Tell the Truth & Shame the Devil

by Tell the Truth

  In Italy, for instance, the bomb which caused the 1980 massacre at Bologna main station, intended to incriminate the Italian Communist Party, the largest in Europe, and prevent it from achieving power, came from Gladio the makings of the bomb… came from an arsenal used by Gladio… according to a parliamentary commission on terrorism (The Guardian, January 16, 1991).

  Incidentally, Otto Schily, Ensslin’s lawyer, states that, by fulfilling his duty to defend his client, without thereby condoning the RAF’s acts, he had to use political argumentation. This was interpreted by the court as publicity and support for the accused, which, in turn, made him liable to prosecution (Schily, “Die Anwälte der RAF,” Arte Television, November 27, 2012), just as is now the case with lawyers who seek to defend “holocaust deniers.”

  Bilderberg-participant Otto Schily, both in his private and professional life, eventually disclosed his innate opportunism. His second wife is Jewish and he has received a Jewish award. If a mercenary hooligan (“Joschka” Fischer) can become the Green Party’s Foreign Minister, a highbrow lawyer (Otto Schily) can certainly become the Socialist Party’s Interior Minister. It’s all just a matter of adaptability.

  Who are the termites? Well known, but it can’t do any harm to repeat:

  A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. (Cicero)

  So the world has demonstrably entered the Orwellian realm. (Crimethink: “Thoughtcrime is death. Thoughtcrime does not entail death, Thoughtcrime is death.... The essential crime that contains all others in itself.” (George Orwell, 1984)

  In 1984 the criminal force called “the resistance” is led by “Emmanuel Goldstein” and another “resistance” member is “Aaronson.” Curiously, despite his extraordinary prescience, Orwell misidentified the real menace.

  Why should laws against “thought-crime” exist? Because such laws serve to control and limit freedom of expression, and directly serve the Jewish mechanism of suppressing criticism under the general heading of “anti-Semitism,” while simultaneously depending upon the same eagerly seized-upon “anti-Semitism” in order to claim victim status. How are they passed?

  In Switzerland, the above-mentioned “anti-racism” law was promulgated in 1995. However, it might not have passed, as the Swiss People’s Party’s leader and main backer opposed it. Then he mysteriously capitulated.

  Years later, Sigi Feigel, a locally prominent Jewish lawyer and head of the Jewish community, boasted in Switzerland’s most important daily that he had taken on the duty, in the matter of the “Antiracism” law, to “immobilize” Mr. Blocher. (reported in the NZZ, December 14, 2003). It appears that one of Herr Blocher’s main businesses was threatened. That should serve to show how such blackmail works.

  Theoretically, these laws are also supposed to “protect” gypsies, homosexuals, blacks, etc., but Jewish concern for other minorities is probably slight to non-existent. (A newly discovered Truman diary, dated 1947, was published recently. The diary revealed scorn for “cruel Jews.” He wrote:

  “The Jews, I find, are very, very selfish, they care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D[isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the Jews get special treatment.” He continued: “Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the underdog.” Robert Rabil, History News Network)

  The advantages of such laws are considerable. Instead of requiring concrete evidence to prosecute a violation of customary law, “anti-racism” statutes allow a judicature compliant to Jewish pressure to concoct an infinite variety of allegations and interpretations, and to level trumped up charges at anyone who has voiced a politically incorrect opinion.

  It is difficult to understand how professional legislators could pass such inexact concepts into law. These decrees make a mockery of the courts and the judicial process, of evidential burden, and the standard of proof. In imitation of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, they disregard exculpatory, demonstrative and scientific evidence.

  Memo from today: “In the trial, physical evidence was considered suspect but the testimony of the police was cast as infallible. McMillan faces seven years in prison.” (Actual sentence: 90 days in jail, five years probation.) Sexually aggressed from behind by a policeman, Cecily McMillan apparently elbowed him in the eye. (New York Trial of Cecily McMillan, Occupy Wall Street protester, Guardian, 5 May, 2014)

  In Germany, evidence introduced by a defence attorney is not only rejected in favour of the abstract ideas of “public incitement” and “prejudice,” it may be used to prosecute him too. Naturally, this threat reduces the number of lawyers willing to defend such cases. Where cowardice and self-interest rule the courts, justice suffers. Under the confused and hazy notion of “hate crime,” biased judges interpret the law according to the will of their political masters.

  “It’s no use having right on your side. One must also reckon with the law.”

  The arguments used during the French Revolution to justify regicide could be paraphrased here, to explain Germany’s post-war servile attitude:

  The foundation of the system rests on post 1945 re-education, whose symbol is a kind of hologram, that is to say, a projection. According to this projection, Germany and the Germans were guilty of a particular crime against Jews. The system demands, among other things, that all people without exception acknowledge this crime as unparalleled and pay tribute to it, by humbling themselves constantly before the many shrines to its commemoration, and that Germany must eternally pay compensation in various ways, sometimes to the survivors of the crime and sometimes by donating submarines to Israel. Whoever rebels against this coercion is punished, imprisoned. He is accused of having denied the projection. Although the accusation of denial is nonsense, as one cannot deny what one does not hold for truth, the concept of “denial” has been upheld.

  Projection-deniers must be punished, in order to maintain the system. Those who reasonably ask for an explanation are rejected on the grounds that the projection cannot be judged, as it has already been judged. Its notoriety (“common knowledge”) has been declared, otherwise Germany is innocent. To propose putting the projection on trial, in whatever way, is a step back towards National Socialism; it would be against the concept of the federal republic, because it places the existing order in the dock. After all, the projection could be discovered to be an invention, if it is put on trial, it could be a lie. Or rather it would be considered to be unproven, until its actuality is proved. But if the projection is declared to be null and void, what becomes of the system?

  This is the purest logic. As re-education has undermined all the foundations of National Socialism, the possibility that the principles of this re-education could be fraudulent implies that the system could be guilty and that the era of National Socialism was not as bad as it is represented to be. So the system’s “justice” requires imprisonment instead of a just procedure; the system could not afford to allow the tenets of re-education to be called into question. Thus the primary adversary of truth has mutated and evolved since the Nuremberg Trials to the extent that the German state itself has been compelled for its own sake over 70 years to uphold a fraudulent system whose exposure would call into question not only the legitimacy of the physical entity “Federal Republic of Germany,” but of its entire official a
pparatus as well.

  ***

  A judge expressed himself very frankly to attorney Dr. Göbel, an expert in “gas chamber trials”: “Surely you don’t imagine that your motion to show evidence will be allowed. You must know that there is a political provision. This provision requires that those who even doubt the gas chambers must be brought to justice and condemned. You will never succeed.” (Dr. K. Göbel, Amtsgericht München, 22.7.1992.)

  These politicians, in turn, are only handymen who respond with knee jerk alacrity to every Jewish protest or demand for compensation. As every demand is met, the next becomes yet more peremptory. The repeated cycle of protest-extortion-protest has permeated the common conscience to such an extent that its validity goes unquestioned. Few detect the duality whereby one hand begs while the other holds the cudgel of intimidation ever ready.

  I hardly exaggerate. Jewish life consists of two elements: extracting money and protesting. (Nahum Goldmann, ExPresident of the WJC World Jewish Congress in his book The Jewish Paradox, Athenäum, Frankfurt 1988, p. 77)

  ***

  The Jewish nation dares to display an irreconcilable hatred toward all nations, and revolts against all masters; always superstitious, always greedy for the well-being enjoyed by others, always barbarous -- cringing in misfortune and insolent in prosperity. (Voltaire, Essai sur les Moeurs)

  ***

  ...their power is unique in being off-limits to normal criticism even when it’s highly visible. They themselves behave as if their success were a guilty secret, and they panic, and resort to accusations, as soon as the subject is raised. Jewish control of the major media in the media age makes the enforced silence both paradoxical and paralyzing. Survival in public life requires that you know all about it, but never refer to it. A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you. (Joe Sobran, former syndicated columnist for the National Review, 1996)

  To be honest, I was feeling my way as I went. My convictions, strong as they were, were still based in belief and not on evidence. So I set about buttressing my sentiments through study. By means of remarks and tips in publications and on the internet, I acquired certain seminal books without which a serious study of the period is vain. Some of these appeared in the early 1900s, some directly after the war, and some quite recently. A few were fairly hard to get. Some, I had to prevail on acquaintances to hunt down through their own confidential sources.

  The National Zeitung itself, apart from its patriotic character, is an informative, well-written newspaper. It treats subjects that would be ignored elsewhere. As is the case with so much that is controversial, the average German shuns the paper without ever having opened or even touched it. He does not apparently ask himself whether it is altogether logical or intelligent to condemn something that he has never actually examined. He simply takes it as his duty, presumably because “everybody knows that it’s right-wing” and right-wing has been a no-go area for Germans since the war. Any degree of loony Leftishness is permitted, as in the “Marxistisch-Leninistisch Partei Deutschlands” (MLPD), but even the established centre-right parties have to watch what they say, in case they also are criticized for veering too far towards the right. It is only a step or a stumble from “right-wing” to “neo-Nazi.” Unfortunately, the browbeaten and intimidated public takes its lead from the coordinated media, and is willing to reject those the state-sanctioned commentators have censured.

  The National Assembly was moved into an old manege on the Rue de Rivoli in October 1789. The radicals sat to the left of the chairman, the conservatives to the right. Hence the llluminati created left and right as ideological concepts in world politics. Everything that had to do with the left was thereafter considered progressive since it was true Illuminism. (Juri Lina, The Sign of the Scorpion, p. 47)

  This is an interesting theory, in view of contemporary Leftist political agendas. However, the political concepts of “Right” and “Left” are irrelevant and outmoded. Over the years of their lives, an individual’s political pendulum habitually swings from left to right. Youth is often attracted to Leftist causes—it is prey to cults and trends, and it has nothing to lose. The student (impecunious, ignorant, zealous) preaches the redistribution of wealth and other half-baked theories; the salaried employee (family, house, investments) propagates conservatism. This rule applies to all except the few incorrigible and embittered have-nots, whose lives have passed them by, or those who have attained lucrative or prominent positions through their political adherence (party, union leaders). If one is convinced that, for humanity’s sake, organic cultures must survive and continue to be protected by sovereign states, it follows that an informed patriotism must be one’s only criterion, whether from the left or the right end of the spectrum. Presently, many sovereign states have been forced into a kind of limbo within political blocs, but every potentially free nation comes with an attached satellite community, a sort of lumber room of re-educated or indoctrinated citizens, just waiting to be dusted off and reintegrated among their better-grounded fellows.

  My approach to writing my articles was first to overcome the anger that my chosen subject might have evoked when I first came across it. Anger inherently denotes lack of detachment and leads to stridency, which makes for dull reading. I usually tried to find some parallel or comparison which allowed me to ridicule the matter. Ridicule is a more powerful weapon than indignation. By contrast, the goody-goodies (“Gutmenschen”) and Jewish scribblers, who owe their livelihood respectively to their fawning servility or their ethnicity rather than to any talent they may have, are accustomed to lambasting their targets with a small vocabulary of stale insults, which renders them tiresome and predictable. Their enemies are anyone who criticizes anything faintly Jewish, be it a book, play, food --you name it-- and who therefore can be called “anti-Semitic.” “[A]n anti-Semite used to mean a man who hated Jews. Now it means a man who is hated by Jews.” (Joseph Sobran, For Fear of the Jews, September 2002)

  At best, “Semitic” describes only those who speak Semitic languages. In this sense the ancient Hebrews, Assyrians, Phoenicians, and Carthaginians were Semites. The Arabs and some Ethiopians are modern Semitic-speaking people. Modern Jews are often called Semites, but this name properly applies only to those who use the Hebrew Language. (Merriam Webster, Concise Encyclopaedia).

  “The word ‘Semitic’ is derived from Shem, one of the three sons of Noah in Genesis 5, Genesis 6, Genesis 10:21, or more precisely from the Greek derivative of that name, namely Σημ (Sēm); the noun form referring to a person is Semite.” (Wikipedia, et al). So an “anti-Semite” is one who dislikes those who speak a Semitic language; an absurd concept, handy for lazy conformers (people who don’t or won’t think for themselves) and expedient for those with an agenda.

  Moreover, with all due respect to Webster, Hebrew may be a Semitic language and “Jews” may “often (be) called Semites,” but are Hebrew-speaking Jews in fact?

  ***

  My regular commentary was partly impelled by the conviction that the claimed causations of the last world war and its evolution were not as they had been taught to me, nor as they appeared regularly in the media. For that matter, nor is the usual explication of the 1914-18 war satisfactory. In 1914 Europe, where homogeneous, structured, patriotic populations had been inflamed by the crudest propaganda (e.g. postcards of German soldiers “Bayoneting Belgian Babies”), advertising itself, or illustrated lies, was still in its infancy, but it was being developed energetically under the tutelage of such as Edward de Bernays, the Jewish “pioneer of public relations and propaganda” (Wikipedia) whose understanding of its power was clear from his utterance:

  The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.” (de Bernays, Propaga
nda, 1928, p. 9).

  Yet the enthusiasm with which the masses on both sides, educated and uneducated alike, committed themselves to the subhuman conditions of trench warfare and their ultimate end use by their respective governments as cannon fodder, is now incomprehensible.

  In 1914, the standard of living among developed nations was improving and they should have had no pressing need to upset this status. Britain, through its empire, controlled almost a quarter of the globe and was, therefore, at least theoretically, prosperous. So were Germany and America. Britain and Germany were commercial rivals, but they were also civilized nations, whose royal families, moreover, were closely related (King George V, the Kaiser and the Tsar were cousins), however variable their feelings were for each other. What on earth was so menacing to this general tranquillity that required a convulsion that resulted in the deaths of an estimated 16 million people in World War I and a further 60 million (2.5% of the world’s population) in World War II, the end of the British Empire, and irredeemable European debt?

  Well, citizens and their standards of living were not foremost in the minds of those who controlled the British Empire, perhaps better expressed as “the Empire of the City of London,” because those that really pulled the strings of empire were not in government but in finance. The predetermined and inescapable national debt which followed the creation of the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve (and other central banks), and the taxes which ensued to pay it were insufficient alone to satisfy their ambitions. The goal of global indebtedness (“globalisation”) required both Britain and its potential opponents to sacrifice their stability through a major war. This fact alone explains the course of history.