I am going to tell a story which is supposed to be analogous to World War II. But its not a good analogy at all. And its not a good analogy to the bad decisions made during World War II. But just at one point there is a good analogy to an argument that is often made about the Nagasaki bomb.
Jews and oligarchs always employ DISTRACTION MURDERS for their plots. They were faking us out with Hiroshima. The more important target was Nagasaki which is why Jew media tends to forget to mention this city. Nagasaki was a Christian city. And the Jews saw to it that the bomb was dropped as directly on the main church as they could manage it.
There is this rabbi that lives in the bushes next to our place. He lives just below the sewerage line of the outdoor toilet because Jews are parasites and parasites are attracted to excretions. Why do we tolerate him? Well our family like many others is subject to social conditioning. We want to tell him that we don’t want him around but as far as we know, no Jew ever does anything wrong and we see him as a victim. But we have to have a semi-plausible excuse to keep him around. So we tell ourselves and everyone who will listen, that he is keeping the population of possums down.
A rabbi lives in the bushes next to our house. Even the kids earnestly praise him to the hilt, though he disgusts each one of them. They individually assume that they are the only one in possession of an errant heart.
Why do we think he’s keeping the possum population down? Well you see he takes baby possums, sucks and bites their foreskins off, and spreads herpes. He has mouth herpes and spreads it to the babies like all the other rabbis do. Personally I think that giving venereal disease to animals as a control mechanism as being unethical. Particularly in the case of Carp its cruel and unusual punishment as they have no hands.
He takes the smaller male adult possums and bites their thyroid gland out of their neck; that being his only nutrition. So we keep falling over ourselves, passing complements on how well he is keeping the possum population down. In fact the possums are getting more numerous and much much bigger because he leaves the big ones alone. Our pseudo-earnestness makes us red in the face as we enthusiastically praise him on his possum control because its such a social fucking faux pas not to heap great praise on your local Jew.
Under the rabbis stewardship the possums are getting larger and more numerous. We fear they will soon take over the house. Yet we praise the rabbi for his vigilante possum control. Its socially awkward to do otherwise. One of the larger possums wears a small black cap and another is attending a local Jewish seminary.
It would be a mistake to say that because of our praise of the rabbi his confidence has grown. And now he wants to help us get the cows milked. No thats not it. He was always confident, and always had grandiose plans. Its more that he can smell weakness and indecision and so he decided to branch out into “driving” the cows to the milking shed.
The Maori without loan money or earth-moving equipment had terraced rolling hillsides in a way that we could not seem to manage. This is market failure. This is a symptom of how fucked our financial system is.
We separate the cows from their calves early on. Then teach the calves to drink milk from a bucket. Why separate the little calf from his mother? This is fighting nature and is cruel punishment for any mammal. We do this because we have to drive the cows from all over the farm, twice a day, to a fixed milking shed. Why not a mobile milking setup? Because the farm isn’t terraced. Which is a failing commentary on our state-supported usury form of capitalism. Money is lent at low interest to buy a farm. Then the farmer is crippled in his capacity to improve the farm. But money is not lent at low interest to improve the farm. (Here in a nutshell is the problem of post-War farming. This is the reason that farmers are always ‘crying poor’ and usually seem to need some form of assistance or other. It was never their fault. It was a banking and money debacle).
So that even though the white man has been there with good tools, and in numbers, for more than 200 years, the farms still by and large aren’t terraced. Yet from my place, particularly if I “ran away from home” for a couple of hours before getting hungry, I could see at least two flattened hill-tops. Flattened by pre-European maoris for the military imperative of capturing the high ground. Not even metal tools to do the job. How useless is our system of finance?
Dairy is just one part of a full-blown terraced permaculture system. Proper farming doesn’t tolerate a monoculture, even in herbivores. The cows, were they without milk, would still be fantastically valuable for their manure and urine. But the ideal herd isn’t even a herd. Its a flock and a herd (A “Flerd”) combined with many species moved together and at least one other moving with a time delay after the main bunch. Milk as just one product of the farm ought to be taken by mobile milking units.
Mobile milking and 200+ tiny micro-paddocks would have been far superior if the farm were terraced. Since it would spread the cow manure and urine around the farm and not into the low altitude creek where the milking shed is. So the farm would have been lush at all times. Even in a drought the terraced nature of the farm would have meant that water was soaked into the ground, with much more than a years worth of water. In real life we didn’t have any of this so the little calves were cruelly separated from their mothers early on.
Neglecting to terrace hillside agricultural land is brazen market failure. Vivid proof that the neoclassical approach to capitalism does not produce an idyllic well-balanced Misesean economy. Terracing land is not just a rice thing. It ought to be ubiquitous regardless of the type of farming involved.
Anyway in my story, as opposed to real life, we drive the cows and the calves together to the static milking shed. An unrealistic scenario and there is some resistance to being driven as the mothers naturally want to wait for their slower walking young calves. The kids are making noises and they carry sticks to drive the cows along. Someone is out ahead of the cows yelling “Come on …. Come on …. Come on ….” and there never used to be too much of a problem getting them to the milking shed, until one day the rabbi jumps out from behind a tree and surprises everyone by smashing a lagging calf to death right there on the road.
Our rabbi. This time in formal dress and still full of surprises.
From that day on the cows are of course more leery at leaving the paddock in the first place. But here is this rabbi sacrificing calves all the way to the cow shed, claiming credit for getting the job done. And to be fair there is often just the faintest scintilla of truth to what he is saying.
Now particularly one day there is this frisian calf that he smashes to death just before the cows are in the shed ready to be milked. Because one incident precedes the other he reckons that his sacrifice of “the enemy” (the little calf) is what caused the completion of the job.
“The Enemy” According to our rabbi.
How different is this “last calf” argument from the idea that the Jew ritual sacrifice of civilians in the Christian city of Nagasaki ended the war? Its no different. What a stupid argument. Maybe there is a latin name for this formal fallacy, but what it amounts to is cherry-picking the starting point IN TIME as to when you allow the analysis. But the choice wasn’t to bomb Nagasaki or not. The choice was whether to practice the spirit and the letter of just war theory, from well before the war started ………….. or not. If we had done that we would not have provoked a war with Japan in the first place. This is like the rabbi provoking a conflict with the mother of the calf by way of smashing the calves skull into the road. The enemy of the American people was not the Japanese civilians. The enemy of the American people was the oligarchical demi-Jew Roosevelt, who worked very hard to provoke a Japanese attack. This failure to follow good proper war ethics means the dumb bastards at Catallaxy, after 80 years or so, still don’t know who the enemy was.
“The Enemy” of the American people, according to the Jews at Catallaxy. Deviations from Catholic just war theory inevitably leads to manipulation, idiocy, and the failure to prioritise the use of firepower.
So the reality was that all the costs in blood and money of fighting Japan was entirely unnecessary. The elite Jew pigs and oligarchical families had their Soviet Union as a colony. So they didn’t want the Japanese attacking north to get oil. They knew the Japanese needed oil since the Americans went out of their way to starve the Japanese of oil. So the elite Jew pigs and oligarchs were determined to get the Japanese to attack south instead. If the US wasn’t run by traitors, they should have emphasised friendship with the Japanese people. They ought to have opened up the oil sluices again, and tried to encourage our good good Japanese friends to treat the Chinese people, in the territories they occupied, an whole lot better. The Americans certainly had the influence to get results in that area of kindness towards occupied peoples.
When these boys were young their country was allied with the British. They were the natural allies of the Americans and it took a lot of work to make things otherwise. They could fight on the smell of an oily rag and they ought to have been our best friends. To put us on a poor footing with sons of samurai was about the stupidest thing the white man could ever do. But like I said … It took a great deal of work to make enemies out of them.
It wasn’t the Japanese who made themselves our enemies. This was, for the ost part, an American undertaking. Jews, oligarchs and closet supporters of the Soviet Union did this to us. The Americans easily had the negotiating power to get the colleagues of these boys to behave more humanely on Chinese territory. The decision to occupy parts of China was made only because the alliance with Britain was ended on the insistence of the US. Of course we could never approve of poor treatment of the Chinese people. Treating occupied peoples with excess brutality can never be acceptable. But a handful of Japanese military bases on the mainland (near the Soviet border) was to our interest.
From a patriotic point of view we really wanted to have the Japanese have some bases in mainland China to keep Jewish communism out. We could have had them set up fortifications with a view to opposing the Soviets. In fact the Japanese only occupied the mainland because the Americans persuaded the British to end their alliance with the Japanese. So the whole thing was orchestrated within the US, perhaps even by the usual suspects.
The Duke Of Wellington. The British opposition to Bonaparte may have been excessive. An argument could be made that the British were the bad guys. Its easy to make the case either way. But the WAY they fought Bonaparte was exemplary for the time. In that they almost always sent most of their own boys home to Mama.
If we went back to the early 19th century we could misuse this fallacy (cherry-picking the analytical start-point in time) to say that only pitched battles win wars. We could then say that Wellington and before him Nelson were completely wasting their time with all that proxy and naval war against Napolean. The theory would then go that we should have sent all these Brits in to clobber the French on the ground. But to me the Nelson-Wellington campaigns were the absolute text-book example of ‘doing it right’ for a change. The pitched battle only came when it served to end the conflict in its entirety. Bloody good show I reckon.
Reagan if anything was even better with his Wellingtonian strategy of wearing down the Soviet Union without putting his boys in the field. This shows the power of a strategy based around almost always trying to send your boys home to Mama. Always train most of the lads to be shock troops. But don’t use them in this fashion unless its absolutely necessary.
Formidable cold war leader who put together a strategy that killed almost no American soldier and few civilians of enemy governments (directly), but destroyed the Soviet Union. Reagan hated both communism and nuclear weapons in a visceral way that is hard for most people to understand. The dispute over whether he took out the Soviet Union really comes about from the idea that warfare requires huge amounts of killing.
In retrospect if he had understood that the Jews and the oligarchs were the problem (and not the communists per se) he may have done things differently. But given that his goal was to end the conflict between the Americans and the Soviets, his approach to the war was outstanding. Most of his soldiers who did die were murdered by Israel in false flag attacks.
Were you dropped into a decision-making role in the middle of World War II you should still focus on fighting ethically. This focuses the mind and makes one stop wasting resources. Germany didn’t have domestic oil and so relied on the Fischer–Tropsch process for converting coal into oil. So beating the Germans in North Africa, and carpet bombing any Fisher Tropsch plants, was all it would have taken, to bring favourable negotiations from the German leadership. Of course civilians would die when you were carpet bombing Fischer-Tropsch plants. I offer this as consolation to the Jews and Hannibal Lechter types.
In any case it was really that easy. No incendiary bombings aimed directly at cities was necessary or acceptable. There were other super weak points to the German act that could have been exploited, and would have been exploited, if this Jew ritual sacrifice of holocaustic incendiary bombing were out of the way and out of the question. This was the real “burnt offering” by the Jews OF GENTILES. The other imaginary holocaust started out as straight Jew reversal.
British action against Bonaparte was necessary but it may have been and probably was excessive. Yet with regards to World War One, this strategy showed that the British already had in their history, the right formula to deal with a kick-ass continental power. The British should have always stayed the good good friends of the Germans. There was never any reason to not stay friends. They ought to have outcompeted the Germans by bludgeoning their local bankers to only lend for wealth creation.
But supposing they felt it necessary to weaken the Germans through warfare? They ought to have taken a leaf out of Nelsons book. Patience, naval and proxy war ought to have been the priority. Nelson took some tongs and placed them diagonally on the table. He said it doesn’t matter how I place these tongs. But if Bonaparte places them THIS WAY then I will place them THIS (ie on the other diagonal) WAY …. This attitude was that of a warrior. Not an attitude that had anything to do with Jew ritual murder.
Good ethics helps you win the war because it helps prioritise where to put your resources. Good ethics also helps you choose better ways to solve the underlying problems that seem to call for war as the solution to these problems.
Lets take the problem behind the motives of the British in World War I?
What were the underlying problems that made the British elite seek to fight Germany to a standstill? Rather than negotiate a fair peace after only a few months? It comes down to the excellent German worker and the nationalistic German banker. Unlike bankers everywhere else, German bankers were lending for the purpose of wealth creation. This was closer to idyllic Misean capitalism. Rather than our own poxy state supported usury. It was a matter of degree not an absolutist thing. I have to find out much more about this. I have to buy a bunch of books from E Michael Jones’ network and then eventually go back and look for late nineteenth century German economics translations. Probably I won’t get it all done for awhile. But this is the indication. So Germany was outstripping the British in production.
Get strong but be friends with everyone. The twentieth centuries greatest statesman. Kept his city state sovereign by skilfully staying friends with all the major parties. Ethnically Chinese he maintained order and good relations in a multi-racial city and allowed for massive wealth creation on his territory. Always treated communists humanely but often put them under house arrest. Made absolutely no bones about putting potential subversives into humane detention. Silenced other subversives by keeping a right to reply in the papers and by bankrupting bullshit artists with legal action. Ran an honest non-corrupt government yet paid the best people massive salaries to be public servants. Had to hang drug-dealers rather than bigshots since the international narcotics trade was at the time run by the English and the Chinese as a virtual duopoly. He said “If we could we would kill them 100 times.” Developed an armed forces that could repel a sneak attack but realised that he had to be diplomatic with all parties. His then Malaysian counterpart Mahatir, is currently beginning to match him for awesomeness.
Britain was also the greatest creditor nation. And this had an effect that it tended to overprice their exports. As a creditor nation they had great scope for wealth creation to outstrip these problems. But there is a turd in the punchbowl here for the elite. Wealth production is great for society. But it isn’t necessarily so good for dynastic banking incumbents. With great productive success prices tend to fall down towards marginal costs. Loans get hard to pay off. Fractional reserve banking requires SECURE profits to pyramid on. Under state supported usury, bankers only lend at reasonable interest on SURE THINGS, and even then only sometimes.
Wealth creating non-usurious non-fractional reserve banking, would amount to a conspiracy to annihilate profits. Loans will get paid off more or less if the interest rate is low. Try to do the same thing on a ponzi fractional reserve basis and the dynastic banking families might stand to lose everything.
“The Enemy” according to the Jew President Johnson. Jews always have a problem with other peoples children. So President Johnson took anti-Just War to the ultimate extreme by BOMBING THE CHILDREN OF HIS ALLIES. None of these genocidal bombing runs ever hurt a Viet Kong soldier since the bombing campaigns were announced in advance. So the Kong could exit the relevant villages they were dwelling in, leaving the enemies of the Jew Johnson (see the girl above) to be blown apart. A general fidelity to Catholic Just War Theory would have prevented this troglodyte from genocidal behaviour which distracted from both peace and the war effort.
A strict fidelity to ethics in war …. if not full-blown Catholic Just War theory would have indirectly forced wealth creating banking on the British to keep their edge over the Germans. They might have practiced usury outside of the empire. But within they would have had to force changes on the bankers. And thats where they come up against the Rothschild and extended banking network. But there was no conflict in the elites at that time I think really. Before the second World War there was division. But I think the elite basically had decided that once they were in the (first world) war they were going to fight Germany to a standstill and this was fine for them, but not for the rest of the population.
LBJ. Totally Evil Jew trogolodyte who lost a war against a third world country because he followed the Catallaxian Jews advice and focused bombing campaigns on civilians. As a human being easily as evil as the Jew Stalin. Perhaps the least competent war leader in modern history. Lost a war that almost could not have been lost. Simply by focusing on human sacrifice rather than just war.
I see the major war guilt as being with the British. Many elite families had been infiltrated by the Jewish money-lending class. Whether its true or false that the elite manipulated the war into being, once it was started it was the British elite that were determined to fight to the bitter end, rather than fight for an acceptable negotiating position.
Just war theory personified
The adult warrior fights to look after the child. A vision of manhood no Catallaxian human sacrifice advocate could possibly share in.
Consider the implausibility of normal geopolitics as a cause of a war between Germany and Britain. The British believed themselves to be genetically Germanic. Angles, Saxons and Jutes. All Germanic tribes. They were each-others biggest trading partners. Plus both royal families were held to be German. I have my doubts about that. I suspect that the British royal family were already polluted by Jew genes and Jew loyalties. One country had the greatest navy, the other the most powerful army. Peace was assured one would think. The conflict comes when the interests and identity of the elite, particularly a Jewish elite, differ from the interests and identity of a non-Jewish people.
In the Gospel of Saint John, the saviour becomes the personification of the Greek Logos. Catholic Just War theory is an extension of the Greek idea of logos, taken to the problem of international relations. The saviour had no sense of humour towards people who would hurt Christian children. For this reason I would say that the oligarchical families who perpetrated or didn’t stop the incendiary bombing of Germany and Nagasaki need to have their wealth confiscated. And this wealth could then be used as zero interest loans to promote sole trader business.
Now in light of all the above we may link to a few of the insane ideas that Catallaxy had on the fly the last time they started pretending that small and gorgeous asian girls were the enemy. Just like the rabbi in our story starts calling the calves the enemy and smashing them into the road.
Catholic Just War Theory teaches us how to avoid war, when to go to war, how to conduct ourselves at war, and also how to win. Here is the thread where these Jews make fools of themselves demanding that we divert resources from winning the war to practice ritual Jew human sacrifice. Which is what World War II was all about. It was just gargantuan culling pretending to be war.
The Jews on Catallaxy (and elsewhere) see other peoples children as “the enemy” in war. Resources are to be taken away from killing regime leadership and destroying military targets to waste on hurting these kids. This is not a valid intellectual point of view. They are the bad guys and someone else is the good guys.
Here is the thread where these idiots run wild. Its not just Dr Beau Gan. Its basically all the Jews on Catallaxy. And its not just one night either. Being in favour of diverting resources from war to terrorism is a longstanding article of faith held with blind ferocity and total consistency for the last 13 years. I didn’t realise that it was a Jew thing for a very long time:
What would Jesus think of the Jew idea of targeting women and children during a war?
“King James Bible
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”
I don’t think he would approve even a little bit.
It took a lot of work to make the Japanese our enemy. A lot of effort. It is disrespectful to the Jews, communists and oligarchs involved, to play down the years and years of effort that it took to make the Japanese the enemy. The idea of avenging ourselves against the Japanese for Pearl Harbour is simply nonsensical, given authentic history.
The universal adoption of Catholic just war theory is absolutely vital to the survival of the species. Since realistic cosmology tells us that a planet only has so much time where it can harbour intelligent life. Catholic just war theory comes directly out of Christianity. So if Jesus Christ did exist he is the saviour of all of us and not just believers in his divinity.