Excellent article. She is definitely eliciting a lot of face palming. I think Owens is a rare talent with the ability to connect to the audience, but she is rapidly losing her marbles.
Please read my own response to Tucker Carlson's interview with Fr. Munther Isaac from a couple months ago. I believe he was also hosted by Owens at some point.
I'm interested in looking into The Holocaust Narrative (if I can find a copy online, don't think I'll buy it), but JRS is a tome. I also remember reading the Bolshevism chapter and realizing he's really gullible, actually cites stuff like that "Baruch Levy" letter to Karl Marx. Lucien Wolf has some videos on it, though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36sDMuXzpD4
I grew up in Georgia and I once heard my grandfather in Jackson County, born in 1920, sing me this song about the Leo Frank case when I was playing a different ballad to the same tune on my guitar. He was like "I know that song, but the words I know are different". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHuNnexwdPs
If possible you could write an article debunking this Ron Unz guy. He keeps propagating total nonsense about the Russian Revolution, Bolshevik government, Holocaust is a hoax and so on . No clue what motivates this guy, if he's just a delusional crank or some type of manipulator.
You mention wanting to do an article about Leo Frank. On a somewhat humorous note , someone bought up the domain for the ancient American Mercury newspaper and has been on a 15 year long, one man campaign to prove Frank did it.
Didn't know about that one but they've bought up several neutral-sounding domains which seem impartial enough until you find the posts/infographics relating Leo Frank to Jeffrey Epstein and discussing Jewish ritual pedophilia lol. Not sure who's behind it, either that one descendant of Mary Phagan or some group of white nationalists.
To a large degree it reflected the difference between "military intelligence" proper versus socio-political analysis. The wars for hearts and minds in the 20th century involved much more than just military intelligence. Military intelligence is most properly concerned with determining the position, numbers and equipment of enemy troops, profiling enemy officers in order to better anticipate likely military strategy from the other side and such.
In the Chinese Civil War, John Service got himself into trouble with Joseph McCarthy because he urged Chiang to carry out land reforms in China. Chiang refused to do this on the mainland, but enacted land reform in Taiwan after he had been booted off of the continent. Chiang therefore tacitly admitted that Service had been correct. But what Service had been arguing for was not really military intelligence. It was about the socio-political state of affairs in China,
One of Harry Truman's motives in forming the CIA (whether or not you like most of what the CIA has done is a separate issue) was that he wanted to have an intelligence analysis going on which would take the wider view. The Military Intelligence Division of 1918 was not mentally capable of absorbing social analysis which views revolutions as something other than purely conspiratorial. The CIA actually did produce publications like Problems of Communism which were capable of seeing the various revolutionary movements around the world as a result of local social difficulties in various parties, sometimes working together and sometimes in conflict, would respond by presenting political agendas which they hoped would bring them to power. That level of nuance was simply not known to traditional military intelligence, and it was therefore easier to from revolutions as something created by the Learned Elders of Zion.
> “Let’s get rid of the Bolsheviks, then form a Constituent or National Assembly, which will then decide which path Russia should take” was hardly a statement that would inspire the masses.
This statement seems to give too much credit to the Whites. In reality, when the Bolsheviks dismissed the Constituent Assembly, after the elections had been largely won by the Social Revolutionaries, this dismissal of the elected Assembly did invoke significant discontent by the populace. But Admiral Kolchak was happy with it.
-----
I think that even though the Bolsheviks have few positive sides, the disbandment of that Constituent Assembly is truly to their credit. This, one should consider their positive asset.
-----
-- Vladimir Brovkin, Behind the Front Lines of the Civil War: Political Parties and Social Movements in Russia, 1918-1922, p. 195, Princeton University Press, 1994.
That kind of attitude meant that Kolchak was not appealing towards any of the aspects of the Bolshevik government which ordinary Russians could feel discontented with. But there was initially an opportunity.
-----
As early as January 1918 massive unemployment hit Petrograd and other big cities. The workers began to grumble, reminding the Bolsheviks of their October promises. The Mensheviks saw their chance and opened a vigorous campaign against the Bolshevik 'quasi-socialist experiments,' as they put it... Yet the Menshevik view was popular now, and they began winning one city soviet election after another in major industrial centers. In most cases they formed an electoral bloc with the SRs, and the two parties were well on the road to recovering majorities in major urban centers, which they had lost to the Bolsheviks in September-October 1917...
To make things worse for the Bolsheviks, the Left SRs and the mainstream SRs were doing very well in the provincial soviet elections in the countryside.
The worldview of the White movement was profoundly conservative. They reckoned that peasant conscripts would do their service, barred from politics, and that would suffice to win. They believed they could win the civil war against the Red Army without the support of the dumas, or trade unions, or peasants or workers. Clearly this approach doomed the White cause from the very beginning...
What guided Kolchak’s officers was not so much the desire to create an army capable of defeating the Reds but the desire to settle scores with the hated leftists… They were confident that they were superior to any kind of ‘worker and peasant army’ led by Jews and commissars. In their opinion the best way to strengthen the front was not through compromise with the dumas or SRs but by revenge on those who had destroyed the Russia they knew before 1917. Victories at the front in March-April 1919 further convinced the Whites that Bolshevism was crumbling and that the course they had chosen was the right one. It did not occur to them that their victories were largely the result of local protests against the Bolsheviks and that the credit of popular trust which they had at the beginning would not last forever.
-----
-- Vladimir Brovkin, Behind the Front Lines of the Civil War, pp. 13-4, 194-5.
Here the issue was not merely that calls for an elected Assembly were not exciting enough for the masses. It was rather that the Whites were actively hostile towards any actual elected Assembly which Russians voted for. The fact that the Bolsheviks had also dismissed such an Assembly didn't bother Kolchak at all.
"Between 1919 and 1922, there were at least 354 politically-motivated murders by right-wing extremists, primarily Freikorps, and a minimum of 22 murders by left-wing extremists. Compared to right-wing murders, left-wing motivated murders were criminally prosecuted much more frequently and received significantly harsher sentencing (Ten executions, three life sentences, and 249 total years of imprisonment compared to one life sentence and 90 total years of imprisonment)."
It's not just about Russian Bolshevism but about Marxism and Communism, starting with Marx himself to German Communism of the 1920s, Hungarian Communism both before and after the war, the Frankfurt School in Germany and the US, and even the American Communist party. Jews everywhere. Don't be a denier. And concerning Zangwill: European Jews have destroyed America, there is no sugarcoating it.
Lol, did she really writte "post-humorously".
Excellent article. She is definitely eliciting a lot of face palming. I think Owens is a rare talent with the ability to connect to the audience, but she is rapidly losing her marbles.
Please read my own response to Tucker Carlson's interview with Fr. Munther Isaac from a couple months ago. I believe he was also hosted by Owens at some point.
https://razorsharpnews.substack.com/p/rev-munther-isaacs-testament-of-misdirection
I am also working on a follow-up to her blurb about the "Dancing Israelis". As always, keep up the good work!
Are you going to write about the Mary Phagan case in more detail? I’d be interested in reading that!
Yes, after I post some stuff about the blood libel and Ariel Toaff. It's a highly requested topic!
You should write more frequently! We're all in suspense!
Cool!
Would you be able to review E Michael Jones work? The Jewish Revolutionary Spiirit or maybe the new book The Holocaust Narrative?
That would be great! In the meantime though, this is a really excellent article: https://affirmativeright.blogspot.com/2021/12/an-antidote-to-jewpill-part-2.html
I'm interested in looking into The Holocaust Narrative (if I can find a copy online, don't think I'll buy it), but JRS is a tome. I also remember reading the Bolshevism chapter and realizing he's really gullible, actually cites stuff like that "Baruch Levy" letter to Karl Marx. Lucien Wolf has some videos on it, though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36sDMuXzpD4
I grew up in Georgia and I once heard my grandfather in Jackson County, born in 1920, sing me this song about the Leo Frank case when I was playing a different ballad to the same tune on my guitar. He was like "I know that song, but the words I know are different". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHuNnexwdPs
If possible you could write an article debunking this Ron Unz guy. He keeps propagating total nonsense about the Russian Revolution, Bolshevik government, Holocaust is a hoax and so on . No clue what motivates this guy, if he's just a delusional crank or some type of manipulator.
You mention wanting to do an article about Leo Frank. On a somewhat humorous note , someone bought up the domain for the ancient American Mercury newspaper and has been on a 15 year long, one man campaign to prove Frank did it.
https://theamericanmercury.org/
Didn't know about that one but they've bought up several neutral-sounding domains which seem impartial enough until you find the posts/infographics relating Leo Frank to Jeffrey Epstein and discussing Jewish ritual pedophilia lol. Not sure who's behind it, either that one descendant of Mary Phagan or some group of white nationalists.
> Why was this so?
To a large degree it reflected the difference between "military intelligence" proper versus socio-political analysis. The wars for hearts and minds in the 20th century involved much more than just military intelligence. Military intelligence is most properly concerned with determining the position, numbers and equipment of enemy troops, profiling enemy officers in order to better anticipate likely military strategy from the other side and such.
In the Chinese Civil War, John Service got himself into trouble with Joseph McCarthy because he urged Chiang to carry out land reforms in China. Chiang refused to do this on the mainland, but enacted land reform in Taiwan after he had been booted off of the continent. Chiang therefore tacitly admitted that Service had been correct. But what Service had been arguing for was not really military intelligence. It was about the socio-political state of affairs in China,
One of Harry Truman's motives in forming the CIA (whether or not you like most of what the CIA has done is a separate issue) was that he wanted to have an intelligence analysis going on which would take the wider view. The Military Intelligence Division of 1918 was not mentally capable of absorbing social analysis which views revolutions as something other than purely conspiratorial. The CIA actually did produce publications like Problems of Communism which were capable of seeing the various revolutionary movements around the world as a result of local social difficulties in various parties, sometimes working together and sometimes in conflict, would respond by presenting political agendas which they hoped would bring them to power. That level of nuance was simply not known to traditional military intelligence, and it was therefore easier to from revolutions as something created by the Learned Elders of Zion.
> “Let’s get rid of the Bolsheviks, then form a Constituent or National Assembly, which will then decide which path Russia should take” was hardly a statement that would inspire the masses.
This statement seems to give too much credit to the Whites. In reality, when the Bolsheviks dismissed the Constituent Assembly, after the elections had been largely won by the Social Revolutionaries, this dismissal of the elected Assembly did invoke significant discontent by the populace. But Admiral Kolchak was happy with it.
-----
I think that even though the Bolsheviks have few positive sides, the disbandment of that Constituent Assembly is truly to their credit. This, one should consider their positive asset.
-----
-- Vladimir Brovkin, Behind the Front Lines of the Civil War: Political Parties and Social Movements in Russia, 1918-1922, p. 195, Princeton University Press, 1994.
That kind of attitude meant that Kolchak was not appealing towards any of the aspects of the Bolshevik government which ordinary Russians could feel discontented with. But there was initially an opportunity.
-----
As early as January 1918 massive unemployment hit Petrograd and other big cities. The workers began to grumble, reminding the Bolsheviks of their October promises. The Mensheviks saw their chance and opened a vigorous campaign against the Bolshevik 'quasi-socialist experiments,' as they put it... Yet the Menshevik view was popular now, and they began winning one city soviet election after another in major industrial centers. In most cases they formed an electoral bloc with the SRs, and the two parties were well on the road to recovering majorities in major urban centers, which they had lost to the Bolsheviks in September-October 1917...
To make things worse for the Bolsheviks, the Left SRs and the mainstream SRs were doing very well in the provincial soviet elections in the countryside.
The worldview of the White movement was profoundly conservative. They reckoned that peasant conscripts would do their service, barred from politics, and that would suffice to win. They believed they could win the civil war against the Red Army without the support of the dumas, or trade unions, or peasants or workers. Clearly this approach doomed the White cause from the very beginning...
What guided Kolchak’s officers was not so much the desire to create an army capable of defeating the Reds but the desire to settle scores with the hated leftists… They were confident that they were superior to any kind of ‘worker and peasant army’ led by Jews and commissars. In their opinion the best way to strengthen the front was not through compromise with the dumas or SRs but by revenge on those who had destroyed the Russia they knew before 1917. Victories at the front in March-April 1919 further convinced the Whites that Bolshevism was crumbling and that the course they had chosen was the right one. It did not occur to them that their victories were largely the result of local protests against the Bolsheviks and that the credit of popular trust which they had at the beginning would not last forever.
-----
-- Vladimir Brovkin, Behind the Front Lines of the Civil War, pp. 13-4, 194-5.
Here the issue was not merely that calls for an elected Assembly were not exciting enough for the masses. It was rather that the Whites were actively hostile towards any actual elected Assembly which Russians voted for. The fact that the Bolsheviks had also dismissed such an Assembly didn't bother Kolchak at all.
Stop the straw men and start here my friend:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_violence_in_Germany_(1918%E2%80%931933)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9la_Kun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA#Party_leaders
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School
Starting with your first Wiki link:
"Between 1919 and 1922, there were at least 354 politically-motivated murders by right-wing extremists, primarily Freikorps, and a minimum of 22 murders by left-wing extremists. Compared to right-wing murders, left-wing motivated murders were criminally prosecuted much more frequently and received significantly harsher sentencing (Ten executions, three life sentences, and 249 total years of imprisonment compared to one life sentence and 90 total years of imprisonment)."
What is your point exactly in referring to this?
It's not just about Russian Bolshevism but about Marxism and Communism, starting with Marx himself to German Communism of the 1920s, Hungarian Communism both before and after the war, the Frankfurt School in Germany and the US, and even the American Communist party. Jews everywhere. Don't be a denier. And concerning Zangwill: European Jews have destroyed America, there is no sugarcoating it.