Wednesday, April 14, 2021
Monday, April 12, 2021
Friday, April 9, 2021
Tuesday, April 6, 2021
Final Judgment - The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy
You do not have to like JFK, as he was definitely a mixed bag, but he was doing some things that Israel really did not like, which led to his assassination.
Saturday, April 3, 2021
In a long 26 March 2021 Israel Hayom article interview with Jonathan Pollard, ‘I don’t regret helping my people and my land’, the reader is exposed to the true stereotypical jew. Though born on Aug. 7, 1954 to a Jewish family in Galveston, Texas, his first loyalty was always to the tribe and Israel. It is the reason why no jew, living outside of Israel, should be allowed to hold any position of national influence. Typically, after performing traitorous acts against his nation of origin, Pollard tells his version of the story where he is always the unrepentant victim/hero (even as he tried to shift the blame for his spying to Pakistan once caught). The question for the reader is “How much of his personal account is complete and utter BS?”
I leave it up to the reader to decide if they want to wade through Pollard’s version of his experiences as an Israeli spy, his capture, prison-life, parole, release to Israel, and the current aftermath. It reads like a jewish soap opera. But I’ve included here his quotes that I find the most significant and ominous for every nation that has jews working in any area of national influence.
“Q: Jews in the US accuse you of dual loyalties. “
“If you don’t like the accusation of double loyalty, then go the f*** home. It’s as simple as that. If you live in a country where you are constantly under that charge, then you don’t belong there. You go home. You come home. If you’re outside Israel, then you live in a society in which you are basically considered unreliable. The bottom line on this charge of dual loyalty is, I’m sorry, we’re Jews, and if we’re Jews, we will always have dual loyalty.”
“American Jewry has one major problem – they consider themselves more American than they do Jews.
“My father was a very highly decorated army officer during World War II. He graduated from college with a veterinary degree and he was in the US Cavalry, and he got accepted into Yale medical school.
“So he traveled with my mother to Yale, to New Haven, in uniform. He walked into the admissions office and the dean of admissions took one look at him, and said, ‘What’s your real name?’ My father said ‘Pollard.’ ‘No,’ the dean said, ‘What’s your real name?’ So my father said ‘Polanski.’ So the dean said, ‘Jew, huh?’ He said they had one too many and my father would not be admitted. My father said he’d already been accepted. The dean said, ‘One too many.'”
[Jews always have family victimhood stories. But can you trust anything coming out Pollard’s mouth?]
“Q: If a young Jewish naval intelligence officer today is asked by the Mossad to work for Israel, and calls to ask for your advice, what would you tell him?”
“I’d tell him, not doing anything is unacceptable. So simply going home is not acceptable. Making aliyah is not acceptable. You have to make a decision whether your concern for Israel and loyalty to Israel and loyalty to your fellow Jews is more important than your life.
“Because you know what would probably happen to you if you get caught. It will be hell. But you have to look at yourself every morning in the mirror, and you have to live with yourself. If you do nothing, and you turn your back, or simply make aliyah, and go on with your life, you’ll be no better than those Jews who before and after the destruction of the Temple said, ‘It’s not my responsibility.”
Tuesday, March 30, 2021
We are nationalists because we see the nation as the only way to bring all the forces of the nation together to preserve and improve our existence and the conditions under which we live.
The nation is the organic union of a people to protect its life. To be national is to affirm this union in word and deed. To be national has nothing to do with a form of government or a symbol. It is an affirmation of things, not forms. Forms can change, their content remains. If form and content agree, then the nationalist affirms both. If they conflict, the nationalist fights for the content and against the form. One may not put the symbol above the content. If that happens, the battle is on the wrong field and one’s strength is lost in formalism. The real aim of nationalism, the nation, is lost.
Dr. Joseph Goebbels
Joseph Goebbels, Mjölnir, Die verfluchten Hakenkreuzler. Etwas zum Nachdenken (Verlag Frz. Eher Nachf., München, 1929). In English: Joseph Goebbels and Mjölnir, Those Damned Nazis! (Redpill Action Publications, 2021), Pp. 11.
Saturday, March 27, 2021
"Kill the Germans, wherever you find them! Every German is our moral enemy. Have no mercy on women, children, or the aged! Kill every German -- wipe them out!" (Llya Ehrenburg, Glaser, p. 111).
"The millions of Jews who live in America, England and France, North and South Africa, and, not to forget those in Palestine, are determined to bring the war of annihilation against Germany to its final end." (The Jewish newspaper, Central Blad Voor Israeliten in Nederland, September 13, 1939)
"Germany is the enemy of Judaism and must be pursued with deadly hatred. The goal of Judaism of today is: a merciless campaign against all German peoples and the complete destruction of the nation. We demand a complete blockade of trade, the importation of raw materials stopped, and retaliation towards every German, woman and child." (Jewish professor A. Kulischer, October, 1937)
"Our fight against Germany must be carried to the limit of what is possible. Israel has been attacked. Let us, therefore, defend Israel! Against the awakened Germany, we put an awakened Israel. And the world will defend us." (Jewish author Pierre Creange in his book Epitres aux Juifs, 1938)
"Judea declares War on Germany." (Daily Express, March 24, 1934)
"Germany must be turned into a waste land, as happened there during the 30-year War." (Das Morgenthau-Tagebuch, The Morgenthau Dairy, p. 11).
"The fight against Germany has now been waged for months by every Jewish community, on every conference, in all labor unions and by every single Jew in the world. There are reasons for the assumption that our share in this fight is of general importance. We shall start a spiritual and material war of the whole world against Germany. Germany is striving to become once again a great nation, and to recover her lost territories as well as her colonies. But our Jewish interests call for the complete destruction of Germany..." (Valadimir Jabotinsky, in Mascha Rjetsch, January, 1934)
"In fact, about 600 news-papers were officially banned during 1933. Others were unofficially silenced by street methods. The exceptions included Judische Rundschau, the ZVfD's Weekly and several other Jewish publications. German Zionism's weekly was hawked on street corners and displayed at news stands. When Chaim Arlosoroff visited Zionist headquarters in London on June 1, he emphasized, 'The Rundschau is of crucial Rundschau circulation had in fact jumped to more than 38,000 -- four to five times its 1932 circulation. Although many influential Aryan publications were forced to restrict their page size to conserve newsprint, Judische Rundschau was not affected until mandatory newsprint rationing in 1937.
And while stringent censorship of all German publications was enforced from the outset, Judische Rundschau was allowed relative press freedoms. Although two issues of it were suppressed when they published Chaim Arlosoroff's outline for a capital transfer, such seizures were rare. Other than the ban on anti-Nazi boycott references, printing atrocity stories, and criticizing the Reich, Judische Rundschau was essentially exempt from the so-called Gleichschaltung or 'uniformity' demanded by the Nazi Party of all facets of German society. Juedische Rundschau was free to preach Zionism as a wholly separate political philosophy -- indeed, the only separate political philosophy sanction by the Third Reich." (This shows the Jewish Zionists enjoyed a visibly protected political status in Germany, prior to World War II).
"...In Germany the Jews occupy the principal rìles and are first-rate revolutionaries. They are writers, philosophers, poets, orators, publicists, and bankers, and on their heads and in their hearts all the weight of ancient ignominy! They will one day be terrible for Germany...probably followed by a morrow terrible for them." (Rougeyron, 1861; Metternich, 1849; The Trail of the Serpent, Inquire Within, Miss Stoddard, p. 93).
"That German Jewry could raise the Star of David -- Emblazoned Zionist Flag..." (Nuremburg Laws of 1935)
"I know in expressing with this frankness my ultimate opinion of the Jews, I expose myself to enormous danger. Many people share it, but very few dare to express it publicly, for the Jewish sect... constitutes today a veritable power in Europe. It reigns despotically in commerce, in the banks, and it has invaded three-quarters of German journalism, and a very considerable portion of the journalism of other countries. Woe, then, to him who has the clumsiness to displease it!" (Study of the German Jews, (1869).
"In no place so much as in Germany do the Jews [in finance, industries and commerce] hold such an important, almost preponderant part. Therefore it might easily be said that all the newly-rich and war- profiteer, is an ancient of a thousand years...The immense majority of the influentials in Austrian Socialism were and are still Jews (1921) ...finally, in a certain sense the Jews oppose themselves to non-Jews, above all in the rìle they play as initiators and actors in the extreme-left parties as internationalism opposed to nationalism." (Le Probläme Juic, (1921), Georges Batault).
"The German revolution is the achievement of the Jews; the Liberal Democratic parties have a great number of Jews as their leaders, and the Jews play a predominant role in the high government offices." (The Jewish Tribune, July 5, 1920)
"I hope every German west of the Rhine River and wherever we attack, will be destroyed." (R.F. Keeling). (Rabbi Rabinovich's Speech of January 12th, 1952)
"The story I shall unfold in these pages is the story of Germany's two faces, the one turned towards Western Europe, the other turned towards Soviet Russia...It can be said, without any exaggeration, that from 1921 till the present day Russia has been able, thanks to Germany, to equip herself with all kinds of arms, munitions, and the most up-to-date war material for an army of several millions; and that, thanks to her factories manufacturing war material in Russia, Germany has been able to assure herself not only of secret supplies of war material and the training of officers and other ranks in the use of this material, but also, in the event of war, the possession of the best stocked arsenals in Russia...The firm of Krupp's of Essen, Krupp the German Cannon-King (Kanonenkoenig), deserves a chapter to itself in this review of German war-industries in Russia.
It deserves a separate chapter...because its activity upon Soviet territory has grown to tremendous proportions...The final consolidation of the dominating position Krupp's occupy in Russia, was the formation of a separate company 'Manych' to which the Soviet Government granted a liberal concession...Negotiations concerning these concessions for the company were conducted in Moscow, for several months...Gradually there was formed in Russia a chain of experimental training camps, and artillery parks (ostensibly eliminated by the Treaty of Versailles).
These are under the management of German officers, and they are invariably teeming with Germans either arriving to undergo a course of training, or leaving after the completion of the course...At the time of writing (1932) interest is growing in the rising star of Herr Adolf Hitler, the Nazi Leader. Herr Hitler is regarded as the protagonist par excellence of the Right against the Left in Germany, and, as a Hitlerist regime is anticipated before long, it may perhaps be argued that the Third Reich of the Nazis, the sworn enemies of Communism, would not tolerate the Reichswehr-Red Army connection. Such a conclusion would be inaccurate to the last degree ...Stalin, the realist, would have no qualms in collaboration with the Hitlerist Germany. But more important than this are the following facts: The Reichswehr Chiefs and their political allies amongst the civilian politicians and officials have succeeded in nursing their Eastern orientation, their underground military collaboration with the Soviets, in spite of all the changes of political regime in Germany since the end of the war. It has made little or no difference to them whether the Reich Government has been composed of men of the Right, the Center, or the Left. They have just continued their policy uninfluenced by political change. There is no reason to suppose that they would change their course under a Hitlerist regime, especially when it is remembered that most of the aims, in external policy, of the Nazi leaders, are identical with those of the Nationalists and the military leaders themselves. Furthermore, there are the great German industrialists, of Nationals color, who are amongst the principal collaborators, on the war material side, with the Reichswehr Chiefs, and who are, therefore, hand in glove with the directors of the 'Abmachungen' (Agreements) plot. Many of these great industrialists are contributors on a big scale to the Nazi party funds. A hitlerist Germany would, therefore, have no qualms in continuing the collaboration with Soviet Russia...The Reichswehr chiefs who are conducting the Abmachungen delude themselves that they can use Bolshevist Russia to help them in their hoped-for war of revenge against Europe, and then, in the hour of victory, hold the Bolshevists at bay, and keep them in their place. The more subtle psychologists at the Kremlin, of course, know better, but are wise enough to keep their knowledge to themselves. The fact, however, that this German-Russian plot will, in the end, bring about the destruction of Germany, will not in any way reconcile Europe to its own destruction at the hands of Germany and Russia together." (The Russian Face of Germany, Cecil F. Melville, pp. 4, 102, 114, 117, 120, 173-174, 176).
"In [pre-WW II] Berlin, for example, when the Nazis came to power, 50.2% of the lawyers were Jews...48% of the doctors were Jews. The Jews owned the largest and most important Berlin newspapers, and made great inroads on the educational system." (The House That Hitler Built, by Stephen Roberts, 1937).
"...Each of you, Jew and gentile alike, who has not already enlisted in the sacred war should do so now..." (Samuel Undermeyer, Radio Broadcast, New York City, August 6, 1933)
"All Jews world wide -- declared war on the Third Reich." (The London Daily Express, Front Page Story, 3/24/1933).
"...Jabotinsky insisted that all energies be expended to force the Congress to join the boycott movement. Nothing less than a 'merciless fight' would be acceptable, cried Jabotinsky. 'The present Congress is duty bound to put the Jewish problem in Germany before the entire world...(We [Jews] must) destroy, destroy, destroy them, not only with the boycott, but politically, supporting all existing forces against them to isolate Germany from the civilized world...our enemy [Germany] must be destroyed." (Speech by Vladimir Jabotinsky, a Polish Jews, on June 16, 1933)
"German Jewry, which found its temporary end during the Nazi period, was one of the most interesting and for modern Jewish history most influential centers of European Jewry. During the era of emancipation, i.e. in the second half of the nineteenth and in the early twentieth century, it had experienced a meteoric rise...It had fully participated in the rapid industrial rise of Imperial Germany, made a substantial contribution to it and acquired a renowned position in German economic life. Seen from the economic point of view, no Jewish minority in any other country, not even that in America could possibly compete with the German Jews. They were involved in large scale banking, a situation unparalled elsewhere, and, by way of high finance, they had also penetrated German industry.
A considerable portion of the wholesale trade was Jewish. They controlled even such branches of industry which is generally not in Jewish hands. Examples are shipping or the electrical industry, and names such as Ballin and Rathenau do confirm this statement.
I hardly know of any other branch of emancipated Jewry in Europe or the American continent that was as deeply rooted in the general economy as was German Jewry. American Jews of today are absolutely as well as relative richer than the German Jews were at the time, it is true, but even in America with its unlimited possibilities the Jews have not succeeded in penetrating into the central spheres of industry (steel, iron, heavy industry, shipping), as was the case in Germany.
Their position in the intellectual life of the country was equally unique. In literature, they were represented by illustrious names. The theater was largely in their hands. The daily press, above all its internationally influential sector, was essentially owned by Jews or controlled by them. As paradoxical as this may sound today, after the Hitler era, I have no hesitation to say that hardly any section of the Jewish people has made such extensive use of the emancipation offered to them in the nineteenth century as the German Jews! In short, the history of the Jews in Germany from 1870 to 1933 is probably the most glorious rise that has ever been achieved by any branch of the Jewish people.
The majority of the German Jews were never fully assimilated and were much more Jewish than the Jews in other West European countries." (Feuerzeichen, Ingid Weckert, Tubingen 1981, p. 52-54, with reference to Nation Europa 10/1962, pp. 116-120)
"We became aware of the propaganda in your country about alleged cruelties against the Jews in Germany. We therefore consider it our duty, not only in our own interest as German patriots, but also for the sake of truth, to comment on these incidents. Mistreatment and excesses have indeed occurred, and we are far from glossing these over. But this is hardly avoidable in any kind of revolution. We attach great significance to the fact that the authorities where it was at all possible to interfere, have done so against outrages that have come to our knowledge. In all cases, these deeds were committed by irresponsible elements who kept in hiding. We know that the government and all leading authorities most strongly disapprove of the violations that occurred.
But we also feel that now is the time to move away from the irresponsible agitation on the part of so-called Jewish intellectuals living abroad. These men, most of whom never considered themselves German nationals, but pretended to be champions for those of their own faith, abandoned them at a critical time and fled the country. They lost, therefore, the right to speak out on German-Jewish affairs. The accusations which they are hurling from their safe hiding places, are injurious to German and German Jews; their reports are vastly exaggerated. We ask the U.S. Embassy to forward this letter to the U.S. without delay, and we are accepting full responsibility for its content. Since we know that a large-scale propaganda campaign is to be launched next Monday, we would appreciate if the American public be informed of this letter by that date [Of course we know that the Jewish owned American News Media did not so inform the American Public -- just another of the traitorous actions which they have repeated time after time over the years]...The atrocity propaganda is lying. The Originators are politically and economically motivated. The same Jewish writers who allow themselves to be misused for this purpose, used to scoff at us veterans in earlier years." (Feuerzeichen, Ingid Weckert, Tubingen 1981, p. 52-54, with reference to Nation Europa 10/1962 p. 7f)
"...Each of you, Jew and gentile alike, who has not already enlisted in the sacred war should do so now..." (Samuel Untermeyer, a radio broadcast August 6, 1933)
ROBERTS, STEPHEN H. 20th century Australian historian. Though hostile on almost every point to National Socialism, his The House that Hitler Built does admit that Jews were a menace in Germany: "It is useless to deny that grave Jewish problems existed in Germany. The nation was in the unfortunate geographical position of being the first stage in the perennial push westward of the Polish Jews. Unless forced on, they tended to stop in Berlin and Hamburg, where they obtained an unduly share of good professional positions. In Berlin, for example, when the Nazi came to power, 50.2 percent of the lawyers were Jews. In medicine, 48 per cent of the doctors were Jews, and it was said that they systematically seized the principal hospital posts. The Jews owned the largest and most important Berlin newspapers, and they had made great inroads on the educational system."
Wednesday, March 24, 2021
The drive behind shutting down free speech as a principle because it leads to one inevitable result, revealing who the actual racial supremacy that rules media, finance and politics. The real ultra-threat to human freedom in America, Europe and the World.
Monday, March 22, 2021
Saturday, March 20, 2021
Source: American Dissident Voices broadcast, August 26th 2000
by Dr. William L. Pierce
Today I want to talk with you about a topic that I believe is extremely important. It’s a topic I have been thinking about for a long time but that I have hesitated to talk about because it’s a big, complex topic, and I don’t have much in the way of scientific data on it: I don’t have a lot of hard statistics, just a number of general observations and a good bit of specific anecdotal material. Because this topic is so important, however, I have decided just to plunge into it. Perhaps our listeners will be able to contribute to this subject if we discuss it more than once.
The subject is the general decline in moral fitness of White Americans. In fact, I believe this moral decline is an affliction not just of Americans, but of White people nearly everywhere. I don’t want the word moral to be misunderstood here. I’m not talking at all about the same thing some Christians refer to when they lament the decline of morals in America. I’m not talking about sex, for example.
By moral fitness I mean such things as strength of character, toughness, degree of self-discipline, willingness to endure hardship. But moral fitness is more than that. Being morally fit also means having an internal code of behavior and sticking to it. It means having values and standards that one applies in a systematic way to guiding one’s own behavior and to judging the behavior of other people. It means having some purpose in one’s life and directing one’s life in accord with that purpose.
see around me in America today are very few people with much moral strength –
fewer, at least, than we had 50 years ago: fewer men, for example, of whom we
can say with confidence, “he is a man of his word”; fewer men and women who are
willing to work really hard over a long period for the achievement of a goal.
And I see many more men and
women – especially young men and women – who are soft, self-indulgent, undisciplined, and with neither moral standards nor purpose in their lives.
Well, that’s a bit too general to have much meaning, I’m afraid. Let me try a few specific examples to illustrate my point. I’ll begin with glassblowers. Before the Second World War every chemistry department and every physics department at a university large enough to sustain any sort of scientific research had a glassblower on the staff for making specialized glassware. Glass is not especially easy to work with, and learning how to make glass scientific apparatus with it, and make it well, requires much training and much practice. But before the war there were enough young Americans willing to spend several years in apprenticeship to an experienced glassblower in order to learn the necessary skills. They could then count on secure employment at a university or at a company engaged in scientific research or in manufacturing scientific apparatus. By the 1950s, however, good glassblowers were becoming hard to find in America, even though more jobs were available and salaries were going up. Some large companies had their own training programs, but universities who needed glassblowers generally had to import them from some place such as Germany, where apprenticeship programs for skilled trades were still the rule.
I mentioned the shrinking supply of glassblowers, because that is something with which I had personal experience, but my impression is that the phenomenon is more general than that: young men are less willing to enter trades which require long periods of training before they are fully qualified and can earn more than an apprentice’s wages. I’ll generalize even further: Americans are less willing – in fact, less able – to postpone gratification than they were half a century ago. Of course, we all would like instant gratification – but we used to have the willpower and self-discipline to postpone it a bit when that was advantageous. In talking with young people especially, I get the definite impression that there is much less willingness to focus on long-range goals.
Another example of this is to be seen in the spending habits of Americans. Before the Second World War young families went to a bank to borrow money to buy a house, but that was about it; everything else required cash. If you wanted to buy a piece of furniture or a radio or a new suit, you had to have the money first. Even in buying a car, the common practice was to save the money from one’s salary, and when one had enough one purchased the car. Credit cards may have been around, but they certainly weren’t as common as today. In order to acquire the things they wanted, Americans had to plan ahead and exercise some self-discipline.
In today’s age of plastic credit that is much less the case. And it seems to me that there has been a real loss in self-discipline. The average American today ends up paying much more for things simply because he not only can’t wait until he has earned the money for the things he wants, he can’t pay off his credit card debt at the end of every month and avoid interest. He just doesn’t have the willpower. He can’t control his desire to have more shiny junk and to have it now, and so a good bit of his income goes to paying interest. If he had the willpower to wait, he could avoid interest and actually own many more things.
Of course, we always had people without self-discipline and who were unwilling to postpone gratification. There always were people who had to be paid every week. If you paid them only once a month they would spend their whole paycheck in the first two weeks, and then they would starve during the next two weeks until another payday. It just seems to me that the problem is worse today than it used to be.
Here’s another example for those of you who are employers. I’ve had many people who are in business for themselves complain to me about how difficult it is to find young Americans who are good for any kind of work. And I’ve noticed the same thing myself. A young employment prospect seems eager and enthusiastic; he talks a good line. But you give him a real job to do, and you quickly discover that he has no conception of what work is. He really believes that a plausible excuse is a satisfactory substitute for performance. He believes that going through the motions and putting on a good show of working is the same as working. He never accepts responsibility for the results of his work. Responsibility is an alien concept to him. It is as if the work is not quite real, and he doesn’t quite grasp that the consequences of adequate work or inadequate work, of success or failure, are real too.
Poor work habits are part of this problem. Young Americans these days have not had much experience at real work as they were growing up. Most of them have not had to deliver newspapers or mow lawns or wash cars or do anything else to earn their own money from the time they were 11 or 12 years old. Delivering morning newspapers is an especially good discipline: it forces a young boy to crawl out of his warm bed at three o’clock in the morning and go out into a dark, often cold or wet, world and do hard work by himself for a couple of hours. And he must do it every morning, whether he feels like it or not. It is inevitable. Most young White Americans never have been faced with the inevitable choice of no work, no money; they’ve always had a way around it, and not having had to face that inevitability has stunted their moral growth.
Well, it’s worse than that. I refer to these young people who can’t cope with real work as members of the Star Trek generation. On Star Trek a meteoroid hits the spaceship and knocks a big hole in it. The air is rushing out into space. Electrical wiring is arcing and sparking. Fires have broken out all over the ship. Vital systems have stopped functioning. So the crew members grab fire extinguishers and screwdrivers and run around for a few minutes fixing things up, and pretty soon everything is more or less back to normal – whereas in reality everyone would be dead. Kids raised on television have been given a grossly distorted conception of reality, a distorted reality in which there are no really painful consequences for failure, a distorted reality in which every problem has an easy solution.
And it’s not just television. It’s also a welfare system, which protects people from their own folly and weakness and vice and keeps them aware that if they fail at whatever they’re trying to do, there’s something to fall back on, so they don’t really have to succeed. And it’s an educational system which has shifted away from rigor and hard rules and performance toward fuzzy concepts and lots of verbalizing and social conditioning. Problem solving, with exact answers required, is out; being able to wave your hands and talk about a concept is in. Using language with precision and understanding the structural functions and relationships of words, are out; that’s too masculine and analytical. Studying the history of our people and our civilization and learning the values and traditions that gave us strength in the past are out; that doesn’t mesh with multiculturalism.
In fact, the schools in America have abandoned completely the task of building character and instilling values in young people. If you think I’m exaggerating, go to your library and check out a set of the McGuffey’s Readers that were used widely in American public schools in the latter part of the 19th and the early part of the 20th century. McGuffey’s Readers not only taught young Americans how to use their language far more precisely and elegantly than young Americans are taught today; they also taught children values. Every anecdote and story and reading selection in the McGuffey’s Readers taught a moral lesson: a lesson about courage or honesty or perseverance or loyalty or correct behavior. Compare the quality of the language in the McGuffey’s Readers and their content with the reading material in America’s elementary schools today.
None of these aspects of moral decay I’ve mentioned is new – with the possible exception of the loss of a sense of reality resulting from watching thousands of hours of television. We’ve always had soft, lazy, self-indulgent, irresponsible people with a short attention span who had insufficient self-discipline to postpone gratification. But the problem is substantially worse today than it was 50 years ago. There’s more hedonism and less responsibility, more softness and less perseverance, today than in the past. There’s less purposefulness in young people’s lives and less willingness to work long and hard and carefully to achieve what they want. Of that I am certain, even though I don’t have hard statistics to prove it.
So what are the causes of this moral decline, other than television, and what can we do about it?
Undoubtedly the sustained material prosperity of the past half century has been a significant contributing factor to our moral laxity. The natural conditions of life that kept us hard and morally tough in the past have been abated to a large extent by our relative material wealth. Soft and ill-disciplined individuals who would have perished a century ago and who would have been kept at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder 50 years ago are so sheltered from Nature’s selective forces today that they are able to thrive almost as well as more fit individuals.
The morally debilitating effects of wealth have been recognized for a long time. The Roman patrician, Cato the Censor, railed against the moral decay of the citizens of the Roman Republic 2200 years ago, and he directed most of his criticism against his fellow aristocrats and their self-indulgence. He called upon them to return to the Spartan ways of their ancestors and to raise their children with the same rigor and austerity that had prevailed during the time of their grandfathers. Cato undoubtedly had some effect, but he lacked the authority to enforce measures sufficiently severe to stem the tide of decay. Then as now, most people, rich as well as poor, were inclined to take the course of least resistance, with little thought for the consequences; as long as they could indulge themselves they did. Nevertheless, the Republic lasted another two centuries – which is a lot longer than America is going to last.
The destruction of the American family certainly is a major cause of our moral decay. Before the Second World War the nuclear family was the norm among White Americans, with the mother at home to take care of the children. That was true in working-class families as well as in the middle class. There were no daycare centers for preschool children, and when the kids came home from school their mother was waiting for them. Children, in other words, got vastly more parental guidance and influence then than now. And they got a lot less permissiveness.
You know, it used to be that there was a clear distinction between childhood and adulthood. A child was fully under the control of his parents, and he was completely dependent on his parents. An adult, on the other hand, was on his own. He was independent; he could do whatever he wanted; but he was completely responsible for himself. As a child approached the magic age of 16 or 17 or 18, he looked forward with eagerness to becoming an adult and having his freedom. He looked forward to other things too: sex, being able to choose a mate, being able to buy things for himself and choose his own life-style, being able to have a car. But he understood that he would be responsible for himself. He would have to support himself, and he would be held accountable for what he did. His parents no longer would be there to support or to shield him.
This distinction between childhood and adulthood is a very fundamental distinction, and among humankind it has been nearly universal, from every European society of which we have records down to the most primitive non-White tribes – until now. Among White Americans the distinction really has become blurred since the Second World War. On the one hand the parental control and the restrictions that formerly were characteristic of childhood almost have disappeared. Nowadays young kids have money, sex, freedom to do almost anything they want – but no responsibility. And on the other hand far too many young men continue to be supported by their parents well into their 20s or even into their 30s. They shun independence. It’s an unhealthy situation all around.
There’s another reason, in addition to the softening influence of too much wealth and television’s loosening of the grip on reality and the lessening of parental guidance, for the decline in moral strength of Americans today. That reason is a deliberate policy of moral destruction which has been implemented with increasing effectiveness during the past half century. In every society there are factions who want to push social or political changes in particular directions. There are egalitarians, for example, who really believe that people ought to be equal even if Nature didn’t make them that way. They have combined forces with the feminists to reduce competition in the lives of children at school and at play. They have downgraded the idea of winning or losing, of success or failure, of excellence or mediocrity. They have instilled into children’s minds the notion that cooperation is better than competition, that working in a group or on a committee in which no single person is responsible for the outcome is better than individual striving, that a uniform level of achievement is better than having some individuals excel and some fail. In addition, the feminists have played a major role in the destruction of the family, not just by teaching that the family is a repressive institution which is unfair to women, but by using their political influence to push policies which have undermined the family.
Then there are the multiculturalists, who are absolutely determined that we must integrate Blacks and Vietnamese and Mexican mestizos into our society in a way in which the various non-White minorities will be happy and successful. They are determined to change White social institutions in any way necessary to facilitate their goal of a happily integrated society. Lowering achievement standards in the schools and performance standards in the workplace and in the armed forces in order to accommodate Blacks, for example, seems to them a small price to pay for successful integration. Likewise, they are happy to phase out the teaching of history to young people in order to weaken their sense of European identity and make them more willing to accept multiculturalism. The fact that people with a weak sense of identity tend to be people without strong values is not half as important to them as achieving integration.
There are people – White people – who actually prefer the moral situation we have today to the one we had before the Second World War. They feel more comfortable with weak, indecisive, self-indulgent, and irresponsible people around them. They don’t like strong, self-confident, independent people.
We’ve always had this interplay of ideological factions in our society. What’s really new is the role of the mass media in favoring some factions over others. In the past the factions with really nutty and destructive ideas didn’t have much influence over policy. A faction that believed the family repressive and wanted to weaken it, for example, would have a hard time prevailing over the general feeling that the family ought to be kept strong – unless Hollywood began backing the anti-family faction. A faction that wanted to lower performance standards so that Blacks could do better relative to Whites wouldn’t have made much headway – without media backing.
When the Jews began gaining control over the mass media of news and entertainment early in the 20th century, they began using their growing influence over public opinion to favor the factions with the most destructive ideas and goals. The Jews not only backed feminist policies, for example; they actually supplied most of the feminist writers and propagandists themselves. They not only supplied most of the money and brains behind the postwar drive for a multicultural society, they also launched programs to weaken the opposition by undermining the character of the White population. In the 1960s, during the drive to weaken and discredit the forces of tradition, the Jews were the prime movers, and the mass media were their indispensable weapons.
I apologize for this crude and unscientific explanation of the fact of the moral decay of White America. I believe, however, that if you look soberly and carefully at the evidence all around you, you will find that there is much truth in what I have said.
Think about it – and thanks for being with me again today.
* * *
Wednesday, March 17, 2021
A New Look at Both Sides
By Thomas Dalton
DOWNLOAD THE BOOK IN PDF FORMAT
For the past few decades there has been raging a kind of subterranean debate, one of monumental importance. It is a debate about the Holocaust – not whether or not it "happened" (this is a meaningless claim), but rather, how it happened, through what means, and to what extent. On the one hand we have the traditional, orthodox view: the six million Jewish casualties, the gas chambers, the cremation ovens and mass graves. On the other hand there is a small, renegade band of writers and researchers who refuse to accept large parts of this story. These revisionists, as they call themselves, present counter-evidence and ask tough questions. Among the issues they raise are these:
There is no trace of a ‘Hitler order’ to exterminate the Jews;
key witnesses have either falsified or greatly exaggerated important aspects of their stories;
major death camps – Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor, and Treblinka – have all but vanished;
we find little evidence of disturbed earth for mass graves;
we find few remains of the millions of alleged victims – neither bones nor ash;
mass-gassing with Zyklon-B would be nearly impossible without ventilators and ceiling holes;
mass-gassing with diesel engine exhaust is practically impossible, given the low level of carbon monoxide;
wartime air photos of Auschwitz show none of the alleged mass-burnings or cremations;
the ‘6 million’ number has no basis in fact, and actually traces back decades before the war;
trends in Jewish world population strongly suggest less than 6 million lost; and
the present number of "survivors" – currently over 1 million – implies few wartime deaths.
The revisionists arrive at a different account. Hitler, they say, wanted to expel the Jews, not kill them. The ghettos and concentration camps served primarily for ethnic cleansing and forced labor, not mass murder. The Zyklon gas chambers did in fact exist, but were used for delousing and sanitary purposes. And most important, the Jewish death toll was much lower than commonly assumed – on the order of 500,000.
In this book, for the FIRST TIME EVER, the reader can now judge for himself. Arguments and counter-arguments for both sides are presented, and all relevant facts are laid out in a clear and concise manner. The entire debate is presented in a scholarly and non-polemical fashion. Citations are marked, and facts are checked. READ, and JUDGE FOR YOURSELF.
Note: The audio-book version of this title is still based on the 3rd edition of 2017. We strive to update it to the current edition, but that might take a while. We will announce it here, once this will have been accomplished.
Sunday, March 14, 2021
Friday, March 12, 2021
By Nicholas Strakon
After the Oklahoma City bombing, ordinary Americans all over the country were asking in bewildered horror, „Who bombs children?“ I can answer that question without having a scrap of evidence about who really employed Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, the accused bombers. I can answer it not because I am so smart but because it is so easy.
My answer is: The United States government, among others.
With regard to war and the state, many Americans wander in a fog of mystification – or, to put it not so generously, in a moral stupor. For heaven’s sake, the Oklahoma City bombing occurred a mere 19 days before the 50th anniversary of V-E Day. It occurred two months after the 50th anniversary of the incineration of Dresden and less than four months before the 50th anniversary of the incineration of Hiroshima. Let us, for once, connect historical events everyone knows about with the values all civilized people are supposed to cherish. Who is the greatest bomber of children if not the state?
When I write that World War II went far toward corrupting the moral sense of the American people, making possible the civilizational collapse we are now witnessing, I do not mean to indict the deceived, the propagandized, or the maleducated. Instead, I mean to suggest that the ruling class has robbed us not only materially but morally as well. And I mean to suggest that we can recapture our moral sense by reading history, recalling the values we were taught as children, and restoring certain vital connections between that history and those values. Americans of today cannot overturn the Permanent Regime, but we can keep it from stealing our souls. So let us remember all of what happened in World War II, and let us call mass murder by its right name.
A Juvenile War Fan
I shrink at sounding holier-than-thou, so immediately I offer a mea culpa. I was an adolescent World War II buff. I read everything about the war I could lay my hands on, but especially books about the European Theater, where the dictators were cinematic, the music was stirring, the massed tanks were exciting, and glamorous cities were destroyed. In those days, the materials available to me reflected the William Shirer/Time-Life triumphalist-nationalist school, but even those works of propaganda gave strategic bombing at least a glance.
It’s safe to say that in 1962 the formative work for any bespectacled, bloodthirsty 13-year-old war fan was the paperback edition of Shirer’s Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. It certainly was for me. I read my copy until it fell apart, and then I bought another. Now, Shirer, in the three pages – out of a total of 1,483 – that he devotes to the subject of area bombing, describes the destruction only of German „cities“ and „homes,“ as if the inhabitants themselves were magically untouched. And in the entire massive work, he mentions the bombing of Dresden not once. He does criticize the bombing of cities – but because it was strategically unproductive, not because it was a monstrous atrocity.
Still, it shouldn’t have taken much of a leap of imagination for me to conclude that many children must have been turned into ash in those air raids. Indeed, I may have made that connection; I don’t recall. I do recall that a few years later when I started to learn about civilian casualties in Germany and Japan from historians more honest than Shirer, I blamed not Roosevelt, Truman, and Churchill but Hitler and Tojo. Those latter villains forced „us“ to kill the civilians! And anyway, those civilians (including the children, I suppose) had it coming for supporting Hitler and Tojo.
It is difficult to compartmentalize moral numbness, and mine infected more than just my understanding of World War II. After 1945, Western propaganda ministries abruptly dropped their loving descriptions of Stalin as the kindly, brave, pipesmoking „Uncle Joe“ and transformed the Soviet people from „our glorious, fraternal, democratic allies“ into our most fearsome, loathsome enemy. It was an act of massive rectification that no doubt served as the principal inspiration for George Orwell’s parables in 1984, where the dread enemy might change in mid-speech from Eurasia to Eastasia, whereupon the people of Oceania were obliged instantly to adopt the belief that „Oceania is at war with Eastasia ... Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.“
In any event, as a good citizen groping toward intellectual consistency in 1967, I justified a surprise nuclear attack on Soviet cities – the old „throw a thousand missiles over the pole“ strategy – by arguing that the Soviet people had a moral imperative to overthrow their wicked regime, and if they didn’t, they (the children, too, I suppose) deserved whatever „we“ had to do to them in the course of extirpating communism. That is what I had learned from my studies of World War II, and that is the tortured way I went about making it comport with what I had learned about good and evil in Sunday School. It had to comport somehow, or everything I believed about the sanctity of the United State would be threatened.
Eventually, I found a better way to integrate what I knew of history with what I believed about freedom, justice, slavery, and murder. A late-blooming moral Columbus, I discovered America the beautiful, and had done with the hideous United State and its grisly works.
Victims of an Allied bombing raid on Berlin, December 1943, are laid out for identification in a gymnasium incongruously decorated with Christmas trees. An estimated 50,000 to 60,000 Berliners perished in Allied air attacks. More than half a million Germans civilians were killed in Allied bombing attacks during the Second World War. In addition, Allied bombers took the lives of many tens of thousands of civilians in France, Italy, Hungary, Belgium and other European countries.
Kill a Child for FDR and Uncle Joe
The government of the United State is surely the champion bomber of children in world history, with the British Imperial regime secure in second place. Some writers tell us that the Eighth and Fifteenth air forces didn’t do much terror bombing, as such, in Europe until late 1944 or early 1945, but in fact American air forces became full partners with Britain’s terroristic Bomber Command much earlier. The difference was that the Americans at first tended to bomb cities for tactical reasons – that is, to clear the way for their armies; or for reasons of economic strategy – that is, to shatter industry and infrastructure. The resulting massacre of civilians was merely „collateral damage.“ Unintended. Just accidental: „Ooops! There goes another orphanage! Sorry! Thought it was a power plant. Don’t worry, when it’s all over, we’ll pass out choon gum, chocolate, and Lucky Strikes to the kids, if any survive.“ The fliers didn’t restrict their activities to Germany, by the way: they wrecked cities in Italy, France, and Belgium as well. It was, one supposes, a case of having to destroy those cities in order to liberate them.
By the last months of the war in Europe, the American bomber force did resort to outright terror bombing. For example, the courageous Eighth Air Force took over from the heroic Brits on the second day of the destruction of Dresden, a city with no AA guns but a million helpless refugees. And David Irving writes of another noble military operation no doubt vital to winning the war: „To exploit the refugee chaos in Berlin, the Americans sent over nine hundred heavy bombers at noon on February 3  ... The city’s casualties were immense.“
In the Pacific Theater, the United State had no close rival in child-bombing: it ran the Allies’ only major air force, and that force rained havoc and death on a scale that made the raids conducted on Chinese civilians by Japan’s rickety bomber force look like juvenile vandalism.
(Other nations win prizes in other classes of heroic, valorous endeavor. For instance, that Red Army whose glorious achievements the Clintons celebrated in Moscow the other day qualifies, at least in the European Theater, as the No. 1 Rapist – of women and children.)
The Butcher’s Bill
How many children, in both theaters, did the United State and British Imperialist air forces slaughter? I’ve dabbled in a little demography in an effort to come up with a figure. Douglas Botting, in From the Ruins of the Reich, estimates that Allied bombing killed 500,000 civilians in Germany, not counting another 100,000 civilians killed in the land warfare, which included another type of bombing – artillery bombardment. The 500,000 figure seems decidedly conservative in light of estimates that 250,000 were killed in the raids on Dresden alone (February 13-14, 1945). But let it stand for our present purpose. In War Without Mercy (p. 298), John Dower calculates that American saturation bombing of 66 Japanese cities killed 393,000 civilians. Say, then, that about 893,000 civilians were killed in air attacks on Germany and Japan. (I omit civilians murdered by the „liberation“ air forces in Italy, France, and the Low Countries.)
Census figures indicate that in 1970, children 14 or younger made up approximately 28 percent of the U.S. population. It is reasonable to assume that the cohort of German and Japanese children was proportionally larger in the 1940s – a time of larger families and shorter life expectancy – but, again, let the conservative estimate stand.
If 28 percent of the victims were age 14 and younger, we end with an estimated butcher’s bill of about 250,000 children murdered by American and British fliers. Extrapolating from the total figures, we can assume, roughly, that 44 percent of the murdered children were Japanese and 56 percent were German. If all the murdered Japanese children were murdered by Americans, for 44 percent of the total, and – at a guess – a third of the murdered German children were murdered by Americans, for another 18.67 percent of the total, we arrive at a figure of 62.67 percent or 156,675 children murdered by Americans, and 37.33 percent or 93,325 murdered by the British.
156,675 children! Call to mind the child the whole world saw in the Oklahoma City fireman’s arms – and then imagine having to see a different child suffocated or crushed or incinerated on the front page of your daily paper every day for almost 429 years!
I don’t mince words, because this must be clear: it wasn’t „bombing“ or „air raids“ or „airplanes“ that accounted for those homicides. It was the government employees crewing the planes. B-17s don’t bomb people; people bomb people. Some crewmen were conscripts, „serving“ with a gun in their back; but the pilots, navigators, and bombardiers were officers. Doing what they did should ignite 50 years’ worth of fiery nightmares, for anyone with a moral imagination.
Hey, Hey,LBJ ...
I could not compartmentalize my moral numbness, and neither could other Americans. It infected our evaluation of other public calamities. For every youngster in the ‘60s who chanted, „Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?“ there had to be a hundred Americans who never gave a second thought to those „collateral losses“ produced by the strategic bombing of Vietnam. In fact, many probably thought the chanting kids ought to be lynched for insulting „our“ president. (In the end, the war did become quite unpopular with most adults, but primarily because they didn’t care to have their sons’ tails shot off by an unbeatable enemy, not because of any holocaust of underage Oriental Commies.)
Worse: although it was no secret, in 1983, that the battleship New Jersey had bombarded unseen Lebanese villages with its 16-inch guns, most Americans were surprised when, in response, Shiite soldiers gave their lives to blow up the Marine barracks in Beirut. The ugliest thing wasn’t that Americans failed to take seriously the murdering of the villagers – including children – by US sailors, but that they didn’t even expect the Lebanese to take those homicides seriously enough to want to strike back. In fact, they thought of the avengers as typical Ayrab fanatics for carrying out their strike! Apparently, only Americans are allowed to be outraged when their civilians and children are murdered. Such an attitude reveals not merely a lapse, but the death, of the moral imagination.
It Can’t Happen Here
Writing without regard to nationality, I believe I have made my case that the United States is the greatest bomber of children in history. That is all I wanted to demonstrate in order to shed some light on this odd season of terror and celebration, and it is all I can demonstrate. I have no secret knowledge, only black suspicions, about what happened in Oklahoma City. However, for the benefit of those who object that the children bombed to death in World War II were, after all, mere foreigners, and that „It (government child-bombing) can’t happen here,“ I go on to suggest that just as the popular vocabulary, from curse words to the names of ethnic groups, has undergone considerable rectification in recent decades, so the definition of „us“ and „them“ has changed.
On makeshift grids of steel girders, heaped bodies of victims of the Dresden fire storm air raid were cremated in large bonfires. Some two thousand British and American bombers took part in the devastating attack, February 13-14, 1945. So intense was the heat of the firestorm created in the raid that rivers of molten asphalt flowed through the streets. Conservative estimates put the number of victims at 135,000 – the great majority of them civilians. Authoritative sources estimate that as many as 300,000 perished in the raid.
At the time of the attack Dresden was packed with hundreds of thousands of German women and children fleeing advancing Soviet forces. One of Europe’s great cultural and architectural treasures, the German city had no importance as a military target. Mass killing and terrorism were the sole objectives of the Dresden attack, which British diplomat and author Harold Nicolson called „the single greatest holocaust by war.“
I maintained in „Dark Suits and Red Guards“ that, since the completion of the Suits’ Managerial Revolution and the rise of the Guards in the ‘60s, the two wings of the American ruling apparatus have shared a growing contempt, if not a loathing, for us ordinary, unprogressive, provincial Majority Americans. In the conclusion of an earlier article, I envisioned a near-future American regime dispatching Rapid Deployment Force planes with paraquat, Agent Orange, napalm, and anthrax to wipe out backwaters that had become difficult to govern. „Extreme?“ I wrote. „But why would we expect our cosmopolitan Suits and Guards to display sentiments toward domestic rubes and yahoos any warmer than those which earlier, nationalistic American elites displayed toward the inhabitants of Dresden, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima?“
Why, indeed? To the elites, what happens to us American „yahoos“ at century’s end matters as little as what happened to the „grinning yellow monkeys“ and „bestial Huns“ – of whatever tender age – in the 1940s. How much crippling inflation and taxation – how many policies destroying families, small businesses, small towns, and traditional culture – how much nihilistic Red Guard propaganda in the schools and media – how much reverse discrimination – how many campaigns for civil disarmament – how many managed-trade and world government schemes – how much ruinous foreign aid and intervention – how many expropriations in favor of Wall Street banks, Israel, and Third World dictatorships must we suffer before we understand that it is not for us that the elites are building their New World Order? We ordinary Americans in the 1990s have more in common with the ordinary people of Germany and Japan than we have with our masters in New York and Washington.
Many of the victims in Oklahoma City were not just Americans, of course, but friends and servants of the regime. Even if the deracinated elites would hesitate to murder American children no more than they would Lebanese children, wouldn’t they flinch at killing their own servants?
I think they would not flinch. Regimes have always been willing to sacrifice some of their hapless minions for reasons of state. Perhaps there would have been some resistance to a plan to butcher low-level nobodies at a facility on the Bicoasts. (Of course, that wouldn’t have worked half as well for terroristic purposes, either.) But the bureaucrats and others who were targeted were mere Heartlanders – Okies, Velveeta eaters, K-mart shoppers, folks with unwashed accents, butts of Bicoastal jokes and ridicule. Almost all were undoubtedly Christians. In the eyes of New York and Washington, they were absolute nobodies from nowhere (although the media and other, more official spokesmen for the regime must make it seem that they were somebodies, for the benefit of the other nobodies in front of the tube).
I was relating to an acquaintance of mine, a 28-year veteran of the Central Government bureaucracy, the conspiratorial allegation that none of the „senior personnel“ assigned to the Murrah building showed up for work the morning of the bombing. „Senior personnel!“ he said, chuckling. „What senior personnel?“ He said he doubted whether Murrah housed anyone at all in the Senior Executive Service, let alone any important political appointees. „At most, you had a handful of GS-15s. In DC, a GS-15 doesn’t even rate a reserved parking space.“
I no longer support mass murder, but I’m afraid millions of nice, friendly, peaceful-looking Americans acquiesce in it, without thinking much about it. Undoubtedly, they would have the murdering limited to war – the slaughter specially sanctified by statesmen. But we all should remember that we live in an era of undeclared wars, secret wars, and „moral equivalents“ of war. We should pray that the statesmen of our own nation don’t decide to make war on us.
And although it won’t change anything in the bloody world around us, we might remember the simple moral teachings of the West we all learned as children, such as „Two wrongs don’t make a right,“ „Innocent until proven guilty,“ „Spare the children,“ and „Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.“ Call them infantile bromides if you will, but they are central tenets of any decent civilization, and of any decent man.
See James J . Martin, „The Bombing and Negotiated Peace Questions in
1944,“ in Revisionist Viewpoints: Essays in a Dissident Historical
Tradition (Colorado Springs, Colo.: Ralph Myles, 1971), pp. 116-17.
[Available from the IHR for $9.75, postpaid. (check www.ihr.org for
current availability and price; ed.)]
David Irving, Hitler’s War: 1942-1945 (London: Macmillan, 1985 ), p. 762. See also: David Irving, Hitler’s War and The War Path, 1933-1945 (London: Focal Point, 1991), p. 735.
I do not mean to minimize Chinese losses and suffering from other causes. John W. Dower, in War Without Mercy: Race & Power in the Pacific War (New York: Pantheon, 1986 [pp. 295-296]), suggests that a figure of nine million civilian deaths, from all causes, is a conservative estimate.
Douglas Botting, From the Ruins of the Reich: Germany 1945-1949 (New York: Crown, 1985), p. 125.
D. Irving, Hitler’s War: 1942-1945 (London: 1985 ), p. 771, and D. Irving, Hitler’s War (London: Focal Point, 1991), p. 739.
„Most of the [Dresden] victims were refugee women and children,“ writes Frederick J.P. Veale. The Allied „strategic air offensive,“ he reports, killed a total of 600,000 civilians in Germany. F.J.P. Veale, Advance to Barbarism: The Devel opment of Total Warfare (Institute for Historical Review, 1993), pp. 191, 199.
The Statistical History of the United States from Colonial Times to the Present, introduction and user’s guide by Ben J. Wattenberg (New York: Basic Books, 1976), p. 23.
Whoever carried out the bombing, we may be skeptical about the extent to which the Dark Suits considered it a threat to themselves and their agenda, given the fact that the Dow index not only closed at a record high on the day of the bombing but also set new highs on each of several days immediately thereafter.
The Bombardier’s Song
Here’s an example of how moral numbness can propagate factual error and, in effect, result in the Orwellian rectification of history. I heard recently on my local socialist radio station a locally produced „concert preview“ for the Fort Wayne Philharmonic, which was scheduled to perform Carl Orff’s „Carmina Burana.“ The announcer was recounting the life and career of the German composer. Reading from a prepared script, he informed us that Orff had been working at the Guntherschule in Munich, but that his work was interrupted in 1943 when the Nazis bombed the school.
Now, I found that statement remarkable, given the fact that Orff shared with Richard Strauss the distinction of being the Nazi regime’s favorite contemporary composer. And oddly, none of my books on World War II reports a „Nazi“ bombing of Munich in 1943. However, B.H. Liddell Hart, in his History ofthe Second World War, does report that the British Bomber Command perpetrated a major raid on Munich the night of October 7, 1943.
The scriptwriter whose presentation I heard was brought up to believe that whatever the Allies did was, by definition, good. Conversely, if a bad thing happened in World War II to something that, in his present context, he regards as good, in this case a music school, the Nazis must have done it. Even if it was a Nazi music school!
– N. S.
Rights and Duties
„We are born into no right whatever but what has an equivalent and corresponding duty right alongside of it. There is no such thing on this earth as something for nothing. Whatever we inherit of wealth, knowledge or institutions from the past has been paid for by the labor and sacrifice of preceding generations.“
– William Graham Sumner