Why you need to prepare for a big war. Part 5

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

On May 9, 2015, Russia celebrated the 70th anniversary of the Victory over Nazi Germany. Noted on such a scale, which has not been for many years. In Moscow, about 500 thousand people went to the "Immortal Regiment" procession with portraits of their relatives who contributed to that Great Victory, and more than 3 million people in Russia as a whole! In total, about 20 million people took part in the celebrations on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the Victory, according to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. Victory Day has not been celebrated on such a large scale in Russia for a very long time. And this is not surprising, since Nazism, with the financial and moral support of the Western elites, has raised its head again and is gathering strength at our borders.

Now some are wondering how this could happen? Has Europe forgotten the horror of that war? Why America and Great Britain, which in 1941-1945 were allies of the USSR in the anti-Hitler coalition, turn a blind eye to the revival of Nazism both in Western Europe, where it is still happening in a mild form, and in Ukraine, where Ukrainian nationalists have already unleashed a civil war and are conducting genocide of the local population, destroying their own country?

To answer these questions, it is necessary to understand where the roots of Nazism really are, from where these ideas were borrowed by Adolf Hitler. And then it will become obvious that in May 1945, only German Nazism was defeated, while the main ideologues of Nazism not only did not suffer, but also turned out to be among the winners in that war. This means that in fact, in 1945, the final victory over the Nazi ideology was not won, and therefore the revival of this ideology was only a matter of time.

The greatest influence on the formation of Hitler's worldview was exerted by the works of three authors. The first of these was the German writer Karl Friedrich May (1842-1912), who wrote many adventure novels, the most famous of which is the Noble Indian Winnetou series. And although Karl May was a German, who, moreover, had never been to the "Wild West", he very captivating and colorfully described the romance of conquering the vast expanses of America, inhabited by wild "wrong" tribes of Indians, which had to be either subdued by force or destroyed. as unwilling, and therefore unable to perceive the "blessings of civilization." How the mass genocide of the indigenous population was carried out in North America is a separate big topic, now it is important to record the fact that this was carried out mainly by English colonists of a predominantly Protestant religion.

Further, the name of Arthur Gobineau (1816-1882), the French baron, who is the author of the Aryan racial theory, which was later adopted by Hitler and his associates, should be mentioned. Gobino is famous not only for the fact that he put forward the idea of the superiority of the Aryan race, but also for the fact that he substantiated the “inferiority of the Slavs”. Moreover, to the "Slavic" peoples, he attributed not only representatives of the European race living on the territory of the Russian Empire, whom we used to call "Russians", but also all other peoples, including Tatars, Bashkirs and all the rest, who "suffered from the Mongol invasion, having adopted in themselves their defective blood. " By the way, later, for the same reason, the Germans for the chronicle from the eastern front, during the demonstration of Soviet soldiers, tried to select people with Mongoloid appearance in order to once again emphasize the influence of "Mongol blood".

I want to draw the reader's attention to the fact that Arthur Gobineau was a Frenchman, not a German, while his Aryan racial theory was very popular not only in Germany, but also among the ruling elite of all of Europe, which, of course, almost everyone referred to themselves as the Aryan race. Including this theory was very popular in Great Britain, where comes the third person whose work had an important influence on Hitler and his Nazi theory, Houston Stewart Chamberlain (1855-1827).

“In his work“Foundations of the 19th century,”Chamberlain formulates that European culture is the result of the fusion of five components: art, literature and philosophy of ancient Greece; legal system and form of government of Ancient Rome; Christianity in its Protestant option; the reviving creative Teutonic spirit; and the repulsive and destructive influence of Jews and Judaism in general."

Chamberlain studied first in Switzerland and then in Germany, where he not only became a fan of everything German and moved to Germany, but also became related to the Wagner clan, having married Eva Wagner, the daughter of the famous composer Richard Wagner. It is for this reason that Chamberlain calls the Germans the true representatives of the Aryan race, and not the British, who were also mostly Protestants.

The historian Yegor Yakovlev talks about this in more detail and in a very interesting way in his conversations with Dmitry Puchkov in a series of videos "Intelligence poll":

"What are we celebrating on May 9th?"

"Continuing conversations about Nazism"

I highly recommend that everyone take the time to watch these conversations from start to finish.

Why Chamberlain singles out Protestantism as one of the foundations of the 19th century? Protestantism is the ideological foundation on which modern Western capitalist society is built, since it is the only version of Christianity that declares the accumulation of excessive wealth not a sin, but goodness. According to Protestantism, since everything happens according to the will of God, then if you have a lot of money, then God gave it to you. If you have little money and you have not achieved success in this life, then this is also by the will of God and you yourself are to blame for this. So you somehow angered God, sinned, were too lazy, stupid, etc. And in other matters Protestantism is very liberal, no harsh rituals and ceremonies for you, everything is very “democratic”. Would you like to marry same-sex partners? No problem, everything is by the will of God!

In other words, Protestantism is liberalism transferred to religious soil. Without his appearance, the bourgeois revolution in Europe would have been impossible, since it was necessary to change the moral and ethical norms of society, ideologically justify social stratification and the right of some to be many times richer than others. It should also be noted that of all versions of Christianity, Protestantism is the most influenced by Judaism, which is generally not surprising. In a sense, Protestantism was corrected by the Jews and launched into the masses after the shortcomings of previous editions of Christianity became apparent. At the same time, the fact that the ideologues of Protestantism, and later Nazism, oppose the Jews, declaring them a "harmful nation", as well as the fact that many Nazis, including Hitler, have Jewish roots, in fact, there are no contradictions. World Jewry is not very homogeneous; there are also different clans and groupings within it. Therefore, when the Nazis, themselves for the most part being Jews, declare other Jews evil, then this is a manifestation of an internal struggle between clans, when some of the Jews remained faithful to the old traditions, refusing to accept a new, more advanced version of the doctrine, which means they become an enemy and must be destroyed …Indeed, one of the basic tenets of the Torah, on the basis of which the Old Testament was compiled, is the statement that after the Jews had sworn allegiance to their god Jehovah (Yahweh), he declared them “the chosen people” who would be given power over this The planet. And since the "true Aryans" also declared themselves to be the highest race, which should rule this world, then all other competitors had to be destroyed in the first place. These are the rules of the game "King of the Hill", which are well known to most from childhood - there can be only one at the top.

The fact that the theoretical substantiation of Nazism was made by representatives of France and Great Britain is also not accidental. Moreover, despite some disagreements and periodic wars, the elites of all European countries were very closely linked. Social stratification in France during the monarchy was very strong. At the same time, it was accompanied not only by a difference in material wealth, but also by the fact that the lower estates were significantly reduced in rights in relation to the representatives of the ruling elite. What the French nobility allowed themselves to get up is described in detail in the works of the Marquis de Sade, for example, in the work "120 days of Sodom", which is considered prohibited in many countries. The work is not for the faint of heart, while it is believed that everything written in the novel is the fruit of De Sade's sick imagination. But there are many materials, including charges against De Sade himself, for which he was sentenced to death, although he managed to avoid it, which suggests that not everything in his novels is fiction. This is also confirmed by the ecstasy with which during the "Great French Revolution" the "third estate" cut the throats of all the nobles who fell into their hands. Some were simply torn to pieces by the angry crowd.

The achievements of the Marquis de Sade include not only the fact that in honor of him the German psychiatrist Richard von Kraft-Ebing coined the term "sadism", meaning obtaining sexual satisfaction by inflicting pain and / or humiliation on another person. The Marquis de Sade also formed the ideology of the so-called "libertinism", that is, a nihilistic philosophy that denies the norms and rules accepted in society. This ideology is still very popular in France, for example. There are even whole societies of "libertinians" there, who, getting together, often do much of what the Marquis De Sade described in his novels (for this reason, I do not give links to their sites, which are all 18+).

In parallel with “libertinism”, “liberalism” also appears in Europe, about which in the same “Wikipedia” an article is written in such a way that after reading it, many immediately want to join the ranks of the “liberals”:

“Liberalism was born in many ways as a reaction to the atrocities of absolute monarchs and Catholic Church … Liberalism rejected many of the tenets that formed the basis of previous theories of the state, such as the divine right of monarchs to rule and the role of religion as the sole source of truth. Instead, liberalism proposed the following:

• provision of data from the nature of natural rights (including the right to life, to personal freedom, to property). Intellectual property refers to private property if it is not a common human property, and if it does not contradict freedom of speech (some libertarians reject the concept of intellectual property as a form of free market monopolization);
• ensuring civil rights;
• the establishment of the equality of all citizens before the law;
• the establishment of a free market economy;
• ensuring government responsibility and transparency of government.

At the same time, the function of state power is reduced to the minimum necessary to ensure these principles. Contemporary liberalism also favors an open society based on pluralism and democratic governance of the state, subject to strict observance of the rights of minorities and individuals.

Some modern liberal currents are more tolerant of government regulation of free markets in order to ensure equal opportunities for success, universal education and narrowing the income gap. Proponents of such views believe that the political system should contain elements of the welfare state, including state unemployment benefits, homeless shelters and free health care. All this does not contradict the ideas of liberalism.

According to liberalism, state power exists only for the benefit of citizens, and political leadership of a country can only be exercised on the basis of public consensus. Currently, the most appropriate political system to liberal principles is liberal democracy."

Everything is formulated very competently and very attractive. But if you look at the essence, then "liberalism" is still the same "libertinism", but only presented in a more beautiful shell. This is how the same "Wikipedia" speaks about the concept of "cultural liberalism", which is one of the constituent parts of this ideology:

“Cultural liberalism, to one degree or another, opposes government regulation of such areas as literature and art, as well as issues such as activities of the scientific community, gambling, prostitution, the age of consent for sexual intercourse, abortion, the use of contraception, euthanasia, the use of alcohol and other drugs."

To understand what is the focus here, it is necessary to remember that liberalism appears in parallel with Protestantism. At the same time, liberalism removes the above issues from the sphere of influence of the state, and this automatically means the removal of any legislative restrictions on these issues, since control over the implementation of laws is one of the main functions of the state. And Protestantism, in parallel with this, removes religious restrictions on the same issues, again giving everything to the discretion of a particular person. There remain only those moral restrictions that are imposed by society, but in this scheme, society has a serious problem in order to ensure compliance with these restrictions, since it is impossible to punish a person for their violation, except to try to break social ties with him or at least reduce them to a minimum. But in the modern Western world, which is essentially a “crowd of loners,” in which the survival of this or that person no longer depends on the quality and quantity of his social ties, such forms of influence stop working. The principle "yes, I don't care about you at all" is included. The situation is aggravated by the fact that it is impossible to deprive such a person of state support or economic ties, which would really become a problem for him, according to the same liberal legislation. Any civil servant is obliged to provide public services to any citizen, regardless of whether he complies with social moral norms of behavior or not. Likewise, in any store they are obliged to sell goods, and in a commercial firm to provide services to such people. Otherwise, they go to court, which immediately creates a lot of problems for them. The judicial practice of Western countries suggests that any attempts of such refusals are suppressed by the courts, since in the overwhelming majority of cases they side with the plaintiff. You can refuse to provide a service only if one or another law is violated. And if moral norms of behavior are removed from the jurisdiction of the state, and therefore from the legislative base, then immoral behavior is no longer a violation of the law.

The fact that the main center of modern liberalism today is the United States is also not accidental, since the basis of the modern United States of America is made up of territories that were French or British colonies, or those territories that they later captured and annexed, like the same state of Texas, which was once the territory of Mexico or the western coast, which was part of Russian Tartary, destroyed as a state in the early 19th century, as indicated by multiple traces, including a mass of Russian names of settlements and Russian cemeteries along the western coast.

Great Britain also made a very significant contribution to the formation of the ideology of both liberalism and Nazism. After all, it is no coincidence that the main language, first in the United States, and then in the whole world, was precisely English. While knowledge of the English language is still considered desirable at the level of the common population, knowledge of the English language has already become mandatory for joining the elite of almost any country in the world. If you do not speak the language of the metropolis, then you will not be allowed to rise too high. When entering the "upper strata" of society, there are a lot of issues that cannot be discussed in front of strangers, even if it is just a translator.

I would like to say a few words about the religious component of the Great British Empire. Formally, most of the British are not Protestants, but members of the so-called "Anglican community". With about 77 million followers in its ranks, the Anglican Community ranks third in the world among Christian communities, after the "Roman Catholic Church" and "Ecumenical Orthodoxy".

The English Church was formed during the 16th century Protestant Reformation in Europe, which ran parallel to the bourgeois revolutions. At its core, the Church of England is a hybrid of Catholicism and Protestantism. Some of the religious dogmas were borrowed from Catholicism, and the ideological foundations were mainly taken from Protestants. Without going into details, it should be mentioned that in 1534, under the influence of Henry 8, Parliament passed the "Act of Supermacy", which declares Henry 8 (and his successors) to be the sole supreme earthly head of the Church of England. Thus, the Church of England is separated from the Roman Catholic Church, and Henry 8, in fact, becomes in the Church of England equal to the Pope. A little later, in 1559, a new version of the "Supermacy Act" was adopted, which called Elizabeth 1, daughter of Henry 8, not the Supreme Head, but the Supreme Ruler, since it was believed that a woman could not be the head of the church. But no matter how they called Elizabeth 1, all clergy (church ministers), civil officials, judges, university teachers and school teachers were required to take an oath of allegiance to the Queen in writing. This "Supermacy Act" remains in force until now, that is, upon accession to the throne of the new monarch of Great Britain, all of the above persons will be required to take an oath of allegiance to him in writing.

The creation of the Church of England, based on the ideology of Protestantism, formed the conditions for the English revolution of the 17th century, which took the form of a conflict between parliament and the king, which resulted in a civil and religious war, during which Anglicans and Catholics fought the English Puritans. It should be noted here that the Puritans are formally also considered Protestants, since they opposed the Catholic Church, but they have one important difference, which made them enemies of the English bourgeois revolution, which directly follows from the definition of Puritanism:

« Puritanism, puritanism - a way of life, which is characterized by extreme severity of morals and ascetic limitation of needs, prudence and thrift, hard work and dedication."

It goes without saying that the ascetic limitation of needs was in no way combined with the ideology of the accumulation of wealth and the stratification of society, so the Puritans in England were doomed. The English Revolution ended in the defeat of the Puritans, as well as the creation of a constitutional monarchy, in which the power of the king was limited by the power of parliament. These two facts paved the way for the capitalist development of England, which resulted in the industrial revolution and the creation of one of the largest colonial empires in the world, over which the sun never set. In turn, this created conditions, including ideological ones, for the formation of the super-rich elite in Great Britain, as well as the formation of a very peculiar ideology of this elite, which is distinguished by increased cynicism and cruelty towards everyone below them. This feature later gives rise to the ideology of Nazism, where the superiority of the elite over the rest of society, when the British elite considers themselves to be better and more outstanding people in relation to the "rabble" they must rule, is transformed into the superiority of the "Aryan race" over all others, who must obey and serve the "rulers of the world."

Dmitry Mylnikov