# The Secret War Against Germania and its Historical Roots (part 3)



## dreamtime (Sep 26, 2020)

Read part 1 here and part 2 here

*The Thirty Year's War*




Rubens - Consequences of War​
Officially, the Thirty Year's War (1618-1648) was a religious war between Catholic and Protestant parties, but it later grew into a territorial war in Central Europe and was largely fought on German soil.

"On the one hand, the conflict was a religious war between the Catholic League and the Protestant Union and, at the same time, a struggle for supremacy in the Holy Roman Empire between the Habsburg Emperor and several sovereigns in the interior and between the Empire and European opponents such as France, Denmark and Sweden in the exterior. Although religious antagonisms lost more and more weight, especially at the end of the war, the Reformation that began in 1517 and the accompanying separation of the Protestants from the Catholic Church was one of the most important reasons for the war that later broke out" - Der Dreißigjährige Krieg​
However, the official interpretation does not explain many obvious contradictions. Why did Germany in particular have to be the center for this war, which caused one third of the German population to lose their lives in famines and bloody battles and devastated the country for decades? Why was the civilian population so much involved in the war? Why, according to official history, were half of all buildings in Germany destroyed during the Thirty Year's War? What kind of destructive force had to be unleashed in order to lay an entire country in ruins with the technology of the 17th century? Are we talking about a war with high-tech weapons or about a cataclysm involving earthquakes and floods?

This is how people at the time viewed the Thirty Years' War:

"Contemporaries interpreted the war as God's punishment. In late autumn 1618, a huge comet stood in the evening sky. God had announced that he would punish the people for their many sins. These counted one and one together: The war in Bohemia had begun, the climatic change of the Little Ice Age had repeatedly led to famine crises since 1560, and a hyperinflation began around 1620. The simultaneity of war, inflation and disease or death referred to the Revelation of John: "The horsemen of the Apocalypse got released; the Last Judgement and the end of the world could hardly be stopped. - From "Interpretations of the Thirty Years War. Myth, Legends and Insights"​
The official picture of the Thirty Year's War stands on shaky legs, even mainstream research has now come to the point of questioning the old sources. There are no credible original sources on the subject:

"But for some years now, the horror reports from the Thirty Years' War have been undergoing a sharp revision. Friedrich Schiller's description of the downfall of the city of Magdeburg is just as untrue as the description of the Battle of Wittstock by Johann Jakob Christoffel von Grimmelshausen is authentic. His "Abentheuerliche Simplicissimus Teutsch" was long thought to be the autobiography of its creator and thus one of the few true sources of the time. Grimmelshausen's description of the battle, of all things, much quoted as a vivid document of brutalization, is not based on his own experience and is the result of artistic source processing." - „Der Kopf war zerschmettert, das Gehirn zerspritzt“ ​
I doubt that we know much about the Thirty Years' War, except that anything happened that later got the name Thirty Years' War.

A sound interpretation of the Thirty Year's War would begin by taking seriously the fear of the people who were waiting for God's judgment. This means that we must think in categories such as catastrophes, floods, earthquakes, robberies and political power struggles. What has survived in our history is only a strongly distorted picture of the last and most insignificant part of the most important event of the 17th century: the religious-political power struggles between Protestants and Catholics.

The historian Edwin Johnson claims that the Bible was written by both Catholics and Lutherans (Protestants), which explains the obvious Protestant influence of parts of the Bible. The Bible is the result of the greatest cultural clash of the 17th and possibly 18th centuries in Central Europe.

The Napoleonic Wars were the final chapter of this traumatic conflict. After 1815, this conflict led to a process of political renewal in Europe. One possible area of future research is the question whether Napoleon is a complete fabrication by the history controllers to hide a natural cataclysm or high-tech war during that time. There is zero archeological evidence of the Napoleonic Wars.

The so-called "Wars of Reformation" also laid the foundation for the destruction of the original Greater German Empire, when the Vatican killed a large part of the German population and destroyed Protestant Germany. The papacy and Catholicism entered the German cultural area from Italy via southern Germany, which is also the reason why the south of Germany is still Catholic today, while the north is predominantly Protestant. Here were the battle lines between the Jesuit Vatican and Protestant Germany. And this conflict was still active when Bismarck led Prussia into the bitter cultural struggle ("Kulturkampf") against the Catholic Church. The annihilation and fragmentation of Protestant Germany led to a failed resistance movement, which historians today refer to as the pan-Germanic (all-German) movement. The two world wars were the final step in eliminating the once great German spirit.


*The Reformation Lie



*
Sack of Magdeburg - The Magdeburg maidens, 1866 painting by E. Steinbrück​The Reformation did not happen in the way we are led to believe - in reality it happened the other way round, i.e. the Catholics were the Reformers (the other group were the Protestants who protested against the Catholic changes to the Holy Scriptures; the meaning is in the name).

The Bible did not exist before the time of the so-called Reformation. It is a product of the early 17th century and was compiled shortly after the height of the Reformation wars, which was probably the time of the Thirty Years' War.

Uwe Topper summarizes the discoveries by chronology critic Edwin Johnson:

The Christian Church originated in the Benedictine monasteries of France (Paris and Lyon) around 1500, the Catholic Church Fathers were written by incompetent monks, and the New Testament was born as a result of these forgeries. There are no older texts, and the content shows the time: the beginning of the printing press...​​It follows from Johnson that the "Protestants" or "Reformed" were a monastic movement, which can be described as a late form of Original Christianity, perhaps two generations after the emergence of Christianity itself, which for Johnson cannot have been before the middle of the "15th century" (whenever the 15th century really was). The Catholic Church came into being only as a counter-movement to it, on the Tridentinum. Here stood the "Round Table", which Johnson uses as a term for the "Great Forgery Event".​​As the earliest date for trustworthy news from the time of the reawakening of the sciences, the time of the printing press, Johnson mentions the year 1533, although he expresses doubt about his claim, because he does not know exactly when this year is. He also knows the monasteries of the forgery operation: Monte Cassino and Bobbio, Fulda, St. Irenaeus of Lyon, St. Dénis and St. Germains of Paris, even knows some of the actors (the notorious Abbot Tritheim was of course one of them), and does not spare admiration for this achievement, though he does not hide the fact that he considers lies of this magnitude unworthy of our culture, just as he strongly condemns the continuation of these lies by contemporary scholars (p. 91-92). If Johnson's conclusions are correct - and I see no way to refute them - then our entire written literature and literary culture does not begin until 1460 (if the recalculated date is correct, he says).​​But our precious first prints often carry no dates or are arbitrarily dated, usually well in advance. We do not know how old they are. Many manuscripts - especially the bible texts - are made later, according to printing templates. The work was by no means completed around 1570, but continued throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries with undiminished vigor. In this context, Tischendorf's name, which I have just described as the maker of Codex Sinaiticus, is also mentioned (2001, ch. VIII)".​
In my opinion, the Wars of Reformation were the last great bloody conflict between the powers of light and darkness - and darkness won.

After they had eliminated the free German people, Catholics compiled the Bible as the most important documents from the previously freely circulating books, but they changed essential elements.

The reason why truth can still be found in the Bible is that the forgers did not have much time, as they had to quickly create a propaganda version of the scriptures to indoctrinate the masses. And, more importantly, they (the papal Catholics) also had to add true elements to convince people that they were representing the only true religion.

The protest against the Vatican united all of Europe and was decentralized in nature. There were never "Protestants" (in the sense of a kind of religion), except that various groups of Gnostics and Heretics were united in their will to fight against the institution of the Church in Rome. These religious wars were so bloody because religion was still very young. These so-called Reformation wars were the real, original conflict between free Christians and institutionalized Christianity, and they were so bloody because the knowledge of Jesus and other Bible material was still so fresh historically. People knew their history, they were still connected to the things we can read about in the Bible because it was their own history.

So in truth there had been no reformation at all, because there was nothing to reform. What we know today as the Reformation is only the very last part of this whole cultural process, when the church had already wiped out the original resistance and the survivors slowly started a modern reformation of the church, but that was long after the Thirty-Years War.

To be continued:

Part 1: The Forgery Operation of the Jesuit Vatican
Part 2: The Forgery of Ancient Germanic History
_Part 3: The 30-Years War and the Reformation Lie_
Part 4: Vatican, Fascism, Hanseatic League, Germania Magna
Part 5: Genetic Heritage, Collective Amnesia, From Past to Present


----------



## Felix Noille (Sep 27, 2020)

dreamtime said:


> "artistic source processing"



I have to remember that one 

Great stuff, very thought provoking.


----------



## codis (Sep 29, 2020)

dreamtime said:


> Grimmelshausen's description of the battle, of all things, much quoted as a vivid document of brutalization, is not based on his own experience and is the result of artistic source processing." - „Der Kopf war zerschmettert, das Gehirn zerspritzt“


Maybe I comment on the rest of th article later, but the "Die Welt" newspaper is everything but a trustworthy source IMHO.
Published by the (in)famous Axel Springer house that was founded by the post-WWII Allied occupation forces, it should be clear what their agenda is. And both the names Springer and Rosenfeld (current chief editor) tell me the same story.
Just saying.


----------



## dreamtime (Sep 29, 2020)

codis said:


> dreamtime said:
> 
> 
> > Grimmelshausen's description of the battle, of all things, much quoted as a vivid document of brutalization, is not based on his own experience and is the result of artistic source processing." - „Der Kopf war zerschmettert, das Gehirn zerspritzt“
> ...



The writings by Grimmelshausen are fictional and written like a novel. The media itself isn't trustworthy, that's true, but the article itself is a good overview of the history revision going on in academia in relation to the Thirty-Years War.


----------



## codis (Sep 29, 2020)

dreamtime said:


> The writings by Grimmelshausen are fictional and written like a novel.


I had been reading Grimmelshausen, or at least part of it - some decades ago. I think I fell asleep before the graphic parts ...
Anyway, people knowing me from SH V1.0 might remember me citing Formenko occasionally.
I still think large parts of officially accepted history is a fictional novel as well. Except with plenty of cross-referencing, quotations, excuses, and contradictions to make it more plausible and human.


----------



## TatarKhan (Sep 29, 2020)

I read a lot about the second German Empire (alias the "Deutsches Kaiserreich") and the role Bismarck (minister president of Prussia 1862–1890, chancellor of the North German Confederation 1867–1871, chancellor of a unified Germany 1867–1871).
The theory is that Bismarck (usually described as a master/genius) deliberately planned the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, which lead to a death toll of 1,000,000 french soldiers (compared to 144,000 German casualties). The scope of this war was the unification of Germany (which at that time was cut into different, competing administrations (so called Kleinstaaten, meaning small-statery).

Wikipedia Quote:
_"Historians debate whether Otto von Bismarck—Minister President of Prussia—had a master plan to expand the North German Confederation of 1866 to include the remaining independent German states into a single entity or simply to expand the power of the Kingdom of Prussia. They conclude that factors in addition to the strength of Bismarck's Realpolitik led a collection of early modern polities to reorganize political, economic, military, and diplomatic relationships in the 19th century."_

Quote about the second French Empire (under Napoleon III.):
_"Ultramontane__ Catholicism, emphasising the necessity for close links to the Pope at the Vatican played a pivotal role in the democratisation of culture. The pamphlet campaign led by Mgr Gaston de Ségur at the height of the Italian question in February 1860 made the most of the freedom of expression enjoyed by the Catholic Church in France. The goal was to mobilise Catholic opinion, and encourage the government to be more favourable to the Pope. (...) The Second Empire strongly favoured Catholicism, the official state religion. (...) Catholic bureaucrats both misunderstood Protestant doctrine and were biased against it."_
Source: Wikipedia

Quote about Bismarck's Kulturkampf (culture fight):
_"Bismarck launched an anti-Catholic Kulturkampf ("culture struggle") in Prussia in 1871. This was partly motivated by Bismarck's fear that Pius IX and his successors would use papal infallibility to achieve the "papal desire for international political hegemony.... The result was the Kulturkampf, which, with its largely Prussian measures, complemented by similar actions in several other German states, sought to curb the clerical danger by legislation restricting the Catholic church's political power.""_
Source: Wikipedia

Picture about Bismarck "battling" the Pope:

Source: Wikimedia

Translation: 
[Pope] "The last move was certainly very unpleasant for me; but that doesn't yet mean the game is lost. I have one more very fine move up my sleeve!"
[Bismarck] "It will also be the last, and then you are mated in a few moves - at least for Germany."

Perhaps Bismarck was the one trying to turn the tables on the Catholic forces which caused the destruction of the First German Empire.

P.S. before someone says "why are you only quoting wikipedia?", the view of Bismarck fighting against the Catholic/French powers in Europe is pretty much mainstream. A few books I can recommend for the interested reader are: "The Habsburgs: To Rule The World" and "Bismarck and the Foundation of German Empire".


----------



## codis (Sep 29, 2020)

Didn't research Bismarck much, but the Vatican played an important (and infamous) role a few decades later.
As some might know or remember, the German elections in 1933 ended basically in a stalemate between the left socialists (communists) and the right socialists (NSDAP). Third strongest was the catholic Centrumspartei, which had announced its aversion against Hitler and the NSDAP openly.
What is less known, the party leader Ludwig Kaas was gay, and had an "affair" with Eugenio Pacelli - the latter being the vatican's nuntius in Germany. It was him who flipped Kaas and his party, and brought Hitler to power. With the "Reichskonkordat" as demanded reward.


----------



## TatarKhan (Sep 29, 2020)

codis said:


> Didn't research Bismarck much, but the Vatican played an important (and infamous) role a few decades later.
> As some might know or remember, the German elections in 1933 ended basically in a stalemate between the left socialists (communists) and the right socialists (NSDAP). Third strongest was the catholic Centrumspartei, which had announced its aversion against Hitler and the NSDAP openly.
> What is less known, the party leader Ludwig Kaas was gay, and had an "affair" with Eugenio Pacelli - the latter being the vatican's nuntius in Germany. It was him who flipped Kaas and his party, and brought Hitler to power. With the "Reichskonkordat" as demanded reward.



Certainly interesting. 

Perhaps to add for newbies: The NSDAP ("Nazi Party") was in no terms "socialist" and certainly not "Marxist". Parties/organizations at that time gave themselves this designation to seem more "volksnah" (from the common people/worker). The party ideology itself followed a economic system based on capitalist and syndicalist beliefs, in which loyality to the party was the key to economic success. 

They themselves never called the Soviets "socialist", but used more distancing terms like "Internationaler Bolschewismus" or "Marxismus". To call the Soviets (which were real socialist followers, at least in the image of late Lenin) "socialist" would have discredited the nazis and the propaganda against another "socialist" country would have been way less effective. To call the nazis "right socialist" is wrong from the view of a contemporary historian, real right-wing socialists can be found in Russia (see "Nazbols" or "Alexander Dugin").

But @codis probably knows as a "Österreicher"


----------



## codis (Sep 29, 2020)

TatarKhan said:


> To call the nazis "right socialist" is wrong from the view of a contemporary historian, real right-wing socialists can be found in Russia (see "Nazbols" or "Alexander Dugin").


I used this term just for differentiation. Thinking of it, "Nation Socialists" and "Inter-National Socialists" is a much better match.
The Nazis (e.g. Göbbels) are on record calling themselves prouldly "left" and "socialist".
But you are correct, the almost-equally socialist Soviets were called "Bolshevist".
Just like the socialist East German (GDR) term for Nazis was "fascists". The term "socialist" was taboo in this context, even the the full name of the NSDAP. I grew up there, and I can assurel you, not only the military uniforms and steel helmets were Nazi copies.


----------



## TatarKhan (Sep 29, 2020)

codis said:


> TatarKhan said:
> 
> 
> > To call the nazis "right socialist" is wrong from the view of a contemporary historian, real right-wing socialists can be found in Russia (see "Nazbols" or "Alexander Dugin").
> ...



There more I think about the term "socialist", the more I disagree.
The word "socialist" for Nazis was merely a front to show themselves in support of the common people. Socialism itself is defined as "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole" (see Google wiki). Economic principles based on party loyalty, a state-controlled - but still capitalist - system and perceived "Germanness" is not in line with socialist ideas and ideals, f.e. Lenin propagated a socialism of different ethnicities who should have been equal (in theory, in praxis if you disagreed with anything you landed in the gulags).

The real socialist wing of the NSDAP left the party around the 1930s, I quote:
_"Am 4. Juli [1930/JL] verkündeten daraufhin Otto Strassers Zeitungen: "Die Sozialisten verlassen die NSDAP!" Aber kaum jemand folgte ihm, die Partei *besaß*, so stellte sich heraus, *fast keine Sozialisten* und überhaupt kaum Menschen, die ihr politisches Verhalten theoretisch gedeutet wissen wollten. (...) Das Ausscheiden Otto Strassers beendete nicht nur ein für allemal den sozialistischen Grundsatzstreit in der NSDAP, es bedeutete auch einen erheblichen Machtverlust für Gregor Strasser, der seither keine Hausmacht und keine Zeitung mehr besaß."_

My translation: _"On the Fourth of Juli [1930] the newspapers of Otto Strasser proclaimed: "The socialists are leaving the NSDAP!" But not many followed him, it was realized that the party itself almost *didn't have any socialists* and at all people, who wanted their political behaviours to be theoretically interpreted. (...) The resignation of Otto Strasser didn't just end the fundamental socialistic dispute in the NSDAP, but also caused a fundamental loss of power for Gregor Strasser who lost his power base and the newspapers."_

Another quote: _"1930 hat Hitler durch die Entmachtung der Strasserianer verdeutlicht, dass er keineswegs die Absicht hatte, nach der Machtergreifung sozialistische Politik zu verwirklichen. Hitler war weder antikapitalistisch noch sozialistisch eingestellt, und da Hitler in der Partei das *faschistische Führerprinzip* durchgesetzt hatte, galt diese politische Positionsbestimmung auch für die NSDAP. Die Absage an den Sozialismus hatte *Hitler schon zwei Jahre vorher* festschreiben lassen."_

My translation: _"Hitler signalised 1930 through the power loss of the Strasserianers (followers of Strasser) that he didn't have the intention to make socialist politics after the power grab (which followed in 1933). Hitler was neither anti-capitalist nor socialist, and because Hitler imposed the *fascist "Führer" principle* this political position did also applied to the NSDAP. The refusal of socialism was *written down by Hitler two years prior*."_

Source: Holocaust references
Additional sources: BR Faktencheck

Göbbels proclaming himself a socialist is pretty much nazi propaganda at its height.

*Long story short:* The term socialism was a propaganda tool of a party who didn't have socialist ideas, the designation of nazis as socialist (in any meaning) is just wrong. Fascism as a political designation came into being in the 1920s and developed itself in the term we know today. For example there are historians who claim that Stalin didn't have a clear idea what Hitler's ideology was, therefore the attack on the Soviet Union in 1941 came totally unexpected.


----------



## dreamtime (Sep 29, 2020)

codis said:


> Didn't research Bismarck much, but the Vatican played an important (and infamous) role a few decades later.
> As some might know or remember, the German elections in 1933 ended basically in a stalemate between the left socialists (communists) and the right socialists (NSDAP). Third strongest was the catholic Centrumspartei, which had announced its aversion against Hitler and the NSDAP openly.
> What is less known, the party leader Ludwig Kaas was gay, and had an "affair" with Eugenio Pacelli - the latter being the vatican's nuntius in Germany. It was him who flipped Kaas and his party, and brought Hitler to power. With the "Reichskonkordat" as demanded reward.



Interesting that you mention Kaas, Pacelli and the Reichskonkordat. This will actually be discussed in part 4. Or you can watch the german video already:

​


----------



## codis (Sep 29, 2020)

I did expect that. That's why I kept it short, and provided no links.


----------



## EUAFU (Oct 1, 2020)

Sorry, but this is all just fiction there is no proof of anything alleged in this post. Historical sources such as old paintings, tales, folklore show well when Protestantism was born and about the Thirty Years War it is historically well documented.

It is logical about wars that there will always be lies on all sides and artistic reinterpretation. This is normal.

This wave of "Catholics did this, did that" is just blind hatred and does not help anyone to discover the truth. Everything was the Catholics, the Jesuits, the monks who worked together to change history. Now aiming at what? Nobody says.

Judging by what they attribute to Catholics, one might well say that the Catholic elite is the illuminatis-reptilians-aliens-gods-magicians-Freemasons.

Well, in another forum, Wild Heretic, (very good by the way) a user said that the 10 largest countries in the world (in territorial extent) are controlled by Catholics.

I find all of these claims very exaggerated.


----------



## SuperTrouper (Oct 1, 2020)

EUAFU said:


> Sorry, but this is all just fiction there is no proof of anything alleged in this post. Historical sources such as old paintings, tales, folklore show well when Protestantism was born and about the Thirty Years War it is historically well documented.
> 
> It is logical about wars that there will always be lies on all sides and artistic reinterpretation. This is normal.
> 
> ...



I just hope that - whatever narrative prevails - groups of people find ways to forgive each other and move on in an evolved and dignified way, without victimisation and finger-pointing.


----------



## dreamtime (Oct 1, 2020)

EUAFU said:


> Judging by what they attribute to Catholics, one might well say that the Catholic elite is the illuminatis-reptilians-aliens-gods-magicians-Freemasons.



Is this mutually exclusive? There are many layers.


----------



## omnisapien (Oct 4, 2020)

Excellent work. I very much look forward to reading your next two articles, Parts 4 & 5.


----------



## _harris (Oct 6, 2020)

dreamtime said:


> The Bible did not exist before the time of the so-called Reformation. It is a product of the early 17th century and was compiled shortly after the height of the Reformation wars"


I guess that's supposed to say 16thC?
crazy that there's not a book called "the Bible" older than that!
and the other "ancient" versions are simply dated by their writing?! hmmm

and to look at these manuscripts, even at a glance; some of them don't look so old, compared to the condition of some "not-so-old" texts. also, some of them look remarkably similar, when supposed to have been written centuries apart, in different places.. just copies perhaps?)
and the dubious "unknown" origins of all these texts, then they suddenly turn up 500-1000 years later in important Mediterranean/ european cities?

this article, although short is certainly interesting!
"This practice of enlarging and "outsetting" the first letter of a line *completely is a later practice*, and can help date the manuscript, providing a "no earlier than" cut-off point for this and similar texts."
it's a shame he stops there with that concept.. unless i'm completely missing something?!

one thing is, there are many other languages, and other versions of the scriptures, and that idea doesn't seem to take into account the Torah or Qu'ran. i'm definitely having look into those now!

	Post automatically merged: Oct 6, 2020

[ps- loving these threads, it's great to see all this information tied together, and very detailed! thank you  ]


----------



## dreamtime (Oct 6, 2020)

_harris said:


> I guess that's supposed to say 16thC?



I think it's more like 17th Century. I place everything reformation between 1618 and 1648. The story about it dating back to 1500 I think doesn't make sense.


----------



## Worsaae (Oct 7, 2020)

I have some old danish letters from 1490 and shortly after 1500 where the bible is mentioned. "Bibliæ"
"Bible" is also present in old dictionaries from before the 17th century. 

I don't want to take anything away from your series because it is a brilliant piece of work. I felt compelled to register and to write this message, however.


----------



## luddite (Oct 8, 2020)

Well thought through thread and I can't wait for the final addition. 




TatarKhan said:


> Picture about Bismarck "battling" the Pope:
> 
> Source: Wikimedia


This pope has a distinctive big honkers going on there!


----------



## davtash (Oct 8, 2020)

what a great thread one of the best thank you


----------



## _harris (Oct 9, 2020)

dreamtime said:


> I think it's more like 17th Century. I place everything reformation between 1618 and 1648. The story about it dating back to 1500 I think doesn't make sense.


surely Martin Luther was early 16thC though?! which goes with the early bible publication dates, and the KJV came out mid 16thC
I can completely imagine the 30yr war between those dates could be something other than a war, but it was only really a small part of a turmoil that went on for 200+ years... or has the turmoil been going on since much earlier, and ever even stopped since then?!


----------



## dreamtime (Oct 9, 2020)

_harris said:


> surely Martin Luther was early 16thC though?! which goes with the early bible publication dates, and the KJV came out mid 16thC



why should Luther be a real person? I bet they have invented him to explain the origins of Protestantism.


----------

