News for the garbage dump

 

What more is there to say about this country we live in? The more it “changes,” the more it stays the same. Another poll tells us that one-in-three Americans believe that Biden could only have won the election by “fraud.” There is no accounting for national insanity, so why fight it? I have my movie collection to keep me company, and it is my intention going forward to review some films I don’t think hardly anyone has seen, but I think have something “important” to say.

But here are some parting shots at the “real” world gone unreal, and there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot that can be done about, especial when power and who has it uppermost in some people’s minds. You would think, for starters, that people would at least pretend that they want to “get along” with people who look different than they are, instead assuming that they are of a different “species.” But since that is unlikely to ever happen, we can start reducing the power of those insular of mind by passing an amendment to abolish the Electoral College, which would go a long way to reducing the “confusion” about what a majority of the country doesn’t want.

Why the Electoral College was instituted in the first place is hard to fathom. It seems to be based on the same theory of how the U.S. Senate is composed, where a state of 1 million that elects a fascist governor (South Dakota) has the same “say” as a state with 40 million (California). The framers of the Constitution had to come up with some idea of where the College vote would come from so that it would be “fair” to small states, so in lieu of any better idea they just decided to add the number of both the Senate and House of Representatives together.  Perhaps “reforming” the College can be done by removing the 100 votes accounted for by the U.S. Senate, which would subtract 2 votes from each state, supposedly leaving just the House which is supposedly based on population.

But that still wouldn’t work because the winner-take-all method would still disenfranchise the huge numbers of Democratic voters in states like Texas and Florida. The Brookings Institute calls the Electoral College a “ticking time bomb,” and for good reason; because they refuse to adapt to changing demographics in this country, Republican-controlled states are seeking ways to suppress votes just enough to maintain control of their electoral votes. The ways this is done is not always in plain sight. Take for instance the “patricians” maintaining control over the “plebes” by feeding into their various paranoid and mostly false fears of the “others,” which is behind Tennessee billionaire Willis Johnson's efforts to find a Trumpist governor, Kristi Noem of South Dakota, who was willing to accept funds to pay for 50 National Guard troops from her state to the border, because it is a “national emergency.” Noem never thought the pandemic or people in her state dying was an emergency, but if she can prove her Trumpist “cred” by not having to explain why she would otherwise be using state funds to send troops who probably have no desire at all to go to the border to run after children, then so be it.

Of course, for Republicans the real “national emergency” is losing power, because some of these children could become voters in the future; we’ve heard the story since Barack Obama was elected in 2008 that the Republican Party is "dead," but that was dependent on the capricious white vote, which tends to devolve depending how one happens to be feeling on a certain day. Today and in the future, the “enemy” is the non-white voters, and the current gravest “threat” is presented by Latino voters that threaten to flip Texas at some point in the future. Of course, if these border crossers were Europeans and not children who are being sent to live with relatives, this country would not only look the other way, but be more amenable to immigration “reform.” We saw this back in 1929, when millions of mostly Italians illegally entered the country after the 1924 immigration law, and Congress passed an “amnesty law” for European illegals that remained in effect for 20 years. In a way we are already there, with so-called Russian “birth tourism” in the “Little Russias” around the country, especially in Florida, receiving no media or ICE attention.

Meanwhile, Republicans continue to embarrass themselves with the Arizona recount, which is utilizing conspiracy-promoting incompetents from the ridiculously-named Cyber Ninjas, who were picked because they “promised” to find “fraud”—and because they made no pretense of being “nonpartisan,” the “Ninjas” will only find themselves accused of “fraud” regardless of what they report.  What brought this nonsense about was Trump and his fellow fanatics believing that the only way they could have lost the election with 74 million votes was because of “fraud,’ but naturally they don’t want to admit that their inflated vote count derived from the same pandemic rules that Democratic voters benefited from. Marjorie Taylor Greene is accusing attempts to preserve the right to vote a “communist plot,” but she need not get too bug-eyed over votes: it will likely be decades before we see the vote count as high as we did in 2020, and by then we may see a level of Republican election cheating so egregious that abolishing the Electoral College may become something more than what is merely talked about.

Today, the state of Washington lifted nearly all COVID-19 restrictions, although allowing businesses that choose to require masks indoors. Nevertheless, the CDC is reporting that as of June 19, some central states like Colorado and Nebraska already have seen almost 50 percent of their current virus cases being the new, and more dangerous, Delta strain, and will likely find a “home” in southern states soon. The strain was imported from India, and likely there because of that country’s belief that by allowing the original strains to run rampant, killing many unreported millions, would lead to “herd immunity.” But instead of the virus simply “going away” because most people were “immune,” it simply continued on its way to thrive and “improve” its survivability through mutation.

The CDC is warning people that the Delta variant could result in significant spikes in cases where vaccination rates are low, and where people pretend that the everything is back to “normal”; a walk along the pier yesterday tells me that the “tourists” think it is, since I only saw about a dozen people wearing masks. If we refuse to take warning from what happened in India, then what is happening in Russia should give one pause; the independent Moscow Times is reporting that in regard to the Delta variant, “what we did before just isn’t working.” Just this past Saturday in Moscow alone, over 9,000 new cases were reported over a 24-hour period, and total deaths in Russia have surpassed the UK for the most in a European country. Incredibly, only 13 percent of the people in Russia have been vaccinated. Moscow’s mayor admits that it is the same story again all over again, but this time the “explosive” growth in new cases will have “severe consequences.”

The Moscow Times reports that a leading physician dealing with the COVID-19, Denis Protsenko,  claims that new patients with the Delta variant “are not responding to previously effective treatments.” Meanwhile in the UK, many blame the major uptick in cases on the Boris Johnson government’s delay in restricting travel from India for “diplomatic” reasons. Despite 20,000 new cases a day in recent weeks, Johnson still intends to lift all restrictions on July 19, and many countries are now banning travel from the UK because of this lax attitude to the new, more infectious variant that current vaccines offer less protection from. And in Brazil, its neo-fascist president continues to preside over a pandemic response that threatens to surpass the U.S. in the “official” death count by country, although India is clearly the “unofficial” leader for that dubious “honor.”

What else? Hypocrisy, what else? We are learning that Texas and other Republican-dominated states are interfering with California’s assault weapons restrictions, with the intention of urging the U.S. Supreme Court to ban such restrictions. This is just another example of the high hypocrisy of the right. These so-called “state’s rights” advocates who claim that the federal government should not interfere in how a state is governed, especially in voting and gun rights, are denying a “state’s right” to make its own laws.  But shouldn’t the federal government have a “right” to insure that voting to federal offices is free and fair, and just because a state swings to the left ideologically doesn’t mean it has fewer rights to determine its laws than some far-right fascist regime in another state?

Last week, Joe Biden won a “victory” of sorts when 10 Republican Senators agreed to a compromise infrastructure plan that is considerably less than his initial proposal but more than the nothing burger that Mitch McConnell was “proposing.” Naturally there is the snag about how it will be paid for; Republicans insist that the 40 percent cut in corporate taxes that hasn’t been used for job creation or raising hourly wages will not be touched.  Hilariously, the plan will push the IRS to “force” the rich to pay what they owe (uh-huh), and will redirect “unused” state and local pandemic relief funds—again assuming that we don’t see another “surge” in cases due to the Delta variant.

It’s a total joke, and Biden didn’t do himself any favors by nearly throwing that half-glass away with the help of Nancy Pelosi, both of them asserting that they will not back the plan unless another, much more expensive spending bill is passed. This didn’t sit well with Republicans who “in good faith” negotiated the infrastructure plan. You would think that having won one “victory” with some Republican support, Biden and Pelosi would understand what it takes to work with “moderate” Republicans who are trying to step outside the control of Trump, and such “baby steps” may be what it takes. Of course the Democrats could still pass their bills with budget reconciliation, depending on how Sen. Joe Manchin is feeling, but there is no point in looking too greedy when you don’t have to be.

Even if pandemic restrictions are winding down, that doesn’t mean that its effects are over. The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily extended the CDC’s moratorium on evictions on rental housing units until the end of July. With the unemployment rate still at 5.8 percent and millions of people behind in their rent payments, everywhere in the country they are talking about a “tsunami” of evictions, 82,000 in the Seattle metropolitan area alone. Naturally there are many states—naturally of the Republican variety—that can’t wait to kick all these people out on the street, having already made it extremely difficult to obtain state and federal rental assistance. One must remember that back rent hasn’t been “forgiven”—once the moratorium ends, renters must pay their back rent, and that is certainly an impossibility for many, especially those who were out of work for a long time. There will likely be some blue state governments that may step in with money to keep the homeless problem from getting any more a public headache than it already is.

I might as well throw in something about the Aaron Rodgers situation. Conor Orr of Sports Illustrated “speculated” about how many Super Bowls Tom Brady and Rodgers would have won had they switched teams. That is a fool’s errand. You can have all the “natural” talent in the world, but it doesn’t matter if you are a head case who doesn’t have the motivation or the will to be the kind of leader for whom winning is the only thing that matters. How many times have we seen Brady stomp around the sidelines trying to motivate teammates to do better, while Rodgers just sulks by himself on the bench?

It amazes me how Rodgers’ apologists keep trying to spin his offseason shenanigans so that it looks like he is in a “win-win” situation, which he clearly is not. If he decides to “opt-out” on July 2, no team is going to want him in a trade that Packers will agree to because he won’t be able to play at all this year. Sure, he keeps his money, but he will also likely be persona-non-grata with fans. All these people saying the Packers need to do this and that to make him “happy”—no they don’t; why should they want to make a player “happy” if he supposedly doesn’t want to play for them anymore? The decision has to be made by Rodgers concerning what he wants to do, since all we know is what other people are claiming he wants—he has yet to come out and say he wants a trade. Why has he not said that yet? He is clearly manipulating both teammates and fans, and why should such a person be regarded as anything but insincere and untrustworthy?

The truth is I never saw Rodgers as an “elite” quarterback. To be honest, I never thought of Brett Favre as an “elite” quarterback; an “elite” quarterback is some guy on another team. Favre played every game, put up good numbers every year, and had that country boy personality. But after Mike Holmgren left, there was no one to keep his worst impulses under control. I never went into a season believing the Packers were going to win the Super Bowl; if they did threaten to make it that far, it was because the team just got “lucky” that Favre didn’t make too many bad decisions in a game, or the other team’s quarterback made more. In regard to Rodgers, while he seemed more “efficient” and threw fewer interceptions, that didn’t translate into more Super Bowl appearances; the Packers’ top-five defense is what got them to the Super Bowl in 2010. It was the national sports media that called him “elite,” but all that meant was that the Packers were on the national radar. That’s all Rodgers ever did for the Packers.

I’ll end this on a “personal” note. All over Seattle you see Black Lives Matter and LGBTQ paraphernalia; they even put up a large banner of the latter in the lobby of the office building I work in. But for some of us, that doesn’t have much meaning, because it is like “yeah, but why do you hate us?” Even so-called “progressives” have to hate on some group—and it isn’t white “conservatives.” In Seattle that is generally Hispanics, and in particular Hispanic males; Hispanic women seem to “fit in” easier here, because they benefit from gender politics and the sexual stereotypes that are applied  to Hispanic males with negative, even criminal, connotations, but which “Anglo” men find “appealing” in the women—and some of these women prove the point by hanging on to their Anglo “catches” like pathetic, shameless wet rags. As an aside, when I was in college a white male student confessed to me that Hispanic women are "cute" when they are young, but then they get "fat."

Of course some of us have to be the soldier so that such can play the “strumpet” to obtain false “status.”  I don’t feel any qualms about saying that about self-involved divas, since these women are “built up” by “confirming” racist stereotypes that allow the men to be beaten on by those who are given a "pass" to not feel any “guilt” about doing it.

Now I’m going to watch some movies.

There are limits to "humanizing" evil, even for women

 

I recently watched the 2005 British film Pierrepoint: The Last Hangman, supposedly based on the life of said Albert Pierrepoint. Midway through the film Pierrepoint (Timothy Spall) is sent to Germany after the war to handle the hangings of Nazi war criminals sentenced to death in the British sector. The first war criminal he is shown hanging is the unrepentant Irma Grese, who at 22 was the youngest Nazi war criminal to be executed. But we’ll get to her story later.

People may wonder why so many of these racist “Karens” suddenly appeared seemingly out of nowhere. Of course they were always here, they just needed a “leader” who made them feel “empowered” to express themselves. Particularly in regard to Latinos, the fact that any one of the could be threatened because of what some bigot assumed was their legal status, or simply not viewed as a “real American,” which made them subject to the “power” that a “Karen” felt to instill “fear” in them.

While the “Karens” of the country act out on their dark impulses, we see women using their “victimhood” to victimize. Take for instance the Manhattan Democratic District Attorney race, where Tali Farhadian Weinstein is another feminist playing the racist card while accusing others of playing the “race card” by pointing out what she is doing. She recently launched a full frontal attack on all available media accusing her principle challenger, former federal prosecutor Alvin Bragg—who is black—of being an “enabler” of “domestic abusers.” This was based on his “pledge” in a questionnaire that in cases of “cross-complaint” cases—where both parties are accused of domestic violence—the DA will not proceed if both parties do not want to press charges. Of course, people like Farhadian Weinstein would insist on prosecuting the male, because he would be “more guilty” even if he wasn’t the instigator and principle combatant.

Many New York voters professed to be “aghast” at receiving flyers making these accusations in the mail from the Farhadian Weinstein campaign; it is clear that she is doing this because she wants people to “understand” that she is not related to Harvey Weinstein.  One person, Rachael Bedard, MD, tweeted that “It’s unbelievably mortifying that in a system that way over-incarcerates black men, where white women’s victimhood has been weaponized consistently to maintain racial hierarchy, you’ve dared to lie about Alvin’s stance on violence against women. I actually gasped when I saw the mailer, because it has the desperate, dishonest, menacing tone of a political ad from the Jim Crow era.”

Not surprisingly, Sonia Ossorio of the New York City chapter of the National Organization of Women, desperate to be “relevant” by building themselves up by tearing others down, claimed that she didn’t “understand” what all the fuss was about, and that people angry at the ads were just playing the “race card”—which just shows you what the feminist movement has always been: a white grievance group aimed specifically for women who think they are superior to others.

Putting “Karens” and feminists together in a blender and what do you get? Imagine what these people would be if they were in Nazi Germany. Well, who knows, but one thing we do know is that as a 2017 Slate piece pointed out, many former British suffragettes “flocked” to Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists as the “natural” successor to their movements of the early part of the 20^th century. They were particularly enthralled by the power they would have to “reshape” Britain and return it to “racial” and cultural “purity.”

There were many infamous characters of the “fairer” sex who were quite notorious in Nazi Germany for those who have read up on the history. Ilse Koch, the so-called “Bitch of Buchenwald,” is perhaps the best known, but she certainly wasn’t the worst of them. The wife of the Buchenwald camp commandant, her notoriety was based on the fact that unlike other SS officer wives at the camp, she had a “reputation” among prisoners, that human flesh with tattoos that was removed from the deceased were rumored to be destined to the Koch household, and the testimony of a German houseboy who claimed not only to have seen lampshades made of human flesh, but a human head, which he testified he was forced to “reinsert” the teeth into after one of the Koch children had pulled them out.

During Koch's trial by the American military, none of these objects were produced as evidence, and in the face of her denials, the prosecution was forced to drop charges related to human body parts; however this is what the public would most identified her with. But there were other things, worse things she was accused of. Buchenwald was a men’s camp; Koch could live out the fantasy of some women to commit violence against men. Koch was said to dress provocatively within the sight of the men, and if any of them “noticed” her, she would denounce them to her husband to be killed. She would also take pleasure in watching naked prisoners standing in the cold being “searched.”

Koch could have just stayed in her villa like the other wives, but she didn’t. She would deliberately take trips where prisoners were on work detail, and if someone “accidently” got in her way, they were reported and put into the “Bunker”—detention cells were the prisoners were tortured, sometimes to death, by sadistic guards. And she was not a “good” German housewife; prisoners took care of her children and oversaw the household while she “partied” and allegedly had affairs “by the dozen” with SS men.

Koch’s husband was executed by the SS for embezzlement and theft—not from prisoners, which was allowed, but supposedly from other SS officers cheated out of their “share”—a month before the war ended. She herself was arrested by the Americans and stood trial for crimes against humanity, based on her reputation at the camp. Although initially convicted to life in prison—she escaped the death penalty because of pregnancy—she was soon released after the Buchenwald trial files were reexamined and discrepancies found; Koch’s sentence was reduced to four years. But American public opinion was outraged, and the general who authorized her release from prison was labeled a “lampshade lover.” 

But since American law didn’t allow a second trial on the same charge, the Bavarian government was pressured to try Koch, and she was again convicted on the premise that she must have known that those prisoners she had personally condemned would be tortured or killed, and she was sentenced to life in prison again, when she would become delusional and hang herself in 1967. Here she is during her Bavarian trial, where her frequent fits of rage barred her from the court on the day of her sentencing:

 

As noted, Koch was far from the worst of the female perpetrators of sadism, and that is saying a lot. Irma Grese was born in 1923, the daughter of a dairy worker, and had a typical middle class existence until her mother learned that her father was having an affair with the daughter of a local pub owner. In a fit of madness she committed suicide by drinking hydrochloric acid. Grese was 13 at the time; when she was 14 she dropped out of school, although it is not clear whether this was due to not being a good student or the psychological effect of her mother’s suicide. It would be speculated that her later actions could be explained by suppressed rage of her early experiences, although it doesn’t explain the sadism of her actions unless there were other preexisting psychological issues.

Grese joined the Nazi organization League of German Girls, and was apparently an ardent young Nazi. She trained as a nurse but didn’t make the grade. However, her enthusiasm for her race superiority led her to apply at the SS school at Ravensbruck, where she easily passed the SS entry examination, and trained to be an SS Aufseherin, or camp guard, a position that would soon be in great demand. Grese later claimed that she was sent to the SS school against her will, but the records showed that she volunteered. Grese was technically a member of the “temporary” SS, the Waffen-SS, which was a war-time designation.

Grese was apparently such a good “pupil” in the arts of sadism that she “graduated” early, and was apparently proud of her achievement, after failing as a nurse. This was no small “accomplishment,” since being approved for the SS ranks meant you were “racially superior,” and  camp guards were paid three times the average salary of a female worker in a typical “civilian” job. Grese returned home briefly to parade herself in front of her anti-Nazi father in her SS uniform, knowing it would enrage him; her father reportedly beat her before telling her never to come back home again.

Most camp guards were indeed brutal, but Grese was among the minority who not only crossed the line, but took apparent pleasure in it. Her first assignment at the “tender” age of 19 was Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1943; most of the inmates she dealt with were the recently arrived female Hungarian Jews, most of whom would die in the gas chambers. While wearing jackboots and carrying a whip and pistol, she was accused of the following: engaging in the selection process for the gas chambers; shooting prisoners in cold blood; unleashing her half-starved German Shepherds on prisoners; the physical and psychological torture of inmates; beating and flogging prisoners to death.

There was more. Grese was also accused of “sexual sadism” against female prisoners, especially those who still retained their “looks” despite their deprived conditions. This would include striking their bare breasts with the braided wire end of her whip, causing infections which Grese ordered “operated” on with unsterilized knives without anesthesia to the great agony of the women and the sadistic pleasure of Grese. Inmate doctor Gisella Perl recalled Grese’s look of “complete sexual paroxysm…she always came to watch the operations of these women whose breasts had been slashed open…kicking the victims if their screams interfered with her pleasure and giving herself completely to the orgasmic spasms which shook her entire body and made saliva run down from the corner of her mouth.”

Another inmate testified to an unwanted “visit” from the blonde woman with the “angel face” and “snake eyes” who was the “camp’s chief torturer” with her dogs while the inmates were on punishment detail pushing wagons. So frightened by Grese’s presence was one group that they lost control of their wagon, which fell down the hill and overturned. Grese then unleashed her dogs, which began “tearing at the girls’ bodies. Irma came close to observe what they what they were doing. Her eyes were bloodshot. The sight of blood seemed to intoxicate her. She was sexually excited—everybody could see that.”

Grese was still only 20 years old when she was promoted to the rank of “senior supervisor,” which only testified to her adaptability to circumstances; only someone who was “comfortable” with the worst people could do and didn’t question orders was qualified for such a position. There probably other reasons why Grese impressed her own superiors; known to prisoners as “The Beautiful Beast” and the “Blonde Angel of Death,” she was always “smartly” dressed—often in the best clothes that could be confiscated from camp inmates—and reportedly spent hours in front of a mirror styling her hair. She wore expensive perfume to “torment” the filthy, starving prisoners under her authority. One inmate doctor, Olga Lengyel, wrote that “It defied belief that such a pretty girl could be so cruel. When she walked through the camp with a whip in hand, she was surrounded by a cloud of choice perfume.” This was the woman who was so unmindful of her actions that she told other SS guards that when the war was over, she was going to be a glamorous “movie star.” She might be wondering if that would still be her future while she sat in the prisoner dock during her trial:

 

It wasn’t all “work” of course, for this woman that another inmate doctor called the “most beautiful woman I have ever seen” with an “angelic face.” At the various camps, SS members of both sexes were not only promiscuous, but were encouraged to do so to pass the time, whether they were married or not. Grese not only had relations with numerous SS men, but also the infamous Dr. Josef Mengele. She also had numerous relations with female inmates; her “intimacies” with these women generally involved beating and whipping them; when she became bored with them, they would be sent to their deaths. Mengele would break off their relationship after he discovered her intimacies with female prisoners, since this violated several “ethical” rules for SS members.

In January 1945, the approach of the Russian Army caused Auschwitz to be abandoned and Grese was sent to the Bergen-Belsen camp—where, if nothing else, her behavior became even worse. However, the less than four weeks she was in charge of prisoners there was only enough time for her to add one more new nickname, the “Beautiful Beast of Belsen.” Reports were that she would have inmates stand in freezing weather for hours in the early morning holding heavy rocks above their heads, and those who could not remain upright she beat with a truncheon until they were unconscious. Her tenure at Belsen lasted until British forces took control of the camp.

Grese was one of the few SS personnel who actually chose to remain rather than flee. At first she received deferential treatment because she stood out because of her looks, and was not forced like the other female camp guards to bury the dead. But this attention was soon the reason for learning who exactly she was, since many of the survivors of Auschwitz had been transferred to Bergen-Belsen, and they knew all about her. Unlike other SS prisoners, during her trial she was completely unrepentant and believed in the “rightness” of all the barbarities she had committed. There was little her British defense counsel could do for her, and at 22 she became the youngest defendant to be hanged for war crimes. Here is the relevant scene in the aforementioned film:

 

In 2015 there appeared a post about a University of Kansas doctoral student named Shelly Cline whose dissertation made the claim that Grese has been held up to represent “all” of the some 3,500 women who served as camp guards, who all supposedly shared her sadistic qualities. She also made the self-serving claim that there are those who make the "unfair" assertion that female camp guards were “worse” than male guards.  But nobody has ever made such a claim; this is a fantasy of the self-consciousness of people who cannot come to grips with the fact that women can be just as bad as men under certain circumstances—and that in individual cases like that of Grese, maybe even worse than the worst men.

People tend to be unmindful of the fact that the reason that these women received so much attention was because women were the beneficiaries of another myth that still continues to this day: that they are by “nature” less susceptible to the darker aspects of human nature than men. The reality is that it is a matter of power; even if most women—unlike Grese—shrink from the actual physical implementation of sadism and murder, and they will order or “empower” men to do it for them.

Cline asserts that Grese was just as much a “victim” of the system as she was a perpetrator, which makes no sense. It is difficult to listen to the “cultural” racism of women like Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter and pretend that they are somehow “victims” and not the perpetrators feeding into extreme-right fanaticism. Cline said it was a “challenge” to “humanize” people like Grese, which only underlines the fact that there is always “excuses” for the way even the most evil of women act (we only have watch how Disney has “humanized” its best known “bad girls”).

Looking back on this case, why do women like Cline even bother to try to “humanize” someone like Grese? There was some “tic” deep inside of her that in “normal” times would have found expression in one of those “Karens,” with a dash of feminist-style oppressive malignancy. What Grese and her “gang” did was not a revisionist Disney movie where evil villainesses are “humanized” and “star” in sequels. This was real life. Untold numbers died because of their  “natural” sadism. Those Nazi exploitation movies of the Seventies and Eighties were probably closer to the truth than people realize.

Brits need a history refresher course to remind them that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are hardly the worst "tarnishers" of the "brand"

 

CNN is reporting on another poll that purports to show that most Republicans support overturning the 2020 election. Do we need to belabor the point that most Republicans are generally anywhere from half-to-full crazed fascists? I think not.

Meanwhile, the other day “Dame” Joan Collins—they obviously give titles to anyone who is “famous” for any reason these days—refused to answer Piers Morgan’s query about claims that Meghan Markle was “lying” about  being refused help concerning her mental health issues. Collins claimed that she didn’t want to be “canceled” the way Morgan was if she gave her opinion, which she didn’t deny was not a “good” opinion. This interview was given on the new British “news” show GB News, which is the British equivalent of Newsmax and OAN, and has actually offended a few Brits because of its belly-flops into the UK’s “culture wars,” mainly with a “racialist” tincture.  

Of course what we are really talking about here with all this angst about Prince Harry and Meghan is the perception that it makes “The Firm” and British society look bad for chasing a mixed-race royal family member by marriage tearfully out of the country. Of course that isn’t hard to do, with the Windrush scandal still fresh and the continuing “hostile environment” policy. The “solution” to this problem seems to be to make Meghan look like the “bad guy” in all of this, at least from the British side.

The problem with all of this is that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex haven’t really done anything “wrong”; they say the British media had created a “hostile environment” for Meghan in particular, and “The Firm” did nothing to stop it. They were expected to “endure” it, and there can be little doubt that some members of “The Firm” actually enjoyed seeing it out of envy for the positive attention they received initially. The British media and others who have an “opinion” on the matter are making the apparently permanent move to the U.S. by the couple a national “scandal,” but again, this more about the way it “looks.” Harry and Meghan seem to be getting by just fine without all the bullshit, and many people in Britain just don’t like that.

But this isn’t the first time that British royals have been embroiled in “scandal,” and considerably more than the made up variety. History reminds us that King Edward VIII abdicated his throne to marry “the woman I love,” Wallace Simpson, an American not once, but twice, divorced, with the pair of them to be known as the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. But what they are more infamous for was their connection with the Nazi regime—the Duke for political and heritage reasons, and supposedly by the Duchess simply because she was treated like “royalty” on their tour of Germany in 1937, in contrast to being the subject of abuse in Britain.

But in fact, while the royal family did consider the match unsuitable, the British government was more concerned about where their loyalties lie. It was rumored that Simpson had a previous affair with the former ambassador and now Nazi foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop. Furthermore, despite the attempt by his father to whitewash any superficial trace of the fact that the British monarchy was more German than Anglo-Saxon genetically and culturally, Edward was quite proud of his German heritage, and believed its culture “superior” to Britain’s.

This was no “accident” either. The current regime of the British royalty, the House of Windsor, was originally called The House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, in reference to the hereditary claims of Prince Albert, the husband of Queen Victoria. This German House had succeeded another British royal dynasty of German origin: the House of Hanover. The latter was installed over the hereditary rights of the House of Stuart (which included the beheaded Charles I). The first British king of the House of Hanover, George I, was actually 52^nd in line to the throne by blood, but because of the Act of Settlement passed by Parliament in 1701, Catholics were barred from the throne, and the German George was the closest “suitable” Protestant candidate of royal birth. His grandson, George III—who presided over the American Revolution—was the first of the Hanover line to actually speak English as his first language. Thus it shouldn’t come as too surprising that the British brought over German Hessian “mercenaries” to fight for them during the revolution.

Thus the Duke of Windsor didn’t see World War I as a reason to hate Germany, but as an impetus to find ways to be “friends” again and avoid another war. Unfortunately, this required embracing fascism, which many in Britain did, like Sir Oswald Mosley of the British Union of Fascists. The excuse for support of fascism was always to oppose the threat of “Communism.” Anti-Semitism was of course part of the ideology because of the supposed connection between Jews and communism, although anti-Semitism certainly predated that political ideology, and the British royal family was hardly immune from this feeling. The Duke hardly cared if Jews were under attack in Germany, since it was only the affair of Germany, and he even went so far to suggest that the British might be supportive of a dictator “soon.”

When he was heir to the throne, Edward’s support of fascism was particularly unsettling both to the government and the public at large, and some were “concerned” that his “accessibility” and “mock Cockney” pose might be taken advantage of by unscrupulous international players. He had already begun his relationship with Simpson by the time he assumed the throne in 1936, and some suspect that at least on government side, this union had to be opposed because it was a “security risk” to have a pair of Nazi supporters as heads of state. British and American intelligence had them under surveillance and wire-tapped before and after Edward abdicated the throne.

In his subsequent tour of Germany, the new Duke of Windsor was occasionally seen returning Nazi salutes to his German guests. He praised the regime's economic "miracles," not realizing that it's foundation was of the "voodoo" variety. The Duke and Duchess visited Hitler at the Berghof, and were reportedly “awestruck” by him—perhaps only just a little more than Hitler was by them; he was certainly “flattered” to be regarded on the same social level as a real British royal. The Duke, of course, would in his later autobiography be less generous in his estimation of Hitler. But one wonders what exactly he was thinking here:

 

Back home, people were dumbfounded by the Duke’s foolhardy embrace of the Nazis, completely unmindful of his own reputation; after all, his Germany-embracing cousin—the former Duke of Albany—was blacklisted as a “traitor peer.” A subsequent tour of the U.S. was canceled after Jewish groups protested his presence.

The Duke and Duchess were living in France when the war broke out; the Duke was given an honorary military rank, did some “reports” about French military readiness, and then the two fled to Spain and then Portugal when the Germans invaded France. Word got around that the Windsors were still tacitly supportive of the Nazis; according to once captured German telegram, the Duke  appeared to have hoped that the German bombing campaign over Britain would persuade the British to make “peace” with Germany. He also believed that if he was still king, there would be no war between their two countries.

This reached both Hitler’s and Winston Churchill’s ears. Churchill ordered the pair to take a position in the Bahamas to get them out of Europe before they got themselves into any more “trouble,” but Hitler had his own plan, called “Operation Willi,” in which the Duke and Duchess—either willingly or by force—would be “kidnapped” and held until the hoped-for success of Operation Sea Lion and the conquest of Britain, in which the Duke would be reinstalled as the figurehead king. But this never had any real chance of success, although it was reported that the Duchess was “intrigued” by the idea. Instead, the Windsors spent the rest of the war in the idyllic climes of the Caribbean beaches.

All this was subsequently excused by the Duke’s alleged lack of judgment, which was to be blamed for his giving-up his throne for a twice-divorced American, and relying on her and his friends to provide “improper” counsel. He was “naïve” and not equipped to deal with people like Hitler. But all this was “nothing” compared to the “shame” and embarrassment caused by one royal prince who has been completely written out of the British royal history narrative—the aforementioned Duke of Albany, Charles Edward. 

Born in 1883, Charles Edward’s father was the favorite son of Queen Victoria, but he suffered from the family curse of haemophilia, and would die from it after falling down a stairs before his son was born. While he was growing up, Charles Edward’s mother constantly admonished him not to bring shame on his father’s memory, which only made him nervous and easily intimidated. But as a minor prince far down the line of succession, he could look forward to a life of the idle rich, with only occasional ceremonial duties, which he apparently did not like do.

But that would change when he still a school boy at Eton. One day he was the Duke of Albany and the Earl of Clarence, and the next day he was the Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha—meaning its seat in Germany. The duke who had borne that title, Alfred, was left with no male heir after the death of his son, and Queen Victoria was insistent that the duchy remain “in the family,” since it was the inheritance of her late husband. Although neither of the first two candidates wanted to go, they were unlikely to have worried about going anyways. Prince Arthur, Victoria’s third son, was actually rejected by the Kaiser because he served in the British Army. His son, also named Arthur, was next in line, but the Kaiser’s demand that the boy be German-educated was not acceptable to either the boy or his father. In any case, neither had any desire to abandon their carefree lives in Britain to live amongst a people who might not like them because they were not technically German.

The Queen had enough of this, and the next “in line” was going to go whether he liked it or not. Charles Edward was the next in line, and there are stories that his cousin threatened to thrash him if he didn’t accept the post; but in any case, Queen Victoria was angry she wasn’t getting her way, and put her foot down, ignoring the pleas of Charles Edward’s mother, who insisted he was needed to remain to oversee his British holdings, since he was the only living male heir. What the new German Duke inherited was a massive estate, with a huge house on the hill overlooking Coburg, plus numerous castles and farms that brought in the equivalent of $24 million a year in today’s money.

Still a teenager, Charles Edward’s life was controlled by the Kaiser, who forced him into a Prussian military school and an arranged marriage, although it was apparently a happy one. Charles Edward tried hard to convince the locals that he was a “good German” and not some British usurper whose allegiance was doubtful. As fate would have it, World War I broke out, and the Kaiser demanded that he serve in the German military; he was not allowed to sit this one out just because he didn’t want to fight the country of his birth and heritage. Charles Edward was allowed, however, to serve on the eastern front against the Russian Tsar, who was another one of his blood relatives.

Still, Charles Edward did have a “choice.” He still had his British titles, and he could have just abandoned his German holdings and started life over again like it had been destined to be before he was forced against his will to go to Germany. But after spending half his life trying hard to be a “good German” and having grown accustomed to his position, he chose what would be the wrong road. What it cost him was being branded by an act of Parliament a “traitor peer” and stripped of all his British titles and holdings, and even his British citizenship. In a way it was certainly unfair, since Charles Edward was put in a difficult position, and he was not known to make decisions for himself, as Queen Victoria, the Kaiser and his own mother had controlled his every move.

After the war, the Kaiser was forced to abdicate, and the German nobility lost their status in society, although they were allowed to keep their property. Charles Edward found himself adrift, looking for a purpose. Unfortunately for him, making decisions was not his forte, and his next one would be one that encased his status as a persona non grata in Britain in cement, below ground where no one can see it.

One day the leader of a minor far-right fringe group known for its violence visited Coburg. The day was supposed to be a celebration of various political parties; instead, it was hijacked by this new leader and the 800 brown-shirted thugs he brought with him. Charles Edward was very much intrigued by the way this leader simply took control of the town, and invited him to his residence on the hill. Thus he became the first of the former noble class to embrace Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party, and they would remain good friends to the bitter end, when even trapped in his Berlin bunker, Hitler did something he never did before, which was to express concern for another human being—writing instructions to insure that Charles Edward did not fall into enemy hands. Here they are before events got that bad:

Now with a “purpose” in life, Charles Edward would become Hitler’s chief assistant in getting on with Britain; being a representative of the German government, the British were forced to let him back in the country in that capacity. He got along swell with Germany-loving King Edward, and had high hopes for his reinstatement until Edward abdicated the throne and nobody in Britain wanted anything to do with him, save his loyal sister Princess Alice. who lived the life of idleness and luxury that he should have been living in had not fate intervened.

Charles Edward was then appointed as head of the German Red Cross, which would seal his infamy. The German version of the Red Cross was involved in the T4 euthanasia program; although Charles Edward was only a figurehead and didn’t make decisions about what was or wasn’t done, his subordinates were required to inform him of what they were doing, so even if he personally didn’t approve of the mass murder of the mentally and physically infirm—including by the first usage of poison gas—he almost certainly at least heard of what was going on. At his trial after the war, his wife, in trying to defend him, admitted that she had heard talk from those who knew about it and were uncomfortable about it, but her husband would say that either he didn’t believe their stories—or there was nothing he could do to stop it.

Since he was too old and infirm to go on the battlefield, Charles Edward spent most of the war sitting idle in his office in Berlin. He was never actually involved in making decisions (again, not his forte), and Hitler kept him around because he liked the association with a real (former) member of British royalty. With the war winding down he returned to his house on the hill, where he was arrested by the Americans and put in prison camp. His sister Princess Alice visited him to beg leniency from the Americans, after finding him starving and digging through trash bins. Charles Edward was put on trial and was found guilty mainly for the crime of being a member of the Nazi Party and supporting the regime; but he was acquitted of crimes against humanity, and probably because he was so sick and infirm he was not sentenced to additional prison time. His estates were taken from him, and the fines he paid took almost every cent he had; he and his wife would live out their final days together in a chauffeur’s cabin.

Thus we can see the hypocrisy of the “Firm” and the British media in their reaction to the moves by Prince Harry and Meghan Markle; they are hardly the worst part of the history of the royal family, and they may actually be the better part of it.