FYI: ITALIAN V.I.P. TELLS ALL RE “9/11″

Many Americans, as well as observers scattered about this vast globe, have felt–at a minimum–that far from the complete story was being told by American authorities in regard to the Twin Towers destruction by terrorists. The great majority of people who have considered this matter accept that this tragic business was one executed by terrorists. However, perhaps half of the people who are suspicious about the government analysis question the identity of the terrorists involved.

Most citizens are aware of the rogues’ gallery of Islamic men who were said to be the perpetrators of the terror event, resulting in the collapse of the fated “Twins.” Yet, many Americans suspect that the real terrorists have not been located and that they probably aren’t even Islamic. Since this suggests a “cover-up” of evidence, including that of the real perpetrators, by these American government authorities, there arose an inference that either the government was covering-up the identities of other government figures to protect the illusion of integrity, or the government was covering-up to protect the identities of personnel–possibly linked to high office–of a close ally, such as Great Britain, or even the Israeli State.

There have been several formidable arguments presented in regard to the technological problems involved in bringing down a set of towers which were constructed as the Twin Towers were. There have been other strong arguments on other aspects. Now, a former President of Italy has stepped forward to give the perspective of a head of state, aided by sophisticated intelligence reports. I reference here Francesco Cossiga. He led Italy between his election in a landslide in 1985 until he left in 1992. Here is his story in part:

“Cossiga’s tendency to be outspoken upset the Italian political establishment, and he was forced to resign after revealing the existence of, and his part in setting up, Operation Gladio. This was a rogue intelligence network under NATO auspices that carried out bombings across Europe in the 1960s, 1970s and ’80s. Gladio’s specialty was to carry out what they termed ‘false flag’ operations–terror attacks that were blamed on their domestic and geopolitical opposition.”    [AMERICAN FREE PRESS, December 24, 2007, p.3]

It is interesting that it had “rogue intelligence groups” working within NATO, as General Wesley Clark headed this organization during part of this period. (He is the Jewish gentleman who contemplated a run at the Office of U.S. Presidency.) Was he aware? Let’s here more:

“In March 2001, Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated, in sworn testimony, ‘You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force…the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security.’”   [supra]

As this technique has been, is and will continue to be standard operating procedure for elements within our own U.S. Government, it suggests a pan-national group, such as NATO, or even something bigger, working as one loose network for the purpose of “state-sponsored terrorism.” Why? They have the same end in mind: A global police state, controlled by them, or a group which sponsors them, providing nice paychecks to them.

To have a “nice paycheck” in an era when most are destitute provides the fortunate ones access to many beautiful women, as such money under those conditions would be impressive. For many men the very conception of “heaven” or “paradise” includes carnal access to an abundance of beautiful women. Therefore, although merely an agent of an agent of an agent of a great lords, they gain more than they have a right to hope. They are happy.

Consider the plot:

“Cossiga first expressed his doubts about 9-11 in 2001, and is quoted by 9-11 researcher Webster Tarpley saying ‘The mastermind of the attack must have been a sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel. I add one thing: it could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel.’ “    [supra]

The federal government has become notorious for its “burying” evidence before any careful analysis can occur. There are many ways to do it, including “sealing” evidence, processing bodies before they can be properly autopsied, and carting away terror-site debris so no independent source can analyze it. The White House is no longer “white” to many.

But how does Senor Cossiga perceive the matter? Consider:

“Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga, who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio, has told Italy’s oldest and most widely read newspaper that the 9-11 terrorist attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad, and that this was common knowledge among global intelligence agencies. In what translates awkwardly into English, Cossiga told the newspaper Corriere della Sera:

“ ‘All the [intelligence services] of America and Europe…know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the Mossad, with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part…in Iraq [and] Afghanistan.’ “    [supra]

COMMENTARY BY ME: The astonishingly easy way that the Government and great media have ”intoxicated” the American public with injections of misrepresentations ultimately is chilling. A crypto-Jewish President plots with Israelis, American Jews, and with the likes of Richard Cheney to drop a nuclear bomb or two on Iran. Would he hesitate to “create” another “9-11″ to provide a pretext? No, he would not. Will he sink an aircraft carrier to provide justification? He will do whatever he feels he must to assure the Israelis that before he leaves office, he will make certain that their chief Levantine enemies will no longer be a threat to Idumea. “False flag” villains will be found to justify action. Who will have the resources to prove otherwise? To use a favorite Jewish expression: “Prove it!”

Downnlaced, 2008.

THE RISE OF THE NEO-URANIANS

In life one can observe many oddities. Prominent during the last thirty years has been the rise to the level of Establishment of leading elements of the homosexual-rights movement. In the process they and their allies have done yeoman duty “cleansing” the public image of homosexuals and homosexuality. Important assistance was provided by the various media, wherein homosexuality is alleged to be more than “one in ten” by credible observers. Indeed, I recall the old Spotlight tabloid mentioning in an article that an organized homosexual group approached newspapers and other media outlets to lobby against “negative” stories appearing in them about homosexuals. In this they must have operated upon the pattern set by the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith ["ADL"] in its early years of power-grabbing and intimidation. Now, of course, no Establishment type or organization would dare criticize the ADL. The same “respect” may some day soon be shown to the organized homosexual groups.

Certainly, one would correctly expect a positive attitude to be evident in the likes of The Washington Post, whose liberal face is apparent, although not necessarily admitted. Because the Post has typically been associated with the “war makers”–at least at the outset of war, when the body bags rest empty in their boxes, it has viewed itself as “centrist” and “responsible” in its editorials and overall reportage. Those who have views which are opposed to the expressed Postian views are “far-out” and “irresponsible.”

The expressions uttered by the Post since its purchase by Eugene Meyer during its “fire-sale” under Depression-Era duress has been essentially Trotskyitish. The Marxist programs have been supported in America by the Post, while the Trotsky affirmation of violence against (wrong-thinking) neighbors finds symmetry in the Post’s support of violence by Imperial Federal U.S., as one would expect of secret admirers of The Internationalists’ war against “middle-classism.”

Parenthetically, the middle-class in America is the pathetic category of people who desperately strive against falling into paisano status by supporting the rich, whose fervent wish to eliminate the middle class in favor of “Lords & Serfs” as a global “ideal.” The dictatorship of the rich will be disguised as “democracy.”

Lest anyone suppose that I have a peculiar animosity toward The Washington Post, let me hasten to comment that all the major media have progressed along a similar road. Were that not true, there would be something akin to media wars–not in the sense of financial cannibalism & merger–but at the level of ideas. Only small newspapers and the like provide a consistent alternate view. These sorts of people, who control the major media, enforce a policy which is, in effect, one of material omission. That’s good enough for some people–some humdrum people–to read. I want a lot more, myself.

Therefore, given the Marxists’ expressed solidarity with the homosexual movement, the support of America’s major media outlets was a given. “International business” leaders, educated often enough at the “best schools,” found policy solidarity very easy to impose on their “company culture.” Academia, crawling with members of the homosexual movement, likewise imposed “liberal policies,” which tended to be very “embracive.” Opponents are invariably likened to Hitler, or other bete noir of the internationalist liberal movement. “We are pink,” gloats the Financial Times of London in its frontpage heading. Indeed, its correlatives in America can easily say the same–and I don’t refer merely to media.

The color “pink” is meant to suggest that its bearers are not full-bore “reds,” which generally connotes “blood-spilling revolution now!” The “pinks” are for a gentler road to global socialism, relying on cultural changes, demographic changes, and time. ["The old die; the young forget."] As the Beatles noted in a song: “There’s nothing to get hung up about.” Put down your Communist carbines, and give “love” a chance, seemed to be affirmed as a weigh station along the road to the global paradise of the rich. The “pinks” don’t want a world war. That is too destructive. They seem to approve of endless small wars around the globe to nudge the people toward their future of “toil, sex, drugs, and body-organ ‘donation.’”

Why do I bring up all this extraneous material, considering the title of this post? Because I believe that the homosexual movement in America (and elsewhere) has far more in common with Marxism than a mere category of sexuality. I believe that the selection of the color “pink” as emblematic has more to do with the ideology reflected in the front page heading of the Financial Times than the suggestion that it implies a female-esque orientation. The “homosexual liberation movement” was an important part of the broader ”sexual revolution” which was planned and implemented in conjunction with new developments in birth control. Women were “liberated” from fear of pregnancies, and that liberation, aided by propaganda, helped to propel the social changes which were also being redefined by the “black liberation movement.” While these “movements” were not alone, I believe that these three were the ramrods of social legislation and “supreme Court” social interpretations of policies and law. A victory of any one of these movements in the courts tended to be applied to the others. They were defined as minorities, even when majorities.

The “pill” not only liberated women from fears and moral strictures in existance for thousands of years, but the broad & massive addition of “mind-altering” drugs shortly after the advent of the “pill” created the “loose” thinking that translated into across-the-board immorality, according to previous Christian doctrines. Such usage made it easy for women who adopted the “new morality” to forget their pills. The result, naturally, were unwed pregnancies. This led to the creation of increasing numbers of confused offspring, exhibiting a marked inclination toward criminal behavior. Another result was ever-increasing use of abortion. The latter required an “adjustment” in religious views on this subject, as well as the coersive power of the State, as it implemented “supreme Court” decisions favoring abortion.

Parenthetically, one of the unnoticed aspects of these liberation movements was an increasing use of spies, “intelligence” machinery, and applied police enforcement across the country in an increasingly pervasive form. As the “Bill of Rights” became a neutered document, individuals became more conscious of the possibility of a new American Police State. With confused people everywhere in America declaiming loudly vain imaginings, there was no chance that such a mob could derail the revolution in their midst.

Another aspect of this “sexual revolution” was increasing hybridization of the population. That this was a planned aspect of the “pink revolution” is certain, as there are at least several prominent Jewish figures who gloat about the coming extinction of white people, per se, in a new world order. This was certain because white people were too dumb, too feckless, and too corrupt to stop it. Hence, a “world without white people” was very much a premeditative part of the “sexual revolution.”

Still another aspect of this “sexual revolution” was the unprecedented rise of venereal diseases. These diseases tend to be intractable. Some could be cure by wonder drugs, yet,–wouldn’t you know it?–some proved damnably resistant to the old treatments. Yet, with so many Americans “blitzed” on drugs and booze, who’s going to be vigilant? Further, some diseases that arose proved deadly. The homosexual revolutionaries were smitten hard in their doctrine.

No one said that revolution was going to be a pleasant stroll through a comely rose garden. There were expectations of regrettable “losses.”

It is not an accident that a successful effort was begun in the ’70s to impose the term “gay” upon the category of people who engage in sodomy, et al. Its use in literary works, such as Tennessee Williams’ plays, suggests that it has an even older birth period. But its insistent usage I believe, at least in America, began in the 1970s. The groundwork for its acceptance rests with its general positioning in a broad class of humanity, whose relative position improved mightily during the last 100 years.

Previously, these sets of people existed under a negative pale. With the help of “new ideas” advanced within the relatively new pedagogic field dubbed the “soft sciences,” they became minorities, who were basically like others–only misunderstood. Furthermore, this very movement evolved into one that asserted that “we are all alike,” gruffly brushing aside or ignoring data that suggested otherwise.” Soft science” came to prevail over “hard science,” when politicians and judges began to “scratch their heads” as to the correct course to take. This assumes that “dodging the issue is no longer a possible option.

Who were these avant-garde thinkers of the new soft sciences? They certainly included such prominent figures as Franz Boas, Claude Levi-Strauss, Otto Klineberg, Melville Herskovits, Alexander Goldenweiser, Isador Chein, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Gene Weltfish, Kenneth Clark, Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead.

A look at two is revealing enough. Consider:

“…Perhaps in the belief that one good myth deserves another, Franz Boas (1858-1942), a scholar of German-Jewish origin and a professor of anthropology at Columbia University, put forward the first comprehensively developed theory of racial equality. Boas hypothesized that nurture, not nature, was the chief determinant of important racial differences. He went so far as to assert that even such a persistent genetic trait as head shape (cephalic index) could be altered by an environmental change in one or two generations…”  [THE DISPOSSESSED MAJORITY,(3rd revised ed.), Wilmot Robertson, p.14]

Well, many would agree that the last-mentioned supposition was a bit “cock-eyed.” But let’s consider another prominent figure.

“Ashley Montagu, a physical anthropologist of Anglo-Jewish origin, became the great vulgarizer of racial equalitarianism with a seemingly endless stream of bestselling books, television appearances and speeches before learned and unlearned societies.”   [supra, pp.14-15]

I recall seeing Mr. Montagu on late-night television programs of the “Jonny Carson Show” sort. He was an engaging sort, making for a good propagandist. Let’s consider one more prominent figure in the “shape-changing” field of academia, which has given birth to most of our injurious policies in government.

“Perhaps the most interesting of all theories that attempt to account for the current Jewish ascendancy is that advanced by John Murray Cuddihy, an assistant professor of sociology and a scion of a prominent Irish-American family. In Cuddihy’s view, Freud, Marx, Claude Levi-Strauss, and other prominent Diaspora Jews, who have done so much to bruise Western culture, were not impelled by their love of truth or their desire to improve mankind, but by their fear and loathing of Western civility, the repressed and controlled behavior that is incomprehensible to an irrepressible people. Since they obviously could not get away with a direct attack on Gentile conduct, they consciously or unconsciously worked out highly ramified interpretations of history, economics, politics, psychology, and anthropology to undermine it. Communism was an ideal weapon to divide and destroy the Western political and economic order. Freudianism attacked Western morality by its neurotic emphasis on sex and by lending respectability to the promptings of the baser instincts. Levi-Strauss’s anthropology compared savage and civilized societies to the disadvantage of the latter. Cuddihy even hints that Einstein’s physics was motivated in part by a desire to shock and shatter rather than refine and advance Western science.”   [supra, p.189]

Now all this dovetails very well with the new approach of Marxism, as developed by Antonio Gramsci of Italy (born in Sardinia) in the 1920s & ’30s. Consider:

“Use Lenin’s geopolitical structure not to conquer streets and cities, argued Gramsci. Use it to conguer the mind of civil society. Use it to acquire a Marxist hegemony over the minds of the populations that must be won.”    [THE KEYS OF THIS BLOOD, Malachi Martin, p.249]

There does not seem to be any doubt that the American Entertainment industry, as well as the informational media, have done yeoman work, according to Comrade Gramsci’s prescription for victory. One hardly ever encounters a nonJew in America who doesn’t seem completely at one with the “change.” Change is good–right?

Indeed! Among the “wall of scoundrels” advancing toward Jerusalem to be born were the Neo-Uranians, which was a group that first seemed to manifest itself in an organized way during the last part of the 19th century in Germany, especially. Whether these were mostly Germans, or others residing in Germany is not clear. Given the character of known revolutionary forces, there is reason to be cautious. Still, before the homosexual revolution grew powerful here in America, it manifested itself in 19th century Germany. Consider:

“As we move closer to modern times, we see that during the Masonic revolutions throughout Europe in the nineteenth century, laws restraining homosexuality were relaxed. Tannahill informs us that in France ‘by the 1860s homosexuality and lesbianism were, if not commonplace, at least tolerated.’”   [SCARLET AND THE BEAST, Vol. II, John Daniel, p.63]

Now, I think it wise to point out that the influence on American politics and religion of Freemasons is marked. If there is a “sexual revolution” or “moral revolution” in America, it cannot occur without widespread Masonic assistance. As an example of a typical Freemason in American politics, one might adduce the life and times of the late Senator Strom Thurman, who pronounced Freemasonry to be “love,” who was an alleged womanizer (frequently eating oysters to “promote” libidinous excess), and apparently fathered a child or two out of wedlock. Freemasonry is not a friend of sexual temperance. Since most American men define their “maleness” in terms of “body count”–real or imagined, the leadership offered by Freemasonry was certainly welcomed. Let’s continue with our study of Uranians/Neo-Uranians.

“This was due in part to the efforts of a homosexual organization founded in 1862 called the Urnings, or Uranians, named after the Greek god Uranus. In 1893 the Urnings founded their own secret society called ‘The Order of Chaeronea,’ with rituals, insignia, and secret codes patterned after Freemasonry. The Chaeronea Lodge planned to organize all homosexuals into a political force, which they heretofore were unable to do. Germany was their target. They would infiltrate the imperial court for the purpose of cutting the emperor off from his more responsible advisers, thereby influencing German society so they could practice their lifestyle openly and freely. By the turn of the twentieth century, militant homosexuals were heavily involved in German politics…”   [supra, p.63]

My interpretation of this passage includes the view that the Uranians were seeking a sort of autonomy within German society. The only people to exhibit this desire for autonomy within a host country for over two thousand years were the Jews. If Freemasonry itself is a Jewish “Trojan horse,” operating within countless nations across the globe, then the aspirations of the “Chaeronea Lodge” were consistent with Jewish and Masonic history. Please perceive that the opposed forces MUST have been Christians in lands such as 19th century Germany. Let’s conclude our citation on the Uranians.

“Their scheme, however, was exposed by a Berlin publisher. Tannahill tells the story: ‘In 1906, Maximilian Harden, publisher of the Berlin periodical Die Zukunft, decided to open everyone’s eyes, including those of the emperor, to the dangers of an Urnings’ alliance. These people formed…a comradeship which is stronger than that of the monastic orders or of Freemasonry, which grips tighter and makes a link across all the walls of creed, state, and class, which unites the most remote, the most foreign, in a fraternal league of offense and defense. Men of this breed are to be found everywhere, at courts, in high positions in armies and navies, in the editorial offices of great newspapers, at tradesmen’s and teachers’ desks. even on the bench. All rally together against the common enemy.‘

“The common enemy was the German imperial state. Allied with the Urnings was the German Communist Party, operating from within the Grand Orient Masonic Lodges. Hence, public opinion generated by the lodges favored sexual emancipation….”     [supra,pp.63-64]

Although the view expressed above supposes that the “common enemy” was the German imperial state, I believe that this was merely the first target, which had to be neutralized first to better destroy the larger targets: the German people, per se, and Christianity. Be that as it may, let’s continue with the Communist view of the Uranians.

” Felix Halle, spokesman for the German Communist Party, summarized the party’s opinion on the subject during the first decade of the twentieth century:

” ‘The class-conscious proletariat, uninfluenced by the ideology of the churches, approaches the question of sex life and also the problem of homosexuality with a lack of prejudice afforded by an understanding of the overall social structure….In accordance with the scientific insights of modern times, the proletariat regards these relations as a special form of sexual gratification and demands the same freedom and restrictions for these forms of sex life as for intercourse between the sexes [such as] control over one’s own body and finally respect for the rights of non-involved parties.’”   [supra, p.64]

The language and concepts found within this early 19th century communist tract are virtually the exact concepts pushed by “Women’s Lib” spokespersons, such as Barbara Friedan, Gloria Steiner, Susan Brownmiller, Germaine Greer, Bella Abzug, and a host of other jewish thinker-activists. They are also the same concepts pushed by the “Gay” movement. Nothing much has changed here, except their batting average is better. With much of Christian leadership corrupt or incompetent, there is little to stand in their way. Here, I speak not just of the sexual revolution but the broad range of revolutionary changes constantly being pushed. The inevitable conclusion will be national destructoion, which has also been planned.

Please note: with college students supposing that the Communist Revolution has been destroyed and is a mere relic of the past, the revolution has won. Those who live in its midst are so imbued with its doctrines that they don’t even see it. Why? It’s everywhere! The revolutionary changes have become their nannies. They are uncomfortable anywhere else.

The past known records of the original Uranians point inevitably to their resurfacing with spectacular success in America from post-’60s forward under the new title of “Gay Movement.” Todays Gays are worthy disciples of the Uranians. Their idiom is “ur-anus.” For this reason I dub them all: Neo-Uranians. They are part of the Establishment.

Downnlaced, 2008.

ATTILA: AN ARMY TOO DIVERSE?

Many people, who consider themselves to be savants on the subject of war, battle, combat strategy, and the small yet telling circumstances and events that changed the tide of battle from defeat to victory, have nevertheless failed to give Attila his due. Surely, he belongs among the top ten “generals” of all time. As with King David of Israel, Alexander the Great, Hannibal, and Julius Caesar, he not only devised strategy (however informally) but led his men to battle. His sword was not ceremonial but wielded on the field of battle with bloody vengeance.

When these people, who are presently known generally as Huns, first appeared in southern Asia in present day Russia, as well as the new Republics formed to the south from the old U.S.S.R., after its dissolution, they were a very distinct people, according to appearance, from all the other resident tribes which bordered upon the lands of Scythia. They were shorter in height, possessed broad, thick shoulders, and thick necks. Their faces were swarthy and described by a Roman (Priscus) as “lumpish.” They had eyes which were likened by this same Roman to “pin holes.” They scarred a son’s face at birth, not with the intention of making them fierce-looking (which seems to be common amongst warriors), but to teach them even before their first milk that they must learn to deal with wounds. One must focus first upon killing the enemy. There will be time enough after the battle, if one survived, to tend to wounds.

Accordiing to historian Arthur Koestler in his THE THIRTEENTH TRIBE, these Huns wore their hair in long, never-cut fashion, unwashed, but sometimes colored a reddish shade, not given to baths, and using a sort of “howl” when attacking on horseback. As a matter of fact, the Huns rarely if ever changed clothes, letting the clothing wear and/or rot off. This, too, if accurate, might have been a strategy for victory, as it would be another sort of “weapon” of war to use against the enemy. One should not overlook uncleanliness as a tool of war. However, one supposes that over time, developing some relationships with Rome and Constantinople, they may have improved somewhat in the matter of toilet care and clothing.

To continue on this subject so as to demonstrate the use of uncleanliness and the utility it provides of a psychological kind, I recall a description in a text I puchased years ago, relating to prison life in Leavenworth FCI. There was an unruly inmate in his cell. I cannot recall with certainty but he may have set a mattress on fire or caused a flood besides making a noise nuisance. At any rate the decision was made to send correction officers into his cell to subdue him. According to the text, the matter was very distasteful, as the inmate was naked, armed, and had smeared his own refuse all over his body. Consider the edge that such a warrior might present if multiplied by tens of thousands.

The Huns were not the only fierce warriors in the area bordering Scythia (and everywhere else they resided), but they did appear on the scene with advantages. Not only did they appear fierce (and ugly), but they were outstanding horsemen. They seemed to exist upon spoils of warfare, eschewing farming and herding in any sort of settled fashion. For them, as a strategy for living well, their taking from others was the most sensible approach, so long as others went to the trouble of producing food and craftswork, as well as collected & tended herds. For at this time the Huns chief source of wealth were two: 1) newly born sons and 2) other peoples’s property.

Attila arrived on the scene as the leader prior to 445 A.D. He was aided by his brother, Bleda, who was himself formidable, and they formed a sort tandem leadership. Sometime after 445, Attila murdered Bleda. The Huns fought with all the other tribal groups, either subjecting them or causing them to flee either to the west and north or into the Roman Empire’s boundary. By 445 A.D. Attila was the undisputed leader of not only the Huns, but united all the non-Hunnish tribes in his “area of influence” under him. Generally, they paid tribute and existed in a sort of feudal relationship with Attila’s Huns. Toward the end of Attila’s rule, the Western Roman Empire at Rome had been reduced to virtually a slave state. It seems likely that many rich Romans may have transferred their property, as well as themselves, to the far western reaches of the Empire, such as it now was.

I suspect that Attila may have heard rumors of wealth there. That may have been his primary motivation for leading his armies westward.

Tribute was highly prized by Attila. He generally remained at peace with other kingdoms, including the Roman Empire–East and West, so long as they met Attila’s demands for tribute. The immense accumulation of wealth also allowed Attila to bestow generous gifts to key people among his Huns, as well as the various tribal leaders, whose people he has subdued. Attila and the Huns did not seem too interested in cultural trappings, as was to be found in other adjacent kingdoms. He certainly seemed to “dig” power. Wealth was an aspect of power. He almost certainly preferred the pleasure of seeing the mighty kings of the world paying him tribute than the gold and silver, per se. This was a taste of sadism, which would suffice until he road again into battle.

Yet, over time, even the fierceness of the Huns may have begun a slow, barely noticeable waning. With conquest as the Hun’s motivation and the gaining of spoils the “fruit” of and justification for conquest–a sort of “body count” (or “booty” count), a softening of the Hun spirit must have occurred and been noticeable particularly to the older warriors. This may have weighed on Attila’s mind.

After all, Attila himself could look about and see that his army included a lot of Germanic and Slavic warriors. He had taken a wife from one of the Germanic tribes, after first killing her father, who was a tribal king. There were marriages between the Aristocratic women of the Eastern Roman Empire. Among his ordinary Hun troops, there must have been many occasions when Germanic or Slavic women were taken as one of their wives, especially as the general wealth of the Huns under Attila increased and “trickled down.” After all, when a man feels that he has the money he will take a wife, If he has considerable money, he takes more than one.

However such things unfold, it does have the effect of slowly changing a people. By the standards of Rome both Slavic and Germanic tribes might well seem to be ”barbarians.” Yet, by this time much of the Roman fighting soldiers were of Germanic descent. Rome, itself, had changed by its diversity from the early days of the Roman Republic. Change may be good or bad, according to the eyes of the beholder. The only thing certain is that it is no more the way it was.

Consider: “But as Gibbon showed, and as Roman historians themselves recounted at the time, all this changed during the period of the Empire–and because of the Empire. In the course of building a vast multi-ethnic and multi-cultural empire the old Roman stock was wasted on the battlefield, and citizenship came to be extended by degrees to include not only freed slaves but the majority of the peoples of the conquered cities, however alien these were in blood and values. Roman armies had to be filled with mercenaries, and not only did Rome die for want of Roman stock, but it also died for want of the spirit of loyalty and sense of common values that cannot be found in multi-cultural societies.”   [THE TEUTON AND THE ROMAN, abridged & condensed from Charles Kingsley's by R. Peterson, p.8]

Note: This is a truth certain and has been utilized as strategy even in our time, as seen in America’s immigration policy and its negation, as well. Policy is the necessary fruit of some degree of premeditation. Likewise, the destruction of policy or the substitution of re-interpreted, antithetical policy is premeditated. It bespeaks enemies within, whether by means of a “Trojan horse” or “home grown” or a combination of the two. The peril is that these enemies rule.

The strength of the Western Roman army had passsed into German hands, but the strength of Attila remained with his Huns. Oddly enough, the “show down” between the West Roman Empire and the Hunnish Empire of Attila occurred much to the west of both. In the Hun “rainbow coalition” of forces were East Goths, Slavs, and a batch of other non-Hunnish people. These people generally admired Attila as a great warrior, and felt that they would be participating in a great victory with much spoil. It had been so in the past.

What sent them west?  To the south were inviting riches but they were in the possession of a rather powerful kingdoms. The Eastern Roman Empire was still a force to be reckoned with. Further south beyond rugged mountains were Assyrians and their allies, who sometimes put pressure themselves in northerly martial salients, which were exploratory in nature.

The paying of tribute by these kingdoms had more appeal to Attila. The west was possessed by Germanic tribes with whom Attila had many skirmishes and pitched battles. Although the East Goths were substantially annexed, subdued and tribute-paying tribes, they were not all paying. Some were trouble-makers from Attila’s point of view–even cheeky. Attila had a fierce temper. He may have been angered by Goths further west, and the issue had become personal. Even the greatest generals are subject to vain imagings.

From Attila’s point of view the Goths were just a batch of squabbling tribes, as likely as not to fiercely fight one another as anyone else. He may have had considerable experience manipulating this tribal trait. If so, it would have lent to him considerable confidence that he could recruit and use German against German.

The Tribes of Israel had often fought amongst themselves. For some people, it is almost a trait and marker.

Consider: “Germanic Angles and Saxons and Jutes, Danes and Norsemen pressed on the borders of the decaying, no longer truly Roman, empire, and conquered and settled the British Isles. Germanic Francs conquered Gaul, and thereby changed its name to France. Germanic Burgundians established a separate realm west of the Rhine, which later became incorporated into France. And Germanic Goths destroyed Rome, and held Italy for a while, before their place was taken by the Germanic Lombards in the north, and by Germanic Normans, as a thin ruling nobility, in the south….But one weakness particularly worked against the Germanic peoples of that day, as it has done through the generations down to this present century. Although loyal to their own individual nations, the Germanic peoples could never seem to develop a sense of racial loyalty that would span petty national jealousies. Conquering the vast multi-ethnic population of latter-day Rome and the Western part of the once-powerful Roman empire, the Germanic victors were themselves eventually destroyed by their willingness to fight each other.

“When the Goths lost Italy, it was because of the persistent readiness of German nations to war against each other….”   [THE TEUTON AND THE ROMAN, supra, p.9]

I believe that Attila saw that trait in the Goths, just as Tiglath-pileser of Assyria saw it among the Israelites, when he invaded the Northern Kingdom “in the days of Pekah,” taking away Reubenites, Gadites, the half-tribe of Manasseh, as well as the tribes of “Asher, Issachar, and Zebulun, and distributed them in and on the borders of Assyria, where he built cities.”  [MISSING LINKS DISCOVERED IN ASSYRIAN TABLETS, E. Raymond Capt, p.67] There were other Assyrian kings and Babylonian, too, who saw this weakness. Would the Israelite people ever have been defeated if they were united and walked in ways pleasing to the Most High? No likely. The same might have obtained for the East Goths, and certainly for all the Goths.

What the Goths were like is often issued as fancy in the guise of thoughtful speculation. “Their language has been happily preserved to us in Ulfilas’ translation of the Scriptures. For these Goths, the greater number of them at least, were by this time Christians, or very nearly such…He had translated the Bible for them, and had constructed a Gothic alphabet for that purpose. He had omitted, however (prudently as he considered) the books of Kings, with their histories of the Jewish (sic) wars. The Goths, he held, were only too fond of fighting already, and ‘needed in that matter the bit, rather than the spur.’”  [THE TEUTON AND THE ROMAN, supra, p.37]

I personally suspect that the real reason that Bishop Ulfilas omitted the Book of Kings is that the Roman Catholic Church realised that the parallel between Goth and Israelite would not be missed. This ignorance would serve the interests of those who desired this vast pool of people to focus their religious faith to the shaping hand of Rome. Nor is this cover up limited to Rome, but is common today, which is why one sees the Israelites described as “Jews.” This is strikingly dishonest practice which calls into question the ethical and moral grounding of all religious figures who do so.

There is no anti-Christian burden born by the critic of the Roman Catholic Church. Plotting was no more uncommon in Rome then, than it is today in the “high politics” of the Federal American Empire. Consider:

“And what if he discovered (or thought that he discovered) that the Catholic Clergy, with Pope John at their head, were in the very same plot for bringing in the Emperor of Constantinople, on the grounds of religion; because he was persecuting the Arian Goths at Constantinople, and therefore would help them to persecute them in Italy?…”  [THE TEUTON AND THE ROMAN, supra,p79]

Around 450-451 A.D. Attila found himself in a puzzling state of mind. He had an urge to punish the Eastern Roman Empire at Constantinople and at the same time an urging from Honoria, Valentinian’s sister, to save her at Rome. Although the Roman adventure was temptingly easy, relatively, it could wait. Almost by impulse, Attila headed west, instead. I say that only because I don’t know the real reason. Yet, surely there were reasons.

Attila’s army flooded into Gaul. With him were many Germanic warriors. As they headed westward, the alarum must have gone forth, carried by hundreds of couriers, rallying the various Germanic tribes to this new threat. One can imagine some housewife demanding: “Thoric! Where are you going? You promised to cure the hides, fix the roof, salt the venison,” and on and on. And he replying: “I go fight Attila!”

Be that as it may, the forces gathered for the great test. Consider:

“At the great battle of Chalons, in the year AD 451, he (Attila) fought it out: Hun, Slav, Tartar, and Finn, backed by Gepid and Herule, East Goth and Lombard, against West Goth, Frank and Burgund, Roman and the Bretons of Armorica. Aetius shewed himself that day, as always, a general–the Marlborough of his time–and conquered. Attila and his hordes rolled away eastward, and into Italy for Rome.

“That is the Hunnenschlacht; ‘a battle,’ as Jornandes calls it, atrox, mulitplex, immane, pertinax. Antiquity, he says, tells of nothing like it. No man who had lost that sight could say that he had seen aught worth seeing.–A fight gigantic, supernatural in vastness and horror, and the legends which still hang about the place. You may see one of them in von Kaulbach’s immortal design–the ghosts of the Huns and the ghosts of the Germans rising from their graves on the battlenight in every year, to fight it over again in the clouds, while the country far and wide trembles at their ghostly hurrah. No wonder men remember that Hunnenschlacht. Many consider that it saved Europe; that it was one of the decisive battles of the world.”   [THE TEUTON AND THE ROMAN, supra,p.51]

Perhaps this is a bit romantic and overstated, yet it was the beginning of the end of Hunnish westward salients. There have been many massive battles fought in world history. “Who’s the number one warrior” has been as big an issue for men throughout history, as it is today in college and professional sports. You got to be a “football hero” to get a date with a “beautiful doll,” probably had its dim birth as a concept in the conquering warriors of old who took whatever woman they wanted. The modern version is merely a “gallantized guise” for the “spoils of war.”

One version of the unexpected death of Attila involved a “taken” wife. Maybe it is true. There certainly would be justice accorded him from his “spoil” personally, as well as being a symbol of justice due the endless number of women who fate was to be a spoil of war. Consider:

“But Attila was not ruined…Over and above his innumerable wives, he seized a beautiful German girl whose father he had killed. When his people came in the morning, the girl sat weeping; but Etzel, the scourge, lay dead in a pool of gore. She said that he had burst a blood-vessel. The Teutons whispered among themselves, that like a free-born Teuton, she had slain her tyrant…”  [THE TEUTON AND THE ROMAN, supra, p.52]

Given the alleged appearance of the Huns, it doesn’t seem reasonable that a Goth would be physically attracted to him. Still, he may have had “animal magnetism” which would completely undue the average woman–Goth or otherwise. If the German lass has a cruel or brutal father, Attila might be a welcomed relief. One doesn’t know. Still, on average I believe that it is unlikely that she would have had feelings for this man, who, afterall, killed her father. Faking tears of remorse and mourning may have been a precaution against sudden and merciless death at the hands of his lieutenants. Mourning becomes a woman in these circumstances.

Without the great, fierce Attila leading them, the days of grand sovereignty by the Huns over their coerced allies were numbered. He must have been a truly great general, possessed of some of the instinctual and inductively acquired battle savvy that Alexander the Great had. Was he ever tutored by Hunnish scholars, so to speak, on the art of war? No one knows. Given the culture, there seems to be limits to the possibilities. I would guess that he was a great athlete, as was Alexander the Great. No one will ever teach the battle schemes of Attila at some military college or other. He may even be held in derision. Yet, through the force of his personality and warriorship, he became a great historical figure, and briefly united under him fierce, quarrelsome and disparate tribes of people, who somehow fought as a team successfully. This is rare. That it ended soon after his death signifies the extraordinary power he wielded.

And the end? Consider: “And then the hordes broke up. Ardarich raised the Teuton Gepids and Ostrogoths. The Teutons who had followed Attila, turned on their Tartar conquerors, the only people who had ever subdued German men, and then only by force of overpowering numbers. At Netad, upon the great plain between the Drave and the Danube, they fought the second Hunnenschlacht, and the Germans conquered. Thirty thousand Huns fell on that dreadful day, and the rest streamed away into the heart of Asia, into the infinite unknown deserts from whence the foul miscreants had streamed forth, and left the Teutons masters of the world. The battle of Netad; that, and not Chalons, to my mind, was the saving battle of Europe.

“So Rome was saved; but only for a few years. The decadent Valentinian rewarded Aetius for defending Europe, by stabbing with his own hand in his own palace, the hero of Chalons;…”  [THE TEUTON AND THE ROMAN. supra, p.52]

The figure in ”thirty thousand Huns fell” seems almost Biblical.

Many men love war. The thing they love in times kills not only them, perhaps, but their people’s prosperity certainly. Men such as Alexander the Great and Attila start their conquering ways on the backs of their own fierce warriors. In time deaths take a toll on the original human stock which provided the great leader his victories. Substitutions must be made which are as close as possible to the originals. As this is not possible, the quality of the fighting force loses, as cohersive spirit is lost. Different people from different cultures will not think alike. In times this will result in increasing dysfunction. Internal disputes will mount. The great leader will have to spend much more time making peace within his array of soldiers, then in preparing thoughtfully where he is going next and why he is doing it and what good results should flow from the decision. In short thinking ahead becomes secondary to bandaging internal disputes. This is true then, and it is true now.

Must people are not aware that in Vietnam, the incidents of “fragging” was 100% black American troops dropping a grenade (or similar deadly weapon) into a white 2nd lieutenant’s tent (or that of 1st lieutenant, captain’s, or major’s). No doubt white sargeants were killed the same way. Others may have been shot “accidentily” or otherwise, out in the field or jungle. In the brigs racial strife was common, resulting in more than one pitched battle within these confines. Was the defeat of the U.S. effort in Vietnam doomed by the military’s diversity? Will the well-trained U.S. force which is a citadel of diversity prevail in Iraq? Hard to say. In Vietnam the enemy was homogeneous, and the U.S. lost. In Iraq the enemy is more diverse, including Kurds and other ethnic groups. This was why it was difficult to rule by anyone other than a “strongman” such as Saddam Hussein. When the U.S. then killed the agent of stability there, Saddam, and substituted a “democracy,” instability was the new king.

If the U.S. can find another Attila to place over the Iraqi citizens, none will dare to complain. Attila was a man who knew how to deal with diversity. America is led by people who imagine thay do. John Lennon is their songbird. Help! I need somebody!

Downnlaced, 2008.