by Gregory Conte, The Unz Review:
I am a huge Bonapartist. I support the Napoleonic code, the establishment of a pan-European Empire under French leadership, and the destruction of the Holy Roman Empire and the reorganization of the German States as the Confederation of the Rhine.
Napoleon himself, however, I abhor. While he led from the front, repeatedly risking his life for France, winning the adulation of his men, I cannot get over Waterloo. The Emperor committed an unforgivable tactical error by opening the battle with an attack on Wellington’s right. He should have put Marshal Ney in overall command. Ney was a tactical genius, as he proved by attacking the British center with horse unsupported by infantry. Napoleon’s failure in this regard compromises his whole reputation. Nevertheless, I am still a Bonapartist.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
… Did that sound stupid? Right, it is stupid. It is completely ignorant of historical facts and basic political principles. It is also clearly disingenuous. What kind of Bonapartist would claim to hate Napoleon while also supporting his policies—policies that would have been impossible if not for Napoleon’s political and military genius and initiative?
This was exactly the argument put forth by “Richard Parker” here on The Occidental Observer regarding the legacy of Adolf Hitler. Mr. Parker posed as a defender of National Socialism, while viciously attacking The Great Man on petty, technical and ahistorical grounds. He went so far as to claim that, had Hitler and his most valiant paladins died in a plane-crash on the eve of the invasion of Poland, a “grand council” of National Socialist leaders could have averted war with International Jewish Financial Power and the four great World-Empires that backed it.
Ridiculous.
Not only is Mr. Parker woefully uninformed about the war-thirsty nature of International Jewish Financial Power, he blames Hitler for not being able to win a war against the four strongest world-powers. He goes on to reveal his complete ignorance of actual National Socialist ideology through emotionally manipulative and counter-factual arguments.
First of all, does anyone really think that war could have been avoided? When one nation—Germany in this case—tries to break away from Jewish World Money-Power, it is only a question of time before that country is attacked or sneakily overthrown by Anglo-American-Jewish machinations. Germany is not the only example of this. We could point to Iran (1941, 1953), France (1958), Iraq (1990, 2003), Libya (2011), Syria (2011), the Ukraine (2014) and you could add dozens, maybe hundreds of other cases. It is not in the interest of New York-London bankers to allow the very existence of functioning, sovereign governments. You either submit to Jewish Money, or you risk being overthrown.
So whether the attack on Germany would have proceeded in 1939 or 1933 or 1947 is merely a matter of strategic-economic calculations in the Jews’ world-economic power centers. What particular action of Germany was to be regarded as a “provocation” was purely their decision. This is proven by the fact that the British and French declarations of war in 1939 came before the German declaration—just as had happened in 1914. When you—as World Jewry—control vastly more means than your opponent, you can afford to pick the moment when you believe war will be the most likely to succeed.
Mr. Parker argues that Hitler could have waited to deal with this or that crisis. But from a geostrategic viewpoint, it is very clear what Germany had to do: bring German-speaking populations isolated by the Versailles treaty back into the Reich and win territory in the East in order to have the agricultural-demographic base to compete with the United States (see especially Adam Tooze The Wages of Destruction). The post-1815 balance-of-power system was no longer tenable. It was either Germany or America—already substantially under Jewish control—as leader of Western Civilization.
Given the balance of forces, Germany came as close to victory as could reasonably be expected. Everyone knew from the onset that Germany’s chances were poor. Nevertheless, waging the war was an absolute necessity to maintain German national sovereignty from the power of international Jewry. Do you avoid a fight with a powerful oppressor just because you only have a small chance of success? If so, what are you doing reading—or writing for!—this website?
It’s easy to get lost in the details of the Danzig Crisis or the Barbarossa timetables. The fact remains that it was 70 million Germans and a few thousand noble Romanians, Italians, Hungarians, Finns, Frenchmen, Scandinavians and others who stood up to Jewish power, backed by the four biggest, most evil Empires of the time, and plenty of smaller countries. This was not due to “diplomatic blunders” but to a fundamentally self-serving foreign policy by Anglo-Soviet-Jewry. Does the author think that, had Hitler handled the Danzig crisis a bit differently, that England could have been “persuaded” into not escalating to war? That somehow, international Jewry could be persuaded that a free, sovereign and modern state in the heart of Europe would not become an existential threat to its power? Utterly delusional. It assumes that Jewry and England were making moral and humane decisions, and not self-serving ones.
