even read the article?
The whole thing was about how we lost everything by gradually capitulating to the incremental, ever growing howls of "you are just like the Nazis", and the feeble response of "nuh uh, we're not like the Nazis, here's why".
And you did just that! In a response to this article!
Come. On. Man.
You’re illiterate. You can’t clearly read mine.
I read the article. I don’t exactly agree.
Your argument is "we are not like the Nazis because we are less Nazi than them".
Again, it is ridiculous.
I get you’re not capable of making more nuanced distinctions but I don’t care.
You lost me at left right left right left right, you march to the drum of the elite, lost in their disarming paradigm you poor fool.
There is the powerful and the powerless, that is all. The rest is merely window dressing.
The left and the right are institutional realities, whether or not they have intellectual potency.
Wow, it looks like you know a lot of stuff. I bet you are very smart. Who are the elite. Who are the powerful. Please be precise.