The Civil War began on 18 July 1936. The Moroccan uprising had been betrayed at the last minute. The rebels therefore missed the element of surprise upon which they had been relying. The government-controlled radio reported that the rebellion was confined to Morocco and would soon be crushed. In reality, several important cities — Seville, Córdoba, Cádiz in the south, Valladolid, Zaragoza and the entire Carlist stronghold of Navarre in the north — were soon secured by the rebels. During the first phase of the war, however, most of the country remained under Republican control.
In Madrid and Barcelona, socialist, Communist and anarchist militias led a lawless reign of terror. General Lopez Ochoa, although himself a Republican and Freemason, had quashed the Revolution in Asturias alongside Franco two years earlier. He was decapitated in his hospital bed on 19 August. His severed head was then displayed in the streets of Madrid by a bloodthirsty Red mob in one of many scenes reminiscent of the French Revolution.
Real or imagined political opponents and their families — indeed, anyone perceived as a “class enemy” — were fair game for the Red rabble. Torture, rape and executions, often in front of family members, were not uncommon. As always, the revolutionary hatred was primarily directed against the Church. What took place in Red Spain during the first six months of the Civil War was one of the worst religious persecutions in modern times. Thirteen bishops, and over 7,000 priests, monks and nuns were murdered, in many cases after having been cruelly tortured. Exactly how many Catholic lay men and women were martyred for their faith is difficult to estimate.
In order to assist the Spanish Reds in their campaign of terror, Moscow sent some of their best, led by General Alexander Orlov of the NKVD, the Soviet secret police. His real name was Leiba Lazarevich Feldbin, but, like many other prominent Jewish Bolsheviks, he had changed it to a Russian name. In August,Moscowalso sent a new ambassador, Marcel (Moses)Rosenberg, toMadrid. The leading politician in the Republican camp was no longer the Freemason and liberal Manuel Azaña, but the Freemason and socialist radical Largo Caballero, who fancied himself as the “Spanish Lenin.” However, Rosenberg, and ultimately Stalin, now held the real power in Republican Spain. Those who still cling to the lie that the Republican side was really “democratic” would do well to consider what became of the Spanish gold reserve. On 14 September 1936, only two months after the outbreak of the war, it was shipped from Cartagena to Moscow (a smaller part was transferred to France) by order of the Republican authorities. It was, of course, never returned.
Yet the propagandists of the Left to this day continue to portray the Republican Reds as inadequately equipped and poorly financed compared to the nationalists. The truth is that not only did the Republicans criminally give away their country’s gold to their master in Moscow, but it is also the case that during most of the war they also controlled Spain’s main industrial centers. They also had the support of the worldwide media, which was heavily biased against everything that traditional Spain represented.
The Spanish Civil War is often described as an “international Civil War” or as a final rehearsal for the Second World War. The nationalists received military support from Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany, while the Reds were backed by the Soviet Union, and more discreetly by France, which was being ruled by Jewish Prime Minister Léon Blum’s socialist/Communist Popular Front government. A typical propaganda lie still rehashed in history books and television documentaries is that the German and Italian support for the nationalists was much more significant than that which the Soviets gave to the Reds. The fact is that the military support of both powers combined just nearly matched the Communists’ backing of the Republic.
The Communist International, or Comintern, opened recruiting offices all over the world. Between 30,000 and 35,000 volunteers, mostly Communists, enlisted with the International Brigades, so lauded by Hollywood. Three times as many volunteers, primarily from Italy and Germany, fought on the nationalist side. Many more would probably have joined if the nationalists had been able and willing to accept them. But that was often not the case; many who, on their own, made it down to Spain to fight for the nationalists were turned down or reluctantly accepted. The attitude of the Carlists and the Falangists, who both had good international contacts, was different, but they had relinquished command over their troops to the army for the good of the common cause. In many cases, perhaps out of a sense of national and professional pride, the army’s officers regarded foreign volunteers with suspicion.
After the Italians and the Germans, the biggest foreign contingent on the rebel side was General Eoin O’Duffy’s Irish Brigade. The support for the nationalist cause was very strong in staunchly Catholic Ireland. O’Duffy had been the Chief of Staff of the legendary Michael Collins, Commander-in-chief of the Irish Republican Army during the Anglo-Irish war. He became the youngest general in Europe, as well as Commissioner of the Garda (police) and the first leader of the Fine Gael, to this day one of the country’s two dominating parties. After he was approached by a Carlist representative, O’ Duffy organized an Irish volunteer force in the late summer and early autumn of 1936 to fight for the nationalists. More than 7,000 Irishmen answered the call of the Spanish Crusade, of which 700 were accepted in the first batch. More would have followed were it not for the fact that, by early 1937, Franco’s interest in Irish participation had cooled. This change of attitude was most likely the result of Franco not wanting to provoke the British, who were displeased with the mass recruitment of Irish Catholics by a former IRA leader turned unabashedly fascist.
Few truly idealistic ventures in modern history have been as unjustly maligned by the Leftist establishment of the post-war West as the Irish Brigade, and few persons have been as belittled and smeared as Eoin O’Duffy. He is still systematically ridiculed and portrayed by establishment historians as an alcoholic clown, even though few in his great generation of Irishmen were as prominent as he for being a freedom fighter, an officer and a politician. It is often said of the Irish volunteers that they saw virtually no action, and spent their time in Spain doing nothing but getting drunk on cheap wine until the Spaniards had had enough and sent them home. This is not true. The Irish were disciplined and courageous. Even though they did not see as much fighting as they would have wished, they still suffered a dozen dead and over a hundred wounded. When they returned to Dublin on 22 June 1937, they were greeted as heroes at the pier by a crowd of over ten thousand well-wishers.
In his 1938 book, Crusade in Spain, O’Duffy writes in its conclusion:
Our little unit did not, because it could not, play a very prominent part in the Spanish war, but we ensured that our country was represented in the fight against world communism. The guilt which might justly be ascribed to Ireland in days to come has been mitigated by the Brigade offering. Our very presence on the Madrid front focused attention on the significance of the struggle, and where the sympathy of the bravest and best Irish hearts lay.
Our volunteers were not mere adventurers. Over ninety percent were true Crusaders, who left behind them comfortable homes — many left secretly, lest anything should arise to prevent them from carrying out their resolve. They were not mercenary soldiers. Every man made a real personal sacrifice in going to Spain, and every one returned poorer in the world’s goods. Many have been refused their former positions again and are still unemployed. They are undismayed because, as they proved so well in Spain, they are men of spirit and merit.
We have been criticized, sneered at, slandered, but truth, charity and justice shall prevail. We seek no praise. We did our duty. We went to Spain.
Among the many foreigners who “did their duty and went to Spain” were the Romanians Ion Mota and Vasile Marin, both leading lights in the Legion of St. Michael theArchangel, also known as the Iron Guard. Mota was the movement’s second-in-command, confidant and brother-in-law of its leader, Corneliu Codreanu, married to his sister Iridenta. Mota and Marin joined the Spanish Foreign Legion and were killed in action at Majadahonda, outside Madrid, on 13 January 1937. Their original intention had not been to volunteer for the Spanish war. They did so after having gone to Spain as part of a Romanian delegation that was to hand over a gift, a ceremonial sword, to Colonel José Moscardó, the commander of Alcázar.
That brings us to one of the most epic chapters of the war.
Alcázar is a stone fortress that towers above Toledo, the old City of Kings in the middle of Spain. At the time of the Civil War it had for many years served as an infantry academy. There, in the days following the uprising, some 1,800 nationalists entrenched themselves, led by the head of the Academy, Colonel Moscardó. The core of the defenders was made up of some 600 Civil Guards and 200 Army officers, who were joined by another 100 Falangists, Carlists and other fighting men. The fortress also sheltered some 600–700 elderly people, women and children who sought refuge from the pending Red terror.
Toledo lies in the middle of what was the Republican zone at the outset of the war, and is located 45 miles from Madrid. The rebels could not hold the city when vastly superior government forces arrived on 21 July 1936, but retreated to the castle on the heights above. They had managed to seize a great deal of ammunition from the city’s arms factory, but were only equipped with rifles, a few machine guns and some grenades.
For over two months, the castle was bombarded to rubble by the overwhelmingly stronger Republican forces, from the air, by Soviet-made tanks and by heavy artillery. In spite of an almost hopeless situation, those besieged held their ground until, starved and exhausted, they were liberated by nationalist troops on 27 September.
In the epic stand of the Alcázar, there is one particularly moving episode that has gone down in history. In Republican Spain, the Communists and Anarchists had set up committees for dealing with those suspected of ”disloyalty to the Republic.” The Reds called these committees chekas, after the infamous Soviet secret police force which had operated in the early days of the Russian Revolution. On 23 July, the boss of the Toledo cheka, a lawyer named Candido Cabello, phoned Colonel Moscardó to inform him that they had captured his 17-year-old son Luis, and were going to shoot him unless Alcazár’s garrison capitulated. Cabello then handed the phone to the boy. Father and son had the following short conversation:
- What’s happening, my boy?
- Nothing, only they say they will shoot me if the Alcázar does not surrender.
- My dearest son, if they do — commend your soul to God, shout Viva España and die like a hero! Goodbye my son, leave me a kiss!
- Goodbye father, a very big kiss!
Luis Moscardó was executed three or four weeks later.
On 20 November 1936, the Falangist leader José Antonio Primo de Rivera was executed in prison; another one of countless prisoners murdered during the first six months of a war which was to last until April 1939.
Was there not brutality and atrocities committed by both sides? Yes, unquestionably. For example, no one defends the execution of the liberal poet Federico García Lorca by a nationalist militia. However, there is no doubt that the Republican side initiated the Terror, and was generally more brutal, cruel and lawless than the nationalist side. And most importantly: this was not a conflict between “fascism” and “democracy,” but between Christian civilization and Communism. The only likely alternative to Franco’s relatively mild dictatorship would have been an Iberian Soviet state. The geopolitical consequences of such a scenario would have been dire.
From that perspective, we all have reason to be grateful to the men and women who fought in the Spanish Crusade against Communism.
And won!
Jonas De Geer is a Swedish writer who lives in Orkney, Scotland. He was the editor of the Swedish conservative magazine Samtidsmagasinet Salt between 1999 and 2002, and has written extensively on nationalist subjects. This article was previously published in Swedish in the Stockholm nationalist weekly Nationell Idag.
Bibliography
Blinkhorn, Martin, Carlism and Crisis in Spain, 1931-1939 (Cambridge, 1975).
Carrol, Warren, The Last Crusade (Front Royal, Virginia 1996).
Dolbeau, Christophe, Ce qu’on ne vous a jamais dit sur la guerre d’Espagne(Atelier Fol’fer 2010).
Othen, Christopher, Franco’s International Brigades (Chippenham,Wiltshire 2008).
O’Duffy, Crusade in Spain, (Clonskeagh, 1938).
Payne, Stanley, The Civil War in Spain (New York, 1962).
Poncins, Léon de, Histoire secrète de la Révolution Espagnole (Paris, 1942).
Facing the Future as a Minority
Was the Immigration Act of 1924 Illiberal?
Interesting tht they made off with the gold. Communists did the same with the Czar’s gold fortune which wound up in private accounts of the revolutionaries.
“The banker Jacob Schiff had given Leon Trotsky 20 million dollars to organise a Bolshevik take-over. That gamble certainly paid off. 600 million roubles in gold were transferred to the United States of America between 1918 and 1922, according to the historian Gary Allen. In the first half of 1921 alone, the banking house of Kuhn, Loeb and Co. made a profit of 102 290 000 dollars on the wealth the Bolsheviks had robbed, according to the New York Times, August 23rd, 1921. Multiply that sum by one hundred and you have the present-day value of that money. The Russian historian Dmitri Volkogonov revealed after findings in the Communist Party archives that “just the Tsarina’s private reserves amounted to 475 million roubles in gold (plus 7 million for the crown jewels)”. (Dagens Nyheter, 31st of August 1992.) The Bolshevik financial department Goskhran confiscated all of this. Some Swedish journalists (including Staffan Skott) have, in accord with the prevailing myth, tried to explain that most of this wealth was handed over to the Communist parties in other countries, while millions of Russians died of starvation. That is not entirely accurate. According to the historian Igor Bunich, Lenin and Trotsky took care of this money personally. The gold, meanwhile, was smuggled out of Russia and deposited into personal bank accounts around the world. (30 tons of gold per year were produced in the Tsarist era in Russia.)” (Under the Sign of the Scorpion, p. 237)
from ZionCrimeFactory, http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com
This has been a balanced account of the Spanish Civil War. But, remember Spain was a 99.5% Roman Catholic country. So aside from the foreign forces, the killers on both sides were Spanish Roman Catholics. There were no other religions permitted in Spain. According to the Masons, Roman Catholics can be Masons, so it is possible there could have been Masons in leadership in Spain. Them damn whoopee cushions and water balloons can be dangerous.
Some of you folks who advocate White homelands, and civil wars etc. should take a close look at Spain. It ain’t a pretty picture.
I really feel sorry for those of you who live in the “Spanish” areas of America like southern California in the future.
Alcazar and the Moscardo and son episode would be a natural for an opera.
Is the opera dominated by jews too? Or just shabbas goyim?
great piece. Whites now battling for Ideas, not Religion, as we were not long ago in historical time. Muslims now battling for Religion, and unlikely to “advance” to secular Ideas.
So Whites have shifted their obsessions with secular Ideas to secular basics…equality of course. Racial Equality being the main deal. This back- to-basics is good because at least the ideological terrain is real…biology and Evolution. Otoh, Religion is still with us with the Jew-thing. Many Protestants have this jew-thing because of the Reformation’s consorting with the Jews and the OT.
It is probably safe to assert that the much more secular Europe (little religious belief) luvs the jews because of holocaust and other Jewish propaganda, rather than any attachment to the Old Religion.
Thus, the American curious luv of the Jews is much more a religious deal than in Europe. (Of course, anti-zionism is large in Europe while most Americans ask anti-what?) So, while our secular offerings on the Jews and their lies are about all we can do, we are less likely to have as much traction in this regard, than are European nationalists.
I point this out because I think we overlook this dimension in our struggle against the Jewish Power.
Talking points: It is useful to bring up the Islamic reverence for Jesus Christ as a prophet, and the Jewish hatred and murder of Christ.
Certainly, they murder the Christ Principle every day of their lives. As as agnostic, I try to follow the Christ Principle. The Christ Principle includes killing your enemies if there is no other option. j
Interesting read, especially the (previously unknown to me) revelation that there were Irish volunteers affiliated with the IRA. In Britain, is is well-known that the IRA have Marxist sympathies. Perhaps this was not always the case. Can anyone shed more light on that?
@Tom:”killers on both sides were Roman Catholics.” You are an idiot, a fool, a troll, a traitor if you consider yourself a WNist.
Communists and anarchists…Roman Catholics? You should be purged from this list.
I think it would be more appropriate con consider it a crusade. That is how many participants saw it.
The old adage that “the victor writes the history” does not apply in the case of the Spanish Civil War. Franco’s forces won and saved Spain from communist domination but have since been portrayed by the Jewish-controlled press as facist brutes.
The so-called Abraham Lincoln Brigade from the United States was organized by communist Jews and largely manned by gullible idealistic goys, along with other “International Brigades”, most of whom were notoriously untrained and inept – almost laughably so. Nevertheless, the press (e.g., Ernest Hemingway) stressed the “good Republicans” (communists) vs. the “bad facists” (communist victims, including scores of slaughtered priests and nuns). This labeling alone gave the “Republican”/communists a propagandist leg-up in the Western world. Who could be against Republicans? . But in Spain the “Republicans” were commonly and correctly referred to as the Rojas (Reds) who were being armed and guided by on-the-ground USSR commisars. Still, the lies persist to this day, thanks to the Jewish press.
Great article. One thing, i wish writers who know the truth about who comprised the “Republican” side in the civil war would use the term “Republican/communist” because that is exactly who the Republicans were.
When they were defeated, communist Jew Armand hammer sent hundreds of ships to the southern ports. As the communists retreated they confiscated everything they could lay their hands on, medical equipment, street lights, telephone and electric company exchanges and equipment and even homeowners tools and sewing machines.
Jew communist Armand Hammer’s ships took the loot east to the Bosporus and into the black sea and the Russian ports.
That was a major reason Spain was so poor for decades after the war. Entire factories were looted.
“Celtic_Heathen January 21, 2012 – 1:49 pm | Permalink Interesting read, especially the (previously unknown to me) revelation that there were Irish volunteers affiliated with the IRA. In Britain, is is well-known that the IRA have Marxist sympathies. Perhaps this was not always the case. Can anyone shed more light on that?”
I can. The IRA was founded in the 1920′s by the communist Russians. At the same time the communists founded the original muslim brotherhood in Egypt and took over the congress party in India. They also sent numerous agitators to China and founded the Chinese communist party at the same time.
Belonging to the IRA was outlawed for Catholics by the Pope. It was an excummicatable offense.
Because Catholics were so persecuted by the English, the church was always involved in Irish politica. Mostly the Church felt it was better for Catholics to submit than destroy themselves by fighting a war against the English that they would lose.
Numerous front groups like the IRA and Muslim Brotherhood were founded in the Americas and Europe during the 1920′s. Napoleon only wanted to conquer Europe and the middle east.
Lenin and the Jews wanted to conquer the world through communism. Now they have just about conquered America with anti White racism.
The communists were not content with taking over Russia and its Central Asian territories
“Tom January 21, 2012 – 1:00 pm | Permalink This has been a balanced account of the Spanish Civil War. But, remember Spain was a 99.5% Roman Catholic country. So aside from the foreign forces, the killers on both sides were Spanish Roman Catholics. ”
Tom, there were several hundred thousand Russian communists in Spain during and before the civil war. As soon as the socialists won the election that forced the King to abdicate in 1931? 1933? Google it, If you want the exact date, the Russians sent hundreds of thousands of advisors.
The Russian advisors murdered most of the Catholic Spanish socialists and took over their goverment long before the civil war began.
The murders and massacres began after the Russian Jew communists had killed off the Spanish socialists
@mari:
So those “Russian communists” who were organizing rebellions in Ireland, Spain, Egypt, India and China were predominantly Jewish? That confirms our worst suspicion: Die Juden sind unser Unglück! (the Jews are our misfortune!).
Pace Abe Foxman we are after all justified to believe in that “canard”.
@Tom:
“Some of you folks who advocate White homelands, and civil wars etc. should take a close look at Spain. It ain’t a pretty picture.”
Take a look at South Africa and (former Rhodesia) Zimbabwe today- that ain’t a pretty picture either. This should be all the answer that you might need as to why some of us advocate a White homeland. That and the incredible black-on-White crime in most of the major cities in the US today. It will only get worse. As for civil wars; I would rather die fighting one than be a victim of the slash-and-chop home break-ins and various other tortures that South African Whites live (or is that die?) with every day. 3160 murdered since the end of Apartheid in 1994 according to this website
http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/ and the figure mounts every day.
Tak for det Jonas De Geer!
“The only likely alternative to Franco’s relatively mild dictatorship would have been an Iberian Soviet state. The geopolitical consequences of such a scenario would have been dire.”
Indeed. Most Americans, their heads filled with decades of Judaic propaganda, think of Franco as Hitler’s buddy, when in fact not one Jew was ever persecuted in Spain, or “shipped East,” in stark contrast to France, Holland, etc. In fact, the rumor was that he was a Marrano! Does he get any credit? None! Let that be a lesson: when dealing with Jews, expect no quarter [hear that, Ron Paul, the New Hitler?], and give none. Exterminate the brutes and be done with it!
Further reflections inspired by the book The Last Crusade on Franco, Tom Sunic, and that cockroach Unamuno, from lt my blog last year, here:
http://jamesjomeara.blogspot.com/2010/05/sunic-on-sunday-tom-sunic-has-great.html
:
@Celtic_Heathen: The real French Republicanism is a proto-communist opposition to both throne and altar. Irish Republican Army was only “republican” in the latter sense because it supported its native, oppressed Church. The IRA supported Catholic tenant farmers against foreign landlords, but it received support (protection money?) from the Catholic gentry. IRA membership consisted of both Atheists and Catholics, but the Atheists were “Catholic Atheists,” as opposed to the “Protestant Atheists” supporting the Orange Order. Priests were officially forbidden to cooperate with the IRA but many were sympathetic. Rather than Marxist, a more accurate description of the IRA would be French-supported nationalist-populist.
@Tom:
Any Catholic who joins a lodge is not allowed to receive communion. Prior to Vatican II, the penalty was excommunication. However, Masons certainly have infiltrated parts of the Church hierarchy and Catholic societies.
ramzpaul@gmail.com
Sir: The whiskers make a very bad impression. . .
So at the beginning of the civil war Russian ships arrived and took Spanish Gold back to the USSR and it has never been seen again?
Crooked Jewish revolutionaries steal Spain’s gold while they have caused one half of Spanish goyim to be at the throat of the other half. Golly, what a surprise!
Goldman Sachs swindlers took over Qaddafi’s Multi Billion dollar sovereign wealth fund and it lost over 98% in the first 12 months. Basically, Jews running the joint stuffed their pockets with it and are still dancing around the golden calf. Soon after poor old Muammar copped a shot directly to the napper. Saddam was hanged, these days Iraq’s priceless treasures feature prominently in New York’s fine art auctions. They’ll do the same thing to the Syrian guy given half a chance. Our Jewish friends have been doing these naughty things for a very long time.
@Joe Webb:
Happy St. Anton’s Day to you too!
http://news.yahoo.com/flaming-horned-bull-fatally-gores-man-spain-154853109.html
Thank you Jonas for your excellent piece. It is shocking that so many gullible people were taken in by the fraudulent promises of the communists. It is a miracle that the Spanish Nationalists were to defeat the godless Reds; evil isn’t invincible, and we will be again called upon to defeat it in its many manifestations.
On wikipedia you will find entries for General Grigori Shtern, described as “a Military Advisor in the Spanish Civil War between January 1937 to April 1938″ and a General Yakov Smushkevich, also a “participant in the Spanish Civil War” where he was known as “General Duglas”. Smushkevich seems to have been an aerial warfare specialist. Both were of the Chosen. There’s no doubt there were many more of these Jewish “advisors” helping the Republican/Communists.
Jonas, thank you for showing us a model that is often overlooked and merely written off as a “proxy” war. Do you have any plans for articles based on other historical revolutions, rebellions, and regime changes?
The red killers and torturers were most probably Marranos. It is natural to them that they gravitated to the red-atheist side in order to extract their revenge against the gentile christian population
The massive gangrapes of nuns, the torture of priests, the desecration of the churches (e.g. feces on the altar), the “executions” of the statues of Christ etc could not be made by gentile leftists. Even the most hardcore gentile communists cannot harbor such hatred against the tradition they were brought up in. They may despised christianity but they wouldn’t go crucifying priests….Those can only be the work of the “tribe”.
@Tom I am afraid you confuse the Spanish with the Hispanics. But most probably you are a troll.
It is really sad to see what has become of Spain the last 30 years after reading something like this, the liberal infiltration has led to the development of a thick layer of rot and degeneracy. Birth rates below replacement level, lack of any will to defend the country from African invasion by the pathetic governments (consider it was Spain and Austria that shielded the rest of Europe from the Moors and Turks for centuries).
@Marcus:
A further indication of moral degeneration in Spain might be seen in the fact that same-sex marriage was legalized on july 3, 2005 after an intensive campaign in its favor in 2004 by the newly elected Social Democratic government led by president José Zapatero. Whether this was due to direct intrigue by Jews or simply an expression of the degenerate Zeitgeist (perhaps ultimately the same) is not clear.
Where is Franco when you need him?
Leon Blum’s support of the Reds in Spain had important consequences elsewhere. He shipped much of France’s heavy artillery to them. At the Munich conference it was the French who were reluctant to face down Hitler, not Mr. Chamberlain. The French generals were fearful that their denuded defense lines could not hold due to Blum’s shipments. Chamberlain gets the blame because Daladier had no cards to play thanks to a previous French premier, the Jew Blum, who put his ideological/ethnic interest above that of the nation he supposedly had a loyalty to. Appropriately, the only monument to Blum is not in France, but in Israel.
@Floda: Chavez’ (wise, but brave – and I can’t stand his leftist populist type) demand to have Venezuelan gold repatriated might have actually helped seal Gaddafi’s fate. Just so dandy that Libya’s gold was available in the nick of! How often does COMEX gold futures market go into backwardation? LOL!
And how many more doleful odes to Federico Garcia Lorca must one endure from the MSM? ¡Basta ya!
As for Federico Garcia Lorca, one of Spain’s truly great poets, it is by now presumed that he fell victim to his highly promiscous homosexual love life. Meaning that someone whom he had deprived of his boyfriend retaliated. Which doesn’t mean the Nationalist side didn’t commit atrocities. The Foreign Legion’s Moors were particularly feared for their cruelty.
Thanks for the tel. conversation between Col. Moscardo and his son. Is there perhaps a source?
@Tom: It’s a draw!
@mari:
How could the IRA have been founded by Communists? I just saw recently a documentary on TV about a collaboration between Hitler and the IRA to aid the IRA. The help given wasn’t all that much, but still Hitler gave help because he believed in the IRA cause.
@Celtic_Heathen:
The IRA was and is a Marxist organisation. It is not the IRA that went to fight for Franco, but rather the Irish Blueshirts – not quite Fascist, but rather the portion of the Irish Right that wanted a more aggressive approach to Northern Ireland (something that the Irish left has traditionally held a monopoly over) and to defend the privileged position of the Catholic Church in Irish Society.
Many Blueshirts, however, had previously fought in the IRA, during the War of Independence, the short period of time that the IRA had a membership that expanded beyond Marxists to represent almost all of Irish Society. During the 1930s the IRA and the Blueshirts were bitter enemies identical aims (though very different reasons for those aims) regarding Northern Ireland.
Please ignore other posters here. Hitler did not support the IRA except when convenient, nor did the French offer anything beyond moral support. Mari is just plain demented.
@Iron Helm:
Thank you very much for that.
@Iron Helm:
Excuse me, but the Military Channel on Directv just now showed the very documentary I had mentioned, entitled “Hitler and the IRA”.
Check your TV listings for the Military Channel, and you’ll see a repeat of that program.
Maybe you are letting semantics through you, however. The documentary showed that Hitler did give some aid in the form of weapons, but he acted circumspect when opening channels with the IRA. I suppose he was too busy taking over parts of other countries to get too involved, but at one point he sent over a small boat with Nazis. They were to do a mission of some kind with the IRA, but it did not work out. Also, recently, during the London Riots, a poster on a board mentioned Hitler supplied the IRA with some kind of plastics for setting bombs off. I forget what the plastic substance was called, but I did a wiki and read about it, so the poster was right. I fell asleep during the Military Channel’s rerun of today’s repeat of “Hitler and the IRA”, so I can’t give a clear picture of the relationship, but only that it was circumspect on Hitler’s part — but you are quite wrong no matter what you say. Hitler DID support the IRA, and supported their goals of having their own national country. After all, it was his own goal too, so there was something in common.
Look for the documentary on the Military Channel.
@Iron Helm:
Just to mention, however, I never heard of the Blueshirts. So you might be right in your comment. I know that on the Marxist radio station WBAI-FM they use to feature a program on Saturdays produced by someone in the IRA. This always threw me — why would the IRA have a program on a Marxist radio station? Given that, at least when it comes to Ireland, all manner of ‘factions’ must be sorted out as with a fine tooth comb. Maybe it was the Blueshirts that had dealings with Hitler — if the Blueshirts were around way back then. If so, then this idea of Irish ‘Blueshirts’ is an obscure piece of information, not known generally, and maybe someone should write a book about them. Only saying, because if we are to cull Irish factions as with a fine tooth comb, it helps knowing these little details of who all the players were and/or are.
@Bluerose:
The Blueshirts aren’t all that obscure, not in Ireland at least. They eventually merged into Fine Gael, the centre-right party, after the war who is still to this day referred to as ‘Blueshirts’ very commonly despite being a very moderate C-R party.
Hitler formed links with the Irish far-left, by far the largest segment of Irish politics. He wanted to win after all and the Blueshirts were useless to him. Fianna Fail, the C-L formerly Marxist party until recent economic disaster had a membership larger than all other parties in the Republic put together, and Sinn Fein, probably the largest on the Island of Ireland are still Marxist through and through.
This does raise the question of how the Irish volunteered in such huge numbers for the Francoist side in Spain. My guess is that most Irish people held both Marxist and Catholic sympathies (not including Eoin O’Duffy and his Blueshirts here) and saw no contradiction.
I hope this doesn’t sound insulting but I think Irish politics in the 1930s (and really, still today) only had the ideology of anti-Englishness. The English were Monarchist, Capitalist and Protestant, therefore the Irish were Republican, Marxist and Catholic. The Irish were unable to see the contradiction because the unifying impulse was anti-Englishness. This point cannot be understated.
Even today, for example, an Irishman on radio could not say the wars in Iraq or Afgahanistan, or even that David Cameron’s ‘snub’ of the EU are justified, without a fair portion of callers throwing the label ‘traitor’ at him/her.
@ Iron Helm
Ah ok. Well that clarifies why Sein Fein had a Saturday radio program on the Marxist radio station WBAI-FM, I figured maybe the Sein Fein were the ‘good terrorists’, but I guess not after all. Not if they are Marxists. I’m assuming all Marxism is bad.
I never heard of Fine Gael , so I guess I’ll have to reference wikipedia once again to read what they are about.
But I’m glad you clarified a few things and sorted out who Sein Fein is, since I thought they were the good guys. Now not.
@Iron Helm: You have given a remarkably clear presentation of the Irish situation past and present. Thank you very much. There is far, far more truth in your comments than can be found at Wikinonsensia.
The near-complete failure to understand the traditional opposition of the Catholic Church (i.e., the pre–Vatican II Church) to the IRA and to its deliberately futile campaign of terror and violence is even more widespread now than it was fifty years ago, not least among people who might be expected to know better. Alas, the widespread thickheadedness that is seemingly endemic to large segments of the Irish American population (a community of which I am in part a product, may I add) has melded smoothly with the antipathy that the Tribal media have spent the last century successfully inculcating in the white population as a whole toward everything not proximately related to sports and sex.
The IRA has never been anything but a Marxist group, and as such any “devotion” it has ever claimed to the “Catholic cause” has been a flat-out lie. Its leaders and its aims have been as covertly anti-Catholic as overtly anti-Protestant. They are as Talmudic and kabbalistic as the Mossad or the Bolshevists or the American neocons, and so any alliances they have made over the course of time have been ad hoc and prompted solely by expedience. Nothing worth learning about the organization will ever be learnt sans that realization.
@Trenchant:
@michael colhaze:
I agree with you both. García Lorca was a remarkable poet and playwright, Blood Wedding being, I believe, his true masterpiece in the dramatic genre. But PBS and other media propagandizers are interested in him only as a blunt instrument to beat opponents of homosexual idolatry and Judaic supremacism with.
The masters of the media are soulless, and they wish to make us as soulless as they are. Most of the “geniuses” they demand that we admire are utterly worthless—think of the multihour PBS specials lauding the degenerate and untalented Woody Allen. But the media masters do their worst when they pervert genuine, soul-nourishing artistic accomplishment into something divorced from its true purpose, something whose new sole function is to advance their own base aims.
At no time in history has more than a small fragment of any society’s members cared passionately about serious music, literature, and painting. Yet throughout the history of the West, whether in Christian or pre-Christian societies, the importance of these arts and of their creators has been taken very largely for granted. A measure of the Tribe’s success in destroying our civilization and culture from within has been its ability to alienate so many ordinary white people from some of their societies’ greatest achievements and thus transform them into those societies’ worst enemies.
@Pierre de Craon:
Pierre, this is a very odd presentation of Irish nationalism. Many of the early nationalists were protestant who had simply ‘turned native’ as often happens. The IRA itself has its origins in the Fenian Brotherhood (note the name!) and doesn’t have the ideological agenda posters here are claiming for it. Develera famously kept Ireland out of WWII and was about as nationalist as it gets. Curiously, “Dev” was offered by Churchill a united Ireland on a plate in exchange for the Irish ports during WWII but declined it (he was not as dumb as Roosevelt). The drivers in his life were the Catholic faith and thomist logic, the latter fortified by his training as a Maths teacher. He went to night school to study the Gaelic language and not marxism.
@buckle: I appreciate your comments, buckle. I myself have a pretty low opinion of Dev, however, and indeed I number myself among those who think of him as serving little or nothing save his own interests. I agree with those who hold him one of those morally responsible for the Irish Civil War, and I fail to see how he could be regarded as having escaped the solemn excommunication that was pronounced upon all Irish Catholics who went to war against the Free State.
I ought to add, however, that I am by no means a close student of modern Irish history, whereas you may be. Much of what I think, I freely admit, is colored by the testimony of a great many educated and devout Irish American men and women (i.e., not pub crawlers) I knew in my youth (the fifties and sixties). Not a few of them had lived in Ireland through the Troubles and had lost brothers, sisters, and parents in the carnage. Hardly one of them had a good word for Dev. I know this is not probative, my friend, but nor is it negligible.
I do think that the evidence that the post-independence IRA is an irreligious, Marxist racket is well nigh impossible to refute.
@buckle:
This entire post of yours is full of non-sequiturs and not a few mistruths.
I don’t see why you would think it relevant, but a small number of Protestants became nationalists when the Irish Parliament was shut down. However, Protestants (I capitalise both Protestant and Catholic) were always solidly behind Union in the main. You have probably heard of more Protestants because they were educated and usually had leadership positions.
The IRA grew because of volunteers reacting to the Easter Rising, of which all but a couple of leaders were Marxist. The Fenian Brotherhood hadn’t been active since the 1860s. Since then every single incarnation of the IRA has had declared Marxist aims.
And please, pray tell, why would it have been stupid to allow Churchill to use Irish ports in exchange for unity? Churchill kept his word regarding independence to Iceland and the Faroe Islands, and would certainly have been less inclined to occupy Ireland. Why does this even matter to the question at hand?
During World War Two to Kill White People and Make the World Safer for Communism, the folks at the District of Corruption and London did everything within their power to ensure the whole of Europe was swallowed by the Soviet Union. It seems Francisco, Benito, and Adolph messed their plans up, if only a little. In the end, the Anglo-American criminals had to console themselves with handing to the Soviet Union only half of Christian Europe.
@Iron Helm:
The 1800 Act of Union between Ireland and the UK was an economic disaster for the Anglo-Irish ascendancy of which most were protestant. Many of these became nationalists no different in vigour than that of American nationalists of 25 years before who broke from the crown and were also ‘non-catholic’. Catholic emancipation from 1820’s onwards saw the emergence of a Catholic middle class who inevitable began to dominate the Irish nationalist movement. Their heroes however, were Robert Emmet (brother Tom was a hit in the USA) and Wolf Tone – both protestants. There continued to be a strong protestant presence within the Irish nationalist movement right through to the civil war. This latter war was not ideological but almost exclusively driven by the partition treaty of 1921.
The significance of Dev’s refusal of the ports was simple in so much as he distrusted Churchill. Could Ireland trust a man who pressed for war on behalf of Poland in 1939 and then dumped it in 1945? Events at Yalta vindicated Dev’s decision and that he had made the right call. How many people on here seriously believe that Roosevelt got it right from 1932 through to 1941? Dev and Franco did not make the same mistakes but as Jonas reminds us in this article these are the men who get roasted by the official ‘history’ which in the case of Spain and Ireland has been written by the losers – the point of his article.
What Jonas is offering is a way forward. That it will take men of the courage of De Valera and Franco to revive the European tribes both in Europe and North American. A simple vision but no less valid for it. That people on here are debating the minutiae of whether De Valera and Franco are ‘too Catholic’ for contemporary white sensibilities is a measure of the appalling state of the white tribes and how intellectual disoriented they really are. In that regard some of the articles on here (this one by Jonas is fine) are truly awful. The foul- mouthed woman on the tram in South London; Norwegian heavy metal; the virtues (sic) of the madman Anders Brevik and so on. Kevin, for all his ‘scientific’ pretensions, presents some ghastly stuff at times.
@Pierre de Craon:
Almost all modern political parties are rackets by nature. Cynical internationalist bankster-proxies are matched with ordinary true believers genuinely seeking improvement. Usually, the proxies are dominant because they facilitate access to finance. The professed internationalist Marxism of the IRA was certainly a requirement for bankster support, but it would appear that most of the IRA true believers fought for nationalism. The bankster contribution of money and media support to the IRA was balanced by a reliance on native (and nationalist) muscle.
Nationalists did succeed in winning nominal independence. The Free State probably could not have been won if muscle power had not temporarily overcome bankster power within the IRA. Of course, no real independence or freedom is possible in any country whose currency issuance is monopolized by a Rothschild central bank.
@ All
This is totally off topic I know, but I can’t help thinking the posters here will be delighted with this video. This part is actually a dance, and so elegantly choreographed it brought a lump to my throat!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S4mEzR6_sA&feature=uploademail
MAZUR FROM POLISH OPERA “HALKA” BY STANISŁAW MONIUSZKO
The Mazur’s origin is from Kujawy, but got its name from Mazovia the region around Warsaw. This dance was known in the 16th century and it’s rhythm was used by Chopin to create some of his master pieces. Mazur was embellished into an intricate swift moving elegant dance, cherished by the social elite and eventually became the Polish National Anthem.
@buckle: @buckle:
The perennial weakness of professed nationalists has been a (often unconscious) preference for the interests of the middle and upper classes. I think that this is the greatest blindspot of contemporary white sensibilities.
No victory is attainable without harnessing the resentment and muscle power of the working class. Obtaining such support requires a manly composure of leadership and a non-theoretical message of economic improvement.
About a year ago I attended a screening of Jüri Lina’s documentary “The Insatiable Ouroboros: The Deceitful Tactics of the Freemasons”, after which there was a short Q&A. He mentioned that during a short holiday in Spain he discovered first-hand documents detailing how the Russian Bolshevik airforce were engaged actively in bombing campagins against a large number of Spanish cities and towns during the Spanish “civil” war. He said he was now working on a new documentary based on these documents.
This puts the Spanish “civil” war and consequently the whole Second World War in a totally new light: if these documents are genuine, then it can no longer be said that Germany started WW2 (which is not accurate anyway). On the contrary, WW2 history has to be rewritten to say that WW2 started 1936 with the Spanish defensive war against a Soviet attack on Spanish sovereignty.
@Bluerose:
That offered just the note of balance I needed today as we face these dark issues. Thanks!
@Edward:
True, Edward. I imagine that if Ireland could still produce a Michael Collins such a man would provided the “muscle” to eliminate its own contemporary bankster class. An interesting point is that the Stern gang were influenced by Collins (as was Churchill during WWII) which is a sort of backhanded compliment.
In truth, a combination of intelligence and muscle is required and Collins possessed both with Jewish imitation representing the definitive form of flattery.
I’m sorry and call me “Mr Snobby” but a foul-mouthed white women swearing in front of her child leaves me cold.
@Edward:
I agree. I would be very interested in an honest story of the rise and fall of the union movement in America. Until very recently, blue collar workers were fairly affluent. There are a lot of intelligent people with common sense in working class America, and they are not happy. Many current sacrificed to send their children to collage only to find that the expensive education doesn’t help with a job. No one is really reaching out to these folks.
@Tarqwin:
Germany resisted the Soviets in Spain but not in Poland. Instead, bankster proxies got an excuse to declare war. Hitler himself declared war upon the US.
@Edward:
@buckle:
“. . . a foul-mouthed white woman swearing in front of her child leaves me cold.” Me, too.
Yet I also think that Sean Gabb was right when he wrote that “. . . I don’t think we can pick and choose those we defend. If Miss West had been put off the tram and told to walk to her destination, I’d not have said a word. But she’s been locked up for psychiatric testing and her children have been taken away from her—not because she uttered a string of vulgarities, but because of the opinions she happened to express. I do suggest we have no choice but to defend her.” In short, our enemies backed us into a corner—not, alas, for the first time nor yet, I am sure, for the last—and getting out has been a rather dirty business.
For the record, I think that any disagreements I have with you or Edward or both are very small beer. And am I right in thinking that we share a high opinion of Michael Collins, especially in the circumstances he was unfortunate enough to find himself in?
@Bluerose:
Please note, I said “except when convenient” – meaning when war broke out between Britain and Germany. Until that point many German proponents of what would now be called ‘scientific racism’ held very negative views of the Irish. in the Anglo-Irish war the British found sympathy only from the far right in fellow Protestant countries. I recently saw a documentary where a group of German neo-Nazis idolised Johnny Adair, something which seemed very strange to me. Nevertheless, the relationship between the IRA and the Germans was fleeting and without emotional investment on either side.
There are some quotes you could find attributable to Nazis from before the war that criticise British Imperialism, including in Ireland (I believe there is even a German propaganda film on the subject), but Hitler himself supported the continuation of the British Empire, including in Ireland.
@Bluerose:
Forgot to mention – Hitler did not just desire his own ‘national country’ as you put it. He wished to push beyond his boundaries and expand, and actively encouraged Britain to do the same until they became clear enemies. Nor for the matter did the IRA desire that, though that is declared aim. By 1939 the IRA was an irredentist movement, desiring the forced assimilation of a small country into theirs.
@buckle:
I’m familair with Wolfe Tone and Robert Emmett. With regards to what you claim was a ‘strong presence’ in the Irish nationalist movement you show a complete ignorance of the real spirit of Ulster Protestants. Well over 90% of Protestants on the Island of Ireland are Unionists and that number hasn’t deviated much since the Glorious Revolution. Just another inaccuracy in your post: you say that the Irish Civil War was not ideological, and yet the anti-treaty side became the Irish Left-wing and the pro-treaty side became the Irish Right, despute neither adopting those labels during the war. This shows where the political impulses of the two groups lay.
Why do you insist on capitalising Catholic but not Protestant by the way? Nor am I concerned with the ‘minutiae’ of Catholicism. For me, if Catholicism were growing it would be as big a threat to my country as Islam and you are perfect evidence of why.
@Iron Helm: I am somewhat surprised by the vehemence of your response with regard to the matter of the Irish ports. Isn’t it sufficient grounds for rejection of Churchill’s proposal that it would have cost the Free State its neutrality and would inevitably have subjected the south to the terrible bombing that the north suffered? Given Churchill’s evident lack of interest in providing adequate protection even to so critical a port and shipbuilding center as Belfast, is it likely that he would have done anything except stand by and watch apathetically as the Irish were subjected to German air raids—perhaps even raids almost as savage and pointless as he and Bomber Harris launched against Hamburg and Dresden and schemed to launch against Rome and Vatican City?
I am no across-the-board admirer of Dev, as I said earlier. Still, his leadership during World War II was his finest hour. He showed himself a far more admirable man, with regard to the welfare of his own people, than any of the storied Axis or Allied monsters. What is now known of Churchill’s record of perfidy, rivaled only by FDR’s, retrospectively argues for the canniness of Dev or anyone else slow to take his word for anything.
@Pierre de Craon:
Would you expand on this. In early youth I knew an elderly Irish woman who in advanced old age still feared the Protestants of her childhood. Did anyone other than the IRA helps those people? If you can spare the time, be basic, I know very little about this.
@Iron Helm:
Thanks for the further information. I had no idea Hitler supported the continuation of the British Empire before there was a falling out. Yes, I realize the goal of Hitler was to expand and have his own empire, and this was his undoing (along with a few other things). I also never heard of the word ‘irredentist’ and had to look it up to see what it meant within context. I presume you are saying, then, that by 1939 the IRA wanted to forcibly assimilate the rest of the island of Ireland (where you mention but don’t specify ‘a small country’ I presume you mean the rest of Ireland) into Northern Ireland, and that this was its aim?
Trying to understand Irish politics is like trying to pick up the element of Mercury with one’s fingers. It just keeps slip-sliding away, what with Germans, the English, the Protestants, the color Orange, oh and Unions all entering into the fray — and someone named Johnny Adair.
So, it’s back to wiki: “and unionists, who are predominantly Protestant, which has been the most prevalent religion. Unionists want Northern Ireland to remain as a part of the United Kingdom,” [personally I would prefer all Ireland to be independent, at least of England, though I'm not sure about a United Kingdom whether that is good or bad]
” while nationalists [primarily the Catholics] wish for it to be politically united with the rest of Ireland, independent of British rule.” This I can agree with, but is slightly confusing: Do they mean independent of the United Kingdom as such, or just British rule? Being part of a Commonwealth sounds o.k. on the face of it, but I go on:
Now looking at the rest of Ireland: It’s what I always figured Ireland was: quaint villages, zig-zag cobble-stone streets, lovely small Catholic churches (if there’s any left), an homogeneous and recognizable culture. The rest of Ireland, apparently, is actually independent, self-governing, but still part of the Commonwealth. Nothing wrong with that, I don’t think.
Ah, but reading on, the Republic of Ireland (aka the Irish Free State) went even further: “A new constitution introduced in 1937 declared it a sovereign state named Ireland (Éire). The Republic of Ireland Act proclaimed Ireland a republic in 1949 by removing the remaining duties of the monarch. Ireland consequently withdrew from the British Commonwealth.”
So it withdrew. But who was this monarchy? The English Monarchy, which I have no use for (except Princess Diana, and I always wondered why there couldn’t have been found ONE red-blooded Englishman in all of the land that could have married her, instead of her having to go off with that muslim. Sad.)
Anyway, it turns out this Irish monarchy was its own monarchy and had long strange names. I could not exactly gather if this monarchy were Catholics (or pagan), though wiki mentioned something briefly about a bishop somewhere.
I guess I am rambling, but this is what Irish politics does to me. It always ends up with the Queen of Tara somehow, with vague hints about lineages to the ancient Hebrew tribes next entering into the picture.
All this — and here the article is about the Spanish Civil War. I don’t even know how I got on to the subject of the Irish lol
But I will say this: I never cared much for Picasso. And that Guernica painting is just awful.
@Alice Teller: I would need a good deal more information, information you might not be able to provide, before I could give you even a reasonably coherent response, Mrs. Teller. Was the woman from the republic or from the six counties? What were the precise details of her situation? Do you consider her a credible witness? These queries are just for openers.
What seems clear to me is that from the thirties on—and certainly from the fifties on—relations in the republic between Catholics and Protestants were amicable, whatever feelings may have been percolating below skin level. Though much of the country’s economic activity was in the hands of Protestants, there never having been a postrevolutionary purge commensurate with what a student of history’s other revolutions might have expected, and though not a few businesses had religiously based hiring practices that inevitably shortchanged Catholics, there was an inclination to confine animosities to pro forma gripes in the interest of getting along. (The Church’s active disapproval of continued belligerency was also not a negligible factor. Until Ireland, too, lost the Faith a generation ago, excommunication and denial of the sacraments was a terrifying prospect for any Catholic.) I admit that I know nothing whatsoever about the extent of Jewish involvement in Irish banking or industrial concerns. I would be saddened but not surprised to be informed that the Tribe, here as elsewhere, holds the whip hand.
Apropos economic matters, it may or may not be widely known that a good many Irishmen select (or once selected) a tipple on the basis of the firm’s ownership—i.e., whether Catholic or Protestant. I know that Jameson (whose blended Irish whiskey was held in very high esteem) was a Protestant firm that for generations employed none (or almost none) but Protestants, and so some Catholics boycotted it in favor of Power or Paddy’s, which were founded by Catholics. I think but cannot say for certain that Bushmills, the maker of my own favorite Irish whiskey (ten-year-old single malt), is a Protestant firm, its roots being in Ulster. I sincerely pray that, were I called upon to give my life for the Faith, the Lord would give me the strength to do so. I pray even harder, however, that He will not insist that I drink Power’s whiskey whilst I await the call.
Alas, ignorance has persistence. In any event her childhood would have been in the late 19th century. Thanks for the effort.
I cannot offer advice on the best drinks for the waiting room, but I have it on good authority that the Good Lord serves mint juleps on arrival.
@Pierre de Craon:
I can kind of see why that would suprise you. I think we have read Dev slightly differently, I don’t think his prime concern was to maintain neutrality as he said it was. He intended to hurt Britain by any means possible, rather than protect Ireland, and adopted the line of neutrality as an underhand way of doing that.
Maybe I shouldn’t try to guess Dev’s mind, but most of the words he said publicly in his life were anti-English/British, so it is not a stretch to suggest that Dev secretly hoped that Hitler’s attempt to starve the British out of existence would be successful.
@Bluerose:
The IRA wish to forcibly take over the land currently lived on by the Ulster British Nation (that is Northern Ireland), one of the four British Nations along with England, Scotland and Wales who together constitute the United Kingdom.
I wish to maintain Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom in order to protect the Ulster British Nation from becoming a minority within the Republic of Ireland, a largely Catholic country.
In Irish history (the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries) there have been frequent attempts to murder the Protestant population by the Irish. Since the the Irish Free State was founded, many Protestants have seen the homes burnt to the ground, been driven away from Ireland or have been killed.
I feel the need to post this since buckle described as the Irish as ‘so oppressed’ – the ‘oppression’ claimed by the Irish was a good deal more mild than that faced by Protestants in all of Catholic Europe. Have you ever noticed that there aren’t many Protestants in France, Spain, Italy or Poland, but there are pleanty of Catholics in Germany, Britain and the Netherlands? Maybe you should look into why.
When nationalists talk of independence for Ireland, they mean in every regard. They would resist membership of the Commonwealth as much as a Klan member would resist his daughter’s marriage to a black, and as much as an Ulster Protestant Unionist would resist integration into Ireland.
There is so much more I could write on the subject, but feel it is starting to undermine the point of the article, so I won’t post on this page anymore.
@Edward:
Germany resisted the Soviets in Spain but not in Poland. Instead, bankster proxies got an excuse to declare war.
—-
Hitler was not allowed, by his non-aggression pact with the USSR, to resist the Soviets in Poland, since one of the terms (the “Secret Protocol”) of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a demarcation of “zones of influence” in case of a “territorial and political rearrangement” — i.e. war, which was inevitably looming on the horizon at that time. The Soviet “zone of influence” in Poland was the eastern half, “bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San.”
Hitler had turned to the Soviet Union after his overtures had been repeatedly rejected by Britain, and in the context of the encirclement of
Germany by historically hostile countries bound by treaty obligations aimed at Germany. He could not afford to have the USSR as a potential enemy at that time.
War was being pushed and plotted, not by Hitler, but by Britain, the US and to some extent France — at the behest of the international banksters, world Jewry and the Zionists (overlapping but not in all cases identical).
Stalin too was planning a war in which, after Germany and the other Western states had been weakened by mutual war, the USSR would sweep across Europe and seize all of Western Europe for international Communism. (Only the stubborn resistance of German-led troops, including nearly a million volunteers from all over Europe and beyond, later saved Western Europe from the fate of the “Eastern Bloc” countries. Funny, I’ve never heard a “Thank you” for this from the rescued countries — quite the opposite.)
Poland too was actively working towards a war with Germany, in which her leaders planned, with the benefit of their “blank check” agreement of support from England and France, to grab a bunch of German territory. The Polish General Rydz Smigley had a portrait painted of himself in full regalia riding through the Brandenburg Gate on horseback.
By the way, in case anyone wonders why France and Germany did not declare war on the Soviet Union when the latter invaded the eastern part of Poland, the reason is that the Anglo-Polish Military Alliance had its own “secret protocol.” The pact was, on the face of it, an agreement for mutual assistance in case of military invasion by “a European Power.” However, according to the secret protocol the phrase “a European Power” used in the agreement was to be understood as Germany. This fact alone is sufficient to demonstrate that the “conspiracy to wage aggressive war” was not by Germany, but by the so-called “good guys” – with this pact as the intended trip-wire.
With the tripwire in place the warmongers then had to do was to continue to escalate the anti-Ethnic-German violence in Poland until Hitler could no longer stand by and watch his people genocided, and was forced to intervene.
At the same time, British Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax (a relative by marriage of the Rothschilds) was pretending to work diplomatically for a peaceful Polish-German solution while secretly urging Poland to ignore all of Germany’s overtures. Poland, in fact, mobilized before Germany did, at the end of August, 1939; nor was the so-called “Gleiwitz incident,” as popularized in propaganda, a German false flag attack, but a real attack by Polish irregulars – one of many such provocations launched by Poland in the days leading up to Sept. 1, 1939.
The only one of these countries NOT actively planning aggressive war was Germany. Hitler was finally forced to go into Poland in a policing action to stop the genocide of Germans in the Polish Corridor, which had been escalating ever since the “blank check” agreement in an effort to force Germany to attack Poland and provide an excuse for the war. In the months leading up to Sept. 1 Hitler had earnestly requested Britain and France’s help in negotiating an end to the violence against Germans in the Corridor, but they had not responded.
The invasion of Poland by Germany was absolutely not, as many think, over Germany’s (legitimate) claim for the return of the Polish corridor. Hitler had, in fact, the previous autumn, offered to renounce that claim and guarantee the current Polish borders, including the Corridor, in the interests of peace. Was this the move of someone looking to build an empire?
In fact the empire which Hitler was in the process of building, and the threat which the international banksters could not afford to ignore, was not military, but economic. His international barter-based trade agreements, which were becoming more and more numerous and far-flung, were incomparably more advantageous for both parties
than the classic method in which much of the money was siphoned off to the banksters. Thus, had it not been for the massive military intervention that reduced much of Germany to rubble and her self-governing status to zilch in 6 years, the banksters would soon have found themselves forced to (eughh!) work for a living — while the peoples of the world would have been able, finally, to enjoy the full fruits of their labors.
Anyone who, knowing these basic economic facts, continues to give any credence at all to conventional ant-Hitler propaganda needs to have his/her head examined.
“. . . Hitler’s attempt to starve the British out of existence. . . ”
Where did you get this information? In fact it was the English who were the absolute world champions of genocide by blockade during wartime, owing to their having the world’s greatest navy and absolutely no conscience about such things.
@elisabeth angel: I was not defending Churchill and FDR as good guys, but pointing out the catastrophic mistakes of Hitler. The monetary and trade policies of Germany enabled its transformation from starvation to economic powerhouse of Europe almost overnight.
Hitler had written on his understanding of international Jewish banking power. He should have known that Great Britain was controlled by the London Rothschilds and was therefore powerfully motivated to smash German economic reforms. The invasion of Poland was a mistake but the most destructive and inexplicable act of Hitler was his declaration of war upon the US. All Germany had to do was remain at peace for few years more to see its economic reforms engulf the world. Another mystery is that Hitler, despite his purported beliefs and military prowess, did not exterminate the banker cabal plotting against Germany.
@Iron Helm:
What? Northern Ireland is actually the Ulster British Nation??? You just cleared things up for me big time and NOW you choose to stop posting on the subject? I never quite understood the whole thing with Northern Ireland. I thought that somewhere back in time all of Ireland was one country, namely the Irish nation as pictured in travel logs. Then somehow animosities between Catholics and Protestants happened. I should say between Catholics and the Church of England, I guess. A quick check of wiki to see once again who Sein Fein are says “Thereafter, the IRA waged a guerrilla campaign against British rule in Ireland in the 1919–21 Irish War of Independence.” OK. So Sein Fein I guess is basically Catholic, but Marxists.
Just to be sure I understand, I looked briefly at what the Irish War of Independence was all about. “The Irish War of Independence (aka Anglo-Irish War, Black and Tan War, or Tan War) was a guerrilla war mounted by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) against the British government and its forces in Ireland. It began in January 1919, following the Irish Republic’s declaration of independence. ”
Ah ha!
Well, I always knew that whole mishigas over there had to do with a snit between the Catholics and the Church of England and/or with Catholilcs vs. CofE and the British.
This would call for a drink if I had one. And all it took was for one person to point out Northern Island is called the Ulster British Nation , one of the four British Nations. How Northern Ireland got isolated from the rest of the Island of Ireland probably best not go there at this time, as I need to re-evaluate everything now as it is
I can’t thank you enough, Iron Helm, for finally clearing that whole confusion up. This puts me in a grave dilemma though. I’ve always loved England ever since I read my first book by Charles Dickens, and I guess I could say I am one of those Anglophiles, loving everything England. Though I can’t say I am overly fond of the British Monarchy, nor that king that left Rome and created the Church of England, which led to all this hatred by so doing.
But I can say that at least Charles Himself saw a lot of hypocrisies on all social levels in England, though mainly with the middle and upper classes, and even, maybe, poked a little fun at the hypocrisies of the CofE. (I’m not implying Rome is as white as snow, mind you. Just saying Charles, in some of his novels did have some minor characters occasionally who represented the Church of England who were less than pious. In fact I’m thinking of a dinner scene in one of his novels, but can’t think of the name of it, a minor character of pastor of CofE hob-nobing with his rich hypocritical friends. Anyway, just saying, and not to say Catholics are 100% either.
Well, you are right. Ireland and England and all could generate endless posts. I’ll only say that, well…it’s too bad really different churches based on Jesus Christ must be duking it out like this, but that’s the human condition for you and so one can only just observe.
@ elisabeth angel – Iron Helm did not say that Hitler attempted to starve the British out of existence.
Iron Helm said that someone called ‘Dev’, who was some sort of leader with the Republic of Ireland at the time (aka the Irish Free State) was secretly hoping that Hitler would do that.
@ Iron Helm
I should have said that due to Dickens I actually love all of those countries of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (aka the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain) — including the Republic of Ireland. I just love that whole mystical thing of their various histories and the quaintness and bucolic beauty of their various landscapes, from their little cobble-stone towns to their mystical, pastoral scenes. Everyone should just get along.
@Iron helm:
There was no more a left v right divide in Irish Republican politics than there is in Northern Ireland hence the formation of the Irish Labour party. What is amazing about Northern Ireland is the complete absence of a “left”of any description (even Scotland of course has one along with the rest of Europe) making it the most bizarre places on the planet. In that sense it is like the USA but without the economy to the match. Indeed, people are trying to get out rather than enter illegally.
If Celtic protestants regard white Catholics a threat on a par with the traditional threats discused here then this movement is not so much doomed but destined to get what it deserves. There are plenty of scripture quotes (from the Old and the New) to explain what is about to happen and, for the most part already has happened. I’m sure you can find them.
@elisabeth angel:
Excellent point Elisabeth, the real conspiracy was against Germany. The more I learn about WWII, the more I believe that whatever Hitler’s and Germany’s flaws they were the Good side fighting against Satanic forces.
Think about the fire bombing of entire German cities by murderers Churchill and Harris.
Think about the plan to anihilate all living creatures in Germany with anthrax and atomic bombs. FDR, Dulles, Baruch, Stettinius, et al wanted to keep Germany in the war for a few more months to use those hideous arms against them. They did not manage to do that, but they got their wish with Japan:
http://www.rense.com/general90/whyhir.htm
Think about the masive rape of German women by the Red Army.
Think about the plans of Morgenthau and Kaufman to eliminate the German people biologically after the war, partiallty started by Eisenhower murdering 1 million German POWs of hunger.
Think about the 7 to 12 million (depending on the source) German expelled from ancestral lands in Pomerania and Silesia.
These deeds will not be fogotten, either in this or the other world.
They will pay in Hell for sure.
P.S. The Anglo counries have started to pay now after the self-chosen betrayed them; something explicitly stated by P. Brimelow.
@elisabeth angel:
A bold, proud defender and heaven sent. Thanks!
@Edward:
You write, “the most destructive and inexplicable act of Hitler was his declaration of war upon the US.” Do you know anything of the popular historian Thomas Fleming? (No relation, by the way, to the Chronicles magazine Thomas Fleming.) Back in 2001 quite a good book of his was published: The New Dealers’ War. In its first two chapters he lays out a compelling, very well founded theory—by a considerable margin the best I’ve ever seen—of precisely how FDR managed to dupe Hitler into declaring war on the United States, despite the fact that (1) it was not Hitler’s wish or in Germany’s interest to do so; (2) the Tripartite Agreement among the Axis powers did not require any of the signatories to join in a unilaterally prosecuted war initiated by one of the others; and (3) literally every Western diplomat above the grade of junior legation undersecretary knew that FDR would never have gotten Congress to give him a declaration of war against Germany for any reason short of an Atlantic equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack.
If you don’t have access to the book or if our wonder-working colleague Trenchant can’t come up with a URL for a free online copy somewhere, let me know. I’ll draft a précis for you and post it here. I’m rather under the weather today; otherwise I’d have done it already.
@Iron Helm: With respect, when you write “. . . the ‘oppression’ claimed by the Irish was a good deal more mild than that faced by Protestants in all of Catholic Europe. Have you ever noticed that there aren’t many Protestants in France, Spain, Italy or Poland, but there are plenty of Catholics in Germany, Britain and the Netherlands?” I have to part company with you, for two reasons. (1) The oppression of the Irish was real, was long, and was criminal. The great famine of the 1840s, which reduced Ireland’s population by half, was as artificial as the Bolsheviks’ Ukrainian famine. And the famine is simply a bright red character on a centuries-long page written in ink as black as death itself. The Irish really did suffer, perhaps as much as any other nation ever has. I do not know if the island’s population has yet regained the level it had reached before the famine, but if it has, it is a feat accomplished only within the past ten or fifteen years—and then probably only thanks to the EU’s “generosity” in bringing Lord knows how many Africans and Muslims there. (2) What seems to me to be the implicit suggestion that religions are interchangeable is awfully free and easy. Among other things, it discounts the possibility that any factor other than sheer Catholic bloody-mindedness might explain the situation you aver. Far, far too much—and much of it prejudicial in nature—seems to me taken for granted in your statement, which also assumes, I believe, rather more facts than may be found in evidence.
Since this is very much an off-the-point discussion anyway, I don’t want to become party to flogging a dead horse. For the record, however much we differ on matters religious, I still think your characterization of the IRA, at least post-independence, is thoroughly sound.
@elisabeth angel:
Guess I couldn’t resist posting again.
Hitler attempted to blockage the British in 1939-40. Can’t blame the British for being successful in their blockades while the Germans failed.
@Bluerose:
The Protestants of Ulster often self-describe as the Ulster British Nation.
The whole ‘mishagas’ as you say goes back a lot further. The Irish will tell you 800 years, but it goes back further still.
@buckle:
No left-wing parties in NI? What about Sinn Fein (the farthest left and the largest), the SDLP, Green Party and Alliance?
I am not a Celtic Protestant, I am an Englishman of Irish-Catholic ancestry who identifies strongly with the Protestants of Northern Ireland. Still you capitalise Catholic but not Protestant, believe any deceit imaginable about the British, and lionize a group of Marxist murderers. Then you expect me to give in for the unity of the White race
@Pierre de Craon:
A few questions about the Holodomor in the Ukraine:
Was there ever a blight on what was virtually the country’s only crop?
Did the Soviet government ever consider there was a problem, as in commission after commission of people struggling to grasp quite why this was happening?
Were there any efforts from the Soviets to reduce the problem (such as 3m people on relief, 750,000 men employed building roads)?
Did the Ukraine have a long history of famine for un-artificial reasons?
Did the Ukrainians have a long history of crying wolf over these things (before the Irish Famine happened, the British thought they were exaggerating the scale of potential problems)?
Did the USSR allow migrants from Ukraine to move into the Russian heartland to avoid famine?
Did more people in the Ukraine die from famine, or from Cholera, typhoid fever and dysentery?
Did the Soviets ever overturn a law as crucial as the Corn Laws in response?
Did the Soviets ever by American maize?
Did the Ukrainian famine come against a backdrop of mass execution (the Irish famine did not)?
Did the Soviets ever found soup kitchens?
Please also consider the the official line of the Soviet government was denial, and this continues to affect things today. The Irish debate comes against a backdrop of a vehemontly anti-British British media and equally anti-Anglo-Saxon American media, as well as the badly remembered and victim culture oriented fanatical oral histories of Irish America.
Aside from the Famine, why not compare the so-called atrocities of the Blacks and Tans to all the actual atrocities that occured in Europe during the first half of the century.
Why not look into the Treaty of Limerick, and see the reasons for the ‘Treachery’. Why not compare the conditions of the treaty to how Europeans treated conquered peoples?
Why not compare the tolerance for Catholicism to how Protestants were treated in Europe?
European Catholics (doesn’t matter if you are American) such as yourself have long abused the conflict between Britain and Ireland for your own cynical ends. Britain’s survival depends on first standing up to people such as yourself, then the multitude of migrants we have.
@Iron Helm:
Thanks for that clarification in explaining that the term the Ulster British Nation is just a self-described designation.
I have no doubt the whole mess goes back even further than 800 years. One characteristic of mankind is its ability to hold grudges and hatreds even to pre-recorded history. Like, for instance, with the stereotype of Neanderthals and the scientific debate whether Neanderthals were humans and whether homo sapiens ever bred with them.
Then from Antiquity on, it’s just a never-ending series of wars and hatreds, who did what to whom, and carryover grudges and hatreds, and which group is the more evil. Not just in Europe, but anywhere on the face of the Earth. I am always struck by the Wisdom found in the Old and New Testaments, like with Romans 3:23 Douay-Rheims Bible
“For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God. ”
That Martin Luther way back when really mucked things up altogether.
In a previous post you had mentioned that Hitler thought the Irish a lesser race. It occurred to me maybe this is the source of the joke I often hear about how on the scale of equality, it’s the blacks first, then hispanics, and last the Irish? Could you tell me more about Hitler’s thoughts on the Irish? I never heard that before.
Personally I think the posts are very interesting all round even though the title of the article has to do with the Spanish Civil War. I myself find it very trying to forever have to stick to a given subject. One never knows when one is deviating from it necessarily. And everything is interconnected anyway in a grander scheme.
I think I once did start to read the Carroll Warren book “The Last Crusade” that’s listed in the reference. The little I read was fascinating. No scratch that. I am thinking of a book I began to read (from the Catholic perspective), about the French Revolution. If Warren’s book is about the Spanish Civil War, I’ll have to check it out on amazon.
@Pierre de Craon:
No free copies, but an excellent review highlighting some Fleming’s strongest points. feel better, my friend.
http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=188
@Iron Helm: Congratulations; in demonstrating conclusively that the comparison I drew cannot sustain a point-by-point analogy, you have refuted something I never asserted. So aside from the satisfaction you presumably get from reposting a string of pre-digested, half-baked assertions that you probably posted a hundred times previously, what then have you accomplished?
Thank you, I suppose, for your last paragraph, in which you out yourself as one more blowhard who can’t wait to open his overflowing bag of ad hominem juvenilisms: e.g., my “cynical ends”; and “Britain’s survival depends on first standing up to people such as yourself”—and here am I, an ordinary sort o’ chap partly descended from poor folks from the land of the bogs and the Little People, who for all these years was after thinkin’ that I’m not even a nuisance, let alone an HMG-certified threat!
Could it be, Iron Helm, that your moniker needs an attitude adjustment, since evidently the heavy metal is as much in your head as on it?
@Alice Teller: It was very good of you to do this digging for me, Alice. Thank you.
If Edward is eavesdropping, he should know that the salient points I hinted at are those relating to the leak of the FDR administration’s so-called Rainbow Five war plan. The Mises site’s reviewer, David Gordon, gives Fleming’s case less credit and credence than it merits, however. To take one example of several, Gordon omits emphasizing, with reference to the FBI investigation, something that Fleming rightly, I think, makes much of: the FBI seems to have gotten clear instructions to let the probe peter out quite some time before it had run its natural course.
Gordon, being both left-libertarian and Jewish, is someone whose primary interest is in the revisionist dimension narrowly defined and understood. World War II revisionism of any sort should be welcomed here at TOO, in that it undermines a critical component of the Establishment’s destructive agenda. Yet even in his review—think of the passage concerning the pagan and barbarous doctrine of unconditional surrender—a reader whose blinders have been removed should be able to discern the unmentioned but surely decisive element: the Tribe’s murderous hatred of the Cross and the West, which did as much harm to the Allies as it did to the Axis.
@Pierre de Craon:
Does this mean I may call you Pierre? Judging by your response on another post you must be feeling better.
This site, quite naturally, encourages a little ancestor worship. I am reminded of my Grandmother’s admonition, only be rude on purpose and then with style. She would have approved of you.
Do you suppose there is any hope of reclaiming minimum levels of civility? I may live a sheltered life, but I sometimes suspect that they have no idea they are being rude. Can this be?
@Alice Teller: Yes, do call me Pierre, and a mea culpa on me for not asking you first!
The anonymity that the Internet affords—not, alas, from the government or the hackers in its employ—provides even those not usually coarse an almost irresistible temptation to coarseness. That it must needs be tolerated does not necessitate one’s endorsement of it—or a fortiori countenance the adoption of it. Still, I for one can’t deny that some of the most insightful things written in comments on this site have come from people whose pugnacity seems to know no bound. If one can get past a distaste for the dirt and the smell that learning how to sift through rubbish involves, there’s always the chance that the process will turn up the odd emerald, ruby, or diamond.
@Iron Helm:
I absolutely can and do blame the British for their practice of making war by depriving millions of innocent civilians of the means of subsistence (the Iraq sanctions were a more recent example of this horrendous practice).
I can’t comment on your claim that the Germans tried to starve the English people in 1939-40, knowing knowing nothing about it — but it is unlikely that they would have imposed a blockade of foodstuffs; unlike England, and later the United States, they took the Rules of War banning killing of civilians seriously.
Here is an excerpt from Joaquin Bochaca’s excellent book Los crimenes de los “Buenos”= “The Crimes of the ‘Good Guys’” (my translation) about this aspect of England’s nefarious practice of targeting civilians during WWII — also implemented through their massive “terror-bombing” of German civilians, but in this case aimed, not only at Germans, but also at the populations of all the German-occupied territories. The chapter is entitled “La Guerra del Hambre” (“The War of Hunger”):
@elisabeth angel: Well cited, madam. Thank you. I had a Dutch friend who was a teenager during the war. His skeletal development was permanently stunted because of three months of near-starvation in late ’44 and early ’45—and he knew many who weren’t so lucky. He told me that it was widely known that the commander of the German occupational forces, working through underground contacts and the Red Cross and pledging to shut down his antiaircraft batteries, tried repeatedly to get the Allies to airlift food supplies for the Dutch civilians. As you document, however, the noble Brits and Yanks were too busy serving Tribal interests to care about mere starving fellow white Christians.
One is left to wonder how the “nationalism” that Iron Helm and many others defend and laud differs in any essential from crypto-Judaism. Since as Romans 12:20 notes, “if the enemy be hungry, give him to eat; if he thirst, give him to drink,” how much more reprehensible it is to deny food and drink to relatives and friends!
@Pierre de Craon:
I have heard Dutch people bitterly blame the Germans for the starvation, however, and accuse them of starving the Dutch on purpose by stealing their food.
@elisabeth angel: I am sure you are right. My friend wasn’t among them, however. He said the Germans were supplied from the east; they did not live off the local economy (what there was left of it after years of first German then Allied bombing). I should add, however, that I have seen no documentation either supporting or countering his view. I am simply recounting anecdotes told by someone I loved and trusted.
He frequently did say, though, that starting in 1944, when he and several of his brothers became liable for conscription as forced labor, the local occupation forces in the Hague invariably let word slip a day or two before it happened that one of their regular house-by-house searches for young men in hiding would occur. His best story along those lines concerned a search that took place on a day in early 1945 when his mother was sick in bed, suffering primarily from hunger. The family’s hiding place was in a space hollowed out above a closet in his parents’ bedroom. Just as the officer in charge of the search detail entered the bedroom, one of my friend’s brothers slipped through the opening and crashed to the closet floor. The noise, said my friend, could have waked the dead. The officer, however, ten feet way, ignoring it, turned around and barked at his soldiers, “Die Mutter ist krank. Geh’!”
My friend had no sympathy for Hitler or national socialism (with or without Hadding Scott’s hyphen), nor did he enjoy the numerous hardships that came with occupation, one of them being the need to scrounge wood for fires in the middle of the night, especially since the penalty for those who were caught doing it was summary execution. He simply recognized the difference between Jewish fairy tales and the actual conduct of real human beings in situations that few of them had chosen to be in.
@Pierre de Craon:
I am well able to accept Fleming’s thesis on the FDR administration fooling Hitler into declaring war. However, that only strengthens my perception of Hitler as an amateur contending with enemies well beyond his league. The only proven match for the powers and principalities behind Pharisaic Judaism is the sacramental force of traditional Catholicism. This should be apparent to any student of history.
@Edward: Just so. It’s certainly apparent to me.
slightly off topic but the Reds have better music. Here’s two versions of the classic song. (from the side of Frank Ryan, the Irish leader on the Red’s side. O’Duffy was the leader of the Irish who fought on the other side)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ224ygAqdY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nhoEEzR-h8&feature=related
and woody’s version of the Spanish Civil War to the tune of Red River Valley
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORP5-017gKM&feature=related
@Pierre de Craon:
The New Dealers’ War, though I can’t vouch for the download quality.
http://goo.gl/qrJzN
@elisabeth angel:
I agree with most of what you said, except the supposed economic miracle effected by Hitler’s programme. This is not backed up either by facts or theory. Barter is trading at its most inefficient, due to the double coincidence of wants.
Now, that fiat money is an unsound and morally reprehensible in my mind doesn’t that I don’t view money as one of the great civilizing tools of man. I’d like to see money opened to competition from everybody, competition that would see paper money marginalized, as it has been for the vast majority of human civilization. Competition is the average man’s best ally.
Hitler’s vast bureaucracy was no more able to create wealth than Obama’s, this is the nature of bureacracy, not a comment on his moral standing.
And, by the way, job-creation is no mark of success; activity per se shouldn’t be mistaken for productive activity. I’m sure you can think of many work colleagues busy achieving zip, and worse still, others who busy themselves in stymying their colleagues’ productive endeavours.
@TrenchantNow, that fiat money is an unsound and morally reprehensible money in my mind doesn’t mean that I don’t view money…
D’oh! Edit, then post.
@Trenchant: To append one more point on the “efficiencies” of NS economics: a free man working for himself is more productive than his manacled brother, regardless of the master’s ethnic origin. Be the cuffs physical or merely legal sanction, they still produce more indolence than otherwise would be the case.