Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Understanding National Character

If you go back to Army or Navy Intelligence reports from the 1930s you'll often find references to "national character" as describing impressionistically the traits easily associated with a particular society.

These reports weren't systemmatic or the product of any social science, they were merely the opinions of intelligence officers.    But within intelligence work the notion of national character never left because it's vital, and just because it can be as simple as one person's opinions about the predominant traits of a society doesn't mean it can't be accurate, perhaps very accurate.

But by the time I got involved in psychological warfare and communications work for the government the tool of national character was more refined although ultimately probably no more accurate - it was still the product of personal, impressionistic observations about the traits which distinquish one society or culture from another.     Outside of government work academics and the public, particularly marginally educated college degreed people, feel threatened by the term because it implies that everyone in a particular culture behaves exactly the same way.     For political rather than factual reasons acedemics and media wishes to promote the view that aggregate traits don't exist because not everyone in that group may follow them.    This way of thinking began, of course, in the progressive movement of the 1960s which turned the term "sterotype" into a perjorative when in fact the term "sterotype" is a totally valid athropological term describing a set of traits which predominate in a group.     It doesn't have to apply to every individual in a group to be a description of what predominates.

What amazed me when I became familiar with the national characters of different cultures was how these characters carried over within ethnic groups in America, even generations after they came here from their former homelands.    Particularly the impact the national characters of the British who came to America has had on the foreign policy of the United States - to it's detriment.

Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright once said that she, "always believed in the goodness of American power."    And she was a professor of American foreign policy?   What an ignorant and outrageously jingositic statement to make, but it reflected her actual opinon, obviously based on not having read anything about American history.

The people I worked with in government were a diverse lot.   Some of them were poorly educated mechanics, assassins who were little more than soldiers although the held officers rank.    In the U.S. military it's not unusual to have officers who have little or no education.    These were men of action and they had, at least at one time, strongly held opinions.  In the 1950s and 1960s the U.S. military, from which these officers were drawn, were full of people with hawkish, jingoistic beliefs which were based on what they'd read in the newspapers and other totally distorted information.   The average American military officer in the post-war period was probably the most poorly informed and actually stupid creature any armed service has ever produced in the modern era.

I'll give you one example.    In the 1920s and 1930s the most admired and well-known American soldier among military personnel was the legendary Marine soldier and General Smedley Darlington Butler.    General Butler was the founder of the modern Marines, won the Congressional Medal of Honor twice, and was a celebrated soldier and commander.    However when he began expressing dissenting views about the ways the Marines had been used in third world interventions the War Department tried to frame him by cooking up false criminal charges and he was Court Marshalled.     He defended himself in that trial and he won.    Thereafter he realized the depths of depravity which prevailed in the upper reaches of the War Department and the government which had used his patriotism for ill purposes.    He wrote the book "War is a Racket," and thereafter spoke and lectured widely on the mercantilist and imperial nature of American foreign policy.    And yet as soon as the U.S. entered the Second World War his name and legacy became completely forgotten by U.S. servicemen and officers.     All of his warnings and sage advice was swept away, and thereafter a new and comforting set of myths were fabricated keeping in line with the ridiculous statement of Madeline Albright decades later.

But not all the people I worked with were mechanics or sheep-dipped military officers.    The primary people I worked with were intellectuals who knew exactly who Smedley Butler was, and believed that American foreign policy, particulary it's war-making, had been the product of an imperialistic strain running through the social elites of America.    The other factor was a close cultural association with Britain in which elite Americans took the British point of view on each and every matter although the British were almost always the aggressors just as much as they were on our continent in 1776 as well as 1812.    Particularly horrendous was the way American policy was shaped by the British against Germany throughout, and this had desasterous effects on international events and U.S. interests.

Americans naturally think that the history of their country reflects what "Americans" have done, and assume that people of any nationality would have done the same things.     But this far from the truth.    The history of America is the history of particular ethnic groups which went there and behaved according to their national characters as they existed before the came to America.     The correct way to view the United States is that it is the repository of different national characters, or ethnic characters, which are not consistent or co-ordinated with each other.     

The primary groups which have shaped American government actions have been the English and the Scotch-Irish.     It is the national characters of these two groups which vastly predominate and have been responsible for the aggression, imperialism and enslavement which has characterized American government action, policy and law.     

The national character of the English is based on two competing elements - feudalism and common law.      The history of England is basically that of organized crime - gangsterism and the law of the sword.     The feudal social system of England wasn't even one in which Englishmen owned and abused other Englishmen.     The last English king was killed in the battle of Hastings in 1066.    Thereafter England was ruled by kings which didn't even speak English.     The people of England have been now proven genetically to have been the simple inhabitants which have always lived there for thousands of years.    The myths of history that the English are composed of the Germanic Celts or the Angles and Saxons is all myth.     Those, as well as the Normans which conquered England in 1066 were merely foreign invaders which stole the land and enslaved the population.     These leaders falsely claimed that their Gods had determined their legitimacy, but they were in fact nothing more than gangsters with hired muscle which stole the land and all its resources.    Even the royal family there today are not English at all but are from central and eastern Europe.     There real name isn't even "Windsor" as they claim.      

The chief national characteristics of English life and their social system has been slavery, of vulnerable peoples such as the Irish, then Africans or others. Feudalism doesn't allow much rights if any to the surfs, and surfdom was much like slavery save the actual ownership of the enslaved by his master.    In feudalism wealth is gained by owning property, land principally, rather than craftmanship, trade, or other forms of creative activities.    English and even Scottish economy was based on taking land from others, forcing the inhabitants to work for you creating what you needed, trading with what was left over, etc.      As England developed it defeated the rival naval powers and gained a dominance of the seas, thereby allowing it to exploit and plunder vulnerable nations they could reach by sea in a global practice of their feudalistic turned mercantilistic culture.     They became traders but not by trading fairly - their form of trade was to conquer other cultures which were rich in material goods and then force them to trade in unfair conditions.     The English liked to read the Roman historian Livy, and romantacized the Roman empire as one of civilization being brought to the world by the sword much as Islam saw itself as a civilizing force brought to the world by the sword.    The English rationalized their plunder of their conquered cultures in this absurd manner.

As is the case with cultures, the dominating trend will often bring about a contrary influence thereby not found in other cultures.    For the English this contrary trend was law.     English common law is stronger than anywhere in the west, or the east for that matter, but it's not because the English are empathetic - it's because they've traditionally been less so.    It's because of the harshness of English surfdom and slavery that rebellions and revolutions arose.     In particular the will of the kings to abuse their own gentry and nobles caused revolutions against despotism which resulted in law to protect commoners and nobles alike from the crown.      The alliance of commoners and nobles against the despotism of the king resulted in a check on the powers of the crown by force of arms which was enshrined in law from which subsequent kings couldn't trespass least their nobles and their commoner soldiers would move to remove the king and probably kill him.    As in all political systems in which power is shared it came about not because the ones holding power thought it a just idea - it was brought about as a forced compromise to promote harmony and stability.    It was imposed by force on the previously powerful.

The Scotch Irish

The other tremendous influence on American actions and history has been the role of the "Scotch Irish."     This term is largely an Americanism, and actually refers to all protestants from Ulster who immigrated to America.     The national culture of these protestants from Ireland has been fundamental in determining the aggression and exploitation with which Americans have treated each other and all others.

Here's an example.     I met the Director of a credit union in Texas.    He was a short man who attended methodist church regularly, often sharing his Sunday school class with George W. Bush when he was Governor.    This credit union Director came to be so largely because he was the credit union's largest depositor, although he never held any high paying employment.   He was merely a state bureaucrat who'd married a woman who'd inherited oil properties which provided lavish royalties which they deposited.     One day he boasted to me of his business prowess, which he gave me examples of, including that when in the Navy in the 1950s that he used to loan money to other sailors for 100% interest for a few days until they'd be paid.   He boasted that he worked [shuffled papers] on the ships in offices where he knew if anyone was going to be transferred, and that on pay day he always followed his creditors to the pay table so he'd be paid his 100 percent for the few days of the loan.    In his mind this was being a good businessman.    Then he went on to tell me how he grew up "poor" on a farm in central Texas, and that his father always had a bunch of niggers living on the farm so that he always had a driver, his mother always had a cook, a washer-woman, etc.... But of course they were poor and never had any money - BUT THE NIGGERS NEVER WENT HUNGRY.    The niggers always had enough to eat.     From his father he also gained the addig that "it was better to be the one collecting the interest rather than paying it."    So perhaps they weren't really as short on cash as they claimed.     Anyway he also explained how his family came to Texas in the nineteenth century from Tennessee, from where so many such Texans had come with their slaves, including the defenders of the Alamo, etc.

So without knowing his name I gathered that he was of Scotch Irish ancestry, and I shared this with him in the form of a question which he proudly answered affirmatively.   Of course his family were originally from Scotland, but moved to Ulster in the seventeeth century whereupon they dispossessed the local Irish, taking their lands and making them into surfs........

Get the picture.

I always like to speak about the defenders of the Alamo, and the other sod-busters who came to Texas from other southern states such as Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia and the like.    These people were all protestants which were tossed out of either Scotland or England by the crown for their religious dissent as methodists, Preysbeterians, or other forms of anti-establishment Calvinists.      Once they landed in the "Queen's Plantation of Ulster" they threw the native Ulster Catholics off their land and set themselves up as would-be gentry.    Alas but they really weren't ever able to succeed at such, due to shortages of land, the ill-will of the Irish whom they tried to exploit, and a mountain of other barriers to their ambitions leading them to try the same crimes in America.

Once in America the "Scotch Irish" uniformly upheld and practiced slavery - first of Irish slaves brought to the new world and then of slaves brought over from Africa [which were more expensive to acquire than the Irish].   They fanned out across anywhere with available land, and moved with great cruelty to throw any native off entirely and without any quarter or compromise whatsoever.    In this regard the names Wilson and Jackson are key names of protestants who lived in Ulster.     Andrew Jackson is typical of these types of characters, and it was the other protestants of Ulster descent in America who were his frontier supporters versus the more genteel Americans of English descent who were the upper crust establishment in opposition - a social rivalry merely brought over from Britain.

Andrew Jackson was a man obcessed with proving his honor, a man obcessed with being a man of property, status and standing.    Since he'd inherited none of these he attained by taking it - the land from native indians which he and his other protestant frontiersmen slaughtered by the thousands or hundreds of thousands.    Having taken the land they planted cash crops with which they purchased slaves to work the land, thereby producing profit, and then competing with other monied individuals for fame and celebrity and power.    Any slights to his honor by means of verbal insult were never overlooked by usually met with violence.     Once in office as President he set about to remove all natives from their lands completely, by force, and in genocidal manner.     Unlike all the Presidents of English ancestry such as Madison, Jefferson and Washington, Jackson willed that after his death that his slaves WOULD NOT BE EMANCIPATED.      Furthermore as a Scotch Irishman Jackson admired only landed gentry and despised anyone who made their living by trade.    He despised bankers, traders, or anyone involved in finance or the like.     In his world only the landed gentry had honor, and strangely in his protestant Ulster culture this need not be inherited either - it and the false honor it bestowed in his criminal mind could simply be taken.    In short, the Scotch Irish are criminals, pure and simple. 

Most American Presidents have been of either direct of partial Scotch Irish decent.     Most notably President Polk was entirely so, and it was he of course who was the architect of the Mexican war of 1845 in which much of the country was appalled that their nation had made war on Mexico purely to aggress and steal their lands by force.      Other Presidents of pure decent are Grant, Wilson, Andrew Johnson, and many or most others were of partial decent such as Bill Clinton, Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt for examples.

Other National Characters by Contrast

But the best way to see clearly the effects of these two groups from Britain is to witness how other nationalities behaved in contrast.    For example, many Italians lived in Louisiana and the cities of the south, including Texas, in their frontier days.    Did any Italians own slaves?   I don't think so.    I don't think they coveted land itself as a source of wealth either.

Nor did other northern European groups such as the Norwegians, Sweds or Germans.     Large numbers of Germans left the Reine Valley in the 19th century and settled in the west and the south, including Texas.   Yet no Germans who settled in the south or Texas owned slaves.    Slavery and feudalism was foreign to them and they despised it.    My favorite example of German immigrants in the west were those of Comal county just north of Texas' principle city of San Antonio in the 1850s.     The architect Frederick Olmstead, who also designed Central Park in New York City, visited Comal county and wrote of the culture there.      By the 1890s there were 92 different firearms or shooting clubs in the county, which possessed it's own mounted militia, the "Comal Rifles."    In 1861 when President Lincoln invaded Virginia and Maryland with an armies of volunteers to prevent these states from self-determination the voters of Comal County voted 239 to 41 to seceed from the union, although none of the county's German inhabitants owned slaves.

The German example is particularly telling because despite the militaristic image Americans have of them due to pro-English propaganda, the Germans were unique among the powers of Europe in their non-aggression.    In particular, while the English, Spanish, French, Dutch, Belgians and even Italians were happily practicing imperial plunder anywhere their ships and armies would take them it never occurred to Germans to do anything of the kind.    The idea of sending armies abroad to conquer and plunder foreign cultures would never occur to any German, Swiss, Norwegian, Finn or Swed.   That kind of cruelty and exploitation isn't in the individual temperaments of those peoples, who are individually much more possessed of empathy and altruism than their neighbors.   This is the reason why there is virtually no crime in any of the northern European cultures.    There is certainly no such thing as "Norwegian gangsters" or "German organized crime."     

As is always the case when a culture has a strong characteristic it almost always at some point form a contrary element, and in terms of the Germans this manifested itself in the Nazi period with efforts by the state to overcome the German traits of empathy and altruism.     While conducting the war Hitler and his subordinants were constantly having to exhort the Germans regarding the "necessity of being fanatic,"and the terrible "necessity of showing no mercy," etc..... When did the leaders of Poland or Russia ever give a speech telling their soldiers that they must show no mercy.....never.    It wasn't necessary.   Cruelty and remorseless savagery were the norm.

This of course is the opposite of the image the American public has been indoctrinated to believe, not even directly from any government propaganda but from popular media such as documentaries not to mention fictional films.   However the truth about the humanity of German soldiers versus all others is well known to those aquainted with the facts.     For example, in the German army there were no cases of rape of anyone during the war.    In fact in the German army rape was punishable by death - immediately carried out if it ever occurred, and it never did.    Contrast this with the Soviet army.     In the communist army rape was encouraged, and was practiced by enlisted man and officers at all levels everywhere they went.    They not only raped German women by the millions once they reached Germany but also raped Polish girls, Romanian girls, Czech women, Slovenian and Hungarian teens, and so forth.   Raping of women was practiced by Stalin himself as well as many or most members of the Politbureau and certainly their intelligence Chief the Jewish Beria, who was known to drive around Moscow and kidnap girls and rape them. The Red Army was also full of female soldiers and partisans who evidently looked the other way.....

The American army certainly didn't encourage but it didn't punish it either when it occurred.   American soldiers raped from time to time and it was never punished.    In fact the American military has a culture of rape which persists strongly today, and each year thousands, or tens of thousands, of female soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are themselves raped by superior officers who are almost never punished.    Many women are raped more than once, and this issue has remained hidden from the public for decades until in 2013 the matter finally boiled over and became an issue in Congress.    The fact that this situation existed so long with no public awareness merely underlines how obscure the realities of the American military are from the public, and how simple it actually is to keep secrets there.    As well in WWII American soldiers did [contrary to myth] routinely execute prisoners just as the German Waffen SS often did. American troops were actually however more known for plunder.   American officers were fond of stealing anything they could not only in Germany, but in France, Holland, Italy or anywhere else they found themselves, and it was impossible for them to discipline enlisted men from doing likewise.   On an individual moral level American soldiers were far less consciencious than their German counterparts, and far less disciplined when it came to the treatment of civilians.    

National Characters In Europe

Much can be said and analysis applied to the various national characters of the nations of Europe.    Within such a small space there is immense differences on many levels.    However on only a superficial level the most striking thing is the economic performance of some cultures relative to others.

What's striking about Europe is the extreme disparity in wealth and economic conditions from one country to another, and these factors are clearly broken down by ethnic factors.

In Germany and Scandinavia economic performance is always high, even when it's low everywhere else.    This despite the lack of natural resources and the need of these countries to import much of what they need.    And the Scandinavian countries are not even great exporters and certainly have little heavy industry.    Germany is always the strongest economy in Europe year in and year out, and unlike Scandinavia it's success is based much on export, heavy industry, and maintaining a competitive advantage versus trading partners in manufacturing.

Norway in particular is interesting in that at the present time it's the wealthiest country on earth due to their saving of oil revenues over the last three decades. Their soverign wealth fund is now one trillion dollars and climbing, larger than that of the Saudis and so forth, and they refuse to invest any of it in Norway least they over-heat their own economy.    This is of course very advantageous for them, however the Norwegians enjoyed the highest standard of living in the world even before any oil was found there.     By all measurable standards the Norwegians maintained a standard of living higher than America or any other country, even when their only industry was fishing for Herring and Cod.    Nor has their high rate of taxation and generous welfare state hampered economic performance either.

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Kennedy Assassination

In Mein Kampf Hitler states that the public is more easily misled by a huge lie than by small ones.    Hitler observes that the public grants huge lies believability because the implications of their leaders being so dishonest are unthinkable.

This is what applies to those currently in government, media and academics who are in denial about the inevitable conclusion that John Kennedy was killed by people in his own government, just as people in France's government at the same time sought to kill their President, Charles DeGaulle [and for similar reasons].    For the French their President was not in denial about the willingness of some around him to contemplate assassination, so he prepared himself and therefore the plots against him failed.    For Kennedy however his faith in the American system caused him to deny the signs that those around him wanted him dead.    He took no precautions, and therefore ended up dead on a stretcher at Parkland hospital in Dallas, the victim of a wide-ranging conspiracy which included hundreds of people.

Living in Texas, there was much suspicion here that Lyndon Johnson arranged for Kennedy to be killed, and time and evidence has demonstrated that to be accurate.   Johnson was in fact the linchpin of the conspiracy.    Others who conducted it would never have done so without the participation of the next President.   With his cooperation though there was no risk that anyone would be accused or punished.    With the next President in the loop the plan was guaranteed success.    That's the sole reason why it happened.

As in most major crimes of this sort it was done for reasons of defense rather than ambition.    Johnson was assured to be indicted for his many financial crimes and acts of corruption which allowed him to become a rich man shortly after arriving in Washington a penniless politician from the Texas hill country.   The only person who could intervene to disrupt these criminal investigations was the Attorney General, the President's brother Robert, and unfortunately for Johnson he had alienated Robert completely with his personal animosity against him.    Johnson was a psychologically unstable man with enormous personal malice within him, and Robert was merely one among many who for whatever reason Johnson framed with a passionate hatred although Robert had done absolutely nothing to deserve it.     That was Lyndon's personality and made him among the most hated personalities in Texas among many.

The process began with Lyndon.    He was a killer, had ordered the killing of others before, and so there no inhibitions working against this decision once he understood how it would succeed.    At that time in Texas murder wasn't a strange thing.     Murder in Texas was much more common than in other, less wild places of American society.    Murder was almost commonplace.

Lyndon broached the topic first with C.I.A. officer Cord Meyer.   Meyer had various motives for wanting to see Kennedy go, and took the idea to Allen Dulles, the man who headed C.I.A. during it's powerful era of the 1950s until he was dismissed by President Kennedy for many reasons.   With the support of Dulles the plan was assured.     Thereafter it was only a matter of recruiting motivated subordinates to carry it out.     Among those who participated within C.I.A. were David Phillips from Fort Worth, Texas, who set up the frame of Lee Oswald and recruited the team which performed the shooting.    Working with the team also was officer William Harvey, who informed one of his personal friends, La Cosa Nostra figure John Rosselli, who informed several American mafia bosses in various cities who spoke about it in telephone conversations recorded by the F.B.I.     Nothing in these conversations reveals that anyone in the American mafia undertook the plan - only that they expected the assassination to occur and that some welcomed it.    

After the assassination for those who knew of it's actual perpetrators there was nowhere to go, no law enforcement agency which would act.    The President himself would block any investigation by the Justice Department, and it appears that the F.B.I. was only interested in participating in the cover-up of any government involvement [if not actually participating in the killing as well].    At a minimum the F.B.I. had claimed that Lee Oswald acted alone and was motivated by personal reasons.   They made this conclusion on the same day as the killing without any investigation to speak of.    Anyone who's tried convincing a law enforcement agency or prosecutor that they're wrong about a matter and should reconsider knows that it's a fool's errand.    F.B.I. would follow no subsequent leads no matter what they might be.    The crime took place in Texas and Lyndon had law enforcement there all sewn up.    The particular city and county in which it occurred was unbelievably corrupt.    It was among the cities in the nation with the highest homocide rate anywhere, and killings  and those getting away with same in that town were as ordinary as the white steadson hats Dallas detectives loved to show off wearing.

So let's turn to the evidence, three undeniable and otherwise unexplainable facts which cannot be ignored.    It was afterall a large and sloppy conspiracy. 

Phony Secret Service Agents in Dealy Plaza

Look no further than the "Warren Report" [Johnson's Official Commission on who shot Kennedy] and it's right there - Dallas police and others reporting that they encountered people in the area claiming that they were there with the Secret Service when in fact the Secret Service had no such people there.   These were falsely credentialed persons who were there for other reasons, presumably to kill the President, and they were able to avoid detention by using their false IDs.    Would be debunkers who claim that Oswald acted alone have no answer to this because there can be none.   They pretend, insincerely, that it doesn't exist.

Testimony of Parkland Hospital Staff that Kennedy was shot from the front

Almost twenty people at the hospital which Kennedy was taken to saw that there was a large exit wound in the back of the President's head.    At least seventeen over the years recorded this observation in interviews.    However the drawings and photos presented from the President's autopsy made by military officers at Bethesda Naval Hospital show only an exit wound in the front, rather than the back, of the President's head.     There is much other evidence as to how these autopsy items were fabricated, and the President's brain was removed and subsequently lost, but there can be no doubt that fabrication occurred.    It is not possible for the entire staff of Parkland hospital to be mistaken about a huge hole in the back of the President's head.   Contrary to the claims of would be debunkers [which are mere wishful thinking] it is simply not possible for seventeen medical professionals to be wrong about such a matter.

David Phillips Admission that Oswald was never in Mexico City

C.I.A. officer David Atlee Phillips was the founder of the C.I.A.'s organization of retired officers, can be found appearing in the film, "On Company Business" bragging about the immoral nature of his work, and loved to make public appearances on College campuses and even debated assassination researchers.

David Phillips, who was from Texas and was known in his C.I.A. capacity by members of my own family from San Antonio, was an affable man who loved the spotlight and headed the Western Hemisphere Division of the Clandestine Services.

As part of the frame of Oswald, Phillips fabricated pictures and audio tape in Mexico city weeks before the assassination purporting to show that Oswald visited the Soviet and Cuban missions there seeking to return to Russia, and met with a KGB officer who was claimed [falsely I might add] to have "been the KGB person responsible for assassination in the Western Hemisphere [as though there was such an office title in the KGB].

The point of the frame was to convince others in government, and perhaps the public, that Oswald was perhaps acting on orders from the KGB and that therefore it was too dangerous to national security to dig deeper into the assassination and that the whole matter should be forgotten.    This ruse was used by the conspiracy participants time and time again to alarm the public into going along with the F.B.I's story that Oswald acted alone.   For example Johnson told Chief Justice Earl Warren that he MUST agree to chair the President's inquiry because the public mustn't know that Oswald might have been acted as a Soviet agent because if they suspected such they would cry out for revenge and a war with Russia might ensue.     Johnson also told Walter Cronkite in an interview after he was no longer President that he believed Oswald acted in conjunction with others, and Johnson made this statement to many others all the time, furthermore saying that the "others" were Russians and Cubans.    You many also find statements like this on the internet by other participants of the conspiracy, including Frank Sturgis.    This was the set up line, and the evidence for it was C.I.A. photos and audio tape from Mexico city purporting to show Oswald, though it doesn't.    The plot was so sloppily constructed that Phillips didn't bother to use an Oswald double for either the pictures or the audio tape, and even the F.B.I. when their agents examined these items found that it clearly wasn't Oswald.    Then in 1978 when the House Select Committee on Assassinations confronted Phillips with the continued existence of the audio tapes [which he claimed were destroyed] Phillips fled the investigation, which was subsequently shut down by cutting off its funding.    All these matters of Phillips' cavalier construction of the Oswald would-be double in Mexico City was so transparent to all that in order to save his own credibility by the 1980s Phillips himself stated in public debates that Oswald had never even been in Mexico City, and by implication that the whole matter was a fabrication constructed before the assassination to frame him.

In David Phillips' megalomanaical mind it became less important to continue the fiction of the assassination than to continue a line which no one anymore believed and which detracted from his own image and credibility.

That was the David we all knew.

Hitler was Right

Hitler was a genius reformer who faced the same problem all zealous reformers encounter - most people are indifferent, and those who aren't have problems.     This is the reason why Hitler cannot be judged by the actions of his followers.

The problem the public has in understanding Hitler is that they're unaware that everything they've been told about him are lies - everything.     The American public in particular is not aware that by now all historians no longer believe the accusations made against him after the war, and that these accusations were fabrications cooked-up by the allies after they'd defeated Germany.

If you are skeptical about this statement simply do the research.   All the claims of gas chambers at concentration camps across Germany, particularly the one at Dachau in the American-controlled sector, are now understood by all historians as fabrications of the allies - in particular U.S. Army Intelligence and Britain.    The films of soap and lampshades made out of human remains at these camps were complete fabrications made up by U.S. Army Intelligence, and this is well understood by all academics, not just those labeled "holocaust deniers."    It is also now documented that most of the confessions and claims made at the Neuremburg Trials were false as well.    So go figure.   If you want to understand Hitler and his role in the last century you must regrettably begin by wiping away each and every opinion you have of him and start completely from the beginning.

For myself this process started long ago, in the 1980s, when I began working with old C.I.A. figures who were active in the 1950s.     These characters knew that the allies had fabricated the claims made against Hitler, and as anti-communists and opponents of Russian barbarism they often admired Nazis and Germans in general.      Their understanding of the Nazis in seeking to contain Stalinism and Russian cultural savagery led them to embrace Nazism in the same way that many in England, America and elsewhere embraced it until wartime propaganda using false claims made it very difficult to admit such.    Remember that in the First World War that the U.S. government and England also created colossal false claims of barbarity against the Germans, and with the onset of the Second War this was merely resumed.

This is the reason why from time to time historians will stumble upon a "collaboration" between Nazis and the C.I.A. after the war, and of course given public prejudices this is viewed with horror.    In fact only Jews and a few other dead-end New Dealers in C.I.A. failed to understand Nazism by the mid-1950s, and this is a reason why C.I.A. supported "fascist" parties and movements in many places, much to the shock of Americans who discovered this.    Unfortunately these third world "fascist" movements boar little resemblance to the socialist/anti-aristocratic purpose of the Nazis.   In most places claiming Nazi affiliation after the war their actual agenda was to preserve the power of the finance and aristocrats rather than demolish it as Hitler sought to do.    Few in C.I.A. were German or held actual German beliefs or values.     Most people in C.I.A. are of English descent, with the occasional southern or eastern European.    These people never cottoned to the German Nazi purpose of building a society based on the interests of workers and other producers of goods and services.      In keeping with their respective national characters C.I.A. personnel from British, Mediterranean or slavic backgrounds merely used Nazism as a rallying flag to counter communism while seeking to promote the neo-feudal systems which are core to their respective ethnicities.  

So what then was Hitler really about?

After the first World War Germany was in chaos and threatened by violent, revolutionary communists inspired by the success of Lenin and Bohlshevism in Russia.    There were six million members of the Communist Party of Germany, and their practices were brutal and murderous.    Political assassinations happened every day, as well as riots and thuggery in which Communists wielding clubs sought to run the streets and public meeting places by terror.    It was in this environment that Hitler began his activities, in a situation in which force and thuggery had been imposed on Germany from communist ideologues.     Hitler's life was in peril every moment, and like others what protected him was his legions of security personnel, most of whom happened to be homosexuals.     Throughout the 1920s Hitler's personal bodyguards were homosexuals, as was the top leadership of the SA, the brown-shirted "storm troopers" who fought in the streets to counter communist thugs.   This situation says volumes about Hitler himself and what he had to deal with.    Hitler disapproved strongly of homosexuality, and he later made it a crime once he was able to. However at the beginning homosexuals were the only people who were motivated to do the extreme duties of thuggery required to protect him and party members from violence from communists.    This was Hitler's pattern his entire career - he had little in common with his most committed and zealous followers.     Even in his speeches he constantly referred to "fanatacism" as required to accomplish this goal or that.    Germans are not fanatic people by nature; they are contemplative, thoughtful and even docile.    Hitler was always having to find Germans outside of the normal range of the temperament of German character, and was constantly having to extoll to the public the necessity of fanatacism to protect them from the depradations of others.

Hitler was NOT on the far right of German politics.    The far right was of course the conservatives, who were the financial classes, bankers, speculators and of course the aristocracy.    These were the groups which wanted everything to stay the same, who wanted no changes which would improve the situation of workers, farmers and tradesmen.    These forces opposed Hitler except for narrow support at critical times when they viewed him as the only force available to counter Leninist or Stalinist communism.     The Nazi party was originally the "National Socialist Workers' Party," hardly a name reflecting conservative principles.     "Workers" was later omitted from the name, but the ideology of the party remained the same - to counter the influence of aristocrats and finance capital [people who own but create nothing] and empower the producers - workers, employees, farmers, tradesmen.     

The NATIONALISTIC aspect of Nazism was based on the recognition of the moral inferiority of most of Germany's neighbors.     This sounds outrageous to anyone not of northern European descent, but believe me when northern Europeans look out and see the crime, the indifference, the greed, the imperialism, the aggression, sloth and social division which characterizes the peoples living to the south, west and east of the Tutonic and Nordic peoples you'll understand what they see.     Ever heard of a Norwegian mafia?   Swedish organize crime? German gangsters?     Let's get real.   Everyone in Europe EXCEPT for northerners are prone to megalomanic obcessions for personal wealth also, and this has led them to adopt rapacious imperialism and foreign plunder northerners would never do.   Did you ever hear of German pirates?  Did you ever hear of Germans owning slaves?  I don't think so.  Northern Europeans are well aware that even without any natural resources their unity, altruism and dedication allows them to outperform all other nations in all aspects of quality of life - material and otherwise.   It is the reason why Germans have such trust in authority.    Unlike their neighbors which possess authorities which are corrupt and untrustworthy, authorities in northern European societies are not corrupt.   Therefore there is no public cynicism about them.   On the contrary they trust authority to the point of blind and unquestioning faith.    This is the traditional racist perspective of northern Europeans and what it is based on.    All other ethnic groups in Europe have their own traditional chauvanisms as well.

Hitler was an actor.   His public performances were calculated by him to arouse emotional ferver in his followers.    This had it's negative effects however.    The extreme, over-the-top emotionality, hysteria and rage of his performances frightened off most Germans, not to mention foreigners who saw his dramatics in newsreels.    After the war these dramatics made it all the more easy for the allies to portray him as a madman.

In the early chaos after the World War the Nazis found their niche in the public, but as the 1920s progressed economic stability arrived and the communist threat dissappated.   Hitler was frustrated when he lost one election after another.    Then came the economic collapse of 1929.      When the depression spread to Germany and unemployment once again soared the communists roared back again, finding support among many ready to declare capitalism a failure and adopt Soviet socialism.   In this situation pretty much everyone turned to Hitler to once again save them.      President Hindenberg, bankers and aristocrats who had laughed at Hitler before now came on bended knee seeking his intervention.     Once in power he knew once he stablized things these same people would do everything they could, including assassination, to remove him.    He therefore declared himself dictator.     Throughout this period of social revolution he suspended democracy.

What was the result?    While the rest of the world [particularly the United States] was mired in the depression, the depression in Germany was over in a few months after Hitler took over.     Unemployment was ended in a few months, and a year after that wages were doubled.    Germany also became the first country to institute benefits such as paid holidays for workers.     All this was going on while in the United States robber barrons [usually of English or Scotch Irish descent] were meeting striking workers with club-wielding thugs.

However in order to achieve this an authoritarian tyranny was imposed.    Ordinary Germans became snitches, reporting to state bureaucrats who though zealous about Nazi ideology were limited in their understanding of anything.    Intelligence [as Henry Kissinger has said] means having the ability to make distinctions.     Few if any Nazis had this kind of intelligence.       Concentration camps were built, and communists as well as other opponents of the state were sent to them [usually for only a year or so] where they would be humiliated and pushed around by Nazi thugs.     Because of the benefits of full employment and high wages Hitler's popularity soared - his ideology was vindicated. This brought around the bulk of the aristocracy and finance to his support, afterall they were benefiting enormously from this economic expansion brought about by high wages. However conservative ideologues and the surviving far left were fuming even more.    All this success made it easy for finger-pointers and other busy-bodies to dive into the revolutionary zeal by accusing others of dissent, and this brought about horrible results for those falsely accused.    Time and time again Hitler addressed this problem in his speeches decrying the suffering of innocent individuals caught up in the injustice of this. He spoke against it however he also declared that without these conditions there could be no social revolution.     Hitler like all revolutionaries was willing to accept injustices, even serious ones, to bring about what was necessary. 

Then came the war.

Contrary to allied propaganda Germany didn't re-arm very much in the years leading to World War II.     Britian, France and the Soviet Union re-built enormous armies, navies and air forces, however Germany in the 1930s maintained only small forces.    At the time of the outbreak of war in 1939 the combined forces of England, France and Poland outnumbered Germany ten to one.    Particularly inferior at that time was German armor, possessing only small numbers of tanks which were smaller and much less armored and gunned than either the French, English or the Russians.    At the time of the German invasion of Poland the Polish armed forces were larger than that of Germany.   By far the largest military force in the world was Russia, which not only possessed huge numbers of soldiers and artillery but also colossal numbers of tanks which were the heaviest in the world and specifically designed to travel on the roadways of central and western Europe rather than the unpaved routes of the Soviet Union.     Soviet forces were massed in the west in offensive configurations much as they remained throughout the Cold War, and it's no wonder that the Germans as well as all others in the west perceived Soviet intentions as massively aggressive.

Contrary to Nazi ideology about "living space," the war was brought about through a combination of misperception, alarmist images of Germany in England and France, all of which was sparked into war when conflict arouse over a problem involving an ethnic loyalty in the east.....gee sounds like a repeat of the First World War.    And like the first war after it was over the allies distorted history to make it appear that all the causes and faults lie with the Germans [this time under their Nazi government] when in fact those in the know [rather than the suckers in the media] knew completely otherwise.

In brief the Germans had little choice other than to attack Poland given what the Polish military Junta was doing, and after the Germans [together with the Russians] divided Poland between them the French and English used the German invasion of Poland as a pretext to declare war on Germany [although never doing likewise to Russia].    To observers at the time all this was cynically clear.   Informed opinion the world over merely rolled its eyes at the British and French declarations that Germany must be defeated for having attacked Poland when the Russians had done the same thing and no declarations of war were made against the Soviet communists.      It was all rather cynical at the time, however with the success of allied propaganda today the public thinks of these statements of cause by the English and French as given truths.

The French and British didn't lift a finger to help the Poles by the way, when they had plenty of opportunity to do so.    Instead they began a crash program of mobilization to increase even further their numerical and qualitative superiority over Germany, after which they would finally attack it.     In 1940 they had over three million men in arms, outnumbered Germany six to one in tanks and aircraft, not to mention ships.    The Germans only had 36 submarines.     The allied plan was to blockade Germany into starvation as in 1918, hold back any German advance through trench warfare, and also bomb German cities into rubble from the air.    That's why the British built fewer tanks and artillery and instead built colossal four engined bombers which held four times the payload of the American B-17 Flying Fortress.     The Germans tried time and again to reach a settlement, but the allies rebuffed them every time because of their confidence in their plan.   The Germans shared their beliefs regarding it's likely eventual success, and therefore grew more alarmed with the passage of each month of the allies' mobilization.   For the Germans time favored the allies, and the Germans saw no prospect for defeating them.     The German's war games and plans if they attacked France led them to another repeat of the catastrophy of the First War, so the Germans were in a near hopeless delimma.      All this changed however when Hitler, personally, intervened to map out [with General Heinz Guderian] an alternative plan which called for an encirclement of the allies in France from the east and south rather than the assumed only route of going west through northern Belgium.     When in May of 1940 this plan succeeded no one was more suprised than the Germans themselves, and perhaps Hitler in particular.     In any event it was viewed as the means for having averted another 1918.  However unlike 1918 this time the threat from Russia was growing rather than declining.     It was the former feckless German government of Kaiser Wilhelm II which sent Lenin to Russia to foment revolution there to weaken Russia even further when not necessary.    Now the consequences of that act in having created the Soviet Union, now ruled by the barbarity of Stalinist communism, threatened to wash away not only German capitialism, but German altruistic culture as well, should Stalin expand his internationalist revolution by attacking Gemany.

There is one story about Hitler which reveals him better than any other, and  it involves one of the grandchildren of composer Richard Wagner, whose family were friends of Hitler.   One of the two grandchildren was about eleven years old when Hitler once again came to the Wagner family home to visit them.     Hitler was informed that the boy had only briefly attended Hitler Youth Camp but had dropped out.    Hitler asked him why he'd left early; what was wrong?    The boy explained that the whole business was stupid and for idiots.    The Counselors and their requirements were primitive, and intended for the indoctination of vulgarians .     Hitler smiled in agreement saying, "Yes, I would have felt exactly the same way."

That was Hitler.

Another thing about Hitler is that it remains unsolved as to what really happened to him.In the last few years genetic tests have been performed of the fragment of skull the Russians have always insisted was his, however these tests have shown that the skull is not even that of a man - it's a woman who'd been shot in the head.    So far there is no evidence of any kind that Hitler actually died during the war, and Stalin and others were convinced at the time that he'd escaped.               


What is the Human Mind?

In the 1950s and 1960s C.I.A. developed it's own cognitive model.   

This was necessary because there was no other suitable model from psychology or psychiatry, and in my opinion there still isn't.    Psychology and psychiatry continue to be straightjacketed in doctrines which cannot explain abnormal psychology.     In order to arrive at a theory of what the mind is you have to be able not only to explain common behaviors but also uncommon and abnormal ones.    The power of any comprehensive theory relies on it's ability to explain all observable phenomena, not just the mundane.    Unfortunately because psychology and psychiatry cannot explain abnormal or unusual behavior, in recent decades they have merely sought to ignore them.     Therefore there is virtually no research anymore regarding these areas, such as multiple personalities, hypnosis, dreams, or even homosexuality.   However these areas offer the keys to understanding how the mind operates and how it's constructed.

In the 1950s psychiatry wasn't constricted by materialistic doctrines as it is today.    In the early development of psychiatry psychiatrists pursued any areas which appeared to offer observable inquiry.    Hypnosis and dream interpretation was widely used clinically.   However hypnosis, dreams and multiple personalities possessed evidence and implications that the mind operates in non-material ways - in manners which cannot be explained by a materialistic, mechanistic philosophy.     As such these areas of study and their implications became suppressed, with academics and students shunning results, embracing comforting alternative explanations, and avoiding further discussion.

By the early 1960s figures in C.I.A., in Technical Services and other areas of Psychological Warfare, had arrived at a workable model which appears to explain all observable behavior.   I believe that it has explanatory power which is comprehensive, and well above the disjointed and near-bankrupt state of current psychological theory.

One illustration of the power of this model is in explaining homosexuality, a behavior having much in common with multiple personality disorder.  

Causes of Homosexuality

In the 1950s homosexuality was accepted by psychologists as a disorder for a compelling reason - homosexuality deprives the individual of the motivation to reproduce.   Reproduction is among the handful of fundamental traits any organism must have.    The loss of motivation to reproduce, to mate with the opposite sex, is an obvious disorder.

In subsequent decades however psychologists have chosen to ignore this simple fact in favor of obtaining the political and social benefits of complying to the demands of homosexuals that they not be stigmatized by this finding. Therefore because homosexuals claim that they can live happy lives that they therefore should not be defined as possessing a mental disorder, and so psychologists have complied by re-defining the definition of "disorder" to mean "that which causes one to be un-happy" rather than "that which causes one to function in a dis-functional way."    If the sole criteria for possessing a disorder is lack of well-being [or lack of adjustment or adaptation] than this works.    However if "disorder" is also to include things which cause an individual to not be able to conduct core functions of an organism such as reproduction, than it doesn't work.

Furthermore the finding of homosexuality as a disorder was reinforced by the observation that it is never seen outside of human behavior - only humans have the capacity for homosexuality.    

At this point I must deal with claims by the homosexual lobby to the contrary, as failing to do so will lead to misunderstanding of my claims given the widespread popular acceptance which has been gained by homosexuals' claims.    In particular, homosexuals claim that homosexuality is common among animals.    This is of course untrue.    There are no examples of animals which prefer to attempt to mate with their own sex and are repulsed by the opposite sex.    What is seen in animals is attempts at mating with anything resembling the opposite sex - such as a dog humping on someone's leg.    Another example is a male rabbit mounting a male housecat when excited.     Excitement and arousal in animals tends to also bring about sexual arousal, and animals will hump or attempt to mate with other species, or individuals of the same sex of their own species, etc., from time to time.   However this is in no way homosexuality - which is the attraction ONLY to the same sex and turning away from opportunities to mate with the opposite sex when available.

Additionally homosexuals today claim that there are physical or organic causes of homosexuality, and this is likewise without foundation.    There has been no finding whatsoever of any structural similarity between the brains of homosexuals and those of the opposite sex.     Although brain imaging has revealed structural differences based on sex, homosexuals do not possess the brains of the opposite sex.    Their brains are in fact structured in accordance with their DNA - with male DNA producing male brains as well as male organs and tissues in all other areas of the body, and female DNA producing female brains as well as female tissues and organs in all other areas of the body.

Now aside from STRUCTURAL differentiation there is FUNCTIONAL differentiation between genders, and there is observable functional differentiation between the brains of the same sex based on sexual preference.   The brains of male homosexuals possess functional similarity with the brains of females, and the brains of female homosexuals possess functional similarity with the brains of males.    This says nothing however to challenge that brains are derived from the DNA which determines them.   It only means that a male homosexual will have the motivations of a female, and a female homosexual will have the motivations of male.   The question is why?

Sexual Identity vs. Sexual Preference

Homosexuality is often defined as the preference for, or attraction to, the same sex.    However the cause of homosexuality is much deeper.   Homosexuals report that they felt homosexual well before the onset of any sexual attraction.   In fact homosexuals report that they felt homosexual by at least the age of four, and that's well before the onset of sexual desire.

So what does it mean to feel homosexual at the age of four?

The key can be found in the phenomenon of gender disphoria.

Gender disphoria begins by age four, and it manifests itself in the extreme stress and discomfort experienced by the individual when made to dress as it's genuine gender rather than the opposite gender.    A four or five year old boy required to dress as a boy rather than a girl will experience so much discomfort and stress that he will be disfunctional.     He will cry, scream, yell, etc., and will not be able to function in any way until he's allowed to dress in girl's clothing.    The same with female gender disphorics.

Clearly four year olds have no sexual preference so what is the cause of this extreme discomfort?    How and why could a four year old have taken on such profound emotions regarding their gender, and why does it focus on clothes?

The C.I.A. Cognitive Model

According to the model I was taught the personality is a construction of the unconscious mind almost as a screenwriter composes a character of a movie. There is no "authentic" or "genuine" personality determined by the physical brain, DNA and environment.    The personality is a synthetic construction made up by the unconscious in the same way that the unconscious constructs characters in dreams.     The personality that the world sees is the "operating personality" but it may not be the only personality that individual possesses. It is very possible for the same individual to possess more than one personality, and to have many variations of the operating personality within that single alter.

This is not to say that the personality may be changed by any conscious effort.    The personality is constructed from parameters given genetic and cultural factors, but key choices are also made as a matter of solving problems encountered in early childhood when the unconscious mind is open due to it's design in imprinting cultural information, particularly language.

It was the work primarily of Noam Chomsky in the 1950s at the M.I.T. Cognitive Studies Lab which arrived at the finding that the human mind is designed to process language in early childhood.     What C.I.A. did was take that one step further - the human mind is specifically designed to process CULTURE in early development.     Not only language, or verbal symbols for ideas, but all ideas comprising culture and it's symbols and meanings.

Only the human mind is designed in this way because only humans possess culture, and language.

However when this stage of early development is over than the mind closes, and the personality is fixed.    Whatever was imprinted on it at that time in terms of cultural icons is there to stay.

Explaining Homosexuality

In the C.I.A. model gender disphoria is a reaction to an external stimulus, presumably a rejection trauma, which causes the unconscious mind to create a personality of the opposite gender to the individual's genetic or actual gender.

This person will have imprinted that he/she needs to possess the imprinted cultural characteristics of the opposite gender or he/she will be in peril of trauma - therefore the extreme emotion and discomfort involved.

To the mind of a toddler there is no understanding that clothes, hairstyle, etc. are only cultural.    To the toddler these observable gender traits are just a authentic as non-cultural observable gender traits such as pitch of voice, shape of hands, brow, etc.     The toddler imprints anything observable and treats it all the same whether it's physically-determined or culturally-determined.

Different individuals will respond, or react, to the traumas which create gender disphoria in different ways.    

Some individuals will remain heterosexual but prefer the dress of the opposite sex.    These are heterosexual cross-dressers, and they function as heterosexuals except that they obtain greater sexual arousal, or higher well-being generally, by dressing as the opposite sex.    Such heterosexual cross-dressers are usually males.

The next area on the continuum are transsexuals.    Transsexuals are simply gender disphorics and are extremely uncomfortable dressing as their genetic gender.    They have a strong compulsion to comport to all the observable cultural traits of the opposite sex, and have personalities which mimic all the observable characteristics of the opposite sex, including emotional and physical preference for the opposite sex.     As children they pefer toys used by the opposite sex, in adolescence pursue avocations of the opposite sex, etc.    They have created a personality of the opposite sex in every observable way.     One interesting factor is the manner in which they will mimic the physical walk, or gate, of the opposite sex although it is contrary to their skeletal structure.

Many male homosexuals, particularly negro homosexual men, will walk with an exaggerated hip movement possessed by women.   This female hip movement is necessary for the woman given her pelvis structure, but is not at all determined for a male, and is in fact contrary to the movement determined by the male pelvis.    In negro homosexual men this is all the more contrary because negro men possess narrower pelvises than even non-negro men.  The exaggerated female hip movement while walking of some homosexual men indicates the non-physical nature of homosexual behavior as strongly as other observable factors.

The next step along the homosexual continuum is simple homosexuality, which may exist without any obcession regarding clothes or other cultural iconography.    These are individuals who have created a personality of the opposite sex but who did not link it necessarily to cultural gender traits such as hair style, clothes, etc.     For whatever reason they did not identify gender as necessarily being defined by cultural traits, and this may have happened because of the stage of childhood development the individual was in when the trauma occurred.     

What is interesting is that homosexuality occurs at every point along the androgenic spectrum for men, and along every point of the estrogenic spectrum for women.

All men and women fall along different points of their respective androgenic or estrogenic continuums depending on their hormonal and genetic determinants.

Some men are more masculine than others - have deeper voices, larger brow ridges, etc., based on these factors.    With women some are more curvy than others, have higher pitched voices, etc.

These differences in gender "density" have nothing however to do with homosexuality.     Individuals at every point along their respective gender specra are heterosexual or homosexual in the same ratio as at every other point in their specra.    It is a myth that men with higher pitched voices or smaller hands, or smaller adam's apples, or less musculature are "feminized" and therefore more prone to homosexuality.    Homosexuality occurs at every point of the genetically-determined androgenic and estrogenic condinua.    It occurs with the same frequency at every point.    Homosexuality IS NOT a function of the gender spectra.