Who started both World Wars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Poor 9/11 since he is so deeply concerned about 'race' I wonder how he handles knowing that European 'whites' are descended from 'blacks' out of Africa?
 
Probably!

Hey 9/11 if you were dictator like Hitler what would you do with all the non-whites and all the others not within your sight in the Netherlands?

He would relocate them to Eastern Europe by means of delousing chambers until they are all part of a massive anti-Dutch conspiracy to sully the name of the Dutch Racist Antisemite Nazi-Worshipper Movement.
 
Slavery never was an 'institution' in Africa. The Europeans for 99% paid for blacks who had been captured by other blacks from neigboring tribes and who were subsequently transported, often on jewish owned ships, to America.

Sure, African kings and chieftans provided the supply. But Arabs and Europeans provided the demand. That's why I call it an "institution". It involved a complex system of interaction among different cultures.


Most of these are too recent to be relevant. But how's this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Zimbabwe for starters?

Success.

P.S. I can only come up with the cultural achievement of the penis sheath. But hey, that's only me, the flaming Nazi gasbag.

You didn't try very hard.

P.S.2 for the occasional lurker: the lefty worldview basically is a sort of mental defiency which has to surpress all empirical data in order to uphold an egalitarian phantasy ideology, not unlike the Soviets once had.

Umm...relevance? I'm a conservative.


P.S.3 We can be rather certain that aggle-rithm will quietly drop the subject. :D

Success.
 
Is it a matter of need or opportunity?

Both. Agricultural societies can support larger populations. This creates both an opportunity for technological specialization (you don't need to be as self-sufficient) but also a need for greater output to support the population.
 
Most popular Music is derived from African music by way of African-American influence. Jazz influenced modern 'Classical' composers, 'Big Band' and 'Swing' etc.
Blues music directly comes down to modern pop and rock. Bands like the Beatles, yardbirds, Rolling Stones, Fleetwood Mac etc started out playing covers of blues before moving on to their own compositions and re exporting it to the USA.

As for listing Cathedrals, to me they stand as symbols of more than a thousand years of oppression, war, genocide and intollerance that makes the Nazis look like amateurs.

Being a Dutch citizen 9/11 must surely be familiar with the Reformation and it's reasons and resluts.
 
Last edited:
And if you're going to list cathedrals as evidence of an 'advanced' race, it would seem strange not to mention the architectural wonders in South America, the temples in Asia, the pyramids of Egypt and the mosques and other Islamic wonders in Cairo, Mali and Somalia, to name a few. It would almost seem that our resident masterracer has a slight bias in seeking evidence of great civilizations.
 
Last edited:
Don't forget the Churches cut into solid rock in Lalibela in Ethiopia. they must rank among the Wonders of the World.

they are a World Heritage Site They contain some amazing Illuminated Bibles and Gold Vestments, all indigenous.

There is also the Aksumite Empire Huge Obelisks and architecture on a par with anything from Rome exist. It was centered around Ethiopia,Eritrea Sudan,Djibouti and northern somalia. It was an important part of the Med and Indian Ocean trading states up to the 4th Century AD.
 
Last edited:
.
Yeah, I'll like to see 9/11 try to spin the 7 Wonders of the Ancient World so that they were created by White Europeans...
.
 
I notice that 9/11 Investigator is pretending that Asian Civilizations (China, India, Japan,etc) do not exist,since those were not created by Nordic Whites.......
 
I don't really get the idea of nordic whites being so great anyway. We were, like, the last people in Europe to leave stone age. There are no great cathedrals in Scandinavia. None of us have been on the winning side in any major war in centuries. We're generally not known for great accomplishments in either science or the arts (although there were at least some). And our deep, blue eyes and our flowing blonde locks of hair framing the raw, nordic handsomeness make everyone think we can't possibly be smart.
 
Rectification: the article was written not by Christopher Hitchins but by his brother Peter.
Sorry I was too hasty here.

Where Christopher Hitchins and Victor Hanson first were defending the 'good war' now it looks as if the Hitch has actually read Buchanan's book:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-self-defeating-Iraq-asks-Peter-Hitchens.html

And what a difference it makes!

It makes me feel like a traitor to write this. The Second World War was my religion for most of my life.

Brave, alone, bombed, defiant, we, the British, had won it on our own against the most evil and powerful enemy imaginable


This is exactly the image we are going to destroy, dear Peter (not Christopher).

I read the fictional adventures of RAF bomber ace Matt Braddock in the belief that the stories were true, and not caring in the slightest about what happened when his bombs hit the ground. I do now.

So it has been very hard for me since the doubts set in. I didn't really want to know if it wasn't exactly like that. But it has rather forced itself on me..

Now here comes another. On a recent visit to the USA I picked up two new books that are going to make a lot of people in Britain very angry.


Read this thread to get an idea of the anger! :D

Oh and what is far more important: there is going to be a lot more anger in the rest of the western world going to be directed against the British. I predict that the British are going to be the New Germans in the coming decades. That they will be seen as the traitors of the White Race. This summer I really had to surpress the urge to look for a fight with them.

What if the Men of Glory didn't need to die or risk their lives? What if the whole thing was a miscalculated waste of life and wealth that destroyed Britain as a major power and turned her into a bankrupt pensioner of the USA?


They were no 'Men of Glory', they were merely the servants of the Jews.

Funnily enough, these questions echo equally uncomfortable ones I'm often asked by readers here.

The milder version is: "Who really won the war, since Britain is now subject to a German-run European Union?"

The other is one I hear from an ever-growing number of war veterans contemplating modern Britain's landscape of loutishness and disorder and recalling the sacrifices they made for it: "Why did we bother?"


Talking about veterans, we have discussed this article many times before:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Britain-fought-say-unknown-warriors-WWII.html

Answer to the British veterans: no you fools, you have fought a war that was utterly against your interest. You have fought for those who never had any other intention then to destroy your civilization. Just look around in any middle sized city in Britain to see the results of the agenda of those you risked your lives for.

I know Pat Buchanan and respect him, but I have never liked his sympathy for "America First", the movement that tried to keep the USA out of the Second World War.


Your problem Peter (not Christopher).

The follows some conventional holo-babble with this:

Baker is also keen to show that Hitler's decision to exterminate the Jews of Europe came only after the war was fully launched, and that before then, although his treatment of the Jews was disgusting and homicidal, it stopped well short of industrialised mass murder.

The implication of this, that the Holocaust was a result of the war, not a cause of it, is specially disturbing.


But at least Hitchins gets away from the idea that the Germans wanted to kill the Jews all along. I myself am willing to consider the theoretical possibility that the Germans started to kill Jews after it became obvious to them that they the Germans were going to lose (but I want to see evidence before I believe that).

A lot of people will have trouble, also, with the knowledge that Churchill said of Hitler in 1937, when the nature of his regime was well known: "A highly competent, cool, well informed functionary with an agreeable manner, a disarming smile, and few have been unaffected by a subtle personal magnetism."

Three years later, the semi-official view, still pretty much believed, was that Hitler was the devil in human form and more or less insane.


Wow, just wow. Hitchins is starting to de-demonize Hitler. All the alarmbells are going off now in the office of the ADL!

Hitchins accepts Buchanan's arguments like these:

Blood brothers: By Christmas 1940, Stalin (right) had murdered many more people than Hitler, and had invaded nearly as many countries

We went to war with the Kaiser in 1914 mainly because we feared being overtaken by Germany as the world's greatest naval power. Yet one of the main results of the war was that we were so weakened we were overtaken instead by the USA.


And this one:

But this is a minor issue beside his surgical examination of Britain's guarantee to help Poland in March 1939. Hitler saw our "stand" as an empty bluff, and called it.

The Poles were crushed and murdered, and their country erased from the map. Hitler's eventual defeat left Poland under the Soviet heel for two generations.

We then embarked on a war which cost us our Empire, many of our best export markets, what was left of our naval supremacy, and most of our national wealth - gleefully stripped from us by Roosevelt in return for Lend-Lease supplies


Who needs enemies with 'friends' like the Americans? Hitler had even offered to protect the empire in case it was threatened.

Would we not have been wiser to behave as the USA did, staying out of it and waiting for Hitler and Stalin to rip out each other's bowels?


Of course it was, sharp thinking Watson!

Was Hitler really set on a war with Britain or on smashing the British Empire?


No he was not!!!

Not so simple, is it? Survey the 20th Century and you see Britain repeatedly fighting Germany, at colossal expense.


Yes, but now it is too late Peter.


Interesting article and very significant that a commentator like Hitchins embraces Buchanan's book. The dudalb-eillard cabal must prepare themselves for difficult times ahead.
 
Last edited:
That they will be seen as the traitors of the White Race.
Therein lies the central fallacy of all Nazi-speak. What is this "white race" you speak of? Is it a fixed historical concept, or one that changes over the millennia? Is it based on skin color, or nationality, or culture, or is it possibly based on descent that traces back to one or another character in the Bible? Cause I'm just not buying it. Face it, niner, you, just like everyone here, is a mongrel.
 
Therein lies the central fallacy of all Nazi-speak. What is this "white race" you speak of? Is it a fixed historical concept, or one that changes over the millennia? Is it based on skin color, or nationality, or culture, or is it possibly based on descent that traces back to one or another character in the Bible? Cause I'm just not buying it. Face it, niner, you, just like everyone here, is a mongrel.

But...

But...

But all us white folks is special. I are superior to all dem der darkies! Why, I can cipher an' ever'thin without hardly takin' mah boots off and 'cides, all dem der 'Mericans 'n Brits hadda cheat to beat all dem Super Race peoples!

Cheated, I say! Cheated!
 
Maybe "mongrel" is the wrong word, cause it implies that there actually were separate "breeds" that "mixed lines" over the years. Nah, not a mongrel. Just a person.
 
Heh... "Traitors to the white race". Makes me so happy I married a decendant of Eichmann.:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom