The railroading of Ursula Haverbeck
90-year-old political prisoner Ursula Haverbeck
By Carolyn Yeager
IN today's reporting ON URSULA HAVERBECK'S APPEAL of her two-year prison sentence, Deutsche Welle (Germany's public international broadcaster) finally got it's facts straight about what Haverbeck said about the 'Holocaust' that was against the law in Germany.
Haverbeck is in prison now in Bielefeld serving her sentence. She was denied her appeal in May against the guilty verdict of “incitement” (disturbing the public peace) because she had claimed publicly “that Auschwitz was 'not historically proven' to be a death camp, claiming it was a labor camp instead.”
Previously, DW has falsely reported that Haverbeck's claim was that Auschwitz was not a concentration camp. What Haverbeck actually said was that Auschwitz was not a 'death camp.' DW confuses the two, and has repeated this in several articles they have published. I personally wrote to them telling them they were guilty of false reporting, sloppy journalism, and an attitude that when it came to 'Holocaust' they could say anything they wanted.
[Just yesterday, DW featured the most outrageous nonsense about Auschwitz in an article by Andrea Grunau (who seems to specialize in this garbage) who interviewed 84-year-old “gypsy” survivor Mano Höllenreiner in his home filled with expensive Bavarian antiques and oriental rugs. The number tattooed on his arm has brought all this to him. You can read it here.]
The Constitutional Court rejected Haverbeck's appeal on the grounds that “Holocaust denial is not covered under the constitutional right to free speech.” Think about that. She cannot be found guilty of saying "Auschwitz has not been proven to be a death camp" because that is totally true. She can only be found guilty of saying something that is not covered by the “constitutional right to free speech.” In Germany, you are not free to question that Auschwitz was a 'death camp' because that is some kind of Holy Writ.
They tout “freedom of expression” for all citizens on every subject, except … except … except for the Jewish 'Holocaust.' The real reason for this is that the Federal Republic of Germany is an unconstitutional governmental construction that was put in place to UPHOLD the anti-German Nuremberg-Holocaust narrative. WWII has never ended for Germany–there is still no peace treaty, therefore Germany remains de jure under the control of the victors. The holocaust story is kept in place to keep Germans feeling too guilty and ashamed to rise up and retake control of their own country. It is pure indoctrination.
This special law (known as paragraph 130) in their psuedo constitution states that questioning/raising doubt about the Nuremberg-Holocaust narrative “disturbs the public peace.” What they mean is 'disturbs the public's acquiescence in our Big Lie.' They cannot let the truth come out because it will blow their whole Left-Liberal-Jewish foundation for control out of the water. Therefore this exception in the law has to remain and DW reports that “Germany's highest court reaffirmed on Friday that Holocaust denial is not covered under the constitutional right to free speech.”
“The plaintiff's remarks fall largely outside the protective scope of freedom of opinion.” Even though they're true.
Then their article goes on to repeat the usual unproved statements: “6 million Jews were systematically murdered by the Nazi regime between 1941 and 1945.” And “An estimated 1.1 million people were murdered at the camp in Nazi-occupied Poland; 90 percent of the victims were Jewish.”
You see the circular movement here. They base the beliefs approved by the (new) state on unproved war propaganda accepted in a military tribunal that was part and parcel of the war; then declare those assertions to be “obvious”—not needing to be proven (again) in court. Then they state those unproven beliefs as facts which cannot be publicly questioned without “disturbing the public peace.” Not very sophisticated; in fact, crude. But they put on red robes and sit on a high bench and solemnly state their legal finding.
Ursula Haverbeck, at 90 years of age, bravely challenges this unfree state of existence because she loves her country and her people, and she honors Truth. Will they allow her to speak when she fulfills her sentence? Probably not.
Downplaying Holocaust not always a crime
In a separate case in the Constitutional Court today, it was ruled that a man was wrongly convicted and fined for 'incitement' regarding Holocaust. The man had posted comments online that “downplayed the role of the German army in the Holocaust,” but in this case “his remarks were not deemed to pose a danger to public peace.” That means he didn't get to the heart of the matter most sacred to the Jews, who are the reason behind all these elaborate legal maneuverings.
Bookmark/Search this post with
- 3457 reads
Comments
Where's the actual proof of incitement?
Since these people cannot be found guilty on the charge that their statements are false, the phony claim that their words will "incite" violence and hatred toward jews (or any other alleged minority) is the trick being used to arrest them. Even so, it's astonishing that there is never any proof that such statements "incited" anyone to do anything. It's all built on the assumption that the words "might" incite people to whatever action. It's an entirely vacuous argument and yet, it's the law of the land.
This is why so-called hate speech laws are so insidious. Who gets to define what hate is? Who can identify the line where simple meaness becomes nastiness, when nastiness turns into cruely, and when cruelty becomes "hate"? Who can ever know what's in a person's heart and mind when they say anything? Technically, the UK has no law that literally bans questioning the holocaust, but they can easily arrest people for doing so under their so-called hate speech and incitement laws. Americans need to defend their First Amendment viciously and never let "hate speech" become a crime in the U.S. or they'll be bound and gagged just like their European brothers. There is no nuch thing as hate speech, just free speech that's hated.
Apparently
Apparently, there is a corollary to Holocaust Belief: the claim that Auschwitz was a death camp. Of course, Ursula Haverbeck contradicted that corollary, but the article on Mano mentions three times that Auschwitz was a death camp. As long as you are a Holocaust Believer, you can pile up with impunity the lies like so many piles of fictitious Jewish victims of German atrocities in certain "historical" photos - apparently.
article on Mano
What about that Mano? Of all the fake survivor stories I have read and discussed, that is among the fakiest. The shame is that DW publishes it with a straight face! People are either so cynical that lying means nothing, or so numbed to this holo-business that they don't think at all. Or no one actually reads it.
One of the main giveaways that these stories are fake, other than they exaggerate the deprivations to the utmost of their imaginations (ie. when they arrived at the gypsy camp "The only thing to eat was a bit of bread and rotten turnips." ... and "Prisoners were required to line up each morning at four" ... no one was up at four; why would they be?), they don't name anyone but their closest family members. For example, after "a doctor used one knife to sterilize his father, uncle and cousins, [Mano] and a young Polish boy hid under the triple bunk beds for days. He recalls that there were huge rats there: I almost died." Though he spent "days" alone with this boy, he doesn't have a name for him. That's so no one can trace the name to find out if there was such a person there. They are always careful that nothing they make up can be checked out.
Also, as with the "sterilization", permanent damage was done to all members of his family, but not to him. ??? He managed to avoid it. Dr. Mengele himself (who Mano did chores for!!) "operated on Mano's cousin and brother, leaving them with severe injuries", but not on Mano. He repeats the common errors about the crematoriums: "the smoke from its chimney and the smell of burnt flesh," which cannot come from crematoriums.
He is very political, has been opposed to "right-wing extremism" and the AfD party. He gives talks in schools. It all fits the profile of the professional surLIEvor.
There needs to be more outrage in response to their drummed-up outrage and expecting the world to just swallow their sick nonsensical stories. This man is safe in Germany where no one can demand accountability from him. I'm so glad I don't live in the Federal Republic. I couldn't stand it, and I do feel for our fellows there who have to tolerate this stuff up close and can't say anthing.
Historical parallels for anti-Semitic conduct
Has anyone considered employing historical parallels for anti-Semitic conduct to augment the revisionist arguments? Such as Tiberius' expulsion of Jewish youths into areas of poor climate as a means to deliberately weaken them (compare with Hitler and Goebbels' disapproval of Siberia as resettlement). Or the fact that both Antiochus Epiphanes and Caligula desecrated the Jewish temple in almost the same exact way? Epiphanes is described as a moderate and generous, in the same way Titus was, both pardoning Jews (taking some captive instead of slaughtering all of them) and the latter only punishing the leader of the rebellion.
It's occurred to me that scarcely anyone (that includes pagans) these days maintains a deep-rooted connection to the ancient world. All of it is gone and past and irrelevant to them or they are only interested in the superficial and external. Perhaps that's why Hitler wanted to retain Roman history in his proposed education reforms, even though the history of events is nowhere near as important as the history of ideas. It must be remembered that it was his teacher who had a knack for bringing teachings to life who made history AH's favorite subject.
I've recently been reading up on antiquity's (both pre-Christian and Christian) views on the Jewish question (the site SemiticControversies, albeit aligned with Alt-Right, has a treasure trove of articles addressing these subjects).
Sources - links
Janus,
It continues to bother me that you make claims without properly sourcing them. For example, this:
(compare with Hitler and Goebbels' disapproval of Siberia as resettlement)
I was unfamiliar with this from Hitler, so did a search on it. It is a quote from Goebbels' diary listed on a Metapedia page titled "Alleged statements by Hitler".
On 30 May 1942, Goebbels's diary stated that "the Führer does not at all wish that the Jews should be evacuated (evakuiert) to Siberia. There, under the harshest living conditions, they would undoubtedly develop again a strong life-element. He would much prefer to resettle (aussiedeln) them in central Africa. There they would live in a climate that would certainly not make them strong and resistant. In any case, it is the Führer’s goal to make Western Europe completely Jew-free. Here they may no longer have their homeland."[14]
Two things here. This is indirectly from Hitler via Joseph Goebbels, and G's diary is not accepted by all bc it was in the hands of the Soviets for so long and existed only in the form of typed copy on glass plates, not an actual notebook in Goebbels' handwriting. So if you're going to use it, even in a comment, you should indicate "alleged" and some idea of where it's from.
At the same time, I myself don't doubt it bc I know Hitler expressed such concerns elsewhere about the Jews; he thought long-term about the Jews' demonstrated survival skills.
Also
"It must be remembered that it was his teacher who had a knack for bringing teachings to life who made history AH's favorite subject."
Most Austrian history teachers had that knack, not just AH's. It was exactly the same for Wilhelm Kriessmann who was in the Austrian school system between the 1923 and 1938. He credited the Jesuit-trained teachers, same as Adolf had, for making Ancient and German history exciting. In an age before movies, television and even radio, this was where boys found heroes to emulate.
As to Tiberius' expulsion of Jewish youths, see https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/360251
As the Emperor, he had more power than anyone does today, but even so it was only partial and the Jews came back after awhile. Rome had the same problems we do. I don't imagine Semitic Controversies is the best place for rigorous history. I don't find any articles there about antiquity. Can you point me to them?
Sources - links
>It continues to bother me that you make claims without properly sourcing them.
It's a recent posting habit. Back when I was a Christian, I would excessively source my quotations. I've been trying to move away from that, only sourcing and invoking authority when it's necessary. Plus AH had his reservations about mentioning his sources, never directly naming Nietzsche in speeches but employing several catchphrases from him.
>I was unfamiliar with this from Hitler, so did a search on it.
From Hitler, it can be found in Table Talks, April 4, 1942: "and that no beings have greater powers of resistance as regards adaptation to climate."
>It is a quote from Goebbels' diary listed on a Metapedia page titled "Alleged statements by Hitler"... So if you're going to use it, even in a comment, you should indicate "alleged" and some idea of where it's from.
It may be listed under alleged statements but then it's being employed to counter a much abused goebbels diaries quote. I'm aware that the German translation is not readily available and that it was originally managed by the Soviets, but so far, Goebbels diaries comes off to me as perfectly consistent in it's representation of Hitler. The parts which seem to suggest killing Jews are either deliberate mistranslation or pertain to partisans.
>At the same time, I myself don't doubt it bc I know Hitler expressed such concerns elsewhere about the Jews; he thought long-term about the Jews' demonstrated survival skills.
True enough, their self-preservation (although unoriginal) served as an example and justification.
>Most Austrian history teachers had that knack, not just AH's. It was exactly the same for Wilhelm Kriessmann who was in the Austrian school system between the 1923 and 1938. He credited the Jesuit-trained teachers, same as Adolf had, for making Ancient and German history exciting. In an age before movies, television and even radio, this was where boys found heroes to emulate.
I've never heard of Leopold Poetsch being Jesuit-trained. I think you're giving Austrians too much credit. Jesuits are no different from the other teachers; they all use the tried and true drilling methods, the Jesuits are just experts at it. Like most teachers, the Jesuit-trained teachers would be reluctant to relearn everything they've been taught or experiment with new teaching methods. As such, Poetsch would have been an unique teacher.
Former Jesuit types (Weishaupt, Hitler) are the only ones who can rival the ruling powers. It was practically a feat for AH to have overcome his Catholic upbringing at a young age. Whenever someone points out NS's intolerance, fanaticism, ruthlessness, and demand for obedience, which are usually associated with "satan", I employ Mohammed's legacy as justification. I also point out how Hitler was just emulating Nature, which is intolerant and does not know sentimentality. Platterhof talks: "good and correct knowledge is not enough as the basis of the new education, but also the willingness to intolerantly destroy those who resist or will not accept it."
Also, he often justified his philosophy by pointing out that the Church had preceded him, the Church was responsible for introducing intolerance into the religious sphere. After all, the Jesuit mentality stems from Judaism.
>As the Emperor, he had more power than anyone does today, but even so it was only partial and the Jews came back after awhile. Rome had the same problems we do.
Except their intelligentsia didn't have the advantage of fully realizing that Judaism was not a religion.
Emperor Julian recognized them as a barbaric nonentity (i.e. they have no comparable generals to Alexander) and was racially conscious (he emphasizes racial differences in his essay against Christians) but still made various concessions to the Jewish community on the assumption that they cherished religion. Pliny and Porphyry readily accepted what Josephus and Philo had to say about the Jewish Essenes (the Zionists of that time).
The anti-Semitism of the Church was purely theological, excepting Marcion, leaning on the probable statements from Jesus who recognized them as a menace.
Not even theosophists had understood the Jewish question. Their resolution was that the Jews should be assimilated.
And all that is what makes AH's appearance a monumental development in the history of anti-Semitism. Adolf Hitler signaled the end of 2000 years of Jewish influence, the one who comes after him will end it decisively. "On this first and fundamental lie, the purpose of which is to make people believe that Jewry is not a people, but a religion, other lies are subsequently based." (Mein Kampf)
>I don't imagine Semitic Controversies is the best place for rigorous history. I don't find any articles there about antiquity. Can you point me to them?
See the search labels Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome.
Reply
Plus AH had his reservations about mentioning his sources, never directly naming Nietzsche in speeches but employing several catchphrases from him.
Wow. You're incorrigible! Doing it again. What could not be called a "catchphrase" from Nietzsche, even when the phrasemaker did not get it from Nietzsche? Males in our 'movement' LOVE Nietzsche and overrate his influence on Hitler. AH made a clear statement (Table Talk) that he was not an advocate or admirer of Nietzsche but there was one thing he agreed with him on, which he quoted.
Why would AH mention sources when he thought his ideas were his own? It is not about ideas anyway, but about supplying evidence for what you're claiming.
it can be found in Table Talks, April 4, 1942: "and that no beings have greater powers of resistance as regards adaptation to climate."
But this doesn't mention Siberia specifically, which the Goebbels quote does, and which is actually the one you used.
Goebbels diaries comes off to me as perfectly consistent in it's representation of Hitler. The parts which seem to suggest killing Jews are either deliberate mistranslation or pertain to partisans.
This is very amaturish reasoning. The successful hoaxes are always "consistent" with what is known about Hitler. And then to argue that anything that doesn't fit your concept must be a mistranslation is a weak argument.
I've never heard of Leopold Poetsch being Jesuit-trained. [...]
Most Austrian schoolteachers were Jesuit-trained - that was the system. Wilhelm was an Austrian; his father was an Austrian schoolteacher and a principal. Wilhelm was as fired up about history as AH was, as were his classmates. Said his teachers brought it alive for them. So why do you think you know more, as a complete outsider, than people who live there? You have never stepped foot in Europe, afaik.
Similarly, Wilhelm easily overcame his Catholic upbringing, as did his sisters and parents. So did many, many Austrians. You are just making things up to fit your fancies. That Hitler found Nature the best teacher and disliked religious intolerance is not in question.
Adolf Hitler signaled the end of 2000 years of Jewish influence, the one who comes after him will end it decisively.
Your biblical training is really showing here.
See the search labels Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome.
Aha, now I see this is Karl Radl's site. He's still at it. I know this New Yorker; the name 'Karl Radl' is a pseudonym and his site is very user-unfriendly. Really hard to manueuver on ... for me, at least. Well, you can have him if you like him--I don't. You can trust him if you want to--I don't.
It may sound like I'm trying to drive you away, but that's not the case at all. I like you, Janus, and I like your comments, but I do think you are lacking in minimum scholarship. Broad assumptions should not be made from one quote. Every belief has to have an evidential foundation that is sufficient to support it. You don't need that for your own ideas, but for what you're claiming to be Hitler's ideas and beliefs, you do. You don't speak for Hitler; he speaks for himself.
Nietzsche
>Wow. You're incorrigible! Doing it again. What could not be called a "catchphrase" from Nietzsche, even when the phrasemaker did not get it from Nietzsche?
I was just using Nietzsche as an example! Even your book has him mentioning a Nietzschean statement that he found common ground with (page 180).
>Males in our 'movement' LOVE Nietzsche and overrate his influence on Hitler.
I'm not actually that invested in Nietzsche. I'm wary of him, considering his descent into insanity (proof of his disorientation). "Those whom the gods would destroy, they first drive insane." Ernst Haeckel pinpointed Nietzsche's fatal biological mistake: an attack on all morality, everything that had become associated with morals (sympathy, compassion, altruism).
I only employ Nietzsche because:
1. Kalergi called him out as the only non-Jewish pagan philosopher (although Kalergi made the typical mistake of classifying Rousseau as an agent of chaos. Interestingly enough, Hitler acknowledge Rousseau as an anti-Semite in a 1922 speech).
2. He still has some merits (i.e. he called out Socrates like Rosenberg, furnishes testimony of Jews from a philosemite).
As for his influence, Ernst Hanfstaengl (who, of course, should be assesed with caution, as he was trying to distance himself from stigmatization) observed subtle changes in his oratory, a gradual transition from Schopenhauer to Nietzsche, also pointing out that AH had visited Nietzsche's widow.
The theologian Richard Weikart has an interesting quote which he attributed to Goebbels' diaries (I believe it was year 1943?). I could not find it in the English translation. “Nietzsche is the more realistic and more consistent one. He certainly sees the grief of the world and the human race, but he deduces from it the demand of the Superman (Ubermensch), the demand for an elevated and intensified life. Thus Nietzsche is naturally much closer to our viewpoint than Schopenhauer, even though we may appreciate Schopenhauer in some matters.”
This is consistent with what is written in the table talks. The German translation renders it, more or less: Nietzsche had overcome Schopenhauer's pessimism in a really unique way.
Anthony M. Ludovici also suggests that there was a Nietzschean influence in NS, insofar as it was conceived as a return to pre-Socratic heroic idealism. It's certain that Hitler was at least familiar with the ideas of the pre-Socratic philosophers, as he reiterates an argument from Xenophanes in his table talks (November 20, 1941). Both Rosenberg and Ley have quoted from Heraclitus. On my site, I have attempted to demonstrate that Hitler had affirmed such monistic teachings.
>AH made a clear statement (Table Talk) that he was not an advocate or admirer of Nietzsche but there was one thing he agreed with him on, which he quoted.
What was the statement?
>But this doesn't mention Siberia specifically, which the Goebbels quote does, and which is actually the one you used.
It does in the subsequent sentence.
>This is very amaturish reasoning. The successful hoaxes are always "consistent" with what is known about Hitler. And then to argue that anything that doesn't fit your concept must be a mistranslation is a weak argument.
Rauschning's book was a successful hoax yet I can only pick out one or two statements which seem like something Hitler would have said, one about the Jesuits and Catholic Church organization and another being "Man has eternally to strain at his limitations. The moment he relaxes and contents himself with them, he decays and falls below the human level. He becomes a quasi-beast. Gods and beasts, that is what our world is made of."
>Most Austrian schoolteachers were Jesuit-trained - that was the system. Wilhelm was an Austrian; his father was an Austrian schoolteacher and a principal. Wilhelm was as fired up about history as AH was, as were his classmates. Said his teachers brought it alive for them. So why do you think you know more, as a complete outsider, than people who live there? You have never stepped foot in Europe, afaik.
I see.
>Similarly, Wilhelm easily overcame his Catholic upbringing, as did his sisters and parents. So did many, many Austrians. You are just making things up to fit your fancies.
In his youth, AH wanted to blow up the Church teachings with dynamite. But as he got older, he wished to grant it a slow death. That suggests a measure of discipline which still puts him leagues ahead of most people. A lot of NS officials and personel, including Bormann and Rosenberg, wanted to see Christianity go even if it meant breeding conflict with the churches during the war.
>Your biblical training is really showing here.
Actually, that would be a minimal trace of Savitri's lingering influence. Furthermore, AH was anticipating a German messiah, "a coming man", a religious reformer. That's who I conceived my site for.
>Aha, now I see this is Karl Radl's site. He's still at it. I know this New Yorker; the name 'Karl Radl' is a pseudonym and his site is very user-unfriendly. Really hard to manueuver on ... for me, at least. Well, you can have him if you like him--I don't. You can trust him if you want to--I don't.
I don't like or trust him. I'm aware that it's a pseudonym taken from a German soldier. He's said to have been a StormFront moderator. Currently he belongs to PuritySpiral, which is Alt-Right and a symptom of decay.
I just thought it was interesting that he, at one point, took the time to examine the anti-Semitic views of the ancient world and Middle Ages. I at least prefer the site over Counter-Currents, which is also Alt-Right. Mr. "Radl" has at least addressed the Protocols of Zion passage which mentions Nietzsche and Darwin with Marx.
>It may sound like I'm trying to drive you away, but that's not the case at all. I like you, Janus, and I like your comments, but I do think you are lacking in minimum scholarship.
I see.
>Broad assumptions should not be made from one quote. Every belief has to have an evidential foundation that is sufficient to support it. You don't need that for your own ideas, but for what you're claiming to be Hitler's ideas and beliefs, you do. You don't speak for Hitler; he speaks for himself.
That's why I have prepared a whole string of quotes. I make sure that I have a firm foundation at all times, as I don't want to end up like Nietzsche. As Schopenhauer put it, "no lotus without a stem."
Reply on Nietzsche
I was just using Nietzsche as an example!
An example of what? That's the whole point I'm trying to make. One example doesn't prove the broad claims you tend to make. In this case, it is:
AH had his reservations about mentioning his sources, never directly naming Nietzsche in speeches but employing several catchphrases from him.
Is that actually true? You don't make the argument but simply state it, and by naming a few Greeks pose as the expert. What does any of it have to do with Hitler? Would Hitler agree with it? If you want us to go to your website to find more on it, then link to exactly where that can be found.
When I go to your website with the best of intentions, I can't stay more than five minutes ... because it leads me nowhere. Becomes more and more confusing and irrelevant the longer I look.
Even your book has him mentioning a Nietzschean statement ...
That's the one I was referring to, thanks! "One sentence of Nietzsche's I identify with: What today can prove if one be of value or not?--that he is steadfast." Nothing there about a superman.
AH went to see Nietzsche's sister (not his widow - he never married) because she was a professed National Socialist and supporter, and N. being a world-famous German, that made her very helpful. AH always acknowledged N as one of the greatest German philosophers, but without adopting his ideas per se.
I only employ Nietzsche because:[...]
All the men you mention here cannot be stand-ins for Hitler; their opinion of Nietzsche doesn't matter one whit as far as H is concerned.
Rauschning's book was a successful hoax yet I can only pick out one or two statements which seem like something Hitler would have said ...
Rauschning's book was NOT a successful hoax, it was only promoted and used by H's enemies. "Hitler's Diary" was a successful hoax.
"Man has eternally to strain at his limitations. The moment he relaxes and contents himself with them, he decays and falls below the human level. He becomes a quasi-beast. Gods and beasts, that is what our world is made of." (quote from Rauschning's book)
This does not sound like something Hitler would say at all.
That's why I have prepared a whole string of quotes. I make sure that I have a firm foundation at all times ...
Your selection of quotes don't give me a sense of a firm foundation. That's the point, again, that I'm trying to make. This is not scholarship. It is circular. As I read any page on your website, I feel further and further away from your intended aim. What you have there dilutes - does not lead me to it. It is 10% Hitler and 90% other people, and too many Greeks and Romans. You are trying, for some reason, to show that Hitler had a "religion" and it was ancient "Hylozoics". You don't even have an explanation of what Hylozoics is any more. I would not be surprised if you changed the name of your site one of these days and dropped the Hylozoic.
Hylozoics
Yes, at least three speeches.
Very well.
Forgive me for my lack of organization. I thought I had already made it clear that I was not naturally adapted for this task. I am only a cataloguer at best and I only took it up because there was no one else to be found. I've contacted various occultists, pagans, Christians, nationalists, fascists, communists, etc. to gauge their level of development and they all come off to me as utterly primitive. Time and time again they've proven they don't see the bigger picture.
Well, forgive me for not being afforded the opportunity to enroll in an university/college. I may not have the peer-reviewed backing or even a publisher, but at least I see Hitler for what he was: the herald of a higher view of life which will be most certainly accepted in the next century. It is beyond NS and it's foundation in recent times was laid down by Charles Spencer and Ernst Haeckel.
That is an exaggeration. I needed those other people to show that Hitler affirmed the views and ideas of humanists, idealists, visionaries, and martyrs. And besides those Greeks and Romans would have been appreciated by Hitler if he had lived today.
It will gradually become the most accepted view in the future (possibly the next century), being rooted in a hygienic path: Copernican revolution, Pythagoras and Plato, and pre-Socratic "philosophers". It is the antithesis to Marxism's foundation (Democritus). This ideological conflict has been fought over a millennia, NS and Marxism are merely their modern incarnations.
If I can demonstrate that Hitler had adhered to this revolutionary view of life and was leagues ahead of the contemporaries of his time, that should help accelerate his rehabilitation.
Table Talk entries October 14 & 24, 1941 has him affirming the idea that organic and inorganic matter have no boundaries and that the universe consists of the one and the same matter, which is also stated in his September 6, 1938 speech: "Allein Planeten und Sonnen bestehen aus einer Substanz." The speech's transcript matches the audio recording.
It's a fact that the status quo and Jews (i.e. Arthur Galston, Steven Rose) have systematically opposed any conceptions of superphysical realities. The reason why the supernatural (i.e. miracles in Christianity) is tolerated is because it's absurd and linked to Judaism.
Thanks for pointing that out to me. Admittedly, I focused too much on adding quotes that I ended up neglecting the explanation.
Most people interpret hylozoism to mean that all matter is alive. Due to the lack of clarification, this leads them to naively believe that all things share the same kind of soul/consciousness. Hylozo-ics (note the suffix) pertains to the study of the varying degrees of consciousness. A rock obviously doesn't experience life the way we do. But as we progress from plants to animals to humans, a spark of consciousness develops. https://aeon.co/essays/beyond-the-animal-brain-plants-have-cognitive-capacities-too http://www.animalcognition.org
It was once accepted by both the ancient West and East as the only tenable outlook on life, the only view that afforded clarity. Pythagoras represented it's Western branch, which later fell into disrepair. With Nietzsche came a revival for Aryan heroism and ethics but that was thwarted by his own impiety. Theosophy was a possible attempt to restore the Western branch, but that too collapsed, with an increasing fixation on Eastern conceptions. NS was a projection of Hitler's private philosophy, which was derived from the Greeks; it was only outwardly Christian and Germanic paganism (the latter represented by Himmler). Hitler, recognizing that the Wotan cult was dead and impoverished (lacking it's original basis of knowledge, much like Christianity), turned to the Greeks to resupply it's foundation. That was thwarted by the Jews. An anonymous Swedish "philosopher" emerged in the aftermath of WW2 with his own formulations for it, attempting to make it more suited for a Western audience, but that attempt was jeopardized in it's assessment of the Jewish question (although he recognizes them as a menace) and WW2. I have come to lay down such a foundation for a future Hitler type, the anticipated German messiah/religious reformer. Of course, it was never my wish to don the mask of an idealist. As you know, I have no stake in anything. I am nihilistic. But like I said, I couldn't find anyone else who saw the bigger picture.
I actually changed the site's name recently, but nonetheless I have no intention of dropping the latter.
But is it true?
My “is that actually true” question referred to your statement:
AH had his reservations about mentioning his sources, never directly naming Nietzsche in speeches but employing several catchphrases from him.
You've given me three speeches, two of which are saying the same thing, and we don't know the source of the third. But even so, this is very weak evidence that “AH had reservations” or that he often employed Nietzsche's thinking directly in his speeches. This is why I ask: Is that really true? When you consider how many speeches Hitler made, how many people quoted him, etc, this is not much. It does not establish your statement about AH as correct. You should write your comments more carefully, as in saying you have a couple of examples of 'something' that might shed light, but not as a confirmed fact.
This is the best example of your habit of going around a question. I'm going to write an article on your concept of “Hylozoic Hitler” but it won't be posted immediately. We have run out of reply space and I think this is an interesting and useful topic.
Interested
Carolyn, I'd be interested in your forthcoming article on Janus's concept of "Hylozoic Hitler" when you get around to it. I have followed your debate with him and he with you with great interest here.
free speech
Ursula Haverbeck is a great woman. She has become part of my teaching as a woman who embodies intellectual honesty and courage.
A related story is now coming out that the United States government is locking up so called ‘Nazi’ art confiscated at the end of the war. They call it propaganda and will not allow the public to see it. It’s that good! And no one is protesting. And those who do are silenced.
I couldn’t believe that the report was not critical of this action but rather affirming it, like, we don’t want those crazy neo-Nazis to be encouraged. But if that were the case what better encouragement than to lock it up?
Hitler was a pretty good artist, too, besides being a first rate writer and thinker. But we dare not say that for otherwise we might get the impression that he was a human being who loved his country.
Regardless, locking away art is against humanity and everything that is good about human beings and the West. Unconscionable. Here is the real treason against the America. But, here is where the Jews are taking us.
stolen german art
Al, I just looked at the year-old story in the Washingtonian -- it leaves me with mixed feelings.
It's true the US Army, individual servicemen, and a special task force stole everything they could lay their hands on and it ended up in the US. The very large "military" paintings that are shown, though, are being preserved in excellent condition. If they had remained in Germany, who knows what would have happened to them in the hateful post-war atmosphere.
However, the German artists begged for their work to be returned bc they hoped they could turn it into much-needed money in their post-war poverty. But when the Army did return over1600 totally non-offensive (landscapes, etc) artworks in 1950, the German government (Adenauer) didn't want them and kept the shipment in storage in Bonn for 20 years!! Just goes to show that the worst enemy of the German people are their fellow Germans of the opposing political persuasion.
This article says that Hitler ordered artists to portray him as a military leader and hero but that is not true. They did that on their own. He did encourage paintings/sculptures representing the bravery of the Wehrmacht troops, as is common of all governments.
This is what turns me off though -- the woman who runs the art storage place, a 'self-taught expert' said of the four watercolors by Adolf Hitler that are stored there:
“In terms of his draftsmanship, he’s proficient. You know, if I took an art class, I’d be happy with the results if I painted that. But I find personally that the more I look at these, the creepier they get.”
Really? Landscapes and townscapes get creepier? You don't imagine that comes from your bias and twisted beliefs, do you? Poor fool.
They admit the majority of the German artwork there is NOT in any way propagandistic, so there was no reason to seize it. The US is responsible for taking care of it now. Maybe some day we will have matured enough that we could put it in a special museum of its own, celebrating a German-American peace treaty.
Thanks
Thanks. You are always so kind and informative. I just saw the story yesterday on IPT and it appeared to be something taking place at the time of this report. Regardless, to lock these works up is on a par with book burning.
This morning, found this in
This morning, found this in Breitbart:
https://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2018/08/05/german-court-rejects-case-of-holocaust-denying-nazi-grandma/
Breitbart is jewish. That's
Breitbart is jewish. That's the official report, almost word for word what DW put out, though it's from AFP. The comments hit it though.
leo frank.
Glad to see you are still up and running and sharing truth. The Leo Frank article* you did still stand the test of time. Have a blessed day, you and your loved ones.
*http://carolynyeager.net/search/node/Leo%20Frank
You link to a report on DW --
You link to a report on DW -- as some may know, DW recently decided to no longer allow comments below the stories it publishes on its various web sites -- readers may want to ask why they felt that was necessary -- one clue: they repeatedly and childishly refer to Ursula Haverbeck as the "Nazi grandma" -- DW is just another part of the German Lügenpresse, and more and more people were seeing/realizing that, and commenting along those lines.
But isn't it all hearsay?
So, when in Germany, if someone asks me about 'The Holocaust' and I say I don't know that it happened as it was before my time, hence to me its hearsay, and so, asking about any details, from my having gotten it (all I know about the Hiolocaust) from hearsay, I could go to jail?
I wasn't born yet, and what I've heard about what the Allies did to Germans after the WWII, it makes me rather ill. My Grandfather was 100% German, and was born in the year 1891, died at 73 in 1963. In seeking answers about he and his wife, who was Scot/Irish 77 died same year, but people only hear 'German' and any asking questions is derailed and I'm a denier, and of course I didn't know what that even meant, but then I heard of Revisionists, which to me, was science topic given a second look, but the term appears very specific to those who read about and ask questions about The Holocaust not to debunk but, seems they'r the only ones asking questions. David Cole, a Jewish man, a designer of gas chambers Leuchtner(sp,sorry) also a man, and David Irving, who tells of seeing British archives that showed how the gas chamber propaganda had run its course, according to someone else. Seems I opened a can of worms unexpectedly, found Ursula, and others in jail for asking questions, and the idea that due to not covered by a Constitutional under free speech, the poor Ursula in jail for zilch, really.
Thanks for this site.
No, Raymond, you wouldn't go
No, Raymond, you wouldn't go to jail in Germany for saying that. It takes more than that. But it's doubtful anyone in Germany would ask you about the 'holocaust' because no one talks about it there. On something like a news show, it might be mentioned but only as a fact of life. No one would ask someone else 'what they thought.' It's not treated as something one can have a opinion on.
Glad you had a fully German grandfather. I had two, and they were married to German women. So we know what good folks they were. No Germans would ever do the things they're accused of doing by the Jewish vindictives, the communists and the war enemies.
Ursula Haverbeck INJUSTICE!
Shame! Shame on these people for jailing this woman! How is this possible? Can they not see the absolute hypocrisy in their action? Whatever You believe or deny, however you view her opinion on this matter is completely irrelevant to the fact that she is simply expressing her opinion, inviting discussion on a topic long overdue for scrutiny. To jail her, with her having committed no violent crime, no crime at all (!)....how can they not see the clear hypocrisy in their action? This is exactly the reaction and behavior expected of a fascist state, exactly the behaviour traditionally portrayed as ”NAZI”. It leaves me feeling so dark and empty that it could happen...it leaves me questioning why. Why would a “truth”, something real and obvious, require such draconian legal protection?