'Freedom Fighting Heros' sometimes are anything but. You can only pin them down by asking questions.
What is more important in a war? Unity, say some. No, false compromise can lead to disaster, others say. As it did in the Battle of Arnhem. Questions need asking, even if it hurts. A lesson for today.
Colonel Oreste Pinto earned himself praise from very high up as a “Spy-Catcher” during WWII. But he had to be prepared to make himself enemies. The job he was tasked to do was more important than having many friends. Colonel Pinto worked in Counter-Intelligence against the Nazis.
One of his biggest successes proved to be one of his greatest failures by the same token. Pinto was the man who in the fall of 1944 detected a Double-Agent in the Dutch Resistance that secretly worked for the German Abwehr. But Pinto failed to arrest this man, a most famous leader of the Dutch resistance, nick-named “King Kong”, before he could inform the Nazis about “Operation Market-Garden”. What could have ended the war before Christmas 1944 turned into a “bloody disaster” for 7,000 allied casualties in the Battle of Arnhem alone.
Today we know that in all probability, “King Kong”, or Christian Lindemans, received protection from Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. Bernhard, German born son-in-law of Dutch Queen Wilhelmina, was a member of the SS, lied about his Nazi past (“I can declare with the hand on the Bible: I was never a Nazi”), but he retained the image of a “Freedom Fighter” until well after the end of WWII.
In all likelihood Bernhard is the high ranking Dutch official whom Pinto doesn’t name in his book, who betrayed “Operation Market-Garden” to the Germans by sending “King Kong” over to his Nazi Colleagues to stop the allied advance at the Bridge at Arnhem. Bernhard was put in charge of the Dutch HQ in Brussels on September 13, 1944. One day later, Pinto was informed by Dutch officers that his request to interrogate Lindemans had been rejected. Instead, Pinto found out, Lindemans had been embedded in a Canadian Unit to “alert the Dutch resistance”. Another spy later revealed that Lindemans went straight to the Abwehr, who made sure that German tanks rolled into position the night before the biggest Airborne Invasion ever conducted was to begin.
The Dutch and the Nazis
In the Netherlands the role of members of the Royal Family during WWII and their attitude towards National Socialism in Germany became a public concern during the 1960’s. It was, however, more to do with the future son-in-law of Prince Bernhard, Claus van Amsberg, who in 1965, shortly before he was to marry Princess Beatrix, was the object of a petition for a vote-of-no-confidence of the dutch parliament to refuse approval of the match because von Amsberg’s disawowing of Nazism had not been convincing enough.
But much more controversial than Claus van Amsberg, who was a young man of 18 years when WWII ended, was his future father-in-law, Prince Bernhard von Lippe-Biesterfeld. Bernhard, who grew up as a Prussian Nobleman in East Prussia, earned himself a Law degree, before joining I.G. Farben’s spy organization NW 7 in 1935. He had joined the SS before that. Queen Wilhelmina, Beatrix’ grandmother, who also was of German descent from her mother’s side, arranged the marriage for her daughter Juliana with Prince Bernhard, Beatrix’ father, in 1937. On that day not just the German National Anthem (“Deutschland ueber alles”) was heard in The Hague, but also the Nazi-Party-Song (“Millions are looking upon the Swastika full of hope”).
In 1944, Colonel Pinto was not in a position to question Prince Bernhard about his role. Bernhard remained untouched. Even though there had been serious concerns, at least within the U.S. Top Brass:
“[U.S. Supreme Commander] Eisenhower's flat refusal to grant Prince Bernhard security clearance is why Canadian intelligence which came under King George VI's Commonwealth command, not the U.S. whose 101st was dropping there, worked with the former Nazi aristocrat, preparing a top agent before the drop to cross no-mans-land with vital orders to make best use of Eindhoven's trusted Dutch resistance networks. Surely reckless to entrust the task to any former SS man? And the U.S. forces surely knew that. As we can see the MARKET-GARDEN betrayal was a wholly British operation. When King Kong told the Abwehr, rather than the Dutch resistance, spymaster Bernhard failed the ultimate test. He'd sold his newly adopted country out. Royal Navy never allowed Bernhard access to sensitive information.”
(Tony Gosling, Traitors of Arnhem, 2021, page 16)
The Bilderberg Meetings
Bernhard organized the first meeting of the “Bilderberg Group” in 1954. It is striking that this meeting took place virtually within eyesight of where the slaughter of allied soldiers took place 10 years earlier: the Bilderberg Hotel is located in Oosterbeek, a suburb of Arnhem, right on the Nederrijn, with a Brigde the Allies needed to cross. Had they succeeded, the war would probably have been over shortly afterwards, because the heartland of German arms industries in the Ruhr area was just a few dozen miles away from Arnhem and Nijmegen. Taking the Ruhr would have been equivalent of stopping the Nazi War Machine.
In any case, the Nazis knew that the war was lost. They started preparing for a comeback after the war. In August 1944, a meeting was called on behalf of Nazi Party Leader Martin Bormann at “Maison Rouge” in Strasbourg. There, captains of German industry (Krupp, Rheinmetall, Volkswagen et.al.) received orders to start exporting assets to neutral countries. Such acts, until then, had constituted high treason. After the meeting it was an order.
“(T)he Nazi Party had informed the industrialists that the war was practically lost but that it would continue until a guaranty of the unity of Germany could be obtained. German industrialists must, it was said, through their exports increase the strength of Germany.
They must also prepare themselves to finance the Nazi Party which would be forced to go underground (…). From now on the Government would allocate large sums to industrialists so that each could establish a secure postwar foundation in foreign countries. Existing financial reserves in foreign countries must be placed at the disposal of the party so that a strong German empire can be created after the defeat.”
Had Operation Market-Garden succeeded, those plans for a Nazi-rebound would have fallen flat outright. Consequently, in 1954, when the question of German debt had also been settled for good at the London Conference, (Germany being represented by former I.G. Farben manager and Deutsche Banker, Josef Abs, “Hitler’s paymaster”) it was “time to bring the bounty home”. Bernhard, who had the most crucial role during Market-Garden (for making sure the information of the operation reach the right people), was the one to chair the meeting, and chair the Bilderberg Group over the years to come.
He stepped down as Chairman of Bilderberg, albeit against his will, when it was revealed in 1975 that Prince Bernhard had been paid 1 Million Dollars from Lockheed for the purchase of fighter planes by the Netherlands. Bernhard denied this with another lie (in a Confession released after his death in 2004 he admitted to receiving 1.2 Million Dollars).
His reputation was severely damaged, and people were beginning to question his loyalty. It was convenient not only for Bernhard, but for the whole operation, that United Artists Studios of Hollywood decided to produce a feature film about Operation Market-Garden, “A Bridge Too Far”, which provided cover for the treason by suggesting the plans for the operation had fallen into the hands of the Germans after one of the glider-planes crashed, with all crew killed, but the plans surviving in pristine quality.
Unfortunately, Colonel Pinto did not live to see that star spangled blockbuster. He died in 1961. It would have been very interesting to know what he thought of what the public was led to believe.
Lessons for today
Whilst it remains a challenge to prove someone is acting in bad faith (presumed innocent until proven guilty applies), the Pinto/Lindemans/Bernhard story exemplifies that questions need to be asked rigorously. In case of doubt, it might be wiser not to rely too much on somebody’s reputation as “Leader of the Resistance” or “prominent Freedom Fighter”. For they might lead the defense onto a wrong path.
Clearly, in the present situation where evidence of injuries from the genetic injections can not be denied any more, it might be tempting to switch the focus and concentrate on suing the manufacturers, or proving intention to harm. However, the basic fact must not be forgotten: The whole operation “Warp Speed” was only possible because of massive fraud right from the start. Denis Rancourt and colleagues have shown by analyzing overall mortality data from around the world that “there was no pandemic”.
Instead of amplifying these and other findings like those of Jonathan Engler, Jessica Hockett, or Jonathan Couey, “leading Freedom Fighters” today keep pressing the narrative that we must continue develop novel therapeutics/vaccines in order to protect us from “the big one” they say is still to come.
Only by asking questions, and by assessing answers given, can the risk for society be minimized. And that risk is Genocide, as Mike Yeadon keeps warning. His and other warnings are grounded on plenty of circumstancial evidence for doubt. Enough that everyone should rally behind it and call for investigation of these fundamental risks.
By not even engaging in debate, some experts, who often have a striking affinity to leading protagonists on the other side, continue to raise concerns, rather than put them to rest. Questions must be asked rather too often, than not often enough.
I agree with you, too many "good doctors" are STILL speaking of the "pandemic". I often wander if they are fake (controlled opposition) or they cannot accept that their beloved medicine is a bunch of lies. In both cases though, I don't trust them.
Very good Uwe! The story about Bernhard also raises again and again the question of how much influence he had within the Royal House and the Dutch government. Think, for example, of the Greet Hofmans affair: his wife Queen Juliana then got pascifist ideas. In 1952, she gave a peace and disarmament speech to the U.S. Congress, after which Bernhard, if I remember correctly, wrote letters to the Dutch government to discredit his wife. From all appearances, he was successful in doing so because the government moved to intervene in favor of Bernhard. Juliana later refrained from speaking publicly about her peace ideals.