Sunday, July 01, 2012


In Sparta, at age 7, boys were taken from their mothers and taught to be militaristic. Website for this image

Who do you blame for wars - the militarists or the bankers?

The common chimp can be warlike.

"Militarism has been a significant element of the imperialist or expansionist ideologies of several nations throughout history.

"Prominent examples include the Ancient Assyrian Empire, the Greek city state of Sparta, the Roman Empire, the Aztec nation, the Kingdom of Prussia, the British Empire, the Empire of Japan..."

Militarism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Frederick the Great, King of Prussia 1740-86

Frederick the Gay was the typical right-wing militarist. 

Frederick the Gay has always been popular with right-wing, militaristic Germans, such as Hitler.

In Frederick's Prussia, the death sentence was mandatory for sodomy. 

During his childhood, gay Frederick had two 'intimate' friends: Keith from a Scottish Jacobite family and Hans von Katte. Hans was the nephew of the mistress of the English king, George I.

Frederick plotted with Keith and Hans to escape from Prussia. The plot was discovered.

Frederick's father had Hans von Katte beheaded and made Frederick watch the execution.

Hans von Katte

Frederick became King of Prussia in 1740. 

Frederick took little interest in his wife and had no children.

He collected statues of Antinous, who was Roman Emperor Hadrian's lover, and of Ganymede.

He liked pages and 'was known to caress, tickle, or pinch the ear of some favoured page'.

Sans Souci

Frederick used to relax with his friends at the Sans Souci palace at Potsdam, which had statues of beautiful boys.

Some of Frederick's love poems, printed at Sans-Souci in 1750, are addressed to one of his favourites, Count Von Kaiserlinck (given the name Cesarion):

Frederick's valet was called Fredersdorf. Frederick addressed him as "du".

When Frederick's father was dying, Frederick wrote to his close friend Algarotti:

My dear Algarotti, my destiny has changed. I await you impatiently; don't let me languish for you.


Frederick the Gay fought several bloody wars and doubled the size of his country.

Frederick can be seen as one of the founders of modern Germany.

Frederick wrote in his Testament Politique that:

We have too many Jews in the towns. They are needed on the Polish border because in these areas Hebrews alone perform trade.

As soon as you get away from the frontier, the Jews become a disadvantage, they form cliques, they deal in contraband and get up to all manner of rascally tricks which are detrimental to Christian burghers and merchants.

I have never persecuted anyone from this or any other sect [sic]; I think, however, it would be prudent to pay attention, so that their numbers do not increase

Militarists need bankers.

Medal for Daniel Itzig's 70th birthday in 1793

Daniel Itzig (aka Daniel Yoffe) was a Court Jew at the court of Frederick the Great of Prussia.

Itzig was a banker in partnership with Feitel Heine. Together they owned factories for oil and lead.

During the Seven Years War Itzig assisted Frederick the Great.

Following the war Itzig was appointed Master of the Mint, and, after Frederick's death, the Prussian court banker.

Itzig was one of the very few Jews in Prussia to receive full citizenship privileges, as a "Useful Jew".[2]

He became extraordinarily wealthy as a consequence.

Bismarck was not fond of Jews.

But, Gerson von Bleichröder was a Jew who helped finance Bismarck's wars aimed at reuniting Germany.[43]

Jewish victims of a pogromWebsite for this image


Lead Cattle said...

Thanks for being honest about homosexual mass murderers, criminals.

"The Jews [...] form cliques".
That's why they are prime lead cattle for the ruling conspiracy.
They are raised to behave as paranoid supremacist cabal.

Anonymous said...

No good blaming either banksters or militarists.

The problem is fear, aka as hate/contempt.

the origins beginning in childhood, as you have shown in this gruesome example.

From Freud we have learned of the individual's pursuit of pleasure as opposed to the avoidance of pain.

Kids seek out their own.
Groups commit acts and deeds that individuals would not dare..

It is complicated Aangirfan, and the further social desirability and conformity to these 'norms' go, the more difficult to undo these accepted 'norms'.

But undone, they must come.
Church. State. Monetary structures.
All of them, just as suggested in another of your comments sections.

I am thinking/and supportive of the works of Kevin Annett and the ITCCS.
I would love to see the dis-affiliation of Canada and Australia from the mon-archy.
As for the monetary system, I believe there are people working against that system, but I do not know to what effect, realistically.
I have this morning been reading an interview between Lars Schall and Guido Preparato: Business as Usual behind the Slaughter from nsnbc/Asia Times online.

It seems to me there are many people working on many fronts.
But the blame game is a non-event.
Responsible, Principled Action is the only way forward.
With Love
in Peace and Truth.

Anonymous said...

Hullo Aang - off topic but you might want to pop over to wikispooks and read the entry about Ziad Abdelnour. It's extraordinary.

Anonymous said...

And on topic now (kind of) - just lately I've been considering the pre-eminence of Tibetan Buddhism amongst all the Buddhist sects. This is driven by: their history as usurers lording it over debt-peon serfs; their usefulness to the CIA et al as a wedge against China, and the concomitant, inevitable, and obvious funding of them; and also the delirious degree of celebrity granted to the Dalai Lama who jets all over the world hobnobbing with the death cult A-list.

Not forgetting their devil-packed pantheon. If you've ever checked out their artwork there's no shortage of befanged, red-eyed demons. And then there's Austin Waddell's quote upon visiting Tibet in 1895 wherein he called their religion "deep-rooted devil-worship and sorcery."

Anyway, apropos your thoughts re Sparta, von Steuben, and all that SRA-by-another-name, what's one to make of the Tibetan Buddhist trick of wandering hither and yon searching for the reincarnation of insert-alleged-saint's-name-here.

In some ways it's just too obvious - find the right three year old, do a bit of jiggery-pokery to impress the onlookers, and wallop, a child taken from his parents and spirited away to be subjected to... well, let's call it 'mind control', may as well do.

No wonder it's the only Buddhism most people have heard of, embraced and promoted by the glitterati, and with its leader, the Dalai Lama, elevated to superstar status.

Anonymous said...

Off topic PS - have a read of wikispooks' entry labelled 'Scenarios For The Future' linked on the front page. There, the Rockefeller Foundation talks of the '2012 Olympic bombing' in the past tense.

Anonymous said...

other Anonymous: what is SRA?

I live in a country that celebrates free choice in religion or philosophy or healing....whatever one wants to call it.

Choosing Christianity as a very young child of atheist parents, and spending time with others in their places of worship/learning, I went the whole walk with a Christian spiritual director, because I really wanted to know, who, what is God.

In two thousand years, the quest for the Divine has never been extinguished, regardless of war and misery. Maybe especially because of war and misery?

Anyway, last year I entertained a Tibetan Buddhist monk to afternoon tea, with a mutual friend, and I felt more 'at one' with that monk, than I have with many church going Christians, and indeed, pastors and priests.

I became aware, reading William Dalrymple's Nine Lives-in search of the Sacred, that Tibet invaded China in the ninth century. A monk's story in that book, told of Tibet's karma.

As for the Dalai Lama, I have heard a great deal of rumours about him, yet cannot comment because I do not wish to go on hearsay. To each their own is a freedom of choice I cherish: in Love and Truth.

The CIA and every double agent of every country gives me the creeps, as I value dignity, integrity and transparency. That makes me very vulnerable! Doh.

I saw the heartbreaking film Syriana 3 times, before I could connect the dots.

Anonymous said...

Aang your haunting photo of young boy looking back as two elders take him to his Spartan initiation to 'manhood' reminds me of a scene in the much maligned movie "Australia', in which a young boy is taken from the character played by Nichole Kidman.

'I will sing you to me' says the boy looking back.

"I will hear you' says Nichole.

"Give me a child until 7", say the Jesuits, "and I will give you the man."

I am not a man, but a woman.

I have given birth to 3 sons and 1 daughter.

I can say, in all sincerity as a woman, that I have cried all my life, at not just man's inhumanity to man, but woman's inhumanity to her own.

Women believe the world would be a better place if they ran it?

NO! No! and NO again!!

Anonymous said...

SRA = satanic ritual abuse. It is a non-technological mechanism for mind control. I suspect I might be throwing you in the deep end by linking to this, but Brice Taylor's book will tell you more than you need to know. Steel yourself.

P2P said...

anon 321 - julius evola has written a lot about the dogmatic corruption of buddhism. read doctrine of awakening. also, if I don't remember incorrectly, revolt against the modern world has words on it too... a link for download:

Lead Cattle said...

Interesting to see how powerful "rulers" are ignorant about the ruling conspiracy which transformed the UK 100 years earlier in the 1600s.

The conspirators are only now waking us up to the extent of their lust for torture and mass murder. Fukushima was done on purpose and a larger repetition is being announced since months.

Anonymous said...

Why is my comment from yesterday (Saturday) 2:30 p. m. blocked until now?


Anonymous said...

Without knowing in this case, in all likelihood it will be due to blogger's spam function. Having operated a blog I can tell you it operates in a completely arbitrary fashion that follows no line or logic. And it cannot be turned off. I had numerous complaints from people convinced that I'd fiddled with their comments, when not only had I done no such thing, I didn't even know that they'd commented. Blogger takes the actions, informs you of nothing, and it's only upon going and looking in the obscurely placed spam folder would you find that the comments existed at all.

It's a thing to keep in mind.

Zoompad said...

I don't trust any of the religious leaders of any religion because as far as I can see all of them allow themselves be put on a pedastal looking down on everyone else.

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous - 1:26 AM
why do YOU answer - and not the CENSORS here on Aangirfan???

What's this bullshit??!!
You - "Anonymous of 1:26 AM" can c l e a r l y(!) s e e(!), that my comment "10:54 AM" (against this CENSORSHIP on aangirfan) DID NOT(!!) disappear in some "spam function"!!
We all can find it here!
So what's Your talking about some "spam function"???

And You can also clearly see that the CENSORS of aangirfan - even after more than a day -do not dare to lay open their reasons for censoring me!!!


Aangirfan Censorship said...

Please don't insult people here, j, and come off your high horse.

It's not hard to see that Anonymous 1:26 is right.

Aangirfan censors libelous comments for legal reasons.
And i hope he censors shills, bullies, mobs and inciters.
So far, i never found a place with less content censorship then in this convent, thank you sisters :-)

What was your comment about ?

Anonymous said...

@ Aangirfan Censorship - 4:28 PM

1.)Citation: "Please don't insult people here, j,"
Answer: What exactly do You mean in my comment of "11:13 AM" ???
What was insulting??
Give me an Answer!

2.) Citation: " and come off your high horse "
What do You mean. Being against CENSORSHIP is "high horse"???
You are obviously an antidemocrat!
Give me an Answer!

3.) Citation: " What was your comment about ? "
Answer: So You have the guts to ask ME for my comment - censored more then a day ago (without any hint, why)?
But You don't have the guts to demand THAT from the aangirfan-CENSORS. You even don't (!!!!!) demand that at least the aangirfan Censors take position to their CENSORSHIP and explain it. I asked them for that for days now!.
But You "Aangirfan Censorship" (a really fitting nick You gave yourself) - attack me!
This is antidemocratic SLAVE-MENTALITY!

(No, " SLAVE-MENTALITY " is not an insult by me - is an insult by aangirfan. aangirfan insults EVERYBODY: "Frederic the Gay", Michael Rivero is NASA-CIA, nearly everybody (including the queen; and I am not a fan of her!) is a child murdering paedophile!; and the rest are all CIA-FBI -Satanic-Mafia-Mossad-"JEWS"). And than that HATE against "gays" and "Jews"!
Adolph "Hilter" (cited from Monthy Python) would have loved it!

But You, "Aangirfan Censorship" never protested against this MASSIV aangirfan HATE - did You?

Answer right now, "Aangirfan Censorship"!!!


Kindness said...

Calm down, j,
love-hate relationships, neglect and abuse are in your past, alcohol no longer helpful.

If you don't ban hate from your life, it will destroy you. Love needs consistent consensual nurturing like a pet. Try it and don't give up.

Anonymous said...

@ Kindness -12:21 AM
I' m calm.

And yes - HATE is destructive.
But You to, user (or board-member?) Kindness, don't want to join in with me against this hate mongering here (just look who all get smeared - and even with lies - only on this(!) site of the blog).
Why not?

I commented - aside from what was censored on Saturday :
"…And than that HATE against 'gays' and 'Jews'!"
and …. "But You, "Aangirfan Censorship" never protested against this MASSIV aangirfan hate - did You?"

Also You, Kindness, do not protest or object.
Instead You argue perversely that my stand against "hate" makes me being hateful myself. And, yes, my stand against hate is un-"calm" (or do you mean "uncool"?).

Being born and living in Germany I am well aware of this kind of hate. And when I see that now again aangirfan denounces "Gay" and "Jews" I simply feel the duty to speak up.
The worst is, that the aangirfan-board uses the word "Jew" as a racial determination.
I am against racism (also some kind of hate - isn't it, user Kindness?). and for me as for any other anti-racist person the word "Jew" is only a religious determination. "Jews" are follower of the mosaic religion, as Christians are follower of the NEW Testament.

But for the aangirfan-board a "Jew" is person of semitic race. For example to me Karl Marx is a atheist - and exactly not a "Jew"; same with Trotsky, Heinrich Heine (a Catholic - not a Jew") and so on. But aangirfan uses the word "Jew" in a racial sense. And than also always hateful - at least depreciative (when we are told by aangirfan, that someone had "a jewish mother" - or something like this, this is never meant positive!).

This is why I protest.

And Your, user Kindness, "consensual nurturing (love) like a pet" is simply not enough. The Nazi-nightmare in Germany and in Europe showed this, didn't it?

I see You, user Kindness, stand up against racist fanatics (like an SS-Man, a Singhalese racist in Colombo, a "nigger"-hating redneck in the US and so on) telling them: "If you don't ban hate from your life, it will destroy you. Love needs consistent consensual nurturing like a pet. Try it and don't give up."

Yes, that may be "cool" (or "calm") to teach this guys with mellow word like that - but that is simply not enough. History has PROOVEN that!

If you want to read more: here is my critic to this endlessly repeated, wrongful formula of "6 Million Jew" having been murdered (what about the ½ million Gipsies having been murdered? Why is a murdered atheist or a "Half Jew" to be considered a "Jew"?): .


coletteonice said...

Have been reading this blog since 2007 now and am not getting the hate..disinfo..etc..etc..connatations that have popped up in the here and is all up to the discerning individual now..use your mind in the best/instinctual way you can..concentrate.

Anonymous said...

@coletteonice - 2:18 PM
No hate? Look only on this site:

I'II cite (emphasis by me) and number:
"Frederick the Gay*(1)… was the typical right-wing*2) militarist*(3)"
"Militarism has been a significant element of the imperialist or expansionist ideologies ….
Prominent examples include … the KINGDOM OF PRUSSIA* (4)…"
"Frederick the Gay (5) has always been popular with right-wing, militaristic Germans (6), such as Hitler"
"In Frederick's Prussia, the death sentence was mandatory for sodomy* (7) ."
"Frederick used to relax with his friends at the Sans Soucci palace at Potsdam, WHICH HAD STATUES OF BEAUTIFUL BOYS** (8)."
"My dear Algarotti, my destiny has changed. I await you impatiently; don't let me LANGUISH (9) for you.
"Frederick the Gay (19) fought several bloody wars and doubled the size of his country*** (20)."

* = No
** = yes, but also nauhty heterosexual pictures (naked ladies); also a female(!) Sphinx - with corsage and Bra!!! See for Yourself: .
*** No, Frederick was neither "right-wing" nor a militarist (Bismarck was a militarist).
Where the Roman Senators and later the Caesars, Charles "the Great", Ashoka, The Swedish and Danish Kings & Queens, El Cid, Alexander "the Great", Katherine "the Great" (she murdered her husband, Peter III. In order to become a Tsaress herself!), the English Kings and Queens, Luis XIV. (he conquered the Alsace) Maria Therese (she butchered Poland and then even marched into Bavaria to annect it - Frederic stopped that, of course!) all "right-wing militarist(s)"?
By the Way: Frederick forced the ever land-greedy Habsburgers to hand out Silesia - because it belonged rightfully to Brandenburg-Prussia. See the "Erbverbrüderungsvertrag" between the Silesian Piasts and the Brandenburgers. Already the Great Grand marquee demanded Silesia from the Habsburgers. This distinguishes Frederick from all the above named monarchs and rulers!

Dear user coletteonice: 20 Insults on a little page!!! And not one(!) insult has a basis in reality. The latter of course is not even important for an insult. (Example: If a person is ugly my remark in that direction would be true, but it would be an insult anyway).


Kindness said...

J, Jews are educated to stick to tribal bonds.
Combined with supremacism, that's the basic problem.

Aangirfan often writes as if he was a homosexual or sympathiser.
He is not blind though, so he honestly exposes homosexual criminals.

You can learn much here, if you are interested.
Are you ?
If you think you know better, show it.
To shout (all caps) betrays insecurity,
to attack and demand from the host shows instability,
to label "had statues of beautiful boys." as an insult, ignorance.

Maybe you think you need to show how intelligent you are,
but that's not how you will get love.
To be honest, you strongly left the opposite impression.
Be humble and loving, it will serve you better.

Anonymous said...

I have to say that the comments were almost as educational as the article as they show the danger of not having a strong basis in history.

Just look at the difference between the article on Frederick and the commenters counter history. It makes a huge difference on the point of the story/article.

I ignored the commenters tone and simply gleaned the info to follow up on with respect to Frederick. If we do not verify this info about the leader and his reign, then we will be led down the path to destruction.

Thanks for having this open site to discussion. I have been on censored blogs and banned for speaking truth to power and compared to those I have been on, this is not anything compared to others. Its open and transparent. Thanks for this great discussion

History said...

Anonymous 1:49, you are right there are different sides to the leaders employed to rule.
Unfortunately there can not be a strong basis in history as the most important events are covered up and perverted with disinfo.

Caesar, Frederick, Napoleon, Hitler, Ben Ali, they have all been used to do good and bad things, they all had their more or less independent moments. Their upcoming "Antichrist" will be served doing good things too.

Anonymous said...

Yes, ... Hate (and Censorship)!
It is neither "love" nor "kind" to keep quiet and no0t to care, when others get defamed and slandered: "The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy." (Charles de Montesquieu).

And although I'm not a Christian myself it reminds me of the 8th commandment: … And, yes, it also was not "kind" of Jesus to throw over the tables of the bankers and moneychangers in the Temple. But - although not "kind" - it was not HATE …. It was LOVE. And quite a story of high actuality, isn't it?

And it is not "humble" at all to demand to teach(!) other people LOVE. It is better to LEARN from others (and from LIVE).

And than this: Who dishes out as much as only on this little site of the (otherwise: nice) blog, must not play offended, when some of he dishes come flying back.
"The way You shout into a wood - it will echo back".

For those who are interested here are some remarks of Frederick (not all, but most were originally spoken in French, which Fredrick preferred; and the translation is often of about 1900 or even before, so it's often not nowadays German). For a translation I'm too lazy. Perhaps you try Google-translate or bing-translate.

Why am I defending this Fredrick, who is dead for centuries now?
This is why: "HISTORY IS A VAST EARLY WARNING SYSTEM" (Norman Cousins)


History said...

So according to your quotes, Frederick was against hunters killing animals. But wanted his officers to become happy by killing people.
He was part of enlightenment and wanted schools, ignorant about the enslaving role they play.
He would have welcomed mass immigration and wanted aristocracy destroyed.
Lazy or not, Frederick was not in Berlin in July 1939.

Frederick devoted himself to building Prussia into a strong state and that meant both expansion and reform. When Frederick saw a chance to unify his kingdom geographically by taking over the Austrian province of Silesia, he quickly planned an invasion. This action went against an established treaty, but Frederick argued that agreements between nations became void when it was no longer beneficial to the state for them to exist.

Frederick built Prussia into one of the strongest nations in Europe and left a legacy of absolute devotion to the fatherland that continued to shape German history into the 20th century.
Nice ?
A very mixed legacy laced with mass murder.

Your story about a hungry priest killing a rabbit with a bible on Christmas evening is touching though and defending him with a special edict from laws against poachers shows Frederick's witty side.

Anonymous said...

@History - 12:16 AM

1.) Citation: "So according to your quotes, Frederick was against hunters killing animals. But wanted his officers to become happy by killing people".

Reply: He didn't want his officers "to become happy by killing people" - what do You found this absurd(!) insult on?? Quite to the contrary Frederick once said, that "soldiers are murderers".
He only defended his Prussian - not German(!) - country and its citizens.

(a) Above we hear from one user, that he thinks "Kindness" is LOVE. But "Kindness" is not LOVE. If You were a prince or princess in former times - or a rich or famous person nowadays - You were/are surrounded by lackeys. And they are always very "kind". And even if You cracked a joke that was not so funny, they would laugh aloud and acted as if they were very amused.
But as soon as You stop being a prince, princess, or being rich and famous, they will hate You or - at least - ignore You with a COLD Heard. Hear and read (lyrics are shown) "No Expectation":

Yes, Frederick was not a pacifist. He had an army. But everybody has and had an army. Why don't You scold Your Elisabeth II. for wanting her "officers to become happy by killing people"? What - even nowadays - do English soldiers to the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and so on and on and on!
Since William the CONQUERER(!!!!!) this England was a disgusting Empire of never ending conquering, mass murder and H A T E ! Even nowadays Northern Ireland is not given back to the Irish - instead, to this day, a lot of Irish patriots are still being tortured day by day!
But for user History and user Kindness this is perfectly o.k. Never would they say:' Lets confront those cruel leaders we have nowadays - and England had throughout it's whole history - by confronting them with this splendid HUMANISM, that Frederick taught all of us'!

Lets just assume at this moment, that Frederick had no right to take Silesia (he had of course - see later below). What would this little 'sin' be compared with those murderous crimes the English empire - or the French - produced all through history?
During all it's existence Prussia had not more than 9 wars (most started by Bismarck, who was a militarist indeed). At the same time England started 29(!) wars - and France (as far as I remember) 23(!) wars. And look at the Tsars and the Swedish and Danish Kings and Queens, or Alexander, Charles the Great and so on!

If You, user History or user Kindness. criticise - please start at home with Your disgusting English empire of HATE of the last 2000 years!

…. more later - my right-wing militaristic stomach knocks on the doors of my mind and yells: "You little sissy chatterers of the thinking-department - there is also duty in this world! Here are several billion of cells that NEED food - You assholes!"


Anonymous said...

PART II (Continuation from anonymous-j - 3:04 p.m)

Typing error: Of cause 1(!)000 Years - not "2000" (I don't blame the Romans here!)

(b) And now to the aggression against Frederick, because he was not a pacifist, but instead commanded a very apt army. "Apt" because it was not 'Fredrick the DESPOT's army' but the Prussian "Poeples army". If the Prussian people had not stood behind their "People's King" Fredrick would have lost emediately against this enomous front of enemies, who wanted to butcher Prussia as they later butchered Poland.

In the animal-world like in the human world a mother, that defends her kid against an aggressor will not seldom kill the aggressor. Now I hear You, user History and user Kindness, scream: She has no "Kindness"! She knows no LOVE! What a right-wing militarist this mother is!

But I simply can't follow You: To me a mother that simply steps aside, while it's child gets killed, may very well have "KINDNESS" - but she has no LOVE!
Also I suggest to user "History" and user "Kindness" to commit suicide right now. And why? Your body like mine is a very aggressive system. As soon as it gets the information that an "enemy" had entered, it declares war and it mobilises a mighty but also very cruel army (and a Navy and even something like an "Air Force" - even something like a 'science fiction' forces). Think of the "killer cells" (macrophages) and other diabolic 'soldiers'.
I think You, user "History", and You, user "Kindness" (strange nicks! But it's o.k.), should - at least once in Your lifetime - be consequent and: commit suicide - in order to get rid of You "right-wing", "militaristic" body, that does not know any KINDNESS -and, to Your own words, doesn't know LOVE!

(a) Citation: " When Frederick saw a chance to unify his kingdom geographically by taking over the Austrian province of Silesia, he quickly planned an invasion"

Reply: No - not the Prussians had invades Silesia - ist was the Habsburger (Aaustrians) who had invaded Silesia - although ist belonged not to Habsburg, but to the Polish-Silesian Piasts. Fredrick only LIBERATED Silesia.

Silesia belonged to Brandenburg-Prussia, because of the contract of the year 1537 between Duke Friedrich II. of Liegnitz und Grand Marquee Joachim II. of Brandenburg. The conract was called " Erbverbrüderung" (id est: 'brotherly heritage' contract').
According to this contract the three Silesian principalities (that made up practically all of Silesia) would fall to Brandenburg in the case of extinction of the Piast dynasty of Brandenburg. And Brandeburg would have gone to to the Silesian Piast in the case of the extinction of the Hohenzollern (Brandenburger) dynasty.
When in 1675 the Silesian Piast Dynasty extincted the (Brandenburger) Great Grand Marquee Elector demanded from the (Austrian) Habsburger to stop their occupation of Silesia and to hand ist over to Brandenburg.

… translated: .
See also "Thomas Goering SS 2010 ZUSAMMENFASSUNG ZUR GESCHICHTE OESTERREICHS UND PREUSSENS pdf" - beginning with page 26:
(copy the text and translate it with google or bing/Microsoft).

(Part III. will follow)


Anonymous said...

PART III + END (Continuation from anonymous-j - 8:35 PM)

So Frederick - or better: The Prussians - never "conquered" any land that did not belong to them (am waiting for the topic "Polish Division")!

More than that: In all of history you will not find one king, who more opposed this conquering (that nearly all of the kings, princes, dukes did) than Frederick THE GREAT!
(aa) He demanded that no one ever should call Alexander of Macedonia "The Great". And why: Frederick argued that Alexander not only produced an enormous bloodshed. But also he criticised that Alexander never looked upon the welfare of his own Macedonian people. And he also never cared for the welfare of the peoples of the conquered territories.
(bb) Also Fredric was disgusted by Cortez (who else was this in those days? NO ONE! And as a protest he (with a co-writer) wrote a little opera in favour of Montezuma: "FREDERICK THE GREAT AND MONTEZUMA" -
(cc) As soon as he had read Niccolò Machiavelli's book "The Prince", in which Machiavelli advises all Princes to conquer land and to subdue their citizens, Frederick laid his flute aside and wrote a little book, called "The Anti-Machiavelli" (Voltaire was asked to work it over).

(3) Now to some more small points:
(a) Citation: "… schools, ignorant about the enslaving role they play ".
Reply: Do You want to abolish all schools?

(b) Citation: " Lazy or not, Frederick was not in Berlin in July 1939".
Reply: ??? He was already dead for 160 years.
(aa) Berlin then was the German(!) capital - no more the Prussian. Although the right wingers then had to make a "putsch" against the Prussian State-prime-Minister Müller: .
This was because different to all other German federal states, citizens in the federal state of Prussia in 1932 voted for Social democrats and Communist - but not for Nazis:

(bb) Where were You, user History, in this London of 2002, 2003 and so on? British 'soldateska' invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria (and even before Milosevic's Federal Republic of Yugoslavia - today "Serbia")?
And Northern Ireland still is occupied!

(c) Citation: "Frederick devoted himself to building Prussia into a strong state and that meant both expansion and reform. This action went against an established treaty…".
Reply: No!
Fredric never broke an international treaty. The Austrian-Hungarian Despot Maria-Theresia broke(!) two transnational contracts!

(d) Citation: " Frederick … left a legacy of absolute devotion to the fatherland that continued to shape German history into the 20th century. Nice ?A very mixed legacy laced with mass murder".
Reply: No Fredric didn't consider himself "a German", as little as Sean Connery considers himself to be an Englishman.
Also Frederick refused to produce a "State"-ideology. This was, why, when he rode through Berlin because of some business, he bowed to the citizens on the right and on the left. For Fredric the "state" was just the sum of all citizens.
I wonder why You have exactly the same arguments as the Zionist Uri Avnery!
Avnery DARED(!) to compare Israel to Prussia with exactly Your arguments, user History:,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=65&cntnt01returnid=17 .

Disgusted I answered to this:


History said...

Now i understand, you are a fan ?
In hindsight, what was the advantage of killing thousands of Prussians in battles ?

"Frederick … left a legacy of absolute devotion to the fatherland that continued to shape German history into the 20th century."
j: "No Fredric didn't consider himself a German"
You don't think he left a legacy with which Germans identify, rightly seeing themselves as heirs ?
Were the Hohenzollern, Frederick's dynasty and founders of his powerful army, Germans, heirs of the crusaders, Teutonic Knights' invasion of Old Prussia in 1308 ?
Did he try to revive the western Balts' (350 BC Guttones) Old Prussia (Lithuania, Poland) ?
Did he try to revive their language too ?

If Frederick was right to invade Silesia, i guess his invasion of Lithuanian Poland, cutting it off from access to the sea, levying crippling tariffs, was good too ? I'm asking because i don't know what happened.
What was the Prussian name for Krolewiec ?
If it was discovered that Sweden belonged to the ancestors of the Balts, would it be right to invade it now ?

If he defined himself as the first servant of the state, and ruled with absolute power, was he deceptive at the core ? Or did he really receive orders from the state ?
If he declared that state income should be used to benefit the citizens only, how did he get all the money for his palace ?

"Meine Offiziere brauchen nicht verheiratet zu sein; sie sollen ihr Glück nicht durch die Scheide, sondern durch den Säbel machen."
When did he say that, what is the source ?
Did he thus want his officers to become happy by killing people ?

j: "Citation: " Lazy or not, Frederick was not in Berlin in July 1939".
Reply: ??? He was already dead for 160 years."
Yes. Did you read the quotes you assembled ?

To me it looks like Frederick had lots of good intentions but was torn between his horrible education and mistreatment by his emotionally absent father, his homosexuality, the deceptions of "enlightenment" and masonic wars engulfing the continent.

Anonymous said...

@History - 2:12 AM

(a) Citation: " In hindsight, what was the advantage of killing thousands of Prussians in battles?"

Reply: In the first Silesian war nearly no Prussians at all died.
Only after three SUPERPOWERS decided to destroy Prussia in the following 7-years-war - so many Prussian died. And also so many Germans: Nearly all German states fought against(!) Prussia - so German always were ENEMIES of Prussia). And also so many Austrians and Hungarians died, and also so many French.

But You, user History, blame Fredrick for the deads of the 7-year-war - a war Frederick never wanted and that he had tried to prevent! The reason for Your demonic blame is HATE!

(b) Citation: " Now I understand, you are a fan?"
No. I replied because I'm a REAL HUMAN ("Mensch") - just a Frederick was.
And I turned against Your HATE and that of other users - and especially of aangirfan. Because with the HATE and this SMEARING you don't mean Frederick (he is dead now for several centuries) - You mean us REAL HUMANS (MENSCHEN)!

And this is also the reason why I answered - not because of dead Fredrick - but because I defend my kind, the REAL HUMANs against the wolfish HATE of Your kind. John Lennon was not right: 'HUMANS(!) are the nigger of the world' (except may be for the animals)!

You, user History, and most of Your kind hate us REAL HUMANS because we know LOVE and FAIRNESS.
And this aangirfan, that pretends to unveil lies - would NEVER EVER raise this topic! Because this smearing of Frederick shows all to well that the aangifan-crew hates us MENSCHEN!

And, yes, Frederick the MENSCH wouldn't have even the faintest idea, what I am talking about. Because he, like nearly everybody of my 'tribal' sisters and brothers sleep (remember the film title "They live - we sleep"?).
But You, user History, You, user "Kindness", and You, aangirfan-staff, know perfectly well what I mean!


Site Meter