I’m trying to understand what I’m seeing.
Yes, another month, another Muslim terror attack in France. This is becoming a regular thing. What bothers me is that those things were obviously allowed to happen, and not only that, but the order came from America. The order to allow the hordes of Muslims into Europe and America, where they will do what they are best at – murder and rape – came from America. There is no other explanation for it.
What I’m interested in is “why”.
You see, the Paris, Brussels and Nice attacks are utterly unsurprising and predictable. The only ones shocked by that are those who are so fucking stupid they actually believe the leftist bullshit about all people being the same and all cultures and civilizations being the same. The main result of this officially sanctioned invasion of unwashed Muslim hordes from the Middle East will be the awakening of Europe and America to the true nature of Islam. It will remove Islam’s carefully designed and implemented trickery of the “religion of peace”, and people will see it for what it is: that ISIS and Al Qaeda are not some “heretics” who “misinterpret” Islam. They in fact practice it literally and diligently. It’s the “moderate” Muslims who are not practicing that thing properly. That’s the truth of Islam. Islam is the religion under which Europe was robbed, plundered and raped throughout the Middle Ages, and it only subsided once Europe industrialized and developed power sufficient to crush the Muslims militarily and turn them into colonies (which, if I may add, was the perfect state of things, because allowing those shitholes to function as sovereign states is a bad idea).
The consequence of letting the Muslims into Europe en masse is so predictable, and it is so certain that those giving the order knew what would happen, the only remaining question is “why”. What are they trying to accomplish?
My working hypothesis is that guys in Langley are very smart. Those in Washington are usually stupid and corrupt idiots, but there are some very smart people in the CIA, who basically think the same way I do, only they have more information and resources. So I can assume that they know the demographics of Europe, they know what a strategic error it was to give the Muslims the monetary equivalent of the entire energy expenditure of the Western civilization by allowing them to profit from oil and thus influence the Western civilization without actually needing to rise up to the challenge and attain the civilizational level necessary to participate in it. They know who actually ordered and financed 9/11. They know it’s the Saudis, they know what it’s all about. They know more about those bastards than I do. I’ve seen some public documents; those were written by smart people. So CIA is in the know about Islam, they know the same things Geert Wilders knows. It’s just that they don’t talk about it in public; rather, they prepare contingency plans, they develop options for dealing with the problem.
If we look at the entire recent history of events in the Middle East, America has been intervening there in order to decivilize and deindustrialize countries, basically removing from Islam everything that was obtained by oil money, and reducing them to their natural state of medieval savagery of ISIS. That is actually a good thing, because ISIS is not dangerous. An Islamic state with modern weapons and technology is dangerous, but if you remove the industrial layer and reduce it to the technological level Islam would naturally have if not for oil, the danger level is that of the Somali pirates – you need to watch them with some minor naval force, but they are harmless to the West. It looks very much like America has been going through the list of Middle-Eastern countries, sorted by hostility to America, descending, and crossing them with red ink, one by one. Iraq, Libya, Syria. The next one on the list is Iran, but since this one is the most difficult, Turkey and Saudi Arabia might rise closer to the top of the list.
So, if America is trying to get rid of the threat posed by Islam that was empowered and enriched by oil money, why are they importing Muslims en masse into Europe and America? Well, you can’t really get rid of the Muslims if people in Europe and America have an idealized, unrealistic picture of Muslims as some kind of innocent victims of colonialism and Israel. Muslims need to be seen for what they are, and no amount of propaganda would do it. What is actually necessary is to allow the Muslims to show, in several controlled instances, what they want, what they would do if unchecked, and what they truly are. People need to see them for what they are, and it would be utterly incredible and unbelievable if shown to the peoples of Europe and America in any other manner but through the blades and guns of Muslims. So, what we are seeing here, the terror attacks, it was allowed in order to awaken us to the evil of Islam, and to show us what Europe will look like if we allow that to immigrate and breed here, financed with our own tax money, because the Muslims are simply incapable of functioning in our civilization on merit while remaining Muslims. And the Leftists, whose ideology allowed it all to happen, they will utterly discredit themselves now and will also be seen for what they are: blithering idiots who think “good” means “different from Hitler”.
And I can expect the next steps. Turkey will descend into Islamism. Saudi Arabia will openly spite America and some serious shit will take place there. Iran will soon obtain nuclear capability, and then Israel will act. They will wipe out all Muslim centers in the Middle East, and by then people will be prepared to see this not as an evil act, but as something that, finally, someone actually had the guts to do, for the good of all. Islam will be banned everywhere, the Muslims will be dealt with in some way in both Europe and America, problem solved.
What I don’t understand is why America is simultaneously poking at Russia and China. I also don’t know if it is all actually a result of someone’s careful planning, or if some degree of chaos and uncertainty played a role. What I do know is that the likes of Obama and Hillary are puppets on someone else’s strings. That much is obvious; they are someone’s creatures.
What I find weird is West reaction to attempted coup in Turkey. Month ago they were all like “Erdogan dictator” and now he is basically a hero to democracy because the coup failed and those who wanted coup are now terrorists.
The coup attempt was so weak, it increasingly looks like something Erdogan himself fabricated in order to be able to destroy all opposition and establish a caliphate. The thing is, I’ve seen several coups in Turkey and they have two things in common. They succeed, and there are no masses of pro-government supporters who come to the streets as if on cue, who seem to know exactly what’s going on and what’s about to happen.
But even if he didn’t actually organize it, Erdogan will use this one to bolster his dictatorship, and it’s all in NATO.
The coup attempt was so weak, it increasingly looks like something Erdogan himself fabricated in order to be able to destroy all opposition and establish a caliphate. The thing is, I’ve seen several coups in Turkey and they have two things in common. They succeed, and there are no masses of pro-government supporters who come to the streets as if on cue, who seem to know exactly what’s going on and what’s about to happen.
But even if he didn’t actually organize it, Erdogan will use this one to bolster his dictatorship, and it’s all in NATO.
Also passed my mind that he did it himself and if that is true, it shows with what kind of man are we dealing with. He imprisoned over 2000 persons and plans to implement death sentence. I find the notion of him being “hero to democracy” really repulsive.
Btw, does you theory imply that USA is “good guy” in the whole story, they want to save Europe from Islam or I got something wrong?
Yes, I was working from that assumption. It’s like maths, you make an assumption and you follow it either to inevitability or contradiction. I know that some people there are smart enough to understand the demographic inevitability if nothing is done, they also understand that shit is about to hit the fan much before we actually run out of oil and it would be smart to be proactive. I also know what Wesley Clark leaked about Pentagon planing to take out all countries in the Middle East that oppose American interests, so my analysis is obviously not without merit. I also know that the public face of the American government can be safely ignored because decisions are not made there, but behind the scenes.
So, we need to either assume that there is a plan behind the chaos, with the desired goal of eliminating a serious threat proactively, before it has had time to manifest fully, or we must assume that there are many players involved on the American side and they are either fucking stupid or they interfere with each other’s plans in such a way as to create the impression of madness and lack of coherent planning.
The Russians, on the other hand, have a different agenda, which basically sums up to not wanting to see world blow up, which is why they are putting out fires. They appear to be the good guys, but unfortunately their actions help the Muslims.
I think that decisions behind US government are product of various factions and that these “powers that be” are more like modern Game of Thrones, where one faction wants control over other factions but sometimes their plans as a whole turn out to be same in the end. Its obvious that one of these plans is destabilization of Middle East.
But I simply can’t regard these factions as good guys even though they want destruction of radical Islam.
Its too late for them to be good guys when all they did in past 100 years was warmongering, toppling governments and playing lead role as chief world policeman. Also, lets not forget they also desperately want war with Russia.
So, I count on Russia and China to step up their game and play cool as usual but with more decisive actions, hopefully without gun toting.
I agree that neither side will aim for an outcome a normal person would view as favorable. It’s like having to decide whether to be ruled by the leftists with their taxes, feminism and surveillance state, or by the Muslims with Saudi Arabia-like state as the desirable end result, only without oil money. It’s hell either way.
You said that this universe was intended to function as hell,so it seems only appropriate it will be even more hell here.
Not if someone out of this picture pulls the plug first.
The problem is that Americans are not only going against the Muslims, but also against Russia and China, and quite honestly everyone else. Yes, the Russians kinda help Muslims in Syria, and the Chinese and Russians also protect the Iranians. I’m afraid this is simply necessary realpolitik, because China can deal with their own Muslims, but they need to protect themselves against possible American attack which includes sanctions the way America imposed on Japan. I like Putin but I disagree with his appeasing approach to Islam. This was quite disturbing and unnecessary move:
https://www.rt.com/politics/323191-russia-law-holy-books/
As for America being a good guy, isn’t that quite a stretch? If there is a puppeteer, he is certainly playing with high stakes. What I see in America right now is blacks vs whites (this is currently escalating fast), women against men, Islam vs everyone else, Christians being mocked as usual by atheists, 1% vs 99%, free speech disappearing and “hate speech” being introduced, totalitarian measures, half of the nation on drugs and anti-depressants, borders being open and border guards being ordered to stand down and let the people in. And externally, piling troops on the Russian and Chinese borders. And somehow this is all supposed to magically work out before everyone kills each other and the western civilization completely degenerates. I don’t know. This to me looks like the war of all against all.
I think it’s more plausible that while Bush was in power Israeli puppeteer was pulling strings that benefit Israel (and to some extent everyone else), and when leftists are in power they aim for total destruction of both spiritual and material.
Although, aiming for a war of massive proportions against Islam in order to rejuvenate the western civilization is not exactly illogical, but honestly speaking the entire thing reminds me more of a SK style planning which creates all kinds of evils with the promise that in the end everything will fall into place and all these evils will prove to be for greater good.
My approach to evaluating whether America is good or not is simply: what would I do? Yea it’s kinda egocentric approach but oh well. And there’s almost nothing that America does now that I would do. Even if Islam gets totally eradicated in the entire world, there’s still a problem of all the other conflicts that the US is starting internally and externally.
Essentially, yes, that is exactly right. So, we need to view the “good guy” concept in perspective, relative to the context. Basically, what they appear to be doing is making long term projections of the state of the world and America if things linearly continue developing the way they are now, and if the result is unacceptable they intervene to change it. The problem is what their “acceptable outcome” is. None of it is acceptable to me. I don’t want to live in a nuclear wasteland, or in a totalitarian concentration camp of a state, or in a state where the leftists hysterically scream about privilege and guilt because they need more tax money. I also don’t want to live under Islam. On the other hand, it is obvious that there are more people than jobs, and that’s a long-term trend, it’s not a joke. All the countries of the West are deeply in debt and struggling under excessive taxation, which basically means that the economies don’t produce a net positive, and none of it is sustainable.
The fires that seem to be blowing up all over the place are only a symptom, and the problem is the fundamental ideology behind the entire civilization, including economy. I suspect it’s mostly due to the infiltration of socialism everywhere, because I see it in the civilizational attitude towards work. Basically, work=exploitation, and that reeks of Marxism. They actually lecture China about having to fire workers because they’re “exploited”, and presumably install robots and fire all the workers who will then not be exploited, but will also become useless, and who will feed them, well of course the state, with tax money and debt.
Essentially, when you say that someone has the right to eat, you say that “someone” has a duty to feed him, which means shifting responsibility and therefore agency from the individual to the state, freeing people to chase Pokemon in parks and streets while the world is blowing the fuck up.
I followed the coup for a few hours as it evolved in the evening and the coup itself was so disorganized and without a goal that it might have been Erdogan who was behind it. Or not. Was the parliament occupied? No. The palace? No. Any government figures captured? No. Were they ready for blood sacrificed like the military in Egypt? No. That one Muslim guy in Nice caused as many deaths as the entire military faction in Turkey. Even more ridiculous was the takeover of the media. The coup takes control. Then the government takes the media back. Then the coup again sends troops. Only for the government to again restore the order 5 min later (each time seemingly without casualties). The entire situation was so ridiculous, but then again so was the military and the police of the Ukraine during the coup there. Except they did not start anything in the first place. The Turkish military occupies the airport with tanks, and then pro-Erdogan supporters just walk in without casualties. The only ones doing anything seemed to be one helicopter and one jet, and interesting enough one helicopter and one jet were reported to have been downed. I think the previous coup started at 3am, which is a good time for the coup. This coup however started Friday evening, when people are already out. And it’s the age of social media. What time would be more convenient for pro-Erdogan Muslim fanatics to gather in the streets than a nice Friday evening? Maybe Saturday evening.
Yes, my highest probability estimate is that Erdogan deceived a group of his enemies and led them to believe that they will succeed, drew them out in the open and now he basically has free rein to dispose of all his enemies, rewrite the constitution, introduce sharia law and basically transform Turkey into a caliphate. The fact that he disposed of all the judges already says volumes about the actual intent, which is to completely get rid of Ataturk’s legacy and return to the tenets of the Ottoman empire
I’ve recently come upon this:
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/07/15/485900076/how-a-danish-town-helped-young-muslims-turn-away-from-isis
“Christopher Hopwood, an associate professor of psychology at Michigan
State University, studies something called noncomplementary behavior.
Complementary behavior is the norm. It means when you act warmly, the
person you are with is likely to act warm back. The same is true with
hostility. But noncomplementary behavior means doing the unexpected.
Someone acts with hostility and you respond warmly. It’s an unnatural
reaction, and it’s a proven way to shake up the dynamic and produce a
different outcome from the usual one.”
Would you care to comment on it from your perspective?
Personally, I agree with you 100% when it comes to Islam. This is something people will easily buy, if they’ve never met irredeemable assholes in their lives. I have, so I know better. Sometimes you respond with warmth to hostility and the shitbag just uses it to fuck you up even worse.
I see Islam as an operating system for the brain. When you install it, only certain software is allowed to run, inputs are interpreted in a certain way, and outputs are regulated according to a pattern. If you know what the OS does, interpreting the actions of Muslims is trivially easy. If you don’t understand what it is and what it does, and you treat installations as individuals, you suddenly have no means of understanding what’s going on and you are sensitive to all sorts of deceptions that would be utterly predictable to anyone who understands the rule-based system.
Essentially, you can’t treat Muslims as individuals, because they’re not. They’re Muslims. It’s similar to the way in which you can’t treat communists as individuals, because they’re running a Marxist OS which makes them react in a predictable pattern that’s well known in advance. All cult members are a manifestation of cult, they are not individuals. Failing to understand that will get you fucked.
It’s like, Allah is God and Mohammed is His prophet. Adhere diligently to the instructions of Mohammed because that’s the will of Allah. Do everything to make Islam prevail.
And that’s it, if you implement those rules you get a perfect understanding of how a Muslim’s mind will react to a situation. He will try to make Islam prevail. If that means portraying himself and other Muslims in a favorable light, he’ll do that, if success of Islam depends on quashing suspicions and hostility of non-Muslims. If he has the impression that power is on his side, he will use it to make Islam prevail. So basically it’s lie, weasel out and sleeze if weak, and Allahu Akbar when strong. So essentially a non-Islamic civilization has 4 ways of dealing with that. First is do nothing and be destroyed, converted to Islam. Second is to ban Islam and deport all Muslims from its territory. Third is to try to convert Muslims to a better OS, basically install a better OS into heads that currently run Islam, and fourth is to cut off heads that are contaminated with faulty software.
Thank you.
Now I wonder if your third option is what they’re trying to do in the article, by instilling a more progressive mindset and worldview. I’d say it’s a dangerous gamble, it just allows further tolerance and entrenchment. Unless the person stops being a Muslim, the imperatives of Islam will always prevail.
A person would have to be incredibly stupid to even consider joining ISIS, especially if they live in an advanced country, so it’s better to let such people go and forbid their return.
Stupid, or desperate. You see, the current state of the Western civilization leaves much to be desired. We have been taken over by the leftists and their derivatives of Marxism, which was a huge step backwards from the 20th century. We have to deal with the consequences, one of which is the resurgence of Islam, which was all but extinct in the early 20th century; even the Turks decided they wanted nothing to do with it because it is backward and useless. Unfortunately, 3 things happened then. Post-colonialism, essentially relinquishing power of the West over middle-eastern and African shitholes, allowing them statehood and independence, huge importance of oil, which was purchased from the said shitholes, giving them inordinate amount of power in the world, and the moral crisis of the West caused by the leftist ideological experimentation, first and foremost the concept of human rights, which was pulled out of someone’s ass in order to supplant religious ethics.
Combine Western renunciation of itself with allowing Islam to become powerful simply because oil happened to exist there by chance, and you have the crisis we are in now.
I particularly appreciate your analysis of the moral crisis, or rather, the complete lack of meaning or purpose in the current Western paradigm. It was eye-opening to understand how modernism crashed and what followed from that. Even though I’d observed various telltale signs, I never fully connected them to the logical conclusion.
I’m not sure how that theory fits with the current status of pro-leftist propaganda which is coming through all kinds of NGO organizations and written media, especially in small countries like Croatia. And these are mostly, if not completely, funded and put into action by overseas resources.
Why would they want to praise and justify something they actually want to destroy? This is explainable only if there are two or more major different fractions of power competing for dominance… or something like that.
That’s just the thing: they don’t have a mind of their own, they write what they are told to. That’s why it’s difficult to ascertain *why* they are doing something, because you’re really trying to figure out the puppeteer’s intentions, not the puppet’s.
The current media narrative might be an example of reverse psychology, because if the discredited media and the political class advocate an obviously suicidal conciliatory stance towards the Muslims, it will become obvious to the population that the Muslims are a problem that needs to be dealt with, and if the politicians at one point change their stance, that wouldn’t be the least bit surprising. But then again, I’m only guessing. I don’t know if this is all a result of some very sophisticated plan, or of total madness and idiocy. The result would appear to be the same from where I stand.
As for why the US is poking at Russia and China, that seems to be the case only when Democrats are in power. American foreign policy is quite predictable depending on whether Republican or Democratic faction is in power. In one of the recent videos Stefan said that one of the things leftists do better is foreign policy, which sounded as off to me as when people praised democracy for South Korean economic prosperity (when I did a closer look that proved to be false, as South Korea became prosperous during the reign of dictators, and what’s more, by ignoring US economic advice). Anyway, after Stefan’s comment I did a brief analysis of American foreign policy over the last 100 years. Unsurprisingly, claims of Republican party being a “war party” turned out to be just another leftist myth. It is no coincidence that a Republican candidate advocates for cooperation with Russia while speaking respectfully of Putin, whereas a Democratic candidate slanders and vilifies Putin and is intent on starting WWIII.
Going over major conflicts this is how the list looks like:
WWI – Democrat in power
WWII – Democrat in power
To quickly sum up: I am not against the involvement of the US in these wars. However, interesting enough both world wars happened while Democrats were in power. And the only political party in the world to ever use the nuclear bomb was the US Democratic party. Contrary to American mythology, the US did not save the world in either of these wars. WWI was almost over, and the US military was totally incompetent in European battlefield, having used obsolete tactics which achieved nothing. In WWII the Soviets crushed the Germans, and after that the US launched D-Day operation at all cost to prevent the Soviets from conquering the entire Germany. But back to the point – Democrats involved the US in a European war which wasn’t really their war, and in the second case Democrats imposed oil sanctions on Japan, after which Japan needed oil elsewhere, and concluded that if they attack South-East Asia to get oil, the US will intervene anyway. And so they decided to strike pre-emptively. I’m not a fan of Japan in WWII, I’m just making a point that Democrats wanted the war, set the stage for war with Japan, lured Japan, knew that Pearl Harbor will get attacked but they needed the justification to enter the war public was against.
Korean war – Democrat in power.
The war was an attempt of unification of artificially split Korean territory. Neither the Soviets nor the Chinese wanted this war. It was a Korean matter. And yet “peaceful” Democrats had to intervene for geopolitical reasons, and defending South Korea was not enough for them, they had to push all the way to the Chinese border, as well as sending warships between China and the Chinese island of Taiwan, blocking it (it was deployment of these warships that triggered war preparations in China, not crossing of the line in Korea). As for US justification here, I’ll point out that the US itself considers the attack on Confederacy to be justified. Now, this doesn’t say anything about whether or not the US involvement resulted in some accidental good because doing good was not a motivation here.
Bay of Pigs Invasion and Cuban Missile Crisis – Democrat in power.
Vietnam war – Democrat in power
Afghanistan war of 1979 – Democrat in power
Democrats were arming and cooperating with radical Muslims, although the US did not openly enter the war.
Iraq war – Republican in power (Bush family)
Afghanistan war – Republican in power (Bush family)
Iraq war #2 – Republican in power (Bush family)
Kosovo war – Democrat in power
Libya war – Democrat in power – allying with ISIS and radical Muslims against moderate government
Syria war – Democrat in power – allying with ISIS and radical Muslims against moderate government
Ukraine war – Democrat in power
I’d like to point out few things here.
1. Democrats have been supporting radical Islam for decades. It is no surprise that they want to let many of them inside the US (and Europe). Before Obama, no one heard of ISIS. During Obama’s regime, the US has been shamelessly arming ISIS while at the same time pretending to fight them.
2. It was during the reign of Republicans that the Chinese reached out to the US (Kissinger, Nixon). It was during the reign of Republicans that the Cold War ended, and it was Reagan who was making treaties with the Soviets, not some Democrat. It was George W. Bush who was speaking respectfully of Putin, and cooperated with Russia (whatever else we may think of him). What did the Democrats do? Provoked the Cuban Missile Crisis. Clinton intentionally bombed the Chinese embassy during the Kosovo war, and it was during his reign that NATO violated the deal made with Russians, and started accepting ex-Soviet states as NATO members. Obama tried undermining China but Hong Kong protests failed. Then he continued provoking China in the South China Sea. At the same time he created the Ukrainian crisis to undermine Russia, imposed sanctions on Russia along with US vassals, cooperated with Turkey on shooting down Russian warplane in Syria, manipulated with oil prices, sent brigades to the Russian border and so on. In other words he has been doing everything to provoke another world war, and what a coincidence it would be yet another world war during the reign of Democrats.
3. If we eliminate the Bush family the only Republican wars left are small conflicts, civil war involvements and CIA operations that I left out for clarity (Americans are always brewing some conflict somewhere, so the entire list would be too long). And when we take a look at what Bush family did, it was fighting radical Islam in Afghanistan, and fighting Saddam (plus Panama). None of that is comparable to what the Democrats did.
4. Some claim that Democrats opposed the war in Iraq but no. Most Democratic senators for example supported it. Democrats first and foremost opposed Republicans. Being a party in opposition, and opposing the proposal of the party in power, is hardly a good view of true intentions. When Obama gained power (and Nobel Peace Prize) he intensified conflicts and chaos all over the globe, and only reduced ground troops. He relied more on air strikes, drone strikes, special ops, proxy wars, economic warfare, coup d’etat and so on. He was ready for another war after Libya but Putin did what he could to prevent that.
Conclusion: Foreign policy of Democrats is disastrous. Republicans are not even close. Republicans respect major powers and act like adults, whereas Democrats act like spoiled brats. They are careless, bloodthirsty, and have no sense of danger. And they always ally themselves with the worst side.
There are a few things here that bother me.
First and foremost, what do we actually know about the real causes of the world wars? I am yet to see something convincing about the first one, and the second one is even worse because the more I get into the facts, the more the Nazis looks like main stream of European politics at the time; the only indefensible thing they did was the practice of genocide, in Poland and USSR. In fact, Churchill seems to the greatest warmonger and villain there, and America probably directly caused WW2 by imposing sanctions on Japan and Germany, and by a constant, incessant stream of propaganda against Hitler, with the major difference between then and now being that Putin is a much cooler player than Hitler, and isn’t as easily provoked.
The most interesting thing I noticed that on the personal level, Churchill was despised and hated, and Hitler was loved and respected, by their coworkers and associates. This is usually indicative. We might simply be living a case of winners writing the history, and not being able to recognize the propaganda because the facts have for the most part been obliterated and suppressed.
The reason why that bothers me is that the concept of human rights, which seems to be the root cause of all this mess we’re in now, as it was designed as something that is externally enforced by design and therefore requires the state to grow into the role of God, is a direct result of the second world war, and of re-designing the ethical framework of the Western civilization around Hitler as Satan. Also, any attempt to solve the Muslim problem will have to acknowledge that Hitler’s approach to such issues might actually be the only one that would work, and that there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with, for instance, deporting tens of millions of Muslims from Europe and America simply because their civilizational model sucks and we don’t allow it here.
There seem to be so many causes of WWI that I think any one of them on their own could’ve triggered the war. It doesn’t help that internal conflicts were also common and my view on who is “right” and who is “wrong” and to what degree keeps changing with new information. But few things seem to be clear: Serbia was ready for war for quite a while. Austria was not. Russian tzar expected a major war in Europe that year. German emperor did not (vacationing). Human factor seems to have played a considerable role in many countries, and in that the start of the war seems to be reminiscent of Franco-Prussian war. Bismarck tricked the French into attacking and the French, being less prepared, lost. All because of pride.
Most academics seem to blame Germany even for WWI, which indicates propaganda. And WWII history, the part that is fed to the public, is so distorted that one needs to read obscure original material to get some truth. For example, I initially thought that Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union was a result of ongoing megalomania. Nothing unheard of, both the Napoleon and Alexander the Great seemed to have just kept going and going, conquering as much as they could, never being satisfied. Well, it so turned out that Stalin planned to invade Germany, and Germans did a pre-emptive strike a month or two before that. You’d think this is sort of an important fact to know, but I’ve never heard it anywhere until I started asking questions and digging. You mentioned Churchill but I’ve also never seen anything positive about Stalin (or his western counterpart Hillary). Hitler on the other hand is a different story. I don’t know a lot about him so I don’t want to draw conclusions (based on “common knowledge”), but there seems to be a huge difference between who he really was, and how he is portrayed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6o84NU9Ees
I think the root cause is the US, since both human rights, anti-colonialism, and all kinds of twisted ideologies all originate from there, including neo-communism – and the US is the one aggressively spreading that around the world. It’s not a given, but I think at least some European countries would have developed counter-measures to Islam if it weren’t for the total control that the US has over Europe. Basically, it’s like, there’s Mao’s China, with communism destroying the economy and “cultural revolution” destroying cultural heritage. And then Mao is gone and things drastically improve in all ways:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5q8UgSEkmI
Good point. What I find interesting that from elementary school they have been feeding us totally black and white version of both WWI and WWII where you have axis powers as demons and allies as a saviors, but the truth is not so black and white.
Even if Hitler was a megalomaniac and we can’t consider him “good guy”, I don’t think he was actually totally in charge of events. There must have been someone else pulling the strings and they saw in Hitler perfect leader who will actually unite the world AGAINST him. Like they wanted two warring sides but they needed to create opposites (evil axis and good allies) in order for whole thing to become total war.
This requires quite a bit of thinking and I don’t want to commit myself to any particular unequivocal kind of answer, but my interpretation of world wars as social thermodynamic events in which disbalances between actual power and ownership of resources tend to form dramatic entropy-events seems to hit closest to reality.
People, of course, want to put all those things in terms of good and evil, where good of course won and evil lost, but let’s take Yugoslavia as an example. In WW2, you had Serbian Chetnik royalists, you had Croatian Ustaše who were basically a terrorist organization formed in response to Serbian mistreatment of Croats, you had the communist party and their Partisans, and you had the normal population, which was basically reduced to victimhood, because all the above parties were simply gangs of ideologically driven murderers, who robbed, pillaged and slaughtered each other and the civilian population. Essentially, the armed Serbians would kill some Croats for fun and macho demonstration of power, and then Ustaše would slaughter and burn a Serb vilage. The Serbs then joined the communist resistance (the Partisans). Ustaše would occasionally capture some Partisans and send them to Jasenovac and Stara Gradiška where they would kill them with knives and hammers and throw them into the Sava river. The Partisans, after the war, took some 150000 Croatian soldiers prisoner, and took them for a walk from Austrian border to Jasenovac, and filled various pits and abandoned mines with their corpses as they killed them with knives and hammers. So yeah, good guys. Good luck finding those. There are still arguments about which side in the war was “good”, but my informed opinion is that they were all criminals of the worst kind, and the criminal gang that won defined “good”. Ustaše, Chetniks and Partisans were all bloodthirsty scum, murderers and villains of the worst kind, and “good” would take place only if by some miracle God killed all of them and sent them to hell where they belong, so that they couldn’t terrorize the actually good people, who were seemingly to be found only among the victims.
As for Hitler, Stalin and Churchill, Stalin was actually the most bloodthirsty, savage and crazy between the three. He killed more Russians than Hitler killed Jews. This is unprecedented madness. Churchill was the architect of the Gallipoli debacle and massacre in the WW1, for which he was fired, and he actually provoked Hitler in attacking Britain, which directly caused the destruction of the British Empire. Hitler, on the other hand, is an enigma, because so much of the actual history was created by the winners, we don’t actually have a version of events that would make sense and provide valid explanations. He indeed seems to have been deliberately provoked into extending his war efforts and was quite a flammable character, prone to emotions and disinclined to listen to seasoned advice. But he also seems to have been a better person than the other two.