By Brandon Smith
Alt-Market.us, Dec. 17, 2020: The narrative could not be more transparent or obvious, but then again, the elites are becoming lazy in their propaganda and the leftists are not all that bright. Essentially, every time conservatives (or moderates) organize to defend themselves against communist or globalist attack we are called “Nazis”, brownshirts, populists, bullies, etc. Now, I would remind these people that if we were really going the path of the Sturmabteilung then there would be rampant intimidation and assault on leftists to the point that they would be afraid to leave their homes or even identify as leftists. Conservatives believe in self defense, not coercion and terror tactics.Such actions are the wheelhouse of the political left these days. They are far better than we are at imitating Brownshirt behavior. The reality is that across the board the only people engaging in widespread censorship and violence are on the political left, yet we are supposed to be the “Nazis”?
Historically, there does seem to be a pattern here, though. In Germany in the 1920s-1930s communist groups were highly active and initiated street violence, riots and even assassinations. This lured many Germans in fear of being overtaken by a communist regime to support national socialism, the other side of the coin when it comes to tyranny. In other words, to defeat the communists the public supported the fascists, and the fascists ended up being just as bad as the communists.
If you study the investigations of historians like Antony Sutton in books like ‘Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution’ or ‘Wall Street And The Rise Of Hitler’, you will discover there is incredible evidence proving that BOTH the communists and the fascists were funded and managed by the same global elites. In other words, the bankers win either way because they control both sides of the game.
I do suspect that a similar strategy is being implemented within the US today, and that part of the agenda of globalists hellbent on getting their “great reset” is to foment civil war in America while controlling or manipulating both sides of the fight.
"In Germany in the 1920s-1930s communist groups were highly active and initiated street violence, riots and even assassinations. This lured many Germans in fear of being overtaken by a communist regime to support national socialism, the other side of the coin when it comes to tyranny. In other words, to defeat the communists the public supported the fascists, and the fascists ended up being just as bad as the communists."
ReplyDeleteThis is a peculiar and simplistic explanation for events in the 1920's and 1930's, in my opinion.
I don't believe the communists initiated the violence, but even if they did, this isn't a case of "she started it! she's to blame! we were only fighting back to defend ourselves!" which is playground stuff, difficult to verify one way or the other, and ultimately doesn't matter. I never escaped punishment using that defense, no matter how convinced I was it was true. I don't think I should have-- I always had the option to walk away. The national socialists weren't cornered by the communists in these clashes, and if the national socialists thought the violence of the communists was unacceptable, they had recourse to the police.
I doubt the author intends to be accurate anyway. He would not have used "1920's--1930's" as the time frame. The Reichstag fire was in early 1933, as was Hitler's appointment as chancellor. The communists were well crushed before this. The Spartacist uprising was crushed in 1919. (1919! See,the author is attempting to establish parallels between our contemporary situation and that in Germany but has resorted to distortion and inaccuracy to do so.) To the best of my knowledge that was the end of significant (revolutionary) challenge the communists presented to the social and political order in Germany.
There were definitely communist uprisings in Germany. These may have predated fascist ones, but that certainly does not mean the communist uprisings caused the rise of fascists or their acceptance. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. We could attempt to examine the more or less concurrent rise of both German fascism and communism in terms of the terrible situation ALL Germans were facing at that time.
If I recall correctly the Reichstag fire was blamed on Leftists. Hasn't this author considered the serious possibility he's uncritically swallowing national socialist propaganda? The damned communists are the ones to blame for Germany's acceptance of the Nazis? Wow. The truth is no one topped the Nazis in sheer brutality and joy in cruelty and destruction. Their disregard for the values of liberalism and humanism has never been matched. I think some Russians were willing to accept Nazi occupation at the start of it, but SS brutality and so on forced them to think Bolshevik rule wasn't so bad in comparison. I see that as a test of the relative brutalities and oppression of the two regimes.
To explain their actions, Antifa said they were out in the streets fighting because it was only the communists who went out into the streets to fight the Nazis back in the 1920's. I guess they saw Trump's lawful election to the Presidency as equivalent to the Nazi takeover of Germany and themselves as the only ones with the guts to do something about it. The sheer idiocy of this. But it was matched by the sheer idiocy of the ones who took them up on a fight in the streets. I don't think noticing what a few idiots are doing sheds much light on what is happening or why. I do wonder where the police are when Antifa "protests" by rioting and destroying property and why the police do appear when the demonstrations are obviously peaceful. But this surely points to the real action being elsewhere, to those with the power to direct the police and mass media. How we can get a better look at them, a look so clear and obvious everyone would see and understand, I could not say.
"if the national socialists thought the violence of the communists was unacceptable, they had recourse to the police"
DeleteIt seems they would have needed more than the police. There was an attempted Communist takeover of Germany in the immediate aftermath of WW1. Hitler was recruited at that time by the Germany military as an anti-Communist agitator.
In Bavaria the communists formed a government of the Bavarian Soviet Republic headed by Kurt Eisner. There was a battle at Dachau between the People's State of Bavaria with 8000 troops versus 30,000 troops of the Bavarian Soviet Republic, in which the Communists were victorious.
Subsequently, the People's state was reinforced by 20,000 or so Freicorps fighters and the Communists were defeated in a major battle involving "flame-throwers, heavy artillery, armoured vehicles, even aircraft" (I am quoting here from Trikipedia, for what it's worth).
Wikipedia continues: At least 606 people were killed, of whom 335 were civilians.[18][20] Leviné (a leader of the Bavarian Soviet Republic) was later condemned to death for treason, and shot by a firing squad in Stadelheim Prison."
Altogether 1,000-1,200 were executed.
"Numerous others were given prison sentences, such as Toller (5 years) and the anarchist writer Erich Mühsam (15 years); others received longer sentences, 6,000 years' worth in all, some of it to hard labour.[20]
After the battle ... Hoffman's (People's State) government was nominally restored, [but] the actual power in Munich had shifted to the Right."
So at least there is a case for the idea that the rise of National Socialism was sparked in a reaction to the attempted Communist takeover immediately after WW1.
"The truth is no one topped the Nazis in sheer brutality and joy in cruelty and destruction."
DeleteNo doubt the Nazis could be brutal, but according to Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who was interrogated by both the Soviet secret police, the Gestapo were greatly to be preferred to the NKVD.
And my one-time colleague, the late Dr. Alan Orr-Ewing, who escaped German prisoner of war camps twice before being confined to Colditz castle from which his attempted break was foiled, also had a relatively good word for the Germans who he liked rather better than certain other nationals with whom Great Britain was allied at the time.
"I don't think noticing what a few idiots are doing sheds much light on what is happening or why."
DeleteCertainly it is hard to deduce why what is happening is happening. But what is happening, idiotic though it may seem, may be highly important in shaping public opinion. My own guess is that Antifa was generally demoralizing to the left and energizing to the right, and thus could well have been part of an orchestrated attempt to shape public opinion. But I have no idea what Americans actually think about either Antifa or the Proud Boys, so I am pretty much in the dark as to what the actual consequences of these irruptions may be.
"My own guess is that Antifa was generally demoralizing to the left and energizing to the right, and thus could well have been part of an orchestrated attempt to shape public opinion. But I have no idea what Americans actually think about either Antifa or the Proud Boys,"
ReplyDeleteNo, I think you are exactly correct about what Americans think. It demoralizes the left and energizes the right.
I also think Brandon Smith is exactly correct about this,
"I do suspect that a similar strategy is being implemented within the US today, and that part of the agenda of globalists hellbent on getting their “great reset” is to foment civil war in America while controlling or manipulating both sides of the fight"
I don't think he needs his version of history to set it up, that's all. What we do need is undeniable confirmation in a form obvious to most concerned citizens Smith's idea is why what is happening is happening.
"What we do need is undeniable confirmation [of] ... why what is happening is happening."
DeleteI suppose if Trump were "taken out," to use Dubya Bush's terminology, we could be pretty certain as to why what is happening is happening.
Trump's situation is reminiscent of that of Tiberias Sempronius Gracchus (163-133 BC), a tribune of the Roman people who advocated land distribution to the peasants and was murdered in the street by a group of senators who said he wanted to set up a tyranny, i.e., that he was a populist. His brother later advocated a similar populist scheme and was likewise murdered.
Those long ago events are also of reminiscent of the fate of the Kennedy's, Jack and Robert, who were far too arrogant and ambitious for their own good.
Trump, one imagines, is aware of the dangerous path he is treading. Perhaps that explains the seeming feebleness of the Administration's response to the election theft.
Consistent with that interpretation, Patrick Burne, the billionaire who gathered evidence in anticipation of voting machine vote fraud, recently attended a four and a half hour meeting at the White House to discuss strategy and came away saying that the president's staff were second-raters anxious for the president to throw in the towel.
And when Hilary labelled Trump's supporters "deplorables", she clearly implied that Trump wanted to ride a populist wave to a position of undue power, including the power to create a dynasty -- as indicated by the inclusion of his daughter and son-in-law in the administration.
Delete