General Patton was too uncontrollable to be allowed to live. He had become a hindrance to the advancement of the plan of those who instigated the revolutions and the world wars which are intended to culminate in a worldwide collectivised society (the New World Order). (As opponents of Communism, Chiang Kai-Shek and Syngman Rhee were also potential targets for assassination.)
For diverse political reasons, many extremely high-ranking persons hated Patton. I know who killed him for I was the one who was hired to do it. Ten thousand dollars. General William J. “Wild Bill” Donovan himself, Director of OSS, entrusted me with the mission. I set up the “accident.” Since he didn’t die in the accident, he was kept in isolation in the hospital, where he was killed with a cyanide injection. (Douglas Bazata, Hilton Hotel, Washington D.C., 1979)
James Bacque gives details of the number of German civilians persecuted and killed after the war, as follows:
TOTALS OF DEATHS
Minimum
Maximum
Expellees (1945-50)
2,100,000
6,000,000
Prisoners (1941-50)
1,500,000
2,000,000
Residents (1946-50)
5,700,000
5,700,000
Totals
9,300,000
13,700,000
(Data from James Bacque, Crimes and Mercies, p.131)
“Expellees” refers to the 16,000,000 ethnic Germans who were driven from their ancestral homelands in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and elsewhere in Europe, at war’s end. This is many more Germans than died in battle, air raids and concentration camps during the war. Millions of these people slowly starved to death in front of the victors’ eyes every day for years. These deaths have never been honestly reported by either the Allies or the German government. (ibid p. 131)
The army’s policy was to starve soldiers, according to several American soldiers who were there. (ibid p. 44)
Here’s a coincidence. 6 million people really were presumed to have perished -- after the war. But they were only Germans, not Chosen, so they went unobserved. “The mid-range figures from Adenauer and a few others say that some six million expellees alone died, without specifying any unusual number of deaths among resident civilians.” Adenauer wrote in March 1949:
According to American figures, a total of 13.3 million Germans were expelled from the eastern parts of Germany, from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and so on. 7.3 million arrived in the eastern zone and the three western zones...Six million Germans have vanished from the earth. They are dead, gone. Most of the 7.3 million who stayed alive are women, children and old people. (James Bacque, “Death and Transfiguration,” in “Crimes and Mercies,” p. 119)
Of the roughly 17 million German expellees, Adenauer could only identify about the half in the remainder of Germany after 1945. He wrote about this: “Only 7.3 million arrived in the East Zone and in the three West Zones. Six million Germans have vanished from the earth. They have wasted away, died.”(Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, “Memories, 1945 – 1953,” p. 186)
Memo from today, April 2, 2015. “Cap Arcona”-Catastrophe: Die the Nazis set a trap for the British?” (bluewin.ch, Swiss news). This is not only a redundant raking up of WWII material, but a gratuitous insult to German soldiers who died while trying to save the imates of concentration camps and the desperate population of German territory from the predations of the Red Army. Large passenger liners and those of the KDF organization had been urgently pressed into service to ferry thousands of refugees of all kinds from the besieged eastern ports to Germany. Alone the “Cap Arcona” had saved 26,000 lives. On May 3, 1945 (five days before the war ended), she and the “Thielbeck” had been ordered to rescue the inmates of Neuengamme concentration camp near Hamburg and take them to Schleswig-Holstein, when they were attacked by British Typhoon bombers in Lübeck Bay, in broad daylight and while passengers agitated all manner of white distress signals. The ships sank; the passengers were drowned or consumed by flames on board, or shot in the water. According to the article about 6,600 died. This article floats the ungrounded allegation that the SS not only pursued a goal of not allowing prisoners to fall into Allied hands, but even blew up the ships themselves. The further time distances itself from actual circumstances, the wilder the fabrications become.
In comparison to this genuine genocide—which is not only officially unacknowledged, but for which no atonement has been made or indeed ever could be made--the claimed “holocaust” (actually mass incarceration) of Jews pales into insignificance. Yet no collective recompense for German hardship has ever been ventured.
Any right-thinking person must surely pause here to reflect on the grotesque inconsistency by which a documented persecution and annihilation of millions of disarmed soldiers and innocent civilians is disregarded, whereas an undocumented alleged “holocaust” is endlessly promoted for emotional leverage and financial gain.
The specter of actual ethnic extermination, coupled with mass re-education, may explain the bludgeoned spirit and brainwashed mentality of most Germans today. Whether it concerns the treasonable acts of successive German governments or the disgraceful and base misbehaviour of the “Antifa” --an originally Italian, anti-fascist movement of the Thirties, whose name was mistakenly adopted in the Eighties by international “useful idiots,” to use Stalin’s own expression-- re-education is crucial to understanding the masochistic mentality of the last three German generations. It is impossible for the average German to escape such a burden when the tone is set by his own president: “May 8th was a day of liberation.” This historic utterance before the German parliament was closely followed by the inevitable and obligatory “we commemorate especially the six million Jews murdered in the concentration camps” and “The initiative to war was Germany’s. It was Hitler who resorted to violence... Let us abide by our inner sense of justice. On 8th of May today, as best we can, let us look truth in the face.” (ex-President R. von Weizsäcker, 8 May, 1985)
That is what I am trying to do: look the truth in the face. I can’t place the time anymore, but I sense that it occurred already in my teens. I can’t even manage a logical deduction, based on my own experience. At some point, I just began to receive -- almost as though by way of some remote and obscure transmission -- an understanding of him as a person, as a human being, as opposed to a monster, and the consequent need to find out if this surmise were true.
Perhaps no man has been more maligned by mainstream historians than Adolf Hitler.
I realize, in order to prevent a fundamental transformation of doctrine and a shift akin to the Renaissance or Vatican Two perhaps, and above all not to call into question the infallibility of Jews, some of whom are our best friends, that it is vitally important to classify and dismiss him as a monstrous misfit, who flew into rages and foamed at the mouth and bit the carpet. This makes him impossible to analyze as one might an ordinary person. It also explains why he and his regime seem so often to represent the ultimate evil, as though, by mutual consent among historians and social commentators thus to elucidate history for our common education and benefit, it were a kind of boiler-plate clause in their contract with their ultimate employers. For instance, they will have it that when something is bad, that thing’s badness may be judged by comparison with this allegedly uniquely bad period. Whatever it is may be very bad, but it cannot be as bad as that. They appear blind to any other interpretation. Very rarely do you see a balanced and sensible analysis of the policies and ambitions of the National Socialist movement. Even rarer has been any attempt to gauge him as a person. In truth, the world owes Adolf Hitler an apology.
When considering National Socialism, it is vital to separate the pre-war from the war years. During the pre-war years, National Socialism united a people and restored a country which was economically and socially ruined, and psychologically humiliated. During the war, this transcendent achievement was destroyed, leaving Germany in a worse state than in 1918.
We know that dictatorships are bad and democracy is good. How then to explain that Adolf Hitler (Time’s Man of the Year 1938), a dictator with his own vision of socialism, rallied the majority of Germans behind him, whereas the majority of citizens in today’s so-called democracies reject their elected representatives? What is “socialism”?
“There is no socialism which does not arise among its own people” – Adolf Hitler
There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them. (Peter Lamb, J. C. Docherty. Historical dictionary of socialism. Lanham, Maryland, UK; Oxford, England, UK: Scarecrow Press, Inc, 2006. p. 1).
***
They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism. (Nove, Alec. Socialism. New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, Second Edition (2008) (Wikipedia).
The developed nations of the West presently endure a “market social economy”; semi-educated Americans rant against what they call “socialism,” which they may confuse with Bolshevik Communism; Bolshevik Communism itself, or Jewish pseudo-socialism, ostensibly based on Marx’s paid-for theories, helped a very small group of Jews a big step towards their ultimate goal of world dictatorship or NWO; Prime Minister Thatcher said: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” None of these examples or definitions relates to National Socialism. The “Market social economy” is a misnomer, in which the market is supreme and the social element is about to disappear. American political understanding is based on a few buzzwords, to which Thatcher’s witty interpretation was allied, as a repudiation of Have-nots grasping after the property of Haves. Bolshevik Communism, from its conception and inception, was a deliberate swindle: a socioeconomic system theoretically structured upon common ownership of the means of production is a recipe for disaster.
Communism has nothing whatever to do with the community but with communalism or collectivisation. It divides a society by fomenting “class-warfare.” National Socialism is the political doctrine of the national community, it unites society. So it is appropriate here to cite a description of real national socialism, the kind that induced present-day Leftist socialists (e.g. Paul Rassinier, Horst Mahler) to transfer their hopes and loyalties to Right-Wing movements:
Bardèche’s Six Postulates of Fascist Socialism
Translator’s Note: When liberalism becomes “a foul tyranny masking an evil and anonymous dictature of money” (the basis of Jewish supremacy), everything is inverted and perverted, so that even our word “socialism” is tarnished, associated as it now is with Washington’s Judeo-Negro regime. I thought it appropriate, therefore, to post something that reminds readers of how we once defined this term. The following is a short excerpt from Maurice Bardèche’s Socialisme fasciste (Waterloo, 1991). — Michael O’Meara
“Socialisme fasciste” is the title of an essay by Drieu La Rochelle. Fascist socialism, though, has been largely symbolic, since it is more an idea than a record of actual achievement.
At certain points, all fascist movements had to come to terms with socialism. And all took inspiration from it: Hitler’s party was the National Socialist German Workers Party, Mussolini was a socialist school teacher, José-Antonio Primo de Rivera was a symbol of national-syndicalist socialism, Codreanu’s Iron Guard was a movement of students and peasants, Mosley in England had been a Labour Minister, Doriot in France was a former Communist and his PPF emerged from a Communist cell in Saint-Denis.
Historically, fascist movements were liberation movements opposing the confiscation of power by cosmopolitan capitalism and by the inherent dishonesty of democratic regimes, which systematically deprive the people of their right to participate [in government].
With the exception of Peron’s Argentina, circumstances have always been such as to prevent the realization of fascism’s socialist vocation.
Those fascist movements that succeeded in taking power were compelled, thus, to reconstitute an economy ruined by demagogues, to re-establish an order undermined by anarchy, to create ways of overcoming the chaos besetting their lands or to repel external threats. These urgent and indispensable tasks required a total national mobilization and dictated certain priorities.
Circumstances, in a word, everywhere prevented fascists from realizing the synthesis of socialism and nationalism, for their socialist project was necessarily subordinated to the imperative of ensuring the nation’s survival.
These circumstances were further exacerbated by another difficulty: Fascist movements were generally reluctant to destroy the structure of capitalist society.
Given that their enemy was plutocracy, foreign capital, and the usurpers of national sovereignty, the immediate objective of these movements was to put the national interest above capitalist interest and to establish a regalian state capable of protecting the nation, as kings had once done against the feudal powers.
This [fascist] policy of conserving ancient structures may have transformed the prevailing consciousness and shifted power, but it did not entail a revolutionary destruction of the old order. (Author’s note: Hitler’s “conservative revolutionary party,” speech, February 24, 1938)
Fascist nostalgia for the old regime has, indeed, been so profound that it routinely reappears [today] in neo-fascist movements that are national-revolutionary more in word than in deed.
This phenomenon is evident throughout Europe, in Italy and Germany, in Spain, in France . . .
Is it, then, a contradiction distinct to neo-fascism that it has been unable to combine the conservation of hierarchical structures upon which Western Civilization rests with measures specifically socialist? Or do neo-fascists simply — unconsciously — express the impossibility of grafting measures of social justice onto a civilization profoundly foreign to their ideal . . . ?
We need at this point to turn to [first] principles.
Every new vision of social relations rejecting Marxism rests on a certain number of postulates, which, I believe, are common to all radical oppositional movements.
The first of these condemns political and economic liberalism, which is the instrument of plutocratic domination. Only an authoritarian regime can ensure that the nation’s interest is respected.
The second postulate rejects class struggle. Class struggle is native to Marxism and [inevitably] leads to the sabotage of the nation’s economy and to a bureaucratic dictatorship, while true prosperity benefits everyone and can be obtained only through a loyal collaboration and a fair distribution.
The third protects the nation’s “capital” (understood as the union of capital and labor) and represents all who participate in the productive process . . . It is a function of the [fascist] state, thus to promote labor-capital collaboration and to do so in a way that does not put labor at the mercies of capital.
Given that the nation’s economy is a factor crucial to the nation’s independence, it, along with the Army and other national institutions, are to be protected from all forms of foreign interference.
Since modern nations have become political-economic enterprises whose power resides in those who control the economy as much as it does in those who make political decisions, the nation must play a leading role in the economic as well as the political systems. The instrument appropriate to such participation in the nation’s life have, however, yet to be invented. . . .
Above all, the nation’s interest must take priority over every particular interest. . . .
There is nothing specifically “socialist,” as this term is understood today, in these principles, since contemporary socialism is nothing other than a form of social war whose inevitable culmination is the rule of those bureaucratic entities claiming to represent the workers [i.e., national union federations].
Nevertheless, these principles accord with another conception of socialism — one that favors a fair
distribution to all who participate in the productive process. This is not the underlying idea, but the consequence thereof, inspiring our postulates.
A fair distribution, however, will never result from sporadic, recurring struggles challenging the present degradations of money. Instead, it is obtainable only through the authority of a strong state able to impose conditions it considers equitable. (Bardèche)
***
We are now in the midst of the second great turning-point of the maturity of Culture. The noise and shouting of democracy and materialism have died away; liberalism has become a foul tyranny masking an evil and anonymous dictature of money; the parliaments talk now only to themselves, and it no longer matters what they say; the critics have dissolved themselves in their own acid, and cannot believe now in either their methods or their results; rapacious capitalism has eaten up its own foundations; finance has converted the nations into huge spider-webs of debt in which all Western mankind is trapped; above all, fanatical chauvinism has destroyed all the former Fatherlands and delivered them to the occupation of extra-European forces, of barbarism and Culture-distortion. (Francis Parker Yockey, “The Proclamation of London,” 1949)
Below is the 25-Point programme of the NSDAP:
Das 25-Punkte-Programm der Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen Arbeiterpartei
[vom 24. Februar 1920]
Das Programm der Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen Arbeiterpartei ist ein Zeitprogramm. Die Führer lehnen es ab, nach Erreichung der im Programm aufgestellten Ziele neue aufzustellen, nur zu dem Zweck, um durch künstlich gesteigerte Unzufriedenheit der Massen das Fortbestehen der Partei zu ermöglichen.
1. Wir fordern den Zusammenschluß aller Deutschen auf Grund des Selbstbestimmungsrechtes der Völker zu einem Groß-Deutschland.
Tell the Truth & Shame the Devil Page 8
