Welcome
my-political-blog is a very powerful networking site. We are brand new, but we are here getting the word out for all americans to be educated from within. Place your OWN thoughts in a blog and give your side to the issues that affect us today! The 2008 presidential election, war in iraq, centralized health care, estate tax. Get it out there and be heard!
The site will help you
to find like minded people from all over the world.
With my-political-blog you can also:
- create your own liberal or conservative blogs with your own links
- read other blogs and leave your own opinions.
- spark intellectual debate on todays issues in our Forum.
- build your own network of contacts who share your interests in your area
- use built-in communication services
- create classified ads and get responses
- create your own rally, event or attend to other members' events
- create clubs and invite people, who share your ineterests
- share your videos, blogs and interact in forums and chat rooms
Recent Members
Recent Blogs
| Title and Description | Posts | Photo | Action |
|
Author: Museandpan
New Updated
By museandpan My blog’s domain name deserves an explanation. Muse is the Greek goddess of art, while Pan is the Greek god of nature: pastures, flocks, and forests, specifically. This blog is the meeting of art, writing, and our baser collective nature known as politics. “If people were angels,” Madison observed, “no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern folk, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary” (Federalist Number 51, 1788). We are not, to our knowledge, angels. Then, again, we are not entirely Pan-like. My aim is to raise questions and provoke thought, although both are often taken care of by the actions of my subject. For example, is the Republicans’ lone desire to “Just say no”? The phrase, catchy as it is, is too naive for the purposes of governing. Refusing to compromise on consumer protections in purposed legislation to regulate the banking industry is a fine example of this. What does it gain to shut the door on consumer protection? Is there some greater need served or is this another case of entangling our government in further tactics of delay? I fear it is the latter. This type of choice (this overarching strategy) serves little purpose, except to confirm our ever-deepening sense of cynicism. What do you believe? Are the Republicans being too obstinate? |
1 | ||
|
Author: vaughn
New
"Everything--yes, EVERYTHING--you "know" is wrong!!!" -- vk"Do Americans suffer from UNdiagnosed Stockholm Syndrome?" [see the essay on Germany below and, via analogy, apply the analysis to the American public. In other words, think for yourself!] Any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one already. --Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience. *** VAUGHN KLINGENBERG, LOTTERIST CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT 2012 ********* His disciples came to him and asked, "When will the Kingdom [of Heaven] come? And Jesus answered them, "It will not come by waiting for it...." -- The Gospel of Thomas. "REAL HOPE. REAL CHANGE. RIGHT NOW!!!" (R) SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER--AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC!!! In a very real sense my own political views are of trivial significance because in the long run it is the Lotterist Assembly that will uphold and strike down laws. My significance is only in that of being an iconoclast, clearing and leveling the playing field before the mantle of power is passed on to a new generation of Americans, a millennial generation. Still, my own personal views need to be expressed because they will have some impact on the institutions and practices that follow, and to satisfy the natural curiosity of like-, and unlike, minded individuals. V.K. Upon assuming the Presidency I will IMMEDIATELY initiate the following: 1. Declare, via Executive Order, a State of National Emergency and dissolve the present federal congress housed in Washington DC. (I will leave it to the individual states to decide whether they choose to adopt a lotterist government themselves.) Immediately, on inauguration day if not earlier, begin forming and establishing a government by lottery so ideally, the first set of lotterist electors can join me on inauguration day for the swearing in of themselves for office as well (see The Lotterist Manifesto on The Lotterist Party website for a detailed account of the form this government will take). 2. Declare, effective immediately, via Executive Order, free health care for all Americans (and anyone else residing in the US) 3 Appropriate the wealth of the richest 1% of Americans. More precisely, I will limit wealth to 10 million dollars per family and 5 million dollars per individual. All other wealth will be appropriated by the state to pay for social service programs for all Americans (i.e., social security, national health care, national day care centers...etc.), as well as pay down our massive debt. As a consequence of expropriating wealth from the very richest Americans (see the "L-curve") , individual taxes should for the remaining Americans should drop to virtually nothing for the foreseeable future. I will also switch the currency to a gold standard. 4 Declare the non-use of any nuclear weapons. Not the first use, but ANY use of nuclear weapons. (I would not want the deaths of millions of innocents on my conscience even for the call for a retaliatory strike.) 5. Declare a Pax Americana--a Rwanda will not happen on my watch, while the rest of the world stands by with hands in their pockets. 6. Invalidate the Patriot Act, and dissolve the CIA and NSA. Initiate a new investigation into 9/11 and its aftermath, the justifications for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Immediately apologize to, free and give compensation to all Gitmo "Enemy Combatants" [sic]. 7. Reduce the military budget to a small fraction of what it is now, and convert the military to an armed American Peace Corps to intervene in places like Rwanda or where ever else massive civilian casualties are taking place. 8. Feed the world. A priority of my administration is that starvation literally cease from happening anywhere around the globe. Instead of guns our factories will produce butter as the instrument of our foreign policy. 9. Withdraw our military from hitherto American puppet states, and allow for the opportunity of other countries to develop independent of coercive American influence. As for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, our solution is to have Israel dismantle its status as a Jewish state and allow Palestinians, Moslems, Christians, and all non-Jewish sects to have full equal rights with Jews. I believe in a one state solution. 10. The solution to the foreclosure/bankruptcy/economic crisis: a) write down all mortgage loans to fair market value--across the board--and have the lenders "eat" the loss; b) return to the earlier lax regulation on bankruptcy, and cap the interest rate on credit cards at 5% above inflation; c) liberalize Small Business Administration loans and grants. 11. My solution to the unemployment crisis: reduce the manditory work week from 40 hours to 32, thereby opening up more opportunities for employment. 12 My solution to the homelessness problem: open mothballed schools and convert them into homeless shelters/community resource centers/day care centers. . 13. I will resign from office three and a half years into my tenure, on June 1st, 2016, and return to private life. Thereafter, the lotterist government I have outlined elsewhere can assume its role as the full governing body of the United States. 14. Extradite ex-Presidents and government officials for trials in countries in which they have committed or aided and abetted a capital crime. E.g., George Bush II would be turned over to Iraqi civilians for crimes against that country. No one who has served in a previous administration will be permitted to serve in my administration. Similarly, no one with dual citizenship will serve in my administration. All existing department heads will be fired (or pensioned off) so we can begin afresh. Objections and Replies to Critics of My Candidacy 1. What are your qualifications to be President? You have no prior government experience or experience even leading a company, let alone a national government? Answer: I honestly believe that my greatest qualification for being President is that I don't particularly want to be President--odd as that may sound. I have no interests in being President. I am running because, to paraphrase what a critic of ancient Roman society once observed, "How can you not run?"--things are so bad today that the question should not be, "Why run for office?", but "Given the corruption of our two party democratic system, how can you not run?" As for my lack of experience, the charge is legitimate, but, hey, if George Bush II supposedly was qualified and gifted enough to be president....I rest my case. "Til next year in [the New] Jerusalem!" -- Vaughn Klingenberg. For a full account of the Lotterist philosophy or, more accurately, methodology, I strongly urge you to visit the companion website: thelotteristparty.org ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Summary Critique of American Democracy by Vaughn Klingenberg I agree with Plato’s critique of democracy in The Republic made 2500 years ago: it is a harlequin government composed mostly of the basest elements of humankind. Now remember Plato and Socrates lived under tyrannies, plutocracies, militocracies (government by the military), democracies, and lotteries. (Not surprisingly, the only government post ever held by Socrates was when he was selected by lottery to fulfill a judicial post.) Each form of governance has problems peculiar to itself (although, significantly, a critique of lotterism is omitted from The Republic). With respect to democracy, what Plato does is he looks at the nature of man, with his appetites, spiritedness, and intellect, and deduces that since all people have appetites, fewer are honor oriented, and fewest still are intellectuals, that a democratic government necessarily would be run, essentially, by the moor less, appetative masses. In other words, not reasoned policy would dictate government behavior but irrational, spur-of-the-moment, desire, because this is what all men have in common. (If you think Plato is out of date, just look to Maslow hierarchy of being to uncover a popular [plagiarized from Plato] version of it for today.) Of course Plato’s solution to the problem of governance is rule by philosopher-kings, but since that ain’t gonna happen, the trick for us is to raise not individual philosopher-kings, but a nation of philosopher-kings, and lotterism has the potential, at least, to make that happen. Of course Plato isn’t around to see the intricate sophistication of two party democratic rule in the U.S. today. In the abstract, democracy is a viable form of government, provided we have an intellectually critical electorate sift candidates on the reasonableness of their views. But that is not how it works in America. Instead, we have a two party dictatorship that filters candidates so that only those who are willing to go along to get ahead are nominated for positions. This of course brings out the worst type of person for elected office: spineless, sycophantic demagogues who are more loyal to the party that got them nominated and elected than to the public which they purported serve. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that, as with authoritarian personality types that are attracted to police work, the very fact that someone wants to be a politician should, by that very fact, disqualify them from office. The type of person who wants to be elected to office in order to have legislative power over the ruled masses is, by definition, a power hungry self-seeking, quisling of the worst order. Combine the modern self-seeking politician personality type with the constant need for high-buck campaign solicitations (actually, legal bribery) and we can easily see how this personality type will suck up to power, and eventually become a mere water boy for the moneyed elite that can guarantee him the money he needs for the deliberately ever increasingly expensive political campaigns. In America, the public is only given the opportunity to ratify and rubber stamp the existing plutocratic democratic system that actually functions here in the U.S. with elections every 2, 4, or 6 years. Unfortunately, the Media conspires with the two parties to shut down upstart, grassroots political organizations. They both do this by, typically, ignoring or marginalizing these upstart parties, by making it onerous legally and logistically to set up a party, and by infiltrating and destroying an upstart party from within. This brings me to Orwell’s critique of democracy from his profound and insightful book, 1984. In the world Winston Smith inhabits, the real power in Oceania is the Inner and Outer Temple (oops, I mean Party). The way the Temple seized power in Oceania was not through democratic election necessarily, but via “oligarchic collectivism.” In other words, a kabbal from the Temple used the political methodology of both overtly and covertly mutually self-promoting members of their organization until they held the very top positions throughout all of government (the top position, Big Brother, being merely a figurehead behind which the Temple rules). As Orwell notes, it doesn’t matter to the Temple who particularly is in positions of power as long as they are members of the Temple. As Chekov notes in The Government Inspector, any old fool and his foot soldiers can invade another country from without; it takes real genius to invade a country from within. Orwell’s critique of the pernicious influence of “oligarchic collectivism” would apply not only to any form of democracy, but to other institutions—Media, big business, education, the military, intelligence...etc...—as well. So what is the cure? From the above we can see that we do not want people in office who want to be there, nor do we want moneyed interests to have decisive sway over policy, nor do we want partisans of “oligarchic collectivism” to covertly infiltrate and subvert government institutions. To my mind, government by lottery is the only solution. True, we will get the odd self-serving, self-centered individual selected for office, but I believe we will get far more public spirited, selfless, well intentioned Americans who will do what is right for the nation as a whole. No longer will political parties filter out altruistic, uncompromising Americans. No longer will money have an influence on policy. And no longer will it depend on “money, or who is in your family tree” when it comes to determining who we have as "our" so-called “representatives” [sic]. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Obama: the Republicrat Item: The Democrats hold a 60 vote majority in the Senate and all they need is 51 votes to pass the Obama’s “Health Care Reform Act” [sic]. Item: Even before the Health Care bill was presented to Congress, Obama took single-payer health care off the table as an option. Item: The Media drums home the message that Obama needs 60 votes to avoid a filibuster from the Republicans in the Senate (the Media ignores that Obama only really needs 51 votes to pass the bill). Item: Obama postures himself as a “consensus” President, and employs this excuse [i.e., the need to have a 60 vote majority] as a reason for trying to come to terms with Republicans in order to avoid a filibuster. Item: Were the Republicans to actually filibuster and hold up a national health care bill for all Americans, the Republican party would self-destruct electorally. Item: Were the Democrats even half-witted they would allow—nay, encourage—the Republicans to filibuster, thereby allowing the Republicans to hang themselves with their own rope, and secure a Democrat electoral victory in the next election and for many years to come. Item: The Democratic leadership, including President Obama, has deliberately chosen not to follow the course of action listed above. What can we conclude from this? Since Obama and the Democrats could unilaterally pass universal health care and at the same time allow the Republican Party to destroy itself, and since Obama and the Democrats have chosen not to do this, we can only conclude that the Democrats and Republicans are conspiring together to thwart true national health care (i.e., actually the grand strategy is to transfer health care costs from businesses to consumers). Not only that, I dare say at the same time the Democrats are actually conspiring to resurrect the Republican Party, their purported ideological enemy. What could possibly be a plausible alternative explanation? Fuck Obama. Fuck the Democrats. Fuck the Republicans. Fuck the System!!! VK ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Some Random Thoughts on the Haitian Earthquake of January 12th. 1. Coincidentally, the earthquake fell on the Feast of St. Tatiana who, according to legend, when she was forced to pray to a God other than Yahweh, an earthquake resulted. 2. Like the tsunami that struck Malaysia on Boxing [the corpses] Day a year after the Prime Minister of Malaysia severely criticized Israel's apartheid system and the maltreatment of Palestinian moslems, the earthquake in Haiti struck just off the coast as well, and in Haiti it had the equivalent force of a half a megaton nuclear explosion. The curious thing is that the US Media seems to be obfuscating when it comes to the whereabouts of the origin of the earthquake and for some reason is resistant to acknowledging that it took place just off the coast of Port-au-Prince (which it did). 3. Similarly odd (or perhaps I am just a stickler for precision), the Media keeps repeating it was a 7.0 earthquake when in fact it was a 7.2 earthquake. 4, Another oddity: while 150,000-200,000 Haitians have died in the earthquake and 3,000,000 are homeless, according to the an Israeli wire report (JTA), not a single Israeli living in Haiti was injured by even so much as a fallen brick. Wow, what luck!!! 5. Closer to home: why is the US government sending the USS Vinson, a huge aircraft carrier, to do rescue work in Haiti? I could see a helicopter carrier or several hospital ships (we only sent one), but why a lumbering aircraft carrier that is not even set up for humanitarian relief work and whose landing area cannot even accommodate transport aircraft? Furthermore, since the earthquake occurred off the coast of Port-au-Prince isn't there the danger that another sea-borne earthquake may arise? Most odd. 6. One more thing: I demand to know where the Israeli submarines—Dolphin, Leviathan, and Tekuma—were on January 12th, 2010 (and, for that matter, where they each were on Boxing Day, when the tsunami hit Malaysia). This should pose no problem given the sophisticated HAARP global submarine monitoring system we have in place. Haitt: Crimes of Commission and Crimes of Omission From: Vaughn Klingenberg (vaughn_kl@msn.com) Sent: Sat 1/30/10 2:29 AM To: comments@whitehouse.gov; Vaughn Klingenberg (vaughn_kl@msn.com); Ursula Klingenberg (vaukling@msn.com) Shalom President Barak Obama, There are crimes of commission and crimes of omission, and with respect to Haiti, I have a question to put to you. It has been 18 days since the earthquake in Haiti. At a minimum, now, 150,000 people are dead, and many times that number are suffering from thirst and hunger. You authorized the sending of an aircraft carrier to aid the people of Haiti. Why you sent an aircraft carrier (with little in the way of surgical facilities) I'll never know. However, had the aircraft carrier been stocked with helicopters for delivering aid to Haitians--that would then make some sense. My understanding is that that is not the case. That the aircraft carrier is merely a show--giving the appearance of assistance while at the same time not really delivering any. Can you prove that I am mistaken in my assessment? I would hate to be put on trial in Haiti for a crime of conscious and deliberate neglect--a Crime Against Humanity. You can not claim ignorance going forward. Both I and the nation expect to hear from you immediately to address this issue. (One would have thought that you would have a special place in your heart for disadvantaged and destitute black folks, but perhaps we are mistaken. Please prove me wrong.) Shalom Obama, Vaughn Klingenberg ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (The Minneapolis Star Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press have both refused to acknowledge even receipt of my editorial and while Jonathan Brown, Editorial and Opinions Editor of the University of Minnesota Daily Newspaper, did want to publish my essay, it was subsequently pulled by the Editor in Chief, Holly Miller, prior to publication. vk) “History is written by the victors.” -- J. Goebbels. Rethinking the Holocaust: Allied Culpability for the Holocaust “Truth,” we are told, “is the first casualty of war,” and the legacy of lies surrounding World War II and the Holocaust is with us still. In 1938 President Roosevelt called for a special conference to deal with the Jewish Question--how to safely repatriate additional Jews from Nazi Germany to foreign countries. Roosevelt chose as the site of this conference the obscure French town of Evian. All well and good. An American President wanted to save the Jews from the clutches of the evil Nazis. Curiously, however, instead of sending a delegation from the U.S. State Department to attend this meeting, Roosevelt merely sent a personal banking friend of his to attend the conference on behalf of the US government. Needless to say, on the eve of war, while Nazi Germany was eager to expatriate domestic Jews, no country, including the US, would accept any additional Jewish immigrants from Nazi Germany. Yet another missed opportunity to save 6 million Jews from the concentration camps of Nazi Germany. This got me to thinking, we ought to have a fresh debate on the facts of the Holocaust--were the Nazis solely to blame for the Holocaust (the common view) or did the U.S. in particular share some measure of guilt for the Holocaust? I went to the Mount Zion Synagogue (on Summit and Syndicate in St. Paul MN USA) to have Jews join with me in opening a new debate on the Holocaust. Instead, as I stood outside the synagogue with a petition in my hands on a bright summer Saturday, I got death threats from the Jews as they entered the Synagogue--"Holocaust denier," "Nazi sympathizer," "white trash"--they name called me. I was mystified. Surely if the Holocaust is as undeniable as a historical event can be, why would anyone resist an open and frank discussion on the topic. We owe it to the millions who died in the concentration camps to come to an honest account of the culpability for the crime of the Holocaust. Then it dawned on me--there is profound insecurity in the Jewish community when talk of debating the true nature of the Holocaust is brought up for discussion. Now why is that? I decided I would do a thought-experiment and instead of assuming that the Nazis wanted the Holocaust, I would reverse the deck and propose as a topic for consideration that perhaps it was the Allies who really wanted the Holocaust and did whatever they could to make it succeed. In other words, could there be any basis for entertaining the notion that the Allies in fact orchestrated the Holocaust and made d***sure that Nazi Germany would be saddled with the guilt for it? I am a bit of a history buff when it comes to World War II so I began to think: is there any evidence (besides the failed Evian Conference) for Allied complicity in the Holocaust? To my surprise, indeed there was. After the Nazi defeat at Stalingrad in 1943 it was obvious to even the Nazi hierarchy that they were going to lose the war. American General Omar Bradley, seeing the defeat of Nazi Germany now as inevitable, proposed to invade Nazi-occupied France in the summer of 1943 (a full year in advance of the actual D-day), but Roosevelt overruled him. The American president wanted the Communist Soviets and the Nazi Germans to bloody each other for another year before he would commit American troops to the European theater. Now in a certain Machiavellian sense there is some logic to this position, but on the other hand, if Jews were dying in the camps at the rate of hundreds of thousands a month it does make one wonder, "Why the delay?" Of course we are told that the Allies had absolutely no knowledge that millions upon millions were being held in Nazi concentration camps. (Apparently word hadn't gotten out to Roosevelt, the Allied leadership, and the OSS--the American intelligence agency during WWII--that Hitler and the Nazi's were anti-Semitic, and that they were incarcerating millions of Jews from all across Europe). Damn those Nazis were clever! They could hide the movement and incarceration of over 12 million concentration camp victims--people certainly sympathetic to the Allied cause and willing to reach out and fight for the Allies against the Nazis--but somehow Allied intelligence could not locate those 12 millions. Oooops. Then I began to think even more deeply on this topic. Roosevelt and the Allies would only accept "unconditional surrender" from the Nazis. The Allies never wavered from this position. Now while that all sounds well and good, what if agreeing to a conditional surrender--say Hitler and his cronies would serve life imprisonment instead of receiving the death penalty--would have brought the war to an end in 1943. Were that the case, then literally millions and millions of Jews (let alone other Europeans and American GIs) lives would have been spared, but I guess it was more important to carry the fight to the absolute final end--Jews be damned! If only Roosevelt knew that millions of Jews were being killed in concentration camps, if only Roosevelt knew..... But Roosevelt did know, of course. There was a war time famine in Nazi Germany beginning in 1944. Now let me ask you this: in times of famine who would be the last group fed--regular German citizens or people housed in prison camps? Duh. The famished and horrible picture of Jews in the concentration camps was the predictable result of the famine in Nazi Germany in the last year and a half of the war. Once again, however, Allied intelligence simply missed the connection between a national famine and its effects on the most vulnerable--concentration camp internees. (Boy, was our intelligence bad in World War II. If only some Jews were a part of the OSS in World War II, I'm sure things would have turned out much differently, if only...--but that is grist for yet another, even more interesting, editorial.) With all the above in mind (and more) I have finally come to the conclusion that not only did the Allies in WWII not subvert the Holocaust--they actually orchestrated and facilitated it. In a word, not the Nazis but the Allies were the ones who really wanted the Holocaust. It was a tremendous burden on the Nazi war machine and war economy to arrest and house millions of Jews, and greatly crippled their war effort. On the other hand, by forcing the Nazis to keep Jews within their territories it greatly eased the war effort on the Allies. In fact, one could argue that some incarcerated Jews were safer in the Nazi concentration camps, far away from the incinerated German cities that were being fire-bombed on a daily basis by the Allies (forget the fact that only German women, children, elderly, and the infirm were in these cities as virtually all the military aged German men were at the front--but that, too, is yet another sorry story). Oh, and one last note regarding that obscure French town that in 1938 Roosevelt choose to hold the conference in, purportedly for relocating and rescuing Jews from the clutches of the evil Nazis--what does "Evian" spell backwards? Indeed!!! Vaughn Klingenberg, 11/11/09 975 County Rd C2 W Roseville MN USA 55113 Cell 651-343-8224 Email: vaughn_kl@msn.com ________________________________________ [DRAFT ESSAY] The Case for Probable Mossad/Jewish Culpability for 9/11 By Vaughn Klingenberg Granted many non-Jews conspired to bring about 9/11, and they should be duly investigated and punished. For my purposes, however, I am limiting myself to the overwhelming evidence of Mossad/Jewish involvement in orchestrating, causing, and profiting from 9/11 and all that followed from it, in particular the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq (hitherto two anti-Israeli states now occupied by Israel’s proxy army, the United States military), the recently invented, post-Cold War, War on Terrorism, and the related War on Dissent as embodied by the hypocritically named “Patriot Act.” I will omit talk of the gargantuan economic and military expenses that have followed in the wake of 9/11, partly because that would take me too far afield, partly because we are not paying for those expenses right now (they are “off-the-books,” so to speak--for now). Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Doug Feith among others have argued in the first Bush administration that “a new Pearl Harbor” would be necessary to rally the American population behind any post-Cold War American military adventurism. This was an ominous prediction by officials well placed to in fact bring it about. American democracy has a history of inviting (nay, encouraging) attacks on itself in order to justify to the public our faux reluctance to go to war. This was true in World War I with the sinking of the Lusitania (the Germans warned that Anglo-American ships carrying ammunition would be the target of uboat attacks—even if they were employed as a cover as passenger vessels with up to 1,000 passengers on board); this was true in World War II with the attack on Pearl Harbor (the US and England cut off all oil shipments to Japan, thereby forcing Japan to attack British and American oil fields in Southeast Asia, which precisely coincided with the attack on Pearl Harbor [and which few history books acknowledge]); and this was true of the purported North Vietnamese attack on American naval vessels in the Tonkin Gulf (which is now universally acknowledged as a sham) which got the US into the Vietnam War (with 50,000 American soldiers killed, 400,000 wounded, and 2-3 million Vietnamese killed, and untold numbers wounded, injured, or crippled). With the demise of the Cold War the US straddled the world like a military and economic colossus. We had no significant enemies and then there was the expected “peace dividend,” money that was to be redirected from intelligence and the military towards social programs. The CIA and military now had a problem: how to redefine themselves to make them relevant to the "New World Order" (Hitler’s phrase for his Nazi programme of the 30s and 40s, oddly appropriated by George Bush I to define the post-Cold War American world). World peace was in danger of breaking out, and this eventuality had to be stopped. Yes, there were some in the US government who looked with pleasure on the opportune attack of 9/11, but there were also “foreign” interests that could be served at the same time as well. Instead of going through the details of 9/11, I will merely list some of the more salient, and curious, events. True, hijackers of Middle Eastern extraction appear to have been the immediate cause of 9/11, but there were mediate causes as well. Why did Mr. Silverstein, owner of the Twin Towers, double the insurance on the Towers a mere 3 months before the attack. For 20 years the towers stood as silent witness to the economic power of New York City and even after the sub-basement attack on the Towers a few years earlier the then landlords decided against taking out extra insurance, but now the Jewish Mr. Silverstein made the prescient decision to double the insurance a mere 3 months before the attack. What a savvy businessman! Also speaking of Mr. Silverstein, why did he give the secretive order to “pull” (i.e., demolish) Building 7, and then shortly thereafter it collapsed and, even though not hit by a single plane, was declared by the US Government’s official 9/11 Report as part and parcel of the collateral damage of the 9/11 attack? And, as long as we are talking about money and investments, why did the government close down investigations into Wall Street trading leading up to 9/11, in particular, several big players reportedly pulled their money out of airline stock and even were short selling airline stock just before the attacks. Did these investors have insider information on the attacks? The simple answer is we may never know since the government, for some strange reason, made these questions off limits and shut down the investigation into these very pertinent questions. Of course there is also the “Dancing Israelis”—Mossad agents with Canadian passports who filmed the attack on the Towers before it even happened and who were celebrating and dancing when the Towers were hit; while they happened to be arrested for their untoward behavior (significantly, this set of Jews were the only ones arrested on 9/11 for suspicion of 9/11—no Arabs were arrested on September 11th, that would happen later; also significantly, the “Dancing Israelis” were later ordered released and flown to Israel by the (Jewish) Homeland Security Czar, Michal Chertoff. Can you say “Jewish conspiracy”?). Then there is the fact that, if 9/11 was an Al Qaeda operation, somehow these clever Arabs pre-positioned military grade Thermite and explosives in the Towers before 9/11 so they would go off and bring down the Towers in a free fall a mere hour after the assault. Next, there is the immediate removal of debris from the crime scene by the virtually pre-positioned waste and dump trucks; they began removing material--and thereby destroying the crime scene--a day after the buildings fell. And so on and so on. I would refer you to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth for more details. Ok, some major Jewish players may have had a hand in 9/11 and profited dearly by the tragedy, but what about Israel and the Mossad? First of all, upon hearing of the attack on the Towers, the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, reportedly said that a quiet cheer went up in Israel and that “it was the best thing that ever happened for Israel.” Now why would our purported ally, Israel, celebrate the 9/11 attack and predict that it would be the best thing that ever happened for Israel? Why indeed? Well, let’s look at what happened in the wake of 9/11. Largely (but not solely) Jewish members in the Media began beating the drumbeat for attacking, first, Afghanistan, and second, Iraq. Forget the fact that these countries had nothing to do with 9/11 (Osama bin Ladin is not even charged with 9/11 on the FBI Most Wanted website); what Afghanistan and Iraq were was anti-Israeli states. If Israel and its minions in Congress and the Media could get the US to take out these two anti-Israel states it would break up the contiguous bloc of anti-Israeli Arab and Persian states in the Middle East and instead create a geographical checkerboard of isolated anti-Israel states. Syria and Iran are now completely surrounded by American sponsored, pro-Israel, client states (no wonder Iran wants a nuclear weapon, dah!) The odd politician, like Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone, who fought Media opinion and was going to vote against the wars was conveniently assassinated a week before the election. Paul Wellstone was a particularly dangerous threat to the grand strategy of the 9/11 conspirators. He was a Jew who, if he voted against the wars, would give permission to the cowering non-Jewish senators in Congress to buck the drumbeat for war. His death not only eliminated the most liberal voice in the Senate, but it also sent a chill to other would-be independent, buck Israel partisans. The Senate got the message and voted 99-1 for war (with only Senator Byrd dissenting). So where are we now? Mired in an endless war against “terrorists” [sic]; mired in an actual war in Iraq and Afghanistan; pissing away billions of dollars a month to advance, not American foreign policy, but Israeli foreign policy; conjoint with the War on Terror is the concomitant (not surprisingly) War on Dissent here in the US under the guise of “patriotism” [sic]. The Military, CIA, and FBI have reinvented themselves as anti-global terrorist organizations and have profited dearly as a result. And the Peace Dividend, where is that? Shattered and in pieces on the floor. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ _Epistle to the Jews/Israelis "The Jews worship a God of Hate." -- Baruch Spinoza, philosophical genius, apostate Jew, and Christian convert. Hi Tom, I know you are a "reformed" Jew (and it is 5 in the morning), so I was hoping you would excuse my presumption about writing you an email to get your thoughts on some things. The "earthquake" in Haiti--actually, to my mind, a nuclear mine delivered by one of Israel's "silent" submarines--got me to thinking: "Why do the Jews worship hate?" Christians have the natural (call it ideological) predisposition to love ones enemies and are ideologically incapable of recognizing pure evil, even when it is right in front of their noses. Jews, on the other hand, have the ideological predisposition to hate, not only their enemies, but also those who do not bear them any particular ill will. Why is that? What is it about Jewish religion, ethnicity, racism...etc. that causes them to hate non-Jews? If you could add some flesh to Spinoza's observation, I would appreciate it. Of course the Jews have their icons of victimology that they constantly remind themselves of: the purported slavery and Passover in Egypt (which of course, from a historical perspective, actually never happened--the Jews were never slaves in Egypt because a) there is no record of that (and the Egyptians kept very good records) and b) the Egyptians were unique in the ancient world in not holding slaves (unlike the Jews, for example). Second, Hannakah: the dark underbelly to this story (which will echo down to the Jewish Holocaust of the 20th century in Europe) is that what Jews are REALLY celebrating during this holiday, on its most basic level, is the slaughter of assimilating Jews by Orthodox Jews. And then there is the Holocaust: an event in which purportedly 6 million Jews died in concentration camps in Nazi German occupied territories. Of course, as I have argued, the Holocaust was actually orchestrated by the Allies (see my website: www.vaughnklingenbergforpresident.org) and a major--if not THE major--complicitor in the Holocaust were Jewish members of the OSS, Hollywood, and the Media. They all knew what was happening in the camps in Germany, but they refused to publicize it or, for that matter, encourage the War to come to an early end by an early invasion of Festung Europe or by negotiating an early conditional surrender of the Nazi hierarchy. There is a reason the most famous Nazi peacenik, Rudolf Hess, Hitler's Deputy Furher, was convicted of "Crimes Against Peace" [sic] and was sentenced and served life imprisonment in Spandau Prison (oddly, while Hess surrendered to the British on May 10, 1941 he was turned over to the Soviets for imprisonment after the War), while Nazi war-mongers, with the blood of tens of thousands of Jews and non-Jews alike on their hands, were released after serving a mere 10 years or less. I speculate that the reason Hess was kept imprisoned is because he would give a much more nuanced account of the war and the intentions of Nazi Germany had he been able to speak with the Media. Besides, the Allies certainly did not want to give this Nazi in particular a fair hearing in an open court on the conduct of the War and the legitimate issues Germans had with Jews. If it is okay for Jews to victimize non-Jews, and be disingenuous and hypocritical about it, where is the surprise that some powerful, more "pure", Jews might employ the same tactic against their own "brothers and sisters" [sic] if there might be a political, geographical, or financial advantage, because this is EXACTLY what happened during the Holocaust in WWII. Like a Hollywood movie, the victimization of Jews was kept from the public, only to shockingly blurt across film screens when the camps were (surprise!) "discovered" at the very end of the war. Also forget the fact that Roosevelt and his cronies knew perfectly well what was happening in the camps, and they made d***certain the Nazi's succeed in killing as many Jews as they did. Where is the surprise that the Jewish ideology of hate, duplicity, and evil-doing, wouldn't come back and bite the Jews in the a***when some Jews employ this methodology against their own people? "I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you..." This brings me to today (forgive me for skipping around). While I am generally opposed to the use of any nuclear weapons, I was wondering whether you think an exception should be made for Israel? It would be dangerous to treat a rogue country like Israel which has an ideology of hatred for non-Jews as though it had the same humanitarian concerns of, say, a Christian country. Israel would detonate a nuclear bomb (just witness Haiti) and perhaps even all the moreso were an elected official to declare that he would not punish Israel if it did launch a nuclear first strike. So what is the solution? I am glad you asked that. To my mind, the only solution is to request that all Palestinians, Christians, Arabs, and willing Jews evacuate Israel until all nuclear weapons are recovered from the Israeli nuclear stockpile--no exceptions! Then, were Israel to detonate a bomb in a Gentile country, the US, for example, would have the right--and the obligation--to strike back with a nuclear weapon in turn. Since the Jews of Israel would have been given fair warning that a nuclear response is possible, their own blood and the blood of their children would be on their hands should they choose to stay in Israel. I would call on all Israelis to evacuate now, and only return to that country once ALL of Israel's nuclear weapons have been confiscated and secured. Anyway, for what it is worth, that would be my solution. Any thoughts on any of this, Tom? Just let me know. Shalom, Vaughn Klingenberg _________________________________________________________________________________________________ [Draft essay.] An Apology for Adolf Hitler (Rethinking the Holocaust) by Vaughn Klingenberg Adolf Hitler, himself, in many ways was a tragic figure. He never married. He never had children. And, while he intended to save humankind, instead, he has been vilified with the epithet of being the most hated man—and most evil ruler—in human history (at least here in the West). How can anyone say that Hitler was a tragic figure when he was directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions? How can anyone even suggest such an absurdity! Such a person cannot be reasoned with but instead he should be shouted down with contempt! How ridiculous! How absurd! He must be a Nazi-lover and a Hitlerophile! Before you form a knee-jerk opinion of what I write, I ask that you approach my speculations with an open mind. What I write may be right or it may be wrong. All I ask is that, like a good judge, you refrain from forming an opinion until after I have had my say. Before we can arrive at an honest opinion of Hitler, we first need to understand his genealogy. According to the death-row confession of Hans Frank, the Governor-General of Nazi occupied Poland, he was assigned to discover Hitler’s ancestry. More specifically, he was to discover whether Hitler had Jewish blood. In Frank’s confession he revealed that Adolf Hitler’s father, Alois Schickelgruber, was the illegitimate offspring of a wealthy Jew named Leopold Frankenberger. Frankenberger impregnated Hitler’s grandmother, Maria, when she worked as a servant in Frankenberger’s household in Graz, Austria, and the child of that union was Alois Schickelgruber, Adolf Hitler’s father. Alois did not hide the fact that he was illegitimate, and the young Adolf undoubtedly knew of his father’s b***roots. (In fact, one account of Hitler’s change of family name is that he was ashamed of his father’s Jewish illegitimacy, and he chose the name “Hitler” because of it’s connotation with the ancient, conquering people, the Hittites, ancestors [and ancient enemies] of the Jews and foundational forefathers of the Indo-European languages. In other words, he may have taken some solace in proto-Jewish, Hittite ancestry. This would also account, in part, for his interest in racial purity.) Establishing Hitler as de facto Jewish has profound ramifications, and casts a fruitful interpretive lens on him and his behavior. For example, according to the Nuremberg racial purity laws, only someone with at least three generations of unadulterated German blood (whatever that means) could call themselves authentically “German.” If this is the case then it would expose the promulgator of the racial purity laws as, himself, of impure stock—even worse, he was of Jewish stock! As a consequence, he could be stripped of his full German citizenship and—theoretically at lest—be sent to a concentration camp as well! Furthermore, since the most common events which required an account of one’s lineage was either marriage or the fathering of a child, Hitler was in the extremely odd position of promulgating racial purity laws which he himself would not pass. I think this goes a long way to explain why Hitler never married or even had illegitimate offspring. Were he to do so, his buried secret—that he himself had Jewish lineage—would necessarily be exposed to the public, and he would be seen to be both a sham and a hypocrite. Anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism were foundational planks of Nazi political doctrine. Hitler’s shielded parentage may go a long way in accounting for Hitler’s curiosity about, knowledge of, and eventual hatred for, the Jewish community. Hitler did have skeletons in his closet which he choose to keep hidden up until his very final breath. Now let us turn to the Jewish defined “Holocaust”, and cast some light on this event. While an equal number of non-Jews—homosexuals, intellectuals, political dissidents, Gypsies…etc.—died in the concentration camps of Nazi Germany, the term “Holocaust” (Hebrew, “burnt offering”) has been reserved for the Jews who were incarcerated and died in prison camps during World War II. What the Jewish community has done by labeling their suffering as “The Holocaust” is that they have effectively marginalized the deaths of non-Jews at the camps. By reserving the term “Holocaust” to include only Jewish suffering, they have self-servingly appropriated for themselves, and themselves alone, the totality of the suffering in the camps. We do not have an inclusive term in English for the sufferings of both Jews and Gentiles in the camps. I would like to designate the term “the Carnage” to account for both Jewish and Gentile suffering there. A question that often arises when the Holocaust is discussed is why didn’t the Allies bomb the so-called “death camps” so as to allow for some of the victims of the Carnage to escape, presumably, from certain death? The standard answer given is that the Allied High Command had no knowledge that the Carnage was taking place—it was only discovered when advancing Allied troops stumbled, unknowingly, across the camps. This, of course, is utter hogwash. There is a curious scene at the very end of the film Casablanca (1942) where, just before the German officer is shot he is standing next to a canister of gas. Just a coincidence or, in today’s parlance, “product placement” to clue the cognoscenti about what was happening in German occupied Europe, and how the Germans were going to pay for what they were doing. Furthermore, while it was a terrible thing to see the emaciated prisoners liberated by Allied troops, it needs to be mentioned that Germany was suffering a famine in the last year of the war, and POWs naturally would be at the very bottom of the food chain when it came to distributing foodstuffs. Naturally, the effects of the famine would be most pronounced there. The Jewish community likes to define the concentration camps as “death camps”, but if they were in fact “death camps” then why did literally hundreds of thousands of prisoners survive them? It is very easy to imagine that out of frustration over the constant carpet-bombing of civilian centers (i.e., cities), and feelings of impotence over their impending defeat that the Nazi’s would have ordered the wholesale slaughter of all prison camp inmates, but that never happened. In fact, in the Jewish author Elie Wiesel’s book, Night, he chronicles how he and his father were herded out of a camp and evacuated from the Auschwitz camp just as the Russians were approaching. The question I would put to Mr. Wiesel, is “Why would the Germans even bother herding you away from the camp when they much more easily could simply have shot you and be done with it?” It sapped manpower from the front to be guarding hundreds of thousands of prisoners. Furthermore, I would argue that every so-called “death camp survivor” is an argument against the camps being primarily factories of death. To return to the question why the camps were not bombed, I suspect that Allied intelligence had determined that it was safer for a Jew to be in the camp then to attempt to liberate them by bombing the camp. Furthermore, there is a public relations issue here. Had the Allies bombed the camps it would have been an acknowledgment that one reason for the war was to free Jews incarcerated by the Nazis, and Charles Lindbergh, the famous aviator and leader of the isolationist movement here in the US, was roundly criticized by the eastern Jewish-establishment American press for arguing that it was the Jews who where inciting the U.S. to enter World War II. Roosevelt, an archenemy of Lindbergh and a Freemason himself, had to be very careful not to appear as a lap-dog for the Jewish community. There was a great deal of anti-Jewishism in Minnesota and the United States in the early part of last century, and if the average GI came to believe that he was fighting the Nazis on behalf of the Jewish community, it could cause soldiers to question their resolve. Therefore, any suggestion that the war was a war for Jewish liberation would have found an unreceptive audience in the average GI. (All this of course reminds me of Abraham Lincoln’s famous, yet rarely quoted, remark that he would allow slavery if only the Southern States would remain within the Union. In other words, the plight of the black slave was really of no fundamental concern for Lincoln, he simply wanted to keep the United States intact. Of course history has whitewashed Lincoln’s position on slavery and has come to portray him, incorrectly, as a die-hard abolitionist, a man who wanted to free the slaves—but if this were truly so, then why in the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1st, 1863 did Lincoln only free slaves in the Confederate States—not in the border states such as Missouri; in fact, even in some of the Union-loyalist parishes in the Confederate States themselves slavery was still permissible even after the Emancipation Proclamation!) The point I am making here is that just as your average Union solider would have thrown down his arms if he were told that he was fighting to free the slaves during the American Civil War, similarly, if you average American GI came to believe that he was actually fighting for the Jewish community (which he really was) in picking up arms in World War II and combating the Nazis, he too could have thrown down his arms. A very common topic at the turn of the 20th Century but never discussed today is the so-called “Jewish Question”. Simply put, it asks what exactly do we do with a Jewish community that, for their own personal aggrandizement, has as one of its guiding motivations to exploit and harm non-Jews. More specifically, it asks, “How does an open society deal with a crypto-conspiratorial group that mutually and reciprocally promotes its own members to the highest levels of government, business, intelligence agencies…etc., not on the basis of merit but instead on the basis that they will work in unison to further promote the agenda and individuals within that society, an agenda that is explicitly harmful to persons outside that society?” As a corollary to their own view of their own superiority is a concomitant belief in the sub-human status of those outside the “Tribe”, if you will. This ideology perfectly matches the ideology of the Orthodox Jewish community, and it is important to remember that the Orthodox community only began to splinter in the mid-19th Century. According to the Halakah, non-Jews are to be treated as a means merely. In fact, the death of a non-Jew in many ways is to be celebrated (see Orwell’s remark in 1984, where he says that if you wish to see a vision of the future, imaging a [Jewish] jackboot smashing a [Gentile] skull…forever!). Question: why wasn’t Hitler assassinated well before he became Chancellor of Germany? His antipathy for the Jews was well known many years before he became Chancellor and the traditional Jewish method of assassination was poisoning, so he very easily could have been killed before he took office or, for that matter, after he assumed office. Answer: Jew does not kill Jew, and the Jewish community believed they could eventually turn, co-opt, or compromise Hitler. Were Hitler a full-blooded German he certainly would have been assassinated. In the Jewish mind, the death of 1000 Gentiles does not tip the scale when a single Jew is held in the balance. This reciprocity may also explain why Hitler very likely never ordered the extermination of the Jews. There was an unspoken, but understood, tacit agreement that they are not to kill one another. An unspoken quid pro quo existed between Hitler and the Jews. And don’t forget that Hitler’s primary solution to the Jewish Question was not incarceration. He did want other countries to accept the Jews from German territory but this option failed with the failure of the Evian Conference in 1938 (called, oddly, by the Freemason, President Roosevelt; why the American President would call such a conference to be held on European soil [Avian is in France] instead of the leader of France or England calling the meeting, speaks to the widespread anti-Jewishism in those countries; it was simply not politically viable for the leadership in those neighboring countries to accept a massive influx of Jews; the native, non-Jewish, populations would not accept this.) Needless to say, Germany itself attended the Evian meeting and led the mission to relocate the Jews. In other words, Nazi Germany was willing to negotiate and attempted to find a way to rid itself of the Jewish population—Nazi Germany’s initial strategy regarding the Jewish population was to peacefully resettle them. They did not intend right from the start to engage in the mass extermination of the Jews as some Holocaust scholars would have you believe. Germany’s solution of resettling the Jewish population to the island of Madagascar, I don’t think was completely disingenuous. The point there was to find a haven for the Jews far away from civilized society where they could not exploit and harm a native European population. The Jews would be allowed to be a Master Race if they wished, but only over black Africans, not white Europeans. It is also important to realize that Nazi Germany was willing to negotiate a conditional surrender late in the war, but the Allied leadership declared that they would only accept “unconditional surrender”. (In fact, even early in the war when Nazi Germany was at the pinnacle of success, Rudolf Hess, the Reich Minister without Portfolio, took a highly unusual flight to England on May 10th, 1941, to negotiate a peace with England; instead, of course, he was immediately captured, arrested, and imprisoned, only to die some 45 years later, alone, in Spandau Prison in Russian controlled East Berlin.) After the disastrous defeat at Stalingrad and certainly after the failure to regain the offensive after the failed offensive at Kursk in the summer of 1943, the Nazis were willing to surrender, but only conditionally (i.e., most likely only if the Nazi hierarchy could escape punishment). The consequence of the Allied policy of unconditional surrender was that there was no incentive for the Nazi leadership to surrender and bring to an early conclusion—as early as the spring of 1943—to the suffering, death, and carnage of World War II. One reason—dare I say the most prominent reason—for not agreeing to a conditional surrender on the part of the Nazi’s is that that would inevitably entail an investigation into the causes of the war and the legitimacy of Nazi charges against the Jewish community. Since the ruling Jewish establishment did not want the spotlight of public opinion shown on their own culpability for the war, necessarily, the Allied leadership (both Roosevelt and Churchill were Freemasons incidentally) eschewed anything less that unconditional surrender. The consequent additional war profiteering by the Establishment and crypto-Establishment was added gravy, so to speak, for the continuation of the war. Here it is important to acknowledge that even if you believe Jews in some way are superior to non-Jews, literally hundreds of thousands of Jews could have escaped death had the Allies been willing to negotiate a Nazi surrender a full two years before the war actually ended. While hundreds of thousands of Jews would have been saved, so also would have been—literally—millions of non-Jews. Let us turn now to the Holocaust itself. It is interesting to note that not a single document has ever been found linking Hitler with authorizing the Holocaust—this in spite of the fact that hundreds of scholars have searched for decades to find such a link. Instead, what they have provided us with it the ambiguous phrase, “The Final Solution”; implicitly, that is (of course!) a euphemism to the cognoscenti. Hitler really authorized the Holocaust; he simply used the phrase “Final Solution” to disguise his true purpose. While I have not read the totality of the scholarship on the phrase, “The Final Solution”, it certainly is not clear to me in any manner whatsoever that Hitler actually meant the extermination of the Jewish community when he employed that phrase. The “Final Solution” could mean the expulsion of Jews, the forced immigration of Jews, the incarceration of Jews in concentration camps…etc. but there is no transparent link with that obviously ambiguous phrase and the notion of the mass extermination of the Jews. Supposedly we are to—wink, wink, nod, nod—“understand” the crypto-speech of the Nazis; by accepting the received and accepted opinion on the meaning of the phrase “The Final Solution” we too can feel ourselves a part of the cognoscenti, a part of the knowers, a part of the intellectual elite who really knows what the Nazis were up to with their purported euphemistic phrasing. I don’t recall ever reading any literature ever calling into question the meaning of the phrase, “The Final Solution”; it is simply taken as a given, an unexamined premise--an unnecessary to question, accepted code word--that we all (of course) understand. I, instead, would argue that pro-Jewish scholars have themselves invented the euphemistic meaning—after all, they could not find a non-euphemistic, explicit link connecting Hitler with the Holocaust--and then they applied it, retroactively, to reveal to us (according to their suspect interpretation) Hitler’s purported secret agenda. (I do not have time here to analyze the sociology and function of the gatekeepers and arbiters of orthodox scholarship in the academic community or in the Media.) With the above in mind, doesn’t anyone anywhere find it curious that there is not a single document linking Hitler with authorizing the Holocaust. If I were a Nazi functionary responsible for gassing Jews, I know that I would make d***certain I would keep any even remotely pertinent document which I could later use to exculpate my behavior. I would at least want to be able to declare that I was merely “following orders”—the so-called Nuremberg defense—and at least have a piece of paper, an official Nazi document, to back up my claim. Curiously, however, with respect to the Holocaust, if everyone was merely following orders, and only Hitler gave the orders, then whose orders were being followed since Hitler did not order the Holocaust? My opinion is that lower level Nazi functionaries, deluged with a mass of prisoners it was impossible to feed, took it upon themselves to perform triage, so to speak, decide who most likely would survive the starvation conditions in the camp, and who would not. There is even a bizarre modicum of mercy in their version of triage—not waste resources on those who would probably die anyway and conserve the remaining resources for those who likely would live to see the end of the war. At least this may pertain to some of the overseers at some of the camps. The Nuremberg defense. Presumably all the Nazi leadership, short of Hitler, claimed that they were merely following orders, so that they are not directly culpable for their behavior. However, it is important to know what was denied, and what was permitted, the Nazi defendants. First of all, the German defendants could not introduce evidence of Allied atrocities in an effort to provide a tu quoque defense; in other words, the Allies were equally guilty of war crimes and therefore they are not in a position to judge the Nazis. For example, the notorious fire bombing of Dresden. It occurred on the 13th , 14th, and 15th of February in 1945, long after the war was won by the Allies. What few scholars tell you however is that the 13th of February was Shrove Tuesday, the time of confession and penance in England, and 773 Lancastrian English bombers flew the sortie on the 13th. . That is why the British bombed on that specific Tuesday, because unlike in the U.S., Shrove Tuesday for the British is a time of penance, not celebration. In Dresden, on the other hand, it was a time of no doubt stiff-lipped celebration—German parents desperately trying to show some kind of levity to please their famished and suffering children on a Christian holy day designated for revelry, that is, until the bombers appeared at 9:30 pm that evening. On the very next day, Ash Wednesday—yes, Ash Wednesday—American bombers returned to fire bomb the city yet again and incinerate the civilian inhabitants. The abominable purpose of the subsequent American bombings—527 heavy bombers over the 14th and 15th--was to kill Germans attempting to recover the dead and injured. Anglo-American scholars have downplayed the death toll, but even they extremely conservatively estimate 60,000 civilians and refuges died (my estimate would be closer to 200,000). The Allies had discovered that by creating an intense firestorm in the center of a city it would necessarily create a vacuum resulting in tremendous wind currents sucking fleeing women, children, and the infirm back into the belly of the flame. The premeditated, calculated evil of such an atrocity boggles the mind, and is on par, certainly, with any of the evil the Nazis were accused of. Not only was the “area bombing”--the British euphemism for targeting, in a deliberate, admittedly (even by the British) terroristic fashion, nonmilitary, civilian centers, so as to weaken the resolve of the enemy—of Dresden timed to coincide with the onset of the Christian season of Lent, Dresden was also internationally famous for being the heart of the Reformation movement in Christianity. Hitherto Dresden had never—yes, never—been bombed by Allied aircraft, and it was the sixth largest city in Germany and, because there were no military targets in the city, it had virtually no anti-aircraft defense with which to defend itself. Instead, the British and the Americans timed the horrific attack to fall on Shrove Tuesday and Ash Wednesday, and they selected Dresden as a target in a psychological war campaign to signal to the Nazis that the Nazi Reformation of calling the Jewish community to account has now been totally obliterated in fire, smoke |
1 | ||
|
Author: Sean
 |
1 |
|
|
|
Author: sean
|
1 | ||
|
Author: sanny
|
1 |
Recent Classifieds
| Title and Description | Photo | Action |
|
Author: Mark
Political OutsiderAuthor, Architect, Agent of CHANGE !!! |
|
|
|
Author: sam
Net4manpower urgently required persons for the following home based/part time works:
|
|
|
|
Author: sam
Net4manpower looking for candidate for the following categories:
|
|
|
|
Author: sam
Net4manpower looking for candidate for the following categories:
|
|
|
|
Author: sam
Net4manpower looking for candidate for the following categories:
|
|
Recent Events
Nothing found.
Recent Clubs
Nothing found.
