The deliberate murder of one million German men after WW2 by the Americans.

from Charles Burris @ LewRockwell.

Charles Burris writes on Other Losses, a documentary by James Bacque

Extremely powerful and courageous cinematic effort to correct the flawed and duplicitous Post-WWII historical record concerning Allied (particularly American) governments of the deliberate and calculated horrific treatment of captured German soldiers and non-combatant civilians. Described as “the last dirty secret of World War Two,” this tragic story remains highly inflammatory and subject to criticism by court historians and regime academics. Together with his central role in the Operation Keelhaul forced repatriation of captured Soviet POWs back to the USSR, the place of Dwight David Eisenhower in history will remain disputed and controversial for decades to come.

2:00 to 9:42
The conquering allies were afraid of Germany despite their own overwhelming military strength.  Churchill was afraid that Germany spirit would rise again and attack the British Empire. American President Roosevelt was afraid that Germany would rise again and conquer world markets.  Soviet Premiere, Josef Stalin, was afraid that German fascism would rise again and destroy communism.

As allied tanks were racing into Germany in September, 1944, Churchill and Roosevelt met in Quebec City to decide what to do after the war was over.  They discussed a plan to pastoralize Germany, which meant in reality to keep on killing Germans for years after they had surrendered.  Pastoralized was a new word in goodspeak, the language which controls people by deceiving them.  pastorlization meant that even after Germany surrendered, there would be no peace; instead, the war would continue by other means.  Like the war itself, the post-war treatment was carefully planned. First, allied planes swept over the battlefields dropping a powerful drug called “Hope” onto the German soldiers.  The drug was contained in millions of leaflets promising peace, food, and shelter if the soldiers surrendered.  The next phase of the plan was devised by Roosevelt’s friend, Henry C. Morgenthau, who was Secretary of the U.S. Treasury.  In their meeting at Quebec, President Roosevelt approved the Morgenthau Plan to pastoralize Germany but Winston Churchill said it was unnatural, un-Christian, and unnecessary.  Then Morgenthau persuaded Roosevelt to offer Churchill an enormous bribe of $6 billion dollars to approve the plan.  Churchill and FDR secretly approved it in September, 1944.  Within a few weeks, the press discovered that the Morgenthau plan would starve Germans to death after the war.  This enraged the people of North America and Britain who wanted peace not vengeance.  In the United States, Thomas Dewey, a senior Republican, said “This is like adding 10 fresh divisions to the German Army.”

German propaganda minister, Josef Goebbels, ordered every civilian to turn his house into a fortress.  FDR hastily covered up the Morgenthau Plan under another good speak term, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Order 1067 or just JCS 1067.  Under this title, the Morgenthau Plan to pastoralize Germany was being implemented even before the Germans surrender in May, 1945.  The Allies said in a press conference in March 1945 that the many millions of German prisoners would be protected by the International Red Cross under the Geneva Convention.  But the Americans prevented the Red Cross from visiting the starving prisoners.  Trying to give this treatment legal justification in March 1945, Eisenhower, Allied Commander in Western Europe, asked his commander in Washington, General George Marshall, to invent a new category called Disarmed Enemy Forces, DEF.  This was more good speak, meaning that many German prisoners lost their precious right to visits of the Red Cross camp inspectors under the Geneva Convention.  When that right was abolished, Eisenhower could hide the deadly conditions in the U.S. Army prison camps.  The prisoners were routinely deprived of shelter, medical aid, food.  Some did not even receive water for days.  Once they were designated as Disarmed Enemy Forces, DEF, instead of prisoners of war, the were entitled to nothing.  Yuraqi Bouf, as a young lieutenant, was a prisoner first in Buch, then in Rhineburg.

The main preparations the Americans made for most prisoners was to erect barbed wire fences around swampy meadows, along the Rhine River.  Everyone in Germany wearing a uniform, including street car drivers, foresters, wounded men in hospitals and their nurses was taken to the barbed wired prison gates, stripped of identity markers, robbed of their valuables, and abandoned in the mud.


“These days we live in a world in which ‘diversity’ is the goal, rather than competence.”

by David Cole at Taki Magazine

Well, that is damned inconvenient. A state-of-the-art pedestrian bridge hailed as the inevitably wondrous result of diversity in engineering has collapsed within days of being paraded before the media. Did I say inconvenient? I should have said symbolic.

“Diversity Bridge” (that’s not the structure’s official name, but I think it fits) was designed to connect Florida International University to the city of Sweetwater, where many FIU students and staff reside. The bridge, installed (though not yet opened to the public) a mere four days before its failure, spanned a busy Miami highway, and the collapse crushed cars and people underneath. Authorities report at least six deaths.

Prior to pancaking, Diversity Bridge had been championed as “an engineering feat come to life.” One of the geniuses who accomplished this “feat” is an engineer who was hailed by President Obama in 2015 as a “champion of change”: Atorod Azizinamini, director of FIU’s Accelerated Bridge Construction Center (now renamed the Accelerated Bridge Destruction Center). The firm that built the bridge, Munilla Construction Management (MCM), is run by the Munilla brothers—Raul, Juan, Jorge, Lou, Fernando, and Pedro (is that a construction firm or the latest incarnation of Menudo?). And then we have Leonor Flores, MCM’s senior manager. On March 14, as Diversity Bridge was being installed, Flores was quoted in this breathless puff piece on the FIU website:

Twelve-year-old Michelle Flores shared a special moment with her family at FIU this past Saturday: She and her sister Gabriela joined their parents, FIU alumni Leonor and Henry Flores MIS ’01, to watch a 950-ton section of a pedestrian bridge swing into its permanent position across Southwest 8th Street. Leonor Flores ’98 is a project executive and one of 63 FIU alumni who work for MCM, the construction firm building the FIU-Sweetwater University City Bridge. She was excited to share her work with her family, especially Michelle, who is interested in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) in school. Said Leonor: “It’s very important for me as a woman and an engineer to be able to promote that to my daughter, because I think women have a different perspective. We’re able to put in an artistic touch and we’re able to build, too.”

She’s an artist, all right. That bridge became a pile of junk art that would have made Arman jealous.

“These days we live in a world in which ‘diversity’ is the goal, rather than competence.”

Needless to say, the day after the collapse, damage control needed to be done, and fast. The piece on the FIU website was updated (in bloodred letters, no less) to read: “To clarify, Leonor Flores did not work on the FIU-Sweetwater University City Bridge project in any capacity.” Funny, because in that very same piece the bridge is referred to as “her work.” On its Facebook page, MCM deleted tags with Flores’ name. Also deleted (but archived by me) was a March 8 post declaring: “A strong woman looks a challenge dead in the eye and gives it a wink. Thankful for all of our MCM women who help us overcome challenges every day and #BuildExcellence. #HappyInternationalWomensDay #WeAreMCM.”

A wink? Personally, I prefer engineers who keep both eyes open while looking at challenges.

To be clear, I’m not saying that bridge design is some kind of exclusively white male endeavor. To even suggest such a thing would be ridiculous. But these days we live in a world in which “diversity” is the goal, rather than competence. Who cares if a few bridges collapse? Do we really expect leftists, who still champion communism even after it cost a hundred million lives in the previous century, to worry about six dead motorists? 

Keep reading.  The last part about Willie Odom will put the issue into bold relieft if it isn’t already.

California Teen Tests School Protest Policy: Organizes Pro-Life Walkout

California Teen Tests School Protest Policy by Organizing Pro-Life Walkout

Rocklin, CA high school student Brandon Gillespie says that he “would like to see if there really is a double standard” when it comes to what students can and cannot protest via walkouts. Gillespie was inspired after his teacher was suspended for wondering aloud if a pro-life walkout would be fully supported the way last week’s anti-gun protest was. 

Some Ideas Can Get You Killed

From the comments section of this Tom Woods episode. . . 

In addition, the anarchistic upshot of the libertarian doctrine appealed to the countercultural left. For did not the illegitimacy of the state and the nonaggression axiom (that one shall not initiate or threaten to initiate physical force against others and their property) imply that everyone was at liberty to choose his very own nonaggressive lifestyle? Did this not imply that vulgarity, obscenity, profanity, drug use, promiscuity, pornography, prostitution, homosexuality, polygamy, pedophilia or any other conceivable perversity or abnormality, insofar as they were victimless crimes, were no offenses at all but perfectly normal and legitimate activities and lifestyles? Not surprisingly, then, from the outset the libertarian movement attracted an unusually high number of abnormal and perverse followers. Subsequently, the countercultural ambiance and multicultural-relativistic “tolerance” of the libertarian movement attracted even greater numbers of misfits, personal or professional failures, or plain losers. Murray Rothbard, in disgust, called them the “nihilo-libertarians” and identified them as the “modal” (typical and representative) libertarians. They fantasized of a society where everyone would be free to choose and cultivate whatever nonaggressive lifestyle, career, or character he wanted, and where, as a result of free-market economics, everyone could do so on an elevated level of general prosperity. Ironically, the movement that had set out to dismantle the state and restore private property and market economics was largely appropriated, and its appearance shaped, by the mental and emotional products of the welfare state: the new class of permanent adolescents.” —Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed

Self-described libertarians are, in general, even more degenerate than people who describe themselves as very liberal. It is very telling that rather than focusing on increasing property rights, reducing taxation, etc, many libertarians focus more on legalizing drugs, reducing things that would almost definitely be in effect even in a stateless society (such as driver’s licenses and other such regulation), and open borders as if the western states do not have an interest in importing barbaric and socialistic peoples and reducing the social capital of whites. The future of human accomplishment, property rights, of stable, socially conservative white societies, will not be in a social order that average libertarians desire.

“integral to feminism, as Friedan herself taught, was ‘busting the masculine mystique.’”

by Paul Gottfried

h/t Lew Rockwell

For about a week the conservative establishment lamented the fact that “AEI scholar” Christina Hoff Sommers was treated rudely by students while speaking at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon. The New York Post (March 7, 2018) complained about “campus fascism on the march” and then proceeded to explain Sommers’s unique contribution to our political culture: “She argues that much of modern feminism betrays the movement’s founding ideals.” Unfortunately the “lefty kids” at Lewis &Clark did not appreciate her message and her achievement in keeping alive a better feminism than the one that has now replaced it.

It so happens that I spoke last October at a more prestigious institution of learning than Lewis & Clark Law School, namely Hamilton College in Upstate New York, where I was a guest of the Alexander Hamilton Institute. I too suffered the slings and arrows of campus activists, and later my host was left to bear the brunt of the leftist blowback. Not surprisingly, my plight did not receive the same media treatment as Sommers’s adventure. All the same, George Leef of the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal graciously posted material about my experience at Hamilton and even managed to insert comments about it in National Review Online.   But it was hard for me to recognize myself in the latter comments, since by then I had sunk into insignificance.

Although one can’t blame George for presenting me as an innocuous nebbish, someone “who is neither famous nor provocative,” I may in fact be the most relentless critic of the conservative establishment on the Right. I have repeatedly scolded that establishment for being a media-promoted enterprise that bears little resemblance to its worthier post-World War Two predecessor. The movement in question has gone from trying to stand athwart history to becoming a slavish defender of the positions that the Left abandoned just before embracing their present ones. But the conservative establishment has tenaciously held on to some positions. These are, for example, military belligerence promoted as “American exceptionalism,” inflicting the current version of “our democracy” on the entire globe, and providing corporate tax breaks to benefit the movement’s donor class.

Since the 1970s Martin Luther King has gone in movement hagiography from being a philandering communist dupe to a profoundly conservative Christian theologian (he was neither); homosexual marriage has gone from being an obscenity to a family value; and even Orthodox Jews, who are leading media conservatives, celebrate the transgendered Caitlyn Jenner. It seems this newly discovered moral pioneer celebrates Israel for supporting the LGBT cause. Robert E. Lee during the same time has descended from being a great American hero, especially for the American Right, to someone whom Rich Lowry at National Review considers so morally dubious that he deserves to have all statues with his likeness pulled down.  Senator Joe McCarthy, the golden boy of the conservative movement of the 1950s and 1960s, has gone from being a conservative hero to a conservative villain, while National Review has published glowing tributes to the Communist mass murderer Leon Trotsky.

The historical and moral revisionism that I have only superficially touched on has taken another form, of which Christina Hoff Sommers is a prime representative. Like other idols of establishment conservatism, Sommers affirms an ism that until about forty years ago was associated with the Left. But now feminism, properly understood, is supposed to belong on the Right. True feminism for Sommers is synonymous with the ideas and legacy of Betty Friedan, whom Sommers considers an admirable social critic, reacting against the intolerable sexist conditions of the 1950s. Writing in the neoconservative New York Sun in 2008, she vigorously defends Friedan’s concerns: “Her essential point is down-to-earth and true. Postwar America has taken the ideal of femininity to absurd excesses. Women in the fifties were encouraged to be childlike, dependent passive.”

Sommers shields Friedan against the charge of being something other than what she wants her to be, namely, a very outspoken, spunky Jewish lady who was properly offended by sexism. But David Horowitz (among others) has shown convincingly, that Friedan and her parents had close links to the American Communist Party; and so the attempt to depict this lady as someone above politics reeks of blatant dishonesty. Friedan came from a radically leftist family, and as an adult she made the normal leftist transition from Marxist-Leninism to the present war against inherited social institutions and distinctions.  There is no reason to imagine that her revolt against post-World War Two sexism stood antipodes apart from what the radical social Left now teaches.

In an incisive work on the evolution of feminismDomestic Tranquility, F. Carolyn Graglia, tells us what should be obvious to those without vested professional interests. The work of Friedan and others who downgraded the traditional role of women as homemakers led inescapably to the more radical phase of the feminist movement that emerged about a decade later. The war against the real or imagined domestic life of the 1950s, begun by Friedan and her generation, fueled a crusade against gender distinctions that continues down to the present. What Sommers has condemned as “the war against boys” goes back to what was allegedly an early, nice form of feminism. But integral to feminism, as Friedan herself taught, was “busting the masculine mystique.”

In Western countries today, and not least of all in the US, we are witnessing a continuing social and political transformation from the Left. For better or worse, it may be impossible to halt this process; and there is no possibility of restoring the American society that existed before the roller-coaster ride got underway. But let’s stop lying about the remembered past and punishing old-timers on the Right who know that deliberate misrepresentations are occurring!  One would have to be hopelessly naive to believe that our social problems started when feminists started reading Gloria Steinem instead of Betty Friedan. And pace Sommers, no one “stole feminism.” It simply evolved.


Paul Gottfried [send him mail] is Horace Raffensperger Professor Emeritus of Humanities at Elizabethtown College and author of Multiculturalism and the Politics of GuiltThe Strange Death of Marxism, and Conservatism in America: Making Sense of the American Right. His latest books are Fascism: The Career of a Concept and Encounters: My Life with Nixon, Marcuse, and Other Friends and Teachers.