FYI, protesting in front of someone’s personal residence doesn’t make you an activist, it makes you an idiot psychopath. Vox co-founder Matthew Yglesias says he “cannot empathize with Tucker Carlson’s wife at all” after Antifa activists broke the front door of her home while she was home alone and threatened her to the point she had to lock herself in a pantry while waiting for police to arrive. It’s not every day that you can find a journalist willing to rationalize what amounts to domestic terrorism — certainly domestic violence — but Matthew Yglesias demonstrates here how easily progressive grievances may translate into fascism…take a minute, it’s hard to process this much stupid.
An anti-fascist group swarmed the Washington, D.C. home of Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson Wednesday night ordering him to leave town.
In a video, shared on Twitter, the group, known as Smash Racism DC, can be seen crowding around the doorsteps of the Tucker Carlson Tonight host’s residence, holding signs.
At one point the clip, a member of the group yells, “Tucker Carlson we are outside your home to protest fascism and racism,” through a megaphone.
“You promote hate and an ideology that has led to thousands of people dying by the hands of the police to trans women being murdered in the streets,” the protestor continued.
“Your policies promote hate and we want you to know we know where you sleep at night,” the protestor added before the crowd began chanting “Tucker Carlson, we will fight! We know where you sleep at night!”
It’s not clear if the father of four and his family was home at the time of the protest as no one answered the door.
In addition to sharing the video on Twitter, Smash Racism DC also tweeted a number of threats to Carlson. “Racist scumbag, leave town!”
“Every night you spread fear into our homes — fear of the other, fear of us and fear of them. Each night you tell us we are not safe. Tonight you’re reminded that we have a voice. Tonight, we remind you that you are not safe either,” the group wrote.
Paul Plante says
What I always wonder about is who brought these people up to believe that they have a right to threaten people and their families in their homes.
Who were the parents of these dangerous morons?
What school systems did they go to?
Who were their teachers?
Who was the school principal?
Who were the board of education members?
What kinds of communities did they come from?
And what ties do they have to the Democrat party in this country?
There is where the real problems in America are, with the ones who produced these domestic terrorists.
Ray Otton says
They come from the same place as the 1880’s KKK, the 1919 Communists and the 1935 Nazis.
Next door.
The terror aficionados are always lurking.
The real question is how do we handle them.
So far, this batch has been handled with kid gloves.
TOLERANCE, don cha know.
Paul Plante says
I guess my question more properly should have been what kind of society or environment or educational system or combination of the three produces these kinds of people who think they have been given any kind of right to trample on the rights of those they disagree with, and so, would have stifled, which is exactly what the Hitler Youth in Germany were doing back when.
This is America’s Gleichschaltung, perhaps, a repeat of the process of Nazification by which Nazi Germany successively established a system of totalitarian control and coordination over all aspects of society, “from the economy and trade associations to the media, culture and education”.
Let us face it, Ray Otton, as older people in here with working memories, if you want to take over a government, and a nation in the process, the successful models to choose from are the Nazis in Germany, the Bolsheviks in Russia or the Communists in China, and those in this country wishing power over us to impose their wills on us are well aware of those models, of which the Nazi Gleichschaltung is considered superior, which is why we are seeing these paramilitaries out there known as the ANTI-FA, who are themselves the real fascists.
As to Gleichschaltung, the Nazis used the word Gleichschaltung for the process of successively establishing a system of totalitarian control and coordination over all aspects of society, with it being variously “translated” as Nazification of state and society, synchronization, bringing into line, and co-ordination, but the German word is often left as a cultural term in English texts.
As to these terror tactics we are witnessing here in the United States today, the period from 1933 to 1937 in Germany was characterized by the systematic elimination of non-Nazi organizations that could potentially influence people, such as trade unions and political parties.
Those critical of Hitler’s agenda were suppressed, intimidated or murdered.
Today, those critical of the agenda of the political party that controls these ANTI-FA as their private army are suppressed and intimidated, as this thread details.
And this is relevant to our times in America today, to wit: organizations that the Nazi administration could not eliminate, such as the education system, came under its direct control, and the Gleichschaltung also included the formation of various organisations with compulsory membership for segments of the population, in particular the youth.
Boys first served as apprentices in the Pimpfen (cubs), beginning at the age of six, and at age ten, entered the Deutsches Jungvolk (Young German Boys) and served there until entering the Hitler Youth proper at age fourteen.
Boys remained there until age eighteen, at which time they entered into the Arbeitsdienst (Labor Service) and the armed forces.
Girls became part of the Jungmädel (Young Maidens) at age ten and at age fourteen were enrolled in the Bund Deutscher Mädel (League of German Maidens).
At eighteen, BDM members went generally to the eastern territory for their Pflichtdienst, or Landjahr, a year of labor on a farm.
In 1936 membership in the Hitler Youth numbered just under six million.
As to the model employed by Barack Hussein Obama in his attempt at a complete political takeover of government here in the United States of America, it comes from Joseph Goebbels, as follows: “The best propaganda is that which, as it were, works invisibly, penetrates the whole of life without the public having any knowledge of the propagandistic initiative.”
“It is a mistake to believe that the people cannot take the truth.”
“They can.”
“It is only a matter of presenting the truth to people in a way that they will be able to understand.”
end quotes
And that is what we see happening here – the truth was being presented to Tucker Carlson in a way the howling mob, the American Ochlocracy, government by mob or a mass of people, which is “mobocracy,” thinks Tucker Carlson will be able to understand.
which arose in the 18th century as a colloquial neologism.
Ancient Greek political thinkers regarded ochlocracy as one of the three “bad” forms of government (tyranny, oligarchy, and ochlocracy) and they distinguished “good” and “bad” according to whether the government form would act in the interest of the whole community (“good”) or in the exclusive interests of a group or individual at the expense of justice (“bad”).
That is something we do not do in this country – distinguish “good” from “bad” with respect to government in terms of whether the government form would act in the interest of the whole community (“good”) or in the exclusive interests of a group or individual at the expense of justice (“bad”), and in fact, our two-party system of government, which is really just one coin with the usual two sides, is always about the exclusive interests of a group or individual at the expense of justice.
Should we therefore be surprised at what we are reading in here today, Ray Otton?
Ray Otton says
Oh no, a question for me!
I feel like the kid in the back of the classroom whose mind wandered during a particularly long lecture on something or other, only to be called on by the teacher to answer a rhetorical question.
Best i can come up with is that I have no idea what to do about “today’s kids”, just like the complaints from the Egyptians, Romans, Victorians and Greatest Generation.
Now can I PLEASE go back to my nap?
Paul Plante says
Well, unless you are one of those who believes that you have the right to lay hands on “today’s kids” if you don’t like their views, and what does that solve, there is absolutely nothing you can do about “today’s kids,” just as was the case with the Egyptians (look where they are today), the Romans (try to find them), the Victorians (they are with the Romans) and the Greatest Generation.
Such it is when it is, Ray Ottton.
“Today’s Kids,” just like we had to do, or not, I guess in some special cases, anyway, will have to do the same thing – one day stand up and take responsibility for their actions.
I actually seek no role in that process.
So to shorten this up, yes, Ray Otton, you can go back to sleep, and sweet dreams, knowing that when you awake, “today’s kids” will be controlling the world that you as an older person are trying to navigate.
Will they leave a space for you, do you think?
Let’s hope they don’t try to bring Soylent Green back as a permanent solution to the “Old, White, Non-Gay Male” problem in America, or you and I could find ourselves as part of a shipment of protein nutrient tabs intended to keep “today’s kids” alive in their protected gated communities.
Kenny Pruitt says
They were indoctrinated in public school, by other liberals to think that ‘you can’t say that’. ‘bullying is wrong’, ‘everyone is a winner’, ‘there are no losers’, ‘masculinity is toxic” ‘you can be the opposite sex if you feel like it’….ect. Our children have been mentally abused by their teachers and coddled into friendship with their parents. It is sick. You are seeing the results of Liberal Democrat indoctrination. It only takes a couple generations to make the change. I hope you all are proud of what you have done.
Frank Harris says
Actually, it started in the late 70’s…
Mike Kuzma, Jr. says
Gramsci, Marcuse, Adorno and all the Frankfort school cadre all started us on the path to destruction back in the early 1930’s but Progressivism predates that back to the Wilson administration.
Look at the nexus between the Eugenicists and the Abortionists and the Democrats.
The proof of their perfidy sits squarely before us, we simply refuse to see….
Dancing with the stars is on, doncha know.
Paul Plante says
Who is on this week?
Anybody famous?
I don’t have a TV, so I never know anything of importance like that, that is going on, although if I was industrious, maybe I could coax Ciri into telling me.
As a side note, by observation, it seems to me that Ciri takes a decidedly snippy tone with older people who are as of yet uncertain as to how to interact with Ciri.
I wonder what is up with that apparent age discrimination where Ciri seems to think it beneath her station to have to deal with older people who are a bit slower getting their queries across.
I would suggest that Ciri really needs some better listening skills.
As another side note, I heard Iggy Azalea canceled some tour she was on so she and Hillary Clinton, to help Hillary win over a younger and more woke generation in America, could appear on Dancing With The Stars to do a tush-bumping routine Iggy Azalea was doing with J.Lo, I think it was.
That would be pretty historic, don’t you think?
Maybe it would be something worth at least renting a television for, maybe.
Something I’ll have to put some thought in to, I guess.
Thanks for bringing it up in here, Mike.
Bruce Taylor says
People naturally assume that the public school system is trying to do what’s best of the children. The fact of the matter is that these institutions have nothing to do with education. They are set up by people who, like all other people, have their own personal agendas. The public school’s true purpose is to put certain messages into the children’s heads so they’ll be more obedient of the government when they get older.
Consider the ‘grade’ system. You start off in first grade, where you’re placed not by academic ability, nor by willingness to learn, but by age. The reason for this is very simple. Most children already think of adults as if they’re their superiors, and now they’ll associate their position in the grade system with superiority. Obviously, that’s nonsense. A kid in the 5th grade may very well have less overall academic ability then a kid in the 2nd grade. Moreover, education isn’t something that can be ranked. The kind of education that tends to be more valuable later on in life is your specialization, not the sheer quantity of raw general knowledge.
Next, consider the way a classroom is structured. The teacher is in charge. The students are to listen to the teacher. This is most peculiar as well. After all, the teacher is a hired employee, who is in fact working for the students. If anything, the teacher should be listening to the concerns of the students, not the other way around. The reason the classroom setting is set up in this way is clear. The students learn at an early age to respect authority figures, so later on, they obey the government.
Paul Plante says
I think that in the modern system, Bruce Taylor, the teachers are there listening to the concerns of the students, as if the students know more about being educated than does the teacher who is supposedly there to educate them.
When I went to grade school, I was told by the teachers what it was I was there for, which was to learn how to be a productive American citizen.
That is what education in America was supposed to be for – it was about citizenship, responsibility to the community and duty to the country.
And it was also about a sense of thankfulness, not entitlement, nor did we spend time celebrating each other and all our differences.
We were there to learn, not to be celebrating.
We learned about the community and state and nation we were a part of so that when we got out of school, we would prepared to enter society as productive citizens, which means be all you can be, as opposed to stay as small as you can for as long as you can.
We learned to honor America’s veteran — the brave men and women who have worn our country’s uniform.
We learned to stand tall while saluting the flag and pledging allegiance to the flag, as opposed to cowering down on the ground.
We learned that Our country is its best when we are engaged as citizens, and when everyone’s voice is heard speaking calmly and rationally in an informed manner, as opposed to standing there in a mob screaming and hollering gibberish.
We learned as mere children that as American citizens, we have to be able to work with people who are different than us, and that we can be friends with people who are different than us, and we can even love and care about people who are different than us, and for those of us who went in the military, we learned we can keep people who are different than us safe.
We learned as children that we can be good people who care deeply about each other even when we disagree, and we start that by listening to someone with a different opinion – listening not to rebut or debate, but listening to understand, so lo9ng as we were not being forced to have to waste time listening to something that was patently stupid, just for the sake of listening.
We learned to understand another person’s life experiences and perspective, including the fact that their perspective, say that of a pedophile priest, might be quite dangerous to us .
We were taught to try to imagine what another person’s life might be like, realizing that that their experiences have shaped their lives just like our experiences have shaped ours.
We were taught to articulate our own opinions and beliefs.
And we were taught that you can’t embrace difference and at the same time seek common ground.
And the teachers made it very clear who was in charge in their classrooms, and it wasn’t me.
Maybe that is what we ought to go back to, is my thought.
Ray Otton says
I went to Catholic school through 12th grade. One particular things stands out in my memory 60 years later.
In fourth grade I averaged 94 for all subject for the year.
In the comments section on the back of the card Sister Immaculata wrote “Raymond could do better”.
As you can tell, that’s stuck with me and honestly, done me a world of good through the years.
Unfortunately, I told my wife the story and every now and then she will use the phrase herself. ( Since this is a family friendly blog I will say no more )
Paul Plante says
“Be all that you can be” and “knowledge through thoroughness” were what I was taught, along with a sense that I was personally responsible for my actions, and that I had a duty to my country and the people in it.
Paul Plante says
And might I say, Bruce Taylor, that you have a quite unique view of both government in the United States of America, and the education of its citizens, and it is so foreign to how I see things as an American citizen that I am wondering from where on earth you could have gotten your version of operational reality here in the United States of America, where every American citizen is subject to federal law pursuant to our Republican frame of government.
You say that people naturally assume that the public school system is trying to do what’s best of the children, but I am clearly not one of those people.
I naturally assume that the public school system is trying to do what is best for the community and the nation, which is to turn out productive American citizens, instead of a bunch of useless burdens on society who know nothing more than how to scan through TWITTER on their personal hand-held devices.
You say, perhaps on good authority, that the fact of the matter is that these institutions have nothing to do with education, and today, there you appear to be quite right, at least when it comes to teaching personal responsibilty.
You say they are set up by people who, like all other people, have their own personal agendas, which is why we are supposed to have local school boards making sure that the purpose of the local school system, which is tax-payer funded, is there to educate the students to be productive American citizens, and not a burden on society who thinks he or she is entitled to a good living, simply because they were born.
You say the public school’s true purpose is to put certain messages into the children’s heads so they’ll be more obedient of the government when they get older, and would you have it any other way, Bruce Taylor?
Would you be for turning out children who were disobedient of the government?
Are you for anarchy, Bruce Taylor?
Do you think anarchy is a viable form of government for the United States of America?
Is that what you are advocating in here?
Getting back to your essay, you say, “(C)onsider the ‘grade’ system.”
“You start off in first grade, where you’re placed not by academic ability, nor by willingness to learn, but by age.”
end quotes
Actually, I started out in kindergarten, and today, many children start out in pre-school, graded, of course, by age, since that is a rational method by which to begin their education.
Back when I was young, there were still one-room schoolhouses around where kids from grades one through six were all in the same room, but of course, the younger kids were not expected to know what the six graders were studying.
So even though they were in the same room, they didn’t all study the same subjects.
In your essay, you say “(T)he reason for this is very simple, most children already think of adults as if they’re their superiors, and now they’ll associate their position in the grade system with superiority.”
end quotes
How so?
And where on earth did you get that bit of illogic from?
When I was in first grade, my association with my position in the grade system was that I didn’t know enough yet to be in second grade.
That was it.
There was no sense of superiority involved, which takes us back to your essay as follows:
“Obviously, that’s nonsense.”
“A kid in the 5th grade may very well have less overall academic ability then a kid in the 2nd grade.”
end quotes
And how true that is, Bruce Taylor.
When I was in the Army back in the VEET NAM times, they were scouring every swamp and bayou and backwater they could to come up with cannon-fodder for LBJ’s war of aggression on the Vietnamese people, and they were dredging up people who couldn’t even read or write, and here we are talking about people over 18.
And look at how many people in America today with a college degree are as dumb as a box of rocks – it is pitiful, is it not, which takes us back to your essay as follows:
“Moreover, education isn’t something that can be ranked.”
“The kind of education that tends to be more valuable later on in life is your specialization, not the sheer quantity of raw general knowledge.”
end quotes
No arguments there from me, Bruce Taylor, outside of me sayin g some of the most stupid, supposedly educated people I have met have been law school graduates.
Go figure that one out, if you can.
Getting back to your essay, you say, “Next, consider the way a classroom is structured, the teacher is in charge, the students are to listen to the teacher.”
Damn right is my response, which takes us back to your essay, as follows:
The reason the classroom setting is set up in this way is clear.
The students learn at an early age to respect authority figures, so later on, they obey the government.
end quotes
What they are supposed to learn, Bruce Taylor, is that in OUR REPUBLIC, they are the government.
How come they don’t, do you think?
Paul Plante says
“These boys and girls enter our organizations [at] ten years of age, and often for the first time get a little fresh air; after four years of the Young Folk they go on to the Hitler Youth, where we have them for another four years.”
“And even if they are still not complete National Socialists, they go to Labor Service and are smoothed out there for another six, seven months.”
“And whatever class consciousness or social status might still be left . . . the Wehrmacht [German armed forces] will take care of that.”
– Adolf Hitler (1938)
Ray Otton says
In Book III of Odes, circa 20 BC, Horace wrote of “A Progeny Yet More Corrupt” –
“Our sires’ age was worse than our grandsires’. We, their sons, are more
worthless than they; so in our turn we shall give the world a progeny yet more
corrupt.”
Or as Billy Joel, the 20th century’s counterpart to Horace, so aptly put it “We Didn’t Start the Fire”.
Paul Plante says
That actually is a part of a repeating cycle.
It devolves into corruption.
But not all are corrupt.
That which ceases growing, dies,
That which continues learning, thrives.
Such it is when it is, Ray Otton, for reasons of its own.
As to people, Ray Otton, the moral code which underlies the martial arts system I embrace, because as Neil Young says, you have to have a code you can live by, and life can be a long time, so choose well, says as follows about those to whom knowledge is not to be transmitted, as follows:
There are eight kinds of people not to be taught:
1. the disloyal and unfilial,
2. those who are fundamentally unkind,
3. those with crooked intentions,
4. those who are rude and reckless,
5. those who think themselves superior to others,
6. those who care more about rules than they do about people,
7. those who are fickle,
8. those who will have an easy time picking it up and then just as easily discard it.
It must be understood that these eight people are not to be taught.
Criminals of course do not deserve to be considered at all.
end quotes
Value judgments, of course, Ray Otton, but isn’t that what life is supposed to be about?
Paul Plante says
For those too young to know who Billy Joel is, the refrain to that song, circa 1989, was as follows:
We didn’t start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world’s been turning
We didn’t start the fire
No we didn’t light it
But we tried to fight it
end quotes
In between was a bunch of gibberish, as follows:
“Wheel of Fortune”, Sally Ride, heavy metal, suicide
Foreign debts, homeless vets, AIDS, crack, Bernie Goetz
Hypodermics on the shores, China’s under martial law
Rock and roller cola wars, I can’t take it anymore
end quotes
Clearly there is a statement there, and a cry for help.
However, I was not impacted by that stuff as Billy Joel clearly was, so it didn’t affect me, which is simply a real-world example of how different two dissimilar persons like myself and Billy Joel can be.
Funny how it all goes, isn’t it, Ray Otton?
Just when you thought it was going in one direction there it goes, off in another.
Ray Otton says
I just want to point out that it’s Siri, not Ciri.
No wonder she doesn’t listen to you.
Does this count as click bait?
Paul Plante says
Regardless of the spelling, I think she is a bit too haughty and snippy, and yes, arrogant, as if she is superior and knows all there is to know.
Ray Otton says
Short, sweet and to the point.
Who are you and what have you done with Mr. Plante?
Does this count as click bait?
Paul Plante says
I bet that in both cases, she would get snippy with you, as well, and huffy, because she gets pretty defensive when you ask her stuff like that that she can’t answer, because she can’t figure out what the question is.
David N Metheny says
Wayne – You are a master of right-wing click bait. Keep up the good work cause the CCM is a vital website for our area. I really like the fact that you have the ability to make certain members of your audience froth at the mouth with very little effort.
Paul Plante says
The CCM is a vital website for the world, David N Metheny.
Paul Plante says
Yes, David N Metheny, and not only are they frothing at the mouth, but they are going after Mike Kuzma, big time, as they do it.
It seems Mike Kuzma has become their favorite target, which goes to prove that old adage that you draw the most flak when you are over the target.
Have you ever noticed, David N Metheny, that those who self-identify as liberal are some of the most illiberal and intolerant persons on the face of the planet?
That is what gets them to frothing at the mouth with very little effort.
Chas Cornweller says
Ivan Pavlov had the same effect with his subjects. It’s called classical conditioning. Usually though, when I see a dog frothing at the mouth, I am thinking of rabies.
And if it appears the left has been dropped on its head, it also appears the right rapidly responds to dog whistles.
Paul Plante says
As always, good to see you, dear friend and fellow American patriot Chas Cornweller.
And you are wise to relate a dog frothing at the mouth with rabies, as it is not common otherwise for a dog to be frothing at the mouth for any other reason, unless perhaps it is really a wolf, and then, the proper expression would be “slavering” as opposed to frothing, where “slaver” means “let saliva run from the mouth,” as in “the wolf was slavering at the mouth.”
Of some relevance to this topic, “slaver” can also mean “show excessive desire,” as in
“ANTI-FA slavering over the chance to inflict violence on Tucker Carlson’s family.”
You see a dog frothing at the mouth, Chas Cornweller, trust your instincts and stay away from it.
If you on the other hand happen to see a person frothing at the mouth, it is a good chance they are someone who self-identifies as a liberal, i.e. “liberated from all traditional sources of authority,” who is greatly upset and fuming over something Mike Kuzma just posted.
In that case, you can cautiously approach the person, keeping in mind their tendency towards violence as a cure for all their many problems, and when you are within hearing distance, calmly tell them that Mike Kuzma has as much right to express himself as do those who feel themselves liberated from all traditional sources of authority, and then, for your own good, Chas Cornweller, keep moving, lest they get all over you with an iron pipe or a 2 by 4.
Discretion is the better part of valor, afterall.
Kenny Pruitt says
“Islam in a man is as dangerous as rabies in a dog”
Sir Winston Churchill
Chas Cornweller says
Ahh…Winston Churchill…devotee of racial hierarchies and eugenics…yes. And that is your final answer? Methinks you know nothing of Islam and the ways of Mid-Easterners.
Read up on the majestic tales and exploits of Lawrence of Arabia and his Islamic allies and how the British and French divided the mid-East prior to World War One.
Only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the mid-day sun. Rudyard Kipling
Paul Plante says
Dear friend and fellow American patriot, Chas Cornweller, dude, not to be too pedantic with you here, but the British and French did not divide the Middle East prior to WWI.
Prior to WWI, the Middle East was the exclusive property of the Ottoman Empire, which was the Turks.
On May 19, 1916, after WWI had started, representatives of Great Britain and France secretly reached an accord, known as the Sykes-Picot agreement, by which most of the Arab lands under the rule of the Ottoman Empire were to be divided into British and French spheres of influence with the conclusion of World War I.
After the war broke out in the summer of 1914, the Allies—Britain, France and Russia—held many discussions regarding the future of the Ottoman Empire, now fighting on the side of Germany and the Central Powers, and its vast expanse of territory in the Middle East, Arabia and southern-central Europe.
In March 1915, Britain signed a secret agreement with Russia, whose designs on the empire’s territory had led the Turks to join forces with Germany and Austria-Hungary in 1914.
By its terms, Russia would annex the Ottoman capital of Constantinople and retain control of the Dardanelles (the crucially important strait connecting the Black Sea with the Mediterranean) and the Gallipoli peninsula, the target of a major Allied military invasion begun in April 1915.
In return, Russia would agree to British claims on other areas of the former Ottoman Empire and central Persia, including the oil-rich region of Mesopotamia.
More than a year after the agreement with Russia, British and French representatives, Sir Mark Sykes and Francois Georges Picot, authored another secret agreement regarding the future spoils of the Great War.
Picot represented a small group determined to secure control of Syria for France; for his part, Sykes raised British demands to balance out influence in the region.
The agreement largely neglected to allow for the future growth of Arab nationalism, which at that same moment the British government and military were working to use to their advantage against the Turks.
In the Sykes-Picot agreement, concluded on May 19, 1916, France and Britain divided up the Arab territories of the former Ottoman Empire into spheres of influence.
In its designated sphere, it was agreed, each country shall be allowed to establish such direct or indirect administration or control as they desire and as they may think fit to arrange with the Arab State or Confederation of Arab States.
Under Sykes-Picot, the Syrian coast and much of modern-day Lebanon went to France; Britain would take direct control over central and southern Mesopotamia, around the Baghdad and Basra provinces.
Palestine would have an international administration, as other Christian powers, namely Russia, held an interest in this region.
The rest of the territory in question—a huge area including modern-day Syria, Mosul in northern Iraq, and Jordan—would have local Arab chiefs under French supervision in the north and British in the south.
Also, Britain and France would retain free passage and trade in the other’s zone of influence.
There is the beginning of the mess in the Middle East that continues to this day, thanks to the meddling and greed of France and Great Britain.
Chas Cornweller says
Paul, you are one hundred and one percent correct on your assessment of my post. I inadvertently and incorrectly used the word “prior”. Prior – adj. existing or coming before in time, order or importance. I should have used the word following or succeeding, indicating post WW1. A fine, definitive lesson on the importance of usage of the correct word. And, two, I appreciate your pointing that fact out to me. I am not so far above others that I cannot take an honest critique to heart and learn something from it. Only that others could do the same. But, again, that is not me. Your follow up brief history lesson was spot on as well. And we both agree that France and England made a thorough cock-up of the region for the next hundred or so years. Pretty much did the same to Europe, especially Germany, Austria and the eastern states. Again, thank you and have a great day, sir.
And a quick note to Mr. Patton. No, the lowest form of politician, is one who puts self-interest over those that they were elected to serve. No matter the party or affiliation. Simply put. There’s plenty in both parties, as far as I can tell.
Paul Plante says
England and France should have to wear Dunce’s Caps to the U.N. and sit facing the wall in the corner to reflect the mess of things those two countries are responsible for over the last several hundred years, including appeasing Hitler, as we can clearly see from this excerpt from “World Wars and Revolutions – The Course of Europe Since 1900” by Walter Phelps Hall, Ph.D, Dodge Professor of History, Princeton University, copyright 1943, as follows:
CZECHOSLOVAKIA
The Czechs had watched with anxious eye, as well they might, the submergence of their southern neighbor in the German Reich.
Not only did they have Nazis to the north of them and Nazis to the south of them, but within their own border was a clamorous German minority, the redemption of which might be sponsored any day by Adolf Hitler.
That minority had received more consideration than that given to any other minority in the post-war world.
It had full parliamentary representation and equal educational opportunities – in fact, there were more German secondary schools in Czechoslovakia in proportion to the population than there were schools for Czechs.
On the other hand, that German had just cause for complaint: Public officials were generally Czechs; and minor officials, such as postmen and ticket agents, were apt to pretend that they could not understand German.
The great estates in Czechoslovakia before the war (World War I) had been owned by German landlords who were dissatisfied with the compensation paid them when the lands were subdivided after the war among the peasants.
More important yet, the condition of the German workingmen in the industrial districts was deplorable.
The Czechs were not responsible for the world economic depression of the nineteen-thirties, but they might have been more generous in the relief given to the stricken areas.
At one time there were nearly a million unemployed in this little country, and over a half were Germans!
Until 1935 most of the Germans in Czechoslovakia cooperated with the Czechs in carrying on parliamentary government, but in that year, Konrad Henlein’s Sudetendeutsch Partei, intransigent and dissaffected, captured sixty percent of the German vote.
This party, the S.d.P., was not originally allied with the German Nazis.
It did, however, stress certain German principles: hatred of democracy, devout obedience to a Fuehrer – Henlein – and racial particularism.
The S.d.P.’s demands now increased, one of them being “full liberty for Germans to proclaim their Germanism and their adhesion to the ideology of Germans,” and another a demand that Czechoslovakia should renounce its treaties with France and Russia, the former calling for the military support of the Third Republic should Germany threaten invasion, the latter promising Russian aid, provided France aided the threatened state first.
Neither of these demands could safely be granted by the Czech majority; to accede to the first would invite open propaganda against democracy in a democratic state; to accede to the second would make Czechoslovakia defenseless in case of attack.
War was narrowly averted in the month of May, 1938.
A frontier incident resulted in the death of two Germans; Hitler promptly cut off negotiations with the Czechs and hastened troops to the border.
Czechoslovakia as promptly mobilized and rushed 400,000 men to the German frontier.
France affirmed her support for Czechoslovakia and that meant that Russia must follow suit.
Britain agreed to support France, and Hitler withdrew his troops.
But he did not change his intentions, nor did the Czechs their resolution to fight for their country.
What did take place during the four succeeding months was the betrayal of Czechoslovakia by France, aided and abetted to no little degree by England.
It is very difficult to fathom what lay behind French and British policy in the crisis of 1938.
Mile by mile the two governments gave way to Hitler’s threats and bombast, until finally there was nothing left of Czechoslovakia except a completely disillusioned and discouraged little rump of a country, which could not fight if it wanted to, and which was occupied without a shot by the Fuehrer the following spring.
Czechoslovakia was by no means defenseless in the summer of 1938.
She had a good country, a mountainous frontier, defended by a Maginot line reputed stronger than even the famous line of that name in France.
Near Prague were the strategic Skoda munitions works, the largest in all Europe, owned by a resolute people, protected not simply by their natural frontiers but by the pledged word of France.
In addition, Czechoslovakia was a member of the Little Entente, and both Yugoslavia and Rumania were sworn to aid her.
True, Yugoslavia might stand aside for fear of Mussolini, and Rumania was not a dependable ally.
But the Rumanians presumably would at least permit the passage of Soviet troops through their territory to aid the Czechs if they were attacked.
With France, England, and Russia behind them it seemed improbable that Mussolini would give any active aid to Hitler in order that the latter might occupy Prague.
Nevertheless, the British and the French between them opened the mountain passes to the Bohemian plain, permitted Nazi troops to pass through unopposed, and thus made sure of a war in which they would not have Czechoslovakia as their ally, and Hitler would have Skoda.
The feeble and inept behavior of Britain and France during the last six months of 1938 is incredible.
It began to be in evidence when the British sent Lord Runciman to Prague as a kind of unofficial advisor to the Czechs.
The Czechs did not ask for him; they did not want him; but they were afraid if they did not accept him Britain would wash her hands altogether and persuade France to do likewise.
Chamberlain had blown neither hot nor cold.
He had refused a definite guarantee of Czechish independence, but at the same time he had intimated that British policy was not to be interpreted as one of non-intervention under all circumstances.
Plainly, they had better accept Runciman.
The Czechs, urged on by his Lordship, now offered generous concessions to the S.d.P. and Henlein.
They agreed to a cantonal division of Czechoslovakia on the Swiss model.
“All nationalities should share proportionately in all state offices and in state enterprises, monopolies, institutions and other organizations.”
Autonomy in all local matters was assured the Sudetendeutsch, and a large sum of money was to be granted for their economic relief.
This was fair enough, but not sufficiently fair for the London Times.
It proposed that Czechoslovakia cede its border districts to Germany.
The Times, of course, was not an official organ of the British government, but the Nazis had good reason to believe that it flew the Chamberlain kite.
Hitler took the cue.
A few days later, September 12, he addressed a huge meeting of Nazis and said that he intended to come instantly to the relief of his oppressed racial comrades in Czechoslovakia and announced simultaneously that the most impregnable defenses ever built by man were being rushed to completion on the western frontier of Germany.
On September 13 there were uprisings among the Sudenten Germans (acknowledged later by Runciman to have been stirred up by Nazi agitators) and the instant reply of Benes, President of Czechoslovakia, was to proclaim martial law.
One day later Chamberlain announced that he would go by airplane to consult with Hitler.
This was to be the first of three trips by air to Canossa which the Prime Minister of England was to take – successive steps, all of them, in humiliating subservience to the will of the German dictator.
The first flight was to Berchtesgaden, where he was told by Hitler that Germany insisted on the instant inclusion of the Sudeten Germans in the Third Reich, even at the cost of general war.
Time would be given Chamberlain to consult with his ministers; no other concession was offered.
What was to be done?
The British cabinet was divided; so was the French.
The premier of France and his foreign secretary flew to London and a decision was reached without consulting Prague.
Czechoslovakia was told by England and France that she must deliver “the districts mainly inhabited by the Sudeten Germans” to Germany.
If this was done there would be guarantees of her future independence.
This was selling the pass, for the districts to be ceded lay along the frontier where the Czechs had their fortifications.
England and France were now offering Hitler all that he demanded.
Benes and his cabinet begged for reconsideration.
Czechoslovakia had, they said, a treaty of arbitration with Germany.
Why not invoke it?
Runciman, meanwhile, made his formal report.
It proposed not only to give Germany all that Hitler had demanded but a little more, for he suggested not only that parts of Czechoslovakia be ceded Germany but also that the rump which remained should renounce all treaties of defense with other countries, suppress all anti-German agitation, and enter into close economic relations with the Reich.
The Runciman report was followed by sharp insistence at Prague on the part of the French and British ambassadors that Benes agree to the Anglo-French proposals.
Benes asked that the demands be given him in writing; he was refused.
Would the Czechs yield or not?
If France fought on their side they had a good chance, but even so there were German divisions to the south of them in Austria and their own Maginot line was in the north.
They would, in any case, be subject to a severe bombardment from the air.
But France had now repudiated her word, and without France, Russia was under no obligation.
Benes and his colleagues decided to yield – with the understanding, they said, that Britain and France would guarantee the future independence of what was left of their country, and that the land transferred to Germany would not be occupied by German troops until the new frontiers had been delimited.
Whereupon followed Chamberlain’s second flight to Canossa, this time to the little German town of Godesberg.
To his surprise he found Hitler in a towering rage.
The German army was going to march on October first, roared the Fuehrer, and nothing could stop it.
There might be “subsequent corrections” in the boundaries suggested, and perhaps plebiscites.
But Germany was going to take by force what was hers by right and would listen to no one.
Hitler presented Chamberlain with a map showing what districts Germany was going to annex immediately, and Chamberlain received it, agreed to present it to the Czechs without recommendation, and flew back to London.
The Czechs indignantly rejected the Godesberg ultimatum, the British mobilized their fleet, the French their army.
It looked like war.
Trenches were dug in London streets, tanks and trucks rolled through Berlin on their way south, and gas masks were distributed in Paris.
The British foreign office gave categorical assurance to France that Britain would come to her assistance if she took military action against Germany in the event of that country’s invading of Czechoslovakia – a much stronger guarantee than Britain gave France on August 2, 1914.
Seemingly, Hitler must give way or the second World War would break.
The Fuehrer gave no indication of yielding.
Within five days his Germans were to march.
He had no qualms, he said, against Poland or France.
“After the Sudeten German question is regulated,” he asserted, “we have no further territorial claims to make in Europe.”
But October first was the deadline, and to prove that he meant business, German divisions were concentrated on the Czech frontier, and German workmen labored day and night on the “Westwall.”
To frighten the democracies he even took another step: “German action” (whatever that meant), he told the British ambassador, would commence the next day at 2 P.M., namely, on September 28.
The democracies, on the other hand, did give signs of yielding.
The French newspapers deliberately minimized as unofficial the British guarantee of standing by France; and Chamberlain, in a most ambiguous speech, showed that he was of two minds – he spoke of Czechoslovakia as a “far-away country” for whom it seemed almost impossible that England would be fighting, and the general tenor of his remarks in the House of Commons sounded more like Hamlet than Pitt or Palmerston.
Then, just as the last sands were running out of the hour-glass, the Fuehrer, at the request of Mussolini, postponed mobilization twenty-four hours and invited Daladier and Chamberlain to a conference with the Duce and himself at Munich.
Chamberlain accepted, and for the third time made a journey to Canossa.
This Munich conference was still another victory for the dictators.
Czechoslovakia was an uninvited onlooker as the four statesmen carved up that unhappy country in accordance with the Godesberg ultimatum.
Minute concessions of no importance were made by which England and France might save face.
Four zones were to be occupied by the Germans “in four rapid bites instead of one.”
A fifth zone was created in which there were supposed to be plebiscites.
“But the final result was worse for the Czechs than Godesberg would have been.”
The international commission supposedly in control of plebiscites was a farce.
The Germans took what they wanted, marched to within forty miles of Prague, and absorbed about 750,000 Czechs in the new Germany.
As they did so the Poles invaded Teschen, annexing about 80,000 Poles and 120,000 Czechs.
Hungary then advanced on the helpless Czechs from the south, crossed the Danube, took Bratislava, and would have divided Ruthenia and perhaps Slovakia with Poland had she been permitted to by the all-powerful Germans.
The latter, together with the Italians, decided everything.
All French and British guarantees vanished into thin air.
“I return from Germany,” said Chamberlain to cheering thousands, “bringing peace with honor.”
He brought back neither.
Peace the Prime Minister might have envisaged, but how about honor?
We are too close to these events to write now with assurance of the motives which underlay them.
Perhaps some day history will show that the French were more to blame than the British, for it was France, not England, that guaranteed the independence of Czechoslovakia, and England had simply guaranteed to help France.
Nevertheless, the British had joined the French in pressing on Czechoslovakia the Franco-British plan which the Czechs accepted, and from that moment Britain was bound by implication to defend those who took her advice and yielded at her insistence.
Why did the British give way all along the line?
Several explanations have been offered.
A number of journalists asserted that the British Tories were bluffing from the beginning, that the mobilization of the fleet was a blind and a fake, carried on to deceive the simple, the real intent of the Tories being to support Hitler so that he might become strong enough to be ultimately victorious over Soviet Russia, or at least strong enough to act as their agent in staving off the Red menace.
This is pure assumption and a rather silly one, for it lays too much emphasis on economic determinism and suggests an altogether too complicated and subtle a plot.
The Tories, afterall, were British citizens, and to impugn their patriotism and common sense without evidence is, to say the least, not being historically minded.
Another conjecture was that Britain was profoundly pacifistic, unwilling to fight in any cause which did not directly concern land over which flew the Union Jack.
In this there was probably an element of truth, but not a great deal.
Pacifistic or otherwise, the sons of John Bull presumably had not been transformed in less than a generation into gentle Quakers.
Two other reasons for Chamberlain’s stand come closer to the truth.
He knew that, arrogant and boastful though Hitler might be, he had a good talking point in demanding the inclusion of Sudeten Germans in the Reich on the grounds of self-determination.
Bohemia had been a part of the old Austria, not a part of the old Germany, but that could not offset altogether the argument for self-determination.
Might not Hitler be content with just annexing Germans?
Perhaps there was a possibility that he would be.
And finally, and perhaps most important of all, was the military argument.
Russia was an uncertain factor.
The Soviets were said to have promised 200 airplanes for the defense of Czechoslovakia, but on the border of that country were 1,000 German planes that probably would sweep over it before France, England, and Russia could do anything.
Stalin had but recently put to death so many generals that Chamberlain might well have questioned the importance of any help Russia might provide, even if she honored her treaty with France.
The French were well prepared with their Maginot line for defense, but how could they reach Czechoslovakia to rescue that country from Hitler’s maw?
And if the French could not, how about England?
His first duty was to secure the safety of his own country.
He knew that Germany was better prepared for air battles than Britain, and it is possible that he had reliable information that the Reich had a two-to-one superiority in the air.
Could he afford to risk a war under such circumstances?
Possibly Hitler was bluffing; but on the other hand, possibly he was not.
Chamberlain’s role in this affair certainly was not brilliant, but that does not necessarily mean that it was absurd.
Perhaps he had some right to feel that Baldwin and MacDonald were more responsible in the long run than himself, for it was they who neglected for so many years to make ready against the day when no argument could prevail against Hitler’s lawless will unless backed by superior force.
The triumphant Germans, meanwhile, had won two astonishing diplomatic victories in less than six months, since without any fighting at all not only Austria but also the mountain bastions of Bohemia lay in their hands.
Hitler had solemnly pledged himself to go no farther, but he had not the slightest intention of keeping his word.
Having swallowed somewhat more than one-third of the area of Czechoslovakia, and somewhat less than one-third of the population, he was still greedy for more.
What was left of the Republic of Czechoslovakia soon found that it was independent in name only and that it must look to Berlin for guidance.
The Germans demanded and obtained a corridor across the country for a military highway; they demanded and obtained the right to decide on the destinies of Slovakia and Ruthenia, not only in respect to government but also in respect to how much land should be ceded to Poland and Hungary.
And when Hacha, the last president of the republic, protested against Germany’s high-handed interference, he, like Schuschnigg, was summoned to Hitler’s presence.
His going to Germany was a formality.
Even before he reached Berlin, the German army had started south again.
Hacha, berated and browbeaten by Hitler, signed away the independence of his country, and almost simultaneously with his so doing, the Germans entered Prague, none resisting.
A few snowballs were thrown at the Teutonic invader; that was all.
Czechoslovakia was made a German protectorate, and Hitler could boast of adding still more military booty, to say nothing of much needed gold, to Germany’s store.
George S. Patton Jr. says
“Politicians are the lowest form of life on earth. Liberal Democrats are the lowest form of politicians.”
— George S. Patton Jr.
Paul Plante says
Reading that above, dear friend and fellow American patriot Chas Cornweller, and coming across these words, “(T)o frighten the democracies he even took another step: ‘German action’ (whatever that meant), he told the British ambassador, would commence the next day at 2 P.M., namely, on September 28” and “(T)he democracies, on the other hand, did give signs of yielding,” gives you an example of why loyal American citizens of our Republic bristle when we hear powerful Democrats like the Marxist half-black man Barack Hussein Obama and empty-headed, “lying” Hillary Clinton and sell-outs like Nancy Pelosi, who had the office of speaker of our House of Representatives for sale to the highest bidders when she was speaker of the house prattling on about OUR REPUBLIC being a “democracy,” instead.
Democracies in that case did exactly what democracies have done for the last 2500 years or so – they sold out the people of Czechoslovakia, like our democracy sold out the Vietnamese in 1975, and in the course of selling out the people of Czechoslovakia, they strengthened Hitler while weakening themselves, which is exactly what people in this country loyal to the REPUBLIC thought Hussein Obama was doing – making America weak, because like Chamberlain and Deladier, the heads of the democracies back then, Obama himself was weak.
After selling out the people of Czechoslovakia, how long after did the democracy of France fall?
What did it take?
Three days, wasn’t it, and that was the end of democracy in France, because democracy breeds the kind of weakness displayed by Hussein Obama, which weakness is the reason Donald Trump is now in the White House as a reaction to the contemptable weakness of Barack Obama.
And but for our Republic coming in to save the democracy of Britain, it too would have been gone.
And Chas Cornweller, Germany was a democracy, and Hitler was a product of that democracy, because it is a prerogative of a democracy to put a tyrant or dictator or monster in power over itself, so there is one more reason hearing people like Obama and Clinton and Pelosi referring to the United States of America as a weakling democracy causes loyal Americans to bristle.
Democracy in Germany put the rug-chewing madman Hitler in power as their dictator, and it took our Republic to put an end to that experiment, at great cost to our Republic.
As I am sure you will recall, dear friend Chas Cornweller, in FEDERALIST No. 57, The Alleged Tendency of the New Plan to Elevate the Few at the Expense of the Many Considered in Connection with Representation, from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Tuesday, February 19, 1788, the author, either Hamilton or Madison stated thusly:
If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society?
I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America, a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.
end quotes
“The vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America,” Chas Cornweller, is now largely gone, and has been since at least the 1960s.
In fact, if we today dare today to talk about the “vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America,” in a public setting like this, we open ourselves up to charges of being misogynists and knuckle-dragging conservatives and homophobes and neo-nazis and such, n’est-ce pas, because today, it is a simpering and weak spirit which actuates the people of America, and we have to be sympathetic to that, so as to not hurt anyone’s feeling, while realizing that our time in this country is now past along with the vigilant and manly spirit which actuated the people of America at the time of independence from the democracy of England in 1776.
Such it is when it is, Chas Cornweller.
As Benjamin Franklin said, “a republic, if you can keep it!”
And obviously, Chas Cornweller, we couldn’t, so we didn’t, and now we are stuck with this pitiful democracy instead!
Alas and alack – what more can be said!