The Greater Israel Project: Germany’s Shabbos Goys Have Outlawed Burning the Israeli Flag

The influx into Palestine of German capital in Jewish hands will facilitate the building up of a Jewish state, which runs counter to German interests; for this state, instead of absorbing world Jewry, will someday bring about a considerable increase in world Jewry’s political power.

German Ministry of Foreign Affairs note from 10 March 1938- “The Holocaust” (1968), p. 131

Any criticism of Israel for their vile treatment and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people is effectively becoming illegal thanks to all the ZOG-controlled governments of the world. These Shabbos goy governments are equating any criticism of Israel to the convenient Jewish canard of antisemitism. The surreptitious reason for this is because it helps insulate Jews even more from anyone denouncing all their savage and inhumane actions toward the Palestinian people in Israel.

An antisemitic rally where an Israeli flag was torched caused German lawmakers on Thursday to pass legislation outlawing the burning of all foreign flags within the borders of the federal republic.
 
The Jerusalem Post reviewed the 16-page change in German law that imposes a criminal penalty that could lead to a three year prison term for flag burning.
 
The Social Democratic Party faction wrote in the proposed law ahead of its passage “that the draft law and the coalition factions’ amendment were not about restricting freedom of expression. Rather, a clear criminal law barrier should be set and a gap in criminal law should be closed. It was unbearable and unacceptable for the flag of the State of Israel to be burned in public.”


The main triggering event for the legislation was a 2017 demonstration in Berlin, in which 2,500 people, most of whom were German Muslims, protested against US President Donald Trump’s decision to relocate the US embassy to Israel’s capital, Jerusalem. The protesters torched an Israeli flag, prompting police at the time to initiate investigations into 11 people in connection with the flag burning.
 
According to the “justification” section of the legislation, the law to criminalize flag burning was extended “to any disparaging destruction of flags of foreign countries.” According to the justification, this is intended to react to events in December 2017: “A public demonstration in Berlin in that participants burned the Israeli flag and chanted corresponding slogans had become an antisemitic rally.”

ZOG’s plan is to eradicate any opposition to Zionism’s ultimate goal of conquering the land from the Nile to the Euphrates. This is known as the ‘Greater Israel’ project.

In his Complete Diaries, Vol. II. p. 711, Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, says that the area of the Jewish State stretches:

“From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”


Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared in his testimony to the U.N. Special Committee of Enquiry on 9 July 1947:

“The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”

https://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815

They based this idea on Genesis 15:18:

“The Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying unto thy seed have I given this land from the river of Egypt [the Nile] unto the great river, the River Euphrates.”

Since Donald Trump is also a Shabbos goy, he absolutely supports the Greater Israel project:

Trump’s “Deal of the Century” is supportive of the “Greater Israel” project, which also consists in the derogation of Palestinians’ “right of return” by “naturalizing them as citizens of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere regionally where they reside”.


Bear in mind: The Greater Israel design is not strictly a Zionist Project for the Middle East, it is an integral part of US foreign policy, its strategic objective is extend US hegemony as well as fracture and balkanize the Middle East.


Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is intended to trigger political instability throughout the region.  


https://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815h
Trump makes historic visit to Western Wall - CNNPolitics

We must never believe when these seemingly innocuous events occur that they are not part of a larger coordinated Zionist strategy. These Jews are amazing at what they do, so we should give them the credit they deserve. This effort to allay any criticism is categorically an organized action and will continue to be implemented for as long as ZOG exists.

About Trey Knickerbocker 43 Articles
BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/8St52s6ALTnv YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCw0zucbeAiABlOHD4kVT_Lw

155 Comments

  1. Probably done with the support of the “far right” politicians. The National Front in France supported the banning of pro-Palestinian protests in 2014, as a measure against “antisemitic leftist muslims”, but then whined hysterically when the Jewish Defense League was banned. When a White Third Positionist was banned a year earlier they said nothing, of course.

    Most of the big “nationalist” parties in Europe are nationalist only for Israel. Only NazBols, Strasserists and some other groups in eastern Europe truly defend the indigenous populations of Europe.

    • The only reason I care about what’s happening to the Palestinians is because it could be used as leverage against the Jews. Other than that I’m as indifferent as most whites are to their demographic demise. As for the Jews quelling any form of resistance in a foreign country, particularly that of Germany, I must say their audacity and brazenness never ceases to amaze me. The German people have suffered enough at the hands of Organized Jewry. Burning the Israeli flag should be a daily occurrence.

  2. I know I’ve mentioned this before, but it bears repeating:

    This kind of thing wouldn’t be possible without the Holohoax narrative.

    No way, no how.

    • Absolutely not. The biggest lie of the 20th Century and beyond. Of course, the even bigger lie is the origins of these so-called Ashke N A Z I.

      The future does look brighter because one mention of The Yinon Plan not that long ago would have caused “Jack Ryan” to attack and remind one of the rules of engagement here on OD. Not one peep from the man with a hundred names these days.

    • @SC Rebel…

      “This kind of thing wouldn’t be possible without the Holohoax narrative. No way, no how.”

      ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

      I respectfully disagree.

      In The West, where force cannot be used, governments get much of what they want done either by sneaking around the law, suncontracting out, or constructing narratives.

      Be assured : ———- if it were not the Holocaust Narrative narrative, then they would construct another for the same purpose.

      Of course, it is a Jewish narrative, because it’s operating principle is guilt, which is precisely how a Jewish mother works on her offspring – never by force, always by incentives and guilt…

      • “if it were not the Holocaust Narrative narrative, then they would construct another for the same purpose.”

        And if your mother had wheels, she’d be a bicycle.

    • ‘This kind of thing wouldn’t be possible without the Holohoax narrative.
      No way, no how.”

      More than anybody, you can thank the Nazis for this. Their behavior across Occupied Europe was such that it gave any future form of White Nationalism, or Gentile Nationhood, if you will, such a black eye, that we are STILL unable to get off the mat.

      Zionists & Nazis are two sides of the same coin – each feeding off and on each other, while everyone else suffers the side-effects.

      • Ivan,

        If they’re lying about the Holohoax, they’re lying about a lot of things. The trouble has always been the media and the reporting of so-called “news” by all entities including government.

        According to the letters he wrote to his wife (released by his wife), Patton told her that what she was hearing over here was not what he was seeing over there.

        • @Snowhitey…

          A lot of horrible things happened in Europe, and especially, Eastern Europe, at the behest of The Nazis.

          I do not need to rely on The Media for this, I have lived in Europe, and spoken to many people in more than a few countries, who lived through those terrible days.

          To say that Nazis committed huge atrocities should not be a taboo, anymore than saying the same of Allied Bombing campaigns (pure terrorism) or the vile Russian behavior in Eastern Europe, particularly in the East Prussian area where millions were killed, raped, and many more millions made homeless.

          As to Patton : – he was not in those areas, at the time these things were happening.

          But, yes, we are lied to, and, beyond even that, we are fed so much spin that what is true even starts to seem a lie.

          Unfortunately, a controlled media is what we have had for about 75 years , and it is going to take some time to dig out from under that.

          That said, I give the Blue Ribbon to the Nazi German government for showing the most amount of disrespect to the most amount of people in WWII. The Red Ribbon is a split between Russia and Japan.

          If they had only been friendly and down-home kind to the people in the East, it would be a very different world today.

          Thank you for your comment and God bless you and yours!

          • The statement about Patton obviously has a much broader meaning than just the areas he was stationed in.

      • That’s a false cuckservative boomer narrative. Anti-white forces were growing in power rapidly long before anyone had heard of Hitler.

  3. The Talmudic Canannite and Edomite Jews have fooled most of the people on this planet.

    But Christ told the world who they really were and yet most people still don’t give a rip even at their own perial.

      • Hitler should have never invaded poland it was the excuse Churchill was looking for to go to war with Germany. Also why was Hitler so anti polish to begin with? I am seriously confused of his hate for Poles poland has for centuries been anti-heeb

        If he seriously hated ussr strangehold of Bolshevik Zionist power you don’t go an annex a country and work with stalins red army. Faceplam at AH masterplan of working hand in hand with commies and trying to be a friend to stalin huge backfire and a question of loyalties to his own ideologies of natsoc

        • Thom,

          As far as I am aware it was only a temporary truce between both Germany and the Soviet Union. I doubt if anyone at the highest levels in both countries took their temporary treaty as sincere and long lasting. Germany wanted some of their land back from Poland. The two belief systems are not compatible.

          By Latin Catholic standards I consider the Polish Catholics to have been soft on Jews. Poland was frequently called the Jewish Paradise. I heard an old tape from Fr. Malachi Martin on this as well as read an article under Golden Liberty in Poland.

          It was pointed out to me that the Poles were overly anxious for war with Germany with their British and French support. They also either did or supposedly did cross over into Germany in numerous border incidents as provocation. It was supposedly admitted that one of the raids were fake but that was after Germans were tortured by the usual battery cables to the testicle routine. Other border invasions by Poland were never refuted as far as I am aware.

          There is plenty of information out there on all of this. You can find them if you look. Either way I am not going to get bogged down over re-fighting WW2 so I only give this information out that you will hopefully enjoy.

          As an aside:
          You might have noticed that Britain and France did not declare War on the Soviet Union despite the Soviet invasion of Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and Finland in 1939—all by force of arms.

          • Good response, Cristina. As I’m sure you are also aware, The Jewish dominated Soviet NKVD massacred more than 20000 Polish officers and civilians in 1940. This incident became known as Katyn massacre, named after the forest where the mass graves were discovered.

            Most of the victims were actually butchered in a Smolensk slaughterhouse. This form of execution points to Talmudic racial hatred on the part of the killers.

            The US and UK governments had for long helped the Soviets to cover up this massacre, and blame the Germans instead.

          • As an aside:
            You might have noticed that Britain and France did not declare War on the Soviet Union despite the Soviet invasion of Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and Finland in 1939—all by force of arms.

            Cristina,

            The United Ku¢kdom, and it’s little junior partner in crime, has-been France — were the two entities most responsible for causing BOTH world wars — due to them being the personal property of the Rothschilds, and the Freemasons in general.

        • @Thom…

          MY PHYSICAL TAKE ON HITLER…

          He analyzed the problems of The Weimar Republic correctly; that he came up with a complex formula to remedy the badly out of whack domestic situation, and then campaigned and politicked brilliantly to get enough power to enact those things.

          As to his foreign policy – it had moments of brilliant insight and judgement, though, in the end, was marred by his uniquely problematic psyche, most prominently his needs to play out his inner conflicts through national war, and, as pertains to The Poles, or, indeed, all of the non-Germanic central and Eastern European Peoples, his vanity – that being a general distaste for all things not Anglo-Saxe, and a desire to raise himself, in his mind, and by proxy, his tribe.

          To describe his treatment of Eastern European Peoples, not to mention the bulk of individual Jews, Homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Gypsies, political dissenters, and those with mental defects and or Down Syndrome as callous, would be generous in the extreme.

          ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

          MY METAPHYSICAL TAKE ON HITLER…

          i agree with what has been continually asserted by postwar Ultra-Orthodox rabbis : that he came about as a direct result of the craven misbehavior of ungodly Jews, (in other words – raised by God) and, as such, he, and his work, exhibited blessings in the results that his pre-war policies exercised in Germany that are hard to analyze in sheerly quantifiable terms.

          However, when Hitler began to grossly misbehave in The East, God brought the cold & snows down upon his armies in Mother Russia, harder than had been seen in a century, and one month earlier, October 11 to be precise, something which ultimately spelled the failure of Operation Barbarossa, and the doom of The 3rd Reich.

          The legacy of Hitler and Nazism has been Israel, a transnational Zionist Empire the likes of which the world has never seen, Open Borders, A Universal Homosexual Movement, and the undoing of the European Gentile nations, they now decades long languishing under the Nazi public relations nightmare that Jewry, if taken as a whole, has been able to concert to their advantage and foist upon them to successfully mitigate, diminish, suppress, repress,mutilate, and potentially destroy their existences, included in that, of course, The United States’ of America.

          CONCLUSION…

          If what you advocate and do is not godly, God will either take vengeance on you, or allow it to be taken by the kharma you create for you and yours.

          And so the question remains : ———- will either Zionists or Nazis, if taken as a whole, ever fathom this and, thus, make appropriate redress to their behavior?

          • If what you advocate and do is not godly, God will either take vengeance on you

            True. The Confederates lost their war because they, too, were “ungodly”.

          • @Cockburn…

            If you know your history, you will know that what was lost by the Confederate Government by 1865, was largely recouped by what has been called, The War of Reconstruction; that a decentralized guerilla war waged all of Dixie by Confederate veterans (organized as The Scarlet Knights of The Ku Klux Klan) and their many sympathizers against The United States’ Government, between the year 1865-1877, after which The South became sovereign again.

            As to those who fought for The United States Government (Federals) being in such a way as that the Good Lord would consider them ‘godly’, their conduct (burning and pillaging of Southern towns, women ,and farms, the pre-war profiteering of the slave trade, and then their refusal to honour the surrender at Appomattox would obviously disqualify them for that.

            Moreover, their is nothing remotely ‘godly’ about The New England Yankee United States’ Government and it’s villainy allover the world.

            No, Cockburn, The Confederate government lost the war for one reason, and one reason alone – it refused to adopt a strategy which was commensurate to it’s abilities and resources, because of it’s sense of propriety.

            Again, however, that was made good on by The Scarlet Knights of The Ku Klux Klan.

            The South would remain sovereign, blessed by it’s own efforts and The Good Lord, until it made the fateful decision to heed the unconstitutional judicial decisions made in the period of the late 1940s through the 1970s.

            In any case, thank you for taking the time to comment.

          • So, I guess the actions taken and tens of millions killed by the Soviet Union long before and long after WW2 were “Godly”. “God” could have used the Western Empires to serve justice, but no such thing ever happened.

          • Ivan,

            I know my history, and I know that the Confederates were fighting to establish an independent nation, with dreams of creating a vast slave empire extending to South America. They failed and never again attempted another secession.

            As to those who fought for The United States Government (Federals) being in such a way as that the Good Lord would consider them ‘godly’

            The Federal soldiers fought in such a way that the Good Lord did indeed give them victory over their foes.

            The Confederate government lost the war for one reason

            The reason being that they were waging an unjust war of aggression against the Northern States.

          • @Cockburn…

            “The Confederate government lost the war for one reason”

            ‘The reason being that they were waging an unjust war of aggression against the Northern States.’

            …………………………………………………………………………………………………..

            Yes, Cockburn, I noticed how, in waging an unjust war of aggression against The Northern States, Southern Armies attacked New York before the 1st Battle at Manassas, and then burned and pillaged their way around New England, stealing every silverware service that was not hidden in the woods for 4 years and ‘liberating’ their servants, so that they could be rehired for a starvation wage with no medical care.

            Good thing The Northerners of that day were good and Godly!

          • burned and pillaged their way around New England, stealing every silverware service that was not hidden in the woods

            They would have done all that, if they had the ability to do so. “Stonewall” Jackson actually advocated such a policy.

            The Confederates attempted to invade Arizona and Colorado Territories, Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Every attempt ended in failure. The good and Godly people of the North had seen to that.

          • @Cockburn…

            “”burned and pillaged their way around New England, stealing every silverware service that was not hidden in the woods”

            They would have done all that, if they had the ability to do so. “Stonewall” Jackson actually advocated such a policy.”

            …………………………………………………………………………………………………

            You’re absolutely right about that. However, you fail to mention that Jackson’s idea was rejected by the upper levels of The Confederate Government – this namely by Davis and Lee.

            No such equivalent existed in the New England Yankee United States’ government, which, at every turn, committed war crimes on Southern soil.

            And, by the way, this is perfectly consistent today – The New England Yankee United States’ Government violating The Constitution, International Law, and basic ethics, in it’s behavior, both at home and abroad, all the while according to itself motives, kindnesses, and proprieties it has has no credentials for.

            Ungodly is all of that, far more ungodly than anything The South has ever done, though, sadly, we have become complicit in y’alls’ madnesses.

            No, I certainly accept the fact that there are many fine Yankees, with some of whom I served, and some of whom have been my dear friends, but, y’all’s government is the very antithesis to godly.

            The War Between The States was not a Southern Aggression, as you have described, but as General Joe Gordon of Georgia described, ‘a war in which The South tried to protect y’all’s Constitution against y’all.’

            We failed, the tragedies of which is on view day after day, not just in Dixie, and not just in Yankeeland, but, throughout the world.

          • Since the the south planned and initiated the war, fired the first shots, and repeatedly tried to invade the North, it was indeed a Southern Aggression.

            Also, it’s the southerners who have always violated the Constitution, international law and basic ethics, both at home and abroad.

            BTW, I don’t know why you are ranting about New England. New England is a region of the United States. It’s not the US government, never was, not in 1860, and certainly not now.

          • @Coickburn…

            I like your quoting of Toombs on Sumter.

            I agree that South Carolina attacking it, though logical because it was South Carolina, was poor strategy,

            As for everything else you said, I do not agree, nor did our forefathers agree with your views, either in 1861 or in 1789.

            Thank you for having taken the time to read and comment.

        • If you do some research, you will discover that Hitler was not “anti-Polish”. Things might have turned out very differently if Pilsudski had lived a bit longer. Hitler had originally wanted them to join an alliance. Several magnanimous offers were made which the Poles rejected because they now had the backing of the war-mongering British and hoped to gain even more German territory. Look up East Prussia if you don’t know anything about it. The “chopping off” a piece of German territory and completely separating it from the nation proper was an insane, treacherous, and unconscionable act without precedence in the modern era.

          • If you do some research, you will discover that Hitler was not “anti-Polish”. Things might have turned out very differently if Pilsudski had lived a bit longer. Hitler had originally wanted them to join an alliance. Several magnanimous offers were made which the Poles rejected because they now had the backing of the war-mongering British and hoped to gain even more German territory. …@Powell

            ===

            That’s sooo right what you are saying, Powell.

            Chancellor Hitler had tremendous respect for Marshall Josef Pilsudski, the heroic military architect of the “Miracle on the Vistula” during the 1920 Soviet-Polish war, that the Poles so righteously won, even though they were completely surrounded by the apes of the Red army.

            It was the uber-$wine, the Freemasonic bitch of the British and the French, Rydz-Smigly, who replaced Pilsudski, and Polish foreign minister Josef Beck (I know, a German Polack), who steered Poland in a terrible, anti-German way that prevented the two nations from being friends, comrades and allies in a united front against satanic Bolshevism.

            Poland, and her great, noble military, would, AND SHOULD HAVE, been a member, a first class member, of the Anticomintern Pact — the anticommunist military alliance.

            If Poland had a true nationalist leader at the time like Pilsudski, instead of the Freemason Anglo-French stooges like Smigly and Beck, the German & Polish armies would have SOUNDLY defeated, and FOREVER DESTROYED, Bolshevism and the Soviet Union.

            Again, it was Britain, and their French poodles, who were the entities MOST RESPONSIBLE for causing the brothers’ wars in Europa.

          • Since the the south planned and initiated the war, fired the first shots, and repeatedly tried to invade the North, it was indeed a Southern Aggression. @Cockburn

            ===

            You’re being mendacious here.

            Fort Sumter was a Southern fort, and the South Carolinians wanted to rightfully take possession of it, but the dictator Lincoln wouldn’t relinquish it, and in fact, as we all know, tried to re-provision it by sending Federal warships.

            Lincoln clearly was the aggressor here, attempting, and succeeding into provoking a Southern reaction, which was well within their legal, sovereign right to do so.

          • You are the mendacious one here, Virtus.

            Fort Sumter was a Federal property. South Carolina didn’t have the right to forcibly take possession of it. They attacked Ft. Sumter to provoke a reaction from Lincoln so that Virginia and other states might join the Confederacy.

            This was an act of aggression. It was recognised as such by none other than the Confederate Secretary of State Robert Toombs:

            “Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet’s nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal.”

          • Fort Sumter was a Federal property. South Carolina didn’t have the right to forcibly take possession of it. @Cockburn

            ===

            Fort Sumter was in Charleston Harbor, the capital city of South Carolina, so it was the rightful property of the newly seceded government of the State of South Carolina, and the Confederacy. The secession of S. Carolina was at least de facto recognized by Washington, so Lincoln had absolutely no right or justification in not relinquishing it, and especially not attempting to re-provision it.

            And yes, the South Carolina, like any other state, had A RIGHT to leave the “Union” — since, by America’s founding charter, we were supposed to be a voluntary union — one NOT kept together by tyrannical force.

            The Confederacy was truly more in keeping of the original spirit of America … just as we claimed our independence from Britain, the South wanted it’s independence from the transcendentalist Yankees of the North (especially from New England), who were, at the very least, diverged into a profoundly different culture, than the culture that was more shared by the 13 original colonies.

          • Ft. Sumter was ceded to the United States
            by the state of South Carolina, by a resolution passed in the South Carolina Legislature in December, 1836. The resolution stated:

            “Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and
            claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory”

            Thus, Ft. Sumter was the rightful property of the US government, not South Carolina. The attack on Ft. Sumter was an act of war, as even the Confederate Secretary of State acknowledged.

            And, no, the Confederacy was not in keeping with the original spirit of America. The thirteen original colonies wanted independence from Britain, and they successfully gained independence from Britain. The Confederates, on the other hand, wanted to create a vast empire of Negro slaves including Mexico and South America. The miserably failed in their purpose. The Confederates were losers, bad losers.

    • Thats not even close to true and you know it, but certainly he wouldn’t stand for Zionist imperial rule and their tricks. The Sadducees were early day Zionists in a basic sense which he opposed

      • Again, what is the promise of the Jew religion to the Jew people?

        answer—the promise of the jew religion to the jew people is the subjugation, the enslavement of the non-Jew.

        Now Christ was the son of God which means he had all the power of God. Christ could have meet the demands and expectations the Jews had for their messiah, he was the son of God, but he chose to die instead. Christ rejected the Jews,the Jew people and the goals and ambitions of the Jew religion in the name of God almighty. Why do you think the Jews hate him so much professor??

  4. Take back your loathsome government, Germans. Surely you have one more fight remaining in you. If not, you will be gone from this Earth quicker than you think.

  5. The plan to build a new Temple, and to build it in place of the Golden Mosque is becoming mainstream in Israel. The fake Islamic regimes running Egypt, Jordan, Arabia, Turkey etc. may protest but they will allow it.

  6. Given the unconstitutional pro-Zionist laws that were recently passed in South Carolina and Georgia, I cannot say that what The German Government has done seems all that novel.

  7. The jews would love to have all of Germany’s pro-jewish laws here in the US – jail for denying the Holocaust, burning the Israeli flag, criticizing Israel, anti-BDS laws – all of it – that pesky 1st Amendment gets in their way even though they are often successful in neutering it a little at a time.

    • Once there is a 5 – 4 majority on the Supreme Court with the majority appointed by a Democrat president and approved by a Democrat majority Senate it’s goodbye 1st and 2nd amendments, hello so called “hate speech” laws. The UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have set the template for doing this in all countries that were part of the British Empire, except the U.S., for now at least. Much as DJT has been a disappointment on many things, his two Supreme Court appointments have been good so far and infuriated the Democrats and also the Republican establishment by blocking the left wing agenda, such as “hate speech” laws.

      The Republicans are cucks, they hate DJT but don’t have an ounce of courage amongst them to oppose the appointment of justices such as Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. Had a cuck like Jeb! or Mitt Romney (AKA Pierre Delecto) been elected they would have traded away both Supreme Court picks for trifles and “hate speech” laws would have been ruled constitutional. The Republican establishment is more scared of the abuse DJT will hurl at them by opposing him than they are of the Democrats, at least for now so they go along with DJT’s appointments.

      Let’s hope RBG is the next one to croak so DJT can get another Supreme Court appointment. If that happens it will lock down the Supreme Court for a long time. “Hate speech” laws are the final step in the legal process of ending opposition to the 1960’s revolution that was formalized by the the so called “civil rights” laws. If there were “hate speech” laws the Usual Suspects i.e. $PLC, ADL, NAACP etc.would write the laws and arbitrarily bankrupt and jail white people with those laws.

  8. Poland, in particular, should have realized by now that the “West” is the Israeli/Jew Empire. They have suffered demands that Israel be given veto power over Polish laws. (Poland’s attempt to criminalize blaming Poland for WWII events. Jews yelled “freedom of speech,” although they are curiously silent in the face of holocaust denial laws criminalizing speech.) They hear demands from Israel and its US colony that Poland compensate jews for property lost during the war and socialism. More shakedowns. Etc. Etc.

    If the USSR had not collapsed the US would not have dared to bomb the hell out of Serbia or to destroy Libya or to invade, kill a million and occupy Iraq. What a shame.

    I fear that a second Trump term would bring more war for Israel, crackdowns on criticism of Israel, and US recognition and approval of Israeli annexation of lands seized by force of arms (a war crime) and mass ethnic cleansing, all paid for by the US.

    • The collapse of the USSR was a great tragedy, orchestrated by Jews, that led to the end of sovereignty for any nation seeking to resist Jewish power.

  9. The ruling party in Germany is the Roman Catholic Christian Democrat Party. Before Hitler they were known as the Zentrum Party. In Bavaria the Christian Democrats are known as the Christian Social Union.

  10. “Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is intended to trigger political instability throughout the region. ”

    It could be, though, I tend to think it is more likely to reward Sheldon Adelson for the massive support the Las Vegas casino mogul has given him.

    Some backers want positions in the government others want policies.

    Mr. Adelson has clearly been in favour of Jerusalem as the capital for a long time.

  11. @Ivan Turgenev,

    Sorry, but I have to disagree on your take on National Socialism.

    NS Germany was thriving and healthier than any other country on the European continent culturally, economically, and environmentally. It was the British Anglos in their alliance with international Jewish bankers that pushed for war with Germany.

    At the beginning of the war, Germany was producing only 38 tanks a month; not the output of war material you’d expect from a nation seeking to fight a world war.

    Once the jew controlled British and French declared war on Germany, the Germans were in an existential crisis for survival as a folk and government based on the prior war and their treatment by the French and British. If they dealt harshly with partisans, they would be no different than any other nation at war.

    I will agree with you that the occupation on the Slavic countries wasn’t done well. They should have behaved as liberators instead of conquerors. In contrast, Parisians didn’t object to life under German occupation because of the ‘white glove’ treatment they were shown.

    If you are referring to concentration camps as something that has tainted National Socialism for eternity, that would also put every communist country (wartime or not) in that category, along with Imperial Britain treatment of the Boers and democratic England’s death camps in postwar Germany. Of course, democratic America put its Japanese citizens into interment camps after the Pearl Harbor attack, and though it’s not taught or brought up in American history classes, Eisenhower’s death camps killed and murdered more German civilians and POWS than he European Red Cross and captured By the USSR documents say perished in Himmler’s camps. Wouldn’t that make imperialism, communism, and democracy as tainted by their barbarism as anything the Germabs were accused of doing?

    Southern whites we only too happy to throw off their klan robes and hoods to go kill “krauts ” for America’s own Anglo-zionist nexus in Washington D.C. This was a queer reaction by southerners considering that before FDR was president, the kkk was at its zenith of popularity and political power, but in the postwar years ZOG turned against southern white supremacy. The National Socialists would have been the best friend Dixie ever had, but the Anglo southerners fell in behind their BFF jews, and let a federal crisis go to waste when they could have seceded from the union.

    I think you got your groups mixed up. It is southern white supremacy and Ashkenazi Zionism that are two sides of the same coin. Heck, contemporary southern evangelicals love them some zionism like no other Gentiles on earth, all the while Ashkenazi zionists despise and undermine southern nationalists at every turn.

    Have a nice day, and bless your heart.

    1488

    • @INovember…

      “NS Germany was thriving and healthier than any other country on the European continent culturally, economically, and environmentally. It was the British Anglos in their alliance with international Jewish bankers that pushed for war with Germany”

      ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

      No, we don’t disagree about your statement here.

      That said, Hitler did not die in 1938, but, 7 years later, this after his government had deported, tortured, starved, burned, and killed tens of millions of White Brothers in other European countries that left a legacy which has lifted Zionism to a completely ascendent position over said nations.

      Moreover, I agree with you that it made no sense that Southern Whites go fight Nazis, but, there again, it was Hitler who misplayed all that.

      In the end, however, I have seen this over and over again, for, whether Nazi or not, Northerners often are frustrated to find there are Southerners who want out of their United states of America.

      Though we wish y’all the very best, we do want out.

      Thank you for the blessings, I appreciate them!

  12. Qt,

    Thank you for your thoughtful response. My brother mentioned to me that Putin actually owned up and admitted that the Soviets committed the crime. At a library in Texas last year I read an American book published in the early 21st century that self-righteously was still blaming Germany for the crime of the Katyn massacre.

    Sometimes when I read a history book I consider it as realistic as the cartoons my younger brothers and sisters watch.

    • Very smart of you. Most people your age aren’t nearly as discerning. Well, actually, most people your age don’t even read.

      • Powell,

        Thank you for writing that. I am being exquisitely educated. I also am not a one girl show. I have family who know things. I ask or look things up in our library. All the traditional Catholic priests I know are quite knowledgeable and speak freely at gatherings.

        Some of my girl friends can also hold their own as well. Still I have been here around 1 year and have improved. I sometimes have gone back and looked at some of my comments last year and they seem so childish I blush.

  13. Virtus,

    Always a pleasure to hear from you and thank you for the information.

    • @Cristina…

      Take note of November’s comment – Naziism was good and upright for the world and The Lord God was absent from the whole affair.

      How does that fit into the worldview of an aristocratic Mexican Roman Catholic lady?

      • Ivan Turgenev,

        From a Traditional Catholic viewpoint only the defined dogmas of the Church and their practice would be considered good. God is always present but he allows freedom of will of individuals and countries to do good or bad.

        I do know that we had a Concordant in 1933 with National Socialist Germany that the Pope defended even after the war. A Concordant means that a country officially meets all the requirements that the Church demands in order to be legitimate.

        Such a traditional Concordant never could have or did occur with a Protestant/Moslem/Jewish/ Communist country. Nor the freemasonic USA. I believe relations between the Vatican and the USA were suspended from 1860’s until the 1980’s because of how anti-Catholic the usa is.

        Catholicism and Americanism are not compatible. When the Church still was the Church Americanism and individualism were condemned as mortal sins repeatedly. In contrast one could be a National Socialist party member without sinning.

        Remember i am not saying that NS Germany never did wrong. Men always sin rather their causes are good, bad, in between or they have no cause at all. Everyone in the war committed massive atrocities.

        So since my religion did not condemn National Socialism as evil in itself I cannot either. I am not allowed private opinions on such matters. I will condemn any evil any person or cause does however.

        The NS views on the Jews were derived from us Catholics like distinctive clothing etc. If fact several Church Councils and rulings said that we could and should enslave Jews and Moslems while naturally they could not enslave us.

        Our most intellectual Saint———-St. Thomas Aquinas said also that according to justice and the workings of men that Jews should be deprived of everything except the basic necessities of life and enslaved. Modern Conservative Catholics are embarrassed by this.
        At times we even had the one drop blood rule like from 1593-1946 no jesuit could have any Jewish or Moslem blood.

        As late as 1969 a priest in Spain could not say a mass in public at a Cathedral because he was impure.

        In conclusion as a Catholic girl I can only repeat that only God is good and only his Church is holy. It goes downhill fast after that.

        • @Cristina…

          First, let me thank you for your very thoughtful and generous reply!

          ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

          #1. “I do know that we had a Concordant in 1933 with National Socialist Germany that the Pope defended even after the war.”

          #2. “The NS views on the Jews were derived from us Catholics like distinctive clothing etc. If fact several Church Councils and rulings said that we could and should enslave Jews and Moslems while naturally they could not enslave us.”

          #3. “In conclusion as a Catholic girl I can only repeat that only God is good and only his Church is holy. It goes downhill fast after that.”

          ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

          #1. I did not ask you to evaluate Naziism from the restrictive point of view of 1933, as that was their first months of government, but, as an entirety, nor did I ask you to defend the Catholic Church’s defence of itself, after the war.

          #2. Jews are not the issue here, but, only a part of the Hitler problem, this because The Nazi government did not just hunt, dispossess, deport, concentrate, starve, enslave, experiment upon, and execute Jews, but Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Serbs, Byelorussians, Dutchmen, Galicians, Ukrainians, and Russians, to name a few.

          Moreover, The Nazi Government it did much the same to it’s own – gassing those with mental infirmities and Down Syndrome, imprisoning Jehovah’s Witnesses and homosexuals, and beheading political dissenters.

          These are not just a few people, but, tens of millions – an excess of inhumanity that manages to far outpace the misconduct of every other nation – and THAT, is quite an achieve, because, as you say, the behavior of other governments was also atrocious.

          So, let’s get this clear, we are not discussing fragments of Naziism, (1933 or Thew Jews) but about a systemic policy approach that evinced misanthropy to much of Europe, including it’s own.

          “#3. “In conclusion as a Catholic girl I can only repeat that only God is good and only his Church is holy. It goes downhill fast after that.”

          If this is the only thing you can say, as a Catholic girl, then your Catholicism is not something that has yet penetrated you, but, it merely something cultural through which you background has put you through.

          That’s alright, because you will have years to weigh and reweigh all this, which I am quite sure you will, knowing you:)

          ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

          So again I ask you – is Naziism good and do you believe that God is absent from the world?; as November suggests.

          Thank you, again!

          • Ivan,

            Can you prove your assertion number 2—that people were gassed at all. Can you prove that large amounts of people were killed merely for being East European? In short I do not believe that there was a deliberate attempt to murder mass amounts of people by the Germans in WW2.

            Now you are saying that Germans were gassed as well? You will have to consult people more knowledgeable than myself on such issues. There are people here who can direct you to sources that would give you another view point.

            As for homosexuals, jehovah’s witnesses, and political dissidents. I do not give a damn for homos, or Jehovah witnessses or political dissidents. Frequently, in Catholic history we have executed homosexuals, burned alive heretics, and of course executed rebels.

            As for you determining what my Catholicism is or is not remember you are not one of us. Did you not support the Soviet Union when you wrote that you think God made a difficult winter for the Germans in 1941. So you are defending the Synagogue of Satan. The East Europeans could have alleviated their position by supporting the German invasion instead of supporting their evil communist masters .The Soviet population supported evil in an unjust war therefore outside of atrocities their troubles are on their head.

            As for Naziism being good or bad. The Church considered some aspects of NS good and other parts it merely tolerated. Any atrocities they may or may not have committed was not part of their official doctrine. I despise republics but they are not evil in themselves even though the Americans have committed mass atrocities in history that alone does not mean that having a republic is sinful in itself.

            I have quite clearly written that by Catholic standards one cannot please God unless he is a Catholic. Therefore no system is considered holy except ours. I am not a cheerleader either for or against NS in itself.

          • Ivan,

            it seems strange that you are so interested in my opinion of November’s defense of National Socialism. I am not married to him. My opinion as I have given is the Church’s. I am not God therefore I do not know exactly what atrocities they did or did not do and neither do you actually.

            The closer any system comes to Catholicism the better it is according to us. If a system is judged on atrocities then no system is good. The Israelites were murderous in the Old Testament and Christians have been as well.

            I am not a NS therefore I am cautious in my opinions of them. So I believe the Church was wary of the NS’s also.

            So my definitive belief is that God is everywhere and that my religion tolerated NS but did not give it rousing approval. So once again I say that any aspects of NS that promote the legitimate spiritual and temporal welfare of people is good, any aspects that promote unjust harm would be evil.

            Anything more or less than that i cannot provide. The official judgments of the Church suffice for me even if they do not do so for you.

          • @Cristina…

            Thank you so very very much for this fantastic reply! You see, what you wrote before, was interesting, and, as per usual, very well articulated. Yet, it had little of you in it.

            This, on the other hand, is full of the real you.

            We’ll talk about it over the coming days.

            God bless you and thank you, again!

          • Ivan,

            Your last response was actually incredible. Well played! Yes, the courtly Cristina was put aside and the real one was on display. You are good at what you do.

          • Ivan,

            I might add that if I was head of German State in 1941 and I invade the Soviet Union I come to free the country from Bolshevism. I give back Poland except for the German speaking parts. I restore Lativa, Lithuania, and Estonia to independence. I only chop off a little of Russia for Germany in recompense. Maybe none.

            i do not have a negative view of Slavs. They brought white civilization and christianity all the way to the Pacific.

            I re -establish the Tsar if possible. If not then I leave the Russians to themselves. I would ask for volunteers to help win the War in the West against the British of course. I try to leave goodwill behind.

          • @Cristina…

            “Ivan, Your last response was actually incredible. Well played! Yes, the courtly Cristina was put aside and the real one was on display. You are good at what you do.”

            …………………………………………………………………………………………………

            Thank you so very much, Cristina! I really appreciate how your correspondence is oft decorated with personal demonstrations, this in the midst of the most serenely analytical probity one could expect at any age.

            As to ‘being good at what I do’, I am a conversationalist and a novelist. Moreover, I am someone who is truly interested in those around me, and sometimes that involves hunting for the real person and knowing how to draw them out.

            In this I am reminded of Iggy Pop, who once said of his attitude towards other his fellow Man, particularly when he sits in restaurants, as he is apt to do : ‘Sure, you can come and talk to me, but, don’t do so unless you are planning on telling me something important and personal. otherwise, don’t waste my time.’

            At any rate, I am so very busy today, it will take me a little while to resume our conversation with the attention to detail it deserves.

            I have a lot for you, things that will make you think for many years to come, and I look forward to how you reply.

            God bless you1

          • @Cristina…

            “Can you prove your assertion number 2—that people were gassed at all. Can you prove that large amounts of people were killed merely for being East European? In short I do not believe that there was a deliberate attempt to murder mass amounts of people by the Germans in WW2. ‘

            ……………………………………………………………………………………………….

            If I could take you in a time machine with me through all my travels, so that you could listen to those testimonies I have been given by those Europeans who lived under Nazi Occupation, it would be very easy, but, alas that technology is lacking.

            This will force me to point you in the right direction to find it, so that you can do your own research.

            For better understanding Hitler’s attitude towards The East, I refer you to the diary of Alfred Rosenberg, and, perhaps most vital – the argument he had with Erich Koch over how to treat Slavs.

            Both men high up in the Nazi heirarchy, their falling out with each other, and Hitler’s ultimate intervening is quite telling.

        • @Cristina…

          “The closer any system comes to Catholicism the better it is according to us. If a system is judged on atrocities then no system is good. The Israelites were murderous in the Old Testament and Christians have been as well. ”

          ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

          I agree with you about y our statement on governments better to resemble Catholicism. That said, I wonder which Catholicism you would recommend, as the Roman Catholic Church has numerous distinct phases, something to which you correctly alluded in your quoting of Thomas Aquinas.

          As to murderousness, how right you are – no one group owns the monopoly on it, or any kind of evil, in general.

          That is why we must be wary when well-meaning and articulate people tell us, and or imply, that is the other group which is evil, and that in order to deal with them, we ourselves must engage in infamy.

          • @Cristina…

            “My findings always depend on the sources. Very rare is a neutral source.”

            Right, neutral sources do not exist. At best, you will find biased people, such as myself, who can still manage to be fair-minded and truthful.

            So, you cannot rule out any source, just because you find it suspicious or disagreeable.

            This is very important for your intellectual future, long after you have forgotten your time at Occidental Dissent – always be like a judge and make thorough inquiries of all parties concerned, all witnesses, and then, after that thorough inquiry, take note of where the intersections are.

            You can always find the truth this way.

            Never act like a Christian who will never listen to a non-Christian, never act like an anti-Christian, who will never listen to a Christian, never act like a Nazi, who will not listen to a Jew, or like a Jew who will never listen to a Nazi.

            These people live in half worlds, because they are so fragile.

            In this way, by thorough investigations of all sources, you will find the whole truth, or, if not that, then you will certainly find a much better version of it than those who only listen to those with whom they agree or are sympathetic.

          • Ivan Turgenev,

            Any version of Catholicism is better than the post Vatican 2 collapse. I prefer High Middle Ages or the 16-18th century version. The Defined Dogmas and a Catholic’s duty remains the same.

            I must own to becoming somewhat uneasy at our conversation dominating this thread when we have gone way off topic. Perhaps depending on a future article such matters can be discussed and still be on topic.

        • @Cristina…

          “I might add that if I was head of German State in 1941 and I invade the Soviet Union I come to free the country from Bolshevism. I give back Poland except for the German speaking parts. I restore Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia to independence. I only chop off a little of Russia for Germany in recompense. Maybe none.”

          ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

          You are speaking only what Alfred Rosenberg (look up this major Nazi, if you don’t know him) argued for, over and over again,

          Hitler, however, was of a different mind, and his homicidal callousness cost him the war in The East.

          Instead of 50,000,000 million allies against The Judeo-Bolshevist Soviet Union, he wound up with 45,000,000 enemies.

          As to The Baltic States : ———– they were effectively independent while the Wehrmacht was in The USSR, and, as well, provided troops for The Waffen SS and paramilitiaries for pogroms against local Jews.

          • Ivan Turgenev,

            I will have to look up this Alfred Rosenberg to see if he was only pandering to the winners or if he is sincere. My findings always depend on the sources. Very rare is a neutral source. The War is just too important for modern propaganda.

            Many Ukranians, Baltics, and others did support the German invasion.

            It is considered a mortal sin for a Catholic to fund/support/vote for a Communist. Therefore, how much more sinful is it to fight for the Soviet Union? Also, the Catholic position is that if people fight for an evil cause and an evil State then their suffering is on their heads—–outside of actual atrocities of course.

            After all, is that what people say about German suffering?

            What do I consider to be an atrocity? Rape. The murder of people not doing anything wrong of course. The usual definitions.

            I believe any atrocity is wrong no matter who the victim is and who the perpetrator. I make no excuses for any NS atrocity, Allied atrocities, or even Catholic atrocities like during the Civil War.

            I view the invasion as a moral crusade as did Fascist Spain since they sent volunteers. If massive atrocities were committed by the NS in Russia then that is a shame. It does not change the cause but it morally and temporally taints it and represents a waste of a beautiful opportunity.

            I however would have had any commissar or Communist Party member shot when captured. That would be justice since they are in official alliance with Bolshevism which is sinful in itself while a Catholic could be a NS party member and in good standing with the Church. As much as you may disagree those are our standards and therefore mine.

        • @Cristina…

          “I re -establish the Tsar if possible. If not then I leave the Russians to themselves. I would ask for volunteers to help win the War in the West against the British of course. I try to leave goodwill behind.”

          Interesting comment and deeply reflective of you.

          For whatever it is worth, Tsarism has been reestablished, with Vladimir Putin the new Tsar, and though he does not call himself that, I’ve been referring to him as ‘Czar Vlad’ for years, something with which my Russian friends have agreed.

          • Ivan Turgenev,

            Probably Putin is about as good as current Russia is going to get considering most of the alternatives. My knowledge of Russia is intense but scanty. i am learning Russian and test out as advanced intermediate. It is a difficult language.

        • @Cristina…

          “Now you are saying that Germans were gassed as well?”

          The Nazi Government behavior towards those Germans, or those living in Germany, who did not fit the bill, was vile.

          Nothing more illustrates this than something that happened in 1944.

          With the Russian Armies approaching East Prussia, The Nazi Government forbad the East Prussians to flee the murderously vengeful Red Army.

          What ensued was the war’s greatest atrocity – and the deaths of several millions of German women, children, and old-timers, and permanent uprooting of 12,000,000 Germans, if Silesia is included in this number.

          The Nazi Government’s attitude towards it’s own people remains shocking, particularly when they had screamed at the top of their lungs, for years, how ‘pro-German they were’.

          Below is an extremely well made German documentary on the story, this being the English version.

          • Ivan,

            The atrocities were committed by the Soviets not the Germans. They were only initially forbidden to leave in order to keep morale up since a panic could have affected the whole local army and population. Even the Wikepedia article I will link does not blame the Germans for the Communist atrocities. You are blaming the victim not the perpetrators. I do not find their initial orders evil in intent. Only probable bad judgment.

            Forbidding retreating under certain circumstances is something that many leaders including myself might have made. A needless panic in war can cause more casualties at times than standing and fighting.

            The German Federal Archives noted that about 100,000 civilians died during this time in that area due to fighting and Soviet atrocities not millions like you say.

            A modern German film? Is that not suspect?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evacuation_of_East_Prussia

          • @Cristina…

            “The atrocities were committed by the Soviets not the Germans. They were only initially forbidden to leave in order to keep morale up since a panic could have affected the whole local army and population. Even the Wikepedia article I will link does not blame the Germans for the Communist atrocities. You are blaming the victim not the perpetrators. I do not find their initial orders evil in intent. Only probable bad judgment.

            Forbidding retreating under certain circumstances is something that many leaders including myself might have made. A needless panic in war can cause more casualties at times than standing and fighting.

            The German Federal Archives noted that about 100,000 civilians died during this time in that area due to fighting and Soviet atrocities not millions like you say.

            A modern German film? Is that not suspect?

            ……………………………………………………………………………………………..

            Yep, East Prussia is the scene of Russia’s greatest atrocities, something largely unknown. Yet, it could not have happened without The Nazi Government’s incredible callousness to their own people, not to mention their behavior on Russian soil for several years.

            As you said before, they could have had tens of millions of allies in The East,m for they were largely welcomed in 1941, yet, instead, they chose to pillage and exterminate, and this was the result.

            And, if they can be this callous to their own people, you can just imagine how they were to other European White Nations.

            As to a modern German film being suspicious, it is no more suspicious than any other film from any other party of era, as everyone has their own angle.

            The story of Count von Dohnau, as related by his daughters is very moving and every bit true.

            These are real Germans who lived through the era, not Modern Western Nazis who, enormously peeved with Jewry in America, pick and choose what suits them of Hitler and his regime.

            Be careful here, Young Lady, that you only choose to hear ‘the truths’ from those parties of whom you approve, for, in so doing, you will wind up with only half the story.

            For you can never rely on those on The Right to tell you of their crimes, anymore than you can rely on The Left to tell you theirs!

          • Ivan Turgenev,

            You have a strange interest in being only concerned with NS atrocities real, imagined, or exaggerrated. The massive rapes against Germans is sickening. Did the Germans rape in Russia like the Soviets did in Germany? On a massive scale?

            Killing people unjustly is barbaric but not usually perverted if quick and clean. But rape is a perversion. I can see sometimes killing soldiers who have surrendered in the anger and heat of the moment but rape is something far more twisted,.

            Communists are twisted worse than even a stereotypical NS.

            My grandmother and mother believe castration for rapists. i tend to agree.

          • Ivan Turgenev,

            I agree that in general people telling their side of the story are always in the right as compared to the other side. It is like that when children are brought before their parents or teachers. Adults seem to be little superior to children.

            I am not sure that the whole truth will be known or admitted on the issue. I did read a memoir by a Russian soldier 1 year ago who wrote that it was mostly the rear echelon soldiers committing most of the rapes and atrocities. Those were the Asiatics not The Russians. This was confirmed by memoirs by Germans as well. My uncle has the book in his library I believe. The commissars were encouraging this.

            Since it was primarily the Russians who did most of the dying in the War and yet they were not the ones committing most of the atrocities I found it encouraging and I came away with a positive impression of the Slavs versus the Bolsheviks.

        • @Cristina…

          “I view the invasion as a moral crusade as did Fascist Spain since they sent volunteers. If massive atrocities were committed by the NS in Russia then that is a shame. It does not change the cause but it morally and temporally taints it and represents a waste of a beautiful opportunity. ”

          ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

          Though you are thorough and thoughtful, you are living on the surface in your analysises, and, as a result, you are not probing what lies deeper below and behind the events.

          Do you really believe that Nazi Germany invaded Russia because they were on a crusade to free Europe of Judeo-Bolshevism?

          • Ivan Turgenev,

            I believed they probably had several reasons for the invasion. Men can fight evil yet at the same time operate out of self interest. Very few humans do anything for purely noble reasons.

            Men seldom wish to kill and die even for good unless they gain from it temporally.

        • @Cristina…

          “#2. I believed they probably had several reasons for the invasion. Men can fight evil yet at the same time operate out of self interest. Very few humans do anything for purely noble reasons.

          #1. Men seldom wish to kill and die even for good unless they gain from it temporally.”

          …………………………………………………………………………………………………………

          #1. Excellent.

          #2. Okay, and what were those reasons?

          • Ivan Turgenev,

            Answering number 2, besides a sincere desire to destroy Communism I would say they wanted more land for Gemany etc.

            As an aside a conquistador wrote 500 years ago that the Spanish came to the New World to conquer for Christ but also for self interest as well. He said we came for God, Gold, and Glory.

            I do not expect much from people anyway, especially when it first became apparent to me that as a general rule human morality seems to match self interest to a large extent. And voting patterns of course.

          • @Cristina…

            “Answering number 2, (Why Nazi Germany attacked Russia) besides a sincere desire to destroy Communism I would say they wanted more land for Gemany etc.”

            No. Try harder and look deeper.

          • @Cristina…

            Do you really believe that Nazi Germany invaded Russia because they were on a crusade to free Europe of Judeo-Bolshevism?

            I ask you this question again, because your answer that they wanted resources and to destroy Judeo-Bolshevisim was insufficient.

        • @Cristina…

          “I am not sure that the whole truth will be known or admitted on the issue. I did read a memoir by a Russian soldier 1 year ago who wrote that it was mostly the rear echelon soldiers committing most of the rapes and atrocities. Those were the Asiatics not The Russians. This was confirmed by memoirs by Germans as well. My uncle has the book in his library I believe.”

          …………………………………………………………………………………………………….

          German women, who lived in Silesia, East Prussia, Memel, Brandenburg, West Pomerania, and nearby areas, during 1944-45, would dispute that claim, Moreover, there are a number of testimonies, by White Russian soldiers at YouTube that speak of how the Russian Man took it as a sign of manhood to rape German Women.

          One Russian Veteran speaks of it to a young female Russian reporter, who, appalled at the by then old man, asks him some rather pointed questions, at which point he equivocates – yet, there is no taking back the truth.

          Actually, there are a lot of testimonies, either dubbed into English, or subtitled, with German women who were repeatedly gang-raped by White Russian soldiers.

          As I speak German well, I can vouch for the fact that I have yet to watch one of these testimonies that was falsely interpreted into English.

          This is your cue – if you want to know of the culture of rape that existed in both armies, particularly the Russian, go to YouTube and enter the appropriate searches.

          Get it right from the horses mouth!

          • Ivan Turgenev,

            Interesting information on the issue. The subject is distasteful to me so I do not like to concentrate too heavily on the issue. Yet it has to be discussed to a point.

            Do not forget the Americans as well. They raped thousands. According to one report the Soviets stopped their mass rapes after the fall of Berlin while the Americans continued to rape into 1946.

            The Soviets in their conquest of Berlin evidently committed the largest mass rapes in known history.

            I believe I read that Putin will not allow any thing negative to be written/said against the Red Army. Of course the Reds were Communist yet the Americans were proudly Christian then and now.

            Humans have been going backwards for awhile now except for technology.

          • You’re correct in saying that White Russian soldiers committed most of the rapes. Russian soldiers behaved very badly in the First World War too. There were rapes, murders, pillage and kidnappings during their occupation of Galicia (1914-15).

          • @ Lighthorse…

            You’re correct in saying that White Russian soldiers committed most of the rapes. Russian soldiers behaved very badly in the First World War too. There were rapes, murders, pillage and kidnappings during their occupation of Galicia (1914-15).”

            ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

            Thank you, Lighthorse, for the confirmation.

            To be clear, I am a big fan of Russia, Russians, and Russian Culture.

            That said, they have a very dark side, and the culture of sexual degeneracy, violence, and rape is a big part of that.

            They’ve been this way since they crawled out of the bogs with Alexandre Nevsky, and probably before, too,

        • @Cristina…

          Here, i found an interview with a White Russian Solider ‘fessing up to the raping of German women, and a German women who suffered the fate.

          The subtitles are perfectly accurate to the testimonies given…

        • @Cristina…

          If you have the stomach for it, listen to this testimony by a German woman…

          • Ivan,

            I will have to listen/look at those videos only when I have prepared myself.

          • @Cristina…

            I found for you the video made by the BBC, which is the best production I have ever seen.

            It, (War of The Century) in one film, sums up what i found out in my travels and conversations with Europeans who lived through Nazi Occupation.

            Why is it worth your time?

            Because it tells the story of The Eastern Front through the comments of those who waged it, and those who had it waged upon them.

            The producers of this show pulled no punches – showing the Nazis for who they were, and the Soviets, as well.

            Herein, you will find plenty of testimony by Russian survivors about what life was like, under The Nazis, and, as well, by German survivors about what life became like under The Soviets, at the end of the war.

            This is Part 1

            To really understand more than you do, you will have to watch all 4 parts, as it suits you.

            Here is the truth, and as close to the whole truth as you will ever get.

            it is a fine production, with excellent writing, narration, and witnesses.

            Now, i have taken the time to give you the links so that you can hear the testimonies yourself, and make your own judgements.

            https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x105r50

  14. @Thom,

    I addressed why Germany felt it necessary to attack the Poland last year in OD when HW had a similar Anglocentric take on the conflict between Germany and Poland.

    If you want to understand the actual reason for hostilities between Poland and Germany, I suggest this article. Even pollack “nationalists ” haven’t been able to refute the claims made by the author.

    https://www.unz.com/article/why-germany-invaded-poland/

  15. The last supper was a Passover Seder dinner. Jesus was a rabbi. At best, he was a self-hating jew.

    • @November…

      “Jesus was a rabbi. At best, he was a self-hating jew.”

      Remarkable – this is precisely what umpteen zillion Jews have thought about Chryst, too.

        • Guiscard,

          True. My family has an uncensored copy of the Talmud in our main library. Bought in good ole USA at a Jewish book store. In Texas.

          • Dear Cristina,

            Thanks for confirming this. I have an uncensored copy of the Talmud myself. It is always very obscene when referring to Christ and his Holy Mother. Among other things, it says that Jesus is boiling in hot excrement for eternity in hell.

        • @Guiscard…

          Yes, most Jews and Nazis despise Chryst.

          That irony says a lot about them both

          • The Nazis were, at worst, indifferent to Christ.

            Jews actively loathe, despise and mock Christ.

  16. @Christina,

    It’s embarrassing that anti-NS Anglos accuse NS Germany for the creation of the terrorist state known as Israel when it was Lord Balfour’s declaration in promising Lord Rothschild and Chaim Weitzman a home for the jews in “British Palestine,” in exchange for them using their considerable influence on jews in President Wilson’s cabinet and other peripheral advisers to draw the United States into the conflict because England was losing the war.

    NS Germany was only “Zionist ” in wanting a place to offload their jews. NS Germany wasn’t the first nation to find a place to settle the jews. The Soviet Union and France both offered them a separate homeland. It was the British primarily, and later the Americans that paved the way for the zionist state to end up in the Middle East due to outsized zionist jewish pressure on WASP elites in the Anglosphere.

    If history teaches us anything; WASPs + jews = bad news for all the other European ethnicities and co-Christians caught in the middle.

    “God’s hand” had nothing to do with any historical outcome. Mother Nature on the other hand, was often played favorites.

    • November,

      I believe the Jews have a semi independent territory in East Russia. Even mainstream history admits to Jewish terrorism in creating Israel after WW 2. The King David Hotel etc.

      As a general rule almost all of my Latin family and friends have no problem with the Germans of WW 2. At the very least we know that Germany was not as evil as portrayed and the Allies were far worse than portrayed. As a girl I would rather be captured by the National Socialists than the Americans much less the Soviets. That always means something to me.

      My Anglo friends even though they are conservative or Traditional Catholics for the most part are somewhat shaky on the issue. Not as bad as mainstream anglos but still….

      However, even my Anglo Catholic friends admit that no matter what the rights and wrongs were originally but when NS Germany offered peace and the Allies refused and insisted on Unconditional Surrender then the Allies automatically became the unjust aggressor and were fighting a sinful war. It is Catholic belief for a war to be just that it cannot continue once a side sues for peace and promises to make amends.

      I am also aware that the United States has killed more than 65 million babies legally since 1973 and I do not see any conservatives really upset about this. They still cheer the USA and consider America to be the best ever created. If these Christians really thought abortion was murder then none of them should support the country or serve in their armies.

      I do not believe that most Christians truly are horrified at abortion. I am not sure what really upsets them.

      • @Cristina…

        “I believe the Jews have a semi independent territory in East Russia. ”

        …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

        Very good. It is actually out in Irkutsk, right above The Mongolian Line.

        it was invented by Lenin as a refuge for those Russian Jews who wanted to live with their own kind and not have to deal with anti-semitism.

        Several hundred thousand Russian Jews still live out there, though, that number may be shrinking, because so many Russian Jews have gone on to Israel, in the last coupe of decades.

      • @Cristina…

        ‘My Anglo friends even though they are conservative or Traditional Catholics for the most part are somewhat shaky on the issue. Not as bad as mainstream anglos but still….’

        …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

        Most Americans do not even have a dreadful knowledge of history, so if you happen to find someone who can name the capital of Bulgaria, and then point to it on the map, you are truly in luck!

      • @Cristina…

        “I am also aware that the United States has killed more than 65 million babies legally since 1973 and I do not see any conservatives really upset about this. ”

        ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

        Yes, it is disgusting, and most of the rural and smalltown South is pissed off by this.

        It’s a big reason why so many are so pro-Trump, because they believe he is picking anti-abortion judges.

        In my view Southerners ought to have raised The Confederate flag over the Roe- vs. Wade Decision, pero la major parte de nosotros hemos perdido nuestros juevos…

      • @Cristina…

        “#1.You have a strange interest in being only concerned with NS atrocities real, imagined, or exaggerrated. The massive rapes against Germans is sickening. Did the Germans rape in Russia like the Soviets did in Germany? On a massive scale?

        #2. Killing people unjustly is barbaric but not usually perverted if quick and clean. But rape is a perversion. I can see sometimes killing soldiers who have surrendered in the anger and heat of the moment but rape is something far more twisted,.

        #3. Communists are twisted worse than even a stereotypical NS.

        #4. My grandmother and mother believe castration for rapists. i tend to agree.”

        …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

        #1. We are talking about whether Naziism is ‘good’.

        #2. According to The Russians, The Germans raped like crazy, burned villages, and shot villagers. In 1944, during anti-partisan operations, 427 Byelorussian villages permanently disappeared. It’s only one of many such wartime headlines in Russia.

        As you Russian gets better, you will be able to go to YouTube and watch the interviews with Russian veterans themselves, and, because there will be none between you and their words, you will be able to trust their testimony.

        Until then, it will be hard to absorb it, because you are wary about claims of German atrocities in the East.

        #3. I know both, personally, and I do not know how to rate that. In my view, there is no purpose to evaluating which is worse – arsenick or cyanide:)

        Both are totalitarian socialist systems largely, if not entirely, contrary to our ways, and, as a Southern Confederate, the militia would be my answer, and that of most of my neighbours, if any of that showed up in a serious way here.

        #4. Your mamaw and my wife, as well! Hysterical!

        • Ivan Turgenev,

          A militia would be no match in general against well trained standing armies. The American rebels had to be trained in the Revolutionary War to be really effective and the British regulars had no trouble beating aside larger numbers of militia when they burned Washington DC in the War of 1812.

          Also while I am aware that all armies rape I believe the German Army had way more discipline in such matters overall and do not match the Soviet rape numbers.

          As for form of government? The most common form in christian history is monarchy.

          The controls in the Soviet Union on property and religion are appalling compared to NS Germany. Especially my religion which could not exist in the Soviet Union. I could exist in NS Germany and thrive yet I would be murdered or jailed for practicing my religion in the Soviet Union. As always my views revolve around religion.

          As for the question is National Socialism good? Or is it merely tolerable? Since I could have been a NS party member and be in good standing with the Church and receive communion etc. and I mentioned the Concordant I can say that National Socialism would be considered by the Church to be tolerated rather than a system to aspire to.

          The enemies of National Socialism? I could not be a Communist without being damned. I could not support freemasonic and Protestant Americanism without committing a mortal sin. And I could not support Freemasonic and Protestant Britain without losing my soul as well.

          So once again I give you my answer. National Socialism has pros and cons. From an official Catholic viewpoint to be tolerated rather than a good. I consulted with 2 priests before giving my definitive view.

          I can also ask the questions–is democracy good? Is America good? Was the French Revolution good? Is anything good except a system that emulates Christianity?—–The answer is the same in Spanish as it is in English.

          • @Cristina…

            “A militia would be no match in general against well trained standing armies.”

            Militias can always beat well-trained standing armies, so long as they have the back of enough of their populace and they stay out of pitched battles.

            I want to tell you something you don’t know – General Suvorov, a great Russian general for Czarina Catherine The Great, came up with a theory of war that George Washington read about and then used against the British, and which The Vietnamese used against The U.S. government, just as Afghanistan is now doing.

            That theory?

            It is not necessary to win battles to win wars. It is only necessary to exhaust your opponent’s desire to make it on you.

          • @Cristina…

            “So once again I give you my answer. National Socialism has pros and cons. From an official Catholic viewpoint to be tolerated rather than a good’

            Naziism was ‘tolerated’ by the church because it was seen as the lesser of two evils.

            Obviously Judeo-Bolshevism is the mortal enemy of Christianity, both in word and deed, whereas German National Sociialism was never specifically out to get Catholicism, so long as it stayed in line and did not challenge it within Germany, although the behavior of Naziism in the rest of Europe was oft incredibly unCatholic.

        • Ivan Turgenev,

          I am aware of delay tactics. Fabian used them against Hannibal two centuries BC. But until the Romans developed a reformed army and could fight in open battle they were still losing. A well known example.

    • @November…

      “It’s embarrassing that anti-NS Anglos accuse NS Germany for the creation of the terrorist state known as Israel when it was Lord Balfour’s declaration in promising Lord Rothschild and Chaim Weitzman a home for the jews in “British Palestine,”

      It’s embarassing when admirers of Hitler remove Nazi Germany from any responsibility in the war, atrocities, and the unfortunate aftermath of the war in which we are still living.

      But, yes, of course, the Nazis had lots of help, particularly from those who created them – The Jews.

      And so it goes – Nazis and Jews doing their peculiar Love/Death tango, at the expence of everyone else in the Western World.

  17. Ivan Turgenev,

    By your logic, we can conclude that the “ungodly” people of Constantinople were conquered by the “godly” Ottoman Turks.

    • @Marcus…

      “By your logic, we can conclude that the “ungodly” people of Constantinople were conquered by the “godly” Ottoman Turks.”

      ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

      I have not studied those societies in order to chime in on who was doing a better job at being godly, or not.

      One thing I will say – if God could numerous times allow the nearby Pagan Assyrians to conquer and enslave The Israelites (Book of Judges) for collective disobedience against race-mixing, then be assured he would do it to the Gentile Nations that composed the New Israel of Chryst, for that or any other violation

      It comes down to this – either you think The Lord has some relationship with His creations or you don’t.

      If you don’t, then what I have said is inscrutable.

      In any case, have a great evening!

      • Ivan,

        You do not need to study history to know that the Moslems are the Infidel and are evil. God may use evil individuals and peoples to punish others but that does not mean those groups are godly.

        • @Cristina…

          “You do not need to study history to know that the Moslems are the Infidel and are evil. God may use evil individuals and peoples to punish others but that does not mean those groups are godly.”

          Every man is someone else’s ‘Infidel’. That’s why people gossip so much in small towns – they cannot get over how some people use ‘Tide’ detergent, when surely all good people know to use ‘All’

  18. @Ivan Turgenev,

    Hitler literally offered generous peace terms three separate times during the war. Hitler unlike myself thought the British would be reasonable and see the logic in ending hostilities, but the British didn’t want an amiable resolution to the war THEY and France declared. The British wanted no competition on the continent to their hegemony. Churchill himself said as much.

    Those so-called innocents that were killed communist partisans that killed German soldiers, were saboteurs and aiding the enemy.

    Because of the actions of the “Big Three,” the grave of Western civilization and Western kind may never recover.

    NS Germany (nazi is a a term a jew used to slander them) was a defender of the West, and all the hate propaganda offenses they’ve been accused of in before, during, and after the war, the allies did and then some.

    Believe me, I want a divorce from the South and their scapegoating of “Vinny and Teresa.” I don’t want to share a nation with a bunch of Cletus and Tammys, anymore than you would want New England yankees in Dixie. By the way, I’m from the Midwest, as have been most of my kind kin for nearly 200 years.

    “History would be something extraordinary, if only it were true.” – Leo Tolstoy

    “History is a pack of lies agreed upon.”- Napoleon Bonaparte

    As far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, their hierarchy hasn’t met a friend that they haven’t betrayed or undermined.

    • November,

      Unfortunately, in modern times your last sentence is frequently correct., Franco did everything for the Church and after Vatican 2 they turned on him. He evidently remarked in the 1970’s that the Communists give him less trouble than the Church.

      Infiltration of various groups like Freemasons etc. in the Church.

      • @Cristina…

        ‘Unfortunately, in modern times your last sentence is frequently correct., Franco did everything for the Church and after Vatican 2 they turned on him. He evidently remarked in the 1970’s that the Communists give him less trouble than the Church.

        Infiltration of various groups like Freemasons etc. in the Church.’

        Very interesting comment, and very true – Rome is now at the center of The One World Order and the capital of unCatholic dogma.

        The only part of the heirarchy which is at all reliable is the Sedevacantist part with Bishop Williamson and gang.

        • Ivan,

          We have several books on the matter such as the Plot Against the Church reportedly written by a South American Bishop or Cardinal.

          It has also been discussed from the pulpit more than once by a couple of priests when I have attended mass.

    • @November…

      Thank you for your thoughtful and very personal response.

      You are wasting your time trying to inform me about history, because, like you, I have studied it my whole lifelong, and, like you, I am perfectly well aware of Anglo/French/Russian/Italian/American/Polish/Jewish skullduggery that played a significant part in leading to the war.

      Unfortunately my take on Hitler is very fair, because not only do I credit him with atrocious war crimes, I also admire many of the stances that he took in the 1930s, particularly his withdrawal of Germany from the Anglo-Rothschild Monetary Racket.

      I do not blame Germany, or Hitler, entirely for the war, but for playing a leading part in it, although that leading part was second to the part that The Jews played in creating that war.

      WWII was principally caused by The Jews, not just in how they tried to destroy Germany economically, in the 1930s, but, in all they did in the previous decades to manipulate and overthrow the European World as it was then known.

      No, what I think is so reprehensible about Hitler and his government is how they treated people who did not fit into their neat little box for humans.

      They destroy lives on a scale that only the Soviet Union could rival.

      While I understand those who are frustrated with the Jewish control over The New England Yankee United States of America, I can only reiterate what I have said for years – The South has plenty of other choices, with which to restore it’s own true spirit, without having to turn to a spirit which is colloquially known as ‘Naziism’.

      Thank you and have a good day!

  19. @Christy,

    A well thought out and reasonable response, but I wouldn’t expect nothing less than that from our own Maria Teresa.

    • November,

      Thank you. The truth was what I have been taught and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. Putting it together while trying to be brief with some flair is what I love to do.

      There are benefits to belonging to an authoritarian religion. Or are we totalitarian?

  20. @Ivan Turgenev,

    What you regurgitated is nothing but atrocity propaganda and slander. Of course, you have forensic and other impartial evidence of these horrors committed by the National Socialists beyond “eye (lie) witness testimony, correct?

    By far he way, riding the population of genetic misfires is just the practice of eugenics which I fully support.

    I guess if one believes a Bronze Age rabbi walked on water they’ll believe anything.

    • @November…

      “What you regurgitated is nothing but atrocity propaganda and slander. Of course, you have forensic and other impartial evidence of these horrors committed by the National Socialists beyond “eye (lie) witness testimony, correct?”

      …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

      I’m sorry, November, but I am getting up there in years, have had the opportunity to travel plenty, speak languages, and have spoken to many Europeans about what they endured in the 1940s.

      Though many of those folks are now dead, the gist of their stories are not, some of which I will be sharing with Miss Cristina over the coming days.

      I wish these stories of Nazi atrocities were propaganda, for I love Germans, and, as a young man, was mentored by veterans of their armed services from that time, but, alas, they are not.

  21. “What you regurgitated is nothing but atrocity propaganda and slander.”

    Much of the terrorism in the East was committed by jevvs of the NKVD dressed as german and SS soldiers. Terrorizing the population to resist the Germans.

    • @Arian…

      “Much of the terrorism in the East was committed by jevvs of the NKVD dressed as german and SS soldiers. Terrorizing the population to resist the Germans.”

      ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

      According to a Russian Supreme Court decision of the previous, it is accurate to call what occurred in Russia as ‘Judeo-Bolshevism’, and, it stands to reason, therefore, that we can consider your statement correct.

      Moreover, we know that The NKVD ran around the countryside throughout the 1920s demanding villages sign loyalty oaths, turn in their weapons, and their Ikons of Chryst, Mary, and the saints.

      Moreover, we know that some of the greatest butchers of the Russian people were Jews – horrible Jewish men such as Genrik Yagoda and Lavrentii Beria.

      We also know that Galicia, today in Western Ukraine, was savaged by the NKVD atrocities between October 1939 and June 1941, most particulalry in Lvov.

      That said, Judeo-Bolshevik atrocities do not exonerate Nazi atrocities.

      My crimes are mine and your are yours, and The Lord will hold us to account for that, not what the other has done.

    • November,

      Thank you for the article,. I love how the author mentioned that the communist partisans killed thousands of fascists in Austria but that was not murder but when the fascists kill Serbs, Jews etc. fighting the communists it somehow is murder.

      Good to know there are still some high ranking Catholic clergy left.

      I view Jews the same way as I view Communists.

  22. @Ivan Turgenev,

    Well, you know the old saying about a broken clock.

    Btw, I was raised a Christian, but the evidence for evolution provided a much stronger case than what I was taught in Sunday school.

    • @November…

      And you still are a Christian, though, in conscious terms you will not return to it until you are old.

      As to evolution – it has nothing to do with being a Christian, for a Christian is a follower of Chryst, not a group of eschatological beliefs that most Christians claim to believe in at this time in history in this country, and which have been tacked on to the meaning of Chryst.

      To be clear, there is absolutely nothing in The Good News of Chryst that would confllct with you believing in evolution.

      All things evolve, and God created those processes.

      Thank you for having shared that with me. I’m glad to know it.

  23. Ivan Turgenev,

    While I am winding down on this particular thread I noticed one of your comments to Cockburn where you defended the KKK. I have never come across a person who has ever defended that organization in a comment before. Perhaps it was mentioned on this website but I read only a fraction of the comments here.

    Please explain your defense of such an organization,

    • @Cristina…

      After the surrender at Appomattox, Southern soldiers all over the South trudged home wrestling with their failure, though their one consolation was in thinking that, once they rebuilt their homes, farms, and businesses, things would go back to normal – because they thought the war was over.

      Not to be, for The United States’ Government decided to occupy The South, they insisting that Southerners take a loyalty oath or forfeit their property.

      Moreover, The United States Government began to spread a new beaurocracy about The South, called The Freedman’s Bureau, that entity attempting to intervene in most matters between Blacks & Whites.

      As well, there came an invasion of Northern Activists, such as The Union Leagues, who had the goal of teaching White Southerners how to be better humans.

      By the summer of 1865, the veterans of the Southern Armies began to realize that The United States’ Government had no intention of honouring the end of hostilities, but, simply saw the end of the shooting war as the beginning of an administrative political, cultural, and economic war.

      Our great-great-great granddaddies were aghast and they swore to themselves that this situation would NOT go on, and they banded into units which, in my state, would come to be known as The Scarlet Knights of The Ku Klux Klan.

      Assisted by local Hunting Clubs, and synmpathizers in every locale, The Scarlet Knights waged a war against the invaders, much as did the Russian partisans against the Nazis, or the IRA against Britain.

      It was a war rich in atrocities on both sides, although, it was not, as the U.S. establishment claims it to be – a racist war of White Southerners against Black Southerners. No, in this war anyone, White, Black, Man, Woman, Southern Northern, government official, private citizen, who supported the United States, and their proxy layers, was targetted by what history has come to know as the first period of The Klan, a period not like the Klans that followed.

      When Ulysses S. Grant came into office in 18 & 69, he sent thousands and thousands of U.S. marshals to The South, many of them to my state, North Carolina, to fight The Scarlet Knights, and to assert U.S. Government control over us.

      After much bloodshed and terror, that failed, and, by 1872, the White Southern Man’s party, then The Democrats, was back in charge of every part of our state government, the occupiers afraid to venture outside of the cities, because they knew what would befall them (much like the situation is in Afghanistan today, for The United states’ Government.

      When Ohio Yankee war hero, Rutherford B. Hayes, decided to run for president in 1876, he asked for the support of the Southern States. It was granted, under the proviso that the United States’ Government occupation of The South end.

      Hayes won in a squeaker, and an honourable man, he kept his word and withdrew The U.S. Government from The South.

      The Southern States would remain sovereign until the court decisions that started with Brown vs. Board of Education, in 1948, overturned the victories of The Scarlet Knights.

      That, in a nutshell, is the history that they do not teach in schools, of the 1860-1870s.

  24. Ivan Turgenev,

    Brown vs Board of Education occurred in 1954 I believe. Naturally, my dates could be wrong. Interesting but what is the justification of revolting against lawful authority., The Americans of 1861 seem decent enough people not like the enemies of National Socialism that were scum.

    To revolt against lawful government means killing people. Give me the moral justification for seceding from the United States. Prove to me that you had the moral right to secede please.

    I of course know that by Catholic standards you did not have the right to revolt. But you are not Catholic therefore I ask for your beliefs and your justification.

    I am not being snotty though part of my interest is obviously to see how you handle defending what you believe in. My heart is pro South but my emotions mean nothing compared to the truth.

    Prove to me that the slave holding South is a force of good. You asked me to answer on my belief on National Socialism and I answered. I know that no Catholic was ex-communicated for merely owning slaves but tolerating the Old South and claiming it is a moral good are two different matters. Just like tolerating NS is different than believing that NS is a great force for good.

  25. @Cristina…

    “#1. Brown vs Board of Education occurred in 1954 I believe. Naturally, my dates could be wrong. Interesting but what is the justification of revolting against lawful authority., The Americans of 1861 seem decent enough people not like the enemies of National Socialism that were scum.

    #2. To revolt against lawful government means killing people. Give me the moral justification for seceding from the United States. Prove to me that you had the moral right to secede please.

    #3. I of course know that by Catholic standards you did not have the right to revolt. But you are not Catholic therefore I ask for your beliefs and your justification.

    #4. I am not being snotty though part of my interest is obviously to see how you handle defending what you believe in. My heart is pro South but my emotions mean nothing compared to the truth.

    #5. Prove to me that the slave holding South is a force of good. You asked me to answer on my belief on National Socialism and I answered. I know that no Catholic was ex-communicated for merely owning slaves but tolerating the Old South and claiming it is a moral good are two different matters. Just like tolerating NS is different than believing that NS is a great force for good.”

    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    #1. Secession is moral and right, just as is a wife who leaves her husband, because he repeatedly beats and cheats her. Moreover, The South has always believed in States’ Rights, or, rather, that each state is sovereign, as guaranteed by the opening words of the 10th Amendment.

    #2.The United States ceased to be a lawful government in 1861, when, after our great-great-grandaddies formally left, it made a war on us. Moreover, they were trying to tell our great-great-great grandaddies that they had to sell our goods to them, instead of to France or England, as was our right.

    As to secession : ——— This attitude was reinforced by the then Jewish Chief Justice of The Supreme Court, Salmon Chase, who, when members of the Lincoln/Johnson cabinet inquired about trying the newly captured Jefferson Davis, he told them that it was unadvisable, as they would lose the case; that secession was lawful, but, what The United States government had done was not.

    #3. What justification do you seek?

    #4. Yes, I am glad to hear you are pro-South. I appreciate your kindness and respect. And, yes, like you, I believe in being honest and fair, which is why I apply the same standards to Nazis as I do to Jews.

    Please do not worry about ‘being snotty’. i have pushed you with questions and regaled you with commentary, you certainly may do the same to me, as you see fit. And you can bicker with me all you want and I’ll take no offence.

    #5. I am not a fan of slavery, of any sort. That said, neither Jehovah, Chryst, nor Paul condemned the institution, they, instead, issuing out instructions to both masters and slaves on how to more ethically treat each other.

    As to Southern Slavery, vs. Northern Slavery,, I believe Southern slavery, then, was far more moral than what the North had. Why, in those days, Southern Negroes were guaranteed food, shelter, medical care, and a godly labour under safe circumstances.

    Many Southern Whites detested that, because they had nothing near the same sustenance or security.

    As to Northern Society – they felt smugly secure that their society, calling a man free, yet paying him a non-survival wage, without benefit or security. Surely that is a sham.

    Come to think of it, Dear Cristina, I still think The New England Yankee United States is a sham, because they declare people to be ‘free’, all the while importing tens of millions of darkskins, making them work for a pittance, with no social security, no medical, and they cannot vote.

    They also overthrow one government after another, just to make sure they can exploit the goods of others nations and keep their economies down under theirs.

    What do you call that?

    That’s a since question. that said, I’ll tell you what I call it – it’s slavery – though, The New England Yankee United States’ Government seems content to think it not, because they call it ‘Free-Trade’.

    • Ivan Turgenev,

      My religion disagrees. You cannot form a new country or revolt whenever you wish. A people’s basic rights in a serious matter that would justify killing people would have to exist. It would have to pervade a whole society. In short God given rights would have to be violated en masse with only violence to stop them. Those are our rules and they are strictly applied.

      However, I am laying aside my religion and will only deal with your reasons for the revolt/secession. Justify for me the justification of mass killing of Americans to achieve independence. I actually hope you are able to since the weakening of the USA would have been wonderful from my viewpoint.

      What did the Americans do in 1861 that justifies killing them and revolting? Specifics please.

      How did the Americans make war on you? If you were not revolting do you think that US soldiers just were ordered down south to attack you?

      Show me in the Constitution or any other decisive American laws that specifically say that you can leave the US whenever you want.

      Telling me that some northern workers had it rough does not make the South correct.

      The USA overthrowing governments does not change whether the South could revolt. I think Southern whites had it better than the vast majority of humans on earth especially the upper classes, the ones spearheading the secession.

      Having or not having slaves does not condemn or justify the revolt. It is a separate issue in my mind.

      Give to me the horrors that the United States was inflicting on the South in 1861 that justifies killing them while overthrowing lawful government. Specifics please not philosophy.

      • @Cristina…

        ” #1. Justify for me the justification of mass killing of Americans to achieve independence.

        #2. What did the Americans do in 1861 that justifies killing them and revolting? Specifics please.

        #3.Show me in the Constitution or any other decisive American laws that specifically say that you can leave the US whenever you want.

        #4. The USA overthrowing governments does not change whether the South could revolt.

        #5. Give to me the horrors that the United States was inflicting on the South in 1861 that justifies killing them while overthrowing lawful government. Specifics please not philosophy.

        #6. Telling me that some northern workers had it rough does not make the South correct.

        ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

        #1. Our great-great-great granddaddies were not trying to do anything to achieve ‘independence’. Each state was already an independent, sovereign, and free state already, as states in the opening of The 10th Amendment.

        The United States’ Government was trying to take away their sovereignty.

        #2. Nothing in 1861. It was a gradual build up over 70 years, really from the very beginning of the ‘American’ project.

        The election of Abraham Lincoln was just a little straw that broke the camel’s back, but, if it had not been he who did it, it would have happened some other way.

        New Englanders had a very different view of the country than Southerners, and those chafes between the two parties, over centralization, abolitionism, tarifs, and commerce, came to a head.

        Southerners were increasingly aware that The Union was a bad idea, like a woman in a loveless marriage, and one day, she has enough and leaves.

        That was 1861.

        #3. Read the articles of Confederation. Read about The Constitutional Convention, and you will see that every state wanted it’s sovereignty guaranteed.

        The opening words of the 10th Amendment are very clear about that.

        Northeasterners changed, and began to want a different kind of government. The South did not.

        Northeasterners continue to change, while The South either does not, does much less, or simply changes in a different way.

        A perfect example of this is how Christian New England Yankees used to be.

        Today, only The Midwest north is with Chryst. Churches in New England are practically abandoned.

        The long and the short of it is that we, of Dixie, have our own Plantation/Caste society that encompasses almost every fascit of our land, except some big cities of our which are languishing under the amounts of the alien to us.

        In the South, Chryst is the centre of our world, in The North it is science and technology.

        In The South we size everything up according to our traditions and customs. In The New England they size everything up according to a hypothetical that they have in their mind about some point in the future.

        In New England they believe in equality, and all that comes with it. In The South we do not, and never will, no matter how hard they try to make us.

        Thus, the United States is not one country, but, many, and, we, in The South, we have our own ways and we are quite incompatible with Northeasterners.

        That said, they are entitled to their ways, just as we ours.

        #4. The South reserves the right to determine her future as we see fit. Currently we are riding with The Union, but, when we see fit to change that, we will do as we did in 1776 and in 1861, only this time we will not make the mistake to leave ourselves tied to the hip to those with whom we are not, in the collective sense, compatible.

        That said, I do wish to draw your attention to the fact that, In Dixie, we have a minority of Whites who think as Yankees, just as up North, particularly in the rural areas, and particularly in The Midwest, a lot of those folks think like us.

        As this country comes to it’s inevitable disintegration, don’t be surprised to see a new Confederacy of Red States and one of The Blue.

        We are headed that way, and have been so for a long long time.

        #6. I totally agree. The moral deficiencies of the north, however, does deprive them of any ability to assert moral authority over anyone other than themselves.

        #5. I have given it to you, exactly as our Southern forefathers thought it in the 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th centuries.

        If you cannot fathom it, or choose to find it unacceptable, that is okay.
        You are not Southern and your are entitled to disapprove as much as you wish, or simply not comprehend it.

        On a final note, I would say this – The South has far more reason to leave the Union, as of 2020, than it ever had in the past – 10 times as much.

        It amazes me how patient we are, though, I attribute that to the fact that too many of us have lost our balls in favour of microwave pizza and satellite NFL games.

        Well, Dear Cristina, I hope that is helpful!

        • Ivan Turgenev,

          I agree that the USA is far worse now than in 1861. You already know my religious/moral thoughts on secession. No need to repeat them.

          But I said I would not judge the issue based on my views/religion etc. I wanted to see the issue from the Southern viewpoint at the time. I do not see how the different parts of the United States can hold together now or then except by force.

          The Southern thought processes seem to be that each state is sovereign and can voluntarily leave and enter the Union as they seem fit. That seems to be the main justification for secession. So now I know what Southerners thought at the time.

          Well, I do thank you for giving me the Southern viewpoint.

          • @Cristina…

            You are very welcome. Ultimately, aggregation and dissolution are a part of all things, as everything that comes together, in this world, ultimately will come apart.

            Secession is but an aspect of this, and nowhere is secessionism on better display than in the dissolution of the erstwhile Soviet Union.

            Happily many states seceded from The Soviet Union in 1989, and the early 90s, and it was almost without bloodshed.

            I think that when folks cannot get on with each other, for a long period of time, separation is better, and, hopefully not so long after they can go back to being friends later on.

            Yes, I gave you what Southerners thought at the time, though, in many respects, many of us think it now.

            Just as Coastal California is returning to Mexico, and perhaps other parts of The Southweest, The South will return to itself, because this is the real nature of things.

      • @Cristina…

        “My religion disagrees.”

        I respect that, though, North Carolina did not even have one Catholic Church until 1870, that first one of wooden Gothic style being not far from my house.

        That it occurred then was because it became legal in North Carolina to have something other than Anglican Episcopalianism, which, for 250 years prior, had been our sole faith.

        Today, North Carolina has plenty of Roman Catholic Churches, and 20+ Eastern Orthodox, though, all in all we remain a Protestant Nation.

        That so, North Carolina is outside the Roman Catholic sphere, though some depp Southern states, such as Louisiana, and the southern parts of Alabama and Mississippi are not.

        • Ivan Turgenev,

          One last curtain call on this thread. There were Catholics who fought for the South, especially from Louisiana I would imagine. The strong pull of societal and national loyalty called them.

          In keeping with my comment on religion and secession I merely note the fact. I hope most of them came home safely and I wish others the same.

      • @Cristina…

        “Ivan Turgenev, My religion disagrees.”

        I am assuming you mean Roman Catholicism, because as a convert to Eastern Catholicism (Orthodoxy outside of The United States) ) I can tell you that they have a very different attitude – one that is both nationalistic and sometimes secessionist, although there have been exceptions to this.

        Orthodoxy has a tendency towards maintaining what was, and, indeed, has been, right in the here and now. If that means union, then so be it. If that means secession and revolt, then so be that.

        A perfect illustration about the difference between these Catholicisms is when Pope Francis tried to convene an international meeting with all faiths last year, with a purpose in mind of making a joint declaration about the validity of all.

        Most of The Orthordox churches refused to go, except for, if memory serves, Arch-Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, he who is regarded by many in the Eastern Church as a CIA asset.

  26. The Confederates, on the other hand, wanted to create a vast empire of Negro slaves including Mexico and South America. The miserably failed in their purpose. The Confederates were losers, bad losers.

    This is a lie. Such a proposal never had any traction.

    Here’s the true background of the War for Southern Independence. Northern abolitionists (including John Brown and his rich backers) proposed race war against the South. Republican radicals sided with them. The South saw no point in remaining in such an abusive “union” which threatened their safety. A that point they excercised their legitimate right to secede, following the example of their revolutionary war ancestors. Check it out: the Declaration of Independence was a secessionist document.

    Before ratifying the the Constitution three states NY, RI, and VA stipulated that they would retain their sovereign rights if the Union failed. The 10th Amendment gives states all rights not specifically delegated to the federal government. Both Hamilton and Madison said it would be unthinkable for the federal government to use force against states. Thomas Jefferson endorsed secession.

    When South Carolina seceded it had every right to reclaim the land on which Fort Sumter was built.. Lincoln’s move to reinforce the fort and threaten one of the South’s leading ports was an act of aggression to which the Southerners responded with arms. Sadly they fell for Lincoln’s ploy to which maneuvered them into firing first.

    Fort Sumter was not in Northern territory. Never did the South aim to annex Northern states. Southerners simply wanted to withdraw from the North and deal with slavery and other issues in their own way and time peacefully. Slavery didn’t cause the war. Yankee aggression did. That aggression destroyed the decentralized Republic envisioned by the Founders and replaced it with the centralized authoritarian Establishment we have today, which is truly becoming an Evil Empire. Lincoln saved the union by destroying the American Republic.

    • “The Confederates, on the other hand, wanted to create a vast empire of Negro slaves including Mexico and South America. The miserably failed in their purpose. The Confederates were losers, bad losers.”

      The above quote is of commentator “Cockburn”, who has some serious, existential hatred against all things Southern — and probably, all things White and European as well.

      Excellent commentary Roland! The South was completely justified in sesession from the Yankee tyranny, and Fort Sumter was their rightful property.

      Just imagine when the 13 colonies SECEDED from Great Britain, Britain claiming a fort in New York or Boston Harbour was “rightfully theirs” … the Americans would have LAUGHED THEIR ASSES OFF AT THEM thinking they could keep a British fort in an American city harbour.

      • Virtus,

        Thanks. I thought Roland might have been erroneously referring to me.

      • @Virtus…

        Yes, excellent points, as well.

        The whole unSouthern premise against Southern Nationhood is that we owe it to them or perhaps tor God to give up everything that is ours, in the exact time and manner which they see fit.

        I wish I had a dollar for every time somebody told me that The South has no right to exist, except as some other’s man’s dog.

        Thank you again for chiming in.

        We need to get back in the habit of making the Long Grey Line…

      • The above quote is of commentator “Cockburn”, who has some serious, existential hatred against all things Southern — and probably, all things White and European as well.

        You are mistaken, Virtus. I’m very much pro-White and pro-Europe. And that’s why I am not a fan of the Confederacy. It was a project of anti-White, Negro-loving Southern planter class.

    • @Roland…

      I totally agree with your take on things, My Southern Brother, and I thank you for having added your extremely well-versed voice to this dialogue!

    • Such a proposal never had any traction.

      Such proposals were very popular in the South. For instance, The Southern Literary Messenger said this:

      “The destiny of the Southern master and his African slave is accomplished. That destiny does not stop short of the banks of the
      Amazon. The world of wonders in
      the animal and vegetable kingdom, of
      riches incalculable in the vast domain,
      watered by that gigantic stream, is the
      natural heritage of the Southron and his
      domestic slave.”

      The very purpose of the existence of Confederacy was to expand Negro slavery into new territories. They attempted to annex Kentucky, Missouri, Arizona, Colorado, and even most of northern Mexico during the war. Southern politicians knew that Negro slavery would become unsustainable if confined to the existing territories.

      • Cockburn: Slavery in the South would have died a natural death, by force of Western opinion if nothing else. The South clung to slavery because abolitionist fanatics offered race war as the only alternative to it. Outside the Union, the South would not have faced this pressure, and would have had the peace of mind to contemplate peaceful emancipation.

        By seceding from the Union, the South renounced all claim to the northwestern territories. Arizona was disputed land which had no potential for plantation agriculture and slavery. The Confederates never tried to occupy Colorado or Northern Mexico. Kentucky and Missouri were Southern states where Yankee armed forces suppressed secessionists. The Confederate Constitution forbade the importation of slaves.

        The North forced the egalitarian 14th Amendment on the South and the rest of the country. The hypocrisy was stunning. Yankees said that a state could never leave the Union, but after the war they said that the Southern states could not get back into the Union until they ratified the amendment–as if non-states could vote on amendments!

        The consequence of the Yankee victory was the repressive centralized government we have today, one that esteems the envy-inspired goddess named Equality. Southerners have never worshiped this vile idol.

  27. @Ivan Turgenev,

    If you ACTUALLY knew anything substantive and accurate about the Third Reich’s policies towards Christianity, you’d either being committing the sin of bearing false witness or just being blindly ignorant of the truth.

    The vast majority of of the German and their allied forces that fought your beloved blood-thirsty Red Army of Stalin we’re Catholic. The Croatians, Hungarians, Romanians, Italians, Spainards, French, and Germany’s own Bavarians were overwhelmingly practicing Catholics.

    In case it is isn’t just your baby boomer or silent generation nonsensical knee-jerk anti-National Socialist take, here is one of the best sources on all things related to Germany under Hitler. His name is Mark Weber, and he is the director of the Institute for Historical Review. Like Herr Hitler, Mr. Weber’s reputation has been besmirched by lies, libelous smears, and government approved hostility in the UK and here in the jewnited states.

    Marx was correct about one thing for certain. That being that religion is the opiate of the masses.

    http://www.ihr.org/audio/archives/religion-and-christianity-hitlers-germany

    54 minutes in duration

    • @November…

      The issue at hand is that I have drawn some different conclusions from you and, when anyone does that, you must make perjorative statements about them and attempt to reeducate them to your views.

      It is not conducive to dialogue.

      In any case, I hope you will be well!

  28. @Christy,

    A German historian recently estimated that 860,000 German women were raped by international Jewry’s western allied troops, including approximately 190,000 by American military personnel.

    There is scant evidence of German troops raping women in the territories they occupied. When a unconsentual sexual assault did occur, the superior officer in charge on the perpetrator would summarily execute the offender. Wehrmacht troops and Waffen SS warriors knew the consequences for rape. That being said, they did partake in brothels, and has romantic relationships with local women.

    By contrast the White Protestant slave owners could and would rape young negresses. This aborent behavior often occurred when their wives were pregnant. Sons of slave owners also took nonconsensual sexual “liberties” with the negresses because the vast majority of White women remained virgins until marriage. None of these rapes were prosecuted by the southern judiciary. Funny thing about the miscegenation between the White southern slave holders and their negress; if the proud aristocratic plantation owner believed that negros were animals, then wouldn’t sexual relations with them be considered beastiality?

  29. November,

    Looks like an interesting video. I will have to watch it when I have the time. I was told to be on this site sparingly yet I have exploded with comments.

    I think I will look at this video tomorrow and then leave this thread and look at a few of the other articles tomorrow.

  30. November,

    Yes. I try not to think of such matters but it has to be known .If Germans would have been non white there would have been movie after movie detailing what occurred. And we are talking about the christian Allies as attackers much less the Soviets.

    I am hoping that it was relatively rare on young black girls being taken.

    This has to be the last comment by me on this thread. My older brother oversees me and said I was commenting too much. Not to worry. I will still be around and will comment here and there on other interesting subjects.

    • Your brother is also a tyrannical ogre. I’m not going to mention what will happen to him.
      Just tell him to keep a cross, garlic and silver bullets handy.

      • Arian,

        Okay that was funny. One last curtain call on this thread. My brother is bossy but protective. Now it is on to other articles on this site.

        I feel like Columbo where he always says—“Oh, one last thing sir “.

      • @Arian…

        “Your brother is also a tyrannical ogre.’

        …………………………………………………………………………………………………………

        No, you’ve neglected to take into account that Miss Christina is a Latin, from a good family, and their daddies always assign their sons to overlook their daughters, so that neither the young lady is soiled by bad judgement, nor the reputation of the family,

        This is the way they are, and, by the way, it used to be the way we, Anglo-Saxe, were.

        Last I’ll say this to you – my daughter was never left unchaperoned in our house when courters were with her.

        The one I left her alone with was the one who proposed, and only then after they saw the preacher.

        This definitely frustrated her future husband, and when he complained, I said : “You can drink the milk when you buy the cow.’

Comments are closed.