Re: Reasons, why the Cold war is harmful for the Aryan benefit
This sentiment is embodied in Don Black’s Stormfront philosophy: ‘White power worldwide’—not only in privileged areas, and ‘No attacks against other White nationalities.’ I believe the majority here fully endorse White Aryan unity, realising that anything less undermines our race and cause. Worse, it supports our enemies: the ZOGs in Western nations and the lesser races that overrun us daily.
The realpolitik manoeuvrings of nation-states, political parties and political leaders need not be confused with the volk’s national interest. The American and French revolutions, together with many others, indeed, justify themselves by the premiss that no government has any immutable claim on the allegiance of its volk that it can rely on to withstand broad discontent. Just because my president says we are to go to war, that does not automatically equate to something that is either necessary or beneficial to the citizenry, or something that I ought to feel patriotically bound to embrace—as instructed.
No one knows better than we how the jewish royal family, the Rothschilds, showed the way by financing all sides in the Napoleonic Wars. Since that time, the Money-Changers have arranged assassinations, incidents, unrest, coups, revolutions, false flag attacks, pulled the strings of their political puppets, and whipped up media frenzies to arrange wars. They’ve manoeuvred nation-states in a grand chess game to maintain a balance of power—to maximise war’s duration by equalising both sides when it came. They have cobbled together countries in board rooms without troubling to consult the locals, without the slightest attention to historic or cultural boundaries, often cramming together mutually hostile groups, according to their own agenda—always inimical to mankind’s general well-being.
If we can see how the governments of the Soviet Union, the United States, and the rest of the Western sphere, were under the clandestine control of the Oberjuden, yet engaged in a Cold War seemingly against themselves, the national fervour reinforcing it is revealed as a hollow sham, nothing more than fuel keeping the machine rolling along.
Everyone is familiar with the elementary concept of an unpopular, oppressive government enhancing its control over a captive population through a police state apparatus. But George Orwell described in his novel 1984 a psyops enhancement of this standard model whereby the maximal security is excused with the cover story of protecting the population from external threat.
Now, the common man’s innocent understanding of this situation is that his nation’s army will strive to overcome the enemy, and the victory will then usher in a dismantling of the police state, whose oppressive security will no longer be necessary. Orwell’s twist on this was that the Big Brother Government—whose interest was to maintain the maximal security keeping it in power—lovingly nurtured the enemy in order to maintain the useful threat and avoid an inconvenient victory. The military industrial complex has been intertwined with government long enough for most wide awake to see how the symbiotic relationship yielded a crop of splendid little proxy wars.
For proof of this interpretation of the Cold War, consider these steps taken to maintain the balance of power:
* The 2 partisan armies operating in Yugoslavia against the Germans consisted of Tito’s communists and Mihailovitch’s nationalists. It is arguable whether supporting both was done in pursuit solely of the balance of power, or simply to maximise the war effort. But once the Germans withdrew, support for Tito eclipsed that given Mihailovitch.
* The FDR Administration directed SHAEF to hold back Anglo-American advances from penetrating too far into German territory.
* General Patton clamoured to use the Anglo-American forces against the Soviets and drive them out of Germany and East Europa—until he was involved in a very convenient and suspicious accident [I say assassination].
* The FDR Administration directed SHAEF to ‘repatriate’ tens of thousands of Russians and Eastern Europeans into the loving embrace of the NKVD. An interesting US war crime that has been footnoted out of existence. Meanwhile Stalin was set under no reciprocal obligation to return the tens of thousands of Germans and Axis prisoners consigned to Siberian gulags.
* As the Nationalist Chinese were retreating before Mao’s red hordes, UN, US or any Western involvement was conveniently absent. There was a window of a few years where the US was the sole superpower, with atomics, capable of reordering the world according to their ‘professed’ design. I contend that 3 or so well placed bombs would have taken out Mao, and freed China, and probably all Asia, from the communist grip and their many wars and genocides.
* When General MacArthur, like Patton before him, clamoured for a full-blooded effort to push the North Korean army completely out of their country, and pepper China with atomics if they made any hostile move, Truman sacked him.
* When Castro’s communist guerrillas were battling Bautista, again, NATO, the US or any Western involvement was conveniently absent. The CIA’s Bay of Pigs invasion was too little too late, crippled by a shoestring budget and Kennedy Administration roadblocks.
* The Vietnam War was notorious for the countless limitations set on the strategy, amounting to fighting with one hand tied behind the back. The North Vietnamese were granted invaluable sanctuaries in neighbouring Cambodia and Laos. The much-touted bombing campaigns against the North were, in reality, limited to brief spurts of effort interspersed with abundant time to recover, the targets and airspace were very tightly controlled, and shipping in Haiphong harbour was off limits. The DMZ border was never violated by the US/ARVN, whilst the North’s stated policy was to violate it as much as they could. Ground was never held, and the map was littered with sites that hundreds and thousands died to take, only to yield to the enemy later.
* Western armies have lately entered into a new era of warfare, where their traditional role of killing the enemy has become overshadowed by the much longer mission of ‘rebuilding.’ The rise of guerrilla warfare suits the Oberjuden agenda by providing ample excuse for failing to win decisive victories, and dragging out wars beyond all reason. The US ‘war’ in Afghanistan has now stretched beyond any before (Oct 2001 to present).
* The Western policy for Iraq has throughout been to spare no sacrifice to maintain the integrity of a state cobbled together in a boardroom to suit colonial powers. The fact that the region would have self-stabilised if each of the 3 groups had been permitted to form sovereign nations, is a dread secret that can never be uttered. It suits the Oberjuden agenda both to maintain a forever war, and to thwart the sort of national-racial integrity that sovereignty inevitably poses against their drive to international blocs and eventual global hegemony.
* It is obvious to me, and I have heard more than one general express, that China is the greatest potential enemy the West faces. Yet, once again, in pursuit of the balance of power [I contend], our cyber security is ceaselessly breached; espionage is constantly making off with secret technologies and intelligence; a trade deficit/imbalance is meekly accepted by hapless negotiators; Chicom has become the greatest lender to the US; Chicom investors are permitted to buy up Western assets; and all manner of outrages are tolerated with newt-like protests, such as conquering Tibet, capturing US aircraft and ship crews and Asian fishing vessels, laying claim to extra areas of sea and islands, and artificially devaluing their currency. The amount they spend on their military is out of all proportion to any local security needs, and is plainly ramping up to challenge the West.
The fact that I am not acquainted with it is no reason to presume that the Soviet Union and Russian Federation do not have a list along these same lines.