RETOUR
SOMMAIRE
BUSH - HITLER, same
fight???
The Ultimate Proof Of
Bush Regime's
Course
From Archaeos
Prime
chronopilot@yahoo.com
3-22-3
To anyone who ever wondered where this War on Terror is heading, and why
it began, this will answer every one of your questions.
To anyone who ever had doubts that history could repeat itself, this will
crush them.
The following are documented historical facts that can easily be found
anywhere, as I've seen the majority of them already from other dependable
sources. This will prove to be our ultimate roadmap laying out the past,
current and future course of the Bush Regime. The corporate government
whose thumb we now find ourselves beneath has a plan, and here it is, submitted
for your disapproval, laid out for us from the dark annals of history with
frightening parallels to America's current crisis.
From September 11th to British complicity in this war, from Bush's personal
ideosyncracies right down to Congressional censure of the Dixie Chicks,
it has ALL happened exactly like this before, in the very same order. Reading
this article is like reading the exact details of our immediate history
since September 11th . . . and yet it happened 70 years ago!
And this single understanding is more frightening than anything bin Laden
could ever have done to us.
If after reading this, if you are still unable to accept the reality of
what's happening around us, then you are truly and hopelessly lost in a
fantasy world. And to those people I say, good luck in your dreamstate...we'll
meet you on the other side.
-- Mark Wyckstrom
*********************
When Democracy Failed - The Warnings Of History
By Thom Hartmann
March 17. 2003
The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was barely
reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful
day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary
by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across
the world.
It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis,
received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had
launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely
ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however,
that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing
whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist;
the most recent research implies they did not.)
But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in
part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the
nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority
of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a
simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white
terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running
a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language
- reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic
and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats,
foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media.
And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding
name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.
Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn't
know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an
aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious building was ablaze,
he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the
scene and called a press conference.
"You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he
proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by
national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion,
"is the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God," he called
it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors,
a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found
motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.
Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in
Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist.
In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was everywhere,
even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.
Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular leader
had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and
fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that suspended constitutional
guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now
intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned
without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could
sneak into people's homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.
To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State" passed
over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he
agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency
provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms and rights
would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained.
Legislators would later say they hadn't had time to read the bill before
voting on it.
Immediately after passage of the anti-terrorism act, his federal police
agencies stepped up their program of arresting suspicious persons and holding
them without access to lawyers or courts. In the first year only a few
hundred were interred, and those who objected were largely ignored by the
mainstream press, which was afraid to offend and thus lose access to a
leader with such high popularity ratings. Citizens who protested the leader
in public - and there were many - quickly found themselves confronting
the newly empowered police's batons, gas, and jail cells, or fenced off
in protest zones safely out of earshot of the leader's public speeches.
(In the meantime, he was taking almost daily lessons in public speaking,
learning to control his tonality, gestures, and facial expressions. He
became a very competent orator.)
Within the first months after that terrorist attack, at the suggestion
of a political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into common
usage. He wanted to stir a "racial pride" among his countrymen, so, instead
of referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to it as "The
Homeland," a phrase publicly promoted in the introduction to a 1934 speech
recorded in Leni Riefenstahl's famous propaganda movie "Triumph Of The
Will." As hoped, people's hearts swelled with pride, and the beginning
of an us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our land was "the" homeland, citizens
thought: all others were simply foreign lands. We are the "true people,"
he suggested, the only ones worthy of our nation's concern; if bombs fall
on others, or human rights are violated in other nations and it makes our
lives better, it's of little concern to us.
Playing on this new nationalism, and exploiting a disagreement with the
French over his increasing militarism, he argued that any international
body that didn't act first and foremost in the best interest of his own
nation was neither relevant nor useful. He thus withdrew his country from
the League Of Nations in October, 1933, and then negotiated a separate
naval armaments agreement with Anthony Eden of The United Kingdom to create
a worldwide military ruling elite.
His propaganda minister orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people that
he was a deeply religious man and that his motivations were rooted in Christianity.
He even proclaimed the need for a revival of the Christian faith across
his nation, what he called a "New Christianity." Every man in his rapidly
growing army wore a belt buckle that declared "Gott Mit Uns" - God Is With
Us - and most of them fervently believed it was true.
Within a year of the terrorist attack, the nation's leader determined that
the various local police and federal agencies around the nation were lacking
the clear communication and overall coordinated administration necessary
to deal with the terrorist threat facing the nation, particularly those
citizens who were of Middle Eastern ancestry and thus probably terrorist
and communist sympathizers, and various troublesome "intellectuals" and
"liberals." He proposed a single new national agency to protect the security
of the homeland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent
police, border, and investigative agencies under a single leader.
He appointed one of his most trusted associates to be leader of this new
agency, the Central Security Office for the homeland, and gave it a role
in the government equal to the other major departments.
His assistant who dealt with the press noted that, since the terrorist
attack, "Radio and press are at out disposal." Those voices questioning
the legitimacy of their nation's leader, or raising questions about his
checkered past, had by now faded from the public's recollection as his
central security office began advertising a program encouraging people
to phone in tips about suspicious neighbors. This program was so successful
that the names of some of the people "denounced" were soon being broadcast
on radio stations. Those denounced often included opposition politicians
and celebrities who dared speak out - a favorite target of his regime and
the media he now controlled through intimidation and ownership by corporate
allies.
To consolidate his power, he concluded that government alone wasn't enough.
He reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing former executives
of the nation's largest corporations into high government positions. A
flood of government money poured into corporate coffers to fight the war
against the Middle Eastern ancestry terrorists lurking within the homeland,
and to prepare for wars overseas. He encouraged large corporations friendly
to him to acquire media outlets and other industrial concerns across the
nation, particularly those previously owned by suspicious people of Middle
Eastern ancestry. He built powerful alliances with industry; one corporate
ally got the lucrative contract worth millions to build the first large-scale
detention center for enemies of the state. Soon more would follow. Industry
flourished.
But after an interval of peace following the terrorist attack, voices of
dissent again arose within and without the government. Students had started
an active program opposing him (later known as the White Rose Society),
and leaders of nearby nations were speaking out against his bellicose rhetoric.
He needed a diversion, something to direct people away from the corporate
cronyism being exposed in his own government, questions of his possibly
illegitimate rise to power, and the oft-voiced concerns of civil libertarians
about the people being held in detention without due process or access
to attorneys or family.
With his number two man - a master at manipulating the media - he began
a campaign to convince the people of the nation that a small, limited war
was necessary. Another nation was harboring many of the suspicious Middle
Eastern people, and even though its connection with the terrorist who had
set afire the nation's most important building was tenuous at best, it
held resources their nation badly needed if they were to have room to live
and maintain their prosperity. He called a press conference and publicly
delivered an ultimatum to the leader of the other nation, provoking an
international uproar. He claimed the right to strike preemptively in self-defense,
and nations across Europe - at first - denounced him for it, pointing out
that it was a doctrine only claimed in the past by nations seeking worldwide
empire, like Caesar's Rome or Alexander's Greece.
It took a few months, and intense international debate and lobbying with
European nations, but, after he personally met with the leader of the United
Kingdom, finally a deal was struck. After the military action began, Prime
Minister Neville Chamberlain told the nervous British people that giving
in to this leader's new first-strike doctrine would bring "peace for our
time."
Thus Hitler annexed Austria in a lightning move, riding a wave of popular
support as leaders so often do in times of war. The Austrian government
was unseated and replaced by a new leadership friendly to Germany, and
German corporations began to take over Austrian resources.
In a speech responding to critics of the invasion, Hitler said, "Certain
foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal methods.
I can only say; even in death they cannot stop lying. I have in the course
of my political struggle won much love from my people, but when I crossed
the former frontier [into Austria] there met me such a stream of love as
I have never experienced. Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators."
To deal with those who dissented from his policies, at the advice of his
politically savvy advisors, he and his handmaidens in the press began a
campaign to equate him and his policies with patriotism and the nation
itself. National unity was essential, they said, to ensure that the terrorists
or their sponsors didn't think they'd succeeded in splitting the nation
or weakening its will. In times of war, they said, there could be only
"one people, one nation, and one commander-in-chief" ("Ein Volk, ein Reich,
ein Fuhrer"), and so his advocates in the media began a nationwide campaign
charging that critics of his policies were attacking the nation itself.
Those questioning him were labeled "anti-German" or "not good Germans,"
and it was suggested they were aiding the enemies of the state by failing
in the patriotic necessity of supporting the nation's valiant men in uniform.
It was one of his most effective ways to stifle dissent and pit wage-earning
people (from whom most of the army came) against the "inte
Nonetheless, once the "small war" annexation of Austria was successfully
and quickly completed, and peace returned, voices of opposition were again
raised in the Homeland. The almost-daily release of news bulletins about
the dangers of terrorist communist cells wasn't enough to rouse the populace
and totally suppress dissent. A full-out war was necessary to divert public
attention from the growing rumbles within the country about disappearing
dissidents; violence against liberals, Jews, and union leaders; and the
epidemic of crony capitalism that was producing empires of wealth in the
corporate sector but threatening the middle class's way of life.
A year later, to the week, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia; the nation was
now fully at war, and all internal dissent was suppressed in the name of
national security. It was the end of Germany's first experiment with democracy.
As we conclude this review of history, there are a few milestones worth
remembering.
February 27, 2003, was the 70th anniversary of Dutch terrorist Marinus
van der Lubbe's successful firebombing of the German Parliament (Reichstag)
building, the terrorist act that catapulted Hitler to legitimacy and reshaped
the German constitution. By the time of his successful and brief action
to seize Austria, in which almost no German blood was shed, Hitler was
the most beloved and popular leader in the history of his nation. Hailed
around the world, he was later Time magazine's "Man Of The Year."
Most Americans remember his office for the security of the homeland, known
as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and its SchutzStaffel, simply by its most
famous agency's initials: the SS.
We also remember that the Germans developed a new form of highly violent
warfare they named "lightning war" or blitzkrieg, which, while generating
devastating civilian losses, also produced a highly desirable "shock and
awe" among the nation's leadership according to the authors of the 1996
book "Shock And Awe" published by the National Defense University Press.
Reflecting on that time, The American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin
Company, 1983) left us this definition of the form of government the German
democracy had become through Hitler's close alliance with the largest German
corporations and his policy of using war as a tool to keep power: fas-cism
(fbsh'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of
the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business
leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."
Today, as we face financial and political crises, it's useful to remember
that the ravages of the Great Depression hit Germany and the United States
alike. Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt chose very different
courses to bring their nations back to power and prosperity.
Germany's response was to use government to empower corporations and reward
the society's richest individuals, privatize much of the commons, stifle
dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, and
create an illusion of prosperity through continual and ever-expanding war.
America passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class, enforced anti-trust
laws to diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on corporations
and the wealthiest individuals, created Social Security, and became the
employer of last resort through programs to build national infrastructure,
promote the arts, and replant forests.
To the extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice is again
ours.
***************************
Thom Hartmann lived and worked in Germany
during the 1980s, and is the author of over a dozen books, including Unequal
Protection and The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight. This article is copyright
by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email,
blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached.
RETOUR SOMMAIRE
|