Within hours of the attack on the September attack on the Nordstream pipelines, a consensus emerged that the Americans did it, in spite of the fact that the mainstream media were united in blaming Russia. Only the Americans had the motive and the means. The evidence was circumstantial but irrefutable. Within hours of the attack on Nordstream, the video of President Biden’s February 2022 press conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz was making the rounds on the internet. In response to a question from a reporter in February, Biden said in no uncertain terms that if Russia invaded the Ukraine, America would take out the Nordstream pipelines. The video of Victoria Nuland saying the same thing also started circulating within hours of the attack.

BY E. MICHAEL JONES

Historically, the attack fit into the pattern of Anglo-American foreign policy like a hand in a glove. The Nordstream pipelines were a clear violation of the Mackinder thesis, which has been the hidden grammar of American foreign policy for over a century, a fact corroborated by both Donald Trump, who opposed Nordstream as president, and his opponent Ted Cruz, who said that there was bipartisan agreement on the threat which Nordstream posed to American interests.

Ever since Halford Mackinder wrote The Geographical Pivot of History at the beginning of the 20th century, the goal of Anglo-American foreign policy has been to thwart any unification of the Eurasian landmass because, according to Mackinder, the country which controls Eurasia controls the world. Any rapprochement between Russia and Germany posed an existential threat to Anglo-American hegemony. When the Kaiser and the Czar, cousins by blood, threatened to collaborate, Winston Churchill and Lord Grey lured both countries into a war which pitted them against each other, ensuring a favorable outcome for Oceania, the name George Orwell gave to the island nations which made up the Anglo-American Empire in his dystopian novel 1984.

Fourteen years into the 21st century, the American Empire followed the same playbook when NATO under the direction of Victoria Nuland took the first steps into luring Russia into a war with Germany in the Ukraine by overthrowing that country’s democratically elected president and installing a puppet regime led by Jews and Nazis.

As in the past, the point of the current war in the Ukraine was to lure Germany and Russia into a war which would destroy both countries, leaving America as the undisputed global hegemon. Everyone knew that the Americans were using Ukrainian proxies to wage war on Russia, but few if any Germans knew that the war was being waged against them as well, until the attack on Nordstream II made that obvious. Most Americans and most Germans perceived Russia as the sole enemy in the Ukrainian conflict because few if any Americans or Germans had read the Rand Corporation’s report “Weakening Germany, strengthening the U.S.,” which revealed the hidden grammar of war pitting Russia against Germany in a mutually destructive conflict.[1]

The Rand report was simply an updating of the Mackinder thesis. The real goal in the Ukrainian conflict was to bring about the collapse of the European economy by denying Germany the Russian energy which it needs to survive. According to the Rand report, the EU economy “will inevitably collapse” after the fall of German industry, causing trillions of dollars of European resources to flow back to the United States, followed by a flood of “well educated young people in Europe” who “will be forced to emigrate” because good paying jobs will have vanished in the wake of the energy crisis which was a direct result of the war.[2]

The American attack on what everyone considered America’s main ally in Europe was necessary because there is an “urgent need” for an influx of resources from outside to maintain the overall American economy, but “especially the banking system,” which “Only European countries bound by EU and NATO commitments can provide . . . without significant military and political costs for us.”[3] According to the Rand report, the main obstacle to the looting of Europe on a scale which rivaled the Jewish looting of Russia in the 1990s was “the growing independence of Germany,” which followed Britain’s exit from the European Union. Brexit, the Rand report continued, “has given Germany greater independence and made it more difficult for the United States to influence the decisions of European governments.”[4] The only way to thwart “the growing cooperation between Germany and Russia, as well as France, which, if realized will eventually turn Europe into not only an economic, but also a political competitor to the United States” is to inflict permanent damage on both Germany and Russian by involving them in a mutually destructive war, which “will make it impossible for the countries to re-establish normal relations later on.”

Permanent damage is what happened to both the pipeline and American-German relations. The immediate consequence was “A reduction in Russian energy supplies – ideally, a complete halt of such supplies– [which]would lead to disastrous outcomes for German industry. The need to divert significant amounts of Russian gas for winter heating will further exacerbate the shortages. Lockdowns in industrial enterprises would cause shortages of components and spare parts for manufacturing, a breakdown of logistics chains and, eventually, a domino effect.” The total collapse of the EU economy would mean not only that US-based companies would have “less competition on the world market, logistical advantages and the outflow of capital from Europe,” it would also mean that those plundered European economies would be able “to contribute to the economy of the United States by an estimated 7-9 trillion dollars. In addition, it also emphasizes the important effect of many well-educated and young Europeans being be forced to immigrate to the USA.”[5]

The oligarchs can facilitate this collapse, according to the Rand report, “by placing useful idiots in political positions in order to stop Russian energy supplies from reaching the continent.”[6] The German Green Party is made up of a group of politically naïve individuals who are the ideal “useful idiots” because the environmental ideology that lies at the heart of their political platform is completely irrational and, therefore, immune to both rational discussion and political pressure. The Rand document describes the green parties in Europe “as being particularly easy to manipulate into running the errands of American imperialism.”[7] Or in the words of the document itself. “The prerequisite for Germany to fall into this trap is the dominant role of green parties and European ideologies. The German environmental movement is a highly dogmatic, if not fanatical, movement, which makes it quite easy to get them to ignore economic arguments .” As examples of useful idiots in positions of leadership, the Rand report mentions the current foreign minister of Germany, Annalena Baerbock, who recently claimed that she was determined to support the war in the Ukraine no matter what the German voters think, and the climate minister, Robert Habeck, who is avidly dismantling power plants in the face of the coming energy shortage.

According to the Rand report, Baerbock is “well known for declaring that she will continue the suspension of Russian gas even during the winter – regardless of what her constituents think about the matter and the consequences for the German population.” The Rand report quotes her as saying, “We will stand with Ukraine, and this means that the sanctions will stay, also in wintertime – even if it gets really tough for politicians.” Counting on the “Personal characteristics and lack of professionalism” which characterize the Green Party, the author of the Rand report feels confident that it will become “impossible for them to recognize their own mistakes in time. It will therefore be sufficient to rapidly form a media image of Putin’s aggressive war – and make the Greens into ardent and tough supporters of sanctions – a ‘war party,’” This will make it possible to impose the sanctions without any obstacles.”[8]

Issued in January 2022 before the start of hostilities, the Rand report foresaw a speedy end to the war following the collapses of the Russian economy under crushing sanctions from the West. That speedy victory never happened. The sanctions boomeranged, hurting the West by causing energy inflation, while at the same time benefiting Russia, whose economy boomed because of higher revenues in the energy sector. As the war continued and Ukraine lost ground to the Russians, discontent spread through the European vassal states, which were dragooned into a conflict which did not serve their national interests. Large scale protests in Germany in September demanded that the opening of Nordstream II and threatened to bring down the Scholz government. The failure of Ukrainian troops to prevent the absorption of Donets and Lugansk into Mother Russia created a sense of desperation in Kiev and frustration in Washington which called for more direct and reckless measures. Knowing that NATO was losing the war on the ground in the Ukraine and the war for the mind of the people in Germany, the Americans blew up Nordstream II. Blowing up the Russo-German pipeline stymied both sides in the war, depriving Germany of energy leading to the collapse of its industry while at the same time depriving the Russians of the financial windfall which energy revenue provided. Less than three months into the war it became obvious that the sanctions which the EU and the US imposed on Russia hurt no one but the countries which imposed them, driving up energy costs and fueling inflation as the Russians laughed all the way to the bank. The failure of the sanctions and the failure of the Ukrainian army to drive the Russians back into their own country necessitated a new and more reckless strategy. Blowing up the pipeline was a classic example of shock therapy, which is the prime instrument of disaster capitalism. Germany was stunned by the gratuitous ferocity of an attack which severed the main artery of their energy sector. Even more shocking was the realization that the attack had been perpetrated by their main NATO ally. Eugyppius, one of the first Germans to respond to the attack, characterized it as “a real attempt by the US to send a message and/or humiliate Germany.”[9]

But it was more than that. Blowing up the pipeline was the culmination of the abusive relationship which America had established with Germany after defeating her in World War II. More than that it was a return to the long-abandoned Morgenthau Plan. When Josef Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister got an advance copy of the Morgenthau plan, he referred to it in one of his most effective radio broadcasts as “den Plan des Juden Morgenthaus, den 80 Millionen deutschen ihre Industrie beraubt und aus Deutschland ein einzige Kartoffelfeld gemacht werde.” (The Jew Morgenthau’s plan to rob 80 million Germans of their industry and turn Germany into a potato patch.) When it became clear that the Jews who had the upper hand in the Roosevelt administration were determined not to drive the Nazis from power but to exterminate the German people, Germans united behind Goebbels, whose response was “Niemals. Das kaeme nicht in Frage.” As in the current situation in the Ukraine, Jewish intransigence made negotiations impossible and resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.

The military opposed the Morgenthau Plan, contending that it amounted to adding divisions of German soldiers to the waning years of the war. They were proven right after the intransigence of the Jews in the Roosevelt Administration eventually backfired by strengthening the Germans in their resolve to fight to the last man. On 11 December 1944, OSS operative William Donovan sent Roosevelt a telegraph message from Bern, warning him of the consequences that the knowledge of the Morgenthau plan had had on German resistance:

So far, the Allies have not offered the opposition any serious encouragement. On the contrary, they have again and again welded together the people and the Nazis by statements published, either out of indifference or with a purpose. To take a recent example, the Morgenthau plan gave Dr. Goebbels the best possible chance. He was able to prove to his countrymen, in black and white, that the enemy planned the enslavement of Germany. The conviction that Germany had nothing to expect from defeat but oppression and exploitation still prevails, and that accounts for the fact that the Germans continue to fight. It is not a question of a regime, but of the homeland itself, and to save that, every German is bound to obey the call, whether he be Nazi or member of the opposition.[10]

The Morgenthau plan began as a memo entitled “Program to Prevent Germany from starting a World War II,” which got handed from Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr. to Franklin Delano Roosevelt at the Quebec conference in 1944. The author of the memo was Harry Dexter White, Morgenthau’s assistant, and like him a Jew who was deeply concerned about the plight of fellow Jews in Europe. White was also a communist spy whose Jewish animus against the German people was exacerbated by a desire to make their lives so miserable that they would welcome the Soviets with open arms.

The gist of the Morgenthau plan was included in the first item of the memo entitled “Demilitarization of Germany,” which claimed:

It should be the aim of the Allied Forces to accomplish the complete demilitarization of Germany in the shortest possible period of time after surrender. This means completely disarming the German Army and people (including the removal or destruction of all war material), the total destruction of the whole German armament industry, and the removal or destruction of other key industries which are basic to military strength.[11]

The memo deliberately played down the draconian nature of Morgenthau’s plan in an attempt to calm Roosevelt’s fear of a revolt against Semitic vengeance which was gaining ground in the State Department under Cordell Hull. In a book which got published after Roosevelt’s death, Morgenthau was more candid about his plans. Disarming Germany wasn’t enough. Germany had to be deprived of the industrial basis that created those armaments in the first place. Given “her people’s lust for conquest,” “her heavy industries,” “her shipyards,” “her research laboratories,” and “her shrewd cartel system,”[12] . . . “it would seem rather obvious that to disarm Germany in any real sense of the word is to remove the industries that would make rearmament possible.”[13]

Echoing Morgenthau, Louis Nizer called for the de-industrialization of Germany in a book which was published in the same year that Morgenthau proposed his plan:

It will not be sufficient to destroy the military caste. Another can quickly arise. Germany’s capacity to build the tools for another war-machine must be permanently removed. There must be complete industrial disarmament. Perhaps we may call it “de-armament.” To confiscate Ger­many’s existing weapons may actually be of advantage to her. The confiscated equipment thus acquired by the United Nations would soon become obsolete, while Germany could plan a newer and more effective arsenal. The reverse was true when Germany attacked. . . . But even more important, the machine tool, iron, steel, aluminum, chemical, and other industries which provide the possibility of reconstructing these plants must be re­moved from German direction, either physically, or through control of management. One method of control would be to place the majority stock of these “heavy industries” in trust with representatives of the United Nations.[14]

Like Germany’s Green Party in the 21st century, the Morgenthau plan also called for depriving Germany of the energy she needed for her factories. As of 1944, when Harry Dexter White concocted the Morgenthau Plan, the chief source of German energy was coal. Morgenthau complained that:

Even after the removal of all Ruhr factories that escaped destruction in the war, the mines would remain a potential source of German rearmament. The coal cannot be taken away from the Ruhr (except by the trainload as it is mined), so the Ruhr should be taken away from Germany.”[15]

In order to accomplish that, Morgenthau proposed the ethnic cleansing of Germans from the Ruhr valley, the industrial heartland of Germany: “Of course, no German should sit on the Ruhr’s governing commission. In fact, no Germans should be left in the Ruhr at all… The people would not be under alien rule because they would not be there. Their places would be taken by French, Belgian, Dutch and other workers.”[16]

Morgenthau planned to put the 5 million industrial workers his plan displaced from their jobs to work on farms, “bringing the total agricultural labor force up to 14,000,000,”[17] without mentioning the fact that German agriculture was incapable of feeding its population, even using modern industrial methods. Morgenthau’s plan amounted in other words to the deliberate starvation of 20 percent of the German people.

During the run up to the attack on Nordstream, Americans were subjected to a concerted attempt to rehabilitate Morgenthau. In addition to Ken Burns’ documentary The U.S. and the Holocaust, Politico published an article on Morgenthau, based on a forthcoming biography by Andrew Meier, claiming that he “used his close ties with Roosevelt to expose rampant antisemitism in the State Department that thwarted America’s efforts to provide refuge for Jews imperiled by Hitler.”[18] According to the same article, Morgenthau functioned as “Franklin’s conscience,” in thwarting “an anti-immigrant old guard at the State Department, “America First” isolationists on Capitol Hill and enraged Zionist leaders desperate for the attention of the White House.”

Missing from the Politico article is any mention of the opposition of the State Department “anti-Semites” to the Morgenthau Plan, which allowed Roosevelt’s Secretary of the Treasury to “present a plan for the post-war treatment of German, a fantastically complicated subject for which Morgenthau had no training at all.”[19]Anthony Eden, the British Foreign Secretary and Cordell Hull, the U.S. Secretary of State, “were both ‘horrified’ at the plan” as were ex-President Herbert Hoover and the American people when they found out about it. Both Hull and U.S. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson knew that “the Morgenthau Plan would mean the deaths of some twenty million Germans by starvation and exposure.”[20] A German Red Cross official had predicted “an infant mortality rate of 80-90 per cent for winter 1945-46, amid scenes of desolation hard to believe in modern times. ‘Germans are going to die like flies this winter …. There is going to be a definite age group elimination of the German population.’”[21]

Wikipedia says that the Morgenthau plan was never implemented based on an overly literal reading of the fact that Directive 1067, the government’s name for the Morgenthau plan got replaced by Directive 1779 in the spring of 1947 after the Germans had suffered through das Hungerjahr of 1946-7. This claim ignores the fact that General Dwight D. Eisenhower was an avid supporter of the Morgenthau Plan. He was in the tent in England at the time of its inception and, unlike Morgethau, he was in Germany at the end of the War and in a position to implement it against the captured German soldiers he refused to declare prisoners of war by depriving them of food, water, and shelter in the notorious Rheinwiesenlager even before the Hungerwinterof 1946-47 when “the Morgenthau boys” were busy starving German civilians to death.

Eisenhower supported the genocidal Morgenthau plan from its inception in August 1944, even though “it caused quarrels among the Western Allies because they feared the communists would ‘exploit’ the misery the Morgenthau Plan would create in Germany.”[22] Fred Smith, one of Morgenthau’s aides who was in the tent when the plan was hatched in southern England on August 7, 1944, reported that Eisenhower was if anything more eager to implement Morgenthau’s genocidal plan than Morgenthau himself. Eisenhower, like Morgenthau, felt that the German people, not just the Nazis, “were guilty of supporting the regime and that made them a party to the entire German project, and he personally would like to ‘see things made good and hard for them for a while.’ He pointed out that talk of letting Germany off easy after taking care of the top people came from those who feared Russia and wanted to strengthen Germany as a potential bulwark against any desires Russia might someday have . . . .”[23] As a consequence of the Morgenthau Plan:

Well over sixty million people were deliberately pushed to the edge of death by starvation. In Hamburg in 1946, in the British zone of occupation, one touring British writer said that about 100,000 people were in the last stages of starvation with hunger oedema. In Düsseldorf and many other cities, people lived like rats in a few square feet of wet basement under a heap of rubble.[24]

During a visit to Germany in 1946, the Jewish philanthropist and publisher, Victor Gollancz, witnessed the living conditions of the Germans:

The mother came back while we were there: it was 10:30 and she had been queuing for bread since early morning and had returned empty-handed – “bread nowhere.” One of the children was still in bed; none had yet had anything to eat, as the last bread had gone yesterday. The father was a prisoner of war in Russia. Two of the children had TB. There was a tiny stove, but no coal or gas, only a little wood, which they ‘fetched’. For excretion they used a pail, which they emptied every morning into a hole they had dug in the courtyard above. They had twice been bombed out. On one wall was a small, faded photograph of the mother and father at their wedding and on another some prince or king with the legend “Lerne leiden ohne zu klagen”: learn to suffer without complaining.[25]

Gollancz visited more residences like this, some of which were decorated with crucifixes and in “some he found people who were nevertheless cheerful. ‘All of them were grateful, terribly grateful, when they were given something.’ The deaths of children with TB was already nearly three times the pre-war rate in Düsseldorf; about one third of the children in Iserlohn had TB. . . .”[26]

Proof that Eisenhower’s ruthless treatment of the German soldiers was, in fact, his implementation of the Morgenthau Plan can be deduced from the fact that he “began to carry it out on his own initiative in 1944,” a year before the Germans surrendered:

The first to suffer were the German prisoners. American prison camps under Eisenhower’s command in France were kept far below the standards set by the Geneva Convention. These camps were described by Lt. Col. Henry W. Allard, who was in charge of the US camps in France in 1945: “The standards of PW [prisoner of war] camps in the ComZ [the US Army’s rear zone] in Europe compare as only slightly better or even with the living conditions of the Japanese PW camps our men tell us about, and unfavourably with the Germans.” To maintain such camps was a war crime punishable by death, according to the Americans after the war. They shot Japanese General Masaharu Homma in 1946 for maintaining camps in approximately the conditions described by Allard.[27]

Shortly after Germany surrendered on 8 May 1945, Eisenhower “sent out an ‘urgent courier’ throughout the huge area that he commanded, making it a crime punishable by death for German civilians to feed prisoners. It was even a death-penalty crime to gather food together in one place to take it to prisoners.”[28] Eisenhower’s order specified that:

under no circumstances may food supplies be assembled among the local inhabitants in order to deliver them to the prisoners of war. Those who violate this command and nevertheless try to circumvent this blockade to allow something to come to the prisoners place themselves in danger of being shot.[29]

Martin Brech, who served as a guard at the camp at Andernach in 1945 testified that he was told by an officer that “it is our policy that these men not be fed.”[30] That meant that the 50,000 to 60,000 men who were held in Andernach “were starving, living with no shelter in holes in the ground, trying to nourish themselves on grass.”[31]Brech also confirmed that:

Eisenhower’s terror policy was harshly enforced down to the lowest level of camp guard. At the time that Brech was ordered to stop feeding prisoners on pain of being shot himself, it scarcely seemed credible to him that the army intended these prisoners to die. Now, seeing the new evidence in 1995, Brech has said that, “It is clear that in fact it was the policy to shoot any civilians trying to feed the prisoners.”[32] German prisoner Hanns Scharf watched as a woman and her two children attempted to bring wine into the camp at Bad Kreuznach. She asked the American guard “to give the bottle to her husband, who was just inside the wire. The guard upended the bottle into his own mouth, and when it was empty, threw it on the ground and killed the prisoner with five shots.”[33]

Most German civilians died from lack of food when world production of food was 97 percent pre-war levels, and food from German civilians was being burned outside of the camps. To prevent popular outrage, the Germans were told that the famine was worldwide, yet “They were dying seventeen months to five years after the German surrender” while at the same time they were prevented “from receiving charitable help, and from earning their own bread. They went on dying while world food production climbed ever higher. The great majority of the dead Germans were women, children and very old men.”[34]

The Allies continued to deprive German women and children of food that was readily available:

Foreign relief agencies were prevented from sending food from abroad; Red Cross food trains were sent back to Switzerland; all foreign governments were denied permission to send food to German civilians; fertilizer production was sharply reduced; and food was confiscated during the first year, especially in the French zone. The fishing fleet was kept in port while people starved. British soldiers actually blew up one fishing boat in front of the eyes of astonished Germans.[35]

The deliberate starvation of the German people outraged Americans like U.S. Senator Kenneth Wherry who exclaimed to the Truman administration that food was not scarce, “for there was plenty in the civilian and the military stores …. The truth is that there are thousands upon thousands of tons of military rations in our surplus stockpiles that have been spoiling right in the midst of starving populations.’”[36] At another point Wherry said, “The American people should know . . . they are being made the unwilling accomplices in the crime of mass starvation . . . Germany is the only nation where UNRRA is not permitted to feed its nationals. Germany is the only nation subjected to a deliberate starvation policy of 1,500 calories per day.”[37]

At the same time that the Americans were depriving the German people of food, they were engaged in a massive looting operation, which seized “between $4.8 billion and $12 billion in intellectual property alone, apart from the seizure of foreign assets and shipping, and the machinery, food, timber and coal that flowed out east and west.[38]

For 50 years evidence documenting Allied atrocities committed against the German people was buried, both figuratively in the archives and literally in the meadows which housed the camps. Former prisoners at the Rheinwiesenlager are now actively involved in “trying to uncover the truth behind the historical forgeries which have been accepted as real up to now.”[39] Sometimes the discoveries are more literal, as when excavations for a new power plant at Lambach in Austria in early 1996 revealed a mass grave on an 80m square site near the river Traun.[40] Revelations like this demand increased repression of the sort which happened when “west German farmer Otto Tullius was prevented by the police from digging his own land for evidence of prisoners on the site of a former American/French camp.”[41] Whether the flooding which occurred in July 2021 actually uncovered the bones of the soldiers that Eisenhower starved to death was irrelevant compared to the psychic threat any exhumation of the past posed to those whose grip on political power was based on repression of the truth about what really happened to the German people after World War II.

Over the course of the summer of 1945, Patton began to have second thoughts about the enemy he had just defeated and the Allies who had contributed to America’s victory over Nazi Germany. Now that the war was over, the American press had found a new enemy in General Patton. When he told reporters in a press conference in Regensburg on May 8, 1945 that he planned to treat captured SS troops no differently than other German POWs, because “SS means no more in Germany than being a Democrat in America,” America’s best general was crucified in the press, despite the fact that he asked not to be quoted.[42] During the same summer of 1945, Eisenhower dragooned Patton into implementing the Morgethau Plan, which involved driving Germans out of the few dwellings that were left habitable after the Allied bombing campaign “to make room for more than a million Jewish DPs.”[43] In his diary, Patton noted:

“Today we received orders . . . in which we were told to give the Jews special accommodations. If for Jews, why not Catholics, Mormons, etc? . . . We are also turning over to the French several hundred thousand prisoners of war to be used as slave labor in France. It is amusing to recall that we fought the Revolution in defense of the rights of man and the Civil War to abolish slavery and have now gone back on both principles.”[44]

Patton’s “Anglo-Saxon” sense of fair play was outraged as well by the Nuremberg trials which seemed determined, in combination with the Morgenthau plan, to treat every German who survived the war as war criminal. In a letter which was dated September 14, 1945, Patton told his wife, “I am frankly opposed to this war criminal stuff. It is not cricket and is Semitic. I am also opposed to sending POWs to work as slaves in foreign lands (i.e., the Soviet Union’s Gulags), where many will be starved to death.”[45]

As his comment indicates, the common denominator uniting the policies he was being forced to implement was the Jewish desire for revenge against the German people. In another letter to his wife he wrote, “I have been at Frankfurt for a civil government conference. If what we are doing (to the Germans) is ‘Liberty, then give me death.’ I can’t see how Americans can sink so low. It is Semitic, and I am sure of it.”[46]

As a newly created administrator of the country he had just conquered, Patton was forced to deal with the Soviet army in a much more concrete way than when he was a general. He soon began to make invidious comparisons between former enemies and current allies. On July 21, 1945, he told his wife that: “Berlin gave me the blues. We have destroyed what could have been a good race, and we are about to replace them with Mongolian savages. And all Europe will be communist. It’s said that for the first week after they took it (Berlin), all women who ran were shot and those who did not were raped. I could have taken it (instead of the Soviets) had I been allowed.”[47]

Patton became convinced that the military victory he achieved had simply enabled the communist takeover of eastern Europe, and that that takeover was simply the prelude to allowing Stalin to swallow the rest of Europe after the war with the help of Jews like Morgenthau and his assistant Harry Dexter White, another Jew who also happened to be a spy for the Soviet Union.

On August 31 he wrote: “Actually, the Germans are the only decent people left in Europe. it’s a choice between them and the Russians. I prefer the Germans.” And on September 2: “What we are doing is to destroy the only semi-modern state in Europe, so that Russia can swallow the whole.”[48]

On September 22, the press launched another campaign to portray Patton as a crypto-Nazi, and at this point the scales fell from his eyes. In a diary entry dated the evening of the same day, Patton concluded that:

“There is a very apparent Semitic influence in the press. They are trying to do two things: first, implement communism, and second, see that all businessmen of German ancestry and non-Jewish antecedents are thrown out of their jobs. . . . They have utterly lost the Anglo-Saxon conception of justice and feel that a man can be kicked out because somebody else says he is a Nazi. They were evidently quite shocked when I told them I would kick nobody out without the successful proof of guilt before a court of law . . . . Another point which the press harped on was the fact that we were doing too much for the Germans to the detriment of the DP’s, most of whom are Jews. I could not give the answer to that one, because the answer is that, in my opinion and that of most nonpolitical officers, it is vitally necessary for us to build Germany up now as a buffer state against Russia. In fact, I am afraid we have waited too long.[49]

Reacting to the press campaign against Patton, Eisenhower decided to remove him from his duties as military governor and “kick him upstairs” by giving him command of the Fifteenth Army. As a result of what he now saw as a Jewish conspiracy against him and the fact that his military superiors were part of it, Patton made up his mind to resign his military commission and take his case to the American people. Patton died in a hospital in December 1945 under circumstances which indicated that the fix was already in. America would get its war hero president, but that president would be Dwight D. Eisenhower, who would gain political office with the help of C.D. Jackson and the Hollywood/CIA cabal which had created the Holocaust narrative to exonerate him from the war crimes he had committed as administrator of the Rheinwiesenlager.

In the wake of the CIA attack on the Nordstream pipelines, Germany now faces a replay of Das Hungerjahr of 1946-7. As the already cited Rand report makes clear, the Green Party is implementing the same policy of energy starvation and de-industrialization which Treasury Secretary Morgenthau proposed as the best way to “prevent Germany from starting a [sic] World War III.”[50]

After the initial shock wore off, Germans began to connect the dots in a cautious but unprecedented manner. As if reluctant to broach a subject that could land him in prison, Eugyppius mentioned “the hungerwinter”[51] of 1946-7 and claimed that the Greens gave their approval to the attack on Nordstream to eliminate political pressure from the German voters.[52]

The Americans were emboldened to attack the pipeline because they were confident that seven generations of Jewish vengeance and social engineering had rendered the German population so docile that they were willing to collaborate like sleepwalkers in their own extinction. Ralph Schoelhammer claimed that the attack meant “Götterdämmerung for the old continent.” He attributed the general absence of outrage in Germany to “A mixture of external pressure and internal stupidity,”[53]without mentioning the fact that the Greens’ attitude toward the pipeline is the fulfillment of the Morgenthau plan. Schoelhammer, however, did advert to das Hungerjahr and the Morgenthau Plan indirectly when he claimed that “There might be actual real famines in Europe. Is food rationing possible in a World War II scenario? Yes, I think so.”

Responding to Schoelhammer, host Clayton Morris claimed that “We need to study our history,” but any understanding of historical continuity in American-German relations was missing from the discussion. Identifying the main vehicle of continuity between the winter of 1946-7 and the winter of 2022-3 was illegal because it involved a discussion of Jewish influence in recent German history. The main instrument which created a nation of sleepwalkers was the sexual corruption of German morals which began with the currency reform of 1948, when the State Department abandoned Morgenthau’s attempt to starve the Germans to death and opted for ruthless social engineering instead. The results of the so-called “Synodal Weg” recently issued by the German Catholic bishops indicates that sexual deviance has taken up residence at the highest levels of the Church. Sweet are the uses of adversity. The main vehicle which God has decreed for the rise in consciousness is suffering because suffering clears the mind and in this particular instance it allows for a repudiation of the decadence for which Germany is notorious and a return to the Christianity which the Germans abandoned when they became willing accomplices to their enslavement to sexual vice.

In 1890, at a time when the Catholic Church felt free to discuss the Jewish Question, the editors of Civilta Cattolica, the official magazine of the Vatican, pointed out the solution to Germany’s current crisis when they wrote that there will be no cure to the ills which plague Europe “as long as there are governments which continue to replace the ten commandments, the faith, and the Gospel of Christ with the principles glorified by the French revolution. If the Christian societies, having been removed from the Church of Jesus Christ won’t return to Her, they will wait in vain for their liberation from the Jews.”[54] What was true then for the French in the wake of the revolution of 1789 is a fortiori true for the Germans today. “As long as sin will endure, punishment also will endure and even intensify.”

The attack on the Nordstream pipelines has shown beyond any shadow of a doubt that goal of the Jewish social engineering which got imposed on Germany after World War II was not the rehabilitation of the German people but their extinction. Pipes can be repaired but only if Germany abandons its servitude to the gay disco otherwise known as the American Empire. Germany needs to leave NATO and make peace with Russia, but she can only muster the courage to take such a monumental step if she returns to her Christian roots. Until that happens,  Germania delenda est will remain Germany’s fate.

READ MORE:

NOW, the Morgenthau Plan, (FOR THE KIDDIES WITH PEACE NOBEL PRIZES), THOUGH NOT IMPLEMENTED, WAS AN EXTENSION OF THE BATTLES BETWEEN THE ANGLO-SAXONS AND THE GERMANS. IT IS WORTHY TO NOTE THAT HISTORY AS WRITTEN BY THE BOASTING WINNERS IS NEARLY ALWAYS FALSE. FOR EXAMPLE, CONTRARY TO THE OFFICIAL NARRATIVE, WW1 WAS AN ENGLISH CONSPIRACY (INCULDING CECIL RHODES) TO PREVENT GERMANY WALKING ON THE BRITISH EMPIRE'S TOES... AS WELL, THE ANGLO-SAXON-ZIONIST US EMPIRE WORKED DEVIOUSLY HARD TO PREVENT AN ALLIANCE BETWEEN GERMANY AND RUSSIA. THE WAR CRIMINALS ARE NOT RUSSIAN, THEY ARE THOSE WHO HAVE BLOWN UP THE GAS PIPELINES....

WE ALSO KNOW THE CONSPIRACY OF THE ANGLO-SAZONS TO CONQUER THE HEARTLAND. UKRAINE'S TROUBLE IS ALOS PART OF THIS PLAN....

AFTER WW2, THE US EMPIRE CHOSE TO ABSORB GERMANY AS A VASSAL AND CONTROL THE FRENCH (THE US AND THE FRENCH RARELY SEE EYE TO EYE EXCEPT FOR THE MORONS LIKE SARKOZY AND MACRON.....) VIA THE EU WHICH IS CONTROLLED BY AGENTS OF THE EMPIRE....

MERKEL WAS WALKING THE FINE LINE BETWEEN THE US EMPIRE AND RUSSIA. OLAF IS AN IDIOT. WHAT'S NEXT? RUSSIA WON'T LOOSE BUT THE US EMPIRE IS TRYING HARD TO PREVENT A RUSSIAN VICTORY IN UKRAINE.... SO FAR SOME PUNDIT THINK THAT PUTIN HAS MISREAD THE SITUATION AND SHOULD HAVE GONE HARDER.... BUT AS WE SAY HERE PUTIN IS KIND AND DOES NOT WANT TO KILL "PEOPLE". 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW.................