Anecdote: the mass grave of the city jews that had disappeared, and how the truth came to light. A true story.

[hermod]

But Islamists still acknowledge that they are Muslims.
I get the point of course. It is about what people believe to be true a priori. Something that has flown into "common knowledge", because it is repeated and insinuated over and over again. This is indeed what cults do. They tire their targets down to increase probability they will accept teachings, which the targets will grasp as answers to question arising from the confusion. It really isn't that mystical as many people think.

Unlike what some oft-repeated fake Nazi quotations (such as "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually believe it." and "A lie repeated a thousand times becomes a truth.") claim or imply on the internet, Goebbels had noted that democratic propaganda technique and he blamed it on British propagandists and politicians during WWII because he hadn't forgotten the big propaganda lies concoted and dissimenated by the same guys 25 years earlier.

https://postimg.cc/vg3jtbzK

https://postimg.cc/8FR3Xx8Z

https://postimg.cc/rzKNVGtY

With the Holocaust I'd say that targets got several categories, which again subdivide in other targets:
* Allied country populations and armed forces.
* German population in Germany, but to a lesser degree also elsewhere.
* Jews.

To the Allies the Holocaust or rather the demonization of NS, Hitler and the Germans in general provided a sense of self-righteousness. It's the we are the good guys fighting evil kind of thing. It's a way to shut up critics of the war itself as well.

Bear in mind that both the UK and the US war losses were close to half a million people. If they had stayed out or made peace, this would have been a non-issue, because it didn't happen. So rather spin a story on why you were forced to fight that war. "Tse eewill Dschermans will be rather useful in this". Another issue was of course that lots of Brits for example were prisoners of war in Germany itself... And from those I know, they weren't treated badly at all. If that would have become a debate in Britain, it could have become a problem for the warmongers there. I agree that those are potentialities, but the people pushing the narrative ARE the type that considers potentialities and probabilities very much.

If you want to thought reform the Germans, accusing them of (having supported) monstrous atrocities is actually inevitable.

The gas chambers of the Holohoax could easily "distract public attention from" "the Allied sky armadas blotting the sun and moon from Germany's sky."

https://postimg.cc/5XfV5XDG

... and the super-brutish customs of the good doers' Red friends.

https://postimg.cc/FdVk6JwV

Jews will increase their own social cohesion in the process. More Jews will support the Zionist cause simply as a matter of self-protection against a 'potential Holocaust'. This is anyway an argument Jewish Zionists frequently use. Being the one nation on earth that was almost exterminated by the Nazis for no reason at all, makes for a good replacement of 'being God's Chosen people'. Observing Jews are a minority... And a majority of Jews is agnostic to atheistic. So more traditional religion loses it's cohesive properties in the post-modern world. You need a narrative acceptable to both theists, agnostics, atheists and even people from other creeds to regain cohesiveness within the group. 'The Holocaust' as National Myth can serve that purpose. They get of course furious, when you call it 'a Myth', because it indicates the religious origin and they'd like to pass it on as 'recorded history' so people will 'take it seriously'. Meanwhile the para-religious character of the Holocaust is almost super-evident. It got core faith statements, it got rituals, relics, martyr stories... Hell Holocaust even sounds like Hell and IS religious terminology. It got some striking resemblance with the 'lake of fire' in the book of revelation as well. Elie Wiesel's story of 'Jews burned in pits' in Auschwitz has definitely this ring to it as well. 'Lake of Fire'... oh yeah... that's actually were the wicked will be thrown in after Christ returns to Earth. And Jesus Christ is the archetype of 'the Nazi' (The Nazarene), of course. Rejection of Christ (and Christians) was once the binding factor among Jews... Replacing this with 'Nazi' is of course very convenient and it sounds far less suspicious to the Goyim as well.

https://postimg.cc/6TpHDRrk

https://postimg.cc/H85XBPB0

Hell Holocaust even sounds like Hell and IS religious terminology. It got some striking resemblance with the 'lake of fire' in the book of revelation as well. Elie Wiesel's story of 'Jews burned in pits' in Auschwitz has definitely this ring to it as well.

That's true. That's the reason why there were hellish crematories and burning pits but no gas chambers (!!) in the first edition of Elie Wiesel's notorious book "Night."

The whole thing can however also become a Nexus Shirt over time. Simply because the initial lie, opens up for more and more lies over time, until this becomes a cancer that destroys social organisms completely. In plain words: It will lead into more and more contradictions until, society disfunctions to such an extent that it will cause it to collapse. That was also the fate of old civilizations... There it was the religion that, while first providing structure and guidance, led into more and more contradictions and insanity that the societies in questions could not function any longer.

That's part of the Globalist scheme. Before that collapse fully happens, most Jews will have migrated to Zionist-occupied Palestine. And the collapsed societies [de]generated by that process will provide Yahweh's self-proclaimed aristocrats with the 2,800 Gentile slaves per Chosenite they are to get for their Golden Age (aka Messianic Era).

https://postimg.cc/ygSKxgcY

https://postimg.cc/F1bXdWTL

https://postimg.cc/CBvMWdJ3

https://postimg.cc/PCnkWpX6

https://postimg.cc/HVdQ9Pk4

https://postimg.cc/4YL03wgd

https://postimg.cc/nCr9cfDK

https://postimg.cc/3dffkd23

https://postimg.cc/GHPjfPgy

https://postimg.cc/grRDDZqd

[Mortimer]

Tell you what Germans, perhaps it isn't the ghosts of the dead Jews that haunt you. Because that story is clearly atrocity propaganda. Perhaps those are the ghosts of people murdered by the Allies in bombing raids, in the murder of civilians, in the mass starvation this all caused and haunted Germans even, when the war was over. People who are daily disparaged and belittled by your media on TV, on the papers, etc. That is the real 'suppressed memory' in Germany. Time to get realistic about your history, perhaps. But it seems many don't want to. Especially those that rose to positions of power after WW2. Got potential to let those people look really bad.

Tell you what Germans, perhaps it isn't the ghosts of the dead Jews that haunt you. Because that story is clearly atrocity propaganda. Perhaps those are the ghosts of people murdered by the Allies in bombing raids, in the murder of civilians, in the mass starvation this all caused and haunted Germans even, when the war was over. People who are daily disparaged and belittled by your media on TV, on the papers, etc. That is the real 'suppressed memory' in Germany. Time to get realistic about your history, perhaps. But it seems many don't want to. Especially those that rose to positions of power after WW2. Got potential to let those people look really bad.

It is easy to say something like this, or to get upset about how docile the Germans are.

I'm not German by ethnicity, I am the offspring of "guest workers". As such, I could both experience life in Germany, and look at the Germans from an outside perspective.

In school I had to "learn" what the Germans were taught about their history. When I later studied history, I first found out in the uni library that there was a "Germany" in the middle ages. Our school teacher had told us that "Germany" was basically invented in the 19th century, before that nobody in Germany considered himself German, the people only thought of themselves as Bavarians, Swabians or something else, it was a poor region like the balkans, consisting of over 300 different countries with no common identity, and they also couldn't understand each other because of the strong dialects. Then it was conquered by Prussia, and through compulsory schooling a fake German indentity was created. I am not kidding. Besides of that, the medieval history was basically skipped, we only got a crash course about serfdom, the black plague, the crusades. Next came the enlightening, the reformation, the 30y war, the french revolution, and then it was time for you to get tortured with WW1 & WW2-history for years.

In the 80's you still learned that Wilhelm's Kaiserreich was an absolutist tyranny, the Germans there were dumb, subserviant people who couldn't think independently, and one day, the tyrannical Austrian prince Franz Ferdinand was assassinated by a plucky serbian freedom fighter, and the Germans seized the opportunity to unleash a tidal wave of death upon their peaceful democratic neighbors, just because they wanted to rule the world.

Of course, every German kid had grandparents that sometimes talked about their suffering, but in the media these stories were defamed as exaggerated self-pity and an attempt to deflect from their guilt. The young Germans learned to despise their grandparents, because they were the one's who brought all this shame and hostility upon them, hostility that Germans were often confronted with in foreign countries.

They also learned that being a German means being the real "Untermensch". They were taught to admire the victors of WW2 as examples for how to be better people. Germans were taught that they don't have any sense of humor, but the British were the funniest people in the world, so be like them. They were taught that Germans were boring lovers, but the french were the best lovers in the world, so be like them. They were taught that Germans had an almost genetic longing for subserviance and tyranny, but the Americans were naturally indomitable, freedom loving people, so be like them. Every ill in German society or history was the result of a uniquely German defect.


Since I have been "red-pilled", I did a lot of research into the re-engineering of the German society. In my opinion, the allies realized that if you want to rule over a foreign people, you have to take their pride. Only proud people resist. They archived their goal.
They enslaved them, but later granted them the role of the "house negro". And this is what they unfortunately are today. They are the house negros of Europe and America.

It is deeply imprinted in their mind that they are obligated to be nice to everybody. And it worked to some extend. Whenever there's a worldwide poll about which countries are the most popular, Germany always rank very high. The problem is that it doesn't matter how many of the average people like you. The political leadership of the war winners clearly don't.

In my opinion, the reason why the Americans blew up the Nord Stream-pipelines was not to prevent them from importing Russian gas, because the Germans had already made their commitments. This was a message to Germany: you still are our house negro, and this is what happens when the house negro gets uppity.

Revisionism in Germany is a lost cause. Besides the fact that Holocaust revisionism is illegal: even if you try to convince a German that his ancestors weren't pathologically subserviant people, many just reject it, because the perceived inability of their ancestors to think independently exculpates them to some extend from the Holocaust guilt. They didn't really mean to kill all these people. It was just blind obediance. "Kadavergehorsam".

The salvation can only come from the US, the UK and Russia. At least, since the release of "Sleepwalkers", they moved away from the WW1-guilt narrative, and McMeekin's "Stalin's war" is a shot against Russia, but it also takes some guilt off the backs of the Germans.

Kadavergehorsam - this means a corpse like obedience in other words someone who obeys orders without question. Carlos Porter argues that this isn't even a proper German word but a corruption of a supposed Basque term.
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/cwporter/kadaver.htm
Porter is the author of Not Guilty At Nuremberg The German Defense Case
English
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/cwporter/innocent.htm
German
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/cwporter/nggerm.htm

[hermod]

They also learned that being a German means being the real "Untermensch". They were taught to admire the victors of WW2 as examples for how to be better people. Germans were taught that they don't have any sense of humor, but the British were the funniest people in the world, so be like them. They were taught that Germans were boring lovers, but the french were the best lovers in the world, so be like them. They were taught that Germans had an almost genetic longing for subserviance and tyranny, but the Americans were naturally indomitable, freedom loving people, so be like them. Every ill in German society or history was the result of a uniquely German defect.

Everybody was taught that Germans don't have any sense of humor. It's a postulate of the victors' WWII narrative. According to that narrative, the Germans of the 1930s were supposedly so uptight about everything they were unable to put up with their military defeat of November 1918. And so they blamed the Jews for no good reason and were anxious to have a second go, we're told. That's how we're supposed to understand WWII and the Holocaust.

For info, Moses Hess (a major pioneer of Zionism and Communism) wrote in 1862 (!!!) that the German people was "the last dominating race " in the world and that "it seems that a final race struggle [against the Germans] is unavoidable " (Rome and Jerusalem: The Last National Question, by Moses Hess). He patently thought that the word "progressive" meant "Jew-owned" and the word "dominating" meant "not Jew-owned enough."

https://postimg.cc/67CYpcXc

https://postimg.cc/D4kh5wDk

https://postimg.cc/qN7B1gWy

https://postimg.cc/bSZnsYnP

https://postimg.cc/ygdgb6vR

https://postimg.cc/rKdGpjG4

Since I have been "red-pilled", I did a lot of research into the re-engineering of the German society. In my opinion, the allies realized that if you want to rule over a foreign people, you have to take their pride. Only proud people resist.

That's true. The victors of WWII had learned from the mistakes made by the victors of WWI and they had come to realize that a victor's diktats cannot last for a very long time without a firmly-established moral high ground. That's why they held highly-publicized show trials after WWII; never stopped repeating their most crucial propaganda lies, and always treated WWII revisionists like dangerous terrorists.

Revisionism in Germany is a lost cause. Besides the fact that Holocaust revisionism is illegal: even if you try to convince a German that his ancestors weren't pathologically subserviant people, many just reject it, because the perceived inability of their ancestors to think independently exculpates them to some extend from the Holocaust guilt. They didn't really mean to kill all these people. It was just blind obediance. "Kadavergehorsam".

An allegation already made by Allied propagandists during WWI. In January 1919, Allied journalists wrote that the Germans were unfit for democracy because "[democracy] posits liberty and independence of thought, and neither liberty nor independence of thought are possible to the German people, a people of soulless clods, disciplined into an abject docility" and "the German aims at being disciplined by the ruling authorities from the cradle to the grave, and he's not at all shocked at the monstrously barbarous practice which consigns his body slain on the battlefield to some corpse-factory."

https://postimg.cc/qzphwyxX

[Hektor]

But Islamists still acknowledge that they are Muslims.
I get the point of course. It is about what people believe to be true a priori. Something that has flown into "common knowledge", because it is repeated and insinuated over and over again. This is indeed what cults do. They tire their targets down to increase probability they will accept teachings, which the targets will grasp as answers to question arising from the confusion. It really isn't that mystical as many people think.

Unlike what some oft-repeated fake Nazi quotations (such as "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually believe it." and "A lie repeated a thousand times becomes a truth.") claim or imply on the internet, Goebbels had noted that democratic propaganda technique and he blamed it on British propagandists and politicians during WWII because he hadn't forgotten the big propaganda lies concoted and dissimenated by the same guys 25 years earlier.
.....

The reference to 'the big lie' in 'Mein Kampf' was about their enemies making use of that technique. It wasn't a policy suggestion by Hitler or any other National Socialist. Yet the internet quotes one sees relating to this, often making Goebbels the author, suggest this over and over again. The idea is not new neither. But the technique is now more refined them ever (thanks to the developments in atrocity propganda). The pick real items, present them in articles or film footage and then spin a story around this. Completely 'made up facts' are rather rare. It would also to be too much 'creative effort' on its own to do so. Rather have facts and quotes to refer do and then spin it in an article. Then you can always point to info other have given you, exculpating you slightly from that fraud.

There's probably hundreds of articles trying to use what was later coined as 'Holocaust' as justification for Allied 'war crimes'. So, it is a cover up story. I recall this to be the go to method of scoundrels, when they get beaten. They will never tell you what they have done to get beaten, always cry about being beaten by you. A politica setting is of course more complex then that. People get beaten that don't have anything to do with the cause of the conflict personally. Just being at the wrong time at the wrong place. As for the scoundrel, I guess any school boy will know at least one. Also perhaps experienced how the teachers picked his side, after he was running to do, when you didn't take his sh!t any longer. The other method is gossiping. They don't like you, but are afraid to confront you directly. They simply talk about you badly in with your mates and you wonder, why those mates act negatively towards you. Once the atmosphere is poisoned with this totally, the kids can't handle the stress anymore. They will turn to drugs or other behavior as to be able to handle that type of situation. And of course this environment becomes ideal for gas lighting and indoctrination.

Apparently no "Holocaust Historian" ever bothered to explain why Elie Wiesel did change his story fundamentally in some of the details. And well, the "we did volunteer to be evacuated, before the red army came" was also a thing then. Apparently some of the inmates had their experiences with Bolshevism a few years earlier.

I can't tell you what will happen to Western countries and when, of course. Not in detail at least. But the trajectory is to social decay and towards vices that will be a hindrance a) to avert the coming crisis b) to come out of the crisis easily again. The social crisis management skills have been 'delearned' after decades of rather favorable conditions in terms of job and social security, there. The values are also idiotic. Not conducive to survival. The Western Family model provided an environment were people would be able to work and rebuild after a crisis. But few do really understood the importance of did. Some sociologists did decades ago. Gehlen and Schelsky for example. But they were marginalized for their views in academia. As Germans being grown ups during WW2 they were of course 'discredited' as well.

As for Jews... Most people don't even realise what Jewish speakers religious as well as secular tell people, when they don't think that outsiders will notice what they are saying. What they say about Edom, Amalek, the Goyim, the Messiah, etc. Even if you tell people and show them, they brush it off as insignificant. Apparently they are too used to the mambo-jambo preached in their Churches and think it is meaningless drivel as well. And of course drawing the logical conclusions from it would be 'irrational anti-semitism'. Imagine that. Calling anyone that criticizes XYZ and Anti-XYZ just for pointing out that XYZ isn't what you think it is. Those folks even fail at connecting the dots in a low level IQ-Test.

I said I won't 'prophesize' on what's gonna happen. But I can point to trends. One is globalization of course. It's a coin with more than one side of course. One being international trade meaning you can get cheaper goods in richer countries from poorer countries. But there is a backside to this. It means that marginal industries will tend to vanish over time, simply because they can't keep up with to low prices. Especially when production/labor cost are high. And well high production/labor cost isn't due to the wages being to high. It's because there are lots of cost imposed on businesses that go to 'social insurance', 'taxation' and other compliance with regulations. There is a stigma on labor as well. With the industries being elsewhere, countries can't simply step out, when they don't like the policies they are compelled to engage in. It's globalitarianism by coercion of withholding participation. There is going to be changes with currency/financial systems as well. And perhaps several technology changes, too. The banks will be more powerful. And well, I expect larger scale economic disruptions, too. Perhaps some wars, too. Lots of problems that require a 'problem solver' (a 'messiah if you want'). And well, I bet they gonna "rebuilt" the temple in Jerusalem. And it will be a big show. Given central location it is of course ideal for a 'world capital'. Place a figurine into the temple and start a cult around it. That is what can be learned from 2Thess2:4 (opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.). It won't age well though, if one reads the whole thing in revelation (Rev 19:20). It almost looks like a blue-print, but it takes those that follow it to destruction... Into the 'lake of fire', which will be the first 'real Holocaust'. Concerning the religious world there is of course interfaith movement, World Council of Churches, which happened to have played a role in establishing the Holocaust Narrative in Germany. Visser't Hooft was an Allied Spy. Perhaps also a character we should have a close look into. He's connected to some other famous church characters like Bonhoeffer and Barth. The Stuttgarter Schulderklaerung ist perhaps is key to establishing "German Guilt" the date for it seems to relate to the Nuremberg Trials... Telling me we need a good time line on things as well.

[hermod]

The reference to 'the big lie' in 'Mein Kampf' was about their enemies making use of that technique. It wasn't a policy suggestion by Hitler or any other National Socialist. Yet the internet quotes one sees relating to this, often making Goebbels the author, suggest this over and over again. The idea is not new neither. But the technique is now more refined them ever (thanks to the developments in atrocity propganda). The pick real items, present them in articles or film footage and then spin a story around this. Completely 'made up facts' are rather rare. It would also to be too much 'creative effort' on its own to do so. Rather have facts and quotes to refer do and then spin it in an article. Then you can always point to info other have given you, exculpating you slightly from that fraud.

Conceded by some orthodox/antirevisionist historians but kept vastly concealed from the public for deception purposes, just like with the falsely captioned pics of typhus mass graves and the silence of orthodox/mainstream historians on that misleading trick.

Such an admission would have been a dumb and nonsensical political strategy anyway. Liars, real liars, don't warn their victims and future victims about themselves and their dirty tricks. For obvious reasons.

https://postimg.cc/d7SmDZRs

https://postimg.cc/Zv681V5Q

I said I won't 'prophesize' on what's gonna happen. But I can point to trends. One is globalization of course. It's a coin with more than one side of course. One being international trade meaning you can get cheaper goods in richer countries from poorer countries. But there is a backside to this. It means that marginal industries will tend to vanish over time, simply because they can't keep up with to low prices. Especially when production/labor cost are high. And well high production/labor cost isn't due to the wages being to high. It's because there are lots of cost imposed on businesses that go to 'social insurance', 'taxation' and other compliance with regulations. There is a stigma on labor as well. With the industries being elsewhere, countries can't simply step out, when they don't like the policies they are compelled to engage in. It's globalitarianism by coercion of withholding participation. There is going to be changes with currency/financial systems as well. And perhaps several technology changes, too. The banks will be more powerful. And well, I expect larger scale economic disruptions, too. Perhaps some wars, too. Lots of problems that require a 'problem solver' (a 'messiah if you want'). And well, I bet they gonna "rebuilt" the temple in Jerusalem. And it will be a big show. Given central location it is of course ideal for a 'world capital'. Place a figurine into the temple and start a cult around it. That is what can be learned from 2Thess2:4 (opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.). It won't age well though, if one reads the whole thing in revelation (Rev 19:20). It almost looks like a blue-print, but it takes those that follow it to destruction... Into the 'lake of fire', which will be the first 'real Holocaust'. Concerning the religious world there is of course interfaith movement, World Council of Churches, which happened to have played a role in establishing the Holocaust Narrative in Germany. Visser't Hooft was an Allied Spy. Perhaps also a character we should have a close look into. He's connected to some other famous church characters like Bonhoeffer and Barth. The Stuttgarter Schulderklaerung ist perhaps is key to establishing "German Guilt" the date for it seems to relate to the Nuremberg Trials... Telling me we need a good time line on things as well.

IMO, the economic side of globalization is publicized and used to conceal the political-religious side of the Globalist enterprise, just like it is in the EU district of Jewry's global plantation. More a distracting sideshow than anything else if I'm asked.

(Jean Monnet was a major founding father of the European Union)

https://postimg.cc/CdfdWxC8

https://postimg.cc/qgM1L065

https://postimg.cc/rDBXvT2v

[Hektor]

The reference to 'the big lie' in 'Mein Kampf' .... fraud.

Conceded by some orthodox/antirevisionist historians but kept vastly concealed from the public for deception purposes, just like with the falsely captioned pics of typhus mass graves and the silence of orthodox/mainstream historians on that misleading trick.

Such an admission would have been a dumb and nonsensical political strategy anyway. Liars, real liars, don't warn their victims and future victims about themselves and their dirty tricks. For obvious reasons.

I said I won't 'prophesize' on what's gonna happen. ...a good time line on things as well.

IMO, the economic side of globalization is publicized and used to conceal the political-religious side of the Globalist enterprise, just like it is in the EU district of Jewry's global plantation. More a distracting sideshow than anything else if I'm asked.

....

As far as EU/Globomania are concerned: One could also argue that the publico-political shenanigans are just a distraction from the real corporate and power politics there. People can talk about immigration, 'racism', Holocaust or how many genders there are in the end this doesn't really change the power structure in the US, Germany or Australia. But on the other hand. Certain aspects of the public debate are about more than distraction. They are about controlling interpretation power within society. That's the case with the Holocaust.
What it does is the following:
* It paints 'Nazis', a stand-in for Germans (or even Christians) as demonized enemies.
* Portraying Jews as victims, followed by Communists, Moochers, Criminals, Homosexuals, Gypsies, etc.
* Those that 'fight the Nazis' can earn a 'hero'-role or this is put up as an expectation to them.

'Nazis' are of course nationalists and hence 'enemies of globalization'. They are also 'enemies of democracy', 'tolerance' and 'diversity'. If someone disagrees with the 'political mores', call him a 'Nazi'. Attacks against such people are then justified or 'not as bad'. That intimidation tactic works and compels people into compliance with the advertised 'political mores'. All kinds of would be losers feel encouraged to 'play heroes'. Not necessary with maximum aggression, but by acting nasty against those that deviate from the 'political mores' in some way.

Just analyze the socio-political structure of various countries and the various characters you find therein. The mass is of course middle or working class people nowadays. Differences are there in income and education. They'd work 8 hour/day job and participate in social life in some way. They probably have kids, likely on school or the kids left the home already and are now doing something similar their parents did. But there is also subdivision in this, strongly dependent who or what they work for. E.g. they may work for private companies (commerce, industry, crafts) or for government or for 'ngo's. I count teachers and academics as government workers. While churches, trade unions, pressure groups are ngo's. Within those you'd find different characters as well. Those that are just compliant, but also enforcers of 'political mores'. Those enforcers will act once one of the otherwise compliant people dances to far out of line with comments, questions or remarks. If he doesn't shut up, they will get aggressive. The work people do, what they learned/studied has influence on how they think about political views as well. It deals with how they think, what they are exposed to and what their interests are. An engineer is likely to think more logical and in terms of feasibility. He will talk more with people that reason similar of things. And his interest is earning incomes from medium sized companies as well as 'good industry' locally or having international clients. So there can be splits within interest as well. And they may 'rationalize what is based for them'. People are more prone to be particulists (The "me") than being holists (the 'us')... But there is still some realization that things need to be balanced in some way. That is with folks that are still ordinary in some degree. There is of course characters that function a little different. Even people with malice, which actually are often experts in camouflaging this. As for the internationalization/globalization people are often divided on this (unless there world view has certain dictates of course). On the one hand people would like to travel and trade with anybody, on the other hand they don't like competition and becoming the dumping ground for trashy people of other countries. They also would like to have a say on what happens IN THEIR communities. And that should be in line with their norms, mores, values, preferences. So there is conflict potential in this. What you want and what you get can be totally different things in many cases. And it can become rather unpleasant. The bigger the a political unit is, the bigger the power of those calling the shots in it, but also the smaller the say each citizen type member would have in it. Being able to influence political decisions via media and organization also depends on the resources a person or group does have. So with more internationalization/globalization the power of the individual will diminish. The power of governments will increase and with that the power of corporations, NGOs, mass-media and a number of other institutions will increase. So it would be more logical to be a nationalist/regionalist/federalist than a globalist/internationalist. But while the argument is simple, people struggle to think that way.

Another issue is the question of ethnicity. What type of society is better...? One that is ethnically unified or one that is 'diverse', 'multicultural' or whatever the buzz-word is that is envogue at the moment.

If society has a common value system among its individuals, it is more self-managed internally. Meaning that conflicts are either easily resolved or don't even come up at all. If the social mores are healthy this society will thrive without being a tyranny, at all.

On the other hand, if it is more 'diverse' ethnically one will either have segmentation in accordance with groups or the norms/mores will simply blur and become more unclear and uncertain. At first this may look like 'anything goes now'. But conflicts and higher criminality, corruption etc. are preprogrammed. The crisis mode will create demand for more intervention and actually dissatisfied people are also more 'eager customers', which they use as a substitute for happiness. That's exactly what power-hungry people want. Except for the economic and political side, there is a ideological-religious side to this as well. Concerning world view anything needs to be turned on its head. And this idea comes a long way. One could literally start on this with 'Adam and Eve'. But the starting point in the modern era, came with the enlightenment and phenomena like the French revolution. The slogans there were 'egalite' and it was directed against the monarchy and the organic order of society, which was the guiding idea for the feudal order. The feudal order was tri-functional (Oratores-Bellatores-Laboratores) and accepted the necessity for hierarchy and 'personal rights' and rules. The replacement ideas were 'freedom-quality-brotherhood' As well as a state with legislative-executive-juridical powers. The 'rights-of-man' were what was offered, as well. While the French Revolution collapsed quickly, the ideas of course persisted. As a response the restauration and romanticism came up. But with industrialization and capitalism, the progressive era emerged. This is where Marxism developed, which tried to use the workers as a 'revolutionary class'. Ironically the break-through was in Russia, which was less-industrialized than the Western European Nations, where the Marxists expected the Revolution to break through. With the idea of "World Revolution", the Marxists were also the first of the political movements to have a type of 'globalist vision'. It was however not unique to them. Clearly the Colonial Empires had some sort of global vision as well...although this was still tied to a nation state. A 'motherland' with dependent territories overseas. Great Britain and France being the primary examples there, with the Spanish empire having declined already and the Portuguese still struggling on. The Dutch empire was ones a bit bigger, but pieces were swallowed by the British during the Napoleonic era. Germany only came later to this, probably in an attempt to copy the others. First World War was a turning point in this. The Central powers caved in. The 'Russian' Revolution ended with the first Communist Regime. And the 'League of Nations' being the first attempt to 'bring all the Nations together'. It was followed by 'cultural change' as well. With Weimar Republic Germany perhaps being a primary example to the dismay of the majority of Germans (not only National Socialists). That of course lead to a reaction, with Hitler establishing National Socialism in Germany. This was meant to become an alternative to both Communism and 'Liberal Democracies' (Plutocracy) alike. It copied Fascism a bit in this. The social, but especially the economics policies that cut out the power of international banks was certainly not to the liking of International Bankers, who realized they would lose opportunities of maximized profits, if other countries started copying the model. Of course this wasn't said explicitly, since this would have exposed the ruse. So they went for 'racial' and 'religious' persecution. And claimed that the 'Third Reich' was 'repressive', since they put their opposition into concentration camps. The Jew-Card was however played up more than others it seems. Followed by claiming that "Hitler persecuted Christians", because some of the 'Confessing Church' people were detained as well. The later matter is however more complicated then presented nowadays, as are many others. The confessing church was initially not about 'worldly politics', but about some Protestants trying to change the churches teachings in line with some ideas of the day. But it quickly turned to a substitute platform for those that had some beef with National-Socialism. I'd guess many Protestant clerics were a bit concerned that e.g. Youth-Work was taken over by the Hitler Youth for example. Not to mention that Hitler had enthusiastic followers, while they didn't have really that many. Martin Niemoeller was a NSDAP voter himself, but had some beef with the "German Christians". Some of the quarrels were rather petty, but usually some of the more 'extreme' statements by outliers among the 'German Christians' are taken (to misrepresent the movement). More pronounced was the Swiss Reformed Theologian Karl Barth, who turns out to be a Marxist, Stalin-fan and pretty much a war-monger against Germany. Dietrich Bonhoeffer played a junior role there. But he's perhaps the best known figure connected to the "confessing church". The rest of the theologians, pastors that were members isn't really that well known. Guess they were less extreme (politically and theologically) than Barth and Bonhoeffer were. Niemoeller wasn't that extreme neither, but I think he was pretty naive and pliable to conform with what Barth wanted. E.g. the Stuttgarter Schulderklaerung. And Niemoeller winning (and accepting) prices from communist countries (for his 'peace' efforts). One saying ascribed to him was the "First they came for the Communists..." (Bet you they did, but guess why?).

The Post-WW2 German Protestant Church's conditions probably explain a lot about the condition in which Germany was after WW2. It seems as if they have been the main target 'to be sunk' via gas lighting. But there were many within that church's leadership strata that grasped the issues only to willing. I sense there was some sort of a 'generational struggle'. With your older pastors/theologians virtually all being in the Wehrmacht or NS-organization (and having a different POV on what happened), while the younger ones were indoctrinated from early on. There was of course some leftists among the older ones already and opportunistically this was a way to sustain their positions within the church. With millions of people mourning the situation is ideal to 'do a view changes' in the teachings and attitudes of the Protestant Churches of Germany.

They once were pro folk and nation, pro family, pro civic duty including military duties, pro 'protestant ethics', if you want. But that was over 70 years ago it seems... It changed slowly of course. The NS-debate, than the pacifism, later the 'social justice' issues and the anti-authoritarianism, Once the Holocaust rolled over the rails the pro-national stance was deconstructed and finally turned into the opposite. A bit close to home were the 'sex-related' issue. And well. They approve of homosexuality now as a 'normal life-style' in fact virtue-signal with rants against 'homophobia'. I wonder, when it is the turn for pedophilia/zoophilia in this regard. In that light it is refreshing that they lost half their members since WW2. But this is of course for a broad spectrum of reason. Their pesky behavior to indoctrinate people with foolish ideas is of course one big reasons, they will never admit. They blame it on 'the church not being modern enough'. But it is exactly the post-modernism and watered down messages that pisses people off. There is some Israel-fetishism with the mainline Protestants, but it not like the 'Christian Zionism' in the US. There is some of this with the 'free churches', though. They are Baptists so there may have been some connection to the US.

On the other hand. The government in Germany deals out money so 'freely' to Israel, don't think there is lots of need for 'Christian Zionism'. Those (Christians) that call out 'Christian Zionism' in Germany are a small minority, but they do exist. And get lots of bad rap from MS-media as well as the 'big churchlings'.