Are you a student of history? You should be. Cause it's repeating again!

Date:   3/21/2006 10:05:51 PM ( 18 y ago)

The Ultimate Proof Of
Bush Regime's Course
From Archaeos Prime
chronopilot@yahoo.com
3-22-3

To anyone who ever wondered where this War on Terror is heading, and why it began, this will answer every one of your questions.

To anyone who ever had doubts that history could repeat itself, this will crush them.

The following are documented historical facts that can easily be found anywhere, as I've seen the majority of them already from other dependable sources. This will prove to be our ultimate roadmap laying out the past, current and future course of the Bush Regime. The corporate government whose thumb we now find ourselves beneath has a plan, and here it is, submitted for your disapproval, laid out for us from the dark annals of history with frightening parallels to America's current crisis.

From September 11th to British complicity in this war, from Bush's personal ideosyncracies right down to Congressional censure of the Dixie Chicks, it has ALL happened exactly like this before, in the very same order. Reading this article is like reading the exact details of our immediate history since September 11th . . . and yet it happened 70 years ago!

And this single understanding is more frightening than anything bin Laden could ever have done to us.

If after reading this, if you are still unable to accept the reality of what's happening around us, then you are truly and hopelessly lost in a fantasy world. And to those people I say, good luck in your dreamstate...we'll meet you on the other side.

-- Mark Wyckstrom


When Democracy Failed - The Warnings Of History

By Thom Hartmann
March 17. 2003

The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world.

It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.)

But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.

Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn't know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.

"You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion, "is the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God," he called it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.

Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.

Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular leader had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.

To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State" passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained. Legislators would later say they hadn't had time to read the bill before voting on it.

Immediately after passage of the anti-terrorism act, his federal police agencies stepped up their program of arresting suspicious persons and holding them without access to lawyers or courts. In the first year only a few hundred were interred, and those who objected were largely ignored by the mainstream press, which was afraid to offend and thus lose access to a leader with such high popularity ratings. Citizens who protested the leader in public - and there were many - quickly found themselves confronting the newly empowered police's batons, gas, and jail cells, or fenced off in protest zones safely out of earshot of the leader's public speeches. (In the meantime, he was taking almost daily lessons in public speaking, learning to control his tonality, gestures, and facial expressions. He became a very competent orator.)

Within the first months after that terrorist attack, at the suggestion of a political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into common usage. He wanted to stir a "racial pride" among his countrymen, so, instead of referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to it as "The Homeland," a phrase publicly promoted in the introduction to a 1934 speech recorded in Leni Riefenstahl's famous propaganda movie "Triumph Of The Will." As hoped, people's hearts swelled with pride, and the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our land was "the" homeland, citizens thought: all others were simply foreign lands. We are the "true people," he suggested, the only ones worthy of our nation's concern; if bombs fall on others, or human rights are violated in other nations and it makes our lives better, it's of little concern to us.

Playing on this new nationalism, and exploiting a disagreement with the French over his increasing militarism, he argued that any international body that didn't act first and foremost in the best interest of his own nation was neither relevant nor useful. He thus withdrew his country from the League Of Nations in October, 1933, and then negotiated a separate naval armaments agreement with Anthony Eden of The United Kingdom to create a worldwide military ruling elite.

His propaganda minister orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people that he was a deeply religious man and that his motivations were rooted in Christianity. He even proclaimed the need for a revival of the Christian faith across his nation, what he called a "New Christianity." Every man in his rapidly growing army wore a belt buckle that declared "Gott Mit Uns" - God Is With Us - and most of them fervently believed it was true.

Within a year of the terrorist attack, the nation's leader determined that the various local police and federal agencies around the nation were lacking the clear communication and overall coordinated administration necessary to deal with the terrorist threat facing the nation, particularly those citizens who were of Middle Eastern ancestry and thus probably terrorist and communist sympathizers, and various troublesome "intellectuals" and "liberals." He proposed a single new national agency to protect the security of the homeland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a single leader.

He appointed one of his most trusted associates to be leader of this new agency, the Central Security Office for the homeland, and gave it a role in the government equal to the other major departments.

His assistant who dealt with the press noted that, since the terrorist attack, "Radio and press are at out disposal." Those voices questioning the legitimacy of their nation's leader, or raising questions about his checkered past, had by now faded from the public's recollection as his central security office began advertising a program encouraging people to phone in tips about suspicious neighbors. This program was so successful that the names of some of the people "denounced" were soon being broadcast on radio stations. Those denounced often included opposition politicians and celebrities who dared speak out - a favorite target of his regime and the media he now controlled through intimidation and ownership by corporate allies.

To consolidate his power, he concluded that government alone wasn't enough. He reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing former executives of the nation's largest corporations into high government positions. A flood of government money poured into corporate coffers to fight the war against the Middle Eastern ancestry terrorists lurking within the homeland, and to prepare for wars overseas. He encouraged large corporations friendly to him to acquire media outlets and other industrial concerns across the nation, particularly those previously owned by suspicious people of Middle Eastern ancestry. He built powerful alliances with industry; one corporate ally got the lucrative contract worth millions to build the first large-scale detention center for enemies of the state. Soon more would follow. Industry flourished.

But after an interval of peace following the terrorist attack, voices of dissent again arose within and without the government. Students had started an active program opposing him (later known as the White Rose Society), and leaders of nearby nations were speaking out against his bellicose rhetoric. He needed a diversion, something to direct people away from the corporate cronyism being exposed in his own government, questions of his possibly illegitimate rise to power, and the oft-voiced concerns of civil libertarians about the people being held in detention without due process or access to attorneys or family.

With his number two man - a master at manipulating the media - he began a campaign to convince the people of the nation that a small, limited war was necessary. Another nation was harboring many of the suspicious Middle Eastern people, and even though its connection with the terrorist who had set afire the nation's most important building was tenuous at best, it held resources their nation badly needed if they were to have room to live and maintain their prosperity. He called a press conference and publicly delivered an ultimatum to the leader of the other nation, provoking an international uproar. He claimed the right to strike preemptively in self-defense, and nations across Europe - at first - denounced him for it, pointing out that it was a doctrine only claimed in the past by nations seeking worldwide empire, like Caesar's Rome or Alexander's Greece.

It took a few months, and intense international debate and lobbying with European nations, but, after he personally met with the leader of the United Kingdom, finally a deal was struck. After the military action began, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told the nervous British people that giving in to this leader's new first-strike doctrine would bring "peace for our time."

Thus Hitler annexed Austria in a lightning move, riding a wave of popular support as leaders so often do in times of war. The Austrian government was unseated and replaced by a new leadership friendly to Germany, and German corporations began to take over Austrian resources.

In a speech responding to critics of the invasion, Hitler said, "Certain foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal methods. I can only say; even in death they cannot stop lying. I have in the course of my political struggle won much love from my people, but when I crossed the former frontier [into Austria] there met me such a stream of love as I have never experienced. Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators."

To deal with those who dissented from his policies, at the advice of his politically savvy advisors, he and his handmaidens in the press began a campaign to equate him and his policies with patriotism and the nation itself. National unity was essential, they said, to ensure that the terrorists or their sponsors didn't think they'd succeeded in splitting the nation or weakening its will. In times of war, they said, there could be only "one people, one nation, and one commander-in-chief" ("Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer"), and so his advocates in the media began a nationwide campaign charging that critics of his policies were attacking the nation itself. Those questioning him were labeled "anti-German" or "not good Germans," and it was suggested they were aiding the enemies of the state by failing in the patriotic necessity of supporting the nation's valiant men in uniform. It was one of his most effective ways to stifle dissent and pit wage-earning people (from whom most of the army came) against the "intellectuals and liberals" who were critical of his policies.

Nonetheless, once the "small war" annexation of Austria was successfully and quickly completed, and peace returned, voices of opposition were again raised in the Homeland. The almost-daily release of news bulletins about the dangers of terrorist communist cells wasn't enough to rouse the populace and totally suppress dissent. A full-out war was necessary to divert public attention from the growing rumbles within the country about disappearing dissidents; violence against liberals, Jews, and union leaders; and the epidemic of crony capitalism that was producing empires of wealth in the corporate sector but threatening the middle class's way of life.

A year later, to the week, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia; the nation was now fully at war, and all internal dissent was suppressed in the name of national security. It was the end of Germany's first experiment with democracy.

As we conclude this review of history, there are a few milestones worth remembering.

February 27, 2003, was the 70th anniversary of Dutch terrorist Marinus van der Lubbe's successful firebombing of the German Parliament (Reichstag) building, the terrorist act that catapulted Hitler to legitimacy and reshaped the German constitution. By the time of his successful and brief action to seize Austria, in which almost no German blood was shed, Hitler was the most beloved and popular leader in the history of his nation. Hailed around the world, he was later Time magazine's "Man Of The Year."

Most Americans remember his office for the security of the homeland, known as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and its SchutzStaffel, simply by its most famous agency's initials: the SS.

We also remember that the Germans developed a new form of highly violent warfare they named "lightning war" or blitzkrieg, which, while generating devastating civilian losses, also produced a highly desirable "shock and awe" among the nation's leadership according to the authors of the 1996 book "Shock And Awe" published by the National Defense University Press.

Reflecting on that time, The American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983) left us this definition of the form of government the German democracy had become through Hitler's close alliance with the largest German corporations and his policy of using war as a tool to keep power: fas-cism (fbsh'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."

Today, as we face financial and political crises, it's useful to remember that the ravages of the Great Depression hit Germany and the United States alike. Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt chose very different courses to bring their nations back to power and prosperity.

Germany's response was to use government to empower corporations and reward the society's richest individuals, privatize much of the commons, stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, and create an illusion of prosperity through continual and ever-expanding war. America passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class, enforced anti-trust laws to diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals, created Social Security, and became the employer of last resort through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the arts, and replant forests.

To the extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice is again ours.

Thom Hartmann lived and worked in Germany during the 1980s, and is the author of over a dozen books, including Unequal Protection and The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight. This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached.


Comment

From - Name On File
3-23-2

Dear Mr. Rense,

I greatly admire your site.

I would like to reply to Mr. Thom Hartmann's article "When Democracy Failed - The Warnings of History".

First a little information to illustrate my viewpoint:

* I am a British national who has lived, now, for 30 years in Germany, mainly in Berlin, and have had German/British dual nationality for a little over a year now.

* As a girl, my mother-in-law and her mother were beat by the whip of a horse-ridden French/Moroccan soldier for being out after the evening curfew hour. Her home the Rheinland, was unter French occupation as a result of the Versailles agreement. That was in the late 1920's.

* My father-in-law's birthplace was in Lower Silesia, an ancient German territory. Upper Silesia also an ancient German territory, and a very important centre of industry, had been taken from the German''s, also because of the Versailles Agreement.

Lower Silesia and other German teritories were taken from the Germans after WW2 and given to the Poles, because of this millions of Germans were forced to flee their homes (this information is freely available in books and on the net).

* Before WW2 the situation for the ethnic Germans grew increasingly difficult. My father-in-law told me of trains travelling between Danzig and Lower Silesia having boarded-up windows because when they travelled through Polish territory they were shot at.

* He told of aggressive Polish interference of the German Radiowaves and Anti-German propaganda of the most primitive kind.

He was one of the first to march into Poland and he believed very much in what he was doing.
On arrival, when street-fighting began they were shocked to experience Polish forces using women and children as human shields.

* I need not talk of the rape and pillage of the "red army" at the end of the war and also thereafter and the Morgenthau Plan, this is all documented, but I will tell you that my father-in-law was held captive for many months on an open field with thousands of others and that many starved to death. He survived because the negro soldiers secretly smuggled supplies to them at night under the threat of court-martial for there compassion. They understood what it was like to be oppressed.

Now on to Mr. Hartmann's article:

It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack.

. . . In the middle of February [1933] a meeting of Social Democratic Party and trade-union leaders was held in Munich. One of the trade-union representatives reported that preparations had been made to sabotage the whole West German industrial region. Mines could be flooded, railroad traffic halted, and many factories incaacitated for a long time to come. But it was clear thatsuch desperate measures could serve only as a threat . . .

. . . Responsibility was not assumed. It was not neccessary, said the leaders. for Hitler's government would succumb to its own weakness . . .

. . . On February 23 [1933] Max Brauer, Social Democratic mayor of Altona, met Ernst Torgler, chairman of the Communist Reichstag fraction, in Berlin. Pointing out that "it is five minutes to twelve", he asked whether the Communists would not at least give up their fight against the Social Democrats and conclude a united front alliance. Torgler answered: "It doesn't enter our heads. The Nazis must take power. Then in four weeks the whole working class will be united under the leadership of the Communist Party". Brauer thought that Torgler must be suffering from the strain. But a few days later, he met Soviet Ambassador Chinchook in Hamburg, Brauer asked the same question and received the same answer . .

. . .In a resolution of April 1, 1933, the International stated that the open Fascist dictatorship in Germany had freed the masses from the influence of Social Democracy and thus "accelerated the tempo of the evolution of Germany toward proletariat revolution".
The communists were prepared for illegal struggle; they had maintained an illegal machine for years under the parliamentary governments . . .

. . . True in the night of February 25, a trifling fire was discovered beneath the roof of the rambling "Castle" in the centre of Berlin, the former residence of the Hohenzollerns, now used for government offices. The blaze was extinguised at once; there were indications of incendiarism, but nothing was made public. . . .

. . . The Communists, it seemed, were planning to fire government building, castles, and vital factories all over Germany. A sensational fire was to be the "signal for bloody revolution and civil war." At four in the afternoon, on the day after the fire general looting was to begin in Berlin. (Report of the official Prussia Press Service, February 28, 1933.) According to one of G°rings reports, hostages were to be arrested and food poisoned in restaurants. All this was discovered by G°ring und Daluege in the papers they had found in the Karl Liebknecht House on Februaty 24 - or so they said later. . . .

. . . Suddenly a phone call from Doctor Hanfstaengel: the Reichstag is burning. I think he is making wild jokes, and refuse to tell the Leader anything about it.

It was not a wild joke The flames were rising over the Reichstag's cupola; the inside was completely gutted and the building a ruin.

The Police arrested a single suspect at the scene: Marinus van der Lubbe, a twenty-four-year-old mason and vagabond, a Dutch subject who had previously belonged to the Communist organisation in Holland an asocial type of Left radical tendencies and definitely unbalanced. . . .

. . . The next day G°ring, through the official Prussian Press Service, reported the plans for a communist uprising. To the assembled cabinet he made a speech in which he claimed "that Torgler" the Communist deputy, had conversed with van der Lubbe for several hours in the Reichstag building. . .
. . . On the morning of the fire, Ernst Torgler, chairman of the Communist Reichstag fraction, went to the police: he declared that the accusations against the Communists, and especially against himself personally, were ridiculous and that he would refute it. He stated that he did not know van der Lubbe, had never seen him, and consequently had not made incendiary arrangements with him. Torgler was immediately arrested. The police also arrested Georgi Dimitroff, a Bulgarian of whom they only that he was a prominent Bulgarian Communist. Not until more than a year later did it come out that this Dimitroff was the leader of the Central European section of the Communist International. Two other Bulgarian Communists, Popoff and Taneff were also arrested. . . .

. . . Then the court did a strange thing: it acquitted the two Communist leaders, Torgler and Dimitroff, and their Communist comrades, Popoff and Taneff. Only the apathetic, evidently insane van der Lubbe, who admitted that he knew none of the four others, but stubbornly insisted on his guilt, was condemned to death, hastily executed, hastily cremated. . .

To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State" passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it

. . .Hitler and his people did have to accept certain restrictions: van der Lubbe would not be hanged outside the Reichstag; Germany's highest court was to investigate the mysterious fire; G°ring must offer better proof for his allegations against the Communists; no mass blood-bath would be sanctioned. These were the obstacles which the cabinet could place in the path of what the furious Chancellor called the salvation of Germany. Still thinking that they were the true masters of the government and well pleased that they had checked the National Socialists to some extent, the ministers decided to assume a dictatorship of their own until after the elections. Hindenburg signed an emergency decree "For the Protection of People and State." It suspended the most important property rights and personal garantees in the Reich constitution, and proclaimed:Therefore restrictions on personal freedom, on the right of free speech, including freedom of the press, freedom of association and meeting; infringements on the secrecy of the mails, telegraphs, and telephones; orders of house search and confistication; as well as restrictions on the rights of private property, even beyound the legal limits are permissable. . . .

. . . At first one was lucky to be arrested on the strength of G°ring's big blacklist. These men were sent to ordinary police prison and as a rule not beaten. But terrible was the fate of those which the S.A. arrested for their own "pleasure." G°ring made use of his powers to destroy the leadership and propaganda of the two worker's parties. He imprisoned all the Communist deputies he could lay his hands on and a few Social Democrat deputies. The whole Communist press was suppressed indefinitely; and the several hundred Social Democrat papers suspended for two weeks. This was a week before elections. From then on there were virtually no Social Democratic meetings, while Cmmunist meetings were officially suppressed.

To destroy Communism, the Nazis had to smash democracy.

Nevertheless, elections were to be held. A people which had been deprived of all liberties should say voluntarily say yes to all this. Sefton Delmer, correspondant of the London "Daily Express", asked Hitler whether the present state of suspesion of personal freedom in Germay would be permanent. Hitler replied: No! When the Communist dager is eliminated, the normal order of things will return. Our laws were too liberal to enable me to dispose of theis underworld suitably and quickly enough. But I myself desire only too urgently that the normal situation shall be restored as soon as possible. But first we must put an end to Communism. . . .

He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world.

. . . Many a newspaper reader and radio listener was moved to tears when the Leader renounced his salary as Chancellor; a thing that meant little to the author of Mein Kampf, for since 1930 the sale of his book had mounted sharply. When he was informed he could not legally give up his salary, he had it transferred to a fund for war invalids . . .

. . . According to the police register, Hitler left Vienna in May, 1913. Until then he had scraped along in the Austrian capital by selling his watercolours and drawings. In Munich he die not fare much better; here he designed posters for business houses. . . .

. . .Even so, it cannot be denied that he was a brave soldier . . . Reserve Lieutenant Horn (Quote) "If Adolf Hitler had been promoted to the rank of sergeant, he could not have have remained a battle orderly and the regiment woild have lost one of its best dispatch carriers".

Source: Der Fuehrer by Konrad Heiden. This book is an anti-Hitler book which was printed in 1944.
Obviously all quotes are coloured by my viewpoint so I ADVISE YOU TO READ THE BOOK YOURSELF.

In my opinion there are no similarity between Bush and Hitler:

* He marched into Austria at the wish of the Austrian people who felt themselves to be German.

* He was protecting the ethnic German minority in Poland when he sortied there and if the British had not intrigiert to cause the conflict and had not declared war it would have been resolved quickly.

* Germany was being attacked from French territory and it was necessary to drive the British out.

* any military action taken was for the benefit of the German people.

* enormous protective measures were taken to keep the population safe, bunkers, medical care, and compassionate leave etc.

* He was fighting to give the German people their rights and their dignity back which had been stolen from them as a result of WW1. He did not even require that the "allies" give back all the territories that they had stolen.

* as we can read in the above quotes the Reichstag fire was investigated which the 9/11 attacks were not.

* Hitler was almost constantly at one of his headquarters near the front line after the war started and lived as a simple soldier (ref. Hitlers Tischgesprche, from Henry Pickers. English version, Hitler's Table Talks can be bought at Amazon.)

Bush is fighting an expansionist war and is attacking countries that are no threat to his own (that is if his own country is America, which I doubt at the moment).

The American people are being held hostage by the government and no serious precautions are being taken to protect them.

Bush doesn't give a f*ck about you Americans or anyone else for that matter.

Similarities between Hitler and Saddam:

* Both annoyed the international bankers because they introduced a barter system which circumvented the bank-interest system.

* Both fight/fought for the freedom and rights of their people.

With all sincerity,
(name on file)

PS. You may put my freedom in danger if you publish my name because it is at present a 'thought crime' in Germany to say anything positive about Hitler, or Hitler Germany.


 

Popularity:   message viewed 1906 times
URL:   http://www.curezone.org/blogs/fm.asp?i=978171

<< Return to the standard message view