AfD (Alternative für Deutschland, Alternative for Germany) is the only Islam-critical and anti-EU party in Germany whose members have been elected at the state level (the federal level is coming later this year). Björn Höcke is one of AfD’s most popular leaders, and his charismatic speaking style is evident even to those of us who don’t understand German.
In case you’ve been wondering why Mr. Höcke dropped out of sight last year, the following annotated compilation by JLH will throw a little light on what happened.
Down the Rabbit Hole With the AfD
I am going to tell you a story. It’s a little long, and a little complicated, but I will try to make as few mistakes as possible. It is also more than a little sad, and in one way reminds me of an uncle of mine who knew — as he grew older — that there were certain foods he should no longer eat, because they gave him indigestion, discomfort, burps. Still, sometimes he couldn’t resist, and when he suffered the consequences, he would say that those foods were “repeating” on him. One of the sad things about history is that it, too, “repeats” on us at times, and that will happen in this story too.
It all begins, in a way, on May 8, 1985, when the president of the German Federal Republic, Richard von Weizsäcker, was tasked with commemorating the fortieth anniversary of victory over the Nazi regime. This, in itself, is unusual, when you think about it. The French do not celebrate Waterloo; Rome did not have a festival to commemorate the destruction of three legions by Arminius in the Teutoburg Forest. But unlike the French and Romans in those situations, there was some argument that the Germans, too, had been liberated from the Nazi regime.
President von Weizsäcker — a distinguished member of the CDU (Christian Democrats) and a historian — withdrew for a time to consider and craft his speech. He took as a reference point the biblical axiom that forty years represents the duration of the memory of a generation, and spoke of the necessity for Germans not to allow the greatest crimes of the Nazi regime to fade from their memories. His speech addressed the great harm done to the Jewish people, and the great harm done to the psyche of the German people. One American son of Holocaust survivors I know of — who was in Germany at the time and heard the speech as it was given in, and broadcast from, the Bundestag — was deeply affected by it. It became a touchstone in the struggle of German intellectuals to deal with the heritage of Nazism and the Holocaust.
Four years later, in 1989, the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet empire began to crumble. It appeared that the other great tyranny of the 20th century was in its death throes. In 1990 — against a background of mixed approval and apprehension, both foreign and domestic — East Germany was essentially absorbed into the Federal Republic of Germany, and two new words were added to the German lexicon: “Wessi” and “Ossi” for the theoretically equal citizens from the old “West” and “East” Germany.
While these external political and geopolitical events were taking place, the focus of international Marxism had shifted. Some years before, encouragement of the anticipated up-from-the-bottom “workers’ revolution” had been replaced by the strategy of a “march through the institutions” which would instead create a top-down cultural transformation, guided by the academic, intellectual and political upper echelons. For every person who received Weizsäcker’s speech as a re-commitment to civilized values, there was another who saw it as one of many weapons to attack any deviation from the new norms.
Whether it was because of public-spirited citizens like Weizsäcker or devious disciples of the Frankfurt School, the guilt has not disappeared. It is still useful to pull out the “Nazi club” as a final, unanswerable argument.
A full 65 years after the end of the Nazi regime — at the beginning of what would become an uncontrolled torrent of officially sanctioned immigration — a CDU member of the Berlin legislature named René Stadtkewitz, fighting a losing battle against the establishment of a mosque in his district (his home was burned out once while he and his family were on a trip), found that his superior in the party would not sanction a planned public seminar to discuss Islam. Only when he threatened to resign from the party did he get permission. But he was alien in that environment, and soon did leave the party.
In 2010, Stadtkewitz with his CDU colleague Marc Doll and Aaron Koenig, who was serving as a member of the steering committee of the Pirate Party, formed a new, Islam-critical party, Die Freiheit (Freedom), named in imitation of Geert Wilders’ Party For Freedom in the Netherlands. The party expanded swiftly to areas beyond Berlin, but almost immediately encountered resistance — especially from the leftist, so-called Antifa — in the form of personal intimidation, rioting protesters and tactics such as boycotts to prevent their access to venues for meetings and conventions. In the 2011 election they failed to make it into the Berlin Landtag. Shortly thereafter, a disagreement over the party’s direction led to the departure of many “moderates” who disapproved of what they saw as a sharp turn to the (Islam-critical) right and, by 2012, it had ceased to exist as a viable national party. A remnant of the party was maintained in Munich by Michael Stürzenberger until this year. Because of his determined resistance to the mega-mosque in Munich, he was personally targeted by both Islamists and Antifa leftists, to such an extent that even his own Stammlokal was closed to him. He has just recently been exonerated in a lengthy trial for Islam-critical “hate-speech.”
And this brings us to AfD — Alternative für Deutschland (Alternative for Germany). Founded in 2013 by the economist Bernd Lucke, whose central concern was the abolition of the euro, the party attracted proportionally more votes in the “new states” (i.e., the states of the former GDR). When a young and charismatic Thuringian member of the party named Björn Höcke proposed bluntly that the party — founded as an anti-euro party — should become much more Islam-critical, he was instantly rebuked by an older Wessi member of the party, whose stern lecture was not too far from “Children should be seen and not heard.” The spark was struck, but Lucke was an economist, not a political infighter, so he procrastinated, hoped to make peace, but eventually — in 2015 — he left the party with a number of followers, mostly Wessis, to form a new and truly insignificant party of his own.
One of those standing behind Lucke when he founded AfD was Frauke Petry, who eventually became his major opponent in the power struggle that changed the party. Frauke Petry — labeled by some the most popular politician in Germany — is an attractive woman in her early forties, the mother of four children by her first husband, pastor Sven Petry. She recently announced her divorce, and then her marriage to Marcus Pretzell — father of her expected child. No doubt by virtue of her previous standing in the party and her leadership of the revolt against Lucke, she is one of two co-leaders, with Jörg Meuthen, an economist on leave from his position as professor of finance and economics. Interestingly, the AfD has just voted not to have a one-person leadership — something that Petry clearly wanted.
What about Björn Höcke? What has become of him since he instigated the split that set AfD on its new path? “Well,” as the suspect says when being interviewed by the authorities halfway through the TV detective show, “it’s complicated.” This is what you might call the evidentiary phase, which works out pretty well as a play in three parts.
You might think that Höcke has not been a wallflower, and you would be right. He is given to stem-winding, barn-burning speeches, with popular appeal. And that is where the play begins. Freely adapted from Aristotle’s consideration of Greek tragedy.
Act I, scene 1: Hamartia — The hero commits a tragic error, possibly transgressing against some sacred law.
On January 17, 2016, Höcke addresses an AfD youth group in Dresden. He is as exuberant as ever, and his fiery speech is so long that I begin my excepts about halfway through it. This is where he shapes a fatal formulation. At this point in his talk, he has already criticized speeches by presidents Richard von Weizsäcker and Roman Herzog, (which were widely perceived as the best of their respective careers) because their visions were not really supportive of the German people. He continues:
What visions are based on and why we Germans have lost the power to create [our own] visions — that is how I would like to conclude my remarks here in Dresden. Many of you know: I spent my childhood and youth in the Rhineland. So I am a trained Wessi (laughter, ironic sympathy). No need to feel sorry for me; I am happy to be on the right side this time. (cheers, applause) My children, my wife and I are happy as can be in Thuringia. Thuringia has become our home. And I tell you, I am completely integrated in Thuringia. (laughter, applause)
So, I spent my childhood and youth in the Rhineland and therefore also have the Wessi perspective, and I know that if there is again a renewal movement that could be successful, then it will originate here in Dresden, here on the territory of the former GDR. (applause) “The bombing of Dresden was a war crime.” On both maternal and paternal sides, I come from a family of the expelled. My father told me early on — because I come from a politically and historically conscious family — what happened in Dresden at the end of WWII.
The war was already decided, the city was crammed with countless refugees from the eastern regions. Most of them were women, children and older people. There was no significant military structure in Dresden — we know that. There was, however, one of the most beautiful city centers in all of Germany. As my father told me, that was why Dresden was called Florence on the Elbe.
The bombing of Dresden and the ensuing firestorm destroyed Florence on the Elbe and the people who lived there. The bombing of Dresden was a war crime. (applause, cheers) It is comparable to the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (approval, applause)
The intent of bombing Dresden and other German cities was nothing less than to rob us of our collective identity. They wanted to destroy us completely, uproot us. And in combination with the re-education begun after 1945, they almost accomplished that. There were no German victims anymore, only German perpetrators.
We are still not able to mourn our casualties. And apparently that was the case again in the undignified procedure with the victims of the Berlin terrorist attack. (applause) The reconstruction of the Frauenkirche [Church of Our Lady] was a glimmer of hope for us patriots that there is still a small spark of German self-assertion.
But, dear friends, thus far it is only facades that have been resurrected. As yet, our mental and emotional states are still those of a completely defeated people. (applause)
So, you’re thinking, is this the fatal error? No, sorry. Not only Germans, but also Americans and Brits feel that way about Dresden. One Brit pilot was so disturbed by his part in the raids that he wrote a letter of apology. Of course, that was pre-1989, so the message was received, ironically, in West Germany. No, the fatal error is set up by these preceding remarks, and it comes now.
We Germans — and I don’t mean you patriots who are gathered here today — we Germans, our people, are the only people who have installed a monument of shame [the Holocaust] in the heart of our capital. (applause)
And instead of making our young generations acquainted with the philanthropists, the earth-shaking philosophers, the musicians, the brilliant explorers and inventors — of which we have so many — instead of introducing our students to this history, German history is made to seem mean and small and ridiculous. That cannot, must not go on! (cheers, long, standing ovation. cries of “Höcke, Höcke!”)
It cannot, it must not and it will not! There is no moral imperative to self-immolation. No such thing. (applause) Just the opposite. There is a moral obligation to pass on this land, this culture, its remaining prosperity and its remaining civil order to the coming generation. That is our moral duty! (applause, cries of “We are the people!”)
If we want to have a future — and we want this future, and more and more Germans are recognizing that they also want to have a future — then we need a vision. But a vision will only come if we find ourselves. We must become ourselves again.
We will only have ourselves, if we once again establish our connection to our history. Franz Josef Strauß remarked: Overcoming the past as the sole long-term task of the entire society — that paralyzes a people. My friends, he was right! (applause)
That was it. “A monument of shame.” Not that others have not spoken of the perpetual and exaggerated sense of guilt expected of all Germans — even those who were unborn or in diapers at the time. But he mentions the memorial intended to show that Germany acknowledges what it did and vows never to forget it. Like Weizsäcker’s speech, the memorial is sacrosanct in post-WWII Germany. Der Spiegel — one of many to comment on the speech — commented on the phrase “monument to shame” by following it with the parenthetical (the Holocaust!).
Act I, scene 2: Refusal to recognize.
The critics gathered and increased, and some were to be found in the AfD. A year later, on January 18, 2017, Höcke finds it necessary to defend himself. In doing so, he cites two public figures, one of whom is either problematic or a gesture of defiance, depending on how you look at it.
Replying to reports that his January 17, 2016 speech in Dresden criticized the Holocaust Memorial of the Germans, the head of AfD in Thuringia, Björn Höcke, has this to say:
“I am astonished at the commentary on my speech of January 17 in Dresden. I am supposed to have criticized the Holocaust Memorial of the Germans. This is a malicious and purposefully defamatory interpretation of what I actually said. What I said literally was: ‘We Germans are the only people that has installed a memorial to shame in the heart of our capital.’
“That is, I characterized the Holocaust — the genocide of Jews by Germans — as a disgrace for our people. And I said that we Germans installed a monument to this still unfathomable crime — this guilt — in the middle of Berlin.
“How is that wrong? What is there to criticize in this comment? Nothing at all! In this connection I would like to recall the speech given by Martin Walser on receiving the Peace Prize of the German Book Trade on October 11, 1998: ‘In the discussion of the Holocaust memorial, posterity can find what was done by people who felt themselves responsible for the conscience of others. The concretization of the center of our capital with a soccer field-sized nightmare. The monumentalization of shame.’ He even spoke of a ‘manipulation of our shame for contemporary purposes.’
“There is no doubt that, with the Holocaust Memorial, we have set up a memorial to our shame. And, by the way, the concept ‘memorial of shame’ is not my invention, but entered political speech a long time ago. In document 14/3126 of the German Bundestag, is: ‘Monuments of shame and of mourning, of pride and of joy are necessary building blocks of the new Germany and the new federal capitol.’
“My intent in the Dresden speech was to scrutinize how we Germans reflect on our history and how it may contribute to our identity in the 21st century. Of course, our self-assurance must include the consciousness of that immense guilt. It is a part of our history. But it is just that: only a part of our history. I also noted that in my speech. Even the architect of the memorial, Peter Eisenman, a Jew, made note of the problematic nature of elevating guilt to be the core of national remembrance. In a Spiegel interview, he said: ‘Of course anti-Semitism took the upper hand in 1930s Germany, a terrible moment in history. But how long does one feel guilty?’ And further: ‘I hope that this memorial, with its absence of recriminations, will help in getting past this guilt. One cannot live with guilt. If Germany did that, the whole population would have to go into therapy.’
“Except for us Germans, no other nation in the world has created in its capital city a place of commemoration of the atrocities it has committed. This capacity to face our own guilt distinguishes us Germans. But so does something else: We invented printing, Martin Luther launched the Reformation. We are the land of philosophers, poets, composers and inventors. I said that in Dresden too, and it was the true core of my comments. Consciousness of guilt alone cannot make for a healthy identity, only a broken one. And we must be clear about that. The visible integration problems in this country are also a result of this broken identity.”
Martin Walser is, of course, the more problematic of his citations. His speech upon accepting the Peace Prize was strongly criticized. One of his later novels was a roman à clef whose protagonist represents a prominent Jewish literary critic of the time, who had been less than kind to Walser’s books. Walser was accused of making anti-Semitic intimations in the book, but the critic himself defended him, in a way, saying that he does not think Walser is an anti-Semite, but that he felt it was necessary to show that the person who was unkindest to his work was a Jew.
Act II, scene 1: Peripeteia-Drastic reversal of fortune.
The judgment of his peers.
There are demands that Höcke be expelled from AfD. This is not unprecedented in AfD or in other parties when someone has offended the party rules in some way or other. There are unsubstantiated rumors that Frauke Petry is behind this move. If nothing else, Höcke would be a formidable competitor if they both won seats in Berlin. But an apparent compromise is reached. Höcke apologizes for his offending remarks. He will run again in Thuringia and consolidate his base there, but will not run for a Bundestag seat.
This transpires at a February 18 AfD meeting.
The Thuringia AfD chief has apologized for his controversial speech on German remembrance culture.
He had allowed room for interpretation in a centrally important German subject. Threatened with expulsion from the party, the Thuringia party head Björn Höcke asked the party base for forgiveness. “Unfortunately, I blew a discussion of an important subject by discussing it in a speech more suited to a beer tent address.”
He had struck the wrong note and allowed room for interpretation. “That was a mistake. I am here to apologize for that.”
The 44-year-old, regarded as right-extreme within the AfD, affirmed that he had broken no party statutes. Amid applause from the delegates and cries of “Höcke” he said: I promise that I do not intend to leave the AfD.”
Nonetheless, he will not stand for the Bundestag. “We who are staying here in Thuringia want to make history in 2019,” said Höcke. In 2019, a new legislature will be elected in Thuringia. At this time, Höcke is both party chief and faction leader in the province.
Act II, scene 2: The chorus makes a judgment.
The steering committee reacted Monday to Höcke’s Dresden speech by proposing expulsion…
AfD vice chair Alexander Gauland criticized the expulsion procedure against Höcke as political stupidity. He regretted that the 44-year-old was not standing for the Bundestag. The AfD would miss him in the Berlin political jungle.
Act II, scene 3: And another comment from the chorus:
Is the AfD Trying to Neuter Itself?
by Wolfgang Hübner
The majority decision of the AfD leadership to enter a motion of expulsion against Björn Höcke — should it be carried out — is just as damaging for the party as it is indicative of its future.
This majority decision is damaging in more than one way.
- This is a procedure that guarantees a sure winner and a sure loser. The loser will be the entire AfD. The winner will be the cartel of parties in Berlin.
- This procedure will intensify existing tensions in the party leadership and in the party at the worst possible moment, and could even provoke a split a few months before Bundestag elections.
- It is a procedure which will foreseeably not lead to an expulsion of Höcke, and will therefore ultimately damage him and no less those who brought the action against him.
- This procedure will certainly scare off more potential new voters than it attracts. That is because most potential AfD voters make decisions based not on personalities like Petry, Gauland or Höcke. but on finding a political alternative to Merkel and the established parties.
- This procedure is being introduced in a changed political situation in which the AfD needs solidarity instead of publicly displayed conflicts or even a split. With the change of personnel in the SPD leadership and the SPD candidate for chancellor, the heretofore successful attempt is being undertaken to change the duel between Merkel/Union/party alliance versus AfD to the (sham) duel of Merkel versus Schulz. This attempt — massively enabled by the media — can only be countered by an AfD that is united, at least to outward appearances.
The majority decision of the leadership is also instructive for the following reasons:
- Not only Höcke himself, but the entire liberal-patriotic wing of AfD, is intended to be driven out, or at least brought under control.
- The planned expulsion of Höcke is intended to accomplish a change of direction in the AfD from a fundamentalist, opposition movement party to a parliamentary party with perspective and the capacity for coalition-building in an established political system.
- With the planned expulsion of Höcke, the majority of the party leadership signals its capitulation to the defenders of the system in politics, media, culture and institutions. This is done in the hope that this capitulation will be honored in the medium or long term. There is little indication that this calculation will bring any benefit.
- With the planned expulsion of Höcke, who made the mistake and has confessed to it, the AfD would surrender the claim of being or becoming the alternative for Germany. It would document its desire to be just an electable alternative in the overall party system.
That is legitimate and even electorally viable. But it is definitely too little in regard to the domestic and international situation of Germany.
Bottom line: The procedure of the majority of the AfD leadership against Björn Höcke is an act of political blindness, inner-party rancor and a completely feckless attempt to pseudo-legally “solve” disputes over party direction.
The rest is more denouement than conclusion. Aristotle’s Anagnorisis is Recognition — of the truth, of oneself. The final act is provided by third-party witnesses, and describes things reminiscent of what happened to Die Freiheit — economic blackmail and rowdy/violent protest — which are also sadly familiar now to Americans, in the land of Lenin and Soros.
Act III — Recognition of how it will be
Scene 1: Déjà vu (The author of the article is the chair of the Pro-Köln group on the Cologne city council. This group is one of the earliest organized attempts to push back against Islamization, specifically in Cologne):
Protests Against “Maritim” Have an Effect: Hotel Chain Blacklists AfB Nationwide
by Markus Wiener in Cologne
After a massive campaign of denunciation and intimidation, the management of Maritim Hotels has announced that it will have no more spaces available for the Cologne party AfD beginning at the end of April. An additional ban in all Maritim Hotels applies to Björn Höcke. The Left/Red/Green ensemble seems thus far unimpressed by the cave-in of Maritim and the AfD expulsion procedure against Höcke. The protests against the AfD convention and Maritim will continue until and unless the convention is rejected — Höcke aside.
The leading alliance responsible for general leftist mobilization — “Cologne Against The Right” — formulated its demand for the unconditional surrender of Maritim and AfD as follows:
Maritim will “for the present” rent no more space to AfD.
The AfD convention will take place in Maritim Cologne. Cologne Against The Right demands notice of the contract.
The massive protests in recent weeks against what had been a privileged partnership between the Maritim chain and the AfD have had an effect. As late as the beginning of this week, the AfD spokesman was speaking of the good relationship between AfD and Maritim, which had endured for years. That seems to be over…
“Even if we are a little irritated at the phrase ‘for the present,’ we are glad that the widespread protests are having an effect, and hope that this announcement is not resolved if Mr. Höcke does not appear at the convention on March 22nd and/or is expelled from the AfD. There are many Höckes in the AfD. Happy as we are at this step taken by Maritim headquarters, we continue to demand that Maritim reject the convention in Cologne.”
That is, the leftist enemies of democracy have now tasted blood. Further bolstered by a broad alliance around Mayor Henriette Reker, the organized Carnival and all the old parties in Cologne. Which was confirmed on Tuesday in a turbulent debate in the Cologne city council and further confirmed by Mayor Reker.
Meanwhile, the nationwide mobilization of leftist-extremist, thuggish squads against AfD continues unabated. As I predicted elsewhere, the 22nd of April — like the Anti-Islamization conference in 2008 — threatens to become a hot potato for all those involved. In the foggy minds of many leftists and bleeding hearts, even the idea of a huge patriotic event west of the Magdeburg-Schwerin line [i.e. beyond the old lands of East Germany] is the stuff of nightmares.
Act III, scene 2: Deja vu all over again:
A Citizen Reports From Münster
Dear Friends, Patriots, Party Colleagues and Interested Readers:
I hope you are sitting comfortably. This could take a while. Yesterday, my wife and I were guests at the AfD New Year reception in Münster. And I was — to put it mildly — shocked!! My wife, who refrains even more than I from political activities, even more so.
It started with our not even getting to the city hall, because it was surrounded in depth on all sides by demonstrators. Only with the help of the police, who led us through numerous barriers and identity checks, did we arrive at the entrance to the city hall — physically unharmed, but cursed and screamed at in the worst imaginable way. The diligent identity checks were clearly necessary and justified, considering the slavering, screaming mass which was standing outside and roaring. Later I will comment on the surrounding businesses decorated with EU flags, because the AfD is an anti-Europe party.
Having arrived in the lobby of the Peace Hall, we discovered that there were people in Münster other than the brawling fugitives from intelligence outside in the cold. People like you and me, from laborers and craftsmen to white-collar workers, to academics and lawyers, doctors, teachers, independent contractors and entrepreneurs. There were interesting, honest conversations about this and that. It was interesting that half of those present were not members of AfD, but had come out of curiosity about who had rented the Peace Hall.
The speeches were good, factual and not even a little racist, anti-Semitic, Nazi-leaning or that kind of thing. The question times for Petry and Pretzell were factual and disciplined. Thus far, unfortunately, nothing scandalous to report…
In the aftermath of the event, we had the opportunity to speak personally with Dr. Petry and Mr. Pretzell as well as other citizens.
What a difference from the brawling, foaming mob outside, whose screams and “musical” accompaniment could certainly be heard in the hall, but could not disturb the speeches, even if the press maintains otherwise.
It was clear that the people outside had no interest in political discussion, but only exclusion and defamation of dissidents — behavior we are acquainted with from 1933-1945 and should no longer exist in our Western, tolerant world, which accepts the opinions of others. What was outside there, was pure Nazi culture!!
If the police had not been so consistent in ensuring the safety of the New Year Reception attendees, much worse would have happened. Found on the demonstrators who were arrested were explosives, rockets, homemade fireworks, as well as butterfly knives and other varieties. This was a demo that intended destruction, damage, bodily harm and perhaps worse.
A big thank-you to the police who prevented much worse from happening, identified the potential, left-extremist perpetrators and arrested them.
What are these people demonstrating against? Aside from the 70% professional demonstrators who are against anyone and anything, there are those who are just against AfD. What do they object to?
- That AfD criticizes mass immigration into our social system?
- That AfD wants to do more for families and education?
- That AfD wants to strengthen the police and the rule of law?
- Or that AfD is for the existing right of asylum, but against the abuse of the right to asylum?
- Or perhaps that AfD insists on adherence to existing laws like Dublin I + II, Schengen, the asylum law as well as the laws on protection of the borders?
- Or is it that AfD rejects the octopoidal EU central government and advocates a Europe of sovereign homelands?
And this brings us to the banners on the businesses…Obviously business people wish for an octopus Europe, which makes everyone alike, regardless of their economic accomplishment and will, in the end, have us Germans and German business people pay for everything, because the other countries CAN’T!
The fact is that ca. 50 groups and organizations that have sent their followers to demonstrate are ALL lobbyists feeding at the trough of the red-black-green government. They are simply afraid that — if the AfD gets into legislatures and the Bundestag and takes on the responsibility of governing — it will turn off the money spigot for these lobbyists, the leftist societies and associations, the licensing agencies, etc, and direct the money to its proper destination: the schools, police, road-building, internal security, and as tax relief for those who, in spite of working, are living a marginal existence.
That is the only fear of these pillaging communities, and that is why they defame the AfD, knowingly spread lies, in the spirit of the NSDAP of 1933-1945. And in exactly the same way, they send the associations, societies, the indoctrinated people who have been “informed” by the tax-supported media, to the front to demonstrate.
And the movers and shakers, the lobbyists and system politicians who are interested in the pot of money from the taxpayers and in personal enrichment, are sitting comfortably in the background and encouraging their foot-soldiers, whom they reward for their efforts with the next tax hike, lowering the interest rate and pension reduction. Naturally always in nice, homeopathic doses and only AFTER the election, so the voting troglodytes don’t notice it.
And as we leave historic Germany, the White Rabbit, the Mad Hatter and the Dormouse are having tea, while the Jabberwocky devastates the land, and Tweedledee and Tweedledum do what they do best — try not to notice.
Somewhere Oswald Spengler is laughing.
I will go back later and read this overly long item. But for now, I just want to say that today’s Germans really should stop feeling guilty. The majority of them were not even born when it happened. It was terrible, of course, but how long does a nation have to keep beating its breast over it? Should America keep beating its breast over slavery? No.
Sooner or later, everyone has to let go of guilt and get on with living.
Just my opinion, for what it’s worth.
It’s a principle of all justice systems that a man is not held responsible for the actions of others.
There’s hardly a single living German, who bears ANY responsibility for what happened back then.
By extension, there’s hardly a single living German, who should be feeling ANY guilt for what happened back then.
Contrast the German shame with that of the Russians whose ruler killed 50 million, the Chinese whose ruler killed 60-100 million, or even the Cambodians whose leader killed 2 million. Only the Germans were made to feel this shame and guilt. Will they throw off this despicable shackle soon? Doesn’t look like it to me. The lefty commies control the world agenda.
The Germans were ‘cursed’ (I suppose Nietsche might think) by a civilised Western conscience, developed via the Christian and Humanist thought that the Nazis so hated.
But their self-excoriating conscience certainly puts them morally above more complacent nations. You could have mentioned the completely unabashed Japanese, as well, who never beat themselves up over Nanking, etc.
There’s a kind of martyrdom to this, in a strange way: That Germany trod this path of evil has been a warning about what human nature is capable of, and that we should never revert to barbarism again.
But I wouldn’t wish this hard-won moral stature of such a national Purgatory on any other country.
The trouble with the German Purgatory is that they cannot dictate or even speculate upon the time of their release and final expiation. And for the Jews, as I understand, the notion of forgiveness by the living on behalf of the dead is theologically untenable, in any case.
There’s no use their complaining. It is their history and they are stuck with it.
So it seems Germany must remain haunted by hosts of unquiet souls.
But we should certainly fear and condemn far more the hordes of Islam which come to take their place – since German guilt and national self-disgust makes that entire nation resile itself from judgement.
The base Communists, of course, are enabled by Germany’s self-inflicted wound to represent might on their ideological terms as morally entailed.
Actually, the Left in Germany are the Diabolic agents of that nation’s Purgatory. Along with an alien Demonic presence which may even make the memory of Naziism pale into insignificance, and – who knows? – be the epiphany of the German people and the means of Germany’s release from Hell.
But they have to stop HATING THEMSELVES before this will be possible.
I don’t hate the Germans. I’m sorry for them. I wish them well.
But there’s nothing I, or anyone outside Germany, can do to rescue them from their historical predicament. Except hope – or as some might say: Pray for them.
Or the JAPANESE – – who have YET to build a monument to THEIR attrocities.
My father, bless him, is still going strong – 93 this year. He served in France Holland and Germany during the latter months of WWII. He says that Britain could not possibly be worse than it is today had Germany won.
You’d be surprised how many sjws are trying to force America exactly into that
Poor Germans – they’ve been thoroughly indoctrinated to the point of suicide.
Hi, Jeff E: The fact that Germans can still be indoctrinated is the problem.
The German predicament is inescapable. All the Good in German history now sits on the unstable ruins of the monumental Evil they also perpetrated. These shaky foundations will continue to settle for many generations, and the soil of Germany will continue to yield its vast harvest of British and American high explosives, not yet exploded.
Dresden – frankly – was the civilised world’s inevitable response to Hitler’s perpetration of total war – terrorism on a vast scale, in short. ‘Bomber’ Harris was – regrettably – correct in his perception that the Allies were forced to fight the sort of war that had been brought to our own doorstep. The German nation unleashed their own horror without provocation, while we were only able to rise to their Satanic challenge by allowing our fighters to meet them with equal ferocity.
That we in Britain and America now seem to modern Germans to benefit unfairly from a – largely – untroubled conscience following the 2nd World War, while German people feel they are being unfairly crucified long after punishment for their forefathers’ crimes has been discharged, seems to them wrong and unjust.
They seem to believe that they have been unfairly held back as a country because others will not allow them to forget. They assume that we can forget! Yet the moral taint this last War has left Britain with is deeply regretted – and resented: That Germany brought us to the awful necessity of putting aside our best values, though only for the duration of the emergency they brought upon us, is something we will always very much resent. But we live in harmony with Germany now, and do not normally speak of these things amongst our new friends.
However, Germany’s predicament is the simple and direct consequence of the guilt that haunts them because Germany without a shadow of doubt arrogantly chose to smash up Europe from one end to the other, and involve far-flung populations from around the globe in the murder and mayhem which their country unleashed. By means of two World Wars and also by having been happy to facilitate Lenin’s journey by sealed train to Russia, Germany fomented and supported the rise of the two most evil ideologies in history, Marxist Bolshevism and Hitlerite Fascism. Germany shattered the peace of Europe utterly for the bulk of the 20th Century, and their cynical political meddling can take a great share of the blame for the emergence of a Cold War that took us to the brink of Nuclear annhilation.
That the history of ALL countries includes events that should give them a guilty conscience is a commonplace. They often have had to repent, but usually once unburdened their history permits them to move on.
What is remarkable in the German instance is that nation’s protest that they should now be absolved of what is their own bad conscience – a constant, lacerating, irredeemable anguish. Their actions in having now – again – unleashed an illegal foreign invasion on the other countries of Europe, in a psychotic attempt to redeem themselves by a campaign of total National mobilisation of virtue-signalling, is but the masochistic and passive-aggressive reaction to their unbearable recollection of unbridled, premeditated and industrialised sadism. It is no more than the reverse image of Nazism in Frau Merkel’s ‘Ossi’ mirror. That basilisk image is killing them.
This shows that the Germans are doomed to repeat the same racial mistake over and over again, in different forms, and want to browbeat the rest of us with their ensuing existential problems – like the psychotic Hitler. But their own personal Hell must remain their private burden of sin. That country must never again be allowed to seek scapegoats for its own folly and wickedness. Their wish to feel good about themselves always seems to involve making other peoples suffer!
Perhaps they are still hoping that Nietsche will rescue them from their complexes? He rationalised ‘bad conscience’ away. We have seen where that leads.
I don’t think that false idol’s representative on earth did a very good job of sorting out Germany’s problems last time.
And the tired amoral relativism of Germany crying yet again ‘War crime’ against the British fails utterly to recognise that this in no way prevents the inevitable and self-inflicted wounds re-opening in the German soul.
You Germans suffer because you raised the world against you. We forgive you. We have moved on. If the burden of your own conscience still traps you in it’s infernal circle, you must live with it, and not trouble us with speaking of it.
Only Germans can heal their secret wounds, if they ever can be healed.
Like the Jews, you are a marked nation, forced to stand apart. But that people’s rejection, humiliation, and murder was none of their own doing, and they are unconquerably confident of their own just destiny, as a consequence. The continuing agony of your nation, by contrast, may be inescapable by any other avenue than the racial suicide Chancellor Merkel appears to have chosen for you. Admitting others who now seek lebensraum into your own home only indulges your self-hating conscience. It does not redeem it. You point the finger at the deeds of others who do not share your guilt, proud of your Wagnerian damnation.
Perhaps the ‘Wandering German’ will follow the rootless hordes unleashed across the roads of Europe?
As a Briton, I am quite content to live with my share of national guilt for the horrific bombing of Dresden, redeemed as it is by the ultimate outcome of our great struggle against absolute evil. However, I would not ever wish to live with the shadow of German blood-guilt. This national anguish of Germany is possibly too problematic even to lay at the feet of the Cross. Their existential burden certainly cannot be laid at Britain’s door.
Can that wretched land ever be sane again?
What about Chamberlain’s brilliant betrayal of Czechoslovakia in order to bring about “Peace in our time”? That really worked out well, didn’t it? The Czech military wanted to fight and thought it could prevail at that point since Germany wasn’t properly mobilized yet and they were. There was also a good chance that the German High Command would have moved against Hitler rather than Czechoslovakia if ordered to invade because they agreed with that assessment. Of course when Britain caved, it gave the German Military a confidence in Hitler’s judgement that they had previously lacked. President Benes wouldn’t let the military fight because it would have been “politically naive” and he may have been right.
What Germany did under Hitler was unspeakably horrible, but Britain in Palestine wasn’t that great either. Speaking as a 4th generation Czech American whose relatives did their share in the U.S. military during that particular brawl known as World War II, I find the British self-righteousness more than a little annoying.
At no point did I deny that Britain has reasons to feel guilt. This – I take it – is the common, tragic inheritance of any country that has ever been to war, or been involved in struggles which civilised politics seem not capable of resolving. Being human is to be guilty. We get so many things wrong, all the time.
But even amongst the sad catalogue of nations who have done bad things, one of the absolute masterpiece of evil, in modern times, was surely achieved by the brilliant, efficient and tragically misled Germans. The other was our ally, the Soviet Union under Stalin.
Both Stalin and Hitler used ‘frightfulness’ – the theory which the Prussian military developed before the Great War as a tool of psychological intimidation in warfare – or ‘terror’ – the approved tool of political discipline from the French Revolution onwards.
And ‘Bomber’ Harris also used frightful means, and the Germans called the RAF bombing ‘terror-raids’ because that is just what they were, and of course the people under them were just observing the fact of the matter.
Humanity is a terrifying, tragic species.
But I still humbly contend that any nation which does not meet a populous, resourceful, disciplined and ruthless nation like a Germany in arms, and gripped by a wild and unreasoning enthusiasm for a cult of evil, on the same bloody ground, will find itself bested like the proverbial decent gentleman assaulted by bullies.
That is why Britain does not today suffer the degree of crippling guilt that has distorted German society and politics: We didn’t actually start it. But by God we – and Russia and America – finished it! The edifice of German war-crime was built entirely on their own perverted idealism, and has inevitably left that people with a national self-hating guilt (that the Left of course exploits, despite their own burden of guilt). It is no surprise that the German nation today is collectively in a morbid psychological condition.
They cannot cope with their monstrous modern history. It makes the Germans feel better to nurse the illusion of moral superiority by wallowing in the tragedy of Dresden. Frankly, after what they had perpetrated over Britain, the British people felt only joy at the news our bombers were striking back at Hitler’s Reich. The Left, of course, has always agreed with Stalin, that Soviet Communism was the real winner when this civil war – as they saw it – between bourgeoise Capitalists delivered great ideological credit and vast tracts of Europe to them. Perhaps you share that view?
Your attempt to blame Britain and other countries for effectively starting general war, and your claim that the German High Command – of all unlikely bodies! – was composed of pacifists who were looking for a reason not to go to war at all, is devoid of sense. They were looking for payback after the first round in 1914-18.
And unless you happen to be a Communist, to whom the whole bloody, desperate struggle for the survival of Western civilization was just an irrelevant side-show between enemies, equally culpable, who deserved each other – a ‘brawl,’ as you call it, is hardly an adequate summation of the reality! You seem to dismiss the entire War as a meaningless, petty rivalry!
As for the blithe equivalence you make between Britain’s administrative failure in Palestine – with only the slight distraction of having to fight for its life in two World Wars for most of the period of it’s Mandate – with Nazi Germany’s very efficient military preparations for invading and sadistically subjugating a number of other countries – – – well that’s just beneath contempt.
I’m sorry, finally, that you find the thought of Britain’s sacrifices, during that terrible fight against a threatened thousand years of German arrogance and cruelty over much of the world, to be ‘more than a little annoying.’ I really would not have believed that any citizen of a country upon whom outrages such as Pearl Harbour and 9/11 were perpetrated, by some other cold-blooded murderers, was incapable of identifying sympathetically with Britain’s historical struggle!
You strike me as one of those who make apologies for everyone’s role in history – even Germany’s, for God’s sake! – but who invariably condemns Britain for everything. Do you really think the country you live in now has such a spotless history? You can just drop those superior airs.
Britain’s ‘guilt’ is what has led to the invasion of Muslims/Islam. Maybe wr deserve it too.
That is all too possible, I admit, ‘Manatthepub.’
Unfortunately, the decadence and perversity of the West has invited Demons to come amongst us – – –
Yeats wrote (in the context of Irish troubles), ‘Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; / Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, / The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere / The ceremony of innocence is drowned; / The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity.’
And just a little correction: It took more than Britain to stir up the Middle East. But of course we have our share of guilt.
It isn’t enough to cripple us, yet. Unless we listen to the voices of the Left, who of course, even though far from perfect themselves, are justified by their ‘faith’ (the ‘Gospel according to Marx’ as a wit once said), and make everybody else feel worse about themselves.
Of course the Germans now have the same aversion to opposing the Left as they have a horror of raising even a finger of admonition to any Semite, whatever their tribe.
I’m glad to say that in Britain we still manage a passable two-fingered salute, where occasion demands – a la Winnie, of course!
Hitler’s stated policy was to avoid incorporating non-Germans into Germany. He explains in detail the reasons for invading the whole of Czechoslovakia in his speech ‘Hitler answers Roosevelt’, namely that Benes, the Czech leader said that his country would be used as an aerodrome to atack Germany, and that huge numbers of weaponry were discovered there. Hitler lists these armaments in the speech.
!Yip, Yip, Yip! We all know that Herr Hitler always told the truth, but that is a little rich even for him! The loss of the Sudetenland deprived Czechoslovakia of defensible borders and with “Peace in out time” who needed (or wanted) an aerodrome? One wouldn’t have had to look far for weapons since Czechoslovakia had had a thriving munitions industry for decades. In fact the Bren gun started out as the standard issue light machine gun in that army, and on the advice of a British diplomat those who were looking to modernize their armory included it among the possibilities that they were checking out and selected it. The name came from a combination or Brno and Endington, the towns where the original and the British equivalent were manufactured.
As for the discussion above, I still don’t think that cynically throwing an ally to the wolves for what appeared to be a temporary advantage is a trivial matter, but no, I don’t even begin to blame the British for everything. However, neither would I describe Britain’s blocking the immigration of European Jews to the Holy Land when they were trying to escape the Holoucast and even afterward as an “administrative error”.
Not “Endington”, but Enfield, in North London. Royal Enfield ceased trading in 1971; they made other things including motorbikes and bicycles (I had one as a teenager). There are still traces of the factory and its rail network.
So many blithe solutions to the endless problem of all the irreconcilable Semitic tribes of the Middle East!
What a shame nobody has managed to solve that minefield of a conundrum, and there is so little sign they ever will.
Britain’s Mandate was a poisoned Chalice – an impossible balancing-act between virulent pre-existing hostilities not of Britain’s making, and still ongoing today more vigorously and savagely than ever – and now with help from all sides it seems.
Of course British administrators fell off that booby-trapped tightrope!
The only people who ever managed to please the Zionists with their emigration policies into Palestine were the Nazis. They collaborated nicely together and shared violent nationalistic notions of ‘lebensraum’ in common, which certainly spooked the responsible British, who had to hold the delicate, hair-trigger balance with the Arabs.
But the British – like everyone before and since – miscalculated in that fraught region, as they were fated to do when asked to partake of such a hellish brew.
It is an insoluble problem that has deranged the wits of all who ever got drawn into that particular cultural miasma.
Even the Nazis eventually lost patience with the Palestine business, and, with typical German cynicism, started murdering the Jews instead, in order to accelerate Hitler’s grand defining policy of ridding Germany of these established members of it’s own population.
It appears there are some who would deplore the fact that, by attempting to regulate the influx of foreign and oft-times illegal immigrants into Palestine, the British were opposing the ‘humanitarian’ Nazi-Zionist scheme to allow European Jews into someone else’s country, and were therefore to blame for the unfortunate necessity Mr Hitler was put to of organising urgent alternative means of sending them elsewhere.
I hope my indignation is suficiently apparent.
Britain had a responsibility for the Arabs, as well as attempting to manage a workable population growth of a people who were very possibly the least likely ever to be welcomed with open arms into the midst of a Muslim culture.
The attempted application by Britain of orderly and rational regulation of this region, commenced in all good faith, came up short against ancient enmities, and so our Tommies – many of whom had until recently been fighting genocidal Nazis – were killed and injured fighting the Irgun terrorists that had been trained and armed at their inception by the extremely anti-Semitic government of Poland, who were actually independently following Hitler’s early policy for getting rid of their despised Jews, before he decided he didn’t really like Poles, either, and invaded them.
But somehow I keep reading in these forums about how understandable and rational Germany’s policies were under Hitler before the War! And how Britain never appreciated his diplomatic sagacity, and pushed him into a conflict – and even into a Holocaust – that he never wanted!!
In Palestine, of course, the British ended up being hated by the Arabs for being pro-Zionist, yet also hated by the Jews for not being enthusiastic Zionists at all! And called wicked Imperialists for trying to do their Mandated duty!
I find the easy contempt, on this American Website, for British endeavours to cope with a Middle Eastern cockpit with which the Americans themselves have been singularly unsuccessful in coping, to be increasingly contrived, and a sad revelation of American’s prejudiced opinion of Britain.
I note the perversion of my phrase, in this connection: ‘administrative failure’ – meaning a tragic blunder, almost certainly unavoidable in the Middle Eastern context – into your own subtly-suggestive ‘administrative error,’ as if I would be so fatuous as to try to exculpate British policy on some careless slip of the bureaucratic pen!
The memory of the whole tragic mess of Palestine, and indeed of war-torn Europe, are burdens that in this Forum are being slyly shifted from the pained historical sensitivities of the Germans, and conveniently imputed to the perceived disgraceful arrogance of the British, in having presumed to challenge Germany’s apparently perfectly reasonable plans for those regions!
The constant sound of sniping around here is clearly designed to suppress any British activity.
I think I’d better just duck out and leave you guys to preside over the latest round of fraternal peace and reconciliation you have so successfully promoted amongst the assorted fanatics and murderers of the Middle East.
I find that much of what you say here is correct and justified, but you seem to gloss over some very real issues.
First let me clarify my own background. I lived in England in my youth, and took O-Levels and A-Levels at a grammar school during that time. I was young, so to a certain extent I “went native” — I became bilingual in British and American, I learned British spellings and idioms, and I became deeply familiar with English culture and history. I also became an Anglophile (or so my friends told me when I came home and went to college). So anything I say is not motivated by any animus towards Britain. Quite the contrary.
One thing I learned from my experience is that there is a widespread (although not heavy) animus towards the Jews in England, and a concomitant preference for the Arabs. Or there was back then, in the sixties. I knew a few of those Arabists — they took their A-Levels in relevant subjects, and then went on to university, and after that the Foreign Office.
This affection for Arabia went back a long time, to before the Great War. Lawrence of Arabia, and the romantic aura surrounding him, typifies this tendency. And a distaste for Jews was palpable among a lot of people I knew. Since I’m not Jewish, it didn’t bother me, but I noticed it.
And I studied the history of the period intensively for A-Level (I took Special Papers in it), especially British history from 1871-1945. There was definitely a tilt towards the Arabs and against the Jews before and after the Second World War. It was attested by ample historical data from the period.
Many Britons were indeed well-intentioned towards the Jews — Zionists or otherwise. But many others weren’t. That’s a fact; it’s in the historical record. It would be nice if everything was in fact as you described it. But it wasn’t.
Americans, at least most of us, cannot feel what the Germans of the present generations feel about the Holocaust and the War. By the same token, even our older generations cannot know the feelings of Brits who underwent the onslaught on their homeland. The only part of your thoughtful letter that I do not believe is “We forgive you. We have moved on. ” In your place, I don’t think I would have.
Unfortunately, we are now left with generations of people in all Western countries who know too little and are subject to too much persuasion from different camps. In the US, we have the additional problem of an educational system which has jettisoned the consciousness of history for the inculcation of social values.
“They assume that we can forget!”
Of course you can forget! You point your nose forward and then follow your nose. Away from the damning of an entire people.
I’m not damning the Germans of today: That’s an old fight.
They are damning themselves. With such an inheritance of guilt they are bound to.
But when they try and improve their morale today by reminding us of Dresden, while dreaming of lebensraum for the millions of illegal invaders their Chancellor has now invited into Europe, this is crazy.
They just can’t absolve their country from their previous sadistic practice of total war by condemning us for giving no quarter to that evil!
Really, I don’t think Germany can possibly escape all the complexes it’s unrivalled criminal conspiracy has visited upon it.
And that is a tragedy. And it is very definitely not of my making, or of Britain’s making. Nor is anything other than German hubris to blame for their existential predicament.
I must add that it is actually unwise to forget, because history is a warning.
And as Jewish survivors of the Holocaust say, ‘How can we forgive on behalf of the dead, who cannot ever forgive since they no longer live?’ There is no possible forgiveness for this. None. Not ever.
That is the truly terrible nature of the German crime, that must pursue and torment them through all of remaining time.
You write well Philip. I have no idea your age, I am 65. Your comment reflects to me the historical narrative that we have all been ‘taught’ which is sadly only partly reflective of what went on all those years ago.
Germany was fighting off the infiltration of Communism soon after WW1 ended – it was Hitlers answer to fight it off with National Socialism as an alternative system – you could wonder who was it that paid Herr Hitler’s financial bill that permitted him to claim power.
When one delves back into historical research one tends to find much to worry about concerning how ‘events’ actually came about. One needs to realize that no single event or series of events throughout our Western history has been through happenstance but rather through planned outcomes.
Others might say that Hitler was exactly the wrong man at the crucial time, and led Germany into the abyss, not into the sunlight.
I’m eternally glad that I am not a continental European country bordering on whatever kinds of interference, madness and cruelty your neighbours might wish to impose upon you. I don’t make light of Germany’s tragedy: but I don’t believe there is any easy ‘get out of jail free’ card for the appalling military and moral blunders that irresponsible romantic dreamer and paranoid hater made in Germany’s name.
Hitler represented himself as a defender of Germany – but his arrogant military vainglory expressed only hatred for the world beyond the borders of his unreal, imaginary, deluded Nazi Reich.
He, and all those who invested their very souls in his ravings, were thrown into the Pit of Hell.
This is the result of German military hubris – not any German desire to preserve Peace. It is a tragedy.
And yet others may also say that Hitler was reacting to the forces he perceived that were being used to undermine Germany.
WW2 involved many players who inflicted onto that catastrophe their own perceptions and aspirations and one cannot just lay the blame for what eventually befell Europe onto one man or one country because that is simply taking a most complex part of history and placing it into a nutshell or a box, that fits a particular narrative.
You concentrate on one aspect of history when history is really a much bigger picture that has been made to escape the eyes and ears of the masses to suit a political agenda.
Perhaps you could expand on your knowledge of what really has gone before us and as to why those things happened?
Once a person falls into the rabbit hole called “western History” what becomes readily apparent is the ceaseless wars. The slow genocide of the best of the west via interminable war after war after war.
History scared the Quakers straight but others didn’t follow. Too much money to be made and power to be distributed.
Studying the Western Way of War made me believe in the concept of Original Sin–(though it needs a better name).
But, knowing history and all its faults also allows us a glimpse into who is really in control.
And looking beyond the ‘history narrative’ that we have all been made subject to while leaving no stone unturned in that search, will also reveal to those who can stomach it, certain truths that what we still take for granted as normal human existence has much more control to it then any of us, and without that knowledge, would appreciate.
“That Germany brought us to the awful necessity of putting aside our best values, though only for the duration of the emergency they brought upon us, is something we will always very much resent.”
May I humbly ask where the “best values” of the British were during the South African Boer War of 1899 – 1902 when the British let 26,000 Boer women, children and elderly die in concentration camps?
The atrocity committed by the British against the Boers were equally as much a war crime as that perpetrated by the Nazis. In fact, in proportion to the entire population, the British killed far more Boers in concentration camps than the Nazis killed Jews and others.
I’m not trying to whitewash what the Germans did. But you trying to claim the moral high ground blaming the Germans for your own transgressions is simply preposterous. The British were the aggressors that started the Boer War. Nobody incited you on that occasion to put aside your “best values” – you did it all by yourself.
At least the Germans have the ability of introspection, which seems to be sadly lacking in your post.
I’m certainly not trying to claim any moral high ground. I’ve observed frequently in this interesting discussion that humanity is a tragic creature, and that we are all guilty. History is the real dismal science (not economics) if you look closely at it.
The British ‘Concentration camps’ in South Africa were callously and incompetently run, as is well-known. On 17 June, 1901, David Lloyd-George in England condemned the concentration camps and the horrors there inflicted on women and children. He warned, “A barrier of dead children’s bodies will rise between the British and Boer races in South Africa.”
Emily Hobhouse who investigated the conditions on the ground, and others back in Britain spoke even more strongly than this against the nasty and inhuman attitude of all involved.
The Americans were complete racists, and had murdered the Indian nations settled on the land they stole, and enslaved and worked to death those nations they kidnapped from their homes in Africa and treated like a species of cattle, and so it must have astonished Hitler to find these hypocrites inveighing against his own racial policies to eliminate the Jews.
And yet ordinary Americans and Britishers were genuinely distressed at what they witnessed when they entered German concentration camps.
Human morality and decency is a very fitful quality, which comes and goes – an inconstant flame. A sad example of this is undoubtedly the German nation, so refined and rich in high European culture, whose artists and scientists and religious reformers were the finest the world could show, yet which itself became beastly and brutal and perverted under the Nazis.
And I only spoke of that period of the 2nd World War, still the experience of living memory, to show the tragic ongoing existential crisis this particular experience has burdened the German nation with.
I think we must give the Germans some credit for having looked within and judged themselves in the court of their own conscience for their own nation’s war crimes, and not trivialise their guilt by dismissing it as inconsequential and unnecessary simply because all other nations have done the same sort of things. Otherwise Nurenberg was no more than a show-trial – like Stalin’s: A political expediency rather than the moral imperative I take it to have represented.
Of course there should have been a legal accounting for those who perpetrated the deaths of Boer women and children in British holding camps.
Human morality is imperfect, and cannot avoid hypocrisy. The Nazis perfected a system for entirely avoiding any charge of hypocrisy: Like Milton’s Satan their battle-cry was ‘Evil be thou my Good!’ They rebelled from the weak and random morality of their fellow-man, and following a Nietzschean moral relativism commenced to do just as they pleased in the world.
The scale and the ideological purity of their Will to Power unleashed a barbarism that should make us truly grateful even for our own base and hypocritical excuse for morality.
The Germans are a brilliant race and do nothing if not thoroughly. Yet with the final collapse of their Hitlerite cult of Evil, the suppressed conscience returned with a vengeance, and they started desperately covering-up all their vast cruelties and murders: That was the start of their guilt – not any British imputations.
Those British moral military imbeciles implicated in the abuse and deaths of so many Boers in prison camps blustered and tried to make excuses. And they got away with it, in legal terms, because the British government was not brave enough to confront the shame. As a Briton, I’m ashamed. Its a lasting shame.
But that terrible British crime was not devised as a consciously sustained and deliberate political system which absolutely decreed frightfulness as a way of life, and which would have meant a boasted thousand years of unrelenting cruelty.
It was just as morally evil as any Nazi cruelty, but was a less ambitious, more sneaking wickedness – not human foulness elevated into a political system, after all.
Kitchener and his ilk were very wicked individuals – their conduct of the Great War was pretty atrocious, too. But thereafter the Army reformed.
After the Second World War, the whole of Germany had to be forcibly morally sanitised in a programme of de-nazification. I’m afraid this does put Germany in a very special category of national war-guilt. Their own history has given them an unenviable existential burden.
It seems to be your own contention (insofar as I can make any sense of it), that the Germans cannot be blamed for their wartime record, because the British who opposed them are bad, and I am British as well, and so I’m biased which means that when I say the Germans are still riddled with guilt that’s a wrong thing to say, because they shouldn’t be made to have any negative views of their recent history.
In short you think I’m ‘preposterous’ just because I’m a Brit and I consider that my country prosecuted a successful war that is internationally recognised as a ‘just war.’
So I can’t allow you to see me as in some sense a defender of all British sins simply because I have tried to understand what this crippling guilt is that the Germans undoubtedly still labour under, which continues to have such negative consequences for them.
And it seems gratuitous of you to say so intemperately that I am ‘ – – -trying to claim the moral high ground [by] blaming the Germans for your own [my? Britain’s? both?] transgressions – – ‘
Concerning the subject of this discussion, which is the burden of guilt which Germany still feels for it’s war crimes, I think it is very odd that you seem to believe that Britain’s important role in the defeat of Nazi Germany was mere impertinence, and that the manifest German transgressions in that war – the Jewish Shoah being but one of their many Holocausts – all in some obscure way reflect very unfavourably on Britain!
But I have to admit I have some difficulty at this point in grasping your own preposterous arguement.
And as a matter of generally recognised fact, Germany did drag us into the 2nd World War. Do you really believe their entire foreign policy was one of sweet reason and patient diplomacy?
I think you got a bit carried away by straining your argument of moral equivalence, from the undeniably true example of Britain letting herself down shamefully during the Boer War, when you deny Britain had any right thereafter to show her best values in resisting Germany’s ruthless arrogance, and cruel creed.
Odd how you want to cripple Britain with her own guilt, but at the same time believe that the world has been unfair to Germany so therefore that nation should just have it’s moral war debt to the Jews, and to the innocent peoples of so many other nations, cancelled!
If Germany had won, as soon as Churchill had been shot in the Tower of London Herr Goebbels would have been making precisely the arguement you now make, in his first speech after the fall of Britain, in plausible justification of Germany’s noble and spotless historical record!
Can’t you just hear all the ghosts of all those old Nazis applauding you from Hell?
For somebody with an avowed aversion to whitewashing historical crimes, you do manage to splash quite a lot of the stuff over Germany’s war record – after slyly blackening Britain’s role in the same business.
[ad hominem exhortation redacted].
I agree with much of what you are saying. Certainly there is no moral equivalence between the South African concentration camps and the Nazi death camps. The intention of the British was never to exterminate a people – the deaths happened because of neglect and carelessness.
However, you seem have missed my point slightly. I was merely reacting to the part of your original post which I quoted. You are blaming the Germans for having forced the British to put aside their “best values” in order to confront the evil the British were faced with. In other words, a “loss of innocence” of sorts. And you still resent that.
My point was merely to remind you of the fact that other people and nations have legitimate reasons to resent the British for their past actions. But they don’t (maybe some do, I don’t know). My point is: maybe you should stop the resentment of the Germans for what they did to Britain and what they forced Britain into doing during WW II. Judge not, lest thou be judged. Or to paraphrase: resent not, lest thou be resented.
A fine and enlightened reply, for which I am grateful.
We should all try to be better people, and rise above our personal feelings.
Having said that, I have never felt or expressed hatred towards a living German in my life.
The resentment I spoke of was not personal, but (to clarify) rather the angry existential regret of the whole of civilisation, which all nations – not least the Germans themselves – have suffered for the ‘loss of innocence’ for which the Nazi perversion was responsible – it’s your choice of phrase, and it is apt, and shows you were courteous enough to re-read my comments. Which is good of you.
As for the judgemental aspect – I believe we are all required to reapect the judgement at Nuremberg. It’s nothing personal: Consequently it cannot be withdrawn.
I have suffered this existential doubt concerning our human endeavour, like everyone after the Nazis made such horrors as theirs part of what it means to be human. But like the subtle Jew, I have no capacity or right to forgive or to forget German crimes against other people, who were not granted the mercy of life and the possibility to make that personal act of forgiveness.
I spoke not of the sort of daft and sadistic vengeance of primitive or ill-educated cultures, like the common reaction of early settlers in the US to the warring indian nations: ‘The only good indian is a dead indian.’
What I speak of are certain regrettable facts of history, which are beyond dispute. And these judgements of history are so shocking that I do not think they incorporate any sunset clause.
These are things whose lasting effect is a profound sense of the tragedy of human existence.
I’m afraid that the Germans were amongst the worst of this, our very bad, species. They showed us how even a civilised people can turn into demons.
The Germans of that damned era made all human beings hate themselves, to some extent, after the unavoidable realisation of what we could also be capable.
So I’m afraid it does rankle with me when I hear modern Germans moaning about their own particular and unique burden of guilt, stemming from that awful period. I’m afraid that this failure of Germans of today to remember that the whole of humanity was drawn down into this moral abyss by their nation, so that we are all now tainted by these new depths of Evil for evermore, is something that I do recriminate.
What they are doomed to suffer is what the ancient Greeks called ‘miasma’ – the taint of guilt for which the remedy in the individual case was exile, far from their own people.
Frankly, if modern Germany feels that it suffers something approaching a pariah status, with the relentless reminders of their forefathers’ guilt all around them, in collective acts of contrition and public edifices of stark reproach, then that is their burden, and they must carry most of it themselves.
The rest of Europe carries, for its collaboration, a substantial part of that burden.
Britain’s fierce response was terrible – as it was forced to be for its physical survival. But it brought out the vicious worst of us, as well as the best. And in even in victory, with our honourable wounds fresh upon us, and justified amongst the free nations, we felt shame for Dresden.
So the modern German idea that they are being scapegoated for the sins that others escaped any reckoning for having committed, is exactly the pernicious, specious lie that led to Hitler in the first place.
The legal judgement at Nuremberg cannot be cancelled. It stands for all time. No talk of other’s guilt can diminish the absolute Evil that was there condemned for all to know.
Does the ‘holocaust monument’ also commemorate the 5 million non-jewish victims from Wiesenthal’s imagination?
I wonder if the Soviets had a monument to the tens of millions of non-imaginary people that the Bolsheviks *actually* murdered?
Why have European males accepted women as their natural leaders? Most Western countries didn’t allow women to vote until about 100 years ago because of their irrational nature. And yet Europe since Thatcher has accepted women to lead them. Aside from the laws of Nature which argue against following women, electing women in the current climate is either virtue signaling, acknowledgement that White Males aren’t the primary force in the Europe they created, or a craven pragmatism by political parties that see which way the wind blows. And now, at least in England, muslims are being elected to influential offices. And the average White male views this as some kind of unopposable eventuality. I know that Eastern European countries have [manly attributes], but where are Western European men’s [generative organs]? May the Apocalypse hurry.
I would have thought you quite liked Thatcher’s policies.
It’s not about gender, it’s about policies. I agree that Merkel and other hand-wringing people (men and women) are unsuitable leaders. I’ll even concede that maybe more women on average would be the hand-wringing types. But if a good tough woman comes along with decent policies, would you rather she couldn’t get into politics?
Don’t fall for the islamic nonsense in sura 4:34: men are physically stronger, thus should be in charge.
I rather liked Thatcher’s policies. But there are some leftists who comment here who definitely don’t like her. Those political beliefs – anything beyond the purely economic – are simply about feelings. There’s no point in arguing about feelings.
Some economic philosophies, even though they are long disproved (Keynes is one, Marxism another) are based on feelings, too, so that’s not an infallible guide.
Your hatred of women makes you sound ripe for conversion to Islam. I hope you are prepared for men to become a much more dominant part of your life. In every way. In fact, get ready for a life almost entirely free of women, and their influence.
Possibly the only prospect of the company of women will be your willing departure from the moral desert of this barren Arabic world, for the mirage of miraculous virgins, when you press that button on your suicide-belt.
I’m a man and I know I wouldn’t like it – so don’t [redacted]!
Well, since I’m a man and am not stupid enough to be a Muslim, you might want to reconsider your post.
Since you say you are not stupid enough to become a Muslim – and you would have to be spectacularly dim to do that, I admit – it is, to say the least, inconsistent of you to think that your sweeping condemnation of the female sex is a rational position.
You really ought to reconsider your misogynist views, or you might embarrass yourself.
People that use terms like “misogynist” watch too much TV and actually believe they are SJW’s. I’ve been married for 39 years. How many years have you been married? I can love a woman without blinding myself to the reality that men and women are not the same and can’t be substituted for each other. They were created to share labor and have different natures. If you are too “enlightened” to understand this, please don’t waste any more time on a “hater” like myself.
I don’t believe European males have accepted women as their natural leaders – it has been foisted on them by Socialist policies such as affirmative action, gender equality etc.
The term Mutte Merkel should dispel that perception of acceptance.
It is all part of the feminizing of the White Western male into becoming more receptive to their own cultural undermining and less aggressive to those who now invade Europe.
So you wish for blood in the streets – and that may yet occur – but you need to remember that if it does degenerate into that, then there can be no guaranteed outcome for any side.
Socialist policies are daft and dangerous.
There are certainly no more irritating or arrogant women than the sort of political female one sees on the opposition benches these days (I speak of the British Houses of Parliament, dear Americans).
Mind you, their males aren’t up to much either.
But don’t be so – – – imperceptive, shall we say? as to libel all women because Socialism tends to pervert everyone and everything it touches, like a dreadful mental illness.
There are many clever, strong-minded and even pleasantly attractive women who are unaffected by this nonsense. [Your President Trump appears to have made a good showing in this regard, dear Americans.]
And a bit of National Service might restore the backbone of our little country pretty well!
And some nice old-fashioned coppers [Policemen, dear Americans] to clip the juvenile delinquents round the ears will keep the younger generation on the straight and narrow.
Well that seems a healthier dream than apocalyptic visions of blood on the streets.
That disgusting spectacle is exactly what the lefty wimps and all their appalling Madames la Tricateuse want – they’re gagging for it, the perverts!
So: Steady the Buffs!
No, not all women are being labelled here. I happen to be married to one strong woman who has her own mind and likes to exercise it quite often.
On the other hand though, her sister (younger) is of the socialist mould and can be quite stubborn whenever she decides to raise a political issue (I have been told to never do that whenever she is around) that is obvious the MSM version of events.
Makes for some interesting ‘conversations’.
I’m Australian by the way. And I do agree with your thoughts on military service and the old way of policing.
I agree that blood on the streets is best avoided, but we cannot continue for much longer to keep retreating.
Well,, now, with a little further investigation of what we really mean, and some precision to avoid the accusation of indulging scattergun tactics against an entire sex, with the satisfyingly forceful but inaccurate and generally offensive epithet ‘irrational,’ we have successfully stopped the self-harming ‘friendly fire’ and turned our guns on the common enemy, and subverter of all decency and reason: Socialism, and all its sinister works!
The leaders of these movements get harassed and hassled by the establishment, muslims and the left , constantly so they just retreat back into normal life .Look what happened to Tommy Robinson. Unless they are made of sterner stuff like Le Penn . Le Penn can afford security but Robinson had his family and children threatened !
Okay, so the Germans feel guilty. But why sacrifice yourself at the altar of Islam, the most anti-human ideology on the planet? It makes Nazism look positive.
I for one am very worried about the Austrians and Germans as it does not look like the common man will be able to overthrow the establishment in spite of all kinds of fringe party players, internet blogs such as this and a so- called free, international press. We all know that there are too many parellel muslim societies there now, that the natives are quickly being out-bred and that the native Westerners are too fearful both of their own govt and the local invaders whom they are forced to share the streets, trams, cafes and schools with etc. Some Americans think the Germans had it coming for what they did to the Jews and getting so many countries involved in war and want to leave them to their fate. I bope I am wrong, but their future looks very sad indeed. The false tolerance of muslims who break all their Euro laws after arriving and bring their own home turf wars with them and clearly have no plans of integrating and working to support themselves is clearly known to all in power. The elites have no desire to continue the Germanic races and intend to replace Western civilization with chaos and unrest so they can look like the enlightened, tolerant humanitarian to their fellow EU colleagues. Yes, we all know a few highly educated mulims who came here and did integrate but this is uncommon and all these EU officials know it. I am glad they have the AFD option but everyone knows not enough Germans will vote for them to make any real difference. Things are not bad enough in Germany yet for most natives.
To make it clear: It’s not about to remember the holocaust or not, it`s about the “position” of this remembering. Höcke criticizes, the position of the holocaust in the _centre_ of the post war german identity. And he complains, if a society takes the shame in the pivot-point of its identity, the society will get sick.
IMHO this is the case and Höcke has properly analysed the core of our (german) main problem. Prove the thesis and check for instance german mainstream-tv: Channels nightly are full of “history lessons”, showing the guiltyness over and over.
Symptoms of this sickness are not even a generally lack of patriotism, but a wide spreaded anti-germanism by the germans themself. If you bearing a german flag in germany, you are perceived as “nazi” (even if the real nazis used another flag). Major parts of the political spectrum denying the existence of an own german culture at all! No joke, it`s cruel & spooky. Germans deliver genocide to themselfes at this time …
P.S. If you want to know more about Höcke and his agenda, take a look at the “Institut für Staatswissenschaften” / Schnellroda(Germany) or http://www.sezession.de . There you will find the “thinktank”.
Nothing unique in this insidious Leftist indoctrination: All Western societies are being taught to hate themselves, and all the best of what their cultures stand for; It is classic marxist destabilizing tactics.
And such a conversion would relieve the Germans of their historical bad conscience since if you are a Marxist you have departed from the camp of the guilty and joined Chancellor Merkel’s old gang, whose entire political existence is founded on anti-fascism.
That’s why the old DDR was such a showcase of ideological probity for the Communist bloc: Instead of painful de-Nazification – the joy of instant conversion!
The enduring pain of the Germans’ Christian-Humanist conscience would be far healthier for them, however, if they could only see how its honesty and integrity gradually heal the individual nature, instead of just keeping essentially the same mind-set but calling it something new that gains official benediction.
But ideology seems everywhere today to appeal more than morality.
It also explains the Leftists in the US, most of whom have no clue as to the Marxist basis of their ideology. In addition, they conflate ideology and morality in a holier-than-thou attitude toward anyone who doesn’t agree totally with whatever baggage they’re carrying – e.g., women’s “rights”, environmental quackery, climate sins, “victims”, and so on.
They cut-and-dice their beliefs into ever finer pieces. If Trump were not there to unite them in hatred, they’d have to turn on one another.
Once one gets to know Western history, especially regarding Germany and how the current political climate is now exposing what is often referred to as ‘The Deep State’ and why it is that Western intelligence services interact and promote through covert means the ‘The Deep States’ agenda – which is one of Globalization/One World Government and religion, that will lead to eventual serfdom for all of us not connected to or part of that agenda – then one may begin to understand why it was that Germany was targeted, just as Russia was, and the West soon after, by the forces now known as Globalists who introduced Marxism as a means to subdue the Christian – Judao cultures through Communism into a One World Order.
I grew up near Coventry UK, do not preach about Dresden, think about Stalingrad instead.
As a young man living in Germany in the 60’s, I met many old soldiers, Wehrmacht, SS, and others, they did not seem to suffer guilt, more so, regret at losing, they were however, the most friendly people you could meet. On me marrying my young German wife, one of them asked, on which side would my future children would fight in the future, we all had a good laugh, he was quite old, but did he know something that we all did not ? Perhaps not, but after 2 wars, he knew only too well, that history has a habit of repeating itself.
I have attentively read the Dresdner speech of Mr Hoecke, and I didn’t find anything hurting or antisemitic inside it. It is very disclosing to observe the afterwards row about the phrase
” Monument os shame planted in the heart of German capital ” among the political, medial and cultural world of nowadays Germany. That reaction appears to me unsane, and frightens me quite well. This episode among others gives an idea about the current freedom of expressing thoughts inside Merkel-led Germany. The AfD stand against Hoecke is born out of political calcule rather than out of a clear vision of reality.
Re the bombing of Dresden: This was at the request of the Soviets, who were concerned that the Nazis might use the rail network to transfer troops and munitions from the Western or Italian Fronts; the Red Army was over-extended, and might have been pushed back by German reinforcements.
The US 8th Airforce hit the railway yards by day on several occasions; the RAF gratuitously firebombed the city once, by night.
Mark, the raids on Dresden occurred around mid February 1945. At that time in the war Germany was just about done in. After the Battle of the Bulge what remained of the Wermacht and the Luftwaffe were withdrawn to encircle Berlin to protect the Nazi hierarchy. There was no need to bomb Dresden a non-military target and virtually undefended city that much of German history was rooted in and should have been left intact if the Allies truly wished to be rid of Nazi ideology and rebuild Germany into a more Western friendly country.
Those who directed the Allies had other plans for Germany.
Well the stark fact is Germany had been the instigator of two terrible wars that left the whole of Europe and Britain shattered, exhausted and drained of wealth and life-blood. Revenge is a savage and awful human trait, but bitter enmity regrettably dictates the worst possible human behaviour, most especially during the extremity of total war.
Such sick nightmares as Dresden, after the obscene horrors Germany had already inflicted aplenty on the innocent, were inescapable at that time.
The desperate thought on our side was, These people are never coming back at us again.
We can only thank God we were not living then, or there, and move on.
You cannot presume to preach to those whose world that was, fighting with feral hatred for their own survival.
As for the winners. they actually did a fine job after hostilities ceased, of de-Nazifying the country, and prosecuting the leading evildoers, and oversaw the rebuilding of a prosperous and democratic Germany.
That’s except for the East of the country, of course, where Soviet Russia presided over a Socialist-National dictatorship, alarmingly close to the recent National-Socialist model.
I don’t know what sinister plans you think the West had for Germany. The Germans who fled west as the war was ending weren’t stupid!
Do you realize that the German surrender document was signed by a representative of the German military and not a representative of the Nazi government?
That thousands of Nazis escaped Germany to all points of the compass while hundreds of their scientists went to the Soviet Union and to the United States under Operation Paperclip?
Do you believe that they personally revoked their Nazi idealism?
That the bulk of the Nazi’s European loot went to South America along with Martin Boorman who set up whole Nazi villages in Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil and set up scientific experiments with the Argentinian government?
There is now some evidence that Hitler may have escaped Berlin in company with Boorman.
That Reinhard Gehlen who was in charge of the Nazi Abwehr was recruited to set up the CIA?
That the CIA who actively used many of those Nazi scientists who performed horrific experiments on concentration camp victims also used the results from those experiments to further their own ends?
That the so called ‘Cold War’ was orchestrated by those who also controlled the first and second world wars?
Hitler’s actions temporarily put a halt to the Globalist plans to subvert Germany to Communism, but as we can now see, they have almost succeeded today.
Your historical view is tunnel visioned as to the causes. You should expand your horizon.
No, I’m quite familiar with the fact that Nazi evil unfortunately became a part of our reality after the War. But there was always a Nazi in everyone, waiting to get out. Hitler gives permission to transgress moral norms, and hasn’t gone away.
But it was still a sensible idea to neutralise the danger of an entire German nation in arms, creating mayhem, ever arising again, surely?
Our own sinful nature, which could so easily reconcile itself to these erstwhile criminals, is unregenerate, but that is no reason not to resist naked aggression and rampant obscenity.
The species is part Devil, part Angel, and not normally a perfect example of either characteristic: ‘Higher than the Devil, but not as high as the Angels.’
It would be so easy to despair, but I prefer to focus on the possibility, however remote, that we can progress morally.
If my preference for concentrating on what is best in human nature, wherever one can find it, is ‘tunnel-vision,’ then perhaps your obsession with moral turpitude is little better than blind panic at our Faustian gallop towards midnight?
Our Devil’s bargain with knowledge is certainly a problem. For everyone.
So I don’t see that my view is any less broad than yours.
I just choose to try and see some good in the world, as well.
Surely that’s all in the interest of establishing a more balanced and realistic perspective?
I find this keeps me cheerful, positive and hopeful. If I dwelt on all the horrors, life would just close in like a prison and be unbearable.
I think actually that you could do with expanding your crabbed view of humanity!
You have articulated my position. Thank you.
The Soviets may not have been aware of this, Nemesis. See: http://glossaryhesperado.blogspot.co.uk/2008/04/facts-about-dresden-bombings.html, particularly from para 18.
Thanks for that link Mark – which I have read. I have also looked at other historical viewpoints that basically confirms in my own mind what I have provided in my comments.
I always thought it’s so weird only Germany gets beaten up about WWII, when Hitler was actually Austrian and Austria was part of the Third Reich, guess they’re just not significant enough on the global scale
Brevity does not always work well for me but no doubt I will try. One might say I can be a very trying person.
I have been reading all the comments here for the days since the first and they are all great. What can I add? Perhaps some confusion….
First I will opine that collective guilt and collective salvation are only devices used by the individually immoral to remain so, and to instruct others rather than allow individuals to instruct themselves.
And I will expand the topic from German guilt to the guilt of western civilisation in general. There was the UK at Dresden, Chamberlain at Munich, the US and slavery, the US and Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the Swedes at…at what? Comfort and prosperity one must suppose. Not even to mention all the things we did not do but perhaps should or could have done.
Does this not at some point become absurd? One may see moral relativism, moral revulsion and moral indignance about almost any topic…by people who have no morals, and where the issue is never really the issue but often only a tactic.
I have been eyewittness, as may have you all, to customers in restaurants who have been morally revolted and indignant about a sandwich which had not been prepared exactly to their expectations.
I will suggest that morality and guilt have become the weapons of first choice by those who have neither, and by those who intend neither. They will do all they can to trivialize all concepts of right and wrong.
I have sometimes been disappointed by those here who dismiss Christianity as the beginning of an answer, but not too dissappointed. Many of our churches have also fallen victim to the long march through the institutions, that march “in a slithering way( credit Marta Albari for that phrase).”
From 1815 until 1914 most of the west had an extended period of greater peace and prosperity than ever before in history. Could peace and prosperity make people stupid? The world wars soon followed. And Germany was one of the most prosperous.
It is now 72 years since our last paradoxm(spelling?) of violence. Again a time of peace and prosperity, again greater than ever before.
I pray that we may do it differently this time. I talk to people. Some already agree, others are already beyond reach. I need to look for better ideas than I have so far had. The only better idea I have is laughter. We may need to confront our betters with a lot more laughter and ridicule.
A very thoughtful comment!
Fake Media…..Fake Issue. Any person who pays the least bit of attention to the scribblers…academics….politicians…or even churchmen who point out the actions of their countrymen long gone..and wants them to feel guilt ; needs a ” Brain Transplant “. I am not guilty for the actions of people that I had no control over. Even our adult children…if they engage in criminal activities ; are responsible for their actions by themselves. Too many people today have too easy a life. If these guilt mongers had to actually produce some necessary goods and services in order to support themselves….there would not be time for such nonsense. [epithet].