The entire postwar myth seems to be based on fear of Whites ever organizing politically ever again "lest another Hitler rise up" and threaten international finance. Deracinate (Frankfurt School brainwashing the boomers) and mass importing replacements to dilute Americans/Europeans as their "insurance policy" against White Power.
Have to reverse the linguistic sorcery over terms like "racism" that have conflated moral and immoral forms into a single term as Dave Green here explains: https://files.catbox.moe/bb8k4z.jpg
One must be a moral/positive racist, defending and promoting their own people to be a good person, this doesn't mean harming other races without cause (negative/immoral racism).
Or as Thomas777 put it, we have been living under the political-theological regime of anti-fascism; Hitler is the new Lucifer, jews the elect, the right wing is devil worship in the Nuremberg worldview (which is why so many churches instinctually treat right wingers like the plague, excommunicating them for "racism" as the unforgivable sin) - https://files.catbox.moe/m9ucon.jpg
I hope you keep posting on here and X, your posts are great and I share them on other platforms.
At the core of the post war myth is the shifting of blame from the international elites that caused the war to the average citizen who was sent to fight it. "We only did it because of your national pride, racism, and xenophobia" as opposed to "we used your patriotism , love of family and your culture to propagandize you into fighting our war".
This essay just reinforced my belief that I've been living in George Orwell's 1984. Before He had titled the book The Last Man, what he really wanted to put in his title was the last white man.
This is a compelling and thought-provoking article. The myth primarily stems from British actions. Firstly, Churchill’s evocative prose framed the war as a Manichean struggle, which was necessary to sustain Britain’s resolve in 1940 but was less relevant post-war. Secondly, and relatedly, the war was catastrophic for Britain. It was ostensibly fought for Polish independence (under a Polish government that was effectively a military junta) and to prevent any single power from dominating the continent—a long-standing British aim. Both objectives failed abjectly: Poland remained under foreign control until 1989/90, and the continent fell under the sway of the USSR and later the EU. Not only were Britain’s war aims a failure, but the cost was the complete dissolution of its Empire. It is telling that more focus is given to Munich than to Yalta, when Yalta represented a far more egregious form of appeasement.
Objectively, entering the war in 1939* was disastrous for Britain, necessitating the construction of a myth that the war was fought for something grander than esoteric strategic goals. This also explains why Britain clings to the NHS as a post-Empire comfort blanket, perpetuating the narrative that the loss of the Empire was for the noble cause of universal values and healthcare.
Similarly, in the US, the deification of FDR serves a parallel purpose. Without the war, FDR’s legacy would be one of economic failure, power-hungry ambition (four terms), and the unsuccessful socialist experiment of the New Deal. Without this myth, there would be no New Frontier or Great Society.
*In 1939, Britain would have been better served allowing Hitler and Stalin to exhaust each other while Britain (and France) completed rearmament and faced the victor. The worst-case scenario—a dominant power from the Oder to the Urals—materialised anyway in 1945.
Many thanks for such a great post! Do you have any recommendations for reading on FDR? Growing up hearing regularly that he single-handedly saved America grew a bit thin after a few decades.
If you're looking for a good entry point into a more critical view of FDR, I highly recommend starting with John T. Flynn’s "The Roosevelt Myth." First published in 1948, it’s one of the most important early revisionist accounts of FDR’s presidency. Flynn, who was once a supporter of the New Deal, eventually became one of Roosevelt’s sharpest critics.
One of the most striking claims Flynn makes—first laid out in 1938 and expanded in his book—is that Roosevelt was intentionally maneuvering the U.S. into a general war with Germany for domestic political reasons. This might have sounded conspiratorial at the time, but decades later, diplomatic records and memoirs confirmed that FDR pressured Britain and especially Poland not to negotiate with Hitler in 1939, effectively encouraging the outbreak of World War II.
Flynn’s book is invaluable for anyone who wants to go beyond the hagiography and understand how Roosevelt’s domestic and foreign policy decisions shaped the modern American regime.
This is very good and you should have added the 3rd myth; that 6 million jews were the subject of industrial mass murder in a rubber factory in Poland and some other places.
"When we talk about American culture—its literature, politics, and public discourse—we are often drawing on the legacy of a specific group of 20th-century Jewish thinkers without even knowing it: the New York Intellectuals.
"They were the children of immigrants, raised and educated in Jewish homes and largely based in New York City. Through their writing in Partisan Review, Commentary, and other journals of ideas, ***they became key architects of America's postwar intellectual life—and the guardians against its decline."***
Again, great stuff! Time to dissemble the entire myth making bureaucracy! Personally, I am sick of these cooked up narratives shouted out as holy writ! Good work, Sir!
Beautiful. I think the west needs to go back much further to find that greatness though. I don't think the Germans, Spaniards and Italians should be proud of already being used to paying taxes to a foreign power, Rome, (or paying taxes period) two centuries before Christ. Not enough pride in Arminius and Boudica. I've watched documentaries in which German scholars practically sneer at the name of Arminius, claiming he set the German people back. Stop being proud of obeying and paying taxes. Stop being Hank Hill.
Good article, and in agreement with the two great Western myths. As a Latin American with Spanish, Indigenous Peruvian, and German ancestors, I feel like a proud and free mestizo. Here we have another great myth: the belief in the right to collect a debt from conquest and colonialism dating back 500 years.
With my deep dive into everything related to WWII I too have come to the conclusion that (to quote Mencken)“everything you read is simple, plausible and WRONG! I’ll stick to one recent revelation; after Pearl Harbor the country “rushed to the recruiting office flush with patriotic fervor”. Bulllllony! They were looking for JOBS.
The myth of modernity is that reason, not revelation, should be the primary window on reality. Spiritual values were superceeded by the valueless terrain of materialism. In an effort to eliminate superstition and error the search for truth, beauty, and goodness were sacrificed. The baby (God) was thrown out with the bath and with it went the very reasons and destiny of our being.
From the essay: "Here emerges the second foundational myth, inseparable from the first: the myth that all human beings are equal, not only in dignity before the law or under God, but in cognitive capacity, temperament, moral instinct, and creative potential."
Yes. The entire premise of the 1960s Civil Rights movement and the resulting legislation, was the idea that Africans, if they were integrated into White schools, business and society, would perform in a manner essentially the same as Whites. Black IQ would improve, Black criminality would decline, and Black performance in jobs, schools, and public life would mirror those of European ancestry. The experiment has been conducted, and at great cost in time, money, and damage to several generations of White children and adults. The premise was wrong. It simply is not true. Africans are exquisitely well adapted to a life in a jungle with a paleolithic level of technology and tribal loyalty to their own troop. They are not suitable for a productive role in a Western European culture.
Zebras and horses are two different species, even though they both belong to the genus "equus". They are close enough to interbreed, but they are NOT the same. Horses are adapted to the temperate steppes of Asia and Europe. Zebras are adapted to the savannahs of tropical Africa. Homo africanus is a different species from Homo sapiens. Yes, it is possible to crossbreed with them, but so can tigers and lions. The issue is not that we CAN crossbreed with them but rather that no psychologically healthy Homo sapiens would ever choose to.
By the way, both tigers and lions are perfectly good animals, each adapted to its own particular environment as God or nature decrees. The same with Homo africanus. Africanus is wonderfully adapted to live in a jungle environment with a paleolithic level of culture and technology. Africanus is NOT evolved to live in a state of technology and a culture of Western ethics and law. Harsh judgment? Perhaps… but an objective judgment based on history and reports from around the world. For the last century or so, the West has been infected with a mind virus telling us that if you raise a donkey the same way you raise a thoroughbred horse, the donkey can win the Kentucky Derby.
I have lived, worked and gone to school in majority African areas for many years of my life. Observation, close up and personal, has convinced me that Europeans and Africans simply do not WISH to live the same, and (for the majority of individuals) do not have the same abilities to do so. Africans are wonderfully, marvelously, adapted to survive and thrive in a Sub-Saharan environment. Europeans are adapted to temperate areas. Those differing adaptations include differences in mental, physical, and emotional, makeup. Europeans who moved to Africa built European towns which suited themselves. Africans who have moved to Europe are in the process of converting those European towns into copies of the African towns they came from. I know which kind of town I personally prefer. Observation shows me which type of town Africans prefer. We are not the same. If you believe in adaptation and evolution, how is anything in this paragraph even arguable?
Isn't Christianity also a similar 'Equalizing' religion? As in "All men are created equal . . ." Christianity seems to be energetic in non-Western societies now while being feeble in the West. Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV don't identify as 'Westerners' as usually understood. May be the problem is not eighty years but two millennia old.
You can even see a difference in Europe. Christianity benefitted the old, calcified civilizations of the Mediterranean, it enervated the vital Northern European pagans.
Well said. Without religion humans will invest in other systems which masquerade as religions but which are devoid of the symbolic grace and ethics. The Second World War is a cult religion like modern Science and modern Medicine. All are dangerous and all are lies. Whatever harm religions may have done, and one does not dispute that reality, they all contain values, morals, ethics and principles which make for a better world in ways the replacement cults can never do.
The entire postwar myth seems to be based on fear of Whites ever organizing politically ever again "lest another Hitler rise up" and threaten international finance. Deracinate (Frankfurt School brainwashing the boomers) and mass importing replacements to dilute Americans/Europeans as their "insurance policy" against White Power.
Have to reverse the linguistic sorcery over terms like "racism" that have conflated moral and immoral forms into a single term as Dave Green here explains: https://files.catbox.moe/bb8k4z.jpg
One must be a moral/positive racist, defending and promoting their own people to be a good person, this doesn't mean harming other races without cause (negative/immoral racism).
Or as Thomas777 put it, we have been living under the political-theological regime of anti-fascism; Hitler is the new Lucifer, jews the elect, the right wing is devil worship in the Nuremberg worldview (which is why so many churches instinctually treat right wingers like the plague, excommunicating them for "racism" as the unforgivable sin) - https://files.catbox.moe/m9ucon.jpg
I hope you keep posting on here and X, your posts are great and I share them on other platforms.
At the core of the post war myth is the shifting of blame from the international elites that caused the war to the average citizen who was sent to fight it. "We only did it because of your national pride, racism, and xenophobia" as opposed to "we used your patriotism , love of family and your culture to propagandize you into fighting our war".
Glad to see somebody else has written the same thing! The more people who speak about this the more likely we can create a new mythos!
This essay just reinforced my belief that I've been living in George Orwell's 1984. Before He had titled the book The Last Man, what he really wanted to put in his title was the last white man.
This is a compelling and thought-provoking article. The myth primarily stems from British actions. Firstly, Churchill’s evocative prose framed the war as a Manichean struggle, which was necessary to sustain Britain’s resolve in 1940 but was less relevant post-war. Secondly, and relatedly, the war was catastrophic for Britain. It was ostensibly fought for Polish independence (under a Polish government that was effectively a military junta) and to prevent any single power from dominating the continent—a long-standing British aim. Both objectives failed abjectly: Poland remained under foreign control until 1989/90, and the continent fell under the sway of the USSR and later the EU. Not only were Britain’s war aims a failure, but the cost was the complete dissolution of its Empire. It is telling that more focus is given to Munich than to Yalta, when Yalta represented a far more egregious form of appeasement.
Objectively, entering the war in 1939* was disastrous for Britain, necessitating the construction of a myth that the war was fought for something grander than esoteric strategic goals. This also explains why Britain clings to the NHS as a post-Empire comfort blanket, perpetuating the narrative that the loss of the Empire was for the noble cause of universal values and healthcare.
Similarly, in the US, the deification of FDR serves a parallel purpose. Without the war, FDR’s legacy would be one of economic failure, power-hungry ambition (four terms), and the unsuccessful socialist experiment of the New Deal. Without this myth, there would be no New Frontier or Great Society.
*In 1939, Britain would have been better served allowing Hitler and Stalin to exhaust each other while Britain (and France) completed rearmament and faced the victor. The worst-case scenario—a dominant power from the Oder to the Urals—materialised anyway in 1945.
Many thanks for such a great post! Do you have any recommendations for reading on FDR? Growing up hearing regularly that he single-handedly saved America grew a bit thin after a few decades.
Thank you!
If you're looking for a good entry point into a more critical view of FDR, I highly recommend starting with John T. Flynn’s "The Roosevelt Myth." First published in 1948, it’s one of the most important early revisionist accounts of FDR’s presidency. Flynn, who was once a supporter of the New Deal, eventually became one of Roosevelt’s sharpest critics.
One of the most striking claims Flynn makes—first laid out in 1938 and expanded in his book—is that Roosevelt was intentionally maneuvering the U.S. into a general war with Germany for domestic political reasons. This might have sounded conspiratorial at the time, but decades later, diplomatic records and memoirs confirmed that FDR pressured Britain and especially Poland not to negotiate with Hitler in 1939, effectively encouraging the outbreak of World War II.
Flynn’s book is invaluable for anyone who wants to go beyond the hagiography and understand how Roosevelt’s domestic and foreign policy decisions shaped the modern American regime.
You would also find "The New Dealers' War: FDR and the War Within World War II" by Thomas Fleming very eye-opening.
This is very good and you should have added the 3rd myth; that 6 million jews were the subject of industrial mass murder in a rubber factory in Poland and some other places.
How timely.
This day, Tikvah announced beginning of new 8-part course,
https://tikvah.org/course/the-original-new-york-intellectuals/
"When we talk about American culture—its literature, politics, and public discourse—we are often drawing on the legacy of a specific group of 20th-century Jewish thinkers without even knowing it: the New York Intellectuals.
"They were the children of immigrants, raised and educated in Jewish homes and largely based in New York City. Through their writing in Partisan Review, Commentary, and other journals of ideas, ***they became key architects of America's postwar intellectual life—and the guardians against its decline."***
Again, great stuff! Time to dissemble the entire myth making bureaucracy! Personally, I am sick of these cooked up narratives shouted out as holy writ! Good work, Sir!
Beautiful. I think the west needs to go back much further to find that greatness though. I don't think the Germans, Spaniards and Italians should be proud of already being used to paying taxes to a foreign power, Rome, (or paying taxes period) two centuries before Christ. Not enough pride in Arminius and Boudica. I've watched documentaries in which German scholars practically sneer at the name of Arminius, claiming he set the German people back. Stop being proud of obeying and paying taxes. Stop being Hank Hill.
Good article, and in agreement with the two great Western myths. As a Latin American with Spanish, Indigenous Peruvian, and German ancestors, I feel like a proud and free mestizo. Here we have another great myth: the belief in the right to collect a debt from conquest and colonialism dating back 500 years.
With my deep dive into everything related to WWII I too have come to the conclusion that (to quote Mencken)“everything you read is simple, plausible and WRONG! I’ll stick to one recent revelation; after Pearl Harbor the country “rushed to the recruiting office flush with patriotic fervor”. Bulllllony! They were looking for JOBS.
Cheers, pw
Excellent points, amazingly presented, very persuasive.
But......
I think it is a little more complicated than that.
My blog is trying to find answers to the same questions, but the deeper I dig, the more complex the picture becomes.
Let's keep working on it. you and I are not alone. I am thrilled to be part of this community of the like-minded bringing about a cultural revolution.
I found this post through a comment made to my last:
https://zorkthehun.substack.com/p/there-is-no-justice-for-its-miscarriage
Following, thank you.
The myth of modernity is that reason, not revelation, should be the primary window on reality. Spiritual values were superceeded by the valueless terrain of materialism. In an effort to eliminate superstition and error the search for truth, beauty, and goodness were sacrificed. The baby (God) was thrown out with the bath and with it went the very reasons and destiny of our being.
From the essay: "Here emerges the second foundational myth, inseparable from the first: the myth that all human beings are equal, not only in dignity before the law or under God, but in cognitive capacity, temperament, moral instinct, and creative potential."
Yes. The entire premise of the 1960s Civil Rights movement and the resulting legislation, was the idea that Africans, if they were integrated into White schools, business and society, would perform in a manner essentially the same as Whites. Black IQ would improve, Black criminality would decline, and Black performance in jobs, schools, and public life would mirror those of European ancestry. The experiment has been conducted, and at great cost in time, money, and damage to several generations of White children and adults. The premise was wrong. It simply is not true. Africans are exquisitely well adapted to a life in a jungle with a paleolithic level of technology and tribal loyalty to their own troop. They are not suitable for a productive role in a Western European culture.
Zebras and horses are two different species, even though they both belong to the genus "equus". They are close enough to interbreed, but they are NOT the same. Horses are adapted to the temperate steppes of Asia and Europe. Zebras are adapted to the savannahs of tropical Africa. Homo africanus is a different species from Homo sapiens. Yes, it is possible to crossbreed with them, but so can tigers and lions. The issue is not that we CAN crossbreed with them but rather that no psychologically healthy Homo sapiens would ever choose to.
By the way, both tigers and lions are perfectly good animals, each adapted to its own particular environment as God or nature decrees. The same with Homo africanus. Africanus is wonderfully adapted to live in a jungle environment with a paleolithic level of culture and technology. Africanus is NOT evolved to live in a state of technology and a culture of Western ethics and law. Harsh judgment? Perhaps… but an objective judgment based on history and reports from around the world. For the last century or so, the West has been infected with a mind virus telling us that if you raise a donkey the same way you raise a thoroughbred horse, the donkey can win the Kentucky Derby.
I have lived, worked and gone to school in majority African areas for many years of my life. Observation, close up and personal, has convinced me that Europeans and Africans simply do not WISH to live the same, and (for the majority of individuals) do not have the same abilities to do so. Africans are wonderfully, marvelously, adapted to survive and thrive in a Sub-Saharan environment. Europeans are adapted to temperate areas. Those differing adaptations include differences in mental, physical, and emotional, makeup. Europeans who moved to Africa built European towns which suited themselves. Africans who have moved to Europe are in the process of converting those European towns into copies of the African towns they came from. I know which kind of town I personally prefer. Observation shows me which type of town Africans prefer. We are not the same. If you believe in adaptation and evolution, how is anything in this paragraph even arguable?
Isn't Christianity also a similar 'Equalizing' religion? As in "All men are created equal . . ." Christianity seems to be energetic in non-Western societies now while being feeble in the West. Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV don't identify as 'Westerners' as usually understood. May be the problem is not eighty years but two millennia old.
You can even see a difference in Europe. Christianity benefitted the old, calcified civilizations of the Mediterranean, it enervated the vital Northern European pagans.
Hollywood and it's propaganda worked better than expected.
Well said. Without religion humans will invest in other systems which masquerade as religions but which are devoid of the symbolic grace and ethics. The Second World War is a cult religion like modern Science and modern Medicine. All are dangerous and all are lies. Whatever harm religions may have done, and one does not dispute that reality, they all contain values, morals, ethics and principles which make for a better world in ways the replacement cults can never do.