Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Memorial of Hate: Bomber Command, the British, and The Guardian

I read an interesting opinion piece this morning in the left-liberal British newspaper, The Guardian, by Richard Gott, called: 'This flurry of memorials discourages deeper analysis of the cost of war'. Gott wrote on a planned memorial, in Britain, to Bomber Command, which killed hundreds of thousands of German, Belgian, French and other European civilians in their mass bombardment of the Continent during the Second World War. Gott's message was merely: 'Let's spare a thought for the victims' - which seems reasonable enough. But I was struck by the furious reaction to the article, by the Guardian readership: most of the comments in the Comments section were, 'The Germans deserved it', because of the Holocaust of the Jews, etc. The ferocity of these statements disturbed me: were they representative of the British Left? Of British liberals (who form the majority of the Guardian's readership)? Why so much hate, and so little compassion? Suppose that the Holocaust was disproved tomorrow - that a crack team of CSI-type investigators, from all the world's leading nations, went into Auschwitz and other alleged death camps, and found insufficient traces of the poison gas there (used to kill millions of people) - would that make the liberal anti-Nazis sorry for the mass bombings of Europe by Bomber Command? Would there be an imbalance, then, on the scales: instead of the Germans having gotten their 'just desserts' for the murder of the six million, the Germans would then have something owing to them - by the British, and the Americans (whose USAAF also terror-bombed Europe)... One poster even quoted the Dresden death toll, revised downward by the German government, from 100,000-200,000 to - 25,000! Another evening of the scales. (Suppose, though, someone were to lower the Holocaust death toll from six million to 304,000? Would that even things?).

The German bombing of Britain, of course, killed 65,000 British (according to John Mosier's figures), but the Allied bombardment of Germany (and Europe) killed hundreds of thousands. So the Allies paid back the Germans for their bombing of Britain - with interest.

Perhaps the posters weren't representative of the British people: they could have been Jews, even Israeli Jews (who openly revel, on the Internet, in the deaths of the enemies of 'their people' - whether these enemies be Palestinians, Germans, or the Norwegian Labour Party youth killed by Breivik); perhaps they were part of that two-million strong Indian, Pakistani and African immigrant population, brought in by Blair, who revel in the chance to stick it to the white man by proxy - gloating over the mass murder of whites in Internet forums is one way a misanthropic non-white immigrant can enjoy himself. But, of course, the crimes of the RAF and the USAAF were perpetrated by white Anglo-Saxons on their fellow whites: that's undeniable. We have to ask ourselves why.

Clearly, it wasn't because of the Holocaust. As we know, the mounds of dead skinny people in Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and other camps in Germany at the end of the war, were a propaganda boon for the Allies. It was alleged, by the Allies and the Russians, that the Germans had gassed people in the German, and Poland camps, etc., and quite a few respectable military historians on the Allied side declared that the existence of the German camps justified the entire war - which is ridiculous, but symptomatic of the liberal thinking of the time. But this wasn't the Holocaust. It was only thirty years after the war that the Holocaust - the gassing and cremation of six million Jews - first entered the white Western man's consciousness. The Holocaust then became, by the 1970s, the justification, post facto, for the entire Second World War - and that includes all the depredations, wrought by the Allies and the Soviets, on the Germans. The Holocaust is, of course, based on old prophecies on the Talmud - it's Jewish religion, in essence, just as much as the Rapture is based on prophecies in the New Testament and is Christian religion. But both the Holocaust, and the German gas chambers, were very far from the minds of the RAF and the USAAF, and the men who directed them - the Roosevelts, the Churchills - during the actual war itself. So, no, the Holocaust, and the gas chambers, were not the impetus for the aerial campaign against the Germans.

It wasn't the impetus, either, for the ferocious Allied policies (particularly American) towards the Germans after the war, which led to the death, by starvation, of millions of German POWs and civilians - under a policy enforced by Eisenhower, and devised by the Jewish-Americans Morgenthau Jr. and Harry Dexter White. American soldiers burned huge piles of food in front of starving German crowds, and watched, quite casually, while hundreds of thousands of German POWs in Eisenhower's barbed-wire enclosures perished of starvation and exposure. (Death by starvation, on all sides, was common in WWII, and took the lives of millions of Russians, Greeks, Ukrainians, Dutch and others. But, while the rest of starving, post-war Europe feasted on food rations supplied by Allied largesse, the Americans withheld the German share - in order to punish them. The American mentality at the time wasn't that far removed from that of the Guardian posters).

Whites killing their fellow whites, en masse, in cold blood - that's something that's always perplexed me, whether it be the mass murder of Germans, by the Americans and the British, or Breivik's murder of his fellow Norwegians. If one is a racialist, one is not surprised when different ethnic and racial groups kill one another - like the black South Africans killings of the white Boer farmers after the end of apartheid, or the Japanese mass killing of the Chinese during the war, or the Rwandan genocide. The Czech and Polish mass murder of ethnic Germans also constitutes another instance of this - it was the culmination of hundreds of years of pent-up Slavic antipathy to the Germans in the East. But, in the Anglo-Saxon versus German case - there wasn't any significant racial difference. Both groups belonged to the same white and Western European Culture.

My opinion is that both Breivik, and America and Britain during the war, were motivated by the same purpose: to avenge the offence, by the Norwegian liberal youth and the Germans respectively, against the Jews. The Norwegian Labour Party youth had angered Breivik by 'supporting Islam' and opposing Israel, and it was fitting, then, that Breivik would carry out his outrages on the anniversary of the King David Hotel bombing in Jerusalem... As for the case of the Allies, I read this in The Desert Rats: 7th Armoured Division, 1940-1945 (Robin Neillands, Orion, 1991, pp. 16-17):

Meanwhile, with war and rumours of war in the air, men were drifting to the Colours or into the Territorial Army. One of these was Rick Hall, who owned a Morris 8 car, and therefore joined the Royal Army Service Corps, the RASC.

'I used to do a lot of cycling and in 1936 a group of us cycled all the way to Germany to try and see the Olympic Games. We didnt'get in, having no tickets, so I didn't see Jesse Owens or Hitler, but I did see a group of Nazi Brownshirts smashing a Jew's head against a wall... terrible, and I thought, "Right, one of these days this lot are going to need sorting out". I came home convinced there would be trouble, because people like that have to be stopped. I kept telling people there was going to be a war, and they kept asking me, "What are you going to do about it?". So I joined the Emergency Reserve in 1938 as a driver... I got called up on Friday, 1st September 1939... Then on Sunday I heard Chamberlain say we were at war. I then joined 10 Coy of the 2nd Echelon, 1st Heavy Armoured Brigade, and went to France'.

I like the WWII generation very much, and I like British and Australian (and even American) soldiers very much. But I shake my head at the political and moral imbecility displayed by the above British serviceman (no doubt fĂȘted by his relatives and the British public, given all sorts of medals and Queen's birthday telegram messages, etc.). I want to say to him - and his entire generation of British: 'You brought about the most terrible war in Europe's history, after you declared war on Germany for its invasion of Poland (but not on the USSR for its invasion of Poland); you helped bring about the end of the British Empire, and handed whatever sovereignty you had to the Americans; you and the Americans laid Western Europe to waste with your bombing; you, with your invasions of France, Italy and Germany, helped the Russians win the war and seize half of Eastern Europe and Germany - and all because some Jew had his head bashed against a wall?'.

Millions of Germans were raped, ethnically cleansed, murdered, starved after the war... Over a thousand Nazis were hanged at Nuremberg, quite a few tortured by the Allies, or the Russians, into "confessing" - I'd say that this nation was 'taught a lesson' and 'sorted out'. And no small thanks to you, Mr British!

And, no doubt, if all this was brought to the attention of this particular British veteran (or others like him), he would grow perturbed and then scream, defiantly, 'But I'm glad! I'm bloody well glad of what I did!'.

Supposing that this veteran's anecdote is true - and his memory isn't playing tricks on him, retroactively (as often happens to soldiers, especially very old ones) and inventing a false memory of a noble, pre-war anti-Nazi political stance - and supposing that it is representative: then we get a good picture of the wartime Anglo-Saxon mentality. The poor little Jews were picked on, so millions of Germans and other Europeans had to pay - with their lives. The USSR invaded Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Rumania, Poland, Finland - but these acts of aggression (unlike Germany's) could be overlooked, because the USSR didn't (unlike the Germans) hold to an official state ideology of anti-Semitism. The NKVD and the Red Army bashed quite a few heads against the wall in these countries - but these heads didn't belong to Jews. That's the main thing.

The Guardian readership, the wartime Americans and British, Breivik - all dancing to the same sick, twisted tune. The British were, during the war, in a partnership - spiritual, political, ideological - with Jewry even early on (we know, now, how close Churchill was to Chaim Waizmann, the future president of Israel); then, after 1941, they were in close alliance with Roosevelt and his Jewish Brains Trust. We can see this as a sinister American-British-Jewish tripartite pact. This continues, of course, today. Anglo-Saxons like Mitt Romney and David Cameron swear to fight to the last drop of blood to defend Israel from Iranians, who now play the role of the brownshirted head-bashers.

At any rate, the wartime annihilation of the West German cities, the post-war Morgenthau Plan of punishment, the denazification of Germany, the Allied indoctrination of the German populace with war guilt, the indoctrination of Germany with weird Judaic, Talmudic Holocaust-values - was all for naught. The simple truth is that the politics of Europe, and the Middle East, are slowly reverting to where they were a hundred years ago. Germany and Turkey are becoming 'great powers' again, as they were in the days of the Ottoman Empire and the old German Second Reich. Russia is led by a Tsar figure who is autocratic, illiberal, conservative, and perpetually suspicious of the West - blaming domestic opposition to his rule on 'Western interference' - and is buttressed by the Eastern Orthodox Church and all the forces of reaction (are the Muscovite anti-Putinists, in this scenario, the new Bolsheviks and Mensheviks?). Europe, and Turkey, are still, of course, ruled by America and Israel - but that control is gradually slipping. Both Germany and Turkey are using the newfound freedom to flex their muscles - almost on the sly (looking to make sure that America isn't looking). You can't keep an old dog down, and you certainly can't keep a German down.

One thing has changed in Europe forever, though: Britain and the British Empire. The old Britain, the Britain of the men of the 7th Armoured, is forever gone. The British are being wiped out, in their own cities, by immigration - which is doing a more efficient and thorough job than Hitler's V-rockets and Luftwaffe bombers ever did.

But to return to the subject of the British Left - the British Left which reads the Guardian every day - why are they so filled (if the Comments section is anything to go by) with hate and anger?

Leftism, especially post-Soviet Leftism, relies a lot on hatred and anger. I know this from experience, as a left-liberal student in the 1990s. Reading the works of John Pilger, Noam Chomsky filled me with anger, towards the USA, the Anglo-Saxon people, the 'crimes of colonialism', of whites against the Third World. But then, the works of Chomsky and Pilger are designed to fill their young, gullible, left-wing, white readers with hatred and rage. The left-wing creature, after 1991, subsists on on a diet of pure anger against all the wrongs, the injustices, of the world.

As to why this is so: communism, for all its faults, channeled the energies of the Left into a positive direction. Communism is about building a new society, remaking the world, correcting past injustices, about moving towards a better tomorrow; but, as we know from history, communism just doesn't achieve those goals - and it kills a lot of people on the way. But at least Marxism and revolution offers a way, for the Left, out of the quandaries of capitalism and the modern Western civilisation built on the capitalist mode of production. Take away that, and you take away hope. The Left doesn't have anything to believe, so falls into nihilism...

(The curious thing is that the likes of Gott loathe the old Britain, the Britain of Empire and colonialism. This is despite the fact that the precepts of liberalism, liberal democracy and human rights - which we moderns judge the Assads and Mubaraks by - were largely the invention of the British).

Another factor is that humans are naturally inclined to aggression and barbaric impulses. We moralise though, of course, and disparage (as well we should) the impulses to kill, rape, torture and so forth. But the useful thing about anti-Nazism is that it legitimises this destructive, terrible impulses. In other words: one can revel in the bombings of Germans because they were Nazis and 'had it coming'; likewise, one can exult in the Red Army's mass rapes of German women and girls.

I've always found the case of Hoess, the wartime commandant of Auschwitz, interesting. As we know, Allied interrogators tortured him for three days until he "confessed". A torturer of the commandant of Auschwitz - what a splendid position for a sadist! Who is going to chide you, tut-tut and wave the finger at you, for torturing (and then hanging) a Nazi? Especially the commandant of Auschwitz? One can torture, and then kill, with a clean conscience...

But to return to the British: the British instinctively hate, fear, and envy the Germans - because they know, intuitively, that the Germans are tougher, smarter, stronger, than they are (and, during the war, were better-dressed). This is why the British media obsesses over the Germans and the war 24 hours a day (Germans themselves, on the other hand, seem to hardly ever pay attention to Britain). The British don't like the French much either, but they really hate the Germans.

This is tied up with British feelings of national decline. The British, and the Commonwealth, politically, ceased to exist as an independent, sovereign political entity by the 1930s - falling into the American sphere of influence utterly and irredeemably. But, to a racialist like myself, what counts is not the political decline but the racial decline - which started in the 1970s. Britain, in subsequent decades, saw a social, economic and moral decline - as evinced by the 2011 London riots, when Afro-Caribbean, Indian and white British lumpenproles linked arms and sacked and torched together, agglomerating in one multi-coloured, multi-racial mass. To the British Far Right nationalist, all of this is connected: that is, Britain, had it not joined up with America and the forces of darkness in the 1930s, had it not laid waste to Europe and abandoned its own empire, would not be in morass it is in now. That is, liberal anti-fascism is a slippery slope to modern day liberalism, multiracialism and national decline - ending in the complete destruction of British identity, and, eventually, the British people themselves. The British, in WWII, thought that they were fighting to defend Britain and the Empire - but, in reality, they were fighting to bring about Tottenham...

Are the Anglo-Saxons of Britain - and America - not paying the price for their terrible crimes against their fellow whites, the Germans, French, Italians and others? Is not this slow, silent death (of white America and white Britain) by immigration Hitler's revenge? Is it not fate...

This is a bad thing, because I - like millions of others - loved the old America and Britain. I view their passing with a deep regret. But, in the end, there's not much I, or anyone else, can do. My feelings are best summed up in the lyrics of the splendid DJ Markus Schulz trance-pop song, You Won't See Me Cry (2005):

I turn around I walk away
There's nothing else that I can say

I turn around I walk away
But you won't see me
There's nothing else that I can say
But you won't see me cry

That's my message - to the bombardiers of The Guardian and Bomber Command.

No comments:

Post a Comment