[The Immortal Goon]

He will be proven wrong about trade making war obsolete, just as every 'merchant' before him for the past... forever... has been proven wrong.

This is mostly correct. As a matter of perspective, the dominant thinking in the first decade of the 20th century was that there could be no more European wars, and by extension, major wars at all. The world was neatly tied up in this imperialist system, and there was no reason to go to war as the people that would wage a war like that would have too much to lose. Instead, there would be limited engagements with a few professional troops now and then to keep the order going.

Part of the reason Lenin seemed like a prophet was because he argued that the imperial system would be its own undoing; he used dialectics when other Marxists were putting dialectics down to get government positions.

[Rich]

To clarify my earlier point. The Nazis and many others before and since argue not merely that Bolshevism had a lot of Jews amongst its highest echelons, but that Bolshevism was part of a Jewish plot to control, dominate and exploit the Gentiles. It is argued that cultural Marxism is another element of this over arching plot to destroy the Gentiles. Personally it strikes me as nonsense, the same pathetic yearning for Manichean simplicity as ever. The same kind of pathetic cretinism that argues that 9/11 was immoral form of warfare.

[Rei Murasame]

This is mostly correct. As a matter of perspective, the dominant thinking in the first decade of the 20th century was that there could be no more European wars, and by extension, major wars at all. The world was neatly tied up in this imperialist system, and there was no reason to go to war as the people that would wage a war like that would have too much to lose. Instead, there would be limited engagements with a few professional troops now and then to keep the order going.

Part of the reason Lenin seemed like a prophet was because he argued that the imperial system would be its own undoing; he used dialectics when other Marxists were putting dialectics down to get government positions.

This. In my view, people shouldn't underestimate Lenin, he was able to anticipate almost all of what happened after that point.

________

To clarify my earlier point. The Nazis and many others before and since argue not merely that Bolshevism had a lot of Jews amongst its highest echelons, but that Bolshevism was part of a Jewish plot to control, dominate and exploit the Gentiles.

Indeed, that is massively simplistic and doesn't explain what happened at all. But no one in the thread was saying that it went like that. For example, Leon Trotsky had plenty of good arguments with them, so it clearly wasn't that simple.

[SolarCross]

To clarify my earlier point. The Nazis and many others before and since argue not merely that Bolshevism had a lot of Jews amongst its highest echelons, but that Bolshevism was part of a Jewish plot to control, dominate and exploit the Gentiles. It is argued that cultural Marxism is another element of this over arching plot to destroy the Gentiles. Personally it strikes me as nonsense, the same pathetic yearning for Manichean simplicity as ever. The same kind of pathetic cretinism that argues that 9/11 was immoral form of warfare.

As did churchill... in his essay Zionism versus Bolshevism. A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People he makes that same assertion quite plainly even while heaping huge doses of garish praise upon jewry.

International Jews

In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

Churchill might be well called an imperialist but nazi is not correct.

[KlassWar]

To clarify my earlier point. The Nazis and many others before and since argue not merely that Bolshevism had a lot of Jews amongst its highest echelons, but that Bolshevism was part of a Jewish plot to control, dominate and exploit the Gentiles. It is argued that cultural Marxism is another element of this over arching plot to destroy the Gentiles. Personally it strikes me as nonsense, the same pathetic yearning for Manichean simplicity as ever. The same kind of pathetic cretinism that argues that 9/11 was immoral form of warfare.

The causes of jewish overrepresentation are well known.

To put it very simply, when compared to the wider Russian population, a much larger percentage of Russian Jews were card-carrying communists. When the Revolution came, this pretty much directly translated into a large Jewish overrepresentation in the Bolshevik government.

And there are pretty solid historical-material reasons why so many Jews were Communists. Outside certain areas in the Ukraine, the Jewish population of the 19th century Russian Empire was overwhelmingly urban and overwhelmingly literate... Which led to higher rates of political activism. They were also persecuted by the Tsarist regime, which made large swathes of them revolutionary. That led them to form one of the first Socialist parties in Russia (the Bund, IIRC).

That party was later merged into the Russian Social-Democratic Party It remained an organized fraction for a while, but it soon truly dissolved when the Party got split on larger concerns (Bolsheviks and Mensheviks) around the turn of the century. (We might say that the redeeming feature of serious splits is that they tear down fossil fractions .)

[Potemkin]

That party was later merged into the Russian Social-Democratic Party It remained an organized fraction for a while, but it soon truly dissolved when the Party got split on larger concerns (Bolsheviks and Mensheviks) around the turn of the century.

And it's worth pointing out that the Mensheviks were even more Jewish than the Bolsheviks, in the sense that a greater proportion of their leadership were Jewish, and both Zinoviev and Kamenev (the two most prominent Jewish members of the Bolshevik Politburo) exhibited Menshevik tendencies in 1917 when they opposed Lenin's plan to seize power from the Provisional Government in October 1917. They even went so far as to reveal the exact date of the planned uprising to the newspapers. This "betrayal of October" was a major factor in their downfall and execution during Stalin's purges of the 1930s. If any political movement was a "Jewish conspiracy", then it was surely the Mensheviks rather than the Bolsheviks.

[Rich]

That party was later merged into the Russian Social-Democratic Party It remained an organized fraction for a while, but it soon truly dissolved when the Party got split on larger concerns (Bolsheviks and Mensheviks) around the turn of the century.

Um do you mean paragraph one of the rules or the Editorial board for Iskra. Fuck me what a joke Leninism is, you just couldn't make this stuff up. Leninists will always tell you that the defining feature of Leninism was Lenin's position on party membership. But of course Lenin lost the vote on the party membership, making his faction of the minority, the Menshevik faction. Lenin could only claim to be a Bolshevik if he held that membership of the Iskra editorial board was the defining feature of Leninism, which again would be rather odd because the majority of Lenin's editorial board which actually caused the main split in the RSDLP chose to be Mensheviks.

And it's worth pointing out that the Mensheviks were even more Jewish than the Bolsheviks, in the sense that a greater proportion of their leadership were Jewish,

Um I'm not sure the domination of Menshevism by Jews would be considered a point in Jews favour by those who fulminated against Jewish Bolshevism. Jewish Bolshevism was fairly much synonymous in those people's minds with Jewish Marxism.

and both Zinoviev and Kamenev (the two most prominent Jewish members of the Bolshevik Politburo) exhibited Menshevik tendencies in 1917 when they opposed Lenin's plan to seize power from the Provisional Government in October 1917. They even went so far as to reveal the exact date of the planned uprising to the newspapers. This "betrayal of October" ....

The "October coup" of November 1917 was not about seizing power from the provisional government, which was on its way into history, but was actually a coup against Kamanev, a premption. Without this coup its very likely that an all socialist party coalition government would have formed with Kamanev's as leader. So Kamanev and his ally Zinoviev had ever reason to be aggrieved. It was in fact Lenin who was the traitor to Bolshevism as the large majority of Bolshevik members would almost certainly have preferred the socialist coalition with Kamanev as leader. Bolshevism was not Lenin's personal property.

[SolarCross]

Let's not derail this thread with a discussion of the jewishness of bolshevism. It's an interesting subject but it wants a thread of its own not this one.

[Atlantis]

He is telling you what you want to hear.

Not at all! Firstly, he is talking to a Latin American audience and is consistent with how Putin described the Russian view before the UN general assembly.

Secondly, this is what we made the Russians believe in the framework of detente and rapprochement so they would agree to dismantle the SU without a fight and let Germany/Europe reunite. We told them they could become part of our world, and Yeltsin bent over backwards to do everything we told him to do, i.e., sell out Russian national assets to the capitalists. The only problem was that the West did not keep word. The Russians got fucked over the head once again. Russians are much more like the Germans in that they value trust and loyalty. Which is of course impossible for you to understand.

It is very much in Russian strategic interests to split the EU from the US/UK and drop it's guard against Russia,

It is always a bad idea to project your own intentions onto others. The Russians offered reunification in 1952 as a neutral country. And when reunification did happen it was solely due to the Russians and contrary to the will of our so-called Western allies. Don't believe for one moment that Germans are going to forget that. And the price you exacted for reunification was effectively to sign away national sovereignty and chain Germany to the West with the euro.

It is the US/UK that has divided Germany/Europe for 40 years and now wants to divide Europe again, just a little further East.

For Russian strategists you are the "Great Prize" because you have fabulous productive capacity (wealth)

Surprisingly, the colonial powers still have greater wealth than the industrial engine of Europe because of their ill-gotten gains.

There is no precedent for Russia attacking Western Europe. The attacks have always come from the West. Swedes, Latvians, Poles, French, Germans, Brits, they all have attacked Russia.

Communism is a stupid expansionist cult and it is gone but the Russians were an expansionist power ...

Says the most expansionist empire known to the mankind. How is it you manage that degree of self-deception in your Anglophone bubble? When you fought the Russians in Sevastopol, did you think is was Bristol you were defending?

Germany finally has it's mitteleuropa ...

LoL, this is rich, the empire is getting so desperate that it lets Germany have a piece of the action? You must really be at the end of your tether. But no thank you, it's a poisoned gift. Germany isn't replaying the power games of the 19th century.

Not only that but because you are in the NATO block the US/UK are happy to let you have it

LoL even harder! You let us have it so we fight your dirty wars, as canon fodder or primary target for the first nuclear strike? Now, that indeed is reassuring.

The UK's presence or absence in the EU does not matter so much, what matters is whether you (Germany) stay in NATO or end up in a new Warsaw Pact with the Russians.

You lost the plot completely; there will be no Warsaw pact. Nato should have disbanded 25 years ago to make way for a Eurpean architecture of peace comprising Russia. Right now, Germany has to stay in Nato to be able to use its veto for blocking further East expansion.

Russia and we basically have the same vision of peaceful coexistence. The Anglo-Saxons are the odd man out, they can only live by military conquest. All your thinking is about how you can to the other guy in.

[SolarCross]

Not at all! Firstly, he is talking to a Latin American audience and is consistent with how Putin described the Russian view before the UN general assembly.

Secondly, this is what we made the Russians believe in the framework of detente and rapprochement so they would agree to dismantle the SU without a fight and let Germany/Europe reunite. We told them they could become part of our world, and Yeltsin bent over backwards to do everything we told him to do, i.e., sell out Russian national assets to the capitalists. The only problem was that the West did not keep word. The Russians got fucked over the head once again. Russians are much more like the Germans in that they value trust and loyalty. Which is of course impossible for you to understand.

SU fell apart because nothing really worked and they didn't know why they were still going through the motions of communism when even politburo chiefs had an objectively lower standard of living than French waiters or British public toilet attendants. In what way did the West not keep its word? Those events were a bit before my time and I am not familiar with all the details. If the Russians did get "fucked in the head" they should hardly be surprised, communist or not, they are a geo-strategic rival and always will be as long as they exist. Btw we all value trust and loyalty but it is wise not to look for it where it cannot be.

There is no precedent for Russia attacking Western Europe. The attacks have always come from the West. Swedes, Latvians, Poles, French, Germans, Brits, they all have attacked Russia.

The Russians play the same game we do, take a look at a map of the world sometime, you will see the Duchy of Moscovy mysteriously rules 1/6th of the world's land mass. That land was not a birthday present for being a good boy. If they haven't had a pop at western europe yet it is because they were too busy steamrolling asia.

Says the most expansionist empire known to the mankind. How is it you manage that degree of self-deception in your Anglophone bubble? When you fought the Russians in Sevastopol, did you think is was Bristol you were defending?

I said communism was stupid expansionist cult not that expansionism is a bad thing in itself. If you are a player then you are expansionist by default. The only sensible reason for not expanding is a lack decent opportunities to do so.

Sevastapol was a warm water naval port (a rare thing for Russia to have), planted on the soil of an Ottoman vassal the Crimean Khanate that they, the Russians, smashed out of existence. Given that Britain and France were allied against the Russians the successful attack on Sevastapol was exactly "defending Bristol". If it were not jammed up then that naval port would be "defending itself" by sending a fleet to shell Bristol or Toulon.

LoL, this is rich, the empire is getting so desperate that it lets Germany have a piece of the action? You must really be at the end of your tether. But no thank you, it's a poisoned gift. Germany isn't replaying the power games of the 19th century.

The power games of all of history and all the history yet to be made. You will play or be played.

LoL even harder! You let us have it so we fight your dirty wars, as canon fodder or primary target for the first nuclear strike? Now, that indeed is reassuring.

So instead you will fight Russia's dirty wars as cannon fodder and primary target for first strike? Nato doesn't actually expect Germany to play aggressively but it would be nice if you didn't throw yourself and all of eastern europe under the Russian bus. I don't think that is asking a lot.

You lost the plot completely; there will be no Warsaw pact. Nato should have disbanded 25 years ago to make way for a Eurpean architecture of peace comprising Russia. Right now, Germany has to stay in Nato to be able to use its veto for blocking further East expansion.

NATO existence prevents more wars than it creates. No NATO member is going to attack an ally even when they hate each others guts. Greece and Turkey? And no non-Nato country is going to suicide themselves by attacking any Nato member. Morocco would love a piece of Spain or Gibraltar but would most certainly not love the US leveling all their major cities. Germany should stay in Nato because it keeps you off anyone's hit list.

Russia and we basically have the same vision of peaceful coexistence. The Anglo-Saxons are the odd man out, they can only live by military conquest. All your thinking is about how you can to the other guy in.

If you believe that you are really hopeless.

[Potemkin]

Russia and we basically have the same vision of peaceful coexistence. The Anglo-Saxons are the odd man out, they can only live by military conquest. All your thinking is about how you can to the other guy in.

If you believe that you are really hopeless.

He believes it, and he is really hopeless. That "de-Nazification" programme we imposed on Germany after the War worked rather too well. With typical Germanic earnestness and thoroughness, they believed what we told them and converted themselves into what we see today - suicidally naive and idealistic pussies. Atlantis is a rather extreme case, since he is actually a bigoted German nationalist who has somehow convinced himself that he's a noble-hearted internationalist who desires only peace and co-existence with all the peoples of the Earth. Except the British and the Americans, of course, who are evil imperialists who must be cast into the outer darkness. His cognitive dissonance makes him a rather comical figure, but he's a symptom of a much more serious malaise in the German national psyche. We will probably live to see the German nation commit an "exquisite suicide", to use noir's perceptive phrase.

[Atlantis]

@Pot, Taxizen, I have no ambitions of bursting your Anglophone bubble. You read up on your official interpretation of pre-Thatcher Britain, the cold war, the break-up of the SU, etc., yet you don't even correctly understand what it happening in other countries on this very day. You have no actual experience and you rely entirely on the mirror image of your Anglophone self.

I can offer you another view. Did you not read what I wrote about Rashomon, the different angles of views and the art of war or triangulation Pot? You only rely on one point of view.

Your problem is that you are loosing cultural hegemony. From Saddam's WMDs to Assads barrel bombs and the evil Russians or your "moderate" Syrian rebels that suddenly don't exist any longer because they never existed in the first place, or your democratic Afghanistan that will evaporate as soon as the last GI leaves the country, the "freedom" you have brought to Libya, the terrorist monsters you have created, etc. so many failures produced by your distorted vision. Your pathetic attempts at glossing over slavery or colonialism betrays nothing but an infantile self-absorption. Your alleged defense of human rights, freedom or democracy by invading, spreading terror, torture, violating human rights and international law. etc. is no longer credible. It's just like with the emperor's new clothes. While you pretend to defend Western values you run a hate campaign against Germany for actually defending Western values.

Your hypocrisy as a foreign policy tool doesn't work any longer. Do you really think others are so stupid as to fall for it. You are shooting yourself in the foot. There is another level at which your blatant hypocrisy looses all effect. And your snobbery prevents you from understanding others while you are completely transparent to the world. I'm not interested in a pissing match, if you don't want to believe me, that's fine. You'll have to pay the price. I can offer you another point of view and an experience you only read about.

PS: Taxizen, you didn't give Germany anything but trouble. German strength is entirely due to its own force. And that is something you are incapable of changing unless you want to nuke the whole continent.

[layman]

The only problem was that the West did not keep word. The Russians got fucked over the head once again. Russians are much more like the Germans in that they value trust and loyalty. Which is of course impossible for you to understand.

Russians were not fucked over at all. This is a putin myth he uses to bolster domestic support. It is not only the west that uses the fear of "the other". Show me some real evidence that the west "fucked over" russia.

Don't believe for one moment that Germans are going to forget that. And the price you exacted for reunification was effectively to sign away national sovereignty and chain Germany to the West with the euro.

The US chained you to the euro? Thats a new one

[Potemkin]

I can offer you another view. Did you not read what I wrote about Rashomon, the different angles of views and the art of war or triangulation Pot? You only rely on one point of view.

Not only did I read what you wrote about Rashomon, I have seen the movie and I've even the read the two short stories by Akutagawa upon which the movie was based. I am familiar with the concept of there being multiple conflicting points of view which cannot be reconciled with each other. There is even, in fact, a philosophical theory known as 'perspectivism' based on this concept. It seems to me that it is, in fact, your good self who tends to rely on only a single point of view and who refuses to accept the validity of any opposing viewpoints.

[layman]

It seems to me that it is, in fact, your good self who tends to rely on only a single point of view and who refuses to accept the validity of any opposing viewpoints.

I have noticed this trait with a few German posters. Could it be related to the German consensus politics?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ics-europe

Despite growing inequality within germany, continued alliance with NATO etc and the globalist-liberal order, there is very little self critisism here. All the while, calling other nationalitys "sheep" and nationalistic, while pushing themselves as a revolutionary alternative.

It is quite strange tbh. A new development to traditional nationalism.

[Decky]

It seems a German is always a German, whatever you do to them the nationalism, the urge to dominate the weak, the desire to control Europe, it is always in there, hidden in their breast like the alien in that guys chest in Alien 1. The Teuton will always show in the end. The aggressive native of the hun can not be extinguished.

[youtube]LsD6AL3HJtM[/youtube]

[Rich]

What Germans, (like most people, but it doesn't matter as much to non Germans) fail to grasp is the difference between Nazi Germany and America:

Nazi Germany was universalism masquerading as racist ethnic supremacism.

Jefferson's America was racist ethnic supremacism masquerading as universalism.

America was set up to give rights to White Protestant colonists. Jefferson understood that your right is my loss of a right. So it was specifically set up to not support the rights of Blacks, Indians, Spanish Catholics, French Catholics and non colonial British people. In Nazi Germany on the other hand equality reigned supreme. No one had any rights except Adolph Hitler. If Germans wanted to be psychologically healthy they should be mad as hell at Hitler, but for what he did to the Germans. Its funny but Himmlers most successful genocide never gets mentioned. The genocide of the cream of German nationalist youth. Everyone gained form the war except the Germans. The Poles, the Lithuanians, The Czechs all gained territory at the expense of the Germans. The British got their finest hour. The Americans and the Soviets got to be super powers. Even the Jews got Israel out of the Nazis. Its very unlikely that Israel would have come into being without the Nazis.

The last chance most Germans got to choose in anything like a fair vote on Hitler was 1932. The British and French were feteing him right up until 1938. The Swedes and Finns right into Barbarosa The German generals tried to stop Hitler's madness in 38, it was the British and French who completely folded to Hitler. But then Hitler should have been removed and shot in 1933. What were they thinking about letting him take over the German state? A man whose overriding goal was to overthrow the Versailles treaty. It was the allies responsibility to stop Hitler not the Germans. The victorious allies created the conditions for the strangulation of German democracy and German liberalism.

[The Immortal Goon]

America was set up to give rights to White Protestant colonists. Jefferson understood that your right is my loss of a right. So it was specifically set up to not support the rights of Blacks, Indians, Spanish Catholics, French Catholics and non colonial British people.

As always with your posts, historiography fail:

The tone of your letters had for some time given me pain, on account of the extreme warmth with which they censured the proceedings of the Jacobins of France. I considered that sect as the same with the Republican patriots, and the Feuillants as the Monarchical patriots, well known in the early part of the revolution, and but little distant in their views, both having in object the establishment of a free constitution, and differing only on the question whether their chief Executive should be hereditary or not. The Jacobins (as since called) yielded to the Feuillants and tried the experiment of retaining their hereditary Executive. The experiment failed completely, and would have brought on the reestablishment of despotism had it been pursued. The Jacobins saw this, and that the expunging that officer was of absolute necessity, and the Nation was with them in opinion, for however they might have been formerly for the constitution framed by the first assembly, they were come over from their hope in it, and were now generally Jacobins. In the struggle which was necessary, many guilty persons fell without the forms of trial, and with them some innocent. These I deplore as much as any body, and shall deplore some of them to the day of my death. But I deplore them as I should have done had they fallen in battle. It was necessary to use the arm of the people, a machine not quite so blind as balls and bombs, but blind to a certain degree. A few of their cordial friends met at their hands, the fate of enemies. But time and truth will rescue and embalm their memories, while their posterity will be enjoying that very liberty for which they would never have hesitated to offer up their lives. The liberty of the whole earth was depending on the issue of the contest, and was ever such a prize won with so little innocent blood? My own affections have been deeply wounded by some of the martyrs to this cause, but rather than it should have failed, I would have seen half the earth desolated. Were there but an Adam and an Eve left in every country, and left free, it would be better than as it now is. I have expressed to you my sentiments, because they are really those of 99 in an hundred of our citizens. The universal feasts, and rejoicings which have lately been had on account of the successes of the French shewed the genuine effusions of their hearts. You have been wounded by the sufferings of your friends, and have by this circumstance been hurried into a temper of mind which would be extremely disrelished if known to your countrymen. The reserve of the Pres. of the U.S. had never permitted me to discover the light in which he viewed it, and as I was more anxious that you should satisfy him than me, I had still avoided explanations with you on the subject. But your [letter] 113 induced him to break silence and to notice the extreme acrimony of your expressions. He added that he had been informed the sentiments you expressed in your conversations were equally offensive to our allies, and that you should consider yourself as the representative of your country and that what you say, might be imputed to your constituents. He desired me therefore to write to you on this subject. He added that he considered France as the sheet anchor of this country and its friendship as a first object. There are in the U.S. some characters of opposite principles; some of them are high in office, others possessing great wealth, and all of them hostile to France and fondly looking to England as the staff of their hope. These I named to you on a former occasion. Their prospects have certainly not brightened. Excepting them, this country is entirely republican, friends to the constitution, anxious to preserve it and to have it administered according to it's [sic] own republican principles. The little party above mentioned have espoused it only as a stepping stone to monarchy, and have endeavored to approximate it to that in it's [sic] administration, in order to render it's [sic] final transition more easy. The successes of republicanism in France have given the coup de grace to their prospects, and I hope to their projects.—I have developed to you faithfully the sentiments of your country, that you may govern yourself accordingly. I know your republicanism to be pure, and that it is no decay of that which has embittered you against it's[sic] votaries in France, but too great a sensibility at the partial evil by which it's object has been accomplished there.

Furthermore, Jefferson was such a supporter of Citizen Genet's attempt to marry the Americans and French together into a single revolutionary body, that in English memory it was Jefferson that coined (instead of repeated) the concept of the Empire of Liberty, that Citizen Genet was supposed to put together by making the Americans and French the same people. But what of the natives?

Jefferson's general view tends to seem that they would become Americans, and Ameircans would become them:

“You will unite yourselves with us and we shall all be Americans. You will mix with us by marriage. Your blood will run in our veins and will spread with us over this great Island.”

Which is a romantic way of saying a cultural genocide, which is different than what you state as a kind of English version of full ethnic genocide. This being said, it is true that he supported the state of Georgia in removing Native Americans. So take that as you will. It's not as mixed up as his views of Africans...

As for blacks, Jefferson was even more schizophrenic, which was true of all Europeans at the time (with the exception of the French Jacobins that Jefferson supported). The problem being comparable to that of child labour today, where nobody likes the institution, but nobody knows how to make capitalism work without it.

I realize the works of Conor Cruise O'Brien and other unionists tend to try and portray the institution of the republic as inherently racist, while the monarchy somehow isn't--but the historiography simply doesn't hold up in this regard.

[Potemkin]

In the struggle which was necessary, many guilty persons fell without the forms of trial, and with them some innocent. These I deplore as much as any body, and shall deplore some of them to the day of my death. But I deplore them as I should have done had they fallen in battle. It was necessary to use the arm of the people, a machine not quite so blind as balls and bombs, but blind to a certain degree. A few of their cordial friends met at their hands, the fate of enemies. But time and truth will rescue and embalm their memories, while their posterity will be enjoying that very liberty for which they would never have hesitated to offer up their lives. The liberty of the whole earth was depending on the issue of the contest, and was ever such a prize won with so little innocent blood? My own affections have been deeply wounded by some of the martyrs to this cause, but rather than it should have failed, I would have seen half the earth desolated. Were there but an Adam and an Eve left in every country, and left free, it would be better than as it now is.

Jefferson would have made an excellent Stalinist. And I say that in all admiration of him.

[The Immortal Goon]

Most Americans like to contextualize the Founders as if they were modern politicians. This, of course, is absurd.

Jefferson wouldn't fit with any major political movement today, despite Liberatrian (and other) attempts to lie that into fact. Clearly, the Libertarians can hardly claim French Jacobinism nor Jefferson's preference for collective change of society over the rights of the individual.

And how could they? Jefferson was, when all is said and done, a revolutionary:

Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists.

Jefferson understood this. So did the Jacobins. So did Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Castro, Andres Nin, James Connolly, Padraig Pearse, Ho Chi Minh—all revolutionaries must recognize this.

But, we can't put him into the box of a 20 or 21st century. Even if his revolutionary instincts were correct, he was still a product of the 18th century.