More Shayte!

I shan't know what I am looking for in the First World War until I find it. I think it's Jewish responsibility for the Holocaust: a quick way of reining in any Jew who thinks the world owes him a living. The Balfour Declaration may be the answer. Sketched out in 1916 and shown to Jewish leaders for feedback, but not published until 1917 after the American intervention, it was clearly a bribe: You get America into the war, and we'll give you Israel. And 100 million people suffered violent premature deaths in consequence, including the 6 million Jews of the Holocaust. I think that's what I'm looking for, but I'm not sure yet. The whole business of America in the First World War just haunts me. It gets more repulsive with every book I read.

The latest is, Last Days of Innocence by Meirion and Susie Harries, America at war 1917-18. Hard writing makes easy reading. It's very pro-American but no amount of whitewash can hide the discolouration. Lloyd George wanted peace with Germany in early 1918, after Russia's surrender at Brest-Litovsk, allowing Germany her gains in the east in exchange for the pre-war frontiers in the west. Woodrow Wilson thought that dishonourable! France at that point had lost 3 million dead, maimed and captured. Britain more than 1 million. America around 10 thousand. Russia, France and Britain were bound by a no-separate-peace agreement (which Russia broke) while America fought the war as an associate, free to walk out whenever she honourably felt like it. America wanted to continue the war, and honourably loan Britain the wherewithal. And honourably expect repayment with honourable interest.

The cynicism and self-interest of America in WW1 destroys me. The American economy grew 60% in less than 3 years after August 1914, fueled by British spending. America went from the world's #1 debtor nation to #1 creditor nation overnight. Only when Britain faced bankruptcy did America declare war. Even then, she would not consider any serious contribution before she was good and ready in Spring 1919. Events left the Americans high and dry.

You know that in the American Civil War in the 1860's, the Union North imposed an embargo on the Confederate South, which the British Empire respected. Britain relied on Southern cotton, and with her naval supremacy and bases in Bermuda and the West Indies could easily outrun the blockade. But in ordinary human decency (Gladstone and the Liberals notwithstanding) Britain stayed clear of the conflict. Such was the latest and best legal precedent in 1914: international law for what it was worth. Yet when Germany imposed a submarine blockade on Britain, America dreamed up some spurious right of neutrals to trade with belligerants; and went to war in defence of her right to kill Germans with impunity.

(In fairness it has to be said, however appalling their behaviour in WW1, America largely made up for it in WW2, when their peace deals in particular with Japan and Germany were outstanding. No wonder the American media like to focus on the latter conflict and forget the former.)

Again the Harries book mentioned the prominent role played by the New York Times in the lead-up to war. Could there be any truth in that idea of Noam Chomsky's, that the NYT is at the heart of a conspiracy to rig the agenda and twist events? Certainly the NYT leaked the story about yellowcake uranium that helped propel America into the present Iraq war. (There is a marked similarity between the way America was suckered into WW1 and this Iraq war, if you hadn't noticed. In both cases, there was a considerable Jewish interest. Only one of many factors of course, but possibly decisive.)

For twenty years during the Cold War, when America and NATO could not fight the Red Army conventionally, the policy of the West was a massive pre-emptive nuclear strike in the event of the slightest Soviet provocation. If some drunken hick commander of Soviet forces anywhere so much as loosed a shot in our direction, we would nuke the Soviet Union so totally they would never be able to organise a counter-strike: even if it meant killing 100+million Russkies. You and I signed on to that policy. Presumably in some weird collective sense, it is OK to hold pregnant babushkas responsible for the imperfections of the system.

The Holocaust was small potatoes by comparison.

The relevance of this stuff~apart from getting it off my chest~is that the males of the West are demoralised: They cannot withstand Jewish/Feminist bullying. (Same thing!) They lack a value system to replace the old Protestant work ethic, and a knowledge base. And are just getting the runaround for the fun of it. You take garbage from people and they give you garbage. You turn them into garbage. Jews and Feminists want to be full human beings but are reduced to caricatures when we publicly allow their garbage. Thought for the day!