Moral conditioning. They see leftism as a moral principle in itself. The idea of being progressive is a moral act. Of course, if nazism were considered progressive, being a reactionary would be the moral stance.
Thing is, Nazism was progressive. The Leftists just always try to hold the political initiative to dictate what is progressive and when. That's how useful (but principled) idiots like Jimmy Dore get dragged along.
Hitler had the full support of the Cathedral until he turned on their pet project in Russia. I want to see the timeline where Nazi Germany goes up against Tsarist Russia in WW2. Does France, Britain, or America still care? Does the war with Japan still happen without Germany to protect Mao? Is Mao even around without the Soviets to get the gongfei started?
Hitler had the full support of the Cathedral until he turned on their pet project in Russia.
I wouldn't call the Soviet Union a pet project of the Cathedral. To me, "the Cathedral" of globalism is mostly located within the west as well as Berlin. Considering the incessant agitation, sponsored rebellions, and large scale invasion of the Soviet Red Army into eastern & central Europe in the interwar period; I really don't think it's fair to consider the Soviet Union as a "pet" of the globalist Fabian Socialists.
They feared Hitler because it was clear that Fascists were going to be an entirely separate intellectual and power elite that would not engage with them. That's what shocked them when Hitler & Stalin allied.
John Reed from the New Yorker is buried in the wall of Kremlin because he was handing out bags of cash to Lenin and friends, aka Civil Affairs. The Soviet Union couldn't have survived as long as it did without the west constantly funneling them resources, such as FDR's gift of industrialization. It was a client-state like China.
I think you're off base. I absolutely agree that western intellectuals and Fabian Socialists would have supported both China and the Soviet Union... but to call them Client States is utter nonsense.
One thing you've got to realize is that Russia was almost destined to be a Super Power in the 20th century by virtue of natural resource wealth alone. It was long suspected by European powers that their two major contenders in the 20th century would be Russia and the US. It wasn't clear in the 1800's who would win, but it was clear that both would absolutely surpass Europe, and that Russia could absolutely out-pace the US if they could get their shit together. This is one of the primary reasons Germany was dead set on waging war against Russia prior to WW1. They knew a war against Russia would be inevitable.
Whatever international support Russia or China may have gotten from the west, it absolutely wasn't enough for them to maintain power on that alone, and both states had more than enough potential to be independent of Europe & the US.
Moral conditioning. They see leftism as a moral principle in itself. The idea of being progressive is a moral act. Of course, if nazism were considered progressive, being a reactionary would be the moral stance.
Thing is, Nazism was progressive. The Leftists just always try to hold the political initiative to dictate what is progressive and when. That's how useful (but principled) idiots like Jimmy Dore get dragged along.
Hitler had the full support of the Cathedral until he turned on their pet project in Russia. I want to see the timeline where Nazi Germany goes up against Tsarist Russia in WW2. Does France, Britain, or America still care? Does the war with Japan still happen without Germany to protect Mao? Is Mao even around without the Soviets to get the gongfei started?
I wouldn't call the Soviet Union a pet project of the Cathedral. To me, "the Cathedral" of globalism is mostly located within the west as well as Berlin. Considering the incessant agitation, sponsored rebellions, and large scale invasion of the Soviet Red Army into eastern & central Europe in the interwar period; I really don't think it's fair to consider the Soviet Union as a "pet" of the globalist Fabian Socialists.
They feared Hitler because it was clear that Fascists were going to be an entirely separate intellectual and power elite that would not engage with them. That's what shocked them when Hitler & Stalin allied.
John Reed from the New Yorker is buried in the wall of Kremlin because he was handing out bags of cash to Lenin and friends, aka Civil Affairs. The Soviet Union couldn't have survived as long as it did without the west constantly funneling them resources, such as FDR's gift of industrialization. It was a client-state like China.
I think you're off base. I absolutely agree that western intellectuals and Fabian Socialists would have supported both China and the Soviet Union... but to call them Client States is utter nonsense.
One thing you've got to realize is that Russia was almost destined to be a Super Power in the 20th century by virtue of natural resource wealth alone. It was long suspected by European powers that their two major contenders in the 20th century would be Russia and the US. It wasn't clear in the 1800's who would win, but it was clear that both would absolutely surpass Europe, and that Russia could absolutely out-pace the US if they could get their shit together. This is one of the primary reasons Germany was dead set on waging war against Russia prior to WW1. They knew a war against Russia would be inevitable.
Whatever international support Russia or China may have gotten from the west, it absolutely wasn't enough for them to maintain power on that alone, and both states had more than enough potential to be independent of Europe & the US.