New Age History and Economics

The Day We See The Truth And Cease To Speak it, Is The Day We Begin To Die. MLK Jr.

Monday, April 16, 2018


Lies being taught;
Mein Kampf is unintelligible ravings of a maniac.

“The People's State, which I have tried to sketch in general outline, will not become a reality in virtue of the simple fact that we know the indispensable conditions of its existence. It does not suffice to know what aspect such a State would present. The problem of its foundation is far more important. The parties which exist at present and which draw their profits from the State as it now is cannot be expected to bring about a radical change in the regime or to change their attitude on their own initiative. This is rendered all the more impossible because the forces which now have the direction of affairs in their hands are Marxists here and Marxists there and Marxists everywhere. The trend of development which we are now experiencing would, if allowed to go on unhampered, lead to the realization of the Pan-Jewish prophecy that the Jews will one day devour the other nations and become lords of the earth.

In contrast to the millions of 'bourgeois' and 'proletarian' Germans, who are stumbling to their ruin, mostly through timidity, indolence and stupidity, the Marxist pursues his way persistently and keeps his eye always fixed on his future goal. Any party that is led by him can fight for no other interests than his, and his interests certainly have nothing in common with those of the Aryan nations.

If we would transform our ideal picture of the People's State into a reality we shall have to keep independent of the forces that now control public life and seek for new forces that will be ready and capable of taking up the fight for such an ideal. For a fight it will have to be, since the first objective will not be to build up the idea of the People's State but rather to wipe out the Marxist State which is now in existence. As so often happens in the course of history, the main difficulty is not to establish a new order of things but to clear the ground for its establishment. Prejudices and egotistic interests join together in forming a common front against the new idea and in trying by every means to prevent its triumph, because it is disagreeable to them or threatens their existence.

It is evidence of a very superficial insight into historical developments if the so-called folkists emphasize again and again that they will not adopt the use of negative criticism but will engage only in constructive work. That is nothing but puerile chatter and is typical of the whole lot of folkists. It is another proof that the history of our own times has made no impression on these minds. Marxism too has had its aims to pursue and it also recognizes constructive work, though by this it understands only the establishment of despotic rule in the hands of international Jewish finance. Nevertheless for seventy years its principal work still remains in the field of criticism. And what disruptive and destructive criticism it has been! Criticism repeated again and again, until the corrosive acid ate into the old State so thoroughly that it finally crumbled to pieces. Only then did the so-called 'constructive' critical work of Marxism begin. And that was natural, right and logical. An existing order of things is not abolished by merely proclaiming and insisting on a new one. It must not be hoped that those who are the partisans of the existing order and have their interests bound up with it will be converted and won over to the new movement simply by being shown that something new is necessary. On the contrary, what may easily happen is that two different situations will exist side by side and that a WELTANSCHAUUNG is transformed into a party, above which level it will not be able to raise itself afterwards. For a WELTANSCHAUUNG is intolerant and cannot permit another to exist side by side with it. It imperiously demands its own recognition as unique and exclusive and a complete transformation in accordance with its views throughout all the branches of public life. It can never allow the previous state of affairs to continue in existence by its side.
And the same holds true of religions.

The appearance of intolerance and fanaticism in the history of mankind may be deeply regrettable, and it may be looked upon as foreign to human nature, but the fact does not change conditions as they exist to-day. The men who wish to liberate our German nation from the conditions in which it now exists cannot cudgel their brains with thinking how excellent it would be if this or that had never arisen. They must strive to find ways and means of abolishing what actually exists. A philosophy of life which is inspired by an infernal spirit of intolerance can only be set aside by a doctrine that is advanced in an equally ardent spirit and fought for with as determined a will and which is itself a new idea, pure and absolutely true.

Each one of us to-day may regret the fact that the advent of Christianity was the first occasion on which spiritual terror was introduced into the much freer ancient world, but the fact cannot be denied that ever since then the world is pervaded and dominated by this kind of coercion and that violence is broken only by violence and terror by terror. Only then can a new regime be created by means of constructive work. Political parties are prone to enter compromises; but a WELTANSCHAUUNG never does this. A political party is inclined to adjust its teachings with a view to meeting those of its opponents, but a WELTANSCHAUUNG proclaims its own infallibility.  In the beginning, political parties have also and nearly always the intention of securing an exclusive and despotic domination for themselves. They always show a slight tendency to become WELTANSCHHAUUNGen. But the limited nature of their programme is in itself enough to rob them of that heroic spirit which a WELTANSCHAUUNG demands. The spirit of conciliation which animates their will attracts those petty and chicken-hearted people who are not fit to be protagonists in any crusade. That is the reason why they mostly become struck in their miserable pettiness very early on the march. They give up fighting for their ideology and, by way of what they call 'positive collaboration,' they try as quickly as possible to wedge themselves into some tiny place at the trough of the existent regime and to stick there as long as possible. Their whole effort ends at that. And if they should get shouldered away from the common manger by a competition of more brutal manners then their only idea is to force themselves in again, by force or chicanery, among the herd of all the others who have similar appetites, in order to get back into the front row, and finally—even at the expense of their most sacred convictions--participate anew in that beloved spot where they find their fodder. They are the jackals of politics.

But a general WELTANSCHAUUNG will never share its place with something else. Therefore it can never agree to collaborate in any order of things that it condemns. On the contrary it feels obliged to employ every means in fighting against the old order and the whole world of ideas belonging to that order and prepare the way for its destruction.

These purely destructive tactics, the danger of which is so readily perceived by the enemy that he forms a united front against them for his common defence, and also the constructive tactics, which must be aggressive in order to carry the new world of ideas to success—both these phases of the struggle call for a body of resolute fighters. Any new philosophy of life will bring its ideas to victory only if the most courageous and active elements of its epoch and its people are enrolled under its standards and grouped firmly together in a powerful fighting organization. To achieve this purpose it is absolutely necessary to select from the general system of doctrine a certain number of ideas which will appeal to such individuals and which, once they are expressed in a precise and clear-cut form, will serve as articles of faith for a new association of men. While the programme of the ordinary political party is nothing but the recipe for cooking up favourable results out of the next general elections, the programme of a WELTANSCHAUUNG represents a declaration of war against an existing order of things, against present conditions.

It is not necessary, however, that every individual fighter for such a new doctrine need have a full grasp of the ultimate ideas and plans of those who are the leaders of the movement. It is only necessary that each should have a clear notion of the fundamental ideas and that he should thoroughly assimilate a few of the most fundamental principles, so that he will be convinced of the necessity of carrying the movement and its doctrines to success. The individual soldier is not initiated in the knowledge of high strategical plans. But he is trained to submit to a rigid discipline, to be passionately convinced of the justice and inner worth of his cause and that he must devote himself to it without reserve. So, too, the individual follower of a movement must be made acquainted with its far-reaching purpose, how it is inspired by a powerful will and has a great future before it. Supposing that each soldier in an army were a general, and had the training and capacity for generalship, that army would not be an efficient fighting instrument. Similarly a political movement would not be very efficient in fighting for a WELTANSCHAUUNG if it were made up exclusively of intellectuals. No, we need the simple soldier also. Without him no discipline can be established.

By its very nature, an organization can exist only if leaders of high intellectual ability are served by a large mass of men who are emotionally devoted to the cause. To maintain discipline in a company of two hundred men who are equally intelligent and capable would turn out more difficult in the long run than in a company of one hundred and ninety less gifted men and ten who have had a higher education.

The Social-Democrats have profited very much by recognizing this truth. The Social-Democratic organization consisted of an army divided into officers and men. The German worker who had passed through his military service became the private soldier in that army, and the Jewish intellectual was the officer. The German trade union functionaries may be compared to the non-commissioned officers. The fact, which was always looked upon with indifference by our middle-classes, that only the so-called uneducated classes joined Marxism was the very ground on which this party achieved its success. For while the bourgeois parties, because they mostly consisted of intellectuals, were only a feckless band of undisciplined individuals, out of much less intelligent human material the Marxist leaders formed an army of party combatants who obey their Jewish masters just as blindly as they formerly obeyed their German officers. The German middle-classes, who never; bothered their heads about psychological problems because they felt themselves superior to such matters, did not think it necessary to reflect on the profound significance of this fact and the secret danger involved in it. Indeed they believed, that a political movement which draws its followers exclusively from intellectual circles must, for that very reason, be of greater importance and have better grounds for its chances of success, and even a greater probability of taking over the government of the country than a party made up of the ignorant masses. They completely failed to realize the fact that the strength of a political party never consists in the intelligence and independent spirit of the rank-and-file of its members but rather in the spirit of willing obedience with which they follow their intellectual leaders. What is of decisive importance is the leadership itself. When two bodies of troops are arrayed in mutual combat victory will not fall to that side in which every soldier has an expert knowledge of the rules of strategy, but rather to that side which has the best leaders and at the same time the best disciplined, most blindly obedient and best drilled troops.

If the idea of the People's State, which is at present an obscure wish, is one day to attain a clear and definite success, from its vague and vast mass of thought it will have to put forward certain definite principles which of their very nature and content are calculated to attract a broad mass of adherents; in other words, such a group of people as can guarantee that these principles will be fought for. That group of people are the German workers.
That is why the programme of the new movement was condensed into a few fundamental postulates, twenty-five in all. They are meant first of all to give the ordinary man a rough sketch of what the movement is aiming at. They are, so to say, a profession of faith which on the one hand is meant to win adherents to the movement and, on the other, they are meant to unite such adherents together in a covenant to which all have subscribed.

Therefore whoever really and seriously desires that the idea of the People's State should triumph must realize that this triumph can be assured only through a militant movement and that this movement must ground its strength only on the granite firmness of an impregnable and firmly coherent programme. In regard to its formulas it must never make concessions to the spirit of the time but must maintain the form that has once and for all been decided upon as the right one; in any case until victory has crowned its efforts. Before this goal has been reached any attempt to open a discussion on the opportuneness of this or that point in the programme might tend to disintegrate the solidity and fighting strength of the movement, according to the measures in which its followers might take part in such an internal dispute. Some 'improvements' introduced to-day might be subjected to a critical examination to-morrow, in order to substitute it with something better the day after. Once the barrier has been taken down the road is opened and we know only the beginning, but we do not know to what shoreless sea it may lead.

This important principle had to be acknowledged in practice by the members of the National Socialist Movement at its very beginning. In its programme of twenty-five points the National Socialist German Labour Party has been furnished with a basis that must remain unshakable. The members of the movement, both present and future, must never feel themselves called upon to undertake a critical revision of these leading postulates, but rather feel themselves obliged to put them into practice as they stand. Otherwise the next generation would, in its turn and with equal right, expend its energy in such purely formal work within the party, instead of winning new adherents to the movement and thus adding to its power. For the majority of our followers the essence of the movement will consist not so much in the letter of our theses but in the meaning that we attribute to them.

The new movement owes its name to these considerations, and later on its programme was drawn up in conformity with them. They are the basis of our propaganda. In order to carry the idea of the People's State to victory, a popular party had to be founded, a party that did not consist of intellectual leaders only but also of manual labourers. Any attempt to carry these theories into effect without the aid of a militant organization would be doomed to failure to-day, as it has failed in the past and must fail in the future. That is why the movement is not only justified but it is also obliged to consider itself as the champion and representative of these ideas. Just as the fundamental principles of the National Socialist Movement are based on the folk idea, folk ideas are National Socialist. If National Socialism would triumph it will have to hold firm to this fact unreservedly, and here again it has not only the right but also the duty to emphasize most rigidly that any attempt to represent the folk idea outside of the National Socialist German Labour Party is futile and in most cases fraudulent.

If the reproach should be launched against our movement that it has 'monopolized' the folk idea, there is only one answer to give.
Not only have we monopolized the folk idea but, to all practical intents and purposes, we have created it.”

Adolf Hitler

Sunday, April 1, 2018

Operation KeelHaul

When should have the Americans and British stood up to their commie 'allies' and said
No More
When should we have finally had the courage to stand up to Stalin?
Why did two countries who supposedly loved democracy allow communism to spread all over Europe?
And someone please explain the reasoning behind Operation Keelhaul to us because we just don't get it

To keelhaul is the cruelest and most dangerous of punishments and tortures ever devised for men aboard a ship. It involves trussing a man up with ropes, throwing him overboard, unable to swim, and hauling him under the boat's keel from one side to the other, or even from stem to stern. Most of those keelhauled under water are already dead when their punishment is over.

Using the term "keelhaul" means that our military knew exactly what they were doing when they adopted this code name at the end of World War II

Operation Keelhaul was the deportation by brute force to concentration camps, firing squad or hangman's noose of millions of people, mainly White, Christian ethnic Russian and other eastern Europeans who were already in the lands of freedom and under the direct control of allied forces back into the hands of the brutal dictator Stalin where he either outright murdered them or worked them to death
Few survived -- millions perished
The Allies are to blame

ALEKSANDR SOLZHENITSYN, the acclaimed Russian writer and political prisoner, called this operation "the last secret of World War II.  He contributed to a legal defense fund set up to help Nikolai Tolstoy who was charged with libel in a 1989 case brought up by Lord Aldington over war crimes allegations made by Tolstoy related to Operation Keelhaul.  Tolstoy lost the case in the British courts but the verdict was overturned by the European Court of Human Rights.
Tolstoy described the scene of Americans returning to the internment camp after having delivered a shipment of people to the Russians:
The Americans returned to Plattling (a town in Bavaria, Germany where an internment camp was located after World War II) visibly shamefaced. Before their departure from the rendezvous in the forest, many had seen rows of bodies already hanging from the branches of nearby trees. On their return, even the SS men in a neighboring compound lined the wire fence and railed at them for their behaviorThe Americans were too ashamed to reply.  (from A Footnote to Yalta by Jeremy Murray-Brown, Documentary at Boston University)
Some critics addressing the subject have claimed that if Operation Keelhaul happened today it would be classified as a war crime punishable under international law, because of the summary executions which took place as the consequences of turning over military prisoners, and also because of the alleged murder and rape of refugee women and children from anti-communist eastern European, Russian and Cossack families.
How many soldiers returned from the war and refused to talk about their service
Now you know why
We made a pact with the devil
Shame on us

The Dark Side of World War II
by Jacob G. Hornberger, April 1995
 Adolf Hitler did not trust Andrey Vlasov. The Russian general had served in the Russian army since the Russian Revolution. He had fought hard and valiantly in the successful defense of Moscow. It was only because of Stalin's refusal to permit Vlasov and his men to retreat during the subsequent battle at Leningrad that the German forces had defeated and captured Vlasov. It was difficult for Hitler to believe that Vlasov was now willing to lead captured Russian soldiers against Stalin and his communist regime.
So, it was not until the very end of the war — January 1945 — that Hitler finally relented and permitted Vlasov to lead Russian POWs into battle against the Russian army. But by this time, Germany was close to defeat. The forces under Vlasov's command — some 50,000 Russian soldiers — played a minor military role in the war.
Ironically, Vlasov's forces did have one very interesting military victory. The Czech underground sought their assistance in helping to liberate Czechoslovakia from Nazi control! Vlasov, who despised the Nazis as much as he hated the communists, agreed to help. The Saturday Evening Post later reported:
Prague really was liberated by foreign troops, after all. Not by the Allies who did not arrive until the shooting was all over, but by 22,000 Russian outlaws wearing German uniforms. The leader of these renegades was General Vlasov, a former hero of the Red Army.
The battlefield was obviously chaotic. The Russians were approaching from the east. The Americans and British were approaching from the west. Vlasov and his forces were in the middle, and German forces were at his back.
On May 7, 1945, Germany capitulated.
Vlasov knew that Stalin was not a forgiving man. After his capture, Vlasov had openly defied the communists and communism. He had tried to arouse the Russian people to revolt against their communist tyrants. Vlasov knew that capture by the communists now meant certain death for him and his men.
Andrey Vlasov chose to surrender to American forces. He did not know that Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin had already sealed his fate. He did not know that these four rulers of the Allied powers had already committed themselves to one of the worst holocausts in history. He did not know that evil pervaded not only the Nazi and communist regimes, but the American and British regimes, as well.
Part of the Yalta Agreement between the Big Three — Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill — involved the repatriation of Russians and Americans to their respective homelands. Keep in mind that the German POW camps contained American prisoners, British prisoners, and Russian prisoners. The Big Three agreed that as the Russians liberated Germany POW camps, American and British POWs would be turned over to the American and British forces. As the Americans and British liberated German POW camps, Russian POWs would be returned to Russia.
There was one big problem with this agreement — a problem that each of the Big Three was well aware of. American and British POWs wanted to return to their own forces. Russian POWs did not want to return to Russian forces because they knew the fate that awaited them.
Stalin wanted revenge. The Russian prisoners were traitors to communism. They deserved to die.
And Roosevelt and Churchill felt the exact same way. Russia was "our friend." Stalin was "Uncle Joe" to the American people. Any Russian who had defied Uncle Joe — any Russian who had opposed our communist friends and allies — deserved to be executed.
The revenge and ensuing holocaust had to be kept secret from the world. The American and British people had to continue maintaining their illusion that this was a war of good versus evil — that only the Nazis engaged in cold-blooded murder — that the Allies epitomized all the goodness of mankind.
Therefore, the Big Three spelled out their plans not just in the official Yalta agreement but, also, in a March 31, 1945, secret codicil to the agreement. As James Sanders, Mark Sauter, and R. Cort Kirkwood point out in their shocking book, Soldiers of Misfortune (1992), the codicil was kept secret from the American and British people for fifty years . The codicil outlined the secret plan by which the Russians POWs would be forcibly returned to Stalin's clutches.
American government officials called their part in the holocaust Operation Keelhaul. In his book Operation Keelhaul (1973), Julius Epstein described the meaning of the term:
To keelhaul is the cruelest and most dangerous of punishments and tortures ever devised for men aboard a ship. It involves trussing a man up with ropes, throwing him overboard, unable to swim, and hauling him under the boat's keel from one side to the other, or even from stem to stern. Most of those keelhauled under water are already dead when their punishment is over.
And Epstein describes his reaction to the choice of this term by American government officials to describe their part in the Allied holocaust:
That our Armed Forces should have adopted this term as its code name for deporting by brutal force to concentration camp, firing squad, or hangman's noose millions who were already in the lands of freedom, shows how little the high brass thought of their longing to be free.
The roles played by each of the conspirators was clear: Roosevelt and Churchill would force the Russian anticommunists into Stalin's hands. The communists would take over from there and do the actual killing.
How many were turned over to the Russians by American and British forces? Two million individuals. Yes, two million Russian people sent back to the communists where they were either immediately executed or sent to die in the Gulag.
It was not easy to "persuade" the Russian prisoners to return to the communists. Sometimes, subterfuge was used. Epstein details several examples. One took place on May 28, 1945, in Lienz, Austria. British forces ordered all Cossack officials to attend an important British conference with high British officials. The Cossacks were told to leave their coats since they would be back by six in the evening. Their families were advised so that family members would not worry over their short absence. When the Cossacks appeared nervous, an English officer told them, "I assure you on my word of honor as a British officer that you are just going to a conference."
The 2,749 Cossacks — 2,201 of whom were officers — were driven straight into a prison camp and were advised by British officials that Soviet authorities would soon arrive to pick them up. Epstein writes:
One Cossack officer remarked: "The NKVD or the Gestapo would have slain us with truncheons, the British did it with their word of honor." The first to commit suicide by hanging was the Cossack editor Evgenij Tarruski. The second was General Silkin who shot himself. . . . The Cossacks refused to board [the trucks]. British soldiers with pistols and clubs began using their clubs, aiming at the heads of the prisoners. They first dragged the men out of the crowd and threw them into the trucks. The men jumped out. They beat them again and threw them onto the floor of the trucks. Again, they jumped out. The British then hit them with rifle butts until they lay unconscious and threw them like sacks of potatoes in the trucks.
The same scenes were repeated all along the lines — two million Russian people tricked and beaten by British and American forces so that Stalin could finish the job later on.
Some of this dirty work even took place on American soil. Epstein describes what happened to Russian POWs who were imprisoned at Fort Dix, New Jersey:
First, they refused to leave their barracks when ordered to do so. The military police then used tear gas, and, half-dazed, the prisoners were driven under heavy guard to the harbor where they were forced to board a Soviet vessel. Here the two hundred immediately started to fight. They fought with their bare hands. They started — with considerable success — to destroy the ship's engines. . . . A sergeant . . . mixed barbiturates into their coffee. Soon, all of the prisoners fell into a deep, coma-like sleep. It was in this condition that the prisoners were brought to another Soviet boat for a speedy return to Stalin's hangmen.
Andrey Vlasov — the man who hated communism — the man who hated Nazism — carefully explained his position and reasoning to the American generals. In his book Vlasov , Sven Steenberg describes Vlasov's conversation with one of his American captors:
He began to speak, at first slowly and dispassionately, but then with growing intensity. For one last time, he spoke of all the prospects, hopes, and disappointments of his countrymen. He summed up everything for which countless Russians had fought and suffered. It was no longer really to the American that he was addressing himself — this was rather a confession, a review of his life, a last protest against the destiny that had brought him to a wretched end. . . . [Vlasov] stated that the leaders of the ROA were ready to appear before an international court, but that it would be a monumental injustice to turn them over to the Soviets and thereby to certain death. It was not a question of volunteers who had served the Germans, but of a political organization, of a broad opposition movement which, in any event, should not be dealt with under military law.
Vlasov could not know that he was a dead man before he even surrendered to American forces. Roosevelt, Stalin, Churchill, and Truman had already decided that he needed to be executed for the "crime" of betraying his own government. There was no need to go through the time, expense, trouble, and possible embarrassment of a trial. All that needed to be done was for the Americans to turn him over to their friendly executioner, "Uncle Joe" Stalin.
American military officials delivered Andrey Vlasov to Soviet military authorities. On August 2, 1946, the Soviet press reported that Andrey Vlasov had been hanged by Soviet officials for "treason as well as active espionage and terrorist activity against the Soviet Union."
Unfortunately, all of the facts of the forcible repatriation of the Russian anticommunists have not been revealed. American and British government officials take the position that "national security" will be jeopardized if the citizenry is ever permitted to know all of the details of the Allied holocaust. Thus, fifty years after World War II, American "adults" are still not permitted by their public officials to see the government's files and records on America's involvement in the "good war" and, specifically, in the Allied holocaust.
As with most claims of "national security," the concern is not so much with the security of the nation but rather with the security of the U.S. government and, specifically, the U.S. military-industrial complex. For it is entirely possible that the American people will finally pierce through all the lies and deceptions that have clouded their minds since the first grade in the public schools to which their parents were forced to send them. It is quite possible that they will recognize the wisdom of their Founding Fathers — and see that the biggest threat to their well-being lies not with some foreign government, but rather with their own government.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

How do we justify this atrocity?
How do we explain this butchery to our children and help them feel good about their country?
We strung German necks at Nuremburg based on false Soviet allegations
Then we commit these horrific deeds!
Please someone, explain it to us so we can understand
How can we let the Jews drag us down this far!

Wake up America
Your Heritage is crumbling fast!