I haven’t read such a brilliant essay, authored by Robert John, in years! Excellent! Simply excellent! It neatly encapsulates all the major questions regarding the biological survival of Whites, particularly Germans. Taken from The Occidental Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 2, Summer 2007.
The War That Never Ends
Following World War II Germany was subjected to years of foreign military occupation, and programs of “re-education” with control of the media, in an environment of semi-starvation deliberately imposed by the Allied occupiers until about end of 1949 (a milder but still coercive occupation by American and Soviet forces continued for decades afterwards).9 Over a third of Germany’s pre–World War II territory was confiscated by the victors. The entire population of East Prussia, most of Pomerania and Silesia, and the Germans in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Yugoslavia were expelled, some 12 to 15 million people. “What ensued was the largest and most sweeping “ethnic cleansing” in history…About 2.1 million of these died from a combination of war, hunger, cold and disease” (Bell-Fialkoff 1993). Following the reunification of West and “East,” at 137, 826 square miles Germany’s territory is smaller than that of Montana.
The misery of the genocidal circumstances of the postwar endowed the small and self-serving charities of the Marshall Plan and other U.S. aid schemes with a key symptom of the Stockholm syndrome: “The captive believes his captors have shown compassion.”10 For over half a century the U.S. has been feted by German leaders as a heroic friend. German courts sentence, and an obedient media suppresses, dissident voices. A sense of collective guilt over the “Holocaust” is continually reinforced.11 Temporary “guest workers” in Germany, largely from Turkey, whose president urged them to have larger families, assumed the exalted status of “victims” of German ethnocentrism when their economic utility dwindled.
On September 3, 2000, German Chancellor Schroeder told a group representing millions of ethnic Germans who had been expelled from eastern Europe after World War II that he would continue the policy of not supporting their claims for compensation. “The federal government will not encumber its relations with these countries with political and legal questions that come from the past,” Schroeder told the Federation of Expellees at a ceremony marking the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the group’s charter. “The former eastern territories belong to our cultural inheritance, but not to our country.” The expellees’ representative’s meek response was to hail Schroeder as the first “chancellor of our Fatherland” ever to address the group’s annual ceremony, and to assert that it was “good for Germany that their chapter of history not be ignored as embarrassing or shameful.” A miserly, but prized, recognition after half –a –century of neglect!
Schroeder’s refusal to support his fellow Germans may be compared with the alacrity with which he and other national leaders accede to pressure from Jewish groups to obtain monetary recompense for perceived losses stemming from “political and legal questions that come from the past.”
German subservience to the United States and its allies has begun to change, however. On September 12, 1999, the New York Times ran an article entitled “The Germans Want Their History Back,” by Roger Cohen, that began:
BUCHENWALD, Germany — The Buchenwald concentration camp, where the Nazis killed more than 65,000 people, later became one of the holy shrines of the East German Communist state. The camp was a statutory rite of passage for generations of schoolchildren, who learned here how the reactionary Hitler regime slaughtered socialists and Communists. This version of history was not true. From its establishment in 1937, Buchenwald served to incarcerate leftists, including the Communist leader Ernst Thälmann, who died here in 1944.
The German historian Ernst Nolte, who in 2000 received Konrad Adenauer prize for literature from the Deutschland Stiftung, a conservative foundation, was in the vanguard of change when he said, “We should leave behind the view that the opposite of National Socialist goals is always good and right.” In the plenary hall of the Bundestag, within the former Reichstag, on April 18, 2002, the federal chancellor presented a speech that he described as historic: It was the very first statement of the federal German government on family policy since World War II (and the discredited regime). The government intended to spend four billion euros on full-time childcare and to increase child benefits again.
In 2002 Günter Grass published Im Krebsgang (“Crab Walk”) (Göttingen: Steidl), an account of the torpedoing of the passenger ship Wilhelm Gustloff toward the end of World War II. On the bitter cold night of January 30, 1945, the former KdF (“Strength through Joy”) cruise liner, designed to carry a maximum of 1,865 people total, was transporting 10,582 refugees, soldiers, sailors, and crew—including scores of sick and injured, as well as women, children and the elderly—farther west in German. All were fleeing from the terrible fate that awaited many of those, Germans and non-Germans alike, in the path of the advancing Red Army. That night it was sunk by the Soviet sub S-13 and disappeared under the icy waters of the Baltic in less than fifty minutes, taking with it as many as 9,343 lives, the most tragic loss in marine history. But how many people knew that before Grass’s book appeared? On January 18, 2003, the New York Times published an article titled “The Germans Are Breaking an Old Taboo -Speaking about the Trauma of Carpet Bombing and Ruin after 50 years of Silence”; “Confronting Wartime Pain, Germans Are Breaking an Old Taboo,” “A Nation That Inflicted Suffering Is Healing Its Own.” Still occupied by American Armed Forces under the name of NATO, German chancellor Schroeder was able to say “No” to Anglo-American war against Iraq in 2003.
But severe limitations on oral and literary expression remain in place in Germany. Similar curbs have been adopted in other countries in the European Union, in a cultural climate of increasing fragmentation, or “diversity,” officially termed “cultural enrichment.” Discontent with the suppression of ethnocentrism in Europe since the World War II has been countered by legislation against its expression, thus denying its positive element. This repression of ethnopreference has been supported and psychologically reinforced by major media. And this repression has increasingly the force of law through coercive legislation.
The new Germany hopes to be viewed as a juridical concept, an enforcer of ‘human rights,’ and a collection of people who are doing penitence for the burden of 20th-century German history. Also reflecting this devaluation of one’s national past, the Commission on the Future of Multiethnic Britain, put in place by the British government, has gone beyond recommending that Britain be called a multi-ethnic, multi-faith society. The Commission strenuouslyurged the Parliament to shun further references to ‘British,’ because of its connotation to recent exclusivity and imperialism” (Gottfried).
As Winston Churchill sometimes said in his last years, according to his daughter Sarah, “What was it all for?” All that “blood and sweat,” but the survival of what Churchill called “the British race” is more uncertain than before the defeat of Nazi Germany.
Read the entire article here.
Endnotes:
9. On Feb 24, 1991, in an article in the New York Times Book Review, Stephen E. Ambrose, director of the Eisenhower Center at the University of New Orleans, announced that the Eisenhower Center had assembled an international committee of historians, “to get at the full truth.” The committee found Eisenhower not directly guilty of the starvation policy, finding instead that it was the London-based American-British-Soviet European Advisory Committee (EAC). Gen. Eisenhower was not responsible for the starvation program—it was the EAC. Thus, locus of responsibility was made the issue and Eisenhower seemingly cleared of responsibility for the starvation policy he implemented. Yet criminalizing responsibility for the implementation of “genocidal” policies was a feature of the 1945–1946 Allied tribunal at Nuremberg.
10. The Stockholm Syndrome takes its name from a 1973 bank robbery in Sweden in which four hostages were taken. Six days of captivity had a strange effect on the hostages’ mental health. They resisted their own release, raised money for their captors’ legal defense and refused to testify against them. Rumor has it that one woman hostage, or perhaps two, became romantically involved with the robbers after their ordeal.
The common explanation for this behavior is that it is a survival technique gone too far. The captive becomes so desperate to appease his captors, and therefore preserve his life, that he begins to identify and sympathize with them. He also feels gratitude toward his captors; they have the power of life and death over him and have been kind enough to allow him to live. The following four conditions contribute to the syndrome:
The captive has no hope of escape
The captors have control over whether the captive will live or die
The captive is isolated in such a way that the only perspective available to him is that of his captors
The captive believes his captors have shown compassionPostwar American aid to Germany was a very small fraction of the value of German foreign assets confiscated, factories removed (mostly to the USSR), vessels of Germany’s considerable surface fleet and merchant marine seized, public buildings and shipbuilding facilities blown up (e.g. the Blohm and Voss shipyards in Hamburg), German technology, science, and related expertise appropriated, and German patents violated. German rocket scientists and their technology were transferred to America, an invaluable German investment that launched America’s space and cruise missile programs, through “Operation Paperclip” in 1945. Other Germans were put to the same use by the Soviets.
11. “West Berlin, May 6, 1990 (AP) Chancellor Helmut Kohl [who was fifteen when World War II ended], speaking at the opening of a conference of the World Jewish Congress here today, said the location and date of the conference gave it a ‘special meaning. “‘Never may it be forgotten that the genocide of the European Jews was prepared and directed by the National Socialists under the violent leadership from Berlin,’ Mr. Kohl said. Congress president Edgar M. Bronfman said a united Germany should teach about its Nazi past to avoid repeating ‘the lowest point ever reached in man’s inhumanity to man.’”
12. The European Union (EU) Council of Ministers agreed in March 1996 on a “Joint Plan of Action Against Racism and Xenophobia” that would cover a wide range of so-called ‘hate crimes.’ The Joint Plan, which followed statements on racism and xenophobia made at recent EU summits, provides a framework for addressing differences among criminal law systems within the EU regarding behavior categorized as racist and xenophobic. The EU, the Council of Ministers proclaimed, must recognize the need for international cooperation in order to prevent perpetrators of racist and xenophobic activities from exploiting the differences in laws by moving from one country to another. To that end, the EU states agreed that members who had not done so already would create laws that prohibit incitement, condoning crimes against humanity, dissemination of racist materials and participation in racist or xenophobic activities.
13. For a telling English-language account by the German government of this effort to brainwash German youth to accept non-European immigration, see: www.xenos-de.de/Xenos/Redaktion/Medien/Anlagen/Ergaenzende-Dokumente/german-program-xenos,property=pdf,bereich=xenos,sprache=de,rwb=true.pdf
Read the entire essay here.
Yes, a good article, yet it describes it all only superficially, just scratching the surface, and thus creates the wrong impression. Just a few points:
The Germans of today are, less than ever, not able to express or even just think their own opinion. After the war the victors made very certain, that any expression of or interest in anything remotely pro-german was absolutely and radically suppressed. I consider all public figures and naturally the media just to be the puppets enforcing the anti-german wishes of their allied masters. Germans nowadays have no public voice. If any public figure dares to only slightly deviate from the prescribed path, he or she is immediately villified and sacked, and often ruined. There exist numerous examples. Thus it is in vain to state, that the Germans want this or that, as nobody really knows. One can rarely glimpse a little of the truth from opinion surveys and polls, but even these will be heavily biased, as the Germans are fed with a radically distorted world view since 2 generations, carefully engineered thus, that the intended, self-destructive attidudes must surface.
To find out, what the Germans really want, there would have to be first a generation of true freedom. One could go on endlessly, for which don’t have the time.
A German friend told me that his grandfather who served in the Wehrmacht was told by the post-war genocidal occupying powers not to speak at all to anyone about life in the Third Reich.
The worst and most profound “de-Nazification” occurred in the American zone.
And the BRD lying puppets have the temerity to publically repeat that today’s Germany is the freest in history. What a joke! Tell it to Germar Rudolf (among many other political prisoners) now wasting away in a BRD prison for conducting a chemical study at Au$chwitz, and thus scientifically proving the impossibility of homicidal gas chambers. That was too much for the BRD kangaroo courts — tools of foreign domination.