Postby Lamprecht » 3 years 1 month ago (Thu May 07, 2020 10:28 pm)
John Wear has released a new article "Breaking the Chains of Versailles" where he reveals the perverse and unfair nature of the treaty, and how it guaranteed WWII.
Breaking the Chains of Versailles
By John Wear Published: 2020-05-07
The Treaty of Versailles is sometimes said to have been the beginning of World War II. The Versailles Treaty crushed Germany beneath a burden of shame and reparations, stole vital German territories, and rendered Germany defenseless against enemies from within and without. Britain’s David Lloyd George warned the treaty makers at Versailles: “If peace is made under these conditions, it will be the source of a new war.”[1] [...]
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer
NOTE: I am taking a leave of absence from revisionism to focus on other things. At this point, the ball is in their court to show the alleged massive pits full of human remains at the so-called "extermination camps." After 8 decades they still refuse to do this. I wonder why...
Postby Vilhelmsson » 2 years 8 months ago (Mon Sep 28, 2020 2:49 pm)
The shambolic drawing of the borders at Versailles illustrates the absolute importance of drawing borders in accordance with ethnic interests. One gets the impression that the architects of Versailles understood the borders of Europe no better than the draughts player understands the chessboard.
Postby Lamprecht » 2 years 8 months ago (Mon Sep 28, 2020 5:01 pm)
Vilhelmsson wrote:the absolute importance of drawing borders in accordance with ethnic interests
If the goal is peace, yes. The places with the most hatred, war and genocide are the ones with the most ethnic diversity. The most peaceful parts of the world are the most ethnically homogeneous. I suggest:
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer
NOTE: I am taking a leave of absence from revisionism to focus on other things. At this point, the ball is in their court to show the alleged massive pits full of human remains at the so-called "extermination camps." After 8 decades they still refuse to do this. I wonder why...
Postby Hektor » 2 years 8 months ago (Thu Oct 01, 2020 9:32 am)
Lamprecht wrote:
Vilhelmsson wrote:the absolute importance of drawing borders in accordance with ethnic interests
If the goal is peace, yes. The places with the most hatred, war and genocide are the ones with the most ethnic diversity. The most peaceful parts of the world are the most ethnically homogeneous. I suggest:
Well - that's true and even my personal as well as social experience.
One can of course cite examples of "ethnically diverse" countries and say that there "are no problem". One needs to know the reasons, though. If any dissent is suppressed in such a country, you of course won't hear of that kind of problem. Ethno-based culture does make a society manageable in a more free manner. It's kind of common sense, one that is nowadays often ignored.
Postby Lamprecht » 2 years 8 months ago (Thu Oct 01, 2020 11:31 am)
Yes there are exceptions and that is what they are, exceptions. Tanzania is an example mentioned in that thread above, a study was cited explaining how they managed to achieve it. There are people that are lean and appear healthy but claim to eat nothing but pizza and coca cola or big macs. Imagine a doctor pointng to these examples and telling an obese/diabetic patient that they should follow this diet strategy because some people can do it and manage to not gain weight.
Laws were passed in Tanzania to ban political parties directly appealing to ethnic or religious groups. I guess a real, functional democracy has to ban specific parties or ideas. In the west, for some reason, democracy is equated with freedom with a sort of religious zeal. We are told Israel is our "greatest ally" because "they are the only democracy in the region." Why does that matter? The US military has gone to war and dropped bombs and missiles, killing millions of women and children in order to "make the world safe for democracy." And this was all done with the same level of religious fervor experienced by the people burning heretics or ritually sacrificing people to change the weather hundreds of years ago. But the death tolls here do not even compare.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer
NOTE: I am taking a leave of absence from revisionism to focus on other things. At this point, the ball is in their court to show the alleged massive pits full of human remains at the so-called "extermination camps." After 8 decades they still refuse to do this. I wonder why...
Postby Hektor » 3 months 3 weeks ago (Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:54 am)
Lamprecht wrote:Yes there are exceptions and that is what they are, exceptions. Tanzania is an example mentioned in that thread above, a study was cited explaining how they managed to achieve it. .... Laws were passed in Tanzania to ban political parties directly appealing to ethnic or religious groups. I guess a real, functional democracy has to ban specific parties or ideas. In the west, for some reason, democracy is equated with freedom with a sort of religious zeal. ......
"Tribalism" was given a bad rap in African countries, but it is based on unfair portrayal of it. The tribe is not only a group with common ancestry, it also provides for values and solidarity in a way the government doesn't and also can't. What the ban of ethnic parties achieved was to put 'local cosmopolitans' into the established elites there... Which lord it over the rest of the populations, which are more traditionalist. Totalitarianism tends to be post-ethnic and post-religious. Because when those traditional forms of control and life-design fall away, people will grasp for other forms of control either through government, bureaucracy and/or mass media. I see the Western consumer cults in that light as well. Tribal communities aren't perfect, but they are often better on social matters and do have less crime than e.g. urban multicultural communities.
But well, we are here on the Versailles treaty and early Weimar. And it caused a myriad of problems in Germany and per extension elsewhere as well. That it was unfair will be admitted by most that studied the subject, although there is lots of academics that chose to be ignorant about it. Versailles made Hitler more explainable and that can not be. Hitler must be somehow explained as 'incarnation of evil' and of course rabid anti-Semitism as part of the German's nature. That all 25 points of the NSDAP may have had reasons and history behind them must be ignored. Also that it neither strove for a war and the extermination of the Jews. Germans (and by extensions related nations as well) standing up for their interest must be somehow diabolical. It is however granted to anybody else.
One can notice this even under videos like this:
Many of the comments (although not all) try to be apologetic for the French abusing German civilians.
