The Protocols of the Wise Elders of Zion
Protocol No. 9: 1. In applying our principles let attention be paid to the character of the people in whose country you live and act; a general, identical application of them, until such time as the people shall have been re-educated to our pattern, cannot have success.
2: DE FACTO we have already wiped out every kind of rule except our own, although DE JURE there still remain a good many of them.
Protocol 16:4: WE SHALL CHANGE HISTORY – We shall erase from the memory of men all facts of previous centuries which are undesirable to us, and leave only those which depict all the errors of the government of the GOYIM.
We shall replace Classicism with the study of the program of the future.
Protocol 17:3 – FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE HAS BEEN DECLARED EVERYWHERE, SO THAT NOW ONLY YEARS DIVIDE US FROM THE MOMENT OF THE COMPLETE WRECKING OF THAT CHRISTIAN RELIGION.
(Karl Rothschild acted as “peacemaker” between the Vatican and her enemies, loaning the Vatican five million pounds in a period of difficulty. Gregory XVI conferred a Papal decoration on Kalman Rothschild since when Rothschilds have been “Guardians of the Vatican Treasury”).
Have you ever wondered why our media deliberately avoids reporting on our national history, the Christian faith of our ancestors and some of us contemporaries – even praises the forces undermining these assets?
Have you wondered why the same media rarely discusses the roots of the increasing violence, never advocates the morals of the 10 Commandments?
The media never brings interviews with persons bringing strong arguments against the NWO which makes good evil and vice versa, while bringing myriads of interviews with bootlicking stooges of the obviously destructive NWO policies.
Have you ever wondered how the words: Racism, antisemitism, “conspiracy theory”, equality (between good and evil), Brotherhood (Mankind = one family) and “freedom” (= lack of freedom) – spoken and unspoken repress free speech and are nothing but Communist “political correctness“? Are we really so decadent and that easy to manipulate into NWO obedience?
Have you ever thought that who steals your history and culture steals your identity? Have you ever thought that who has lost his identity is living dead? That who is living dead is en empty tank which can be filled with slurry instead of pure water?
The Foreign Affairs 14 July 2015: “Behind Europe’s Attempts to Legislate Memory”
As of 2015, for example, it is illegal to deny the Holocaust in 16 European countries. Seven additional states impose generic prohibitions on the denial of genocides, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. A few more have no such legislation but nevertheless prosecute Holocaust deniers under hate-speech statutes. Laws such as these are a decidedly post–Cold War phenomenon; the overwhelming majority of them have been ratified in just the past two decades.
When the laws concern events for which a wider range of interpretations is still possible, such as the actions of the Soviet Union, the legislative process has been more fractious, pitting differing political agendas and perspectives against one another globally.
In those cases, legislating memory has become an instrument of statecraft in Europe, wielded as a moral cudgel by politicians intent on fighting today’s battles through the events of the past.
This is worrisome. Memories often diverge, and politicians tend to view the past through the prism of present-day expediencies. Legislating memory thus risks driving a wedge between states, harming integration efforts and attempts at compromise and negotiation.
Statutes dealing with historical memory are a subset of laws concerned with speech and public conduct. They can criminalize the expression of contrary views, specifying penalties from fines to imprisonment, or they can be primarily symbolic.
There are two types of historical memory laws: those that 1) emphasize how to remember and those that 2) emphasize how not to remember. The former are proscriptive; they deal with events, such as the Holocaust, around which there already exists a wide interpretive consensus. Their purpose is to maintain public order by preventing people from violating societal norms. The latter address more contentious historical episodes. They are prescriptive, designed to promote a specific understanding of the past.
In Europe, where it is no longer possible to assume that a state-enforced ideology or collective memory will safeguard a particular view of the past, existential angst arising from growing societal heterogeneity has likewise contributed to the proliferation of these laws.
Already, private memories are being replaced by politicized histories in Europe.
The founding of supranational legal forums, such as the European Court of Human Rights (which became a full-time institution in 1998) and the International Criminal Court at The Hague (established in 2002), has also aided the legislation of memory by providing high-profile forums for adjudicating the past.
For its part, in an effort to deepen integration, the European Union has actively encouraged member countries to embrace convergent interpretations of the past. There are no EU-wide memory laws as of today, but the 2008 European Framework Decision on Combating Racism and Xenophobia mandated that member states criminalize the denial of recognized genocides and related offenses, although the vagueness of the rule has resulted in uneven compliance. Likewise, the Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime adopted a similar, nonbinding, protocol in 2006.
The attempts to synchronize memory have, at times, played out unexpectedly. For instance, the EU mandated that postcommunist states needed to address the Holocaust prior to accession. But once they became members of the EU, many in these states began clamoring to have the so-called totalitarian twins of Nazism and Soviet communism, especially its Stalinist variant, evaluated more equitably.
In the postcommunist world, memories diverge—particularly when it comes to assessments of the Soviet Union. As of 2015, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine all explicitly ban the denial of communist crimes alongside the horrors of Nazism.
Russia, in contrast, passed a law in 2014 making the denial of Nazi crimes and the “misrepresentation” of the Soviet Union’s role in World War II a criminal offense.
What we are witnessing in the EU is ideological revision of history – well-known from all other dictatorships.
Dictators make it criminal offences not to share their view on ongoing and past history – and punish those who don´t. George Orwell describes this brilliantly in his “1984”.
One example is former NATO supreme Commander in Europe, the warlord from the Balkans, Wesley Clark. Today he demands any one in the US critisizing the “War on Terror” to be indefinitely “segregated” in WWII like internment camps.