Tag Archives: Germany

Ferguson Riots Highlight Inequality in America (again): A Modest Proposal

Race has become a cover for all kinds of perversity in America. Rioters in Ferguson, Missouri, are taking steps to secure the suspension of the Constitution and the abolition of due process of law because the Grand Jury’s decision to render “No Bill” in regard to Officer Darren Wilson shows that “it is OK to shoot black men in America” as more than one incendiary commentator has written.

The problem is that the police shoot EVERY color of man, woman, and child in America (and quite a few animals).  The problem is that American police are all armed to the teeth and many seem to believe they have the right to shoot absolutely everybody, anytime. The problem is that the police are armed and American citizens (typically) are not.  This must end.  The word “Police” has a very different etymological origin and history from the French “Gendarmes”—but the French word (etymologically “gens d’armes” replacing earlier “hommes d’armes” ) encapsulates the concept of “armed people” against “unarmed people.”  The English word “Police” most likely came to England with the Spanish Inquisitorial advisers and counselors brought into the Tudor Realm with Catherine of Aragon, mother of “Bloody Mary.”  “Policia” is the Spanish word, related to German “Politzei” which traces to the reign of Charles V, King of Spain and Hapsburg Emperor or Germany who succeeded King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella.

I am writing to propose to you that the shooting in Ferguson is indeed all about inequality.  But the inequality that I perceive is political and functional, not racial.  Black Americans, Hispanics, and (at least some) Whites are all being deceived into the notion that power is based on race in America.  Power is based on control over weapons, and the legitimate use of the same.

And the solution is really quite simple: we must abolish, now and forever, both the concept and the function of a specialized branch of government called “the Police.”  So this is my modest proposal: ARM THE PEOPLE, ABOLISH ALL POLICE FORCES, or at least disarm them and deprive them of any special authority over life, liberty, and property. “Police” units should be limited

The modern American and (really worldwide) concept of the “Police” embody and reflect the Anthropological and Cultural Evolutionary formulary notion that “The State” comes into existence only when there is a “monopoly of legitimate violence”. [“States” in the Anthropological, Cultural Evolutionary {i.e. “Prehistoric”} Scheme of things replaced tribes, chiefdoms {= Post-Mosaic, Biblical “Judges”}, and all other “pre-state” political forms of less elaborately evolved, less severe socio-functional integration].

The modern English word “Police” does not predate the reign of Henry VIII in England and Wales.  Etymologically, the concept of “the Police” equates with Latin “Polis” (= city) and “Policy” (lower level law, norms with official sanction slightly more formal than mere customs or practices, but not nearly so formalized as statutes).  

To abolish Inequality in America, as I wrote above: we must absolutely, positively, now and forever abolish the police.  People, to be free, must be “self-policing”.  The question here is: can the state exist without Police?  Or will we sink into the anarchy of the Scottish Clans and the Vikings without police forces?  (OK, were Scottish Clans and Viking tribes really “lawless?”  Were the pre-Colombian Indian Tribes of the Americas really “lawless”?  Were the Israelites “Lawless” when ruled by “Judges” before the appointment of Kings under Saul, Samuel, David, and Solomon).

OR, can (popularly administered, i.e. “community based”, egalitarian) LAW and DUE PROCESS OF LAW ALONE determine what violence is legitimate or not?  Are people capable of self-government in a complex society?  I think they are, although certain “old-fashioned” norms should perhaps be restored.

The police are increasingly an unqualified abomination all over America because they are militarized, and show increasing disregard for human (and animal) life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The structural apex of the modern United States as a “Police Nation” (as the late great South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond decried, denounced and predicted in his “Dixiecrat” Southern Democratic breakaway platform in 1948) took shape (appropriately enough) formed by the hands and minds of rulers with truly Royal Blood. The seeds of the transformation to a police society planted under Abraham Lincoln and they sprouted over the next decades.  But the apical hierarchy of a “Police Nation” was only set, in 1908, when the Republican “Progressive” President, Theodore Roosevelt’s, Attorney General Charles Joseph Bonaparte created the FBI.  

The creation of the FBI, destined to be ruled by a despotic monarch of sorts, J.Edgar Hoover, for 48 years from 1924-1972, was a truly royal event because Attorney General Charles Joseph was the grandson of Jerome Bonaparte, who in turn was the youngest brother of Napoleon the Great, Emperor of the French.  Jerome Bonaparte’s title was King of Westphalia, 1807-1814, a German “puppet State” under the Bonapartist transformation of Europe following the French Revolution.  “Gens d’Armes” were a key element of the Bonapartist bureaucracy, who far exceeded the number and power of any such royal agents who had ever existed among the “oppressive” Bourbon monarchs of the previous millenium since Charlemagne.  

Twenty five years later, at the “accession” of the (at that time) most unconstitutional and anti-Democratic American “King” Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933, the police state already had widespread public acceptance.  The “police” everywhere became a major instrument of governmental “welfare”, with the creation of hundred or more different Federal “Policy Enforcement” (i.e. “Policing”) agencies which coordinated with state and local “Police” in the regulation of the economy and every day life, which most Americans now accept as “normal” and take for granted.

As much as I dislike the “Progressivism” of Theodore Roosevelt or the “New Deal” Socialism of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, it cannot be said that people lack the power to “will themselves into socialism” through democratic process, or that socialism and constitutional government are entirely, wholly, incompatible—although socialist restrictions on the rights to contract freely and own property “in fee simple absolute” inevitably conflict with the American Constitution of 1787, as amended by the Bill of Rights in 1791 and even by the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.  

I cannot say the same of Police Power.  Putting guns in the hands of a few people against the many is absolutely, positively inimical to the American way of life.  

Let us think for a moment about other privileges which have defined politically and social powerful classes: such as the right to ride horses.  First Latin Equites, then French Chevaliers and Spanish Caballeros all designate and refer to this special technology or mode of transportation which for nearly 4000 years defined the military elite of society (Georges Dumézil’s “Second Function”—physical force, which in the United States Constitution found expression in Article II, the Executive Branch).  

Among the Spanish Colonial Elites in the New World, from California and New Mexico to Southernmost Chile and Patagonia, the rights to ride a horse and carry firearms were limited to the Hidalgos of the Criollos (“Creole”) or Peninsular (Spanish born) aristocracy.  Indians, in the 18th Century, were required to apply for special permission to acquire either “elite” technology (horses or guns).  Such applications for permission were “badges and incidents” of subservient status as conquered people.  

Similarly, in the modern US, armored motor vehicles and automatic weapons are restricted by law to the police.  

“We the people” are now the subservient status and conquered people in our own nation.  

So we should all support the Ferguson Rioters, insofar as their complaints can be construed as an objection to police power, but we must eschew and ignore the racial rhetoric, and focus on the real problem, which is the State’s Monopoly of Legitimate Violence. Our position must be that ALL forms of monopoly are inimical to Constitutional Government.

Adolf Hitler may have once been Time Magazine’s “Man of the Year” but he never got his Picture on the Cover of the Rolling Stones….

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/heil-hipster-the-young-neo-nazis-trying-to-put-a-stylish-face-on-hate-20140623

Heil Hipster: The Young Neo-Nazis Trying to Put a Stylish Face on Hate
Inside the tote-bag friendly, “Harlem Shake”-happy world of Germany’s “nipsters”

Patrick Schroeder
http://www.photosofkaos.com
By THOMAS ROGERS
June 23, 2014 10:00 AM ET
It’s a rainy Sunday evening in May, in the town of Weiden, in northeastern Bavaria, and Patrick Schroeder, whom the German press has dubbed the “Nazi-hipster,” is preparing for his big webcam entrance. As the opening sequence for his weekly Internet TV show, FSN.tv, plays silently in the background, he ties a bandana stitched with the slogan “H8” around his mouth and fiddles with his mouse. A map of Germany in 1937 hangs on the wall above him.

It’s hard to get the timing for the intro “just right,” he explains, and once the graphics stop playing, he strides into frame and raises his arm, curling his hand into a fist and wishing his viewers, a few hundred members of Germany’s extreme right, a lovely evening. He calls this gesture his “professional wrestling entrance move,” which he claims was inspired by WWE-style theatrics, though it also, not inconveniently, looks a bit like a heil Hitler Nazi salute.

Schroeder is 30 years old, about six feet tall, with the boxy musculature of an MMA fighter, his blond hair shaved except for a jaunty strip along the top of his head. He’s dressed all in black, wearing armbands slightly reminiscent of those favored by vintage Avril Lavigne and speaks quickly and loudly, with a strong Bavarian lilt. When he laughs, his upper right lip rises up, making him look both threatening and insecure. “If the Third Reich was so bad, it would have been toppled,” he argues, before the filming begins. “Every half-intelligent person knows there is no system where everything was bad.”

Berghain: The Secretive, Sex-Fueled World of Berlin’s Coolest Club

He won’t elaborate, for legal reasons, but he’ll happily share his topline thoughts about everything from Obama (whom he grossly describes as America’s “neger president”) to why black people don’t belong in Germany (“It’s against nature — there’s a reason we’re not walking around in the sun, in Ghana, with our skin color”), to why American neo-Nazis are “primitive” (“It’s like they’re always dressing up for a costume party”) and — because, just like many other Germans, he loves American TV — his strong feelings about the series finale of How I Met Your Mother (“The mother dying was a good reminder that the world isn’t a great place”).

Inane rhetoric notwithstanding, Schroeder comes across first and foremost as a dedicated self-promoter, and he clearly enjoys putting on a show: For the next two hours, he sits at the computer and chats with his remote co-host about the latest Nazi news — recently banned groups, European elections — and riffs on pop culture. He peppers his statements with self-deprecating asides and eye-rolls, and he occasionally interrupts the chatter to play Rechstrock, neo-Nazi rock songs.

FSN.tv is Germany’s only neo-Nazi Internet TV show, and in the two years since it has existed it has turned Schroeder into a well-known, if highly controversial, figure in the German extreme right, largely because he has been open about his desire to give the German neo-Nazi movement a friendlier, hipper face. Schroeder sometimes conducts seminars showing neo-Nazis how they can dress less threateningly and argues that anybody from hip-hop fans to hipsters in skinny jeans should be able to join the scene without changing the way they look, an idea that, for many older members, is an affront to their anti-mainstream values.

Over the past year, partly because of leaders like Schroeder and partly because of the unstoppable globalization of youth culture, the hipsterification of the German neo-Nazi scene has begun to gain steam. This winter, the German media came up with a new term, “nipster,” to describe the trend of people dressing like Brooklyn hipsters at Nazi events. Experts have noted that the German neo-Nazi presence on Tumblr and other social networking sites has become sleeker and more sophisticated. Neo-Nazi clothing has become more stylish and difficult to recognize. There’s even a vegan Nazi cooking show. “If the definition of the nipster is someone who can live in the mainstream,” Schroeder explains, “then I see it as the future of the movement.”

Patrick Schroeder and his co-host Vendetta on his weekly Internet TV show, FSN.tv.
These are strange times to be a neo-Nazi in Germany. The Federal Constitutional Court is gearing up for a hearing on the latest attempt to ban the National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD), the country’s oldest and biggest extreme-right political party. Regardless of the verdict, the party is close to running out of money and Nazi opponents have become successful at shutting down its public appearances (in April, a high-profile Berlin NPD march was successfully blockaded by several thousand protesters). The murder trial of the lone surviving core member of the National Socialist Underground, a far-right terror cell that is accused of killing 10 people between 2000 and 2007, is also ongoing in Munich, and focusing the nation’s attention on extreme-right crimes, and a recent study found that the number of people with extreme-right sympathies has sunken from 9.7 to 5.6 percent in the last 12 years.

At the same time, Germany and German culture have become more porous and international than ever: A federal survey found that nearly 20 percent of Germans have an immigrant background, and another new study found that immigrants and Germans are becoming increasingly similar. German TV broadcasts The Real Housewives, the Top 20 pop charts include songs by Calvin Harris, Coldplay and Pitbull and thanks to the Internet, teenagers can pirate the latest episode of Girls a few hours after it airs in America. And now another American export has arrived: In 2012, the daily Welt heralded the “hipster” as Germany’s “new object of hate” and just this February, the country’s biggest tabloid, Bild, offered a guide to “hipster types” for its readers. (Example: “The fixed-gear fanatic never goes anywhere without his bike.”)

For people like Andy Knape, the rise of the German hipster presents both an opportunity and a dilemma. For the past two years, the 28-year-old Knape has been the head of the Junge Nationaldemokraten (JN), the youth wing of the NPD. His office is located in the state parliament of Saxony, in the eastern part of Germany, and overlooks the city’s majestic opera house, which largely burnt down after the city’s firebombing and was rebuilt after the war. A poster of an elderly woman with a shotgun and the words “drastic security measures” hangs on the wall, next to a photo of several steely-eyed white people smiling.

The Hidden War Against Gay Teens

As head of the JN, Knape’s job is to make the NPD, and its extreme-right politics, appealing to young people (one of his biggest goals, he explains, is to “preserve German culture”) and he’s a good salesman — 5’8″, fit and dressed in a grey T-shirt and Converse-style sneakers, he wouldn’t look out of place on an American college campus. He first entered the scene when he was 13, in Magdeburg, because his brother was also “right-wing oriented” and he “started to ask himself lots of questions.” Eventually, he says, he began going to NPD demonstrations, and got more involved. Although his eyes betray a palpable aggressiveness and many of his talking points seem clearly rehearsed, for a man in charge of an organization being monitored by the Bundesverfassungsschutz — Germany’s domestic security agency — he is surprisingly soft-spoken. When he speaks he tends to curl up in his chair.

Like Schroeder, whom he sees as an acolyte, Knape wants to give “nationalism” a friendlier, cooler face (in the NPD, and many other extreme-right organizations, “nationalist” often functions as a politically acceptable euphemism for “Nazi”). For Knape, who grew up with American pop culture, the idea of policing what young members of the scene watch or listen to is silly — he’d much rather hijack it, and use it to bring young people into the fold. Michael Schaefer, the JN’s excitable 31-year-old press person, chimes in: “We’ve taken over the nipster,” he says, giddily, before catching himself. “I mean nationalist hipster, not Nazi hipster.”

The term hipster has, of course, always been notoriously slippery. Back in his 2010 book What Was the Hipster?, Mark Greif described the term as meaning a “consumer” who “aligns himself both with rebel subculture and with the dominant class and thus opens up a poisonous conduit between the two.” But in Germany, as elsewhere, the newly discovered hipster is often reduced to its more superficial component parts: “skinny jeans, a bushy beard, bright sunglasses” (Welt), “strange, nerdy and somehow different,” (Sueddeutsche Zeitung), “self-important culture snobs” (Tagesspiegel). Here, the hipster is simultaneously a uniform, a cooler-than-thou weltanschauung and signpost of globalized American youth culture and consumerism.

“We don’t want to cut ourselves off,” Knape says, about hipster culture. “I see rap and hip-hop, for example, as a way of transporting our message.” In recent years, a number of extreme-right hip-hop acts have emerged in Germany — with names like Makss Damage and Dee Ex. Despite the awkward politics of using hip-hop to preach the virtues of German identity, they’ve amassed a small, but significant presence within the scene. Dee Ex, for example, has over 7,000 likes on Facebook and posts photos of herself in a revealing outfit on her blog. There is now neo-Nazi techno (biggest act: DJ Adolf) and neo-Nazi reggae.

Knape, on his end, has also gotten increasingly invested in online culture: “The Internet allows us to reach people we can’t reach on the street.” Now young people can get in touch with him over Facebook or e-mail without their parents, or anybody else, finding out. “They don’t need to out themselves immediately,” he says. Knape is especially proud of his viral-video outreach: last year, his group filmed a “Harlem Shake” video. In the JN video, people in masks bounce around junked cars while one of them holds up a sign saying “Have more sex with Nazis, unprotected.” It has over 17,000 hits on YouTube. (“New, modern, but not decadent,” Knape says about the video, which you can watch below.)

But, perhaps partly because of this internationalization of German culture, Knape struggles to define the “German traditions” he’s trying to preserve. It’s understandable: Germany, even by European standards, is a supremely contrived state composed of 300 formerly distinct political entities. Founded in 1871, it is also younger even than Canada — there’s a reason Hitler had to reach back to centuries-old, mythical folklore when trying to sell people on the idea of Germanic superiority. Knape says he wants more people to mark the “Sonnenwende” or solstice — a celebration the Nazis tried to revive in the Hitler era — for example, and to preserve the German language. He is concerned that “these days, we see a lot of people mixing German and English” — though he acknowledges that when it comes to technology, it’s “not easy to avoid.” He notes, with some resignation, that there is no German word for “hashtag.”

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/heil-hipster-the-young-neo-nazis-trying-to-put-a-stylish-face-on-hate-20140623#ixzz35dgsvMjn
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

Heil Hipster: The Young Neo-Nazis Trying to Put a Stylish Face on Hate
Page 2 of 3
In their latest 2013 report, the Bundesverfassungschutz concluded that there are approximately 22,000 members of the extreme right in Germany, including 9,600 who are “willing to engage in violence.” According to official statistics,they committed 473 violent crimes against foreigners last year — a shocking 20 percent rise over the previous year.

In September, for example, three suspected neo-Nazis brutally beat a 15-year-old in Saxony, allegedly because the boy was half Taiwanese. The same month, a Turkish immigrant was nearly beaten to death by a group of nine alleged neo-Nazis in a train station in Saxony-Anhalt and this February, a group of more than a dozen neo-Nazis walked into a community center in the town of Ballstaedt, in the state of Thuringia, and began assaulting the attendees at a party, sending two of them to the hospital.

Despite its shrinking status, the NPD remains the most important manifestation of the German neo-Nazi scene. The party — which was founded in 1964 by Hitler loyalists, and which the government has tried to ban, unsuccessfully — is the public face of the movement, which is otherwise composed of various loose, small organizations spread across the country. But it has never managed to attain the five percent of the popular vote necessary for a political party to hold seats in the German federal parliament and only holds a few seats in the state parliaments of two German states.

The NPD’s main platform is anti-immigration: A 2009 document sent out by the Berlin party head, for example, advocates banning “foreigners” from owning property in Germany. A 2012 investigation by Spiegel, Germany’s leading news magazine, found — surprise — widespread anti-Semitism within the party. In 2011, a Vice reporter photographed a barbecue stamped with “Happy Holocaust” outside an NPD office, and the same year, one NPD campaign poster featured a candidate on a motorcycle above the words “Give gas.” It was posted, among many other places, in front of Berlin’s Jewish Museum.

Although the extreme right has existed in Germany, in various forms, since World War II, the neo-Nazi scene as it exists today largely took shape in the 1980s, and spread dramatically after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Especially in the post-reunification East, where young people were suddenly robbed of the Communist strictures and institutions they had grown up with, extreme-right politics provided an easy outside explanation for their economic and cultural alienation: multiculturalism, asylum seekers, American “imperialism,” Israel and global big business.

In the 1990s, the skinhead became the embodiment of the neo-Nazi ethos — masculine, angry, violence-prone — and the news was awash with images of bullish, shaved-headed men with steel-toed combat boots and bomber jackets. During the neo-Nazi crime-waves of that decade, the German public learned to watch out for the brands favored by the extreme right: Fred Perry, which was worn because of its laurel wreath-logo, New Balance, chosen because “N” could stand for “Nazi” and, most prominently Lonsdale, the British sportswear brand. Although Lonsdale had always been popular in the left-wing British skinhead scene, it also offered German neo-Nazis the option of spelling out most of “NSDAP,” the German acronym for the Nazi party, under a half-open bomber jacket.

Today, Lonsdale is a popular sporting label in the United States, but in Germany it is still, despite its best efforts, widely seen as a Nazi brand. Geurt Schotsman, the politically-progressive owner of the brand’s German license, has been trying to rid himself of the neo-Nazi association for over a decade — with a campaign called “Lonsdale Loves All Colours,” a sponsorship of the Cologne Gay Pride parade and, this spring, official support of two left-wing German football clubs, Leipzig Roter Stern and SV Babelsberg. “If we had a huge budget, we would make a billboard campaign, and maybe that would solve the problem,” Schotsman says, “but we don’t have a huge budget.” In 1999, Schotsman underwent the drastic measure of blacklisting stores with extreme-right associations, causing Lonsdale’s German business to drop 35 percent — a tumble from which it is still recovering.

Around the turn of the 21st century, the skinhead look waned and the scene underwent another philosophical and aesthetic transformation. “Society had started to react against the extreme right, and it became less attractive for young people to stigmatize themselves,” says Simone Rafael, the editor-in-chief of Netz Gegen Nazis, a blog that monitors the extreme right. As a result, a new extreme-right group, the Autonomous Nationalists (AN), began aping the look of the extreme left — black hoodies, black pants and even Che Guevara T-shirts (with the words “Not only Che would be with us”) — and incorporating traditionally progressive issues like environmentalism and animal rights into neo-Nazi ideology. “Once [neo-Nazi leaders] saw it was successful, it was taken up by the scene,” says Rafael.

Almost simultaneously, in 2002, a Brandenburg-based clothing brand called Thor Steinar began to sell stylish-looking clothes, reminiscent of Aeropostale, with Germanic runes and emblazoned with provocative, ambiguously extreme-right slogans, like “Ski Heil.” Thor Steinar was brought to court for its logo, which looked like a banned neo-Nazi symbol, but it later rebranded and in 2009 was sold to a company based in Dubai. It has registered its trademark in the United States — this spring it opened up its first British store in the North Finchley neighborhood in London — and in recent years, a slew of imitator brands have popped up, with names like Erik And Sons and Ansgar Aryan (the latter currently employs Patrick Schroeder in the sales department), allowing members of the extreme-right to surreptitiously identify each other in public.

These developments helped spur the notion, now championed by Knape and Schroeder, that young neo-Nazis should be allowed to dress however they want, as long as they have the “right” anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic ideas. This newly relaxed approach allows neo-Nazi leaders to attract young people from different subcultures and makes neo-Nazis more difficult for their opponents to identify. “Now the neo-Nazi youth culture is really broad,” says Christoph Schulze, one of several left-wing activists who assemble the annual Versteckspiel (“Hide and seek”), a glossary of symbols used by members of the extreme-right to surreptitiously identify one another.

Those aforementioned symbols include everything from number codes (the most obvious: “88” to replace “Heil Hitler” — because “H” is the eighth letter in the alphabet) to logos (an eagle catching a Christian ichthys — a symbol of Germanic strength over “degenerates”) to sayings (“14 words,” which stands for a quote by American white nationalist David Lane). “The movement is always changing,” Schulze says. “One thing goes out of fashion and there’s already something new. This year it’s the hipster.”

The nipster came to widespread attention in February of this year, when a photographer snapped a picture of a group of men wearing skinny jeans, unruly beards, plug piercings — and, in one case, a tote bag with the words “don’t shove me, I’ve got a joghurt in my bag” — at an NPD march in Magdeburg. The photo quickly went viral in Germany and bloggers came up with the new portmanteau. Taz, the left-leaning Berlin daily, made a list of other hipster stances the Nazis could adopt (“change your favorite band when they become too mainstream.”).

Daniel Koehler, director of research at the Institute for the Study of Radical Movements in Berlin, says the nipster is less new than many people think — he’s been seeing them at extreme-right rallies for the past two or three years. “When we first saw it, it was something weird,” he says, “but now it’s pretty normal.”

“It’s a pretty new phenomenon,” Rafael says, noting that it marks a departure from the “manly” culture usually favored by the neo-Nazis. “It’s a good example of how this kind of thing is used very strategically,” she explains, echoing Schroeder. She has also noticed the emergence of a much hipper online neo-Nazi presence: “It’s a way of bringing the ideology into other circles, of finding entry points into hipster culture — blogs, selfies, Tumblr and so forth.”

She points to neo-Nazi Tumblrs, like Kindstattgross, which post stylized images of Nazi rallies and other heavily filtered extreme-right imagery. “I clicked on one of these Tumblr blogs, and suddenly discovered that there were tons and tons of them, where you wouldn’t recognize the message, and they are becoming more subtle and confusing people who aren’t part of the extreme right scene,” explains Rafael. (It’s also worth noting that neo-Nazis have started using the #nipster on Instagram.)

In recent years, a growing number of neo-Nazi groups have staged savvy viral campaigns, including one where they dressed up as the Sesame Street Cookie Monster and distributed pamphlets to schoolchildren, and another involving a man in a bear costume calling himself the “deportation bear” and posing in front of Hanover Turkish shops. “They can easily produce something that has the appearance of looking hip,” says Koehler. “These aren’t just dumb East German youth — they understand how to package their political ideology.”

Tim and Kevin, two 21-year-old self-proclaimed “nationalists and socialists” (“but anyone who reads this will know we’re Nazis”) from Hanover — who did not want to give their real names — say they have also noticed more people in the scene dressing like “hipsters,” with skinny pants and tote bags. “It’s noticeable,” Tim says, over the phone, and explains that everything that emerges in German mainstream culture ends up in the [neo-Nazi] scene, just with a delay. “We don’t walk around the city center with our eyes closed,” he says, “we see what people are wearing on TV.” He also agrees that the Nazi Tumblr style has gotten “more youthful” and “looser.”

In February, Tim and Kevin started Balaclava Kueche, Germany’s first Nazi vegan cooking show. In each episode, the two chatty, fast-talking men wear facemasks and earnestly explain to viewers how to make an array of vegan dishes (the first episode: mixed salad, tofu scramble). “The left-wing doesn’t have a prior claim to veganism,” says Tim. “Industrial meat production is incompatible with our nationalist and socialist world views.”

Both Tim and Kevin claim to live a straight-edge lifestyle — no alcohol, no drugs — and got involved in the scene in their late teens. “There was an election and I read up on all of the parties, and I wound up getting interested in the NPD,” says Kevin. “Hitler isn’t part of our era, but he’s part of our ideology and that time, in terms of aesthetics and discipline and brotherhood, was a model for today,” Tim adds. He also argues that the Allies carry the blame for the outbreak of World War II and that if people are going to dwell on the Holocaust they should also dwell more on Stalin’s crimes.

They started Balaclava Kueche as a fun project, to both encourage other people to stop eating animal products and portray their politics in a fun, sympathetic light. Early on, they attended NPD rallies, but were repelled by what they saw. “I don’t think the rallies make much sense,” Kevin says. “Most of the people there would scare people away with the way they look, and with their shitty sayings.” They see viral campaigns, like the “deportation bear” as a highly effective way of reaching out to people.

And then there are the Identitaeren, a two-year-old group with origins in France that has gotten widespread attention for its use of stylish viral videos to promote anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant sentiment. Although claiming to be anti-Nazi, they, like many members of the extreme right, espouse a concept called ethnopluralism, which argues that ethnic groups should only live in their respective home countries. Nils Altmieks, the movement’s boyish, 27-year-old current leader, argues that Europe should be for Europeans — and not, for example, Africans — and cites the United States as an example of the dangers of embracing heterogeneity. “Multiculturalism isn’t a contribution to cultural understanding, it’s a cornerstone for conflict,” he says, over Skype. He becomes wishy-washy when pressed about the exact borders of Europe (“Some might view Russia as European”) and can’t account for countries, like Canada, with high immigration and low crime.

German extremism researcher Alexander Haeusler has warned that the Identitaeren are insidiously attempting to make “racism modern and hip.” Last year, group members filmed themselves disrupting a multiculturalism conference with a blaring boombox and they also have a dedicated video blogger — a stylish-looking young man who often wears thick plastic glasses frames and a hoodie and whose most recent dispatch is about the moral peril of eating ethnic food. In other videos they’ve dumped rubble in front of the office of a Green Party politician and posed with silly-looking 300-inspired shields in front of the Brandenburg Gate. “We aren’t consciously a hipster movement, but today’s young people grew up with this background,” says Altmieks. “This is part of society.” His favorite movie, he says, is Braveheart.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/heil-hipster-the-young-neo-nazis-trying-to-put-a-stylish-face-on-hate-20140623#ixzz35diDHoHo
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

oincidentally or not, the emergence of the nipster has taken place at the same time as the rise of a new far-right political scene in Europe: In this May’s European elections, the National Front — the anti-immigrant party headed by Marine Le Pen — won the biggest voting share of parties in the French elections, and the British United Kingdom Independence Party won 27.5 percent of the vote in the U.K. Many people link these parties’ success to their ability to package themselves as a friendlier, less-threatening far right. Dutch political scientist Cas Mudde has argued that these parties largely swept into power by linking the euro crisis “to their core ideological features: nativism, authoritarianism and populism.”

The current German wave of, for instance, hip, vegan neo-Nazis functions in a similar way. Rafael says they attempt to slide into debates where young people wouldn’t expect them, and then sell their politics as a palatable outlet. “They use subjects like globalization and animal protection as entry points, and then offer a very simple worldview that makes complex subjects very easy to understand,” says Rafael. “Of course, in the end, it’s always about racism and anti-Semitism and nationalism.” The danger — in both cases — is that extreme-right positions might quietly shift into the mainstream.

Over the past two years, Cynthia Miller-Idriss, an associate professor at American University in Washington, D.C., has been conducting research with young people in Berlin schools who are on the periphery of the extreme-right. She says that, if anything, the change in neo-Nazi fashion has made it more difficult to step in when young people are being embroiled in the scene. “If you were a teacher,” she says, “you used to be able to identify a skinhead in your class and you could think of ways to intervene. But now it’s harder to mainstream society to understand who these young people are and to engage with them.”

Miller-Idriss suggests that for a generation raised on Facebook and Twitter, it may no longer feel ridiculous to, say, love Rihanna in real life but disparage black people on Facebook. “The social media space allows young people to have different expressions of their identities in different places,” she says. “This generation of youth likes the idea of having more control over their own identity. They’ve realized your style doesn’t have to be connected to your ideology. You can dress however you want to and still be a neo-Nazi.”

With this in mind, Koehler thinks there is a need in Germany for a new, broader educational campaign on how to identify members of the extreme right. “A short while ago we did a study with judges and lawyers, who thought they weren’t encountering neo-Nazis because they weren’t seeing any skinheads,” he says, “but they have no idea anymore what a neo-Nazi looks like.”

The stakes in the fight against extremism, of course, are more than just semantic. Several weeks ago, after Dortmund’s local elections, a group of about 20 neo-Nazis appeared outside city hall to protest the recent banning of an extreme-right group. They yelled “Germany for the Germans” and “foreigners out” and began singing the national anthem before attacking people outside the building with pepper spray and broken bottles, injuring ten. Dortmund city councilors have been meeting under police protection ever since.

Back in Bavaria, Patrick Schroeder is driving around downtown Weiden with his former co-host, Martin, a clean-cut 27-year-old computer programmer. Martin is not his real name, but he’s already lost his job twice because of his politics, and is worried about jeopardizing his newest position. Both men are complaining about the repression they face on the job market as neo-Nazis — since finishing his training as a salesman, Schroeder has only worked for companies tied to the scene. “We’re the new Jews in Germany,” he says, “except we don’t wear stars.”

They pull into the parking lot of a local Ernest Hemingway-themed restaurant and walk into a room crowded with people watching a soccer game. Heads turn. Schroeder is wearing a T-shirt of an extreme-right band called Terrorsphaera (“Terrorsphere”) with blood-like paint splatters. Martin, on the other hand, is dressed in gingham shirt, and looks like a character on Silicon Valley. The waitresses are all blonde and wearing “We love Germany” T-shirts, in honor of the upcoming World Cup, and as he sits down, the multiple men in the room give him dirty looks.

Although Schroeder is excited about the new wave of Internet activism, it appears that he’s worried that today’s young people are only interested in sitting at home and watching YouTube clips instead of going into the streets. “It’s a long road from listening to music to actually doing something,” he complains, while sipping a beer. And although there are no figures to back this up, others, like the Balaclava Kueche guys, suggest that such indolence represents the fickleness of the Internet generation. Some might also see that behavior as a sign of the movement’s slackening appeal.

That’s why Schroeder trying his best to mobilize his online following. He organizes an annual Live H8 concert, a gathering of neo-Nazi bands that he hopes will “help the mainstreaming of our music” and become “the most extreme Nazi concert” around. But he’s angry that people have been trying to pressure the venue owner to cancel the concert. “In this country, if you’ve got the wrong opinion, everything is against you,” he sighs. Such is life as a nipster these days. (This year’s concert was banned from taking place by authorities at the last minute.)

Schroeder also seems aware that the concepts of Germany and Europe — and, for that matter, America — are becoming increasingly theoretical. In the background, a soccer game is playing on the bar’s big screens, and it helps launch him on a tortured metaphor explaining why Asian immigrants don’t qualify as Germans. “It’s like if the Chinese bought 22 Brazilians and gave them Chinese passports and used them to win the World Cup,” he mopes. “If everybody’s the same, then what’s the point?”

Then he remembers that professional soccer, which is currently on the TV at the restaurant, operates on just that concept — and that the region’s most successful team, FC Bayern Munich, is partly made up of non-German players. “I still watch it,” Schroeder admits, “because there’s nothing else.” A few moments later, a goal is scored, and the bar erupts in cheers. Schroeder smiles at the TV, then catches himself and looks away.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/heil-hipster-the-young-neo-nazis-trying-to-put-a-stylish-face-on-hate-20140623#ixzz35djQlgac
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

Sovereign Nation or USA Vassal-State? German Looks to its Future under the Obamanation of Global-Imperialist USA!: More European Commentary on the Free Trade Agreement that NO ONE is Discussing in the USA—Obama Promotes Trayvon Sympathy Race-Riots to Hide the Largest U.S. Imperialist Action in HIstory—the Virtual Annexation of Europe

Last week for Bastille Day, July 14, 2013, I published a quotation from the French Front National’s website concerning the leading French Nationalist Party’s fears of a free trade agreement that, so far, I have seen discussed NOWHERE in the US-Media—someone fill me in if they have seen NYT or WSJ reports on it, because I’ve looked and (if they are there) I’ve somehow missed it.  We obviously can not count, any longer, on these two traditional pillars of US Journalism.  This week, following up on the French Commentary about the “Wildfire of Savage Globalism” with and by which Obama as George Bush’s handpicked successor is attempting effectively to annex Europe, I now quote the German National Democratic Party’s fears of the complete abrogation of National Sovereignty for status as a U.S. Vassal State, a condition not experienced since the dismal days post 1945 when Germany was effectively partitioned four ways between Great Britain in the Northwest (Hamburg, Hannover, Bremen, Schleswig-Holstein, Wesphalia, and most of Rheinland-Phalz, France in the Southwest (Saarland, Baden-Wurtemburg, U. S. Central and Southeast (Bavaria up to and including Frankfurt-am-Main), and of course, the entire eastern half of the Country either annexed to Poland and obliterated from the map or the heartland stub of Berlin, Brandenburg, Thuringia, Saxony, and Mecklenberg-Schwerin as “East Germany” operating under Russian occupation for 45 years as a Soviet Vassal State).  Surely Germany has suffered enough from foreign domination!

My sight-translation from German is not the best of my foreign language skills (German-original text below), but this is the best I can do early on a Sunday morning before Church with no better stimulus than Arizona Southern Style Tea from a page just published on Friday July 19, 2013, on the National Democratic Party websitehttp://www.npd.de/html/1938/artikel/detail/3310/ I WOULD WELCOME ANY CORRECTIONS OR SUGGESTED CLARIFICATIONS OF MY TRANSLATION BELOW, my undergraduate German professors Starke & Gotzkowsky would be so disappointed in my ability 36-35 years later…

Sovereign German Nation State or US-Vassal>
German Future Against the Background of the Prism-Accord Provided by the “Free Trade” Agreement with the United States

One simply has to answer too many questions incompletely and insubstantially, because we simply have no answer from the United States regarding to the extent of the American spying on German citizens and politicians. More than two-thirds of the Germans are dissatisfied and unhappy with the information provided by the (German) federal government, which may have been enough for Angela Merkel on this topic that shows her failings dramatically.
However, the NPD will not allow this affirmation of the comprehensive loss any sovereignty to evaporate into the summer heat.  Because it is not only the privacy of millions of Germans citizens by US-espionage that is in danger, even the protection of German companies is no longer secure.
Given this background, it is important to consider the proposed free trade agreement between the EU and the United States must be reviewed.  A  “free trade agreement” in any case threatens the independent self-management of all member governments and their peoples.  “Free Trade” prohibits ordinary national protection mechanisms, import duties and other effective measures for consumer protection. The “winners” of this free trade area are only the large, internationally active corporations. [Translators note: look at what has happened in Mexico since NAFTA: the Blessings of Walmart have reached into every corner of the land, including World Patrimony sites like the ruins of the greatest pre-Aztec sacred city of Quetzalcoatl at Teotihuacan; yet has Mexico reaped a great harvest of jobs amidst the Yankee invasion?  No, the slave labor of China and sub-human wages of sub-continental India have undercut Mexico’s extremely low wages, meaning that American companies have taken their jobs NOT to Mexico primarily but elsewhere, as Free Trade permits them to do—the net loss of Sovereignty plus Wealth to Mexico has fueled the largest human migration in history across the Rio Grande, Gadsen Purchase line, and boundary of Upper-Lower California to the point where the US is effectively half-Mexican now and large parts of the Mexican population depend on the “foreign aid” provided by its US-resident citizens].  “Losers” are without exception the acquiescing states and their citizens.  The states lose, because for every protective measure they can be dragged into [effectively dominant-State-US controlled] free trade courts, and this means that the states are thereby forced largely to withdraw from economic regulation. The people lose, because consumers suffer from unsafe products [produced in non-consumer countries] and small businesses suffer from the ruinous competition from abroad [which competition] could not be more effectively protected.

So said the US-american political scientist Susan George: “winners are logically the large companies. Small and medium-sized companies obtain much less, if they are already subcontractors of the greater companies and so already exploited, they have no way to regulate their prices, which will fall.”
Horse meat scandals and worse were on the agenda, because the states have no regulatory power anymore. Consumer protection becomes a thing of the past. The GMO Biotech-Concern Monsanto announced just a few days ago, that it will make no further applications for legalisation of genetically modified food in Germany and Europe.  This is no wonder, since Monsanto and similar companies can calmly but soon via free trade agreements will export  their genetically modified products to Germany [against the will and choice of the German people]. Ms. George states, precisely: “In the US, with 80 percent of the maize [American corn] production genetically modified, multinational companies dominate. And in agriculture, then the price on the US market sets the international price. That would be the ruin of the Europeans, except for the large, industrial establishments in Europe.”

The current Prism-Accord, is now revealed in light of the comprehensive espionage of the US secret NSA [National Security Agency] service in Germany, [and] shos the planned free trade agreement in [at the very least] a questionable light. In the future, comprehensive industrial espionage in Germany and Europe would be even easier for the US secret services. Several studies have already shown that Germany would have the least benefit of such a free trade agreement.  The even more comprehensive industrial espionage imposed on Germany, on the other hand would probably bear the brunt. Our already docile and US vassal Politi-Puppets like Chancellor Angela Merkel and Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich provide no expectation of protection for German citizens, consumers or businesses. [Friedrich has shown this by the complete lack of vigor in his investigation of the NSA over the past week or so].
Neither the Prism-Accord nor the planned free trade agreement will disappear in the summer!  They must be an election issue!
The NPD is the only party in Germany for the restoration of the full sovereignty of the German nation-state, the guarantor of the ability of German policies and basic conditions for an effective protection of German citizens and businesses.

[all bracketed content added by yours truly, the shamefully poor-translator CEL III]

(ORIGINAL TEXT IN GERMAN, SAME PAGE NOTED ABOVE: http://www.npd.de/html/1938/artikel/detail/3310/)

19.07.2013

Soveräner deutscher Nationalstaat statt US-Vasall

Vor dem Hintergrund von Prism darf es mit den USA kein Freihandelsabkommen geben 

Viele Fragen musste sie mit völliger Substanzlosigkeit beantworten, weil sie schlicht und ergreifend von den USA bisher keine Antwort zum Ausmaß der Ausspähung deutscher Bürger und Politiker bekommen hat. Mehr als zwei Drittel der Deutschen sind mit der Aufklärungsarbeit der Bundesregierung unzufrieden, Grund genug für Merkel, daß Thema zu entdramatisieren.

Die NPD wird allerdings nicht zulassen, daß dieser Beleg des umfassenden Verlusts jeglicher Souveränität im Sommerloch verschwindet. Denn nicht nur die Privatsphäre von Millionen deutschen Bürgern ist durch die US-Spionage in Gefahr, auch der Schutz deutscher Unternehmen ist nicht mehr gewährleistet.

Vor diesem Hintergrund muß auch das geplante Freihandelsabkommen zwischen der EU und den USA betrachtet werden. Ein Freihandelsabkommen bedroht ohnehin die Handlungsfähigkeit der Staaten und Völker, verbietet es doch nationale Schutzmechanismen, Einfuhrzölle und wirksame Maßnahmen zum Verbraucherschutz. Gewinner einer solchen Freihandelszone wären einzig und allein die großen, international agierenden Konzerne. Verlierer wären die Staaten und deren Bürger. Erstere, weil sie wegen jeder Schutzmaßnahme vor Gericht gezerrt werden könnten, da der Freihandelsvertrag die Staaten zwingen würde, sich aus der Wirtschaftsregulierung weitgehend zurückzuziehen. Letztere, weil Verbraucher vor bedenklichen Produkten und kleine Unternehmen vor der ruinösen Konkurrenz aus dem Ausland nicht mehr wirksam geschützt werden könnten.

So sagte hierzu die US-amerikanische Politikwissenschaftlerin Susan George: „Gewinner sind logischerweise die großen Unternehmen. Kleine und mittelständische Unternehmen würden viel weniger davon haben, wenn sie Subunternehmer sind und bereits von den Großen ausgebeutet werden, die nicht regelmäßig zahlen, die die Preise drücken können.“

Pferdefleischskandale und Schlimmeres wären an der Tagesordnung, weil die Staaten über keinerlei Kontrollbefugnisse mehr verfügen würden. Verbraucherschutz würde der Vergangenheit angehören. Der Gentech-Konzern Monsanto hat erst vor wenigen Tagen bekannt gegeben, keine weiteren Anträge auf Legalisierung von genmanipulierten Lebensmitteln in Deutschland und Europa stellen zu wollen. Dies ist auch kein Wunder, können Monsanto und ähnliche Konzerne doch bald seelenruhig ihren Genmüll via Freihandelsabkommen nach Deutschland exportieren. George hierzu wörtlich: „In den USA macht Genmais 80 Prozent der Produktion aus, hier dominieren multinationale Unternehmen. Und in der Landwirtschaft, wird dann der Preis auf dem US-Markt zum internationalen Preis. Das wäre der Ruin der Europäer, außer für die großen, industriellen Betriebe in Europa.“

Auch die aktuelle Prism-Affäre, die die umfassende Spionage des US-Geheimdienstes NSA in Deutschland offengelegt hat, stellt das geplante Freihandelsabkommen in ein fragwürdiges Licht. Künftig wäre es für die US-Geheimdienste noch einfacher, umfassende Industriespionage in Deutschland und Europa zu betreiben. Mehrere Studien haben bereits ergeben, daß Deutschland von einem solchen Freihandelsabkommen ohnehin am wenigsten profitieren würde. Die noch umfassendere Industriespionage eingerechnet wäre Deutschland hingegen wohl sogar der Hauptleidtragende. Mit willfährigen und US-hörigen Polit-Marionetten wie Merkel und Friedrich ist auch kein Schutz deutscher Bürger, Verbraucher und Unternehmen zu erwarten.

Sowohl die Prism-Affäre als auch das geplante Freihandelsabkommen dürfen nicht im Sommerloch verschwinden! Sie müssen Wahlkampfthema werden!

Die NPD spricht sich als einzige Partei in Deutschland für die Wiederherstellung der umfassenden Souveränität des deutschen Nationalstaats aus, die Garant für die Handlungsfähigkeit der deutschen Politik und Grundbedingung für einen wirksamen Schutz deutscher Bürger und Unternehmen ist.

Oz: Mythic Power in the Power of Mythic Deception

Ok, my not so amazing prediction: “Oz, the Great and Powerful,” will not be nominated for any academy awards next year.  The new Oz comes out just over 11 and under 12 months after The Hunger Games (premiered March 23 2012) which is its ideological opposite: Hunger Games is a movie of the people against the government crowds are shown, but closeups of faces in the crowd are not cartoon snapshots of stereotypes—in the new Oz, all the common people are cartoon snapshots). 

Oz is a movie which not only glorifies but presumes that monarchical government and autocracy, a government of “Archons” is both natural and essential.  In Oz: the Great and Powerful, we see only the cartoonish choice between good dictators/kings and bad dictators/kings (reminiscent of the 1939 Glinda’s question to Dorothy: “are you a good witch or a bad witch?”)

“Oz, the Great and Powerful,” may neither be certainly a great or powerful cinematic event, but it is not a bad movie.  It is more than worth seeing and thinking about.  As a statement of political power mythology, it is closest (but superior both as a movie and as a dramatic contribution to mythic evolution) to “Batman, Dark Knight Rises”.   

As a Disney Production and product of the Magic Kingdom, Oz finds pro-monarchist, elitist ideological common ground with The Lion King (June 15, 1994).  But whereas world of Simba and Mufassa was elegantly pure Dumézilian structuralist mythology in support of the absolute monarchy of the lions, Oz merely celebrates Bush-Cheney-Obama low-brow dictatorship by deceit.  

Fair to say I enjoyed Oz: the Great and Powerful more than I thought I would given the almost universally disappointed/disappointing reviews.  It is true that the three witches are pretty much flat, two dimensional, and on the dull side even if they are more conventionally attractive than even Glinda was in the 1939 Classic and each is more beautiful possessing more sex appeal than Elphaba in “Wicked.”  But Elphaba is a MUCH more interesting character, developed with oh so much more depth and dimensions.

“Wicked” has ten to a hundred times more lasting mythological power as a post-modern statement of relativism than anything in “Oz, the Great and Powerful.”   But on the other hand, James Franco’s Oz is more realistic as a portrayal of conservative, monarchical values than Batman or Bruce Wayne was in the last installment of the Dark Knight Trilogy.  Oscar Diggs is not exactly Scar from the Lion King either.  He is really closest to any of the past four U.S. Presidents Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama.  His personality comes nowhere close to as engaging as Ronald Reagan or as articulate and humble as Carter.

There are really only three ways to portray political power in a story:  (1) as natural and necessary—so that the struggle is between good and bad “rulers”, (2) unnatural and not only unnecessary but oppressive and therefore evil—so that the struggle is between the people and the power structure, and (3) natural or at least “a given” —“always with us” (kind of like “the poor”) but essentially trivial and irrelevant.

Movies of the third type used to be fairly common in the American cinematic repertoire, but they have all but vanished in modern times.  The third type of movie was the “heroes ride off into the sunset” variety of “Western” or “rugged individualist” myth embodied and exemplified seriously as in (1) Casablanca, (2) High Noon, and (3)  The African Queen or comically as in (4) Cat Ballou.  

Recent years have seen Hunger Games and Serenity in the “Government is the Enemy” category pitted against Batman: Dark Knight and now Oz: the Great and Powerful.  Oz and Batman presume the paradoxical necessity of autocratic rule in society, with “Good” Autocrats guaranteeing “Freedom & Justice” while “Bad” Autocrats are just like the Good Autocrats only “Bad.”   Television series such as “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,”, “Angel”, and “Dexter” tend to vacillate between “Government as the Enemy” and “Government is always there but Irrelevant.”  

In “Oz: the Great and Powerful”, we see a very specific “real world” dramatic retelling of the story of the disembodied leader becoming more powerful after death, as an Icon and a Myth, than he ever could have been as an earthly individual.  The Character of the Wizard Oscar Diggs is not even “intriguingly” Banal and Ordinary.  He is really kind of uninspiringly banal and ordinary—much like the real life Bill Clinton or George W. Bush.   Like George W. Bush, Diggs is a master of illusion and deceit, and that is his primary qualification as a leader.  Like Clinton, Oscar Diggs’ “Oz” is attractive to the ladies and that makes the movie at least somewhat pleasant to watch.  But as with last year’s somewhat deadly dud “Dark Shadows” with Johnny Depp, stories involving beautiful but jealous witches are really so awfully unoriginal as to be boring—and I’ve not only watched too many I’ve lived the story in real life just several too many times….ahem, but I digress…

Unlike the stories of both Dorothy Gale (or her as yet cinematically almost unknown friend and colleague in adventure in most of L. Frank Baum’s later stories, “Ozma”) and Elphaba, there is hardly a hint of feminism or “girl power” in any of the three witches.  (No “Buffy” or “Willow” or even “Anya” on the scenes of this Oz).   Even Glinda (Michelle Williams) is at best a kind of exquisitely delicate, weak, very pretty and attractive but only marginally talented “second rate” witch outshown and outperformed by Oz’ mechanical illusions which ultimately succeed in vanquishing and exiling the evil sisters to the East and West of the Emerald City.  [It made sense to see Oz on St. Patrick’s Day weekend since Oz, like Ireland and Ancient Maya Yucatán, is a magic land divided into four color-coded cardinal direction (NSEW) quarters of the world with Green at the Center—the Emerald City = the Yaxché at the Center of the Maya universe and Tara at the cosmic and ritual center of the Emerald Isle itself].  

[The beautiful witch who turns green and ugly (the future W.W. West, Mila Kunis) reminds me ever so much of my own former wife Elena K….. beautiful and ambitious in the beginning, looked really good in red, but ultimately deadly and green   for all the wrong reasons (Elphaba was green for “good” reasons).]

What are interesting from the standpoint of mythic deconstruction in “Oz, the Great and Powerful” are Oz’ assertions that he is more powerful as a disembodied image than as a man, that illusion is more powerful than reality.  This IS a valid post-modern deconstruction of the American Presidency, and of Institutional “Corporate” government and economy in general.

Does the generalization apply to the life of Julius Caesar, or merely to the post-mortem TITLE of Caesar, which endured for a thousand years as the Supreme Emblem of “Imperial” Authority in the non-Latin monarchs (Kaisers & Tsars) of Germany, Austria, and Russia?  

A certain kind of post-modern deconstructionalist will tell you that Jesus Christ and Julius Caesar both planned their deaths for the purpose of Apotheosis and Institutionalization of Power.  This is exactly what Oscar Diggs does in “Oz: the Great and Powerful.”  

Power by deception and illusion is the political science of Machiavelli’s Il Principe and Cardinal Richelieu’s dictum “to dissemble is to rule” as well as the apparent embodiment of the theory underlying American foreign policy probably since the sinking of the Battleship Maine. Power by deception and illusion is a very anti-democratic theory of the origin and nature of power, totally opposed to the Katniss Everdeen or Buffy Summers schools of “Divine Kingship through Combat and Sacrifice.”  Katniss and Buffy were both pitted against dictatorships built on bloody lies and concealment of the truth, as were the “Wild West” type heroes on the Crew of “Serenity” (paired with Buffy and Angel, also by Joss Whedon).  As I have been writing for more than ten years, Buffy Summers’ death in Season Five of her series was a classic “Golden Bough” moment, though after Buffy’s resurrection in Season Six she was not quite “divine” after all.  Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark in Hunger Games together played the game of the Rex Nemorensis in Diana’s Wood at Aricia very well as a team (a wonderful team unprecedented in history or myth).

Essentially, the lesson we should learn from “Oz: the Great and Powerful” is that all institutional (aka “Corporate” = permanent but impersonal, perpetual) government originates in and works best when founded on lies. In this political theory, lies and falsehood and illusion are sources of strength, and the secrets must be kept by those in the “inner circle” of government, even by China Dolls….(a reference to the “Dainty China Doll” in L. Frank Baum’s original book “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” which did not make it into the 1939 Judy Garland “Somewhere Over the Rainbow” musical movie).

Batman: Dark Knight surely reflects the same ideology, but never states it quite so bluntly.   So Oz now joins with certain deconstructionist interpretations of the lives of Julius Caesar, Jesus Christ, Abraham Lincoln, and John F. Kennedy…. in articulation the rule by deception explanation of the origin and nature of political power.  I can only pray for the ultimate triumph of the poor man’s “Divine Kingship” model of weak government, an essentially anarchical theory of government as a model of or metaphor for nature red in tooth and claw…. wherein the King (or Queen) is normally only a symbol of nature rather than an actual wielder of power.  

In which connexion, long live Buffy Summer & Katniss Everdeen.

Excelsior! and Eureka! 165 Years of California Gold: from Sutter’s Mill to Jennifer Lawrence (January 24, 1848-January 24, 2013)

On January 24, 1848, gold (AU 79 on the Periodic Chart of the Elements) was discovered on the South Branch of the American River at John Augustus Sutter’s Mill in “New Helvetia” (New Switzerland), California.  Sutter’s history kind of set the tone in California for a culture of real estate piracy by “claim jumping” and disregard for any rights except those established by possession of money……

At one time the absolute ruler of what amounted to a private kingdom along the Sacramento River, John Sutter saw his immense wealth and power overrun in the world’s rush to pick California clean of gold.

Sutter was born John Augustus Sutter in Baden, Germany, though his parents had originally come from Switzerland, a lineage of which he was especially proud. In 1834, faced with impossible debt, he decided to try his fortunes in America and, leaving his family in a brother’s care, set sail for New York. There he decided that the West offered him the best opportunity for success, and he moved to Missouri, where for three years he operated as a trader on the Santa Fe Trail.

By 1838, Sutter had determined that Mexican California held the promise of fulfilling his ambitious dreams, and he set off along the Oregon Trail, arriving at Fort Vancouver, near present-day Portland, Oregon, in hopes of finding a ship that would take him to San Francisco Bay. His journey involved detours to the Hawaiian Islands and to a Russian colony at Sitka, Alaska, but Sutter made the most of his wanderings by trading advantageously along the way. When he finally arrived in California in 1839, Sutter met first with the provincial governor in Monterey and secured permission to establish a settlement east of San Francisco (then called Yerba Buena) along the Sacramento River, in an area then occupied only by Indians.

Sutter was granted nearly fifty thousand acres and authorized “to represent in the Establishment of New Helvetia [Sutter’s Swiss-inspired name for his colony] all the laws of the country, to function as political authority and dispenser of justice, in order to prevent the robberies commited by adventurers from the United States, to stop the invasion of savage Indians and the hunting and trapping by companies from the Columbia.” In other words, Sutter was to serve the California authorities as a bulwark against the assorted threats pressing in on them from American-controlled territories to the north and east.

Ironically, as headquarters for his domain, Sutter chose a site on what he named the American River, at its junction with the Sacramento River and near the site of present-day Sacramento. Here, with the help of laborers he had brought with him from Hawaii, he built Sutter’s Fort, a massive adobe structure with walls eighteen feet high and three feet thick. Two years later, in 1841, Sutter expanded his settlement when the Russians abandoned Fort Ross, their outpost north of San Francisco, and offered to sell it to him for thirty thousand dollars. Paying with a note he never honored, Sutter practically dismantled the fort and moved its equipment, livestock and buildings to the Sacramento Valley.

Within just a few years, Sutter had achieved the grand-scale success he long dreamed of: acres of grain, a ten-acre orchard, a herd of thirteen thousand cattle, even two acres of Castile roses. His son came to share in his prosperity in 1844, and the rest of his family soon followed. At the same time, during these years Sutter’s Fort became a regular stop for the increasing number of Americans venturing into California, several of whom Sutter employed. Besides providing him with a profitable source of trade, this steady flow of immigrants provided Sutter with a network of relationships that offered some political protection when the United States seized control of California in 1846, at the outbreak of the Mexican War.

Barely a week before the war’s end, however, there occurred a chance event that would destroy all John Sutter’s achievements and yet at the same time link his name forever to one of the highpoints of American history. On the morning of January 24, 1848, a carpenter named James Marshall, who was building a sawmill for Sutter upstream on the American River near Coloma, looked into the mill’s tailrace to check that it was clear of silt and debris and saw at the water’s bottom nuggets of gold. Marshall took his discovery to Sutter, who consulted an encyclopedia to confirm it and then tried to pledge all his employees to secrecy. But within a few months, word had reached San Francisco and the gold rush was on.

Suddenly all of Sutter’s workmen abandoned him to seek their fortune in the gold fields. Squatters swarmed over his land, destroying crops and butchering his herds. “There is a saying that men will steal everything but a milestone and a millstone,” Sutter later recalled; “They stole my millstones.” By 1852, New Helvetia had been devastated and Sutter was bankrupt. He spent the rest of his life seeking compensation for his losses from the state and federal governments, and died disappointed on a trip to Washington, D.C. in 1880.

On January 24, 2013 at 8:00 p.m.: I took time off from my somewhat manic-depressive studies of Louisiana Civil Law to  go to the Prytania Movie Theatre for a free showing a a movie “Haiti Redux” where I happened to sit next to an Iranian-American student of Real Estate at New York University named Alexander who identified himself as being from Beverly Hills, California.  It seems that one of the Professors from the Real Estate Department at NYU was one of the co-producers of this movie about the efforts of various small academic and artistic groups to help in the reconstruction of Haiti after the January 12, 2013.  They came to New Orleans as a kind of “study of comparative disaster sites” I guess (seven and a half years after Katrina).  

I have previously commented on how Iranians, especially Iranians of the Jewish Faith and sub-ethnicity, have taken over Beverly Hills, so it was a weird triangulation on the world.  The movie itself was slightly interesting but kind of pointless.  Why a bunch of “do gooder” White people from New York need to go down to Haiti to tell them what their “standards” ought to be for everything in life begged (in my opinion) the question of why Haiti is such a basket case of a country in the first place.  

It makes no sense to say that Haiti is the way it is because of White Oppression of Blacks, because Haiti was the SECOND INDEPENDENT NATION IN THE NEW WORLD, after the U.S., to fight for and win its own Independence.  Basically, after the French Revolution had started in the 1790s, the Black Slaves rose up and either slaughtered or exiled the French landowners, and their country has been a living hell ever since.  Coincidence?  Karma?  Genetics?  Some combination of all three?  The movie “Haiti Redux” did not explain.

January 24, 2013, at 10:00 p.m.: Since I was already at the Prytania, and kind of bored and frustrated by the Haiti Redux movie, I decided to stick around for “Silver Linings Playbook”, not having heard or read anything about it in advance except that it had 8 nominations for Academy Awards.  This is only the third movie of Jennifer’s I have seen, but I’m already quite madly in love with her and I am very happy that she has been nominated for “Best Actress” in this piece.  To begin with, the young Katniss Everdeen, I mean Miss Lawrence, outshines the rather more sensationally ballyhooed Kristen Stewart by a factor of roughly 10,000 to 1, both as a genuine actress and a beauty with sex appeal….well, beyond any effect I can describe without using metaphors of NASA technology and intergalactic astronomical explorations.

But the movie Silver Linings Playbook scores a more important victory.  It turns the past year’s penchant for portraying ordinary Middle-Class White people as insane subjects for clinical analysis and institutional confinement into a marvelous romantic comedy.  So of Jennifer’s three movie’s I’ve seen so far: in the HUNGER GAMES, she is a heroine par excellence, a beauty with skills and brains reminiscent of her own real Kentucky frontier heritage and background.  Katniss Everdeen’s mental strength and character in that movie equate with her physical skill and practical experience.  But then in HOUSE AT THE END OF THE STREET, Jennifer’s character, though still exquisite in every way, was drawn into a tragedy of mental illness and depravity of ordinary middle class White People.  This media theme is part of the Western Power-Elite’s current campaign to destroy all vestiges of the America that was pre-1965, pre-Johnson, pre-Vietnam, pre-Johnson-Nixon, pre-Watergate, pre-Nixon-Ford, pre-degenerate malaise, pre-Carter, pre-fake Neo-Con Restoration, pre-Reagan.

But a stroke of genius—you bring Katniss Everdeen together with “Deer-Hunter” and American Icon Robert DeNiro, and you have a recipe for REGENERATING the American Middle Class Dream.  It all started out, depressingly enough, in a mental institution, no Jennifer’s character wasn’t there but she COULD have been—showing yet another real aspect of modern America that men are treated much more harshly for their transgressions than women.  I thought initially it was going to be yet another—everyone who LOOKS American as Apple Pie is Demented movie.  But the movie totally transcended all that and convincingly showed that “Temporary Insanity” is actually pretty normal and that even people who have taken a sampler of the entire menu of the nastiest psychiatric drug menu imposed by Non-American Non-Whites who have their consciousness completely together.

I have this terribly depressing fear that Obama era politics will lead to an Academy Award going either to “Beasts of the Southern Wild” (which at least is incredibly original) or to “Lincoln” which is anything but original and in fact deserves to be panned on every single historical point contained within it, but I’m casting my vote for Silver Linings Playbook and Jennifer Lawrence as the incomparable Tiffany….  OK, I’ve also confessed in the past that I tend to fall in love with any and every girl I meet named Tiffany, but this is a personal hazard of mine which has no bearing on my evaluation of the movie.  Robert DeNiro is the best I’ve seen him in many years, and this movie has truly redemptive potential at a time when America Desperately needs it.  

Strange to think of the similarities between the California Gold Rush and Hollywood Movies as the parallel and independent but key defining features of California culture…. but there they are, separated only by the difference between Northern and Southern California….

Yes, the true story of Pearl Harbor and our entry into World War II is a disgraceful story of governmental manipulation and treachery.  Why would Franklin Delano Roosevelt have wanted to expand two separate wars in Europe and Asia into a World War?  Was it for the purpose of hiding the abysmal failure of the New Deal?  Or was it for the purpose of instigating a New World Order based on World Government and abolition of national sovereignty and the autonomous integrity of the people of Europe, North America, and other “caucasian isolates” around the world?  Why would the American President have done such a thing?  Was World War II a just war or a monstrosity of lies?  Did we really have a quarrel with the Japanese over the ownership of Hawaii?  If so, why do the Japanese and Filipino peoples now pretty much “rule” Hawaii with Anglo-Americans living here as a weak minority? (I’m writing this at the end of a two week stay on Maui, so I’m really thinking about Hawaii a lot…and what a better day to be in Hawaii that Pearl Harbor Day 2012, 71 years after the infamous day when—what, our government arranged to have us attacked?

My dad, born June 6, 1923, was exactly 18 and a half years old and had been in Hawaii just over a week on the original Pearl Harbor day, having completed six months training in Long Beach, California….).  He stayed in the Navy through the war then went to college and graduate school on the G.I. Bill, as did so many.

But was War just a prelude to the expansion of the welfare state?  My grandparents taught me that World War II had five major effects: (1) it finally ended the depression where the New Deal had not, (2) it finally ended black slavery and white serfdom and sharecropping in the Old South, (3) it ended the British Empire, (4) it launched the United States and Soviet Empires into the Cold War, (5) the terrible destruction of Europe and in particular of Germany and the advent of the atom bomb caused the greatest confusion as to ethics, morality, and political values that had ever taken place in the worldwide history of mankind.

http://mises.org/daily/6312/How-US-Economic-Warfare-Provoked-Japans-Attack-on-Pearl-Harbor

How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor

Mises Daily: Friday, December 07, 2012 by 

The attack on Pearl Harbor

[This talk was the Arthur M. Krolman Lecture at the 30th Anniversary Supporters Summit of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Callaway Gardens, Georgia, on October 26, 2012. Click here to watch the video of this talk.]

Many people are misled by formalities. They assume, for example, that the United States went to war against Germany and Japan only after its declarations of war against these nations in December 1941. In truth, the United States had been at war for a long time before making these declarations. Its war making took a variety of forms. For example, the U.S. navy conducted “shoot [Germans] on sight” convoys – convoys that might include British ships — in the North Atlantic along the greater part the shipping route from the United States to Great Britain, even though German U-boats had orders to refrain (and did refrain) from initiating attacks on U.S. shipping. The United States and Great Britain entered into arrangements to pool intelligence, combine weapons development, test military equipment jointly, and undertake other forms of war-related cooperation. The U.S. military actively cooperated with the British military in combat operations against the Germans, for example, by alerting the British navy of aerial or marine sightings of German submarines, which the British then attacked. The U.S. government undertook in countless ways to provide military and other supplies and assistance to the British, the French, and the Soviets, who were fighting the Germans. The U.S. government also provided military and other supplies and assistance, including warplanes and pilots, to the Chinese, who were at war with Japan.[1] The U.S. military actively engaged in planning with the British, the British Commonwealth countries, and the Dutch East Indies for future combined combat operations against Japan. Most important, the U.S. government engaged in a series of increasingly stringent economic warfare measures that pushed the Japanese into a predicament that U.S. authorities well understood would probably provoke them to attack U.S. territories and forces in the Pacific region in a quest to secure essential raw materials that the Americans, British, and Dutch (government in exile) had embargoed. [2]

Consider these summary statements by George Victor, by no means a Roosevelt basher, in his well documented book The Pearl Harbor Myth.

Roosevelt had already led the United States into war with Germany in the spring of 1941—into a shooting war on a small scale. From then on, he gradually increased U.S. military participation. Japan’s attack on December 7 enabled him to increase it further and to obtain a war declaration. Pearl Harbor is more fully accounted for as the end of a long chain of events, with the U.S. contribution reflecting a strategy formulated after France fell. . . . In the eyes of Roosevelt and his advisers, the measures taken early in 1941 justified a German declaration of war on the United States—a declaration that did not come, to their disappointment. . . . Roosevelt told his ambassador to France, William Bullitt, that U.S. entry into war against Germany was certain but must wait for an “incident,” which he was “confident that the Germans would give us.” . . . Establishing a record in which the enemy fired the first shot was a theme that ran through Roosevelt’s tactics. . . . He seems [eventually] to have concluded—correctly as it turned out—that Japan would be easier to provoke into a major attack on the Unites States than Germany would be. [3]

The claim that Japan attacked the United States without provocation was . . . typical rhetoric. It worked because the public did not know that the administration had expected Japan to respond with war to anti-Japanese measures it had taken in July 1941. . . . Expecting to lose a war with the United States—and lose it disastrously—Japan’s leaders had tried with growing desperation to negotiate. On this point, most historians have long agreed. Meanwhile, evidence has come out that Roosevelt and Hull persistently refused to negotiate. . . . Japan . . . offered compromises and concessions, which the United States countered with increasing demands. . . . It was after learning of Japan’s decision to go to war with the United States if the talks “break down” that Roosevelt decided to break them off. . . . According to Attorney General Francis Biddle, Roosevelt said he hoped for an “incident” in the Pacific to bring the United States into the European war.[4]

These facts and numerous others that point in the same direction are for the most part anything but new; many of them have been available to the public since the 1940s. As early as 1953, anyone might have read a collection of heavily documented essays on various aspects of U.S. foreign policy in the late 1930s and early 1940s, edited by Harry Elmer Barnes, that showed the numerous ways in which the U.S. government bore responsibility for the country’s eventual engagement in World War II—showed, in short, that the Roosevelt administration wanted to get the country into the war and worked craftily along various avenues to ensure that, sooner or later, it would get in, preferably in a way that would unite public opinion behind the war by making the United States appear to have been the victim of an aggressor’s unprovoked attack.[5] As Secretary of War Henry Stimson testified after the war, “we needed the Japanese to commit the first overt act.” [6]

At present, however, seventy years after these events, probably not one American in 1,000—nay, not one in 10,000—has an inkling of any of this history. So effective has been the pro-Roosevelt, pro-American, pro-World War II faction that in this country it has utterly dominated teaching and popular writing about U.S. engagement in the “Good War.”

In the late nineteenth century, Japan’s economy began to grow and to industrialize rapidly. Because Japan has few natural resources, many of its burgeoning industries had to rely on imported raw materials, such as coal, iron ore or steel scrap, tin, copper, bauxite, rubber, and petroleum. Without access to such imports, many of which came from the United States or from European colonies in Southeast Asia, Japan’s industrial economy would have ground to a halt. By engaging in international trade, however, the Japanese had built a moderately advanced industrial economy by 1941.

At the same time, they also built a military-industrial complex to support an increasingly powerful army and navy. These armed forces allowed Japan to project its power into various places in the Pacific and East Asia, including Korea and northern China, much as the United States used its growing industrial might to equip armed forces that projected U.S. power into the Caribbean, Latin America, and even as far away as the Philippine Islands.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt became president in 1933, the U.S. government fell under the control of a man who disliked the Japanese and harbored a romantic affection for the Chinese because, some writers have speculated, Roosevelt’s ancestors had made money in the China trade.[7] Roosevelt also disliked the Germans in general and Adolf Hitler in particular, and he tended to favor the British in his personal relations and in world affairs. He did not pay much attention to foreign policy, however, until his New Deal began to peter out in 1937. Thereafter he relied heavily on foreign policy to fulfill his political ambitions, including his desire for reelection to an unprecedented third term.

When Germany began to rearm and to seek Lebensraumaggressively in the late 1930s, the Roosevelt administration cooperated closely with the British and the French in measures to oppose German expansion. After World War II commenced in 1939, this U.S. assistance grew ever greater and included such measures as the so-called destroyer deal and the deceptively named Lend-Lease program. In anticipation of U.S. entry into the war, British and U.S. military staffs secretly formulated plans for joint operations. U.S. forces sought to create a war-justifying incident by cooperating with the British navy in attacks on German U-boats in the northern Atlantic, but Hitler refused to take the bait, thus denying Roosevelt the pretext he craved for making the United States a full-fledged, declared belligerent—a belligerence that the great majority of Americans opposed.

In June 1940, Henry L. Stimson, who had been secretary of war under William Howard Taft and secretary of state under Herbert Hoover, became secretary of war again. Stimson was a lion of the Anglophile, northeastern upper crust and no friend of the Japanese. In support of the so-called Open Door Policy for China, Stimson favored the use of economic sanctions to obstruct Japan’s advance in Asia. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau and Interior Secretary Harold Ickes vigorously endorsed this policy. Roosevelt hoped that such sanctions would goad the Japanese into making a rash mistake by launching a war against the United States, which would bring in Germany because Japan and Germany were allied.

The Roosevelt administration, while curtly dismissing Japanese diplomatic overtures to harmonize relations, accordingly imposed a series of increasingly stringent economic sanctions on Japan. In 1939, the United States terminated the 1911 commercial treaty with Japan. “On July 2, 1940, Roosevelt signed the Export Control Act, authorizing the President to license or prohibit the export of essential defense materials.” Under this authority, “[o]n July 31, exports of aviation motor fuels and lubricants and No. 1 heavy melting iron and steel scrap were restricted.” Next, in a move aimed at Japan, Roosevelt slapped an embargo, effective October 16, “on all exports of scrap iron and steel to destinations other than Britain and the nations of the Western Hemisphere.” Finally, on July 26, 1941, Roosevelt “froze Japanese assets in the United States, thus bringing commercial relations between the nations to an effective end. One week later Roosevelt embargoed the export of such grades of oil as still were in commercial flow to Japan.” [8] The British and the Dutch followed suit, embargoing exports to Japan from their colonies in Southeast Asia.

Roosevelt and his subordinates knew they were putting Japan in an untenable position and that the Japanese government might well try to escape the stranglehold by going to war. Having broken the Japanese diplomatic code, the American leaders knew, among many other things, what Foreign Minister Teijiro Toyoda had communicated to Ambassador Kichisaburo Nomura on July 31: “Commercial and economic relations between Japan and third countries, led by England and the United States, are gradually becoming so horribly strained that we cannot endure it much longer. Consequently, our Empire, to save its very life, must take measures to secure the raw materials of the South Seas.”[9]

Because American cryptographers had also broken the Japanese naval code, the leaders in Washington also knew that Japan’s “measures” would include an attack on Pearl Harbor.[10] Yet they withheld this critical information from the commanders in Hawaii, who might have headed off the attack or prepared themselves to defend against it. That Roosevelt and his chieftains did not ring the tocsin makes perfect sense: after all, the impending attack constituted precisely what they had been seeking for a long time. As Stimson confided to his diary after a meeting of the War Cabinet on November 25, “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.” After the attack, Stimson confessed that “my first feeling was of relief . . . that a crisis had come in a way which would unite all our people.”[11]

Comment on this article.

Robert Higgs is senior fellow in political economy for the Independent Institute and editor of The Independent Review. He is the 2007 recipient of the Gary G. Schlarbaum Prize for Lifetime Achievement in the Cause of Liberty. Send him mail. See Robert Higgs’s article archives.

You can subscribe to future articles by Robert Higgs via this RSS feed.

Copyright © 2012 by the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided full credit is given.

Notes

[1] See “Flying Tigers,” Wikipedia. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Tigers.

[2] Robert Higgs, “How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor,” The Freeman 56 (May 2006): 36-37.

[3] George Victor, The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable (Dulles, Va.: Potomac Books, 2007), pp. 179-80, 184, 185, emphasis added.

[4] Ibid ., pp. 15, 202, 240.

[5] See Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: A Critical Examination of the Foreign Policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Its Aftermath, edited by Harry Elmer Barnes (Caldwell, Id.: Caxton Printers, 1953).

[6] Stimson as quoted in Victor, Pearl Harbor Myth, p. 105.

[7] Harry Elmer Barnes, “Summary and Conclusions,” in Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: A Critical Examination of the Foreign Policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Its Aftermath, edited by Harry Elmer Barnes (Caldwell, Idaho: Caxton Printers, 1953), 682-83.

[8] All quotations in this paragraph are from George Morgenstern, “The Actual Road to Pearl Harbor,” in Barnes, ed., Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, 322-23, 327-28.

[9] Quoted in Morgenstern, “The Actual Road to Pearl Harbor,” 329.

[10] Robert B. Stinnett, Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor (New York: Free Press, 2000).

[11] Quoted in Morgenstern, “The Actual Road to Pearl Harbor,” 343, 384.