¿Por qué y para qué luchaba Alemania en 1939? Inglaterra ese pestilente imperio.

Esto que son motivos bastante plausibles lo desechan como propaganda alemana.

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/wehr02.htm

Background: The German army began publishing a biweekly magazine in 1937. This article is the first reporting on the German invasion of Poland. The claim is that Hitler was completely innocent, indeed that Poland had plans to take over most of Germany. The source: “Warum und wofür?,” Die Wehrmacht, 3 (1939, Nr. 19), p. 2. Why and For What? by Dr. F. A catastrophe has broken over Europe like a sudden hurricane. Even those not directly involved in the struggle are shocked by its elemental rage. We Germans were not as surprised, since we had long understood the enemy’s policies and had assumed the day might come when he would carry out his plans and intentions. Why are we fighting? Because we were forced into it by England and its Polish friends. If the enemy had not begun the fight now, they would have within two or three years. England and France began the war in 1939 because they feared that in two or three years Germany would be militarily stronger and harder to defeat. The deepest roots of this war are in England’s old claim to rule the world, and Europe in particular. Although its homeland is relatively small, England has understood how to cleverly exploit others to expand its possessions. It controls the seas, important points along major sea routes, and the richest parts of our planet. The contrast between England itself and its overseas territories is so grotesque that England has always has a certain inferiority complex with respect to the European continent. Whenever a continental power reached a certain strength, England believed itself and its empire to be threatened. Every continental flowering made England nervous, every attempt at growth by nations wanting their place in the sun led England to take on the policeman’s role. One must understand this to make sense of England’s German policy from Bismarck to our own day. England was not happy with the results of the war of 1870-1871. British sympathies were already on France’s side, since for the previous one hundred years it had never had the same fear of France as it had of Germany. France had secured its own colonial empire, and its shrinking biological strength left enough room for expansion within its own natural boundaries. Things were different in Germany. England knew that the German people were strong when they had good leadership, and that nature had given them limited, resource-poor territory with a limited coast. Great Britain kept an eye on Germany, all the more whenever Germany expressed its strength, even in the most natural ways. The Second Reich experienced England’s “balance of power” policy. We know that England did not want a true balance of power. It wants a situation in which England is always in a position with the help of its allies to have its way with a minority of confident, forward-moving nations. England’s claims, rooted in the enormous disparity between its home territory and its overseas possessions, had to lead the English to react in bold and impudent ways in the face of a German people who under Adolf Hitler were developing their strength in an unprecedented way. In the face of the development of National Socialist Germany, England turned for a second time to a policy of encirclement, the results of which are today casting their blood-red shadow across the world. We remember its development clearly. Attempts by England and its vassals to build a ring around Germany did not have the desired results. The Western democracies made dramatic efforts to win Soviet Russia. Instead, Adolf Hitler’s hated Germany made a pact, which is founded on centuries of experience between Prussian-Germany and Russia. The Poles were the only remaining Slavic vassal in Eastern Europe. Rather than dampening the native Polish hatred of ethnic Germans and of German-Polish peace, and Poland’s desire to play the role of the big man, England did all in its power to feed the fire that was burning between Kattowitz and Danzig. Their goal was to use the situation, with the remnants of encirclement, to incite a war with Germany. The English wanted this war in the crazy hope that it was their last chance to stop Germany’s growing strength. They passionately avoided doing anything that might have prevented war. Rather than encouraging Poland to accept the Führer’s generous proposals to resolve the situation, they encouraged it to let the deadline pass, thereby providing a reason for war. The Führer felt obliged to strike back only after Polish troops had crossed the German border at several places. The German fight is a defensive fight. We fight because we were forced to fight by the insults and demands against us, because of the brutal suppression of ethnic Germans in Poland, and because of the open announcements that they would do everything in their power to strangle National Socialist Germany through military or economic means. This explanation of the German defensive struggle answers the next question: What are we fighting for? We are fighting for our most valuable possession: our freedom. We are fighting for our land and our skies. We are fighting so that our children will not be slaves of foreign rulers. That is in no way an exaggeration or empty phrase. We know the English. We know about Versailles, about the colonies England stole from us, about the Ruhr, about Golzheimer Heath, about the starvation blockade. We know that we will be slaves if we do not win and we know that the goal of England’s policy of encirclement is to subject Germany to its will. We know what that means. We all remember the days when Allied inspectors wandered around Germany. We are fighting for Germany’s freedom and for Germany’s right to be a people that has all it needs to preserve its national existence. The Führer made unprecedented offers for peace and understanding to those who are now fighting against Germany. His attempts were scornfully rejected because they wanted this fight. We are fighting for a lasting peace that will make a repetition of Versailles impossible. For two long decades, it caused an enormous, constantly bleeding wound among the ethnic Germans in the East. We are fighting to save our children from the unbearable threats of the Western democracies, driven by envy and hatred. We are fighting for a happy future in a free Germany in a peaceful Europe. [Page copyright © 1998 by Randall Bytwerk. No unauthorized reproduction. My e-mail address is available on the FAQ page.]

El engaño inglés y de EUA en la segunda guerra

Desperate Deception: British Covert Operations in the United States, 1939-44

by Thomas E. Mahl (Washington, D.C.: Brassey’s, 1998); 256 pages
Book Review
by Richard M. Ebeling, November 1998
Imagine that the United States were in a war with a strong and determined foe. Imagine that it had become clear to American foreign policymakers that the United States were unable to militarily defeat its enemy on its own. Suppose that those policymakers looked around for a possible ally in the war, and concluded that Great Britain was the most desirable candidate. But suppose that a major stumbling block to obtaining British participation in the war on America’s side were a strong noninterventionist sentiment among the British people and an unwillingness on the part of the members of the House of Commons to vote for entering the war as long as Great Britain was not directly under attack.
Now imagine that the United States government were to undertake a comprehensive program of deception and manipulation in Great Britain to create support for entry into the war on America’s side, including smearing British members of Parliament who advocated British neutrality and distorting their positions; made up falsehoods about the actions and intentions of America’s opponent in the war; used a network of respected British writers, correspondents, and media figures to exaggerate the American case; and wrote speeches and prepared position papers for members of the British government to use almost word for word while making it appear as if they had been written by those British.
It is easy to suppose that if information about such a campaign were to become public in Great Britain it would cause a national scandal and a violent reaction against the United States. And it is easy to imagine that even some Americans might be shocked and angered that their own government would resort to such subterfuge against a neutral country normally considered friendly and sympathetic to the United States.
Well, that is exactly what the British government did in the United States beginning in 1939 to win first American support for its war with Nazi Germany and then to obtain American entry into that war on Great Britain’s side when a British victory without American participation appeared impossible.
The story of the British government’s war campaign in America is told in great detail in Thomas E. Mahl’s recent book, Desperate Deception: British Covert Operations in the United States, 1939-44. Shortly after the beginning of the war in September 1939, the British set up the British Security Coordination service (BSC), with headquarters in New York City. Its director for most of the war was William Stephenson, whose code name was “Intrepid.” The methods and tactics used included the following:
The falsification of information. For example, in October 1941, Franklin Roosevelt delivered a nationwide address in which he said that he had in his possession a captured German map of South America tracing out the planned Nazi invasion of Brazil. The map had been skillfully created by a British team in Toronto and passed on to the White House. It was used by Roosevelt for pressuring Congress to repeal some of the neutrality legislation. In November 1941, the British government decided that there were not enough dramatic photographs of Nazi atrocities. The BSC arranged for a studio in Canada to create such photographs using actors, stage-sets, costumes, and dummies for the manufacture of war scenes in which actors dressed up as Nazi soldiers were shown mass-murdering innocent people. These photos were widely circulated in the United States.
The use and manipulation of the press and public figures. The British obtained the covert and implicit support of such leading public figures of the press and the news media as Walter Winchell (radio commentator); Dorothy Thompson (author and columnist); Walter Lippman (author and essayist); Robert E. Sherwood (author and screenplay writer); Paul Patterson (publisher of the Baltimore Sun) ; Marshall Field (businessman and founder of the Chicago Sun ); Henry Luce (publisher of Time, Life, and Fortune); Harold Guinzburg (cofounder of Viking Press); and many others to bias news and commentary towards the British and in favor of American entry into the Second World War. Some of them were used through British-sponsored or -supported “front” organizations; some consciously participated in a covert campaign for the British cause.
The BSC also gave covert support for the writing and use of school textbooks that would present Great Britain in a positive light and America’s unity in values and beliefs with the British cause. The British even went so far as to manipulate comic strips; they successfully pressured Ham Fischer, creator of “Joe Palooka,” to give his comic-strip story line a pro-British slant.
The destruction of political opponents. British intelligence also targeted noninterventionist members of Congress for defeat. They focused on Hamilton Fish of New York for destruction. A British agent wrote to an American collaborator, “If … we can defeat Fish, who has been considered invincible for twenty years, we will put the fear of God into every isolationist senator and congressman in the country.” The British went to work accusing Fish of Nazi sympathies and even of being subsidized by the German government (neither of which stories had a grain of truth in them). Only in 1944, did the British finally succeed in bringing about Fish’s defeat. They also had a hand in influencing the Republican nomination of Wendell Willkie for the presidency in 1940, because Willkie was clearly pro-British, while other possible Republican candidates, such as Robert Taft, were firmly noninterventionist.
Distorting public opinion. The British positioned people in the Gallop Poll organization and other public-opinion survey groups. They manipulated the questions and wording of polls taken at labor union conventions and veterans’ organizations to make it appear that a large number of people supported Great Britain’s war effort and American action in behalf of the British. In fact, public opinion before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was overwhelming noninterventionist.
The British had successfully influenced public opinion and political decision-making in getting the United States into World War I on the side of Great Britain. But never was there such a master plan so comprehensively applied as the British covert propaganda activities leading up to America’s participation in the Second World War. Many of the facts that Mahl narrates have been told before; they are not completely new revelations. But his access to records, documents, and other papers offers a much clearer picture of how America was manipulated by a “friendly” nation into the biggest war of the 20th century.
Source: http://fff.org/freedom/1198f.asp

In an address given in September 1934 in Nuremberg, Joseph Goebbels said:

“Good propaganda does not need to lie, indeed it may not lie. It has no reason to fear the truth. It is a mistake to believe that people cannot take the truth. They can. It is only a matter of presenting the truth to people in a way that they will be able to understand. A propaganda that lies proves that it has a bad cause. It cannot be successful in the long run.”

In an article written in 1941, Goebbels cited examples of false British wartime claims, and went on to charge that British propagandists had adopted the “big lie” technique that Hitler had identified and condemned in his book Mein Kampf.

“The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.” ~ Joseph Goebbels

The prerequisite for successful action is the courage and the will to be truthful ! ~ Adolf Hitler

“El misterioso precio del limón” en México... narcos y tecnócratas

Por Ilán Semo

La Jornada, 20 de julio, 2013.  

http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2013/07/20/opinion/017a2pol

El 20 de junio, la agencia de noticias Bloomberg, un sistema de información dedicado a las finanzas mundiales, publicó un detallado reportaje que llevaba el (nada) extraño título de: Porqué el fin del ataque de los carteles de la droga contra el limón es un triunfo de Carstens. El lead de la nota contenía, en rigor, la clave del extraño correlato entre los narcos, los limones y el encargado de velar por el buen funcionamiento de la economía nacional: El Ejército Mexicano está apoyando al gobernador del Banco de México, Agustín Carstens, en su lucha para estabilizar la inflación. La historia es como sigue.

Desde 2011, año en que los poderes locales del es­tado de Michoacán cambiaron de mano, los carteles del crimen organizado empezaron a extender sus dominios al control de las cosechas y la comercialización de los prósperos cultivos de limón y aguacate en el fértil territorio donde habitan los pobladores de La Ruana, Bellavista y Tepalcatepec. En un breve lapso, lograron establecer quién, cuánto y cuándo sembraba qué cultivo en la región y, sobre todo, el pago de onerosas cuotas para entregar las cosechas a los transportistas.

Los pagos por derecho de aduana para comercializar los frutos pronto se reflejaron en los precios al consumidor. Si el limón y el aguacate llegaron a costar (durante ¡dos años!) cuatro o cinco veces más de su valor habitual, esto no se debió al cambio de las condiciones climáticas ni a las demandas de la exportación –que son explicaciones en las que incluso las amas de casa creen en la actualidad–, sino simplemente al aumento del costo producido por la extorsión a los agricultores. Las cientos de denuncias enviadas al gobierno de Felipe Calderón por los vecinos de La Ruana fueron inútiles, como también lo fueron las que enviaron al gobierno de Peña Nieto en los primeros meses de su gestión.

A partir de febrero, los pobladores de las tres lo­ca­lidades comenzaron a reunirse en asambleas públicas para formar cuerpos de policías comunitarios que los protegieran frente a la extorsión. Se desató la gue­rra. Siguieron los enfrentamientos y los muertos. El go­bierno federal reaccionó hasta fines de mayo, enviando tropas y logrando algo que parecía imposible desde 2007 (cuando se iniciaron las primeras incursiones militares en Michoacán): despejó las carreteras, al pa­recer pactó con Los Templarios y otros grupos y, súbitamente, el precio del limón se redujo a sus niveles normales.

¿Qué fue lo que obligó al gobierno federal a adoptar las medidas que bien podía haber emprendido dos años antes?

La aparición de los policías comunitarios fue el pri­mer aviso de que la ominosa conjunción entre la indiferencia federal, la complicidad del gobierno local y la voracidad de los carteles había empezado a perder su poder. Pero lo que provocó la reacción oficial, según el reportaje de Bloomberg, no fueron los muertos, ni las extorsiones ni los secuestros que mantenían en zozobra a la población local, sino el aumento de los dígitos de la inflación. Según esos cálculos, el precio del limón –que se consume masivamente en el país– contribuye en 0.17% al costo general de la canasta básica. Los expertos en Estados Unidos que velan por la estabilidad de la economía mexicana, llegaron a la conclusión de que, sumados, los precios acumulados de alimentos de la canasta básica, propiciados por las extorsiones en todo el país, podían afectar hasta en 1% o 1.5% a los dígitos del inflación (que calculan entre 4.5% y 5% en total). Los telegramas empezaron a acumularse en las oficinas de Hacienda y el Banco de México, y entonces sí, la Secretaría de Gobernación, encargada por Peña Nieto, decidió actuar de inmediato.

Hay un ingrediente de portentosa perversión en los paralajes que definen en la actualidad a las prácticas de gobierno. Al parecer, la única razón que ha logrado afectar realmente a los cuerpos tecnocráticos es la sensibilidad de los dígitos: el estado de las aguas gélidas del mercado. Las vidas, los muertos, la emigración forzada, el abandono, la destrucción son una suerte de capital desechable.

Científicos detienen la luz por un eterno minuto...

Light completely stopped for a record-breaking minute - physics-math - 25 July 2013 - New Scientist

To break the minute barrier, George Heinze and colleagues at the University of Darmstadt, Germany, fired a control laser at an opaque crystal, sending its atoms into a quantum superposition of two states. This made it transparent to a narrow range of frequencies. Heinze's team then halted a second beam that entered the crystal by switching off the first laser and hence the transparency.

¿Es Stonhenge una mentira armada a inicios del siglko XX?

 

Stonehenge: La Gran Mentira. National Geographic destapa el fraude de Stonehenge

La revelación que hace la revista National Geographic en su número deenero va a poner patas arriba el mundo de la Arqueología y abrirá el año2010 con uno de los mayores escándalos científicos de la historia. En unartículo titulado “Stonehenge, the big hoax
”, adelantado en la edicióndigital de EEUU, el arqueólogo Mike Parker Pearson pone encima de lamesa las pruebas que demuestran que el 90% de las piedras que hoy vemos en Stonehenge no pertenecen a la formación original y fueron colocadas ensucesivas “restauraciones” como parte de un gran montaje.

Y para atestiguarlo, aporta la correspondencia entre los autores del engaño y  las autoridades británicas desde el año 1898 en adelante.

Entre la documentación aportada por Parker Pearson hay cartas, planos,bocetos del proyecto y una colección de fotografías que hasta ahora nohabían visto la luz. En muchas de ellas puede observarse a los operarios alservicio de Su Majestad levantando con grúas las pesadas piedras ycolocándolas unas sobre otras para simular una gran formación de megalitos.

“Debemos construir algo grande”, aseguraba el ingeniero jefe en una misivade febrero de 1901, “un monumento que ponga Gales en la mente de todos yhaga palidecer los hallazgos del continente [franceses]”. El autor del artículo, el profesor Parker Pearson, lleva más de diez añosdedicado al estudio de este monumento y es el primero en reconocer, concierto sonrojo, que él mismo ha sido víctima de un montaje de proporciones colosales que ha durado más de cien años. Pearson se topó con la primerapista mientras realizaba un análisis rutinario de la base del altar central,durante uno de los muchos trabajos que ha realizado en la zona.

Aspecto de Stonhenge hasta 1901 y después de los falsos añadidos

Como parte del análisis, su equipo analizó esta roca y el resto del círculocentral que aparecen en los pocos grabados del monumento anteriores alsiglo XX y las comparó con el conjunto. El resultado les dejó sin aliento: cerca del 90% de las grandes rocas de dolerita presentaban una variedad de feldespato incompatible con las rocas de las colinas de Preseli, de donde proceden los megalitos más antiguos. En otras palabras: algo no encajaba en el puzzle de Stonehenge.

Intrigado por los datos, Pearson comenzó a indagar sobre lahistoria de la excavación y empezó a atar cabos. Revisó los primeros planos de Stonehenge, la documentación primigenia y llegó hasta un misterioso personaje llamado William Gowland, que había trabajado en una primera “restauración” del monumento en 1901. Después de dos años, lainvestigación le llevó hasta una vieja mansión en Amesbury, perteneciente alpropio Gowland, y a varias casas en el entorno de Stonehenge, donde encontró todas las claves para desmontar el engaño.

Los documentos oficiales reconocen a William Gowland como el ingeniero queayudó en 1901 a restaurar parte de la formación y a levantar la piedra 56, en la parte oeste del gran Trilithon, pero la realidad es que añadió al menos una docena de piedras más y tramó el plan para que en los años posteriores se añadieran decenas de ellas sin conocimiento de la opinión pública.

De pie, en el centro, William Gowland posa junto a varios de los artífices delengaño (1901)

“La cabeza me daba vueltas”, escribe Parker Pearson en National Geographic. “Había decenas de cartas entre Gowland y alguien del gobierno que firmaba como ‘Mr H’ en las que detallaban un meticuloso plan para convertir la zonaen un foco de atracción basado en la cultura druida, y que debía mantenerse en el más absoluto secreto”.Por lo que se deduce de las notas, el plan fue tramado por el círculo de amistades de Gowland, que incluía a Alfred Harvey (muy bien situado en lasmás altas esferas de la administración y posible ‘Mr H’) y varios poetas de poco renombre y especialmente interesados por la historia británica.

“Será como un sueño druida”, escribía el poeta Milton Partridge en una carta a Gowland. “Debéis hacer algo a la altura de sir Walter Scott, digno del Rey Arturo”. En otro de los documentos, firmado por un amigo astrónomo deGowland, Douglas Byron, se presentan varios mapas del cielo de Galesdurante el solsticio de verano y la disposición que deben tener las rocas para conseguir el alineamiento. “Es una planificación concienzuda”, insiste Parker Pearson, “se tomaron tiempo de pensar hasta en el último detalle”.

“Las fotografías acabaron de convencerme”, asegura Pearson. Algunas estaban en las casas y otras se las han proporcionado fuentes del gobierno británico, que siguen desde hace meses su investigación y que, aunque no se han pronunciado, tampoco han negado los hechos.La investigación de Pearson revela que hubo tres “restauraciones” sucesivas,en 1901, 1919 y 1920, y una última en 1958, en las que se añadieron rocas y monolitos falsificados y se ocultó la información a la sociedad británica.

Las pruebas fotográficas y documentales muestran que todo fue una gran mentira aunque, como dice Pearson, “parece increíble que algo tan evidente haya tardado tantos años en salir a la luz”.

La documentación original tardará varias semanas en ser publicada, pero las pruebas que presenta National Geographic en este número especial de enero parecen tener suficiente contundencia como para hacer tambalearse el mito de Stonehenge y cuestionar la forma en que ha trabajado la Arqueología en los últimos años.
Enlace: “Stonehenge, the big hoax” (National Geographic)
. Imágenescortesía de National Geographic.*

Fuente: Maestro Viejo

El problema africano de Israel... Isarel racista y torcido como siempre.

Israel to Expel Thousands of African Migrants to Unidentified Country

Of some 60,000 African immigrants in Israel — more than half of whom are from Eritrea — around 2,000 are being held in a prison camp. They have applied for refugee status, but their requests have yet to be processed.

Rising anti-African sentiments exploded into violence last year when a Tel Aviv protest turned ugly. Jewish rioters smashed African-run shops and property, and there was a worrying number of attacks against innocent African.

¿Qué recuerdo?

¿ La sonda Curiosity de la NASA encuentra un mensaje de Dios y Jesús en Marte ? ¿De qué se trata?

Extraño, casi hilarante pero... no he encontrado notas sobre fiasco, engaño... no digo que sea cierto, solo digo que es muy peculiar.

NASA Finds Message From God On Mars Written On Tablets In A Martian Cave - Religion and Philosophy - Codewit World News