Posted by: graemebird | July 8, 2010

Tipping The Balance/The Congenital Stupidity Of Birdlab.

This may seem a pretty poor excuse for a thread. But I am mystified by the general misunderstanding of people when you explain how the context that the Superpower of the day creates, sets off a chain of events far beyond where their border ends. The superpower who set its heart against Bonaparte, did so within the context of just war. Nelson and Wellington carried out a just war, a just peace was negotiated, and everyone went back on a hard money standard thereafter. This set things in motion for peace in Europe. Well not peace exactly. But for a more peaceful Europe then what is usual and what will be the norm in the future. What we have been talking about lately is the terrible consequences of bad policy in Britain and the US in the twentieth century. People seem to get terribly confused. If you say that this tipped the balance towards slaughter elsewhere, which is merely a fact, they think you are acting as defense lawyer for the mass-murderers? Crazy I know but there you are. So I am forced, via this basic misunderstanding of history, to emphasize this point to the extent of turning a minor post into a thread entire. And I can see that the total non-comprehension at Catallaxy means I’ll probably have to ram this message home in pretty unsubtle and repetitive fashion well off into the future.


Now there is the question of bad policy tipping the balance to mass slaughter. There is also something less subtle but more secretive that we need to face up to. The totally horrific war crimes of the victors, including the war-crimes of the English-Speaking world. There is no turning away from them. We have to avoid any repeat of them. So we need to understand them, not deny them. And make sure we don’t fall into them again, under stress, fear, or foreign influence. Bear in mind that most of these horrid crimes were indeed done under foreign influence. But its pretty bloody depressing that we could be lulled into such utter viciousness.

Here is the post. I don’t think its the last time I’m going to have to emphasize, what I at least would think was obvious:

Looks like the conversation just went a little bit too far over poor stupid Birdlab’s head.

“So, to summarise Bird: The Holocaust was caused by the British.”

My goodness. When you are that fucking low-wattage there is no remedial learning possible. I’ll refer intelligent third parties to my final comment in response to CL.

Bear in mind that Stalin EFFECTIVELY brought both Hitler and Mao to power. I say EFFECTIVELY since when things are in the balance, even a weak force tipping the balance, is decisive.

So the bad policy of the British, from the starvation blockade onward, EFFECTIVELY lead to a century of mass slaughter. Since it tipped the balance of things in favor of the mass-killers. And Stalin EFFECTIVELY brought both Hitler and Mao to power. Since in both cases matters were in the balance, and Stalin had just enough influence to tip this balance.

Tipping the balance is what we are talking about in this discussion. But the idea of tipping the balance the wrong way, is just a little bit difficult for someone like Birdlab to comprehend.

“So, to summarise Bird: The Holocaust was caused by the British.”

You see that? The idea of bad policy on the part of the British and Americans tipping various balances, and the idea of Stalin, using persistent and subtle influence to get his way, almost all the time ……. Its just too difficult for someone like Birdlab. Just too fucking difficult for a fucking moron like Birdlab.

“So, to summarise Bird: The Holocaust was caused by the British.”

Just too fucking difficult. But the rest of us have to learn from history. And we must take responsibility for the evil that we spread, by means subtle, unintentional or otherwise.



  1. I SEZ:

    “Total war is total from a resources-burnt-up point of view. A more comprehensive war focuses also on your non-military resources. Verbal and moral. Like what Reagan and Pope Paul mustered.”


    Quite right.

    We should have had a nice chat with Hitler after he invaded Poland and explained to him why he was being unreasonable, and I’m sure we would have sorted it all out and no nice German girls would have been bombed by those nasty Allies.

    SO I SEZ:

    It may have slipped your mind Tillman, that Reagan comprehensively revamped the American military, and fought proxy war on every single Soviet pressure point on the globe that he could find. I don’t think there was much in the way of nice chatting when Afghanis were knocking out Soviet helicopters with Stinger missiles.

    He also sort to bankrupt the Soviets in other ways. Rendering their oil industry fundamentally unprofitable. Allowing Volker to keep money tight enough to dry up all the Soviet loan guarantees countries of the West were supporting the Soviets with.

    In the World War II context, COMPREHENSIVE JUST WAR, would have involved the British building up a far more fearsome and high-tech war machine then what they actually did build up.

    When you drop a bomb on some German women and children thats a bomb that you don’t have in your arsenal.

  2. I SEZ:

    “The Germans may have kicked off the war. But they were also magnanimous enough to call it off unconditionally.”


    “Magnanimous.” No fuckwit. They lost?

    SO I SEZ:

    Well of course they lost. Because they surrendered unconditionally. I don’t remember anyone who surrenders unconditionally WINNING a war, do you?

    What uneducated dipshits Catallaxians are. Beaten horribly in an argument they are trying to get it out of their system by a sort of circle jerk.

    It is most magnanimous to surrender unconditionally, when you could potentially go on killing a lot longer. But you would only do so if you trusted your opponents to act like fucking human beings. Had they known what was in store for them, the Germans would have gone on fighting for sure. And tens of thousands more Americans and British kids would have died.

    See Catallaxy people are ignorant. Seldom are wars fought to paralysis, and if they are this is a sign of the incompetence of the victors. Despite this false street cred show Catallaxy is putting up, of warfare as murdering children, really the Catallaxian fake-rightists, must be some of the most naive, unmilitary-minded, jerk-offs, on the planet. Wonder how they would have reacted to George Bush had he instituted a starvation blockade and started area bombing? Probably these house-niggers would start worshipping him like they worship Roosevelt.

  3. What has happened to Currency Lad. Listen Currency Lad you fucking idiot!

    Are you accusing me of letting Hitler off the hook morally?


    Hurry up about it.

    This is much worse than any idiocy you’ve pulled before. You are claiming that I said the Nazis were innocent. Read my response again. Of course it doesn’t let Al Capone of the hook How could you have been such a dummy as to think I was claiming that?

    You see you are becoming accultured to the stupidity of Catallaxy proper. Clearly you’ve been hanging around there too long if you are going to make such a complete jerk of yourself. What a devolution-to-dumbness. My goodness. And you are becoming morally weak too. Here these people are, triumphantly advocating mass-murder as a form of warfare, and there is you barely saying a word. In fact you haven’t said anything against it, without putting me down and misrepresenting me as a way of ingratiating yourself to the war crimes advocates. Classic BUTT-MONKEY stuff.

    Like “McCarthy was a fat drunken fraud ….. BUTTMONKEY …. he had the right idea about the communists.”

    Thats exactly what you did. You have been hanging around with morons like that dumb wop Cambria way too long. You’ve lost yourself. You are lost.

  4. What has it come to when a competent Catholic intellectual starts off, and for no reason at all, goes forth. with the premise that I’m a Nazi sympathizer. He started that way and just got worse.

    But the Capone analogy was a good one. There would be no Capone without prohibition. And yet the reality of this doesn’t let Capone off the hook.

    There may or may not have been a holocaust without bad allied policy. And yet the reality of this does not let the Nazis off the hook.

    With excellent allied policy there would clearly have been no holocaust. For one thing excellent allied policy would have meant resettlement of captured Jews, and influence over the policy of the two fighting-tyrants.

    Why would acknowledging this reality imply that Hitler was off the hook? It just shows that being a smart guy takes continual mental maintenance. Is CL an Aquinas fan on holidays or what?

    For the love of virgin mothers on all continents, renew your allegiance to reason CL. This is not any way, for a fan of Thomas Aquinas to act.

  5. Birdlab applying his same technique of unreason to Nicholson Baker. A good deal of what he quoted is correct. Not all of it. But a good deal of it.

    So what is Birdlab’s point?

    The point is that Birdlab is a moron. And that if CL isn’t able to keep his head together, hanging around with these intellectual dead-beats, he ought to find a better place to hang around. I mean they are virtually all fuckwits.

    Whose left there sound anymore? Rafe and Kates? I would say CL is the only other. But CL has taken to calling people Nazi sympathisers for no fucking reason at all. He must be fucking senile.

  6. “According to Adam Kirsch, writing in the New York Sun, Baker sets out to ‘convince the reader that America should not have fought Germany……”

    1. Baker is more of a fullblown pacifist then me its true.

    2. Of course they ought not have fought if they could achieve their goals without fighting. They had to gear up to fight sure. But only policy failure leads to war unless you are the aggressor. It was a total American fuckup that we got in a fight with Japan for example. How would Birdlab feel if he was himself drafted to fight for example?

    “…or Japan; that Franklin Roosevelt connived to get us into the war …….

    Its an absolute fact of history that Roosevelt lied his way into war. Connived his way into war. Picked a fight with Japan, just for starters..

    “….. at the behest of the arms manufacturers, …”

    Well I don’t know about that. I think he probably did so at the behest of the communist spies that surrounded him, like blockheads surrounding CL.

    “……. and probably knew about the bombing of Pearl Harbor in advance;……”

    Absolutely true. Probable. Not proved to the Nth Degree. And what a completely fucking terrible way to treat your own men.

    “….. that Winston Churchill was a proto-fascist; ….”

    Well I wouldn’t go that far. But its a fair putdown when you take into consideration his role in bombing civilians and in the starvation blockade. People are entitled to form that point of view on the basis of the evidence. His record is not clean.

    ” ……. that in Japan’s invasion of China, China was the aggressor; …..”

    I have no idea why he thinks that. But given the conduct of Japan-In-China, it ought not make that much difference.

    “…. that after the fall of France, Churchill was culpable in vowing to fight on, and not acceding to Hitler’s “peace” terms; …….. ”

    Thats a fair point of view. The British had been defeated, although they could still hold onto the British Isles. But their ground force had been largely destroyed. Negotiation would have meant some influence over Hitler. I don’t have a settled position on this. But its certainly a fair enough point of view. I am only certain of the clear fuckup from Barborossa on. THATS when definitely some sort of hard-headed dealing, (in the context of continuing British rearmament) with the Nazis might have been productive. When the Nazis asses were against the wall like that.

    “…. that the Holocaust was, at least in part, Hitler’s response to British aggression….”

    As we have seen there is a sound case for this. With the emphasis on “at least in part” since Hitler himself fantasized early on about getting rid of Jews.

    “….and that the only people who demonstrated true wisdom in the run-up to the war were American and British pacifists.’”

    The minority amongst the so-called pacifists who were also urging rearmament ……. Well that minority, who the hell ever they were, were the only people to show true wisdom. Name one other. If the British had been pacifist without massive re-armament, then Hitler and Stalin would have carved up Europe between them. It must be remembered that Hitler and Stalin were allies and both started the war together. Or at least a few days apart.

    “Again, Baker’s method, according to Kirsch, is to ignore the overwhelming wealth of material that contradicts the above claims and to focus on any seeming anomalies or exceptions that support his case, no matter what the source.”

    Well where is the evidence for this?

    “So, for example, in seeking to offload at least some of the blame for the Holocaust on to the British, Baker cites the mayor of Hanover’s reason for deporting Jews to the East, namely that the British bombing campaign had created a housing shortage.”

    Bad example on the case of the New York Sun writer. His example doesn’t match up with his accusation. Since thats pretty good evidence for his contention right there.


    Nicholson Baker is a pacifist, a position I disagree with. But he’s a pacifist who makes many good points.

  7. Its just an Adam Kirsch conceptual audit fail. But I don’t agree with Baker on everything. I’m far closer to (lets say) Buchanan.

  8. i bet you are. buchanan hates jews and hispanics

    • No thats clearly quite wrong about the Hispanics. He’s not pro-Israel like myself. But its would be harder to be pro-Israel if you didn’t get any choice in the matter when it comes to your tax dollars supporting the Israelis.

      This is a fairly typical small-minded misrepresentation of Buchanan. Buchanan is in favor of a constitutionally-limited Republic and so is not for interventionism as an ongoing principle. So once the Soviets were finished off he wanted friendship with the Russians, non-intervention but he made an exception with the Chinese Communists. So where we are concerned he would have free trade. Where the Chinese were concerned he would have demanded managed trade since he sees them as the key strategic competitor. He would have supported Taiwan to the max. He would not have supported Israel in the same way.

      So I would differ in that I would support Israel under some circumstances. If we had a real 9/11, instead of that augmented American 9/11 …… were we to have a real putupon from the Arabs, then, depending on circumstance, I could imagine (from the American perspective) getting behind Israel and others to defeat all Israelis enemies in terms of wiping out the leadership in half a dozen countries. Whereas Buchanan would be unlikely to back Israel to that extent. Thats a fair position to take. You cannot put someone down for not wanting to expend a lot of resources, and some blood, helping a third party nation.

      Buchanan, in election speeches, would have (perhaps when the power equation was somewhat different) demanded that not even one nuclear weapon of China’s be set up so as to be able to be launched at the US. This was back when the US was the US and not Barryland. He said they wouldn’t be able to sell so much as a bowl of soup (or something similar) to the US until any such targeting was dismantled. Now if you can muster the moxie to pull that off you can become Switzerland-USA. Without a care in the world. Thats what Buchanan wanted. And we ought to be clear about that. He had the brains to pull it off to.

  9. Did someone mention Nicolson Baker?

    Oh my.

    I’ve only read one of his books (on the recommendation of a very naughty exceedingly literate male friend), “The Fermata”, but it’s a beauty. Boy can that man write.

    He expresses a childlike wonder at the world and
    what it contains, has a poetic attention to minute
    revelatory detail and a rapier wit. He has an endless, gleeful fascination with women’s bodies and with male-female interaction.

    “The Fermata” is a musical, tender, saucy, filthy, shameless, inventive, sublimely erotic book. It blew me away.

    What a gift, what a man.

    • What I don’t get is this idea that you have to agree with everything the fellow says in order to appreciate his contribution. I don’t know ANYONE AT ALL whom I agree with 100%.

      Had we been pacifistic in the 30’s the Totalitarians would have conquered us first and then fought amongst eachother. Had we turned pacifist in the 1980’s the coalition between the Soviets and many Muslim nutters would have held and the two would have given us hell first, and fought between themselves later.

      If we are somewhat laconic, but strong, and geared up to make our fighting BIG AND SHORT then the persuasive side of our act will tend to see us through, while others diminish themselves in long fights, with us helping the weaker or more atrocious side.

  10. You’re right Graeme – again – about the congenital shallowness of Cattleprosy lifers.

    As if anything can be understood by reference merely to the eternal present or a snapshot view of history. To believe so is a profoundly bourgeois notion and the height of idiocy. But then when it’s best practitioners are the likes of BirdLab/JC et al what can one expect?

    Neither Hitler nor Germany in the 1920-30s can be understood without tracing back song lines and tracks to Napoleon, and earlier, to e.g. the 30 Years War.

    Napoleon inadvertently opened the way for modern Germany, its intellectual flowering in what became the European “German century”.

    The worst aspects of Romanticism, the Darwinian revelation and offshoots, the growth of industry, trade and colonialism, laissez-faire capitalism, the ideology of nationalism and the birth of nation states, the evolution of anti-Semitism, all of these formed essential elements in the crucible that gave rise to Nazi Germany, the Holocaust, WW2.

    How utterly dull and stupefying and frankly pitiful it must be to live in the mental universe of rightards who can only think in short historically cinematic-type grabs and view history in the equivalent of a cinematic Ronald Reagan western.

  11. What I’m most upset about is CL. Because by his own representation he ought to be agreeing with me, and be horrified with these pro-war-crime ass-wipes.

    But instead he seems to have invented a fantasy position of mine (or been taken in by stupid-town) in order to avoid having to break ranks and support me in full. Which he ought be honor-bound to do; in accordance with his fealty to the Prince Of Peace, to Humane Civilization, and to Just War Theory- fully in the best intellectual tradition of Catholicism.

    Either he’s invented some bullshit, not to have to break ranks, he’s really been taken in by the riff raff, or perhaps he’s turned tribal. His Butt-Monkey performance I found really despicable. And he presumably had to feign ignorance of the conversation to live with it.

    You can see why I can support the Catholic intellectual tradition, almost as if it was my own, and be somewhat cagey about Catholics in general. It may be a silly prejudice. But its certainly there. Particularly after the performance of that wop bank-communist traitor. And there has always been a bit of a reluctance on the part of CL to lay into that wop cunt Cambria, with a few home truthzzzzz. Do Catholics really stay that tight? Do I perceive a bit of Catholic tribalism in CL’s historic reluctance to kick that stupid wop cunt in the throat?

    CL may think I’m being a little bit rich on account of him sticking up for me more than anyone else on Catallaxy. But I’m not demanding he be loyal to me. I just would hope he would be true to himself.

  12. “Napoleon inadvertently opened the way for modern Germany, its intellectual flowering in what became the European “German century”.”

    Yeah exactly right. Napoleon is in effect the creator of Germany. Since the small principalities coalesced, largely on the basis of lessons learnt from his attacks on them. Whenever someone has a _______ century, it strikes me that they are probably coasting on the nature of their nation in the century prior.

    Like the rot had probably set in by the 4th century BC in Greece, which is traditionally thought of as their century of flowering. Whereas its likely the 5th century BC that made them, with the roots going back to Homer, then borrowing on surrounding cultures, but coming up with their unique gig. And I would say its the 5th century BC we ought to learn from.

    The Americans could never have become “great” and good, with their post 1913 institutions.

    And now you talk about the Germans. Well I think we need to have a different notion of greatness. I think it was their little principalities. Before the advent of the Prussian military ascendancy. Right about the time of Napoleon.

    Beethoven 1770-1827

    Schiller 1759-1805

    Goethe 1749-1832

    If we go with the American States who had rejected slavery in the 19th century. The Germans before Napoleon. The Greeks even before Socrates…

    …… I think you have to go before this so-called GREATNESS is heralded by the historians, to find where the good and fair life is. Or at least to look for lessons learned.

  13. Here we see what would really have been the best outcome of world war I. The best settlement. Lay every imaginable reward on the German people for unconditional surrender. No reparations. No arms limitations. No need to get rid of the royalty. Nothing like that. Simply split up into your individual provinces. Split up into the principalities of old, or do so as much as possible. Each principality can arm to the teeth, be a buffer for nasty third powers, and we get to benefit from the continued strength of German culture and science.

  14. C.L. is an empty shell, Graeme. There’s no one home. And he’s a hypocrite, the most despicable of all human creatures. And a misogynist.

    Genuine Catholics today don’t revel in death and torture and destruction and misanthropic impulses. C.L. does.

    And finally, he is just stupid.

  15. “Bird, what are you talking about?”

    What am I TALKING ABOUT?

    What are you talking about? You accused me of being a Nazi apologist essentially. You acted like an idiot in response to my very clear response to your Capone example, which was a sound example.

    And Dover was a fucking idiot with this argument. The moron would not resolve a fundamentally contradictory point of view. Instead of admitting I was right, and getting his shit together, he chose to take potshots at me in dribs and drabs. The cad ought to have simply admitted he’d been bested.

    See this is what causes he problem. People take the opportunity to slag off at others who they agree with, or who have comprehensively beaten them in debate.

    Dover is an asshole towards me, because he can afford to be, since you all suck right up the Catallaxy mobs butt.

    Why don’t you act like a man and lay into these morons for advocating war crimes?

    Thats what they are doing!!!! That would be a lot more productive then lying and pretending that I was letting the national socialists off the hook!!!!!

    Like I would do that in a trillion years.

  16. The Germans were just amazing, in the early 19- early 20th century. They invented or rather discovered the unconscious, genetics and quantum physics. And then there were all those artists, philosophers, composers, poets, etc. No other country on the planet matched their output and production, their intellectual advances.

  17. Right. Although the quantum physics gig is rather dubious. But yeah they were amazing. And they could have continued to be amazing. But we starved and blew up their kids, robbing ourselves of a new generation of inventiveness, and so the survivors just concentrated on business alone.

  18. Dover_Beach is the sourest, most borderline evil person I’ve ever had the misfortune to read on the intertubes. Even just mentioning his fake name is traumatising to readers, certainly this reader, Graeme.

  19. Well Germany actually recovered quite well despite all and perhaps is one of the healthiest polities post WW2 in Europe still.

    • On the wealth creation level they recovered. People subjected to starvation conditions tend to have high savings rates for many decades thereafter. But we had to put up with dominant American consumer-culture, because one of our competitors was missing.

    • They’ve had American troops stationed within all that time don’t forget.

  20. I don’t perceive him that way. But he was forced to see his contradictory arguments, and instead of just admitting I was right, he blustered his way out of it, and thereafter has taken part in the potshots, because of hurt pride.

    Thats not a real historian. Thats merely a future punch-card man, parasitical off the rest of us. History ought to be a calling. Not a punch-card deal. The jerk simply couldn’t take it that he’d been proved wrong despite having so many details memorized.

  21. I have to agree with you there Graeme.

    And there comes a point at which one needs to move on, including from old relationships.

    There’s an amazing world out there as I know you know with all sorts of people in it. No benefit in tarrying once truths are established.

  22. “Yeah exactly right. Napoleon is in effect the creator of Germany. Since the small principalities coalesced, largely on the basis of lessons learnt from his attacks on them”

    Goodness me but you are a dill. Have you not heard of prussia and bismark?


    “Like I would do that in a trillion years.”
    Well, less than a trillion years ago, you were claiming that the Brits should have formed an alliance with the nazis to beat the sovs.


  23. You’re a lark ascending.

    Ralph Vaughn Williams








  25. Mr B

    Don’t let those Jew Bastards get you down. Keep up the good fight.

    PS I totally agree re CL. He is a Stupid Cunt isn’t he.

    • Well I still think he’s, for the most, a good and extremely smart fellow. But this time he’s let himself be taken in by the barrage of stupid comments by the ninnies around him. I thought he knew me better than that!!!!! I thought he understood the Catallaxian group circle-wank process, by which these guys make themselves happy about never learning a damn thing. Of course they’ve got to pretend I’ve somehow lost my marbles, and turned Nazi. Otherwise they’d have to unflatten their learning curves and agree that I was right. So I was most put out by CL, starting off with the premise that these guys had fundamentally been representing my ACTUAL point of view, when he ought to know they are a bunch of shitheads.

      Closer analysis will find that me and CL agree, virtually totally on everything I’ve said. He agrees with me. Because we both basically follow Just War Theory. I cannot find a fucking point I have made, where I can know for sure, that CL differs.


      I agreed with him about the Capone example. Without prohibition, Capone would have not committed all those violent crimes. That doesn’t mean Capones hands are clearn. With excellent British policy from 1919, in accordance with Just War principles there would have been no holocaust and particularly if we had a sophisticated resettlement policy for refugees. Not free immigration. But some sort of dignified and economically sound automatic sanctuary, followed by international dispersal. But EVEN JUST TAKING IT FROM 1942. Even that far into the piece, if we had conducted Just War even at that late stage …… Its quite possible that we could have had 4 million of those 6 million Jews surviving. Even at that late stage …. There is a good possibility. Not a certainty but a good possibility.

      Now its exactly like the Capone example. This in no way lets the Nazis off the hook. We are not taking the Mark Hill approach here. Two wrongs don’t make a right. The other side not conducting just war, in no way makes it okay for your side to commit atrocities. So both he and I agree on the essence of that example. And he ought to have known that in advance.

      I cannot figure out why he went along with the catallaxy version of what I was saying, rather than not follow my own version. You see its almost impossible to be disappointed with Catallaxians by and large. Because they are morons who cannot think for themselves. But when Currency Lad (CURRENCY LAD!!!!!!), who KNOWS that I think about these subjects almost identically to him …….. at least on the deepest level, never mind the specifics ……..

      ……. When someone of the intellectual stature of currency lad (CURRENCY LAD FOR FUCKSAKES!!!!!!!), starts off by assuming I’m running Nazi apologetics, that blows my gasket. It takes me a long time to calm down. To see someone that smart, and fundamentally righteous, going along with the unthinking mob, makes me want to start breaking things. And I think I was right to get angry for a little while. I calm down after a little while but I think I’m right to get angry at the implication that I’m a nazi sympathiser …. from someone serious. From an adult.

      If some tough guy in the pub starts off by assuming I’m a NAZI apologist for no reason, I’m just as likely to finish the conversation, right about that point. No step outside and get worked up and all that bollocks since I’m getting on in years and just as likely to lose a fair fight. Tough guy starts by talking as if I’m a NAZI apologist I’m just as likely to punch him in the throat and finish the debate right there. Because I am not now, nor have I ever been, any form of national fucking socialist.

  26. Oh beware my Lord of jealousy;
    It is the green-eyed monster which doth mock
    The meat it feeds on… (Othello, Act 3, scene iii; 68)

    Note here it is Iago who is speaking. People tend to think Othello is a play about jealousy; the eponymous hero kills his wife in a jealous rage. But it is really about envy. It is Iago’s envy that besmirches and brings down all the nobility and promise that flourishes at the opening of the play. Othello’s jealousy and lack of trust in Desdemona is a product of Iago’s envy. Thus when Iago is speaking of jealousy here he imbues it with the contemptuous, spoiling attributes of envy.

  27. Graeme sezs:

    “Yeah exactly right. Napoleon is in effect the creator of Germany. Since the small principalities coalesced, largely on the basis of lessons learnt from his attacks on them”


    In the C18 the German-speaking states lagged well behind Holland, Britain, France, Belgium in terms of political freedom, trading success, scientific and industrial innovation, etc. This comparative backwardness had been brought home by Napoleon’s rapid advances before his final defeat.

    After Napoleon’s extraordinary Egypt expedition he went on to mount a campaign against Germany which was in retrospect indirectly beneficial for Germany. Napoleon’s great series of victories, over Austria, Prussia and several smaller German states, by advertising the economic, social and political backwardness of the German-speaking world, created a tremendous desire for renewal in the German lands prompting its astonishing intellectual and political rise throughout the C19.

    At the turn of the C19 some formerly 2000 German speaking units that had survived the 30 Years War had been reduced to a couple of 100. In 1813 led by Prussia the Germans at last managed to defeat Napoleon, in the process learning the virtues of order and respect for rules that paid off so well thereafter and to this day.

    This was an important step on the road to unification, finally achieved in 1871.

    • See in both cases I wouldn’t see this as a good thing for Germany. You know how I talk about “free trade deals” Which I think are a misnomer. I think they are really taxeater-to-taxeater deals. But there is no question that in places like India and China the immediate effect was massive and extraordinary wealth creation….. Well when you have this excellent, if a little bit behind set of principalities …. sure the initial centralization, and somewhat socialist actions can lead to a golden age. But the golden age is based on the cultural values that existed prior…

      … Let me put it like this. “Socialism never works but sometimes it can take some time to fail.” So I’m quite willing to believe that the provision of free education in the 19th Century in a lot of places may well have initially lead to an explosive improvement in the culture. I don’t know that but certainly I’m willing to buy into that. I’m willing to believe also that the initial government financing of scientific research probably set forth a golden age of science in some areas. And a pseudo-golden age in others. I’m willing to believe that some of the benefits of Greek culture were initially spread by Alexanders murderous, near genocidal campaigns…

      But in every case it turns to shit. And I think the Germans and the rest of us, would have been far better off, had the German people not been dissatisfied with maintaining their small well-armed principalities…. They ought to have known that this level of choice meant the good life, and they ought to have maintained their confidence in their political arrangements, and just sat it out until Wellington had taken that bastard down and not given up what they had. And I think we would have been far better off without Alexander, even if for awhile the spread of Greek culture had some good effects.

      Golden ages don’t last. But competition between many small governments leads to solid human progress with some assurance.

  28. A key figure who was stung into action by Napoleon’s successes and German humiliation was the Francophile Prussian minister Wilhelm von Humboldt who’d lived for a time in Paris prior to the rise of Napoleon.

    He was the main force behind a series of administrative reforms that had a profound effect on German intellectual life e.g. he conceived the idea of the modern university not merely as in the traditional format of colleges that trained doctors, the clergy and lawyers, but as places where research was a primary activity and end in itself.

    Similarly, Humboldt introduced the practice whereby high school teachers in Germany must have a degree to teach thus directly linking schools to universities and also popularised the ideal of scholarship based on original research.

    This was the start of the golden age of German intellectual influence which was only brought to an end by Hitler following 1933.

    At university level it wasn’t just the roll call of names of extraordinary thinkers, entire new disciplines and specialisations were created for the first time in Europe. The PhD was invented by Germany.

    • “Similarly, Humboldt introduced the practice whereby high school teachers in Germany must have a degree to teach thus directly linking schools to universities and also popularised the ideal of scholarship based on original research.”

      See this is one of those measures that may have gotten of burst of good results at first but causes more and more trouble later on. I used to tutor friends and good looking girls in economics, and sometimes other subjects for free. I had the ability to step out of university and conduct tafe classes on economics at the age of 19. If price competition was still a viable thing in the labor market I could have offered to do so for very little and so help in bringing the cost of education down. But not falling into the “proletarian masses” (for want of a better description) after leaving Corporate Finance. I therefore would not have been doing my bit to depress entry level wages at the bottom end of the market.

      ((((You see how much intervention unwittingly depresses bottom end wages, and keeps people unemployed. I’ve termed this the “theory of cascading labour” ….. but the idea I got off Reisman. A properly run Capitalist society is not the rabidly unequal deal you would see it to be. Its not how the left would have it. Nor how those faux-libertarians posers at Catallaxy would imagine it either. Its this skewed version we have that is the problem. ))))))

      Now while I would have been teaching economics that was somewhat better than standard Keynesian bullshitartistry even then, at 19, my economics would not be as fully real-world-integrated as it is now. So I wouldn’t have been quite as sound as I am now. But I certainly would have been better than most of the other teachers.

      This is how interventionism is Philomena. It usually starts like crap and continues to increase in the damage it does. But even brilliantly conceived interventionism, like that which you are describing here, will eventually reach decrepitude, start imposing hard-to-quantify costs. And now, more then a century on, has produced a monstrous education system. Monstrous in terms of costs. Monstrous in terms of teaching the kids many things that are just not so. I have great confidence in the teaching of Chemistry. And mathematics…..

      (((((although in practice, to succeed at mathematics… most people tend to need and a very gifted teacher. But at least I can be confident that even the less good teachers aren’t teaching utter bullshit)))….

      …. I can have almost no confidence in the teaching of other subjects although you might name a few that I could agree on.

      For economics you would have had to have the great good fortune of winding up at Pepperdine university and accidentally taking all of George Reismans papers in order to understand economics properly. George Mason has a good faculty. Or you might have just wandered off the street in Alabama and ran into the Mises Institute. Otherwise you would be taught a load of rubbish, and it may have taken you ten or fifteen years to recover if you ever did.

      For Ancient History you would have to have been very lucky and ran into Victor Davis Hanson, sometime before 2001, when he started to spread himself a bit thinly. Or you would have had to just have happened upon Don Kagan as your lecturer.

      Now the education system is so unsound you simply have to have dumb luck to choose the right teacher. And even then its not value-for-money, because the fees have gotten outrageously high. But the fees would be a lot lower under free enterprise, and particularly if people like me could just walk off the street and become an apprentice lecturer, and undercut everyone else on price.


    “Can’t everybody claim to be a victim of circumstance? A creation of all that has came before? How can anyone not be held blameless by such logic?”

    Precisely Fleeced. Your logic is logic is my logic. But its not my logic that lets anyone off the hook here. All those who commit war crimes are guilty of committing war crimes.

    This is depressing. First the normally sound CL screwing up. And then Fleeced allowing himself to be taken in by Catallaxian idiocy.

    Fleeced. Don’t diminish yourself by buying into the mobs imaginary version of what I am saying. CL implied that I was claiming the NAZIS were blameless. This is the most stupid thing he’s ever said. He did so on the basis of Catallaxians being their moronic selves. Not on the basis of anything I said. You could read what I’m saying and not go along blindly with people who have been totally whipped in this debate. Nowhere have they made a good case for war crimes as a way of conducting war.

    Consider this offering from Mark Hill:

    “I agree with Bird in that targeting civilians in strategic bombing is wrong.

    However, it was merely retaliation from the Allies.

    Nor did it cause the holocaust.


    You see its not me saying one war crime excuses another. Its Mark Hill and the others. I don’t usually include you in my line-up of sensible people at Catallaxy mostly because you aren’t usually there.

    But you can see how depressing for me it is when you and CL accept the idiots version of what I’m saying.

    Michael Fisk knows where I’m coming from. He knows I’m not running apologetics for the NAZI’s. But he’s not inclined to support me with all the effort that he should.

    CL would agree with nearly all that I was saying if he wasn’t buying into a fantasy version of what I was saying.

    What happened was this. I beat dover hands down in an historical argument. Hands down. Showed him that his logic just didn’t add up no matter what.

    Thereafter he takes small potshots at me and lets the others run wild with the most fascist advocacy of war crimes that anyone has tried to justify since the fall of the third reich. Naturally enough they have to misrepresent what I’m saying in order to square this with themselves.

    Don’t be taken in by them again Fleeced. Those who are not morons on Catallaxy (ie yourself, Fisk, Rafe, Kates, and CL) ought to stick together. And you could start by putting up a united front against war crimes. This is no argument relating only to he distant past. War will become more frequent then ever now that the Americans are scuttling their own ship. About the best we can do is 1.Make them short 2. Always win 3. Never commit war crimes or 4. demand unconditional surrender.

    Sometimes you can ask for unconditional surrender from a few of the current leadership. Never from the country as a whole.

  30. ” called Bird a Nazi sympathiser?


    Bird, a few of us have always stuck up for you and complimented you for your abilities. But you end up attacking us as well. What really is the point?”

    This is true and I understand that. But I think its right for me to have a burst of total fury and take some time to calm down, if you enter into a debate with the implicit premise that I’m excusing Nazi war crimes. I’m barely excusing any war crimes. About the only war criminal I let off the hook would be Truman. Because I understand why he dropped those bombs. I’d never have done it myself. I don’t think he ought to have done it. But I understand why he did it, and after all it did “work.”

    Perhaps the early bombing when the British Isles themselves were imperiled I would kind of turn a blind eye to. But thats about it. By and large I’m against all war crimes. I don’t think any of them were necessary in the wider scope of things. If the nuclear bombing was necessary it was surely only because of them starting their fighting on the wrong foot prior to Truman. Using up all their resources helping Stalin and so forth.

    Really our side would have been far better without committing any war crimes at all. So I’m against them totally. If we Australians nuked a Chinese city in utter desperation, it would be because of the immorality of failing to invest in the right technology and capacity early on. I suppose thats where Churchill was at during the earliest part of the war. He didn’t start off with the gear he needed.

    Harry Callahan goes to the shooting range at 2.00 in the morning because thats the only time he can have the place to himself. Because its morally important that he hits what he aims at. He sees those young cops there in Magnum Force.

    So you see if we had to use nukes in an immoral way the immorality starts earlier with the failure to invest for just war.

    I hate all war crimes. I find it hard to differentiate between those who would commit such crimes and Hanibal Lector or Jack-The-Ripper.

    You and Michael Fisk should be absolutely hammering the stupid set over at Catallaxy. And now that I’ve calmed down, I’m just wanting to ask you to be careful not to fall into what the dummies are saying about me. Its easy to do. If you and Fleeced did it both, it has to be easy to do I guess.

    It used to happen on those money threads of doom. Every bugger who would drop by would be simply assuming the Andrew Reynolds, Mark Hill version of what I was saying. Which is why though I was always right, and proved right by the time it came around to 2008, these threads would just go on forever.

    Once again I think it is only good and proper for someone to blow ones top for a couple of hours, when someone simply assumes they are trying to let the SS murderers off the hook. This is just a very strange assumption for you to be making when my act has been pretty consistent for some years now and you’ve known my act all that time.

    We fucked up in World War II. The debate ought to be whether we fucked up after Barbarossa. Or was policy incompetent prior to that.

    I know for a fact that we at least fucked up after Barbarossa. This should be considered a prosaic fact of history.

  31. Graeme, ooohhhh you’re so smart and sexy, you make me so wet whenever I see a new genius filled comment from you.

    • This much may even be true. One can hope so in any case. But it strikes me that this is not the real Philomena.

  32. Upon reflection, its pretty clear that this post must be coming from one of the males at Catallaxy. A place replete with characters who should have been MEN but could not summon the moxie.

    I suppose thats what happens when a fella sells out to group norms. Wimps out. Pussies out. Just cannot get the courage together to seek and defend the truth. That sort of path is going to have an effect on a male of the species after some time. Sooner or later he’s going to find himself getting an enormous amount of satisfaction, pretending to be a sheila on the internet.

    I guess the next step for such a creature. For such a house-nigger. Is to start finding immense pleasure in selling his lower oesophagus, for some other, more highly placed house-nigger, such that he can score himself a better deal in corporate eunuchsville.

    Come to think of it the house-nigger in question really must be Joseph Cambria. He’s the only fellow who has sold out so comprehensively as to become a sort of fag version of Dick Dastardly.

  33. Graeme, my position on WWII is that it was a mistake to declare war on Hitler in 1939 because we weren’t prepared and it only gave him an excuse to conquer all of Western Europe. And the “security guarantee” to Poland was unenforceable. The correct strategy, I think, was one of staying out as long as possible while arming oneself to the teeth. And playing the Communists and the Nazis off against each other.

    Yes, your point about Keelhaul is completely correct (I’ve been quite busy lately with a lot of things, so I haven’t had much time to argue about this stuff), and I agree with you. War crimes are terrible, regardless of who commits them.

    Which is why I am puzzled that you are attacking Jason et al for their support for Keelhaul (fair enough), whilst defending Phil. You are forgeting that Phil is an explicit advocate of war crimes – she supported the murder of non-combatants in the National Guard. She has also supported a number of Communist regimes (she once made , some of which were guilty of war crimes.

    I guess this is where my “logical” gene springs into action, because I don’t see how you can square position A with position B.

    • Right. Well lets not muck-rake here. I agree with you on the world war II stuff, although don’t feel I have mastered the course of events to be entirely sure about which dates truly signify the date where policy turned uniformly idiotic. . Its like they had a window of opportunity to stop them before they got the Sudetenland. But having missed that window they really needed to piece up and lie low. Look about for various parties to funnel arms to when the time came.

      I take what I think is a very conservative position that I’m baffled that people can presume to contradict me over. Never bluff. Don’t make ultimatums that you aren’t in a position to enforce. But even given that bluff …. Its clear that from Barbarossa, at the very least, none of our guys had to be fighting directly with either the Germans or the Italians. They ought to have secured their own positions. Beefed up their own forward defenses. The loss of Singapore at a time when masses of materiel was being handed to Stalin was just appalling.

      Also they invaded a neutral country (Iran) just so as to get weapons through to Stalin. So in the same way as the Soviets and National-Socialists invaded Poland, Britain and the Soviets invaded Iran. I don’t find that stuff amusing or anything to play down.

      Here is what I think would have been the ideal: Supposing we were to act morally. Could we have gotten away with arming factions and bypassing the communists? Surely it would have been easy enough. No-ones ever given me any reason to not believe the feasibility of this. The amount of territory is so incredibly awesome that if the communists fell, surely there would be ample opportunity to arm anyone anywhere who was a refugee from the third-Reich-occupied-territories. Supposing the communists didn’t fall. Surely everyone in the Soviet union would still basically be a refugee from Stalin or from Hitler. So we keep on fortressing our own act. Sooner or later the Third Reich would be in retreat under such a strategy, without us having to clash with the Germans at all.

      If we could have armed the Soviet peoples without arming the Soviet government, then we achieve everything we want.

      ((((((((What is not acceptable is the pacifist view. Since pacifism would have simply lead to the Soviet-Nazi alliance lasting longer, and total conquest by them, prior to them fighting it out. So I’m not with the Nicholson Baker crowd to that extent. Rearmament and beefing op of overseas bases was absolutely necessary. ))))))))

      I don’t understand the smugness by which these dudes at Catallaxy think it was okay to have our kids have to come up against the German Army???!!! You’d rather be coalmining with the expectation that you’d die of the blacklung by the age of 26. You’d rather be anywhere else doing just about anything then have to come up against these people. I think few at Catallaxy can keep any sort of reality together when they look at History.

      I think the outcome you are aiming for, is to turn all scary brutish populations into a multitude of very small nation-states with armed populace. Citizens too well-armed to be brutalized by their own Prince. Too strong to be bullied by larger nations in any sort of careless and casual way. But countries too small to give any of the rest of us trouble. I would see this as the generic solution to any such intractable aggression. The end goal of any warlike activity on our part.

      So in 1990 Iraq becomes another UAE. Because of the desert, in effect they would become a multitude of city-states. With well-armed civilians. And we would have achieved this mostly through proxy war, with our ground forces mostly as benchsitters, and perhaps a bit of airpower assistance to the various proxies

      In world war II, I would have thought that, without diverting too much resources, so as to make our own forward positions unassailable, that if we had then helped all the peoples surrounding the territory that the Nazis had captured, and been in a position to demand he treated conquered civilianry with less brutality, then that would come under the heading of “good enough”. The alternate outcome would be Stalin beating back the Germans, but it being such a hard slog without direct Western aid, that the Soviet Union would have been exhausted. And the arming of the non-Russian Soviet peoples who were threatened by either party would have resulted in the same benign outcome. The splitting up of the Soviet Union into a multitude of autonomous principalities-democracies. Or even dictatorships. Just so long as they were tiny countries that had a dictator.

      We don’t want to hurt the populations of the bully nations. All aggression tells us is that the country is too large. And needs to be spilt up into smaller territories. And then we go about the business of being friends with them and trading with them. All these battles where our conscripts clash is not my idea of what to do on the weekends. And we don’t have the politicians capable of expending our soldiers in anything like a wise fashion. Even if it was not an outrage to be “expending” our soldiers when we have a choice in the matter.

      In other words our wars ought to be like Wellingtons or Reagans wars. Not like these terrible twentieth century ballsups. But with a different goal then either Wellington or Reagan had. With many hundreds and thousands of micro-states as the goal.

  34. Sorry Graeme, I accidentally hit send before completing this sentence in brackets. It was:

    (she once made a comment about her allegedly being on the “right side” of the “Asian wars”, in the plural sense, meaning of course that she supported the ascension to power of not only Ho Chi Minh – whom I don’t object to much – but also Mao Tse Tung, Kim Il-Sung and Pol Pot – some of the greatest mass murderers in 20th Century history)

    • Right. Well lets not go in for any of this muckraking. Not when there are Catallaxians MALES who haven’t admitted they are wrong when they have always been beaten soundly by you, me and Currency Lad in related topics.

      Think of it from a male-female point of view. Since I’ve treated her well I would feel it was okay to force her into a backdown were she wrong about something. But to be nasty to a lady AND to force her into some sort of backdown. Well I don’t think this is good social etiquette. To me being excessively stubborn in this position is being feminine. Being lady-like, no matter how brutal the subject.

      Where the killings at Fort Bragg are concerned in private she has expressed quite a different angle then what she seemed to be arguing, when it came to arguing with people who had been pretty despicable towards her. Or more to the point where she was arguing in an environment where there were onlookers who had been really gratuitously vicious towards her.

      But enough of this muckraking. You have a job to do at Catallaxy, telling them what a joke their pro-war-crimes advocacy is. I’ve taken the heat for sinners like you, so that you can make some progress. I’ve gathered some sort of ridicule to my online persona, such that you and CL won’t be as successfully slimed as well as you otherwise would have been. Now is the time to hammer these guys. Since I’ve softened them up. In their hearts they are beginning to doubt their support for bombing small children into even smaller pieces. They are wondering if the aid to Stalin ought to have been only for a few months rather than a few years. Some of them at least may have lost confidence in their incredibly stupid points of view and may be tentatively looking at alternatives. Of course they cannot come to grips, at this stage, the incredible ability of Soviet agents and other socialists, to so alter the zeitgeist in Washington so as to skew all policy in Stalins favor. These are matters that they are a long way off understanding.

      But I’ve softened them up for you. You were always right or nearly right on this issue. Time to hammer these guys and make some progress for a change. Even Dover will come around half the way if its you talking, because his hurt pride won’t be involved. This is important. This is a living issue. The Americans are scuttling themselves and so war policy will soon be a live issue for all middle powers.

      Just war theory stands firm. Just war theory is unshaken by the smirking and misrepresentation of Catallaxians. There is some work that needs to be done on this matter of “imminence” that just war speaks about. Some work to be done on IMMINENCE, and I think on the main goals of war-making. But by and large the work of Grotius, Aquinas and Augustine holds up.


      I’d want to see if 1. the presumed outcome of good treatment to the defeated populace, but with 2. the outcome of microstates with a well-armed civilianry might be added to just war theory. Perhaps with 3. the victors being honor-bound to accept without tariffs, all the exports of the newly formed micro-states.

      That it may be possible to add the micro-state principle to just war theory, appears to backtest rather well in history. It appears to be an outcome that would have lead to subsequently better decades ahead. No spoils of war. No plundering. No occupation. Merely forcing a split to microstates as the only “punishment.” The victors acquiring new territory permanently may be held to be illegal under many circumstances. The legal course of action may be simply to split up the territories they conquer, and then to bugger off. Perhaps territorial gain may be possible by some procedure of a series of super-majority elections. But it ought not be the norm.

      Supposing Papua wanted our protection from Indonesia. In a series of elections where the vote was overwhelming perhaps it would be legal for them to have defacto Australian State status. But this ought be sunsetted. And also one would want international law to very much make this sort of thing the exception rather than the norm.


      I wonder if it isn’t something to do with the massive character attributes of Churchill that is making them deny the obvious. Imagine if Churchill and Lincoln were fictional characters. Lincoln is such an amazing and contradictory character, that he’s almost big enough to fit into a great Shakespearian play. And Churchill by sheer dint of his character is about the only person I can think of that is almost too big for Shakespeare. He is like Falstaff and three kings rolled into one. One wonders what Harold Bloom might have to say about this notion.

      So because of the enormity of his person, a lot of otherwise intelligent folk, perhaps cannot bring themselves to believe that he screwed up in rather large ways. Usually you see him having good instincts early on. But the Russians and Roosevelt are demanding this and that. And instead of holding firm with his superior position he always seems to cave. Its hard not to like him, and its easy to make excuses for him. Since he was basically defeated at Dunkirk. That he was even walking about running things was a bit of a bluff. Like he has his ass to wall the whole time in reality. And despite his own dire position, and that of his Empire, he mostly seemed to be thriving amongst this adversity. Like he’s the number one happiest bloke of 1940. One of the best fellows to be around at the time is what it looked like.

      And there he is enjoying himself. This uber-Falstaff. Watching movies with a group of new guests most nights. No doubt some of them produced by his propaganda unit in Hollywood. Smoking cigars, planning battles with great delight. Making all these jokes. Lecturing on History. Producing these incredible speeches, you listen to them once you are thinking “yeah, sign me up.” Setting it up so that if the Germans showed up he himself had all the equipment to be blazing away personally.

      See he’s a giant of the twentieth century. But he’s a giant as if he were a fictional character. Not a giant in terms of always making good decisions. Reagan made great decisions, and could have acted well in a Shakespearian play. But that sheer hugeness of character is not there to make much of a play with Reagan as the main character.

      So there is something of the confusion of real life and literary criticism going down, with this inability to see how this latter-day Falstaff cocked some matters up so badly. I’d want him on the team. I’d want to be having the brandies with him. But I’d want veto power over him because he made so many gaudy mistakes.

      Out of Reagan, Lincoln and Churchill it is Reagan who is the better leader. I think he learned from the other two. Set the people free without all that bloodshed.

  35. By the way Bird, CL did not accuse you of Nazi apologetics. However, he strongly disagreed with your apparent belief that Hitler was a more passive agent in the general scheme of things.

  36. I don’t have that belief that Hitler was a more passive agent. CL picked up on what the others were saying and didn’t look to what I was trying to get across. Swarming is pretty effective no matter how stupid the swarmers are. But its not THAT effective. But if the swarming is on, if the swarming is in place, if the smug swarmers are at it ……. and even ONE of the sensible people (you, CL, Rafe, Kates … and even Fleeced as a sort of junior intellectual with good instincts) comes in on the side of the swarmers, thats a deal thats almost impossible to overcome. Thats a situation I’m going to have a hard time recovering from.

    McCarthy had all the sensible peoples support at first. But it was the half-conservative BUTT-MONKEY behavior that finally finished him off. Along with the hangovers and probable assassination by poisoning that is. But the BUTTMONKEY impulse is devastating.

    “McCarthy is a bastard BUTTMONKEY he has exposed many actual communists”

    or the alternative looking over at ones shoulder at what we would call the latte set:

    “He’s done a good job getting the spies out of the state department BUTTMONKEY……….. He’s really an appalling brute and I don’t approve of his tactics”

    Its this sort of thing that finished off his influence. Although he was taking on too strong a force for him, and he really ought to have backed off for awhile. Got his health together. Gone back after the establishment in waves. You cannot hope to win by just hammering away until you yourself break. You have to work in waves I think.

    As to Hitler being passive. Out of all the human beings that has lived on earth, I would rank Hitler as the most influential WITHIN HIS OWN LIFETIME. Who would be more influential?

    If anyone it would be Stalin for expanding the Soviet Union and getting Mao into power. And I take the point of view that Stalin effectively got Hitler into power by tipping the balance in what was a closely balanced electoral situation. Still I’d have to have more facts and figures on that to prove it.

    Looking outside of the scope of Hitlers own life he doesn’t really rank as all that an influential person. Not like the Prophet Of Islam, or Aristotle or someone. Although its “too early to tell” (as the Chinaman said) whether his influence will make a comeback. Certainly he seems to have some influence in the Arab world in that Mein Kampf is usually making brisk sales around there.

    But yeah he was no passive player. He really took the bull by the horns that fellow.

    • Yes Mr B

      Don’t let those Jews tell you what to think

  37. Anti-Semitism in the lead up to WW2 wasn’t exclusive to Germany. France was at least equally anti-semitic as Germany. The US had a strong anti-semitic current. Wasn’t the Bank of America allowed to fail because it was seen as a Jewish operation? The US public didn’t care much about the Jewish problem in Germany and Europe prior to America’s entry into the war following the bombing of Pearl Harbour

    The British government and most of its citizens didn’t give a hoot about the plight of Jews in Germany and elsewhere in the build up to war or even after. Jews had long been assimilated or deracinated in British society and anti-semitism wasn’t something that occupied Brits rather indifferent minds on this question at the time.

  38. btw, Graeme, thanks for defending me against the trogs. The day I defend myself against the distortions of a Joe Cambria or Michael Fisk is the day they critique or even mildly disagree with any other bod in their circle jerk time-waster.

    • Well I think that Mike was sometimes more right then wrong in some of the arguments he had with you. But if he had stayed an on-points winner and had not lashed out at you as if you weren’t a woman to be given a woman’s due, then I wouldn’t have belatedly and hurriedly gone and wiped a lot of his gear. Much of it valid stuff. Much of it just gratuitously abusive. When you reformulated your arguments to me about Fort Bragg it came down to the phrase “Well what the fuck did these people expect after all these years.” Now I don’t expect you to back down. I’ve got to go now. Please don’t bring the subject up in my absence. If one of my friends brings up that subject …. please just let it drift until I can come back.

  39. At the very same time Sen Joseph McCarthy lobbed his bombshell about Communist agents in the US State Department, an act that culminated in the listing by the then US Attorney General of 100s of individuals and organisations described as totalitarian or communist or subservive.

    AT THE VERY SAME TIME a large group of American former European refugee Jewish scholars warned that America itself had the potential to become fascist.

    From its beginnings in 1939 a joint project between the University of California and the American Jewish Committee investigated anti-Semitism. Its findings was finally published in 1950 under the title “The Authoritarian Personality”.

    This research concluded that fascism rather than communism was the chief threat facing America in the post-war world, that fascism was finding a new home on the western side of the Atlantic and that bourgeois America and its great cities was now “the dark heart of modern civilisation”.

    The book’s other conclusion was that the Holocaust was not simply the result of Nazi thinking and its specific theories but that the rationality of Western capitalist civilisation itself was responsible.

    The authors of the report, including Theodor Adorno, found that whereas left-wing types were emotionally more stable, usually happier than their conservative counterparts, capitalism tended to throw up dysfunctional personalities, including highly authoritarian anti-Semites who linked reason to power.

    • Good post. Although I would have thought these people were full of shit at the time. Only covert ops really was the fascist threat back then since fascism just wasn’t part of the American DNA. So despite the Kennedy hit, and the hits of his brother and Martin Luther King Junior, on the local level fascism just wasn’t a part of the American nature. But I think we can say now that we have seen a fascist shift. I think there was a real fascist shift in America. And I see that fascist shift coming just before the end of the Bush administration.

  40. from the Wiki entry:

    “The personality type they identified can be defined by nine traits that were believed to cluster together as the result of childhood experiences. These traits include conventionalism, authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, anti-intraception, superstition and stereotypy, power and “toughness,” destructiveness and cynicism, projectivity, and exaggerated concerns over sex.

    C.L. doverbeach, Joe Cambria-BirdLab,Mark Hill, Michael Fisk, all the other pussy-whipped (without the sex) failed male stalwarts of Catallaxy, to a tee.

    • Now now Philomena. I have serious arguments with friends and people who I respect every so often. And I don’t like seeing them being put down too much, even by other friends. Just be aware that I may well modify your post after some time, and take CL and Fisk out of it. Although I know that Fisk has been nasty to you outright, and CL has been a bit nasty in retaliation, still you are going to have to forgive me for modifying posts that are insulting to them. I know I cannot talk. I blow my stack at these guys some times. But I calm down. And particularly when I see CL making such a sterling case against incendiary bombing.

  41. I forgot to mention the ultra-effete Jason Soon and Tillman.

  42. Hi Mr B

    It’s Ron here.

    Just remember – whenever it’s really me I’ll say “It’s Ron here”.


  43. The authors of the report, including Theodor Adorno, found that whereas left-wing types were emotionally more stable, usually happier than their conservative counterparts

    This is utter nonsense. Happiness surveys have repeatedly shown that conservatives are far more content with life than their left-wing counterparts.

  44. Lets get back to the main subject. Here we see the work of lunatics. This is the sort of thing that happens when you divert all your resources to a mass-murderer and don’t have enough kit left to fight the Japanese in a respectable way:

    “At 12:30 a.m. the main task force arrived. As LeMay had predicted, no fighters scrambled to meet them; ground fire was minimal. The B-29s began to drop their loads of pipelike canisters to fuel the growing inferno begun by the pathfinders.

    The conflagration spread and intensified, sending great whirls of superheated air high into the sky. The bomber pilots felt they were flying, one reported, “in Dante’s Inferno.” Turbulence from the fire storm raised the bombers hundreds of feet higher in the air, then sucked them down again. Fliers were sick from the bouncing.

    Then a new sensation made them vomit afresh: the sickly sweet stench of thousands of bodies burning. The fires were a funeral pyre for some hundred thousand souls. Almost half a million others were injured. Two hundred and fifty thousand buildings were destroyed in an area of about sixteen square miles.

    In the immediate aftermath of the attack, with air temperatures in the blitzed area reaching 2000 degrees, thousands of Tokyo residents jumped into the Sumida River in their frenzy to escape—only to die. Police and firemen were trampled in the panic, and thousands of refugees began to flee the city.”

    This outrage is not to be sheeted off onto Curtis Le May. Its the lunatic Roosevelt and his communist spy advisors that deliberately got into a war with Japan and yet diverted the lions share of resources, that could have been used to fight Japan, to help Stalin instead.

    These people are all monstrous war criminals. Roosevelt sacrificing his own soldiers just to get into the war. Roosevelt himself was dead within a few weeks of operation Meetinghouse. But he was the fellow who set the tone for how the Americans were to fight. Its very easy to single out and blame Le May for this. But thats really missing the point. Le May was adeptly carrying out war strategy as formulated by the lunatic Roosevelt-enemy of all mankind. Sure Le May ought to have done jail time as a war criminal. I don’t have any real animosity towards him but you have to maintain decorum.

    But that bastard Roosevelt deserved to be tortured to death.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: