A Painter's Prophecy - The West Hears Echoes of Weimar as the World Nears a Tipping Point Once More

With everything that we are seeing across western civilization today, a certain Austrian painter's warnings from the past are proving prophetic

Nowadays, anyone who disagrees with incredibly ignorant and illogical leftist policies, such as open borders, pushing "LGBTQ" messaging or transgender theory on children, or censoring speech that people don't like, is labelled a "Nazi", "racist", "homophobe", "fascist" and various other misnomers.

It's gotten to a point that those labels have lost all meaning.

To make matters worse, so much of the intellectual energy of North America and Europe in the last century has been utterly wasted by telling comfortable lies rather than facing hard truths.

"Progressives" controlling academia and so-called "higher" education have led to generations that don't understand the harms that they have been sheltered from, don't understand the relative prosperity they are used to is a fragile element that has not been the norm throughout human history, and don't understand the simple tools that are used to manipulate them.

As the old saying goes, "the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist".

Sheltering people from the inconvenient realities of history is a recipe for repeating the worst parts of history, and has no place in a society that wishes to survive.

When discussing Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany, people are well aware that propaganda was used to great effect in Germany in the 1930's and 40's, yet many don't seem to take into consideration how much propaganda has shaped their own worldviews in the very same manner - even in regards to our views of Nazi Germany itself.

Something that always struck me as a child and still continues to baffle people today stems from a simple question - if Hitler and the Nazi ideology were so obviously and openly evil, how did so many people in a "civilized" society like Germany simply follow along with it?

What's presented in schools across the west effectively portrays Hitler as a despotic, raving madman, accentuated by the fact that the German language is highly expressive and looks quite "angry" to those that don't understand German. Most documentaries and the like include clips of Hitler's speeches in his native tongue, without any translations, a subtle technique to not-so-subtly reinforce that image of Hitler being a manic crackpot.

History however, is rarely that black-and-white.

Thanks to AI, people can translate his speeches while giving an approximate recreation of what he would actually sound like giving those speeches in other languages, and this has led to many people starting to question just how far our image of Hitler and the Nazi party has been distorted from reality.

Hitler indeed committed countless atrocities and was catastrophically wrong on certain issues, and I wouldn't argue that he wasn't evil; it's also true however that he genuinely loved his country and believed he was doing what was best for its people (well, maybe not towards the end of the war, thanks to what wielding such power combined with copious drug use will do to someone, but that's a story for another time), and he was right about many important topics as well, in particular his warnings about the future Europe faced.

Unfortunately, due to the simplified lens people have been presented by academia and media, people today are often unable to have nuanced discussions around politics and moral issues.

The better documentaries or books will explain that Hitler "exploited" the many legitimate grievances that plagued Germany at the time to rise to power and earn support, and that's true, but they often neglect to provide much detail besides the fact that he turned their economy around.

Particularly in generations that haven't had to deal with the kind of economic strife that people who had to live through the Great Depression were subjected to, fixing an economy is not understood to be nearly as big a deal by people today as it was back then, particularly in a country like 1930's Germany.

Welcome to Weimar

For those that aren't nerds about war history, the aftermath of the first World War saw the Allies (mainly led by France's Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau, given that France was so heavily damaged during the war) saddle Germany with a gigantic debt for reparations, holding Germany alone responsible for the conflict and the costs of rebuilding despite other countries being significantly involved.

While American President Woodrow Wilson found the penalties too harsh and feared it would cripple Germany, ultimately the Treaty of Versailles signed at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference would provide the legal basis for Germany to pay extensive reparations for damages caused by its aggression.

The total bill decided upon in 1921 by the Reparation Commission that was formed as the result of the treaty? A whopping 132 billion gold marks.

Now in terms of simple inflation adjustment, that would amount to roughly 600 billion US dollars today, which is a staggering sum, but still isn't really indicative of just how big a bill that was for the time, particularly given the fact recorded inflation rates tend to undersell reality.

If you adjust based on gold content, since the gold mark at the time was a gold-backed currency with a value of roughly 2790 gold marks to 1 kilogram of pure gold, that would be the equivalent of over 47,000 metric tonnes of gold. Based on current gold pricing, that bill would be the equivalent of nearly 600 trillion US dollars, which makes even the current, unsustainable US national debt look minuscule by comparison.

The end of what was then known as The Great War in 1918 marked the official end of the German Empire, and as a result the Weimar Republic, Germany's first democratically elected government, was formed.

Forced to accept the insurmountable debt placed upon them in 1921, the Weimar Republic's leadership began printing massive amounts of paper marks to avoid drastic spending cuts or massive tax increases - this short-sighted strategy instead caused not only drastic inflation, but hyperinflation.

By late 1923, a single US dollar was worth an unbelievable 4 trillion marks; Germany's currency was effectively worthless.

As a result, the middle class was virtually wiped out in mere months.

Food riots became a regular occurrence, and French/Belgian occupation in some areas after Germany missed debt payments made things even worse.

America swooped in to provide relief in 1924, offering loans to save the fledgling republic. New currency was introduced and managed to stabilize Germany's economy, at least temporarily.

These loans however created a circular cash flow that, although it wasn't the cause for The Great Depression that would soon come, it would certainly go on to make things worse.

You see, the Allies, minus America (so France, Britain, etc.) had taken out significant loans from the US to fund their efforts during the war.

Starting in 1924, America loaned money to Germany; Germany gave that money to the Allies for reparations; the Allies then made debt repayments to the US, who fed the cycle by sending loans to Germany.

When the Great Depression began in 1929 with the US stock market crash, American loans dried up and Germany, which was already barely hanging on after nearly a decade of harsh poverty, quickly descended into an economic hellscape as a result.

If you thought the unemployment and living conditions seen in the US during The Great Depression were bad, Germany said "Halt mein bier".

Crippling poverty, starvation, unsanitary conditions, eroding infrastructure were all par for the course, but one of the most disturbing things that became a fixture of the Weimar Republic was the child prosititution that ran rampant across German cities.

The issue was particularly widespread in Berlin given the capital's relative wealth compared to the rest of the country.

Child brothels operated with virtual impunity amid the economic and societal collapse of 1920's-early 30's Germany. Historical accounts from the period describe organized child prostitution rings in Berlin where young girls, some as young as 10, were openly advertised in certain districts, and could even be ordered from pharmacies by phone for "delivery".

The combination of hyperinflation, mass unemployment, a culture bombarded with sexuality through its media and entertainment, and a permissive legal framework around "vices" created an environment where child exploitation simply became an accepted fact of life in Weimar's Germany.

A new "field" of science, dubbed sexology, became all the rage in Berlin, as Magnus Hirschfeld, who is widely considered the "father of modern clinical sexology" opened the world's first Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin.

Amongst Hirschfeld's greatest "contributions" to science was the theory that gender and sexuality exist on a spectrum and should be treated with medical and social "affirmation" rather than traditional moral constraints (sounds oddly familiar, doesn't it?).

Hirschfeld's institute offered hormone treatments and performed some of the earliest male-to-female surgical transitions ever recorded, with artificial female genitalia surgeries being performed as early as 1931; Hirschfeld was also a proponent for social acceptance of homosexuality and transvestitism, strongly advocating for "sexual reform" in German society.

With the increasingly "progressive" Berlin came a drastic change in Germany's entertainment culture, as films and plays became fixated on sex and other vices, while so-called "light entertainment" like revues (theatrical skits, songs, dances, and comedy routines without an overarching storyline) and burlesque shows regularly turned into stripteases and "scenes of public masturbation" according to journalists at the time.

Germany, and in particular Berlin, in the early 1930's was effectively hell on earth with rampant poverty, crime, and sexual perversions and exploitation leaving a once-thriving society a broken shell of itself, barely holding on to any semblance of humanity it had left.

In such extreme times, people look toward extreme solutions for salvation.

The Communists vs. the Fascists

In Germany, those extreme solutions came in the form of Bolshevism (Vladimir Lenin's brand of communism) and Nazism, Hitler's brand of fascism.

Many people today tend to believe communism and fascism are effectively the same, yet they are diametrically opposed idealogies.

In some ways, communism and fascism are different sides of the same coin - both systems create totalitarian states with one-party rule, tend to aggressively use propaganda and "secret" police, harshly punish political dissent, and often develop a cult-like worship of their supreme leader.

Yet at their core, they couldn't be more different.

Communism, following Karl Marx's philosophy which was published in The Communist Manifesto in 1848, aimed to abolish private property, eliminate social classes, and create an internationalist, borderless workers' paradise. It takes advantage of human idealism by promising a utopia, no matter how unrealistic achieving it through their methods is.

Socialism is the first "stage" toward achieving such a goal, and is the economic philosophy that requires a state to "seize the means of production", ie. the government controls most of its resources and businesses and effectively dictates the entire economy, with communism (a classless, moneyless, globalist society) being the ultimate goal.

Fascism meanwhile is an extreme form of nationalism centered on national or racial pride. It subordinates everything to preserving the strength and "purity" of the nation - it is effectively the polar opposite of Marx's world view.

While communism looks outward and aims toward universal revolution and the removal of national unity, fascism looks inward to achieving total national unity via a societal and cultural revival.

The Bolsheviks, who put the communist manifesto into action and were led by Vladimir Lenin, seized power in Russia in 1917 and established the world's first socialist state by force, inspiring many similar political movements to gain momentum throughout Europe, including Germany.

Hitler on the other hand became the charismatic face of the National Socialist German Workers' Party not long after he returned from fighting in the first World War.

Hitler's plan was to use the socialist playbook to transform the economy (hence the "Socialist" in the party name) to gain support and revitalize their industrial base, yet instead of working toward the goal of communism, his goal was to restore Germany's sense of national pride and establish racial unity, which put him at fierce odds with the Marxist parties at the time.

After the infamous 1923 "Beer Hall Putsch" in Munich - where Hitler and his supporters tried to seize power by force and were instead crushed - Hitler was imprisoned and used his time to write Mein Kampf, laying out his worldview of racial struggles and the need for Lebensraum, or "living room", for the people of Germany (effectively his justification for restoring the German Empire).

Released early from prison, he rebuilt the party legally and spread his vision of a reinvigorated Germany on the campaign trail, slowly but surely gaining support from the masses.

By 1930, Germany's parliament had all but collapsed, with no party able to secure stable majorities amidst the economic devastation of the Great Depression.

The clear breakdown of order, the destruction of family structures, and the erosion of traditional values created widespread despair and a hunger for strong leadership that promised to restore national pride and morality.

As a result, the Nazis became the largest party in the Reichstag (Germany's parliament building) with 230 seats in the 1932 elections, though they were still short of the 305 seats needed to govern alone.

The remaining seats were fragmented among the Social Democrats, Communists, the Catholic Center Party, and various smaller groups, creating a political deadlock as the Nazis refused to share equal power with anyone and the other major parties refused to work with them at all.

Eventually, following months of escalating battles in the streets of Germany between communist paramilitaries (the Red Front Fighters) and Nazi stormtroopers (SA), as well as growing concerns of it escalating into a full-blown civil war, then-President Paul von Hindenburg managed to form a conservative coalition that hoped to control Hitler and avoid a communist takeover in the process. As such, Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Germany's Chancellor on January 30, 1933.

Despite having far more seats in the Reichstag, the new coalition cabinet contained only three Nazis out of its eleven ministers; the rest were conservatives and nationalists who assumed they could use Hitler's mass appeal while keeping the real power in their own hands.

They were, of course, catastrophically wrong.

The Nazi Takeover

Just a month later, a young Dutch communist named Marinus van der Lubbe set fire to the Reichstag as a political protest. The Nazis blamed the arson on a broader communist conspiracy to overthrow the government, though van der Lubbe insisted he set the blaze alone.

The escalation was enough for President Hindenburg to sign the Reichstag Fire Decree, which suspended most civil liberties (like freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly) in Germany, granting Hitler sweeping powers which he used to arrest thousands of political opponents.

Just over a week later came the March 1933 elections, where the Nazi party took a whopping 288 seats, though they were still just shy of forming a majority government on their own.

Undeterred, the Nazis pressured the Catholic Center Party into supporting a new bill - with their votes, they were able to pass the "Law to Remedy the Distress of People and Reich" on March 23, 1933, which gave Hitler's new cabinet the power to enact laws and even deviate from the constitution without parliament's or the president's approval.

This effectively made Hitler a legal dictator by giving him the authority to rule by decree, with the Nazis swiftly establishing total control by the summer after banning rival parties and dissolving unions.

Yet amidst the political turmoil, the Nazis delivered immediate results that many Germans saw as salvation following years of chaos and strife, thus earning them tremendous support from the public.

Child brothels were immediately shut down, centers of sexual experimentation like Hirschfeld's institute were raided, and the book burnings that are regularly brought up in textbooks as a surefire sign of evil? Many of the books burned included Hirschfeld and other "sexologists" works that promoted or glorified sexual perversions and transvestitism, alongside books espousing communist ideals - things that the masses believed were harming their society.

Hitler swiftly put an end to the unserviceable reparations payments that had crippled the economy for over a decade, allowing Germany to begin to rebuild; at that point, the Allies had enough problems with their own economies that they didn't even make a fuss about it.

Germany's crippled industry and infrastructure was revitalized through large-scale public works like the Autobahn and housing projects which were focused on working-class family homes and apartments.

Unemployment plummeted from around six million people (over 30% of their available workforce) in early 1933 to under one million by 1937, and was virtually zero by 1939 thanks to the Nazis' re-armament program as well as highway, school, hospital, and railroad construction projects.

The re-armament program cleverly utilized MEFO bills (MEFO is the German acronym for "Metallurgical Research Company", a dummy company set up by the government) to pay arms manufacturers and contractors with the equivalent of promissory notes rather than cash. These bills could be cashed in later at banks, who then cashed them into the Reichsbank (Germany's central bank), obfuscating the transactions.

This system of concealment allowed the Nazis to spend far more on the military than their official budget would have ever allowed without letting the public or foreign governments know, which is why the world at large never saw Nazi Germany's incredible military force coming. The MEFO bills even kept inflation from this spending relatively low to boot.

As evil as the Jewish ghettos and impending "labour" camps were, the Nazis tackled many other issues that were ahead of their time and would be viewed positively by many people today, which is a fact overlooked when people try to understand how German society could have embraced the Nazi ideology.

In November 1933, they passed the Reich Animal Protection Act, one of the earliest and most comprehensive sets of national animal welfare laws. It banned unnecessary torment or rough handling of animals, prohibited experiments that caused suffering without anesthesia, regulated the use of animals in film and public performances, and placed limits on animal testing.

Ironically, the animal protection laws reflected a broader Nazi interest in nature, health, and preventing cruelty, even as many Nazis themselves would go on to commit some of the most cruel acts known to man.

Hitler, and in particular his Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels, also moved aggressively on the demographic crisis of plummeting birth rates long before most Western countries even identified it as a problem.

Marriage loans of up to 1,000 Reichsmarks were offered to young "Aryan" couples, with 25 percent of the loan being forgiven for each child born, meaning the entire debt was cancelled after a family had four children.

Additional family allowances, campaigns glorifying large families and motherhood, and restrictions on abortion were all designed to reverse population decline. As a result, birth rates in Germany rose noticeably in the mid-1930s, something that western countries today should be taking notice of in an attempt to reverse the incredibly low birth rates that we currently face.

Expulsion Before Extermination

Of course, these things were understandably overshadowed by the Holocaust, yet most people across the west hold a distorted view on Nazi Germany when it comes to the Holocaust.

Many seem to think that the Nazis took power and immediately rounded the Jews up in concentration camps to be tortured and gassed, with the German people cheering it on or at most turning a blind eye to it for years.

Yet the entire goal, from the day Hitler came into power until 1941, was not extermination - it was expulsion.

This is not a "conspiracy theory", nor some skewed take - it is supported by countless documents and is readily accepted as historical fact even by mainstream media. Don't take my word for it - you can ask ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Grok, or any other AI agent and they'll confirm it for you.

That isn't to say that horrific crimes didn't occur, nor that Jews and other targets of the Nazi party weren't killed prior to 1941, but that wasn't the policy or the norm during that period.

Hitler and Nazi leadership are extensively documented to have sought to expel Jewish people from Germany through the use of social pressure like boycotts and shaming (fueled by Goebbel's propaganda), economic measures, and oppressive policies like banning them from professions, all designed to force Jews to leave the country.

Many did, particularly in the early 30's, though the Nazi's confiscation of Jewish property and wealth made it difficult for many to be able to gain entry elsewhere - and that soon became the major problem behind the Nazi's plan: no one else wanted to take them.

By 1938, before WWII had even begun, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt convened 32 nations in Evian, France to address the growing crisis of Jews fleeing the Nazis.

While delegates from each country expressed sympathy, virtually none were willing to take significant numbers of refugees or relax their current immigration quotas (unlike today, back then governments had strict limits on how many people they would let into their country in order to protect their society and economy...go figure).

Canada, which today has become the total opposite by way of accepting virtually any refugees even if they are violent criminals (or "refugees" who then go on vacations in the country they supposedly fled from), accepted only around 5,000 Jewish refugees from the entire 1933-1945 period.

America, despite the influence of many wealthy Jewish Americans, maintained strict immigration quotas set in 1924; Australia's delegate stated they had "no real racial problem" and was "not desirous of importing one", but agreed to accept a modest 15,000 refugees over a three-year term. France, Britain, Spain, the list goes on - nobody wanted to open their borders to the Jews.

The MS St. Louis became the face of the crisis as in 1939, a German ship which carried 937 passengers (mostly Jewish) that had fled Nazi Germany.

They had landing permits for Cuba, but Cuban authorities revoked most of their visas and only allowed a small number of people to enter. The ship then sailed to the US, hoping to find safe passage in the "land of opportunity".

Public appeals were made, but using the existing excuse of already-filled quotas, America refused entry to all of the MS St. Louis' passengers.

The ship continued along the coast up to Canada, which also refused to take a single soul off the ship; out of supplies, they turned back to Europe and after much negotiation, the passengers were finally distributed amongst Belgium, the UK, France, and the Netherlands.

Out of those 937 passengers, 255 would later die in concentration camps following the Nazi invasion of Western Europe, with the journey those passengers took later referred to as the "Voyage of the Damned".

After invading Poland, Germany implemented ghettoization as a temporary measure while pursuing larger "territorial solutions" given that, as they conquered parts of Europe, they now had growing numbers of Jews they sought to expel without any viable options to send them to.

Thus came the Madagascar Plan, which was developed after the Nazis defeated France.

The Nazis envisioned deporting Europe's Jewish population to the French island colony of Madagascar. This would have involved massive resources and manpower, which was particularly notable given they were in the middle of a war - it would have been infinitely easier to execute them and would have freed up resources and manpower for their war, yet the Nazi leadership was willing to commit such resources to deporting them instead, clearly demonstrating that the Nazis' goal at the time was to expel, rather than kill, the Jews.

Following the Battle of Britain, Britain gained control of the sea routes required to make such a journey possible however, putting an end to the Madagascar plans.

With prior expulsion efforts failing, it was near the end of 1941 that the Nazis pivoted to a more extreme solution - extermination.

Viewing the Jews as an existential threat and no longer believing moving them out was a viable option, the Nazi leadership gave up on the goal of deportation and turned to something far more heinous, with concentration camps soon becoming killing floors operated throughout Western Europe.

Documentation also shows Nazi leadership made a concerted effort to hide these atrocities from the German people; while some undoubtedly knew what was going on, and others could have reasonably guessed, the German people were largely insulated from knowing the extent of Nazi Germany's crimes.

The Jewish Conspiracy

Hitler's focus on the "Jewish conspiracy", and his sights on empire building would forever overshadow the positive progress that Germany made in the thirties and the salvation of Germany's people from becoming a communist hellscape like that of the Soviet Union.

Finding a scapegoat to pin all of one's problems on has always been an effective strategy - it unites people against a common, easily identifiable enemy. It channels anger away from complex issues and funnels that anger toward a visible minority that can be blamed for everything from economic failure to cultural decay.

While it's easy to look back and say that the "Jewish Conspiracy" was just racism that people should have known was wrong, once again, history is not so black and white; the more one looks, the easier it is to see that there was indeed some truth to Hitler's claims and there were genuine grievances that have been whitewashed over time.

The biggest economic problem that plagued Germany in the aftermath of WWI was of course the massive debt triggered by the Treaty of Versailles, which one would think would have drawn the most ire to France and Britain, yet it's not hard to see how Jews became the visible scapegoat in the years that came after.

France and Britain weren't influencing German culture nor did it hold positions of influence over German politics and its societal values; there were however a vast overrepresentation of Jews in positions that did influence German politics and culture.

Criticism of Jews has long been claimed as a position of envy, yet when it comes to German society in the 1920's and 30's, it wasn't just the fact that Jews were highly overrepresented in various wealthy/influential spheres - it was what many of the people in those sectors were actually doing with that power.

Take Germany's entertainment sector.

By 1931, over 60 percent of German films were produced by Jews and over 80 percent of the film scripts were written by Jewish writers.

The majority of films shown during that time? Pictures focused on sex and vices, with many being accused of being thinly veiled pornography, seen by many as fuel for Germany's descent into debauchery.

It was in Weimar Germany that the serial killer would become a popular icon, enough to create a whole genre of sensational sex-crime literature (something that western culture has since adopted and continues to ingest to this day).

Getting any statistics on who was running the child prostitution rings is of course impossible at this point especially given its "underground" nature, but various contemporary sources noted disproportionate Jewish involvement in pimping and organized crime, most prominently in Berlin.

Given the economic woes, it certainly didn't help the perception of the Jewish community that over half of private banks in Germany were owned by Jews despite making up less than 1% of the population - in Berlin specifically where the Jewish population was most concentrated and was roughly 4% of Berlin's population, nearly all of the private banks had Jewish ownership and/or leadership, with 150 of 161 privately owned banks in Berlin in 1923 being Jewish-owned.

And then there's the extreme political movements, mainly Bolshevism/communism; it's not a conspiracy theory to say that Bolshevism itself was created and led with predominant Jewish involvement in its early stages.

Karl Marx, the "mastermind" and "father" of the communist ideology, was of course Jewish.

A majority of key figures in the communist movement and early Soviet leadership were Jewish: Leon Trotsky (born Lev Bronstein) was a central organizer of the Red Army and served as Chief of Soviet Foreign Affairs for a time; Grigory Zinoviev (Hirsch Apfelbaum) headed the Communist International (Comintern), the central agency in charge of spreading "revolution" in foreign countries; Yakov Sverdlov was the chairman of the Central Executive Committee and the Bolshevik party's executive secretary; Lev Kamenev, Maxim Litvinov, Karl Radek and other Jewish men held key positions in the Central Committee, commissariats, and secret police.

"Experts" used to point to the fact that the most powerful man of the movement, Vladimir Lenin, was not Jewish himself to dismiss this pattern, yet it was eventually revealed in 2011 by the State Historical Museum in Moscow that Lenin was in fact a quarter Jewish, a fact that had been hidden from the public for nearly a century.

Even without including Lenin, Jewish overrepresentation in revolutionary leadership was striking relative to their roughly 4-percent share of the Russian Empire's population.

Between the communists, the advocates for the perversion of German society throughout media and academia, Hirschfeld's (who was also Jewish, as were other leading "sexologists" like Ludwig Levy-Lenz and Max Hodann) "sexology" and trans/homosexual movements, child prostition rings, and their dominance in the despised banking sector, it's easy to see why the Jewish community made an easy scapegoat that German society accepted; many people around the world did at the time as well.

Even Henry Ford, who to this day remains one of the greatest examples of American excellence, was what one would call "antisemitic".

Ford of course was a visionary who became an incredibly wealthy businessman and built one of America's greatest companies, yet in doing so he remained generous to his employees through high wages and profit-sharing ideas, which is why he's still held in high regard even today.

It may come as a surprise to some that Ford was sued by the Dodge brothers, the founders of the Dodge Motor Company (who happened to be Jewish; the early Dodge logo even featured a prominent Star of David) in the infamous 1919 Dodge vs. Ford Motor Co. case.

The Dodge brothers, who were minority shareholders in the Ford company at the time, objected to Henry Ford prioritizing higher wages for workers, lowering prices for consumers, and prioritizing business expansion over maximizing immediate dividends to shareholders.

Despite the fact that Ford had already paid out plenty of dividends and led the company to be one of the best-performing stocks on the market for years, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in favor of shareholder primacy, establishing a precedent that publicly traded companies must put shareholder profit first - a ruling that still greatly influences corporate law today (and certainly not for the better).

Less than a year later in 1920, Ford published "The International Jew" series in a newspaper he owned, a collection of anti-Jewish articles suspected to have been written based on Ford's own words, though he later denied direct involvement; his attitude towards Jews gained him the utmost respect from Hitler and the Nazi party, and nationalist parties around Europe and even America gained support with similar views on the Jewish community.

Though cases like Dodge vs. Ford Motor Co. certainly aren't proof of a grander conspiracy, there are certainly observable patterns that can be identified - especially when it comes to people in positions of power and influence that act in ways that are viewed by most as immoral.

The broader society saw clear patterns emerge and instead of any introspection or accountability, all they saw was deflection and claims of "antisemitism".

Judaism, Jewishness, "Antisemitism" and the Goys

One of the most confusing aspects of Jewry is that being Jewish can be an ethnicity, a religion, or both.

Judaism itself is a monotheistic faith with ancient roots; Jewish identity also functions as a peoplehood with shared ancestry, history, and customs.

One can be ethnically Jewish without practicing the religion, one can be religiously Jewish but not ethnically Jewish (though that's rare), or one can be both.

"Orthodox" Jews generally maintain strict religious observance and more insular communities; "Secular" or "Reform" Jews may identify primarily through culture, history, or ethnicity while adopting assimilated lifestyles and don't actively practice Judaism.

The religious aspect, Judaism, is based on the Torah or the "Hebrew Bible", which according to Jewish tradition was dictated by God to Moses roughly 3,300 years ago.

In addition is the Talmud, which is a massive compilation of rabbinic (written by rabbis, similar to a Christian priest or a Muslim imam) commentaries, debates, and interpretations that explain how to apply the laws and teachings of the Torah in daily life.

Stereotypes and tropes about the Jews (generally referring to Jews as a collective whole, referring to all who practice the religion or are ethnically Jewish even if they don't practice Judaism) have existed for many centuries.

These tropes are typically attributed purely to envy or simple racism, driven by the fact that Jews have regularly maintained high achievement in fields requiring study and verbal intelligence. This is primarily thanks to their culture's emphasis on education, as well as a naturally high average IQ when it comes to ethnic Jews.

Their minority status (unlike most religions that don't have an explicit racial element, Judaism doesn't emphasize spreading the religion and is far more insular) throughout history has frequently barred them from owning land or joining guilds in the lands they've lived in, thus Jews concentrated more on money lending, commerce, urban trades, and later, professions.

Success in these areas, particularly when it leads to wealth, often breeds resentment; yet there is also an element of natural human pattern recognition when it comes to people who abuse their influence.

When people in positions of great influence across financial, academia, political, and media sectors appear to regularly favour policies that benefit their own group or agendas at the expense of the larger population's interests, it creates legitimate grievances that cannot simply be waved away as is so often the case in our history books.

Although Judaism's scripture is not militant like Islam's, Judaism and by extension much of Jewish culture promotes a sense of "otherness" and clearly promotes distinguishing Jewish people from non-Jews and has for thousands of years.

In Islamic doctrine, non-believers are labeled kafir, infidel, or dhimmi with clear legal and social hierarchies that regularly cast non-Muslims as sub-human or lesser-than; in Judaism, non-Jews are referred to as gentiles or goyim (or "goy" for short) which can be used in neutral terms, yet many passages in the Talmud and traditional commentaries use them in ways that imply lesser status or different moral obligations, including dehumanizing contexts like the comparison of gentiles to cattle.

While the Torah of course doesn't mention Christians since that text originated roughly a millenia before Christ was born, the Talmud certainly references Christianity plenty, with not-so-subtle allusions that disparage Christian figures like Mary and JC himself.

It may not be as explicit or overt as Islam, but Judaism still firmly creates an "us versus them" framework common to many religions and ethnic groups, exacerbated by the claims that the Jews alone are the "chosen people" of God.

Combined with the perception of their community being oppressed throughout history, this instills an overpowering sense that being Jewish is a key pillar to any Jewish person's identity.

Such psychological separation, while it can be useful to unify people and create a strong sense of community, is very much a double-edged sword; throughout history this sense of separation, whether by nation, race, religion, or other means, has been constantly used by militaries and political movements to make it easier to fight, exploit, or kill outsiders by viewing them as fundamentally different or inferior.

This isn't always a bad thing - if a nation is at war, it's clearly more effective to ensure your soldiers have no doubts about the need to destroy their enemy and helps in bringing the civilian population together to support the war effort - yet at the same time, it can easily be taken to an extreme and organically justifies atrocities.

Victims are no longer seen as fully human or deserving of the same protections of the perpetrator's group. When you view another person as being subhuman, or even below animals, then morals get thrown out the window. This is what makes Islam for instance so incompatible with western civilization.

Judaism and the Jewish culture certainly doesn't promote this to the same extremes that Islam does, but it does indeed promote a sense of separation from outside peoples that supercedes a sense of belonging to the nation or community in which they reside.

Ironically, it is this very same method that Hitler and the Nazi party pushed to further extremes to advance their own agenda.

This psychological mechanism can perhaps explain (though not a "conspiracy" as labelled by Hitler, more an underlying result of thorough cultural conditioning) the clear pattern of Jewish people in positions of influence putting their own or their people's interests above the interests of the rest of the population, and in many cases, exploiting non-Jewish people in the process.

There is a long-recorded history of excusing or even protecting bad behaviour by prominent Jewish people, typically by labeling critics as having fallen for anti-Jewish tropes or "myths". Nowadays any criticism of the Jewish community is simply called "antisemitism", even when the complaints involve specific individuals or verifiable patterns rather than blanket claims against Jews as a whole.

Look at virtually any history book; throughout the countless times Jewish people were expelled from a nation or region (they have been expelled by over 100 countries throughout history) or were attacked, you'll be hard pressed to find any blame placed on any Jewish people or persons. At best, you'll see an excuse such as "while Jewish people were disproportionately represented in this group committing X, they weren't the only ones doing it", which you'll find anytime you see people bring up things like usury (unreasonably high interest rates on loans) or child prostitution in Weimar for instance.

Today, you can see that clear as day when dealing with Israel, the world's only Jewish state, though that's a topic I will explore in great detail in my next article to prevent this already-lengthy piece from becoming a full-blown novel.

The Second Great War and the Axis of Evil

When it comes to WWII, Britain famously chose to ally with the Soviets over the Germans and ever since Nazi Germany have been viewed as the ultimate evil in human history.

Yet to anyone with any knowledge of history, Stalin and the Soviet Union were just as bad as Hitler and the Nazis in terms of body count and brutality, yet we were happy to call them an ally.

The Soviets ran their own vast network of concentration camps (they called them gulags), murdered millions through purges and engineered famines like the Holodomor in Ukraine, let millions more live in squalor under constant oppression, and continued these atrocities throughout Eastern Europe long after the war ended.

They committed their own genocide which persisted for decades even after WWII ended. Communism, under the belief that nothing can undermine the collective state, calls for the elimination of religion, replacing it with a near-religious fanatacism of the state instead. As such, Christians faced decades of persecution throughout the Soviet Union, with tens of thousands of priests and clergy being executed, countless churches being razed to the ground, and millions of Christians being killed, starved, and oppressed.

Estimates of Christians purged during Soviet rule vary wildly, in part because it's difficult to discern whether they were killed due to their faith, political dissent, or starvation from communist economic failures rather than intentional starvations, but anywhere from 12-60+ million Christians were killed by the Soviets.

Our esteemed "ally" committed systemic, mass rapes on German women and girls in captured areas which continued for years after the war had ended in Soviet-controlled East Germany, with many of those poor women going on to commit suicide as a result - the Red Army's despicable acts also occurred throughout countries in Eastern Europe that the Soviets controlled, both during the war and in its aftermath.

Back to the beginning of the war, Britain and its allies, as virtually everyone is aware, declared war on Germany when Hitler invaded Poland on September 1, 1939.

Just two weeks later on September 17 however, the Soviet Union invaded the same country from the east and proceeded to occupy and later slaughter thousands in places like Katyn.

Yet no war was declared on the Soviet Union. No actions were taken to stop Stalin's cruelty to the same Polish people that Britain promised to defend from Germany's crimes. They'll go to war when it comes from the south, but won't lift a finger when the perpetrator was from the north.

The decision for Britain to go to war with Germany may have been framed as a moral crusade, but in truth it was Britain's (and allies like France's) fears of a resurgent Germany that compelled them to act, understandably after the trauma the allies had suffered in World War I.

They may have feared the Soviet Union and the threat of communism as well, but to Britain and her allies, the communists were a more distant threat - they also certainly couldn't beat them both, so declaring war against the Soviets as well would have been suicidal.

That doesn't however mean their claims of why they went to war with Germany weren't a moral contradiction and a decision that may have cost more lives in the long run.

Hitler in fact is well-documented to have viewed Britain as a potential ally long before the war began.

He released pro-British propaganda in Germany long before the invasion of Poland was even planned, believing the two nations shared "Aryan" racial stock and a mutual hatred of communism, thus making them natural partners against the Soviet threat.

In his writings, he fantasized about an alliance that would see Britain controlling the seas and overseas colonies, with Germany ruling the European continent.

As such, Hitler was genuinely shocked and furious when Britain declared war on Germany.

Even still, on multiple occasions he attempted to court Britain; after his quick steamrolling of France, Hitler even offered to withdraw from Western Europe (including much of France) as he set his sights eastward, believing that Britain would be willing to make a deal in order to preserve their empire.

Britain, led by Winston Churchill, refused any and all offers, believing Hitler to be untrustworthy. They may not have been wrong that Hitler wasn't trustworthy given his history, but they literally had nothing to lose by accepting Hitler's offer.

They could have stood at the ready and watched to see if Hitler earnestly pulled out of Western Europe; if Hitler went back on the deal, it would be back to war, with Britain and her allies at least having some period of reprieve from battle and a chance to restock and prepare. If Hitler made good on his word however, much suffering and death in allied nations that had fallen to Germany would have been prevented entirely.

It was a win-win situation for the Allies, yet one that was completely ignored - given Hitler's own private writings that were discovered long after, it remains one of the greatest missed opportunities in history as it appeared Hitler was sincere about his ambitions to gain Britain as a long-term ally, a far cry from .

After the war, the legendary American General George S. Patton, who commanded the U.S. Third Army with spectacular success across France and into Germany later in the war, became increasingly outspoken following Germany's surrender.

In his diary, private letters, and conversations with aides and journalists, he repeatedly stated that the Allies had fought on the wrong side of the war and should have allowed - or even helped - the Germans to destroy the Soviet Union rather than allying with Stalin.

He argued then that American forces should re-arm captured German units and immediately turn on the Red Army while it was still vulnerable in central Europe, and warned that the real threat to Western civilization was now communist Russia, not a defeated Germany.

Patton was so vocal about this that he was relieved of command over his Third Army, sidelined into a largely ceremonial role heading the Fifteenth Army (a so-called "paper army" tasked with writing a history of the war). He was effectively muzzled by his superiors, including then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Not long after, General Patton died on December 21, 1945 under suspicious circumstances - twelve days after what was officially described as a low-speed traffic accident in Heidelberg, Germany.

Patton's 1938 Cadillac staff car was struck from behind (or sideswiped, as accounts differ) by a U.S. Army truck traveling roughly 20 mph; the General suffered a broken neck and spinal injury that left him paralyzed from the neck down, and later died of a pulmonary embolism in hospital.

The collision occurred in broad daylight on a wide, nearly empty road with excellent visibility; the truck driver who struck Patton, Private Horace Woodring (or in some accounts Robert L. Thompson), reportedly faced minimal or no consequences despite the catastrophic result.

Patton had been planning to return to the United States, where according to his writings and statements from others he intended to speak publicly and forcefully against the Soviet Union, criticize Allied policy, and possibly even expose what he saw as war crimes and strategic blunders that occurred during the war.

Some researchers, including in books such as Robert K. Wilcox's Target: Patton, have documented witness discrepancies, the sudden removal of Patton's usual security detail, missing personal papers, and the possibility that Soviet agents or even elements within the U.S. military or intelligence community had motive to silence him before he could return home and become a political problem.

The Soviet Union would of course become America's greatest rival for many decades during the ensuing "Cold War", until the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 - yet given the current state of America and much of the west, with mass adoption of communist-inspired policies like open borders, it seems that the Soviets may have had the last laugh after all.

A History of Genocide

As for the aftermath of the second Great War, how many reading this can answer how many people are estimated to have died in WWII?

Whether that be soldiers, civilians, or both?

One would think that would be pretty basic knowledge given the abundance of popular films, books, and even videogames about the war, not to mention it's a topic covered extensively in virtually every western education system, yet I'm willing to bet all but the most avid history buffs reading this can even come up with a reasonably close guess.

The total cost in human lives is believed to have been between 60 and 85 million people altogether, the majority of those being civilians.

Estimates vary given less accurate information in certain countries, but it's estimated roughly 50 to 55 million civilians perished during the war and 21 to 25 million military personnel were killed in action.

Poland alone suffered around 5.6 million deaths, the overwhelming majority civilians.

China, which is completely overlooked in the west as being a major victim in the war, lost anywhere from 14 to 20+ million people at the hands of the Japanese, the vast majority being civilians - some estimates for Chinese losses are significantly higher, with accurate numbers being extremely difficult to ascertain given China's lack of accurate record-keeping and the loss of information during the war.

Yet if I ask you how many Jews died during the Holocaust?

I'm willing to bet you could immediately answer "6 million".

There are arguments over the legitimacy of that number itself, which is a best-guess as all these estimates are (the exact number is likely somewhere between 5-6 million), but that is an argument that really misses the forest for the trees - it was certainly a horrific number regardless of the exact count.

It's why that number alone has become so engrained in western society that is the questionable part.

That odd emphasis on that number across our educational systems and media representation has led many people to not realize just as many non-Jews (or gentiles/goyim as the Jews would say) died in Nazi concentration camps, by Einsatzgruppen firing squads, or in related atrocities as Jews did.

Total victims of the Nazi regime's systemic executions and concentration camp systems are estimated to have been between 11 to 17 million people - that's including the Poles, Roma or Romani people (often referred to as "Gypsies"), disabled people, political prisoners, and many others alongside Jews.

That also includes many who were tortured and killed through that system for trying to help or protect Jewish people, yet for some reason their sacrifices are forgotten, somehow lesser than the struggle of the Jewish people specifically.

Interestingly, Germany has paid out over $90 billion US to Holocaust survivors and victim's families in the aftermath of WWII, with payments that continue to this day in order to fund care homes and health care for elderly survivors - yet those funds vary wildly on whether victims are Jewish or not.

For non-Jewish victims who survived concentration camps, like the Romani people who were ethnically targeted in the exact same fashion as Jews, or even for people who were thrown into camps for trying to protect Jewish people, their reparations are almost exclusively lump sum payments rather than continuous payouts; even if they spent significantly longer in a camp than a Jewish survivor in the program, they received only a small fraction of what Jewish survivors have.

They endured the same camps, faced the same evils, yet for some reason their suffering is worth far less and anyone questioning why is "antisemitic".

It's taught to us that the Nazis are the ultimate evil because they sought to exterminate an entire people, that they are this uniquely evil machine of carnage, yet throughout history genocide or attempted genocide has been a recurring feature of human conflict rather than an exception.

Genocide certainly wasn't invented by the Nazis, nor did they kill the most people, yet western minds are conditioned to think of Nazis as if they were the sole perpetrator of such heinous crimes.

The Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923 killed approximately 1.5 million Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Empire. Before the genocide began, roughly 2 million Armenians lived in the region - that's a staggering three-quarters of their population wiped out in less than a decade, yet many in the west have never even heard of it.

The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia murdered 1.5 to 2 million of their own people in the 1970's, roughly a quarter of their country's entire population.

The Rwandan Genocide in 1994 killed around 800,000 Tutsi, roughly 75-80% of the total Tutsi population.

Maoist China resulted in the deaths of some 40-80 million people through mass starvation, forced labour camps, public executions, and torture.

The Soviet Union, which again was our ally during World War II, is estimated to have killed between 15-25 million of its own people intentionally through executions, engineered famines (like the Holodomor, where Stalin deliberately starved Ukrainian peasants which resulted in anywhere from 3-6 million brutal deaths), and forced labour in the gulags, with some estimates putting this number significantly higher and possibly north of 60 million.

China saw anywhere from 11 to 17+ million civilians slaughtered by Japan during WWII, during the very same timeframe as Nazi Germany's crimes.

And those are just a handful of the atrocities that have occurred in the last century alone - if one wants to go back further, they will find that list of genocides and attempted genocides grows exponentially.

Genocide certainly didn't start in Nazi Germany and it certainly didn't stop after Nazi Germany was defeated, and in fact, similar atrocities continue in various forms to this very day.

The United Arab Emirates, which happens to be a major sponsor for the NBA in America with an advertising deal worth up to half a billion dollars, actively arm and support the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan - a paramilitary group that is actively committing genocide against non-Arab peoples in the North African country.

Over 150,000 people have been slaughtered in Sudan since 2023 by the RSF and its allied militias, with the groups accused of mass rapes, torture, and executions as they seek to purge all other ethnicities in the region.

Israel, the lone Jewish state in the world which was formed as a direct result of the Holocaust, ironically stands credibly accused of genocide today, regardless of whether or not it's "justified", something I will discuss at length in my next article.

The Nazi version of genocide may stand out for its bureaucratic efficiency, but it was certainly not unique in the act of destruction or attempted destruction of an entire group of people.

And yet across the west, Nazi Germany remains synonymous with evil above all others, more so even than the Soviet Union/Russia despite the Cold War that raged for decades, long after Germany was no longer a threat and had become a NATO ally.

Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy

When it comes to the "Axis of Evil" which was comprised of Germany, Italy, and Japan, Nazi Germany for some reason stands on its own across the west as being the singular, truly evil power not only for that time period, but for all of human history.

Italy seemingly avoided any lasting stigma as an Axis power because it switched sides in 1943, yet it was responsible for its own atrocities and was committing them long before the war began.

After Benito Mussolini rose to power, Italy brutally suppressed resistance to their fascist rule in occupied Libya for instance, setting up concentration camps in the desert where Italian forces conducted forced death marches, executions, and even some chemical gas attacks on native populations, resulting in the death of anywhere from 20,000 to 100,000 people.

Then in 1935, Italy invaded and annexed Ethiopia, demolishing the out-armed Ethiopian forces thanks to their modern tanks, aircraft, and chemical weapons, dropping mustard gas and other chemicals on both military and civilian targets (and even on Red Cross facilities).

Chemical weapons had of course been banned following their use in WWI by the Geneva Protocol, yet that didn't stop the Italian forces from using them, nor did it stop them from establishing concentration camps and massacring civilians en masse.

Between 360,000 and 750,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion and subsequent occupation in Ethiopia.

The League of Nations condemned Italy's actions and imposed some sanctions, but their complete ineffectiveness let Italy operate with virtual impunity.

With their military success in Ethiopia, not to mention the fact Italy was the birthplace of the mighty Roman Empire, one might assume that Italy was therefore a powerhouse in WWII when it allied with the Nazis, but in reality, the Italian military was essentially a paper tiger.

Italy's weak industrial base produced far fewer vehicles and modern weapons than the likes of Britain or Germany, leaving much of their army fighting with outdated weapons, obsolete tanks, and even biplane fighters rather than WWII-era craft.

The gap between Ethiopian forces' equipment and Italy's was effectively mirrored in the gap between Italy and the Allies' equipment, but this time it wasn't in Italy's favour.

Combined with inadequate training, poor leadership driven by promotions for political loyalty over competence, and the lack of effective combined-arms doctrine, along with a lack of radar, aircraft carriers, or sufficient fuel and other supplies, Italy's military saw very little success on the battlefield and instead was constantly requiring German forces to bail them out.

Respected German military leaders like Erwin Rommel noted that Italy's army could hold their own should they have adequate support, but that support simply wasn't provided by Mussolini's leadership.

Despite committing their own atrocities in Ethiopia and later in Yugoslavia and Greece during WWII, Italy resisted sending Jews from Italy to German camps and instead operated their own, where conditions were harsh but never pivoted to the goal of extermination like their German counterparts.

Italy's change of heart in 1943 with much of the country turning against the Nazis, combined with their lack of military success against the Allies, saved them from being viewed negatively for long, to the point that Italy is virtually forgotten about today as having been a belligerent during World War II.

Italy may not have been on the Nazi war machine's level in terms of capabilities or atrocities, but Japan was another story entirely - Japan was every bit as brutal as Germany in its theater of war and in some cases, even moreso.

Japan began their modern expansion campaign in 1931 when Japanese officers staged the Mukden Incident, a small explosion on the South Manchuria Railway which they blamed on Chinese forces.

Japanese troops quickly invaded Manchuria (Northeast China) and established the puppet state of Manchukuo, using the Chinese state for vital resources like coal, iron, and soybeans that Japan required to continue its industrial and military growth.

The League of Nations, like they would later do in regards to Italy's invasion of Ethiopia, strongly condemned the invasion and recommended Japanese withdrawal, yet virtually nothing was done to stop it or punish Japan for its actions.

Things were relatively tame however, with only minor skirmishes occasionally breaking out until 1937's Marco Polo Bridge (Lugouqiao) Incident, which saw Japanese troops conducting night exercises near the strategically important bridge bearing the incident's name which rests about 20 kilometres southwest of Beijing.

During their exercises, a Japanese soldier had gone missing, causing the troops to demand entry into the nearby city of Wanping which was under Chinese control. After Chinese troops denied the request, a shot was fired (the exact origin remains disputed and could have been accidental, from Chinese sentries, or a deliberate provocation by Japan) and all hell broke loose, with Japanese forces shelling the town and attacking Chinese positions.

The skirmish produced relatively small casualties (and the "missing" Japanese soldier was later found alive and well in Japanese territory), but Japanese commanders demanded concessions and called in reinforcements.

China, facing strong anti-Japanese sentiment given their occupation of Manchuria, refused any major concessions, prompting Japan to launch a full-scale invasion into China proper.

The Marco Polo Bridge Incident marked the official start of the second Sino-Japanese War, with many in Asia regarding it as the true start of World War II.

Mere months later, Japanese forces committed the notorious Rape of Nanking, where Japanese troops killed an estimated 200,000 to 300,000 Chinese civilians and soldiers while engaging in mass rape, torture, and looting over a six week period.

Japan operated a system of sexual slavery (they called them "comfort women") in conquered territory and engaged in other mass killings during their imperial aspirations across Asia, including brutal massacres in much of China, Singapore, the Phillipines, Indonesia, Burma, and more.

Meanwhile Japan's infamous Unit 731 conducted horrific biological and chemical experiments on prisoners (later they did this to American POWs as well, a fact that America helped cover up after the war), including vivisection and pathogen testing.

Imperial Japan's cruelty wasn't limited to outside forces either - in the latter stages of the war, the Japanese army was known to kill their own civilians who attempted to surrender or were seen as slowing down military movements.

Japanese propaganda promoted the belief that Western troops would rape and torture civilians to death, inspiring such terror that many civilians committed suicide when faced with impending Allied occupation.

In the Battle of Saipan for instance, many civilians were given grenades or persuaded to jump to their deaths off Saipan's cliffs when the battle appeared lost; in the Battle of Okinawa, the only battle which took place on Japanese home territory, the Japanese military deliberately used civilians as part of their defense strategy, inspiring suicidal civilian attacks, using them as human shields, and mowing down women and children who tried to hide.

In preparation for the US invasion of the Japanese home islands (dubbed Operation Downfall), the Japanese military planned to arm civilians (including women and children) with bamboo spears and encourage mass suicide attacks to impede American forces.

While the atomic bombs and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria ended the war before this came to pass, the same "death before surrender" mentality had already been applied to civilians on Saipan and Okinawa, resulting in massive civilian casualties (some 100,000-150,000 civilians died in Okinawa alone).

This behavior stemmed from extreme militaristic indoctrination, the concept of gyokusai or "shattered jewel" - dying gloriously rather than surrendering - and the belief that capture brought eternal shame to one's family and emperor.

Japan's treatment and use of their own civilians makes more recent revisionist theories that the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unnecessary look absolutely braindead - had America continued with the planned land invasion to end the war, the death tolls of the nuclear bombings would have looked minuscule in comparison.

Regardless, Japan alone killed between 19 and 30 million people (the wide range mostly due to the Chinese casualties being difficult to count) during World War II, with the vast majority of those casualties being civilians.

There's a damn good reason why in many Asian countries the Rising Sun flag that flew for Imperialist Japan carries the same emotional weight as the swastika does in the West, yet Japan's horrific wartime record receives far less emphasis in European/North American education and popular culture.

Part of this, at least in Europe, can be explained by the fact that most of the allies didn't face off with Japan on the frontlines and so a lessened level of animosity is therefore understandable, but America certainly faced Japan on the battlefield, yet American media and education still focuses almost entirely on painting Germany as the ultimate evil as well.

Why, then, is Nazi Germany such a main focus?

Why do our history books and documentaries portray Hitler as this caricature of evil, instead of (which in my opinion would be a far better lesson for people to learn) a warning on how even an intelligent and charismatic man, who genuinely loved his country, could be driven to madness and tyranny by a combination of real grievances, propaganda, and unchecked power?

Why are we repeatedly told about propaganda and how it was used to great effect in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and in other totalitarian states like China, yet never taught how to recognize the same techniques when they are deployed in our own societies today?

Is it perhaps because if people actually listened to what Hitler spoke of and warned about, that his warnings would resonate too strongly with people in the western world?

That if the population could more easily discern fact from fiction in their consumption of media, they would no longer be so easily controlled?

A Painter's Prophecy

Adolf Hitler once warned Europe, and the western world as a whole, about the threats that they faced, claiming that they would destroy western civilization if they did not act.

He spoke of the erosion of European culture and identity through mass immigration and internationalism.

He spoke of the media and cultural institutions being used to promote the erosion and perversion of traditional societal values, faith, and identity.

He spoke of the birth rate collapse and the erosion of the family unit.

He spoke of two-tier justice and courts that would undermine the will of the people.

He spoke of international, elitist forces subverting the sovereignty of nations.

He may not have had good or moral solutions to many of those problems, and indeed replaced some with even worse outcomes, but it's impossible to deny that he correctly identified and broke down the existential threats that western civilization was facing and did his best to warn the rest of the world about it.

For most in the west at the time however, particularly in a place like America, his warnings seemed ridiculous.

Yet fast forward to today, and every one of those things have become major flashpoints in everyday society.

Unchecked immigration has led to skyrocketing crime rates, particularly in regards to violent and sex crimes; the very fabric of western society is being torn apart between a battle of those who say "diversity is our strength" and those who have had enough of their mothers, wives and daughters being assaulted, raped, and murdered by foreign invaders on their soil.

Globalism, a key pillar of communism, has permeated every avenue of western life; pushed by mass media and institutions across the western world, western and "white" culture has been systematically devalued, slandered, and shamed while other cultures are propped up and protected from any scrutiny.

Luckily, western nations today have yet to experience the levels of economic despair that came with the Great Depression, yet even that doesn't seem too far off; today's economy features a stock market that is completely detached from reality, with an AI bubble fueled by circular spending amongst big corporations that is destined for a crash that will make the Y2K and '08 crashes look like tiny blips - and that's to say nothing about the food inflation that will hit western markets next year thanks to the massive underplanting of crops across much of the world due to fertilizer shortages/inflation that will hit third-world countries with food shortages while the rest of the world gets hit by soaring prices.

The rise of welfare states alongside the hollowing-out of western industry by offshoring and cheap foreign labour has put incredible strain on the middle-class which keeps the entire economy afloat - eventually, something has got to give.

How the inevitable crash will compare to the Great Depression remains to be seen, but the financial leadership we've seen over the past decades doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Aggressive promotion of "LGBTQ" and transgender ideology has been aimed not only at society but at children in particular; the nuclear family that was the core of traditional western society has been relentlessly attacked in favour of narcissism and consumerism.

Fertility rates across the west have dropped far below replacement level, having been undermined by economics, welfare policies, "feminism", and significant cultural shifts over the past decades.

Vices have become nearly as pervasive as they were in Weimar Germany, with pornography and gambling becoming some of the biggest industries on the planet.

Christianity has been smeared and shamed and seen as a relic in the past, even while other religions (namely Islam) that go directly against western ideals and safety have been propped up on a pedestal and accommodated.

Two-tiered justice systems have been installed across the board - from granting leniency to violent criminals who commit the most brutal and disgusting crimes simply because of their race or nationality, to repeatedly letting habitual offenders back onto the streets, to weaponizing courts against political opposition.

Small, "elite" groups like the WEF, the "Epstein class", and the unelected leaders of the European Union enjoy overwhelming influence and sway over nations, with those groups not-so-subtly dictating policy in so-called "democratic" states.

During WWII, Hitler was shocked that Britain was so willing to give up their empire when it had a chance to easily save it.

The people of a small European island had once ruled over the largest empire in recorded history, which was arguably the most free, prosperous, and just empire humanity has ever known.

That once mighty nation today?

Its government has refused to take accountability or even acknowledge the fact that hundreds of thousands of women and children have been brutally raped, trafficked and even murdered by so-called "grooming gangs" over the last several decades by foreign "migrants" (mostly Muslim men from Pakistan and the Middle East).

The majority of the perpetrators of these crimes were never investigated or were let free because police and prosecutors were "afraid" that holding those people accountable could inspire racism or "reinforce stereotypes".

In the UK, protesters have regularly been jailed for longer than convicted rapists and pedophiles - the examples over the past decade are countless, and similar horrific injustices can be seen in Canada, Australia, America, and many other western nations on a daily basis.

Britain once claimed to fight for freedom and the western way of life, yet now they lock up 8x more people a year for online speech than Russia does.

But perhaps the greatest example of the two-tiered justice system and the results of "diversity" combined with a self-loathing culture can be seen in the case of poor Henry Nowak.

For those that haven't followed the story, or if you've only seen mass media commentary on it, allow me to give you a summary.

Thanks to rampant "knife crime" (as if the knives are the ones committing crimes and not the people), native Britons aren't allowed to carry any kind of knives in public - not even a breadknife.

Yet Sikhs, who hail from India and have rapidly become a large demographic in many western countries, are allowed to carry their ceremonial knives on them at any time because it's a "part of their religion".

There are literally no restrictions even on the size of the knives, despite the fact that actual Sikh people have pointed out that simply wearing a small trinket, such as a replica pendant for a necklace or bracelet that would be of no threat to anyone, would fulfill their religious requirements.

An 18-year-old university student, Henry Nowak, was walking home alone one night in Southhampton, England before being accosted by a 23-year-old Sikh man, Vickrum Digwa, who was legally carrying a large "ceremonial" kirpan, despite the fact he had previously been recorded in a road rage incident brandishing said "ceremonial" knife and threatening others with it.

Nowak had recorded footage of the early stages of the incident on his phone before he was stabbed, with Digwa heard calling him a "white boy" while Henry questioned whether carrying around a knife made Vickrum feel "tough".

At some point, Digwa stabbed Nowak multiple times in the stomach (Digwa had absolutely no wounds on him nor any indication that Nowak had ever struck him) and even slashed at the back of Nowak's legs as Henry tried to escape from the assault by climbing a fence.

Digwa even recorded footage on his personal Snapchat mocking Nowak after the mortally wounded boy was in a near-catatonic state (the British judge refused to play the footage in court, saying it was "too disturbing").

After minutes of taunting, Nowak fell to the ground and Digwa called his brother as Nowak slowly bled out. Vickrum's brother attempted to concoct a defense over the phone, instructing him to claim it was self-defense; the brother, Gurpreet, made the call to 999, yet instead of saying anything about Nowak's condition or that an ambulance was needed, he instead claimed his brother had been the victim of a "racial attack".

The mother of the two men also arrived at the scene and took the knife, attempting to hide the murder weapon from authorities.

When police eventually arrive at the scene, they find Nowak slumped on the ground, propped up against the side of a vehicle by Vickrum's father.

The police immediately believed Digwa and his brother's claims that Nowak had "racially attacked" Vickrum, even after Nowak informs the officers multiple times that he has been stabbed.

Instead of properly checking on Henry's condition, which is especially concerning considering Henry appeared incredibly pale and clearly in a near-catatonic state, an officer says "You've been stabbed? Whereabouts? I don't think you have, mate" before roughly turning him over and putting him in handcuffs.

Nowak then repeatedly says "I can't breathe" yet the officers don't appear to care as the boy tries desperately to cling to life.

As they read him his rights (for assault, despite there not even being a mark on Digwa while Nowak bled out), Nowak died from his injuries, with one officer finally noting that "his pupils aren't responding" as the clueless idiots stand around having let him bleed to death in their custody.

The police response, which the UK fought to prevent it from being seen by the public, was captured by police bodycams and eventually made it to the public. The horrific footage exposed the horrendous "policing" that has become the norm for the UK, with the officers not facing any repercussions for never checking on Nowak's condition, providing any medical assistance when he was still alive, or for cuffing someone for a non-existent crime they had no evidence for while he was actively bleeding out.

Digwa was eventually convicted of murder and was given life in prison (yet in the UK, he'll be eligible for parole after just 21 years, hardly "life" imprisonment), with Digwa's family heard yelling at the judge during sentencing, accusing the judge of being "racist" for not allowing cold-blooded murder to go unpunished.

While mainstream media sought to ignore the story, it went viral on X and other social media platforms, resulting in mass protests against two-tiered policing across the UK which forced the media to respond. Rather than stating they understood the community's frustrations or supporting peaceful protests for what would have been labelled a "hate crime" if the races were reversed, the media and UK politicians widely condemned the protests.

The New York Times for instance, claimed that the murder was being "increasingly politicized", sentiments echoed by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who never put out any statements about Nowak's death or the case at all until he put out a statement about the protests.

Now compare that to the media treatment of George Floyd, who was painted as a martyr and inspired countless riots in the United States, which were labelled as "mostly peaceful" protests by mainstream news even as local businesses burned down and dozens of people were murdered on the streets.

Nowak said the same words - "I can't breathe" - and unlike Floyd, did not inflict his wounds on himself, as Floyd had ingested lethal amounts of fentanyl in an attempt to hide drugs from the police.

Nowak was everything they claimed George Floyd was - an innocent victim of systemic racism whose case highlighted a two-tiered justice system - yet one case was highlighted as being worthy of a moral crusade, the other dismissed as "politicization of a tragedy".

Those "Black Lives Matter" riots were quite literally supported by almost all major news outlets in the western world, along with a majority of its politicians and celebrities, with many "taking the knee" to show their "solidarity" with the black community for such an "injustice".

Just take a look at Keir Starmer's statements following the George Floyd incident (which didn't even happen on the same continent), where he bent over backwards to repeatedly virtue signal about racism and injustice. Yet for Nowak? He claims Henry's death is being exploited by politics.

If Hitler could see the world today, he would loudly proclaim "I told you so!" before weeping at the mess that Germany and the west has become today - and he would be right to do so.

Even his wild claims of a "Jewish conspiracy" are now looking more and more real with every passing day to those willing to examine patterns without the reflexive denial they've been programmed to issue, something I'll be delving more into in my next piece which focuses on the state of Israel and Jewish supremacy.

Regardless of whether the coordinating forces are Jewish networks, globalist billionaires and institutions, or any number of other overlapping groups, there is a clear and concerted effort across much of the Western world to weaken national identities, rewrite history, erode borders, and transform societies in ways that benefit "elites" at the expense of everyone else.

The west's descent into debauchery and despair has rapidly been approaching the levels that Weimar Germany experienced in the 1920's, and once again people are pushed into a scenario where one must choose between extremes.

The "moderates" and mere political action has utterly failed to establish order - whether those leaders sold out or lacked the backbone to make genuine reform happen no longer matters.

The communist ideals of a borderless, globalist society have taken over and we are left in the cesspit that such an ignorant ideal has and always will result in.

Yet so many people today are still stuck in a state of idealism, that some sort of magical solution can be found where nobody innocent is inconvenienced and everyone walks away happy.

That simply isn't how the world works and it never has been. This hopeless idealism even in the face of grim reality is exactly how the west as a whole has found itself in its current predicament.

The longer it takes for people to rise up against the forces of evil that have wreaked havoc on our society, the more extreme the measures are going to be when they finally do.

The most overlooked loss in the aftermath of WWII was the fact that Europe associated any form of nationalism, any sort of desire to preserve European culture and values, with pure evil.

That loss of healthy national pride has led directly to the rise of the very things Hitler warned the western world about, and the adoption of communist ideals which are now viewed as "progressive" and "empowering".

Over the last few years, the general population are finally waking up to why a certain degree of nationalism is not just good, but is absolutely necessary in order to preserve a functioning, safe society - social trust, shared identity, and the ability to make decisions in the interest of its own citizens are foundational to a successful civilization.

Yet simply waking up isn't a cure - doing something about it, and having the political will to do what needs to be done, is. Having the will to do what's required even if it's viewed as 'extreme' by those invested in the current trajectory, is the prerequisite to stopping said trajectory.

There are positive signs that show such a moral crusade is finally beginning, most notably in Ireland, where the people are finally saying "enough is enough" to mass immigration after a "refugee" from Sudan tried to behead an Irish man on the streets of Belfast.

Perhaps the Irish uprising will inspire a wave of fury that will issue a much-needed course correction for the western world.

Or, perhaps people will go back to sleep-walking their way toward the second-coming of the fall of Rome.

I now understand the people of 1930's Germany in a way the childhood version of myself never could, and I think many people today are also coming to similar revelations.

The people of Germany sought to save their people during a time where their way of life was hanging on by a thread, their safety had been eroded, their values and culture had been discarded.

Their options boiled down to two extremes, and they selected the one they believed could save their culture and their people; they selected what they believed was the lesser of two evils.

The choice they made will forever be etched into history, and they will forever be condemned for it, yet I can no longer say I believe they made the wrong choice; the only alternative that had presented itself to them had would have been just as bad if not worse.

That isn't excusing any atrocities that were committed, or denying anything that happened, nor is it saying the Nazis were "the good guys".

It's simply understanding the predicament the German people as a whole were in, how they had gotten there, and the realities of what the other ideology, had they chosen the other path available to them, would have brought.

Germany faced a choice back then - today, we like to believe we have learned so much in this "golden age" of information, yet we stumble into the same traps those before us warned us against, now at a civilizational level rather than merely a national one.

Only time will tell if the modern western world can save itself from the brink of self-destruction, or if it is destined to fall victim to the perils one Adolf Hitler warned it about so long ago.