Yes he did, and yes he did, and no he is not the only one to note it. The leader, his politburo, and the secret police were all Jewish, and the Hungarians in the uprising gave that as the reason for it. I would go into detail, but it seemed incongruous to do so.
Well AJP Taylor said Irving was meticulous in his research. Irving has just been branded as Satan, by demons - if you like. AJP Taylor's own book on WW2 said the war had "no heroes". Hitchens has also done his "Phoney Victory" on the myth of WW2.
I think the facts are becoming less controversial because the ruling mythology of post-WW2 empire is dissolving.
I think in short that US interests were seen as being served by supporting Israel's constant warmongering in the region. Especially from the 1970s. It is not the 1970s anymore, and this has changed. A regional war is not in the US interest, it did not secure signifcantly increased oil flows from Syria and Iraq, has lost Yemen, and the French have lost the Sahel.
The result of all this Herman Kahn trickery has been to destroy, and not to expand and secure, US hegemony.
I think this is an example of the LOL/NOTLOL loop.
Kahn was at the Hudson Institute - a sort of deep state cauldron of evil spells. I think he founded it. Anyway, he and others ("neocons") went for domination by proxy through Israel. It did not work.
Proxy was the way because (a) The Soviet Union and (b) the problems of force projection. US was weary of war in the 1970s, and would not support large scale overseas troop deployments
Afghan was a proxy war. The withdrawal of the Russians in 1978 is celebrated as a defining victory for this mode of imperial or grand strategy warfare - which is now being repeated in Ukraine.
I don't think the mujas were the only reason the Russians left. If you read Afgantsy, which I liked a lot, it goes on about the failed but extremely ambitious project of Soviet "nation-building" in Afghanistan.
It was proof of concept - the concept being proven that "nation building" was an expensive quagmire which cannot be achieved.
This was undertaken in postwar Iraq, of course, with the same results.
I truly detest people who say that liberalism is Christianity without Christ. Detest and despise. And denounce.
That Frank Wright could be capable of such unmitigated dreck neatly encapsulates the reason why his missives, tinselly as they often are, nonetheless lack inner depth and provide no reason to return for more. This is horrible thinking. Horrible, rotten filth from a dissident thinker operating at Level 2. The problems of the modern world require Level 200 to confront, or more.
Liberalism is not Christianity without Christ, as if there were even the semblance or the faintest intention of anything good about it. Paganism, Platonism, and the Mosaic Law can all make plausible claims to being something like Christianity without Christ, as they were robust systems that were awaiting their crowning glory; but liberalism is nothing like this at all. Liberalism is midwit humanism without balls.
Do not besmirch the holy name of Christianity by relating it to this faggy universalism! That's like something a high school atheist would say. God, I cannot wait to have done with all you driblets who speak in this manner. Let modernity have a better class of critic before it is slain, lest we not know it for the evil it is.
I pointed out that "Christianity absent Christ" is the argument of both the critics and the authors of Liberalism, and it is widely accepted as such. I also pointed out this idea was crystallised in the writings of Matthew Arnold. It is the intended goal of the liberal idea, as promoted by Classical Humanists like Arnold and Russell, as well as pragmatists like John Dewey. It is a fact this is the case, not an opinion, and both teams for and against agree on this. See John Gray for a summary of progress generally and this in particular in his Seven Types of Atheism.
I do not think this is a Good Thing. I am making the case as to why it is a Bad Thing, as the general idea is to replace God, and also remove the foundation of Western civilisation in the Catholic Church.
I do not promote Liberalism and am writing a history of its development, and the anti-civilisational movement which now goes under its name. I am naming the architects and the architecture of the system we inhabit, to promote understanding of the process by which our Christian civilisation is being replaced.
I mean, if you read the footnote I call the Cromwellites and the Whigs which followed him the Islam of the West, which is a fairly obvious indication of my lack of sympathy for these proto-Liberals.
Once again, Frank's kickin' ass and taking names (as we used to say in the old neighborhood).
“A brief smile on her pitiless face” gave me a wide smile
David irving wrote uprising Hungary 1956, can't recall if he delves into the inordinate number of commisars that spoke Yiddish.
Yes he did, and yes he did, and no he is not the only one to note it. The leader, his politburo, and the secret police were all Jewish, and the Hungarians in the uprising gave that as the reason for it. I would go into detail, but it seemed incongruous to do so.
I think this less controversial than calling Cromwell the Islam of the West, but what do I know. No triggered Whigs here today it seems.
Thanks for the reply usually irving is enough to send many to melting, chromwell in a burka might do the trick. God bless!
Well AJP Taylor said Irving was meticulous in his research. Irving has just been branded as Satan, by demons - if you like. AJP Taylor's own book on WW2 said the war had "no heroes". Hitchens has also done his "Phoney Victory" on the myth of WW2.
I think the facts are becoming less controversial because the ruling mythology of post-WW2 empire is dissolving.
I think in short that US interests were seen as being served by supporting Israel's constant warmongering in the region. Especially from the 1970s. It is not the 1970s anymore, and this has changed. A regional war is not in the US interest, it did not secure signifcantly increased oil flows from Syria and Iraq, has lost Yemen, and the French have lost the Sahel.
The result of all this Herman Kahn trickery has been to destroy, and not to expand and secure, US hegemony.
I think this is an example of the LOL/NOTLOL loop.
Kahn was at the Hudson Institute - a sort of deep state cauldron of evil spells. I think he founded it. Anyway, he and others ("neocons") went for domination by proxy through Israel. It did not work.
Proxy was the way because (a) The Soviet Union and (b) the problems of force projection. US was weary of war in the 1970s, and would not support large scale overseas troop deployments
Afghan was a proxy war. The withdrawal of the Russians in 1978 is celebrated as a defining victory for this mode of imperial or grand strategy warfare - which is now being repeated in Ukraine.
I don't think the mujas were the only reason the Russians left. If you read Afgantsy, which I liked a lot, it goes on about the failed but extremely ambitious project of Soviet "nation-building" in Afghanistan.
It was proof of concept - the concept being proven that "nation building" was an expensive quagmire which cannot be achieved.
This was undertaken in postwar Iraq, of course, with the same results.
“Cromwell in a burka” is a top ai prompt and I have to do this now - thanks RBB!
"In the cult of race grievance, reparations are demanded for having been time travelled without consent into civilisation. Forever."
Okay, Frank, I give up. What does this "time travelled without consent into civilisation" mean?
“Slavery was a fair price to pay for civilisation”
I dearly love your high-brow style. Maybe one day I'll understand it:)
I am sorry. I can't help it. In reality, I have a monobrow if that is any consolation.
I truly detest people who say that liberalism is Christianity without Christ. Detest and despise. And denounce.
That Frank Wright could be capable of such unmitigated dreck neatly encapsulates the reason why his missives, tinselly as they often are, nonetheless lack inner depth and provide no reason to return for more. This is horrible thinking. Horrible, rotten filth from a dissident thinker operating at Level 2. The problems of the modern world require Level 200 to confront, or more.
Liberalism is not Christianity without Christ, as if there were even the semblance or the faintest intention of anything good about it. Paganism, Platonism, and the Mosaic Law can all make plausible claims to being something like Christianity without Christ, as they were robust systems that were awaiting their crowning glory; but liberalism is nothing like this at all. Liberalism is midwit humanism without balls.
Do not besmirch the holy name of Christianity by relating it to this faggy universalism! That's like something a high school atheist would say. God, I cannot wait to have done with all you driblets who speak in this manner. Let modernity have a better class of critic before it is slain, lest we not know it for the evil it is.
I pointed out that "Christianity absent Christ" is the argument of both the critics and the authors of Liberalism, and it is widely accepted as such. I also pointed out this idea was crystallised in the writings of Matthew Arnold. It is the intended goal of the liberal idea, as promoted by Classical Humanists like Arnold and Russell, as well as pragmatists like John Dewey. It is a fact this is the case, not an opinion, and both teams for and against agree on this. See John Gray for a summary of progress generally and this in particular in his Seven Types of Atheism.
I do not think this is a Good Thing. I am making the case as to why it is a Bad Thing, as the general idea is to replace God, and also remove the foundation of Western civilisation in the Catholic Church.
I do not promote Liberalism and am writing a history of its development, and the anti-civilisational movement which now goes under its name. I am naming the architects and the architecture of the system we inhabit, to promote understanding of the process by which our Christian civilisation is being replaced.
I mean, if you read the footnote I call the Cromwellites and the Whigs which followed him the Islam of the West, which is a fairly obvious indication of my lack of sympathy for these proto-Liberals.
I still think your username is funny, though I have no time for Heidegger.
Love your note on Parsifal. Was this why the British clubs decided to annihilate Germany?
I think the intention was to inflict a wound that did not heal, if that is what you mean by the grouped “Focus” on Germany, Mr Cook.
You are reliably well informed and often more so than I am, so I follow you on this point.