I just want to say that there's been a few attempts to spread Nazi conspiracy theories like Cultural Bolshevism, International Jewry and the likes, and they will not be taken seriously or engaged with. These ideas, if it weren't for the huge unquantifiable harm they have done, would be a joke. They rely on the laziest kind of prejudiced thinking and victimhood.
Excellent article. The imperialist states discovered the use of well-dosed fascism during the Second World War, and ever since it has been an option in their toolkit.
Here is a little-known but relevant fact: After Hitler and Goebbels offed themselves, government authority passed to Admiral Dönitz, who set up a successor government in the city of Flensburg, with the sole purpose of trying to negotiate a nazi successor state after the unconditional surrender.
The insane thing? Churchill wanted to take him up on it and was trying to convince the Americans to keep Dönitz in their back pocket as a threat against the Soviet Union. In the end, the Soviets got wind of it, and protested in the harshest terms, so the British government dropped the idea and deposed Dönitz.
It goes beyond that though: The key aim of Dönitz's plan was to keep nazi institutions intact, which is exactly what West Germany ended up doing under Adenauer a few years later, all with the Western Allies' blessing. 80% of Adenauer's foreign ministry were ex-NSDAP members, 75% of the Intelligence Agencies, 60% of the interior ministry, and so on and so forth.
West Germany was the nazi successor state in every relevant way.
Donitz was Hitler’s successor, he was not given any directions of what to do before he surrendered (Borman was supposed to tell him but he died in route). His plan was to gradually surrender to ensure his soldiers wouldn’t be in open air prisons during the winter/early Spring and to hold off the Soviets who were butchering and raping their way across Europe long enough to rescue as many East Germans as possible. Churchill didn’t agree to anything, in fact he was one of the most ardent supporters of unconditional surrender, unlike Stalin who offered a harsh peace in 1943 (and before he died he suggested the German occupation end, the states be reunified, and full democracy be restored to include the Nazis). However out of concern of the Soviets raping Scandinavia the idea of letting them stay in Norway was pondered, although idk if by Churchill. In West Germany Nazism was banned, there were years of dystopian “de-Nazification” programs (ex: destroying a majority of German books and MK Ultra) and Germany to this day is still occupied by America. All of Germany were Nazis under Hitler, so anything under 90% not being Nazi afterwards is due purely to occupation. To say Germany was Fascist post WW2 is laughable.
I don't think there's any need for the name calling. I think there's a complex and nuanced reality here, and different parts are being highlighted by both of you.
The Allied occupation was indeed extremely harsh on the German people, both in the east and west. A general program of collective punishment was applied, where the German people were held to account for the crimes of the Nazis. But at the same time, a continuation of fascist ideology, institutions and infrastructure and protection of certain high ranking Nazi personnel was present, and I do not think this is paradoxical. It's somewhat like Nazism was tokenised or alienated from its deeper programs and logic, and that this process was compatible with, or even helped, the brutal program of collective punishment applied to Germany.
Read the Patton Papers. Especially the end. De-nazification was a major controversy, and men like Patton were killed trying to stop it. You are simply seeing good men who were also Nazis surviving the war, and you are thinking there is something nefarious. Perhaps, just perhaps, those men didn't deserve to die and they did all they could to continue their goal of defending their nation against communism? Just maybe.
Yeah that’s because all they did was defeat the country with the fascists in it.
They didn’t defeat what fascism was.
All fascism really is, is what narcissists do when they get in power. That’s it. Every fascist political belief you ever heard was designed to get a narcissist what they want. If it doesn’t get them what they want, they don’t pretend to believe in it. If it does, then they’ll use that to control you in the exact same way a narcissist controls their victim.
Fascism is the One True Ring. It might be tempting to pick it up because you think it’s useful to defeat The Dark Lord, but it’s actually what he wants you to do.
The article definitely raises a point avout how little awareness there is of post-war history, and how the mechanism of mil-ind has asserted itself as the primary vehicle for that most evident version of fascism to date.
I would argue however, that fascism doesn't represent a new phenomenon in this global American context, but is merely an evolution of the systems of private monopolies and business influence over the government, which has existed since the Gilded Age, and under Fordism was able to acquire a new dimension that is more complete and penetrating (or totalitarian for short). German example served as a waypoint on how to do it perhaps, but where state orientation in the Germany had ideological reasoning, American hegemony is propped up, as you show, by ideological justification being the fig leaf for further economic domination.
Fascism is strictly *for a nation* which is a people, a culture, a collection of households and families coming together for a common purpose. This is a far cry different from everything that came after, and not comparable beyond from authoritarianism. It's a form of ultra-nationalism that overtakes economic and political spheres, nothing more.
Think you mean Global. UN, International Bank of Settlements, IMF, The Fed and its brethren, WHO. We’ve been heading toward global technocratic feudalism since the end of WWII
I’m not sure what fascism means on a global scale. It’s always been described as a form of militant nationalism. All Western nations look to me to be puppet regimes, proxies for the global banking, military-industrial, surveillance, and biomedical complex.
Fascism is a form of ultra-nationalism that uplifts the native people and culture over all others, almost like the old Roman idea of imperium, but its also connected to the Greek ethnos, and the Germanic volk theories. These are nativist, patriotic, nationalist movements. On a global scale, they look like Western nations seeking autonomy, autarky, and self-determination. This is not happening anywhere in the West. America is the closest thing to that, but real Americans (pre-1965 Hart-Celler Act, largely unpopular and unconstitutional) are being sidelined for H1b Indians, Israelis, and anyone with a big enough wallet to buy citizenship. The West is not fascist. You would know if we were fascist because people like me would be in power, not fat Zionists and liberals.
The way you describe western nations is almost accurate, but you don’t understand the politics behind global banking. Don’t just scream conspiracy theory either, these people have a public history. Anyway, all Western nations are also Zionist, the only ones who teeter away from that are Ireland and Poland, but not really if you look closer.
I do not know of any examples of fascism uplifting native people. In Germany, it did the opposite. As the post goes over, the Nazis implemented a system of mass privatisation, with the explicit purpose of placing the German people into austerity, which is what happened. Certain prominent party members and businessmen were uplifted, but that was it. Similarly, we would not expect fascism today uplift any native people; but just prominent party members and businessmen.
Interesting, because during the Wiemar period there was mass unemployment, and during the Nazi era, there was mass employment. It was said that if a man couldn't write with a pen, then he'd carry a rifle, and if all else fails, then he would get a shovel. Every man had work available to him unlike the Wiemar era. During the Wiemar era, there was a drop in fertility and in marriage rates, while the reverse is observed during the Nazi era. During the Wiemar era, there was an erosion on traditional German values, and prostitution and child sex trafficking increased. That was banned during the Nazi era, to protect the moral fabric of the people. During the Wiemar era, immigration was allowed, and as you know, parts of the Rhine was actively colonized by French colonial troops and made a whole batch of mixed raced Germans known as the Rhineland bastards. During the Nazi era, there was the exact opposite of foreign colonization, but a lebenstraum.
We might disagree on what these things mean, and why these things happened, but this is all stuff I get from people like Margaret MacMillan, a very mainstream historian.
I don't disagree that certain party members were uplifted more than the folk. Goering, for example, is a prime case of a man who abused his position. He was also a war hero who marched on the streets with the Nazis before anyone famous joined them, and he is also on record trying to make peace with the Americans right before Berlin was even surrounded. Even Goering, a megalomaniac, cared more for his people than the strange bankers who ruined Germany during the Wiemar era.
National Socialism is not exactly the same as fascism though. I have been conflating them together because you do, but in my earlier comment I made it clear that fascism is more based on the imperium idea, rather than the German volkish idea. The Nazis were inspired by fascism, but they did not adopt it wholesale.
I'm a monarchist at heart by the way, but you would probably hate every single one of my views and consider them fascist, if this is your understanding of the philosophy.
You may be missing my point: fascism cannot, by definition, be global, or spread amongst Western doctrine. Western nations are no longer sovereign. That is not a conspiracy. To believe so is delusion.
The public history you mention is used against the population in a calculated manner to accept the global vision.
There is certainly a deep similarity and synergy between bolshevism and the capitalist ideology that gripped the west, which I have called Quiescent Fascism; I would argue that the similarity comes in their deep reliance on authoritarian institutions. I think this summary from Noam Chomsky hits the nail on the head https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gS6g41m_NU
You are ignoring the actual definition and philosophy behind fascism, and you simply see authoritarians and thus, walla! This is not a serious article.
Authoritarianism is certainly an important or primary institution at play; and as Chomsky points out, the biggest bolshevists often flipped to being capitalists, for this reason. Neither system is desirable or the result of Jewish conspiracies. However, the key distinction is in Bolshevism, the state replaces private power, where the modern corporation, internally, operates in a not too dissimilar way to the Bolshevik state. In fascism, private authoritarian power is kept alongside state power.
I don't think you understand the origins of any of these political philosophies, nor how they spread through their respective demographics. The fact that you remove comments is lowly too, I have whole articles filled with vitriol spoken by egalitarians who hate me, and I never delete anything. Open debate without moderation comes with some uncomfortable feelings.
Please, if you really care to understand this era, read the Patton Papers and if you do that, I will supply you with more source material. The Patton Papers are Patton's letters during WW1 and WW2, you want WW2. The editor is a jewish man, Martin Blumenson. Pay attention to how he interposes his own views on Patton's direct experiences recorded in his private journal which he kept as an archive for his memoirs.
C'mon, Matthew. You are talking about a topic that has a whole slew of academics from the past 80 years getting deplatformed and cancelled for not following mainstream canon. Qui bono? Not fascists.
I'm happy to let people talk who "hate" me or want to attack me (a bit too strong a word for people I've never met in my life), and have left many such comments right here. But one, I will not indulge Nazi conspiracy theories about Jewish people ruling the world, and two, I literally would have been unable to reply to your comment without first removing the above comment, because they blocked me.
Why are such things conspiracy theories? Because they place prime importance on the races of people taking relevant actions, instead of the environmental, historical, economic and political forces at play. This is a totally illogical position to take; because it supposes that somehow, the quality of being "Jewish" in the case of your editor, takes precedence over the lived experience of the individual. It supposes that, the Jewish man, living in modern day America, is the inheritor of some kind of genetic memory and hive mind that drives his actions, instead of his actions being informed by his lived experience, and the political and economic institutions at play in his life. Was the editor a conservative? Rich? Poor? A liberal? A fascist? A militant Zionist? A pacifist? This is what is important, not that he was Jewish.
I can assure you, that the "Patton Papers" will have only the tiniest and most immeasurable impact on my thinking, for the simple reason that I don't rank the personal account of a single individual very highly at all on the hierarchy of evidence. This is for the same base reasons that I do not hold the qualifier of "Jewish" to be particularly important, or engage in the "great men" myth of history. It all revolves around the same, very human, but irrational thinking that also drives racism.
We all engage in this sort of irrational thinking from time to time, but I don't have much respect for those that consciously pursue it. I'm sure you and others can point to all sorts of quotes from certain "demographics" at the "origin" and these "philosophies"; but it won't hold any importance to me.
Your entire response amounts to intellectually lazy hand waving. Martin Blumenson is a Zionist, like the majority of jews. Your opinion on the jewish question is entirely based on bad interactions with people who hate jews, and rightfully so, you can think people are fools for hating other races but when I meet blacks or arabs who have experience being tyrannized by Whites, or when I meet any race who claims such tyranny from jews, or any race for that matter, I look at the evidence provided. The conflict between Europeans and the semitic world is very long, before jews were ever in Europe, Indo-European kingdoms were all throughout the Middle East. I know, ancient history, but this breeds bad blood. Jews, just like arabs, are foreigners in our lands and many people have a list of grievances against them. You may not like that people are grouped together with criminals, but the same happens to Whites all the time by jews concerning the Holocaust.
What I am saying is that you are the one ignoring the historical context that stretches back hundreds, if not thousands of years. I do not blame all jews, arabs, africans, or mexicans for the crimes of a few, but I have a wholistic understanding of nations and races based on the classical etymology. Look it up.
Patton was the leading general of the American forces, he revolutionized armored warfare, was the only American general the Germans feared to the point that the Allies made phantom army pretending Patton going to attack somewhere he wasn't just to mess the Germans up. Patton went into the war with no anti-semitic views. He beat the Germans with a sort of racist patriotic vitriol every single heroic general throughout has shown. He was made occupying military governor of Bavaria, even though he wanted to fight the communists who were destroying eastern europe and taking millions of germans as slaves.
Then, Eisenhower made him go to the camps. He is a direct eyewitness of the entire war, occupation, and political backroom. And every inch of it was recorded by his hand for his own memoirs.
Read the damned book. Buy it off Amazon. Do your due diligence. I honestly didn't agree with much of the stuff you seem to hate until I read a dozen *source material books* like the one I described.
I just want to say that there's been a few attempts to spread Nazi conspiracy theories like Cultural Bolshevism, International Jewry and the likes, and they will not be taken seriously or engaged with. These ideas, if it weren't for the huge unquantifiable harm they have done, would be a joke. They rely on the laziest kind of prejudiced thinking and victimhood.
Excellent article. The imperialist states discovered the use of well-dosed fascism during the Second World War, and ever since it has been an option in their toolkit.
Here is a little-known but relevant fact: After Hitler and Goebbels offed themselves, government authority passed to Admiral Dönitz, who set up a successor government in the city of Flensburg, with the sole purpose of trying to negotiate a nazi successor state after the unconditional surrender.
The insane thing? Churchill wanted to take him up on it and was trying to convince the Americans to keep Dönitz in their back pocket as a threat against the Soviet Union. In the end, the Soviets got wind of it, and protested in the harshest terms, so the British government dropped the idea and deposed Dönitz.
It goes beyond that though: The key aim of Dönitz's plan was to keep nazi institutions intact, which is exactly what West Germany ended up doing under Adenauer a few years later, all with the Western Allies' blessing. 80% of Adenauer's foreign ministry were ex-NSDAP members, 75% of the Intelligence Agencies, 60% of the interior ministry, and so on and so forth.
West Germany was the nazi successor state in every relevant way.
Of course the Marxist is a retard.
Donitz was Hitler’s successor, he was not given any directions of what to do before he surrendered (Borman was supposed to tell him but he died in route). His plan was to gradually surrender to ensure his soldiers wouldn’t be in open air prisons during the winter/early Spring and to hold off the Soviets who were butchering and raping their way across Europe long enough to rescue as many East Germans as possible. Churchill didn’t agree to anything, in fact he was one of the most ardent supporters of unconditional surrender, unlike Stalin who offered a harsh peace in 1943 (and before he died he suggested the German occupation end, the states be reunified, and full democracy be restored to include the Nazis). However out of concern of the Soviets raping Scandinavia the idea of letting them stay in Norway was pondered, although idk if by Churchill. In West Germany Nazism was banned, there were years of dystopian “de-Nazification” programs (ex: destroying a majority of German books and MK Ultra) and Germany to this day is still occupied by America. All of Germany were Nazis under Hitler, so anything under 90% not being Nazi afterwards is due purely to occupation. To say Germany was Fascist post WW2 is laughable.
I don't think there's any need for the name calling. I think there's a complex and nuanced reality here, and different parts are being highlighted by both of you.
The Allied occupation was indeed extremely harsh on the German people, both in the east and west. A general program of collective punishment was applied, where the German people were held to account for the crimes of the Nazis. But at the same time, a continuation of fascist ideology, institutions and infrastructure and protection of certain high ranking Nazi personnel was present, and I do not think this is paradoxical. It's somewhat like Nazism was tokenised or alienated from its deeper programs and logic, and that this process was compatible with, or even helped, the brutal program of collective punishment applied to Germany.
Read the Patton Papers. Especially the end. De-nazification was a major controversy, and men like Patton were killed trying to stop it. You are simply seeing good men who were also Nazis surviving the war, and you are thinking there is something nefarious. Perhaps, just perhaps, those men didn't deserve to die and they did all they could to continue their goal of defending their nation against communism? Just maybe.
None of my argument is presented on the basis of people who survived the war (or on any wartime individuals).
Thank you for laying this out 🙏 Lots to cover indeed.
Yeah that’s because all they did was defeat the country with the fascists in it.
They didn’t defeat what fascism was.
All fascism really is, is what narcissists do when they get in power. That’s it. Every fascist political belief you ever heard was designed to get a narcissist what they want. If it doesn’t get them what they want, they don’t pretend to believe in it. If it does, then they’ll use that to control you in the exact same way a narcissist controls their victim.
Fascism is the One True Ring. It might be tempting to pick it up because you think it’s useful to defeat The Dark Lord, but it’s actually what he wants you to do.
The article definitely raises a point avout how little awareness there is of post-war history, and how the mechanism of mil-ind has asserted itself as the primary vehicle for that most evident version of fascism to date.
I would argue however, that fascism doesn't represent a new phenomenon in this global American context, but is merely an evolution of the systems of private monopolies and business influence over the government, which has existed since the Gilded Age, and under Fordism was able to acquire a new dimension that is more complete and penetrating (or totalitarian for short). German example served as a waypoint on how to do it perhaps, but where state orientation in the Germany had ideological reasoning, American hegemony is propped up, as you show, by ideological justification being the fig leaf for further economic domination.
Certainly, nothing is wholly de novo; but I do think many of these forces were able to unite, in a somewhat new global form, as a result of WWII.
Fascism is strictly *for a nation* which is a people, a culture, a collection of households and families coming together for a common purpose. This is a far cry different from everything that came after, and not comparable beyond from authoritarianism. It's a form of ultra-nationalism that overtakes economic and political spheres, nothing more.
Yeah you got a PHD - Pure Historical Delusion
No, fascism did not survive WW2
because it did. and it’s called NATO.
There are no surfers in fascist countries
Dumb
State Capitalism won in 1945.
Think you mean Global. UN, International Bank of Settlements, IMF, The Fed and its brethren, WHO. We’ve been heading toward global technocratic feudalism since the end of WWII
So, not fascists, then?
I’m not sure what fascism means on a global scale. It’s always been described as a form of militant nationalism. All Western nations look to me to be puppet regimes, proxies for the global banking, military-industrial, surveillance, and biomedical complex.
Fascism is a form of ultra-nationalism that uplifts the native people and culture over all others, almost like the old Roman idea of imperium, but its also connected to the Greek ethnos, and the Germanic volk theories. These are nativist, patriotic, nationalist movements. On a global scale, they look like Western nations seeking autonomy, autarky, and self-determination. This is not happening anywhere in the West. America is the closest thing to that, but real Americans (pre-1965 Hart-Celler Act, largely unpopular and unconstitutional) are being sidelined for H1b Indians, Israelis, and anyone with a big enough wallet to buy citizenship. The West is not fascist. You would know if we were fascist because people like me would be in power, not fat Zionists and liberals.
The way you describe western nations is almost accurate, but you don’t understand the politics behind global banking. Don’t just scream conspiracy theory either, these people have a public history. Anyway, all Western nations are also Zionist, the only ones who teeter away from that are Ireland and Poland, but not really if you look closer.
I do not know of any examples of fascism uplifting native people. In Germany, it did the opposite. As the post goes over, the Nazis implemented a system of mass privatisation, with the explicit purpose of placing the German people into austerity, which is what happened. Certain prominent party members and businessmen were uplifted, but that was it. Similarly, we would not expect fascism today uplift any native people; but just prominent party members and businessmen.
Interesting, because during the Wiemar period there was mass unemployment, and during the Nazi era, there was mass employment. It was said that if a man couldn't write with a pen, then he'd carry a rifle, and if all else fails, then he would get a shovel. Every man had work available to him unlike the Wiemar era. During the Wiemar era, there was a drop in fertility and in marriage rates, while the reverse is observed during the Nazi era. During the Wiemar era, there was an erosion on traditional German values, and prostitution and child sex trafficking increased. That was banned during the Nazi era, to protect the moral fabric of the people. During the Wiemar era, immigration was allowed, and as you know, parts of the Rhine was actively colonized by French colonial troops and made a whole batch of mixed raced Germans known as the Rhineland bastards. During the Nazi era, there was the exact opposite of foreign colonization, but a lebenstraum.
We might disagree on what these things mean, and why these things happened, but this is all stuff I get from people like Margaret MacMillan, a very mainstream historian.
I don't disagree that certain party members were uplifted more than the folk. Goering, for example, is a prime case of a man who abused his position. He was also a war hero who marched on the streets with the Nazis before anyone famous joined them, and he is also on record trying to make peace with the Americans right before Berlin was even surrounded. Even Goering, a megalomaniac, cared more for his people than the strange bankers who ruined Germany during the Wiemar era.
National Socialism is not exactly the same as fascism though. I have been conflating them together because you do, but in my earlier comment I made it clear that fascism is more based on the imperium idea, rather than the German volkish idea. The Nazis were inspired by fascism, but they did not adopt it wholesale.
I'm a monarchist at heart by the way, but you would probably hate every single one of my views and consider them fascist, if this is your understanding of the philosophy.
You may be missing my point: fascism cannot, by definition, be global, or spread amongst Western doctrine. Western nations are no longer sovereign. That is not a conspiracy. To believe so is delusion.
The public history you mention is used against the population in a calculated manner to accept the global vision.
Of course Western nations aren’t sovereign. Communism and capitalism won WW2, and now we are moving towards a technocracy made by their descendants.
🤣
There is certainly a deep similarity and synergy between bolshevism and the capitalist ideology that gripped the west, which I have called Quiescent Fascism; I would argue that the similarity comes in their deep reliance on authoritarian institutions. I think this summary from Noam Chomsky hits the nail on the head https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gS6g41m_NU
You are ignoring the actual definition and philosophy behind fascism, and you simply see authoritarians and thus, walla! This is not a serious article.
Authoritarianism is certainly an important or primary institution at play; and as Chomsky points out, the biggest bolshevists often flipped to being capitalists, for this reason. Neither system is desirable or the result of Jewish conspiracies. However, the key distinction is in Bolshevism, the state replaces private power, where the modern corporation, internally, operates in a not too dissimilar way to the Bolshevik state. In fascism, private authoritarian power is kept alongside state power.
I don't think you understand the origins of any of these political philosophies, nor how they spread through their respective demographics. The fact that you remove comments is lowly too, I have whole articles filled with vitriol spoken by egalitarians who hate me, and I never delete anything. Open debate without moderation comes with some uncomfortable feelings.
Please, if you really care to understand this era, read the Patton Papers and if you do that, I will supply you with more source material. The Patton Papers are Patton's letters during WW1 and WW2, you want WW2. The editor is a jewish man, Martin Blumenson. Pay attention to how he interposes his own views on Patton's direct experiences recorded in his private journal which he kept as an archive for his memoirs.
C'mon, Matthew. You are talking about a topic that has a whole slew of academics from the past 80 years getting deplatformed and cancelled for not following mainstream canon. Qui bono? Not fascists.
I'm happy to let people talk who "hate" me or want to attack me (a bit too strong a word for people I've never met in my life), and have left many such comments right here. But one, I will not indulge Nazi conspiracy theories about Jewish people ruling the world, and two, I literally would have been unable to reply to your comment without first removing the above comment, because they blocked me.
Why are such things conspiracy theories? Because they place prime importance on the races of people taking relevant actions, instead of the environmental, historical, economic and political forces at play. This is a totally illogical position to take; because it supposes that somehow, the quality of being "Jewish" in the case of your editor, takes precedence over the lived experience of the individual. It supposes that, the Jewish man, living in modern day America, is the inheritor of some kind of genetic memory and hive mind that drives his actions, instead of his actions being informed by his lived experience, and the political and economic institutions at play in his life. Was the editor a conservative? Rich? Poor? A liberal? A fascist? A militant Zionist? A pacifist? This is what is important, not that he was Jewish.
I can assure you, that the "Patton Papers" will have only the tiniest and most immeasurable impact on my thinking, for the simple reason that I don't rank the personal account of a single individual very highly at all on the hierarchy of evidence. This is for the same base reasons that I do not hold the qualifier of "Jewish" to be particularly important, or engage in the "great men" myth of history. It all revolves around the same, very human, but irrational thinking that also drives racism.
We all engage in this sort of irrational thinking from time to time, but I don't have much respect for those that consciously pursue it. I'm sure you and others can point to all sorts of quotes from certain "demographics" at the "origin" and these "philosophies"; but it won't hold any importance to me.
Your entire response amounts to intellectually lazy hand waving. Martin Blumenson is a Zionist, like the majority of jews. Your opinion on the jewish question is entirely based on bad interactions with people who hate jews, and rightfully so, you can think people are fools for hating other races but when I meet blacks or arabs who have experience being tyrannized by Whites, or when I meet any race who claims such tyranny from jews, or any race for that matter, I look at the evidence provided. The conflict between Europeans and the semitic world is very long, before jews were ever in Europe, Indo-European kingdoms were all throughout the Middle East. I know, ancient history, but this breeds bad blood. Jews, just like arabs, are foreigners in our lands and many people have a list of grievances against them. You may not like that people are grouped together with criminals, but the same happens to Whites all the time by jews concerning the Holocaust.
What I am saying is that you are the one ignoring the historical context that stretches back hundreds, if not thousands of years. I do not blame all jews, arabs, africans, or mexicans for the crimes of a few, but I have a wholistic understanding of nations and races based on the classical etymology. Look it up.
Patton was the leading general of the American forces, he revolutionized armored warfare, was the only American general the Germans feared to the point that the Allies made phantom army pretending Patton going to attack somewhere he wasn't just to mess the Germans up. Patton went into the war with no anti-semitic views. He beat the Germans with a sort of racist patriotic vitriol every single heroic general throughout has shown. He was made occupying military governor of Bavaria, even though he wanted to fight the communists who were destroying eastern europe and taking millions of germans as slaves.
Then, Eisenhower made him go to the camps. He is a direct eyewitness of the entire war, occupation, and political backroom. And every inch of it was recorded by his hand for his own memoirs.
Read the damned book. Buy it off Amazon. Do your due diligence. I honestly didn't agree with much of the stuff you seem to hate until I read a dozen *source material books* like the one I described.
Sorry, I'm not going to allow people using my page to spread anti-Semitic and Nazi conspiracy theories.
Read the Patton Papers. That is not a conspiracy theory.