You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘germany’ category.

‘I cried all the way back’: sexual harassment on public transport

How does it feel to be subject to unwanted sexual attention on your morning commute? Or on your way to school? We asked readers to tell us their stories of sexual harassment on public transport

 

I thought this article in the British newspaper “The Guardian” was very well written. Really, it is a model for such approaching such topics. The article was helping a campaign against sexual harassment:

Transport for London launched a hard-hitting campaign against sexual assault and harassment on its services. Accompanied by a harrowing video of a woman experiencing sexual assault on the Tube, the campaign urged anyone who experienced unwanted sexual behaviour to report it to the police. A year on since its launch, with the video boasting more than 4m views, 36% more people have reported such incidents on the London underground.

More excerpts below:

We asked our readers to tell us about their experiences. Some told us about being followed off trains. Others told us about men trying to sneak a feel of their breasts between shopping bags. Then there were those who witnessed public masturbation, or were just teenagers when they were first subject to unwanted sexual attention.

====

Being glad to have found a seat amidst the full carriage after a stressful day at work, I took off my coat and acknowledged the people sitting around me with a smile. I was listening to music and reading a book in English for a while, when I felt the man sitting diagonally opposite of me looking over intensely. He was in his 40s.

I was listening to music and reading a book in English for a while, when I felt the man sitting diagonally opposite of me looking over intensely. He was in his 40s.

Although I was wearing a buttoned up shirt, showing no cleavage whatsoever, I loosely wrapped my scarf around my neck, also covering my chest. I kept reading, and he kept staring. At the next stop a lot of people got out and even more came in. In between he quickly came over and took the newly empty seat opposite of me.

Only inches away he started grinning at me. I felt very uncomfortable, my eyes glued to the page. One stop before mine I had to get my coat on again and got up to make my way through the packed carriage.

Waiting for the train door to open I saw in the corner of my eye the man was still sitting down. I jumped out of the train and walked quickly upstairs, almost running. I still had a bad feeling, so instead of walking the rest of the way home, as I usually did, I turned the corner and went downstairs to another line to catch a different train for one more stop.

On reaching the platform, the man suddenly turned up next to me, walking along with the same, fast pace.

“Hey, wait!” he shouted at me in English. I realised ignoring him would no longer work, so I took out one of my earphones. Without stopping I said to him: “You make me feel uncomfortable. I’m sure you are a nice person and mean well, but can you please stop following me?”

“Hey, you speak English? It’s not a bad thing. We can talk.” he said with a dirty grin.

“Sorry, but I do not want to talk to you. Please leave me alone!” I replied slowing down next to two ladies in their 50s chatting. He was stood in front of me.

“You take this train, too? What direction? We can meet some time.”. He touched my arm. I answered: “No, I do not want to meet or talk to you. Leave me alone now!”

The train came rattling in. With my heart pumping I firmly walked around the intrusive man, followed the two ladies into the carriage and sat down with them next to the window.

When the train left the station I couldn’t tell if the man was still on the platform. For a while I was afraid he might be in a different carriage. When I got out at the next stop, I stood next to a group of young punks and only then I was brave enough to wait and see if the man was still following me. He wasn’t – I was alone again. Shaky and sweaty I walked home.

The next day I told my mostly male co-workers about the incident. They all said: “You shouldn’t have smiled at him when you first took off your coat.”

I never reported it nor told anyone else about it. They made me feel like it was my fault and that I should be ashamed.

It was not my fault and I no longer feel ashamed.

Kira, Hamburg

=====end of excerpt=======

Good for you, Kira. Here’s the first problem – girls like Kira are brought to be polite and civilized – but they live in a violent world. You notice that Kira’s response is mostly very polite – when confronted with a harassing, potentially violent, man. Given his behavior, one can only guess at how deeply the turd goes in his head regarding sexuality. I’m sure his reading of her smile was she must be fishing for a sexual encounter with a stranger, or maybe he thought she was a prostitute. Or maybe he thought that there wasn’t anything meant by her smile, but he thought he might be able to exploit her sexually or to bully her someway into talking to him. In any case, he decided to target her.

Obviously, through no fault of her own, Kira has lived in a very sheltered world. We can see this by her reaction here:

“I’m sure you are a nice person and mean well, but can you please stop following me?”

What?! Was this her head going into denial or did she really think an older man who is harassing and following her with a dirty grin is a “nice person who means well”? Did she think this because she had never had an experience of a threat or harassment from someone? And the fact that she is so polite!

I’m glad, albeit she was overly polite, that she repeatedly told the guy to leave her alone.

Then, not surprisingly, she tells of her co-workers’ reaction, blaming her.

“The next day I told my mostly male co-workers about the incident. They all said: “You shouldn’t have smiled at him when you first took off your coat.”

Well, it’s true, she shouldn’t have – because she was in a public place full of strangers. However, it was not her fault that she did. Had she been living in a decent society, she could have smiled without worries. But when you live in a world where people let others live “as they want”, that’s what happens. All the predators, harassers, LGBTs, and perverts live “as they want”, doing whatever they want, as long as they get away with it.

What consequences will this guy ever face over what he did? None. Especially now that such a long time has passed and whatever security video there might be of the incident has long been erased. And even if there was a video, and she denounced the man to authorities, what would they do? And if she went on national TV with her story, what retaliation could she expect later in life?

The silver lining in this case is that the newspaper offered a space and an opportunity for people like Kira to tell and therefore re-examine their harassment experiences. Now she has broken her silence and, most importantly, she was able to realize that it was not her fault. She herlself did nothing bad, starting with her innocent smile. But it’s just not something you can do.

Now, as a post-examination exercise, let’s imagine for a second that this man is bisexual and goes after young men and women. He’s a member therefore of the LGBT community who cries over and over again about how mistreated and discriminated they are in society. Really, oppressed people, are they? Let’s suppose he is heterosexual, but his perversion extends from having a dirty mind about women to also endorsing homosexuality. So he is a gay-friendly sexual harasser, potentially a rapist. A gay-friendly rapist! Were he to present himself as a candidate for a job, and mention he was gay-friendly and compete for the job against a person who was against normalizing homosexuality, most liberals would hands down give him the job. See, “equality” for sexuality turds is like that!

 

 

 

Advertisements

Counterpunch really throws a punch here:

President Killary: Would the World Survive Hillary Clinton?

Hillary has accepted massive bribes in the form of speaking fees from financial organizations and corporations.  She is under investigation for misuse of classified data, an offense for which a number of whistleblowers are in prison. Hillary has survived the bombing of Libya, her creation of a failed Libyan state that is today a major source of terrorist jihadists, and the Benghazi controversy. She has survived charges that as Secretary of State she arranged favors for foreign interests in exchange for donations to the Clintons’ foundation.  And, of course, there is a long list of previous scandals: Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate.  Diana Johnstone’s book, Queen of Chaos, describes Hillary Clinton as “the top salesperson for the ruling oligarchy.”

Hillary Clinton is a bought-and-paid-for representative of the big banks, the military-security complex, and the Israel Lobby.  She will represent these interests, not those of the American people or America’s European allies.

The Clintons’ purchase by interest groups is public knowledge.  For example, CNN reports that between February 2001 and May 2015  Bill and Hillary Clinton were paid $153 million in speaking fees for 729 speeches, an average price of $210,000.

According to rootsactionteam.com, multi-million dollar donors to the Clinton Foundation include Saudi Arabia, Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk, Kuwait, Exxon Mobil, Friends of Saudi Arabia, James Murdoch, Qatar, Boeing, Dow, Goldman Sachs, Walmart, and the United Arab Emirates.

According to the International Business Times, “Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments had given millions to the Clinton Foundation.”

And this woman is a main candidate for the United States presidency? Seriously, Bush in drag. The United States has become what Nazi Germany wanted to be. I have no doubt that the Nazis, had they won the war, and had they succeeded in being the  empire to rule Europe, after a few decades, they could well have instituted more voting on in internal and local level, and have called themselves a democracy. And Germans would be yelling how wonderful their country and their system was, because it brought them material profit.

And then you see all these famous lefty boomer women going wild about Hillary.

What an ugly spectacle.

 

*Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Roberts’ How the Economy Was Lost is now available from CounterPunch in electronic format. His latest book is The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

Why do I ask? Today I came across an intriguing news article saying French authorities had finally made public archives from their shameful and evil WWII Nazi collaboration.

Why intriguing? Because the article was in English on the Daily Express’s  site*, and when I searched for the news in French, thinking I’d find at least a dozen articles, there were none. Is the news old or is the French media going to stifle it? I don’t know. I found it odd.

But the search led me to this interesting interview with Robert Paxton, a historian that specializes in the Vichy era/government. Apparently some archives had been opened earlier. Also, note that the access is quite restricted to certified scholars, the general public can’t access anything. Peons are not entitled.

And then, in reading some articles written by Paxton, I came upon the one below, which is partially paid access only. So I didn’t read it all.

But it provided one more bit of data that was particularly intriguing to me, since it was news to me: Which countries in the West deported the most Jews to the camps – proportionally speaking? He slightly veers into the answer, while reviewing a book on France:

It’s called “the French paradox.” On the one hand the Germans, with the assistance of the actively anti-Semitic Vichy government and of a certain number of actively anti-Semitic French citizens, deported a shocking number of the Jews living in France between 1940 and 1944 to their deaths. On the other hand, the proportion of Jews deported from France was much smaller than that deported from the Netherlands, Belgium, or Norway. Is it not curious that among the Nazi-dominated countries of Western Europe the country reputedly most anti-Semitic had one of the highest survival rates? In that region only Denmark and Italy lost a lower proportion of their Jewish population.

About a quarter of the Jews who were living in France between 1942, when the deportations began, and 1944 were murdered. Double that proportion—roughly half—of the Jews living in Belgium and Norway during the same period were killed. The loss in the Netherlands was a catastrophic 73 percent.

====================================

I wonder why some of these countries mentioned, that no one normally thinks of as monstrously Nazi, performed such a high level of persecution of Jews. No time to go find out the answer now.

*The article:

REVEALED: France’s SECRET links to the Nazi Holocaust

FILES detailing French collaboration in the murder of 76,000 Jews were made public for the first time yesterday after being locked away since the end of the Second World War.

PUBLISHED: 04:54, Tue, Dec 29, 2015

 

This is a fantastic article: Nazi Germany’s War On Terrorism

Excellent recap of how Hitler manipulated people using the idea of “terrorism” and, of course, through the vivid fear it engendered.

Hitler used the 1933 burning of the Reichstag (Parliament) building by a deranged Dutchman to declare a “war on terrorism,” establish his legitimacy as a leader (even though he hadn’t won a majority in the previous election).

 

 

“You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history,” he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. “This fire,” he said, his voice trembling with emotion, “is the beginning.” He used the occasion – “a sign from God,” he called it – to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their “evil” deeds in their religion.

 

Two weeks later, the first prison for terrorists was built in Oranianberg, holding the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the nation’s flag was everywhere, even printed in newspapers suitable for display.

 

Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation’s now-popular leader had pushed through legislation, in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it, that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people’s homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.

 

To get his patriotic “Decree on the Protection of People and State” passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack on the Reichstag building was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained.

 

Within the first months after that terrorist attack, at the suggestion of a political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into common usage. Instead of referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to it as The Fatherland. As hoped, people’s hearts swelled with pride, and the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our land was “the” homeland, citizens thought: all others were simply foreign lands.

 

Within a year of the terrorist attack, Hitler’s advisors determined that the various local police and federal agencies around the nation were lacking the clear communication and overall coordinated administration necessary to deal with the terrorist threat facing the nation, including those citizens who were of Middle Eastern ancestry and thus probably terrorist sympathizers. He proposed a single new national agency to protect the security of the Fatherland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a single powerful leader.

 

Most Americans remember his Office of Fatherland Security, known as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and Schutzstaffel, simply by its most famous agency’s initials: the SS.

And, perhaps most important, he invited his supporters in industry into the halls of government to help build his new detention camps, his new military, and his new empire which was to herald a thousand years of peace. Industry and government worked hand-in-glove, in a new type of pseudo-democracy first proposed by Mussolini and sustained by war.

This article was written on 05/30/03, twelve years ago! And here were are, having to re-live every single step of what Hitler did.

It’s unbelievable.

 

A fine idea reported by the Independent to break down the barriers of hate and promote integration and solidarity among people:

Refugees Welcome: ‘Airbnb for asylum seekers’ started by German couple spreads around the world – and the UK could be next
‘We shouldn’t discuss if they are coming – they are coming and they are coming from a horrible situation,” the founder said

… More than 150 refugees had been housed in Germany and Austria by September and the numbers were growing quickly.

To join the scheme, people must register their interest online and give details of their housing situation before they are put in touch with a refugee organisation with a shortlist of registered asylum seekers needing homes in their area.

People are introduced to their perspective new housemate by volunteers, often meeting over a coffee or meal, and if they decide to take them in they are offered help financing the rent.

William Dalton says (in a comment at TAC):
September 22, 2015 at 3:04 am

“Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” But is this true? A decade after his beer hall putsch failed in Munich, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi party won the largest number of Germans ever to vote in a democratic election. He had succeeded in the marketplace of ideas. Did that democratic ratification make Hitler’s ideas true?”

Pat Buchanan knows history well enough to know that Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party had not won a plurality of seats in the Reichstag, nor had President Hindenburg been convinced to appoint him Chancellor of Germany, because Hitler had “succeeded in the marketplace of ideas”. A majority of Germans considered Hitler’s ideas to be ridiculous, even when they gave his party a victory. They did so because, in a country in which, under the Weimar Constitution, it had proven impossible to elect a moderate government which could maintain the peace and suppress radical militia roaming the streets, and faced with a choice of government led by either Nazis or Communists, a plurality chose, and a majority approved, the party they saw to be the lesser evil.

It is not far distant from the choice Americans currently have, between a party representing warmongers eager to institute a police state for the protection of “national security” and a party dedicated to instituting a welfare state guaranteeing each citizen, and non-citizen, all the necessities of life, governed by coalition of sexual libertines and worshipers of Baal and Ashtoreth. When either one or the other gets elected, it won’t be because they have been successful in selling their wares in America’s “marketplace of ideas”. It will be because they have succeeded in scaring the bejeezus out of Americans at the prospect of again empowering the alternative.


 

 

I would add that the choice today is different. First because, for practical purposes, the US has not one, but two major neocon parties – the only difference is that one is slightly a bit more neocon than the other.

Obama and Clinton did not dismantle the military/industrial complex – nor had any intent or demand from their constituents to do so. Clinton played golf at times during the Rwandan genocide was happening – a testament to just what monsters liberals are. US arm sales that spread death and destruction to millions of civilians worldwide continues unabated – and receives robust support from liberals and Democrat voters. And there is probably no difference between Hillary and Bush regarding war and imperialism, while there may have been a very small one between Bush and Bill.

Seven years into the Obama administration and the Patriot Act police state is just as much implanted as when Bush went to clamor for its existence. In a little Twitter feud this week, a liberal shot back that the maintenance by Obama and all the Dems  of the Patriot Act and the current US police state is Bush’s fault, since Bush started it.

Seriously.

These people actually vote and in their crazy minds, only Republicans are neocons, no matter how much both are exactly for the same kind of things. It’s no consolation, but at least Republicans don’t engage in this level of 1984-ish twisting of reality about themselves. I always find people who lie on such barbaric levels disturbing – specially since it’s collective and involving millions of people.

In the minds of Democrats, the fact that they can point their fingers at Republicans for doing the same thing they do entitles  them  to absolve themselves of all responsibility regarding the evil they are and do. They are the American version of “Eichmann in Jerusalem”, the responsibility for every neocon act of a liberal lies with Bush/Republicans and they never acknowledge anything they do is actually their own doing.

Lastly, Dalton above fails to mention that the welfare liberal state is a state full of sexual violence and is currently implementing the destruction of fundamental civil rights, like freedom of speech and the right to an ethical society in the sphere of personal relationships, so it certainly does not provide “the basic necessities”  citizens need.

What Americans can choose from are two very corrupt political parties, one which is particularly insane for not admitting its neocon attitudes and doings (the Democrats) and the other one which is a little bit more straightforward, while being just as destructive for most practical purposes.

This is “democracy” in the 21st century. Much like Rome a couple of millennia ago.

In this review by Cesarani, I found a bit more explanation of the complicated problem Fritz Bauer and others were up against in attempting to try the participants in the Nazi Holocaust machine. https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/utq/summary/v076/76.1cesarani.html

As Cesarani explains:

The trial of twenty men accused of aiding and abetting murder while serving as guards or kapos in Auschwitz that took place in Frankfurt between December 1963 and August 1965 was a pivotal moment in the process by which West Germans became aware of the crimes committed by the Third Reich. It was given saturation coverage by the media and made it impossible for West Germans to deny knowledge of the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis.

[This is what is so amazing for someone who was not living at that time to understand. As I mentioned in my earlier post about the movie “Labyrinth of Lies”, it’s just mind-blowing to think that the  public largely ignored what happened before that regarding the Nazi extermination system, the camps, the tortures, etc! I can understand better now why the fictional character in the movie is completely surprised when he first hears that Auschwitz was an extermination camp – and why the director+other writer decided to create the character and the story this way.]

However, as Rebecca Wittmann shows, this knowledge was partial and peculiar. It would take decades before Germans came to terms with the extent of popular complicity in racism, atrocity, and genocide during the Third Reich. This was not due to malice in the judiciary or any desire to avoid the truth. Rather, it was the strange result of punctiliously observing legal niceties.

The Auschwitz trial was conducted under the 1871 criminal code. The prosecution did not want to charge the defendants with perpetrating genocide or crimes against humanity because that would have meant invoking retrospective legislation, something that was anathema following Nazi manipulation of the law.

[What a terrible dilemma. It seems to me, had the prosecution tried the genocide trial route, that would have meant failure from the start. At the same time, having to use a legal framework from 1871 (!) completely hampered their efforts and goals.]

But this fastidiousness created numerous dilemmas. Owing to the statute of limitation the defendants had to be charged with murder.

[As an aside note, the notion of statute of limitations for serious crimes is often counter to justice.]

To convict on a count of committing or abetting murder, the prosecution had to attain a high threshold of evidence and, crucially, had to prove ‘base motives.’ If the defendants could convince the court that they were just obeying orders, which meant that they had no motive other than doing what they were told to do, they could be acquitted. So, ironically, the more they were obedient Nazis the less they were at risk of conviction.

Use of the old criminal code created an even worse distortion that warped public understanding of Nazi perpetrators. In order to show that the defendants acted from ‘base motives’ the prosecution had to demonstrate that they showed initiative and exceeded orders. To do this the prosecution invoked the regulations that pertained in the concentration camps and brought forward witnesses, such as the SS judge Konrad Morgan, who investigated alleged ‘excesses.’ This technique inadvertently established the standard brutality of the camps as an acceptable norm. Furthermore, to clinch a conviction the prosecution sought to show that the defendants acted sadistically. In several cases there was plenty of such evidence, but it had unintended consequences.

The West German public became convinced that Nazi perpetrators were not ordinary folk like them, but murderous sociopaths.

[What a convenient way to think! Especially when you are living in a country infested with Nazis, most of whom have been awarded total impunity for every kind of monstrous crime, including genocide.]

Other SS men, even if they were part of the machinery of mass murder, seemed like decent chaps doing their duty. Any sign of compassion or inconsistency could moderate the view taken of a defendant and few men were consistently violent or murderous. Because the prosecution focused on individual instances of vicious behaviour, the daily business of genocide receded into the background. The torture apparatus developed by one of the defendants made more of an impression on the public than the gas chambers.

Fritz Bauer, the attorney-general of the state of Hesse, who had pressed for the trial, hoped that it would expose the systemic racism, quotidian brutality, and genocide practised by Nazi Germany. He was thwarted because, ironically, the law itself militated against the effects he wanted to obtain. Wittmann remarks that ‘in the courtroom, the Holocaust faded almost entirely into the background, as excessive, unauthorized brutality was emphasized by the judges and prosecution.’ Even the worst offenders received relatively mild sentences that bore no relation to their role in a death factory that murdered over one million people. Indeed, the more Nazified they were the more lenient the court had to be because this, rather than personal, venal motives, explained their errant behaviour.

Wittmann’s study is a fine blend of political, cultural, and legal history, drawing on a deep knowledge of the Nazi era and the genocide against the Jews. Although in places her narrative is a trifle repetitive, she writes clearly and elegantly. Her account of the trial’s impact may seem perfunctory compared to the space devoted to exegesis of the proceedings, but this is a minor quibble over what will surely be regarded as a landmark study of a landmark trial.

I just saw the movie “Labyrinth of Lies” /      Im Labyrinth des Schweigens / Le Labyrinthe du silence. Universal Pictures.

“Labyrinth of Lies” – post-war Germany’s dilemma over Nazi past – http://www.euronews.com/2015/05/15/labyrinth-of-lies-post-war-germany-s-dilemma-over-nazi-past/

This is a must-see movie. It’s a mixture of fact and fiction, revolving around the circumstances and one man’s determination that led to the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials. … A story that exposes the conspiracy of prominent German institutions and government branches to cover up the crimes of Nazis during World War II.”

I found the movie excellent, but was extremely puzzled about some of the director’s choices. As some others have inquired, why not make a movie about Bauer, where Bauer is the main character, given that he is the protagonist making the Trials happen in reality? Bauer’s life would make a very interesting movie. (16 July 1903 – 1 July 1968 – Bauer was a German judge and prosecutor, who played an essential role in starting the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials.)

Yet in “Labyrinth of Lies”, he is a relatively minor character and the hero position is given to the young, handsome fictional prosecutor of the movie, “Johann Radmann”, played by Alexander Fehling. I read one interview of the director, Giulio Ricciarelli, kind of touching upon the reason why he chose this, and while, as I said, I found the movie very good, I feel it is a sort of injustice to Bauer.

So what we need now is a movie about Bauer. I found this documentary exclusively on Bauer, but it’s in German, and it’s a documentary: Fritz Bauer – Tod auf Raten / Death By Instalments, by Ilona Ziok.  http://www.fritz-bauer-film.de/en/index.htm

Given that I don’t know much about European history, as I started watching the film, I was completely puzzled and confused, to the point of not understanding the story. How could it be that in the beginning of the 60s, you have a whole slew of German public prosecutors, their secretaries, and other “normal” professionals that had never heard of Auschwitz and its primordial extermination function? How was this even remotely possible? Hadn’t the whole world heard of Auschwitz, the Nazis, the Holocaust, 20 years after it happened? I couldn’t understand. And yet, it appears this is true. But I still haven’t had time to read more about it to understand exactly what happened to the flow of information. I had always thought that after the Nuremberg Trials “everyone” knew. And not to give away much of the film, the scene where Radmann goes to the American military archive center in Germany, and the American chief there just shows him into the archive with the thousands of files on the Nazis, that the Americans are just sitting on, without doing anything whatsoever, it’s just mind-blowing!

Wow.

from wiki: Fritz Bauer was born in Stuttgart, Kingdom of Württemberg, German Empire to Jewish parents. After receiving his Doctorate of Laws degree (youngest Jur.Dr. ever in Germany), Bauer became an assessor judge in the Stuttgart local district court. By 1920, he had already joined the Social Democratic Party. In the early 1930s, Bauer was, together with Kurt Schumacher, one of the leaders of the local Reichsbanner chapter in Stuttgart. In May 1933, a plan to organize a General Strike in the Stuttgart region against the Nazis failed, and Schumacher and Bauer were arrested with others, and taken to Heuberg concentration camp. Whereas the much more prominent and older Schumacher (a crippled veteran of World War One), who had been a fierce and prominent opponent of the Nazis as SPD deputy in the Reichstag, stayed in concentration camps until May 1945 (which completely destroyed his health, the charismatic SPD leader died in 1952), the young and largely unknown Bauer was released, which probably spared him from becoming a victim of the Shoah. A short time later Bauer was dismissed from his civil service position.

In 1935, Bauer emigrated to Denmark and then to Sweden (1943) after the former was occupied by German troops during the Second World War.  In Sweden, Bauer founded, along with Willy Brandt, the periodical Sozialistische Tribüne (Socialist Tribune). Bauer returned to Germany in 1949, as the postwar Federal Republic was being established, and once more entered civil service in the justice system. At first he became director of the district courts, and later the equivalent of District Attorney in Braunschweig. In 1956, he was appointed to office as the District Attorney in Hessen, based in Frankfurt a. M. Bauer held this position until his death in 1968.

Bauer was active in the ongoing postwar efforts to obtain justice and compensation for victims of the Nazi regime. In 1958, he succeeded in getting a class action lawsuit certified, consolidating numerous individual claims in the Frankfurt Auschwitz trials, the proceedings of which opened in 1963. He was also instrumental in the intelligence that he relayed to the Mossad in 1957 that allowed Adolf Eichmann to be captured. From 1957-1960 Fritz Bauer was instrumental in tracking Eichmann down in Argentina and bringing him to trial in Israel.

Fritz Bauer’s work contributed to the building of a democratic justice system in Germany, as well as to the consistent, lawful prosecution of Nazi injustices and the reform of the criminal law and penal systems. Without Bauer’s persistent involvement, the Auschwitz trials in Frankfurt might never have come to fruition.


Then there is the question of Bauer’s death, which happened in suspicious circumstances – he died in his bathtub. According to the findings of the investigating authorities, he had allegedly  committed suicide using sedatives. http://de.metapedia.org/wiki/Bauer,_Fritz

Suicide – now isn’t that a very odd thing to do if you have committed your entire life to bringing Nazis to justice and are in the midst of preparing a new, major trial? I remember reading his death was actually never investigated, but I can’t find the reference.

Another reference: “Bauer was found dead in his apartment on June 30, 1968. He was busy preparing a new trial against euthanasia crimes of the National Socialist era. ” http://geopolis.francetvinfo.fr/fritz-bauer-le-heros-meconnu-du-film-allemand-le-labyrinthe-du-silence-60475

What I think the movie made me realize like never before is summarized in this Canadian CBC article: “Auschwitz convictions have been few and far between” – About 6,500 SS personnel are estimated to have worked at the Nazis’ most infamous concentration camp, but few have ever faced trial for their roles at Auschwitz. …

The scant number of people brought to justice for being part of Nazi death machinery has been called “an ongoing scandal of postwar history. Only 49 SS guards from Auschwitz have been convicted in German courts. …

1st Auschwitz trial – Forty senior SS officials who worked at Auschwitz were put on trial in late 1947 at Krakow, Poland, with all but one convicted and more than half put to death. …

Frankfurt Auschwitz trials – Twenty-two lower-level SS were charged and 18 found guilty. Sentences ranged from life to five years in prison.”

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/world/auschwitz-convictions-have-been-few-and-far-between-1.3042220

Indeed, what stands out is just how few Nazis were ever tried. Talk about impunity and an entire system of absolute injustice.

[Added later:] Wiki gives a larger overall number – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_Auschwitz_trials:

The Frankfurt Auschwitz trials, known in German as der Auschwitz-Prozess, or der zweite Auschwitz-Prozess, (the “second Auschwitz trial”) was a series of trials running from 20 December 1963 to 19 August 1965, charging 22 defendants under German criminal law for their roles in the Holocaust as mid- to lower-level officials in the Auschwitz-Birkenau death and concentration camp complex.

Overall, only 789 individuals of the approximately 6,500 surviving SS personnel who served at Auschwitz and its sub-camps were ever tried, of which 750 received sentences.[1] Unlike the first trial in Poland held almost two decades earlier, the trials in Frankfurt were not based on the legal definition of crimes against humanity as recognized by international law, but according to the state laws of the Federal Republic.[2]


More about the problem of Germany’s impunity mentality here: Buscher on Fritz Bauer Institut and Wojak and Meinl, ‘Im Labyrinth der Schuld: Täter – Opfer – Ankläger’ – https://networks.h-net.org/node/35008/reviews/43980/buscher-fritz-bauer-institut-and-wojak-and-meinl-im-labyrinth-der

From the link above:

Although the topics of the essays vary considerably, several themes emerge. Perhaps the most important is the notion that determined individuals can change the course of history. Fritz Bauer was one such individual. Irmtrud Wojak portrays him as an official who was too progressive for his time. However, although he confronted a public mood focused on drawing the final line under the Nazi past as well as the continued integration of Nazi perpetrators and fellow-travellers in West German society, Bauer was by no means discouraged. Dedicated to the construction of a free and democratic Germany, he decided to challenge this “heavy mortgage” (p. 19). Wojak and several other contributors, including Michael Greve, Langbein, and Duex, leave no doubt that there would not have been a Frankfurt Auschwitz trial without Bauer’s initiative.

The Generalstaatsanwalt was not interested in a normal proceeding, though. To be sure, he wanted to see justice done, but he saw the trial’s main function as educating the public about the utterly criminal purpose and nature of Auschwitz (p. 324). But Bauer was disappointed with the results. In 1965 the court convicted only seven defendants of murder and sentenced six to life. Three were found not guilty, and the remainder was convicted of the less serious charge of aiding and abetting murder. Similarly, the trial’s educational potential remained largely unfulfilled during the few remaining years of Bauer’s life. Certainly, as Greve rightly asserts, neither Bauer’s colleagues in the judiciary nor West German legislators felt a great urge to conduct “a thorough prosecution of [Nazi] crimes” throughout the 1960s and thereafter (p. 59).”

In addition, this system of injustice was largely fomented by the US as well, with its priority then being the Cold War. Trying Nazis got in the way of the agenda for fighting the Cold War.

More here:  The Auschwitz Files: Why the Last SS Guards Will Go Unpunished – http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-german-judiciary-failed-approach-to-auschwitz-and-holocaust-a-988082.html

If you will be in Germany in May/June 2015, lots of great events to attend at the Fritz Bauer Institute: http://www.fritz-bauer-institut.de/

Lastly, there is this explosive claim from Haaretz http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/.premium-1.553006:  “Secret life of the German judge who brought the Mossad to Eichmann
Much mystery surrounds the life of Fritz Bauer, the German-Jewish judge who told Israel where Adolf Eichmann was hiding. A new biography sheds light on Bauer – who hid the fact that he was Jewish and possibly homosexual.”

Since now every single (as in non-married) person in history is thought to have had a deformed homosexual mind, “without any doubt!” say liberals while stomping their feet, who knows. I didn’t read the Haaretz article because it’s paid. One thing is for sure, no liberal today wants to know how many millions of Germans and other Europeans were closeted homosexuals or bisexuals and staunchly supported the Nazis or participated in Nazi crimes. You never hear about those, do you? And if you search and search, you will only find very rare mentions.

Just like bringing Nazi criminals to justice could not get in the way of Cold War tactics, reality must not get in the way of the Narrative.

[Added Sept 18] I saw a mention somewhere, didn’t note source though, that apparently many years earlier Bauer had been identified as trying to pick up a male homosexual prostitute. So maybe he was a Perv.

My three, no, make that four favorite jokes from the financialpost 2011:

A Greek, an Irishman and a Portuguese walk into a bar and order a drink. Who picks up the bill?
A German.

LOL!!!

Why did Greece fail to get the latest installment of EU/IMF aid?
Because no one in Greece works long enough to complete the application form.

The pessimist sees the glass as half empty. The optimist sees the glass half full. The stock market day trader just adds whiskey.

:-))))))

An American investment banker was at the pier of a small coastal Greek village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the small boat were several large yellow fin tuna.
The American complimented the Greek on the quality of his fish and asked, “How long does it take to catch them?” The Greek replied: “Only a little while.”
The American then asked why didn’t he stay out longer and catch more fish? The Greek said he had enough to support his family’s immediate needs. The American then asked, “But what do you do with the rest of your time?”
The Greek fisherman said, “I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siesta with my wife, Maria, stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine and play cards with my friends, I have a full and busy life.”
The American scoffed, “I am a Harvard MBA and could help you. You should spend more time fishing and with the proceeds, buy a bigger boat with the proceeds from the bigger boat you could buy several boats, eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats.
Instead of selling your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the processor, eventually opening your own cannery. You would control the product, processing and distribution.
You would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Athens, then London and eventually New York where you will run your expanding enterprise.”
The Greek fisherman asked, “But, how long will this all take?” To which the American replied, “15-25 years.”
“But what then?” The American laughed and said that’s the best part. “When the time is right you would announce an IPO and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich, you would make millions.”
“Millions … Then what?” The American said, “Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siesta with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play cards with your friends.

………………….

I’ve been thinking about the point of this last one a lot recently. It’s so nicely pointed out and summarized in the joke. What do you want to do with your life in the time that you have left?

This was a comment I posted on TheOtherMcCain – Obligatory ‘Miley Cyrus Topless’ Post –

where it was quoted:

In her Rolling Stone interview, Miley says:

The 20-year-old says she’s well aware of how ridiculous she looks twerking, but guess what? She couldn’t care less.
“People are like, ‘Miley thinks she’s a black girl, but she’s got the flattest ass ever,’” she says. “I’m like, I’m 108 pounds! I know! Now people expect me to come out and twerk with my tongue out all the time. I’ll probably never do that s*** again.”
As for comments being thrown around that she’s trying to be “black”, the self-aware singer says: “I’m from one of the wealthiest counties in America … I know what I am. But I also know what I like to listen to. Look at any 20-year-old white girl right now — that’s what they’re listening to at the club.”
She had a few choice words for the haters of her VMAs dance with theBlurred Lines singer also: “No one is talking about the man behind the ass. It was a lot of ‘Miley twerks on Robin Thicke,’ but never, ‘Robin Thicke grinds up on Miley.’ They’re only talking about the one that bent over. So obviously there’s a double standard.”

How can anyone be more retarded, vulgar, and completely miss the forest for the trees? How crazy is it to complain of a “double-standard” in crude sexuality sewer land? Who wants to read “views” on “asses,” on “sh*t,” or “the man behind the ass?” How can anyone think in a more crude way about women, men, bodies, and sexuality? How is it possible to drag the cultural and moral level down further into the sewer? It’s like chalk screeching on the blackboard and all these millions of retarded liberals thinking the sound is normal.

===============================

What few people have analyzed is how much liberals have normalized the worst of sexism in the name of liberation (sexual or for women). It’s exactly analogous to their claim that they are “liberating” homosexuals when the only thing they are doing is normalizing perverted and dysfunctional people in terms of sexuality.

There was a great comment made in reply to an Aussie article that protested how awful it was that people were criticizing Miley for being too thin derrière:

***Oh god, not another feminist article calling on the “sisterhood” to band together because some little twit flashed her bits in latex underwear.
She set the whole gender back, regardless of the size of her derriere. We aren’t calling for her head because she had a [saggy, flat, small] behind, but because she was parading it around for all to see in two sizes too small underwear. All she showed (besides some cheek) was that
women need to be highly [sexualised, whoreish, in-your-face] to get any kind of attention.***

To get any attention from liberals, that is. And who have become the worse in terms of sexism and in degrading sexuality. This article is the apex of how warped liberals are in their value hierarchy – the stupidity, the vapidness, the sexism:

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/enter…

It is particularly bizarre that 1st and perhaps 2nd wave feminists fought hard against everything this trash of “feminism” is now promoting as liberation. When “feminists” are sexist and completely degrade sexuality, we can see that the label has lost a lot of its meaning.

There was a time when Miley’s behavior would have been both frowned upon as being whorish and vulgar, because such attitudes and behaviors degrade women and sexuality, and so they were not acceptable, at the same time that many men would want to exploit her behavior for their own gratification (they were given permission to enjoy it as long as she wasn’t their wife/mother/daughter and it was some “other woman”). That was patriarchy during a good deal of the 20th century. Then came feminism and criticized the sexual objectification of women, their exploitation, etc. And afterwards, as liberals pushed more and more to degrade women and sexuality, in a move that increasingly included women as protagonists, there wasn’t much of anyone in the liberal camp left to criticize this war on women (and sexuality), since the more liberals degrade, the more they claim they are normal and legitimate – all in the name of liberation. (Nothing like adding insult to injury!)

Basically the only people to call for respect of women and a wholesome sexuality today are social conservatives. Unfortunately, if taken as a whole, this is a group which has a serious public communication skills deficit.

It is particularly disheartening to see so many people in the entertainment biz with a lot of power who are actively driving the race to the bottom in terms of American culture regarding sexuality. Behind Miley there is a very powerful industry and millions of fans – all with no ethics – and who are not going to be stopped unless other people stand up to them.

===================

McCain followed up the post above with:

I will quibble with Alessandra’s criticism of the “public communications skills” of social conservatives. The real problem, as I see it, is two-fold:

1) Social conservatives have allied themselves with the Republican Party in a way that makes them largely dependent on the GOP, which has shown itself willing to exploit social conservatives (when this is deemed beneficial to Republican political fortunes) or conversely to scapegoat social conservatives (when the GOP needs someone to blame for its defeats).
2) Because academia, the news media and the entertainment industry are so dominated by liberals, it is very difficult for social conservatives to combat the Left’s harmful stereotypes about uptight puritanical right-wing “christofascists.” Furthermore, it is difficult even for social conservatives to locate their own natural leaders and spokesmen, when the liberal media focus their attention on the most idiotic kooks among social conservatives, and when various charlatans and hucksters are simply scamming for dollars, Elmer Gantry-style.

There are sane, intelligent and articulate social conservatives, but you’re never going to see them on the nightly network news, nor on the op-ed pages of the Washington Post or New York Times. But we must accept these disadvantages as inherent to the guerrilla struggle of the culture war, and find ways to overcome them.

======================

This was my reply to him:

Hi Robert,

Totally agree on #1.

And on #2, we also agree completely on: Because academia, the news media and the entertainment industry are so dominated by liberals, it is very difficult for social conservatives to combat the Left’s harmful stereotypes about uptight puritanical right-wing “christofascists.”

I agree this liberal domination is the problem. In academia, it will be very hard to change, because they have a stronghold on hiring. But I find it hard to understand that the same should happen for the media and the entertainment biz’s, because with adequate funding, socons could do a lot more. And it’s not only liberals who have money in this country! For example, a TV series for adults, that presents socon views and values in an engaging way. Is there no channel where this could air? Is there no one to write and produce one? And even the news media, we find a lot more news analysis and coverage online, with news outlets and magazines, and sites and bloggers, than on the air. (not counting radio). It seems odd to me, for example, that many of the issues you or I address are not addressed on TV. There are hundreds of channels and opportunities… Is it exclusively a question of liberal domination, or do we lack more people with a variety of excellent communication skills?

Concerning the communication skills deficit, I think most socons I know of are religious and they mostly know how to talk about their views using a religious framework.This drives away people who are not religious, but who we need to and can reach. These are people who would be very amenable to the wholesomeness of the socon view of society, if it were presented in a non-religious context. And this could serve to diminish antagonism related to religious people. Socons have a major public rebranding challenge facing them, because liberals have succeeded, as you well note, in branding socons as awful AND backwards, and branding their own junk of ideology as “progress.”

“There are sane, intelligent and articulate social conservatives,”

Of course there are, I didn’t mean there weren’t, but in a media and academic space dominated by liberals, the visibility of these socons is so limited for the public at large. While the potential of the Net is enormous and wonderful, in part because it is so accessible, and there are no geographic boundaries, I still think that TV is the medium for shaping hearts and minds of large swaths of the public. Then again, there’s a lot that can be done on the Internet.

An example of what I think we need more of is this German movie: Big Girls Don’t Cry. It does exactly what I was talking about above. Dramatizes conflicting ideologies through the characters and exposes how harmful a liberal ideology is. Mind you, this is a movie for young people, not adults. You never see stories like this on TV or in the US, where the poor Catholic girl is the one who shows character and the rich, hip liberal character turns out to be a piece of junk.

On the lighter side, we also had Gilmore Girls. On the opposite side of the spectrum, I don’t know if you have watched “Scandal” – all the hypocrites and adulterers are Republicans and “social conservatives,” and all the supposedly “cool” characters are liberals. And of course, it’s homosexual agenda down your throats…

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

%d bloggers like this: