The Asphyxiation of German History
by Robert Hickson
National Public Radio stringer Elizabeth Beardsley crossed the channel in late 2011 to look for anti-German sentiment in France. In spite of the fact that, by her own admission, she didn't find any, she felt obliged to conclude her report with the following observation:
References to Germany's warmongering past have been popping up all over Europe. In Greece, there is talk of a Fourth Reich, and Italian television has depicted [German Prime Minister Angela] Merkel wearing a Kaiser helmet with a spike.
As if to show that great minds run in the same circles, Sylvia Poggioli, NPR's stringer in Italy, claimed that "Germany's obsession with inflation" had created "strong anti-German sentiment with revived memories of the Nazi occupation" in Greece, as well as "more and more references to the German past, such as goose-stepping methods and so on . . . elsewhere in the media." It had gotten so bad that "Even former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer told an Italian daily the idea of a Germanized continent is unhealthy."
We've become used to NPR promoting homosexuality. Shortly after NPR warned us about the goose-stepping methods associated with the German past, it ran a story about two lesbian sailors kissing after their ship docked. What does this have to do with German finance? The fact that Ellen Weiss, former head of the NPR newsroom, is the wife of Rabbi David Saperstein, the man most responsible for the passage of gay marriage in New York and the overturn of "don't ask don't tell" in the military. Ellen left NPR in January 2010, but the Jewish revolutionary spirit lives on. Now NPR is dredging up "memories of the Nazi occupation" in Greece to distract everyone from the fact that both Greece and Italy have installed agents of Goldman Sachs as heads of their respective governments.
According to Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, the new heads of state in Europe's southern tier look more like Jewish bankers than "goose-stepping" Germans: "The new president of the European Central Bank is Mario Draghi," who used to be Vice Chairman and Managing Director of Goldman Sachs International and a member of Goldman Sachs' Management Committee." Mario Monti, Italy's new prime minister, "who was appointed not elected, was a member of Goldman Sachs Board of International Advisers." Lucas Papademos, Greece's newly appointed prime minister, is a member of America's Trilateral Commission, in addition to being a former Governor of the Bank of Greece and, from 2002-2010, Vice President of the European Central Bank.
In other words, it is bankers—in particular former employees of Goldman Sachs—and not goose-stepping Germans who have taken over southern Europe. Germany is now in a life and death struggle with Jewish finance, and as of now it looks as if New York is winning:
On November 25, two days after a failed German government bond auction in which Germany was unable to sell 35% of its offerings of 10-year bonds, the German finance minister, Wolfgang Schaeuble said that Germany might retreat from its demands that the private banks that hold the troubled sovereign debt from Greece, Italy, and Spain must accept part of the cost of their bailout by writing off some of the debt.
Jewish finance in New York decided to pull out the club known as "history" to beat Germany into submission once again. As Dr. Roberts put it:
"Germany, which has been browbeat since its defeat in World War II, has been made constitutionally incapable of strong leadership. Any sign of German leadership is quickly quelled by dredging up remembrances of the Third Reich."
Leadership in this instance meant that Germany was insisting that the bankers (i.e., Goldman Sachs) who sold Greece toxic financial instruments, which the previous Greek government used to disguise the real magnitude of her indebtedness, take a 50 percent haircut on their bonds. The idea of Germany insisting on shared hardship as the solution to the debt crisis was intolerable to New York's Jewish banking elite, hence the attack by NPR.
As Sylvia Poggioli indicated, the debate over Germany's role in Europe has invariably been contextualized by "the politics of history," which is to say the Jewish manipulation of German guilt for financial advantage. The attacks on Germany in late 2011 were reminiscent of the debate which took place in Germany in late 2003, which was in turn reminiscent of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's attempt to unearth the real history of communism in his monumental history of The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956, first published in English in 1973.
The debate over Germany's role in the European debt crisis was the newest manifestations of pre-emptive psychological warfare, which is also strategic psycho-cultural warfare.
The 2003 controversy began on October 3 of that year when Martin Hohmann (formerly of Konrad Adenauer's party, the CDU) delivered a Day of German Unity speech entitled "Justice for Germany" ("Gerechtigkeit fuer Deutschland"). Brigadier General Reinhard Guenzel, Chief of the elite KSK(Kommando Spezialkraefte, a part of the German Special Operations Forces), responded by writing a private letter to Hohmann, expressing his admiration and support of Hohmann's essential thesis. The scholar, Johannes Rogalla von Bieberstein, came under attack, especially because his own very cautious empirical study, Jewish Bolshevism: Myth and Reality (Juedischer Bolschewismus: Mythos und Realitaet), was explicitly cited by Martin Hohmann as a reliable authority in the controversial subject of the Revolutionary Jew, especially his destructive activities in the Bolshevist Movement.
Like "Antifaschismus" (Anti-Fascism), which is a "Machtstrategie" (Strategy of Power) and a form of strategic psychological warfare (in the words and insights of Professor Klaus Hornung, "Antisemitismus" (anti-Semitism) is a form of strategic and pre-emptive psychological warfare and a strategy of gaining or increasing power and immunity from criticism, as well as its lack of public accountability. It is, in any event, always important to look at what these Revolutionaries do, and what the Bolshevist Revolutionaries have done — even if they were Jews from their roots Talmudic, Kabbalistic, Atheistic, or otherwise, and thus almost always full of contempt or hatred for Christianity and Christian Civilization (East or West). Look at what they did — to include the Jewish Bolshevists from Trotsky-Bronstein to Kamenev to Yagoda and to Kaganovich.
However, some would say that this matter is so taboo that you cannot even say that it is taboo! Such is the Forward March of Regress!
In his chapter on "The Blue-caps" in The Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn speaks of "the grinding of our souls" in "the gears" of the Gulag System, "the great Nighttime Institution" (144), from which "a surfeit of grief floods our eyes", because "our souls are pulverized and our flesh hangs down in tatters like a beggar's rags"; and, therefore, we cannot be good and detailed "historians of our torturers". "For it is certain," moreover, that "they [these torturers] will never describe themselves as they actually are".
Solzhenitsyn describes ironically N.K.V.D. Chief Genrikh Yagoda's "striving toward the sacred" (173), which then provokes Solzhenitsyn's own deeper inquiries about the reality of moral evil and about the ideological barriers against setting any limits to moral evil. According to eyewitnesses in the group around the Soviet writer, Maxim Gorky, Solzhenitsyn reports that:
In the vestibule of the bathhouse on Yagoda's estate near Moscow, ikons were placed so that Yagoda and his comrades, after undressing, could use them as targets for revolver practice before going in to take their baths. How are we to understand that? As the act of an evildoer? What sort of behavior is it? Do such people really exist?
The classic evildoers, "like Shakespeare's Macbeth or Iago," recognize themselves as evildoers, and know their souls are black". Indeed, even Iago "very precisely identifies his purposes and his motives as being black [i.e., as corrosively jealous and envious of others] and born of hate [towards Othello]." Yet, Solzhenitsyn says, these depictions of evil seem "somewhat farcical and clumsy to our contemporary perception". In attempting to explain why, Solzhenitsyn leads us, as did his Russian predecessor, Dostoievsky, to the spiritual depths of things:
That's not the way the operation of evil is! To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he is doing is good; or else that it's a well-considered act in conformity with natural law [to include the "Natural Moral Law" of "fittingness," "oughtness," and "obligation"]. Fortunately, it is in the nature [essence] of the human being to seek a justification for his actions.Then, Solzhenitsyn sets up an important contrast for the further clarification of our minds:
Macbeth's self-justifications were feeble and his conscience devoured him. Yes, even Iago was a little lamb too. The imagination and the spiritual strength of Shakespeare's evildoers stopped short at a dozen corpses. Because they had no ideology (173-174).They had no manipulative and self-deluding "dialectical ideology." That is to say, they had no revolutionary ideology of dialectical (or historical) materialism – nor any Hegelian "dialectical idealism" wherein even the limiting logical and ontological "law of contradiction" does not, purportedly, apply. And philosophical materialism itself is an irrational self-refuting proposition. (The "processes" by which we "arrive" at the conclusion that materialism is considered to be "true" i.e., that "mind is derivative from matter in motion" is not even a rational process. Logos intelligence is initially and inherently subverted, being only "epiphenomenal" and "derivative," not "directive" nor "illuminating" of reality, nor freely able to "take a measure" of an extra-mental reality.)
Referring to the "dialectic" of Hegelian idealism or of Marxist dialectical materialism, Solzhenitsyn says that ideology, as in the various forms of National Socialist, Bolshevist, Zionist, the "Chosen People," or the "Master Race" ideologies, "is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification." It also "gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. That is the social theory which helps make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and others' eyes, so that he won't hear reproaches and curses but will receive praise and honors. Solzhenitsyn continues with ironic (even sarcastic) emphasis:
Thanks to ideology, the twentieth century was fated to experience evildoing on a scale calculated in the millions. This cannot be denied nor passed over nor suppressed. How then, do we dare insist that evildoers do not exist? And who is it who destroyed these millions? Without evildoers there would have been no Archipelago.
In the illuminating words of a beloved friend, the evildoers of the Gulag System constituted a new kind of "binary weapon" dangerously combining their personal moral vices (distorted habits) with their distorting ideology, namely an intellectual "para-reality" of an "armed," but altogether perverting, ideology (indeed "an armed ideology"). "Ideology" thus gave further "justifications" and delusive "self-justifications" for doing what was thought to be "expedient." Says Solzhenitsyn, since those "enemies of the progressive Revolution were going to die anyway, why couldn't they be fed to the animals in the zoos and at least support the 'zoo economy' in those famine years," when even the animals had not enough food?! Solzhenitsyn then says, apropos of the illusionary liberation from limits (and the indifferent infliction of moral cruelty), that ideology undermines any sense of limit; it intrinsically subverts any moral limit:
This is the precise line the Shakespearean evildoers could not cross. But the evildoer with ideology [especially with dialectical ideology which denies the logical law of contradiction] does cross it [the threshold, the human moral limit], and his eyes remain dry and clear.
Ideology enables such a corrupted man to cross the "threshold magnitudes" and more easily (and perhaps irrevocably) to pursue evil without limit and without conscientious penitence, nor even impenitent remorse. To explain what he means, Solzhenitsyn proposes an analogy from physics, which:
is aware of phenomena which occur only at threshold magnitudes, which do not exist at all until a certain threshold encoded by and known to nature has been crossed . ... [For example,] when the threshold of the photoelectric effect has been crossed.(174-175)
Applying the principle of "thresholds" to the moral order, as well as to the physical order of things, Solzhenitsyn claims that:
Evidently evildoing also has a threshold magnitude. ... he [a human being] slips, falls back, clambers up, repents, things begin to darken again. But just so long as the threshold of evildoing is not crossed, the possibility of returning remains, and he himself is still within our hope. But when, through the density of evil actions . . . he crosses the threshold, he has left humanity behind, without, perhaps, the possibility of return.
This is, in Rabelais' words, "a terrible thing to think upon"!
Sharply—often sarcastically—revealing the indifference and cynical lack of justice in the Soviet Union, where "no one dares say a word about vice," although "virtue has been allowed to enter in all its tatters and sit in the corner, as long as it doesn't raise its voice". Solzhenitsyn then gradually considers the devastating effects of all of this upon the young. The cumulative effects, he implies, will not be easily corrected and not without much suffering, contrition of heart, and concrete reparation! What happens when the young see virtue mocked, and then are told that "no one was to blame for it" although many millions of their fellow citizens "did get mowed down"? When some of the young then want to examine the truth of the past, they are cynically and sophistically met with the question, "Why open old wounds?" ... "That would be 'digging up the past'"(176).
The situation in West Germany, according to Solzhenitsyn, was different precisely because Germany, unlike the Soviet Union, dug up its past. "In that same period," Solzhenitsyn writes referring to 1945-1966:
eighty-six thousand Nazi criminals had been convicted in West Germany. Meanwhile, in East Germany, nothing of the sort is to be heard. Which means they have been shod with new shoes, they are valued in the service of the state. And still we choke with anger here [in the Soviet Union]. ...We even stay after work to attend protest meetings and vote: Too few! Eighty-six thousand are too few. And twenty years is still too little! It must go on and on.' And during the same period, in our own country (according to the reports of the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court) about ten men have been convicted.... Meanwhile, if we translate 86,000 West Germans into our own terms, on the basis of comparative population figures, it would become one quarter million (175-176).Moreover, he continues: "the fact that the murderers of our husbands and fathers ride through our streets and we make way for them as they pass, doesn't get us worked up at all, doesn't touch us". Indeed, he adds, with irony:
Here is a riddle not for us contemporaries to figure out: Why is Germany [West Germany] allowed to punish its evildoers and Russia is not? What kind of disastrous path lies ahead of us [especially for the youth] if we do not have the chance to purge ourselves of that putrefaction rotting inside our body? What, then, can Russia teach the world?
In contrast to the unpurged Soviet Union, which refuses any expiation or "national reparation," Solzhenitsyn considers the protracted humiliation of West Germany:
A country which has condemned evil 86,000 times from the rostrum of a court and irrevocably condemned it in literature and among its young people year by year, step by step, is purged of it. (176-177)
Despite what Solzhenitsyn justly says, many others, it would seem, do not really believe that Germany is yet sufficiently purged! More is required. When Martin Hohmann and Brigadier General Reinhard Guenzel said similar things in 2003 to what Solzhenitsyn has so proportionately and explicitly observed, they were immediately rebuked, mocked and expelled from their professional positions. The German military, to my observation, was conspicuously and dishonorably silent. Was it really justified for them not to defend in public one of their own honorable officers after he had been summarily dismissed for writing a private letter in honorable support of Hohmann and his public speech, "Gerechtigkeit fuer Deutschland" ("Justice for Germany")? Such self-censorship and cowardice are to me unworthy of the Profession of Arms, but will now probably metastasize in Germany as well as in the United States.
However, even in 1973—almost 40 years ago—Solzhenitsyn, who himself was once a military officer, candidly and honorably and courageously spoke out against the dishonorable and craven conduct of his own people:
What are we to do? Someday our descendants will describe our several generations as generations of driveling do-nothings. First we submissively allowed them to massacre us by the millions [in the Gulag System], and then with devoted concern we tended the murderers in their prosperous old age [as is the case with "the smug and stupid Molotov, a man who... is saturated with our blood and nobly crosses the sidewalk to seat himself in his long, wide automobile".
Attentive to the common good of his own country and to his special duty to Russia's own children, Solzhenitsyn says:
What are we to do if the great Russian tradition of penitence is incomprehensible and absurd to them [i.e., to our Gulag "executioners" and "murderers"]? ... But let us be generous. We will not shoot them.... But for the sake of our country and our children we have the duty to seek them all out and bring them all to trial! Not to put them on trial so much as their crimes.
Implicitly, Solzhenitsyn would also logically include the unmistakably cruel and well-known "Jewish Bolsheviks," would he not? (Could we not justly name several of "Lenin's Willing Executioners" and even "Stalin's Willing Executioners," like Yagoda and Lazar Kaganovich)? In a "just proportion," he says,
We have to condemn publicly the very idea that some people have the right to repress others. In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future (177-178).
And then, with special attention to the young, Solzhenitsyn vividly concludes his memorably profound and trenchant chapter, "The Bluecaps," wherein he examines this matter of intractably unbounded evil and of the moral necessity of justice, inasmuch as "from the most ancient times, justice has been a two-part concept: virtue triumphs, and vice is punished" (175). But, he adds:
When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting [as in the case of Molotov] their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations. It is for this reason... that they are growing up "indifferent." Young people are acquiring the conviction that foul deeds are never punished on earth, that they always bring prosperity. It is going to be uncomfortable, horrible, to live in such a country!
It is fitting and desirable, therefore, that the Germans themselves read and re-read the trenchant analysis and candor which lies at the heart of Solzhenitsyn's analysis and thereby further form their own deep and intelligently strategic, moral and spiritual resistance to Sophistry and to "the Lie." This would increase their own virtuous resistance to the very intelligent, very hostile, strategic psychological warfare still being conducted against their culture and way of life! They, too, like the Russians, must come out "from under the rubble." They must resist manipulative Sophistry and the Lie. They, too, must resist the psychological "binary weapon": the combination of moral corruption and a cramped, constricted ideology (i.e., false theories about "special ethnic immunities" and the permission of "arrogant exceptionalisms").
Even if the Germans cannot immediately prevail and trenchantly present to their own children the whole truth of recent history in proper proportion, they must at least refuse their tolerance of the Lie. They must refuse their partaking of and complicity with the Lie. Coming out from under the rubble and away from the asphyxiation of untruth—and combating the dialectical ideologies of the Lie and the Sophistical "half truths"—they must take one step at a time, but, no matter what, refuse to participate in the Lie!
https://culturewarsmagazine.com/2012/German.htm