Sunday, 31 January 2016

Churchill Revisited

Churchill Revisited
This is a topic I have been pondering upon for quite some while now, and have eventually decided to take by the horns.  If you are troubled by having your assumptions challenged or by hearing things which are at odds with the mainstream and conventional view of historical reality as we have had it handed down to us, I would suggest that you refrain from reading any further.
Since you have now begun to read further I hope I may assume that you will confine yourself to rational examination and analysis of the questions which I will put and the data which I will refer to.  I do welcome comments, but if you make a different interpretation of the evidence than I do I trust you will couch your responses in reasonable terms.  The mere fact that I ask a particular question, or draw certain conclusions does not in itself make me a bad person.  I may make poor logical inferences, and if so, I will accept that this has been pointed out, if I am convinced that that is indeed the case.  Asking open ended questions can only be considered ‘Politically Incorrect’ by people who are afraid of what the answers might be.

I make this lengthy caveat because I have noticed a disturbing tendency amongst certain leftist and ‘social justice warrior’ communities to freak out and have emotional tantrums when they see something that doesn’t conform to their own desired view of reality.  I’m thinking here of the students who claim to have been traumatised by seeing a Confederate flag.  Get over it kids, there are far worse things out there than memories of a world that passed away more than a century and a half ago.

Okay, enough preamble.

I was brought up in a world where Winston S. Churchill, former Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as well as the victorious war leader of World War II had effectively been deified.  Of course in the fading Christian world of the post-war era we did not think of it in such terms, but had this been Rome, he would have been declared a god and temples would have been built in his honour from the spoils of war.  Not that there was much of in the way of spoils in 1945.

Nonetheless, his position as National Hero was unquestioned and unquestionable in the mood which was to reign, although he is now perhaps beginning to fade since he no longer can be deployed quite so effectively.

I well recall how at my boarding school on a cold grey Saturday morning in February of 1965 my class were gathered in a teacher’s living room to watch the funeral on the standard blurry black and white television of the era.  We heard Richard Dimbleby detail the progress of the cortege and saw the cranes dip their heads to half mast as the barge went along the river.  The Queen and Royal Family stood, dressed in black, showing respect, a model for the nation.  Even now I find it moving to recall.

And so the ritual was embedded in the national psyche.  Almost twenty years after the end of the war it was finally put to bed before the eyes of the next generation, enshrined as inviolable in our hearts, akin to Nelson.

 Hagiographies were written, and in time even some critical works. These usually confined themselves to his earlier failures and more reprehensible actions, such as the Dardanelles incident or the gassing of the Kurds in the 1920s, and if they encroached on the Second World War limited themselves to tactical errors such as the ill fated Norway raid of 1940.  He might have made mistakes, but his over arching greatness, his fidelity to his nation, his achievement in saving the British Empire, and indeed as he himself had claimed, Christendom itself, from the barbarism of Germanic expansionism, could not be doubted.

And so the legend, having been created, built myth upon itself so that to doubt was to be condemned as mad, a follower of the Enemy.  So well has this edifice been maintained and consolidated that even those who did doubt or who sought to challenge it while it was being constructed were so marginalised that they are almost unknown to most.

I gradually began to become aware that such a thing as revisionism of the accounts of World War II existed in the mid-90s.  This seemed absurd to me, and, automatically assuming for the conventional view, didn’t bother to look into the claims of David Irving, the only name I was aware of.  The internet was just being born at the time, and it would be almost a couple of decades before I was to come back to the subject with the advantage of a vastly proliferated web and research resources that one could barely have imagined in the old century.

And so my curiosity slept.  I recall that as recently as early 2014 I had had conversations in which the assumption of the absolute moral rectitude and honesty of Churchill was implicitly embedded. 

But material had already passed across my screen which I should have thought more upon.  As long ago as late 2012 I saw the David Cole videos which he had made in Auschwitz about twenty years earlier.  David Cole was a young Jewish man who had concerns about the official accounts of the Auschwitz story and had gone there with a video camera and plenty of questions.  I won’t detail his findings here, as it is much better that you look at his primary evidence first hand, rather than through the lens of my reporting of it.  I will say however, that as a person of Jewish heritage he was able to gain access to accounts which expand upon the accepted narrative a little.  

More information on this was probably available at the time, but I neglected to research it further, partly I suppose because the implications were so massive.

Then, in 2014, something more than a year ago, a whole bunch of new material started coming into the orbit of my internet surfing.  Curious facts would surface, such as that Stalin’s USSR invaded and annexed eastern Poland some two weeks after Hitler’s Germany had annexed the western side of that country.  I found myself wondering why this had never been mentioned in all the years that I had seen documentaries on WWII or read about it.  Perhaps it was mentioned occasionally, but it certainly never achieved anywhere near the prominence of the German actions which had allowed Britain to declare war against them on September 3rd 1939.  The basis for this was the recently established pact between Britain and Poland in which the greater power guaranteed to come to the aid of the lesser in the event of military aggression against her.  And yet Britain did not follow by declaring war on the Soviet Union, when they picked up the remaining part of Poland, thereby failing in her treaty obligation.

The USSR was implicated again when I came across the Suvarov evidence from the '90s which exposed the high probability that Germany's attack on Russia in 1941 was prompted by intelligence that Stalin was planning to attack Germany and that this was a pre-emptive attack which otherwise would not have taken place.  The Red Army records of the huge numbers of tanks and troops which had already been massing show only maps and plans for forward engagement, not purely defensive action as had always been claimed.

I am fortunate enough to own a complete set of Churchill’s The Second World War (6 vols) in the first edition, which I inherited from my father, who played his own part in that conflict.  The presence of this work on the bookshelf as I grew up was a perpetual reinforcement of the zeitgeist into which I was born.  

And yet in vol I: The Gathering Storm (p351), Churchill quotes at length from a paper he gave to the Cabinet on Sept 25th of 1939 in which he is explicit that ‘the Russians were guilty of the grossest bad faith’ nonetheless he goes on to state that ‘Of course we should prefer that all these countries [Russia, Roumania, Yugo-Slavia] should fall upon the common foe, Nazi Germany.’ 

Hang on a moment.  Wasn’t the pact with Poland intended for the defence of that country rather than as a means to harass Germany?  Why was there not an equal complaint against Stalin as there was against Hitler?  Why would not Britain declare war on Russia for its annexation of east Poland?

Declaring war on Russia would have been a dangerous and risky move, but it is not that simple.  It is clear from his own paper to Cabinet, in his own account of the War, that is considered definitive, that despite actions in bad faith, Churchill sees Russia as a potential ally, and is already seeking to leverage it into the service of his own agenda.  So I think we should understand that Poland, who as a nation have long expressed their gratitude to Britain for its position in 1939, was actually nothing more than a tool in Churchill’s employ for the purpose of the destruction of Germany.  Not that war was Churchill’s decision since he was not yet PM, but he had been beating the war drum for so long that Chamberlain was cornered by the war party.  Poland, which did not see freedom and independence in 1945, but servitude to Stalin’s Soviet Union, was sacrificed on the way to the greater objective, having been entrapped by the British hawks, tempted by the offer of the treaty alliance.

I am reminded at this point of the famous saying ‘History is written by the victors’, which I only recently discovered was made by WS Churchill himself and none other. And the six volume History of the Second World War was long considered the definitive work on that historical period.  But I feel that he gives himself away with what is nothing more nor less than a boast.  I wrote the history, and my version, the one that justifies all my actions and glorifies me as the hero, is the one that will go down as what is remembered.’  It is ironic to me that his arch enemy, Adolf Hitler, wrote, (before the previous quotation was made I assume) ‘The victor will not be asked if he told the truth.’  Sour grapes from the one who could see he was about to lose, many might say, but a true statement regardless, and a curious counterpoint to Churchill’s remark.  Or perhaps Churchill’s was a deliberate riposte to his enemy's?

One thing about Churchill’s magnum opus is his thorough documentation.  Obviously he had written many of the documents himself and was present at all War Cabinet meetings and so forth, so he already knew the material and had private clearance even though he was no longer Prime Minister during the late forties when he wrote the work.  And so it is that sometimes he can’t avoid letting slip the truth of his position.  He has been banging on the drum of war against Germany for so long that he has ignored and is ignoring the great threat of the Russian Bear.

Let us review the Big Picture.  War was declared on Germany to defend Poland.  Russia also annexes half of Poland or so.  And yet, when the war is all over and the dust settles, not only has Poland now been entirely occupied by the USSR, but also most of eastern Europe along with it, who had all been autonomous nations in the inter war period following the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the end of the Second Reich but are now Soviet satellites states which will have to wait some 44 years for their liberation.  The five years of hot war were followed by the decades of the Cold War.

This then was a factor that I saw from a different perspective.  And Stalin is somehow exonerated of Poland, even though he has it as prize.

But this was only the first step in my questioning process.

At the beginning of volume VI Triumph and Tragedy, there is a note from the author that the book had been completed in 1951 but not ready for publication because his ‘other duties’ (as Prime Minister 1951-55) had confined him to the ‘general supervision of the process of checking the statements of fact contained in these pages’.

As I have already suggested, this work is thoroughly referenced.  There are detailed maps of campaigns and military movements, Appendices in each volume of correspondence and documents, as well as a full index to each as well.  Whatever one may think of Churchill as a person, as a politician, one cannot argue with the fact that he was a phenomenal intellect and writer.  He was awarded the Nobel Prize for this work when it was finally completed, and a stupendous work it is too.

However, the very comprehensive and rigorously documented nature of this work in itself betrays some of the weaknesses in the legacy of the official narrative that we have all had handed down to us in the intervening years.

So now we come to the great politically incorrect controversy that I have spent so long hedging around.  About a year ago or so I saw it stated somewhere that there is no reference in The Second World War, anywhere, to anything pertaining to the Holocaust as it is now known.  Nothing.  A rather surprising fact when one holds in mind that this event is considered by many today to be the greatest crime that has ever taken place in world history.  They like sometimes to forget the Holodomor or the Armenian Genocide, but those are getting back on the map these days at least, as documented occurrences.

Now I won’t claim to have read the entire 4,000 pages or so of Sir Winston’s text, but I am aided in my research by detailed prĂ©cis at the beginning of each chapter and a copious index.  There is no mention of Auschwitz, Belsen, Treblinka or any other concentration camp that I have ever heard the name of.

Now I am not for one moment suggesting that these places did not exist.  However it does surprise me that Churchill, who took every available opportunity to denigrate Hitler, the National Socialist regime and even the German people and nation generally, made absolutely no mention of them whatsoever.  (Forgive me if I imagine myself saying that in my best Maggie Smith Miss Jean Brodie voice.)

The concentration camps may not have been part of the military campaigns or the political wranglings before, during or after the war, but it is astonishing that they simply are not mentioned.  I do feel strongly that Churchill would have made a meal of this had he chosen to, but he chose not to.


Perhaps his near obsession with documentation has something to do with it.  The history ends with the Potsdam Conference at which point he bowed out after losing the General Election of July 25th 1945, and so the Nuremberg trials are not covered. 

Had there been documents which he could have referred to about the liberation of the camps and the conditions found therein, or even simple news reports which would have supported the historical view which has come to be accepted, there can be little doubt that he would have used them.  There were some newsreels but these were vague and failed to distinguish between deliberate deaths, starvation and the results of the typhus epidemics which apparently had been raging in the camps for some time with shortages of medicine and foods. But he was wise enough not to refer to them as he doubtless knew that documentation could be tracked and examined.  Probably better just to leave out material that might be questionable.

His partiality becomes more obvious when one scratches a little further at the veneer he created.  In Chapter XXXIII, The Liberation of Western Europe, the penultimate paragraph of less than a page ‘The Onslaught of Our Strategic Air Forces’ makes no mention of the fire bombing of cities such as Hamburg, Dresden and others.  He does however make reference to the bombing of transportation and industry.

The actual holocaust of Dresden is an historical event at which even now apologists for Allied war crimes will blanch and try to change the subject.  They have attempted to change the numbers of dead repeatedly over the years, claiming that the figure of some 25,000 bodies identified immediately afterwards is the total figure, when it is quite plain that tens of thousands more at least perished in such a way that they were reduced to dust in the firestorm which raged following the deliberate fire bombing and could not be counted.  Churchill had authorised ‘Bomber’ Harris in this crime. 

One reason which comes to mind as to why he may have wished to minimise the thoughts of the reader when it came to the bombing of Germany is that the transportation and supply routes to the concentration camps were badly hit and so the camps suffered from a dearth of food and materials.  Certainly it is no secret that German civilians suffered from food shortages in the later stages of the war.  But Churchill steers clear of subjects which might prove awkward, and leaves them aside perhaps hoping that they will not be noticed or picked up.

I am of the understanding that there are historians who have found other holes in Churchill’s work, mostly in pointing out omissions.  However the absence of the ‘Death Camps’ is surely the most egregious of these.

It is somewhat more surprising then, to read that apparently the ‘Holocaust’ as it has come down to us today, was not referred to as such until after 1970.  Although the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1970 mentions concentration camps and gives numbers of deaths (less than six million) the words Holocaust and Shoah are not mentioned. 

Similar is the case with the Encyclopaedia Britannica of a couple of years later.  Certainly it is the case that when I was at school in the 1960s and ’70s I don’t recall hearing about it other than that people had died in the concentration camps.  So what we are witnessing from this evidence is that there has been considerable mythologizing of the event, despite the fact that after the early nineties fall of the USSR the figures for those who died in the camps were seriously revised downwards. (See David Cole material.)

This is all a bit troubling if one is concerned for historical sources and accuracy, since there were definitely people found guilty of mass murder in the Nuremberg Trials immediately following the war.  This in itself turns out to be something of a rabbit hole since it was declared at the beginning of the tribunal that normal judicial rules of evidence would be waived.  Combined with a now widespread recognition that many confessions were extracted from German prisoners under duress of torture.  The methods used are so vile that I shan’t detail them here, you can research the subject yourself if you are curious about the detail.  Also it is disappointing to find that long debunked horror stories such as lampshades made of human skin and soap made from rendered bodies are still being circulated by people who should know better.

So an alternate picture begins to emerge.  Evidence which was not subject to normal judicial standards, and which was extracted under torture was accepted in the trial against the accused.  Churchill takes advantage of the fact that the trials were made after he had left office and makes no mention of the camps which were liberated whilst he was still Prime Minister, as well as avoiding mentioning his own war crimes against civilians which contributed to starvation at the camps.

‘History is written by the victor’.  Indeed.  At the very least we can see that Churchill excuses himself, and avoids evidence which might look bad for his own side, while letting slip that his principle objective was to bring down Germany rather than to protect his allies.  Indeed his vendetta against Germany led him to press for the betrayal of Poland to the Soviet Union, something he consolidated later. Despite not being PM until May 1940 he clearly sees himself as a major mover and shaker behind the scenes, if only in shaping the narrative, and when he had the opportunity 

He also sidesteps issues which could get complicated if the evidence were to be examined too closely.  Better to let the evolving narrative deal with such matters in the newspapers, the newsreels and the emerging new medium of television, where, as Orwell suggested writing his landmark 1984 in 1948, the narrative could be rewritten every time it was needed, and so evolved by a tiptoe of inches at a time from what was a somewhat speculative original, to the solidity of that we have come to know through endless reiteration.

There is much more to explore about Winston S Churchill and his curious relationship with Uncle Joe Stalin, but I shall leave that for another time.  This man, who is foundational to the modern world has a host of hidden sides and shadowy faces that are rarely seen by the world today, and it will help us to understand many things if we can peek behind the mask and gain some insights into his deeper motivations, which I suggest were not as noble as he liked to avow.  He said that it was his great life’s mission to protect and save the British Empire and Christian civilisation, yet the former was gone within his lifetime, and he did little for the latter.

His was a hollow victory for all of Europe.


You can purchase a paper or e-book version of my account of my shamanic rite of passage at The Hundredth Monkey Camp ‘Waking The Monkey! ~ Becoming the Hundredth Monkey’ (A Book for Spiritual Warriors) at

Amazon Kindle
Waking the Monkey ebook
My other blogs

Exerpts from my book and articles around cutting edge ideas related to consciousness and the human struggle for survival.
My original blog with full 2014 Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry online audio recording links and reportage from most days at the Enquiry and other material.

Wednesday, 6 January 2016

Pacifism or Passivism?

Pacifism or Passivism?

War is over if you want it?

I saw this John Lennon video posted on Facebook the other day and was flabbergasted to think that people are still proposing that ‘War is over if you want it’, and are prepared to use this meme to dismiss those who question it.

The YouTube video is almost identical.

There are two sides to this question, at least as I perceive it.

Firstly, how does this work?  What I mean by this is how does wanting war to be over make it happen?

And secondly, assuming that what John Lennon was proposing was some kind of pacifism, what are the likely outcomes of such a behaviour.

But we must address that first question first.

How does it work?  For myself, I can say that I would like ‘War to be over’, in fact I very much want it.  A million people wanted it to not even start twelve years ago and thronged the streets of London in an effort to prevent it, but it still went ahead because a small number of people at the top wanted it.

I’m willing to wager that there are a good many people in the Middle East who would also like war to be over, I’m sure that they want this much more fervently than I, since I am not embroiled in a war situation and it is only a notional idea for me, whereas for those others it is a pressing daily reality.

This reminds me of a popular version of the ‘Law of Attraction’ which claims that you attract things by thinking about them.  Well, that is the first stage of the process of manifestation, but if that is all we do, then I would guess that we are likely to remain in that situation where the big wigs remain and carry on their wars.

My own understanding of how to achieve success in the manifestation of one’s desires is that having thought about them, and decided what you want, then you have to do whatever might be required to bring about the process of material realisation.

I don’t really think this is controversial, it is just the way the material world works.

But what dear old Johnny Lennon and Yoko Ono seem to be suggesting is that one should simply not engage in these wars when they are started.

Frankly, I’m staggered that highly educated people should still be engaging in such ideas which seem to me to be so unsupported.

I recall hearing this whole business as a teenager in the early seventies and even then it was obvious to me that one person, or many, choosing not to engage in fighting might be all very well, but that if there are those who don’t wish to participate in that paradigm, and rather prefer to carry on the old ways of aggression, then you can be as non-violent as you want, but those aggressors will still carry out that aggression.  As Eowyn said in The Lord of the Rings ‘Those who do not wield a sword may still die on one.’

Um… isn’t this obvious?

During the Second World War pacifists were allowed to register as ‘Conscientious Objectors’, known colloquially as ‘conchies’, but were required to serve as non-combatants in the likes of hospital corps and so forth.  Clearly it is a wise decision to not have pacifists on the front line who might lay down their arms and refuse to fight, as this would endanger their fellows.

But for an entire nation to refuse to fight would be another thing.  The advancing enemy would walk in across the borders and take control without a shot being fired.

The extraordinary thing about those who still propose the pacifist response is that they will say things like ‘it’s never been tried’ or ‘you are stuck in outdated thinking’.  However, I would beg to differ on this.  History is littered with examples of civilian populations who didn’t resist and were consequently eliminated.

Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan and countless others have swept through the open borders of peasant territories unprotected by lords or empires strong enough to repel the invaders, and the peasants were put to the sword, their womenfolk raped and taken into sexual slavery.

Thousands of Christians who did not resist were murdered by Romans or put to the lions in the Colosseum.  It was some two hundred and fifty years after Nero first did this to them when Constantine declared Christianity to be the official religion of the Roman Empire.  That’s a lot of dead Christians along the way in between.

Now, if, like those Christians, you believe that by not resisting you are ensuring your position in Heaven, or Paradise, then that is all very well for you, but some might say that this is a selfish position to take as it involves abandoning your kin, your tribe and culture for your own personal salvation.  A similar attitude is present in some varieties of Buddhism who seek personal ‘enlightenment’, the Buddhist equivalent of Christian ‘salvation’, while others seek the ‘enlightenment’ of the whole Universe and all sentient being within it.

The fundamental point to be made here is that I cannot control the actions of another.  I may want certain things, and I may believe that performing or not performing certain actions will bring these things about, but ignoring the possible interference of ‘The Other’ on the outcomes you seek is to fail to see the whole picture.

This appeared obvious to me as a teenager and I couldn’t understand why no-one called Lennon out on this.  You lay down your arms and refuse to fight when the enemy attacks you, and you will be trampled in the dust.  I’m all for non-cooperation insofar as this might be possible, especially in cases where one’s own side is engaging in unprovoked aggression, sure, that is fine, but conflict is often complicated, and to refuse to respond when the aggression is directed against oneself is simply not survival adaptive.

So far as I can make out, the only way this could work is if everyone, all at the same time, decided not to fight.  The game theory model would indicate that a failure of all to participate in collective pacifism will lead to those who don’t gaining the upper hand, due to the asymmetry of the situation.  These are very simple, and practical considerations.

[A late addition.  The poster of this video, Palden Jenkins, who as a young man knew Lennon in Liverpool has detailed in a reply what I would summarise as ‘confidence building measures’ as the way to world peace.  I have no objection to most of these measures, they are generally a good thing
> You'd invest as much in diplomacy and broad-spectrum citizen diplomacy as you invest in military issues, and you would manage international relations in ways that do not lead to conflict. You would work on the tone and purpose of the media and education to reduce and eliminate negative projection on others and nationalist and divisive incitement. You would highlight the fact that war is no longer economic, except to minority vested interests, who are themselves no longer economic to the majority. There's a whole range of measures that can be taken.<
Apart from the neuro-linguistic association of ‘nationalism’ with ‘incitement’ I have no problem with this, but it is too simplistic.  Do we really think that those who control the media and the military industrial complex etc etc etc would engage in this wholeheartedly and unreservedly?  Would there never be anyone who might try to cheat, or even just create wiggle room to give their own group some advantage? 
I recall the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, the only Israeli politician that has ever appeared, to me at least, to have seriously engaged with the possibility of a genuine and balanced peace and pursued such confidence building measures with the Palestinians.  No sympathetic backlash against the anti-peace constituency ensued, sweeping the peace measures through in the way that the IRA bomb which assassinated Airey Neave helped to cement Margaret Thatcher’s election; rather it seemed to be the starting signal for a new push for colonisation of Palestinian lands and pressure on that people.  We may see that that was the day the Oslo accords truly ended. 
A tossed pebble may precipitate an avalanche.  Being nice to people is often not enough.  If you don’t show that you have teeth, then your opponent will press forward.  This is nature.
It isn’t the likes of me, who only seeks to critique the effectiveness of this model, who are against peace, it is those who covertly seek to undermine co-operation who do that, those who seek to cause conflict and destroy our societies with crazy speculative schemes like pacifism, open borders and unrestricted migration into lands where they have no ancestry or heritage.)

And yet the advocates of Lennon style pacifism won’t look at the inevitability of people taking advantage of the passivity or non-resistance of others.  All they seem to propose so far as I can gather is to call names at those who seek to be able to defend themselves and try to make them feel guilty about taking responsibility for their own self defence and survival.

It concerns me greatly that this thought virus is still so present in our society, in fact is more virulent and present than it ever seems to have been, and so I take the opportunity here to do my best to contribute to its end.  I still like much of John Lennon’s music (but not Imagine) but I think he should have left politics alone and stuck with Rock’n’roll.

So, having failed to understand on examination how pacifism can be an effective means of establishing or maintaining peace, I turn now to our second question, what will be its outcome?  I can only offer rhetorical enquiries, the outcome seems so obvious.

Surely this can only be a concomitant of the first?

How can non-resistance to the enemy possibly lead to peace?  Can it do anything other than ensure victory to the aggressor?

This is the point at which most pacifists seem to break off, either refusing to engage with the debate or offering some choice epithet about my moral standing.  But I am a serious philosopher and I want answers, or at least further discussion of the premises and reasoning involved so that we may get closer to some answers.  I am highly disappointed that people who have graduated from top universities and even written books are unwilling to take on these points and respond in some way.  The usual refusal to discuss these most obvious of points seems to indicate some sort of ‘Virtue Signalling’, that is, that they consider my argument to be beneath them because they are of a much higher moral standing, and believe in the goodness of all people so that I am to be implied as somehow unkind, uncharitable, mean and cynical.  Not to be touched.  In a world in which they argue that there are no enemies, those who critique pacifism are made the enemy.  Not because of the content of the argument, which is not addressed, but because of the implied character of the person.  Self defence is seen as aggression.  This is an attitude which if inculcated and brainwashed into the population sufficiently can remove or at least negate the natural will to defend territory.

Sun Tzu in his classic ‘The Art of War’ says that the best victory is one which is fought without a battle.  He also recommends that the enemy should be demoralised so as to impair their ability to resist.

And this is exactly what we see with the pacifist agenda, for which I am often amused to find myself thinking ‘passivist’, if I may coin a neologism.

A pacifist agenda which is currently rolling out in Europe.  The current ‘Migrant Crisis’ which is taking place could not have developed if the European peoples, or at least the parts of them which hijack policy, had not succumbed to this agenda and become passive.

It’s an astonishing sleight of hand and trompe l’oeil.  Peoples who have maintained identities through the turbulence of hundreds of years of wars have been persuaded that it is wrong to resist ‘The Other’, that it is wrong to maintain any sort of unique identity, or a border against strangers, and that we can all look forward to living in a world with ‘no countries and a brotherhood of man’ if only people would stop being so selfish as to maintain their heritage and identities.

If Sun Tzu’s recommendations on demoralising the enemy and getting them to surrender without a fight aren’t being deliberately implemented here, then it is quite a coincidence I would suggest.

I have heard it said that all you need to do to achieve this is to get everyone to agree to it.  So simple! 

[I think this may have some shared aetiology with the New Age idea seeded by Ken Carey that there would be a moment when suddenly everyone would ‘get it’ and we would all open our hearts to our fellows, and presumably our borders as well, there would be no more conflict and those who refused this would excarnate because they resisted the energy wave or something similar.  But no psychological mechanism is ever given as to the manner in which it might occur.  I’m all for wonderful new things happening, but they need to be within the framework of the possible, and I have a lot of questions about this which no-one is willing to answer or even address.]

I recall an episode of Babylon 5 in which a rogue artificial personality takes over the computer system and says to Mr Garibaldi ‘Some people are never happy unless they are screwing it up for everyone else.  And I have to observe that a truer word was probably never spoken.

If this Utopian dream of a pacifist world with no borders were to somehow be implemented, I think even the pacifists realise that there would be occasions when there would be conflict, however that might be, but pacifism seems contrary to natural instinct and is not clear about how we should deal with these things when they occur..  I haven’t managed to pin any of them down on this specifically, but I can only surmise that the most likely option would be to have some kind of world government, arbiter or policeman.

We have this to some extent at present, albeit not quite officially.  The UN has appropriated the role of government and arbiter and the USA and increasingly the EU that of policeman.  The mess that this has left of the Middle East after the last decade and a half kind of discourages me from excused intervention of this sort, and an ‘official’ World Government would be even worse.

You just have to look at the world situation to see that there are blocks with different interests and policies.  No surprise.  The best you can surely hope for is a balance between these blocks, no one outweighing the others.  A unified World Government would have to level these and that would have to be done with force if any chose to step out of line.

A World Government could only be achieved by massive repression and control of those who did not wish to participate.

It would involve not being able to participate in actions for your own self defence but being forced to co-operate with a system which took away your unique identity.  This is all upside down and looks very much like the kind of thing which Cultural Marxists are aiming for.

However much the pacifists might argue that we should all submit they cannot get away from the fact that at some level their plans need to be imposed from above if they are to be fully implemented.  I’m glad to say that while regrettably the demoralisation of our peoples has taken place, nonetheless there seems to be a growing tide of energy within the nationalist and identitarian movements rising from within their hearts to counter that passivity.

The coming conflict is inevitable since it is the result of natural law.  Passivism has been so effectively infiltrated into our social values that an invasion of our homelands has been taking place in slow motion over many years and it is only when that slow motion has speeded up and the situation has become critical that more than just the outliers have begun to become aware of the dire situation.

A religion that claims to be one of peace, but is designed to make war and is called ‘Submission’ has been allowed to invade our lands and is steadily making headway.  The passivity of the pacifists goes beyond not resisting, but is so swept up in the tide of ‘Submission’ that they support it, they become the enemy of their own culture.  Pacifism is disguised treachery.  And treachery arises from cowardice.

Regular readers of my blogs will know my favourite quote by Krishna from the Baghavad Gita ‘Whence comes this ignoble cowardice?’

Self defence is considered bad by the passivists, while it is the actual aggressors to whom they should be giving their attention.  As is so often the case with ideas that fit the Cultural Marxist mode, natural law is made upside down and back to front.  Passivists aren’t passive when it comes to attacking those who believe in self defence and natural law, because this only hides the fact that their entire philosophy is based on projection of their own shadow nature.

They say we shouldn’t defend ourselves, but they attack us.

They claim that nations and peoples maintaining strong borders and boundaries are being aggressive in so doing, while for most of the time these borders act as defensive and administrative structures.  The international communist nature of pacifism becomes clear at this stage.  Endless and uncontrolled movements of peoples claiming residence, housing, benefits, health care, education and so forth in lands where they have no heritage or ancestry amounts in my eyes to international communism.  It is clearly the antithesis of national identity, which the pacifists and communists seem to have in common as their enemy, along with the Green Party who seek as ‘an aspiration’ that borders should become ‘obsolete’ and that anyone should be able to settle anywhere they like.

And so Pacifism, or ‘Passivism’ as I now prefer to call it, is no more than a tool of the crypto-authoritarian left, who would abandon us to the anarchy of non-resistance in order that they may rescue us with a World Government.

I don’t think John Lennon really understood this, but rather that this was an idea which he had had seeded to him somewhere along the line, perhaps the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, or one of the many CIA and MK Ultra plants and infiltrators that he was exposed to over the course of his career.  But he was a high profile and influential person and so even though he himself was trying to break out of the net that had been placed around him, it is no surprise that he played into their hands with this one.  Probably the most remarkable thing about the whole affair is that I don’t think I have ever seen a rational critique of the War is Over if You Want It meme in all the years since it was first made.  It has just become an emotional weapon to use against those of us who live in the world of diverse peoples with different interests and who recognise that there will be competition and sometimes conflict between them.  This is how nature works, but we are expected to leave that behind for the promise of Paradise, whether in this world or the next, even though there is no formal game plan, no road map, no fall back and certainly no guarantees.  It is an argument of mere wish fulfilment fantasy, not a practical methodology based on known principles of natural law.  It is an example of the Fabian doctrine of ‘destroying the world to remake it more closely to their desire.’

Personally, I’d like to see us progress by fine tuning our societies so that they more fully and harmoniously reflect the laws of nature with interlocking groups who have shared ancestries and cultures, than attempt to rewrite those laws of nature according to how a limited human mind thinks they should work in order to be more moral.  Pacifism is a walk off a cliff.