Saturday, November 30, 2019

Another Confederate Monument Removed as Demographic Replacement Continue in America

A Confederate monument that had stood in front of a North Carolina courthouse for 112 years was taken down overnight after months of debate and Jewish-led non-white protests.
Crews used cranes early Wednesday to remove the monument -- a bronze statue of a Confederate soldier atop a marble pedestal -- from its spot outside the Chatham County courthouse in Pittsboro, roughly a 35-mile drive west of Raleigh.
The county Board of Commissioners voted in August to remove the statue. That sparked a court challenge by the group that donated the statue in 1907, the Winnie Davis Chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy. A judge ruled this month that the group did not give "sufficient evidence" supporting the monument's continued presence in front of the courthouse, CNN affiliate WTVD reported.
The statue and pedestal "will be transported to a safe location where they will be preserved and stored" until the Winnie Davis chapter "finds a more appropriate location to place them," the county said in a news release.
A dozen people gathered to watch the removal after the county announced late Tuesday that it was about to happen.
Robert Butler, a supporter of the monument, told WRAL that its removal was heartbreaking.
"A statue's never hurt a soul, just like a grave memorial. Do they hurt anybody?" he said.
Debate over the monument's future sparked protests against and for its removal in recent weeks. A fight erupted Saturday between pro-monument demonstrators and counterprotesters, leading to the arrests of 11 people, WTVD reported.

The Jewish New York Times’ Long History of Endorsing US-Backed Coups

By Alan Macleod
Bolivian President Evo Morales was overthrown in a U.S.-backed military coup d’état earlier this month after Bolivian army generals appeared on television demanding his resignation. As Morales fled to Mexico, the army appointed right-wing Senator Jeanine Añez as his successor. Añez, a Christian conservative who has describedBolivia’s indigenous majority as “satanic”, arrived at the presidential palace holding an oversized Bible,declaring that Christianity was re-entering the government. She immediately announced she would “take all measures necessary” to “pacify” the indigenous resistance to her takeover.
This included pre-exonerating the country’s notorious security services of all future crimes in their “re-establishment of order,” leading to massacres of dozens of mostly indigenous people.
The New York Times, the United States’ most influential newspaper, immediately applauded the events, its editorial board refusing to use the word “coup” to describe the overthrow, claiming instead that Morales had “resigned,” leaving a “vacuum of power” into which Añez was forced to move. The Times presented the deposed president as an “arrogant” and “increasingly autocratic” populist tyrant “brazenly abusing” power, “stuffing” the Supreme Court with his loyalists, “crushing any institution” standing in his way, and presiding over a “highly fishy” vote. 
This, for democratic-minded Bolivians, was “the last straw” and forcing him out “became the only remaining option,” the Times extolled. It expressed relief that the country was now in the hands of “more responsible leaders” and stated emphatically that the whole situation was his fault; “There can be little doubt who was responsible for the chaos: newly resigned president Evo Morales,” the editorial board stated in the first paragraph of one article.
The Times, according to Professor Ian Hudson of the University of Manitoba, co-author of “Gatekeeper: 60 Years of Economics According to the New York Times,” remains America’s most influential news outlet in shaping public opinion.
“Despite the changing media landscape and the financial troubles of old school journalism models – including the New York Times – it remains the agenda setter. Social media often use or respond to Times stories. It is still probably the single most referenced news outlet in the U.S. Other websites, like Yahoo get more hits, but they do not report or create their own stories. The New York Times still ranks as the top investigative and opinion setting news organization” he told MintPress News.
The first draft of history
Newsrooms across America are sent advanced copies of the Times’ front page so they will know what is “important news” and adjust their own coverage accordingly. In this way its influence extends well beyond itsnearly 5 million subscribers, its output becoming the first draft of history. Yet, when it comes to U.S. intervention, the Times offers its “consistent support” for American actions around the world, Hudson says, claiming that the latest Bolivia example “very much followed this trend.” Indeed, there has rarely been an effort at regime change that the paper did not fully endorse, including the following six examples.
Iran 1953
In 1953, the CIA engineered a coup against the administration of Mohammad Mossadegh, installing the Shah as an autocrat in his place. Mossadegh, a secular liberal reformer, had angered Western governments by nationalizing Iran’s oil industry, arguing that the country’s resources should be owned by and used to benefit the people of Iran. The Shah presided over decades of terror and human rights abuses, finally being overthrown in the revolution of 1979.
The front page of the New York Times on August 20, 1953. Photo | @OnThisDayNYT
The Times expressed a “deep sense of relief,” many felt that Mossadegh, a “fanatical power-hungry man” and a Kremlin stooge who had “wrecked the economy” in his “bid for dictatorship” had been deposed. The editorial board gave a warning to others who might try to nationalize industries owned by American corporations: “Underdeveloped countries with rich resources now have an object lesson in the cost that must be paid by one of their number which goes berserk with fanatical nationalism,” it wrote, two days after Mossadegh’s ouster.
Brazil 1964
Like Mossadegh, Brazilian President Joao Goulart was far from a communist; the center-left reformer who had been in power since 1961 modeled himself after John F. Kennedy. He was overthrown in a U.S.-supported military coup d’état that brought about over twenty years of fascist dictatorship that saw tens of thousands of people arrested and tortured.
Two days after the event, the Times’ editorial board announced, “We do not lament the passing of a leader who had proved so incompetent and so irresponsible.” As with Bolivia, it refused to use the word “coup,” instead claiming that Goulart, who “had almost no supporters,” was deposed in “another peaceful revolution.”
One month later, a report entitled “Brazil relieved by Goulart’s Fall” claimed there was “no outcry or even concern” over the events, but instead a “widespread feeling of deep relief and optimism” in the country. It stated that all of Brazil had “written off” the “extremist” and “far leftist” “regime” and supported the “revolt” against him. In particularly Orwellian fashion, it claimed that the “nation appears to have been yearning” for a “political clean up” of “extremists,” applauding the widespread imprisonment of officials in the Goulart administration on the grounds that they were “communists.”
Chile 1973
The overthrow of the democratically-elected Chilean socialist Salvador Allende in 1973 and his replacement with the fascist dictator Augusto Pinochet is one of the most well-known and infamous events in CIA history. The fallout from Pinochet’s economic mismanagement and reign of terror continues to this day and provides the backdrop for the enormous anti-government protest movement currently engulfing the country.
As soon as Allende was elected, the Times began a campaign to demonize the new leader, claiming that Chile’s “free institutions” likely would not survive the “sharp turn to the left” he was proposing. The day after the coup, when Pinochet’s forces bombed the presidential palace and forced Allende to commit suicide, the Times editorial board blamed the President for his own downfall, just as it did with Morales and with Mossadegh, claiming:
No Chilean party or faction can escape some responsibility…but a heavy share must be assigned to the unfortunate Dr. Allende himself. Even when the dangers of polarization had become unmistakably evident, he persisted in pushing a program of pervasive socialism for which he had no popular mandate.
The front page of the New York Times on September 12, 1973. Photo | @OnThisDayNYT
It also pre-determined that the very obvious involvement of the U.S. government, conducting a campaign of economic war against Chile, in order to “make the economy scream” in the words of President Nixon and Henry Kissinger to the CIA, was non-existent. The board advised that “It is essential that Washington meticulously keep hands off the present crisis…There must be no grounds whatsoever for even a suspicion of outside intervention.”
Venezuela 2002 and 2019
In April 2002, the U.S. government bankrolled and supported a coup attempt against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. In a consistent pattern, the Times editorial board came out to heartily endorse proceedings, again deliberately refraining from using the word coup. Two days after the event it noted:
With yesterday’s resignation of President Hugo Chavez, Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator. Mr. Chavez, a ruinous demagogue, stepped down after the military intervened and handed power to a respected business leader, Pedro Carmona.”
And like with other coups, the Times immediately treated the idea of U.S. involvement as utterly impossible,adding, “Rightly, his removal was a purely Venezuelan affair.”
What was unique about this event was that the coup was dramatically overturned by hundreds of thousands of people in the streets, who convinced military units loyal to Chavez to retake the presidential palace. Since then, successive U.S. governments have dedicated significant resources to regime change in Venezuela. The Times also applauded self-declared President Juan Guaidó’s attempt to gain power earlier this year, presenting him as a man of the people, claiming he was “cheered on by thousands of supporters in the streets and a growing number of governments, including the United States.”
But as Guaidó’s attempt collapsed under the weight of its own unpopularity, the Times expressed its angerthat Maduro, a corrupt Russian agent, who pushed Venezuela “to utter ruin,” remained in power. “It would be a great relief for Venezuela to be rid” of Maduro, the editorial board mused, “the sooner the armed forces evict the thieves” the better, it said, disappointed that, for once, it could not celebrate a successful U.S. coup.
Manufacturing consent
Studying the Times’ coverage of U.S.-orchestrated coup attempts, it becomes clear that there is a checklist of talking points it employs time and again to justify events.
  1.   Blame all economic and political problems on the government; ignore the effect of any U.S. sanctions.
  2.   Constantly present the targeted leader as a tyrannical autocrat crushing dissent, no matter what the reality is.
  3.   Insist that the leader is actually a Russian plant controlled by the Kremlin.
  4.   Refrain from using the word “coup”. Prefer instead words like “uprising”, “revolt” or “transition”.
  5.   Express ridicule at the idea that the U.S. could be involved in the affair.
  6.   Depict the new U.S.-backed rulers as democratically-minded and downplay any violence they commit in establishing their rule.
  7.   Blame the deposed leaders for their own overthrow.
To be sure, the New York Times is not the only major media outlet guilty of reflexively supporting every U.S. action around the world. The Economist and the Washington Post both came out to support the coup in Bolivia, as they had done before with Venezuela. But the Times’ position as “the paper of record” sets it apart in terms of importance.
This position makes it a crucial weapon in the propaganda war waged on the American people in order to manufacture consent for regime change abroad.

Feature photo | Graphic by Claudio Cabrera
Alan MacLeod is a MintPress Staff Writer as well as an academic and writer for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. His book, Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting was published in April. Original article.

Friday, November 29, 2019

Mark Weber: The Legacy of Rudolf Hess

On the evening of May 10, 1941, the Deputy Führer of the Third Reich set out on a secret mission that was to be his last and most important.
Under cover of darkness, Rudolf Hess took off in an unarmed Messerschmidt 110 fighter-bomber from an Augsburg airfield and headed across the North Sea toward Britain.
His plan was to negotiate peace between Germany and Britain. Four hours later, after successfully evading British anti-aircraft fire and a pursuing Spitfire, Hess parachuted, for the first time in his life, and sprained his ankle landing in a Scottish farm field. An astonished farmer found the injured pilot and turned him over to the local Home Guard unit. [1]
Winston Churchill promptly rejected Hess' peace offer and jailed him as a prisoner of war, even though he had arrived unarmed and of his own free will. Rudolf Hess, ambassador of peace, was to remain a prisoner until his death in August 1987 at the age of 93.
For many, the passing of the one-time Deputy Führer and last surviving member of Hitler's inner circle simply marked the welcome end of a terrible era. But his true legacy is something far different. He spent 46 years -- half his life -- behind bars, a victim of a cruel victor's justice. More than any other man, Rudolf Hess symbolizes the vindictiveness and hypocrisy of the Nuremberg Tribunal.

The Mission

Hess was deeply shaken by Britain's declaration of war against Germany in September 1939. With Hitler's approval, he began a secret effort a few months later to negotiate a peace agreement between the two "fraternal Germanic nations" through British officials in neutral Portugal and Switzerland. [2] When the endeavor failed, Hess began preparations for his flight to Britain, an unquestionably sincere if perhaps naive effort to end war between his beloved homeland and a nation he greatly admired.
"My coming to England in this way is, as I realize, so unusual that nobody will easily understand it," Hess told a British official a few weeks after the flight. "I was confronted by a very hard decision. I do not think I could have arrived at my final choice [to fly to Britain] unless I had continually kept before my eyes the vision of an endless line of children's coffins with weeping mothers behind them, both English and German, and another line of coffins of mothers with mourning children." [3]
Though there was little chance that Hess' mission could have succeeded, some aspects of his flight and its aftermath remain unclear. The British government took the extraordinary step of sealing dozens of Hess documents for release only in the year 2017. Sefton Delmer, the wartime head of Britain's propaganda broadcasts to Germany, has speculated that the British government might have had good reasons for the secrecy: [4]
At the time, Churchill published nothing about the Hess case; he was passed over in silence. There was a large peace party in Britain, and Churchill probably feared that this party would throw him from his Ministerial seat because he had not agreed to Hess' peace proposals.

Victor's Justice

At the end of the war, Hess was taken to Nuremberg to be tried, along with other German leaders, by the United States, Britain, the Soviet Union and France as one of the "major war criminals."
Although Hess was perhaps treated more unjustly than any other man on trial at Nuremberg, the Tribunal itself was of doubtful legal and moral standing. Many prominent men in America and Europe pointed out that the process violated two cardinal principles.
First, it was a trial of the victors against the vanquished. The former were their own law maker, prosecutor, judge, alleged victim and, in part, accomplice (in the case of the Soviets, in the division of Poland).
Second, the charges were invented for the occasion and defined after the fact ("ex post facto").
US Supreme Court Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone called the trials a fraud. "[Chief US prosecutor] Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg," he wrote. "I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas." [5]
Associate Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas charged that the Allies were guilty of "substituting power for principle" at Nuremberg. [6] He later also wrote: "I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled. Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time." [7]
Soviet participation in the "International Military Tribunal" lent it the aura of a political show trial. Judge I. T. Nikitchenko, who presided at the solemn opening session, had been a judge at the infamous Moscow show trial of Zinoviev and Kamenev in 1936. Before the Tribunal convened, Nikitchenko explained the Soviet view of the enterprise: [8]
We are dealing here with the chief war criminals who have already been convicted and whose conviction has been already announced by both the Moscow and Crimea [Yalta] declarations by the heads of the [Allied] governments ... The whole idea is to secure quick and just punishment for the crime.
Besides the Tribunal's dubious legal standing, it held Hess and the other German leaders to a standard to which the Allies were never held. In sharp contrast to his public utterances, the chief US prosecutor at Nuremberg, Robert Jackson, privately acknowledged in a letter to President Truman that the Allies [9]
have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for. The French are so violating the Geneva Convention in the treatment of [German] prisoners of war that our command is taking back prisoners sent to them [for forced labor in France]. We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it. We say aggressive war is a crime and one of our allies asserts sovereignty over the Baltic States based on no title except conquest.
Nothing better points up the essential injustice of the Nuremberg process than the court's treatment of Rudolf Hess.
He was in the dock primarily because of his important-sounding but somewhat hollow title of Deputy Führer. His duties as Hitler's stand-in were almost entirely ceremonial: He delivered the annual Christmas address to the nation, welcomed delegations of ethnic Germans from abroad, appeared at charitable functions, and presented the Führer at the annual Nuremberg party congress. It is this image of the wide-eyed and ecstatic Hess that much of the world remembers best, most of all from a brief clip of him from the Leni Riefenstahl film of the 1934 Congress, "Triumph of the Will."
Known as the "conscience of the party," he often used what power and influence he had to intervene on behalf of victims of persecution by extremists in the National Socialist party. In his detailed study, Justice at Nuremberg, which is generally very critical of the German defendants, historian Robert E. Conot called Hess a "decent and honest" man and "a pacifist at heart." [10]
In their Nuremberg indictment of the Deputy Führer, the four Allied powers predictably portrayed him in the most sinister way possible. [11] "Hess began his conspiratorial activities immediately upon termination of World War I by joining militaristic and nationalistic organizations," it charged. It went on to absurdly claim that "Hess was one of the members of the [Nazi] conspiracy who professed as early as 1933 the aim of complete world domination." The joint Allied indictment concluded with the almost ludicrous words:
All through the years from 1920 to 1941 Hess remained the most faithful and relentless executor of Hitler's aims and designs. This complete devotion to the success of the conspiracy was climaxed by his flight in Scotland in an attempt to end the war with England [!] and to receive English support for Germany's demands against Russia, which he had helped to prepare.
The share of Hess' participation in the Nazi conspiracy is as great as that of the Party which he directed. The Party's crimes are his.
In fact, the Allied case against Hess was weak. The Führer had kept his deputy in the dark about his foreign policy and military decisions. It was clearly established at Nuremberg that Hess had not been present at any of the meetings at which Hitler discussed his military plans. [12] And, of course, he could not be held responsible for German actions that took place after his flight to Britain, including those carried out during the campaign against the Soviet Union.
Nevertheless, the Tribunal declared Hess guilty of "crimes against peace" ("planning and preparation of aggressive war") and of "conspiracy" with other German leaders to commit the alleged crimes, but innocent of "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity."
No reputable historian today believes the Nuremberg charge that Hess was guilty of "crimes against peace." Almost all of the criticism of Hess in recent years has focused instead on his signature on the 1935 Nuremberg laws that stripped German Jews of their rights as full citizens and banned marriage and sexual relations between Jews and non-Jews. These laws allegedly "paved the way" for the extermination of the Jews several years later. [13] Whatever the merits of this argument, Hess had nothing to do with the drafting or promulgation of these laws, and his signature on them was completely pro forma. And even so, the laws were domestic statutes that have had counterparts in numerous other countries, including the United States.
Unlike fellow defendant Albert Speer, the wartime armaments minister who did far more than the Deputy Führer to keep Germany's war machine going but who received only a 20 year sentence, Hess refused to ingratiate himself with the Tribunal. He expressed no remorse for his loyal support of Hitler and the National Socialist regime.
In his final statement to the court on August 31, 1946, he declared:
I had the privilege of working for many years of my life under the greatest son my nation has brought forth in its thousand-year history. Even if I could, I would not wish to expunge this time from my life.
I am happy to know that I have done my duty toward my people, my duty as a German, as a National Socialist, as a loyal follower of my Führer. I regret nothing.
No matter what people may do, one day I shall stand before the judgment seat of God Eternal. I will answer to Him, and I know that He will absolve me.
When it came time to decide his sentence, the judges were not inclined to deal leniently with such an unrepentant defendant. The Soviet judge and his alternate thought he should be executed. The British and American judges and the American and French alternates voted for life imprisonment, while the French judge suggested a sentence of twenty years. The British alternate abstained. They settled on life imprisonment. [14]
The eminent British historian Professor A. J. P. Taylor summed up the injustice of the Hess case in a 1969 statement: [15]
Hess came to this country in 1941 as an ambassador of peace. He came with the ... intention of restoring peace between Great Britain and Germany.
He acted in good faith. He fell into our hands and was quite unjustly treated as a prisoner of war. After the war, we could have released him.
No crime has ever been proven against Hess ... As far as the records show, he was never at even one of the secret discussions at which Hitler explained his war plans.
He was of course a leading member of the Nazi Party. But he was no more guilty than any other Nazi or, if you wish, any other German. All the Nazis, all the Germans, were carrying on the war. But they were not all condemned because of this.
That Rudolf Hess -- the only one at Nuremberg who had risked his life for peace -- was found guilty of "crimes against peace" was certainly the Tribunal's most ironic perversion of justice.


From 1947 until his death, Hess was held in West Berlin's Spandau prison, which was run by the four Allied powers. Regulations stipulated that "imprisonment will be in the form of solitary confinement" and forbad prison officials to ever call Hess by name. He was addressed only as "prisoner No. 7."
Conditions were so bad that French chaplain Pastor Casalis protested to the prison Directorate in 1950: "It can safely be said that Spandau has become a place of mental torture to an extent that does not permit the Christian conscience to remain silent ..." [16]
For 20 years, Hess at least had the limited company of a few other Nuremberg defendants, but from October 1966 until his death 21 years later, he was the only inmate in the fortress-like prison originally built for 600. He was, in the words of Spandau's American Director, Lt. Col. Eugene Bird, "the loneliest man in the world."
Keeping this one man in Spandau cost the West German government about 850,000 marks a year. In addition, each of the four Allied powers had to provide an officer and 37 soldiers during their respective shifts, as well as a director and team of warders throughout the entire year. The permanent maintenance staff of 22 included cooks, waitresses and cleaners.
In the final years of his life, Hess was a weak and frail old man, blind in one eye, who walked stooped forward with a cane. He lived in virtually total isolation according to a strictly regulated daily routine. During his rare meetings with his wife and son, he was not allowed to embrace or even touch them. [17]
Long before his death, Hess' imprisonment had become a grotesque and absurd spectacle.
Even Winston Churchill expressed regret over his treatment. In 1950 he wrote: [18]
Reflecting upon the whole of the story, I am glad not to be responsible for the way in which Hess has been and is being treated. Whatever may be the moral guilt of a German who stood near to Hitler, Hess had, in my view, atoned for this by his completely devoted and frantic deed of lunatic benevolence. He came to us of his own free will, and, though without authority, had something of the quality of an envoy. He was a medical and not a criminal case, and should be so regarded.
In a 1977 interview, Sir Hartley Shawcross, who was Britain's chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, called the continued imprisonment of Hess a "scandal." [19]
The injustice against Hess was not something that happened once and was quickly over. It was, rather, a wrong that went on, day after day, for 46 years. Rudolf Hess was a prisoner of peace and a victim of a vindictive age.

Foreign Volunteers for the Waffen-SS were Highly Intelligent and Ambitious

Swiss, Swedish and Danish men who volunteered for the Waffen-SS were highly intelligent and ambitious individuals, another study says.
In an article published in the journal Contemporary European History, Dr Martin Gutmann argues that men from the neutral countries of Scandinavia and Switzerland who offered their services “left for Germany with an active interest in contributing both physically and intellectually to the NS project”. Gutmann challenges ‘the myth of the volunteers’ – namely, that they were uneducated social ‘losers’ and deviants, drawn by naivety or greed.
Instead, he argues, most were well-travelled, well-educated, and of a middle or upper-class upbringing. By examining documents detailing the lives of a number of volunteers, such as journals and school records, Gutmann concludes volunteers “were not weak followers, but confident leaders”.
Gutmann also found that volunteers were, with very few exceptions, convinced nationalists, who had a “sense of impending demographic and racial degradation”, and were fearful of both Bolshevism and liberal capitalism.
They were “at best ambivalent towards the German National Socialist party”, but had “an ideological inclination towards fascism”, and were keen to “reclaim the ‘purity’ of [their] nation[s]”, he found.
And from reading volunteers’ military evaluations, Gutmann surmised that many of the men had an inclination towards “viewing violence as having personal and socially redemptive qualities”.
While acknowledging that each volunteer had personal reasons for joining the Nazi regime, Gutmann concludes it was “a profound decision taken only by confident and ambitious individuals who were well aware of its potential consequences but willing to gamble for the sake of an ideal”.
Gutmann told historyextra: “There are already some excellent national studies that look at the various motivations and experiences among SS volunteers from Denmark, Norway and Sweden separately.
“But the transnational approach of my study offers some unique insights. By placing the more intellectual and influential volunteers from various countries side-by-side, I uncovered surprising similarities in the types of men from the smaller European peripheral countries who were attracted to the National Socialist ideology and project.
“I was motivated to conduct this study because my maternal grandfather served in the Swedish military during the war and my paternal in the Swiss. Both of them had vivid and patriotic memories of this time, and they often told me about the few ‘mentally deranged traitors’, as they called them – Swedish and Swiss who helped the Germans.
“So I decided to look into this issue more closely.
“It's easy and perhaps more convenient to lay the blame for this murderous ideology completely with Germans, and to some extent Italians, and to see other western Europeans as victims. Of course, the truth is rarely this straightforward.”
Dr Nir Arielli, a lecturer in international history at the University of Leeds, told historyextra: “Martin Gutmann makes an important contribution to the study of transnational volunteering by applying the dispassionate approach to foreigners who joined the Waffen-SS during the early stages of the Second World War.
“His very thorough analysis, which draws on material from 19 archives in seven countries, sheds new light on the motivations of these men.
“The German war effort offered individuals whose armies did not take part in the fighting a blend of adventure, a test to affirm their worthiness and the opportunity to fight for a cause – or parts of a cause – they believed in.
“Much like other transnational volunteers in the modern era, foreigners in the Waffen-SS wanted to add meaning to their lives, and chose to seek it in very dangerous and controversial settings.”

Matt Koehl: We Fought on the Wrong Side In World War 2 (1995)

The following editorial raises a fundamental question regarding our contemporary situation and calls for a radical re-evaluation of postwar events in the Western world.
by Matt Koehl
It has now been 50 years since the end of World War II. For many that conflict seems like so much ancient history. But the anniversary ceremonies and revelry of the military victors at this time remind us that there are those who will not soon let us forget.
And so it is fair to ask: Why did we — the peoples of America, Canada, England, France, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa — go to war in the first place?
Many explanations have been offered: It was to stop dictatorship and aggression, to preserve freedom and democracy, to save the British Empire, to save little countries, etc., etc. When the filter of simple truth is applied, however, everything boils down to a single issue: the pathological desire of certain interested parties to destroy Adolf Hitler and his Idea. In other words, World War II was nothing than a war against Hitler.
In this war, all the various interested parties — Bolsheviks, international bankers, reactionaries of all kinds, but especially Jews — discovered that whatever differences they had paled in comparison with their common interest in destroying this man and his Cause.
Clad in a cloak of pretense, this unholy alliance promised that without Hitler there would be a better world — a world of freedom and democracy, a world without fear and want, in which good would triumph over evil.
Just how sincere their pronouncements were can be best judged by the rape, pillage, ethnic cleansing, torture, kangaroo courts, show trials and slaughter of millions throughout Europe which took place following “liberation.”
So what kind of world did the victors of 1945 actually give us? Take a good look. For five decades, they have had an opportunity to show us their world without Hitler. What kind of world is it?
For starters, they have given us an endless series of conflicts, including the Korean and Vietnam wars, in which countless thousands of lives have been wantonly wasted. They also gave us a Cold War, with its massive expense and squandering of resources.
They gave us a world of rat-race consumerism, self-fixation, environmental devastation, pollution and race-mixing. They altered the national demography and introduced us to integration, busing, Affirmative Action, minority quotas, sensitivity training, Black History and — The Holocaust. They gave us permissiveness, drugs, MTV and teen suicide. They gave us safe sex and unsafe streets and gun control. They gave us rock ’n roll and rape-counseling centers. They gave us “alternative lifestyles,” sodomy, AIDS, filth, perversion, chaos, crime, corruption, dumbing down, and insanity of every kind.
This is the kind of world they have given us, and it constitutes an appalling indictment.
In no way can we blame Hitler for this world. He was absolutely opposed to this sort of thing, and he fought and sacrificed everything to prevent just such a world.
But the victors of 1945 fought to destroy this man, so that they could bring about their world — which is what we now have. This is what they created in World War II, and for this they must be held accountable.
The year 1945 was a defining moment, a watershed in history — the last great victory of the Old Order — which decided the kind of world we have today. Everything that is now taking place about the globe is causally linked to the outcome of that great conflict which took place a half century ago.
This causal relationship is the under-riding reality behind our present condition. And this condition can never be altered until that fact is generally recognized and we have come to grips with it.
In reassessing our participation in the Second World War, we can come to but one conclusion: We fought on the wrong side. And the willingness to admit this simple fact is the necessary first step for any nation or racial recovery.
Back in 1959 there was a man who did have the courage to recognize this fact and who did realize that we fought on the wrong side against Adolf Hitler in World War II. His name was Lincoln Rockwell. And exactly 40 yours after the Leader first raised the Banner, this great apostle was to raise the fallen standard anew. It is an example for all of us.
Although a military phase of the National Socialist struggle ended in 1945, the war declared by world Jewry against Hitler in 1933 has not ended. Today this enemy — in the pathological pursuit of its Messianic designs — continues to wage war against the Leader.
And so the fight is joined.
And this time we have an opportunity to be on the right side in this ongoing war. And instead of fighting against Hitler, we can now fight with him and for his New Order. No greater honor or privilege can one ever have.

Italy: “Miss Hitler” was Among the National Socialists Arrested for Trying to Establish a “New Nazi Party”

Zionist prosecutors in Sicily have announced 19 arrests, exposing a nationwide network of National Socialists. Police have uncovered weapons, explosives, and patriotic propaganda in a series of raids.
Italian police have arrested at least 19 people in connection with an alleged "militant neo-Nazi ring", national media reported on Thursday. Although the investigation was based in Sicily, the suspects hail from all over the country.
One of the arrested included a 26-year-old Milan resident who had been the winner of an online beauty competition Miss Hitler. She also spoke at an nationalist conference in Portugal last August that attempted to unite the National Socialist movements of Italy, Portugal, Spain, and France.
During the operation — led by zionist prosecutors in Caltanissetta, Sicily, and dubbed "Black Shadows" — police undercovered troves of weapons, explosives, NS memorabilia and texts praising Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, in a series of raids carried out across Italy.
On top of possible weapons charges, "promoting fascism" is a crime in Italy.
The supposed leader of the group is a 50-year-old public employee from the city of Padua, in the northeastern region of Veneto. She was not known to authorities prior to her detention, police have said, adding that they recovered "anti-Semitic material" from her home.

Fabricated Crisis in Levittown, PA – Jews Behind Forced Integration

From F_Zion (edited)
Levittown was a jewish creation and a test model for integrated American white communities.
The majority of the land on which Levittown was built was purchased in 1951 by Levitt and Sons, a jewish family. Offering six models of cheaply built garbage houses that were built in a single day, the homes were moderately priced and required only a low down payment and were targeted to whites and GI’s and war veterans.
Construction of Levittown began in February 1952. William J. Levitt, who is often credited as the creator of the modern American suburb, which focused on big box stores and left the small business owners with no option to compete with huge corporate retail models, destroying the old traditional European style societies, which focus on family and unity.
Shortly after all homes were built and sold to mostly whites and several “white looking” jewish families, a jewish family living in Levittown in conjunction with the NAACP and other jewish groups, arranged for their home to be sold to a black family. The jews knew it would cause a problem and the jewish press was all over this, painting your average American hard working middle class as bigoted racists.
Their fears were justified, as blacks moving in will lower property values and crime and filth ALWAYS increases, as we all now know.
The jews set this up from top to bottom, to make the whites look like haters and it was the beginning of integration and multiculturalism.
jews in 1965 opened our borders to third world shit and here we are today. The jews with the help of blacks and other non-whites have literally dismantled the United States, A huge stab in the back as Americans gave their lives to fight for the jews in two major world wars, this is the thanks we get.
I hope the blacks that are murdering and raping our women today understand that when whites are out of the way, they are next. jews hate blacks but use them to do the dirty work for the jews.

Jewish Billionaire Ronald Lauder to Launch New NGO to “Go After” Americans Who Criticize Jews

Most Popular Posts This Week