PDA

View Full Version : Germany: illegitimate governments since 1945



The Lawspeaker
11-07-2009, 07:33 PM
GERMANY, THE RE-ENGINEERED ALLY (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/IH08Aa01.html)
PART 1: Readiness for endless war
By Axel Brot

Not so many years ago, many hoped Europe might step up as a counterweight to US imperial policies. Such hopes were focused in particular on Germany - not only as the leading European power, but as a known moderating, non-military force in international politics.

US vituperation of the reputed European preference for diplomacy and peaceful conflict resolution as well as official Britain, in the person of Richard Cooper, former prime minister Tony Blair's international-relations guru, deemed it necessary to lecture "post-industrial Europe" about the need for "double standards" and colonial ruthlessness to beat down benighted non-Westerners, seemed to give substance to these hopes.

Well, Germany and the European Union did step up - but rather differently than expected. And it was no electoral twitch that set the stage for "better be wrong with the United States than being right against it". Since Angela Merkel's visit to Washington (as the conservative opposition leader) on the eve of the US invasion of Iraq, to denounce then-chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's decision to oppose the war, the return to US good graces was not only the main conservative foreign-policy project; it turned rapidly into the supreme project of the German political class - including the Social Democrats.

Merkel became the chancellor-to-go-to, the most trusted European interlocutor for the US political class to work jointly and determinedly to harden US global hegemony against the consequences of America's Iraq-inflicted weakness - this not only in the wider Middle East but also, and especially, with regard to Russia and China, the Bush administration's original enemy of choice before the "birth pangs of a new Middle East" consumed so much of its political capital.

Overcoming the domestic constraints on its ability to use the German army more extensively for "humanitarian interventions", for the defense of "Western civilization" against Islamist terrorism, is an important, though not the most important, part of the Merkel government's "the West united behind the US" policy. Notwithstanding the absence of public debate on its strategic implications - eg, of the US (and Israeli) doctrine of preventive war, the abolition of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's geographical restrictions, the mission of "securing access to raw materials" - the rejection on general principles of a more activist military role by a majority of Germans has not (yet) been overcome.

This has far-reaching consequences: it has, in a significant way, rebooted German elite attitudes and expectations toward the EU, and toward Germany's relationship with France. The public discourse about foreign policy as well as the underlying elite mindset is changing - from "responsibly conservative" to the channeling of the demons Hannah Arendt dealt with in her search for the origins of 20th-century disorder: (British) imperialism, Western militarism and racism. And since the majority of Germans is (again) far behind the curve of elite opinion, the efforts of "re-educating" them (as Der Spiegel recently demanded again) are as consistently strident as they are mythologizing.

But there are also quite a number of senior officials and politicians, still serving or retired, who are looking with dismay or worry at the evolution of German policies in response to the crisis of US-German relations. Their publicly voiced concerns are focused on the expansion of German military commitments - of the easy to get into, but next to impossible to get out of sort - and the rapid deterioration of relations with Russia.

In addition, among the small number of senior experts on international economics, a majority are looking with deep foreboding at the mounting instabilities of the international financial system. They see them driven by the huge trade imbalances of the US and the growing threat to leverage them against the creditor nations - in particular against China, Russia, and the members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries that are running large surpluses.

The US congressionally mandated financial sanctions against such countries as Iran, Syria, Cuba and North Korea are taken, moreover, as indicators that the United States is about to destroy the trust the international financial system is based upon. The consequences of its eventual - sooner rather than later - meltdown will be dramatic and uncontrollable.

These warning voices are, though, in the wings of the German debate. The stage is held by the narrative of the terrorist menace. But there are very few serious experts who sincerely believe that Islamist terrorism is motivated by their hate for "Western freedoms and values". Hate and the desire for revenge are certainly crucial elements; but this has not much to do with Western culture or with the alleged humiliating realization of Muslim inferiority.

If one should be looking for causes, the decades of violence the West visited upon these countries, either directly or through its dependent regimes, is a necessary part of the explanation. The other part, of course, would have to face the fact that it was the West that transformed weak and isolated fundamentalist cells into its terrorist Golem. It nurtured, trained, financed, organized and used it for decades in terror campaigns against secular nationalist and socialist regimes and movements until those were defeated or isolated, leaving their compromised remnants to do the Western bidding.

Though Germany was not in the forefront of Middle East meddling, it was fully engaged in creating and empowering a Wahhabi-Salafist coalition to fight the Soviets and the communist regime in Afghanistan - the central front in the global anti-communist offensive that appeared to have turned terrorism on three continents into the Western weapon of choice.

And for the Middle East this still seems to be the case. It is seen in the Western use of Sunni terror groups (and the anti-Iranian-government Mujahadeen-e-Khalq, as well as the Iranian sister organization of the Kurdistan Workers Party) against Iran, and against the ascendent Shi'ites in Lebanon.

But the mythologization of al-Qaeda and the "clash (in German, war) of civilizations" serves to legitimize the readiness for endless war. In the words of a retired German official: "We have been walking the world over the cliff, and are falling into a sea of blood."

All of this does not only involve ideological re-rigging. In the US wake, Germany is running up the pennant of permanent war. The following should serve to provide a view into some of its particulars.

The German-French tandem
Since 1966, after France left the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's military integration, Germany has been France's primary partner, and the French-German tandem was the active core that drove the European Economic Community toward the European Union. Germany handled the tension between its close relationship with the US and the one with France by compartmentalizing: with France, Europe; with the US, NATO and security.

But notwithstanding the efforts to prevent conflicts developing between these two poles of German foreign policy, there was always a strong tendency within the German political class to regard the process of European integration as leading toward an increasing autonomy of European interests and policies from those of the US. The US did not see it differently - particularly after the end of the Cold War. The administrations of Bill Clinton and George H W Bush invested, therefore, a lot of political capital and cunning to prevent that from occurring. Both administrations considered the European relationship with Russia as the key for the viability of such a project and the EU's and NATO's new east European members as the lever to assure its abortion.

But with the alliance crisis of 2002-03 - also, depending on the perspective, the apogee or the nadir of the French-German duo - the US was able to mobilize not only the political elites of the new NATO - and EU - members of eastern Europe as well as those of Denmark, the Netherlands and Spain against the specter of an independent European course. It was the revolt of the French and German US-oriented elites - expressing itself publicly in an incessant and thorough media campaign - that sealed its fate. All of a sudden, the German-French special relationship had lost much of its salience. The horizon of the kind of European integration the United States considered a threat to its own international role revealed itself as much more of a mirage than it appeared before it was put to the test.

Chancellor Merkel is the German incarnation of this revolt. And the lionized champion of the collective European right, the Americans, and the Israelis, Nicolas Sarkozy, is the ideal French president for turning Merkel's great foreign-policy project into a joint venture: welding the EU to the US, making European integration serve the US-dominated, Western international order - whatever the cost.

It is not as if former French president Jacques Chirac and his foreign and military policy bureaucracies had still been able to put the brakes on Merkel. After confronting the US on the Iraq issue in 2002-03, together with then-chancellor Schroeder, and having maneuvered Russian President Vladimir Putin into taking the same stance, Chirac's political will was exhausted and prospects for a more independent European road in international politics was dead. Schroeder's capacity to act in tandem with Chirac was increasingly circumscribed by his domestic weakness; and the US reminded the French administration forcefully of what it means to play hardball with French interests. He was stymied, like Schroeder, by the neo-conservative/neo-liberal, US-oriented majority of the elites.

After 2003, French policies followed Germany somewhat listlessly in supporting the US ones, in particular in the wider Middle East - though still trying to play their own game in Lebanon, while egging on the Americans and Israelis against Syria and Iran. Nevertheless, while conceding the game in the Middle East, Chirac and Schroeder still tried to create a stable framework of relations with Russia and China, the basis of something like a Eurasian common economic region. This notion has already joined the might-have-beens of history.

Neither would have led the election of Sarkozy's competitor, Segolene Royal, to a greatly different conception of French foreign policy. Royal was groomed by Francois Mitterrand, the Socialist president who had brought to perfection the art of decorating with left-wing flourishes an exceedingly hard-nosed, rather vicious, covert-operations approach to foreign policy.

In fact, the different versions of the French Socialist Party after World War II were never known for particularly salubrious policies: from their alliance with the Corsican heroin mafia in Marseilles to their support of French colonial wars, from bombing Greenpeace ships to involvement in the Ruanda genocide. There is nothing surprising, therefore, that both Royal and Sarkozy are close to the particularly shrill French version of "humanitarian interventionists", drawing from the same stock of civilizational warriors that dominates French public discourse.

Sarkozy's choice for foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, is therefore less of a peace offering to the Socialists than an indicator of ideological commitments. Kouchner is not only one of the ideological godfathers of "anti-totalitarian, humanitarian interventionism", he is also the one under whose benevolent eyes - in his function as its United Nations administrator - Kosovo acquired the makings of the first, ethnically almost pure, European mafia-state. During the 1980s, some of his Medecins du Monde (which he founded after splitting from the Medecins sans Frontičres) assisted the Afghan mujahideen with somewhat more than medical-only rear services.

Though he might not be tainted with aiding the Americans (as some suspected), as other non-governmental organizations are, in turning the Cambodian refugee camps in Thailand into bases for the reconstitution of the Khmer Rouge as US proxies, his record, nevertheless, justifies Colin Powell's famous dictum about NGOs as US "force multipliers" avant la lettre: human rights and medical services for US friends and clients, none for the opposition.

Sarkozy's ideological baggage also contains the French-Israeli business lawyer Arno Klarsfeld,a rather hysterical campaigner for the rights of Israel and the defense of Western civilization as well as the son of noted Nazi hunters Serge and Beate Klarsfeld. He volunteered in 2002 to serve in the Israeli Defense Force and accompanied the Israeli border guards as a member on their rampage through the Palestinian territories. Klarsfeld was Sarkozy's leading candidate for heading the controversial new Ministry for Immigration and National Identity - a move comparable to Bush proposing right-wing Israeli political leader Avigdor Liebermann as the head of a new department for Hispanics, Muslims and African-Americans. For the time being, though, Sarkozy seems to have reconsidered this exceedingly provocative appointment.

Widely quoted as mentor and inspirer of Sarkozy's "anti-totalitarian" outlook is philosopher André Glucksmann: one of the many minor embodiments of Hannah Arendt's insight about the French haute bourgeoisie's romantic infatuation with the rhetorical bombast of ideological rogues and the titillations of violence. During the 1980s he marketed nuclear war as an antidote against the European addiction to peace and to save humanity - and Western civilization - from communism. After the Soviet collapse, he agitated for Europe to join any American or Israeli war in reach against the "new Hitlers" (Milosevicz, Saddam Hussein, Arafat, Assad, etc) and "Islamofascists", as well as for his kind of moral policies against "totalitarian" China and "newly-totalitarian" Russia.

These attractions, however, did not remain limited to the Parisian salons and media: As the preferred French interlocutor for castigating the German lack of martial fiber, while in Germany Glucksmann briefly replaced on "high-brow" TV the well-respected, though liberal and measured, specialist on German-French relations, Professor Alfred Grosser. In 2002, Grosser had committed the rather deadly mistake of criticizing instead of defending Israel's right to do as it likes in the Palestinian territories. He disappeared from German screens as did many of the German correspondents of the public media who had failed to appreciate the Palestinians as the new Nazis.

In view of the fact that most European mainstream conservative parties (and even some Social Democratic currents) propagandize the immigrant issue increasingly in terms of the "clash of civilizations" and the "new antisemitism", they have spurred an interesting change of orientation in the extreme right with all the potential for open (like in Denmark or Italy) or tacit alliances (like in Spain).

The extreme right (Front National, Vlaams Belang, Lega Nord, Allianza Nazionale, Parti van de Vrijheit etc) and its nebula of goon squads have also been busy building bridges to Israel and to the violence-inclined, but tightly leashed, Zionist right (Likud Europe, Betar, Jewish Defense League, etc) in the struggle against "Eurabia". One might, therefore, wonder whether Sarkozy has not already taken his commitment to fight against the "new antisemitism" and to defend French "national identity" a tad too far. Given the thousands of maimed or dead Arab, Asian, and African immigrant victims of racial violence in Western Europe during the last 15 years - underinvestigated, underreported, and underprosecuted in Germany as well as France - one might even wonder whether the call to arms against the rise of antisemitism is not misdirected and whether Sarkozy and his circle do not do double duty as arsonists in the fire-brigade.

Bur Sarkozy is not only a civilizational warrior. He and his advisers - the CEOs of the largest media conglomerates and the insurance business - are committed to a radical restructuring of the distribution of power between the patronat and the unions, between state and society, between the workers and the haute bourgeoisie.

Sarkozy has marketed himself as the energetic executor of a consensus in search of an executor for the last 20 or so years. Delegitimizing the whole system of social protections with their institutional underpinnings has been at the center of what amounted to a psychological warfare campaign against the idea that there is a legitimate claim on social justice. After several false starts, this program seems to have found with him the echoes of the pre-World War II deep right's "patrie, famille, travail", instead of "liberté, fraternité, égalité".

Even the Socialist leadership, not at all discomfited by Royal's defeat - as testified by its well publicized collective sigh of relief - is into the spirit of things. French Socialist Party politician Dominique Strauss-Kahn's "the red flag is in the mud for good" phrase renders unsurprising that not a few voters might have pondered the advantages of getting the unavoidable up front instead of in fits, starts, and misdirection.

Neither the French elites, nor the German chancellor, nor the US, are in the mood for dealing with qualms and hesitations a la Royal. Sarkozy, in contrast, has the intention, the will, the energy, the support of the political class, as well as the conception of himself as the right man for the job, to pull France to the American good side. A "noble competition" between Merkel and Sarkozy might even be shaping up, regarding who is going to work more closely with the US - especially since Merkel is at a disadvantage. She is burdened with a Social Democratic coalition partner trying to save the remnants of Schroeder's Russian policies and under pressure from the pacifist left, and more importantly, from a new, non-sectarian left-wing party that is eating into its electorate and party membership.

Given the fact that the majority of the German political class and the media are running again a high Russophobe fever, there is not much chance that these remnants will be salvageable. It is, instead, possible that Germany will join in when a sufficiently strong catalyzing event tips relations with Russia into a no holds barred effort to get to the end of the "Russian problem". In the meantime, the Russians will carry on as if they had a "strategic partner" in Merkel, and Merkel will continue to signal her dissatisfaction with Russia's delivering on Western demands - and leave it to the Social Democratic leadership to deal with its nostalgia.

Refitting Turkey for its proper role
One of the most interesting policy initiatives of the new German-French tandem may appear to be a sideshow but is, in fact, emblematic of the shape of things to come: replacing the EU horizon for Turkey with one more fitting for an oriental strategic asset.

Merkel and Sarkozy are now jointly leading an EU-wide coalition dead set against making good on the decades-old promise for the integration of Turkey into the EU as soon as it is able to implement the acquis communautaire (total body of EU law). With the election of Sarkozy the "open-ended" accession negotiations have no chance of remaining open-ended and with his help Merkel will be able to outmaneuver her Social Democratic baggage while still insisting on negotiating with Turkey in good faith.

For Merkel, Sarkozy and their civilizational warriors, Turkey has no European "vocation", for cultural, Christian, and occidental reasons. Merkel promises, instead, a "special relationship" and Sarkozy proposes to sponsor a "Mediterranean community", anchored on Turkey, Israel and Morocco, as a geopolitical barrier against African immigrants, Islamic fundamentalists, and as an additional venue for Israeli ambitions.

The question, though, is how to make Turkey give up its EU aspirations and fall into line with whatever plans are made for it. And the main problem is, in fact, that Turkey's most committed Europeanists are to be found in the moderately conservative and moderately religious center-right Justice and Development (AKP) party, the first governing party after World War II which is fairly clean, rather competent economically, and tenaciously digging at the immensely corrupt and criminal "deep state": the conglomerate of politicians, military intelligence, special police squads, and their legions of cut-outs, cut-throats, and patsies, the Turkish mafia, Grey Wolves (ie, rightwing terrorists), feudal landowners, and associated business ventures. This government is trying to drain a swamp in which German intelligence was up to its knees since the days of its being tasked with chaperoning the "Trident" intelligence coordination between the Turkish, Iranian, and Israeli intelligence services.

Turkey's "deep state" has been (and, to some degree, still is) the enabling environment - and with Israel, the Eastern Mediterranean hub - for the interbreeding of intelligence, the security business, terrorist groups for hire, and mafia operations. It has produced the strangest, rather frightening, but most lucrative, hybrids between black operations, subversion, targeted killings and kidnappings, and the whole panoply of the drug, protection, organ harvesting, black medical research and pharmacology, the emigration, slave labor, weapons and technology, counterfeiting, money laundering rackets. Joined to Israel's netherworld, its reach extends from the Arab countries to Africa, from Russia and the CIS to western and Central Asia, and, of course, to Europe.

This is what the Turkish government - with a strong popular mandate - is trying to reform in order to conform to the requirements of EU membership. The AKP is, for good reasons, strongly committed to the EU: by itself it would be quite unable to make its sanitation mandate work, whatever the strength of its electoral base. It is only via the EU that it can even approach the holy of holies, the constitutional Praetorian prerogative of the Turkish military. Its defenders - the parties of the secular "White Turks" (ie, the urban elites) who regard the reforms the EU accession process imposes as endangering their ownership of the state - are precisely those Sarkozy and Merkel are relying on to derail Turkey's EU prospects.

The White Turks' "deep state" is already swinging into action: from a spate of high-profile murders with an ostensible "fundamentalist" background, to the threat of a military coup d'état, from the demonstrations with the malicious slogan "neither Sharia, nor putsch" (trying to taint the AKP with the fundamentalist brush), to the the collusion between acting President Ahmet Necdet Sezer and the Constitutional Court (sworn to uphold the military prerogatives) in provoking a constitutional crisis to block the election of the popular Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul to the presidency.

Since Turkey's main Western allies are decidedly unhappy with the successes of reform and the growing self-confidence of the government of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Merkel and her cohorts are engaged in a rather vicious game of delegitimizing Turkish aspirations through veiled threats and humiliations. It is not only the moving goal posts game that Turkey has to negotiate.

It is the kind of cued European discussion that says in effect, "We will make sure to prevent the EU membership of Turkey" (whatever the domestic repercussions in the several million strong Turkish community in Germany), that is designed to coerce the AKP into giving up. There is also the tidy side-payment to consider, namely, the domestic delegitimization of the AKP and the reempowerment of the deep state, now represented by the Nationalist Movement (MHP) party and Turkey's oldest political party, the Turkish Republican Party (CHP) that has served Western geopolitics oh-so-well.

Tying the Turkish government into knots, the US government and many of the European media are lauding the constitutional vocation of the Turkish military to protect the secular state (implying again that the AKP is intent on turning Turkey into a sharia state) while, at the same time, European politicians raise the specter of the threat of military intervention in Turkish politics as proof that Turkey is not EU material. In the same fashion, "high European officials" do background briefings on how a military campaign against the PKK in Iraq would strain NATO and end Turkey's accession negotiations because it would be proof that the Turkish government - which is against intervention - cannot control its military. It is a perfidious set-up because the US and Israel (with German support) are doing everything to strengthen and use the Iranian PKK network for its proxy campaign against Tehran.

But why are these forces fighting so hard to terminate Turkey's EU prospects?

The answer lies not in the new conservative/right-wing obsession with occidental identity politics or with the enlargement blues. The US was denied the use of Turkish territory for attacking Iraq from the north; Turkey insisted, instead, on its Montreux Treaty prerogative of refusing a permanent American naval squadron in the Black Sea. It has rather relaxed political, and high-growth economic relations with its neighbors, Syria and Iran. It has been accused of dragging its feet on the Nabucco gas pipeline, designed to bring Central Asian gas to Europe and to circumvent the Russian pipeline system.

It has, in fact, excellent political and economic relations with Russia while having gone out of the 1990s business of subverting the Central Asian republics. Furthermore, it angered Israel with its discreet contacts with Hamas and by cooling down the political scope of the military and intelligence relationship (as well as its attendant business opportunties). And it hurt powerful interests with a more serious engagement with Interpol.

In other words, the AKP government is striving to scale down the use of Turkey as a strategic platform for all sorts of mayhem, focusing instead quite successfully on regional trade and investment opportunities to maintain Turkey's economic growth - thus stabilizing a growing middle class of "black Turks". This approach, though, crimps US efforts to expand the strategic threat against Iran. Even more importantly, it limits American access to the Caucasus and Central Asia and hampers its plans for pulling the Ukraine, Georgia and Azerbaijan into a permanent and much more extensive military relationship.

In sum: though prudent enough to have accomodated the Turkish military's usual level of cooperation with Western (US, Israeli, and German) operations against its neighbors, it still disregarded the demands of the Western grand strategy. Its policies did nothing to help in the "great game" of turning the Caucasus and Central Asia into a lever to be used against Russia and China. Neither did the Turkish government do enough for the shorter-term payoff, ie, gaining control over Central Asian oil and gas. All of this did not win the Turkish government friends in the right places. It set itself up, instead, for some variant of a regime-change operation in which the campaign against Turkey's EU aspirations will play a pivotal role.

Though the Turkish military is always good for a coup d'etat, it may be difficult to do it this time without an inopportune level of violence ("Chileanization") since the AKP won the elections resoundingly. There are other options available that might teach the forces of Turkish reform lessons about red lines and overreaching. A short walk down memory lane might illustrate what is possible.

One of the most successful - and "blackest" - of US-British "black operation" against a Western, albeit neutral, country was carried out in first half of the 1980s. In 2000, none other than Reagan's secretary of defense, Caspar Weinberger, declassified it in an interview with Swedish TV in the context of an investigation into the affair of the "Soviet submarines".

Then Swedish prime minister Olaf Palme was a real thorn in Western flesh. Apart from his backing for the Afrincan National Congress and the Palestine Liberation Organization, he was very vocal in his criticism of the increasingly dangerous American confrontation policies towards the Soviet Union. His stance enjoyed widespread support within the Swedish population. This changed rather dramatically with the worldwide frenzy about "the Soviet aggression of neutral Sweden", when Swedish territorial waters were repeatedly "violated by Soviet submarines" and by landings of "Soviet special forces" on the Swedish coast. These "incursions" stopped with the still unresolved murder of Palme in 1986, despite two unsuccessful attempts to convict a man named Christer Pettersson for the crime.

With a pleased smirk, Weinberger confirmed that there was nothing Soviet in the violation of Swedish territorial waters (the Soviets "didn't have the capabilities"). There were, instead, routine exercises, "between the Swedish navy and the American and British navies and since they were routine, the Swedish admiral responsible saw obviously no need to inform his superiors or his subordinates about the nature of the "enemy".

It was, in fact, not quite a "regime change", but a joint US-UK operation together with the top brass of the Swedish navy and Swedish intelligence, conducted against the foreign policy of the Swedish government. Since then Sweden has been rather careful not to challenge American policies - with the exception perhaps of the very popular Foreign Minister Anna Lindh, in line to become the next prime minister. She was stabbed to death in 2003 by a mentally disturbed young immigrant.

At the time, such operations brought the world close to the brink of nuclear war. The Soviets understandably saw this as a crucial indicator that the US was preparing its allies, and battling with a powerful peace movement, for nuclear preemption against the "increasingly aggressive" and "brazen" Soviet Union.

A variant of such an operation today, though sure to have its own blowbacks, would certainly not involve that kind of risk. It would also take into account that the Turkish military and intelligence are not as monolithic as they once were: there is kind of nationalist reaction to the easy contempt with which they are taken for granted. But it would change Turkey's political horizon for good: a policy subjected to a permanent "strategy of tension", countering democratic aspirations with the power of the deep state. And from a certain perspective, this is an eminently desirable outcome. It would make Turkey the grateful recipient of Sarkozy's idea of a Mediterranean community and Merkel's notion of a special relationship.

Gloomy old hands
There might have been room, of course, for a debate in good faith about Turkey's implementation of the EU's acquis communautaire. This is what the "open-ended" negotiating process was all about. It is being poisoned, however, by the bad faith characterizing Merkel's and Sarkozy's approach towards Turkey.

The decay of responsible diplomacy towards an ally and the rise of culturalist demagoguery is the symptom of something one might call a "proto-totalitarian transition" taking place under the guise of the "war on terror". It is led by the decay of responsibility and predictability in the conduct of American foreign policy. Thus, for not a few senior German diplomats - those whose career took off under former chancellor Helmut Schmidt or under foreign minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, and those military planners who still remember the war scare of the first half of the 1980s - there is no light at the end of the tunnel.

The American inability to secure a more stable international environment, the combination of militancy and overreaching, provide the terms of reference for the gloominess of these senior perennials. They are certainly not peace-at-any-price bleeding hearts nor closet dissidents. They have an ingrained propensity to look at the world as the stage of "them versus us". They come from families of civil servants, academics, and military officers who can well sort out the difference between the "upstairs" and "downstairs" - worlds of international politics. In other words, they are as solidly "Western" or "Atlanticist" as one could wish. And they are also the first generation of senior German bureaucrats who have been deeply comfortable with the absence of great power ambitions and with the German role as a civilian power.

Their outlook and their reflection of Germany's collective experience makes them value stability; at least insofar as any blowback resulting from the use of force should be less than the threat countered. This, of course, can be liberally interpreted and does not offer much for dealing with unpredictability. But prudence, skepticism, and an ironclad sense of self-limitation provided the habits for navigating in the wake of US and Israeli policies.

These old hands don't write papers, they do not share their concerns in staff meetings, they may not even communicate them in more formal settings. Nevertheless, the unease is palpable and it is the retirees who are voicing it, with different emphases and different degrees of bluntness. These are men such as Schmidt, with his reputation as a no-nonsense Atlanticist; the conservative former minister of defense, Volker Ruhe; the retired head of the planning staff under Ruhe, Vice-Admiral Ulrich Weisser; the former foreign policy speaker of the conservatives' parliamentary caucus, Karl Lamers.

They are well acquainted with the new crop of their American counterparts who prepare, control or execute American policies with brittle arrogance and with the crisis- and confrontation-prone default setting of American foreign policy formation.

For quite a few of them, however, the most worrying indication that the United States is irrevocably set on dragging the world into a nightmare of continuous and chaotic violence, is twofold: the flight or dismissal of senior, conservative professionals from the executive branch of the government and the unrestrained, strangely exhibitionist glorying of many American politicians at the ability to inflict unrestrained violence.

One might add a third one, relevant especially to diplomats who had been posted in the Middle East, or to the classicists: the wholesale looting and the destruction of 5,000 years of Mesopotamian antiquities, judged on par with the Spanish eradication of the complete written record of the Mesoamerican civilizations as well as the cultural heritage of all Indian cultures that they could lay their hands on; and one that also ranks with the British burning of 3,000 years' worth of Chinese books, historical records, and documents during the Second Opium War. This barbaric lack of respect for one of the most important heritages of mankind speaks volumes about the mindset this war has exposed.

There is the realization that institutional blocks have been disabled and with it their career premium on a healthy sense of the need to employ US power carefully - to acknowledge its executive, legal, and political limitations. But since the 1970s, patient, alliance-building ideologue-adventurers, think-tankers and journalists, have crept up through the institutions, using and being used, joining the fantasies of redemption, revenge, plunder, and control over the world, into an action program for employing American power.

The style betrays the character. Since the ambitions of these ideologues are much larger than their education, they flatter themselves into believing they are the New Romans, that they write history on a even greater scale than Titus Livius; and their vanity expects awe, not reason. But they are acting out the grand guignol version of empire whose points of reference might be Sallust, Petronius or Procopius, those who castigated or ridiculed or despaired at the corruption and the pretentions of its personnel.
It is the remarkable lack of decorum, the intentional staging of bullying language, rich in threats and insults, the resentful hypocrisy, the slightly unhinged display of bad faith when diplomacy and suasion are the order of the day, that has convinced even some of the "just-a-bad-patch" hopefuls that the bad times are here to stay.

The fear beneath much of the uneasiness has to do, of course, with memories of what happens when the resentments and dreams of omnipotence of a political class are hijacked by those who promise to give them satisfaction on a historic scale.

During the Cold War, there was always a mad, though well-connected, fringe that gravitated towards American strategic policies: eg, Edward Teller with his notion of rescuing the very small, "valuable" part of humanity in the depths of mines in order to reseed the earth after nuclear war; Sidney Hook with his conviction that Western belief in the transcendent gave it the crucial nuclear-war edge over the communists who only believed in the here and now; the psychopaths within the CIA, like Sidney Gottlieb who headed the agency's MKULTRA mind control program, or counter-intelligence chief James Jesus Angleton; and the many secular and religious milleniarists in the White House, the military, in Congress, and in think-tanks, who were intent on an apocalyptic resolution to the seemingly endless uncertainties of the Cold War. But to the end, wiser heads prevailed - if only just.

It did not last. The American political class seems to have drawn all the wrong conclusions from the end of the Cold War and the breakup of the Soviet Union. Its leisurely stroll towards permanent global hegemony just did not happen. Thus, frustration and the craving for revenge have become main drivers of US policies. The events of September 11 focused their common dysfunctionality, but they are not its root cause.

Tomorrow, Part 2: Broken machinery: Forces that oppose or even appear to question American interests face a simple choice: "Us or chaos."

Axel Brot is the pen name for a German defense analyst and former intelligence officer.


Source: Asia Times. (Thank you RoyBatty).

The Lawspeaker
11-07-2009, 07:43 PM
GERMANY, THE RE-ENGINEERED ALLY (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/IH09Aa01.html)
Part 2: Everything is broken
By Axel Brot

Broken machinery
The American political class seems to have drawn all the wrong conclusions from the end of the Cold War and the breakup of the Soviet Union. Its leisurely stroll towards permanent global hegemony just did not happen. Thus, frustration and the craving for revenge have become main drivers of US policies. The events of September 11 focused their common dysfunctionality, but they are not its root cause.

It is from this vantage point that arises the resigned and poignant expectation that the US will permit neither a stable Russia nor a non-cataclysmic accommodation of China's rise. American politics now have just enough flexibility to negotiate the short-term priorities of whom to put under the pressure of regime-changing demands; but the system is rigged not to reward persuasion or accommodation but toward increasing confrontation, deadline diplomacy, and grandstanding on principles that carry the load of broken credibility.

Notwithstanding the worthy efforts of the Iraq Study Group or the Princeton Project on National Security to get some means-to-ends rationality back into US policies, politics are impaired by the lack of discipline and prudence that come with the reinforcement of the imperial mind-set of official Washington by the media and think tanks.

Unfortunately, this mind-set is not only the defining attribute of the present administration but of both parties - and abundantly so, of the serious contenders for the next US presidency. They are already competing in burning the bridges to a somewhat more patient approach to imperial policies while berating the present administration for its weakness. Different combinations of bombing Iran, breaking Hezbollah, confronting the Russians, sanctioning the Chinese, squeezing the Saudis and Pakistanis, pressuring the Indians into a subordinate relationship, installing an "accountable" dictatorship in Iraq (and/or taking it apart), are on the menu of the main candidates - plus unfettering US "soft power" and hitching the allies more effectively to whatever load is to be pulled.

It is therefore all too easy to see in the current travails of global diplomacy efforts to adapt to the implicit American choice of "either the US or chaos". But the lessons are not only Iraq and Afghanistan, but the failed attempts of Serbia (1999), Iran (2003) and Syria (ongoing), to bow to US/Western demands while keeping a measure of independence and dignity. In fact, looking at the last 16 years or so, at the fate of the former Soviet Union in the 1990s, of the former Yugoslavia, and of Iraq or Afghanistan, they may come to the conclusion that they have nothing to lose even in a military confrontation.

And since the march of empire is tuned to the racial - alias "civilizational" - superiority (of the "Anglosphere"), non-Western elites may interpret this choice as "the US and chaos". If it is their ambition just to loot their countries and then to set-up shop in one of the Western tax-sheltered playgrounds or to turn into sharecroppers of their countries´ resources, the choice is a good one. If they are at all attentive, reasonably patriotic, and have a measure of pride, they cannot but resist it.

It is, in the last analysis, also a question of self-esteem and a sense of historical accountability. Can elites in their right mind bear to be the butt of a sardonic witticism like the one going around among Anglo-Saxon officials, targeting the Saudi combination of immense corruption and paying immense protection money: the Saudis "prefer to suffocate on their knees instead of dying on their feet".

But contempt and the lust for chaos ("creative destruction") have become the coin of the realm. They are heated by fantasies of a global caste society where "The Shield of Achilles", "Imperial Grunts", "Left Behind", and "The Diamond Age" are busy cross-pollinating the imperial imagination. One might add that a Pentagon (Office for Net Assessment) study of the consequences of climate change provides a window into the darkest, survivalist corner of this mind-set and implies, in addition, an answer to the questions "who is the West?" and "who is superfluous?"

The return with a vengeance of the "covert operations approach" to US international policies, therefore, has much more to do with this sinister self-fictionalization than with the nature of threats or the simple availability of the instruments. While for most periods of the Cold War, concerns about exposure, blowback, and provoking war with the Soviets kept it somewhat under control, it has slipped the leash. Everyone who can has gone into business. It is not only the White House that is exceedingly liberal in its use of privateers, frequently retreaded intelligence and military officials who should have been disposed of out of harm's way.

There is the evolution of a huge gray zone of private "consultancy" enterprises of former government officials who parlay their international contacts with state and sub-state actors, with insurgencies in search of upscale sponsoring, and policy-lobbying groups, as well as their international business contacts - in particular with the energy, financial, arms and security industries - into business and influence. On returning to government service, their pet projects, policies and money-spinners don´t just go into hibernation, they are continued as government policies. The merchandising of imperial policies and the mercantilization of military violence have become the hallmark of this strange combination of militarism and venality. One of the new breed of temporary, parvenu officials demonstrated its bottom-line aspect with the pithy question: "What is the use of empire when you can´t make money out of it?"

On the policy level, the concern about blowback and exposure has all but disappeared, except as a weapon of bureaucratic bloodletting when the hunt for the scapegoat is on. It can only operate as a restraint if a sense of moderation can be imposed and if its consequences have a deterring effect. None of this pertains. US policies, instead, gestate in the world of the much-quoted Melian Dialogue where a sense of impunity and omnipotence have destroyed any regard for prudence. Since the tyro-days of retired Air Force Major General Richard Secord's rubbing shoulders with the cocaine mafia in order to finance the Nicaraguan Contras, this state of affairs has given a completely new meaning to "unleashing covert operations", "plausible deniability", and, of course, to Ronald Reagan´s famous "boys will be boys" mentality.

The more vicious side of the problem, though, exposes the meltdown of the firewalls between the branches of government, between the executive branch and Congress, between public and private, between business and government - in a witches' brew of projects and interests. And no government agency has the clout or the will to turn off any of the cross-married projects of policy-lobbying, intelligence and black operations that acquired godparents in government, in Congress, or with one of the powerful lobbying outfits.

They may sink, perhaps, below the awareness threshold of the principals, but move they will unstintingly, metamorphosing, mutating and spawning descendents in the fetid swamp of subcontractors, public-private intelligence outfits, mercenaries, fundamentalist missionary organizations, security firms, to reappear someday as "operation in place", and thus renewing the cycle. The Sudanese troubles are a prime example of how this itinerant ecosystem produces and reproduces ever increasing mayhem in weak states cursed with strategic significance.

But all of that does not even begin to address the destructive effects of its frequent connection to the underworld, of the illicit trade in weapons, raw materials, etc, or to the globally operating crime syndicates and their economic infrastructure.

It is only logical that the selection of policy-making personnel seems now to follow the Israeli, Italian, and Japanese model, moving ever deeper into the world of clan loyalties (the neo-conservatives are only the most self-consciously "family-oriented" clan) where the distinction between loyalty to office and loyalty to clan disappears completely at the level of deputy assistant secretary.

And it is starting to infect Germany. Not only because many corners of the German foreign intelligence apparatus are, by design and tradition, bespoke to US and Israeli intelligence, and its political control mechanisms are slick even by Western standards. It is the osmosis of bad habits via the demands of Western solidarity.

In a moment of unguarded candor, the Berlin correspondent of the conservative Swiss daily Neue Zürcher Zeitung bemoaned the unrestrained recruiting of journalists and NGO representatives by German intelligence as far worse than spying on journalists to plug leaks. This comment illuminated for a short moment one of the rooms in the sub-basement of German foreign policy.

Of even greater salience for the shape of things to come is the introduction into Germany of the linkage of intelligence and business, and of both to covert operations. A story is floating around in the international media that the former head of German intelligence and current member of parliament Bernd Schmidbauer is allegedly the facilitator for an Israeli intelligence agent turned businessman who is deeply involved in Israeli projects in Iraqi Kurdistan. Using Schmidbauer's contacts among the leadership of the Iraqi Kurds, the Israeli agent reportedly secured land contracts worth many millions of dollars to give the Kurds a greater share of the (disappeared) billions from the oil-for-food account.

It is probably just an interesting, albeit rather disingenuous cover-story. But whatever the details, it is a fact that Schmidbauer is using his former office for that kind of purpose, and that is the message. And it is hard to judge what is worse: Schmidbauer involved in Israeli shenanigans that connect covert operations to business profits; or a private venture doing the same.

The discontent with German military involvement
More immediate, however, are concerns that German soldiers are already being sent into open-ended missions in potentially casualty-rich intervention environments - environments where American (British and Israeli) policies have publicly, contemptuously, and irreversibly debauched 100 years' worth of international law that tried to regulate the use of military violence. The German allies are running a kind of social-Darwinian selection experiment in their militaries, to weed out the conscience-ridden, the susceptible, and the whistle-blowers and to breed back the mind-set of colonial warfare against "enemy populations", with all the repercussions on civil society that this entails.

The resulting mercenary habits and "warrior ethics" - moral inhibitions restrained in favor of racial contempt as part of unit bonding - cannot but infect and then corrode the restraint trained into the "citizen-soldiers" of a parliamentary army. The more they are committed to operations in the "war on terror", the more they will encounter the desperate hate of those who have been exposed to the US ways of pacification, and the greater the danger of contamination.

In other words: there is fear that German forces will absorb this mentality by participating in these society-destroying operations whose results can already be seen in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine - and in future campaigns that have the potential to deteriorate into annihilation warfare. The fear is not far-fetched: one might look at the doctrinal evolution with regard to warfare in the "global ghettos" or, by way of example, scrutinize the strategies considered and the fervor for a war against Iran.

Those with legal training and some historical awareness cannot but see parallels between what is happening now and the judicial and propaganda preparations during the run-up to the German attack on Soviet Russia: imprinting on the soldiers' minds that they are going to confront a sub-human, vicious, cruel, and cunning enemy; then denying whole categories of enemy combatants any legal status, depriving others of the protections of the Hague Conventions, and limiting the protection of civilians by the code of military justice to the bare bones of maintaining combat discipline and preventing the army from turning into a raping, looting, murdering mob (which it did anyway, more often than not, especially after the expected short road to victory turned into the long slog towards defeat).

Thus, classifying anyone as a terrorist who fights, or as a supporter of terrorism who could harbor hostile intent against, or support organizations judged hostile to Western interventions and interests, wards and dependents, simply extends the German experience of how to create a perverted ius in bello from Soviet Russia to the whole globe. It aims, of course, to delegitimize all armed (and increasingly unarmed) resistance to Western military expeditions and occupation, even trying to get international law to proscribe it because there is a population in the way ("human shields") of killing the terrorists. Less concerned with finding a way around the Geneva Conventions or the jurisdiction of Nuremburg is the innovative Israeli concept of "terrorist population". It just puts a new title over an old dictate: "Exterminate with extreme prejudice."

In the meantime, getting around the Geneva Conventions provided a challenging occupation for the lawyers of the Bush Administration. They decided the Taliban were "unlawful combatants" - though they were the soldiers of a country the Clinton administration exercised heavy pressure on Germany to recognize - because Afghanistan was a "failed state". Even if Afghanistan under the Taliban would justify the term "failed state", it is useful to keep in mind that the West bears a heavy responsibility for making it thus. One has only to look at the textbooks and instruction material provided to the mudjahedin by the US and its co-workers in the 1980s.

Particularly disturbing, though, is the deliberately transparent hypocrisy that does not cover but flaunts a kind of violence that elementary common sense (not to mention a sense of shame) would keep sporadic and isolated. But there are now tens of thousands of victims of the institutionalized global archipelago of black torture prisons and camps. They have been subjected by a select and trained force to the result of decades of research into techniques of torture and sexual humiliation, as a way, one is led to believe, of "searing defeat into their minds", to spread the message that there is no recourse, no redress, no defense; any resistance will just hasten the transition to the violent dissolution of society, of the underpinnings for a functional state.

Moreover, the right to kill at will outside this system in covert free fire zones, to keep the subcontracting domestic security apparatus of dependent states on torture and assassination standby, cannot but herald the willful surrender of any credible claim by these governments to legitimacy or capacity for creating order. The United States and its allies are setting the stage for the kind of massive violence last seen in the "pacification" campaigns in colonial Africa and Asia. This time, however, it is for everyone to see - and for quite a number of its strategists, this seems to be part of the purpose.

The German political class and the media make all efforts to keep the scale and ramifications of this system as far as possible from public debate and from itself; if it deals with it at all, then it is as the unavoidable, though ugly, battle scars on the face of Western values. The contortions involved in refusing its connection to German military commitments and the ever more drastic, networked security measures are nothing if not remarkable.

There is, nevertheless, a black thread connecting Germany to the explosion of fundamentalist terrorism, buried in files and memories that reach back to the late 1970s. At that time, Germany sought to assure the ascendancy of Islamist right-wing organizations over its large Muslim community, to neutralize the influence of left-wing organizations. The consequences of this kind of social engineering are still in evidence today, and much bewailed by the political class.

Germany hosted also a substantial emigre community of fundamentalists from secular Arab countries - especially from Syria. Since Israeli intelligence had the free run of Germany, and parts of German intelligence (as well as its Bavarian godfathers) were at the beck and call of the Mossad, recruiting among the Syrian Muslim Brothers in Germany for a terrorist campaign against the government of Syrian President Hafez al-Assad could have been called a joint operation. Co-financed by Saudi money, Israel and its South Lebanese mercenaries trained them in camps in south Lebanon, advertized at that time as the top-of-the-league graduate school offering instruction in all these interesting techniques which make Western life now so thrilling.

This operation led, of course, to serious bloodletting in Syria. The survivors either returned to Germany, possibly as recruiters for the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan, or transferred their talents directly to this new theater of Western endeavors

Recruiting for subversion and terrorism requires screening, interrogation of the bad apples and of the doubtful cases, and holding them for future use. Germans helped in the screening but avoided the other procedures (at least, one may hope so). The Khiam prison in south Lebanon was used for these purposes - for torture and prisoner-breaking beyond the Israeli rule-book (high-value kidnappees, though, are still kept in the "black wings" of Israeli prisons, also designed to be beyond the reach of the already exceedingly permissive rule-book).

The German connection to Israeli operations reached the awareness of some senior German bureaucrats and exposed them to the meaning of "black prison" via Khiam - which can be taken as one of the models for the American system. The horror and revulsion of the susceptible ones had at least the effect of making life difficult for former German foreign affairs minister Joschka Fischer when he had to assert piously that there were "no violators of human rights" among the 300 Lebanese torture- and rape-artists Germany accepted from Israel.

The will to ignorance that dominates the German debate makes it all too easy to sideline concerns about the myriad ways this system has begun to infest Germany: via its special forces, trained in the US, Israel, and Great Britain; or the officer exchange program with the US Army general staff college (where its ideological underpinnings are taught in the writings of Israeli Arabist Rafael Patai); via the busy network of itinerant torture specialists, bent psychologists and MDs, interrogation trainers, and anthropologists. The political principals are colluding with it behind the back of the less controllable members of parliament, and frequently against the better judgment of senior career officials.

What began in 2002 as a way to show solidarity with the Americans and went into high gear in 2003 to rebuild bridges to the US, transmogrified the enthusiasm of former Social Democratic interior secretary Otto Schily ("if they want death, they can have it"), the cravenness of former foreign minister Joschka Fischer, and Merkel´s impeccable "pro-American" credentials into an ideological program to make Germany (and the EU) fit for eternal war against the enemies of the West.

For decades, Germany, like the Netherlands, Sweden, and Norway, managed to be regarded as more of a global social worker than as one of the closest American allies. Its role was well served by keeping aloof from military interventions, sticking scrupulously to its commitments, striving to coopt the modernizing elites of developing countries into the Western system, even at the price of high politics keeping itself ignorant of its netherworld's doings, and of sometimes diverging from US policies. Germany´s good name was a net provider of legitimacy for the West.

But under the new dispensation when the netherworld has become the main show and the compensatory human rights rhetoric an ever more strident exercise in hypocrisy, legitimacy seems to come from impunity. And the American political class has no more patience with divergent interests, claims of independent judgment, or "decent respect for the opinion of mankind".

The discontents with German-Israeli jointness
Last year, Germany inserted itself militarily into the Middle East's troubles with a naval squadron off the Lebanese coast. Its mission: to prevent the replenishment of Hezbollah armament stocks from the ocean. It has openly taken sides, notwithstanding its sub rosa alliance with Israel for decades, thus becoming part of a problem without a solution. Not only a majority of the population refuses to support the German commitment; it is also accompanied by the misgivings of quite a number of professionals - for good reasons.

One of them is rooted in the conviction that the pounding the US and Israel are inflicting on the Middle East is locking the West into an unending cycle of violence. Driving it is Israel's inability to consider peace more desirable than keeping its conquests. Though it would be a real career killer to admit to fears that Israel might use, or ignite itself, another conflagration in the Middle East to resolve its Palestinian problem once and for all - and, at the same time, to destroy all challenges to its hegemony - it is impossible not to be aware of this prospect. It informs concerns about the impact of the "war of civilizations" rhetoric that German (and European) opinion leaders are spreading in the media; a rhetoric,that can turn any moment into a free ticket for the Israeli leadership to get serious about what it has prepared its allies to expect and what a majority of its population demands.

In fact, indicators that the Israelis might limit their ambition to establishing a Bantustan-like system run by the Dahlan-Balusha goon squads of Fatah appears to be taken by official Germany as testimony to admirable and forward-looking Israeli restraint - to be encouraged, legitimized, and paid for to keep the Israelis from "acts of desperation".

The use of the term "Bantustan" in this context has nothing to do with an anti-semitic slur: when former South African premier and Nazi sympathizer John Vorster visited Israel in 1976, Shimon Peres, Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Rabin, Yitzhak Shamir , et al, lauded the South African system of racial separation as a role model for dealing with "their kushims" ("niggers"). And the conservative part of the German political class (especially in Bavaria, where the rather incestuous relationship between German intelligence and the Christian Social Union had sired its own foreign policy priorities) was deeply involved in the strategic cooperation between Israel and South Africa. Examples include support for the Mozambican National Resistance (Renamo) - also dubbed the "Khmer Noir" for starting the African plague of recruiting small children by traumatization - to WMD research, to the illegal transfer of blueprints for a new class of cruise-missile capable submarines. In the 1990s, by the way, Germany donated several of these submarines to Israel.

During the 1970s and 1980s Israel and South Africa were joined at the hips in their common fight against the kushims (and against the still numerous Jewish communists, hated by the Israeli political class more than the remaining German Nazis). And from some German conservative nooks and crannies, there was always facilitation, scientific support, or co-financing available.

But the above-board German support for Israel has also a tradition of unconditionality - since the 1970s especially - in co-financing the Israeli ways of occupation and never holding Israel to its obligations under the Geneva Conventions. During the Schmidt and Kohl governments it was tempered, nevertheless, by their commitment "to facilitate dialogue". Much of the reporting from the German embassy served to gauge where and when discrete German assistance could make a difference in encouraging contact between official Israel and chosen Palestinian interlocutors .

Under Green neoconservative foreign minister Fischer, though, not only context had changed. He threw the principle of differentiation out of the window. He chose himself as the main propagandist of Israeli claims that Palestinian violence had nothing to do with the occupation but with the failure of Palestinian leadership and institutions, with foreign instigation (led by Iran and Syria), and that Israel is under "existential threat" by a tide of anti-semitism rooted in cultural and political retardation. As rumor has it, he even forbade any in-house discussion that went counter to his view of the world, valuing Israeli (or US) instruction much higher than the briefings of his desk officers.

At any rate, "unconditional support" came to mean no more in-house dissonances in analysis or judgment from the "solitary" interpretation of Israeli policies, motivations, and their consequences. The Merkel government then screwed tight Fischer´s proactive approach towards unconditionality - not only in supporting audibly and energetically last year's efforts to destroy Hezbollah, but working up toward military involvement on the Israeli side; its precise meaning will become much clearer with the next round of war.

The direction of Germany´s involvement, though, is unambiguous: Germany colluded avidly in preventing an early end to the Israeli campaign (during the Rome Conference) and left no doubt about its underwriting the Israeli right to kill and kidnap in Lebanon at will. In addition, in a gauche effort to rally public support for intervention on the Israeli side, Merkel dubbed Germany´s naval detachment in Lebanese waters (as well as the expanded United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon's presence on the ground) as an "Israel Protection Force". It goes without saying that Germany's assistance for Israeli operations in Lebanon, Iraqi Kurdistan, and Iran (in all three Germany has a heavy intelligence presence) has grown in scope and risk.

Now, support for Israeli projects appears not any longer to be limited to coordinating policies and information, or providing German passports for Israeli undercover work in Iran (as had been reported in Der Spiegel), or a pipeline to agents in Lebanese General Security (tracking Hezbollah leaders) or, for that matter, to taking the lead in poisoning the initial investigations into the assassination of Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri (which was not the beginning but a second spike in a series of assassinations - the first one being the 2002 bombing of former Lebanese militia leader and Syrian politician Eli Hobeika, who allegedly intended to testify in Brussels against Ariel Sharon concerning the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre). Germany seems to have jumped with both feet into the sectarian violence game, not (yet?) with hits but by slaving at different levels of regional engagements to the commands of Israeli and, to a more limited extent, to American operations.

If Israel's ambassador in Berlin, Shimon Stein, had not reckoned with the domestic constraints on official Germany's solidarity with Israel, he could claim for Germany what Justice Minister Haim Ramon and Daniel Ayalon, Israel's ambassador in Washington, asserted blandly for the US last year: "… even if our army should commit a 'mass massacre', the United States will still support us" (quoted in Le Monde Diplomatique).

In fact, in earlier days official Germany would have looked discreetly away or apologized "off the record" for the Israeli penchant for atrocities such as the Kfar Qana massacre in south Lebanon - which Israel never made a real effort to hide under its peculiar doctrine of deterrence. As General Motta Gur said as long ago as 1978: "... the Israeli army has always struck civilian populations purposely and consciously … the army … has never distinguished civilian [from military] targets" (quoted in Haaretz). Now Israel is demanding that official Germany demonstrate the correct attitude against "terrorist populations" - and it does, in the name of the "struggle against terrorism" and of preventing (!) "a war of civilizations".

For obvious reasons, Germany's original economic support for Israel could never have been considered leverage. But over the decades, its dimension and its aggregate impact contributed decisively to the fact that Israel had never to make hard choices; it subsidized the built-in maximalism in Israel's approach toward its neighborhood and the pretension that its wars of choice were wars for survival. Separate from the meager individual recompensations, restitutions, etc, as managed (very badly for the destitute) by the Jewish Claims Conference or the Israeli state, German transfers up to now amount to at least 140 billion euros (US$193.2 billion) from the federal government in cash, goods, weapons and patents, another 20 to 30 billion euros in public-private partnership arrangements, plus billions more via EU mechanisms.
It is not surprising, therefore, that there is an uneasy awareness of German co-responsibility in fostering the combination of economic dependence, foreign funded militarism and the peculiar and exceedingly corrupt nature of the Israeli Praetorian state. The permanent state of siege and its steadily more powerful racist undercurrents have become the source of its cohesion and define its relationship to the world. As anyone knows who is acquainted with the Israeli debate, the old mantra that Israel will make the "concessions necessary for peace" if it feels sufficiently secure and supported, is good for public consumption and perhaps self-hypnosis, but nothing else.

Since Israel managed to persuade the Western political classes (the most fragile and corrupt Arab regimes need no convincing) that Palestinians' aspirations - as well as their rights under the Geneva Conventions - are unrealistic and therefore basically illegitimate, they have become a sideshow. Especially Europe appears resolved to stabilize it in limbo with lip service and sporadic shows of activism - but with hard support, of course, for those Israeli measures designed to break the last strands of Palestinian political and social cohesion.

As any undergraduate in coercive social engineering knows, destroying the social and economic infrastructure of a society to the extent that there are no more sources of independent social authority that could regenerate organized resistance, leaves the field to the broken, the cynics, the corrupt, the self-haters, the fantasists, and the criminals - and inflicts them on a dispirited, disposable mass of humanity.

The Iranian ascendancy, in contrast, is billed as the main show. And it was Fischer (ably assisted by France and Great Britain) who took the lead in navigating the European negotiating position between the American-Israeli push for war and the need to avoid it in view of the to-be-expected domestic repercussions; between the resolve to deny the Iranian right to close the nuclear fuel cycle and to hide the bad faith of their negotiating approach. Fischer made the issue repeatedly clear: the Iranian nuclear program signals the will to achieve "regional hegemony" to the detriment of the Israeli - and for him, the only legitimate one - claim to regional predominance.

The Lawspeaker
11-07-2009, 07:44 PM
When the government of then-Iranian president Mohammad Khatami offered in 2003, practically hat-in-hand, to negotiate with the US all outstanding bilateral problems - only to be refused, as he was part of the "axis of evil" - this was absorbed in a European proposal, that offered vague promises and no security guarantees, for the dismantling of the whole Iranian nuclear complex (including the courses and training in advanced nuclear engineering), plus the hobbling of its missile program.

Through the subterfuges and permutations of these negotiations, the German commitment to a peaceful resolution was always highly conditional, and Israel acquired something like a behind-the-scenes veto on the limits of the German position. It could (and can) well appreciate that for Germany - praised by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as the best Israeli ally - to join a war against Iran would at that time have destroyed Fischer´s Green Party as well as the government (and it still might do so now); not to join it would have created another trans-Atlantic rift, much deeper than the one caused by the Iraq war. Such rifts have a logic of their own and the potential to deeply fracture the German (and European) political landscape.

The German political class is hamstrung and duly embarrassed over the lack of martial spirit in its population. But under the banner of "anything but war (now)", it maneuvers and waits for the right constellation that frees its hand: a Western uproar over a Gulf of Tonkin-type incident, a major terrorist event in the US or Germany, which will have nothing to do with Iran but could create the right popular mood. It compensates in the meantime with German overt and covert involvement for Israel's willingness not to put quite yet German domestic politics to the test. Nevertheless, after so many aborted moves toward war, the "war now" party in the US may any time push the Bush administration over the brink and tell the Germans to deal with it or even make it a test of the Merkel government´s survivability and pro-American stance.

Discontent with the seeding of future conflicts
Paul Wolfowitz noted with satisfaction in 1999 (in The National Interest) that his Lone-Ranger position of 1992 had turned into the bi-partisan consensus of US grand strategy: never to permit again a power, or combination of powers, on the Eurasian landmass to achieve the capacity to act as a "peer challenger" to US interests. And it is this principle that the European political elites are about to underwrite, too. Its apologetics are tried out in working- and study-groups: democracy and free markets can only take root when the Russian state is deprived of the economic, social, and demographic resources for its reconstitution as a viable ("imperial") power; and China, for the same reasons, has to be dissected into five independent states. And all of this by the right combination of applying hard (overwhelming military) and soft (dissolving elite and regime cohesion) power.

These are, of course, just fond hopes or selling points. In reality, it is a prescription for decades of chaos and violence, with a deep impact on Europe and Asia. But even these - one might call them Plan B - prospects may have much to recommend themselves from the American perspective, and they offer even an absolutely convincing, though difficult to pitch, strategic rationale for developing a global ballistic missile defense network.

It is this consensus, nevertheless, that provides the only reliable guide to the course of US policies towards Russia and China - and insight into the nature of the "hedges" against the worsening of relations be it with Russia, be it with China, or both. Since being tougher on national security than the next guy (or girl) or the sitting administration, is the coin of national strategy debates between Republicans and Democrats as well as the ultimate arbiter of the career prospects for elected office, "hedging" has not much to do with taking out insurance. It has, instead, everything to do with being able to initiate confrontations.

"Hedging" with regard to China highlights this approach. The massive building of depth into the American military dispositions in the Western Pacific, the pressures upon Taiwan to get on with its US$12-18 billion arms buying program, the success in integrating the Taiwanese as well as the increasingly offensive Japanese posture into American operations plans, enticing India into sharpening its strategic profile against China, are sold as measures for Asian stability. This is, however, everything that the hawks of the "confront-China" lobby ever demanded, minus the damage to US-Chinese economic relations.

These "hedges" are not designed to work as an insurance mechanism but as the rock slide overhanging China's continuously narrowing path between a sheer cliff face and the abyss. More prosaically, whenever America's internal bargaining comes up with the ace of spades for China, "full spectrum dominance" should be in place. Or so one might think. The problem, however, is the destabilizing consequences of the effort in getting there. The Chinese cannot but react to what they surely appreciate as the tailoring of a strategic straitjacket to immobilize them for vivisection, ie, "soft" regime change.

Similar considerations hold with regard to Russia. The expansion of NATO to members of the former Warsaw Pact and to the Baltic countries, as well as the anticipated one to the Ukraine and Georgia, are equally sold as a joist of Eurasia's security architecture. Ironically enough, the same rationale is given for the German-led efforts to draw the Central Asian and Caucasian republics - and, in particular, the Caspian resources - out of the Russian into the Western orbit. In this, Russia's "true, legitimate interests" are being served because this process encourages democracy, accountable government, respect for human rights, and the non-violent resolution of territorial conflicts.

The tongue-in-cheek character of the "stability" rhetoric reveals itself most clearly in the hasbara about the "missile shield" installations in Poland and the Czech Republic, ostensibly directed against incipient threats from North Korea (which is in the process of denuclearizing itself) and Iran (whose threat potential against the US is as phantasmagorical as its supposed intentions are fictional). They are sold to mass media consumers as insurance against the familiar "madmen"; to the more discerning audience as not directed against Russia (and Russian complaints are sold as Russian mischief-making), and to the more worried western European insiders, in classified briefings, as a "hedge" with growth potential to dissuade the evolution of a greater than expected Russian or Chinese threat.

In reality, as even the more godfearing observers of US policies cannot help but notice, it is a provocative move designed to trap the Russians into easily denouncable, but helpless gestures of protest and to put the onus on them for burdening further the EU-Russian relationship. And Russia has no way to evade the trap: retch or spit, down it will go.

At the same time, it increases the political weight of America's main allies in Eastern Europe. It provides the substance for aligning Poland and the Czech Republic (plus their Baltic retinue) ever closer with US policies - a US-dependent sub-NATO within a sub-EU. In the short term, this issue cannot but further weaken the already fragmenting will of the western European part of the EU to negotiate (in good faith) a successor to the partnership and cooperation agreement between the EU and Russia.

In the longer run, the substantial American military presence these two installations require, will tighten the strategic noose around Russia's throat. In addition, if the US should really place an additional installation in Georgia, this move would deliberately put the detonator for a US-Russian confrontation into the hands of the reckless and irresponsible Georgian leadership. In this context, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's slip of the tongue in terming Russia "the Soviet Union" is not only Freudian but a declaration of intent.

The Kaczynski twins, President Lech and Prime Minister Jaroslaw of Poland respectively, also let everyone have a peek at the cat in the bag. In high dudgeon that its partners in NATO and the EU as well as the Russians might want to have a say in such a momentous decision, they maintained that the missile shield should not worry any "normal country".

But Russia, obviously, is nothing if not an "abnormal" country for the right-wing majority of the Polish political class: still indignant that Russia spoilt the imperial dreams (Poland from the Baltic to the Black Sea) that led General Josef Pilsudski to attack Russia in 1920, only to be defeated by the treacherous Reds; still resentful that World War II did not begin and end differently than it did; resenting that it has not yet managed a place at the Western high table, they expect the United States to procure them, at least, a special role within NATO (it recently blackmailed for itself a special position in the EU), and further down the line, a zone of Polish influence - from the Baltic to the Black Sea - and the right of first look for any territorial bits that may be on offer if or when Russia dissolves further (eg, the region of Kaliningrad).

Viewing these efforts in their full scope while keeping in mind the incessant din of media hostility against Russia (not forgetting the provocative mixture of subtle and crass intelligence operations), all of this is looking less like a hedge than moving the pieces for the endgame. One recent report of the well connected, US-based, private intelligence agency, Strategic Forecasting, Inc or Stratfor, on "The New Logic for Ballistic Missile Defense", spells it out rather bluntly: "… [T]he US is not yet finished with Moscow from a strategic perspective. Washington wants to pressure Russia until its will, as well as its ability, to pose a viable threat completely disintegrates." And the Russians are quite aware of the vector of US policies. Russian President Vladimir Putin's speech at the security conference in Munich, even Mikal Gorbachev´s recent interventions as well as Valentin Falin's widely discussed somber analysis last year, tell the same story.

They are up against the wall and have neither time nor good options. As Germany's Peter Struck, the Social Democratic former secretary of defense and current parliamentary whip, rather smugly, maintained: "The Russians would lose another Cold War". This in response to the "gobbledygook" of Putin's list of grievances at the Munich conference in February. A flash-poll, by the way, did show that a majority of Germans seems to have grasped its import and a majority even supported Putin's sentiments, in spite of the exceedingly derogatory chorus of the German media.

There is some worry that all of this might push the Russians into the arms of the Chinese. It touches, though, the outer limits of what is considered a legitimate worry. But there is the comforting notion that for such a rather fundamental revision of its foreign policy, Russia is neither strong and reliable enough to perform it, nor are the Russian elites ready to support it. Working toward a closer Russian-Chinese relationship - and knowing that China will turn out to be the stronger partner (however carefully the Chinese may defer to Russian sensitivities) - for a measure of security and independence, would require not only despair, but a sea-change in attitudes of the loot-corroded, fantasist and cynical majority of the new Russian elites. As the wag says in Influence 101: "You can always get to the elite Russians; half of them hate Mother Russia because Petersburg and Moscow aren't Paris or London; the other half hate her because she spawned the first half."

It helps, of course, that Western intelligence and quasi-NGOs are keeping the Russian leadership worried about domestic stability. To enrich its options, the West maintains influence also with the xenophobic right, anti-Chinese liberals, with the fighters for Chechen independence and others interested in ethnic strife games. Meanwhile the "new Russians" hope, against all odds, that Europe might still come around to provide the kind of safe anchorage against hostile policies Germany and France seemed able to offer in 2002/2003 and thus rescue their rent-funded, cosmopolitan dreams.

All of this is close enough to reality to foster the illusion the Russians can be managed; it just needs a little less obvious contempt and hectoring and a little bit more cooperative rhetoric to satisfy their craving for respect. This is more hope than reality, though - hope that will be disappointed, especially since Western politics and the venomously Russophobe media will make sure that the Russians are always aware of the stake which is to be driven through their collective heart.

There is, of course, also the Chinese perspective. Those Western China analysts from which its German section takes its cue seem to draw some satisfaction from observing China and Russia hands wondering whether the Russian leadership is still in thrall to its Western hopes and whether it is not continuing to commit slow suicide. These questions are not unreasonable. Russia is investing everywhere while it has not yet even restored its economy to the levels of 1989. Its industries, infrastructure, research, education, and health are still suffering from catastrophic underinvestment.

Since the West organized and oversaw the liquefaction of Soviet assets and their hemorrhaging out of Russia to the tune of about US$800 billion worth of cash, goods, and patents (including Boris Yelzin's gift to the US of the crown jewels of Soviet military and space technologies), as well as tens of thousands of its best engineers and scientists, one might think it would do all to recover from a disaster at least as bad as what Germany did to the Soviet Union in World War II, and form a peace worse than the one of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty of 1918.

But even here, Western policies make sure that Russians and Chinese cannot but perceive the beginnings of the mobilization for economic warfare against both of them. All of a sudden investment barriers against Chinese and Russian capital appear in the US and in western Europe. There are substantial efforts devoted to coordinate the rolling-back of Chinese encroachment on the Western right to African raw materials - in the name of human rights and good governance (which is like Bluebeard, still gnawing on his latest virgin's femur, complaining about a peasant who sullies his next lunch with exploitive marriage proposals). And there is the hue and cry raised about the Russian and Chinese doing what the US is doing excessively: marking certain industrial sectors as "strategic".

The Chinese Western analysts are quite astute observers of where their Western counterparts are coming from. But educated under the all-encompassing need to gain time and strength to be able to survive gloomy geopolitical weather, the Chinese debate about Russia and the West just echoes the more salient debate: whether they are able to influence American (Western) perceptions and reactions to China's rise, at what price, and for how long. There are still those, frequently highlighted in Western workshops, quoting Russian voices about the impossibility of Russian-Chinese strategic cooperation, referring obliquely and with the due amount of nostalgia, to the golden age of Chinese-American strategic cooperation against the Soviets, and wondering audibly whether its resurrection might not promise another dawn in Chinese relations with the West.

But one does not need to carefully examine these debates. Though there is no audience for bad messages, it has not escaped the attention of the professional worriers that Russian and Chinese decision-makers seem to have concluded that they face a similar and geopolitically connected future. They may expect to be able to delay or blunt it but cannot evade it. The continuous Western efforts to leverage elite dissent as well as to force-grow and groom alternative elites (with their typical mixture of venality and blind idealism) in an increasingly worsening security environment, have hardened the conviction that they are up against a strategy to enable repeats of the Soviet collapse.

Indicators for the expectations of Russian and Chinese decision-makers are percolating through their foreign policy and military bureaucracies and are being picked up: the elimination, defeat, or terminal neutralization of the one will be the beginning of the same fate for the other. And they seem to feel that this is being imposed on them; it has not much to do with their choice of policies. The beginnings of a co-evolution of their strategic doctrines, therefore, has to be taken seriously. They don't care about facing the full range of American military power but think about how to stymie and defeat its deployment in the incipient stages of operations.

How to develop a posture capable of inflicting massive losses on US air power and carrier groups without requiring a hair-trigger posture seems to draw a lot of attention. There appears to be even a debate about preemption. With regard to nuclear deterrence, it appears to be moving toward a marriage between massive retaliation and different options of "technological decapitation" (ie, destroying selectively the netspace of military command and control as well as its fallback operations, plus regime and elite continuity functions).

In order to get a better understanding of its present strategic predicament, the Russian military has even begun to approach, very gingerly, the causes for the erosion of Soviet deterrence in the 1980s, especially the reasons why it could not react by increasing its force readiness to what it perceived as indications of Anglo-American maneuvering towards war.

But whatever the scenarios for the future or the probings of the past, Russia as well as China are for the foreseeable future much too weak to compete militarily at eye level with the West. Both have to struggle uphill just to make their militaries credible defenders of the integrity of the state. And there is almost no military backup for the political task of preventing a further deterioration of their strategic environment. They can neither rely on their ability to deflect the US from efforts to control it nor could they compete for control without mortgaging the survival of the state.

It is the paucity of their military and political choices that drives them together; but the need to avoid the hair trigger of American confrontation renders an explicit military alliance impractical. The Russians know it, the Chinese know it. And strategy-minded Americans count on the fact that a thin mattress makes bad bedfellows. But they also know that American politics are not strategy-minded; they generate their own stimuli for action.

After the Russian 1990s - and the Chinese 149 years after 1840 - no illusions are possible about the fate either of them should the West again gain control over their polities. This plus their weakness, however, should assist not only the credibility of a defensive nuclear posture but also give the Europeans or the Japanese reasons to think about the consequences of strategic desperation. Below this threshold, though, it is all coercive bargaining - be it under the guise of common interests or in the open, "jump, or else". There are no common interests, there is just jockeying for position and deferred hostility.

When Henry Kissinger and Yevgeny Primakov established their joint working-group of American and Russian elder statesmen to deal with "the threat of nuclear terrorism and proliferation" (as Kissinger described it), there is, therefore, a subtext: "Work with us regarding Iran (or the eventual "securing" of Pakistani nuclear warheads) because the first instance of nuclear terrorism could take place in Russia." One does not need to be of a wildly paranoid cast of mind to see the possibilities, eg, in view of the very close relations the British maintain with the Chechen resistance, and the dozens of tons of Soviet warhead material still waiting to be reworked into nuclear fuel rods.

The point is, there is no need for even an implied specific message. The awareness of so many fingers on so many operational triggers is quite sufficient for the prudent assumption: "What is thinkable, is possible; what is possible will happen, sometime, somewhere." In the meantime, one has to act as if some sort of reason and predictability might yet return to the exercise of American power.

Tomorrow, Part 3: Hoisting the American flag. The German educated middle classes, still hung over from their half century of ideological debauche and from Germany's role as a genocidal ogre take great satisfaction in their country's reputation as a mostly harmless global social worker. They are reluctant to subscribe to an ideology of global mayhem and a "defense of Western values". But the German media are working overtime to change their minds.

Axel Brot is the pen name for a German defense analyst and former intelligence officer.

The Lawspeaker
11-07-2009, 07:51 PM
GERMANY, THE RE-ENGINEERED ALLY (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/IH10Aa01.html)
PART 3: Hail to the chief, or else
By Axel Brot

Hoisting the American flag
Germany had honed its ability to fly below the radar of international controversy to a fine art. Its dependence on foreign trade for its economic well-being required this and it resisted, moreover, for most of the last 40 years rather successfully American attempts to subject its economic relations with the world to the more extravagant demands of economic warfare. No wonder, therefore, that the detente years of the 1970s and the globalization of the 1990s are remembered with fondness. German economic interests and the philanthropic basso continuo of its declaratory foreign policy were in tune. No wonder, too, that Washington regards these GDP-cored sentimentalities as completely out-of-tune with rousing the West against the "enemies of Western values".

After the shocks the German political class suffered in 2002/2003, it agreed, be it out of conviction, opportunism or fear, with the views of the American political class. But as poll after poll reveals, both have to deal with the fact that they are the opposite of rather fundamental attitudes of the majority of Germans. Germany has gladly internalized what was preached over the decades in political Sunday sermons about peace and prosperity, about the role of Germany in the modern world, its relationship with the West and, in particular, what kind of society Germany should aspire to. This message has not only managed to take hold; it has become the prism through which many, if not most, Germans look at the world, at the government, the media - and, not least, at the US.

This is neither surprising nor extraordinary. The German lower classes have always been very reluctant heroes, having been dragged sullenly into the two world wars. It even took all the efforts of the Social Democratic and union leaderships to crush the grassroots movement for a general strike that was about to disrupt the mobilization schedule of the German army in the run-up to World War I; and Nazi domestic intelligence documented their distinct lack of enthusiasm when Germany attacked Poland and the sense of fear and foreboding when Germany went on to eradicate Jewish Bolshevism.

The German educated middle classes, still hung over from their half century of ideological debauch with its jingoism, imperialism and Nazism, from Germany's role as a genocidal ogre, and still remembering its war fright from the 1980s - that, by the way, had reached deeply into the political class itself as well as into the senior levels of the German military - acquired a reflexive pacifism and take, in general, great satisfaction in Germany's reputation as a mostly harmless global social worker. They are, to say the least, very difficult to get again behind a program of endless (race) wars, torture and an ideology of global mayhem. A strong majority may even resist it actively via another peace movement if the German government gets too eager, or too blatant, about demonstrating militarily its commitment to the global "defense of Western values".

German pundits - "opinion-makers" in German - take all this as an expression of deeply-rooted, popular "anti-Americanism", and anti-Americanism as a facet of anti-semitism, and both as the resurgence of anti-Western, pro-totalitarian attitudes. This effort in guilt-mongering has led to some interesting myth-making, amusing if it were not so sinister.

Taking their cue from former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld's inanity regarding Venzuelan President Hugo Chavez that "also Hitler had been elected" by popular vote, those journalists who read the opinion pages of the correct American newspapers as well as former foreign minister Fischer repeated it enthusiastically and frequently. Notwithstanding their authority, the historical facts are, of course, quite different: after his election setback in 1932, Hitler was not elected but chosen by a cabal of leaders of right-wing parties, industry and the media, to head a coalition government between those parties and the Nazis, to save the country from the left. Any schoolchild should know this.

But delegitimizing "anti-Americanism" seems to require heavy myth-making because it has turned into a problem not only for the German political class but for the whole of the EU. The European populations are, with a few exceptions, completely out of tune with the ideological mobilization required to wage "World War IV". Nevertheless, the change has been most dramatic in Germany.

The post-September 11 spike in public support for the US was not only wiped out by 2002/2003 but the 50-year fund of popular and confident pro-Americanism had evaporated and given way to distrust, fear and loathing. The same holds true, somewhat less dramatically, for attitudes towards Israel. As a danger to the world, both countries rank with North Korea and Iran. Russia and China are still (and stubbornly) regarded as basically benign and unthreatening.

This is surprising since even educated Germans tend to rely for their news on German sources - and have no access to the many sources of critical news coverage and opinion still available in the Western world. One might have expected, therefore, a quick payoff when public TV as well as the print media, from high-brow to low-brow, rediscovered their avocation to educate the German public into "the Americans may make mistakes, but the others are incomparably worse".

An ironic or regretting undertone towards President Bush and the neoconservatives, and dismay about their ineptness - frequently slanted as basically benevolent American naivete - has nevertheless crept into the presentation of US policy. This rhetorical flourish connects easily with the stereotypes of the self-correcting permanence of American moral leadership, the brutal fanaticism of Arabs, totalitarian Russians, and ruthless Chinese, and the almost superhuman difficulties in finding the right balance between force and suasion. Nevertheless, the generalized suspicion that something is wrong - and the distrust of journalists and politicians - seems to have resisted up to now the best journalistic efforts.

Since disquiet had spread even among segments of the high bureaucracy, the leaders of the German and American political elites moved quickly and decisively to counter any consequences the breakdown of the American political image might have on the attitudes of those eligible for recruitment into elite functions. A large-scale program was set in motion to knit young civil servants, management cadres and promising students institutionally and socially to their American counterparts and to expose them to senior officials of both countries - a kind of ideological Marshall Plan that saw virtually no week without an American-German or an American-EU get-together. Indeed, the German Marshall Fund, heavily supported by the most prominent German media conglomerates - together with the Bertelsmann Foundation - came into its own by leading it. And more stringently than ever before, to be considered a "safe" cadre for career advancement in politics, the civil service, the media, business and science, requires the aspirant to have been successfully connected to the right kind of American or American-German institution at least once.

Dealing with the reflexive pacifism and the politically correct humanitarianism of the majority of Germans is still a much harder nut to crack. The print media, in particular the weekly Die Zeit, the flagship of German neoconservatives, and Der Spiegel, the middlebrow infotainment weekly, made their dissatisfaction with their readers repeatedly clear. And they give a certain depth to the main subject of political talkshows: the sorry state of mind of the average German, his lack of patriotism, his addiction to peace, and his reactionary notions about the welfare state.

It did not help that several efforts to reeducate Germans went seriously awry when the mainstream media (public TV, the German associate networks of CNN, plus newspapers) gave visibility and legitimacy to what might be termed the "occidentalist new right". Their interventions were so well tuned to American policies and performance expectations that they confirmed involuntarily the worst expectations of what was in the offing.

'Without torture the war on terror cannot be won'
Before the images of Abu Ghraib helped to visualize what "the gloves are off" implied, Americans were given the opportunity to introduce the German public to the need for torture, with the "ticking bomb" scenario. There was no talk-show format that did not have torture on its schedule - with the former director of the Aspen Institute in Berlin, Jeff Gedmin (now president of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) as the most indefatigable of its proponents.

But it was the German-Israeli Michael Wolffsohn, a prominent professor at the Armed Forces University in Munich, who publicly moved the subject from the "ticking bomb" to affirm the West's fundamental obligation to use torture against terrorist suspects.

Torture, however, though normal in Israel, would be in breach of the German constitution and for a civil servant to propose it, a breach of the civil service laws. He should have been fired. He wasn't.

Instead, then-interior minister and Social Democrat Otto Schily went out on a mission of damage control. In an interview with Die Zeit he presented the concerns about torture as a tempest in a teapot. Knowing full well what really was happening, having been privy to intelligence briefings about the material of the US military's Taguba Report about Abu Ghraib as well as profiting from a very close relationship with former US attorney general John Ashcroft, he still ridiculed the concern about torture as a matter of suspects who have to sit on a stool instead of lounging in an easy-chair and who have their faces illuminated to study facial expressions. Regarding Guantanamo, he ascribed it to the understandable American dilemma of what to do with the worst of the bad, a dilemma that required for him, too, the need to change international law and the Geneva Conventions.

No wonder, then, that he and Fischer obviously had no qualms about letting the CIA airlines use Germany for "rendition" traffic. No wonder, too, that both refused to lift a finger to rescue from Guantanamo a young German resident of Turkish origin, who had lived all his life in Germany, innocent even to his interrogators, or to follow up on the kidnapping of a German to Bagram. In the end, it was the images of Abu Ghraib that put paid to this effort to acclimatize the Germans to the harsh demands of the global "war on terror". But at least the legal innovations introduced by then-interior minister Otto Schily to get Germany on a civilizational war footing - and those promulgated or ventilated by his successor, Wolfgang Schäuble - are fully compatible with the mindset and the intentions of the US Patriot Act.

100 million superfluous young Muslim men
Die Zeit, once the leading liberal weekly, the standard-bearer of "secular humanism" and enlightened Atlanticism, and now the flagship of German neoliberal neoconservatism, a hybrid of The New Republic and National Review, is indefatigable in its mission to convert its mostly educated readers to the new demands of the German alliance with Israel and the US. It opened its pages to hate-mongers in social-science disguise whose wares bear an uncanny resemblance to those peddled in earlier days by the ideologues of the extreme right. Among those is sociologist Gunnar Heinsohn, professor at the University of Bremen where he heads the Raphael Lemkin Institute for Comparative Genocide Research.

He maintains that the "youth bulge" - the rapid increase of un- or underemployed young men in Islamic countries - presents the West with the imperative of culling them to keep the terrorist threat from becoming unmanageable: either by instigating civil wars in these countries or by intervention (one might call them "wars of demographic sanitation"). In Die Zeit he developed this thesis with reference to the problems the "civilized" Israelis encounter in dealing with the terrorist barbarians and especially, with suicide bombers. The Palestinians, though, present for him not only the terrorist problem in a nutshell, but the spawn of a particularly depraved and defective society that even produces female suicide bombers. Heinsohn sees, therefore, no difference between the Hutu woman wielding a machete to slaughter her Tutsi neighbors and the Palestinian woman donning an explosive belt to slaughter innocent Israeli civilians.

The publicized disgust with female suicide bombers, by the way, is limited to Palestinians. The Chechen women with explosive belts who threatened to kill a whole theater full of people in Moscow were treated in the German media with a great deal of understanding and commiseration. Disgust and rage were, instead, directed against the Russian authorities for their refusal to withdraw from Chechnya and for their victimizing the innocent theater audience. And when a school full of children was held hostage in Beslan, the German media, again, made the terrorists all but disappear behind their indignation and venom directed against the Russian authorities.

Following the lead of Die Zeit, the high-brow formats of public TV offered Heinsohn the opportunity to expand on his theses before a larger audience. And contemporary German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk, did not withhold his admiration for Heinsohn's bold challenge to the pussyfooting humanitarians. And bold it is. Even the economists and race strategists of the Third Reich did not anticipate the need to kill more than 40-60 million subhumans during and after the victorious campaign against the Soviet Union.

In propagandizing the need to take off the gloves in the fight against the Islamic threat, Die Zeit recruited also a Dutch writer of middle-brow novels, Leon de Winter. He exposed the hopelessly defective nature of Arab civilization, the inbred resistance to acculturation of the Muslim immigrants in Europe, and the gynophobe (or genocidal) obscurantism of Islam. Since he preached this message often enough, one of the most prestigious German honors was bestowed on him.

Die Zeit also saw to the requirements of creating empathy with Israel's struggle at the front lines of Western civilization. Its publisher, Josef Joffe, did see to it that one of his editorial team was embedded with one of the covert operations and assassination squads of the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) to report about the pride and the suffering of those soldiers. At the same time, Die Zeit refined the use of images, already characterizing the German media in toto, that opposes the dignified tears of a pretty young woman in an IDF uniform to the TV images of howling, old Arab strumpets and menacingly strutting young men.

Similar messages dominate the German media either in an even more vulgar fashion or somewhat less stridently. But there is virtually a complete absence of any challenge to its common denominator. The same holds true, by the way, for France - with the exception of the monthly Monde Diplomatique. Nevertheless, the German general public seems to continue to resist at least its intended consequences.

'The Germans have to learn how to kill'
Thus, "the Germans have to learn how to kill". This strange and most revealing conclusion about the German state of mind was brought back from a NATO meeting at the end of last year by Karsten Voigt, the eternal Social Democratic "coordinator for German-American relations". It was occasioned by the allied indignation (American, Canadian, and Dutch) about the German refusal to do combat duty in "Operation Enduring Freedom" in Afghanistan: the mandate of the German forces is still limited to reconstruction assistance, peacekeeping in the Tajik north, as well as policing and training duties. But since the German commitment there is already highly contentious and enjoys hardly any support among the German population, this sardonic comment is addressing more directly the failure of the German political class to create the climate for getting the "Germans to the front" than just the limits of the Afghanistan commitment. And its meaning was not lost. For a while, one might have been able to enjoy the spectacle of shamefaced German opinion-leaders barely able to restrain their impatience with the rabble they are forced to educate.

To placate the allies, Germany sent six Tornado reconnaissance planes to Afghanistan, either as the thin end of a wedge or as the timid admission that more is not possible under prevailing conditions. Time will tell what it is going to be.

'The Germans have to learn to die'
What has not yet been picked up in the wider campaign of re-educating Germans is Rafael Seligmann's recent pronouncement that "the Germans have to learn to die" in the "war of civilizations". Though a prominent novelist and journalist, and richly endowed with public honors, he obviously had lost his sangfroid. The purpose of the whole effort is, of course, about killing and dying, but the cooler heads among journalists and politicians know now - from the backlash of their earlier offensiveness - that the average German needs to be much more terrorized, beleaguered and anxious to be confronted with this truth.

In the meanwhile, the dissatisfaction with the German mice refusing to roar found different venues of expression. A lead writer of Der Spiegel, Hendryk Broder, also showered with prestigious awards, took last year's failure of the Germans to rally in the streets, when they should have demonstrated their support for Israel and protested against the Hezbollah "war of aggression", as proof of the ineradicable German anti-semitism. And this is connecting well with the historical myths that have come to dominate the public discourse, particularly those which hold the German lower classes culpable for the German misfortunes of the last 100 years, the latest one being their reluctance to man the barricades for the defense of the West.

Trying to leverage the German consensus on anti-semitism has become all the rage since a majority of Germans turned against American (and Israeli) policies. The quasi-genetic disposition of Germans to "genocidal anti-semitism" has become the first and last resort for explaining their recalcitrant pacifism.

Nevertheless, though the stridency of the consensual reporting and commenting in the German media seems to have somewhat leveled off with regard to the wider Middle East, there is another front line in the war of civilizations where hostility and venom remains the only currency of media opinion - namely, Russia. So much so, in fact, that the large minority of the political class which considers normal relations with Russia possible and desirable has lost all influence on the public discourse.

The rediscovery of the Russian enemy - also dating from around 2002/2003 - and the demonization of Putin's Russia might have originated in the search for countermeasures to the crash of the American public image. But it has now reached a depth that only a large majority of the political class - unafraid, at that, of a media campaign against it - could recondition the public discourse. This is highly improbable - for domestic as well as for American reasons.

A new cold war with Russia is something the Russians fear far more than they are apt to let on and this fear has acquired a real and influential constituency. Though the West might err about the risks, a cold war's perceived benefits are simply too substantial to reconsider its wisdom. It is, of course, driven by the expectation that the Russians can be forced to return to the state of affairs that US Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad dubbed "adult supervision". It may end in war born out of desperation.

And war, the German war against the Soviet Union, has become central to the myth making underlying so many of the efforts to reshape the German collective psyche. Though by the 1980s, many German generals and senior officials had forgiven the Soviets for defeating the Wehrmacht, the fashionable view now is that the Soviet victory was illegitimate - because it was achieved by "Stalinist methods" - and that Stalin and Hitler were equally responsible for the war, and equally victimizers of the Soviet population. But since democratic Germany repented its sins, and Russia didn't, Russia will remain in thrall to its totalitarian heritage, and will still have to pay for the war it finally and justly lost in 1991.

Undergirding this caricature of history with applications for the present are endless series on public TV about the Soviet barbarian ineptness in fighting the war, the suffering of German women at the hands of Red rapists, about the strafing and torpedoing of refugees and refugee ships, the driving-out of Germans, and the Soviet anti-semitic refusal to recognize the special place of the 6 million Jews among the 20 million civilian victims of the German crusade against Jewish Bolshevism.

In fact, in connecting the debate among the Israeli right and the ideological continuity in those "history" series, one might come to the conclusion that the German crime is the one of the Holocaust of "innocent" Jews - innocent in the sense of non-communist. It is, therefore, completely unsurprising that the cry of "anti-semitism" that meets any opposition to Israel's policies and its propagandists, leaves the Jewish non- or anti-Zionist left as it has always been, fair game.

Unavoidably, these tales to shape the public conscience will eventually have effect. But for now they seem to have failed their mission. The polls still show a substantial majority of Germans regarding Russia as non-threatening and basically benign. Though not for lack of trying.

Last year's climax of the efforts to take down Putin in a public relations sense - with hopes, obviously, of getting the German public to scent blood - was an interview in the run-up to the G-8 Petersburg meeting.

It was led by Maybrit Illner, a popular TV political talk show host known as one of the three "Compassionates" (as the Furies were eulogized in classical times) of public television. Since these events are always heavily scripted and choreographed with the involvement of the political appointees heading public TV, there was nothing accidental or unforseen in its conduct. Illner waged this interview like a prosecutor interrogating a defendant. Her "You don't want us to believe", "you talk too long", her pulling faces and interrupting Putin, demonstrated that her parents were quite amiss in teaching her manners.

This was not a question of evading subservience or not challenging Putin, but she behaved in a fashion more appropriate for the old American shock-talk TV Jerry Springer Show than for a serious political interview. Though Putin neither lost his smile nor his sangfroid, it was unavoidable that the Kremlin drew conclusions about the future of German-Russian relations as well as about its ability to get a fair hearing for its point of view.

This interview was even more remarkable for its contrast with an interview of President Bush by Sabine Christiansen (the second of the three Compassionates). Her demeanor suggested a coyly suppressed obsequiousness and her challenge (re Guantanamo) dissolved in the shared relief about the upswing in US-German relations and the wisdom of Chancellor Merkel. It was not "hail fellow, well met" but the demonstration of measured awe before the burdens of the president's office, of the willingness to have the world explained for the yokels at home, and of a slight willingness to succumb to the manly charms of power.

Both interviews are emblematic for the hormonal change of German policies and their public debate. It does not matter in the longer run whether the German population will vicariously partake in its thrills or not. What counts is that the German political class is gorged with the will to follow its temptations, losing in the process prudence and reason. The American political elites are already failing; the German ones are following suit.

Axel Brot is the pen name for a German defense analyst and former intelligence officer.

Megrez
07-18-2010, 09:02 AM
Germany: illegitimate governments since 1945

Current situation: a state of emergency


http://secastan.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/reichstag.jpg?w=376&h=231

The German government finds itself in an uncomfortable situation, since it has to take repressive measures against the part of the population that has already identified the incoherences and does not silence before the legal transgressions coming from the end of the armed conflicts.

The present Germany is still a satellite state of the occupying powers. Its government allows the presence of thousands of foreign troops on its territory, even twenty years after the unification. Its "government" abdicates territories under Polish occupation, territories that the allies themselves once recognized as German lands.

Its government has recently approved - reluctantly, the construction of a memorial to the victims of the expulsion from the eastern territories. Its government encourages today the entry of foreign immigrants into German territory, without consultation or popular debate to clarify the consequences of such measures.

A small sample of the socio-economic-cultural conflicts arising out of such a policy could be seen during the revolt of the descendants of immigrants in the suburbs of Paris, November 2005. Its government cannot stop the emigration of the young German productive forces, which find better life abroad than in their own country.

Its government makes use of the penal code to supress the people's freedom of speech. Its government overlooks the annual murder of thousands of Germans through the indiscriminate practice of abortion.

A country still under guidelines of occupying powers

More than 60 years after the end of World War II, it may seem that the title of this article is somewhat outdated. After all, there are inumerous situations that seem to show the full normality of the present German Republic.

Election campaigns, representatives of "popular will", diplomatic service, participation in sport events, military, German reunification... Indeed, we can notice there are ingredients that should be part of a sovereign nation. But the detailed analysis of this situation shows the strange aspects and curious paradigms of modern Germany.

Let us start with quick query on the website (http://www2.mre.gov.br/dai/guerra.htm) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Brazil. This shows us that peace treaties were signed with Italy on February 10, 1947 (Decree No. 28369), and with Japan on September 8, 1951 (Decree No. 30948). According to informations from an officer of this same Ministry, dated December 2007, she says "we do not have in the database of the DAI (Division of International Acts) the related decrees and any reference to a peace treaty with postwar Germany".

In fact, the search will be fruitless, for there is no peace treaty with Germany. Neither by Brazil or by any country in the world. The explanation is simple: only the German Reich's government could sign such an agreement and restore diplomatic relation with the international community because it was a government recognized by this community and legitimately chosen by the people. Another alternative is the present Germany to obtain the legitimacy that allows it to sign such a treaty.

To the incredulous, the facts.

Disrespect for the current public international law

Following the defeat of the Wehrmacht - the German armed forces, all Reich's territory was divided among some allies, forming different areas of ocupation.

The direct action of these occupying powers through the Military Laws dictated by the SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters of Allied Expeditionary Force) violated various jurisdictions regarding the conduct of war, established in the Hague Convention in 1907, in which took part the brazilian delegation led by Rui Barbosa.

These Laws flout mainly what the Articles 42-45 on the conduction of hostilities determine.

We can cite examples of disrespect to the Hague Convention - with full cumplicity of the current "German government":

- Murder, rape and expulsion of millions of Germans living in the regions of East Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia and Sudetenland

- Inhumane treatment to prisoners of war in Germany.


http://secastan.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/keitel_rend.jpg?w=250&h=190
General Keitel signs the surrender of the Wehrmacht

http://secastan.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/massac1.jpg?w=376&h=306
German prisoners left in the open for months in a row, in Sinzig.


http://secastan.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/keitel_exec.jpg?w=250&h=175
General Keitel murdered by the occupying forces.

- Formation of an occupying armies "supervised" government.


http://secastan.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/merkelknesset.jpg?w=250&h=376
Angela Merkel explains herself to her peers

The defeat of a country does not lead to its disappearance; it does not cease to exist as a state.

The share


http://secastan.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/mapa_ocupae7ao.jpg?w=300&h=235
Germany divided into areas of occupation.

As we can verify in the map above, the victorious powers divided the German Reich's territory among USA, Britain, France, Soviet Union and Poland. The portion that fell to the latter country simply was forgotten by the current "international community" and should cause astonishment to many readers.

Attach part of the territory conquered or form another state within its borders represented a serious disregard for international law. Likewise, it is a contravention of this law when the winner deposes the legitimate government and sets up a new puppet government, which must be seen as an instrument of the occupying powers.

Already in 1944, when Germany was still far from losing the so-called "World War II" and fought hard on two fronts, the Allies established laws and decrees to control the first steps in the future of postwar Germany.

The Allies allowed themselves to seize the German Reich

The high U.S. command decided to seize the entire country with its provinces, states, districts and all their properties, as we can verify in the enacted law SHAEF-52. This law placed under administration and control by the allies the whole German territory and its properties.


http://secastan.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/shaef_52.jpg

Foreign domination's government

After the partition of territory, two pseudo-states were formed, called on one side the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany), under influence of the United States, France and England, and on the other side the German 'Democratic' Republic (East Germany) under influence of the Soviet Union.

According to the announcement made on September 8, 1948 by who is considered the father of West Germany's Grundgesetz, Minister Carlo Schmid, the Basic Law is not a constitution but a Statute of Occupation and besides, West Germany cannot be considered a State but rather a Form of Organization of a Modality of the Foreign Domination.

After German unification, the Grundgesetz (Basic Law) was extended in practice to East Germany. And, crucial to the current German Issue, it is considered the Federal Constitution - a Constitution that does not exist, however, that originates public institutions such as the Department of Defense of the Constitution - the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz!


http://secastan.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/vsbericht2006.jpg?w=200&h=282
Report of the Department of protection of a "constitution" that does not actually exist.

To give the reader an idea of how the will of the German people has been reaped over time, in the 1950's it was publicly acknowledged as German territory the border situation corresponding to December 31, 1937, as shown in the map below.

Even if these boundaries were maintained in fact, without the Austria annexed to the Reich, it would be against German rights, since it was annexed after a national referendum held in both countries.


http://secastan.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/mapa_1949.jpg?w=250&h=194

During electoral campaigns of the 1950s, the political party propaganda reinforced the idea of the rightful Germany. It prevailed slogans like "This is the whole."


http://secastan.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/propag_polit_50.jpg

Already in the 1970's, this will of the Germans to exist as a folk only appeared in theory, or rather, in the legal sphere. In its decision of July 31, 1973, the Supreme Court - the body that arose from decisions of the government established by the victors of the war, acknowledged that the German Reich did not disappear with the defeat of the army (BVerfGE 2, 266; 3, 288; 5, 85; 6, 309).

It only became momentarily unable to negotiate on behalf of the German people because of the postwar occupation. For those who speak the language of Goethe, the German radio Hessen Rundfunk, reported in 1990 the confirmation of the decision of the Supreme Court, wherein the borders of 1937 are recognized. Listen here (http://www.inacreditavel.com.br/audio/dr_grenzen37.mp3).

Angela Merkel, the Tel Aviv's whore


http://secastan.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/clip_image0011.jpg?w=376&h=269
Tel Aviv's whore

Germany is a country that has no legitimate governments since 1945 (they are as legitimate as the current government of Iraq), where much of the population has suffered decades of brainwashing in the schools of East and West Germany, where on one side they learned that Stalin was a hero, and on the other side, that the Americans and British are champions of freedom.

Angela Merkel could not escape the lineage of ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government) puppet ruler of Israel. From this category no "German" puppet from 1949 till present day escapes. From Adenauer (who used to call Prussians "brutal savages") to Merkel, they are all low bandits.


qoLKsB1z5Ak
Angela Merkel takes part in the parade for the 65 years of USSR's victory over her own country, alongside the representative of Israel, typical of a puppet ruler who wants to please its "masters".

One cannot expect anything from the current German government. It pursues the German nationalists, either by means of police action (arrest), political action (trying to make NDP illegal), and psychological action (putting gays and foreigners in the government).

It takes an almost mystical effort for one to identify in Germany today, totally bent to the victorious powers, a state that truly represents the interests of the German people.

Sovereignty: zero! Just recall the division into "zones of influence", the expropriation of huge slice of its territory and the foreign troops yet stationed, the absurd indemnities still being paid, the "unconditional" surrender and its effects, the influx of foreigners and the loss of cultural identity, the farce in Nuremberg, the impositions of UN as to reunification with Austria (even though it was result of a plebiscite among the people of both countries), the lack of a constitution properly promulgated, finally, the absolute domination in which it is.

If there is a place which cannot be taken as reference it is the occupied Germany. The so-called "shame" is not spontaneous, it is result of a virulent brainwashing process in the postwar period, by the whole educational system and media.

Governments? The same ones that officially celebrate the defeat of the country on dates that mark the living hell of its people at the "liberation" by the Allies?

The most emblematic instances of censorship on historical revisionism are of course in Germany: a country that does not allow (indeed, it is not allowed) to clarify and investigate its own past. It is restricted to the version imposed by the conquering nations.

Angela "Bronstein" Merkel has made her "homage" to German soldiers killed in World War I, with one more anti-nationalist and pacifist speech, alongside her French counterpart, the jew Nicolas Sarkozy.

The speech was not more depressing only than her statements about "German responsibility for World War II", at its 70 years anniversary, a fact that even the Defense Ministry of Russia does not agree with.

Angela Merkel is a shame for the German veterans, she is an insult to the memory of soldiers who fell in battle for the Third Reich, and an outrage to the descendants of Germans that carry the germanic blood.

A country that once was the world's most powerful, is now relegated to a mere supporting role, and this goes with full cooperation of the political puppets that govern today. Ruled by a constitution that comes from the occupation, made in 1946 to serve the interests of the victors of the war and prevent the resurgence of Germany as real power.

This lady does not speak either for Germany or the conscious Germans. She represents the zionist interests, spreading to the world a false image of Germany, an image that exists only in the mind of the alienated who have never been there, a false reality shown in jewish media like such as Deutsche Welle, Der Spiegel, etc.

The Zionists are pressing for their political lackeys of the EU rush to pass anti-Historical Revisionism legislation, in an attempt to bury the truth.

Fortunately there is still hope: the German people are waking up, and political parties like the NPD (Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands) grow every day, and so in Austria with parties like the Bündnis Zukunft Österreich.

Presented below are photos representing what great part of the German people really thinks. Images you'll never see on TV, since it is not "interesting" for the zionists that people see Germany is waking up.


http://secastan.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/article-0-0033888a00000258-946_468x32511.jpg?w=376&h=261

http://secastan.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/npd31.jpg?w=376&h=250

http://secastan.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/npd21.jpg?w=376&h=283

http://secastan.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/nazi-npd-dazlak11.jpg?w=376&h=250

http://secastan.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/npd11.jpg?w=376&h=376

Sozialistische Reichspartei

In 1949 the General Otto Remer, along with Fritz Dorls, founded Sozialistische Reichspartei (Socialist Reich Party), whose principles were identical to those of the Nazi Party.


http://secastan.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/sr.jpg?w=376&h=262

http://secastan.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/bundesarchiv_bild_183-2004-0330-500_otto_ernst_remer.jpg?w=376&h=556
General Otto Remer during World War II

In the following year the party had 360,000 supporters in Lower Saxony, and held 16 seats in the state parliament, and 8 seats in the state parliament in Bremen. But unfortunately in 1952 the puppet "justice" of the new Germany made it illegal.

The proportions reached by the Sozialistische Reichspartei show that even after the military defeat the German people did not regret anything, and wanted to restore the German Reich.

It is clear that the postwar German governments do not govern by German interests, but by interests of the victors of the conflict, therefore they "catechized" a lot of German people to believe that National Socialism was evil.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sozialistische_Reichspartei

Current Germany vs. Hitler's Germany

The period of the 1930s in Germany is often portrayed by the media as a "time of terror", when the "Nazi scourge ruined the country and plunged into destruction".

However, in commenting on this epoch, there are few authors who seek to interview ordinary people, Germans born in the period before the regime that were able to witness and testify to the society then. In this text, a German lady, elderly, seeks to clarify this period, which lacks proper contextualization. Her name will be preserved, for obvious reasons, and will be referred to hence as Heidi.


http://secastan.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/img-ns-1-42.jpg

Heidi lived in Germany in a town near Leipzig and her house served as a shelter (bunker) for a troop of SS, which endured the end of war for over a month. She knew well the regime and met the "dread" SS men.

About Nazism, Heidi says he does not regret the time and is not ashamed of the regime. In fact, she reports that Germany at that time was wonderful. She lived during the years of the Nazi regime and witnessed a progress in all areas without precedents.

The population began to take pride in being German. Many still did not particularly admire Hitler, but the Reich conceived by the Nazis. So it is, that current German NPD (the party with similar proposals to the NSDAP), finds overwhelming approval of the population above 70 years.

This narrative is confirmed by a German war veteran, who will also not be identified, that goes to tears when recalling his youth in the III Reich, specially the 1936 Olympics and how the state provided and protected the people.

Workers were recovered, gaining for the first time in a European country, benefits that exceed those of today, with cruises, resorts and a wide network so they could enjoy the holidays.

Germany of 1930's was the great world power that attracted actors, artists, politicians and rulers of every country in the world who were eager to see this new order. Today Germany lives in complete crisis of identity. The Germans today are a rough copy, a caricature of the Germanic people of the past.

For they have no identity, a portion of contemporary Germans, specially the young, follow closely the american cultural textbook, at an increasing rate, whilst Germany is the cradle of the most advanced western culture ever.

For the "politically correct", the German government makes unconceivable concessions, sustains people that do not want to work, in favour of an "unemployment compensation" paid by the state. Its economy is the least growing among the developed countries. Its welfare and education have collapsed. For the first time in German history as a country, the college will no longer be free. It allows the rape of its culture with the most stupid parsimony.

With the Germans coming free from work, thanks to the generous help of the state, it gave place to the massive immigration of the Turkish people, who now live in ghettos and do not assimilate German culture and remain sociologically separated, causing friction with local people, committing crimes and forcing the Germans to suit them.

The Germans, of course, are obliged to tolerate such a situation, all for the "politically correct", under the threat of being labeled as bigots and racists. Even the Brazilians who live in Germany witness and admit this Turkish question.

Germany today is sold to the U.S., including being the only European state which has ruled in favor of the Israeli attack on Beirut, which killed over 1,400 civilians.

There is also in Germany today, a veiled encouragement of homosexuality under the banner of tolerance. In the country, any personal manifestation against homosexuality is crime, with estimates of incarceration. Because of this, the birth rate has been decreasing year after year, further worsening the framework of social security.

There is a big contrast between what was Germany, and what it is today. But the most curious is that when talking about culture and German people, these characteristics are always mentioned, among others:

• Pride;
• Nationalism;
• Development;
• Organization;
• Security;
• Correction of values;
• Collective consciousness;
• Honesty;
• Will power;
• Education;
• Distribution of income.

People barely know that these features had their apogee in the 1930's.

Conclusion

The German people is disappearing as a unique folk. Its History does not deserve the current government, because this follows the guideline of serving firstly the interests of the foreign powers that rule the country.

All its resolutions since 1945 are void. It is time for the population to put a stop and call for a National Constituent Assembly, wherein we would then have the enactment of a genuine constitution. We would still have hope to ensure for future generations the opportunity to experience the unique culture of the land of musicians, poets and philosophers.

The objective of war Nr. 1 of the winners can be verified paying attention to the converstions between Roosevelt and Stalin, who sought to break the racial and cultural exclusivity of the German folk.

For the salvation of this people, it would greatly help to enforce what the last paragraph of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany shows, in article 146:


http://secastan.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/art_146.jpg

Last article of the Basic Law - die Grundgesetz, of Germany

Article 146 .* [Duration of the Basic Law] This Basic Law, which since the achievement of the unity and freedom of Germany applies to the entire German people, shall cease to apply on the day on which a constitution freely adopted by the German people takes effect.

* Art 146 New essay due EVertr. of 08.31.1990 (BGBl. II Page 889,890).

"... the day on which a constitution freely adopted by the German people takes effect."


Translated from: http://secastan.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/alemanha/

Official english version of the German Basic Law in pdf: https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80201000.pdf
Go straight to page 130 and read the article 146 by yourselves.

Groenewolf
07-18-2010, 09:13 AM
Interesting piece. And of course for everyone who have really thought about the situation already knows that Germany still lives under an occupation regime. Was there not a former German intelligence agent that wrote a book that disclosed how it is working today. Including a committee in Washington that has the final voice in German politics.

Wulfhere
07-18-2010, 09:25 AM
England: illegitimate governments since 1066.

Germany started two world wars and lost them both. What do you expect?

RoyBatty
07-18-2010, 09:37 AM
Germany started two world wars and lost them both. What do you expect?

That's an oft repeated and typically ignorant comment.

Germany didn't start WW1. The reasons for it kicking off are a bit more complex but I suppose that it's more convenient to just blame Germany and absolve all others who were involved. :rolleyes2:

As usual it's a case of "you lose the war or the peace negotiations and the history (propaganda?) writers apportion all blame to you".


As far as the original post is concerned, Germany is still occupied and is a puppet / slave state of "The Free World".

*In Zionist / Anglo Orwellian Newspeak "Free World" of course means the exact opposite.

After years of occupation the USSR left Germany. Why won't the American and British occupiers, not to mention the Zionists, do the same?

The Lawspeaker
07-18-2010, 09:48 AM
That's an oft repeated and typically ignorant comment.

Germany didn't start WW1. The reasons for it kicking off are a bit more complex but I suppose that it's more convenient to just blame Germany and absolve all others who were involved. :rolleyes2:

As usual it's a case of "you lose the war or the peace negotiations and the history (propaganda?) writers apportion all blame to you".


As far as the original post is concerned, Germany is still occupied and is a puppet / slave state of "The Free World".

*In Zionist / Anglo Orwellian Newspeak "Free World" of course means the exact opposite.

After years of occupation the USSR left Germany. Why won't the American and British occupiers, not to mention the Zionists, do the same?

It would be even fairer to say that at least WW1 was started by the Allies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hand).
Which seems to have worked with financial backing from abroad.. possibly including France.

Bloodeagle
07-18-2010, 09:52 AM
America has such a good thing going on in Germany. Why would it ever leave?
The world is afraid of Germany and the power it could, once again, wield if it was truly autonomous.

Wulfhere
07-18-2010, 11:38 AM
America has such a good thing going on in Germany. Why would it ever leave?
The world is afraid of Germany and the power it could, once again, wield if it was truly autonomous.

Which is a very good reason for preventing from ever being so.

Psychonaut
07-18-2010, 12:38 PM
Which is a very good reason for preventing from ever being so.

Not that I necessarily agree with the US's current hobbling of Germany, but keeping defeated yet living enemies weak is just a good tactical decision. It would make no sense to defeat an enemy, let them live, and leave them to rebuild their might so that they may be a threat to you again.

Loki
07-18-2010, 01:20 PM
Germans are so awesome, that in spite of their subtle and continuous oppression, they still manage to survive and thrive. And, at the same time, manage to remain less multicultural and spoilt than the "winning" neighbouring countries England and France. I'm not even going to mention Poland. :coffee:

Svanhild
07-18-2010, 01:48 PM
That's a true and consistent thread. Thanks a bunch. :)


Not that I necessarily agree with the US's current hobbling of Germany, but keeping defeated yet living enemies weak is just a good tactical decision. It would make no sense to defeat an enemy, let them live, and leave them to rebuild their might so that they may be a threat to you again.

Which is a very good reason for preventing from ever being so.
:bullet puke

What you're writing is the approval of forced oppression and patronising of German, thus European, people and in a silly way against the fundamental goals of the board. Have you no shame? I hope one day my country will break the chains and catapult them in your faces.

RoyBatty
07-18-2010, 01:52 PM
Svanhild, I could be wrong but I suspect Psychonaut was referring to a hypothetical situation, not necessarily Germany's particular case.

Psychonaut
07-18-2010, 02:16 PM
What you're writing is the approval of forced oppression and patronising of German, thus European, people and in a silly way against the fundamental goals of the board. Have you no shame? I hope one day my country will break the chains and catapult them in your faces.


Svanhild, I could be wrong but I suspect Psychonaut was referring to a hypothetical situation, not necessarily Germany's particular case.

Exactly, Mijnheer Replicant. Tactical speculations are not ethical judgements. However, I do not at all agree with you, Svanhild, that intra-Europoid war (and the resultant oppression of the loser) is diametrically opposed to preservation. Stasis is unnatural and never have our own people been at peace with one another.

Megrez
07-18-2010, 02:52 PM
If World War II was just intra-Europoid war...

Smaland
07-18-2010, 02:55 PM
...Germany started two world wars and lost them both. What do you expect?As everyone knows, World War II began when Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around.

Wulfhere
07-18-2010, 02:58 PM
As everyone knows, World War II began when Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around.

In defence of their ally that Germany had attacked, despite warnings not to.

Megrez
07-18-2010, 03:19 PM
Why didn't France, USA and Britain declare war on Soviet Union when it invaded Poland along with Germany so?

poiuytrewq0987
07-18-2010, 03:21 PM
And quite humorously. despite the long article, it could be summarized up by bringing up the fact that the Germans are free to break the chains of oppression by adopting an entirely German constitution than adhere to the Basic Law. The fate of Germany is entirely in the hands of Germans, not the occupiers.

Wulfhere
07-18-2010, 03:22 PM
Why didn't France, USA and Britain declare war on Soviet Union when it invaded Poland along with Germany so?

I have no idea, but the alliance with Poland was a defensive one against the Germans, not the Russians.

poiuytrewq0987
07-18-2010, 03:23 PM
I have no idea, but the alliance with Poland was a defensive one against the Germans, not the Russians.

Please stop while you're ahead.

The Lawspeaker
07-18-2010, 03:26 PM
I have no idea, but the alliance with Poland was a defensive one against the Germans, not the Russians.
Not really. The Anglo-French alliance with Poland would be what people would call instigation.

Wulfhere
07-18-2010, 03:27 PM
Not really. The Anglo-French alliance with Poland would be what people would call instigation.

Is protecting a country from aggression instigation?

RoyBatty
07-18-2010, 03:30 PM
I have no idea, but the alliance with Poland was a defensive one against the Germans, not the Russians.

The SOVIETS.

Or will you be telling us next that Britain = England? :confused:

The Lawspeaker
07-18-2010, 03:31 PM
Is protecting a country from aggression instigation?
It is when that same country has been making aggressive moves including making attack plans as early as 1930. And when that same country has a large minority (which was included purposely within it's borders by his Allies) which is being purposely mistreated in order to antagonise that "aggressive neighbour". The situation that I describe here is Czechoslovakia 1938 and Poland 1939.

Wulfhere
07-18-2010, 03:39 PM
The SOVIETS.

Or will you be telling us next that Britain = England? :confused:

The USSR was controlled by Russia, just like Britiain is controlled by England.

RoyBatty
07-18-2010, 03:40 PM
Also keep in mind that Poland itself was busy playing the same games that Nazi Germany were playing in Europe before the outbreak of WW2 and the Soviet Union were playing with Germany against Poland.

Poland itself attacked and occupied part of Slovakia in 1938 which in turn led to Slovak support for and participation in Nazi Germany's attack against Poland in 1939.

The Lawspeaker
07-18-2010, 03:41 PM
The USSR was controlled by Russia, just like Britiain is controlled by the London bankers. Not many of those being actual English or "Britons" for that matter
^ FIXED

Wulfhere
07-18-2010, 03:41 PM
It is when that same country has been making aggressive moves including making attack plans as early as 1930. And when that same country has a large minority (which was included purposely within it's borders by his Allies) which is being purposely mistreated in order to antagonise that "aggressive neighbour". The situation that I describe here is Czechoslovakia 1938 and Poland 1939.

I think you seeing conspiracies where there are none. It has always been English policy to play one European power off against another - for how else could a small island like ourselves hope to remain free? And it has worked for centuries. A powerful single state in Europe should never be allowed to be formed.

RoyBatty
07-18-2010, 03:42 PM
The USSR was controlled by Russia, just like Britiain is controlled by England.

I thought Stalin was a Georgian, the early Bolshie's were Jews, a number of the enforcers were Latvians and Poles etc? Perhaps they gave you alternate reality history books? :confused:

As for Britain, by your own definitions and criteria, should we now refer exclusively to England (as opposed to Britain) when it comes to historical events such as WW2?

Wulfhere
07-18-2010, 03:44 PM
I thought Stalin was a Georgian, the early Bolshie's were Jews, a number of the enforcers were Latvians and Poles etc? Perhaps they gave you alternate reality history books? :confused:

Stalin was one man, amongst a hierarchy of Russians. And all other Soviet leaders were Russian.

The Lawspeaker
07-18-2010, 03:44 PM
I think you seeing conspiracies where there are none. It has always been English policy to play one European power off against another - for how else could a small island like ourselves hope to remain free? And it has worked for centuries. A powerful single state in Europe should never be allowed to be formed.
Nonsense. The British wanted Germany in clusters because they feared it's size and financial power (let alone the Navy.. guess why it was towed to Britain) and France wanted Germany in clusters because they feared that they would no longer be the nr.1 power in Europe. That's why parts of Germany were split up and handed over to it's neighbours. That's why Germany lost it's industries and that's why Germany was forced to pay for it's "guilt for causing WW1" while also that one was instigated by the Allies themselves in the form of a "French" (banks)- backed Black Hand (Gavrilo Princip).

Here's my advise: read the Dictate of Versailles (http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/versailles.html) for yourself. And read the German protest (http://www.exulanten.com/cr2.html) while you're at it.

poiuytrewq0987
07-18-2010, 03:44 PM
^ FIXED



The USSR was controlled by Stalin and Jewish Bolsheviks, just like Britiain is controlled by the London bankers. Not many of those being actual English or "Britons" for that matter

Fixed redux. ;)

The Lawspeaker
07-18-2010, 03:46 PM
Fixed redux. ;)
Thanks. :thumb001:

RoyBatty
07-18-2010, 03:47 PM
^^^
London bankers

London Banksters :D

RoyBatty
07-18-2010, 03:49 PM
Stalin was one man, amongst a hierarchy of Russians. And all other Soviet leaders were Russian.

Are you for real? :laugh: :smilie_auslachen:

Megrez
07-18-2010, 03:52 PM
Could some good-hearted German transcribe in clear english words this radio broadcast (http://www.inacreditavel.com.br/audio/dr_grenzen37.mp3)?

Those who got interest in this broadcast, make sure you have saved the file in your PC, I don't know how the website that hosts it (http://www.inacreditavel.com.br/novo/default.asp) is still running. There's plenty of hidden facts exposed there, and the brazilian owner of the site was charged few years ago for its supposed "anti-semitic" content (fortunately the charges were dropped).

Wulfhere
07-18-2010, 04:17 PM
Nonsense. The British wanted Germany in clusters because they feared it's size and financial power (let alone the Navy.. guess why it was towed to Britain) and France wanted Germany in clusters because they feared that they would no longer be the nr.1 power in Europe. That's why parts of Germany were split up and handed over to it's neighbours. That's why Germany lost it's industries and that's why Germany was forced to pay for it's "guilt for causing WW1" while also that one was instigated by the Allies themselves in the form of a "French" (banks)- backed Black Hand (Gavrilo Princip).

Here's my advise: read the Dictate of Versailles (http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/versailles.html) for yourself. And read the German protest (http://www.exulanten.com/cr2.html) while you're at it.

Yes, in many ways you're right. And we succeeded too.

The Lawspeaker
07-18-2010, 04:21 PM
Yes, in many ways you're right. And they (the banksters) succeeded too.
Boys from Allied nations died for banks or for Communism. German boys died for another system that was just as .. perverted.
They succeeded. The bankers did. Not Britain.

Wulfhere
07-18-2010, 04:29 PM
Boys from Allied nations died for freedom or for Communism. German boys died for another system that was infinitely more .. perverted.

FIXED

The Lawspeaker
07-18-2010, 04:31 PM
FIXED
Bullshit. So we are experiencing freedom now? So.. seeing the destruction of our societies by social and financial means is freedom?
Imperialism is freedom?

Are you actually for real?

Wulfhere
07-18-2010, 04:34 PM
Bullshit. So we are experiencing freedom now? So.. seeing the destruction of our societies by social and financial means is freedom?
Imperialism is freedom?

Are you actually for real?

We still have considerably more freedom than the Nazis gave to their people.

The Lawspeaker
07-18-2010, 04:37 PM
We still have considerably more freedom than the Nazis gave to their people.
Is that so ? :rolleyes:

O.K.. my country is just as tapped and monitored as the GDR during it's heigh-days. People get dragged before a court for saying the wrong things (remember Geert Wilders). We have a mandatory ID-card, camera's all over the place, all your medical information is about to be stored in an electronic file ... your data on where and when you drive will be stored as well etc etc. And the same thing, my friend, goes for YOUR country.
Perhaps we are less blunt. But not much freer.

Megrez
07-18-2010, 04:39 PM
Going off-topic...

Wulfie, how many zionists will take part in the Mercian government?

Wulfhere
07-18-2010, 04:41 PM
Is that so ? :rolleyes:

O.K.. my country is just as tapped and monitored like the GDR. People get dragged before a court for saying the wrong things. We have a mandatory ID-card, camera's all over the place, all your medical information is about to be in an electronic file etc etc. And the same thing, my friend, goes for YOUR country.

Perhaps we are less blunt. But not much freer.

Our ID card scheme has just been scrapped. And even if they prosecute you, they don't throw you into a concentration camp.

The Lawspeaker
07-18-2010, 04:42 PM
Our ID card scheme has just been scrapped. And even if they prosecute you, they don't throw you into a concentration camp.
But in a prison. But you have all the other things that I mentioned.

Wulfhere
07-18-2010, 04:43 PM
Going off-topic...

Wulfie, how many zionists will take part in the Mercian government?

I have no idea, but if by Zionist you mean someone who supports the existence of the State of Israel, then I'm one.

Wulfhere
07-18-2010, 04:44 PM
But in a prison. But you have all the other things that I mentioned.

And just try saying that, and criticising the government in Nazi Germany.

The Lawspeaker
07-18-2010, 04:49 PM
And just try saying that, and criticising the government in Nazi Germany.
I am sure people did and not everyone got thrown in prison. Do you have ANY proof that people that were not commies and still criticised the government got thrown in the nick there ?
I mean.. the German churches weren't too pleased with the Nazi's.

poiuytrewq0987
07-18-2010, 04:49 PM
Our ID card scheme has just been scrapped. And even if they prosecute you, they don't throw you into a concentration camp.

The legal system in Britain is a joke, there isn't even a clear set of laws there. Judges over there make arbitrary decisions all the time.

RoyBatty
07-18-2010, 04:51 PM
Could some good-hearted German transcribe in clear english words this radio broadcast (http://www.inacreditavel.com.br/audio/dr_grenzen37.mp3)?

Apologies in advance for my flaky German but here goes:


18:00 Hours, Here is the news from Hessischen Radio:

On the eve of Federal Republic of Germany's Chancellor Kohl's visit to Poland the Bundestag stressed the inviolability of Poland's Western Border.

The German Federal Republic will comply with the Warsaw Convention according to a majority decision in the Bundestag. The Greens (Green Party) did not support this decision due to them viewing the wording of the declaration as not being clear enough.

26 deputies from the CDU / CSU faction gave their own declaration in which they determined that there is no effective International Law document bzzzsdfjksg&*%^* (dealing with the division of land??) of 108000 km2 of Germany.

[the recording was unclear at this point]

Until now in State and International Law? German territory has legally existed according to 1937 borders.

Wulfhere
07-18-2010, 04:53 PM
The legal system in Britain is a joke, there isn't even a clear set of laws there. Judges over there make arbitrary decisions all the time.

It's called Common Law, and is one of the two great legal systems of the world. We have case law going back to the 12th century, collected in books for all judges to consult in seeking precedent. Far better that, than some arbitrary set of rules issued by higher authorities liable to change at any moment.

The Lawspeaker
07-18-2010, 04:58 PM
The legal system in Britain is a joke, there isn't even a clear set of laws there. Judges over there make arbitrary decisions all the time.
Yes.. they don't have a real written constitution.

Wulfhere
07-18-2010, 04:59 PM
Yes.. they don't have a real written constitution.

Correct - which allows us to evolve.

Megrez
07-18-2010, 05:00 PM
By zionist I mean someone that corrupts a nation economically, culturally and racially. Then Mercia is already doomed, and its soldiers will swear to die for Israel rather than Mercia itself. Good luck :violin:

My off-topic tour ends here.

The Lawspeaker
07-18-2010, 05:01 PM
Correct - which allows us to evolve.
Which allows the rulers to abuse their powers as they see fit as they are not bound by law or custom.

There will be no laws under which to prosecute those that led you to your demise and that is exactly why didn't came up with a constitution.

Wulfhere
07-18-2010, 05:02 PM
By zionist I mean someone that corrupts a nation economically, culturally and racially. Then Mercia is already doomed, and its soldiers will swear to die for Israel rather than Mercia itself. Good luck :violin:

My off-topic tour ends here.

Ah well, I don't mean that when I say Zionist - we won't have anyone like that in the Mercian government.

RoyBatty
07-18-2010, 05:03 PM
And just try saying that, and criticising the government in Nazi Germany.

Just try having a rational discussion about the "holocaust" in present day Germany and see what happens. :rolleyes: :cool:

Wulfhere
07-18-2010, 05:03 PM
Which allows the rulers to abuse their powers as they see fit as they are not bound by law or custom.

They are bound by custom. One only has to look at the stable history of Britain - no coup or revolution since 1688 - to see that it works.

Óttar
07-18-2010, 05:04 PM
Everyone knows I sympathise with the Germans and everything, but I still have to ask, "Since when are the terms set by peace-treaties illegitimate?" :coffee:

Wulfhere
07-18-2010, 05:05 PM
Just try having a rational discussion about the "holocaust" in present day Germany and see what happens. :rolleyes: :cool:

One can deny the Holocaust, and even wear Nazi regalia - in England. But then the Germans have always been more ready to suppress freedom than the English.

The Lawspeaker
07-18-2010, 05:05 PM
They are bound by custom. One only has to look at the stable history of Britain - no coup or revolution since 1688 - to see that it works.
That's when a single elite took over. A trading and banking elite. And they have been ruling the place since then.

RoyBatty
07-18-2010, 05:07 PM
One can deny the Holocaust, and even wear Nazi regalia - in England. But then the Germans have always been more ready to suppress freedom than the English.

But not in Germany. Even in England it's becoming tricky at best to speak freely although conditions aren't (yet) as oppressive as in a number of European countries.

Megrez
07-18-2010, 05:35 PM
Very interestingly, this website (http://www.heretical.com/) claims that two people are being charged in England for the following crimes:

# 1 - Possession of - ‘Tales of the Holohoax’ comic book on 30 March 2005
# 2 - Possession of - ‘Tales of the Holohoax’ comic book on 12 April 2006
# 3 - Publishing - ‘Tales of the Holohoax’ comic book
# 4 - Publishing - ‘Dumb N**g**s, Gloating J**s’ (internet)*
# 5 - Publishing - ‘Hells Bells’ (internet)*
# 6 - Publishing - ‘Make N**g**s History’ (internet)*
# 7 - Publishing - ‘Diversity = Death’ (internet)*
# 8 - Publishing - ‘Three Parasites and a Funeral’ (internet)*
# 9 - Publishing - ‘Crumb, N**g**s over America’ (internet)
# 10 - Publishing - ‘Crumb, J**s over America’ (internet)
# 11 - Publishing - ‘Rockwell Boat Ticket 2’ (internet)
# 12 - Publishing - ‘Rockwell, The Swastika’ (internet)
# 13 - Publishing - ‘Ohrdruff, Auschwitz Holiday Resort’ (internet)
# 14 - Publishing - ‘Ohrdruff, evil Zionist K*k* Vermin’ (internet)
# 15 - Publishing - ‘Ohrdruff, K*k* Windchimes’ (internet)
# 16 - Distribution of - ‘The Don't Be Sheeple’ newspaper
# 17 - Possession of - ‘The Don't Be Sheeple’ newspaper on 4 July 2007
# 18 - Possession of - ‘Tales of the Holohoax’ comic book on 4 July 2007


In the case of the H2 an English court went further still by asserting jurisdiction over writings on the internet if they could be downloaded in England. Simon's remaining seven charges were considered by the jury the following Monday. These related mainly to printed material on which the jury was unable to reach a decision. However, the authorities neglected to take their passports and they left over the weekend for Ireland, then flew to Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and surrendered to officials in order to seek political asylum in the U.S.A. The law over internet publishing in the UK had been reinterpreted without debate to end freedom of speech on the internet, presumably acting on the orders of their masters in the E.U. and the Heretical Two were facing the imminent prospect of lengthy prison sentences.

The H2 spend were still detained in jail in California for activities in America which the British government now deems to be crimes, i.e. exercising the right to free speech, but which ironically are not held to be crimes under American law. In December Simon's retrial was held in his absence, as the British government was not prepared to wait for the outcome of the political asylum proceedings in the US.

English freedom of speech my ass.

Psychonaut
07-18-2010, 05:42 PM
Everyone knows I sympathise with the Germans and everything, but I still have to ask, "Since when are the terms set by peace-treaties illegitimate?" :coffee:

Right.

Those who bitch and moan about political illegitimacy delude themselves into thinking that a government legitimizes itself by any means other than military force—either it's own, or by proxy from an ally or controlling power.

The Lawspeaker
07-18-2010, 06:05 PM
This might be an interesting read (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10516&highlight=germany+allies).

RoyBatty
07-18-2010, 06:07 PM
Very interestingly, this website (http://www.heretical.com/) claims that two people are being charged in England for the following crimes:

# 1 - Possession of - ‘Tales of the Holohoax’ comic book on 30 March 2005
# 2 - Possession of - ‘Tales of the Holohoax’ comic book on 12 April 2006
# 3 - Publishing - ‘Tales of the Holohoax’ comic book
# 4 - Publishing - ‘Dumb N**g**s, Gloating J**s’ (internet)*
# 5 - Publishing - ‘Hells Bells’ (internet)*
# 6 - Publishing - ‘Make N**g**s History’ (internet)*
# 7 - Publishing - ‘Diversity = Death’ (internet)*
# 8 - Publishing - ‘Three Parasites and a Funeral’ (internet)*
# 9 - Publishing - ‘Crumb, N**g**s over America’ (internet)
# 10 - Publishing - ‘Crumb, J**s over America’ (internet)
# 11 - Publishing - ‘Rockwell Boat Ticket 2’ (internet)
# 12 - Publishing - ‘Rockwell, The Swastika’ (internet)
# 13 - Publishing - ‘Ohrdruff, Auschwitz Holiday Resort’ (internet)
# 14 - Publishing - ‘Ohrdruff, evil Zionist K*k* Vermin’ (internet)
# 15 - Publishing - ‘Ohrdruff, K*k* Windchimes’ (internet)
# 16 - Distribution of - ‘The Don't Be Sheeple’ newspaper
# 17 - Possession of - ‘The Don't Be Sheeple’ newspaper on 4 July 2007
# 18 - Possession of - ‘Tales of the Holohoax’ comic book on 4 July 2007




English freedom of speech my ass.

Excellent research, thank you for highlighting this

Megrez
07-18-2010, 06:09 PM
Is this thread about any peace treaty? The article even shows there's no peace treaty lol. This thread is about an occupation government people are deluded into believing it to be legitimate.

Óttar
07-18-2010, 06:11 PM
# 9 - Publishing - ‘Crumb, N**g**s over America’ (internet)
# 10 - Publishing - ‘Crumb, J**s over America’ (internet)
I am an avid fan of Crumb. The censors aren't fit to carry his jockstrap! :mad:
http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/bestselling-comics-2007/3045-1.jpg

RoyBatty
07-18-2010, 06:12 PM
He forgot to put the pyramid on that fellow :D

Óttar
07-18-2010, 06:13 PM
He forgot to put the pyramid on that fellow :D
It's a self portrait. :p

Furlan
07-18-2010, 07:14 PM
I suggest to give a look to the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGjkQAa9I34&playnext_from=TL&videos=f8ewsITDdGg


However in my opinion Germany, Italy and Japan are still occupied countries ruled by puppet governments...

poiuytrewq0987
07-18-2010, 07:45 PM
I suggest to give a look to the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGjkQAa9I34&playnext_from=TL&videos=f8ewsITDdGg


However in my opinion Germany, Italy and Japan are still occupied countries ruled by puppet governments...

Germany and Japan, yes but Italy? I don't know about that.

poiuytrewq0987
07-18-2010, 07:46 PM
One can deny the Holocaust, and even wear Nazi regalia - in England. But then the Germans have always been more ready to suppress freedom than the English.

You're a joke. The "denazification" program was intended to suppress pro-German feeling and essentially made it a crime to think of things that'd better Germany. And who carried out that program? You allied powers. Go eat shit and die.

Wulfhere
07-18-2010, 07:48 PM
Go eat shit and die.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you a mud person?

RoyBatty
07-18-2010, 08:01 PM
Germany and Japan, yes but Italy? I don't know about that.

Italy is still militarily occupied by the US.

The Yankz have a number of "official" and possibly less "official" military bases in Wopland. Examples include Aviano, the US 6th Fleet etc.

Loki
07-18-2010, 08:06 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you a mud person?

No, I think he's Orthodox. :p

poiuytrewq0987
07-18-2010, 08:08 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you a mud person?

Can someone ban this troll already?

The Lawspeaker
07-18-2010, 08:09 PM
Can someone ban this troll already?

http://www.clker.com/cliparts/7/0/2/7/1195423550187356949molumen_red_approved_stamp.svg. med.png

Seconded !

Furlan
07-18-2010, 08:14 PM
Germany and Japan, yes but Italy? I don't know about that.

U$Ans have the biggest advanced base, nuclear depot and telecommunication centre of the USAF in Italy located my region: Aviano Air Base. :mad::mad::mad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviano_Air_Base

The total number of U$Ans installations in Italy is around 100.

Furlan
07-18-2010, 08:20 PM
One can deny the Holocaust, and even wear Nazi regalia - in England. But then the Germans have always been more ready to suppress freedom than the English.

Do you know the concept of "Reductio ad Hitlerum"? This concept was applied to all the Europen Peoples by the liberators after th WWII...

Furlan
07-18-2010, 08:22 PM
http://www.clker.com/cliparts/7/0/2/7/1195423550187356949molumen_red_approved_stamp.svg. med.png

Seconded !

http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/file.php?40,file=7159,filename=ban_hammer.jpg

Bloodeagle
07-18-2010, 10:02 PM
U$Ans have the biggest advanced base, nuclear depot and telecommunication centre of the USAF in Italy located my region: Aviano Air Base. :mad::mad::mad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviano_Air_Base

The total number of U$Ans installations in Italy is around 100.

We have a few more installations around the world. Not to mention a naval presence anywhere!
http://antiisgood.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/usbases200103.jpg
If the US had not stayed in Germany the Soviets would have surely stayed!;)

Megrez
07-18-2010, 10:16 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you a mud person?Can someone ban this troll already?


http://www.clker.com/cliparts/7/0/2/7/1195423550187356949molumen_red_approved_stamp.svg. med.png

Seconded !


http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/file.php?40,file=7159,filename=ban_hammer.jpg

http://i37.tinypic.com/282ov0n_th.jpg

Arrow Cross
07-18-2010, 10:34 PM
Fortunately there is still hope: the German people are waking up...
I must have missed that part somewhere.

Regardless, the article is excellent and well-written. And before you go on your auntie-Nazi crusade, Wulfie, stop for a moment and make it occur to you that it is exactly the "victory" of your country that's causing it its grave racial problems and the loss of its status as an empire. The Allied victory started socio-political changes that led straight to a brand new world of raceless multiculturalism. The era of the mongrelmen.

Hitler offered a hand many times, as far back as in Mein Kampf, and the brother empires could have ruled the world together. You wouldn't have it.

Wulfhere
07-18-2010, 10:41 PM
I must have missed that part somewhere.

Regardless, the article is excellent and well-written. And before you go on your auntie-Nazi crusade, Wulfie, stop for a moment and make it occur to you that it is exactly the "victory" of your country that's causing it its grave racial problems and the loss of its status as an empire. The Allied victory started socio-political changes that led straight to a brand new world of raceless multiculturalism. The era of the mongrelmen.

Hitler offered a hand many times, as far back as in Mein Kampf, and the brother empires could have ruled the world together. You wouldn't have it.

Hitler was not to be trusted.

Megrez
07-18-2010, 10:45 PM
Wulfie trusts zionists instead.

Arrow Cross
07-18-2010, 10:50 PM
Hitler was not to be trusted.
Sure, because enthusiastic pocket-filler "democratic" politicians who give their word can be trusted.

A fanatical national leader whose entire ideology and foreign policy is built upon the idea of racial brotherhood cannot.

Smaland
07-18-2010, 11:10 PM
As everyone knows, World War II began when Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around.


In defence of their ally that Germany had attacked, despite warnings not to.


It is when that same country has been making aggressive moves including making attack plans as early as 1930. And when that same country has a large minority (which was included purposely within it's borders by his Allies) which is being purposely mistreated in order to antagonise that "aggressive neighbour". The situation that I describe here is Czechoslovakia 1938 and Poland 1939.

I have read that, in the spring of 1939 (and earlier?), 58,000 ethnic Germans were massacred in Poland; I imagine that this is what Asega is referring to. If so, then this is ample justification for military action. It's only proper for Germans to defend their ethnic brethren, no matter what.

(Note: the plight of Germans living in Poland in 1939 may have already been extensively discussed in other threads; unfortunately, I just don't have the time to visit all parts of the forum.)

Furlan
07-19-2010, 07:39 AM
We have a few more installations around the world. Not to mention a naval presence anywhere!
http://antiisgood.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/usbases200103.jpg
If the US had not stayed in Germany the Soviets would have surely stayed!;)

Thanks for your support, but the cold war is a bit over :mad:

By the way the italian government pays around 40% of the expanses for your "protection"

Bloodeagle
07-23-2010, 04:51 AM
Thanks for your support, but the cold war is a bit over :mad:

By the way the italian government pays around 40% of the expanses for your "protection"

I do not make the decisions for my countries military.
If it was my world to run, I would not support American imperialism.:cool:

I would like to point out that we fought a bloody war against your country and your country lost!
To the victor goes the spoils. :)
Why should the United States withdraw its presence from Italy when it obviously benefits the United States to remain and expand in your country?
The United States will leave Europe when it is either forced to leave or it chooses to leave.;)

blan
07-23-2010, 05:02 AM
i think the fact that the german people still are prosperous and doing great things despite all this shows they are a great people and proves alot about germany as a culture,
but these are the consequences for having someone like hitler take the reins of germany unfortunately germany is suffering

RoyBatty
07-23-2010, 06:34 AM
Thanks for your support, but the cold war is a bit over :mad:

By the way the italian government pays around 40% of the expanses for your "protection"

It's a clearcut mafia operation, collecting "protection" money from countries, extorting concessions from others etc. That's politics and that's why having one's own nukes is so useful. :D :thumb001:

That's also why the forces of "democracy" (democracy = slavery and dictatorship) are so opposed to other countries obtaining nukes. It inhibits their ability to threaten or attack them.

Furlan
07-23-2010, 03:29 PM
It's a clearcut mafia operation, collecting "protection" money from countries, extorting concessions from others etc. That's politics and that's why having one's own nukes is so useful. :D :thumb001:

That's also why the forces of "democracy" (democracy = slavery and dictatorship) are so opposed to other countries obtaining nukes. It inhibits their ability to threaten or attack them.

Nuclear weapons are a form of "insurance" ;)

Karl der Große
11-12-2010, 07:55 PM
Germany: illegitimate governments since 1945

And since when was the Nazi regime a legitimate government also?

Hitler was not elected to power. He lost the 1932 election to then President Paul von Hindenburg. He only became Chancellor because the President appointed him to get some political clout with business leaders and a percentage of the population. He tricked his way into power by convincing the President to dissolve the Reichstag when the Nazis (nor others) could gain the majority in Parliament and to have new elections on March 1933. And after the Reichstag Fire of Feb 27, 1933, the Reichstag Fire Decree, which suspended civil liberties, and left a lot of ambiguity allowing those Nazis in power to dictate who were the enemies, allowed them to fully take power.

They were not elected to power, they took it. And did so by suppressing and slaughtering their enemies (and one of the many scapegoats for "what was going wrong with Germany") - the COMMUNISTS.

What's frustrating is that there are a lot of people out there that unknown this historical fact of Germany.

Austin
11-12-2010, 08:09 PM
And since when was the Nazi regime a legitimate government also?

Hitler was not elected to power. He lost the 1932 election to then President Paul von Hindenburg. He only became Chancellor because the President appointed him to get some political clout with business leaders and a percentage of the population. He tricked his way into power by convincing the President to dissolve the Reichstag when the Nazis (nor others) could gain the majority in Parliament and to have new elections on March 1933. And after the Reichstag Fire of Feb 27, 1933, the Reichstag Fire Decree, which suspended civil liberties, and left a lot of ambiguity allowing those Nazis in power to dictate who were the enemies, allowed them to fully take power.

They were not elected to power, they took it. And did so by suppressing and slaughtering their enemies (and one of the many scapegoats for "what was going wrong with Germany") - the COMMUNISTS.

What's frustrating is that there are a lot of people out there that unknown this historical fact of Germany.


Yes but what really constitutes a -legitimate- government? Being officially deemed 'legitimate' by the previous leadership? That doesn't mean much then if legitimacy is based entirely on what the people you just ousted have to say about you, of course they aren't going to be happy.

I'd say any government which is able to sustain itself from internal and external threats to it's power is in fact legitimate in the most basic sense because in order to do so said govt. would require a majority of the population to support it.

Based on such realist criteria I'd say the Nazis were in fact legitimate as were all the Axis powers. The raw truth is they did have overall mass support from their own people which is how they came to be and or how they maintained power once they took it.

Hitler was not evil. He just had enemies. He destroyed his enemies. America is not evil. America just has enemies to it's interests and it destroys those enemies. One cannot blame any entity capable of removing it's enemies from doing so. I do not blame the Nazis in some naive "they were evil" rant. They were just doing what any political entity with amassed power and momentum does, removing their perceived/designated enemies. It is the natural order of the universe in respect to organisms and how they deal with each other. Humans are part of that universe and ultimately are not different in how we deal with declared 'enemies' just as a dominant amoeba deals with a less dominant amoeba.

Megrez
11-12-2010, 08:09 PM
A party formed by Germans, that rose to power supported by Germans, with a leader appointed Chancellor by the German president elected by the German people.

Where's that film in which Goering in his trial questions how would the Nazis hold sway on Germany if they weren't supported by German people? I think Debaser11 posted it somewhere.

Are you comparing Nazi Germany to the Iraqi regime of today?