After the corrupt Soviet cities were razed, German farmers would establish, in Himmler’s words, ‘pearls of settlement,’ utopian farming communities that would produce a bounty of food for Europe. German settlements of fifteen to twenty-thousand people each would be surrounded by German villages within a radius of ten kilometers. The German settlers would defend Europe itself at the Ural Mountains, against the Asiatic barbarism that would be forced back to the east. Strife at civilization’s edge would test the manhood of coming generations of German settlers. Colonization would make of Germany a continental empire fit to rival the United States, another hardy frontier state based upon exterminatory colonialism and slave labor. The East was the Nazi Manifest Destiny. In Hitler’s view, ‘in the East a similar process will repeat itself for a second time as in the conquest of America.’ As Hitler imagined the future, Germany would deal with the Slavs much as the North Americans had dealt with the Indians. The Volga River in Russia, he once proclaimed, will be Germany’s Mississippi.
Here ideology met necessity. So long as Britain did not fall, Hitler’s only relevant vision of empire was the conquest of further territory in eastern Europe. The same held for Hitler’s intention to rid Europe of Jews: so long as Britain remained in the war, Jews would have to be eliminated on the European continent, rather than on some distant island such as Madagascar. In late 1940 and early 1941, the Royal Navy prevented Hitler’s oceanic version of the Final Solution. Madagascar was a French possession and France had fallen, but the British still controlled the sea lanes. The allied Soviet Union had rejected Germany’s proposal to import two million European Jews. So long as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were allies, there was little that the Germans could do but accept the Soviet refusal and bide their time. But if Germany conquered the Soviet Union, it could use Soviet territories as it pleased. Hitler had just ordered preparations for the Soviet invasion when he proclaimed to a large crowd at the Berlin Sportpalast in January 1941 that a world war would mean that ‘the role of Jewry would be finished in Europe.’ The Final Solution would not follow the invasion of Britain, plans for which were indefinitely postponed. It would follow the invasion of the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941. The first major shooting actions would take place in occupied Soviet Ukraine.
The Soviet Union was the only realistic source of calories for Germany and its west European empire, which together and separately were net importers of food. As Hitler knew, in late 1940 and early 1941 ninety percent of the food shipments from the Soviet Union came from Soviet Ukraine. Like Stalin, Hitler tended to see Ukraine itself as a geopolitical asset, and its people as instruments who tilled the soil, tools that could be exchanged with others or discarded. For Stalin, mastery of Ukraine was the precondition and proof of the triumph of his version of socialism. Purged, starved, collectivized, and terrorized, it fed and defended Soviet Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union. Hitler dreamed of the endlessly fertile Ukrainian soil, assuming that Germans would extract more from the terrain than the Soviets.
Food from Ukraine was as important to the Nazi vision of an eastern empire as it was to Stalin’s defense of the integrity of the Soviet Union. Stalin’s Ukrainian ‘fortress’ was Hitler’s Ukrainian ‘breadbasket.’ The German army general staff concluded in an August 1940 study that Ukraine was ‘agriculturally and industrially the most valuable part of the Soviet Union.’ Herbert Backe, the responsible civilian planner, told Hitler in January 1941 that ‘the occupation of Ukraine would liberate us from every economic worry.’ Hitler wanted Ukraine ‘so that no one is able to starve us again, like in the last war.’ The conquest of Ukraine would first insulate Germans from the British blockade, and then the colonization of Ukraine would allow Germany to become a global power on the model of the United States.
De centrale vraag nu is waarom de EU-beleidsbepalers en de spraakmakende Europese mainstream opiniemakers verzwijgen dat al in 2015 de meest gerespecteerde westerse geopolitieke deskundige, dr. Henry Kissinger, waarschuwde dat ‘Breaking Russia has become an objective’ voor de Obama/Biden regering.
https://www.russiamatters.org/analysis/kissinger-russia-insights-and-recommendations
In zijn veelgeprezen boek wees Snyder erop dat de ‘VS, een andere vastberaden grensstaat, gebaseerd’ is ‘op een uitroeiend kolonialisme en op slavenarbeid. Het Oosten was het Manifest Destiny van de Nazi’s. In Hitler’s ogen “zou zich in het Oosten voor de tweede maal een soortgelijk proces herhalen als tijdens de verovering van Amerika.” Hitler stelde zich voor dat in de toekomst Duitsland op soortgelijke wijze met de Slaven zou afrekenen als de Noord-Amerikanen hadden gedaan met de Indianen. De Wolga in Rusland, zo verkondigde hij eens, zal Duitsland’s Mississippi worden.
De opvattingen van de Sovjet- en Nazi-kopstukken verschillen niet wezenlijk van die van de witte Amerikaanse elite. In zijn boek Imperial Alibi's: Rationalizing U.S. Intervention After the Cold War (1999) schreef de joods-Amerikaanse hoogleraar Stephen Shalom:
To Theodore Roosevelt, the 'most ultimately righteous of all wars is a war with savages, though it is apt to be also the most terrible and inhuman,' but no matter, because it was 'idle to apply to savages the rules of international morality which obtain between stable and cultured communities....' Not that Roosevelt went 'so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn't inquire too closely into the case of the tenth.'
Toen ik Shalom in 2003 interviewde benadrukte hij de continuïteit van het Amerikaanse racisme dat volgens hem niet meteen zou verdwijnen zodra gekleurde politici het buitenlandse beleid mede bepalen, zoals naderhand ook bleek uit de beleidsdaden van minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Condoleezza Rice, haar voorganger Colin Powell, en niet te vergeten president Barack Obama, zoals nu weer blijkt uit zijn steun aan de zionistische terreur tegen de vogelvrij verklaarde Palestijnse bevolking.
In zijn studie Imperial Alibi’s stelde hij over het racisme in de Amerikaanse buitenlandse politiek:
Racism against Africans was another fundamental building block of American ideology. Deemed to be sub-human, they were subjected to a barbaric and brutal system of slavery. Lincoln was willing to accept slavery so long as the union could be preserved; and when the Civil War drove him to abolish slavery he did not change his belief in black inferiority. When the South introduced Jim Crow laws to maintain the descendants of slaves as second-class citizens, the northern elite went along. Even after World War II, President Harry Truman was referring to blacks as 'niggers.' Derogatory references to blacks were standard fare for President Nixon and the senior officials of his administration. 'I wonder what your dining room is going to smell like,' Kissinger chortled to Senator Fulbright, regarding a dinner for African diplomats.
With racist views deeply embedded in the minds of U.S. policy-makers and rooted in domestic structures of domination and subordination, it is not surprising that these views have influenced the way in which Washington looked at and acted in the world outside.
The presence of a few non-whites in policymaking circles is not likely to change the nature of U.S. foreign policy very much; to attain positions of power, these individuals would have to have shown substantial conformity to the prevailing values of the elite. A substantial racial diversity among policy-makers, on the other hand, would likely make racism a less significant factor in the way Washington deals with the world. But such an occurrence is by no means imminent, and will not come to pass as long as racial inequality remains a fundamental characteristic of the U.S. domestic landscape. Until this time, racism will continue to be an important factor in U.S. foreign policy.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Foreign_Policy/Sources_IA.html
The imperialist ideology of Theodore Roosevelt was in no small part motivated by a belief in the superiority of the race and civilization of Anglo-Saxon peoples, as articulated in his Autobiography and other writings. Many of the tropes and prejudices articulated under this overtly racist theoretical framework have persisted today among American commentators when discussing 'developing nations' as squabbling, 'immature democracies,' full of un-industrious, corrupt, or cowardly leaders. Perhaps a recognition of the racist origins of these attitudes will give us pause in applying them instinctively in a neocolonialist context. Racism and nationalism are not as far apart as we would like to believe...
In his private correspondence, Roosevelt confessed to having a 'taste for ethnic contests,' and he believed these were necessary so that the civilized nations should establish themselves over the barbaric nations. The great powers of the world had a twofold responsibility to suppress 'savagery and barbarism' and 'to help those who are struggling toward civilization.' In Roosevelt's view, the expansion of the 'civilized' races was essential to world peace; otherwise 'warlike barbarians' such as the Turks and Sudanese Mahdists would gain ground, causing 'endless war.' The decrease in foreign wars at the turn of the century was 'due solely to the power of the mighty civilized races which have not lost the fighting instinct, and which by their expansion are gradually bringing peace to the red wastes where the barbarian peoples of the world hold sway.' Modern imperialism, like that of ancient Rome, is identified with the promotion of peace throughout the world.
Ethnic contests, whether they took the form of military conquest or economic penetration, not only protected backward peoples from self-destructive warfare, but also served to 'prevent the higher races from losing their nobler traits and from being overwhelmed by the lower races.' Roosevelt clearly saw the less civilized peoples as a threat to European and North American culture. By asserting and promoting Western culture aggressively, the West protected its own future against barbarian conquest. Active participation in ethnic contests forced Westerners to exercise their 'nobler traits,' which could be lost if they were conquered or assimilated by intermarriage.
http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/histpoli/roosevelt.htm
the most lethal practice of arms conceivable. Let us hope that we at last understand this legacy. It is a weighty and sometimes ominous heritage that we must neither deny nor feel ashamed about -- but insist that our deadly manner of war serves, rather thans buries, our civilization.
In zijn wereldwijde bestseller The Clash of Civilizations And The Remaking of World Order (1996) benadrukte de Amerikaanse politicoloog, die tijdens zijn leven aan Harvard doceerde:
Qua genocide scoren wij witte westerlingen dan ook veruit het hoogst. De Amerikaanse hoogleraar American Studies, David E. Stannard, vat het als volgt kort samen in zijn studie American Holocaust. The conquest of the new world:
There were the unique horrors of the African slave trade, during the course of which at least 30.000.000 — and possibly as many as 40.000.000 to 60.000.000 — Africans were killed, most of them in the prime of their lives... And... the total extermination of many American Indian peoples and the near-extermination of others, in numbers that eventually totaled close to 100.000.000... For almost half a millennium Christians had been launching hideously destructive holy wars and massive enslavement campaigns against external enemies they viewed as carnal demons and described as infidels... During those same long centuries they had further expressed their ruthless intolerance of all persons and things that were non-Christian by conducting pogroms against the Jews who lived among them and whom they regarded as the embodiment of Antichrist -- imposing torture, exile, and mass destruction on those who refused to succumb to evangelical persuasion.
De Zweedse hoogleraar en auteur Sven Lindqvist onderstreept dit proces nog eens aan het eind van zijn boek Exterminate all the Brutes One Man's Odyssey Into the Heart of Darkness and the Origins of European Genocide (2007) wanneer hij concludeert dat:
Lindqvist ontdekte tijdens zijn onderzoek gaandeweg dat de:
Europese vernietiging van de 'inferieure rassen' van vier continenten de grond voorbereidde voor Hitlers vernietiging van zes miljoen joden in Europa… Het Europese expansionisme, vergezeld als het was door een schaamteloze verdediging van het uitroeien, schiep manieren van denken en politieke precedenten die de weg baanden voor nieuwe wandaden, die uiteindelijk culmineerden in… de Holocaust… En toen hetgeen was gebeurd in het hart der duisternis werd herhaald in het hart van Europa, herkende niemand het. Niemand wilde toegeven wat iedereen wist. Overal in de wereld waar kennis wordt onderdrukt, kennis die als ze bekend zou worden gemaakt ons beeld van de wereld aan gruzelementen zou slaan en ons zou dwingen onszelf ter discussie te stellen – daar wordt overal het Hart der Duisternis opgevoerd. U weet dat al. Net als ik. Het is geen kennis die ons ontbreekt. Wat gemist wordt is de moed om te begrijpen wat we weten en daaruit conclusies te trekken.
Vandaar ook dat de Nederlander vergeefs deze ‘conclusies’ zal trekken uit het populistische werk van de ‘populairste geschiedenisleraar’ van Nederland. Mijn oude vriend Geert Mak is ervan doordrongen dat de werkelijkheid nooit in Nederland een best-seller oplevert. Zijn eurocentrisme is niets anders dan een symptoom van het westerse arrogante racisme. Vanuit dit besef dient de lezer Geert Mak's slotconclusie te interpreteren. Hij zei in 2015 met gloedvolle schittering in zijn ogen en een uitgestreken gelaat het volgende:
Een goede elite kenmerkt zich door kwaliteit, zeker, maar ook door empathie en courage. Een goede elite erkent dat ze een elite is, en dat ‘noblesse oblige,’ in de breedste zin van het woord. Een goede elite luistert en kijkt met duizend ogen en oren. Een goede elite ligt dwars. Een goede elite durft het idee los te laten dat politiek alleen maar een vorm is van publiek management, durft luidop te dromen, durft ook onaangename waarheden onder ogen te zien en uit te spreken. Een goede elite durft te verliezen en klappen te krijgen. Een goede elite vecht voor het ambt, als trotse dienaren van de publieke zaak. Een goede elite gedraagt zich niet als burgers, maar als citoyens, elke dag.
Kwaliteit, empathie en courage, ja, dat hebben wij, als elite, in deze tijd nodig. Maar de grootste van deze drie is courage.
Geert Mak en veel van mijn generatiegenoten handelen niet alleen hypocriet, maar ook nog uiterst naïef. Een voorbeeld daarvan gaf de schrijver Jessica Durlacher die in Het Parool van 27 augustus 2022 liet weten dat ‘wij hier in het Westen toch eigenlijk weinig last hadden’ van de Koude Oorlog, en dat na ‘1989 het Oosten ook nog [werd] opengebroken’ waardoor er geen vuiltje meer aan de lucht zou zijn, want ‘we leefden met de gedachten: alles wordt goed en Rusland wordt één grote kapitalistische gezelligheid.’ Dat is het niveau waarmee mijn gehersenspoelde generatiegenoten opgroeiden. ‘Zo’n irreëel beeld hadden we,’ aldus de uitgebreid geïnterviewde 60-jarige mevrouw Durlacher.
Daarom opnieuw: de centrale vraag is waarom de EU-beleidsbepalers en de spraakmakende Europese mainstream opiniemakers verzwijgen dat al in 2015 de meest gerespecteerde westerse geopolitieke deskundige, dr. Henry Kissinger, waarschuwde dat ‘Breaking Russia has become an objective’ voor de Obama/Biden regering. Volgende keer meer.
How It All Started
From: http://www.dickshovel.com/lsa3.html
The founding fathers on that rock shared common characteristics. All four valued white supremacy and promoted the extirpation of Indian society. The United States' founding fathers were staunchly anti-Indian advocates in that at one time or another, all four provided for genocide against Indian peoples of this hemisphere.
George Washington...
In 1779, George Washington instructed Major General John Sullivan to attack Iroquois people. Washington stated, "lay waste all the settlements around... that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed". In the course of the carnage and annihilation of Indian people, Washington also instructed his general not "listen to any overture of peace before the total ruin of their settlements is effected". (Stannard, David E. AMERICAN HOLOCAUST. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. pp. 118-121.)
In 1783, Washington's anti-Indian sentiments were apparent in his comparisons of Indians with wolves: "Both being beast of prey, tho' they differ in shape", he said. George Washington's policies of extermination were realized in his troop's behaviors following a defeat. Troops would skin the bodies of Iroquois "from the hips downward to make boot tops or leggings". Indians who survived the attacks later re-named the nation's first president as "Town Destroyer". Approximately 28 of 30 Seneca towns had been destroyed within a five year period. (Ibid)
Thomas Jefferson...
In 1807, Thomas Jefferson instructed his War Department that, should any Indians resist against America stealing Indian lands, the Indian resistance must be met with "the hatchet". Jefferson continued, "And... if ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, " he wrote, "we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or is driven beyond the Mississippi." Jefferson, the slave owner, continued, "in war, they will kill some of us; we shall destroy all of them". (Ibid)
In 1812, Jefferson said that American was obliged to push the backward Indians "with the beasts of the forests into the Stony Mountains". One year later Jefferson continued anti-Indian statements by adding that America must "pursue [the Indians] to extermination, or drive them to new seats beyond our reach". (Ibid)
Abraham Lincoln...
In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln ordered the execution, by hanging, of 38 Dakota Sioux prisoners in Mankato, Minnesota. Most of those executed were holy men or political leaders of their camps. None of them were responsible for committing the crimes they were accused of. Coined as the Largest Mass Execution in U.S. History. (Brown, Dee. BURY MY HEART AT WOUNDED KNEE. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1970. pp. 59-61)
Theodore Roosevelt...
The fourth face you see on that "Stony Mountain" is America's first twentieth century president, alleged American hero, and Nobel peace prize recipient, Theodore Roosevelt. This Indian fighter firmly grasped the notion of Manifest Destiny saying that America's extermination of the Indians and thefts our their lands "was ultimately beneficial as it was inevitable". Roosevelt once said, "I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn't like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth". (Stannard, Op.Cit.)
The apathy displayed by these founding fathers symbolize the demoralization related to racial superiority. Scholars point toward this racial polarization as evidence of the existence of Eugenics.
Eugenics is a new term for an old phenomena which asserts that Indian people should be exterminated because they are an inferior race of people. Jefferson's suggestion to pursue the Indians to extermination fits well into the eugenistic vision. In David Stannard's study American Holocaust, he writes: "had these same words been enunciated by a German leader in 1939, and directed at European Jews, they would be engraved in modern memory. Since they were uttered by one of America's founding fathers, however...they conveniently have become lost to most historians in their insistent celebration of Jefferson's wisdom and humanity." Roosevelt feared that American upper classes were being replaced by the "unrestricted breeding" of inferior racial stocks, the "utterly shiftless", and the "worthless" (Ibid)
http://www.greatdreams.com/lies.htm
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten