MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Winston Churchill’

The United Nations and the Origins of “The Great Reset” | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on November 19, 2020

Eugenics

After the foundation of UNESCO in 1945, the English evolutionary biologist, eugenicist, and declared globalist Julian Huxley (the brother of Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World) became its first director.

At the launch of the organization,  Huxley called for a “scientific world humanism, global in extent” (p. 8) and asked to manipulate human evolution to a “desirable” end. Referring to dialectical materialism as “the first radical attempt at an evolutionary philosophy” (p. 11), the director of UNESCO laments that the Marxist approach to changing society was bound to fail because of its lack of an indispensable “biological component.”

Keynes was not alone. The list of advocates of breeding the human race for its own betterment is quite large and impressive. These “illiberal reformers” include, among many other well-known names, the writers H.G. Wells and G.B. Shaw, US president Theodore Roosevelt, and British prime minister Winston Churchill as well as the economist Irving Fisher and the family-planning pioneers Margaret Sanger and Bill Gates Sr., the father of Bill Gates, Microsoft cofounder and head of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

https://mises.org/wire/united-nations-and-origins-great-reset?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=6513cf7200-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-6513cf7200-228343965

Antony P. Mueller

About twenty-four hundred years ago, the Greek philosopher Plato came up with the idea constructing the state and society according to an elaborate plan. Plato wanted “wise men” (philosophers) at the helm of the government, but he made it also clear that his kind of state would need a transformation of the humans. In modern times, the promoters of the omnipotent state want to substitute Plato’s philosopher with the expert and create the new man through eugenics, which is now called transhumanism. The United Nations and its various suborganizations play a pivotal role in this project which has reached its present stage in the project of the Agenda 2030 and the Great Reset.

The Struggle for a World Government

The Great Reset did not come from nowhere. The first modern attempts to create a global institution with a governmental function was launched by the government of Woodrow Wilson who acted as US president from 1913 to 1921. Under the inspiration of Colonel Mandell House, the president’s prime advisor and best friend, Wilson wanted to establish a world forum for the period after World War I. Yet the plan of American participation in the League of Nations failed and the drive toward internationalism and establishing a new world order receded during the Roaring Twenties.

A new move toward managing a society like an organization, however, came during the Great DepressionFranklin Delano Roosevelt did not let the crisis go by without driving the agenda forward with his “New Deal.” FDR was especially interested in the special executive privileges that came with the Second World War. Resistance was almost nil when he moved forward to lay the groundwork for a new League of Nations, which was now to be named the United Nations.

Under the leadership of Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt, twenty-six nations agreed in January 1942 to the initiative of establishing a United Nations Organization (UNO), which came into existence on October 24, 1945. Since its inception, the United Nations and its branches, such as the World Bank Group and the World Health Organization (WHO), have prepared the countries of the world to comply with the goals that were announced at its foundation.

Yet the unctuous pronouncements of promoting “international peace and security,” “developing friendly relations among nations,” and working for “social progress, better living standards, and human rights” hides the agenda of establishing a world government with executive powers whose task would not be promoting liberty and free markets but greater interventionism and control through cultural and scientific organizations. This became clear with the creation of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1945.  

Eugenics

After the foundation of UNESCO in 1945, the English evolutionary biologist, eugenicist, and declared globalist Julian Huxley (the brother of Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World) became its first director.

At the launch of the organization,  Huxley called for a “scientific world humanism, global in extent” (p. 8) and asked to manipulate human evolution to a “desirable” end. Referring to dialectical materialism as “the first radical attempt at an evolutionary philosophy” (p. 11), the director of UNESCO laments that the Marxist approach to changing society was bound to fail because of its lack of an indispensable “biological component.”

With these ideas, Julian Huxley was in respectable company. Since the late nineteenth century, the call for the genetic betterment of the human race through eugenics has been gaining many prominent followers. John Maynard Keynes, for example, held the promotion of eugenics and population control as one the most important social questions and a crucial area of research.

Keynes was not alone. The list of advocates of breeding the human race for its own betterment is quite large and impressive. These “illiberal reformers” include, among many other well-known names, the writers H.G. Wells and G.B. Shaw, US president Theodore Roosevelt, and British prime minister Winston Churchill as well as the economist Irving Fisher and the family-planning pioneers Margaret Sanger and Bill Gates Sr., the father of Bill Gates, Microsoft cofounder and head of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

In his discourse at the foundation of the UNESCO, Julian Huxley was quite specific about the goals and methods of this institution. To achieve the desired “evolutionary progress” of mankind, the first step must be to stress “the ultimate need for world political unity and familiarize all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world organization.”

Furthermore, the institution must consider the tradeoff between the “importance of quality as against quantity” (p. 14), which means it must take into account that there is, “an optimum range of size for every human organization as for every type of organism” (p. 15). The educational, scientific, and cultural organization of the UN should give special attention to “unity-in-variety of the world’s art and culture as well as the promotion of one single pool of scientific knowledge” (p 17).

Huxley makes it clear that human diversity is not for all. Variety for “weaklings, fools, and moral deficients…cannot but be bad,” and because a “considerable percentage of the population is not capable of profiting from higher education” and also a “considerable percentage of young men” suffer from “physical weakness or mental instability” and “these grounds are often genetic in origin” (p. 20), these groups must be excluded from the efforts of advancing human progress.

In his discourse, Huxley diagnosed that at the time of his writing the “indirect effect of civilization” is rather “dysgenic instead of eugenic” and that “in any case, it seems likely that the deadweight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability, and disease-proneness, which already exist in the human species, will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved” (p. 21). After all, it is “essential that eugenics should be brought entirely within the borders of science, for as already indicated, in the not very remote future the problem of improving the average quality of human beings is likely to become urgent; and this can only be accomplished by applying the findings of a truly scientific eugenics” (pp. 37–38).

Use of the Climate Threat

The next decisive step toward the global economic transformation was taken with the first report of the Club of Rome. In 1968, the Club of Rome was initiated at the Rockefeller estate Bellagio in Italy. Its first report was published in 1972 under the title “The Limits to Growth.” 

The president emeritus of the Club of Rome, Alexander King, and the secretary of the club, General Bertrand Schneider, inform in their Report of the Council of the Club of Rome that when the members of the club were in search of identifying a new enemy, they listed pollution, global warming, water shortages, and famines as the most opportune items to be blamed on humanity with the implication that humanity itself must be reduced to keep these threats in check.

Since the 1990s, several comprehensive initiatives toward a global system of control have been undertaken by the United Nations with Agenda 2021 and Agenda 2030. The 2030 Agenda was adopted by all United Nations member states in 2015. It launched its blueprint for global change with the call to achieve seventeen sustainable development goals (SDGs). The key concept is “sustainable development” that includes population control as a crucial instrument.

Saving the earth has become the slogan of green policy warriors. Since the 1970s, the horror scenario of global warming has been a useful tool in their hands to gain political influence and finally rule over public discourse. In the meanwhile, these anticapitalist groups have obtained a dominant influence in the media, the educational and judicial systems, and have become major players in the political arena.

In many countries, particularly in Europe, the so-called green parties have become a pivotal factor in the political system. Many of the representatives are quite open in their demands to make society and the economy compatible with high ecological standards that require a profound reset of the present system. 

In 1945, Huxley (p. 21) noted that it is too early to propose outright a eugenic depopulation program but advised that it will be important for the organization “to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”

Huxley’s caution is no longer necessary. In the meantime, the branches of the United Nations have gained such a level of power that even originally minor UN suborganizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) have been enabled to command individual governments around the world to obey their orders. The WHO and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)—whose conditionality for loans has changed from fiscal restraint to the degree to which a country follows the rules set by the WHO—have become the supreme tandem to work toward establishing the new world order.

As Julian Huxley pointed out in his discourse in 1945, it is the task of the United Nations to do away with economic freedom, because “laisser-faire and capitalist economic systems” have “created a great deal of ugliness” (p. 38). The time has come to work toward the emergence “of a single world culture” (p. 61). This must be done with the explicit help of the mass media and the educational systems.

Conclusion

With the foundation of the United Nations and its suborganizations, the drive to advance the programs of eugenics and transhumanism took a big step forward. Together with the activities of the Club of Rome, they have stage to initiate the great reset that is going on currently. With the pronouncement of a pandemic, the goal of comprehensive government control of the economy and society has taken another leap toward transforming the economy and society. Freedom faces a new enemy. The tyranny comes under the disguise of expert rule and benevolent dictatorship. The new rulers do not justify their right to dominance because of divine providence but now claim the right to rule the people in the name of universal health and safety based on presumed scientific evidence. Author:

Antony P. Mueller

Dr. Antony P. Mueller is a German professor of economics who currently teaches in Brazil. Write an email. See his website and blog.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Delingpole: First They Came for the Statues. It Will Be People Next…

Posted by M. C. on June 10, 2020

Iconoclasm is undiscriminating:

Look at mobs which gather to smash monuments. These monuments may be the statues of deposed dictators who terrorized populations, causing untold death and suffering. They may be monuments to fallen soldiers who died defending causes that are no longer fashionable. The mob’s anger is the same. The viciousness and triumphant celebrations are the same.

And it almost inevitably tends towards greater violence:

The activists of today heedlessly erase history they haven’t yet learned to read. They act as the hammer that extremists use to deface the cathedrals and museums our ancestors built.

Could this hammer soon be turned from smashing statues to killing people? It has happened before.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/06/09/first-they-came-for-the-statues-it-will-be-people-next/

by James Delingpole

Perhaps not since the era of Oliver Cromwell, when Puritans smashed and burned any work of art or architecture they deemed impure, has Britain engaged in such a frenzy of iconoclasm.

Across the country, mobs of petty tyrants, puffed up with self-righteousness and moral fervour, are plotting which little piece of British history they can vandalise or destroy next. Ironic, perhaps, given Oliver Cromwell himself is now on the list of condemned statues.

In Bristol they have already succeeded with the statue of 17th-century merchant, slaver and city benefactor Edward Colston (whose statue – with the apparent acquiescence of Bristol police), they pulled from its plinth and dragged into the sea.

In London, they spray-painted (‘Racist’) a statue of Winston Churchill in Parliament Square. The statue remains upright, so far. But today they had better luck in East London with a statue of Robert Milligan, another slave trader, which was torn down from its plinth on the orders of the Canal and River Trust — supposedly in response to public demand. (There was a petition with a fairly modest 3,000 signatures)

In Oxford, they’ve revived the long-simmering campaign (copied from mob tactics used in Cape Town, South Africa) to remove a statue of Cecil Rhodes from Oriel College. Hundreds of undergraduates chanted ‘take it down’, blocked the High Street with a sit-down protest during which all but one of them took a knee for eight minutes, 46 seconds in solidarity with George Floyd…

The exception was local resident Peter Hitchens…

Here is another rare voice of dissent. She describes herself in her Twitter profile as a ‘feminist’ and a ‘Black Lives Matter’ supporter. But she recognises the irony of using racial injustice as an excuse to destroy a statue dedicated to the man who founded the Rhodes bursaries which now enable black African students to study at Oxford.

But she is the exception, not the rule. Many of those campaigning for the destruction of Oxford’s architectural heritage were themselves lucky enough to spend three years or more among the university’s dreaming spires. They don’t seem to have benefited much from the educational and cultural experience, though. Nor do they seem to have had their minds opened.

Here is one of the more notorious among them, left-wing activist Owen Jones.

And here is a left-wing professor, who sometimes takes time away from tweeting Marxist agitprop to teach at Oxford, chipping in her hot take on this ‘fearless’ vandalism.

What a shame that these vandals aren’t better versed in the history of iconoclasm. They could start by reading this superb essay — Iconoclasm and the Erasing of History — by art historian Alexander Adams.

Iconoclasm is born of rage and petulant egoism – and fuelled by ignorance…

The political activist reserves to himself the right to retrospectively edit our history for his satisfaction by removing monuments, those fixtures of civic life, embedded in the memories of generations. The activist often knows almost nothing about the object of his hatred—merely a garbled caricature of a person caught up in the conditions of her age…

It has a long, ugly history, embracing such bouts of wanton destruction and violence as Mao’s Cultural Revolution:

Buddhist and Confucian temples were razed, scrolls and books burned, statues smashed, paintings destroyed. The noble dead were dug from the earth, publicly hacked to pieces and the fragments burned. All feudal names were changed. Yongyi Song writes, “By the end of the Cultural Revolution, 4,922 of the 6,843 officially designated ‘places of cultural or historical interest’ in Beijing had been destroyed.”

Iconoclasm is undiscriminating:

Look at mobs which gather to smash monuments. These monuments may be the statues of deposed dictators who terrorized populations, causing untold death and suffering. They may be monuments to fallen soldiers who died defending causes that are no longer fashionable. The mob’s anger is the same. The viciousness and triumphant celebrations are the same.

And it almost inevitably tends towards greater violence:

The activists of today heedlessly erase history they haven’t yet learned to read. They act as the hammer that extremists use to deface the cathedrals and museums our ancestors built.

Could this hammer soon be turned from smashing statues to killing people? It has happened before.

Be seeing you

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 3 Comments »

My Corner by Boyd Cathey-As I Viewed This I Was Shaken to My Core—You Will be Also

Posted by M. C. on May 8, 2020

For Stalin there were no POWS

There were a lot of communist sympathizers in the FDR administration.

We gave away Poland (very willingly) and these poor Russians without a fight.

Do you win a war when you sell out the people you were supposed to be defending?

https://boydcatheyreviewofbooks.blogspot.com/

Friends,

It begins in muddied black and white, no voices over until about two minutes into the film. At first it may seem a bit unclear what is happening. But soon, with the first interview of a British officer, it becomes all too apparent—too graphic, too unsettling, too horrific for our minds so accustomed to the cushy prosperity and relative peace of contemporary America to fully grasp. And it is only the beginning. The online Youtube is titled “Forgotten History of World War II: Operation Keelhaul,” although the initial title in the film reads “Orders from Above.”

At the end of it we find in the credits that it was originally produced with much research by the BBC in 1975. To my knowledge it has never been screened on American television, never released in a VHS or DVD format of any kind. But it cries out, with the voices of millions of men, women and children cruelly and barbarously murdered, for acknowledgement…and for justice, even if seventy-five years too late.

It left a profound impression on me, as I think it will on you as you watch it.

In 1974-1975 many of the sealed World War II records and archives of the British Foreign Office were finally unsealed, and, in particular, the files of how our English allies forcibly shipped back to the Soviet Union and to our supposed friend in the war against Adolf Hitler, “Uncle” Joe Stalin (as he was affectionately called in the Anglo-American press), some two million plus Russians who existed within Western Europe at the end of the Second World War.

And if other nationalities that were sent to the Soviets are counted the figures mount to around five or six millions: all to become victims of Stalin’s revenge.

Not just the thousands Russians (mainly Cossacks) who had actually volunteered to fight with the Germans against Communism and for their homeland (which was their object, not really for Naziism), but hundreds of thousands of civilians, who had been forced at gunpoint to work for the Nazis as part of their war effort. And including thousands of innocent women and children, again many inducted forcibly into labor battalions. Not only that, Stalin also requested—and many times got—any Russians the Westerns powers could round up or find who had taken refuge in Western Europe prior to 1939…in other words, the many anti-Communist Russians who had left Russia after the Revolution of 1918-1920 and had been living peaceably in the West since then.

For Stalin there were no POWS: a Red Army soldier was either victorious or died for Communism (either at the hands of the enemy or by his own suicide!). Capture by the enemy was unacceptable, not acknowledged by the Soviet military. A Soviet POW was already sentenced to death if he was captured alive or surrendered. Almost certain execution, either immediately or in a gulag, lay ahead for any returned comrade.

All this—all of the forced and many times very brutal and inexpressibly horrific repatriation at the point of a bayonet or facing British machine guns took place in almost total secrecy. The English—Anthony Eden, Patrick Dean and, yes, Winston Churchill (and Franklin D. Roosevelt)—were eager to placate “Uncle Joe” and keep him happy, even if it meant the cruel death (or at the least a slow death in a gulag in Siberia) for more than two million living, breathing men and their families. “Collateral losses” was an antiseptic term used, “unfortunate necessities” is another fancy word expression…an expression to evoke just one aspect of official Allied policy at the end of the War, a policy that continued for several years, and then details about which were locked away for another thirty years.

For three decades the policy of Britain and America was to keep a rigid silence about these actions, mostly deny the existence of such incredible barbarity…at least until 1974-1975. Then English journalist, Nicholas Bethel (in his riveting volume The Last Secret: The Delivery to Stalin of Over Two Million Russians) and Count Nikolai Tolstoy in The Secret Betrayal, 1944-1947  tore back the curtain, employing the finally opened archives.  And later Tolstoy, a British citizen and distant cousin of the famous Russian novelist, authored a shattering sequel, The Minister and the Massacres (1985), which traces in a straight line who gave the orders, who were responsible for what in many ways rivalled in barbarity the crimes of our enemies in the late war.

Those millions of Russian victims of the war do not take into account  approximately maybe ten to fifteen million Eastern European German civilians (Volksdeutsche) living outside Germany forcibly moved back to the fatherland, with only clothes on their backs, as many as 2.5 million of whom perished during the frigid winter of 1945-1946, as Alfred de Zayas has documented in his scholarly yet stunning volume Nemesis at Potsdam: The Anglo-Americans and the Expulsion of the Germans: Background: Execution, Consequences (1979).

Nor do they measure the actions of us Americans after the war—documented by Canadian journalist, James Bacque in his book, Other Losses (1989). Bacque’s incredible, nearly unbelievable findings: that U.S. General Dwight D. Eisenhower intentionally caused the deaths by starvation or exposure of around a million German prisoners of war held in Western internment camps briefly after the Second World War.

How do victorious powers in a righteous war against an Evil Power responsible for immense cruelty and criminality, then establish peace, justice, and liberty after that war when they engage in similar practices of cruelty and criminality against that Evil Power, or more specifically against millions of subjects in occupied lands under that Power’s control forced into its service?

Do we not still suffer the effects of our, in many ways, continuing dalliance with Communism, and more so today, of its bastard step-children, the progressivist “woke” post-Marxist Left that so defiles and despoils our culture, denies our history, and despises and bans our heritage?

****

I pass on to you the Youtube, “Forgotten History of World War II: Operation Keelhaul.” It lasts for about one hour and a half, which I recognize is long for such a video. When I first began watching I thought only to view bits and small parts of it. But I could not stop—I could not stop listening to and seeing the still-shaken British soldiers and officers recounting how they had been ordered to bayonet soldiers and civilians and force them into blinded box cars or herded into over-crowded ships to Odessa, only to watch them brutally murdered dockside upon arrival. I could not stop viewing the searing images, the reminiscences of the few Russians who somehow managed to escape or survive.

If you don’t have a full hour and a half to watch this film immediately, just begin with a few excerpts—at about 23:00 into the film, then at about 56:00 for the next few minutes, and then finally at around 1:05:00 until the end when Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, from his monumental Gulag Archipelago is quoted. Sadly, some of the books I’ve cited are now priced terribly high (and one must wonder why that is?), but I recommend also purchasing some of them and sharing them with your family and friends. In the scheme of eternity, it’s important.

Like the British officers and the clergyman interviewed, I too am haunted by all this, I am haunted by the complicity of “civilized” nations, by people raised and annealed in the principles of our Christian faith. This film makes it all too real.

If I had a time machine for our society and culture, I would immediately send us all back prior to the First World War (for that is where the Second originated)…and I would frantically warn the Archduke Franz Ferdinand not to go to Sarajevo. I would scream from the rooftops, as in Holy Writ, that irredentism and unbridled, headless nationalism could only lead to devastation. And I would plead that all men—English Victorians, the Russian tsarists, the French republicans, the Serbian extremists—spend more time in Church asking for God’s grace and forgiveness, than on the battlefield or hurtling blood-soaked threats at their neighbors….

Here we are now in 2020, after by far the bloodiest and most unimaginably vicious century—the 20th—in human history. And in our insouciance and worldliness we pretend that the most important things are material, and we act as if God does not exist. In fact, most people probably believe in Satan more, at least in the way they act, than in Our Heavenly Father.

It cannot last…indefinitely. And we should begin, we should prepare by arming ourselves with knowledge and Faith.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=i_Y318oWTN8

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Realism & Restraint The Campaign to Lie America Into World War II

Posted by M. C. on December 7, 2019

Home/Articles/Realism & Restraint/The Campaign to Lie America Into World War II

Before Pearl Harbor, there was an elaborate British influence operation of forged documents, fake news, and manipulation.

A World War II era poster showing portraits of Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill with the title “Liberators of The World”. The poster also shows the flags of the Allies, and the sinking of the Japanese battleship Haruna. (Photo by David J. & Janice L. Frent/Corbis via Getty Images)

Seventy-eight years ago, on December 6, 1941, the United States was at peace with world. The next morning, local time, the Empire of Japan bombed the U.S. Navy base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Four days later, Nazi Germany issued a declaration of war against the United States. The American people were now unalterably involved in a global conflict that would take the lives of over 400,000 of their native sons.

But before Japan opened this door to war, the United States had been the target of an elaborate, covert influence campaign meant to push public opinion, by hook or by crook, into supporting intervention on the side of the British. Conducted by the United Kingdom’s MI6 intelligence service, it involved sometimes witting (and often unwitting) collaboration with the highest echelons of the U.S. government and media establishment.

In the early summer of 1940, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill dispatched intelligence agent William Stephenson to North America to establish the innocuous-sounding British Security Coordination (BSC). The Canadian-born Stephenson was a World War I flying ace and wealthy industrialist who had been a close Churchill confidant for several years. Adopting the codename “Intrepid” during his operations, spymaster Stephenson served as the main inspiration for James Bond (whose creator, Ian Fleming, worked with the BSC).

The BSC’s base of operations was the 35th floor of Rockefeller Center in New York City, which it occupied rent-free. The influence campaign began in April 1941, employing hundreds of agents, including well-placed individuals in front groups, the government, and polling organizations.

Intrepid had his work cut out for him.

Entering 1941, upwards of 80 percent of Americans opposed U.S. intervention in the war in Europe, a sentiment expressed through the America First Committee. Founded in September 1940 by a group of Yale students (including Gerald Ford, Sargent Shriver, and future Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart), at its peak the organization had 800,000 dues paying members and 450 local chapters spread across the country.

“The America First Committee was taking the position that we should not be involved in foreign wars, as we were in World War I,” John V. Denson, a distinguished scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute and former circuit judge in Alabama, told The American Conservative. “There was a great deal of criticism of [Woodrow] Wilson taking us into World War I, so there was strong sentiment that we were tricked into that war and therefore that we needed to stay out of European wars. That was the America First position. We didn’t want England or anyone else dragging us into another war.”

This meant that a primary goal of the BSC was to disparage and harass those Americans opposed to entering World War II. But it couldn’t do this in the open. The Fight for Freedom Committee was (like the BSC) established in April 1941 and also headquartered at Rockefeller Center. There it announced that the United States ought to accept “the fact that we are at war, whether declared or undeclared.”

In September 1941, when North Dakota Senator Gerald Nye, an anti-interventionist and scourge of the armaments industry, gave a speech in Boston, Fight for Freedom demonstrators booed and heckled him while handing out 25,000 pamphlets labeling him an “appeaser and Nazi-lover.” Similarly, when New York Congressman Hamilton Fish III, an irritable thorn in Franklin Roosevelt’s side, held a rally in Milwaukee, a Fight for Freedom member interrupted his speech to hand him a placard: “Der Fuhrer thanks you for your loyalty.” Reporters, alerted ahead of time, made sure photos of the scene were reprinted nationwide.

When Charles Lindbergh, the aviator and the America First Committee’s most popular speaker, addressed a rally at Madison Square Garden in October 1941, Fight for Freedom attempted to sow confusion by printing duplicate tickets. Lindbergh still successfully spoke to over 20,000 supporters, not including an agent provocateur who tried to cause a stir by yelling, “Hang Roosevelt!” (In actuality, it would be Lindbergh’s infamous September 11 remarks in Des Moines that would do more to damage the non-interventionist cause than any of the BSC-orchestrated hijinks.)

A 1945 study by BSC historians described their efforts: “Personalities were discredited, their unsavory pasts were dug up, their utterances were printed and reprinted…. Little by little, a sense of guilt crept through the cities and across the states. The campaign took hold.”

The rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Who Won and Who Lost WWII? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on September 6, 2019

Six years of war only to give away the prize. That is the thing about war. Even if you win, you lose.

I didn’t learn that in government school either.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/09/patrick-j-buchanan/who-won-and-who-lost-world-war-ii/

By

Sunday, the 80th anniversary of the Nazi invasion of Poland, Vice President Mike Pence spoke in Warsaw’s Pilsudski Square of “five decades of untold suffering and death that followed” the invasion. Five decades!

What Pence was saying was that, for Poland, World War II did not end in victory but defeat and occupation by an evil empire ruled by one of the greatest mass murderers of the 20th century, Josef Stalin.

The “Liberation of Europe,” the 75th anniversary of which we celebrated at Omaha Beach on June 6, was a liberation that extended only to the Elbe River in the heart of Germany.

Beyond the Elbe, the Nazis were annihilated, but victory belonged to an equally evil ideology, for the “liberators” of Auschwitz had for decades run an archipelago of concentration camps as large as Himmler’s.

So, who really won, and who lost, the war?

Winston Churchill wanted to fight for Czechoslovakia at Munich in 1938, and Britain went to war for Poland in 1939. Yet if both nations ended up under Bolshevik rule for half a century, did Britain win their freedom? And if this was the predictable result of a war in a part of Europe where Nazis confronted Bolsheviks, why did Britain even go to war?

Why did Britain declare war for a cause and country it could not defend? Why did Britain turn a German-Polish war into a world war that would surely bankrupt her and bring down her empire, while she could not achieve her declared war goal — a liberated and independent Poland?

What vital British interest was imperiled by Hitler’s retrieval of a port city, Danzig, that had been severed from Germany against the will of its 300,000 people and handed to Poland at Versailles in 1919?

Danzigers never wanted to leave Germany, and 90% wanted to return. Even the British Cabinet thought Germany had a case and Danzig should be returned.

Why then did Britain declare war?

Because Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain had insanely given the Poles a blank check, a war guarantee on March 31, 1939: If Germany uses force to retrieve Danzig, and you resist, we will fight at your side.

Britain’s war guarantee guaranteed the war.

Given the cause for which their country went to war, British actions during the war seem inexplicable…

Rather than attack Hitler after he invaded Poland, Britain and France remained behind the Maginot Line and waited until Hitler’s armies stormed west on May 10, 1940, the day Churchill took power.

In three weeks, the British army had been defeated and thrown off the continent. In six weeks, France had surrendered.

After Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain in 1940, Britain refused all of Hitler’s offers to end the war, holding on till June 1941, when Hitler turned on his partner Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union.

Churchill is the “man of the century” for persuading Britain to stand alone against Nazi Germany in 1940, Britain’s “finest hour.”

But at war’s end, what was the balance sheet of Churchill?

The Poland for which Britain had gone to war was lost to Stalinism and would remain so for the entire Cold War. Churchill would be forced to accede to Stalin’s annexation of half of Poland and its incorporation into the Soviet Bloc. To appease Stalin, Churchill declared war on Finland.

Britain would end the war bombed, bled and bankrupt, with her empire in Asia, India, the Mideast and Africa disintegrating. In two decades it would all be gone.

France would end the war after living under Nazi occupation and Vichy rule for five years, lose her African and Asian empire and then sustain defeats and humiliation in Indochina in 1954 and Algeria in 1962.

Who really won the war?

Certainly, the Soviets who, after losses in the millions from the Nazi invasion, ended up occupying Berlin, having annexed the Baltic states and turned Eastern Europe into a Soviet base camp, though Stalin is said to have remarked of a 19th-century czar, “Yes, but Alexander I made it to Paris!”

The Americans, who stayed out longest, ended the war with the least losses of any great power. Yet, America is a part of the West, and the West was the loser of the world wars of the last century.

Indeed, the two wars between 1914 and 1945 may be seen as the Great Civil War of the West, the Thirty Years War of Western Civilization that culminated in the loss of all the Western empires and the ultimate conquest of the West by the liberated peoples of their former colonies.

Be seeing you

World War II Allies—British Prime Minister Winston ...

Disgust-Def: Giving away the farm to “Uncle Joe”.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »