To be ignorant of what happened before you were born is to be ever a child. For what is man’s lifetime unless the memory of past events is woven with those of earlier times? (Cicero)
***
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back. (The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, Carl Sagan)
***
Crimestop: “The faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. In short....protective stupidity.” (George Orwell, 1984) (“‘Ingsoc’ is Newspeak for English Socialism or the English Socialist Party, the political ideology of the totalitarian government of Oceania in George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.” Wikipedia)
***
(The) system is our enemy. But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it. (The Matrix, film, 1999—occasionally, maybe as a private joke, Hollywood lifts the curtain marginally.)
Or
The IBBC is a bank. Their objective isn’t to control the conflict; it’s to control the debt that the conflict produces. You see, the real value of a conflict, the true value, is in the debt that it creates. You control the debt, you control everything. You find this upsetting, yes? But this is the very essence of the banking industry, to make us all, whether we be nations or individuals, slaves to debt. (The International, film, 2009)
***
The organizing principle of any society is for war. The basic authority of the modern state over its people resides in its war powers. Today its oil, tomorrow water. It’s what we like to call the God business; Guns, Oil, and Drugs. But there is a problem, our way of life, it’s over. It’s unsustainable and in rapid decline, that’s why we implement demand destruction. We continue to make money as the world burns. But for this to work the people have to remain ignorant of the problem until its too late. That is why we have triggers in place, 9-11, 7-7, WMDs. A population in a permanent state of fear does not ask questions. Our desire for war becomes its desire for war. A willing sacrifice. You see fear is justification, fear is control, fear is money. (The Veteran, film, 2011)
As for Hollywood itself: “Hollywood is a place where they’ll pay you 50,000 dollars for a kiss and 50 cents for your soul.” (Marilyn Monroe, reportedly first “presidential model” and MK-Ultra victim)
Everybody considers honesty a virtue, yet no one wants to hear the truth. This recoil from truth is to be expected from many if not most readers of the present essay, if they have even made it this far. The required effort to reform -- to admit that they have been fooled during their entire lifetime -- is too great an imposition on the individual identity. Besides, as someone has said “It is one thing to put a man in possession of the truth, to get him to understand it is another, and to get him to act upon it is another still. Truth by itself has no value unless used or applied in some way.” For those, like the so-called “Antifa,” accustomed to reacting to monochromatic comparisons of good versus evil, whose temporary allegiance may be assured by free beer, bus fare, and the primitive security of mob psychology, this analysis may be unacceptably challenging. Alternatively, it could free them of guilt.
Yes, this man is “slow.”
The perpetual fear of saying and defending something forbidden leads in any case to completely wrong-headed, at least semi-paranoid thinking which increasingly deforms our public discussions and manipulates us by mere opposites. Hardly anyone anymore asks if a straightforward statement is right or wrong, but chiefly whether something may be said, or what consequences this might carry. (Prof. Dr. Scholdt, Thüringen, December 7, 2013)
Memo from today:Because it looked as if the virtuous host in the still more virtuous ZDF-Morning Programme was wearing a brown shirt, the station last week begged for forgiveness:
Based on a few inquiries from viewers about our host Jochen Breyer’s clothing, we would like briefly to clarify that his olive-green shirt did in fact show up as brown on the screen, but this was naturally in no way Jochen Breyer’s intention. We apologize for the resulting impression. (ZDF apology, National Zeitung, November 7, 2014)
***
Permanent drilling through schools, universities and the media leads eventually to Pavlovian reflexes which first determine public behaviour, then speech and finally even thought. In difficult cases, there is ultimately the legal threat moulded into the statute against incitement of the people. (Prof. Dr. Scholdt, cited above)
Memo from today: recommended reading is 1939 Der Krieg der viele Väter hatte (2005), by retired General Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof (English translation: “1939 The War that had many Fathers”), in its sixth edition (50,000 copies sold). Not only is this long overdue book essential reading because it conveys, very belatedly, a balanced view of the circumstances leading to the war, but it is well-argued and clearly presented, in easy to digest, short chapters, and is therefore ideal for schools. There are 11 pages of international bibliography. Probably no page is without a footnoted source, among which such official ones as the Belgian, German and British Foreign Offices, occur repeatedly. The book has received almost the highest rating at Amazon. However, a reviewer at the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of Germany’s best known newspapers (his identity is irrelevant; he merely demonstrates the compulsion to denigrate any belief which does not conform to established doctrine), dismisses the book as a “legend,” deliberately mentions one inferior source only, and denies re-education entirely.
On a site headed “Holocaust -Referenz”-- Schultze-Rhonhof dutifully includes the authorized claim-- a more serious reviewer takes the author to task for his understanding of historical documents, as though any divergent interpretation, however judicious, were somehow suspect. Whereas previously the author would have been called a historian, now he is formally classified as a “history revisionist” (Wikipedia) or even a “history forger” (loony-leftist site “indymedia”).
By now, the overwhelming majority of Germans have succumbed to “re-education.” Although it was clearly impossible to convert (except by means of the most sadistic torture) soldiers who had fought and suffered through almost six years of war to the curiously convenient revelations used to indict twenty-three and subsequently hang ten of those convicted at the Nuremberg show trials of 1945/46, or to the burgeoning mantras these discoveries germinated thenceforward, with the distance of time and the extinction of credible memory, mystification became ever easier.
How would the misinformed postwar generation have addressed their parents, when they asked them, out of natural curiosity combined with revulsion, if, indeed, certain allegations were true? Would their parents have lied to them, or would they simply have remained silent and morose, afraid to contradict the accusations? How often has one read about the inability to communicate between these particular German parents and their children? How often has this led to the automatic assumption that their parents did have something to hide?
This inability to communicate with parents, combined with guilt-instilling re-education, led among the young to the birth of protest groups, which viewed the post-war German state, obliged as it was under the occupation powers officially (see Gladio) to discou
rage any overt political resistance, as repressive. One such affected person was ex-RAF (Red Army Faction) terrorist Peter-Jürgen Boock, who explained the Marxist ideology of the Seventies terrorist groups as a reaction to the unresponsiveness of his parents or relations to any debate about the war: “icy silence or aggression prevailed”/”es herrschte eisiges Schweigen oder Aggressivität”(Anne Will talkshow ARD German television, November 23, 2009)
Around the same time as the Allies were treating the German leaders as monsters and sentencing them to death at Nuremberg on the basis of fabricated evidence, anywhere between 750,000 and 1.7 million ordinary German prisoners of war were dying of hunger and exposure in concentration camps (James Bacque Other Losses, Stoddart, 1989) which existed from April to September 1945, or many months after unconditional surrender had occurred. General Eisenhower, who had been promoted at lightning speed from colonel to five-star general and Supreme Allied Commander, despite the assessment of his colleague General Patton that he was “incompetent,” had issued an order on March 10, 1945 that German prisoners of war be designated as “Disarmed Enemy Forces” or DEF, as opposed to POW.
He ordered that these Germans did not fall under the Geneva Rules, and were not to be fed or given any water or medical attention. While Red Cross inspectors had been allowed to visit German concentration camps, they were not allowed to inspect these camps, for under the DEF classification, they had no such authority or jurisdiction (“the United States government refused to allow the Inter-national Committee of the Red Cross inside the camps to visit the prisoners, in direct defiance of American obligations under the Geneva Convention.” “Other Losses,” p. 69). By contrast, as soon as the war was over, General Patton simply turned his prisoners loose to fend for themselves and find their way home as best they could. These camps were yet another breach of International humanitarian law (IHL) which seeks to limit the effects of armed conflict by protecting persons who are not or no longer participating in hostilities. It covers “the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war,” “the killing of hostages,” “the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military necessity.” The camps were also a crime against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, in that they qualified as acts which were a “particularly odious offense in that it constitutes a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of human beings.”
I have been at Frankfurt for a civil government conference. If what we are doing is “Liberty, then give me death.” I can’t see how Americans can sink so low. It is Semitic, and I am sure of it. (General George Patton, letter to his wife, August 27, 1945)
By contrast, German treatment of prisoners of war in the many POW transit camps created to deal with the very large number of captured Soviet soldiers sought to follow the dictates of the Geneva Convention of 1929.
Race ideological categories were irrelevant, rather the traditional concept that defenceless and particularly enemy prisoners were to be treated “decently.” (Quoted from the diary of the commander of a prison camp in “Massensterben oder Massenvernichtung,” Christian Hartmann, Viertelsjahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, München, Nr. 49, 2001, p. 116)
As a footnote to this episode the question could be affixed, why National Socialists, if their intention was to exterminate their prisoners, went to the expense of building camps with all the infrastructure of small towns, when such a simple and costless method of eliminating large groups of people was obviously possible.
“God, I hate the Germans...” (Dwight David Eisenhower in a letter to his wife in September, 1944)
It has been suggested that Eisenhower was at least partly Jewish. It is perhaps more interesting to speculate that his asserted incompetence could have attracted the interest of his alleged sponsor Bernard Baruch, financier and chairman of the War Industries Board, in that such weakness of character made him more malleable and open to influence. According to General Patton, it was Eisenhower who insisted on hard treatment of the Germans at a meeting with the president’s advisers in August 1944 at Patton’s camp. The Morgenthau plan was initially dismissed, but then it seemed to reappear just the same.
Evidently the virus started by Morgenthau and Baruch of a Semitic revenge against all Germans is still working. Harrison (a U.S. State Department official) and his associates indicate that they feel German civilians should be removed from houses for the purpose of housing Displaced Persons. There are two errors in this assumption. First, when we remove an individual German, we punish an individual German, while the punishment is not intended for the individual but for the race. Furthermore, it is against my Anglo-Saxon conscience to remove a person from a house, which is a punishment, without due process of law. In the second place, Harrison and his ilk believe that the Displaced Person is a human being, which he is not, and this applies particularly to the Jews, who are lower than animals. (General George Patton’s diary, 1945)
***
Although Roosevelt dropped the extreme demands of the Morgenthau Plan shortly after the Quebec Conference, its main ideas were introduced in Directive JCS 1067, a top secret document which, after considerable revision, was issued to General Eisenhower on 14 May 1945 as the final policy guideline for American occupation forces in Germany and remained in force for two years. (Wolfgang Schlauch: American Policy towards Germany, 1945.
Eisenhower, in Directive JCS 1067 ordered: “Germany will not be occupied for the purpose of liberation but as a defeated enemy nation …The purpose is...the occupation of Germany to enforce certain Allied goals.”
Under the Morgenthau Plan and its successors, Germans were prevented from growing sufficient food to feed themselves, goods were stolen from them at levels far beyond the war reparations agreed between the Allies and private charity was forbidden. And in May 1945, US General Eisenhower—who had publicly promised to abide by the Geneva Convention—illegally forbade German civilians to take food to prisoners starving to death in American camps. He threatened the death penalty for anyone found feeding prisoners. One quarter of the country was annexed, and about fifteen million people expelled in the largest act of ethnic cleansing the world has ever known. Over two million of these people died either on the road or in concentration camps in Poland and elsewhere. Children were enslaved for years in these camps and the majority of them also died. (Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians under Allied Occupation 1944-1950, James Bacque, Little Brown, 1997)
If the Cold War had not necessitated the resuscitation of Germany as a front line defence against the Soviet Union, this mass murder might have continued indefinitely.
Too many people here and in England hold the view that the German people as a whole are not responsible for what has taken place – that only a few Nazis are responsible. That unfortunately is not based on fact. The German people must have it driven home to them that the whole nation has been engaged in a lawless conspiracy against the decencies of modern civilization. (Roosevelt, Memorandum for the Secretary of War, 26. Aug. 1944)
***
I am frankly opposed to this war criminal stuff. It is not cricket and is Semitic. I am also opposed to sending PWs to work as slaves in foreign lands where many will be starved to death. (General Patton diary, 15 September, 1945)
***
Let’s keep our boots polished and our bayonets sharpened and present a picture of force and strength to the Red Army. This is the only language they understand and respect. General Patton to Under-Secretary for War Robert Patterson, May 7, 1945. (Robert Wilcox, The Plot to assassinate General Patton, p. 111, Regnery Publishing, 2010)
***
At first glance the policies of the USA and Great Britain from the spring of 1943 were ...inexplicable. After the battle of Stalingrad and the withdrawal of German troops from North Africa it was clear that the German Reich no longer had any chance of a military victory. As neither the USSR nor the Western Powers had the slightest intentions
of reaching a peaceful compromise with Adolf Hitler, it was already at that time predictable that, as a consequence of the inevitable German defeat, one part of Europe would come under Anglo-American influence, and another - under Soviet control. From the viewpoint of the Western Powers the only sensible policy would have been to conquer as large parts of Eastern Europe as possible before the arrival of the Red Army. Consequently a push towards “the soft underbelly of the Axis,” the Balkans, would have been the best thing to do in the summer of 1943 with the advance towards the north to Greece and Yugoslavia. However, that was exactly what the Anglo-Americans didn’t do. Instead they landed in Italy where their progress stagnated for four months south of Rome. Instead of pushing towards the Balkans, while there was still time, they staged an invasion of the south of France by mid August, whereas the Red Army took Romania and from there advanced south and west. Even so it would still have been possible for the Anglo-Americans to reach the three key central European cities, Berlin, Vienna and Prague before the Soviets, but Eisenhower ordered his troops to stop, so that all the three cities could be taken by the Red Army. After a thorough study of the available material Reed concluded that the ailing US president Roosevelt, who had become a puppet of his predominantly Jewish and thoroughly pro-Soviet “advisers,” had decided to serve half of Europe to communism on a silver platter and thus pave the way for a future partition of the European Continent. (Jürgen Graf, translation of his introduction to The Controversy of Zion, Douglas Reed, from the German)
Patton threatened a confrontation with Soviet Russia. Eisenhower “promoted” Patton (“kicked him upstairs”) as the commander of the Fifteenth Army. “I would like it much better than being a sort of executioner to the best race in Europe.” (Patton, letter, September 29, 1945)
Tell the Truth & Shame the Devil Page 7
