Historical Review Press

BBC Maintains Treblinka Tall Story

2012-01-24T02:18:00.001-08:00

I actually listened to programme on Radio 4 23/1/12 a 'witness' came up with this corker--that bodies buried for weeks oozed blood which was then ignited by a pile of bodies being incinerated by some nearby Ukranians, shades of the Talmudic all story where huge boulders were rolled to the sea by blood of Jews killed by the Romans at the seige of Bethar.I am reprising this video of the 2008 Australian survey of Treblinka using Ground Penetrating Radar in response to the BBC article claiming "Any doubts about the existence of mass graves at the Treblinka death camp in Poland are being laid to rest by the first survey of the site using tools that see below the ground, writes forensic archaeologist Caroline Sturdy Colls."The Australian survey found no evidence of mass graves, and they released the actual data from the ground penetrating radar. In this article (and note that comments are not allowed) none of the raw data is shown. We are just supposed to take the word of the BBC, even though we have caught them in a lie in the very first sentence of the article. The survey reported in the BBC article was not the first, and doubts have not been put to rest by the uncovering of yet another lie.TREBLINKA INVESTIGATIONhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVKOfAu90es&skipcontrinter=1

One Law for Jews in the USA?

2012-01-23T02:05:00.000-08:00

Can you imagine if this newspaper were the Atlanta Muslim Times, or the Atlanta Arab News? The FBI would be raiding the office within seconds. The Editor would be held for treason. Every person on the staff would be arrested, the newspaper shut down, the building that housed the office would be demolished, and every American news outlet would have this as their leading story. But since this is a Jewish newspaper, the editor gets off scot-free. There is no FBI raid, there is no arrests, no shut down, no office building demolished, and not one word in the American media. You have to go to the Israeli media to get the story. This is what's called in America as the "Jewish Double Standard."GThe Occidental Observer --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Posted: 22 Jan 2012 09:29 AM PSTAndrew Adler, the owner and publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, wrote an editorial saying Israel should consider assassinating Barack Obama. He wasn’t necessarily saying that they should assassinate Obama. Only that it should be one option on the table.Here’s how Adler laid out “option three” in his list of scenarios facing Israeli president Benjamin Netanyahu (the column, which was forwarded to us by a tipster, isn’t online, but you can read a copy here):Three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.Yes, you read “three” correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles?Another way of putting “three” in perspective goes something like this: How far would you go to save a nation comprised of seven million lives…Jews, Christians and Arabs alike?You have got to believe, like I do, that all options are on the table.Notice how confident he is that our “strategic ally” has already discussed assassinating Obama. And, no, he hasn’t been arrested, in case you’re wondering. But the FBI is investigating.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The article has brought down scathing rebuke from the organized Jewish community, including the ADL’s Abe Foxman, and Adler has apologized. But there is some historical precedent for such a strategy. As reported by JTA, Harry Truman’s daughter, Margaret Truman Daniel, claimed in her 1972 biography of Truman that letter bombs were sent in 1947 by the terrorist Stern Group intended for the president. The same allegation was made in a 1949 book by a White House staffer in charge of reading the mail. The leader of the Stern Group denied it, pointing out that there was no motive, since Truman was more sympathetic to Zionism than FDR. However, Truman was certainly not a staunch Zionist in 1947, although he did ultimately capitulate to Jewish pressure (and money) when he recognized Israel over the strong objections of the military and foreign policy establishment. In any case, it’s clear that the Stern Group did use this tactic:Yalin-Mor [head of the Stern Group] … readily acknowledged that the Sternists resorted to letter bombs but insisted that they were sent only to British leaders during the waning years of the Palestine Mandate and not to any other nationals. He said there was nothing to be gained from driving other sympathetic nations into the arms of the British.It’s quite clear that from the beginning Zionism has been characterized by ruthless pursuit of its goals, particularly by the ultra-nationalists who are now in power and are set to dominate Israeli politics in the future. After all, the current Likud-dominated government of Israel is the direct descendant of the Stern Group and its ilk who were inspired by Jewish racial nationalist Vladimir Jabotinsky. These are the groups that carried out the bombing of the King David Hotel and the Deir Yassin massacre. Their descendants are the force behind current Israeli policies of apartheid, ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, and the crusade for war with Iran.It’s not surprising that Adler’s letter would be condemned by today’s Jewish establishment, but one suspects a bit of hypocrisy. In the realm of ethnic politics, the only criterion is what works, and I am quite certain that Abe Foxman understands that.

When is a terrorist not a terrorist – and war with Iran or not?

2012-01-17T03:52:00.001-08:00

When is a terrorist not a terrorist – and war with Iran or not?By Alan Hart16 January 2012Alan Hart views the USA’s traditional tolerance of Israeli terrorist activities – and abuse of the alliance with the US – and wonders whether this tolerance will extend to providing cover for an Israeli attack on Iran, even if this is not endorsed by Washington.The longer and complete form of the first question in the headline is – “When is a terrorist not a terrorist in the eyes of the Obama administration (not to mention all of its predecessors) and the governments of the Western world?”Answer: When he or she is an Israeli Mossad agent or asset.Israeli agents recruit terroristsIn the case of the assassination of Iranian scientists, the Mossad’s assets are almost certainly members of the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), also known as the Peoples’ Mujahedin of Iran, which is committed to overthrowing the regime of the ruling mullahs. Many of its activists are based in Iraqi Kurdistan where Mossad has a substantial presence. It does the training there, selects the targets in Iran and provides the bombs and other weapons, and MKO members do the actual killing.It’s reasonable to presume that Mossad is more comfortable operating out of Iraqi Kurdistan with Iranian MKO assets than it was when its own agents were posing as CIA officers to recruit members of Jundallah, a Pakistan-based Sunni extremist organization, to carry out assassinations and attacks on installations and facilities in Iran.Some of the essence of that Israeli false flag operation has been revealed by Mark Perry in an article for Foreign Policy. His report is based on information he acquired about memos buried deep in the archives of America’s intelligence services which were written in the last years of President George “Dubya” Bush’s administration, plus conversations he had with two currently serving US intelligence officials and four retired intelligence officers who worked for the CIA or monitored Israeli intelligence operations from senior positions inside the US government.“It’s amazing what the Israelis thought they could get away with. Their recruitment activities were nearly in the open. They apparently didn’t give a damn about what we thought.”US intelligence officialAccording to Perry’s sources, one of whom has seen the memos, the Mossad agents who were posing as CIA agents to recruit Jundallah operatives had American passports and were “flush” with American dollars.The memos tell the story of an investigation which debunked reports from 2007 and 2008 accusing the CIA, at the direction of the White House, of covertly supporting Jundallah. The investigation apparently showed that the US “had barred even the most incidental contact with Jundallah”.The memos also gave details of CIA field reports on Mossad’s recruitment of Jundallah operatives, mainly in London and “under the nose of US intelligence officials”.One rule for Israel, another for the rest of the worldPerry’s sources confessed to being “stunned by the brazenness of Mossad’s efforts.” And one of them said: “It’s amazing what the Israelis thought they could get away with. Their recruitment activities were nearly in the open. They apparently didn’t give a damn about what we thought.”I take issue with the first part of that statement. What is really amazing is not what Mossad and almost of Israel’s political and military leaders think they can get away with, but what they know they can get away with because of the Zionist lobby’s control of Congress on all matters relating to policy for the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel.And that in turn is why, generally speaking, Israel’s leaders don’t give a damn about what American administrations think. They come and go but the Zionist lobby’s control of Congress is a permanent fixture. (In private conversation with General Moshe Dayan when he was Israel’s defence minister, I once summed up Israel’s unspeakable but implicit message to the governments of the world in the following way. “We know we shouldn’t have done this but we’ve done it because we also know there’s nothing you can do about it.” Dayan didn’t comment but the look on his face said something like, “You’re right but I’m not going to say so.”)Though Israel doesn’t usually comment on reports about Mossad’s activities, a senior government spokesman described Perry’s account of Mossad agents posing as CIA agents as “absolute nonsense”. As I was reading the denial I used a Jimmy Carter expression – “BS” (Bull Shit).“These are shameful acts by a shameful Israeli government exploiting Iranian terrorists for their own ends. I find it disgusting that Israel can get away with such acts with impunity.”Richard Silverstein, US journalistAfter the latest assassination of an Iranian scientist, Rick Santorum, the right-wing religious joker in the pack of Republican presidential hopefuls, said this: “On occasions scientists working on the nuclear programme in Iran turn up dead. I think that’s a wonderful thing.”A different view was offered by Jewish American journalist Richard Silverstein. For his weblog Tikun Olam he wrote this: “These are shameful acts by a shameful Israeli government exploiting Iranian terrorists for their own ends. I find it disgusting that Israel can get away with such acts with impunity.”Disgusting it certainly is but there’s no mystery about why Israel can commit crimes, including acts of naked state terrorism, without fear of being called and held to account for them by the UN Security Council. When after the 1967 war it refused to label the Zionist state as the aggressor and require it to withdraw from the newly occupied Arab lands without conditions, it effectively created, at the insistence of the US, two sets of rules for the behaviour of nations: one set for all the nations of the world minus Israel and the other exclusively for Israel. That was the birth of the double standard which is the cancer at the heart of Western foreign policy.Now let’s pause for a moment to imagine what the response would have been if Iranian agents or assets had assassinated an Israeli scientist (just one) in the Zionist state.Led by America, Western governments would have bellowed their condemnation of the terrorism and pledged full support for all efforts to hunt the terrorists down and bring them to justice. And they would, of course, have blamed the government of Iran even if there was not one shred of evidence of its authorization. The assassination of an Israeli scientist might even have tipped the Washington decision-making balance in favour of the mad men who want the US either to attack Iran or give Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu the green light to go, with or without nuclear tipped, bunker-busting bombs.And Israel? How would it have responded? With or without a green light from President Barack Obama it almost certainly would have bombed selected targets in Iran, even if doing so was likely to set the region on fire and do vast damage to Western interests in the region and the whole Muslim world. (As I note in my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, in the chapter headed “The Liberty Affair – Pure Murder on a Great Day”, the lesson of the cold-blooded Israeli attack on the American spy ship was that there is nothing the Zionist state might not do, to its friends as well as its enemies, in order to get its own way.)Now, at the risk of inviting a charge from some and perhaps many readers that I am naive in the extreme, I have to say I am inclined to the view that the Obama administration was telling the truth when it strongly denied any American complicity in the latest Israeli/MKO assassination. The New York Times put it this way: The assassination drew an unusually strong condemnation from the White House and the State Department, which disavowed any American complicity... “The United States had absolutely nothing to do with this,” said Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared to expand the denial beyond Wednesday’s killing, categorically denying any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside Iran.The New York Times report then quoted Mrs Clinton as saying this: We believe that there has to be an understanding between Iran, its neighbours and the international community that finds a way forward for it to end its provocative behaviour, end its search for nuclear weapons and rejoin the international community,That in my opinion is code for something very like: “This administration is not completely mad. We know that an attack on Iran could have catastrophic consequences for the region and the world. Despite the mounting and awesome pressure we are under from Netanyahu and those who peddle his propaganda here in America, we know that the nuclear problem with Iran must be solved by jaw-jaw and not war-war.”How catastrophic the consequences of an Israeli attack on Iran could be for the region and the world has been put into words by Philip Giraldi, currently the executive director of the Council for the National Interest and a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer. The scenario he presents under the headline "What war with Iran might look like" takes us all the way to World War III.So, I believe New York Times reporter Scott Shane was on the right track when he wrote that the statements by US officials appeared to reflect serious concern about the (Israeli/MKO) assassinations of Iranian scientists because they could “backfire” and make Iran’s leaders less willing to talk. And, I add, more willing to give in to those forces in Iran, the Revolutionary Guards in particular, who might well be saying that Iran must possess nuclear weapons for deterrence.“At executive level it [the Obama administration] is, I think, in a state of something close to total panic about what to do to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran if Netanyahu is not bluffing.”My guess is that US officials are also concerned by the possibility that more assassinations could provoke an Iranian response which would give Israel the pretext to attack. (It’s by no means impossible that the main purpose of the assassinations is to provoke an Iranian response to give Israel the pretext for an attack.)That brings me to my own speculation about what is really going on behind closed doors in the Obama administration. At executive level it is, I think, in a state of something close to total panic about what to do to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran if Netanyahu is not bluffing.My reading of Obama’s latest turn of the sanctions screw on Iran is that it’s his way of not only putting more pressure on the ruling mullahs. It’s also his way of saying to Netanyahu something like: “Give me more time to solve the Iranian nuclear problem by all means other than war.”Obama needs more time not only to try to get serious and substantive talks with Iran going but also to establish beyond any doubt whether Israeli threats to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities are a bluff (to put pressure on the US) or not. In an article for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz under the headline "Israel and US at odds over timetables and red lines for Iran", Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel wrote: Do [Israeli Defence Minister Ehud] Barak and Netanyahu really intend to attack on their own, or is Israel only trying to prod the West into more decisive action? That is the million-dollar question. It has been discussed intermittently for the past three years and it seems that Washington does not have a satisfactory answer to it.In a few days time General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, is scheduled to arrive in Israel for talks with Ehud Barak, Chief of Staff Lieutenant-General Benny Gantz and other senior Israeli defence and intelligence officials.“My guess is that whatever he may say in public after his meetings, [Chairman of US Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin] Dempsey will tell the Israelis in private that if they go to war with Iran they will be on their own.”Dempsey knows that when US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta met with Netanyahu and Barak last November, they refused to give him a commitment that Israel would not attack Iran without informing America of its intention to do so.If I am right about the panic in the Obama administration, my guess is that Dempsey will try to obtain the commitment Panetta failed to get. What if Dempsey does not succeed?My guess is that whatever he may say in public after his meetings, Dempsey will tell the Israelis in private that if they go to war with Iran they will be on their own. The US, I can almost hear him saying, will not become engaged except to defend its own national interests if and as necessary “because the American people, most of them, are tired of war”. He could add “and we don’t have the money to pay for it”.An interesting question for the coming days is something like this: what if Dempsey returns to Washington without being able to give behind-closed-doors assurance that Israel (despite what it might continue to say to the contrary in public for propaganda purposes) will not go it alone with an attack Iran?In theory there is a card President Obama could play. He could put Israel on public notice that if it attacked Iran and if as a consequence America’s own bests interests were harmed, the US would have to rethink its relationship with the “Jewish state”. A statement to that effect would imply that the days of America’s unconditional support for Israel right or wrong could be coming to an end.But that’s not a statement Obama could make this side of November’s presidential election. So, if Netanyahu is not bluffing, and if he was determined to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities before November’s election, there’s nothing Obama could do to stop him, even knowing that the end game could be, as Giraldi speculated, World War III.My own view has always been that Netanyahu is bluffing to the extent that even he is not crazy enough to order an Israeli attack on Iran without a green light from the US and American cover and participation.I hope I am right. If I am it could be that General Dempsey will return to Washington with the news Obama wants and needs: that without a green light from the US, Israel will not bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Henry Kissinger: "If You Can't Hear the Drums of War You Must Be Deaf"

2012-01-16T04:13:00.001-08:00

Henry Kissinger: "If You Can't Hear the Drums of War You Must Be Deaf" NEW YORK - USA - In a remarkable admission by former Nixon era Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, reveals what is happening at the moment in the world and particularly the Middle East. Speaking from his luxurious Manhattan apartment, the elder statesman, who will be 89 in May, is all too forward with his analysis of the current situation in the world forum of Geo-politics and economics."The United States is bating China and Russia, and the final nail in the coffin will be Iran, which is, of course, the main target of Israel. We have allowed China to increase their military strength and Russia to recover from Sovietization, to give them a false sense of bravado, this will create an all together faster demise for them. We're like the sharp shooter daring the noob to pick up the gun, and when they try, it's bang bang. The coming war will will be so severe that only one superpower can win, and that's us folks. This is why the EU is in such a hurry to form a complete superstate because they know what is coming, and to survive, Europe will have to be one whole cohesive state. Their urgency tells me that they know full well that the big showdown is upon us. O how I have dreamed of this delightful moment.""Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people."Mr Kissinger then added: "If you are an ordinary person, then you can prepare yourself for war by moving to the countryside and building a farm, but you must take guns with you, as the hordes of starving will be roaming. Also, even though the elite will have their safe havens and specialist shelters, they must be just as careful during the war as the ordinary civilians, because their shelters can still be compromised."After pausing for a few minutes to collect his thoughts, Mr Kissinger, carried on: "We told the military that we would have to take over seven Middle Eastern countries for their resources and they have nearly completed their job. We all know what I think of the military, but I have to say they have obeyed orders superfluously this time. It is just that last stepping stone, i.e. Iran which will really tip the balance. How long can China and Russia stand by and watch America clean up? The great Russian bear and Chinese sickle will be roused from their slumber and this is when Israel will have to fight with all its might and weapons to kill as many Arabs as it can. Hopefully if all goes well, half the Middle East will be Israeli. Our young have been trained well for the last decade or so on combat console games, it was interesting to see the new Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 game, which mirrors exactly what is to come in the near future with its predictive programming. Our young, in the US and West, are prepared because they have been programmed to be good soldiers, cannon fodder, and when they will be ordered to go out into the streets and fight those crazy Chins and Russkies, they will obey their orders. Out of the ashes we shall build a new society, there will only be one superpower left, and that one will be the global government that wins. Don't forget, the United States, has the best weapons, we have stuff that no other nation has, and we will introduce those weapons to the world when the time is right."End of interview. Our reporter is ushered out of the room by Kissinger's minder.dailysquib.

lan Dershowitz: The Zionist Caricature

2012-01-15T08:27:00.001-08:00

Alan Dershowitz: The Zionist CaricatureBy Gilad Atzmon Al-Jazeerah, CCUN, January 9, 2012 Could it be that Zionist-caricature Alan Dershowitz has resorted to comedy as he desperately tries to win his battle against me and my book? What else could explain this intellectually retarded Zionist mouthpiece’s repetition of the same old lies? A few years ago Norman Finkelstein established that Dershowitz is a plagiarist, but now Dershowitz extends this infamous title - Now, he’s actually plagiarising his own phantasmic fibs!Just a week before Hanukah, fancying himself as a bit of a music critic, Dershowitz described me as an ‘obscure saxophonist’. This was amusing enough, but yesterday Dershowitz elaborated on his notion of ‘obscurity’. In an embarrassingly unimaginative and vindictive article he called Chicago University Professor of Philosophy Brian Leiter a “relatively obscure professor of jurisprudence”. For a native English speaker (and a Harvard Professor) Dershowitz sure has a limited English vocabulary.Professor Leiter’s crime was obvious enough: he stood up for freedom of expression and open debate. He defended Professor John Mearsheimer who has endorsed ‘The Wandering Who’ and refused to bow to vile and relentless Zionist pressure to withdraw his praise for the book.To read Professor Leiter’s article click here.Ethnic cleanser advocate Dershowitz writes. “Without bothering even to read Atzmon's book, Leiter pronounced that Atzmon's ‘positions [do not mark him] as an anti-Semite [but rather as] cosmopolitan.’ Leiter also certified that Atzmon ‘does not deny the Holocaust or the gas chambers.’ Had Leiter read the book, he could not have made either statement.”Dershowitz sure has some chutzpah, since it’s actually he who didn’t read ‘The Wandering Who’. If he had, he would have seen that in the book and in all my writing I neither deny nor do I affirm any historical aspect of the Holocaust, gas chambers or the Judeocide in general. Instead, I insist that history cannot be sealed by laws. I also insist that intellectual curiosity and our knowledge of the past cannot be vetted or confined by anyone, let alone such morbid minds as that of Dershowitz himself. Open society is about the openness to think freely and to express those thoughts. Dershowitz’ continues “Atzmon himself credits ‘a man who…was an anti-Semite’ for ‘many of [his] insights’ and calls himself a ‘self-hating Jew’ who has contempt for ‘the Jew in me (him).’ If that's not an admission of anti-Semitism, rather than ‘cosmopolitanism.’”But is this really an ‘admission of antisemitism’? Let’s examine Dershowitz’ intentionally lame, convoluted and misleading argument. To start with, the ‘Antisemite’ whom I indeed follow, is Otto Weininger, one of the most influential intellects of pre- WWII Europe. But, it is not Weininger’s alleged ‘antisemitism’ that I follow as I clearly note in my book, but actually Weininger the genius philosopher. It is also true that I am a ‘self hater’ and even a ‘proud self hater’ - an intellectual position still legal in the West. It is also true that I oppose the ‘Jew’ in me, but how does that make me into an antisemite? By opposing the Jew in me, I oppose only an ideology. Basically, I reject all the symptoms Dershowitz and other Zionists manifest in every and each of their relentless Judeo-centric hasbara campaigns i.e. supremacy, duplicity, brutality, vindictivess, ignorance and arrogance. Furthermore, I do not and cannot oppose or hate the ‘Semite’ in me. This is simply because there is no such a quality in me. Unlike Dershowitz and his Zionists ilk, I do not think in racial terms. I am honest enough to admit that I am no ‘Semite’ and that my ancestry lies not in Palestine. I am probably some kind of Khazarian mongrel – as is Dershowitz and most European Jews.Dershowitz continues, “Leiter went so far as to condemn those who dared to criticize Mearsheimer for endorsing Atzmon's book, calling their criticism ‘hysterical’ and not ‘advance[ing] honest intellectual discourse.” Professor Leiter is actually spot- on in here. Prophetically he manages to describe Dershowitz’ tantrum - the Zionist advocate is clearly hysterical as he tries desperately to block intellectual debate and exchange. On numerous occasions I have invited Dershowitz for a debate, but it seems the Zionist caricature would not or could not take the risk. Dershowitz is evidently as much a coward as he is a loudmouth. Towards the end of his rant as Dershowitz reaches his climax, Professor Leiter becomes just a category namely ‘the Leiters’. “The Leiters of the world”, says Dershowitz, “are an important part of the reason why anti-Semitic tropes are creeping back to legitimacy in academia.” This has left me puzzled. What about the ‘remote’ possibility that it is actually the Dershowitzes of the world who, by their misbehaviour and by their support of the criminal Jewish State, are bringing shame and even disaster, God forbid, on the Jews? I cannot understand how one of America’s alleged ‘leading lawyers’ can fail to see that his shameless behaviour may well be the root cause of the rapidly emerging anti-Jewish feelings in America and beyond. But it seems as if Professor Leiter, Professor Richard Falk, Professor Mearsheimer and myself are not alone. According to Zionist-parody Dershowitz, we are in a good company. Leading Republican Candidate Ron Paul has also found his way into becoming a target for Dershowitz’ impotent rage. Paul is accused of being affiliated with, guess what, ‘anti semitism’ and ‘holocaust denial’.http://youtu.be/GdDJvJJsVsUFor some reason, Dershowitz, one of the most despised Zionists ever, seems to believe that he holds the moral high ground. “Shame on them!” he proclaims referring to Professor Leiter and Ron Paul. Well, Dershowitz must know quite a bit about shame - He sure brings a lot of it on himself and on every Jew and Zionist foolish enough to associate with him and his message. To read a complete deconstruction of Dershowitz' lies click here.To read the Dershowitz attack on Rep Ron Paul Professor Leiter and myself click here. Gilad Atzmon's New Book: The Wandering Who? A Study Of Zionist tricks .. Amazon.com

Did Police massage Forensics to get a result?

2012-01-05T09:31:00.001-08:00

London - Yesterday, the jury returned verdicts of guilty on both defendants in a murder case that has caused controversy from its very beginning, nearly 19 years ago on a South London street. But has justice been done?The headline on page 10 of London Metro on December 16 last was Norris's mother 'faked Stephen stabbing alibi', the quote's signify this was simply an allegation rather than a fact. An enormous number of allegations have been made in this case over the years, but the elephant in the courtroom was the allegation that neither of the QCs defending these two men appears to have had the courage to make, that is that the new forensic evidence may have been and indeed probably was faked by a police officer assigned to this case, or perhaps more than one working in collusion.Before tackling that issue though, for those who are not au fait with the case, some background can be found here, while more detail and some analysis made some 6 years ago can be found here. In all humility, this analysis has, and will, stand the test of time. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the one of the first news reports broadcast in the wake of the convictions of Gary Dobson and David Norris, in particular this one by ITN.As well as announcing the verdict, this report simply parrots the nonsense spouted by ill-informed people at the time and later, including Doreen Lawrence. While it may seem distateful to criticise a grieving mother, it is necessary to view even the most heinous of murders dispassionately.The mindless parroting of the mantra racist, racist, racist is not helpful; the protesters shown in this video are carrying placards produced by the Socialist Workers Party, an organisation that is so blinded by its own political agenda that it finds racism everywhere. Among other things it supported uncritically convicted murderer Satpal Ram, and its take on the mindless criminality of the August riots is a marvel to behold.The Stephen Lawrence case was not about racism, it was about justice; no one should be murdered while simply standing on the public highway waiting for a bus, and when someone is, the killer(s) should be brought to justice. Clearly that was not the case here, but first let us deal with the criticisms made of the police at the time. Were they fair?The claim by Doreen Lawrence that they were afraid to get black blood on them was certainly not fair. When the police are called to a violent incident it is often unclear who is the protagonist and who is the innocent party - if anyone is innocent - or who is hurt and how badly. Although Stephen Lawrence had clearly been stabbed, no one apart from his friend Duwayne Brooks seemed to realise how badly he was injured. When it became clear that he had been stabbed severely, they did their best to help him, but if a busload of doctors rather than the police had turned up that night, they would not have been able to do anything for him, his injuries were fatal.The claim they should not have treated the murder as gang related is also wrong. Clearly it was gang related in a sense because Stephen Lawrence was attacked by a gang. Was it inappropriate or even racist for them to investigate the possibility that he himself had been a member of a gang? Clearly not, this would have been one of many lines of inquiry. While the police will generally do their best to keep the next of kin informed, it is not police procedure for them to keep up a running commentary, nor to make even grieving parents privy to evidence or operational matters. For one thing, however ludicrous it may appear to her, Doreen Lawrence herself would have been a suspect in a very general sense, as are all family, relatives and friends in any murder investigation, although she would have been ruled out very quickly.The claim that the police should have swooped on and arrested the prime suspects at the drop of a hat on the strength of two anonymous letters is also ill-considered. The criterion for arrest is reasonable suspicion (probable cause, as our American friends say). Can two anonymous letters - that were possibly written by the same person with mischievous intent - be called reasonable suspicion?In the early hours of December 27, 1999, Neville Lawrence, Stephen's father, was stopped by the police while driving his car in North London. A woman had reported being mugged by two black men in the area; Mr Lawrence and his passenger, his cousin, were black, and they were detained for about 20 minutes. He was apparently not too happy with this, indeed the aforementioned Socialist Workers Party is forever harping on about young black men being stopped and searched arbitrarily, but it is clear that in this case the stop was reasonable. Would an arrest or arrests have been reasonable in the Stephen Lawrence case at such an early stage, or did the police do the right thing by continuing to investigate and gather evidence?In its April 21, 2002 edition, the late and unlamented News Of The World claimed that the original suspects - the Acourt gang - of which Dobson and Norris were members - may actually have been innocent. No source is named, but it is claimed the Acourt gang had been on their way to fight another, the Coronet gang.Immediately after the verdict, the BBC screened a Panorama documentary - currently found here.This simply rehashes for the Nth time the nonsense about police incompetence and institutional racism. It also makes out Doreen Lawrence to be some kind of heroine, battling against the police and the judiciary, instead of a woman who was and remains ignorant of police methodology.This is the story of how an ordinary family exposed the mighty Metropolitan Police as “institutionally racist”. No, it did not! This programme had clearly been in preparation for some considerable time because it accompanied Doreen Lawrence to her native Jamaica where she and her now ex-husband sent their son's body to be buried. The best thing we did, she said, was to bring him here, because the UK didn't deserve him. Now who's being racist?The police weren't interested in catching Stephen's killers, she said; they assumed it must have been gang related. Again, this was a reasonable line of inquiry.The covert police surveillance video of the gang is paraded as almost beyond belief, almost beyond bearing, according to one commentator. And the lesson of this is? To begin with, this is evidence of contemptible youths - as many of us are when we are young, contemptible of authority and sometimes the world. Haven't they heard of angry young men? Or bravado? They were simply trash talking to their peers. Having said that, most kids grow out of this sort of thing. The other thing this video shows is that people who eavesdrop on the conversations of others seldom hear anything good about themselves. As well as disparaging blacks, the Acourt gang had some strong words to say about the police, not unreasonably if they were indeed innocent.The real issue though is by what legal authority does Big Brother break into private premises and set up covert surveillance equipment to spy on not only possibly bona fide suspects but anyone else who uses those premises?The Panorama documentary has no criticisms to make of the Macpherson Inquiry, and its ludicrous conclusions and recommendations. Certainly neither Macpherson's ludicrous report nor the implementation of its recommendations changed the face of race relations in Britain for the better.The documentary does not mention either the payments Doreen and Neville received from the Metropolitan Police. In February 2000 it was reported that having already rejected a settlement of £175,000 - settlement for what? - they were set to receive £320,000 which included, £98,898 for loss of earnings caused by psychiatric illness, and £7,000 for trips abroad to relieve stress. As the saying goes, you couldn't make it up.Finally, the documentary does not mention the shady antecedents of their lawyer, Imran Khan, the man who stood next to Doreen Lawrence outside the Central Criminal Court as she spoke after the conviction of Dobson and Norris. Khan is - or rather was - an uncritical supporter of not murder victim but rightly convicted murderer Satpal Ram. On November 17, 1999, he along with Neville Lawrence no less, attended a meeting at the House of Commons in support of Ram.One of the things this meeting called for was “The right of a person to defend themself against a racist attack has to be recognised.”Including presumably the right to carry an illegal weapon - a flick knife.Amazing, isn't it? The innocent Stephen Lawrence was stabbed twice in the chest by an armed thug who disappeared into the night. And Satpal Ram was an armed thug who stabbed an innocent man in the back twice then disappeared into the night. Shame on you, Imran, and shame on you Neville, for allowing your son's name to be mentioned in the same breath as a murderer who treated another innocent victim the same way your son was treated.Having disposed of the Panorama programme, let us return to the trial. Dobson had two alibi witnesses: his parents. The mother of David Norris gave her son an alibi. Neither of these were believed. The jacket on which the blood of Stephen Lawrence was allegedly found belonged to Dobson; he denied wearing it. Certainly no one reported any of the attackers wearing such a jacket on the night of the murder, and it is nothing if distinctive, even under street lights. The person who wielded the knife was also distinctive, and was not one of the Acourt gang. One other thing should be added to the above, this is the fact that since 1993 not one of the principal suspects has said or had attributed to him the slightest incriminating statement. Bearing in mind that none of them is exactly doctorate material, this desideratum also points towards innocence.Thus the jury was faced with, on the one hand, inconclusive and indeed negative evidence of guilt - eyewitness testimony - and forensics which were at best dubious. Could there be another explanation besides accidental contamination? Of course, fabrication. This was no ordinary cold case review; if the supposedly new forensics had pointed to an entirely new suspect, they would have been far more credible, but the fact remains that the public is reliant on the integrity of the police to handle forensics and other exhibits in good faith, and at the end of the day, we have only their word that they acted in good faith. Yet we know the police are capable of acting in not simply bad faith but no faith at all.The most reasonable explanation for the incriminating forensic evidence in this case, is that it was planted. If anyone doubts the police are capable of such perfidy, they should check out the case of Winston Silcott, whose conviction for the murder of PC Keith Blakelock (which was overturned on appeal) involved a massive conspiracy of bent coppers who fabricated his unsigned confession out of the whole cloth.It should also be noted that the Acourt gang were and are not the only suspects. There are still 9 potential suspects, which means that corruption aside, the police are keeping an open mind.At the end of the day, this case was not about racism or such nonsense, rather it was and remains about a culture of violence, guns and knives that permeates youths - of all races - in many of Britain's cities, and indeed in cities throughout the West if not throughout the world.The most disturibing things about this case though are the way it has been used not only to brainwash especially the young with the mantra of the “anti-racist” lobby, but to undermine the rule of law. This is the second time double jeopardy has been thrown out of the window. We can be sure it will not be the last, and that at some time in the not too distant future attempts will be made to weaken the criteria for prosecution after acquittal. Which will open the door to prosecuting the same person for the same alleged offence over and over again until the jury returns the right verdict.There is of course scant sympathy for either Gary Dobson or David Norris, but the next person to be hauled over the coals in this fashion probably won't be a nasty racist, he may even be black, and then we will see the usual suspects chanting the same mantra, but by then it will be too late.Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/316805#ixzz1ibd4RaLd

Robert Fisk-Bankers are the Dictators of the West

2012-01-01T03:32:00.001-08:00

Writing from the very region that produces more clichés per square foot than any other "story" – the Middle East – I should perhaps pause before I say I have never read so much garbage, so much utter drivel, as I have about the world financial crisis.But I will not hold my fire. It seems to me that the reporting of the collapse of capitalism has reached a new low which even the Middle East cannot surpass for sheer unadulterated obedience to the very institutions and Harvard "experts" who have helped to bring about the whole criminal disaster.Let's kick off with the "Arab Spring" – in itself a grotesque verbal distortion of the great Arab/Muslim awakening which is shaking the Middle East – and the trashy parallels with the social protests in Western capitals. We've been deluged with reports of how the poor or the disadvantaged in the West have "taken a leaf" out of the "Arab spring" book, how demonstrators in America, Canada, Britain, Spain and Greece have been "inspired" by the huge demonstrations that brought down the regimes in Egypt, Tunisia and – up to a point – Libya. But this is nonsense.The real comparison, needless to say, has been dodged by Western reporters, so keen to extol the anti-dictator rebellions of the Arabs, so anxious to ignore protests against "democratic" Western governments, so desperate to disparage these demonstrations, to suggest that they are merely picking up on the latest fad in the Arab world. The truth is somewhat different. What drove the Arabs in their tens of thousands and then their millions on to the streets of Middle East capitals was a demand for dignity and a refusal to accept that the local family-ruled dictators actually owned their countries. The Mubaraks and the Ben Alis and the Gaddafis and the kings and emirs of the Gulf (and Jordan) and the Assads all believed that they had property rights to their entire nations. Egypt belonged to Mubarak Inc, Tunisia to Ben Ali Inc (and the Traboulsi family), Libya to Gaddafi Inc. And so on. The Arab martyrs against dictatorship died to prove that their countries belonged to their own people.And that is the true parallel in the West. The protest movements are indeed against Big Business – a perfectly justified cause – and against "governments". What they have really divined, however, albeit a bit late in the day, is that they have for decades bought into a fraudulent democracy: they dutifully vote for political parties – which then hand their democratic mandate and people's power to the banks and the derivative traders and the rating agencies, all three backed up by the slovenly and dishonest coterie of "experts" from America's top universities and "think tanks", who maintain the fiction that this is a crisis of globalisation rather than a massive financial con trick foisted on the voters.The banks and the rating agencies have become the dictators of the West. Like the Mubaraks and Ben Alis, the banks believed – and still believe – they are owners of their countries. The elections which give them power have – through the gutlessness and collusion of governments – become as false as the polls to which the Arabs were forced to troop decade after decade to anoint their own national property owners. Goldman Sachs and the Royal Bank of Scotland became the Mubaraks and Ben Alis of the US and the UK, each gobbling up the people's wealth in bogus rewards and bonuses for their vicious bosses on a scale infinitely more rapacious than their greedy Arab dictator-brothers could imagine.I didn't need Charles Ferguson's Inside Job on BBC2 this week – though it helped – to teach me that the ratings agencies and the US banks are interchangeable, that their personnel move seamlessly between agency, bank and US government. The ratings lads (almost always lads, of course) who AAA-rated sub-prime loans and derivatives in America are now – via their poisonous influence on the markets – clawing down the people of Europe by threatening to lower or withdraw the very same ratings from European nations which they lavished upon criminals before the financial crash in the US. I believe that understatement tends to win arguments. But, forgive me, who are these creatures whose ratings agencies now put more fear into the French than Rommel did in 1940?Why don't my journalist mates in Wall Street tell me? How come the BBC and CNN and – oh, dear, even al-Jazeera – treat these criminal communities as unquestionable institutions of power? Why no investigations – Inside Job started along the path – into these scandalous double-dealers? It reminds me so much of the equally craven way that so many American reporters cover the Middle East, eerily avoiding any direct criticism of Israel, abetted by an army of pro-Likud lobbyists to explain to viewers why American "peacemaking" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be trusted, why the good guys are "moderates", the bad guys "terrorists".The Arabs have at least begun to shrug off this nonsense. But when the Wall Street protesters do the same, they become "anarchists", the social "terrorists" of American streets who dare to demand that the Bernankes and Geithners should face the same kind of trial as Hosni Mubarak. We in the West – our governments – have created our dictators. But, unlike the Arabs, we can't touch them.The Irish Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, solemnly informed his people this week that they were not responsible for the crisis in which they found themselves. They already knew that, of course. What he did not tell them was who was to blame. Isn't it time he and his fellow EU prime ministers did tell us? And our reporters, too?

The March to War: Iran and the Strategic Encirclement of Syria and Lebanon

2011-12-28T04:39:00.001-08:00

The March to War: Iran and the Strategic Encirclement of Syria and LebanonBy Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya Global Research, December 24, 2011 Strategic Culture Foundation - 2011-12-02 The encirclement of Syria and Lebanon has long been in the works. Since 2001, Washington and NATO have started the process of cordoning off Lebanon and Syria. The permanent NATO presence in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Syrian Accountability Act are part of this initiative. It appears that this roadmap is based on a 1996 Israeli document aimed at controlling Syria. The document’s name is A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. The 1996 Israeli document, which included prominent U.S. policy figures as authors, calls for “rolling back Syria” in 2000 or afterward. The roadmap outlines pushing the Syrians out of Lebanon, diverting the attention of Damascus by using an anti-Syrian opposition in Lebanon, and then destabilizing Syria with the help of both Jordan and Turkey. This has all respectively occurred from 2005 to 2011. This is also why the anti-Syrian March 14 Alliance and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) were created in Lebanon.As a first step towards all this the 1996 document even calls for the removal of President Saddam Hussein from power in Baghdad and even alludes to the balkanization of Iraq and forging a strategic regional alliance against Damascus that includes a Sunni Muslim Arab “Central Iraq.” The sectarian nature of this project is very obvious as are its ties to opposing a so-called “Shiite Crescent.” The roadmap seeks to foment sectarian divisions as a means of conquering Syria and creating a Shiite-Sunni rift that will oppose Iran and keep the Arab monarchs in power.The U.S. has now initiated a naval build-up off the Syrian and Lebanese coasts. This is part of Washington’s standard scare tactics that it has used as a form of intimidation and psychological warfare against Iran, Syria, and the Resistance Bloc. While Washington is engaged in its naval build-up, the mainstream media networks controlled by the Saudis and Arab clients of the U.S. are focusing on the deployment of Russian naval vessels to Syria, which can be seen as a counter-move to NATO.Al-Ramtha in Jordan is being used to launch attacks into Daraa and Syrian territory. The Jordanian Minister of State for Media Affairs and Communications, Rakan Al-Majali, has even publicly admitted this and dismissed it as weapons smuggling. For years, Jordanian forces have successfully prevented weapons from reaching the Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank from Jordanian territory. In reality, Amman is sending weapons into Syria and working to destabilize Syria. Jordanian forces work as a frontline to protect Israel and the Jordanian intelligence services are an extension of the C.I.A. and Mossad.According to the Turkish media, France has sent its military trainers into Turkey and Lebanon to prepare conscripts against Syria. The Lebanese media also suggests the same. The so-called Free Syrian Army and other NATO-GCC front organizations are also using Turkish and Jordanian territory to stage raids into Syria. Lebanon is also being used to smuggle weapon shipments into Syria. Many of these weapons were actually arms that the Pentagon had secretly re-directed into Lebanon from Anglo-American occupied Iraq during the George W. Bush Jr. presidency.The French Foreign Minister, Alain Juppé, has promised the Syrian National Council, that a so-called “humanitarian corridor” will be imposed on Syria. Once again, the Syrian National Council is not an independent entity and therefore Juppé did not really make a promise; he really made a declaration.While foreign companies like Suncor Energy were forced to leave Libya, they have not left Syria. The reason that these companies have stayed has been presented as being humanitarian, because they provide domestic local services in Syria. For example, Suncor Energy helped produce oil for export from Libya, but in Syria produces energy for local consumption. In reality, hostile governments are letting these companies stay, because they siphon money out of Syria. They want to prevent any money from going in, while they want to also drain the local economy as a catalyst to internal implosion in Syria.Along with the U.S. and its NATO allies, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is imposing sanctions that include an end to all flights to Syria. The GCC states and Turkey have joined the foreign ministries of NATO states in asking their citizens to leave Syria. Since the U.N. Security Council is no longer a viable route against Syria, the GCC may also try to impose a no-fly zone over Syria through the Arab League.Turkey: NATO’s Trojan Horse and Gateway into the Middle EastTurkey was present at the Arab League meeting in Morocco, which demanded regime change in Damascus. Ankara has been playing a dirty game. Initially, during the start of NATO’s war against Libya, Ankara pretended to be neutral while it was helping the Transitional Council in Benghazi. The Turkish government does not care about the Syrian population. On the contrary, the demands that Turkish officials have made to the Syrians spell out that realpolitik is at play. In tune with the GCC, Turkey has demanded that Damascus re-orient its foreign policy and submit to Washington’s demands as a new satellite. Through a NATO initiative, the Turks have also been responsible for recruiting fighters against the Libyan and Syrian governments.For several years Ankara has been silently trying to de-link Syria from Iran and to displace Iranian influence in the Middle East. Turkey has been working to promote itself and its image amongst the Arabs, but all along it has been a key component of the plans of Washington and NATO. At the same time, it has been upgrading its military capabilities in the Black Sea and on its borders with Iran and Syria. Its military research and development body, TUBITAK-SAGE, has also announced that Ankara will also start mass-production of cruise-missiles in 2012 that will be fitted for its navy and forthcoming deliveries of U.S. military jets that could be used in future regional wars. Turkey and NATO have also agreed to upgrade Turkish bases for NATO troops.In September 2011, Ankara joined Washington’s missile shield project, which upset both Moscow and Tehran. The Kremlin has reserved the right to attack NATO’s missile shield facilities in Eastern Europe, while Tehran has reserved the right to attack NATO’s missile shield facilities in Turkey or in the case of a regional war. There have also been discussions about the Kremlin deploying Iskander missiles to Syria.Since June 2011, Ankara has been talking about invading Syria. It has presented the invasion plans as a humanitarian mission to establish a “buffer zone” and “humanitarian corridor” under R2P, while it has also claimed that the protests in Syria are a regional issue and not a domestic issue. In July 2011, despite the close Irano-Turkish economic ties, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard made it clear that Tehran would support the Syrians and choose Damascus over Ankara. In August 2011, Ankara started deploying retired soldiers and its military reserve units to the Turkish-Syrian border. It is in this context, that the Russian military presence has also been beefing up in the port of Tartus.From Damascus to TehranIt is also no mere coincidence that Senator Joseph Lieberman started demanding at the start of 2011 that the Pentagon and NATO attack Syria and Iran. Nor is it a coincidence that Tehran has been included in the recent Obama Administration sanctions imposed against Damascus. Damascus is being targeted as a means of targeting Iran and, in broader terms, weakening Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing in the struggle for control over the Eurasian landmass. The U.S. and its remaining allies are about to reduce their forces in Iraq, but they do not want to leave the region or allow Iran to create a bridge between itself and the Eastern Mediterranean using Iraq.Once the U.S. leaves Iraq, there will be a direct corridor between Lebanon and Syria with Iran. This will be a nightmare for Washington and Tel Aviv. It will entrench Iranian regional dominance and cement the Resistance Bloc, which will pin Iran, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinians together. Israel and the U.S. will both be struck with major strategic blows.The pressure on Syria is directly tied to this American withdrawal from Iraq and Washington’s efforts to block Tehran from making any further geo-political gains. By removing Damascus from the equation, Washington and its allies are hoping to create a geo-strategic setback for Iran.Everything that Washington is doing is in preparation for the new geo-political reality and an attempt to preserve its regional standing. U.S. military forces from Iraq will actually be redeployed to the GCC countries in the Persian Gulf. Kuwait will host new combat units that have been designated to re-enter Iraq should security collapse, such as in the case of a regional war, or to confront Iran and its allies in a future conflict. The U.S. is now activating the so-called “Coalition of the Moderate” that it created under George W. Bush Jr. and directing it against Iran, Syria, and their regional allies.On November 23, 2011 the Turks signed a military agreement with Britain to establish a strategic partnership and closer Anglo-Turkish military ties. During an important state visit by Abdullah Gül to London, the agreement was signed by Defence Secretary Phillip Hammond and the Deputy Chief of the Turkish General Staff, Hulusi Akar. The Anglo-Turkish agreement comes into play within the framework of the meetings that the British Chief of Defence Staff, General David Richards, and Liam Fox, the former scandal-ridden British defence minister, had with Israeli officials in Tel Aviv. After the visit of General Richards to Israel, Ehud Barak would visit Britain and later Canada for talks concerning Syria and its strategic ally Iran. Within this timeframe the British and Canadian governments would declare that they were prepared for war with both Syria and Iran.London has announced that military plans were also drawn for war with Syria and Iran. On the other side of the Atlantic, Canada’s Defence Minister, Peter MacKay, created shockwaves in Canada when he made belligerent announcements about war with Syria and Iran. He also announced that Canada was buying a new series of military jets through a major arms purchase. Days later, both Canada and Britain would also cut their banking and financial ties with Iran. In reality, these steps have largely been symbolic, because Tehran was deliberately curbing it ties with Britain and Canada. For months the Iranians have also openly been evaluating cutting their ties with Britain and several other E.U. members.The events surrounding Syria have much more to do with the geo-politics of the Middle East than just Syria alone. In the Israeli Knesset, the events in Syria were naturally tied to reducing Iranian power in the Middle East. Tel Aviv has been preparing itself for a major conflict for several years. This includes its long distance military flights to Greece that simulated an attack on Iran and its deployment of nuclear-armed submarines to the Persian Gulf. It has also conducted the “Turning Point” exercises, which seek to insure the continuation of the Israeli government through the evacuation and relocation of the Israeli cabinet and officials, including the Israeli finance ministry, to secret bunkers in the case of a war.For half a decade Washington has been directing a military arms build-up in the Middle East aimed at Iran and the Resistance Bloc. It has sent massive arms shipments to Saudi Arabia. It has sent deliveries of bunker busters to the U.A.E. and Israel, amongst others, while it has upgraded its own deadly arsenal. U.S. officials have also started to openly discuss murdering Iranian leaders and military officials through covert operations. What the world is facing is a pathway towards possible military escalation that could go far beyond the boundaries of the Middle East and suck in Russia, China, and their allies. The Revolutionary Guard have also made it clear that if conflict is ignited with Iran that Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinians would all be drawn in as Iranian allies.Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Sociologist and award-winning author based in Ottawa. He is a Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal. He was a witness to the "Arab Spring" in action in North Africa. While on the ground in Libya during the NATO bombing campaign, he reported out of Tripoli for several media outlets. He was Special Correspondent for Global Research and Pacifica's investigative program Flashpoints, broadcast out of Berkeley, California. His writings have been published in more than ten languages.

UK war on free speech

2011-12-27T08:52:00.001-08:00

Iranian 'Press TV' to be banned in Britain. Only pro-Zionist 'news' bulletins are to be allowed for the goyim: UK war on free speech Mon Dec 26, 2011 3:36PM GMT Britain's government-controlled broadcast regulatory body, Ofcom, has decided to ban Press TV's broadcast in an effort to silence the alternative voice in the UK. The move comes a year after a leaked US Embassy cable highlighted for the first time London and Washington's concerted effort to block Press TV in Britain. Many observers have noted that the British government's campaign against Press TV has its roots in the channel's extensive coverage of the multiple crises created by London's domestic and foreign policies.Press TV covered the 2011 Royal Wedding from a critical angle, which highlighted its extravagant costs while many Britons were suffering from great economic hardship. The channel also provided in-depth coverage of the widespread protests and the ensuing unrest that gripped Britain following the police killing of a black man in August. Press TV also interviewed many critics of the stance adopted by the British government vis-à-vis the revolutions in the Muslim world. London clearly sided with dictators and monarchs and even invited the king of Bahrain for official visits and provided his regime with military assistance. This, as Bahrain's Saudi-backed forces were torturing and killing peaceful protesters. Britain also signed a scandalous military deal with Saudi Arabia back in 2006 to sell state-of-the-art military equipment to one of the world's biggest dictatorships.The British government with its Royal establishment has a long history of wars of aggression and support of monarchies and autocratic rulers all over the world. In the Middle East, London together with Washington orchestrated Iran's 1953 coup to bring the western-backed Shah of Iran back to power. Decades later the monarch was overthrown by the Islamic Revolution. In Iraq, Britain joined the US invasion and occupation of the country that led to the killing of a million people. Britain also followed the US into Afghanistan in 2001-a war that has yet to end despite strong opposition from the British public. A senior Afghan official recently told Press TV that the British military also played a significant role in the production and trafficking of narcotics in Afghanistan. In Africa, Britain is still remembered as the brutal colonial power that crushed many local communities under the boots of its soldiers for decades. And today it is mulling direct military intervention in Somalia where people are already under intense pressure from natural disasters and U-S drone strikes.In Asia, the Royal establishment killed as many people as it needed to set up its power base in the Indian Subcontinent among other regions. Thousands of miles away in Latin America, London is still engaged in a potential military confrontation with Argentina over the Malvinas Islands three decades after fighting a deadly war with Buenos Aires over the UK-occupied archipelago. The centuries of medieval-age aggression by British rulers have earned London global infamy. The latest in a string of such UK practices is the Royal establishment's war on free speech.London has spared no effort in its two-year-long battle against Press TV. Its media tool, Ofcom, is now about to revoke the channel's broadcast license, hoping this desperate measure will silence criticism. But what the British government fails to grasp is that the truth cannot be concealed from the public, and those in the UK that want to hear Press TV's alternative voice will inevitably find a way to watch the channel of their choice.

On the Avoidability of World War One

2011-12-24T01:04:00.001-08:00

On the Avoidability of World War OneNicholas KollerstromOn August 1, 1914, as dreadful war was breaking out in Europe, the German ambassador Prince Lichnowsky paid a visit to Britain’s Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey. Dr Rudolf Steiner commented as follows upon this meeting – in a 1916 lecture which he gave in Switzerland: ‘A single sentence and the war in the West would not have taken place.’At that meeting, he averred that, with just one sentence, ‘this war could have been averted.’1To examine that outrageous-sounding claim, we delve into what is a bit of a mystery, that of the first conflict between Germany and Britain for a thousand years: two nations bound by the same royal family, with every statesman in Europe loudly proclaiming that peace is desired, that war must at all costs be avoided; and then the bloodbath takes place, terminating the great hopes for European civilization and extinguishing its bright optimism, as what were set up as defensive alliances mysteriously flipped over and became offensive war-plans.The ghastly ‘Schlieffen plan’ became activated, as the master-plan of Germany’s self-defense, which as it were contained the need for the dreadful speed with which catastrophe was precipitated. France and Russia had formed a mutual defense agreement (everyone claimed their military alliances were defensive). While Bismarck the wise statesman who founded Germany had lived, this was avoided, such an alliance being his darkest nightmare. But Kaiser Wilhelm did not manage to avoid this, and so Germany’s neighbors to East and West formed a mutual military alliance. The Schlieffen plan was based on the premise that Germany could not fight a war on two fronts but might be able to beat France quickly; so in the event of war looming against Russia in the East, its troops had to move westwards, crashing though Belgium as a route into France. It all had to happen quickly because Germany’s army was smaller than that of Russia.The timing over those crucial days shows its awful speed: Russia mobilized its army on July 29th, in response to hostilities breaking out between Austro-Hungary and Serbia; two desperate cables were sent by the Kaiser to the Tsar on the 29th and 31st, imploring him not to proceed with full mobilisation of his army because that meant war; the French government ‘irreversibly decided’ to support Russia in the war on the evening of 31st, cabling this decision to the Russian foreign minister at 1 am on August 1st 2; then, on the afternoon of that same day Germany proceeded to mobilise and declared war on Russia, and two days later went into Belgium. Britain’s House of Commons voted unanimously for war on 5th August, viewing Germany as the belligerent warmonger.Kaiser Wilhelm’s NemesisThe Kaiser had enjoyed the reputation of a peacemaker: Now ... he is acclaimed everywhere as the greatest factor for peace that our time can show. It was he, we hear, who again and again threw the weight of his dominating personality, backed by the greatest military organisation in the world – an organisation built up by himself – into the balance for peace wherever war clouds gathered over Europe. ‘(‘William II, King of Prussia and German Emperor, Kaiser 25 years a ruler, hailed as chief peacemaker,’ New York Times, 8 June, 1913. 3)A former US President, William Howard Taft, said of him: ‘The truth of history requires the verdict that, considering the critically important part which has been his among the nations, he has been, for the last quarter of a century, the single greatest force in the practical maintenance of peace in the world.’ (4,5). That is some tribute! In 1960 a BBC centenary tribute to the Kaiser was permitted to say: ‘Emphasis was placed on his love of England and his deep attachment to Queen Victoria,’ his grandmother. A lover of peace .... skilled diplomat ... deep attachment to Queen Victoria .. so remind me what the Great War was for, that took nine million lives?Kaiser Wilhelm II of GermanyKaiser Wilhelm II enjoyed a reputation as a peace maker. Shown in a photo from 1890.Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-R28302 / CC-BY-SA [CC-BY-SA-3.0-de (www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/deed.en)], via Wikimedia CommonsMight the war have been averted if the Kaiser had, perhaps, focussed a bit more on the art of war – how to refrain from marching into Belgium? There was no ‘plan B’! In later days the Kaiser used to say, he had been swept away by the military timetable. Who wanted the war which locked Europe into such dreadful conflict? Did a mere sequence of interlocking treaties bring it on?On the night of 30-31st of July, feeling entrapped by a seemingly inevitable march of events, Kaiser Wilhelm mused to himself doomily: Frivolity and weakness are going to plunge the world into the most frightful war of which the ultimate object is the overthrow of Germany. For I no longer have any doubt that England, Russia and France have agreed among themselves – knowing that our treaty obligations compel us to support Austria – to use the Austro-Serb conflict as a pretext for waging a war of annihilation against us... In this way the stupidity and clumsiness of our ally [Austria] is turned into a noose. So the celebrated encirclement of Germany has finally become an accepted fact... The net has suddenly been closed over our heads, and the purely anti-German policy which England has been scornfully pursuing all over the world has won the most spectacular victory which we have proved ourselves powerless to prevent while they, having got us despite our struggles all alone into the net through our loyalty to Austria, proceed to throttle our political and economic existence. A magnificent achievement, which even those for whom it means disaster are bound to admire.’ 6‘Those dreadful fields of senseless carnage’Did hundreds of thousands of young men, the flower of England, want to go out to muddy fields, to fight and die? Shells, bayonets, gas, machine guns - what was the point? In no way were they defending their country or its Empire – for no-one was threatening it. No European nation benefitted: it spelt ruin for all of them. Do we need to fear the imbecility of the poet’s words: If I should die, think only this of me There is some corner of a foreign field That is forever England’? (Rupert Brooke)A leading British pacifist, E.D. Morel, was widely vilified for the views expressed in his book Truth and the War (1916), and had his health wrecked (as Bertrand Russell described) by being put into Pentonville jail. In haunting words of insight, his book described how: ‘Those dreadful fields of senseless carnage’ had been brought about by ‘futile and wicked Statecraft’ - by ‘an autocratic and secret foreign policy’ carried out by those ‘who by secret plots and counter-plots ... hound the peoples to mutual destruction.’ Of the war’s outbreak, Morel wrote: ‘It came therefore to this. While negative assurances had been given to the House of Commons, positive acts diametrically opposed to these assurances had been concerted by the War Office and the Admiralty with the authority of the Foreign Office. All the obligations of an alliance had been incurred, but incurred by the most dangerous and subtle methods; incurred in such a way as to leave the Cabinet free to deny the existence of any formal parchment recording them, and free to represent its policy at home and abroad as one of contractual detachment from the rival Continental groups.’ 7 A total analogy exists here with Blair taking Britain into the Iraq war, making a deal with Bush while continually denying back home that any such deal existed. Two Cabinet members resigned in August 1914, once the central importance of this concealed contract became evident: Viscount Morley and John Burns.A more orthodox, deterministic view was given by Winston Churchill: ‘the invasion of Belgium brought the British Empire united to the field. Nothing in human power could break the fatal chain, once it had begun to unroll. A situation had been created where hundreds of officials had only to do their prescribed duty to their respective countries to wreck the world. They did their duty’. 8 That necessary chain leading to ruin began only after the crucial discussion alluded to by Dr Steiner, we observe.Considering that Germany went into Belgium on the 3rd of August, whereas Churchill and Mountbatten, the First and Second Sea Lords, had ordered the mobilising of the British fleet over July 26 -30th, so that by days before the 3rd much of the world’s biggest navy was up north of Scotland all ready to pounce on Germany – his words may appear as some kind of extreme limit of hypocrisy. The mobilising of the British fleet was a massive event which greatly pre-empted political discussion, a week before Britain declared war. 9, 10A Secret AllianceBritain was obliged by no necessity to enter a European war, having no alliance with France that the people of Britain or its parliament knew about, and having a long indeed normal policy of avoiding embroilment in European conflicts. However, ministers especially Grey the Foreign Minister had covertly made a deal with France. To quote from Bertrand Russell’s autobiography: ‘I had noticed during previous years how carefully Sir Edward Grey lied in order to prevent the public from knowing the methods by which he was committing us to the support of France in the event of war.’ 11 Would Britain be dragged into a European war on the coat-tails of France – for centuries, its traditional enemy - given that France had signed a treaty obligation to enter war in consequence of a German-Russian conflict? France was keen to avenge past grievances over the French-German border, aware of the superiority of troops which it and Russia combined had against Germany – and convinced that it could drag Britain into the fray.On 24 March 1913, the Prime Minister had been asked about the circumstances under which British troops might land on the Continent. He replied, ‘As has been repeatedly stated, this country is not under any obligation not public and known to parliament which compels it to take part in any war’ - a double negative which concealed a hidden but then-existing accord!Last Hope of PeaceWe turn now to the question put, on August 1st by Germany’s ambassador to Britain’s Foreign Secretary, normally omitted from history books on the subject. If war and peace did indeed hinge upon it - as Dr Steiner averred - it may be worth quoting a few judgements about it. Here is Grey’s own letter, written that day:Grey’s letter to the British ambassador in Berlin: 1 August, concerning his meeting with Prince Lichnowsky : ‘He asked me whether, if Germany gave a promise not to violate Belgian neutrality we would engage to remain neutral. I replied that I could not say that: our hands were still free, and we were considering what our attitude should be....I did not think that we could give a promise on that condition alone. The ambassador pressed me as to whether I could formulate conditions on which we would remain neutral. He even suggested that the integrity of France and her colonies might be guaranteed. I said that I felt obliged to refuse definitely any promise to remain neutral on similar terms, and I could only say that we must keep our hands free.’ 12,13Swiss author George Brandes summarised this meeting: 'Now Prince Lichnowsky, the German Ambassador in London, asked whether England would agree to remain neutral if Germany refrained from violating Belgium’s neutrality. Sir Edward Grey refused. Britain wanted to retain ‘a free hand’ (‘I did not think we could give a promise of neutrality on that condition alone’). Would he agree if Germany were to guarantee the integrity of both France and her colonies? No.’ 14The US historian Harry Elmer Barnes: ‘The only way whereby Grey could have prevented war, if at all, in 1914 would have been by declaring that England would remain neutral if Germany did not invade Belgium...,’ but Grey ‘refused to do’ this: ‘After Grey had refused to promise the German Ambassador that England would remain neutral in the event of Germany’s agreeing not to invade Belgium, the German ambassador asked Grey to formulate the conditions according to which England would remain neutral, but Grey refused point-blank to do so, though he afterwards falsely informed the Commons that he had stated these conditions’. 15 Barnes commended the editorial of the Manchester Guardian July 30th - opposing the pro-war jingoism of The Times – which declared: ‘not only are we neutral now, but we are and ought to remain neutral throughout the whole course of the war.’The British judge and lawyer Robert Reid was the Earl of Loreburn as well as the Lord Chancellor of England from 1905 to 1912, so he should know what was going on. His book ‘How the War Came’ described how it was the secret deal with France which wrecked everything: The final mistake was that when, on the actual crisis arising, a decision one way or the other might and, so far as can be judged, would have averted the Continental war altogether ... The mischief is that Sir Edward Grey slipped into a new policy, but without either Army, or treaty, or warrant of Parliamentary approval ... This country has a right to know its own obligations and prepare to meet them and to decide its own destinies. When the most momentous decision of our whole history had to be taken we were not free to decide. We entered a war to which we had been committed beforehand in the dark, and Parliament found itself at two hours’ notice unable, had it desired, to extricate us from this fearful predicament... If the government thought that either our honour or our safety did require us to intervene on behalf of France, then they ought to have said so unequivocally before the angry Powers on the Continent committed themselves to irrevocable steps in the belief that we should remain neutral. Instead of saying either, they kept on saying in the despatches that their hands were perfectly free, and told the Commons the same thing. The documents show conclusively that till after Germany declared war our Ministers had not made up their minds on either of the two questions, whether or not they would fight for France, and whether or not they would fight for Belgium. Of course Belgium was merely a corridor into France, and unless France was attacked Belgium was in no danger. 16After it was over, US President Woodrow Wilson in March of 1919 summed up its avoidability: ‘We know for a certainty that if Germany had thought for a moment that Great Britain would go in with France and Russia, she would never have undertaken the enterprise.’ (p.18, Lorenburn). That was the sense in which Britain precipitated the dreadful conflict. Clear words of truth could have avoided it – had that been desired.We remind ourselves of Dr Steiner’s comparison: that the British Empire then covered one-quarter of the Earth’s land-surface; Russia one-seventh; France and her colonies one-thirteenth; and Germany, one thirty-third. (Karma, p.11)Upon receiving a telegram from Prince Lichnowsky earlier in the day of August 1, the Kaiser ordered a bottle of champagne to celebrate, as if there might be hope of reaching a deal with Britain. Even though he was just that afternoon signing the order for mobilisation of the German army, he could in some degree have recalled it ... but, it was a false hope, and a telegram from King Edward later that day explained to him that there had been a ‘misunderstanding’ between Britain’s Foreign Secretary and the German ambassador. 17Gray’s DuplicityOn the 26th or 27th, Grey told the Cabinet that he would have to resign, if it did not support his initiative to take Britain into war in support of ‘our ally,’ France. He would not be able to go along with British neutrality. Over these days up until the 1st, or 2nd, when the war was just starting, all the Cabinet of Britain’s Liberal Party government except for Churchill and Grey favoured British neutrality. It was those two who dragged Britain into war. Grey did not yet know whether the Belgian government would say ‘no’ to the German request to be allowed to pass through. To get his war, Grey had to swing it on the ‘poor little Belgium’ angle. Once Belgium had said ‘No’ and yet Germany still went in – as its only way to enter France - a cabinet majority would then became assured.On August 2nd, Grey gave to the French ambassador what amounted to British assurance of war-support. On August 3rd, Grey gave the Commons an impassioned plea in favour of British intervention on behalf of France - making no mention of the German peace-offer. The MP Phillip Morrell spoke afterwards in the sole anti-war speech that day, and pointed out that a guarantee by Germany not to invade France had been offered, on condition of British neutrality, and spurned. As to why Grey did not mention the German offer, the view was later contrived that the German ambassador had merely been speaking in a private capacity! 18The supposed neutrality of Belgium was a sham, as ministers of that country had secretly drawn up detailed anti-German war-plans with Britain and France. No wonder the Kaiser had a sense of being ‘encircled’ by enemies, because ‘“neutral” Belgium had in reality become an active member of the coalition concluded against Germany’ 19 – i.e. it had plotted against a friendly nation. Quoting the commendably insightful George Bernard Shaw, ‘The violation of Belgian neutrality by the Germans was the mainstay of our righteousness; and we played it off on America for much more than it was worth. I guessed that when the German account of our dealings with Belgium reached the United states, backed with an array of facsimiles of secret diplomatic documents discovered by them in Brussels, it would be found that our own treatment of Belgium was as little compatible with neutrality as the German invasion.’ 20Steiner’s ViewRudolf Steiner’s judgement in his December 1916 lecture (during which Britain was declining a peace offer from Germany) was: ‘Let me merely remark, that certain things happened from which the only sensible conclusion to be drawn later turned out to be the correct one, namely that behind those who were in a way the puppets there stood in England a powerful and influential group of people who pushed matters doggedly towards a war with Germany and through whom the way was paved for the world war that had always been prophesied. For of course the way can be paved for what it is intended should happen. ..it is impossible to avoid realising how powerful was the group who like an outpost of mighty impulses, stood behind the puppets in the foreground. These latter are of course, perfectly honest people, yet they are puppets, and now they will vanish into obscurity …. 21Grey and Churchill were the two consistently pro-war cabinet ministers. The Conservative Party was solidly pro-war, and Churchill was ready to offer them a deal if perchance too many of the Liberal-party cabinet were going to resign rather than go to war. Steiner here remarked: ‘Anyone [in England] voicing the real reasons [for war] would have been swept away by public opinion. Something quite different was needed – a reason which the English people could accept, and that was the violation of Belgian neutrality. But this first had to be brought about. It is really true that Sir Edward Grey could have prevented it with a single sentence. History will one day show that the neutrality of Belgium would never have been violated if Sir Edward Grey had made the declaration which it would have been quite easy for him to make, if he had been in a position to follow his own inclination. But since he was unable to follow his own inclination but had to obey an impulse which came from another side, he had to make the declaration which made it necessary for the neutrality of Belgium to be violated. Georg Brandes pointed to this. By this act England was presented with a plausible reason. That had been the whole point of the exercise: to present England with a plausible reason! To the people who mattered, nothing would have been more uncomfortable than the non-violation of Belgian territory!’ 22Could powers behind Grey have wanted war, and steered events towards that end? Steiner argued against the widespread view of an inevitable slide into war: ‘You have no idea how excessively irresponsible it is to seek a simple continuity in these events, thus believing that without more ado the Great World War came about, or had to come about, as a result of Austria’s ultimatum to Serbia. (p.82)We are here reminded of Morel’s account, of how secret plotting had paralysed debate: ‘The nemesis of their own secret acts gripped our ministers by the throat. It paralysed their sincere and desperate efforts to maintain peace. It cast dissention amongst them...They could not afford to be honest neither to the British people nor to the world. They could not hold in check the elements making for war in Germany by a timely declaration of solidarity with France and Russia, although morally committed to France.. In vain the Russians and the French implored them to make a pronouncement of British policy while there was still time.’ 23On August 4th, Britain declared war, and that same night cut through the transatlantic undersea telephone cables coming out of Germany, 24 enabling British atrocity propaganda to work largely unchallenged. Quoting a recent work on the subject, ‘The hallmark of Britain’s successful propaganda efforts were alleged German atrocities of gigantic proportions that strongly influenced naive Americans yearning for a chivalrous war from afar’. 25 Such consistent, intentional mendacity was fairly innovative, which was why it worked so well: ‘In that war, hatred propaganda was for the first time given something like organised attention’. 26 Thus, a nemesis of what Morel described as ‘futile and wicked statecraft’ here appeared, in that British soldiers were motivated to fight, by a nonstop torrent of lies - from their own government. 27In conclusion, can we agree with Dr Steiner? Quoting Barnes, ‘It is thus apparent that the responsibility for the fatal Russian mobilisation which produced the war must be shared jointly, and probably about equally, by France and Russia.’ This was because of the French cabinet’s general encouragement, then its final decision to embark upon war on the 29th July, of which Barnes remarked: ‘The secret conference of Poincaré, Viviani and Messimy, in consultation with Izvolski, on the night of 29th of July, marks the moment when the horrors of war were specifically unchained in Europe.’ (pp.328, 242) This had to be the time, it was the only opportunity, because these war-plotters would have known of the mobilisation of the world’s biggest navy, that of Great Britain, over these fateful days, all ready for war. The Russian generals browbeat the Tzar into signing the documents giving his assent - for a war he didn’t want 28. On the 31st one more desperate telegram arrived from the Kaiser about how ‘The peace of Europe may still be maintained’ if only Russia would stop its mobilisation, but the Tzar no longer had that ability. Germany placed itself at a military disadvantage by refraining from declaring war or taking steps to mobilise until the afternoon of August 1st, much later than any of the other great powers involved. Had a deal been reached in London on that afternoon, a conflict in Eastern Europe would presumably still have taken place, but it would have been limited and diplomats could have dealt with it: yes, a world war could have been averted....................Essential texts: Alexander Fuehr, The Neutrality of Belgium, NY 1915 * E.D. Morel, Truth and the War, 1916 * The Earl Lorenburn, How the War Came, 1919 * Harry Elmer Barnes, The Genesis of the World War an Introduction to the Problem of War Guilt, 1926 * British documents on the origins of the war 1898-1914, Vol XI, HMSO 1926. * Memorandum on Resignation by John Viscount, Morley, 1928, 39pp. * Alfred von Wegerer, A Refutation of the Versailles War Guilt Thesis, 1930 * Winston Churchill, The Great War Vol. 1, 1933 * Captain Russell Grenfell, Unconditional Hatred, German War Guilt and the Future of Europe (mainly about WW2) NY, 1954 * M. Balfour, The Kaiser and His Times, 1964 * Stewart Halsey Ross, Propaganda for War, How the United States Was Conditioned to Fight the Great War of 1914-18, 2009.Notes: Rudolf Steiner, The Karma of Untruthfulness Vol. 1 (13 lectures at Dornach, Switzerland, 4-31st December 1916), 1988, p.19. NB it’s available online as a Google-book, with the same pagination as here used. The new 2005 edition (subtitled Secret Societies, the Media, and Preparations for the Great War) has a fine Introduction by Terry Boardman. Barnes 1926, pp.284-8. Balfour, 1964, p.351. Ross, 2009, p.9. For a letter by US diplomat and presidential advisor Colonel E.House, concerning the pacific philosophy of the Kaiser, after a visit he paid in July 1914, see Barnes, p.523. For the ex-Kaiser’s view on ‘proof of Germany’s peaceful intentions’ i.e. how Germany had not prepared for war or expected it, see: My Memoirs, 1878-1918 by Ex-Kaiser William II, 1992, Ch.10 ‘The Outbreak of War.’ Morel, p.122: Germany had ‘for forty and four years kept the peace when war broke out in August ... No other Great Power can boast such a record.’ (Morel’s book may be viewed online) Balfour, 1964, p.354 Morel, 1916, pp.6, 8, 13 and 42. Churchill, 1933, Vol. 1, p.107. Churchill, ibid., has the British fleet secretly mobilised over the night of 29-30th July. Hugh Martin, in Battle, the Life-story of the Rt Hon. Winston Churchill, 1937: ‘Churchill, upon his own responsibility and against the express decision of the Cabinet, ordered the mobilisation of the Naval Reserve’ On the 27th, ‘the fleet [was] sent North to prevent the possibility of it being bottled up,’ p.105. A ‘Test Mobilisation’ of the entire Royal Navy paraded before the King on July 26th, at Spitalhead, after which the Navy was held full battle-readiness (The Life and Times of Lord Mountbatten, John Terrence 1968, p11-14); then, ‘On July 29th Churchill secretly ordered the core of the fleet to move north to its protected wartime base .. riding at top speed and with its lights out, it tore through the night up the North sea.’ (To End All Wars, How WW1 Divided Britain, 2011, Adam Hochschild, p.85). The first indication for the Kaiser of war-imminence, was when he learned that the English fleet ‘had not dispersed after the review at Spitalhead but had remained concentrated.’ (My Memoirs, p.241). Bertrand Russell, Autobiography, Vol. 1, 1967, p.239. H.G. Wells judged that: ‘I think he (Gray) wanted the war and I think he wanted it to come when it did ... The charge is, that he did not definitely warn Germany, that we should certainly come into the war, that he was sufficiently ambiguous to let her take a risk and attack, and that he did this deliberately. I think that this charge is sound.’ (Experiment in an Autobiography, II, 1934, p.770) Edward Grey letter Aug 1st: Britain’s ‘Blue Book,’ HMSO, 1926, p.261. See also Morley 1928, p.38-9. The noncommittal attitude expressed by Grey on August 1st to the German ambassador had been endorsed by the Cabinet and Prime Minister: Roy Jenkins, Asquith 1964, p.363. Steiner, Karma, p.18: Georg Brandes, Farbenblinde Neutralität, Zurich 1916 (Brandes was Danish). Steiner quotes extensively from it, Karma, pp. 14-23. Barnes, 1926, p.497. Loreburn, 1919, pp.15-19. Annika Mombauer, Helmuth von Moltke and the Origins of the First World War 2001 CUP p.219-223: Lichinowsky’s telegram misunderstood (NB I’m not endorsing her thesis of German war-guilt). Grey told cabinet about talk with Lichinowsky on 3rd, with a claim that the latter’s views were ‘merely personal and unauthorised.’ (Morley, pp.13-14) If so, why was the conversation recorded and published in Britain’s ‘White Book’ of key wartime documents? How could a German Ambassador make a merely personal proposal? Other such ‘White Book’ documents were recorded as personal, but not this one. As Morel pointed out (pp.26-7), the UK’s ‘Blue Book’ published its account of this interview with no hint that the Ambassador was merely acting privately - and Lichinowsky’s telegram to his Government dated 8.30 pm, August 1, indicated that he had been acting on ‘instructions.’ His offer was generally concordant with telegrams then being sent by the Kaiser and German Minister of Foreign Affairs. (Morel, p.26) Fuehr, 1915, pp.90, 117. (For comments on Fuehr see Ross 2009, pp.116-7: Fuehr’s account was ‘certainly biased’ but ‘well-documented.’) For the incriminating documents, see Ross p.300, note 55. The Kaiser recalled how piles of British army-coats and maps of Belgium were found concealed around the Belgian border, in anticipation of the war: My Memoirs, p.251-2. Ross, 2009, p.42. Steiner, Karma, pp.84-5. Ibid, p.86. Morel 1916, p.297. Ross, 2009, pp.15, 27. Ibid, p.3. Grenfell, 1954, p.125. Likewise from the French government: Barnes, ...For a general comment see Georges Thiel, Heresy: ‘One grows dizzy at the listing of all those lies [against Germany] which, afterwards, were demolished one after the other.’ Historical Review Press, 2006, p.31. For the Ex-Kaiser’s account of how, as he later learned, his telegrams considerably affected Tzar Nicholas in those crucial days, see: My Memoirs, Ch.10.

Is Germany Responsible for the Financial Crisis?

2011-12-04T23:59:00.001-08:00

Is Germany Responsible for the Financial Crisis?German bloggers Skeptissimus and Kairos contribute to the websites As der Schwerter. Kairos is also at Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit.By Skeptizissimustranslated by Kairos, translation edited by Carolyn YeagerFirst of all, we Germans are hurt to hear such things. No one among the average citizens has the wish to harm other countries, or to exploit them. Especially for Greece and Spain, most of us have great sympathy. But more important, we ourselves suffer also from the Euro, the EU, the so-called financial crisis, and the crimes that are justified through it. As in Greece and Spain, everything has become more expensive in Germany through the Euro, partly the prices doubled and more. Germany is exactly like these countries—highly in debt, with the only difference that Germany still can afford to borrow. As in the other countries, the average citizens will pay for these national debts and will have to do without many things when it abruptly happens that there are no more loans to be had. As the other Europeans, the EU dictatorship also exploits and overrules the Germans. We Germans feel already that we will – again – become the scapegoat and be held responsible for everything. This is an experience that we already had to suffer in the context of the two “World Wars.” But now the following question: What is true in this picture of evil Germans who benefit from the Euro at the expense of the other countries, and dominate them politically? Especially: Why are such things claimed, and who benefits from these claims? We cannot blame anyone for believing it because politics and media in all countries repeat it, and our own chancellor joins them! Is it really true that Germany totally benefits from the Euro and the EU because it can export more easily to other European countries? German top-quality products such as Mercedes Benz and BMW cars will always be wanted around the entire world as long as they are better than similar products from other countries. When someone has their heart set on a German luxury car it is irrelevant if he pays 500 Euro more or less. The products Germany is famous for always sold well and Germany was “world champion of exports” even before the implementation of the Euro. Meanwhile, China exports more than Germany does, and this in spite of the Euro. China sells its products without problems to the whole world, in spite of the use of foreign currencies and import restrictions. Even before the Euro, most oranges in German supermarkets came from Spain and grapes and strawberries from Greece. This has not changed. One does not need a common currency for trade; a free-trade zone is enough. Let us assume that some private companies do benefit from the Euro; is the Euro also in the interest of the German people, then? As said before, the German people have only drawbacks from the Euro. Nearly everything has become more expensive, while salaries have not been raised. Franz-Ulrich Willeke (Deutschland, Zahlmeister der EU, Olzog Verlag, München 2011, 158 pages, 19.90 Euro) said that Germany paid 324 billion Euro to the EU since the “reunion" (that is 54,1% of the whole EU budget!) and got just 178 billion Euro from it (the “emergency chute” [Rettungsschirm] not being included here). That means Germany has donated 146 billion Euro to other countries in this timeframe! Why? This is money that should have been spent to satisfy the needs of the Germans in Germany. German streets have pot holes; the plaster comes off the walls in German schools; German swimming pools, libraries and theatres have to be closed because there is no money for them; and the retirement pay to the elderly is eaten up by inflation. But before this Germany has to pay her debts, as of 24.11.2011: 217, 282, 103, 154 Euro. The main beneficiaries of the transaction were other countries such as Spain and Greece, where streets, autobahns, seaports, train stations and tracks, airports and so on were renovated or built with EU grants. Ostensibly, it seems that the southern European countries benefit from the Euro. But as the “crisis” shows us, the Euro and the EU are bad for all. What exactly is happening now and how did the southern European countries come into their debt-entanglement? Greece, Spain and the other overly-indebted Eurozone countries had a weak economy long before World War II. They produced few export goods and had to go into debt to import many things they wanted and needed. The least painful way to deal with their mounting debt was inflation (printing more paper currency). Because of national debts, inflation, and a weak economy these countries had to pay ever higher interest rates for new loans, which is actually what saved them from increasing their indebtedness beyond a certain point. This situation changed abruptly with the Euro. With the substance of the economic giant Germany, a stable, hard currency and low priced loan conditions, the interest rates for these inflation-prone countries fell. During the course of an initial deceptive boom (the grants drove their economies and granted an illusion of improvement that, in fact, was not grounded in their own achievement), they borrowed unscrupulously and lived beyond their means. At a certain point in time it became clear that they could not pay back their debts. Now the stronger countries, with Germany at the head of the list, should assist them. The so- called “emergency chute” (Rettungsschirm) was born. This term, however, is thoroughly deceptive. The debts are so high that they never can be paid. The payments and guarantees from Germany only have the effect that the banks continue to collect interest at good rates for some time. This detail reveals that the real beneficiaries of the EU and the Euro is no one else but the banks—surely not the citizens of Germany. And as Germany is herself heavily over-indebted, and the guarantees and payments are beyond her strength, it is just a matter of time until Germany is forced into the abyss, too. Now it becomes clear how we come to the picture of Angela Merkel as strong women of Europe. The German chancellorette has to play a game—for reasons that will become clear in the following paragraphs—a game that clearly ruins the future of Germany. She can only belie it by acting as if it were possible for countries like Greece and Spain to solve their debt problem through saving measures. This she demands repeatedly and loudly, and tries to simulate strength. How did it come to a European Union and Euro in the first place? The question arises as to why Germany participates at all when there are only downsides for us. To understand this one has to go way back into the nineteenth century. It is a complex matter that will be hard for younger people to understand because in the educational system and in the media a different story is told. When one recognizes that history is written by the winners and that Germany was very destructively defeated in two world wars, the following explanations become easier to grasp. From the 17th to the first half of the 19th century, the Germany of today was divided into a mass of tiny, politically insignificant states. For the great powers of that time it was a blessing, as the German-speaking population was the largest folk of Europe. Germany was a sleeping giant. With the union of these states (without Austria and, of course, Switzerland) into the German Empire in the year 1871, France and England suddenly had a new competitor in the neighbourhood. The problem was not Germany’s military strength, as the Reich did not want to expand territorially (as stated by Bismarck).In fact, the German Empire until 1914 did everything to prevent wars. Economically, the new state left the former hegemony of England behind in many areas. The production of indigo is an example. England was leading in the global marketplace with the production of this dye, as the blue colour was fabricated in the crown-colony of India. After Germany developed a process to produce indigo chemically, England lost this role to its neighbour. So it was in many areas, and even other states (especially France and Russia, then also the USA) were not happy with the achievements of the Reich in science and economy. Already in 1897 England, France and the USA decided secretly to put away the competitors Germany and Spain. (This was first published in 1918 in the book The Problem of Japan by an anonymous author.) Already a war was waged against Spain in 1898 (the USA invaded with the ironclad USS Maine into the port of La Habana in the Spanish colony Cuba; the ship exploded and the Spanish were made responsible for it). The war against the German Empire could not be acted out until 1914. Germany and Austria faced 28 enemy states! Even though it is normally told differently today, sources such as the memoirs of Emperor Wilhelm II show that both states had no interest in acting out this war because it was clear from the beginning that they would face an invincible superiority. There was nothing to win. Although their enemies thought they would destroy the two Empires and occupy them, Germany especially defended herself unexpectedly well. In the end, the dictate of Versailles demanded loss of regions and astronomical reparation payments, but Germany continued to exist as a state. With Hitler there came a statesman who succeeded in freeing Germany step by step from this catastrophic situation. This brought the first signs that a new war would start. (Some things are seen as proof that Hitler was primarily, systematically supported by Germany’s enemies in order to have a justification for a destructive war. This, however, cannot be discussed here in detail.) England, France and the USA did everything to make a war happen (what the Allies also deny today). The activator was the conflict with Poland. This state was newly founded after World War I and had been given large areas that were former German territory. The German minority was brutally harassed. Poland tried to force new territories from Germany by continually threatening war.This attitude of Poland was backed and supported by England with a promise to protect her in case of a war. Germany declared war on Poland after provocations and crimes (e.g. mass murder of Germans) reached a level that no sovereign state can tolerate. Thereupon England and France declared war on Germany, the 40-some peace offerings made by Hitler since the beginning of the war having been declined, and this also is concealed today. In the end, Germany was destructively beaten by an unbelievably superior enemy. The Nazis did know that they could not win, but the Germans fought desperately because they knew that the enemy was remorseless. All cities with more than 60,000 inhabitants were destroyed by bombs. Millions of Germans were slain, burnt alive, raped and expelled, and the country was occupied. The allies took all that was left, first of all advanced technology and patents. The Germans are held responsible for terrible crimes. Through all the media and educational institutions that were first closed and then re- opened under the control of the allies, the accusations are constantly repeated but it is forbidden by law to discuss the topic freely. (Up till today it remains forbidden to talk freely about the so-called “Holocaust” and to research it scientifically; thousands of people are in jail for “the denial of the Holocaust” – a thought crime, and this not only in Germany.) Through a re-education program that was created mainly by Jewish scientists, ideologists and politicians, the German nation was forced to take the exclusive responsibility for World War II, and for many other crimes besides. He who takes the trouble to investigate with sources and to question the information of the school books and media critically can find proof for all of this. Educated people in all countries of the world know this background, but there are few of them and it is a forbidden truth. The mass of the population knows nothing about it because they get all their information from school, TV and the big newspapers. After Germany was wracked and ruined it took four years until the occupied country was given a new form of administration with the foundation of the BRD (FRG, West Germany). Until 1955, the allies had the official suzerainty over this state. Behind the curtains they’re still doing it today. In addition, they bound the new state to a bunch of structures that made sure they would stay in control. This began in 1951 with the Montan Union that allowed France to get access to the German coal-and steel production. From this structure emerged at first the European Community, then the European Union. As the end of the Soviet Union and the DDR (GDR, East Germany) became obvious and everyone knew that a reunion of the two Germany’s was at hand, France demanded that Germany accept a currency union (until today the French have control of the Euro through the European Central Bank). It was clear from the beginning that this would not be to the advantage of Germany: What advantage does it bring for a land with a strong economy and a hard currency to join with countries that have a weaker economy and inflation? Exactly for this reason England, Norway and Switzerland declined to participate in the Euro. They would only have disadvantages from it. The true background of the EU and the Euro were clearly spoken out by top German politicians within the last years. The EU-Commisario Günter Verheugen said on a talk show that both (EU and Euro) are there only for one reason: to control Germany. The current Finance Minister of Germany, Wolfgang Schäuble, said last month, November 2011, at a bank-summit, that Germany has not been sovereign since 1945, and that in the next months the EU will become a financial union! Angela Merkel and the majority of the other politicians are still lying that the Euro will only bring luck and blessings to the Germans. Frequently it is said that peace in Europe is bound to the Euro. When one has the information delivered in this paper, he knows what is meant by these words. The whole thing is even more complex because wars are never waged because they are in the interest of the participating folks. Even the two World Wars did not happen because Frenchmen, Englishmen and Russians simply hate Germans and the other way around. There were war-beneficiaries then and there are war-beneficiaries now. In both cases the trail can be followed to the banks, to Wall Street and to the Rothschild Empire. (A study at the University of Zurich showed that there are 147 company-groups behind the 40,000 largest multinational companies, such as Goldman Sachs, AXA and the Deutsche Bank. If one researches further it becomes clear that all these companies are bound directly or indirectly to the Rothschild Empire.) In this dirty game, it is routine to agitate folks and religions against one another. But Germans, Greeks, Spaniards and other European folk have no reason to hate one another. Please help more people get this information to help in our struggle against these life-threatening lies!

Atzmon on Lowles.

2011-11-22T10:05:00.001-08:00

Monday, 21 November 2011Well worth reading. Atzmon on Lowles.This weekend, Bradford TUC (Trade Union Council) joined the Israeli lobby’s attempt to silence me. This sort of thing is no surprise since my book ‘The Wandering Who’ exposes the devastating continuum between Israel, Diaspora Sayanim, Anti-Zionist Zionists (AZZ) and the influential and varied communities of Shabbos Goyim(1). So, is it a coincidence that last Shabbos (Sabbath) eve Paul Meszaros Bradford TUC’s secretary and some of his fellow unionists got very busy indeed doing the Zionists’ bidding?These Bradford Trade Unionists clearly had a case against me which was that, as Meszaros said in his letter to his comrades, “in our opinion, one that is shared by many commentators Atzmon is a Holocaust denier and anti-Semite.”Strong words indeed, and words that one would expect to be accompanied by some concrete and conclusive evidence. Unfortunately this was not the case because, although Meszaros provided his comrades with some quoted ‘evidence’, he forgot to also supply them with any direct link to my original writing. And he had good reason for this omission. The document Meszaros provided for his comrades was a ‘fugazi’ – a fake. Yes, as outrageous as it may sound, Meszaros asked his fellow unionists to judge my words on the basis of a compilation of carefully selected sentences from five different paragraphs carefully stitched together to look as if it was a single statement made by myself.Here is the statement Meszaros attributes to me. “When I was young and naïve I was also convinced that what they told us about our ‘collective’ Jewish past really happened. I believed it all, the Kingdom of David, Massada, and then the Holocaust: the soap, the lampshade, the death march, the six million. As it happened, it took me many years to understand that the Holocaust, the core belief of the contemporary Jewish faith, was not at all an historical narrative for historical narratives do not need the protection of the law and politicians” “It took me many years to accept that the Holocaust narrative, in its current form, doesn’t make any historical sense. Here is just one little anecdote to elaborate on: If, for instance, the Nazis wanted the Jews out of their Reich (Judenrein – free of Jews), or even dead, as the Zionist narrative insists, how come they marched hundreds of thousands of them back into the Reich at the end of the war?” “I am left puzzled here; if the Nazis ran a death factory in Auschwitz-Birkenau, why would the Jewish prisoners join them at the end of the war? Why didn’t the Jews wait for their Red liberators?”To read the entire Bradford TUC letter click here:What Meszaros apparently did not share with his comrades, was the embarrassing fact that the above paragraph was crudely, yet deliberately put together to give the impression that I am indeed a Holocaust denier or an anti-Semite or both.My original words give a somewhat different impression. (The sentences that were cherry-picked by Meszaros are in red, those he left out are in bold)http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/truth-history-and-integrity-by-gilad-atzmon.html "When I was young and naive I was also somehow convinced that what they told us about our ‘collective’ Jewish past really happened. I believed it all, the Kingdom of David, Massada, and then the Holocaust: the soap, the lampshade[1], the death march, the six million. As it happened, it took me many years to understand that the Holocaust, the core belief of the contemporary Jewish faith, was not at all an historical narrative for historical narratives do not need the protection of the law and politicians. It took me years to grasp that my great-grandmother wasn’t made into a ‘soap’ or a ‘lampshade’(2). She probably perished out of exhaustion, typhus or maybe even by mass shooting. This was indeed bad and tragic enough, however not that different from the fate of many millions of Ukrainians who learned what communism meant for real. “Some of the worst mass murderers in history were Jews” writes Zionist Sever Plocker on the Israeli Ynet disclosing the Holodomor and Jewish involvement in this colossal crime, probably the greatest crime of the 20th century. The fate of my great-grandmother was not any different from hundreds of thousands of German civilians who died in an orchestrated indiscriminate bombing, because they were Germans. Similarly, people in Hiroshima died just because they were Japanese. 1 million Vietnamese died just because they were Vietnamese and 1.3 million Iraqis died because they were Iraqis. In short the tragic circumstances of my great grandmother wasn’t that special after all. It doesn’t make sense It took me years to accept that the Holocaust narrative, in its current form, doesn’t make any historical sense. Here is just one little anecdote to elaborate on: If, for instance, the Nazis wanted the Jews out of their Reich (Judenrein - free of Jews), or even dead, as the Zionist narrative insists, how come they marched hundreds of thousands of them back into the Reich at the end of the war? I have been concerned with this simple question for more than a while. I eventually launched into an historical research of the topic and happened to learn from Israeli holocaust historian professor Israel Gutman that Jewish prisoners actually joined the march voluntarily. Here is a testimony taken from Gutman’s book "One of my friends and relatives in the camp came to me on the night of the evacuation and offered a common hiding place somewhere on the way from the camp to the factory. …The intention was to leave the camp with one of the convoys and to escape near the gate, using the darkness we thought to go a little far from the camp. The temptation was very strong. And yet, after I considered it all I then decided to join (the march) with all the other inmates and to share their fate " (Israel Gutman [editor], People and Ashes: Book Auschwitz - Birkenau, Merhavia 1957). I am left puzzled here, if the Nazis ran a death factory in Auschwitz-Birkenau, why would the Jewish prisoners join them at the end of the war? Why didn’t the Jews wait for their Red liberators?”As you probably gather, my original words actually give a completely different impression. Rather than deny the Holocaust, I actually want to strip from it, its primacy and to turn it into a universal and ethical message. I actually talk about my great grandmother who died in the Holocaust - but I argue that she wasn’t special at all (though she may be special to me). She had a fate similar to millions of Vietnamese, Iraqis, Germans, Russians and so on. I wonder, why would a socialist such as Meszaros or anyone else for that matter, object to such a universal and humanist approach?Taking quotes out of context is a common enough Zionist trick, but what we see here is a deliberate attempt to pervert the truth. In Meszaros’ text my words are actually re-assembled in order to give them a new, sinister meaning. You have to ask yourself: What might lead a perfectly decent trade unionist to operate in such a dishonest manner?So here are some questions to Meszaros and to anyone else tempted to engage in this kind of falsification and deception: If I am indeed as bad as you think, why the need to fake what I say? Why don’t you just present my own original words with their true and original meaning?I would also like to learn from Mr. Meszaros whether he considers falsifying quotes to be a legitimate, ‘progressive’ procedure?But I think we know the answers to these questions.So, I suppose in the end there’s only one question left to answer. Why did Paul Meszaros choose to deceive his comrades? Well, the answer is that I don’t think that he did. I don’t think that Meszaros did actually falsify the above text. I believe that he was himself fooled by our own and much-loved Jewish ‘anti’-Zionists and certainly by one particular gentleman named Nick Lowles who operates within an ‘anti-Racist’ organization named “Hope not Hate”.By the time I woke up this morning, London activists had provided me with all the information I needed concerning Mr. Lowles’ ‘Hope not Hate’ and Searchlight, the magazine Lowles until recently, edited. Clearly, we are dealing here with some obvious links with Zionist organizations.A quick search revealed that Searchlight is certainly committed to ‘fight fascism’ but it is equally committed to the battle against anti-Zionism in the left. “Much more commonplace on the left than Holocaust denial is the comparison of Israel with Nazi German”, complains the ‘far left’ ‘anti’ racist magazine in a clear and open attempt to gate-keep the Palestinian solidarity discourse.And would you believe it? Lowels is also active on the highly suspicious Socialist Unity – just one more pseudo-socialist cell devoted mainly to Zio-centric gate-keeping.To the Ultra Zionist Jewish Chronicle (JC) Lowles told that the "worry about antisemitism stemming from the far left's obsession with Israel was a concern". But Lowles doesn't just talk to the JC, he also writes for the rabid Zionist mouthpiece. I guess that as much as Lowles opposes racism , he must feel at home with Zionist racism.Apparently, Meszaros and his union branch, like so many before them, were simply taken for a Zionist ride. Rather than being asked to respond to my words, they were instead responding to a document that was deliberately and consciously falsified by an infiltrator. The good people in the Bradford union movement have been deliberately deceived by a bunch of Sayanim, embedded deep within the British left.In case anyone has failed to grasp it, Nick Lowles has every reason to oppose me. My latest book, ‘The Wandering Who’ is there to expose the high and sophisticated level of duplicity of Sayanim, AZZ, Shabbos Goyim and other forms of infiltrators in our midst.I don’t know how to save the British Trades Union movement and anyway, that’s not my job. But as things stand, Mr. Paul Meszaros and the Bradford TUC owe me one big apology. I hope Meszaros for once, will be brave enough to admit his mistake.

-"Britain's Jewish fascists in putsch against freedom of expression."

2011-11-19T00:20:00.001-08:00

By Gilad Atzmon19 November 2011Gilad Atzmon explains the latest – failed – attempt by Britain’s Zio-fascists to kill the UK's most precious cultural values: openness, pluralism, freedom of expression and artistic freedom. ”By bullying British cultural institutions and harassing artists in the name of the Jewish community, Jewish organizations are achieving nothing but the defamation of the whole of British Jewry.” (Gilad Atzmon)There was a time when Jewish politics and culture were associated with liberalism, human rights, pluralism and freedom of expression.Those days are clearly over. Nowadays, it is pretty much the opposite.Clear outburst of Zionist hysteria“What we see here is scarily similar to the experience of Jazz musicians in Nazi Germany. Astonishingly enough, it is Jewish representative bodies such as the Board of Deputies of British Jews that are actively engaging in trying to restrict artistic expression.”Here in Britain, Jewish nationalist lobbies are engaged in several kinds of repressive behaviour. Their practices include bullying, harassment, disinformation and smear campaigns.This kind of activity does not serve the Jewish community or its interests. In fact, it gives the Jewish community as a whole a thoroughly bad name.Last week, the American academic Norman Finkelstein and I were on the front of the Jewish Chronicle (JC). We were presented as “Public Jewish Enemies Number One”. We were branded together with British National Party leader and a racist Nick Griffin. This was obviously a clear outburst of Zionist hysteria.This week, in an embarrassingly crude attempt to stop my new book The Wandering Who, the JC now appear to be launching an attack on music. Together with the Board of Deputies of British Jews and other Jewish groups ,they attempted to put pressure on the British Arts Council to withdraw its funding from a music festival at which I am playing.Echoes of Nazi GermanyWhat we see here is scarily similar to the experience of Jazz musicians in Nazi Germany. Astonishingly enough, it is Jewish representative bodies such as the Board of Deputies of British Jews that are actively engaging in trying to restrict artistic expression. Apparently, some people out there, really drew the wrong lesson from that disturbing era.Needless to say, they didn’t get far. The Arts Council, stood by its principles of freedom of expression and, in a statement responding to the JC's demands, it suggested that the Arts Council shouldn’t "restrict an artist from expressing their views". It stated that the council believes in funding events and artists that show "a diverse view of world society”. Once again, their campaign had backfired.The Jewish Chronicle “appears to want to transform the British music scene, cultural gatherings and festivals into Stalinist enterprises and demands the right to dictate its own political agenda to the British public”.Of course, the JC wasn’t at all happy. It appears to want to transform the British music scene, cultural gatherings and festivals into Stalinist enterprises and demands the right to dictate its own political agenda to the British public. The JC even went as far as to openly call for its subservient lobby-funded politicians to impose an “immediate sanction”. Reading the JC today, I wonder how long it will take before Ava Nagila becomes a compulsory part of our national musical curriculum.This is the reality: The most radical exponents of the most vile form of Jewish racist and supremacist ideology are accusing me, an anti-racist campaigner, of being an anti-Semite. Considering that I lead one of the most ethnically varied musical ensembles on this planet, this accusation is absurd, amusing or sad – and probably all three.But here’s the good news. On every possible front they are failing. No matter how much these Zionist supremacists convince themselves that I am the ultimate Jew hater, they have failed to convince anyone else.By bullying British cultural institutions and harassing artists in the name of the Jewish community, Jewish organizations are achieving nothing but the defamation of the whole of British Jewry.So, to the Jewish Chronicle and the Board of Deputies of British Jews: you are acting against openness, pluralism, freedom of expression and artistic freedom – probably the most precious values this country has. Perhaps it is worth bearing this in mind.

The Bund - A Disturbing Jewish Political Exercise

2011-11-14T10:23:00.001-08:00

The Bund - A Disturbing Jewish Political Exercisehttp://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-the-bund-a-disturbing-jewish-political-exercise.htmlIntroduction by Gilad Atzmon:A few years ago I saw a small extract of this film (The story of the Bund in Israel- film by Eran Torbiner). This week a bigger chunk of the documentary was left on YouTube.Bundaím, Socialists in Yiddish and Hebrewhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvmcRKvyrWk&feature=player_embeddedor:http://youtu.be/SvmcRKvyrWkBy the way, we do not have an access to the entire film, but so far, I didn’t notice a single reference to Palestine, Palestinians their cause or plight.This is a film about the ‘Jews only’ socialist party - The Bund. In the documentary you can watch for yourself ‘young’ revolutionary Bundists in action. In spite of being ‘Socialists’ and ‘Internationalists’, they, for some reason, ended up living in a ‘Jews only’ State in occupied Palestine at the expense of the Palestinians.I guess that this may as well be, the real meaning of ‘Jewish socialism’ - You sing the International in Yiddish on someone else’s land.By the way, we do not have an access to the entire film, but so far, I didn’t notice a single reference to Palestine, Palestinians their cause or plight. Towards the end, Bundist Yaakov Belek speaks nostalgically about the pre war Bund in Poland (7:41). His words are an insight into Jewish progressive supremacy and exceptionalism. It is almost disturbing to watch and listen.“The Bund was a unique Party” he says. “It wasn’t like any other party… it was an empire. A bund member was a different kind of person. Maybe I am a patriot but this is how it was. For years we grew bigger and bigger. Before the beginning of WWII it was the largest party in Poland. We possessed* everything. We had the youth, future, SKIP **, sport, so many schools, we were the new type, we were the new man.”It seems to me, as if Belek himself fails to grasp that he is outlining the true meaning of Jewish Power, we are special, we are unique, we are an empire, the future and we posses everything. I guess that AIPAC and CFI members are also blind to the potential danger entangled with their so-called ‘success’.---------*GA: my translation from Hebrew **GA: SKIP is a sociality youth movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sotsyalistishe_Kinder_Farband ---------To read more about Tribal 'Marxism' and progressive thought:1. http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-tribal-marxism-for-dummies.html2. http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/think-tribal-speak-universal-by-gilad-atzmon.html--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fraud in Psychological Research

2011-11-06T09:08:00.001-08:00

Fraud in Psychological Research Posted: 05 Nov 2011 08:54 AM PDTA NYTimes article (“Fraud seen as a red flag for psychology research“) discusses the case of scientific fraud involving a Dutch social psychologist, Diederik Stapel. This is an amazingly egregious example of fraud by a psychologist well-known for his leftist views. Stapel got his Ph.D. in 1997 but managed to crank out 150 research papers and 24 book chapters in that short period. A recent paper of his, published in the very prestigious Science, “Coping with Chaos: How Disordered Contexts Promote Stereotyping and Discrimination” included two lab studies and three field studies. This study had a wonderfully liberal conclusion—that racial discrimination would be increased in chaotic environments because people have a tendency to simply their cognitive processing in such environments.The NYTimes article notes,In recent years, psychologists have reported a raft of findings on race biases, brain imaging and even extrasensory perception that have not stood up to scrutiny. Outright fraud may be rare, these experts say, but they contend that Dr. Stapel took advantage of a system that allows researchers to operate in near secrecy and massage data to find what they want to find, without much fear of being challenged.“The big problem is that the culture is such that researchers spin their work in a way that tells a prettier story than what they really found,” said Jonathan Schooler, a psychologist at the University of California, Santa Barbara. “It’s almost like everyone is on steroids, and to compete you have to take steroids as well.”The program, then, is to spin a pretty yarn that will fit into the liberal zeitgeist of social psychology. Apart from Stapel’s work, I am unaware of a “raft of findings on race biases … that have not stood up to scrutiny,” but it’s certainly not surprising that that would be the case. Recently a psychologist pointed out to me that the research on stereotype threat purporting to explain the poor performance of African Americans by the effects of negative stereotypes routinely partialled out the contribution of IQ before presenting the results, thus exaggerating the importance of stereotype threat. This is more a sin of omission than outright fraud, but a sin of omission that is then used to advance the liberal worldview that poor Black achievement is due to White attitudes rather than Black realities.As discussed here previously (“Social Psychologists: Becoming Self-Conscious of Their Liberalism“; “More on Jonathan Haidt’s Tribal Moral Communities“) Jonathan Haidt (a social psychologist himself) has made a major contribution calling attention to social psychology as a ”tribal moral community” united in its liberal political commitments. He notes that articles that contravene the tribal liberalism are subjected to much higher standards in order to get published. Even when it’s not a matter of outright fraud, there are sins of omission where certain types of racial research are just not conducted. Recall that Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam did not publish his findings on the costs of multiculturalism for years because he thought it might sour people on our glorious multicultural future.Here the NYTimes article adds that a recent study found that in an anonymous survey around 70% of psychologists admitted ”cutting corners” in reporting their data and 1% acknowledged falsification; statistical errors favoring the hypothesis occurred in around 15% of a random sample of papers in high-end psychology journals.I suppose that the long term effects of outright fraud in social psychology are less important than the lowered standards that apply when articles reaffirm liberal ideas in the social sciences. (This was famously true of the Boasians in anthropology [a Jewish intellectual movement reviewed in The Culture of Critique) and doubtless continues today since Boas’s intellectual descendants are still in control. Boas was the quintessential skeptic and an ardent defender of methodologi-cal rigor when it came to theories of cultural evolution and genetic influences on behavior, yet, as Sheldon White noted, “the burden of proof rested lightly upon Boas’s own shoulders”; see here, p. 27.)Reviewers are far less likely to catch corner cutting and statistical errors when they favor the leftist world view, while race realist papers are worked over with a fine tooth comb. In my own case as a consumer of social psychology research rather than a producer, I look for findings that make sense in the broad scheme of things, including the general framework of evolutionary psychology. For example, social identity theory is central to the theory of anti-Semitism (and Jewish ingroup psychology) developed in Separation and Its Discontents. These results have been replicated in dozens of social psychology laboratories over more than 40 years and fit well with an evolutionary perspective on the psychology of groups—that natural selection has resulted in mechanisms that would prepare people for between-group competition. (For example, even very young children show ingroup biases, such biases are universal among humans, and they are reflex-like and unconscious rather than the result of deliberation—good evidence for an evolutionary basis.)A science of social psychology is possible, even in a leftist environment, but one needs to be a cautious consumer.Nevertheless, there are some cases where outright fraud has had a long and influential life in the social sciences. Exhibit A is The Authoritarian Personality which was clearly the product of Jewish ethnic activism by the Frankfurt School and the American Jewish Committee in the service of Jewish ethnic interests. Here the “findings” were so clearly counter-intuitive, so strained, and so clearly manufactured to produce an outcome that was clearly set out long before they gathered the data, that fraud is the only reasonable explanation (my review is here, p. 168ff; the current TOO video is an extended commentary on The Authoritarian Personality put together by Byron Jost before his premature death; although unfinished, I think it’s his best work).Psychoanalysis was not so much fraud as simply the rejection of science completely. The fact that psychoanalysis was prominently used in The Authoritarian Personality is part of the indictment of this work and the entire politically and ethnically charged agenda of the Frankfurt School. The fact that The Authoritarian Personality has never really lost its respectability within social psychology is itself yet another serious charge against the entire field.

Are German politicians beginning to show backbone toward predatory Jewish financiers?

2011-10-22T10:50:00.001-07:00

CSU-Gauweiler beschuldigt die “heimliche jüdische Weltregierung” des globalen Finanz-Hexentanzes, der uns alle vernichtetGauweiler of the CSU Party blames the secret Jewish world government for the “Witches’ Dance” that is destroying the world economy.In doing so, he entirely confirms the National Journal analysis! http://globalfire.tv/nj/11de/globalismus/parkavenue.htmBy the authors of the National Journal Translated by J M Damon[Are German politicians beginning to show backbone toward predatory Jewish financiers?] Until the last minute, Peter Gauweiler attempted to block the tribute payments by Christian Wullf, President of our so-called Federal Parliament (the tribute that had been guaranteed by the abject head-nodders in our less-than-august legislative body.)Wulff had expressed his opposition to tribute payments in his Lindau Speech, but as always he dutifully did what the Lobby commanded, and so our Decline and Fall continues on its inevitable course.Gauweiler will probably be elected acting head of the CSU in Bavaria this fall, and party members are hoping that he can regain the voters’ trust and confidence that the lobby vassal and champion liar Horst Seehofer destroyed as Minister President.This is significant because Gauweiler achieved fame as a critic of the EU and is considered a hero in parts of the “Federal Republic.”In order to regain the confidence of disillusioned voters, Gauweiler states clearly that if matters are left to the likes of Merkel, Schäuble, Steinbrück, Trittin and Seehofer, the Lobby [pro Zionist faction] will soon confiscate everything Germany has.In Gauweiler’s words: “The truth is that we must vigorously resist having our basic rights chiseled away and the same is true of our wealth.”He answers the question of who is taking away Germany’s wealth just as openly.Instead of “finance Jews” however, he uses the expression “Manhattan,” since everyone knows that Wall Street is the world Jewish stronghold: “Today the danger comes from neocollectivist institutions, as ever more wealth is being removed from the control and disposition of the individual.Today, wealth is collectivized, anonymized, mortgaged, hocked and converted to credit guarantees and wagers on the failure of banks, conglomerates and entire states; and then it is sloshed through the stock-markets of the world. The headquarters of the New Collectivism is not in Moscow as in days gone by, but rather Manhattan.But the New Collectivism is as great a threat to property rights as was the Old Collectivism, especially as regards disposition of property.”(Quotation from BILD Magazine, 2 October 2011)We at the National Journal believe that ultimately, Germany’s occupation government will sign over the entirety of German assets to world Jewry as security against the nonredemption of Jewish speculative debts. Jews have officially demanded this often in the past. Thus Henryk Broder demanded “Give Schleswig-Holstein to the Jews” in 2010, while 36-year-old Israeli Ronen Eidelman announced “There should be a Jewish state in Weimar” in 2009.The Rothschilds demanded that Germany be handed over to them even before the Power Jews initiated World War II, and on 22 October 1939 Lionel de Rothschild urged Churchill’s secretary, John Colville, to define England’s war aim as “Divide the Germans among the other nations of the world and leave Germany to the Jews.” (See Downing Street Diaries, 1939-45, Siedler Verlag, Berlin 1988, page 31.)The guarantees for Germany’s gambling debts originate in the Federal Republic’s policy of insuring not only the speculative risks that the European Union countries have racked up with Wall Street, but the risks of the EU banks as well.When banksters, financiers and politicians use the term “Investment” nowadays they are not talking about something such as products with real commercial or industrial value, but rather “Investment” in the sense of a Goldman-Sachs speculation in abstract and unknown commodities.German state banks “invested” specifically in Goldman-Sachs subprime mortgages.While the “German idiots” (Greg Lippman’s favorite expression) were “investing” in Goldman-Sachs speculations, his fellow Jew Lloyd Blankfein (CEO of Goldman Sachs) arranged for his fellow Jew John Paulson (President of Paulson & Co. Hedge Fund) to bet against the German banks.Greg Lippman was the global head of DEUTSCHE BANK mortgage backed securities called collateralized debt obligations or CDOs.He was wagering against the CDO market while Deutsche Bank was selling and promoting CDOs! [See ]The favorite customers of Blankfein and consorts were found in “...that entity, so cherished in world finance markets, that goes under the sobriquet of ‘Stupid German Money,’ namely the German State Banks.” (DIE WELT, 10 September 2011, page 5)While Blankfein was persuading German state banks and government organizations such as KREDITANSTALT FÜR WIEDERAUFBAU and DEUTSCHE INDUSTRIE BANK to back billions in “investments” offered by “third parties,” his accomplice John Paulson was wagering on the collapse of these same “investments.”“Goldman Wagered Against Its Own Customers” is the title of the article on Page 23 of SÜDDEUTSCHE ZEITUNG for 28 April 2010.Paulson did in fact have his fellow Jew Blankfein develop the concept for a fifteen million dollar swindle of Blankfein’s customers. Of course Blankfein was happy to deliver the coveted “paper.” This explains how they organized the collapse of the global finance market to win the wagers against the “stupid Germans.” The collapse of Goldman-Sachs “Investments” such as CDOs flushed billions of dollars into the pockets of these banksters, whileour so-called “Federal Republic” was the principal backer of the swindle.Furthermore the swindle is still going on today with CDS (credit default swap) wagers against the Euro countries.Even the Establishment SPIEGEL magazine openly admits that such devastation is part of the war that Wall Street is conducting against the German VOLK.The Lehman campaign of plunder, which our “Federal Republic” encouraged with special laws, is in fact considered “collateral damage of a modern war.” (SPIEGEL, November 2009, page 42.)As expected, our “Lobby Democrats” [pro Zionist faction] openly side with the war dogs attacking our people.This fifth column in our government passed the laws that made it possible for gangs of Wall Street freebooters to gain a stunning victory in their all-out war of conquest.Our so-called “Federal Republic” backed the payout of these wagers to Blankfein and the rest of his tribe with its so-called BANKENRETTUNG (Bank Rescue).Today it is backing new wagers in the trillions through its so-called EURO-RETTUNGSSCHIRME (Euro rescue package.)Since banks in the age of Globlism are allowed to wager unlimited trillions in speculative “investment” gambling schemes, the amount of fiat money created out of thin air is increasing at lightning speed. Formerly, banks were allowed to lend only as much money as was already in circulation, but today banks are allowed to guarantee any amount they want to - it can be a million times the Gross Domestic Product!Banks are no longer required to balance their wagers, or even to identify them.Only Wall Street can win such wagers as these, and when banks fail because of their “investing” in outlandish gambling schemes, suddenly the call reverberates through the halls of our government: “Save the Banks! Re-capitalize the Banks!”However, these banks did not become insolvent because of irresponsible borrowing on the part of taxpayers, either employers or employees.They became insolvent because the banks gambled everything in a stupendous shell game.Now a mountain of money is being put into circulation (initially electronically, though “digital dollars”) that is bound to release hyperinflation such as we have never seen.Peter Gauweiler makes this very clear: “According to the International Monetary Fund, the Gross World Product (the value of all goods and services produced in all countries combined) amounted to a little over 60 trillion dollars in 2010. In a single month of the same year, however, the total of financial transactions amounted to over 900 trillion dollars.And yet the already hopelessly indebted EU countries believe (or say they believe) that they can take on still more massive debt by protecting themselves with a little umbrella of 750 billion Euros!”It is significant that Gauweiler confirms the National Journal’s analysis.We have repeatedly pointed out that it is actually quintillions in speculative debt that are being tied like millstones around German necks for a thousand generations to come.Few people wanted to believe it, but now our analysis has been confirmed by no less a person than Peter Gauweiler, the well-known Euro critic and CSU leader.In just one month in 2010, more than 900 trillion dollars in wagers were guaranteed for the benefit of Wall Street.As Gauweiler confirms, our “Federal Republic” is paying for the entire global gambling hysteria.The “Federal Republic” people believe that that can pay off the 12 quintillion dollars in total speculative wagers from the year 2010 with their little “umbrellas!” Gauweiler the CSU man actually went still further than this in his interview.If he had just named the Wall Street gang as the guilty ones, that alone would have been enough to make clear just who wants our blood. But he was more precise and went further than that. He characterized these gigantic predators on mankind as the “boys from Park Avenue” who are bringing about the global calamity:“Sometime soon, the Boys in Park Avenue will be wagering on the end of the world...They keep on irresponsibly producing ever greater torrents of money.”Gauweiler points out that every new “rescue package” is already obsolete and inadequate as soon as the BUNDESTAG passes it, since reckless financial culprits by then have already created “ever more gigantic torrents of money.”Gauweiler does not hesitate to call the culprits by their name: “THE BOYS FROM PARK AVENUE,” more precisely the Pratt House on Park Avenue in New York.Pratt House is the residence of America’s secret world government called CFR, the Council on Foreign Relations.[See “AMERIKAS HEIMLICHE WELTREGIERUNG” (America’s Secret World Government), a film by Wilhelm Bittorf, which was broadcast by ARD Broadcasting Co., Programm 1, 26 November 1975 at 8:15 pm.]Gauweiler had something very specific and significant in mind when he characterized the CFR as the puppet-master of the global calamity. After all, the bosses of this “secret world government” are Jews holding Israeli passports.The CFR Board of Directors reads like a “Who’s Who” of world Jewry.Its president is the hardcore Zionist Richard Haass and its vice-presidents are Richard E. Salomon, Robert E. Rubin and Carla A. Hillls, all equally hardcore.There does not have to be a financial crisis, certainly not an economic crisis.There need be no unemployed, no credit crunch and no poverty.The hireling Lobby politicians in our parliament would simply have to change sides and represent the interests of the German people for a change. They could simply erase the computer-generated trillions in speculative debt, and our nightmare would be over.It would be like switching on the lights in a dark room.However, such courage is not to be expected from such abject vassals. Only the NPD (National Party of Germany) would have the courage to jail the Lobby swindlers and their managers wherever and whenever they can be apprehended.Only by adopting the policies of the NPD can the Lobby hirelings do partial penance for the immense guilt they have heaped on themselves.[NOTE: The Gauweiler quotations are from BILD Magazine for 2 October 2011]****************This article is available on request in MS Word Format****************The translator is a Germanophilic Germanist who translates noteworthy articles by German dissidents for his fellow Germanophiles who do not read German.****************Here's freedom to him who would speak, Here's freedom to him who would write; For there's none ever feared that the truth should be heard, Save him whom the truth would indict! ROBERT BURNS (1759–96)

More shocking news from the Vatican.

2011-10-20T07:29:00.001-07:00

More shocking news from the Vatican.Vatican Insider 10/16/2011 Williamson gives his anti-Semitic hatred another go The Lefebvrist Bishop, Richard Williamson, tries again. On the eve of the Interrelligious meeting convened in Assisi by Pope Benedict XVI - where the participation of the chief rabbi of Rome, Riccardo Di Segni, is already in doubt - and while the congregation to which he belongs, the Society of Saint Pius X, discusses whether to accept the conciliation proposal from the Vatican, the traditionalist bishop makes himself heard once again, and takes aim at one of his perennial targets: the Jews.They are guilty of "deicide" and "continue to act collectively as enemies of the true Messiah," he writes in the latest edition of his weekly newsletter, the Eleison Comments. "How can the Pope to abandon these truths that are so ancient?", asks the lefebvrist Bishop.Bishop Williamson – a former British Anglican who converted to Catholicism and was ordained a bishop by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, along with three other brothers in 1988, a schismatic act sanctioned by Pope John Paul II with excommunication - made headlines in January 2009, when the Swedish television SVT aired an interview in which, among other things, he denied the existence of gas chambers and the death of six million Jews during the Holocaust.His words took on global notoriety because in those days Pope Benedict XVI, moved by the desire to heal the schism of Archbishop Lefebvre, had decided to lift the excommunication imposed on four traditionalist bishops, including Bishop Williamson. This created a global diplomatic crisis and a wound in relations with those whom the last two popes have called the "elder brothers" of Christians, that has yet to heal completely.At the origin of Bishop Williamson's new attack is something written by Pope Benedict XVI in his book "Light of the world": that the Jews can not be held responsible for 'deicide', or the death of Jesus on the cross. Words that the Lefebvrist bishop coupled with those of the U.S. Conference of Bishops, whose responsible for ecumenical dialogue, Father James Massa, last May 17 remineded faithful that anone who makes this accusation against the Jews, at any time in history, automatically put himself outside the Catholic Church.For Williamson, first of all, the death of Jesus on the cross was really "deicide", because Jesus was killed, "the second person of God," and therefore, "God was killed."Then, even if Jesus died on the cross to save all humanity, "only the Jews (the people and leaders) were the primary agents of the deicide because it is clear from the Gospels that the Gentile who was most involved, Pontius Pilate, would never have condemned Jesus" if the Jews had not asked for "blood".Finally, according to the Lefebvrist bishop, at least one modern pope, Leo XIII, explicitly affirmed the "solidarity" between the Jews "who clamored for the killing of Jesus" and Jews of today, in the act of consecrating the world to the sacred heart of Jesus, with the Encyclical Annum Sacrum of 1899. But this "continuity", according to Williamson, is shared by the Jews themselves today, who not by chance "claim for themselves the land of Palestine because it is theirs by right from the God of the Old Testament." "Has there ever been a race-people-nation on the face of the earth more proudly self-identifying as identical down the ages?".The Jews would have "collectively" refused to recognize Jesus as messiah and "collectively, which means that there are always some noble exceptions, they have remained faithful to that refusal, so that they changed their religion from that of Abraham and Moses of the Old Testament to that of Annas and Caiaphas and of the Talmud." "How can the Pope let go of such ancient truths?", the lefebvrist Bishop asks in conclusion. Although Williamson's positions are extreme even within the traditionalist world, they are certainly not isolated even within the Lefebvrist community itself. Just a month ago, the superior of the French province of the Society of St. Pius X, abbot Regis de Cacqueray, repeated the charge of 'deicide' against the Jews in a document condemning the next inter-faith meeting in Assisi. "How can one imagine that God is pleased with the prayers of the Jews, who are faithful to their fathers who crucified his son and deny the Trinitarian God?", wrote the Lefebrist superior.http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/world-news/detail/articolo/9033/

They hate our Freedumm at Demockracy

2011-10-18T03:48:00.001-07:00

War for 'freedom of speech' now onSun Oct 16, 2011 6:27PM GMTRedditBy Patrick Henningsen, Infowars.comIn case you are not yet aware, OfCom, Britain's Office of Communications, has decided to take Press TV off air in the UK this week. The significance of this move by the state regulator should not be underestimated. The battle for free speech is definitely on.With this move, the state apparatus has all but declared war on a foreign network's ability to broadcast a political perspective that differs from the consensus reality line. Note that the state, particularly in the UK, will spend millions per year in order to enforce a rolling agenda of talking points. In the US, it will also spend billions to ensure the same thing.Today London's Telegraph newspaper reported, “The foreign arm of the Iranian state broadcaster is to pull off the British airwaves after media regulator revoked its broadcasting license.”Press TV, the channel which acts as the overseas mouthpiece of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government, has been told by Ofcom that it has breached broadcasting rules with interviewing a journalist who has been imprisoned in an Iranian jail and forced to read from a prepared script.The ruling comes after a year-long investigation by Ofcom into the claims made by Maziar Bahari, a journalist for the US magazine, Newsweek, who was filmed by Press TV while being imprisoned in Tehran for nearly four months. He was arrested while covering the 2009 Iranian Presidential elections.With this move, a new front in the info-wars has truly opened up. It's not just about winning over minds and getting the info out. It is now about being able to get that info out there. It's about preserving the free speech platform where we can receive and deliver all that valuable information. And we are up against the state.Over the last eight years, I've involved myself in the battle- the one which Alex Jones and others have referred to as the Information War. The first step was getting informed, and the second step was getting involved by creating content which, up to this point, has relied heavily on the internet's free speech platform. From this open platform, even an individual could broadcast locally, regionally and globally, disseminating information that would otherwise not get to these audiences.Active internet news sounds like this writer, in search of alternative views that differ from the corporate mainstream media conglomerates that could not believe their eyes when Press TV, a 24-hour English language global news network launched online in January 2007, followed by the TV launch later. It seemed to be the only place in the UK where one could go to catch a completely different, fresh take on domestic and world events. For sure, it had an edge.Ofcom's legal reasons for pulling down the network were an administrative one, citing a breach in the broadcasting code and some administrative problems with Press TV's application as the reason.Press TV's response to the UK ban was predictably defiant, “The British media regulator's decision is considered to be an abuse of the UK media law and the result of mounting pressure on the organization by certain members of the royal family and government.”As an alternative international media outlet, Press TV took pains to break the mainstream media's total silence on the violation of international law and human rights committed by the UK government at home and abroad.The fact that the Iranian-owned Press TV has drawn heavy fire from certain establishment and government critics who accuse it of being 'biased' towards an Iranian agenda. If only that were a prerequisite for taking a media network off the air, you could expect that Britain's state broadcaster, the BBC, would have its license revoked overnight in foreign countries around the world.Certainly, the main reason for the West's aggressive attitude toward Press TV is that, according to the US State Department, Iran is meant to be an enemy of the United States, Europe and Israel. If you've been paying attention, the war drum against Iran has not stopped beating since Dick Cheney and John Bolton began pounding it early in 2004.If a war with Iran is on the cards, eliminating Press TV in the UK and the US will be a top priority for the governments in those countries, as Press TV will be broadcasting a different view than the BBC or CNN. This would be very problematic for the establishment.The US and Britain, who built their empires on the powerful illusion of media, simply cannot accept that a country like Iran could win-over English speaking audiences, doing a better job reporting the news than the likes of CNN or the BBC. Worse yet, they cannot accept anything other than an anti-Iranian perspective portrayed through the TV lens.Chris Bambery, a political analyst in London explained the possible motivation behind Britain's move, saying, “To me Press TV has a much wider range of debate than it is available on BBC, with views of people who support their Republican Party in the United States, who support free market policies in this country. I have debated with those people and I think Press TV has done an startling job here and that is precisely why, I believe, it is being taken off because as the reporter just said, we know there has been pressure from a number of lobbies in this country, from the Foreign Office and inside the BBC to take Press TV off the air.”Will the state be moving in on another foreign network next?Following the strength of Press TV, in August 2007 Russia Today (RT), another 24 hr global news network that offered an incredibly diverse band of news and opinion, not seen before on TV, arrived. Before long, RT became the second most-watched foreign news channel in the United States, after the BBC, and also set a TV News Channel record after exceeding a view count on YouTube of half a billion.Like Press TV, the staff at RT remained committed to delivering an even more challenging slate of programming, with it's strap-line, “RT: question more.” It has kept its overwhelmingly anti-war, anti-globalist and pro-humanity agenda, and is generally resistant to the usual propaganda lines which are streamlined through the Murdoch media press, routinely churned out of the Whitehall, Tel Aviv, White House and US State Department.I found myself becoming RT's number one fan, so I did not hesitate when I was invited to contribute on air. I didn't know anyone in the organization, had no contacts and no introductions. They simply liked my writing and were willing to give me a shot on live TV. To date, no editor at RT has ever censored or attempted to censor anything I have said, or even ask me to alter my opinion on any subject.This type of network practice is very, very rare in today's corporate media matrix and for this reason, interested audiences around the world need to be vigilant and support free speech when it comes under attack from the host state.The Britain's unofficial censorship unit Ofcom has obviously recognized the ability of countries like Iran to produce slick, polished and balanced programming- and deliver it with a high degree of professionalism. And in TV, the rating doesn't lie. The establishment knows full well that both Press TV and RT have attracted millions of viewers- viewers who will never go back to the BBC News, SKY News or ITV News.The battle begins. Today it is a 'foreign' TV network like Press TV that is being targeted, and taken down by the state.Tomorrow, it could be RT… and after that, who knows? Will it be hundreds of 'foreign' internet news websites like Infowars.com.This latest victory for the censors is a move backwards for Britain, and it strikes deep into the heart of our free society- a society that generations have fought long and hard to arrive at.Support Press TV, support RT. If you really live in a free society, you should be able to watch and support any network that you choose to.Have no doubt, the infowar is well and truly on.-- Author Patrick Henningsen is an Associate Editor for Infowars, Editor of 21st Century Wire .PH/PKH

Will God Forgive The Jews?

2011-09-28T09:08:00.001-07:00

Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year): Will God forgive?By Alan HartAt the start of the Jewish New Year I have some questionsfor Britain’s Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks. They are for him in particular because of what he said in a recorded message of preparation for the New Year, but they are also questions that could and should be asked of rabbis everywhere.First here’s the complete text (quite short) of what Lord Sacks said and can be seen to be saying on You Tube.“That’s the sound of selichot (the choral-like prayer that opened his lordship’s presentation). Of saying sorry. The special prayers we say at this time of the year as we come close to Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, the Jewish new year and the day of atonement. And there’s something so powerful about the ability to say sorry.“Out there in secular society we live in a non penitential culture. When was the last time you heard a politician say, ‘I’m sorry’. Or a rabbi say, ‘I got it wrong’. Or a pundit say, ‘I made a mistake’.“Yet we’re always getting things wrong. That’s what it is to be human. So to be able to say, I’m sorry, I was wrong, forgive me, is important. It’s a moment of honesty in a lifetime of keeping up appearances; of trying to look infallible. And I can say sorry to God because I know he forgives me. I know that because that’s the kind of God he is. That’s why he gave us Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. So try saying sorry to God. It might just help you, as it has helped me, to say sorry to the people I’ve hurt. Saying sorry is the superglue of interpersonal life. It mends relationships that would otherwise be broken beyond repair. You won’t be sorry that you said, ‘I’m sorry, Shanah toya’.“Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year, is a kind of clarion call, a summons to the Ten Days of Penitence which culminate in the Day of Atonement. Yom Kippur is the supreme moment of Jewish time, a day of fasting and prayer, introspection and self-judgement. At no other time are we so sharply conscious of standing before God, of being known.”If this goy (me) completely understands the message, the Chief Rabbi is calling on British Jews (and by obvious implication all others) to say sorry to the people they have hurt as well as God. And if that is so I have three questions.1. Do the people who have been hurt by Jews in Zionism’s name include the Palestinians?2. If the answer is “No”, why not?3. If the answer is “Yes”, why is that most Jews can’t say sorry to the Palestinians for the terrible wrongs done to them in Zionism’s name? (The terrible wrongs only begin with the first phase of Zionism’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine).As I was turning over in my gentile mind possible answers to the last question, I recalled a very revealing story Golda Meir told me in our last conversation shortly before she died.It was about what happened early on the first morning (day two) of the Yom Kippur war when Sadat’s forces were consolidating their hold on the Suez Canal which they had crossed in a surprise attack. Prime Minister Meir convened a kitchen cabinet meeting in her small and very modest Tel Aviv home. Defense Minister Dayan proposed that the IDF should “surrender” its remaining frontline positions on the canal to save lives and withdraw 25 kilometers. To me Golda said: “I told Moshe there was no such word as surrender in our language, then I rushed to that little room there, the toilet, and vomited.” (The full version of that story, and many others, is in my book, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews).Is it the case that there’s no such word as sorry in Zionism’s vocabulary?As I understand it the real problem is that saying sorry to the Palestinians requires all Jews, not only Israeli Jews, to acknowledge the wrong done to the Palestinians in Zionism’s name. And that in turn would require all Jews, not only Israeli Jews, to play their necessary part in righting the wrong done to the Palestinians.Perhaps more to the point is that saying sorry to the Palestinians would raise the Mother and Father of all questions about the legitimacy and criminality of Zionism’scolonial-like enterprise.I’ll address my last question for the moment directly to Lord Sacks.Chief Rabbi, do you really believe that God will forgive the Jews if they don’t say sorry to the Palestinians andthen play their necessary part in righting the wrong done?

Is Gilad Atzmon, in His Turn, Becoming a Revisionist? by Robert Faurisson

2011-09-27T10:52:00.001-07:00

http://www.codoh.com/newsite/sr/online/sr_171.pdf Is Gilad Atzmon, in His Turn, Becoming a Revisionist?by Robert Faurisson27 March 2010 (source: http://www.codoh.com/newsite/sr/online/sr_171.pdf )Born in Israel in 1963, Gilad Atzmon lives in London. As recently as October 27 of last year he said on his website: "I am a proper Zionist Jew […]. I am a Holocaust survivor […]. I am also totally against Holocaust denial […] I oppose Holocaust denial." (http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/after-all-i-am-a-proper-zionist-jew-by-gilad-atzmon.html )But, on March 13, 2010, he began developing considerations of a revisionist nature (in the long quotation here, I have quoted what seem to me the most significant parts of this change of attitude)."When I was young and naïve I regarded history as a serious academic matter. As I understood it, history had something to do with truth seeking, documents, chronology and facts. I was convinced that history aimed to convey a sensible account of the past based on methodical research. I also believed that it was premised on the assumption that understanding the past may throw some light over our present and even help us to shape a prospect of a better future. I grew up in the Jewish state and it took me quite a while to understand that the Jewish historical narrative is very different. In the Jewish intellectual ghetto, one decides what the future ought to be, then one constructs ‘a past’ accordingly. Interestingly enough, this exact method is also prevalent amongst Marxists. They shape the past so it fits nicely into their vision of the future. As the old Russian joke says, ‘when the facts do not conform with the Marxist ideology, the Communist social scientists amend the facts (rather than revise the theory)’."When I was young, I didn’t think that history was a matter of political decisions or agreements between a rabid Zionist lobby and its favourite holocaust survivor. I regarded historians as scholars who engaged in adequate research following some strict procedures. When I was young I even considered becoming an historian."When I was young and naive I was also somehow convinced that what they told us about our ‘collective’ Jewish past really happened. I believed it all, the Kingdom of David, Massada, and then the Holocaust: the soap, the lampshade*, the death march, the six million."As it happened, it took me many years to understand that the Holocaust, the core belief of the contemporary Jewish faith, was not at all an historical narrative for historical narratives do not need the protection of the law and politicians. It took me years to grasp that my great-grand-mother wasn’t made into a ‘soap’ or a ‘lamp-shade’*. She probably perished out of exhaustion, typhus or maybe even by mass shooting. This was indeed bad and tragic enough, however not that different from the fate of many millions of Ukrainians who learned what communism meant for real. ‘Some of the worst mass murderers in history were Jews’ writes Zionist Sever Plocker on the Israeli Ynet disclosing the Holodomor and Jewish involve-ment in this colossal crime, proba-bly the greatest crime of the 20th century."The fate of my great-grand-mother was not any different from hundreds of thousands of German civilians who died in an orchestrated indiscriminate bombing, because they were Germans. Similarly, people in Hiroshima died just because they were Japanese. 1 million Vietnamese died just because they were Vietnamese and 1.3 million Iraqis died because they were Iraqis. In short the tragic circumstances of my great grandmother wasn’t that special after all."It doesn’t make sense."It took me years to accept that the Holocaust narrative, in its current form, doesn’t make any historical sense. Here is just one little anecdote to elaborate on:"If, for instance, the Nazis wanted the Jews out of their Reich (Judenrein - free of Jews), or even dead, as the Zionist narrative insists, how come they marched hundreds of thousands of them back into the Reich at the end of the war? I have been concerned with this simple question for more than a while. I eventually launched into an historical research of the topic and happened to learn from Israeli Holocaust historian professor Israel Gutman that Jewish prisoners actually joined the march voluntarily. Here is a testimony taken from Gutman’s book:"‘One of my friends and relatives in the camp came to me on the night of the evacuation and offered a common hiding place somewhere on the way from the camp to the factory.… The intention was to leave the camp with one of the convoys and to escape near the gate, using the darkness we thought to go a little far from the camp. The temptation was very strong. And yet, after I considered it all I then decided to join (the march) with all the other inmates and to share their fate’ (Israel Gutman [editor], People and Ashes: Book Auschwitz-Birkenau, Merhavia 1957)."I am left puzzled here, if the Nazis ran a death factory in Auschwitz-Birkenau, why would the Jewish prisoners join them at the end of the war? Why didn’t the Jews wait for their Red liberators?"I think that 65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, we must be entitled to start to ask the necessary questions. We should ask for some conclusive historical evdence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative that is sustained by political pressure and laws. We should strip the holocaust of its Judeo-centric exceptional status and treat it as an historical chapter that belongs to a certain time and place."Sixty-five years after the liberation of Auschwitz we should reclaim our history and ask why? Why were the Jews hated? Why did European people stand up against their next door neighbours? Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East, surely they had a chance to open a new page in their troubled history? If they genuinely planned to do so, as the early Zionists claimed, why did they fail? Why did America tighten its immigration laws amid the growing danger to European Jews? We should also ask for what purpose do the holocaust denial laws serve? What is the holocaust religion there to conceal? As long as we fail to ask questions, we will be subjected to Zionists and their Neocons agents’ plots. We will continue killing in the name of Jewish suffering. We will maintain our complicity in Western imperialist crimes against humanity."As devastating as it may be, at a certain moment in time, a horrible chapter was given an exceptionally meta-historical status. Its ‘factuality’ was sealed by draconian laws and its reasoning was secured by social and political settings. The Holocaust became the new Western religion. Unfortunately, it is the most sinister religion known to man. It is a license to kill, to flatten, no [sic, for to] nuke, to wipe, to rape, to loot and to ethnically cleanse. It made vengeance and revenge into a Western value. However, far more concerning is the fact that it robs humanity of its heritage, it is there to stop us from looking into our past with dignity. Holocaust religion robs humanity of its humanism. For the sake of peace and future generations, the holocaust must be stripped of its exceptional status immediately. It must be subjected to thorough historical scrutiny. Truth and truth seeking is an elementary human experience. It must prevail.""*During WWII and after it was widely believed that soaps and lampshades were being mass produced from the bodies of Jewish victims. In recent years the Israeli Holocaust museum admitted that there was no truth in any of those accusations." ( http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/truth-history-and-integrity-by-gilad-atzmon.html )Finally, on March 25, 2010, his site carried the following statement:"AIPAC leaders are clearly repeating the grave mistakes of their forbearers [sic, for forebears]: the American Jewish Congress. They do not learn from their history, for there is not a single Jewish history text to learn from. Instead of a history text, Jews have the Holocaust, an event that matured into a religion. – The holocaust religion is obviously Judeo-centric to the bone. It defines the Jewish Raison d'être. For the Jews it signifies a total fatigue of the Diaspora, it regards the Goy as a potential ‘irrational’ murderer. The new Jewish religion preaches revenge. It even establishes a new Jewish God. Instead of old Yehova, the new Jewish God is ‘the Jew’ himself: the brave and witty being, the one who survived the ultimate and most sinister genocide, the one who came out of the ashes and stepped forward into a new beginning."To a certain extent the Holocaust religion signals the Jewish departure from monotheism, for every Jew is a potential little God or Goddess. Gilad Shalit is the God ‘innocence’, Abe Foxman is the God anti Semitism, Maddof [sic, for Madoff] is the God of swindling, Greenspan is the God of ‘good economy’, Lord Goldsmith is the God of the ‘green light’, Lord Levy is the God of fundraising, Wolfowitz is the God of new American expansionism and AI-PAC is the American Olympus where American elected human beings come to ask for mercy and forgiveness for being Goyim and for daring to occasionally tell the truth about Israel. –"The holocaust religion is the conclusive stage in the Jewish dia-lectic; it is the end of Jewish his-tory for it is the deepest and most sincere form of ‘self love’. Rather than inventing an abstract God who prefers the Jews to be the chosen people, in the holocaust religion the Jews cut out the divine middle sub-stance. The Jew just chooses one-self [sic, for himself]. This is why Jewish identity politics transcends itself beyond the notion of history. God is the master of ceremony. And the new Jewish God cannot be subject to humanly contingent oc-currences."The new Jewish God, i.e. ‘the Jew’, just re-writes fables that serve the tribe at any given time. This may explain why the Holocaust religion is protected by laws, while every other historical chapter and narrative is debated openly by his-torians, intellectuals and ordinary people. – As one may guess, with such a self-centered intensive world-view, not much room is left for humanity, grace or universal-ism. It is far from being clear whether Jews can collectively re-cover from their new religion. However, it is crucial that every humanist stands up against the holocaust religion that can only spread misery, death and carnage." ( http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/judea-declares-war-on-obama-by-gilad-atzmon.html )

Hitler and the Banksters: The Abolition of Interest-Servitude

2011-09-21T03:01:00.001-07:00

Hitler and the Banksters: The Abolition of Interest-ServitudeStephen Goodson At the end of November 1918, Adolf Hitler returned to Munich and then proceeded to a military camp in Traunstein in south-eastern Bavaria. When the camp was disbanded in April 1919, he went back to Munich, which was still being ruled by a Soviet republic founded by a Polish Jew Kurt Eisner (real name Salamon Kosmanowsky).At the beginning of May, a few days after the communist revolution had been terminated on May 1, 1919 by the Bavarian Freikorps, Hitler was summoned as a member of the 2nd Infantry Regiment to attend a course on political instruction. The purpose of this course of lectures was to provide the soldiers with a background of politics, which would enable them to monitor the many revolutionary and political movements present in Munich at that time.One of the lecturers was a former construction engineer turned economist, Dr Gottfried Feder (1881-1941).(1) His first lecture was entitled “The Abolition of the Interest-Servitude”. Hitler was enthralled by what he heard, and this was to be a turning point in his political career. The following quotations from Mein Kampf reflect his initial thoughts.“ For the first time in my life I heard a discussion which dealt with the principles of stock exchange capital and capital which was used for loan activities. After hearing the first lecture delivered by Feder, the idea immediately came into my head that I had found a way to one of the most essential prerequisites for the founding of a new party.To my mind, Feder’s merit consisted in the ruthless and trenchant way in which he described the double character of the capital engaged in stock exchange and loan transactions, laying bare the fact that this capital is ever and always dependent on the payment of interest. In fundamental questions his statements were so full of common sense that those who criticized him did not deny that au fond his ideas were sound, but they doubted whether it be possible to put these ideas into practice. To me this seemed the strongest point in Feder’s teaching, though others considered it a weak point.(2)And again,…I understood immediately that here was a truth of transcendental importance for the future of the German people. The absolute separation of stock exchange capital from the economic life of the nation would make it possible to oppose the process of internationalization in German business without at the same time attacking capital at such, for to do this would be to jeopardize the foundations of our national independence. I clearly saw what was developing in Germany, and I realized then that the stiffest fight we would have to wage would not be against the enemy nations but against international capital. In Feder’s speech I found an effective rallying-cry for our coming struggle.”(3)Further, he wrote,“The struggle against international finance capital and loan capital has become one of the most important points in the program on which the German nation has based its fight for economic freedom and independence.”(4)A few weeks later Hitler received an instruction from his superiors to investigate a political association called the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (German Workers Party). At this meeting held in the Sterneckerbrau Inn in Munich, about 20 to 25 persons were present. The main speaker was Dr Gottfried Feder.Shortly thereafter Hitler joined this party and received a provisional certificate of membership numbered seven. His first act on assuming control of the party was to rename it the Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers Party).Feder, who was the principal drafter of the party’s 25 points, became the architect and theoretician of the program (5) until his unfortunate dismissal as Secretary of State for Economic Affairs in August 1934.Approximately 40 percent of Feder’s ”The Program of the NSDAP” is devoted to economic and financial policies. Below are some of the highlights.Adolf Hitler prints its two main points in leaded type:“THE COMMON INTEREST BEFORE SELF-THE SPIRIT OF THE PROGRAM ABOLITION OF THE THRALLDOM OF INTEREST – THE CORE OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM.” “Once these two points are achieved, it means a victory of their approaching universalist ordering of society in the true state over the present-day separation of state, nation and economics under the corrupting influence of the individualist theory of society as now constructed. The sham state of today, oppressing the working classes and protecting the pirated gains of bankers and stock exchange speculators, is the area for reckless private enrichment and for the lowest political profiteering; it gives no thought to its people, and provides no high moral bond of union. The power of money, most ruthless of all powers, holds absolute control, and exercises corrupting, destroying influence on state, nation, society, morals, drama, literature and on all matters of morality, less easy to estimate.(6)“Break down the thralldom of interest” is our war cry.(7) What do we mean by thralldom of interest? The landowner is under this thralldom, who has to raise loans to finance his farming operations, loans at such high interest as almost to eat up the results of his labor, or who is forced to make debts and to drag the mortgages after him like so much weight of lead.So is the worker, producing in shops and factories for a pittance, whilst the shareholder draws dividends and bonuses which he has not worked for. So is the earning middle class, whose work goes almost entirely to pay the interest on bank overdrafts.(8)Thralldom of interest is the real expression for the antagonisms, capital versus labor, blood versus money, creative work versus exploitation. The necessity of breaking this thralldom is of such vast importance for our nation and our race, that on it alone depends our nation’s hope of rising up from its shame and slavery; in fact, the hope of recovering happiness, prosperity and civilization throughout the world. It is the pivot on which everything turns; it is far more than a mere necessity of financial policy. Whilst its principles and consequences bite deep into political and economic life, it is a leading question for economic study, and thus affects every single individual and demands a decision from each one: Service to the nation or unlimited private enrichment. It means a solution of the Social Question.(9)Our financial principle: Finance shall exist for the benefit of the state; the financial magnates shall not form a state within the state. Hence our aim to break the thralldom of interest.Relief of the state, and hence of the nation, from its indebtedness to the great financial houses, which lend on interest.Nationalization of the Reichsbank and the issuing houses, which lend on interest.Provision of money for all great public objects (waterpower, railroads etc), not by means of loans, but by granting non-interest bearing state bonds or without using ready money.Introduction of a fixed standard of currency on a secured basis.Creation of a national bank of business development (currency reform) for granting non-interest bearing loans.Fundamental remodeling of the system of taxation on social-economic principles. Relief of the consumer from the burden of indirect taxation, and of the producer from crippling taxation (fiscal reform and relief from taxation).(10)Wanton printing of bank notes, without creating new values, means inflation. We all lived through it. But the correct conclusion is that an issue of non-interest bearing bonds by the state cannot produce inflation if new values are at the same time created.The fact that today great economic enterprises cannot be set on foot without recourse to loans is sheer lunacy. Here is where reasonable use of the state’s right to produce money which might produce most beneficial results.” (11)Feder was appointed Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when the National Socialists came to power on January 30, 1933, but his efforts to implement official National Socialist economic policy were immediately frustrated by Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, who had been appointed President of the Reichsbank in March 1933. Schacht was an enigmatic character. Although he was born in Tingleff, Schleswig-Holstein in 1877, his family originally came from Hungary. In 1903 at the age of 26 he joined the Dresdner Bank, and in 1908 he became a Freemason.He was also a student of Hebrew (12) as he deemed that knowledge of this language was necessary if one wished to advance one’s career in banking.Schacht immediately set out to destroy Feder’s plans, which culminated in the latter’s removal from office in August 1934, after Schacht had been appointed head of the Ministry of Economic Affairs.A somewhat attenuated version of monetary reform was introduced. In order to finance the state’s work and rearmament programs, two dummy corporations called Gesellschaft fuer Offentliche Arbeiten (Offa) and Metallforschung Gesellschaft (Mefo) were established. These corporations accepted bills of exchange from suppliers who fulfilled state orders. These bill of exchange were then discounted at the Reichsbank at a rate of 4 percent. They were issued for three months only, which was clearly unsatisfactory in view of the long-term nature of the various projects they were financing. They could, however, be extended at three monthly intervals for up to five years.In January 1939 matters came to a head when Schacht refused extension of RM3 billion worth of Offa and Mefo bills, because of fears of “inflation”. On January 7, 1939, he sent Hitler the following memorandum:“1) The Reich must spend only that amount covered by2) Full financial control must be returned to the Ministry of Finance. (Then forced to pay for anything the army desired.)3) Price and wage control must be rendered effective. The existing mismanagement must be eliminated.4) The use of money and investment markets must be at the sole discretion of the Reichsbank. (This meant a practical elimination of Goering’s Four Year Plan)”(14)By these means Schacht intended to collapse the German economy, which during the period 1933-39 had increased its gross national product by 100 percent. From being a ruined and bankrupt nation in January 1933 with over six million unemployed persons, Hitler had transformed Germany into a socialist paradise and the most powerful and prosperous state in the history of Europe. He angrily rejected the recommendations of the Reichsbank, describing them as “mutiny”.(15)On January 19, 1939 he sacked the impudent lackey of international finance.(16) Without further ado he instructed the Reichsbank to issue all credits requested by the state. A form of Federgeld (Feder money) was now in circulation, although the bills of exchange still attracted nominal interest.A new Reichsbank law, which was promulgated on June 15, 1939, made the bank “UNCONDITIONALLY SUBORDINATED TO THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE.”(17) Article 3 of the law decreed that the bank should be “directed and managed according to the instructions and under the supervision of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor.”(18) Hitler was now his own banker, but having departed from the fold of international swindlers and usurers he would, like Napoleon Bonaparte, suffer the same fate: an unnecessary war followed by the ruination of his people and country.Events quickly unraveled. On March 31, 1939, Poland received a blank check(19) from England, which unilaterally offered to guarantee her sovereignty; not only if Germany invaded Poland, but also if Poland invaded Germany! This merely served to stiffen Polish resistance to Hitler’s genuine desire to achieve a permanent solution of all outstanding issues emanating from the Treaty of Versailles.During the next five months the Polish government progressively intensified the oppression, harassment of and attacks on the 1.5 million ethnic Germans living in Poland. These attacks, in which over 58 000 German civilians were killed by Poles in an orgy of savagery, culminated in the Bromberg Massacre on September 3, 1939, in which 5 500 people were murdered. These provocations and atrocities were stoically ignored.(20) Eventually Hitler was forced to employ military intervention in order to protect the Germans in Poland.On August 30, 1939, in an act of great statesmanship, Hitler again offered to the Poles the Marienwerder proposals,(21) namely retention of the existing 1919 borders, the return of Danzig (97% German), the construction of a 60-mile autobahn and rail link connecting West and East Prussia (from Schoenlanke to Marienwerder) and an exchange of German and Polish populations. On the orders of the international bankers, the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax, strongly advised the Poles NOT to negotiate. This is how and why World War II was started. The ensuing forced war resulted in victory for the international financiers and defeat and slavery for all the people of Europe.Today the bankers reign supreme. The European Union with its commissars in Brussels and its so called “European” Central Bank headquartered in Frankfurt, (22) increasingly resembles the old Soviet Union. However, with the recent ongoing “sovereign” debt crisis and the collapse of the Euro, the plan for a united Europe anchored in perpetual debt enslavement has received a major setback and has indeed started to disintegrate.Notwithstanding the inability of Adolf Hitler to permanently liberate Europe, it behooves us to appreciate that what he achieved was not done in vain. It is incumbent on us to learn and understand the fundamentals of usury and to spread that knowledge relentlessly, until our material and spiritual liberties have been restored.End NotesIn 1917 Feder formed an organization called the Deutscher Kampfbund gegen Zinsknechtschaft (German Fighting League for the Breaking of Interest Slavery). Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Hurst and Blackett, London, 1933, 122. Ibid., 124. Ibid., 124. Gottfried Feder, The Program of the NSDAP, The National Socialist German Workers’ Party and its General Conceptions, translated by E.T.S. Dugdale, Fritz Eher Verlag, Munich, 1932. Ibid., 21. Ibid., 25. Ibid., 26. Ibid., 27. Ibid., 30. Ibid., 43. Roger Elletson, Monetary Parapometrics: A Case Study of the Third Reich, Christian International Publications, Wilson, Wyoming, 1982, 16. Hitler, op.cit., 125. Edward N. Peterson, Hjalmar Schacht: For and Against Hitler, The Christopher Publishing House, 179. David Marsh, The Bundesbank: The Bank That Rules Europe, William Heinemann Ltd. London, 1992, 119. David Irving, The War Path: Hitler’s Germany 1933-1939, Macmillan, London, 1978, 172. Footnote: “Montagu Norman, governor of the Bank of England, told the U.S. ambassador in London that Schacht was his constant informer over 16 years about Germany’s precarious financial position (U.S. Ambassador Joseph Kennedy reported this to Washington on February 27, 1939.) In 1945, Norman tried to intercede for Schacht at Nuremberg through a fellow Freemason on the British prosecuting team, Harry Phillimore (Schacht was also a Freemason). The U.S. team flatly rejected Phillimore’s advances, but the British judge, Birkett, successfully voted for an acquittal. Marsh, op.cit., 128 Marsh, op.cit., note 40, 300. This was a check that was guaranteed to bounce, as England was only prepared to come to Poland’s aid in the event of a German or Polish invasion, but not one from the Soviet Union. The Poles were unaware of this circumscription. The Soviets took by far the larger portion of Poland viz. 77 300 square miles, as opposed to the 49 800 square miles acquired by Germany. David L. Hoggan, The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Institute for Historical Review, Costa Mesa, California, 1989, Chap. 16, “The Terrified Germans of Poland”, 388-90 and The Lodz Riots, 4-7. Das Letze Angebot (The Last Offer) in Verheimlichte Dokumente-Was den Deutschen verschwiegen wird, Fz-Verlag, Munich, 1993, 172-4. It contains all 16 points. Mayer Anselm Rothschild (1743-1812) founded his banking empire in Frankfurt. He infamously counseled his five sons, “Let me control a nation’s money and I care not who writes its laws.”

2011-09-18T00:18:00.001-07:00

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/16/us-usa-tax-swiss-israel-idUSTRE78E7PU20110916Reuters (US edition) - Friday 16th September 2011 Exclusive:U.S. tax-evasion probe turns to Israeli banksby Lynnley Browning, Reuters, in Hamden, Conn.*The U.S. pursuit of offshore tax evaders is widening to include Israel, where U.S. authorities are scrutinizing three of Israel's largest banks over suspicions their Swiss outposts helped American clients evade taxes, people briefed on the matter said.The banks under scrutiny by the U.S. Justice Department's criminal tax division are Bank Hapoalim, Bank Leumi le-Israel BM and Mizrahi-Tefahot, the sources said.The shift to Israel from Switzerland, for years the main focus of the Justice Department's campaign against offshore private banking secrecy, signals the broadening of a landmark probe by the agency that began in 2007 with UBS AG, Switzerland's largest bank.The shift also opens up a potential sore spot in the historically close relationship between the United States and Israel, a key diplomatic and military ally in the Middle East that is the biggest recipient of U.S. aid -- $3.1 billion last year.U.S.-Israeli relations have come under strain in the past year, after U.S. President Barack Obama's drive to relaunch direct peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians collapsed, although both sides say their decades-old alliance remains unshaken.The scrutiny of the three Swiss branches of the Israeli banks is at an early stage and has not reached the level of that of Credit Suisse, which received a target letter from the Justice Department in July, or of HSBC Holdings, a major European bank, and Basler Kantonalbank, a Swiss cantonal bank, said the people briefed on the matter.U.S.-SWISS ARRANGEMENT CITEDAviram Cohen, a spokesman for Bank Leumi in Tel Aviv, wrote in an e-mailed statement on Thursday that "the request was for general statistical data. It appears that this data was to serve as a basis for a comprehensive arrangement between the Swiss and American Authorities. Obviously, Bank Leumi Switzerland is cooperating fully with the Authorities, in accordance with Swiss Law and under legal advisement."A spokesman for the Bank of Israel, the country's central bank, said on Thursday the agency "cannot comment on questions that refer to specific banking corporations." One person briefed on the matter said the U.S. Justice Department "tries to deal with the entity, not the government" in its crackdown on tax evasion.The scrutiny comes during a wide-ranging campaign by the Justice Department to force nearly a dozen Swiss banks now under scrutiny to pay collectively billions of dollars in fines and admit to criminal wrongdoing.The focus turned to Israel with a letter dated August 31 from the second-highest law enforcement official in the United States, Deputy Attorney General James Cole. Cole gave the three Israeli banks, along with seven Swiss banks, until September 23 to produce broad statistical information on their Swiss operations with U.S. clients.The data requested, according to people briefed on the matter, cover the types of accounts disclosed by UBS in 2009 as part of a deal with the Justice Department to settle U.S. charges that it enabled scores of wealthy Americans to evade billions of dollars in taxes. It also covers other types of accounts, including those opened after the UBS settlement with the Justice Department in February 2009.Under its settlement, UBS entered into a deferred-prosecution agreement, paid a $780 million fine, admitted to criminal wrongdoing, and eventually disclosed details for clients who had unreported accounts of at least 1 million Swiss francs (about $1.15 million) or who owned sham company accounts with that total. The accounts in question covered 2001 through 2008.10 BANKSWhile UBS turned over client names, the Cole letter requests only broad, statistical information on how many American taxpayers hold those types of accounts at the 10 banks covered in the letter, the persons briefed on the matter said. In addition to the three Israeli banks, institutions that received the letter include Credit Suisse AG; HSBC; Julius Baer and Wegelin, both smaller private banks, and Basler Kantonalbank.All the banks are being questioned on suspicion of having enabled wealthy Americans to evade taxes, a criminal offense, through unreported bank accounts, people briefed in the matter said. Some banks, including Credit Suisse, also are suspected of lying to the U.S. Federal Reserve and providing unlicensed banking services to American clients.American officials are concerned that the 10 banks appear to have accepted hidden money from American clients who fled UBS in the wake of its scrutiny and assertions by Swiss officials that offshore tax evasion would not be tolerated under the cloak of Swiss bank secrecy rules, the people briefed on the matter said.Swiss banks argue that U.S. laws, which do not distinguish between tax fraud and tax evasion, should not apply to Switzerland. The Alpine country has a tradition of financial secrecy that punishes the disclosure of client data.David Garvin, a tax lawyer in Miami representing American clients of offshore banks, said, "Israel isn't really anxious to be viewed as turning people over."A spokesman for the Israeli embassy in Washington did not respond to questions.NO COMMENTBenny Shoukron, a spokesman for Mizrahi-Tefahot in Tel Aviv, did not respond to requests for comment. Ofra Preuss, a spokeswoman for Bank Hapoalim in Tel Aviv, referred calls to the bank's Swiss branch in Zurich, Bank Hapoalim (Switzerland), saying, "They're separate from us." A spokeswoman for the Swiss branch declined to return calls requesting comment.Datan Dorot, a tax lawyer in Miami who represents U.S. clients of Israeli banks, said that bankers from an Israeli branch of Bank Leumi called his clients about six weeks ago to tell them they needed to close their accounts at the bank's Swiss branches because of scrutiny by the Justice Department.Many of his clients, Dorot said, hold dual U.S.-Israeli citizenship and had opened their Israeli accounts with Israeli passports and not disclosed their U.S. citizenship -- a factor that makes them U.S. taxpayers.Dorot said Bank Leumi's advice that clients close the accounts -- and presumably open new accounts elsewhere -- could cause problems for the clients because the U.S. Internal Revenue Service does not consider merely closing the account to be enough; the U.S. taxpayer must also report the account to the IRS and pay taxes on it. "The Israeli banks are suggesting a very bad idea," Dorot said.---------------------------------------(*Additional reporting from Reuters Jerusalem bureau; Editing by Howard Goller and Peter Cooney.)

Lusitania An old lie nailed.

2011-09-05T02:32:00.001-07:00

Secret of the Lusitania: Arms find challenges Allied claims it was solely a passenger ship
By Sam Greenhill

Her sinking with the loss of almost 1,200 lives caused such outrage that it propelled the U.S. into the First World War.

But now divers have revealed a dark secret about the cargo carried by the Lusitania on its final journey in May 1915.

Munitions they found in the hold suggest that the Germans had been right all along in claiming the ship was carrying war materials and was a legitimate military target.

Doomed: A contemporary view of the sinking of the Lusitania off Ireland in May 1915

The Cunard vessel, steaming from New York to Liverpool, was sunk eight miles off the Irish coast by a U-boat.

Maintaining that the Lusitania was solely a passenger vessel, the British quickly accused the 'Pirate Hun' of
slaughtering civilians.

The disaster was used to whip up anti-German anger, especially in the U.S., where 128 of the 1,198 victims came from.

A hundred of the dead were children, many of them under two.

Robert Lansing, the U.S. secretary of state, later wrote that the sinking gave him the 'conviction we would ultimately become the ally of Britain'.

Americans were even told, falsely, that German children were given a day off school to celebrate the sinking of the Lusitania.

The disaster inspired a multitude of recruitment posters demanding vengeance for the victims.

One, famously showing a young mother slipping below the waves with her baby, carried the simple slogan 'Enlist'.

Two years later, the Americans joined the Allies as an associated power - a decision that turned the war decisively against Germany.

The diving team estimates that around four million rounds of U.S.-manufactured Remington .303 bullets lie in the Lusitania's hold at a depth of 300ft.

The Germans had insisted the Lusitania - the fastest liner in the North Atlantic - was being used as a weapons ship to break the blockade Berlin had been trying to impose around Britain since the outbreak of hostilities in August 1914.

Winston Churchill, who was first Lord of the Admiralty and has long been suspected of knowing more about the circumstances of the attack than he let on in public, wrote in a confidential letter shortly before the sinking that some German submarine attacks were to be welcomed.

He said: 'It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hope especially of embroiling the U.S. with Germany.

'For our part we want the traffic - the more the better and if some of it gets into trouble, better still.'

Hampton Sides, a writer with Men's Vogue in the U.S., witnessed the divers' discovery.

He said: 'They are bullets that were expressly manufactured to kill Germans in World War I - bullets that British officials in Whitehall, and American officials in Washington, have long denied were aboard the Lusitania.'

The discovery may help explain why the 787ft Lusitania sank within 18 minutes of a single German torpedo slamming into its hull.

Some of the 764 survivors reported a second explosion which might have been munitions going off.

Gregg Bemis, an American businessman who owns the rights to the wreck and is funding its exploration, said: 'Those four million rounds of .303s were not just some private hunter's stash.

'Now that we've found it, the British can't deny any more that there was ammunition on board. That raises the question of what else was on board.

'There were literally tons and tons of stuff stored in unrefrigerated cargo holds that were dubiously marked cheese, butter and oysters.

'I've always felt there were some significant high explosives in the holds - shells, powder, gun cotton - that were set off by the torpedo and the inflow of water. That's what sank the ship.'

Mr Bemis is planning to commission further dives next year in a full-scale forensic examination of the wreck off County Cork.

SOURCE:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1098904/Secret-Lusitania-Arms-challenges-Allied-claims-solely-passenger-ship.html#ixzz1X41uwnQ6

Fraudulent Nazi Quotations

2011-08-29T10:36:00.001-07:00

Fraudulent Nazi Quotations
By Mark Weber

Fraudulent quotations attributed to Hitler and other Third Reich leaders have been widely circulated for years. Such quotes are often used by polemicists -- of both the left and the right -- to discredit their ideological adversaries by showing that Nazis held similar views. This tactic works because people have been educated to believe that anything Hitler and other Nazi leaders thought or said was malevolent, wrong-headed or evil, and that no reasonable or ethical person could hold similar views.

Here's a look at a few of the many remarks falsely attributed to Hitler and other top Nazis.

Goebbels: `Truth is the Enemy of the State'

Hitler's propaganda chief, Joseph Goebbels, supposedly said:

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

Rush Limbaugh, the popular American radio commentator, is just one of the many influential Americans who has cited this quotation. During a May 2007 radio broadcast he claimed that these remarks are "from Hitler's war room, the Nazi spinmeister-in-chief, Joseph Goebbels," who was "speaking for his cronies in the Nazi party." Limbaugh went on to claim that American "Democrat Party" leaders were using "a version" of Goebbels' technique to try to "repress dissent." And in January 2011 US Congressman Steve Cohen, a Democratic party politician of Tennessee, accused Republicans of propagating "a big lie, just like Goebbels" about a proposed national health care plan.

In fact, Goebbels' views were quite different than what this fraudulent quote suggests. He consistently held that propaganda should be accurate and truthful.

In an address given in September 1934 in Nuremberg, he said: "Good propaganda does not need to lie, indeed it may not lie. It has no reason to fear the truth. It is a mistake to believe that people cannot take the truth. They can. It is only a matter of presenting the truth to people in a way that they will be able to understand. A propaganda that lies proves that it has a bad cause. It cannot be successful in the long run."

In an article written in 1941, he cited examples of false British wartime claims, and went on to charge that British propagandists had adopted the "big lie" technique that Hitler had identified and condemned in his book Mein Kampf. Goebbels wrote: "The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous."

Hitler and Gun Control

In a speech, sometimes said to have been delivered in 1935, Hitler is supposed to have exclaimed: "This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

This quote has been popular with Americans who defend the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms." It's cited to discredit those who support restrictions on firearms ownership and use. It's also cited to support the often-made charge that Hitler and his government curtailed gun ownership in Germany, and confiscated weapons held by private citizens.

The truth is rather different. When Hitler and his National Socialist Party took power in early 1933, they inherited a somewhat restrictive firearms law that the liberal-democratic "Weimar" government had enacted five years earlier. In 1938 Hitler's government revised the earlier law by loosening those restrictions, thereby enhancing the rights of Germans to own weapons. The most thorough confiscation of firearms ever imposed on Germans was carried out at the end of the Second World War by the occupation forces of the United States and other victorious Allied powers.

Hitler on `Law and Order'

Hitler is supposed to have said during a speech in 1932, shortly before he became Chancellor:

"The streets of our cities are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might and the Republic is in danger. Yes, danger from within and without. We need law and order! Yes, without law and order our nation cannot survive ... Elect us and we shall restore law and order. We shall, by law and order, be respected among the nations of the world. Without law and order our Republic shall fail."

This quotation, which is meant to embarrass and discredit those who support "law and order," was especially popular with younger Americans during the late 1960s and early 1970s. It appeared on posters and in the 1971 movie "Billy Jack."

In his many election campaign speeches in 1932 Hitler stressed the themes of justice, freedom, jobs and national unity -- not "law and order." German universities in 1932 were not "filled with students rebelling and rioting." In fact, German students were among the most fervent supporters of Hitler and his National Socialist movement.

Goering on Culture

Hermann Goering, a high-ranking Third Reich official, is often quoted as having said: "Whenever I hear the word culture, I reach for my revolver." Reichsmarschall Goering (Göring), who was commander of Germany's air force, would never have said anything like this. Along with other high-level Third Reich leaders, he esteemed the arts, and prided himself on his appreciation of culture.

This quote is a distortion of a line by a character in the play Schlageter by German writer Hanns Johst. The original line (translated) is "When I hear [the word] culture ... I release the safety on my Browning!" A version of this quote is presented in a staged scene in "Why We Fight," a US government wartime propaganda film, to suggest that the typical "Nazi" was an uncultured thug.

Hitler and Conscience

"I am liberating man from the degrading chimera known as conscience," Hitler is supposed to have said. This widely repeated quote appears, for example, in The Great Quotations, a supposedly authoritative collection compiled by Jewish American journalist and author George Seldes. It's a version of a remark attributed to Hitler by Hermann Rauschning in his book, The Voice of Destruction (Conversations with Hitler), which is a source of many fraudulent quotations supposedly based on private talks with Hitler that, in fact, never took place.

The "original" text of this quote, as presented by Rauschning, is: "Providence has ordained that I should be the greatest liberator of humanity. I am freeing men from the restraints of an intelligence that has taken charge; from the dirty and degrading self -mortifications of a chimera called conscience and morality, and from the demands of a freedom and personal independence which only a very few can bear."

In fact, Hitler repeatedly emphasized the importance of acting conscientiously. For example, in at least three different public statements or speeches 1941 alone, he spoke about acting in accord with his conscience. Rudolf Hess, a close friend and trusted colleague, once said that his devotion to Hitler was based in large measure on his regard for Hitler's resolute conscience. In a 1934 speech Hess said: "The conscience of a moral personality is a far greater protection against the misuse of an office than is the supervision of parliament or the separation of powers. I know no one who has a stronger conscience, or is more true to his people, than Adolf Hitler ... The Führer's highest court is his conscience and his responsibility to his people and to history."

Hitler: `Destroy By All Means'

The US government propaganda film, "Why We Fight," quotes Hitler as having said: "My motto is `Destroy by all and any means. National Socialism will reshape the world." This is a version of a remark attributed to Hitler by Hermann Rauschning in his influential book. The "original" text, as presented by Rauschning, is: "I want war. To me all means will be right ... My motto is not "Don't, whatever you do, annoy the enemy! My motto is `Destroy him by all and any means.' I am the one who will wage the war!" Another version of this invented remark appears in the book Hitler and Nazism (1961), by historian Louis Leo Snyder, who was a professor at City College of New York.

Hitler on Terrorism

Hitler has often been quoted as saying: "Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death."

This quote is based on two invented remarks in Hermann Rauschning's mendacious book, The Voice of Destruction.

Hitler: `We Are Barbarians'

Hitler has often been quoted as saying: "They refer to me as an uneducated barbarian. Yes, we are barbarians. We want to be barbarians, it is an honored title to us. We shall rejuvenate the world. This world is near its end."

This is another fraudulent Hitler quote from the fanciful work of Hermann Rauschning.

Hitler and `Brutal Youth'

"A violently active, dominating, intrepid, brutal youth -- that is what I am after ... I want to see in its eyes the gleam of pride and independence, of prey. I will have no intellectual training. Knowledge is the ruin of my young men." This widely cited remark is included, for example, in George Seldes' The Great Quotations. The source cited by Seldes is an item in The Nation by the popular American journalist and author John Gunther (1901-1970).

In fact, this is a version of a remark attributed to Hitler by Hermann Rauschning, whose imaginative work is a source of many phony "quotes." Another fraudulent Hitler remark in this same spirit and from this same source, likewise cited by the supposedly authoritative Seldes, is this: "Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism ever invented for its own destruction."

These remarks misrepresent Hitler's real views. In fact, National Socialist Germany was a world leader in science, learning, technology and medicine. Hitler was admired by some of the leading intellectuals of the age, including Knut Hamsun, Ezra Pound, Louis-Ferdinand Celine and Martin Heidegger.

References / For Further Reading

Randall Bytwerk, "False Nazi Quotations" (http://bytwerk.com/gpa/falsenaziquotations.htm)

Paul F. Boller, Jr. and John George, They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, & Misleading Attributions (New York: Oxford, 1989).

Joseph Goebbels, "From Churchill's Factory of Lies," ("Aus Churchills Lügenfabrik"), January 1941. Reprinted in Zeit ohne Beispiel (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb29.htm) (1941)

Joseph Goebbels, "Propaganda" (Nuremberg: 1934) (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb59.htm)

William L. Pierce, Gun Control in Germany 1928-1945 (1994)

John Toland, Adolf Hitler (1976)

Mark Weber, "Goebbels and World War II Propaganda," 2011, (http://www.ihr.org/other/goebbels2011weber.html)

Mark Weber, "Goebbels' Place in History," The Journal of Historical Review, 1995. (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v15/v15n1p18_Weber.html)

Mark Weber, "Hitler as 'Enlightenment Intellectual': The Enduring Allure of Hitlerism," 1997, (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n5p34_Weber.html)

Mark Weber, "Rauschning's Phony 'Conversations With Hitler': An Update," 1985, (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p499_Weber.html

How `The Sound of Music' Distorts History:

2011-08-29T10:24:00.000-07:00

How `The Sound of Music' Distorts History:

Hollywood Mythology About Austrians and Hitler

By Mark Weber

"The Sound of Music" is perhaps the most popular American musical picture ever produced. This entertaining 1965 movie, which includes such catchy tunes as "My Favorite Things" and "Do-Re-Mi," won five Academy Awards, including Best Picture. But whatever its merits as entertainment, the film's presentation of history is deceitful. In particular, its portrayal of the 1938 union or Anschluss of Austria with the German Reich is a gross distortion of reality.

Ordinary Austrians are portrayed in the movie as decent, patriotic and devout, and unhappy with the grim German takeover of their country. For decades American educators and scholars have similarly presented the Anschluss as an act of aggression. Historian William L. Shirer, for example, in his best-selling book, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, refers to the 1938 union as the "Rape of Austria."

What really happened?

According to the movie, the head of the von Trapp family decides to flee the country with his wife and children to avoid having to serve in the German navy. While it's true that Georg Ludwig von Trapp, who is played in the movie by Christopher Plummer, was a monarchist who was hostile to Hitler and National Socialism, he was never forced to choose between service in the German armed forces or emigration from the country.

In the movie, the von Trapps flee Austria in secret, hiking over the mountains into Switzerland carrying their suitcases and musical instruments. In reality, they left the country by train, and they did so quite openly. And instead of going to Switzerland they traveled to Italy before ultimately settling in the United States. As daughter Maria said years later in an interview: "We did tell people that we were going to America to sing. And we did not climb over mountains with all our heavy suitcases and instruments. We left by train, pretending nothing,"

A more serious distortion of reality is the movie's portrayal of Austria in 1938, and the attitude of Austrians toward Hitler and National Socialism. In fact, the vast majority of Austrians joyfully welcomed the union of their homeland with Hitler's Reich. This is explained in detail, for example, in Hitler's Austria, a scholarly and well-referenced book by Evan Burr Bukey, a professor of history at the University of Arkansas.

In the years before the March 1938 Anschluss, Austria was ruled by the Dollfuss-Schuschnigg regime, a repressive one-party dictatorship that called itself a "Christian Corporative" state. It imprisoned National Socialists, Marxists and other dissidents. But there was one important section of Austria's population that supported the dictatorial regime. That was the Jewish community, which made up 2.8 percent of the total. As Prof. Bukey writes: "The Jewish community regarded the Dollfuss-Schuschnigg regime as its protector ... Under the Dollfuss-Schuschnigg regime the Jewish community recovered a measure of governmental protection it had not enjoyed since the days of the Habsburgs. The public was outraged."

In spite of their small numbers, Austria's Jews wielded vast and disproportionate wealth and power. As Prof. Bukey writes: "The predominant position of the Jews in an impoverished country only intensified the fear and loathing of the Austrians masses. As we have already seen, Jewish businesses and financial institutions managed much of the country's economic life. At the time of the Anschluss three-quarters of Vienna's newspapers, banks and textile firms were in Jewish hands ... The extraordinary success of the Jews in the learned professions also inspired jealously and spite. Over 50 percent of Austria's attorneys, physicians and dentists were Jewish. "

On the eve of the Anschluss, Austria's economy was in a catastrophic condition, and nearly one-third of Austrians were out of work. But people also knew that, just across the border in the German Reich, unemployment had been eliminated, living standards and working conditions had greatly improved, and economic, social and cultural life was flourishing.

Even Hitler, who was himself a native of Austria, did not realize just how eagerly Austrians looked forward to the union of their homeland with the Reich. Commenting on his entry into his Austria in March 1938, Prof. Bukey writes: "What he [Hitler] did not take into account was the tumultuous welcome he would receive from the Austrian people, an outburst of frenzied acclimation seldom seen the days of the Caesars."

Virtually the only people in Austria who did not join in the general outpouring of joy was a small minority of Jews, Marxists and monarchists. Hitler ordered a free and secret national referendum on this great issue. As Prof Bukey notes:"Hitler sincerely believed that `all state power must emanate from the people and [be] confirmed in free state elections'."

In the run-up to the referendum, Austria's Roman Catholic and Protestant leadership, along with the country's labor leaders, issued statements welcoming the incorporation of their country into Hitler's Germany. The Catholic primate of Austria, Theodor Cardinal Innitzer, personally welcomed Hitler to Vienna. Together with the country's other Bishops, Cardinal Innitzer issued a pastoral letter urging the faithful to vote for Hitler. The Catholic leaders also authorized the draping of swastika banners from the country's churches. In Austria, well as in the rest of the German Reich, approval of the Anschluss -- as reflected in the plebiscite -- was nearly unanimous. Even foreign observers acknowledged that the lopsided, 99 percent "Yes" vote reflected popular sentiment.

Following Austria's incorporation into the Reich, conditions improved dramatically. As Prof. Bukey writes: "In one of the most remarkable economic achievements in modern history, the National Socialists reduced the number of unemployed in Austria from 401,000 in January 1938 to 99,865 in September; in Vienna from 183,271 to 74,162 ... By Christmas [1938] 27 percent more jobs existed in Austria than before the Anschluss." In 1940 the unemployment rate fell to just 1.2 percent.

Between June and December 1938 -- that is, in just seven months -- the weekly income of industrial workers rose nine percent. "All in all," writes Prof. Bukey, "the Austrian GNP rose 12.8 percent in 1938, and 13.3 percent in 1939." Seldom in history has a country experienced such rapid, dramatic economic growth.

Shortly after the Anschluss, Germany's National Labor Law and the Reich's comprehensive social security system were introduced in Austria. These guaranteed basic rights at the workplace, afforded protection from arbitrary dismissal, quickly provided relief to more then 200,000 desperately poor people, and extended health care benefits to the working class. A large-scale construction program was launched to provide affordable housing. Cultural life was greatly encouraged, with energetic promotion of music, the fine arts and literature. Together with the increase in prosperity and optimism came a jump in the birthrate.

Economic growth continued even after the outbreak of war in September 1939, in spite of a shortage of labor and other difficulties. In 1941, Austria's GNP increased by 7.2 percent. "By 1941," writes Prof. Bukey, "wartime mobilization was bringing palpable improvement in the material conditions of everyday life to many Austrians."

In November 1941, Austria's bishops issued a pastoral letter, which was read in all churches, that reiterated support for the war against Soviet Russia. In it the Catholic leaders solemnly declared that Germany was conducting a crusade against a monstrous "threat to Western civilization." Rather than "keep silent," the bishops went on, Catholics should "recognize the danger for all Europe should Bolshevism prevail."

During the war years, Austrians continued to apply in large numbers to join the National Socialist Party, so that by May 1943 two-thirds of a million had signed up. Austrian support for the regime remained strong to the bitter end in May 1945.

In short, the "Sound of Music" portrayal of the Austrian people's attitude toward Hitler and the National Socialist Reich is a deceitful perversion of historical reality.

-- May 2011

http://www.ihr.org/other/weber2011soundofmusic.html

A story missing from our media: Iceland’s on-going revolution

2011-08-29T07:14:00.001-07:00

A story missing from our media: Iceland’s on-going revolution

Deena Stryker Newsnetscotland.com August 28, 2011

An Italian radio program’s story about Iceland’s on-going revolution is a stunning example of how little our media tells us about the rest of the world. We may remember that at the start of the 2008 financial crisis, Iceland literally went bankrupt. The reasons were mentioned only in passing, and since then, this little-known member of the European Union fell back into oblivion.

As one European country after another fails or risks failing, imperiling the Euro, with repercussions for the entire world, the last thing the powers that be want is for Iceland to become an example. Here’s why:

Five years of a pure neo-liberal regime had made Iceland, (population 320 thousand, no army), one of the richest countries in the world. In 2003 all the country’s banks were privatised, and in an effort to attract foreign investors, they offered on-line banking whose minimal costs allowed them to offer relatively high rates of return. The accounts, called IceSave, attracted many UK and Dutch small investors.

But as investments grew, so did the banks’ foreign debt. In 2003 Iceland’s debt was equal to 200 times its GNP, but in 2007, it was 900 percent. The 2008 world financial crisis was the coup de grace. The three main Icelandic banks, Landbanki, Kapthing and Glitnir, went belly up and were nationalised, while the Kroner lost 85% of its value with respect to the Euro. At the end of the year Iceland declared bankruptcy.

Contrary to what could be expected, the crisis resulted in Icelanders recovering their sovereign rights, through a process of direct participatory democracy that eventually led to a new Constitution. But only after much pain.

Geir Haarde, the Prime Minister of a Social Democratic coalition government, negotiated a two million one hundred thousand dollar loan, to which the Nordic countries added another two and a half million. But the foreign financial community pressured Iceland to impose drastic measures. The FMI and the European Union wanted to take over its debt, claiming this was the only way for the country to pay back Holland and Great Britain, who had promised to reimburse their citizens.

Protests and riots continued, eventually forcing the government to resign. Elections were brought forward to April 2009, resulting in a left-wing coalition which condemned the neoliberal economic system, but immediately gave in to its demands that Iceland pay off a total of three and a half million Euros. This required each Icelandic citizen to pay 100 Euros a month (or about $130) for fifteen years, at 5.5% interest, to pay off a debt incurred by private parties vis a vis other private parties. It was the straw that broke the reindeer’s back.

What happened next was extraordinary. The belief that citizens had to pay for the mistakes of a financial monopoly, that an entire nation must be taxed to pay off private debts was shattered, transforming the relationship between citizens and their political institutions and eventually driving Iceland’s leaders to the side of their constituents. The Head of State, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, refused to ratify the law that would have made Iceland’s citizens responsible for its bankers’ debts, and accepted calls for a referendum.

Of course the international community only increased the pressure on Iceland. Great Britain and Holland threatened dire reprisals that would isolate the country. As Icelanders went to vote, foreign bankers threatened to block any aid from the IMF.

The British government threatened to freeze Icelander savings and checking accounts. As Grimsson said: "We were told that if we refused the international community’s conditions, we would become the Cuba of the North. But if we had accepted, we would have become the Haiti of the North." (How many times have I written that when Cubans see the dire state of their neighbor, Haiti, they count themselves lucky.)

In the March 2010 referendum, 93% voted against repayment of the debt. The IMF immediately froze its loan. But the revolution (though not televised in the United States), would not be intimidated. With the support of a furious citizenry, the government launched civil and penal investigations into those responsible for the financial crisis. Interpol put out an international arrest warrant for the ex-president of Kaupthing, Sigurdur Einarsson, as the other bankers implicated in the crash fled the country.

But Icelanders didn’t stop there: they decided to draft a new constitution that would free the country from the exaggerated power of international finance and virtual money. (The one in use had been written when Iceland gained its independence from Denmark, in 1918, the only difference with the Danish constitution being that the word ‘president’ replaced the word ‘king’.)

To write the new constitution, the people of Iceland elected twenty-five citizens from among 522 adults not belonging to any political party but recommended by at least thirty citizens. This document was not the work of a handful of politicians, but was written on the internet.

The constituent’s meetings are streamed on-line, and citizens can send their comments and suggestions, witnessing the document as it takes shape. The constitution that eventually emerges from this participatory democratic process will be submitted to parliament for approval after the next elections.

Some readers will remember that Iceland’s ninth century agrarian collapse was featured in Jared Diamond’s book by the same name. Today, that country is recovering from its financial collapse in ways just the opposite of those generally considered unavoidable, as confirmed yesterday by the new head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde to Fareed Zakaria.

The people of Greece have been told that the privatization of their public sector is the only solution. And those of Italy, Spain and Portugal are facing the same threat.

They should look to Iceland. Refusing to bow to foreign interests, that small country stated loud and clear that the people are sovereign.

That’s why it is not in the news anymore.

9/11 After A Decade: Have We Learned Anything?

2011-08-27T09:56:00.000-07:00

9/11 After A Decade: Have We Learned Anything?

By Paul Craig Roberts

URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26174

Global Research, August 24, 2011

In a few days it will be the tenth anniversary of September 11, 2001. How well has the US government’s official account of the event held up over the decade?

Not very well. The chairman, vice chairman, and senior legal counsel of the 9/11 Commission wrote books partially disassociating themselves from the commission’s report. They said that the Bush administration put obstacles in their path, that information was withheld from them, that President Bush agreed to testify only if he was chaperoned by Vice President Cheney and neither were put under oath, that Pentagon and FAA officials lied to the commission and that the commission considered referring the false testimony for investigation for obstruction of justice.

In their book, the chairman and vice chairman, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, wrote that the 9/11 Commission was “set up to fail.” Senior counsel John Farmer, Jr., wrote
that the US government made “a decision not to tell the truth about what happened,” and that the NORAD “tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public.” Kean said, “We to this day don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth.”

Most of the questions from the 9/11 families were not answered. Important witnesses were not called. The commission only heard from those who supported the government’s account. The commission was a controlled political operation, not an investigation of events and evidence. Its membership consisted of former politicians. No knowledgeable experts were appointed to the commission.

One member of the 9/11 Commission, former Senator Max Cleland, responded to the constraints placed on the commission by the White House: “If this decision stands, I, as a member of the commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised.” Cleland resigned rather than have his integrity compromised.

To be clear, neither Cleland nor members of the commission suggested that 9/11 was an inside job to advance a war agenda. Nevertheless, neither Congress nor the media wondered, at least not out loud, why President Bush was unwilling to appear before the commission under oath or without Cheney, why Pentagon and FAA officials lied to the commission or, if the officials did not lie, why the commission believed they lied, or why the White House resisted for so long any kind of commission being formed, even one under its control.

One would think that if a handful of Arabs managed to outwit not merely the CIA and FBI but all 16 US intelligence agencies, all intelligence agencies of our allies including Mossad, the National Security Council, the State Department, NORAD, airport security four times on one morning, air traffic control, etc., the President, Congress, and the media would be demanding to know how such an improbable event could occur. Instead, the White House put up a wall of resistance to finding out, and Congress and the media showed little interest.

During the decade that has passed, numerous 9/11 Truth organizations have formed.
There are Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Remember Building 7.org, and a New York group which includes 9/11 families. These groups call for a real investigation.

David Ray Griffen has written 10 carefully researched books documenting problems in the government’s account. Scientists have pointed out that the government has no explanation for the molten steel. NIST has been forced to admit that WTC 7 was in free fall for part of its descent, and a scientific team led by a professor of nano-chemistry at the University of Copenhagen has reported finding nano-thermite in the dust from the buildings.

Larry Silverstein, who had the lease on the World Trade Center buildings, said in a PBS broadcast that the decision was made “to pull” Building 7 late in the afternoon of 9/11. Chief fire marshals have said that no forensic investigation was made of the buildings’ destruction and that the absence of investigation was a violation of law.

Some efforts have been made to explain away some of the evidence that is contrary to the official account, but most of the contrary evidence is simply ignored. The fact remains that the skepticism of a large number of knowledgeable experts has had no effect on the government’s position other than a member of the Obama administration suggesting that the government infiltrate the 9/11 truth organizations in order to discredit them.

The practice has been to brand experts not convinced by the government’s case “conspiracy theorists.” But of course the government’s own theory is a conspiracy theory, an even less likely one once a person realizes its full implication of intelligence and operational failures. The implied failures are extraordinarily large; yet,
no one was ever held accountable.

Moreover, what do 1,500 architects and engineers have to gain from being ridiculed as conspiracy theorists? They certainly will never receive another government contract, and many surely lost business as a result of their “anti-American” stance. Their competitors must have made hay out of their “unpatriotic doubts.” Indeed, my reward for reporting on how matters stand a decade after the event will be mail telling me that as I hate America so much I should move to Cuba.

Scientists have even less incentive to express any doubts, which probably explains why there are not 1,500 Physicists for 9/11 Truth. Few physicists have careers independent of government grants or contracts. It was a high school physics teacher who forced NIST to abandon its account of Building 7’s demise. Physicist Stephen Jones, who first reported finding evidence of explosives, had his tenure bought out by BYU, which no doubt found itself under government pressure.

We can explain away contrary evidence as coincidences and mistakes and conclude that only the government got it all correct, the same government that got everything else wrong.

In fact, the government has not explained anything. The NIST report is merely a simulation of what might have caused the towers to fail if NIST’s assumptions programed into the computer model are correct. But NIST supplies no evidence that its assumptions are correct.

Building 7 was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report, and many Americans are still unaware that three buildings came down on 9/11.

Let me be clear about my point. I am not saying that some black op group in the neoconservative Bush administration blew up the buildings in order to advance the neoconservative agenda of war in the Middle East. If there is evidence of a coverup, it could be the government covering up its incompetence and not its complicity in the event. Even if there were definite proof of government complicity, it is uncertain that Americans could accept it. Architects, engineers, and scientists live in a fact-based community, but for most people facts are no match for emotions.

My point is how uninquisitive the executive branch including the security agencies, Congress, the media, and much of the population are about the defining event of our time.

There is no doubt that 9/11 is the determinant event. It has led to a decade of ever expanding wars, to the shredding of the Constitution, and to a police state. On August 22 Justin Raimondo reported that he and his website, Antiwar.com, are being monitored by the FBI’s Electronic Communication Analysis Unit to determine if Antiwar.com is “a threat to National Security” working “on behalf of a foreign power.”

Francis A. Boyle, an internationally known professor and attorney of international law, has reported that when he refused a joint FBI-CIA request to violate the attorney/client privilege and become an informant on his Arab-American clients, he was placed on the US government’s terrorist watch list.

Boyle has been critical of the US government’s approach to the Muslim world, but Raimondo has never raised, nor permitted any contributor to raise, any suspicion about US government complicity in 9/11. Raimondo merely opposes war, and that is enough for the FBI to conclude that he needs watching as a possible threat to national security.

The US government’s account of 9/11 is the foundation of the open-ended wars that are exhausting America’s resources and destroying its reputation, and it is the foundation of the domestic police state that ultimately will shut down all opposition to the wars. Americans are bound to the story of the 9/11 Muslim terrorist attack, because it is what justifies the slaughter of civilian populations in several Muslim countries, and it justifies a domestic police state as the only means of securing safety from terrorists, who already have morphed into “domestic extremists” such as environmentalists, animal rights groups, and antiwar activists.

Today Americans are unsafe, not because of terrorists and domestic extremists, but because they have lost their civil liberties and have no protection from unaccountable government power. One would think that how this came about would be worthy of public debate and congressional hearings.

Facebook’s Holocaust Problem

2011-08-27T03:12:00.000-07:00

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/18/facebook-s-holocaust-denial-hate-speech-problem.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/18/facebook-s-holocaust-denial-hate-speech-problem.print.html

Facebook’s Holocaust Problem

The social-networking giant bans hate speech—but allows the proliferation of Holocaust-denial pages, saying it recognizes 'people’s right to be factually wrong about historical events.' Lloyd Grove on the new outcry against the policy.
by Lloyd Grove | August 18, 2011 12:54 AM EDT
Related Stories

Dan Lyons: Google’s New Feud With Facebook
Is Facebook in denial about Holocaust denial?

For years, international organizations opposing anti-Semitism have been urging the planet’s preeminent social-networking platform to delete any content that asserts the Nazi-orchestrated extermination of 6 million Jews never took place.

And for years, officials of Facebook, boasting more than 750 million active users, have refused, insisting that mere denial of the Holocaust, however “repugnant and ignorant,” doesn’t constitute “hate speech” as defined by Facebook’s Terms of Service policy prohibiting “content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.” (Which gave a huge opening to TechCrunch founder Michael Arrington, who noted that while Facebook was meticulously removing photos of breast-feeding women, it was allowing the proliferation of Holocaust-denial pages. His mordant headline: “Jew Haters Welcome At Facebook, As Long As They Aren’t Lactating.”)

Facebook’s critics—including such groups as the Anti-Defamation League and the Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism, which describes itself as an Israeli-led “alliance of statesmen, parliamentarians, diplomats, journalists, legal experts, NGOs and scholars”—argue that Holocaust denial is, by definition, an expression of hatred for the Jewish people.

“Holocaust denial is basically a form of classic anti-Semitism,” said Deborah Lauter, ADL’s director of civil rights and its cyber-hate response team. “It’s anti-Semitism per se because it serves as a powerful conspiracy theory that basically says the Jews have manipulated history to advance their own worldview, whether to create sympathy or world domination. In other words, we have fabricated this monstrous event in history in order to further our own hidden agenda.”

Facebook spokesman Simon Axten doesn’t see it that way.

“We find Holocaust denial to be repugnant and ignorant, just as we object to many of the other ideas expressed on Facebook,” Axten told me via email this week. “We’ve come to the conclusion that the mere statement of denying the Holocaust is not a violation of our policies. We recognize people’s right to be factually wrong about historical events.”

Getty Images

The controversy surrounding Facebook’s free-speech position isn’t especially new. It has been a matter of anxiety among Jewish groups at least since November 2008, when blogger and attorney Brian Cuban—the less-famous brother of Dallas Mavericks owner and Dancing With the Stars contestant Mark Cuban—sounded the alarm and prompted a spate of media attention.

But the issue bubbled up anew last month when a group of survivors of the Nazi death camps wrote to Facebook asking that the company’s broad-minded policy be reversed. It came up again on Tuesday, when Australian computer scientist Andre Oboler and Canadian lawyer David Matas, co-chairmen of the Global Forum’s Online Anti-Semitism Working Group, released a letter they sent to Facebook founder and chief executive Mark Zuckerberg after they attended what Oboler calls a “frustrating” video conference with an executive of Facebook’s European operations. The Facebook exec politely listened to the group’s concerns, Oboler told me from Melbourne, then reiterated the company line.

“We call on Facebook to abandon its insistence on treating Holocaust denial in a context-free manner, in which it is considered nothing more than the rejection of a historical event,” Oboler and Matas wrote to Zuckerberg. “The context makes it clear that there is no meaningful distinction between Holocaust denial and incitement to hatred against Jews … We ask that Facebook recognize Holocaust denial as a form of hate speech, issue a statement to this effect, and do its utmost to remove Holocaust denial from the Facebook platform.”

Zuckerberg and many of his employees are Jewish, and Oboler speculated that “maybe, as a result, they are bending too far in the other direction to let everybody know that they support free speech.”

In his email, Facebook’s Axten stated that “in practice, we end up removing the vast majority of Holocaust denial content that’s reported to us because it’s explicitly hateful or threatening. Most instances of Holocaust denial on Facebook (or anywhere else) are accompanied by threats or clearly anti-Jewish statements, which run afoul of our policies. We remove these as quickly as possible when they’re reported to us, and the result is that there is actually very little of this kind of content on Facebook.”

ADL’s Lauter gives Facebook, and especially Axten, credit for “seriously engaging” on the issue, and supports his claim that the company has been responsive to reports of hate speech. She notes that she has led several workshops in Palo Alto, Calif., with key Facebook employees to alert them to the nuances of Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism, and related concerns. But she disputes Axten’s assertion that there is "very little of this kind of content on Facebook.”

“We’re talking probably hundreds of thousands [of Facebook-hosted pages and postings] as a general problem,” she told me. “The metrics are hard to do. We would love it if, as part of their internal operations, Facebook would help with a system for coming up with those metrics, so we could see benchmarks—is it getting worse or better? How do you quantify the incidence of anti-Semitism? The whole flood of the Internet shows that, and you can’t even document the number of people expressing their hate thoughts.”

My cursory investigation of Facebook’s pages, using the search term “Holocaust hoax,” revealed dozens of disturbing and questionable postings that claimed the Jewish genocide was “grossly exaggerated.” One page, titled “Holocaust … History or Hoax,” features a video of a supposed scholar, with a heavy German accent, praising the Third Reich and blaming German Jews for the country’s economic troubles the Nazis fixed, despite “some racist points,” with “an otherwise very beautiful program that was very successful, all in all.”

Another, titled “Everyday Jokes on Holocaust Hoax,” informs readers: “We condemn all forms of racism, and we work to expose Jewish domination and evil Jewish enterprises in the world, which (one must say) constitute the main power of the secular conspiracy.”

Oboler pointed out that Holocaust denial is codified as hate speech and thus against the law in 13 European countries, including Germany and Austria, and that Facebook manages not to violate local ordinances by blocking the various denial pages in the relevant jurisdictions. He said his colleagues, “who have been approaching Facebook with an open mind and in a spirit of cooperation to solve this problem, are becoming increasingly frustrated with Facebook’s irrational stubbornness on this issue and their attempts to blur the issue.”

The irony, of course, is that Zuckerberg and many of his employees are Jewish, and Oboler speculated that “maybe, as a result, they are bending too far in the other direction to let everybody know that they support free speech.”

Facebook’s Axten acknowledged in his email: “Many of us at Facebook have direct personal connection to the Holocaust, through parents or grandparents who were forced to flee Europe or relatives who could not escape. We believe in Facebook’s mission that giving people tools to make the world more open is the best way to combat ignorance and deception, though we recognize that others may disagree.”

August 18, 2011 12:54am

Germany's Declaration of War Against the United States

2011-08-21T09:50:00.000-07:00

Germany's Declaration of War Against the United States
Hitler's Reichstag Speech of December 11, 1941

It has often been said that Hitler's greatest mistakes were his decisions to go to war against the Soviet Union and the United States.

Whatever the truth may be, it's worth noting his own detailed justifications for these fateful decisions. On Thursday afternoon, December 11, 1941, four days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Hitler spoke to the Reichstag in Berlin. The 88-minute address, which he had written himself, was broadcast to the nation. In it the German leader recounted the reasons for the outbreak

of war in September 1939, explained why he decided to strike against the Soviet Union in June 1941, reviewed the dramatic

course of the war thus far, and dealt at length with President Franklin Roosevelt's hostile policies toward Germany. Hitler detailed the increasingly belligerent actions of Roosevelt's government, and then dramatically announced that Germany was now joining Japan in war against the United States. The day after it was delivered, an inaccurate and misleading translation of portions of the address appeared in The New York Times. Although this historic address should be of particular interest to Americans, a complete text has apparently never before been made available in English.

This translation is my own, as are the brief clarifications given in brackets.

Following the speech text is Germany's formal note to the U.S. government declaring war, and a short list of items for suggested further reading.

-- Mark Weber

===

Deputies! Men of the German Reichstag!

A year of world-historical events is coming to an end. A year of great decisions is approaching. In this grave period I speak to you, deputies of the Reichstag, as the representatives of the German nation. In addition, the entire German nation should also review what has happened and take note of the decisions required by the present and the future.

After the repeated rejection of my peace proposal in 1940 by the British prime minister [Winston Churchill] and the clique that supports and controls him, it was clear by the fall of that year that this war would have to be fought through to the end, contrary to all logic and necessity. You, my old Party comrades, know that I have always detested half-hearted or weak decisions. If Providence has deemed that the German people are not to be spared this struggle, then I am thankful that She has entrusted me with the leadership in a historic conflict that will be decisive in determining the next five hundred or one thousand years, not only of our German history, but also of the history of Europe and even of the entire world.

The German people and its soldiers work and fight today not only for themselves and their own age, but also for many generations to come. A historical task of unique dimensions has been entrusted to us by the Creator that we are now obliged to carry out.

The western armistice which was possible shortly after the conclusion of the conflict in Norway [in June 1940] compelled the German leadership, first of all, to militarily secure the most important political, strategic and economic areas that had been won. Consequently, the defense capabilities of the lands which were conquered at that time have changed.

From Kirkenes [in northern Norway] to the Spanish frontier stretches the most extensive belt of great defense installations and fortresses. Countless air fields have been built, including some in the far north that were blasted out of granite. The number and strength of the protected submarine shelters that defend naval bases are such that they are practically impregnable from both the sea and the air. They are defended by more than one and a half thousand gun battery emplacements, which had to be surveyed, planned and built. A network of roads and rail lines has been laid out so that the connections [to the installations] between the Spanish frontier and Petsamo [in northern Norway] can be defended independently from the sea. The installations built by the Pioneer and construction battalions of the navy, army and air force in cooperation with the Todt Organization are not at all inferior to those of the Westwall [along the German frontier with France]. The work to further strengthen all this continues without pause. I am determined to make this European front impregnable against any enemy attack.

This defensive work, which continued during the past winter, was complemented by military offensives insofar as seasonal conditions permitted. German naval forces above and below the waves continued their steady war of annihilation against the naval and merchant vessels of Britain and her subservient allies. Through reconnaissance flights and air attacks, the German air force helps to destroy enemy shipping and in countless retaliation air attacks to give the British a better idea of the reality of the so-called "exciting war," which is the creation, above all, of the current British prime minister [Churchill].

During the past summer Germany was supported in this struggle above all by her Italian ally. For many months our ally Italy bore on its shoulders the main weight of a large part of British might. Only because of the enormous superiority in heavy tanks were the British able to bring about a temporary crisis in North Africa, but by March 24 of this year a small combined force of German and Italian units under the command of General [Erwin] Rommel began a counterattack. Agedabia fell on April 2. Benghazi was reached on the 4th. Our combined forces entered Derna on the 8th, Tobruk was encircled on the 11th, and Bardia was occupied on April 12. The achievement of the German Afrika Korps is all the more outstanding because this field of battle is completely alien and unfamiliar to the Germans, climatically and otherwise. As once in Spain [1936-1939], so now in North Africa , Germans and Italians stand together against the same enemy.

While these daring actions were again securing the North African front with the blood of German and Italian soldiers, the threatening clouds of terrible danger were gathering over Europe. Compelled by bitter necessity, I decided in the fall of 1939 to at least try to create the prerequisite conditions for a general peace by eliminating the acute tension between Germany and Soviet Russia [with the German-Soviet non-aggression pact of August 23, 1939]. This was psychologically difficult because of the basic attitude towards Bolshevism of the German people and, above all, of the [National Socialist] Party. Objectively, though, this was a simple matter because in all the countries that Britain said were threatened by us and which were offered military alliances, Germany actually had only economic interests.

I may remind you, deputies and men of the German Reichstag, that throughout the spring and summer of 1939 Britain offered military alliances to a number of countries, claiming that Germany intended to invade them and rob them of their freedom. However, the German Reich and its government could assure them with a clear conscience that these insinuations did not correspond to the truth in any way. Moreover, there was the sober military realization that in case of a war which might be forced upon the German nation by British diplomacy, the struggle could be fought on two fronts only with very great sacrifices. And after the Baltic states, Romania, and so forth, were inclined to accept the British offers of miitary alliance, and thereby made clear that they also believed themselves to be threatened [by Germany], it was not only the right but also the duty of the German Reich government to delineate the [geographical] limits of German interests [between Germany and the USSR].

All the same, the countries involved realized very quickly -- which was unfortunate for the German Reich as well -- that the best and strongest guarantee against the [Soviet] threat from the East was Germany. When those countries, on their own initiative, cut their ties with the German Reich and instead put their trust in promises of aid from a power [Britain] that, in its proverbial egotism, has for centuries never given help but has always demanded it, they were thereby lost. Even so, the fate of these countries aroused the strongest sympathy of the German people. The winter war of the Finns [against the Soviet Union, 1939-1940] aroused in us a feeling of admiration mixed with bitterness: admiration because, as a soldierly nation, we have a sympathetic heart for heroism and sacrifice, and bitterness because our concern for the enemy threat in the West and the danger in the East meant that we were no position to help. When it became clear to us that Soviet Russia concluded that the [German-Soviet] delineation [in August 1939] of political spheres of influence gave it the right to practically exterminate foreign nations, the [German-Soviet] relationship was maintained only for utilitarian reasons, contrary to reason and sentiment.

Already in 1940 it became increasingly clear from month to month that the plans of the men in the Kremlin were aimed at the domination, and thus the destruction, of all of Europe. I have already told the nation of the build-up of Soviet Russian military power in the East during a period when Germany had only a few divisions in the provinces bordering Soviet Russia. Only a blind person could fail to see that a military build-up of unique world-historical dimensions was being carried out. And this was not in order to protect something that was being threatened, but rather only to attack that which seemed incapable of defense.

The quick conclusion of the campaign in the West [May-June 1940] meant that those in power in Moscow were not able to count on the immediate exhaustion of the German Reich. However, they did not change their plans at all, but only postponed the timing of their attack. The summer of 1941 seemed like the ideal moment to strike. A new Mongol invasion was ready to pour across Europe. Mr. Churchill also promised that there would be a change in the British war against Germany at this same time. In a cowardly way, he now tries to deny that during a secret meeting in the British House of Commons in 1940 he said that an important factor for thesuccessful continuation and conclusion of this war would be the Soviet entry into the war, which would come during 1941 at the latest, and which would also make it possible for Britain to take the offensive. Conscious of our duty, we observed the military build-up of a world power this last spring which seemed to have inexhaustible reserves of human and material resources. Dark clouds began to gather over Europe.

What is Europe, my deputies? There is no geographical definition of our continent, but only an ethnic-national [volkliche] and cultural one. The frontier of this continent is not the Ural mountains, but rather the line that divides the Western outlook on life from that of the East.

At one time, Europe was confined to the Greek isles, which had been reached by Nordic tribes, and where the flame first burned that slowly but steadily enlightened humanity. And when these Greeks fought against the invasion of the Persian conquerors, they did not just defend their own small homeland, which was Greece, but [also] that concept that is now Europe. And then [ the spirit of Europe shifted from Hellas to Rome. Roman thought and Roman statecraft combined with Greek spirit and Greek culture. An empire was created, the importance and creative power of which has never been matched, much less surpassed, even to this day. And when the Roman legions defended Italy in three terrible wars against the attack of Carthage from Africa, and finally battled to victory in this case as well, Rome fought not just for herself, but [also] for the Greco-Roman world that then encompassed Europe.

The next invasion against the home soil of this new culture of humanity came from the wide expanses of the East. A horrific storm of cultureless hordes from the center of Asia poured deep into the heart of the European continent, burning, ravaging and murdering as a true scourge of God. On the Catalaunian fields [in 451], Roman and Germanic men fought together for the first time in a decisive battle of tremendous importance for a culture that had begun with the Greeks, passed on to the Romans, and then encompassed the Germanic peoples.

Europe had matured. The Occident arose from Hellas and Rome, and for many centuries its defense was the task not only of the Romans, but above all, of the Germanic peoples. What we call Europe is the geographic territory of the Occident, enlightened by Greek culture, inspired by the powerful heritage of the Roman empire , its territory enlarged by Germanic colonization. Whether it was the German emperors fighting back invasions from the East on the Unstrut [river] or on the Lechfeld [plain, in 955], or others pushing back Africa from Spain over a period of many years, it was always a struggle of a developing Europe against a profoundly alien outside world.

Just as Rome once made her immortal contribution to the building and defense of the continent, so now have the Germanic peoples taken up the defense and protection of a family of nations which, although they may differ and diverge in their political structure and goals, nevertheless together constitute a racially and culturally unified and complementary whole.

And from this Europe there have not only been settlements in other parts of the world, but intellectual-spiritual [geistig] and cultural fertilization as well, a fact that anyone realizes who is willing to acknowledge the truth rather than deny it. Thus, it was not England that cultivated the continent, but rather Anglo-Saxon and Norman branches of the Germanic nation that moved from our continent to the [British] island and made possible her development, which is certainly unique in history. In the same way, it was not America that discovered Europe, but the other way around. And all that which America did not get from Europe may seem worthy of admiration to a Jewified mixed race, but Europe regards that merely as symptomatic of decay in artistic and cultural life, the product of Jewish or Negroid blood mixture.

My Deputies! Men of the German Reichstag!

I have to make these remarks because this struggle, which became obviously unavoidable in the early months of this year, and which the German Reich, above all, is called upon this time to lead, also greatly transcends the interests of our own people and nation. When the Greeks once stood against the Persians, they defended more than just Greece. When the Romans stood against the Carthaginians, they defended more than just Rome. When the Roman and Germanic peoples stood together against the Huns, they defended more than just the West. When German emperors stood against the Mongols, they defended more than just Germany. And when Spanish heroes stood against Africa, they defended not just Spain, but all of Europe as well. In the same way, Germany does not fight today just for itself, but for our entire continent.

And it is an auspicious sign that this realization is today so deeply rooted in the subconscious of most European nations that they participate in this struggle, either with open expressions of support or with streams of volunteers.

When the German and Italian armies took the offensive against Yugoslavia and Greece on April 6 of this year, that was the prelude to the great struggle in which we now find ourselves. That is because the revolt in Belgrade [on March 26, 1941], which led to the overthrow of the former prince regent and his government, determined the further development of events in that part of Europe. Although Britain played a major role in that coup, Soviet Russia played the main role. What I had refused to Mr. Molotov [the Soviet Foreign Minister] during his visit to Berlin [in November 1940], Stalin believed he could obtain indirectly against our will by revolutionary activity. Without regard for the treaties they had signed, the Bolshevik rulers expanded their ambitions. The [Soviet] treaty of friendship with the new revolutionary regime [in Belgrade ] showed very quickly just how threatening the danger had become.

The achievements of the German armed forces in this campaign were honored in the German Reichstag on May 4, 1941. At that time, though, I was not able to reveal that we were very quickly approaching a confrontation with a state [Soviet Russia] that did not attack at the time of the campaign in the Balkans only because its military build-up was not yet complete, and because it was not able to use its air fields as a result of the mud from melting snow at this time of year, which made it impossible to use the runways.

My Deputies! Men of the Reichstag!

When I became aware of the possibility of a threat to the east of the Reich in 1940 through [secret] reports from the British House of Commons and by observations of Soviet Russian troop movements on our frontiers, I immediately ordered the formation of many new armored, motorized and infantry divisions. The human and material resources for them were abundantly available. [In this regard] I can make only one promise to you, my deputies, and to the entire German nation: while people in democratic countries understandably talk a lot about armaments, in National Socialist Germany all the more will actually be produced. It has been that way in the past, and it is not any different now. Whenever decisive action has to be taken, we will have, with each passing year, more and, above all, better quality weapons.

We realized very clearly that under no circumstances could we allow the enemy the opportunity to strike first into our heart. Nevertheless, in this case the decision [to attack Soviet Russia] was a very difficult one. When the writers for the democratic newspapers now declare that I would have thought twice before attacking if I had known the strength of the Bolshevik adversaries, they show that they do not understand either the situation or me.

I have not sought war. To the contrary, I have done everything to avoid conflict. But I would forget my duty and my conscience

if I were to do nothing in spite of the realization that a conflict had become unavoidable. Because I regarded Soviet Russia as the gravest danger not only for the German Reich but for all of Europe, I decided, if possible, to give the order myself to attack a few days before the outbreak of this conflict.

A truly impressive amount of authentic material is now available which confirms that a Soviet Russian attack was intended. We are also sure about when this attack was to take place. In view of this danger, the extent of which we are perhaps only now truly aware, I can only thank the Lord God that He enlightened me in time, and has given me the strength to do what must be done. Millions of German soldiers may thank Him for their lives, and all of Europe for its existence.

I may say this today: If this wave of more than 20,000 tanks, hundreds of divisions, tens of thousands of artillery pieces, along with more than 10,000 airplanes, had not been kept from being set into motion against the Reich, Europe would have been lost.

Several nations have been destined to prevent or parry this blow through the sacrifice of their blood. If Finland [for one] had not immediately decided, for the second time, to take up weapons, then the comfortable bourgeois life of the other Nordic countries would quickly have been extinguished.

If the German Reich, with its soldiers and weapons, had not stood against this opponent, a storm would have burned over Europe that would have eliminated, once and for all time, and in all its intellectual paucity and traditional stupidity, the laughable British idea of the European balance of power.

If the Slovaks, Hungarians and Romanians had not also acted to defend this European world, then the Bolshevik hordes would have poured over the Danube countries as did once the swarms of Attila's Huns, and [Soviet] Tatars and Mongols would [then], on the open country by the Ionian Sea, force a revision of the Treaty of Montreux [regarding the Dardanelles strait].

If Italy, Spain and Croatia had not sent their divisions, then a European defense front would not have arisen that proclaims the concept of a new Europe and thereby powerfully inspires all other nations as well. Because of this awareness of danger, volunteers have come from northern and western Europe: Norwegians, Danes, Dutch, Flemish, Belgians and even French. They have all given the struggle of the allied forces of the Axis the character of a European crusade, in the truest sense of the word.

This is not yet the right time to speak of the planning and direction of this campaign. However, in a few sentences I would like to say something about what has been achieved [so far] in this greatest conflict in history. Because of the enormous area involved as well as the number and size of the events, individual impressions may be lost and forgotten.

The attack began at dawn on June 22 [1941]. With dauntless daring, the frontier fortifications that were meant to protect the Soviet Russian build-up against us from surprise attack were broken through. Grodno fell by June 23. On June 24, following the capture of Brest-Litovsk, the fortress [there] was taken in combat, and Vilnius and Kaunas [in Lithuania ] were also taken. Daugavpils [in Latvia] fell on June 26.

The first two great encirclement battles near Bialystok and Minsk were completed on July 10. We captured 324,000 prisoners of war, 3,332 tanks and 1,809 artillery pieces. By July 13 the Stalin Line had been broken through at almost every decisive point. Smolensk fell on July 16 after heavy fighting, and German and Romanian units were able to force their way across the Dniester [river] on July 19. The Battle of Smolensk ended on August 6 after many encircling operations. As a result, another 310,000 Russians were taken as prisoners. Moreover, 3,205 tanks and 3,120 artillery pieces were counted -- either destroyed or captured. Just three days later the fate of another Soviet Russian army group was sealed. On August 9, in the battle of Uman, another 103,000 Soviet Russian prisoners of war were taken, and 317 tanks and 1,100 artillery pieces were either destroyed or captured.

Nikolayev [in the Ukraine] fell on August 13, and Kherson was taken on the 21st. On the same day the battle near Gomel ended, resulting in 84,000 prisoners as well as 144 tanks and 848 artillery pieces either captured or destroyed. The Soviet Russian positions between the Ilmen and Peipus [lakes] were broken through on August 21, while the bridgehead around Dnepropetrovsk fell into our hands on August 26. On the 28th of that month German troops entered Tallinn and Paldiski [Estonia] after heavy fighting, while the Finns took Vyborg on the 20th. With the capture of Petrokrepost on September 8, Leningrad was finally cut off from the south. By September 16 bridgeheads across the Dnieper were formed, and on September 18 Poltava fell into the hands of our soldiers. German units stormed the fortress of Kiev on September 19, and on September 22 the conquest of [the Baltic island of] Saaremaa [Oesel] was crowned by the capture of its capital.

And now came the anticipated results of the greatest undertakings. The battle near Kiev was completed on September 27. Endless columns of 665,000 prisoners of war marched to the west. In the encircled area, 884 tanks and 3,178 artillery pieces were captured. The battle to break through the central area of the Eastern front began on October 2, while the battle of the Azov Sea was successfully completed on October 11. Another 107,000 prisoners, 212 tanks and 672 artillery pieces were counted. After heavy fighting, German and Romanian units were able to enter Odessa on October 16. The battle to break through the center of the Eastern front, which had begun on October 2, ended on October 18 with a success that is unique in world history. The result was 663,000 prisoners, as well as 1,242 tanks and 5,452 artillery pieces either destroyed or captured. The capture of Dagoe [Hiiumaa island] was completed on October 21. The industrial center of Kharkov was taken on October 24. After very heavy fighting, the Crimea was finally reached, and on November 2 the capital of Simferopol was stormed. On November 16 the Crimea was overrun as far as Kerch.

As of December 1, the total number of captured Soviet Russian prisoners was 3,806,865. The number of destroyed or captured tanks was 21,391, of artillery pieces 32,541, and of airplanes 17,322.

During this same period of time, 2,191 British airplanes were shot down. The navy sank 4,170,611 gross registered tons of shipping, and the air force sank 2,346,180 tons. Altogether, 6,516,791 gross registered tons were destroyed.

My Deputies! My German people!

These are sober facts and, perhaps, dry figures. But may they never be forgotten by history or vanish from the memory of our own German nation! For behind these figures are the achievements, sacrifices and sufferings, the heroism and readiness to die of millions of the best men of our own people and of the countries allied with us. Everything had to be fought for at the cost of health and life, and through struggle, such as those back in the homeland can hardly imagine.

They have marched endless distances, tortured by heat and thirst, often bogged down with despair in the mud of bottomless dirt roads, exposed to the hardships of a climate that varies between the White and Black Seas from the intense heat of July and August days to the winter storms of November and December, tormented by insects, suffering from dirt and pests, freezing in snow and ice, they fought -- the Germans and the Finns, the Italians, Slovaks, Hungarians, Romanians and Croatians, the volunteers from the northern and western European countries -- in short, the soldiers of the Eastern front!

Today I will not single out specific branches of the armed forces or praise specific leaders -- they have all done their best. And yet, truth and justice requires that something be mentioned again: As in the past, so also today, of all of our German fighting men in uniform, the greatest burden of battle is born by our ever-present infantry soldiers.

From June 22 to December 1 [1941], the German army has lost in this heroic struggle: 158,773 dead, 563,082 wounded and 31,191 missing. The air force has lost: 3,231 dead, 8,453 wounded and 2,028 missing. The navy: 310 dead, 232 wounded and 115 missing. For the German armed forces altogether: 162,314 dead, 571,767 wounded and 33,334 missing.

That is, the number of dead and wounded is somewhat more than double the number of those lost in the [four month long] battle of the Somme of the [First] World War [in 1916], but somewhat less than half the number of missing in that battle -- all the same, fathers and sons of our German people.

And now let me speak about another world, one that is represented by a man [ President Franklin Roosevelt] who likes to chat nicely at the fireside while nations and their soldiers fight in snow and ice: above all, the man who is primarily responsible for this war.

When the nationality problem in the former Polish state was growing ever more intolerable in 1939, I attempted to eliminate the unendurable conditions by means of a just agreement. For a certain time it seemed as if the Polish government was seriously considering giving its approval to a reasonable solution. I may also add here that in all of these German proposals, nothing was demanded that had not previously belonged to Germany. In fact, we were willing to give up much that had belonged to Germany before the [First] World War.

You will recall the dramatic events of that period -- the steadily increasing numbers of victims among the ethnic Germans [in Poland ]. You, my deputies, are best qualified to compare this loss of life with that of the present war. The military campaign in the East has so far cost the entire German armed forces about 160,000 deaths, whereas during just a few months of peace [in 1939] more than 62,000 ethnic Germans were killed, including some who were horribly tortured. There is no question that the German Reich had the right to protest against this situation on its border and to press for its elimination, if for no other reason than for its own security, particularly since we live in an age in which [some] other countries [notably, the USA and Britain] regard their security at stakeeven in foreign continents. In geographical terms, the problems to be resolved were not very important. Essentially they involved Danzig [Gdansk] and a connecting link between the torn-away province of East Prussia and the rest of the Reich. Of much greater concern were the brutal persecutions of the Germans in Poland. In addition, the other minority population groups [notably the Ukrainians] were subject to a fate that was no less severe.

During those days in August [1939], when the Polish attitude steadily hardened, thanks to Britain's blank check of unlimited backing, the German Reich was moved to make one final proposal. We were prepared to enter into negotiations with Poland on the basis of this proposal, and we verbally informed the British ambassador of the proposal text. Today I would like to recall that proposal and review it with you.

[Text of the German proposal of August 29, 1939:]

Proposal for a settlement of the Danzig-Corridor problem and the German-Polish minority question:

The situation between the German Reich and Poland is now such that any further incident could lead to action by the military forces that have taken position on both sides of the frontier. Any peaceful solution must be such that the basic causes of this situation are eliminated so that they are not simply repeated, which would mean that not only eastern Europe but other areas as well would be subject to the same tension. The causes of this situation are rooted in, first, the intolerable border that was specified by the dictated peace of Versailles [of 1919], and, second, the intoler- able treatment of the minority populations in the lost territories.

In making these proposals, the German Reich government is motivated by the desire to achieve a permanent solution that will put an end to the intolerable situation arising from the present border demarcation, secure to both parties vitally important connecting routes, and which will solve the minority problem, insofar as that is possible, and if not, will at least insure a tolerable life for the minority populations with secure guarantees of their rights.

The German Reich government is convinced that it is absolutely necessary to investigate the economic and physical damage inflicted since 1918, with full reparations to be made for that. Of course, it regards this obligation as binding on both sides.

On the basis of these considerations, we make the following concrete proposals:

1. The Free City of Danzig returns immediately to the German Reich on the basis of its purely German character and the unanimous desire of its population.

2. The territory of the so-called [Polish] Corridor will decide for itself whether it wishes to belong to Germany or to Poland. This territory consists of the area between the Baltic Sea [in the north] to a line marked [in the south] by the towns of Marienwerder, Graudenz, Kuhn and Bromberg -- including these towns -- and then westwards to Schoenlanke.

3. For this purpose a plebiscite will be conducted in this territory. All Germans who lived in this territory on January 1, 1918, or were born there on or before that date will be entitled to vote in the plebiscite. Similarly, all Poles, Kashubians, and so forth, who lived in this territory on or before that date, or were born there before that date, will also be entitled to vote. Germans who were expelled from this territory will return to vote in the plebiscite.

To insure an impartial plebiscite and to make sure that all necessary preliminary preparation work is properly carried out, this territory will come under the authority of an international commission, similar to the one organized in the Saar territory [for the 1935 plebiscite there]. This commission is to be organized immediately by the four great powers of Italy, the Soviet Union, France and Britain. This commission will have all sovereign authority in the territory. Accordingly, Polish military forces, Polish police and Polish authorities are to clear out of this territory as soon as possible, by a date to be agreed upon.

4. Not included in this territory is the Polish port of Gdynia, which is regarded as fundamentally sovereign Polish territory, to the extent of [ethnic] Polish settlement, but as a matter of principle is recognized as Polish territory. The specific border of this Polish port city will be negotiated by Germany and Poland and, if necessary, established by an international court of arbitration.

5. In order to insure ample time for the preparations necessary in order to conduct an impartial plebiscite, the plebiscite will not take place until after at least twelve months have elapsed.

6. In order to ensure unhindered traffic between Germany and East Prussia, and between Poland and the [Baltic] Sea, during this period [before the plebiscite], certain roads and rail lines may be designated to enable free transit. In that regard, only such fees may be imposed that are necessary for the maintenance of the transit routes or for transport itself.

7. A simple majority of the votes cast will decide whether the territory will go to Germany or to Poland.

8. After the plebiscite has been conducted, and regardless of the result, free transit will be guaranteed between Germany and its province of Danzig-East Prussia, as well as between Poland and the [Baltic] Sea. If the plebiscite determines that the territory belongs to Poland, Germany will obtain an extraterritorial transit zone, consisting of a motor super-highway [Reichsautobahn] and a four-track rail line, approximately along the line of Buetow-Danzig and Dirschau. The highway and the rail line will be built in such a way that the Polish transit lines are not disturbed, which means that they will pass either above or underneath. This zone will be one kilometer wide and will be sovereign German territory. In case the plebiscite is in Germany's favor, Poland will have free and unrestricted transit to its port of Gdynia with the same right to an extraterritorial road and rail line that Germany would have had.

9. If the Corridor returns to Germany, the German Reich declares that it is ready too carry out an exchange of population with Poland to the extent that this would be suitable for the [people of the] Corridor.

10. The special rights that may be claimed by Poland in the port of Danzig will be negotiated on the basis of parity for rights to Germany in the port of Gdynia.

11. In order to eliminate all fear of threat from either side, Danzig and Gdynia will be purely commercial centers, that is, with no military installations or military fortifications.

12. The peninsula of Hela, which will go to either Poland or Germany on the basis of the plebiscite, will also be demilitarized in any case.

13. The German Reich government has protested in the strongest terms against the Polish treatment of its minority populations. For its part, the Polish government also believes itself called upon to make protests against Germany. Accordingly, both sides agree to submit these complaints to an international investigation commission, which will be responsible for investigating all complaints of economic and physical damage as well as other acts of terror.

Germany and Poland pledge to compensate for all economic and other damages inflicted on minority populations on both sides since 1918, and/or to revoke all expropriations and provide for complete reparation for the victims of these and other economic measures.

14. In order to eliminate feelings of deprivation of international rights in the part of the Germans who will remain in Poland, as well as of the Poles who will remain in Germany, and above all, to insure that they are not forced to act contrary to their ethnic-national feelings, Germany and Poland agree to guarantee the rights of the minority populations on both sides through comprehensive and binding agreements. These will insure the right of these minority groups to maintain, freely develop and carry on their national-cultural life. In particular, they will be allowed to maintain organizations for these purposes. Both sides agree that members of their minority populations will not be drafted for military service.

15. If agreement is reached on the basis of these proposals, Germany and Poland declare that they will immediately order and carry out the demobilization of their armed forces.

16. Germany and Poland will agree to whatever additional measures may be necessary to implement the above points as quickly as possible.

[End of the text of the German proposal]

The same [measures] would have applied with regard to the proposals to secure [the rights of] the minorities.

This is the treaty proposal – as straight-forward and as generous as has ever been presented by a government – that was made by the National Socialist leadership of the German Reich.

The former Polish government refused to respond to these proposals in any way. In this regard, the question presents itself: How is it possible that such an unimportant state could dare to simply disregard such proposals and, in addition, carry out further cruelties against the Germans, the people who have given this land its entire culture, and even order the general mobilization of its armed forces?

A look at the documents of the [Polish] Foreign Ministry in Warsaw later provided the surprising explanation. They told of the role of a man [President Roosevelt] who, with diabolical lack of principle, used all of his influence to strengthen Poland's resistance and to prevent any possibility of understanding. These reports were sent by the former Polish ambassador in Washington, Count [Jerzy] Potocki, to his government in Warsaw. These documents clearly and shockingly reveal the extent to which one man and the powers behind him are responsible for the Second World War. Another question arises: Why had this man [Roosevelt] developed such a fanatic hostility against a country that, in its entire history, had never harmed either America or him?

With regard to Germany 's relationship with America, the following should be said:

1. Germany is perhaps the only great power which has never had a colony in either North or South America. Nor has it been otherwise politically active there, apart from the emigration of many millions of Germans with their skills, from which the American continent, and particularly the United States, has only benefited.

2. In the entire history of the development and existence of the United States, the German Reich has never been hostile or even politically unfriendly towards the United States. To the contrary, many Germans have given their lives to defend the USA.

3. The German Reich has never participated in wars against the United States, except when the United States went to war against it in 1917. It did so for reasons that have been thoroughly explained by a commission [a special U.S. Senate investigating committee, 1934-1935, chaired by Sen. Gerald Nye], which president Roosevelt himself established [or rather, endorsed]. This commission to investigate the reasons for America's entry into the [First World] war clearly established that the United States entered the war in 1917 solely for the capitalist interests of a small group, and that Germany itself had no intention to come into conflict with America.

Furthermore, there are no territorial or political conflicts between the American and German nations that could possibly involve the existence or even the [vital] interests of the United States. The forms of government have always been different. But this cannot be a reason for hostility between different nations, as long as one form of government does not try to interfere with another, outside of its naturally ordained sphere.

America is a republic led by a president with wide-ranging powers of authority. Germany was once ruled by a monarchy with limited authority, and then by a democracy that lacked authority. Today it is a republic of wide-ranging authority. Between these two countries is an ocean. If anything, the differences between capitalist America and Bolshevik Russia, if these terms have any meaning at all, must be more significant than those between an America led by a President and a Germany led by a Führer.

It is a fact that the two historical conflicts between Germany and the United States were stimulated by two Americans, that is, by Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, although each was inspired by the same forces. History itself has rendered its verdict on Wilson. His name will always be associated with the most base betrayal in history of a pledge [notably, Wilson's "14 points"]. The result was the ruin of national life, not only in the so-called vanquished countries, but among the victors as well. Because of this broken pledge, which alone made possible the imposed Treaty of Versailles [1919], countries were torn apart, cultures were destroyed and the economic life of all was ruined. Today we know that a group of self-serving financiers stood behind Wilson. They used this paralytic professor to lead America into a war from which they hoped to profit. The German nation once believed this man, and had to pay for this trust with political and economic ruin.

After such a bitter experience, why is there now another American president who is determined to incite wars and, above all, to stir up hostility against Germany to the point of war? National Socialism came to power in Germany in the same year [1933] that Roosevelt came to power in the United States. At this point it is important to examine the factors behind the current developments.

First of all, the personal side of things: I understand very well that there is a world of difference between my own outlook on life and attitude, and that of President Roosevelt. Roosevelt came from an extremely wealthy family. By birth and origin he belonged to that class of people that is privileged in a democracy and assured of advancement. I myself was only the child of a small and poor family, and I had to struggle through life by work and effort in spite of immense hardships. As a member of the privileged class, Roosevelt experienced the [First] World War in a position under Wilson's shadow [as assistant secretary of the Navy]. As a result, he only knew the agreeable consequences of a conflict between nations from which some profited while others lost their lives. During this same period, I lived very differently. I was not one of those who made history or profits, but rather one of those who carried out orders. As an ordinary soldier during those four years, I tried to do my duty in the face of the enemy. Of course, I returned from the war just as poor as when I entered in the fall of 1914. I thus shared my fate with millions of others, while Mr. Roosevelt shared his with the so-called upper ten thousand.

After the war, while Mr. Roosevelt tested his skills in financial speculation in order to profit personally from the inflation, that is, from the misfortune of others, I still lay in a military hospital along with many hundreds of thousands of others. Experienced in business, financially secure and enjoying the patronage of his class, Roosevelt then finally chose a career in politics. During this same period, I struggled as a nameless and unknown man for the rebirth of my nation, which was the victim of the greatest injustice in its entire history.

Two different paths in life! Franklin Roosevelt took power in the United States as the candidate of a thoroughly capitalistic party, which helps those who serve it. When I became the Chancellor of the German Reich, I was the leader of a popular national movement, which I had created myself. The powers that supported Mr. Roosevelt were the same powers I fought against, out of concern for the fate of my people, and out of deepest inner conviction. The "brain trust" that served the new American president was made up of members of the same national group that we fought against in Germany as a parasitical expression of humanity, and which we began to remove from public life.

And yet, we also had something in common: Franklin Roosevelt took control of a country with an economy that had been ruined as a result of democratic influences, and I assumed the leadership of a Reich that was also on the edge of complete ruin, thanks to democracy. There were 13 million unemployed in the United States, while Germany had seven million unemployed and another seven million part-time workers. In both countries, public finances were in chaos, and it seemed that the spreading economic depression could not be stopped.

From then on, things developed in the United States and in the German Reich in such a way that future generations will have no difficulty in making a definitive evaluation of the two different socio-political theories. Whereas the German Reich experienced an enormous improvement in social, economic, cultural and artistic life in just a few years under National Socialist leadership, President Roosevelt was not able to bring about even limited improvements in his own country. This task should have been much easier in the United States, with barely 15 people per square kilometer, as compared to 140 in Germany. If economic prosperity is not possible in that country, it must be the result of either a lack of will by the ruling leadership or the complete incompetence of the men in charge. In just five years, the economic problems were solved in Germany and unemployment was eliminated. During this same period, President Roosevelt enormously increased his country's national debt, devalued the dollar, further disrupted the economy and maintained the same number of unemployed.

But this is hardly remarkable when one realizes that the intellects appointed by this man, or more accurately, who appointed him, are members of that same group who, as Jews, are interested only in disruption and never in order. While we in National Socialist Germany took measures against financial speculation, it flourished tremendously under Roosevelt. The New Deal legislation of this man was spurious, and consequently the greatest error ever experienced by anyone. If his economic policies had continued indefinitely during peace time, there is no doubt that sooner or later they would have brought down this president, in spite of all his dialectical cleverness. In a European country his career would certainly have ended in front of a national court for recklessly squandering the nation's wealth. And he would hardly have avoided a prison sentence by a civil court for criminally incompetent business management.

Many respected Americans also shared this view. A threatening opposition was growing all around this man, which led him to think that he could save himself only by diverting public attention from his domestic policies to foreign affairs. In this regard it is interesting to study the reports of Polish Ambassador Potocki from Washington, which repeatedly point out that Roosevelt was fully aware of the danger that his entire economic house of cards could collapse, and that therefore he absolutely had to divert attention toforeign policy.

The circle of Jews around Roosevelt encouraged him in this. With Old Testament vindictiveness they regarded the United States as the instrument that they and he could use to prepare a second Purim [slaughter of enemies] against the nations of Europe, which were increasingly anti-Jewish. So it was that the Jews, in all of their satanic baseness, gathered around this man, and he relied on them.

The American president increasingly used his influence to create conflicts, intensify existing conflicts, and, above all, to keep conflicts from being resolved peacefully. For years this man looked for a dispute anywhere in the world, but preferably in Europe, that he could use to create political entanglements with American economic obligations to one of the contending sides, which would then steadily involve America in the conflict and thus divert attention from his own confused domestic economic policies.

His actions against the German Reich in this regard have been particularly blunt. Starting in 1937, he began a series of speeches, including a particularly contemptible one on October 5, 1937, in Chicago, with which this man systematically incited the American public against Germany . He threatened to establish a kind of quarantine against the so-called authoritarian countries. As part of this steady and growing campaign of hate and incitement, President Roosevelt made another insulting statement [on Nov. 15, 1938] and then called the American ambassador in Berlin back to Washington for consultations. Since then the two countries have been represented only by charges d'affaires.

Starting in November 1938, he began systematically and consciously to sabotage every possibility of a European peace policy. In public he hypocritically claimed to be interested in peace while at the same time he threatened every country that was ready to pursue a policy of peaceful understanding by blocking credits, economic reprisals, calling in loans, and so forth. In this regard, the reports of the Polish ambassadors in Washington, London, Paris and Brussels provide a shocking insight.

This man increased his campaign of incitement in January 1939. In a message [on Jan. 4, 1939] to the U.S. Congress he threatened to take every measure short of war against the authoritarian countries.

He repeatedly claimed that other countries were trying to interfere in American affairs, and he talked a lot about upholding the Monroe Doctrine. Starting in March 1939 he began lecturing about internal European affairs that were of no concern of the President of the United States. In the first place, he doesn't understand these problems, and secondly, even if he did understand them and appreciated the historical circumstances, he has no more right to concern himself with central European affairs than the German head of state has to take positions on or make judgments about conditions in the United States.

Mr. Roosevelt went even beyond that. Contrary to the rules of international law, he refused to recognize governments he didn't like, would not accept new ones, refused to dismiss ambassadors of non-existent countries, and even recognized them as legal governments. He went so far as to conclude treaties with these ambassadors, which then gave him the right to simply occupy foreign territories [Greenland and Iceland ].

On April 15, 1939, Roosevelt made his famous appeal to me and the Duce [Mussolini], which was a mixture of geographical and political ignorance combined with the arrogance of a member of the millionaire class. We were called upon to make declarations and to conclude non-aggression pacts with a number of countries, many of which were not even independent because they had either been annexed or turned into subordinate protectorates by countries [Britain and France] by countries allied with Mr. Roosevelt. You will recall, my Deputies, that then [on April 28, 1939] I gave a polite but straightforward answer to this obtrusive gentleman, which succeeded in stopping, at least for a few months, the storm of chatter from this unsophisticated warmonger.

But now the honorable wife [Eleanor Roosevelt] took his place. She and her sons [she said] refused to live in a world such as ours. That is at least understandable, for ours is world of work and not one of deceit and racketeering. After a short rest, though, he was back at it. On November 4, 1939, the Neutrality Act was revised and the arms embargo was repealed in favor of a one-sided supply [of weapons] to Germany's adversaries. In the same way, he pushed in eastern Asia for economic entanglements with China that would eventually lead to effective common interests. That same month he recognized a small group of Polish emigrants as a so-called government in exile, the only political basis of which was a few million Polish gold pieces they had taken from Warsaw.

On April 9 [1940] he froze all Norwegian and Danish assets [in the United States] on the lying pretext of wanting to keep them from falling into German hands, even though he knew full well, for example, that Germany has not interfered with, much less taken control of, the Danish government's administration of its financial affairs. Along with the other governments in exile, Roosevelt now recognized one for Norway. On May 15, 1940, Dutch and Belgian governments in exile were also recognized, and at the same time Dutch and Belgian assets [in the USA ] were frozen.

This man revealed his true attitude in a telegram of June 15 [1940] to French premier [Paul] Reynaud. Roosevelt told him that the American government would double its aid to France, on the condition that France continue the war against Germany. In order to give special emphasis to his desire that the war continue, he declared that the American government would not recognize acquisitions brought about by conquest, which included, for example, the retaking of territories that had been stolen from Germany. I do not need to emphasize that now and in the future, the German government will not be concerned about whether or not the President of the United States recognizes a border in Europe. I mention this case because it is characteristic of the systematic incitement of this man, who hypocritically talks about peace while at the same time he incites to war.

And now he feared that if peace were to come about in Europe, the billions he had squandered on military spending would soon be recognized as an obvious case of fraud, because no one would attack America unless America itself provoked the attack. On June 17, 1940, the President of the United States froze French assets [in the USA] in order, so he said, to keep them from being seized by Germany, but in reality to get hold of the gold that was being brought from Casablanca on an American cruiser.

In July 1940 Roosevelt began to take many new measures toward war, such as permitting the service of American citizens in the British air force and the training of British air force personnel in the United States. In August 1940 a joint military policy for the United States and Canada was established. In order to make the establishment of a joint American-Canadian defense committee plausible to at least the stupidest people, Roosevelt periodically invented crises and acted as if America was threatened by immediate attack. He would suddenly cancel trips and quickly return to Washington and do similar things in order to emphasize the seriousness of the situation to his followers, who really deserve pity.

He moved still closer to war in September 1940 when he transferred fifty American naval destroyers to the British fleet, and in return took control of military bases on British possessions in North and Central America. Future generations will determine the extent to which, along with all this hatred against socialist Germany, the desire to easily and safely take control of the British empirein its hour of disintegration may have also played a role.

After Britain was no longer able to pay cash for American deliveries he imposed the Lend-Lease Act on the American people [in March 1941]. As President, he thereby obtained the authority to furnish lend-lease military aid to countries that he, Roosevelt, decided it was in America's vital interests to defend. After it became clear that Germany would not respond under any circumstances to his continued boorish behavior, this man took another step forward in March 1941.

As early as December 19, 1939, an American cruiser [the Tuscaloosa ] that was inside the security zone maneuvered the [German] passenger liner Columbus into the hands of British warships. As a result, it had to be scuttled. On that same day, US military forces helped in an effort to capture the German merchant ship Arauca. On January 27, 1940, and once again contrary to international law, the US cruiser Trenton reported the movements of the German merchant ships Arauca, La Plata and Wangoni to enemy naval forces.

On June 27, 1940, he announced a limitation on the free movement of foreign merchant ships in US ports, completely contrary to international law. In November 1940 he permitted US warships to pursue the German merchant ships Phrygia, Idarwald and Rhein until they finally had to scuttle themselves to keep from falling into enemy hands. On April 13, 1941, American ships were permitted to pass freely through the Red Sea in order to supply British armies in the Middle East.

In the meantime, in March [1941] all German ships were confiscated by the American authorities. In the process, German Reich citizens were treated in the most degrading way, ordered to certain locations in violation of international law, put under travel restrictions, and so forth. Two German officers who had escaped from Canadian captivity [to the United States ] were shackled and returned to the Canadian authorities, likewise completely contrary to international law.

On March 27 [1941] the same president who is [supposedly] against all aggression announced support for [General Dusan] Simovic and his clique of usurpers [in Yugoslavia], who had come to power in Belgrade after the overthrow of the legal government. Several months earlier, President Roosevelt had sent [OSS chief] Colonel Donovan, a very inferior character, to the Balkans with orders to help organize an uprising against Germany and Italy in Sofia [Bulgaria] and Belgrade. In April he [Roosevelt] promised lend-lease aid to Yugoslavia and Greece. At the end of April he recognized Yugoslav and Greek emigrants as governments in exile. And once again, in violation of international law, he froze Yugoslav and Greek assets.

Starting in mid-April [1941] US naval patrols began expanded operations in the western Atlantic, reporting their observations to the British. On April 26, Roosevelt delivered twenty high speed patrol boats to Britain. At the same time, British naval ships were routinely being repaired in US ports. On May 12, Norwegian ships operating for Britain were armed and repaired [in the USA ], contrary to international law. On June 4, American troop transports arrived in Greenland to build air fields. And on June 9 came the first British report that a US war ship, acting on orders of President Roosevelt, had attacked a German submarine near Greenland with depth charges.

On June 14, German assets in the United States were frozen, again in violation of international law. On June 17, on the basis of a lying pretext, President Roosevelt demanded the recall of the German consuls and the closing of the German consulates. He also demanded the shutting down of the German "Transocean" press agency, the German Library of Information [in New York] and the German Reichsbahn [national railway] office.

On July 6 and 7 [1941], American armed forces acting on orders from Roosevelt occupied Iceland, which was in the area of German military operations. He hoped that this action would certainly, first, finally force Germany into war [against the USA] and, second, also neutralize the effectiveness of the German submarines, much as in 1915-1916. At the same time, he promised military aid to the Soviet Union. On July 10 Navy Secretary [Frank] Knox suddenly announced that the US Navy was under orders to fire against Axis warships. On September 4 the US destroyer Greer, acting on his orders, operated together with British airplanes against German submarines in the Atlantic. Five days later, a German submarine identified US destroyers as escort vessels with a British convoy.

In a speech delivered on September 11 [1941], Roosevelt at last personally confirmed that he had given the order to fire against all Axis ships, and he repeated the order. On September 29, US patrols attacked a German submarine east of Greenland with depth charges. On October 17 the US destroyer Kearny, operating as an escort for the British, attacked a German submarine with depth charges, and on November 6 US armed forces seized the German ship Odenwald in violation of international law, took it to an American port, and imprisoned its crew.

I will overlook as meaningless the insulting attacks and rude statements by this so-called President against me personally. That he calls me a gangster is particularly meaningless, since this term did not originate in Europe, where such characters are uncommon, but in America. And aside from that, I simply cannot feel insulted by Mr. Roosevelt because I regard him, like his predecessor Woodrow Wilson, as mentally unsound [geisteskrank].

We know that this man, with his Jewish supporters, has operated against Japan in the same way. I don't need to go into that here. The same methods were used in that case as well. This man first incites to war, and then he lies about its causes and makes baseless allegations. He repugnantly wraps himself in a cloak of Christian hypocrisy, while at the same time slowly but very steadily leading humanity into war. And finally, as an old Freemason, he calls upon God to witness that his actions are honorable. His shameless misrepresentations of truth and violations of law are unparalleled in history.

I am sure that all of you have regarded it as an act of deliverance that a country [Japan] has finally acted to protest against all this in the very way that this man had actually hoped for, and which should not surprise him now [the attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941]. After years of negotiating with this deceiver, the Japanese government finally had its fill of being treated in such a humiliating way. All of us, the German people and, I believe, all other decent people around the world as well, regard this with deep appreciation.

We know the power behind Roosevelt. It is the same eternal Jew that believes that his hour has come to impose the same fate on us that we have all seen and experienced with horror in Soviet Russia. We have gotten to know first hand the Jewish paradise on earth. Millions of German soldiers have personally seen the land where this international Jewry has destroyed and annihilated people and property. Perhaps the President of the United States does not understand this. If so, that only speaks for his intellectual narrow-mindedness.

And we know that his entire effort is aimed at this goal: Even if we were not allied with Japan, we would still realize that the Jews and their Franklin Roosevelt intend to destroy one state after another. The German Reich of today has nothing in common with the Germany of the past. For our part, we will now do what this provocateur has been trying to achieve for years. And not just because we are allied with Japan, but rather because Germany and Italy with their present leaderships have the insight and strength to realize that in this historic period the existence or non-existence of nations is being determined, perhaps for all time. What this other world has in store for us is clear. They were able to bring the democratic Germany of the past [1918-1933] to starvation, and they seek to destroy the National Socialist Germany of today.

When Mr. Churchill and Mr. Roosevelt declare that they want to one day build a new social order, that's about the same as a bald-headed barber recommending a tonic guaranteed to make hair grow. Rather than incite war, these gentlemen, who live in the most socially backward countries, should have concerned themselves with their own unemployed people. They have enough misery and poverty in their own countries to keep themselves busy insuring a just distribution of food there. As far as the German nation is concerned, it doesn't need charity, either from Mr. Churchill, Mr. Roosevelt or [British foreign secretary] Mr. Eden -- but it does demand its rights. And it will do what it must to insure its right to life, even if a thousand Churchills and Roosevelts conspire together to prevent it.

Our nation has a history of nearly two thousand years. Never in this long period has it been so united and determined as it is today, and thanks to the National Socialist movement it will always be that way. At the same time, Germany has perhaps never been as far-sighted, and seldom as conscious of honor. Accordingly, today I had the passports returned to the American charge d'affaires, and he was bluntly informed of the following:

President Roosevelt's steadily expanding policy has been aimed at an unlimited world dictatorship. In pursuing this goal, the United States and Britain have used every means to deny the German, Italian and Japanese nations the prerequisites for their vital natural existence. For this reason, the governments of Britain and the United States of America have opposed every effort to create a new and better order in the world, for both the present and the future.

Since the beginning of the war [in September 1939], the American President Roosevelt has steadily committed ever more serious crimes against international law. Along with illegal attacks against ships and other property of German and Italian citizens, there have been threats and even arbitrary deprivations of personal freedom by internment and such. The increasingly hostile attacks by the American President Roosevelt have reached the point that he has ordered the U.S. navy, in complete violation of international law, to immediately and everywhere attack, fire upon and sink German and Italian ships. American officials have even boasted about destroying German submarines in this criminal manner. American cruisers have attacked and captured German and Italian merchant ships, and their peaceful crews were taken away to imprisonment In addition, President Roosevelt's plan to attack Germany and Italy with military forces in Europe by 1943 at the latest was made public in the United States [by the Chicago Tribune and several other newspapers on Dec. 4, 1941], and the American government made no effort to deny it.

Despite the years of intolerable provocations by President Roosevelt, Germany and Italy sincerely and very patiently tried to prevent the expansion of this war and to maintain relations with the United States. But as a result of his campaign, these efforts have failed.

Faithful to the provisions of the Tripartite Pact of September 27, 1940, German and Italy accordingly now regard themselves asfinally forced to join together on the side of Japan in the struggle for the defense and preservation of the freedom and independence of our nations and realms against the United States of America and Britain.

The three powers have accordingly concluded the following agreement, which was signed today in Berlin:

[Agreement text:]

With an unshakable determination not to lay down arms until the common war against the United States of America and Britain has been fought to a successful conclusion, the German, Italian and Japanese governments have agreed to the following:

Article 1. Germany, Italy and Japan will together conduct the war that has been forced upon them by the United States of America and Britain with all the means at their command to a victorious conclusion.

Article 2. Germany, Italy and Japan pledge not to conclude an armistice or make peace with either the United States of America or Britain unless by complete mutual agreement.

Article 3. Germany, Italy and Japan will also work very closely together after a victorious conclusion of the war for the purpose of bringing about a just new order in accord with the Tripartite Pact concluded by them on September 27, 1940.

Article 4. This agreement is effective immediately upon signing and is valid for the same period as the Tripartite Pact of September 27, 1940. The high contracting parties shall inform each other in due time before the expiration of this term of validity of their plans for cooperation as laid out in Article 3 of this agreement.

[End of Agreement text]

Deputies! Men of the German Reichstag!

Ever since my peace proposal of July 1940 was rejected, we have clearly realized that this struggle must be fought through to the end. We National Socialists are not at all surprised that the Anglo-American, Jewish and capitalist world is united together withBolshevism. In our country we have always found them in the same community. Alone we successfully fought against them here in Germany, and after 14 years of struggle for power we were finally able to annihilate our enemies.

When I decided 23 years ago to enter political life in order to lead the nation up from ruin, I was a nameless, unknown soldier. Many of you here know just how difficult those first years of that struggle really were. The way from a small movement of seven men to the taking of power on January 30, 1933, as the responsible government is so miraculous that only the blessing of Providence could have made it possible. Today I stand at the head of the mightiest army in the world, the most powerful air force and a proud navy. Behind and around me is a sacred community -- the [National Socialist] Party -- with which I have become great and which has become great through me.

Our adversaries today are the same familiar enemies of more than twenty years. But the path before us cannot be compared with the road we have already taken. Today the German people fully realizes that this is a decisive hour for our existence. Millions of soldiers are faithfully doing their duty under the most difficult conditions. Millions of German farmers and workers, and German women and girls, are in the factories and offices, in the fields and farm lands, working hard to feed our homeland and supply weapons to the front. Allied with us are strong nations that have suffered the same misery and face the same enemies.

The American President and his plutocratic clique have called us the "have not" nations. That is correct! But the "have nots" also want to live, and they will certainly make sure that what little they have to live on is not stolen from them by the "haves." You, my Party comrades, know of my relentless determination to carry through to a successful conclusion any struggle that has already commenced. You know of my determination in such a struggle to do everything necessary to break all resistance that must be broken. In my first speech [of this war] on September 1, 1939, I pledged that neither force of arms nor time would defeat Germany. I want to assure my opponents that while neither force of arms nor time will defeat us, in addition no internal uncertainty will weaken us in the fulfillment of our duty.

When we think of the sacrifice and effort of our soldiers, then every sacrifice of [those here in] the homeland is completely insignificant and unimportant. And when we consider the number of all those in past generations who gave their lives for the survival and greatness of the German nation, then we are really conscious of the magnitude of the duty that is ours.

But whoever tries to shirk this duty has no right to be regarded as a fellow German. Just as we were pitilessly hard in the struggle for power, so also will we be just as ruthless in the struggle for the survival of our nation. During a time in which thousands of our best men, the fathers and sons of our people, have given their lives, anyone in the homeland who betrays the sacrifice on the front will forfeit his life. Regardless of the pretext with which an attempt is made to disrupt the German front, undermine the will to resist of our people, weaken the authority of the regime, or sabotage the achievements of the homeland, the guilty person will die. But with this difference: The soldier at the front who makes this sacrifice will be held in the greatest honor, whereas the person who debases this sacrifice of honor will die in disgrace.

Our opponents should not deceive themselves. In the two thousand years of recorded German history, our people have never been more determined and united than today. The Lord of the universe has been so generous to us in recent years that we bow in gratitude before a Providence that has permitted us to be members of such a great nation. We thank Him, that along with those in earlier and coming generations of the German nation, our deeds of honor may also be recorded in the eternal book of German history!

Germany's Formal Declaration of War Against the United States

About two hours before Hitler began his address to the Reichstag, Germany formally declared war against the United States when Reich Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop delivered a diplomatic note to the American Charge d'Affaires in Berlin, Leland B. Morris.

At almost the same time, the German Charge d'Affaires in Washington, Hans Thomsen, presented a copy of this note to the Chief of the European Division of the Department of State, Ray Atherton. Here is the text of the note:

The government of the United States of America, having violated in the most flagrant manner and in ever increasing measure all rules of neutrality in favor of the adversaries of Germany, and having continually been guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany ever since the outbreak of the European war, brought on by the British declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally resorted to open military acts of aggression.

On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States of America publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot on sight any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27, 1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force.

Acting under this order, American naval vessels have systematically attacked German naval forces since early September 1941. Thus, American destroyers, as for instance, the Greer, the Kearny and the Reuben James, have opened fire on German submarines according to plan. The American Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that the American destroyers attacked German submarines.

Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States of America, under order of their government and contrary to international law, have treated and seized German merchant ships on the high seas as enemy ships.

The German government therefore establishes the following facts:

Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of international law in her relations with the United States of America during every period of the present war, the government of the United States of America from initial violations of neutrality has finally proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. It has thereby virtually created a state of war.

The government of the Reich consequently breaks off diplomatic relations with the United States of America and declares that under these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt, Germany too, as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the United States of America.

For Further Reading

William Henry Chamberlin, "The Bankruptcy of a Policy," in: Harry Elmer Barnes, ed., Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (1953), Chapter 8.

William Henry Chamberlin, America's Second Crusade. Chicago: Regnery, 1952, 1962.

Benjamin Colby, `Twas a Famous Victory. New Rochelle: 1979.

Robert Dallek, Franklin Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945. New York: Univ. Press, 1979.

Matthew DeFraga, " March 1939: America's Guarantee to Britain," Ex Post Facto: Journal of the History Students at San Francisco State University. 1998, Vol. VII.(http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~epf/1998/defraga.html)

Joachim Hoffmann, Stalins Vernichtungskrieg, 1941-1945: Planung, Ausfuehrung und Dokumentation. Muenchen: Herbig, 1999.

Thomas Fleming, "The Big Leak" ("F.D.R.'s War Plans"), American Heritage, Dec. 1987 (http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1987/8/1987_8_64.shtml)

Thomas Fleming, The New Dealer' War: Franklin Roosevelt and the War Within World War II. New York: Basic Books, 2001.

J. F. C. Fuller, A Military History of the Western World. New York: 1987. Vol. 3, esp. pp. 372-375, 411-419.

Germany, Auswaertiges Amt [German Foreign Office]. Documents on the Events Preceding the Outbreak of the War.: 1940.

Germany, Auswaertiges Amt. Polnische Dokumente zur Vorgeschichte des Krieges. Erste Folge. Berlin: 1940.

Germany, Auswaertiges Amt. Roosevelts Weg in den Krieg: Geheimdokumente zur Kriegspolitik des Praesidenten der Vereinigten Staaten. Berlin: 1943.

Patrick J. Hearden, Roosevelt Confronts Hitler: America's Entry into World War II. Northern Illinois Univ. Press, 1987.

David L. Hoggan. The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed. IHR, 1989.

Daniel W. Michaels, "Examining Stalin's 1941 Plan to Attack Germany," The Journal of Historical Review, Nov.-Dec. 2000 (Vol. 19, No. 6), pp. 40-47. (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n6p40_Michaels.html)

Daniel W. Michaels, " Exposing Stalin's Plan to Conquer Europe: How the Soviet Union 'Lost' the Second World War," The Journal of Historical Review, July-August 1998 (Vol. 17, No. 4), pp. 30-37. (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n4p30_Michaels.html)

Ted Morgan, FDR: A Biography. New York: 1985. Esp. chapters 17, 18 and 20.

Viktor Suvorov (pseud.). Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War?. London: 1990.

Charles C. Tansill, Back Door to War. Chicago: 1952.

A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War. New York: 1983.

Ernst Topitsch, Stalin's War: A Radical New Theory of the Origins of the Second World War. New York : St. Martin's Press, 1987.

Mark Weber, "President Roosevelt's Campaign to Incite War in Europe: The Secret Polish Documents," The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1983 (Vol. 4, No. 2), pp. 135-172. (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html)

Mark Weber, "Roosevelt's 'Secret Map' Speech," The Journal of Historical Review, Spring 1985 (Vol. 6, No. 1), pp. 125-127. (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p125_Weber.html)

From: The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1988-89 (Vol. 8, No. 4), pages 389-416.

Degree for paranod schizophrenic Searchlight editor

2011-08-15T00:39:00.000-07:00

Op-Ed: Gerry Gable is honoured by the University of Northampton
+
Northampton - The publisher of ‘Searchlight’ anti-fascist magazine has received an honorary doctorate from a British university; his achievements include marrying a former Nazi, criminal libel on an asylum seeker, and solving a murder that never happened.
The August issue of Searchlight, a magazine that styles itself “against fascism and racism” reveals that its publisher Gerry Gable has recently received an Honorary Doctorate from the University of Northampton. According to the article, which is credited to Sonia Gable, this is in recognition of his “defence of liberal society against the scourges of racism and fascism”.
The article also reveals that the Searchlight Organisation has published a major new work Lone wolves: myth or reality? The pamphlet has its own website, and can be downloaded in Portable Document Format totally free of charge, with one very minor qualification: caveat emptor.
Who is Gerry Gable? Those who know anything about extremists in Britain and those who monitor them will know the answer to that question, but he was described concisely by Andrew Billen in the November 17, 1996 edition of the Observer newspaper as “a conspiracy theorist who could spot Nazi architecture in a kindergarten sandpit”. His magazine is also alluded to as Gable’s Fables, and sometimes by an even less flattering name. All will be revealed shortly with irrefutable documentation.
Mr Gable’s obsession with Nazis is so great that he married one, the former Sonia Hochfelder, his fourth wife and the author of the aforementioned article in the August issue of his magazine. Another “former Nazi” associate of his is the man who alludes to him as “my mate, Gerry”.
Yet another former member of a “Nazi” organisation is the magazine’s current editor, Nick Lowles; Mr Lowles made that admission in the January 1999 issue of Searchlight when he was a current member (and may still be one) of the BNP.
We will not mention here Searchlight’s first “mole” (read agent provocateur) Dave Roberts, convicted murderer Charles Hanson, self-confessed thief Tim Hepple, or fantasist Matthew Collins; we shall though review briefly the others.
During her student days, Sonia Hochfelder was extremely active in far right politics, but later had a total change of heart; this is nothing unusual or shameful of course; Whittaker Chambers and many others of lesser infamy have performed such an about face, but while Communist turned Roman Catholic Chambers, and Black Panther turned cook book author and ice cream rep Bobby Seal, never made any attempt to deny their antecedents, the future Mrs Gable and her husband did, concocting an elaborate but nebulous tale of her undercover work deep inside illegal far right organisations as the reason this former Nazi is now an “anti-fascist” and magistrate.
To his credit, Nick Lowles has never attempted to weave such a duplicitous weft about his personal life; as well as Editor of Searchlight, Mr Lowles is the author of Mr Evil, a biography of the psychopath and murderer David Copeland. This book is well worth reading, unlike some of the ravings Mr Gable’s magazine has published over the years.
Ray Hill joined the British Movement as a young man in Leicester, and was soon in trouble with the law, assaulting a café owner – who just happened to be Jewish – and then a photographer before departing hastily for South Africa with his wife and young family. A decade later he returned after jumping bail and leaving the country on a false passport, although fortunately for him, there was no attempt made at extradition. This time it wasn’t violence but credit card fraud that led to his hasty departure. There can’t be that many people who can boast of having fled two Continents with the police in hot pursuit; Dr Mengele perhaps, or as the man from SongFacts calls him, the Running Man.
While he was in South Africa and for some time after, Mr Hill had a nice little sideline in anti-Semitic rhetoric, but in Britain he showed actions speak louder than words. In the March 25, 1984 edition of the late and unlamented News of the World, Mr Hill boasted : “It all started as a bit of a game - the odd night out attacking a few Pakis. I even desecrated a synagogue.”
This was after he “came out” as a “mole” read agent provocateur who had offered his services to Mr Gable on his return to the UK. Although he claims now to have regretted his hatemongering, he does not appear to have gone the whole hog and given the police any details about these violent acts or this act of criminal damage.
In February 2000, Mr Hill appeared at the High Court along with his mate Gerry where the two of them and the holding company Searchlight Magazine Limited defended – and lost – a libel action brought by Derbyshire accountant and former serviceman Morris Riley. [A scan of the order on judgment can be found here and here]. Mr Gable did not mention this at the time, but in September 2001, after Mr Riley’s premature death, he wrote in his magazine:
"Strangely, Jones seems to think that Searchlight paid out £9,000 to somebody over a libel action. That's news to me, but I am only the publisher. Perhaps he is getting confused over a case brought by a character called Morris Riley, which ended up with him several thousand pounds worse off and dropping dead from a heart attack a few months later."
This is reminiscent of the man who boasted to a friend that he had finished runner up in a boxing match.
Let us now turn our attention to Mr Gable’s free pamphlet about lone wolves. It mentions here David Copeland, and points out that Mr Gable contributed to a Panorama programme on the case, which is true. Panorama has put out some excellent programmes including a recent one on the great PPI rip off; not so excellent was the one that he “researched”. According to the Radio Times, Maggie's Militant Tendency, was screened by BBC Television at 8.10pm on January 30, 1984. The BBC ended up shelling out damages and costs estimated at a quarter of a million pounds.
Mr Gable does not appear to have slipped up in his commentary for BBC Television re David Copeland, but in December 2009, when he and Sonia were interviewed by John Gulliver of the Camden New Journal, he told a whopper; it was his “intelligence” if not Mr Gable himself that had brought Copeland to justice, rather than a workmate of the terrorist who had identified him from CCTV during a police appeal. There is no mention of this in either the Nick Lowles biography Mr Evil nor Lone wolves: myth or reality? but in the latter, Mr Gable has repeated his biggest and most persistent lie, one that he can’t stop repeating, except, curiously, to the police.
In the 1960s, before he authored the libellous Gable Memorandum but after his conviction for burglary artifice at the home of (then respectable) historian David Irving, Mr Gable claims to have brought to justice a gang (actually two gangs) of synagogue arsonists. In the version related here, he has watered down the lie somewhat, so that “One attack on a theological college in Stamford Hill left one student dead and another with serious spinal injuries...The theological college attack was never investigated by the police but the killer was unofficially identified as an NSM activist”.
Bah, humbug! In October 1987, Mr Gable told the Jewish Chronicle that he personally had brought the arsonists to book, in his own words: "I stood in the burnt-out shell of that yeshiva at four in the morning and made a private vow to get the people who'd done that".
As recently as 2008, Mr Gable instructed his solicitors that this was indeed the case, after threats from the British Nazi leader Colin Jordan to sue him for defamation. By that time, Mr Jordan was both very old and not in the best of health, and he died in April the following year, whereupon the Guardian commissioned Mr Gable to write his obituary, in which he repeated this same grotesque lie which was rubber stamped by the Guardian until it was forced by the Press Complaints Commission to publish a retraction.
Later in the year, Mr Gable was forced to admit to a senior New Scotland Yard detective that he knew nothing about this (accidental) fire, which contrary to his facile assertions was of course investigated thoroughly at the time, a fact that was confirmed by the local MP. For the record, the person who “inspired” the other fires – in which no one was killed – was Jordan’s fanatically anti-Jewish ex-wife (without his knowledge). The maiden name of Françoise Jordan was Dior; she was the niece of the famous designer; it is this which probably accounts for the sensitivity of the House of Dior to the drunken rant of John Galliano which came to light earlier this year.
One final example should be given of Mr Gable’s technique from his new publication. He alludes herein to Roberto Fiore as “a convicted Italian terrorist”, just prior to which he hints that a Mr John Gaster died “in mysterious circumstances in 1998”. Elsewhere, he has been less guarded in his statements, and has in fact accused Mr Fiore of murdering both John Gaster and another elderly “right winger”. This begs the question, if Mr Fiore is such a dangerous terrorist and a double murderer, why did he serve as a Member of Parliament in his native Italy from May 2008 till June 2009, and why is he still active in politics?
Mr Gable’s report makes a number of recommendations; it goes without saying that on the evidence presented here, anything he recommends, indeed anything he says, should be taken with a grain of salt, or maybe a boulder, a fact that, sadly, no one at the University of Northampton seems to have realised.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/310297#ixzz1V4wJnaoF

Former Counterterrorism Czar Accuses Tenet, Other CIA Officials of Cover-Up

2011-08-11T23:32:00.001-07:00

http://www.truth-out.org/former-counterterrorism-czar-accuses-tenet-other-cia-officials-cover/1313071564

Former Counterterrorism Czar Accuses Tenet, Other CIA Officials of Cover-Up
Thursday 11 August 2011
by: Jason Leopold, Truthout | Report

Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar, speaks to filmmakers John Duffy and Ray Nowosielski about crucial intelligence involving two 9/11 hijackers he believes ex-CIA Director George Tenet and others concealed.

With the tenth anniversary of 9/11 just a month away, the intelligence failures leading up to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have started to attract fresh scrutiny from former counterterrorism officials, who have called into question the veracity of the official government narrative that concluded who knew what and when.

Indeed, recently Truthout published an exclusive report based on documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and an interview with a former high-ranking counterterrorism official that showed how a little-known military intelligence unit, unbeknownst to the various investigative bodies probing the terrorist attacks, was ordered by senior government officials to stop tracking Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda's movements prior to 9/11.

And now, in a stunning new interview made available to Truthout that is scheduled to air on a local PBS affiliate in Colorado tonight, former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, for the first time, levels explosive allegations against three former top CIA officials - George Tenet, Cofer Black and Richard Blee - accusing them of knowingly withholding intelligence from the Bush and Clinton White House, the FBI, Immigration and the State and Defense Departments about two of the 9/11 hijackers who had entered the United States more than a year before the attacks. Moreover, Clarke says the former CIA officials likely engaged in a cover-up by withholding key details about two of the hijackers from the 9/11 Commission.

"They've been able to get through a joint House investigation committee and get through the 9/11 Commission and this has never come out," Clarke said about Blee, Tenet and Black. "They got away with it."

Clarke, who now runs the security firm Good Harbor Consulting, was the chief counterterrorism adviser for the Clinton and Bush administrations, who famously testified before the 9/11 Commission probing the terrorist attacks that "your government failed you."

In October 2009, he spoke to John Duffy and Ray Nowosielski, who have been working on a documentary about Blee and the secrecy surrounding his role in the intelligence failures leading up to 9/11, which is set to air on the tenth anniversary of the attacks. Duffy and Nowosielski, whose previous film, "Press For Truth," followed four 9/11 widows as they lobbied the Bush White House to convene an independent commission to probe the attacks, have also launched a new transparency web site, SecrecyKills.com, set to go live this evening with a campaign aimed at further unmasking Blee.

Clarke did not respond to questions about whether he still stood behind the comments he made about Tenet, Black, Blee nearly two years ago, which he admits he doesn't have evidence to back up. But Nowosielski told Truthout he spoke to Clarke last week to inform him that Tenet, Black and Blee had issued a joint statement that was highly critical of his charges, and Clarke told Nowosielski he has not changed his position.

Clarke asserts in the 13-minute interview that Tenet, the former CIA director; Black, who headed the agency's Counterterrorist Center; and Blee, a top aide to Tenet who led the CIA's Bin Laden Issues Station, also known as Alec Station, whose true identity was revealed for the first time two years ago, are to blame for the government's failure to capture Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, who hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 with three other terrorists and flew the jetliner directly into the Pentagon killing 189 people.

"George Tenet followed all of the information about al-Qaeda in microscopic detail," Clarke told Duffy and Nowosielski. "He read raw intelligence reports before analysts in the counterterrorism center did and he would pick up the phone and call me at 7:30 in the morning and talk about them."

But Tenet, who was awarded the Medal of Freedom by George W. Bush in 2004, did not share what Clarke says he knew about the al-Hazmi and the al-Mihdhar case.

In early January 2000, CIA analysts were informed by the National Security Agency that al-Hamzi and al-Mihdhar were heading to a meeting of other al-Qaeda associates in Malaysia, their travel arranged by Osama bin Laden's Yemen operations center. The CIA surveilled the meeting and took photographs of the men.

From Malaysia, al-Hazmi, al-Mihdhar and Walid bin Attash, the alleged mastermind behind the USS Cole bombing, traveled to Thailand, which the CIA reported to Alec Station in a cable. Al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar then boarded a flight bound for Los Angeles, arriving in the city on January 15, 2000, where they met up with a Saudi national named Omar al-Bayoumi, who was secretly working as an FBI informant.

The CIA had claimed, according to the 9/11 Commission report, that they lost track of all three men in Thailand. Despite being aware that the terrorists had already obtained tourist visas, the agency still failed to notify the FBI and State Department for inclusion on the latter's terrorist watch list. There were also intelligence failures by the FBI as well. For example, Al-Bayoumi's FBI case agent was aware that two men had moved into his San Diego apartment, but never bothered to inquire about the identities of the individuals. Had the case agent done so, he would have discovered that his informant's houseguests were al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar.

Remarkably, Mihdhar left Southern California for Yemen in June 2000 and, using a new passport, returned to the US undetected on July 4, 2001.

Clarke suggests that if the CIA had shared intelligence about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar with him, the FBI, and others, then perhaps the attack on the Pentagon could have been thwarted. As he noted in his book, "Your Government Failed You: Breaking the Cycle of National Security Disasters," the 9/11 Commission never fleshed out the rationale behind the CIA's failure to share crucial intelligence information about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar with other officials and government agencies.

"As jaded and cynical as I am about government failures, I still find this one mind-boggling and inexplicable," Clarke wrote. "The 9/11 Commission report does not tell us very much about how or why it happened and their explanations, while they could be correct, strain credulity and leave many questions unanswered."

"Failure to Communicate"

One of the CIA officials who had been monitoring the Malaysia meeting was a young al-Qaeda analyst named Jennifer Matthews, who had been working with the Bin Laden Issues Station since its inception in 1996. Another analyst, who worked closely with Matthews, was a red-headed woman who, in recent years, has been at the center of a scandal involving the torture and wrongful rendition of at least one detainee. She has since been promoted and continues to work for the CIA on al-Qaeda-related issues. An agency spokesman requested that Truthout not print her name because her identity is classified.

In his recently published book, "Triple Agent," Washington Post reporter Joby Warrick wrote that former CIA Inspector General John Helgerson probed "CIA missteps that had allowed" al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar "to enter the United States undetected."

"Helgerson concluded that the CIA's Counterterrorism Center had failed to respond to a series of cabled warnings in 2000 about" al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar "who later became part of the September 11 plot ...," Warrick wrote. "The cables were seen by as many as sixty CIA employees, yet the two operatives' names were never passed along to the FBI, which might have assigned agents to track them down or shared with the State Department, which could have flagged their named on its watch list. In theory, the arrest of the either man could have led investigators to the other hijackers and the eventual unraveling of the 9/11 plot.

"Helgerson's report named individual managers who it said bore the greatest responsibility for failing to ensure that vital information was passed to the FBI. The report, never released in full, also recommended that some of the managers be reviewed for possible disciplinary action ... Jennifer Matthews was on that list."

Matthews, who Warrick also says led the agency's search for the first high-value detainee, Abu Zubaydah, and who was also present at the CIA black site prison in Thailand when Zubaydah was waterboarded after he was captured in March 2002, was among seven CIA officers killed in Khost, Afghanistan, in a December 2009 suicide bombing at Forward Operating Base Chapman in Afghanistan, which Matthews was chief of.

"A High-Level Decision"

Although Helgerson's report recommended Matthews be disciplined, Clarke does not believe she or the dozens of other CIA analysts bear the ultimate responsibility for failing to inform the US government for 18 months that al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were in the US.

"It's not as I originally thought, which was that one lonely CIA analyst got this information and didn't somehow recognize the significance of it," Clarke said during the interview. "No, fifty, 5-0, CIA personnel knew about this. Among the fifty people in CIA who knew these guys were in the country was the CIA director."

Still, Clarke said his position as National Coordinator for Security and Information meant he should have received a briefing from CIA about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar, explaining "unless somebody intervened to stop the normal automatic distribution I would automatically get it."

"For me to this day, it is inexplicable why when I had every other detail about everything related to terrorism that the director didn't tell me, that the director of the counterterrorism center didn't tell me, that the other 48 people inside CIA that knew about it never mentioned it to me or anyone in my staff in a period of over 12 months ... We therefore conclude that there was a high-level decision inside CIA ordering people not to share that information," Clarke said.

How high level?

"I would think it would have to be made by the director," Clarke said. "You gotta understand my relationship with [Tenet], we were close friends, he called me several times a day, we shared the most trivial of information with each other, there was not a lack of information sharing, [CIA] told us everything except this."

So, what happened? Why did the CIA fail to share its intelligence about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar with Clarke and other government officials? Clarke believes the CIA may have attempted to "flip" al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar, but ultimately failed.

That's an allegation that surfaced in Lawrence Wright's groundbreaking book, "The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and The Road to 9/11." Wright, who interviewed Clarke for his book, said a team of FBI investigators and federal prosecutors known as Squad I-49 came to believe that the CIA "was shielding Mihdhar and Hazmi because it hoped to recruit them"

"The CIA was desperate for a source inside al-Qaeda; it had completely failed to penetrate the inner circle or even to place a willing partner in the training camps, which were largely open to anyone who showed up," Wright wrote. "Mihdhar and Hazmi must have seemed like attractive opportunities however, once they entered the United States they were the province of the FBI. The CIA had no legal authority to operate inside the country ... It is also possible, as some FBI investigators suspect, the CIA was running a joint venture with Saudi intelligence in order to get around that restriction ... These are only theories about the CIA's failures to communicate vital information to the bureau ... Perhaps the agency decided that Saudi intelligence would have a better chance of recruiting these men than the Americans. That would leave no CIA fingerprints on the operation as well."

"This is the view of some very bitter FBI investigators, who wonder why they were never informed of the existence of al-Qaeda operatives inside America. Mihdhar and Hazmi arrived nineteen months before 9/11. The FBI had all the authority it needed to investigate these men and learn what they were up to, but because the CIA had failed to divulge the presence of two active members of al-Qaeda, the hijackers were free to develop their plot until it was too late to stop them."

The 9/11 Commission was unable to substantiate claims that the CIA tried to recruit al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar and Clarke never disclosed this theory to the panel during his testimony as it was a conclusion he said he reached years later.

"Reckless and Profoundly Wrong"

In response to Clarke's charges, Tenet, Black and Blee issued a joint statement to Duffy and Nowosielski last week upon learning their interview with Clarke would soon air publicly. The former CIA officials admonished their former colleague, stating his comments were "reckless and profoundly wrong." Blee's inclusion in the joint statement marks the first time he has spoken publicly about the events leading up to 9/11.

"Clarke starts with the presumption that important information on the travel of future hijackers to the United States was intentionally withheld from him in early 2000," the former CIA officials said. "It was not. He wildly speculates that it must have been the CIA Director who could have ordered the information withheld. There was no such order. In fact, the record shows that the Director and other senior CIA officials were unaware of the information until after 9/11."

"In early 2000, a number of more junior personnel (including FBI agents on detail to CIA) did see travel information on individuals who later became hijackers but the significance of the data was not adequately recognized at the time ... Building on his false notion that information was intentionally withheld, Mr. Clarke went on to speculate - which he admits is based on nothing other than his imagination - that the CIA might have been trying to recruit these two future hijackers as agents. This, like much of what Mr. Clarke said in his interview, is utterly without foundation. We testified under oath about what we did, what we knew and what we didn't know. We stand by that testimony."

"We Would Have Found Those Assholes"

But Clarke says even as early as July 2001 - two months before the terrorist attacks - when Tenet and Blee called an urgent meeting with President Bush at the White House, they had an opportunity to disclose the fact that al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were somewhere in the US, but failed to disclose what they knew.

The CIA waited until late August to inform lower-level FBI agents that al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were in the US and were likely planning an attack inside the US. Yet, the CIA continued to conceal the intelligence from senior FBI and Bush administration officials a week prior to the attacks.

Clarke said there's a "very obvious answer" as to why the CIA continued, as early as September 4, 2001, in a meeting attended by Clarke and other senior Bush administration officials, to withhold intelligence about the two hijackers: to protect the agency from scrutiny.

"I know how all this stuff works I've been working it for 30 years," Clarke said. "You can't snowball me on this stuff. If they announce on September 4 in the Principals meeting that these guys are in the United States and they told the FBI a few weeks ago I'm going to say 'wait, time out. How long have you known this? Why haven't you reported it at the daily threat meetings? Why isn't it in the daily threat matrix?' We would have begun an investigation that day into CIA malfeasance and misfeasance that's why we're not informed."

Clarke added that even if the CIA had disclosed what it knew about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar as late as September 4, 2001, he believes the FBI could have captured the men and dismantled their plans to attack the Pentagon.

"We would have conducted a massive sweep," Clarke said. "We would have conducted publicly. We would have found those assholes. There's no doubt in my mind. Even with only a week left."

Truthout contributor Jeffrey Kaye contributed to this report.

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

454

The psychology of decadence.

2011-08-10T00:34:00.000-07:00

The psychology of decadence talking point?

The self-hatred of so many white people today needs to be accounted for. For instance, do we have some genetic defect that leads to a bizarre death wish? Or are some manipulative and self-serving "elites" successfully perverting the intrinsic altruism that enabled us to survive in Ice-Age Eurasia, so that we now serve everyone but our own people? Or are we simply weighed down and worn out by the terrible wars of the 20th century? Or is it something else? Whatever explanation may be offered, it is remarkable that we even need to seek to understand this phenomenon. No other branch of humanity seems to contain large numbers of people who are actively working to destroy their own kind.

I think one explanation is that we are still suffering from the residual effects of Christianity, albeit in a secularised form. The extract below is from Winwood Reade's 1872 book, "The Martyrdom of Man". Back in 1872 countries like Britain and Australia were officially under firm Christian rule, so Reade analysed the psychology of Christianity in strictly Biblical terms. Yet in today's post-Christian world much of what Reade wrote still rings true in a secular way.

The "earth" that "Satan" ruled is now the Western Civilisation that White people once ruled. To our self-hating minority, the remnants of our culture must be wiped out, just as Jesus was going to "invade and subdue the earth". The Redeemer figure in Christianity is now, for many of us, the people of the Third World - as Jean Raspail depicted in "Camp of the Saints". Those of us who are the heirs of Hypatia, or Shakespeare, or Mozart, are like the Biblical character Dives. We have received our "good things", so now it's our time to be persecuted. By contrast, the detested and scab-infested Lazarus hasn't achieved much in life, so his time has now come.

To paraphrase Reade's conclusion: "Those of us who wish to live under the new dispensation must renounce all the glories of our former Western culture. We must give away our property (in the form of foreign aid, economic kow-towing to boat people, and the like) and give the proceeds to alien peoples, discard all domestic ties (by endorsing gay marriages and so on), cultivate self-abasement (through such things as Prime Ministerial 'apologies' for historical acts that occurred centuries before our own time), and do nothing which could possibly raise us in the esteem of other people (or ourselves)."

Here is the extract from Reade:

....................................
If we regard Jesus only in his relations with those whose brief and bitter lives he purified from evil and illumined with ideal joys, we might believe him to have been the perfect type of a meek and suffering saint. But his character had two sides, and we must look at both. Such is the imperfection of human nature that extreme love is counterbalanced by extreme hate; every virtue has its attendant vice, which is excited by the same stimulants, which is nourished by the same food. Martyrs and persecutors resemble one another; their minds are composed of the same materials. The man who will suffer death for his religious faith will endeavour to enforce it even unto death. In fact, if Christianity were true religious persecution would become a pious and charitable duty: if God designs to punish men for their opinions it would be an act of mercy to mankind to extinguish such opinions. By burning the bodies of those who diffuse them many souls would be saved that would otherwise be lost, and so there would be an economy of torment in the long run. It is therefore not surprising that enthusiasts should be intolerant. Jesus was not able to display the spirit of a persecutor in his deeds, but he displayed it in his words. Believing that it was in his power to condemn his fellow-creatures to eternal torture, he did so condemn by anticipation all the rich and almost all the learned men among the Jews. It was his belief that God reigned in heaven but that Satan reigned on earth. In a few years God would invade and subdue the earth. It was therefore his prayer, "Thy kingdom come; thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven." God´s will was not at that time done on earth, which was in the possession of the Prince of Darkness. It was evident, therefore, that all prosperous men were favourites of Satan, and that the unfortunate were favourites of God. Those would go with their master to eternal pain: these would be rewarded by their master with eternal joy.

He did not say that Dives was bad or that Lazarus was good, but merely that Dives had received his good things on earth and Lazarus his evil things on earth, that afterwards Lazarus was rewarded and Dives tormented. Dives might have been as virtuous as the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is also clothed in fine linen and who fares sumptuously every day; Lazarus might have been as vicious as the Lambeth pauper who prowls round the palace gates, and whose mind, like his body, is full of sores. Not only the inoffensive rich were doomed by Jesus to hell-fire, but also all those who did anything to merit the esteem of their fellow-men. Even those that were happy and enjoyed life--unless it was in his own company—were lost souls. "Woe unto you that are rich," said he, "for ye have received your consolation. Woe unto you that are full, for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now, for ye shall mourn and weep. Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you, for so did their fathers of the false prophets." He also pronounced eternal punishment on all those who refused to join him. "He that believeth and is baptised," said he "shall be saved. He that believeth not shall be damned."

He supposed that when the kingdom of God was established on earth he would reign over it as viceroy. Those who wished to live under him in that kingdom must renounce all the pleasures of Satan´s world. They must sell their property and give the proceeds to the poor, discard all domestic ties, cultivate self-abasement, and do nothing which could possibly raise them in the esteem of other people. For they could not serve two masters: they could not be rewarded in the kingdom of this world, which was ruled by Satan, and also in the new kingdom, which would be ruled by God. If they gave a dinner they were not to ask their rich friends lest they should be asked back to dinner, and thus lose their reward. They must ask only the poor, and for that benevolent action they would be recompensed thereafter. They were not to give alms in public or to pray in public, and when they fasted, they were to pretend to feast; for if it was perceived that they were devout men and were praised for their devotion, they would lose their reward. Robbery and violence they were not to resist. If a man smote them on one cheek they were to offer him the other also; if he took their coat they were to give him their shirt; if he forced them to go with him one mile they were to go with him two. They were to love their enemies, to do good to them that did them evil. And why? Not because it was good so to do, but that they might be paid for the same with compound interest in a future state.

Anders Breivik: A Fundamentalist Noahide

2011-08-08T00:25:00.000-07:00

Anders Breivik: A Fundamentalist Noahide

By Richard Edmondson

[A shortened and edited version; read in full on http://leftwing-christian.net/ This is a very important article explaining that far from being a fundamentalist Christian, Breivik was a fundamentalist Noahide, a biggish sect whose members de-emphasize Christ and deify Jews. He even dreamed to build the Third Temple! Richard Edmondson answered the question that many of us pondered and pinpointed the religious ideas of Breivik- ISH]

Insofar as children and teens were the principal and deliberate targets, the atrocity of Breivik revealed a level of malevolence scarcely seen or imagined before. Perhaps the only thing that could compare to it would be the deliberate targeting of Palestinian children by Israeli soldiers during Operation Cast Lead.
Since the 7/22 terror attack, a number of Christian writers ( here and here for instance) have hastened to point out that Anders Breivik, though painted as a “Christian fundamentalist” by the media, does not appear to have been deeply religious and mainly seems to have been Christian in name only. While this may be true, what it overlooks is that such a de-emphasis of Christ is largely in keeping with Christian Zionism.
In Christian Zionism, Christ is reduced to a minor, almost inconsequential figure. CZs are quick to point out that Jesus was Jewish, and that’s certainly a point in his favor where they are concerned, but the vast majority of his teachings are discarded. For CZs, the real object of worship is the Jewish people in a collective sense. Let me repeat that: CZs do not worship Christ; they worship Jews.
[…]So far as I know, it was Eileen Fleming who first drew an analogy between Christian Zionism and the Antichrist, writing: “The cult of ‘Christian’ Zionism is what the concept of the Anti-Christ is all about. This heretical theology of Premillennial Dispensation worships a god of Armageddon and not the God of love, forgiveness and compassion that Jesus/AKA The Prince of Peace taught.” Christian Zionism has indeed become an “Antichrist virus” (for lack of a better metaphor) that has caught hold of Christianity and spread to near epidemic proportions. So acute is the problem, I suspect that what we are headed toward now is a rupturing of the faith similar to what took place in Judaism 2000 years ago with the rise of Christianity. In fact, one Catholic blogger has gone so far as to suggest that Christian Zionists are not Christians at all, but are in reality “Noahides”:

Christians are not supposed to support Zionism. Nor are Christians supposed to support Judaism, as the religion itself seeks to undermine Christianity by sponsoring a new religion for Gentiles called Noahidism. Make no mistake about it, the purpose of this religion is to replace Christianity in the distant future.

The blogger is correct. Noahidism, based upon the so-called Seven Laws of Noah (see video), is a Talmudic construct that has been heavily promoted by the Chabad Lubavitch movement. It does not encompass any belief in Christ, who in fact is vilified by the Talmud.

Another common misconception about CZs is that they hope to trigger Armageddon and thereby bring about the second coming of Christ, but again we have to remember that Christ is not the main consideration. The primary object of veneration is Jews:

It was Judaism that believed man was created in God’s image. It was traditional Judaism that gave us the concepts of hell, heaven, angels, devils, the acceptance of Adam and Eve as the first man and woman, the creation of the world in seven days, and even its age, four thousand years.

It was Judaism that taught us to sing while other religions wail in sorrow. It was Judaism that gave us love and respect for life. While pagan religions sacrificed their children to foreign gods, Judaism gave us a loving God who adored the life of every child.

The above words were written by Christian Zionist leader John Hagee in his book, In Defense of Israel (pg. 96-7). Hagee goes on to claim that the Old Testament “is the light of truth and reason upon which our society and civilization is built;” he asserts that Muslims “intend to crush Israel and destroy America;” and even defends the bombing of the King David Hotel. An attack which left 91 people dead, the blowing up of the King David was carried out by the Jewish Irgun exactly 65 years to the day before the atrocity in Norway.

Whether Breivik had ever come upon any of Hagee’s writings or his numerous videos on YouTube I have no idea, but as I noted previously, this kind of ideology has the properties of a virus. And of course it’s not hard to imagine a social misfit, such as Breivik seems to have been, coming to conceive that a murder spree against critics of Israel might be a good thing and coming to adopt such as his mission in life.

While, as I said, bringing Jesus back for the second time is not the sought-after prize, a struggle between good and evil—Armageddon if you will—does factor heavily in Christian Zionist theology, and so yes, for sure, the “end times” are very much upon us. What is “ending,” however, will be the idea of equality of all people, the “multiculturalism” espoused by such as the present ruling party of Norway, to be replaced by a Jewish world order—and here is where the dividing line between Christian Zionism and Noahidism becomes very thin. In fact, they could be viewed as two separate strains of the same virus.

Noahidism is basically Christian Zionism with all the trappings of Christianity—any mention of Christ or loving your neighbor, etc.—formally erased and dispensed of. What is left is the belief that Gentiles must abide by the “seven Laws of Noah”—a set of principles that sound basically reasonable but which derive from the Talmud, not the Torah. They include six proscriptions—against murder, theft, blasphemy, idol worship, sexual immorality and eating the flesh of living animals—and one mandate—that judicial courts be set up. As I say, it sounds perfectly reasonable, but it’s important to realize that in Noahidism, Jews are regarded as spiritually superior, and that by default they hold authority. In my last post, I linked to a video here featuring an Orthodox Jew discussing the seven Noahide Laws. It is a 10-minute video exuding Jewish superiority at just about every camera frame as the presenter explains, among other things, how it is that the Jewish soul is able to hold more light than a Gentile’s.

In another video, here , a Chabad rabbi gives a talk on Noahidism to gullible Gentiles ( or b’nei Noach, or “children of Noah,” as they are referred in Hebrew), while here a separate rabbi discusses how “righteous Gentiles” are in need of “guidelines for functioning together as a community,” and finally, here , we are promised nothing short of world peace, miraculous medical cures, and a 12 hour work week if only Jews rule the world.

Are significant numbers of Gentiles really buying into this? Hard to say, but if Zionists can sell them soap, beer, and toothpaste, it probably stands to reason they will buy this as well. Here we can read of a Chabad rabbi’s experiences teaching Noahide classes to Gentiles in Australia, as well as view a photo gallery of his converts, (on the subject of intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles, he comments, tellingly, that the practice is “spiritually detrimental” for both groups and compares it to the field of chemistry wherein “we find that certain substances are harmless and even useful on their own, or when mixed with other substances, but are lethal when mixed with each other.”), while Noahide communities in various cities and countries have set up their own sites here, here, here, here, here, and here. There is also a Noahide group onYahoo, and even a Russian Noahide group.

Neo-fascists? Or Noahides? Take your pick. Perhaps most pertinent of all, on March 5, 1991, Noahidism pretty much became the official religion of the United States Congress. This is when Congress ratified H.J. Resolution 104 honoring Chabad Rabbi Memachem Mendel Schneerson and enshrining the seven Noahide Laws as the “edifice of civilization.” As I noted in a post more than a year ago, the timing of this resolution was quite curious—coming less than a week after the U.S. carried out a massive overnight bombing of a retreating Iraqi convoy, a war crime incident that became known as the Highway of Death. A question that may now need to be considered is to what extent all this could be viewed as having been predicted. “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit,” said Jesus 2000 years ago. If we think of Zionism as the tree and Israel as the fruit of that tree, the tree has indeed borne bad fruit. What sort of unsavory fruit might we now expect from a Zionist, “anti-Christ” religion for Gentiles?

Breivik the Neo-Con – Media disinformation goes up a gear

2011-07-26T07:37:00.001-07:00

Breivik the Neo-Con – Media disinformation goes up a gear

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxNaP-C6JMk

Above is the URL for the video uploaded by the Norwegian Neo-Con mass-murderer Anders Behring Breivik shortly before his killing spree.

The clip has been hurriedly deleted by YouTube. [See attached screen shot taken on Monday 25th July 2011 at 12:25pm UK time.]

Jewish pressure undoubtedly achieved that deletion. Jewry does not want the generality of gentiles to know what the Jerusalem Post was ready to convey to its Israeli readership. That report, plus Breivik’s own writings before they were expunged from the web, make clear the following:

So far from being a “nationalist”, Breivik was a Neo-Con who advocated both support for Israel and murderous hostility to Muslims, not just in Europe but in Palestine and elsewhere. So far from being a “racist”, he explicitly opposes “multi-culturalism” not “multi-racialism”. He believed that Afro-Asians should be allowed to settle in Norway and elsewhere in Europe, just so long as they were not Muslims.

He also demanded positive support — not just a civilised toleration — for homosexuality. In addition to all of this, he was a keen Freemason. We can tell this because he posted a photo of himself, in full Masonic regalia, on his Facebook page. (The expression on his face in this and other photographs of himself, and the poses that he adopted, are all indications of his raging narcissism.)

This range of ideological ingredients do not feature in the manifesto of any authentic European / white nationalist movement, past or present.

Breivik’s Neo-Con views were explicit in his original Facebook entry but that, like his YouTube posting, has been hurriedly deleted. However, his Facebook entry was soon after replaced by another, different entry in his name, but in English!

All these frenzied efforts to hide what Breivik really was (including a decision by the Judge at his first hearing today to hold the session in secret without any press or public observers) has been matched by an equally frenzied campaign by the mainstream media — especially the BBC here in Britain — to depict Breivik as a “far right” .... “racist” .... “extreme nationalist” .... “neo-Nazi”, etc.

In tandem with that media misrepresentation is a campaign to suggest that further legal steps must be taken and new laws contrived to restrict free speech for those who argue against the imposition on European nations of a multi-racial society. The multi-racial society in Britain has no democratic legitimacy because it was never put to and approved by the electorate in any general election. We were never asked. When we protested, the Westminster traitors adopted the repressive Race Relations Act which has been drafted for them and circulated by the Board of Deputies of British Jews under the title: The Group Libel Bill.

The writings pro-Zionist, pro-Israel, pro-Jewish Breivik indicates that he was aware of the contradictory state of affairs whereby much of Jewry in the Diaspora actively campaign in favour of mass coloured immigration into European heartlands yet in Israel treat the indigenous Palestinian-Arab population with a barbaric form of genocidal ethnic-cleansing not dissimilar to the treatment of the North American ‘Red Indians’ during the 19th century.

Breivik was clearly driven insane by Neo-Con propaganda and sought to replicate the kind of race-hatred inspired massacre which have been perpetrated by his Israeli heroes against the Palestinians on a regular basis since before “Israel” was even proclaimed. The fact that he should select as his victims nearly 100 of his fellow Norwegians, most of whom were teenagers, is evidence enough to demolish media lies that he was a “nationalist”.

Martin Webster.

=====================================================================================================================

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=230762
Jerusalem Post – Sunday 24th July 2011 – 18:37

'Norway attack suspect had anti-Muslim, pro-Israel views'
1,500 page manifesto credited to Breivik, accused of killing spree, lays out
worldview including extreme screed of Islamophobia, far-right Zionism.
by Ben Hartman

Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian who killed nearly 100 people in a combined terror attack Friday that included car bombings in Oslo and a shooting rampage at an island summer camp, held fiercely anti-Islamic and pro-Israel views, according to a 1,500 page manifesto he uploaded before his killing spree Friday.

In the 1,500-page tome, which mentions Israel 359 times and “Jews” 324 times, Breivik lays out his worldview, which includes an extreme, bizarre and rambling screed of Islamophobia, far-right Zionism and venomous attacks on Marxism and multi-culturalism.

In one passage, he lashes out at the Western media, which he accuses of unfairly focusing on the wrongdoing of Jews.

“Western Journalists again and again systematically ignore serious Muslim attacks and rather focus on the Jews,” he wrote.

Breivik also took a jab at leftwing Jews.

“Jews that support multi-culturalism today are as much of a threat to Israel and Zionism as they are to us,” he continued.

“So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marxists/multiculturalists.”

He also stated that Israel is the homeland for Jews largely due to the persecution suffered by Jews at the hands of Muslims, saying “if one acknowledges that Islam has always oppressed the Jews, one accepts that Israel was a necessary refuge for the Jews fleeing not only the European, but also the Islamic variety of anti- Judaism.”

The manifesto also serves as a call-to-arms, of sorts, in which Breivik lays out his reasons for launching the attack, focusing on what he described as the importance of nationalism and the growing scourge of Islam in Europe.

Entitled “2083 - A European Declaration of Independence,” the document states: “as we all know, the root of Europe’s problems is the lack of cultural self-confidence [nationalism] ...

this irrational fear of nationalistic doctrines is preventing us from stopping our own national/ cultural suicide as the Islamic colonization is increasing annually ...You cannot defeat Islamization or halt/reverse the Islamic colonization of Western Europe without first removing the political doctrines manifested through multiculturalism/ cultural Marxism.”

Breivik did, however, note that he doesn’t hate Muslims in any fashion and that “I have had several Muslim friends over the years, some of which I still respect.”

He also expressed his sympathy for the people of Serbia, and blasted Norway’s support of the 1999 NATO-bombing campaign on Serbia that stopped the expulsion of Kosovar Albanians by Serbian forces.

In addition, he expressed his disgust at his government’s awarding of “the Nobel peace prize to an Islamic terrorist [Arafat] and appeasers of Islam.”

Breivik sneers at those who would spare the lives of women, and in an especially chilling instruction writes, “once you decide to strike, it is better to kill too many than not enough, or you risk reducing the desired ideological impact of the strike. Explain what you have done [in an announcement distributed prior to operation] and make certain that everyone understands that we, the free peoples of Europe, are going to strike again and again.”

--------------------------------

RELATED:
Norway police say killer behind 1,500 page manifesto

=========================================================================================================================

From: Martin Webster
Date: Monday, 25 July 2011 21:51
To: The Editor - Daily Telegraph
Cc: Benedict Brogan
Subject: Breivik a Neo-Con

Sir:

Dr. Matthew Goodwin’s article “We can no longer ignore the threat from extreme Right-wing groups” (Daily Telegraph, Monday 25 July) was a concoction of allegations, not facts, which had evidently been cobbled together in a hurry.

The Norwegian alleged mass murderer Anders Breivik was not an “extreme Right-wing” character as that term is understood Britain. He is a species of exotic conservative known as a “Neo-Con”.

This was made plain in an article in yesterday’s Jerusalem Post ( http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=230762 ) which quotes him as saying: “Jews that support multi-culturalism today are as much of a threat to Israel and Zionism as they are to us .... So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers, against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marxists / multiculturalists.”

Breivik posted his thoughts quite frequently on the web site “document.no” ( ) which is run by Hans Rustad, who is Jewish. Rustad has published an extensive collection of Breivik’s posts. In one he attacks the Flemish nationalist party Vlaams Belang as being “racist” and “anti-gay”. In another he called the English Defence League — which has a Jewish Division complete with a rabbi — “an embarrassment” because it “lacks ideological training”.

Breivik was hostile to “multi-culturalism” but not to “multi-racialism”, which are quite distinct concepts. He did not oppose all non-European immigration into Norway and other European nations but only people who are Muslims.

In addition to all this, he was a keen Freemason. (The Telegraph’s photo of him in Masonic regalia cropped out his apron).

None of these ideological ingredients are included in the profile of authentic “far Right” (i.e. racial-nationalist) movements of the 20th and 21st centuries anywhere in Europe or north America.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Webster.

ISRAEL Attacks Norway

2011-07-24T22:46:00.000-07:00

Subject: Israel attacks Norway

Date of attack 7 / 22 / 11 They have their Masonic mind contol victim as a patsy. He was a member of Masonic lodge in Norway. Multiple shooters now reported by victims. 90 dead at youth camp, they had just held a pro- palestinian rally days earlier. Shooting unarmed children - nothing new , they do it in Gaza and WB all the time. Sick creatures

NORWAY + ISRAEL = Unfavourable Relations
Norway targeted by mossad for not doing exactly what they are told by bombastic yiddish-khazar masters who use freemason as patsy!

Unraveling Anders Behring Breivik

Zionists admit Breivik is Fjordman! Breivik, Rightist Mass Murderer, ‘Atlas Shrugged’ Contributor

Anders Behring Breivik: “Christian Fundamentalist”
Non-”Al-Qaeda” Ultra-Rightwing Fundamentalist White Boy Hitting Norwegian Liberals

91 people killed–The first thing he did was shoot the cutest girl he saw–Eyewitness to VG

Mossad Mauls Norway
Norway Bombing Has Stench Of Mossad All Over It!

Norwegian attack, three targets one lone nut? I doubt it.
UPDATE: Were Murdoch's MOSSAD Buddies Behind the Norway Blasts?
Wayne Madsen on the Oslo Attacks: Israel's Mossad Did It
"You will not bomb us into silence" - Norway
Israeli ‘Venegeance’ strikes Oslo
A puzzling day in Norway
News Corpse's The Sun calls it 'Al-Qaeda massacre' 'Norway's 9/11' right on the front page... Ha Ha
Musique's image take ...

Subject: motives for Oslo bombs

Yet another motive for Oslo bombs - Norway pension fund divested Israeli shares.
Oslo says EUR450bn oil fund has excluded two Israeli firms for ethical reasons.

Webmaster's Commentary:
Norway wanted to support a Palestinian state at the UN

Norway is pulling out of the Libya invasion.

Norway divested Israeli stock.

Strike three, and you're OUTTATHERE!!!!!!!

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/business/norway-government-run-pension-fund-drops-africa-israel-group-shares-1.309874

Horst Mahler’s “Bombshell” Nr. 2/05: War and War Aims

2011-07-20T00:07:00.001-07:00

Horst Mahler’s “Bombshell” Nr. 2/05:
War and War Aims

Translated by J M Damon
The original is posted on several websites including

The increasing political repression in Germany, combined with that country’s insistence on human rights in China and elewhere, has renewed interest in the case of Horst Mahler.
Following is a translation of one of his revelatory articles called Splitterbomben (bombshells) that moved the “Federal Republic” to impose a prison sentence of 13 years on the 74 year old dissident attorney.

“BOMBSHELL” 002/05
On the War and War Aims

The forensic starting point for examining the actions taken by the victorious powers must be the war aims behind their military overthrow of the Reich.
Any accurate recognition of Allied war aims must include identification of Germany’s principal enemy -- the enemy who is in position and has the power to make its aims the same as the aims of the proxy powers that pull its chestnuts out of the fire.

The Zionist Bernard Lazare, who was active in Paris around the end of the 19th Century, made the following revealing observation:
“If profound disgust with and animosity toward the Jews had existed in only one particular country or at one particular time, it would be easy to determine its cause.
However, the Jewish race has always been an object of hatred in every country where they have lived.
Since enemies of the Jews have included the most varied races, living in distant parts of the world far removed from one another, with widely divergent legal systems, customs, manners and motivations, it is clear that the general causes of anti Semitism must have had their origins within Judaism itself, rather than among those hostile to Judaism.”
[FOOTNOTE 1: “ANTISEMITISME, SON HISTOIRE ET SES CAUSES.” PARIS, 1934, VOL. 1, P. 42]

Every great Western thinker has made similar observations, although without understanding their true significance.
In 1793 the German philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte described the Jewish Problem quite clearly:
“A powerful, animosity-filled state within a state is spreading through nearly all the countries of Europe...
This state is constantly at war with all others, severely oppressing the general citizenry.
It is Judaism, the Judaic state.
The Jews must be granted human rights even though they deny them to others.
They are, after all, human beings; and the injustices that they commit do not give us the right to behave as they do.
In granting them the rights of citizens, however, I can see no alternative to cutting off all their heads and replacing them with heads that are purged of Jewish ideas...
In order to protect ourselves from them, I see no alternative to conquering their promised land and transporting them all to it.“
[FOOTNOTE 2: FICHTES WERKE, BERLIN 1845, VOL. VI, P. 149]

For Fichte, the danger did not lie merely in the fact that Jews form a state within the state.
The greatest danger lay in the fact that the Jewish state is founded on hatred of all other states.
[FOOTNOTE 3: FICHTE, IBID., “...I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS IS TRUE BECAUSE IT FORMS A SEPARATE AND CLOSELY BOUND STATE, BUT RATHER BECAUSE IT IS FOUNDED ON HATRED OF THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE.]

Fichte criticized tolerance as drivel, calling it “sugar sweet words of tolerance, human rights and citizens’ rights.”
For him it was enough to “make the hair of one’s neck stand on end.
[FOOTNOTE 4: FICHTE, IBID.]

Did Fichte, the author of REDEN AN DIE DEUTSCHE NATION (Speeches to the German Nation), anticipate the fundamental cause of strife in the 20th Century, often called the Jewish Century?
[FOOTNOTE 5: MARTIN GILBERT, “DAS JÜDISCHE JAHRHUNDERT,” BERTELSMAN PUBLISHING HOUSE, 2001.]

Perhaps we should pay attention to what the leaders of world Jewry have openly stated to the world.
In the founding manifesto of the first Jewish world congress, which was directed toward world domination, the participants expressed themselves quite openly.
The Manifesto for the international congress of Jews, written by Isaac Adolphe Crémieux for the ALLIANCE ISRAÉLITE UNIVERSELLE in Paris in 1860, reads as follows:
“The Alliance that we want to form is neither French nor English, Swiss nor German.
It is Jewish and it is universal.
Other peoples and races are divided into nationalities; we alone have not just co-citizens, but co-religionists.
The Jew will never become the friend of Christian or Muslim until the light of the Jewish faith, the only rational religion, shall illuminate everyone.
Dispersed among peoples who are hostile to our rights and interests, we shall remain Jewish above all else.
Our nationality is the religion of our fathers and we recognize no other nationality.
We are living in foreign lands and cannot trouble ourselves with the mutable ambitions of countries that are alien to us, while our own moral and material problems are at risk.
Jewish teachings must be made known to the whole world.
Although you may be dispersed all over the world, Israelites! You must always remember that you belong to the chosen people!
Jewish teachings must some day rule the whole world.
If you realize that the faith of your fathers is your only patriotism; if you believe that, notwithstanding the nationalities that your have embraced, we are an indivisible people; if you believe that Judaism alone represents religious and political Truth -- if you are convinced of all these things, O you Israelites throughout the world, then come and heed our call to bear witness of your agreement!
Our work is great and sacred.
Catholicism, our ancient enemy, is lying in the dust, mortally wounded by a blow to the head.
Every day the net that Israel casts over the earth is widening and spreading daily, and the momentous prophecies of our holy books are at last being realized.
The day is coming soon when Jerusalem will be the house of prayer for the united peoples of the world, when the banner of Judaism’s one god will wave above the most distant shores.
Let us make use of every opportunity.
Our power is immense and we must learn to use it.
What do we have to fear?
The day is not far off when all the riches of the earth will belong to the children of Israel alone!”
[Footnote 6: from “Les protocols de Butmi,” p. 158]

On the occasion of Crémieux’s election to the presidency of the Alliance in 1861, an article containing the following programmatic exposition appeared in the ISRAELI ARCHIVES for 1861 (Issue 25, pages 514 – 520):
“A messianic movement for modern time must dawn and develop and grow, a Jerusalem of the New Order, a sacred movement arising between East and West.
It must take the place of the dual empires of kaisers and popes.
The Israeli Alliance has barely begun to assert itself and already its influence is noted in distant locations.
It is not limited to just our religious observances, it pertains to all.
Our religion will penetrate every religion as it has penetrated every country.
Nationalities will disappear and other religions will die out, but Israel will always exist because our little nation is chosen by God."

Even before Hitler came to power Bernard Lacache, the president of the Jewish Ligue Internationale Contre L'antisémitisme (International League Against Anti-Semitism), declared: “Germany is our main enemy and we intend to conduct merciless war against it.”
[FOOTNOTE 7: FROM “LE DROIT DE VIVRE,” PARIS, 9 NOV 1932.]
The League did not hesitate in carrying out its intent.
On 24 March 1933, the Jewish World Jewish Congress declared war on the Reich and called for a world boycott of German industries.
[FOOTNOTE 8: “THE DAILY MAIL,” 24 MAR 1933, FRONT PAGE.]
In conjunction with the boycott of German goods, they also imposed a highly effective financial boycott.
In response to the worldwide Jewish boycott, there were in April numerous calls for a boycott of Jewish businesses in the REICH, of which the world is still reminded 80 years later.
However the Reich government soon squelched these German calls for counter-boycott.

On the occasion of his return to the USA from the International Boycott on German Goods of August 1933 in Den Haag, Samuel Untermeyer called for a holy war on Germany.
He declared on Radio Station WABC that world Jewry was in fact already engaged in a “holy war for Mankind:”
“We must wage war relentlessly...
When our ship sailed past the proud Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor, I gave a prayer of thanks that our beautiful Land of Freedom had so far eluded the curse that has descended on arrogant Germany, which has been transformed into a hell peopled by vicious wild beasts...
I have met many of these terrified refugees, and I want to tell them that what has penetrated Germany’s rigid censorship and false propaganda is only a part of the story of satanic torture, horror and persecution.
It is only part of the terrors, worse than death, in which these men, women and children live every day...
The Germans defy world opinion and they continue to defy and challenge it.
We Jews are the aristocrats of the world.
We are organizing world opinion to express itself in the only language that Germany understands.
It makes no difference whether you are Jew or non-Jew!
Whoever is not prepared to do his part in this holy war, whoever has not yet made up his mind, should do so right here, right now.”
[FOOTNOTE 9: THE NEW YORK TIMES, 7 AUG 1933,

Chaim Weizmann, who was president of the Jewish Agency (the Israeli shadow government) and later the first president of Israel, achieved a culmination of sorts with his speech to the World Zionist Conference in New York’s Biltmore Hotel on 9 May 1942:
"We are not denying and are not afraid to confess that this war is our war and that it is waged for the liberation of Jewry... Stronger than all fronts together is our front, that of Jewry. We are not only giving this war our financial support on which the entire war production is based, we are not only providing our full propaganda power which is the moral energy that keeps this war going. The guarantee of victory is predominantly based on weakening the enemy forces, on destroying them in their own country, within the resistance. And we are the Trojan horses in the enemy's fortress. Thousands of Jews living in Europe constitute the principal factor in the destruction of our enemy. There our front is a fact and it is the most priceless aid for victory."
[FOOTNOTE 10: THE NEW YORK TIMES, 10 NOV 1942 AND 12 DEC 1942.]

Thus Chaim Weizmann corroborates the above quoted observation made by Fichte in 1793, in which he warned his contemporaries: “...The Jews, who are separate and distinct from you, are citizens of a state that is more powerful and secure than all your states...
If you grant them the rights of citizens in your states, they will trample your other citizens under foot.”
[FOOTNOTE 11: FICHTE, IBID., P. 150]

International law has still not taken cognizance of the International Jew so masterfully depicted by Henry Ford, or of the incessant war waged by ALLJUDA (international Jewry) against every nation on earth.
The strategic guidelines for the Jewish conquest of the world were set down in the late 19th Century in the PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION, which some say is a falsification.

The protocol of the Seventh Assemblage is particularly noteworthy:
“We must bring about ferment, strife and enmity in every country of Europe, whose connections will soon spread it to all the world...
In case a state dares oppose us, we must be in a position to have a neighboring state declare war on the opposing state...
In case several neighboring states should also venture to collectively stand together against us, then we must incite universal war...
In case it should come to a general uprising of all the European nations against us, the guns of America, China or Japan shall respond in our name...”
[FOOTNOTE 12: THE PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION. TEXT AND COMMENTARY, WALLSTEIN PUBLISHERS, 2ND EDITON, GÖTTINGEN 2001, ISBN 3-89244-191-X, P. 53]

How many jurists employed by the “Federal Republic of Germany” are familiar with the principal war aim on which the USA and Soviet Union agreed as the basis of their alliance against the REICH?
And how many jurists know who proposed this Allied war aim?

Wendell Willkie, Special Emissary for US President Franklin Roosevelt, wrote about his negotiations with Josef Stalin, who insisted that War Aim Number One should be the “abolition of racial exclusiveness.”
[FOOTNOTE 13: W.L. WILLKIE, “ONE WORLD.” SIMON & SCHUSTER, N.Y. 1943. QUOTED IN FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE ZEITUNG, 14 FEB 1992]
In his notations on the talks between Roosevelt and Stalin during the Teheran Conference in November and December 1943, we find the following entry:
“...The conversation then turned to the question of the intended treatment of Nazi Germany...
The President said that in his opinion, it was very important that the concept of the REICH not be allowed to remain in German consciousness, and that this word should be stricken from the German language.
Marshall Stalin replied that merely eliminating the word is not enough.
The REICH itself must be demolished so that it can never again plunge the world into war.
He said that the victors would be failing in their duty if they did not retain in their hands every strategic position necessary to squelch any renewed flareup of German militarism.”
[FOOTNOTE 14: FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT PAPERS, ROOSEVELT.LIBRARY@NARA.GOV, 001 845-229-8114]
In a memorandum to the Secretary of State dated 6 April 1945, Roosevelt reiterates his intention of eliminating the word “Reich” from the German vocabulary.
[FOOTNOTE 15: IBID.]

This is significant!
Here Roosevelt and Stalin are discussing measures not only for defeating the German armed forces, but for the utter annihilation of the Reich.
Such an annihilation could only be carried out against a defenseless nation, after the military defeat of its armed forces.
These are plans for a completely new way of conducting warfare.
These plans postulate unified governance by the combined global power of money and media, administered through the victorious nations.
This new power is indeed a METAPOWER surpassing all nations.
Fichte, we recall, had conceived of it as “a state that is more powerful and more firmly established than all the nations.”

In his examination of the Jewish problem, the automobile king Henry Ford calls this metapower “THE INTERNATIONAL JEW” and makes the following observations:
The Germans have given the appellation “ALLJUDA” to this Jewish state-within-states.
The mediums through which it exercises power are capitalism and the press, or money and propaganda.
Among the states, ALLJUDA alone has created a global economy; all the others exercise dominion over national economies only.

ALLJUDA’s principal venue for exercising power is actually journalism.
The technical, scientific and literary accomplishments of modern Judaism are exclusively journalistic in nature, built on the amazing Jewish ability to take over the ideas of others.
Capital and journalism merge in the press, which becomes the principal medium for Jewish domination
.
The administration of this all-Jewish state is amazingly organized.
Paris was originally its primary seat but has now fallen to third position.
Before the War (World War I) London was its primary and New York its secondary capital,
It remains to be seen whether New York will overtake London -- the tide is moving toward America.

Since ALLJUDA is not in a position to maintain standing land and naval forces, other states have to provide this service.
Its fleet is the British navy, which protects the global Jewish economy from all attack, insofar as it depends on sea transport.
In return, Alljuda guarantees Britain’s uncontested political and dominance.
Alljuda brought Palestine under the British sceptre.
Wherever there was an ALLJUDA land power, regardless of what uniform it might wear, it worked hand in hand with British sea power.
ALLJUDA is happy to leave administration of the various countries and continents to native governments; it demands nothing but control.
ALLJUDA has no objection whatsoever to a permanent division of the Jewish world into nations.
They themselves, the Jews, will never be absorbed in another nation.
They are a people separate and distinct -- they have always been so and will forever remain so.
The only time ALLJUDA comes into conflict with a client country is when that country makes it impossible for the Jews to bring its products and the finances under their influence.
ALLJUDA can make war and ALLJUDA can make peace; in extreme cases it can let anarchy loose and then re-impose order.

ALLJUDA directs mankind’s nerves and sinews in whatever way best advances its plans and interests.
Since ALLJUDA has world news under its command, it can always prepare the opinion of mankind for its next venture.
The greatest danger is perhaps the manner in which news is manufactured and the mood of entire peoples manipulated to serve a specific purpose.
But if someone uncovers the machinations of mighty ALLJUDA and points to its hand in the game, then we hear screams of “Incitement!” which is immediately echoed by the entire world press.
The real cause of persecution -- namely the repression of the world’s peoples by Jewish money schemes -- can never be made public.

ALLJUDA’S vice regents are found in London and New York.
After it finished exploiting Germany it went about bringing other nations under its yoke as well.
It already possessed Britain.
It is now attempting to yoke Russia, but its prospects there seem unfavorable.
On account of their limitless patience with all races, the United States offer a very promising field of endeavor.
The stage on which his plots play out may change, but the Jew remains unchanged through the centuries.
[FOOTNOTE 16: HENRY FORD, “THE INTERNATIONAL JEW,” 33RD EDITION, HAMMER PUBLISHING HOUSE, LEIPZIG, 1937, PP. 44-]

Another thing that never changes is the special relationship of the Jewish cult-community to its god, who announces in Chapter 34 of Isaiah:

34:1 Come near, ye nations, to hear; and hearken, ye people: let the earth hear, and all that is therein; the world, and all things that come forth of it.

34:2 For the indignation of the LORD is upon all heathen nations, and his fury upon all their armies: he hath utterly destroyed them, he hath delivered them to the slaughter.

34:3 Their slain also shall be cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their carcases, and the mountains shall be melted with their blood.

We must keep in mind the dimensions of this new kind of war, which overshadowed the entire 20th Century with its countless millions of fallen soldiers and even more murdered civilians.
We have to pay particular attention to the fact that we Germans, the principal victims, are depicted as perpetrators in this slaughter of nations.
We have been forced to open our treasury to the real perpetrators and endure the cultural and intellectual genocide that has been forced upon us.

The world is still struggling with the Jewish problem.
After all that has happened, who can doubt its extent?
The only thing that is new is that we are no longer allowed to discuss it.
Problems that cannot be discussed cannot be solved – at least not in a rational manner.
And serious problems that are not solved grow like malignant tumors that inevitably kill the effected organism.

A major part of our Jewish problem is that they consider themselves our rightful masters, which is clear from their appointed spokesmen.
Let us consider the teachings of Isaiah, who speaks to the people of Israel on this topic in the 60th Chapter of the Book of Isaiah (we can thank Luther for this insight):

60:10 And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee: for in my wrath I smote thee, but in my favour have I had mercy on thee.

60:11 Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought.

60:12 For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.

60:13 The glory of Lebanon shall come unto thee, the fir tree, the pine tree, and the box together, to beautify the place of my sanctuary; and I will make the place of my feet glorious.

60:14 The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee; The city of the LORD, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel.

60:15 Whereas thou has been forsaken and hated, so that no man went through thee, I will make thee an eternal excellency, a joy of many generations.

60:16 Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.

60:17 For brass I will bring gold, and for iron I will bring silver, and for wood brass, and for stones iron: I will also make thy officers peace, and thine exactors righteousness.

So now we know what Yahweh has in store for us!
Laws that prohibit dealing with life-threatening problems cannot be just laws, because Justice is the commonwealth’s will to survive.
We can live free only under just and righteous laws since only they release our creative powers.
Whoever demands that a nation passively endure an invasive enemy, and makes it unlawful even to acknowledge the presence of this enemy, is himself an enemy of the people and must be driven from its midst.

Kleinmachnow am 30. August 2005

[END]

****************

The translator is a “Germanophilic Germanist” who attempts to make noteworthy German articles accessible to Germanophiles who do not read German.

Here's freedom to him who would speak,
Here's freedom to him who would write;
For there's none ever feared that the truth should be heard,
Save him whom the truth would indict!

ROBERT BURNS (1759–96)

******************************************************

Playtime over for the West

2011-07-18T00:15:00.001-07:00

We're All Greeks Now
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Friday - July 15, 2011

Departing for New Hampshire in November 2010, Sen. Judd Gregg, the fiscal conservative President Obama wanted in his Cabinet, blurted an inconvenient truth: "This nation is on a course where if we don't do something about it, get ... fiscal policy (under control), we're Greece."

The remark was regarded as hyperbole. But Gregg had a point. For though Greece, measured by the size of her economy, is only 2 to 3 percent of the EU or the U.S. economy, she is a microcosm of the West.

Consider the demography.
According to the most recent revision of the U.N.'s "World Population Prospects," Greece in 2010 had 11.2 million people.
More than 24 percent were 60 or above, more than 18 percent 65 or older. Three percent were 80 or above. And, every year, for every nine Greeks who are born, 10 Greeks die.
Greece is slowly passing away.
Fast forward to 2050.
Greece's population will have fallen by 300,000 to 10.8 million. The median age will have risen by eight years to 49.5. Half the population will be 50 or older. More critically, the share of Greece's population 60 or older will be 37.4 percent, with 31.3 percent over 65. One in nine Greeks will be over 80.
If Athens is breaking under the weight of early retirement and pensions for seniors today, her situation will be horrendous by mid-century.
Where, in 2010, there were four Greeks under 60 for every Greek over 60, by 2050, there will only be 1.7 Greeks under 60 for every Greek over 60.
Conclusion: The retirement age must rise, and pension benefits fall, or Greece collapses.

What of the possibility of a new baby boom? Not likely, given that the fertility rate in Greece has been below replacement levels for three decades and is today only two-thirds of that needed to replace the present population. Indeed, by 2050, the fertility rate of Greek women will have been below zero population growth for 80 years. One wonders: How can the U.N. estimate that Greece's population will fall only 3 percent by then? Is the U.N. assuming mass immigration from the Muslim world?

But what does Greece have to do with the rest of Europe, or with us?
Only this. The median age of all of Europe is rising, and the demographic numbers for Greece look positively rosy alongside those of the east, where population declines in the tens of millions are projected for Russia and Ukraine. And outside Iceland and Albania, not one nation of Europe has a fertility rate sufficient to maintain its population. Those that are projected to grow, like Britain, have to be relying on Third World immigrants and their higher birth rate.

But while this may maintain an existing population size, immigrants from the Maghreb, Middle East, Caribbean, Latin America and South Asia, on average, lack the language, technical skills and educational levels of native-born Europeans.

The same is true in the U.S., where peoples of European descent are expected to drop to half the population by 2041. Hispanics will grow from 15 percent to near 30 percent of the U.S. population, and their absolute numbers from 50 million to 135 million by 2050. Yet, again, Hispanics and children of Hispanic immigrants have not, as of yet, reached close to parity in educational achievement with Americans of East Asian or European ancestry. People equate today's immigration with the immigration of 1890-1920. But another major difference is this: We erected a Great Society over 50 years that did not exist in 1920.

In Washington in the 1950s, a city of 800,000, half black and half white, food stamps had not been invented. Families fed themselves. Today, in a District of Columbia of 600,000, one in five are on food stamps. Nationally, a program that did not exist in 1964 feeds one in seven Americans, 44 million people, at a cost of $77 billion a year. And that is but a small fraction of our new Great Society.

We are entering a new "age of austerity," said British Prime Minister David Cameron in 2009.

The halcyon days are over. Government payrolls, as is happening from California to New York to Washington, D.C., will have to be slashed. Pension and health care benefits, not only for seniors, will have to be reduced. Retirement ages will have to be raised. From food stamps to foreign aid, programs are going to be capped and cut. The left believes it can get the money from the wealthy. But the top 1 percent of Americans in income already carry 40 percent of the federal income tax load, while the bottom 50 percent of wage-earners ride free. This, too, will have to end. We are either going to man up and radically reduce government at all levels in the United States, or the bond markets are going to do it for us, as they are doing it today for Greece, Ireland and Portugal.
We're all Greeks now.
SOURCE: http://buchanan.org/blog/were-all-greeks-now-4802

Why war in Afghanistan?

2011-07-11T00:58:00.000-07:00

Multi-Billion-Dollar Terrorists and the Disappearing Middle Class

James Petras

The US government (White House and Congress) spends $10 billion dollars a month, or $120 billion a year, to fight an estimated “50 -75 ‘Al Qaeda types’ in Afghanistan”, according to the CIA and quoted in the Financial Times of London (6/25 -26/11, p. 5). During the past 30 months of the Obama presidency, Washington has spent $300 billion dollars in Afghanistan, which adds up to $4 billion dollars for each alleged ‘Al Queda type’. If we multiply this by the two dozen or so sites and countries where the White House claims ‘Al Qaeda’ terrorists have been spotted, we begin to understand why the US budget deficit has grown astronomically to over $1.6 trillion for the current fiscal year.

During Obama’s Presidency, Social Security’s cost-of-living adjustment has been frozen, resulting in a net decrease of over 8 percent, which is exactly the amount spent chasing just 5 dozen ‘Al Qaeda terrorists’ in the mountains bordering Pakistan.

It is absurd to believe that the Pentagon and White House would spend $10 billion a month just to hunt down a handful of terrorists ensconced in the mountains of Afghanistan. So what is the war in Afghanistan about? The answer one most frequently reads and hears is that the war is really against the Taliban, a mass-based Islamic nationalist guerrilla movement with tens of thousands of activists. The Taliban, however, have never engaged in any terrorist act against the territorial United States or its overseas presence. The Taliban have always maintained their fight was for the expulsion of foreign forces occupying Afghanistan. Hence the Taliban is not part of any “international terrorist network”. If the US war in Afghanistan is not about defeating terrorism, then why the massive expenditure of funds and manpower for over a decade?

Several hypotheses come to mind:

The first is the geopolitics of Afghanistan: The US is actively establishing forward military bases, surrounding and bordering on China.

Secondly, US bases in Afghanistan serve as launching pads to foment “dissident separatist” armed ethnic conflicts and apply the tactics of ‘divide and conquer’ against Iran, China, Russia and Central Asian republics.

Thirdly, Washington’s launch of the Afghan war (2001) and the easy initial conquest encouraged the Pentagon to believe that a low cost, easy military victory was at hand, one that could enhance the image of the US as an invincible power, capable of imposing its rule anywhere in the world, unlike the disastrous experience of the USSR.

Fourthly, the early success of the Afghan war was seen as a prelude to the launching of a sequence of successful wars, first against Iraq and to be followed by Iran, Syria and beyond. These would serve the triple purpose of enhancing Israeli regional power, controlling strategic oil resources and enlarging the arc of US military bases from South and Central Asia, through the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean.

The strategic policies, formulated by the militarists and Zionists in the Bush and Obama Administrations, assumed that guns, money, force and bribes could build stable satellite states firmly within the orbit of the post-Soviet US empire. Afghanistan was seen as an easy first conquest the initial step to sequential wars. Each victory, it was assumed would undermine domestic and allied (European) opposition. The initial costs of imperial war, the Neo-Cons claimed, would be paid for by wealth extracted from the conquered countries, especially from the oil producing regions.

The rapid US defeat of the Taliban government confirmed the belief of the military strategists that “backward”, lightly armed Islamic peoples were no match up for the US powerhouse and its astute leaders.

Wrong Assumptions, Mistaken Strategies: The Trillion Dollar Disaster

Every assumption, formulated by these civilian strategists and their military counterparts, has been proven wrong. Al Qaeda was and is a marginal adversary; the real force capable of sustaining a prolonged peoples wars against an imperial occupier, inflicting heavy casualties, undermining any local puppet regime and accumulating mass support is the Taliban and related nationalist resistance movements. Israeli-influenced US think-tanks, experts and advisers who portrayed the Islamic adversaries as inept, ineffective and cowardly, totally misread the Afghan resistance. Blinded by ideological antipathy, these high-ranking advisers and White House/Pentagon civilian-office holders failed to recognize the tactical and strategic, political and military acumen of the top and middle-level Islamist nationalist leaders and their tremendous reserve of mass support in neighboring Pakistan and beyond.

The Obama White House, heavily dependent on Islamophobic pro-Israel experts, further isolated the US troops and alienated the Afghan population by tripling the number of troops, further establishing the credentials of the Taliban as the authentic alternative to a foreign occupation.

As for the neo-conservative pipe dreams of successful sequential wars, cooked up by the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, Feith, Abrams, Libby et al, to eliminate Israel’s adversaries and turn the Persian Gulf into a Hebrew lake, the prolonged wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan has, in fact, strengthened Iran’s regional influence, turned the entire Pakistani people against the US and strengthened mass movements against US clients throughout the Middle East.

Sequential imperial defeats have resulted in a massive hemorrhage of the US treasury, rather than the promised flood of oil wealth from tributary clients. According to a recent scholarly study, the military cost of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan have exceeded $3.2 trillion dollars (“The Costs of War Since 2001”, Eisenhower Study Group, June 2011) and is growing at over ten billion a month. Meanwhile the Taliban “tightens (its) psychological grip” on Afghanistan (FT 6/30/2011, p. 8). According to the latest reports even the most guarded 5-star hotel in the center of Kabul, the Intercontinental, was vulnerable to a sustained assault and take over by militants, because “high security Afghan forces” are infiltrated and the Taliban operate everywhere, having established “shadow” governments in most cities, towns and villages (FT 6/30/11 p.8).

Imperial Decline, Empty Treasury and the Specter of a Smash-Up

The crumbling empire has depleted the US treasury. As the Congress and White House fight over raising the debt ceiling, the cost of war aggressively erodes any possibility of maintaining stable living standards for the American middle and working classes and heightens growing inequalities between the top 1% and the rest of the American people. Imperial wars are based on the pillage of the US treasury. The imperial state has, via extraordinary tax exemptions, concentrated wealth in the hands of the super-rich while the middle and working classes have been pushed downward, as only low paid jobs are available.

In 1974, the top 1% of US individuals accounted for 8% of total national income but as of 2008 they earned 18% of national income. And most of this 18% is concentrated in the hands of a tiny super-rich 1% of that 1%, or 0.01% of the American population, (FT 6/28/11, p. 4 and 6/30/11, p. 6). While the super-rich plunder the treasury and intensify the exploitation of labor, the number of middle income jobs is plunging: From 1993 to 2006, over 7% of middle income jobs disappeared (FT 6/30/11, p. 4). While inequalities may be rising throughout the world, the US now has the greatest inequalities among all the leading capitalist countries.

The burden of sustaining a declining empire, with its the monstrous growth in military spending, has fallen disproportionately on middle and working class taxpayers and wage earners. The military and financial elites’ pillage of the economy and treasury has set in motion a steep decline in living standards, income and job opportunities. Between 1970 -2009, while gross domestic product more than doubled, US median pay stagnated in real terms (FT 7/28/11, p. 4). If we factor in the added fixed costs of pensions, health and education, real income for wage and salaried workers, especially since the 1990’s, has been declining sharply.

Even greater blows are to come in the second half 2011: As the Obama White House expands its imperial interventions in Pakistan, Libya and Yemen, increasing military and police-state spending, Obama is set to reach budgetary agreements with the far right Republicans, which will savage government health care programs, like MEDICARE and MEDICAID, as well as Social Security, the national retirement program. Prolonged wars have pushed the budget to the breaking point, while the deficit undermines any capacity to revive the economy as it heads toward a ‘repeat recession’.

The entire political establishment is bizarrely oblivious to the fact that their multi-hundred- billion-dollar pursuit of an estimated 50-75 phantom Al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan has hastened the disappearance of middle income jobs in the US.

The entire political spectrum has turned decisively to the Right and the Far-Right. The debate between Democrats and Republicans is over whether to slash four trillion or more from the last remnants of our country’s social programs.

The Democrats and the Far-Right are united as they pursue multiple wars while currying favor and funds from upper 0.01% super-rich, financial and real estate moguls whose wealth has grown so dramatically during the crisis!

Conclusion

But there is a deep and quiet discomfort within the leading circles of the Obama regime: The “best and brightest” among his top officials are scampering to jump ship before the coming deluge: the Economic Guru Larry Summers, Rahm Emmanuel, Stuart Levey, Peter Orzag, Bob Gates, Tim Geithner and others, responsible for the disastrous wars, economic catastrophes, the gross concentration of wealth and the savaging of our living standards, have walked out or have announced their ‘retirement’, leaving it to the smiling con-men - President Obama and Vice-President ‘Joe’ Biden - and their ‘last and clueless loyalists’ to take the blame when the economy tanks and our social programs are wiped out. How else can we explain their less-than-courageous departures (to ‘spend more time with the family’) in the face of such a deepening crisis? The hasty retreat of these top officials is motivated by their desire to avoid political responsibility and to escape history’s indictment for their role in the impending economic debacle. They are eager to hide from a future judgment over which policy makers and leaders and what policies led to the destruction of the American middle and working classes with their good jobs, stable pensions, Social Security, decent health care and respected place in the world.

The Economic Consequences of theTrans-Atlantic Slave Trade

2011-06-06T00:32:00.001-07:00

The Economic Consequences of theTrans-Atlantic Slave Trade

By Priyantha Hettige

Eric Williams, who became Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago in the Caribbean, wrote his book “Capitalism and Slavery,” in which he has proposed that the “super-profits” from the slave trade fired up the Industrial Revolution in Protestant Northern European countries.

The victors write the history books, so the saying goes. It can be assumed that much of the discussion and analysis given below is not “approved official history”: it is not in the sanitized “History” books; real history has gone astray, one must assume, for Biblical-prejudicial reasons. Here then, is a reasoned discussion using common knowledge, relevant events and associated dates to show the reader that the Industrial Revolution in Northern Europe was indeed, fuelled by the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.

Protestantism and the Safe Havens for Capital

Starting after 1502CE., the date of the first trans-shipment of slaves to the Americas, the building of specialized ships for the Atlantic slave trade would have slowly increased both in carrying capacity and in numbers of ships built; mostly small Spanish or Portuguese ships. This would be no more than the continuation of an existing Catholic slave trade in Pagans, Heathens, Heretics and Apostates.

Certain favourable conditions were needed for the start of the MASSIVE Trans-Atlantic Slave trade to occur. The first and foremost condition was that those few individuals capable of financing, directing and controlling this trade, most of whom were Jews, required to be at liberty to function effectively; safety from persecution was essential, and confidence that their wealth was safe from confiscation, too.

When the Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492, they dispersed to Portugal, Italy and Morocco: they migrated, smuggling their gold with them, to wherever they could feel safe and prosper, too. Because Catholicism was hostile to the Jewish heresy (‘error has no rights’) almost no-where in Europe was safe for Jews.

But Protestantism was also on the move: the Protestant movement was gaining strength and after some decades, whole countries were able to break away from Rome. The Protestant movement against this vile Catholicism was soon to provide such a safe haven for Jews in Northern Europe in Protestant Holland, Switzerland, England and Germany. They fulfilled those safety and confidence requirements and even today they remain noted centres of banking.

The historical build-up to the massive Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade

By the time the great Spanish Armada was repulsed in 1588 around the seas of Britain, the native populations of the Americas, tens of millions, would have been decimated. None remained! The news of this catastrophe would have reverberated around the world. All this notwithstanding, the call for more labour, and more robust labour at that, by the Portuguese and Spanish Conquistadors would have been made, loud and clear.

It was then, after 1588, that rich Jews would have had the confidence to settle in Britain and other Protestant countries and start financing the slave trade. Poorer Jews would see opportunities working in the Slave Trade as Ship’s crew, or onshore as agents, suppliers, auctioneers, etc., in the various Slave trading posts around the Caribbean and Atlantic coasts, i.e. they were mobile, reliable, spoke the languages, and willing to work hard due to their unhappy personal history.

(Already, in the twelfth century, Jewish holy prophet Moses Maimonides in his book: “A Guide to the Perplexed,” had confirmed the unholy story of the curse on Ham extending to all the Negros of Africa. Jews could despise them and enslave them with a free conscience!)

But around 1623 things really changed with the Chartering of the Dutch West India Company. Already other companies were active and competing for business; but now, ship building and Slaving activity accelerated. Huge, immense amounts of money were needed to be raised for the building and equipping of slave ships; and these ships needed certain specialized equipment not easily found or manufactured. Only very rich people, their organizations, or Central Banks could raise these vast amounts of wealth.

Supplying Ships, Buildings and Ironwork for the Trade

The slave trade in total needed much specialized equipment, ships and buildings. Must of the materials needed, had to be found from these same favourable Protestant countries. General ship’s fittings in metalwork such as brass, bronze, iron nails, etc., and hardwoods was well known and available. But each of the three stages of the trans-shipment: Africa; the slave ships; and the final destination needed tons and tons of specialist ironware in the shape of chains and restraints. It was a tight market and supplies of chain and restrains were in great demand, prices soared. People invested in mining iron ore and coal.

Looking at a diagram of how slaves were anchored down on the decks, the numbers can be counted as around 800 to 1000 people on board each ship. At its peak activity the number of ships may have been around 3,000 ships of varying sizes. For example, the Dutch East India Company, alone, had 3,400 ships plying the Spice routes. It is suggested that Slave ships could only survive six Atlantic crossings on average.

Estimates of how many slaves were captured or bought by the traders vary widely, but a considered guess might put the numbers as about 75 million people uprooted and procured for slavery, about 53,000,000 actually boarded ship, about 17 million perished at sea, and 20,000,000 survived into the longer term. These are considered rough approximations only.

The Industrial Revolution in Manufacturing:

The actual firing up and impetus to industrial manufacturing came mostly from the need for restraining slaves. This was done in the early stages by the use of iron – both cast iron and wrought iron in its various shapes and guises. The organizers and managers needed great quantities of specialist equipment: neck collars, arm restraints, leg restraints, iron balls and chains, whole body restraints, even tongue clamps, and leg clamps and locks, deck anchors and posts, and miles and miles of wrought iron chain. These were needed for both on board ship use and on land use.

The manufacture of this vast amount of ironware required considerable specialist expertise, too.

These Northern European countries had a millennium of years of experience in the field of manufacturing personal restraints from iron. For example, there was experience in the manufacture of ceiling hooks, iron Gibbet cages and support brackets, neck collars with spikes pointing inwards or outwards, arm and wrist restraints and even the infamous “Our Lady, the Iron Mary” figure with its grotesque face and hinged doors with spikes of sharp iron to spike her victim.

These had been manufactured to the requirements of the Catholic Inquisition, but after the Protestant movement this institution was not functioning resulting in loss of employment for iron-smithers in those countries. The demand for restraints for the slave trade filled that much-felt need for work by a thousand-fold.

In fact, the demand for this ironware was so huge that the legacy can be seen in the British telephone directory where hundreds of pages, the list of the name ‘smith’ is by far, the largest, longest of all the lists of names.

Iron-smithing or black-smithing became a major industry located around wherever iron ore and coal were to be found in close proximity. A part of the English West Midlands is known as the “Black country” because of this iron implements and chain making. And then canals had to be built for transporting these heavy goods. (But money for digging out and building canals was there, in slavery - not in pottery!)

The demand from the South American countries for better quality, reliable restraints, etc., implements for working the land and so on, required better metals. Simple iron had to be made more reliable, stronger. This was done by removing more of the carbon content by pumping air through the melt. In this way the first steps were taken on the road to modern metallurgy. This also made it imperative to have better cutting tools and machinery to cut and shape this stronger material.

Demand for other manufactured goods, such as cloth, would grow with time, inspiring cloth weaving machinery, so starting a self feeding spiral of demand for ironware, heavy engineering goods and manufactured goods – inspiring inventors and the building of factories (with slave-like working conditions!). Some people got very rich! (Turning sail cloth to jeans became a fashion industry.)

All these orders for restraints, chains, tools and materials, etc., were placed in Protestant countries; those that tolerated and gave security to Jews, and who participated in this business themselves and facilitated the necessary financial transactions. Protestant Northern Europe prospered; the Catholic South never recovered as a direct result of its own creeds and prejudices, but it did build its own slave ships and was active in its own trading of slaves to its new colonies – the Catholic Church!

Time line of the Age

1480 – 1495CE. Torquemada (Catholic Inquisitor – Judge)

Active Inquisitor : 1480 – 1495CE. *He had 10,220 people, Witches burned alive. (mostly old and toothless, poverty stricken and demented, women, hags) *He had 97,371 heretics hanged. *He disposed of a total of 114,000 real people.

1492CE : The expelling of Jews from Spain.

1492CE : Columbus

Columbus sets sail and discovers America for Europe 1492CE. The first African slaves shipped in 1502 to the Caribbean area due to the extermination of the harmless local tribes people, e.g. Taino, living around the islands of the Caribbean.

1509 to 1547CE : King Henry VIII

He becomes head of the English (Protestant) Church in 1531 He was Excommunicated around 1533 by Pope Clement. He executed those Catholics in opposition to his rule. (about 10,000 it is said.)

He died 1547CE

1517CE : Martin Luther

Martin Luther nails his 95 “Questions” to the door of Wittenberg Church in 1517. (Luther justified serfdom and slavery – logically)

1536- 1539CE : “Reform of the Monasteries”

In the Reforms, Inquisitional torture was to be reduced but it was never eliminated altogether. (The death-sentence by imprisoning, alive, people in Gibbet-Cages was kept going until people demanded criminals be hanged before caging in the 18th. century.)

1539CE: THE JESUITS

The Jesuit Organization was founded in 1539 by Ignacio Loyola to counter-balance the Protestant Heresy. (- by cunning subterfuges)

1553 to 1558CE : Catholic ‘Bloody’ Queen Mary

Mary was the eldest daughter of Henry VIII. She reigned from 1553 to 1558. Her first act was to execute the Protestant sixteen year old and well educated, Lady Jane Grey, who had also contested for the throne, and executed her husband, too. Her father was executed two days later in 1554CE. But Mary earned her ‘bloody’ nickname by burning alive 300 prominent supporters of her father and ordering a further c.10,000 other Tudor Protestants to be be-headed. The details of the burnings are well documented by John Foxe. The point has to be made that Henry executed many Catholics as they were against his policies and threatened rebellion. It is clear that, in contrast, Mary burned prominent Tudor Protestant heretics to the approval of the Pope, and she executed thousands of simple Protestants as a measure to even the record. Mary! The Red Queen of Hearts!

She married Protestant Britain’s greatest enemy, Prince Phillip II of Spain. Now, these days, Catholics say she is misunderstood – the first step in an effort to whitewash her – the first step on the road to Sainthood!

1558 to 1603CE : Queen Elizabeth I

Elizabeth followed her elder sister, Mary, on the Throne and was queen from 1558 to her death in 1603. She followed very modest, Protestant policies.

She was excommunicated and dethroned by the Papal Bull of 1570.

The Great Armada sent to capture Elizabeth was repulsed in 1588.

She ushered in a most welcome period of stability and prosperity and happiness.

1602CE : Dutch East India Company

The Dutch East India Company was founded in 1602 primarily for trade and spices from the East.

1618CE : 30 YEARS WAR Starts

The 30 years War starts in Northern Europe – 18m dead in the battle to free themselves from Catholicism.

1621CE : Dutch West India Company

Dutch West India Company was Chartered in 1621. This Charter gave it the powers of a sovereign state almost. It is said that up to 50% of the capital was owned by Jews. It started operating in 1623 in the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

At first privateering (buccaneering) was the most profitable activity. This became the biggest and most powerful shipping company and dominated the Slave trade. The Company’s greatest success was the seizure of the Spanish Silver fleet. The Company finally reverted to the Dutch Republic in 1st. Jan. 1792.

1808 : French General La Salle

After Napoleon’s invasion of Catholic Spain, La Salle torched (burned) the Spanish village of Torquemada.

Prominent Paedophile Lord Janner of Moleicester organises taxpayers to refurb concentration camps

2011-05-27T01:51:00.000-07:00

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13565629

26 May 2011 Last updated at 16:27
Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp to get UK funding

The government is set to contribute £2.1m towards the preservation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp in Poland, it has been announced.

The joint contribution will mainly be provided by the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Foreign Office.
The Auschwitz-Birkenau Foundation will be funded over the next three years.
More than a million people were murdered by the Nazis at the Auschwitz concentration camp during World War II.
The concentration camp was the largest site for the mass murder of Jews.
In recent years a number of countries have contributed to the fund to maintain the main concentration camp, Auschwitz, and its nearby satellite camp of Birkenau.
Auschwitz and Birkenau were operated by Nazi Germany in occupied Poland during World War II, and opened as a museum in 1947.
'Destructive force'
Communities Secretary Eric Pickles said the camp, which stands as an enduring symbol of the Holocaust, was an importance place of remembrance which served to educate people about the horrors of the Holocaust.
Speaking at the Jewish Museum in London, he said: "It is our collective responsibility to ensure that Auschwitz-Birkenau stands as a perpetual reminder of the pain and destructive force of hate.
"We must ensure that the lessons from the Holocaust are taught today and to future generations."
And Foreign Secretary William Hague said Auschwitz-Birkenau underlined "the horrific consequences of intolerance".
'Racism and prejudice'
Mr Hague said he was "proud that the UK is able to play a part in commemorating the millions of victims who died there" and was helping to ensure the camp's preservation to educate future generations on "the evils of that period in history".
And Lord Greville Janner of Moleicester, who chairs the Holocaust Educational Trust, said the financial support sends a clear message that the camp should be maintained for future generations.
He said: "Through our Lessons from Auschwitz Project, the Holocaust Educational Trust gives over 3,000 British students each year the opportunity to visit Auschwitz-Birkenau.
"This announcement will ensure that when young people visit Auschwitz, they will see for themselves what can happen when racism and prejudice is allowed to go unchecked."