Monday, July 23, 2007

Who Writes History?


The winner writes history!

“I trust no one, not even myself.”- Joseph Stalin

“All generalizations are false, including this one.” - Mark Twain
"Great intellects are skeptical.” - Friedrich Nietzsche

“People do not seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Prejudices are what fools use for reason.” - Voltaire
News from the Institute for Historical ReviewBritish historian David Irving and IHR director Mark Weber tackled the emotion-laden topic of Hitler’s place in history at an IHR meeting on Sunday evening, April 17, 2005. Some 70 men and women packed a hotel meeting room in Orange County, southern California, for the standing-room-only event.
"The people will believe what the media tells them they believe."- George Orwell
Irving, Weber Speak on Hitler’s Place In History
News from the Institute for Historical ReviewBritish historian David Irving and IHR director Mark Weber tackled the emotion-laden topic of Hitler’s place in history at an IHR meeting on Sunday evening, April 17, 2005. Some 70 men and women packed a hotel meeting room in Orange County, southern California, for the standing-room-only event.
Weber, who has written extensively on twentieth-century European history, and is a court-recognized expert on Germany’s wartime “Final Solution” policy, spoke first. He began his 45-minute address, entitled “Is an Objective View of Hitler Possible?,” by mentioning John F. Kennedy’s visit to defeated and war-ravaged Germany in the summer of 1945.
After a stop at Hitler’s mountain retreat in the Bavarian alps, the 28-year-old Kennedy wrote in his diary that the German leader “had in him the stuff of which legends are made,” and predicted that “within a few years Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived.”
Kennedy was both right and wrong, said Weber. While hatred against Hitler has endured for much more than “a few years,” he was indeed a personality of legendary stature. Worldwide fascination with Hitler shows no sign of diminishing, said Weber, who noted the seemingly endless stream of books, articles, television broadcasts and motion pictures devoted to this extraordinary man.
In 1977, Weber went on, Patrick Buchanan wrote a column about Hitler based on John Toland’s biography, Adolf Hitler. Although Buchanan condemned Hitler, he did note that the German leader had been a courageous soldier during the First World War, and was a skilled political organizer and a powerful public speaker. Ever since, Buchanan has been harshly criticized by Jewish groups for “praising” Hitler. In our society, Weber stressed, even factually true statements about Hitler — such as those made by Buchanan — bring swift and harsh condemnation.
A balanced or objective portrayal of Hitler is nearly impossible. In today’s America, the portrayal of Hitler and his regime is grotesquely unbalanced, not only in the mass media, but even in supposedly authoritative history books and reference works. For example, he noted, American dictionaries routinely refer to Hitler as a “Nazi dictator,” while describing Stalin merely as a Soviet “political leader” or “premier.” While it is certainly true that Hitler wielded dictatorial power, said Weber, especially during the war years, the “dictator” epithet suggests that he ruled without popular support.
Nearly four years after Hitler had come to power, David Lloyd George — Britain’s prime minister during World War I — made an extensive tour of Germany. In an article published in a leading London newspaper in late 1936, the British statesman recounted what he had seen and experienced. His description, said Weber, is difficult to reconcile with the image to which most Americans are accustomed.
“Whatever one may think of his [Hitler’s] methods,” wrote Lloyd George, “and they are certainly not those of a parliamentary country, there can be no doubt that he has achieved a marvelous transformation in the spirit of the people, in their attitude towards each other, and in their social and economic outlook.
“He rightly claimed at Nuremberg that in four years his movement had made a new Germany. It is not the Germany of the first decade that followed the war — broken, dejected and bowed down with a sense of apprehension and impotence. It is now full of hope and confidence, and of a renewed sense of determination to lead its own life without interference from any influence outside its own frontiers.
“There is for the first time since the war a general sense of security. The people are more cheerful. There is a greater sense of general gaiety of spirit throughout the land. It is a happier Germany. I saw it everywhere, and Englishmen I met during my trip and who knew Germany well were very impressed with the change.
“One man has accomplished this miracle. He is a born leader of men. A magnetic and dynamic personality with a single-minded purpose, a resolute will and a dauntless heart. He is not merely in name but in fact the national Leader. He has made them safe against potential enemies by whom they were surrounded. He is also securing them against the constant dread of starvation which is one of the most poignant memories of the last years of the [First World] War and the first years of the Peace.
“As to his popularity, especially among the youth of Germany, there can be no manner of doubt. The old trust him; the young idolise him. It is not the admiration accorded to a popular leader. It is the worship of a national hero who has saved his country from utter despondence and degradation. To those who have actually seen and sensed the way Hitler reigns over the heart and mind of Germany, this description may appear extravagant. All the same it is the bare truth.”
In today’s America, said Weber, outright lies about Hitler and Third Reich Germany are widespread and unchallenged. One of the most often repeated of these is that Hitler tried to “conquer the world.” In fact, said Weber, Hitler put great effort into cultivating friendship with other countries, above all with Britain. At the same time that he was earnestly striving to avoid clashes with the United States, President Roosevelt was doing everything in his power to push the US into war against Germany, including broadcasting fantastic lies about Hitler and his supposed ambition to take over the world. Weber cited President Roosevelt’s radio address of October 27, 1941, in which he claimed that Hitler threatened the nominally neutral United States, was plotting to take over all of South America, and was determined to abolish all existing world religions, including Christianity, and replace them with “an international Nazi church.”
To support their distorted portrayals of Hitler and the Third Reich, prominent historians rely upon and cite fraudulent source materials. A good example, said Weber, is the supposed memoir of Hermann Rauschning, an official in the German city-state of Danzig who broke with the National Socialist movement in 1934-35, and then moved to France and later to the United States. In his book, published in the US under the title The Voice of Destruction, he presents page after page of what are purported to be Hitler's most intimate views and secret plans for the future, allegedly based on many private conversations between 1932 and 1934.
In fact, Weber said, Rauschning never had even a single private talk with Hitler. All the same, lurid but fake quotes attributed to him by Rauschning have found their way into numerous history books.
Weber held up copies of a few of the many books that rely on Rauschning’s fraudulent “revelations,” including The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William L. Shirer, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, by Alan Bullock, and Hitler, by Joachim Fest.
While it’s true that winners write history, that alone does not entirely explain why Hitler and the Third Reich continue to be portrayed in such a distorted and prejudiced way in our society. This widespread and enduring bias with regard to Hitler and his regime, concluded Weber, is a reflection of the Jewish-Zionist grip on American cultural and political life.
Irving on 'Faking’ History
Weber introduced David Irving by noting that even his adversaries concede that his knowledge of Hitler and wartime Germany is unrivaled. The British historian is the author of numerous books on this era, many of them best-sellers, including his monumental work, Hitler’s War. Before and after his 45-minute address, entitled “The Faking of Adolf Hitler for History,” Irving autographed copies of his books.
Among the many fraudulent historical documents that have been cited over the years by “conformist” historians of the Third Reich era, Irving said, have been the fake wartime diaries of Gerhard Engel, Hitler’s army adjutant, and of Felix Kersten, masseur and confidant of Himmler. Similarly unreliable is the diary of Mussolini’s foreign minister Galeazzo Ciano, which American officials doctored after the war. Completely fake are Hitler’s supposed “table talk” remarks from February and April 1945. Irving related that the Swiss lawyer Francois Genoud, now dead, admitted privately that he had fabricated them.
Irving related that many valuable documents and research materials seized during the course of his drawn-out legal battle with Jewish academic Deborah Lipstadt have been destroyed or “lost.”
He spoke contemptuously of the “historian incest” of his establishment rivals, many of whom write new books about Hitler based on earlier and equally derivative works by others who share similar prejudices. Irving, by contrast, is known for his reliance on original documents dug out of major archives, as well as diaries and letters obtained through great effort from private individuals.
The story that Wall Street bankers planned to overthrow FDR in 1933 still makes the rounds in 2007. Last week, the BBC named "Dubya's" grandfather, Prescott Bush as one of the conspirators. Clearly, the Illuminati bankers staged the "planned coup" to give FDR credibility as Wall Street's nemesis. As I will show, they routinely used such tricks to build up their Presidential puppet. The NWO apparently still considers Roosevelt and the New Deal as propaganda assets. They want us to think the bankers don't run the government and fascism doesn't takes the form of socialism.
Banker Plot to Remove FDR Was a Ruse
By Henry Makow Ph.D. July 27, 2007

Bankers Planned World Wars to Destroy Germany
By Henry Makow Ph.D. August 3, 2007

Good Sites for InformationCanadian Geographic:

Age of Exploration - The Mariners' Museum - Activities for Students and Teachers
The Teacher Guide and Student Activities in this section were created as a resource of ideas. You are welcome to download and copy them. Many of the activities stand alone but some are created to enhance a section of text. The puzzles in the student section are adapted from the Biographies and Vocabulary sections. The answer keys are located in the Teacher section.

These activities are adaptable for fifth grade through high school students. Some activites have more than one suggested lesson plan so the insturctor can tailor the information to the learner's needs. The Student Activities are designed for use by individual students as an enriching activity or they can be printed and used by an entire class.

Stalin Would Be Proudby emptywheel
September 04, 2006

There is, IMO, just one "journalist" who is more of a party shill than Judy Miller. As I pointed out the other day, Judy never propagated Administration claims of an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection, even though she had long reported on both Iraq and Al Qaeda. The job of claiming such connections fell to the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes, who literally just repackaged Dougie Feith lies and published them as if they were true.
Now Sidney Blumenthal reveals that Dick Cheney has taken the unusual step of selecting a biographer. And he picked none other than Hayes.
For this Herculean task, Cheney has passed over every single professional historian and instead selected Stephen Hayes, a writer for the neoconservative organ, the Weekly Standard. "I'm not a historian," Hayes told US News, modestly.

As Blumenthal points out, the choice says much about Cheney's understanding of power and history.
In his naming of a propagandist as his biographer, Cheney demonstrates his will to power. For him, history, like the political present, will be subject to his control. Just as he has contempt for the objective standards of intelligence, he has disdain for the methods of historians. His intention in selecting a lowly ideological publicist to record his notable life is to create a parallel universe that true believers can embrace against potentially disillusioning facts that might emerge. Cheney has decided to fortify his reputation through a campaign of disinformation far into the future. For historians, however, this episode will be a small but telling part of the Cheney story.
I'd go even further than Blumenthal--to question why Cheney feels the need to do so, and what it suggests about his plan for power in the near term. It may be, after all, that Cheney is taking this unusual step because his heart is just one wayward quail shot away from its expiration date. Give his health, Cheney may not want to wait until he leaves office. It may be that he wants to pre-empt anything that might arise if Democrats gain power, such as indictments or impeachment.
But it reminds me of nothing so much as the Communist era practice (though all authoritarian governments do it) of reinventing history with every change of power, canonizing each successive leader with a new set of statues and street names, attempting to obscure those who had gone before. By asking a propagandist to write a biography of him now, Cheney seems to be attempting to mystify his own power in the short term, to create a fiction he can use to further cement his own power.
Luckily, Hayes is nothing if not easy to mock.
Josephson said the basic doctrines of the Rockefeller Empire are "feudalistic monarchic government" ... "monopoly of every necessity of life and of national existence, and absolute dictatorship..."
There is no Government like NO Government:Convenient History
August 28, 2006 at 4:29 pm

Winners write history, and make sure to portray themselves as favourable . The evolution of civilisation looks almost like a linear progression from evil to good; only with momentary subnotes of regression and genocide. Winners must justify their power. He who controlls the past…
This article by Eric Margolis touches on exactly that topic. It was convenient to forget the crimes of Stalin, while advertising those of Hitler. “The war for Democracy against the terrible empire” - yeah, right!
I was shocked to receive a flood of mail from young Americans and Canadians of Ukrainian descent telling me that until they read my article, they knew nothing of the 1932–33 genocide in which Stalin’s regime murdered 7 million Ukrainians and sent 2 million to concentration camps.
So has the extermination of the Don Cossacks by the Soviets in the 1920’s, and Volga Germans, in 1941; and mass executions and deportations to concentration camps of Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, and Poles. At the end of World War II, Stalin’s gulag held 5.5 million prisoners, 23% Ukrainians and 6% Baltic peoples.
Almost unknown is the genocide of 2 million of the USSR’s Muslim peoples: Chechen, Ingush, Crimean Tatars, Tajiks, Bashkir, Kazaks. The Chechen independence fighters today branded “terrorists” by the US and Russia are the grandchildren of survivors of Soviet concentration camps.
Though Stalin murdered 3 times more people than Hitler, to the doting Roosevelt he remained “Uncle Joe.” At Yalta, Stalin even boasted to Churchill he had killed over 10 million peasants. The British-US alliance with Stalin made them his partners in crime. Roosevelt and Churchill helped preserve history’s most murderous regime, to which they handed over half of Europe.
More on the Ukrainian famine:

History Lessons

Michael Swaine
January 27, 2003

Who Writes History?
History is written by the winners, it's said. That being itself a(n) historical generalization, it must have been written by a winner. The winners, however, do not seem to have written down just which winner first said "history is written by the winners." Searching through no less than 500 Google links, I found this phrase, or such variations on it as "history is written by the victors," confidently attributed to Stalin, Churchill, Napoleon, George Orwell, Ben Franklin, Vojislav Stanimirovic, and Mario Van Peebles. Winners all.

Michael digs into computing history, searching for the answer to the question, "Who invented the computer?"
Michael is editor-at-large for DDJ. He can be contacted at
This is a column about the history of the computer, but it starts with some self-referential throat clearing about my credentials, or lack of same, as a(n) historian, semirandom ruminations about historical reliability and the nature of truth, and something George Orwell once said about Sir Walter Raleigh. (I don't know about you, nor do I know what it says about the whimsicality of history, fame, or memory, but I can't hear the name Sir Walter Raleigh without hearing "He was such a stupid get." Thank you, John Lennon.)
My (non)credentials. Although I wrote a book on the history of the personal computer, I am not a(n) historian. My coauthor on Fire in the Valley (Paul Freiberger) does have a history degree, however, and it was his job to see to it that we did our research right, as it was mine to see that we got the technology right. How well we performed is up to the judgment of history.
It may be crossing your mind just now that letting history judge histories could be problematic—incestuous or recursive or something. I think that the very idea of history is a little recursive. If history teaches us anything, it teaches us that you can't always believe history, right?
[go to webpage for remainder of article]What Every Jew (and Non-Jew) Should Know by Henry Makow Ph.D. A Chicago-area scholar, Christopher Jon Bjerknes, 42, thinks he knows what plagues mankind and believes his knowledge is necessary to stop Armageddon.
He says a heretical cult, the "Shabataian Frankists," controls organized Jewry, including Zionism and Freemasonry. They began as followers of Shabatai Zvi (1626-1676) and later Jacob Frank (1726-1791.) They believe Shabatai was the Messiah (God) and his soul has transmigrated down to the Rothschild dynasty, who are now the "king of the Jews."
According to their messianic system, Redemption requires that the Rothschilds become God, i.e. king of the world. This will see the sacrifice of 2/3 of all Jews and the destruction and enslavement of the rest of mankind. Bjerknes believes this demented creed actually is the motive force behind history, including all wars, and "world government."
Bjerknes (B-YERK-NES) is proud of his Norwegian Jewish heritage, ( maternal grandfather, a famous musician, was Jewish.) He has written two massive books-- one about Albert Einstein as a plagiarist, and another about the Shabataian inspired Armenian Genocide -- that include hundreds of pages of suppressed Jewish history. They can be found as PDFs at his web site: