Re: Seeing the light

[Giorgio Menon <menon(at)pd.infn.it>]

Hi Georges,
well, i suppose you have put myself in the number of those "brilliant
Ontologists, Scientists, Theologians and Politicians".
If this is your opinion i consider it just wrong, as i have clearly
declared myself a simple worker. With the passion for the research.
Maybe you have forgotten the keyrole of the Reichstag fire in Hitler's
accession. The analogies with 911 are impressive.
" The night of February 27, 1933 loomed dark and gray over the city of
Berlin. The Reichstag, seat of parliamentary government in Germany had
been in recess since December of the preceding year. New elections were
scheduled for March 5th.
At 9:30 there was a tremendous explosion and the great central chamber
was totally enveloped in flames. The fire quickly raced out of control
despite the efforts of the fire fighters and soon only the walls of the
gutted building were still standing. Within minutes police arrested a
half naked and seemingly dazed Dutchman, Marinus van der Lubbe, who was
discovered at the scene.
It wasn't long before Chancellor Hitler and Prussian Minister Göring
arrived amid a flurry of reporters and photographers. Although he had
just stepped out of his car, Göring at once accused the communists of
setting the fire. The debate over who set the fire continues and may
never be solved to everyone's satisfaction. Despite attempts to support
the case against van der Lubbe, who was tried and executed for the
crime, a great deal of evidence collected and analyzed by Walther Hofer
of Bern points in the direction of a SA/SS Sondergruppe headed by
Reinhard Heydrich and an official of the Prussian Ministry of the
Interior, Kurt Dalüge. Less important than the cause of the fire however
was the result. Before the sun rose on the morning of the 28th, over
4,000 communists and a miscellany of intellectuals and professional men
who had incurred the wrath of the Nazi Party were arrested. A shaken
President Hindenburg, 86 years old, was easily convinced that the nation
was on the verge of a communist revolution, was induced by Hitler to
sign an emergency decree suspending the basic rights of the citizens for
the duration of the emergency. This decree also authorized the Reich
government to assume full powers in any federal state whose government
proved unable to restore public order, ordered death or imprisonment for
a number of crimes including some newly invented such as resistance to
the decree itself. The decree did not include any provision guaranteeing
an arrested person a quick hearing, access to legal counsel, or redress
for false arrest. Those arrested often found their detention extended
indefinitely without legal proceedings of any kind.
On March 2, Hitler was asked by a corespondent of the /Daily Express/
whether the suspension of liberties was permanent. He answered in the
negative saying that full rights would be restored as soon as the
Communist danger was over. The reality was that the decree of February
28th established what would become the normal order of things under
National Socialism - arrest on suspicion, imprisonment without trial,
the horrors of the concentration camps. This condition would persist
until the end of the Third Reich."
http://worldatwar.net/event/reichstagsbrand/
You can get all the info you need by a simple google search. Let's go
on. I've already posted once what Hermann Goering said during the
Nurnberg trial.
""Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why
would some poor
 slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can
get out of it
 is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people
don't want war;
 neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in
Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who
determine the
 policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a
democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people
have some say in
 the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United
States only
Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can
always be
brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do
is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of
patriotism and exposing
 the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Ok, if these are the principles, how are these principles put into
practice (the media play a keyrole here)?
Step1- general crisis. People must feel threatened through inflation,
unemployment, lack of social services (public health etc..)
step2- A serious trouble involving the same idea of State is caused. The
whole homeland is under attack now.
step3- The scapegoat is found. Of course.
step4- despite their individual responsabilities, such scapegoats belong
to a wider organization, which must be exterminated by all means, or the
same Nation, God, Family, Society will never be the same peaceful and
loving thing as we knew it. Sorry, but this makes me puke, cynical as i
am....
step5-to achieve such brilliant goal the same State must put heavy
limits to personal freedoms. It's the minor evil, of course. Common
people not only say yes at this point, but easily join the National Army
to save their families, gods and toilets from being spoiled by a
communist, a terrorist, a jew, a muslim etc....
step 6- after this political sodomy is completed there's just nothing to do.

At this point here's what happens:

"First they came for the communists but I was not a communist so I kept
quiet.
Then they came for the socialists and the trade unionists but I was
neither, so I did
not speak out.  Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I
did not speak
out.  And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for
me."
Martin Niemoller, after being released from Dachau, 1945

"The efficiency of the truly national leader consists mainly of
preventing the people's
 attention from becoming divided, and of always concentrating it on a
single enemy."
 Adolp Hitler, 'Mein Kampf' 1924

"If they do it, it's terrorism, if we do it, it's fighting for freedom."
Anthony Quainton, U.S. Ambassador to Nicaragua, 1984: Anthony  Quainton
Source: Off the record response of the Ambassador to a group of
concerned U.S. citizens when asked to explain the difference
between U.S. government actions in Nicaragua and the violence it
condemns as terrorism elsewhere in the world.

I'm expecting an intelligent reply from you. If possible with an equally
strong relativistic (thus contextual) background.
Thanks

Giorgio

PS i strongly reject the idea that we are in WWIII. I've understood that
a few criminals (CEOs) are trying to move money from our (common people)
pockets to their and to achieve this goal they must make us miserable,
so miserable that we accept whatever thay say. You have been a victim of
this all during WWII, when for the profit of few many risked or lost
their own lives and the lives of their beloved.
But if a victim of this plan fails to fully understand it, i really see
no hope for us all.

Georges Metanomski wrote:

> I admitt that there were no Muslims on 9/11 planes and
> that they were flown by fancy dressed CIA, Mossad, IS
> and more generally the Great Satan's agents. Where I run
> a bit into trouble is to grasp their motivation. Heroic
> Mudjahaddin of course love to be shot or to blow themselves
> up as prelude to fucking the virgins. But for Satan's
> agents there are no virgins to fuck, so why should they
> blow themselves up? Too deep waters for my peanut, so
> please, help.
> Same holds for all pretended Islamist suicide bombers who
> are clearly fancy dressed Satan's agents. Why the hell
> do they blow themselves up without fucking virgins in view?
> Help!
>
> =====================================================>It would mean that we are in WWIII against Jihad, that
> NY and London were bombed by Jihad's mudjahaddin, that
> established religions are criminal, that science is
> scientific and Design is stupid and, worst of all, that
> our brilliant Ontologists, Scientists, Theologians and
> Politicians are priceless assholes who reached the
> rockbed of imbecility.
> =====================================================>Georges.
> =====================================================>