The Expulsion and Extermination of Eastern European Germans: An Overview

More of Senator Homer Capehart’s remarks to the US Senate on February 5, 1946:

“Since the end of the war about 3,000,000 people, mostly women and children and over-aged men, have been killed in Eastern Germany and south-eastern Europe; about 15,000,000 people have been deported or had to flee their homesteads and are on the road. About 25% of these people, over 3,000,000 have perished. About 4,000,000 men and women have been deported to Eastern Europe as slaves. It seems that the elimination of the German population of Eastern Europe – at least 15,000,000 people – was planned in accordance with decisions made at Yalta. Churchill had said to Mikolakczyk when the latter protested during the negotiations to Moscow against forcing Poland to incorporate eastern Germany; ‘Don’t mind the five or more million Germans. Stalin will see to them. You will have no trouble with them; they will cease to exist.’

“The fact can no longer be suppressed, namely, the fact that is has been and continues to be, the deliberate policy of a confidential and conspiratorial clique within the policy-making circles of this government to draw and quarter a nation now reduced to abject misery…”

“In this process this clique, like a pack of hyenas struggling over the bloody entrails of a corpse, and inspired by a sadistic and fanatic hatred, are determined to destroy the German nation and the German people, no matter what the consequences…”

“At Potsdam the representatives of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Socialist Republics solemnly signed the following declaration of principles and purposes: ‘It is not the intention of the Allies to destroy or enslave the German people.’ Mr. President, the cynical and savage repudiation of these solemn declarations which has resulted in a major catastrophe, cannot be explained in terms of ignorance or incompetence. This repudiation, not only of the Potsdam Declaration, but also of every law of God and men, has been deliberately engineered with such a malevolent cunning, and with such diabolic skill, that the American people themselves have been caught in an international death trap…”

“For nine months now this administration has been carrying on a deliberate policy of mass starvation without any distinction between the innocent and the helpless and the guilty alike…”

“The first issue has been and continues to be merely humanitarian. This vicious clique within this administration that has been responsible for the policies and practices which have made a madhouse of central Europe has not only betrayed our American principles, but they have betrayed the GI’s who have suffered and died, and they continue to betray the American GIs who have to continue their dirty work for them…”

“The second issue that is involved is the effect this tragedy in Germany has already had on the other European countries. Those who have been responsible for this deliberate destruction of the German state and this crimimal mass starvation of the German people have been so zealous in their hatred that all other interests and concerns have been subordinated to this one obsession of revenge. In order to accomplish this it mattered not if the liberated countries in Europe suffered and starved. To this point this clique of conspirators have addressed themselves: ‘Germany is to be destroyed. What happens to other countries of Europe in the process is of secondary importance.’”

 

 

 

 

 

.At the peak of the expulsions in July of 1946, 14,400 people a day were still being dumped over the devastated and famished frontier into an equally devastated and famished Germany which had been reduced to a smaller size than it was in the 11th century.

Most countries which once had a substantial ethnic German presence no longer do. Entire ethnic German cities and regions vanished in the aftermath of the war. When Stalin promised a “modest reduction in the German population” to Churchill and Roosevelt, his homicidal plans were greeted with a wink and a nod, and that goal was accomplished with lethal zeal.

Agreeing to Stalin’s murderous plans to uproot both Poles and Germans, Churchill said in the House of Commons in 1944: “Expulsion is the method which, in so far as we have been able to see, will be the most satisfactory and lasting. There will be no mixture of populations to cause endless trouble. A clean sweep will be made. I am not alarmed by these transferences.” In November 1944, Roosevelt agreed, and chief advisors to both Roosevelt and Churchill argued for a solution to the “German problem” as calculated and as chilling as Stalin’s. In December, 1945, The New York Times noted that the number of people the Allies proposed to transfer in just a few months equalled the total of all the immigrants admitted to the USA since the beginning of the 20th century!

Aside from countless German civilians who fled in advance of the Red Army and were bombed, drowned or shot at, since the British and Americans agreed at Yalta to redraw historic German borders, they abetted, authorized and encouraged the deportation of millions of ethnic German civilians and gave to vengeance-fueled communist governments the power for who, where and how these citizens would be deported, a power which would inevitably be greatly abused. Among the Allies, who insisted that they nobly fought the war to uphold the dignity and value of all humanity, were thousands of officials, servicemen and politicians who took active roles in carrying out a program that was contrary to all principles of humanity, a program which, had it been perpetrated by their wartime enemies, would have been considered a criminal violation of human rights.

Chaos, kidnapping, rape, thievery and mass murder were the order of the day in the regions where Germans were expelled. Poles, Czechs and others, with the assistance of the Red Army, sometimes gave the populations of whole German villages only minutes to vacate their homes. The Germans were either collected by force or ordered to gather at a central location where selected individuals were ripped from the group and beaten, executed, or dragged off for slave labor in a ruthless process which even tore children from their mothers’ arms.

The evicted Germans were methodically stripped of their most personal and dearest possessions before being taken to train stations where they were indecently prodded for hidden valuables, shoved aboard cars without adequate food, water or sanitation facilities, and speedily shipped to occupation zones in Germany where they were simply dumped. Others were forced to walk hundreds of miles to destinations which were often in rubble, and few of them reached these destinations with even a handbag left in their possession. Many died on the roadside from disease, exposure or starvation. Forbidden to ever return home, all of their worldly goods were confiscated.

Many taken for slave labor were deported to the USSR after Secret Order 7161 of 1944 issued by USSR State Defense Committee made possible the internment of all adult Germans from Romania, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Bulgaria. About ten per cent of the victims died just in the course of transportation to Russia as a result of hunger, murder and cold. Half of the remaining ‘repatriated displaced persons’ died in camps, one of the worst being the Kolyma Camp. The numbers of deaths and expulsions sky-rocketed at war’s end. In the USSR, over 75% of German civilian slaves worked the mines in Ukraine and 11% worked in the Urals. By 1946, out of the German “arrested internees,” 39% died, and of 875,000 other German civilians who were abducted and transported to the camps, over 50% perished.

Labor camps for Germans existed not only in the Soviet Union, but in almost all the regions from which Germans were displaced, the last ones not being closed until 1950. In Poland and areas under Polish administration, there were 1,255 camps: 6,048 out of about 8,000 people died in Lamsdorf camp alone. In Czechoslovakia, 2,061 camps existed: in the Mährisch-Ostrau camp around 350 people were tortured to death by early July 1945. In Yugoslavia, the Red Cross found 1,562 gruesome camps and prisons. By May of 1945, practically all of the Yugoslav Germans who did not flee in time were living and dying in camps.

The standard estimates which stood unrevised for sixty years stated that between 1945 and 1950, from 11,730,000 to 15,000,000 German civilians fled and/or were expelled from the eastern territories of Germany proper and from the Eastern European countries and other estimates were much higher. Although, as in the case with mortality figures from Allied bombing, the number of victims is relentlessly downsized, that these violent expulsions displaced and murdered millions of innocents is undeniable. “Population transfers,” from highest to lowest, were from former eastern Germany, then Czechoslovakia next, then Poland, Danzig, Yugoslavia, Romania, Hungary, the Baltic states and, lastly, the USSR. And besides the forced expulsion and murder of millions of these people, at least another 3.1 million simply “disappeared” during the expulsion/liquidation process.

Even after a murderous bombing campaign eliminated a large part of their population, five times as many Germans, both civilians and soldiers, perished in the first year after World War Two than died during the course of the entire war, and they died at the hands of others directly as a result of revenge policies inflicted upon a thoroughly dehumanized enemy. 15 to 20 million homeless people, many half insane from shock and grief, wandered amid rotting human bodies dotting the bleak roadsides and paper thin orphans aimlessly navigating through the charred and broken remnants of mercilessly bombed cities.

The Allied Control Council had worked out procedures in advance for taking into the occupied territory 6,650,000 “racial Germans” who were among those they expected to be expelled from Poland, Hungary, Austria and Czechoslovakia under their plans. The US zone’s share was to be 1,750,000 from the Sudetenland and 500,000 from Hungary. They were scheduled to come at a rate of a quarter million a month in December, January, and February of 1945 and even larger numbers in the spring. But they came at greater rates, and the Allies were in no way prepared or eager to deal with the situation humanely. In a British camp at Kleve, for instance, thousands of civilians died from hunger, disease and starvation.

25 percent of former German farmland had been given to Poland making food scarce in Germany after the war and there was already a disastrous famine in the many urban areas where refugees were dumped since the Allies were not yet letting food through. Health and medical services could not possibly handle the additional millions of starving, homeless and ill German refugees. Half of the children under a year old died during the first months in cities like Berlin. By the summer of 1945, 20,000 weak, starving, homeless people were dying every day, their bodies piling up on roadsides, by train tracks and in empty fields. When winter arrived, the Allies relented and finally allowed some private international relief agencies to provide food and clothing, but it was far too late for many.

In communist-occupied Koburg, 3/4 of the people were dead by starvation by the spring of 1947. The children died like flies of diseases such as Diphtheria which ran rampant. The greatest deaths were reported in the Neumark area in Eastern Brandenburg. Out of a 644,834 pre-war population, by 1945 there were 257,000 dead. Out of sheer desperation, people all over Germany shot, hanged, drowned and poisoned themselves and sometimes their entire families.

Within the Eastern German regions which were hacked up and turned over to communist rule, “liberation” led to enslavement for decades. Subjected to brutal policies calculated to break their will, thousands upon thousands of innocent people were murdered, oppressed or tortured. “Crimes” such as singing an old regional folk song could be punishable by prison, and the brutality used to obliterate German “nationalism” extended to executions, prison or life in the far away gulag. Many people simply disappeared. Those who didn’t comply with the degrading re-education process inflicted by their new communist masters were enemies of the state.

Refugees in the Eastern Cities after the War: One City’s Story

The refugee problem was of a momentous proportion and what took place in Leipzig is typical of many eastern cities. Families having lost their homes and farms were split up and scattered into unfamiliar areas, children torn from their mother’s arms and fathers and sons missing or dead. Refugees with friends or relatives to rely upon were lucky if they had the capacity to make the journey and if their contacts were still alive and in surviving houses themselves. Others faced long stays in crowded, harsh refugee camps. The plight of the desperate refugees began first with a severe shortage of housing. From 1943, thousands of Leipzig houses had been destroyed by bombing.

Of 221,178 dwellings, 28,178 were completely destroyed and 93,000 were damaged, thus 20 per cent of the native Leipzig inhabitants had become homeless themselves and had to be accommodated in the dwellings of others or in emergency shelters and camps. Sizable buildings still standing, such as the university, were seized, and the evacuation of a large number of dwellings was demanded, but it was not enough. The old Leipzig mansions were also seized, but proved impractical for conversion. There was not only a housing crisis, but an absence of urgently needed clothing, food, furnishings as well as a lack of furnaces, fuel and cooking stoves.

The first refugee camps in Leipzig developed in January, 1945 when Central Germany was affected for the first time by the escape waves of people fleeing East Prussia. Later, exiled Silesian and Sudeten Germans flocked to cities for help. They were put up in private homes, zoos, high schools, auditoriums and restaurants.

Americans were greeted in Leipzig on April 18, 1945 with white flags. Nobody realized at the time that they had been “sold out” to the Red Army. The Allies immediately issued regulations that, among other things, imposed curfews and closing hours and forbade the publication of newspapers and the use of cameras, which were confiscated. Under the Americans, bread rations for the population was only 200 grams for young people, 170 grams for adults and 100 grams for children.

As the Americans prepared to end their occupation and leave July 2, 1945, the corralled refugees, created by Allied bombing and Allied policies set at Yalta, were stunned to hear that Russian troops were about to arrive in the city the next day. Because of the two zones of occupation, traditional supply lines to Leipzig had been cut off and the infrastructure was destroyed per day. There was no escape from a future of brutal communism.

Conditions worsened in the entire Soviet zone of occupation until a uniform food map system was inserted much later, which consisted of categories. The assignment of the food maps was graduated mainly by work status, so non-laboring housewives and pensioners had a diet containing neither fat nor meat. Among the refugees, there were many old people and women who, because they had to supply small children, were exempted from the forced work details and therefore had very little to eat. A “dwelling law” put forth by the temporary Allied occupation forces had decreed that “victims of fascism” and immigrant workers were to be given first preference to housing and the needy second preference, while the refugees did not even rank among the groups privileged by the law! Average floor space was calculated for eight square meters per person, with children under fourteen years old ranked as “half a human” by the Americans, who were given strict orders to destroy or otherwise render inedible their own leftover surplus so as to ensure it could not be eaten by German civilians, a policy in US zones throughout all of Germany.

Within the Soviet zone of occupation, some refugees were sent over the borders, resulting in strong objection from adjacent provinces who were battling their own refugee crisis. Usually the neighboring authorities sent the refugees back to Saxony, some numerous times, ostensibly to prevent the spread of epidemic disease. This resulted in even more trauma for the exhausted refugees. When the surrounding frontier was closed, certain cities such as Leipzig were subjected to the in-pouring of thousands of frightened and weary human beings who had accumulated in the area. Where they would they live and how they would they eat was a horrible problem.

A decree was issued on August 2, 1945 prohibiting the further influx of refugees, and on August 7th, the Leipzig welfare office suggested that any future refugees should receive accommodation of only one night in the Leipzig transit camp. The Red Cross tried to supply these people with at least with one warm meal and bread and jam for their forthcoming travels. Some refugees walked aimlessly for months in hunger, pain and confusion.

Typhus broke out and there was a malaria epidemic in the damp Leipzig camps from 1945-49 where some refugees languished in old, swampy prison camps. The forlorn refugees were afflicted with scourges such as lice, ringworm, bedbugs and transmittable diseases, while the formerly rich and the once poor struggled together for survival. The whole social order had broken down with nothing of substance to replace it and lift the sagging spirits and weary bodies. Stress, grief, illness and pain took a devastating toll, especially in the very young and aged.

One of the linguistic rulings of the Communist regime turned the refugees into “re-settlers,” and after the establishment of a central administration for “re-settlers” at the end of September, 1945, efforts were undertaken to end the chaotic situation in Saxony and to settle thousands of refugees in a more orderly manner. To enforce this, a halt was called to refugee movements from October 1, 1945.

At the same time, the naturalization of all refugees in Saxony was arranged. For the city of Leipzig this meant naturalization of almost 28,000 additional people during a time of incredible hardship for everyone. Worse was to come. The “arranged evacuation” of the remaining Germans who were forced out of their homes in Poland and Czechoslovakia began in summer, 1946, and turned a crisis into a calamity. Saxony alone was assigned 400,000 more refugees. Since most refugees came in the last months of the year, winter was already upon them and many wanted to remain in the camps where, despite disadvantages, at least there was heat and meagre food.

Churchill’s final solution to the German problem was proving deadly. After 1947, another 25,000 people gained admission to Leipzig, and then another 38,000. Leipzig’s standard of 8.8 square meters of floor space had to be lowered. The catastrophic housing conditions caused already traumatized people to become more ill. Strangers shared housing, and often five or more persons had to live in one or two rooms without a kitchen and with a continuing shortage of food, heat, sanitation and private sleeping places. Most refugees had no money. Despite the emergency housing dilemma, in July, 1947 the Soviet military administration demanded the evacuation of approximately one thousand dwellings north of the city to be handed for use by Soviet commercial enterprises.

Only in 1948 was a slow improvement in the living conditions of the refugees finally discerned. Until the stop of all refugee movements in Leipzig, 71,324 “re-settlers” had gone through the Leipzig camp. In 1950, more than half of the Leipzigers were still not in their own home, but in officially assigned dwellings, and 78,000 out of 93,707 refugees still lived in the city. The situation did not begin to remedy itself until the early 1960s. Information from the State Ministry, Saxony.

 

 

 

 

At the peak of the expulsions in July of 1946, 14,400 people a day were still being dumped over the devastated and famished frontier into an equally devastated and famished Germany which had been reduced to a smaller size than it was in the 11th century.

Most countries which once had a substantial ethnic German presence no longer do. Entire ethnic German cities and regions vanished in the aftermath of the war. When Stalin promised a “modest reduction in the German population” to Churchill and Roosevelt, his homicidal plans were greeted with a wink and a nod, and that goal was accomplished with lethal zeal.

Agreeing to Stalin’s murderous plans to uproot both Poles and Germans, Churchill said in the House of Commons in 1944: “Expulsion is the method which, in so far as we have been able to see, will be the most satisfactory and lasting. There will be no mixture of populations to cause endless trouble. A clean sweep will be made. I am not alarmed by these transferences.” In November 1944, Roosevelt agreed, and chief advisors to both Roosevelt and Churchill argued for a solution to the “German problem” as calculated and as chilling as Stalin’s. In December, 1945, The New York Times noted that the number of people the Allies proposed to transfer in just a few months equalled the total of all the immigrants admitted to the USA since the beginning of the 20th century!

Aside from countless German civilians who fled in advance of the Red Army and were bombed, drowned or shot at, since the British and Americans agreed at Yalta to redraw historic German borders, they abetted, authorized and encouraged the deportation of millions of ethnic German civilians and gave to vengeance-fueled communist governments the power for who, where and how these citizens would be deported, a power which would inevitably be greatly abused. Among the Allies, who insisted that they nobly fought the war to uphold the dignity and value of all humanity, were thousands of officials, servicemen and politicians who took active roles in carrying out a program that was contrary to all principles of humanity, a program which, had it been perpetrated by their wartime enemies, would have been considered a criminal violation of human rights.

Chaos, kidnapping, rape, thievery and mass murder were the order of the day in the regions where Germans were expelled. Poles, Czechs and others, with the assistance of the Red Army, sometimes gave the populations of whole German villages only minutes to vacate their homes. The Germans were either collected by force or ordered to gather at a central location where selected individuals were ripped from the group and beaten, executed, or dragged off for slave labor in a ruthless process which even tore children from their mothers’ arms.

The evicted Germans were methodically stripped of their most personal and dearest possessions before being taken to train stations where they were indecently prodded for hidden valuables, shoved aboard cars without adequate food, water or sanitation facilities, and speedily shipped to occupation zones in Germany where they were simply dumped. Others were forced to walk hundreds of miles to destinations which were often in rubble, and few of them reached these destinations with even a handbag left in their possession. Many died on the roadside from disease, exposure or starvation. Forbidden to ever return home, all of their worldly goods were confiscated.

Many taken for slave labor were deported to the USSR after Secret Order 7161 of 1944 issued by USSR State Defense Committee made possible the internment of all adult Germans from Romania, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Bulgaria. About ten per cent of the victims died just in the course of transportation to Russia as a result of hunger, murder and cold. Half of the remaining ‘repatriated displaced persons’ died in camps, one of the worst being the Kolyma Camp. The numbers of deaths and expulsions sky-rocketed at war’s end. In the USSR, over 75% of German civilian slaves worked the mines in Ukraine and 11% worked in the Urals. By 1946, out of the German “arrested internees,” 39% died, and of 875,000 other German civilians who were abducted and transported to the camps, over 50% perished.

Labor camps for Germans existed not only in the Soviet Union, but in almost all the regions from which Germans were displaced, the last ones not being closed until 1950. In Poland and areas under Polish administration, there were 1,255 camps: 6,048 out of about 8,000 people died in Lamsdorf camp alone. In Czechoslovakia, 2,061 camps existed: in the Mährisch-Ostrau camp around 350 people were tortured to death by early July 1945. In Yugoslavia, the Red Cross found 1,562 gruesome camps and prisons. By May of 1945, practically all of the Yugoslav Germans who did not flee in time were living and dying in camps.

The standard estimates which stood unrevised for sixty years stated that between 1945 and 1950, from 11,730,000 to 15,000,000 German civilians fled and/or were expelled from the eastern territories of Germany proper and from the Eastern European countries and other estimates were much higher. Although, as in the case with mortality figures from Allied bombing, the number of victims is relentlessly downsized, that these violent expulsions displaced and murdered millions of innocents is undeniable. “Population transfers,” from highest to lowest, were from former eastern Germany, then Czechoslovakia next, then Poland, Danzig, Yugoslavia, Romania, Hungary, the Baltic states and, lastly, the USSR. And besides the forced expulsion and murder of millions of these people, at least another 3.1 million simply “disappeared” during the expulsion/liquidation process.

Even after a murderous bombing campaign eliminated a large part of their population, five times as many Germans, both civilians and soldiers, perished in the first year after World War Two than died during the course of the entire war, and they died at the hands of others directly as a result of revenge policies inflicted upon a thoroughly dehumanized enemy. 15 to 20 million homeless people, many half insane from shock and grief, wandered amid rotting human bodies dotting the bleak roadsides and paper thin orphans aimlessly navigating through the charred and broken remnants of mercilessly bombed cities.

The Allied Control Council had worked out procedures in advance for taking into the occupied territory 6,650,000 “racial Germans” who were among those they expected to be expelled from Poland, Hungary, Austria and Czechoslovakia under their plans. The US zone’s share was to be 1,750,000 from the Sudetenland and 500,000 from Hungary. They were scheduled to come at a rate of a quarter million a month in December, January, and February of 1945 and even larger numbers in the spring. But they came at greater rates, and the Allies were in no way prepared or eager to deal with the situation humanely. In a British camp at Kleve, for instance, thousands of civilians died from hunger, disease and starvation.

25 percent of former German farmland had been given to Poland making food scarce in Germany after the war and there was already a disastrous famine in the many urban areas where refugees were dumped since the Allies were not yet letting food through. Health and medical services could not possibly handle the additional millions of starving, homeless and ill German refugees. Half of the children under a year old died during the first months in cities like Berlin. By the summer of 1945, 20,000 weak, starving, homeless people were dying every day, their bodies piling up on roadsides, by train tracks and in empty fields. When winter arrived, the Allies relented and finally allowed some private international relief agencies to provide food and clothing, but it was far too late for many.

In communist-occupied Koburg, 3/4 of the people were dead by starvation by the spring of 1947. The children died like flies of diseases such as Diphtheria which ran rampant. The greatest deaths were reported in the Neumark area in Eastern Brandenburg. Out of a 644,834 pre-war population, by 1945 there were 257,000 dead. Out of sheer desperation, people all over Germany shot, hanged, drowned and poisoned themselves and sometimes their entire families.

Within the Eastern German regions which were hacked up and turned over to communist rule, “liberation” led to enslavement for decades. Subjected to brutal policies calculated to break their will, thousands upon thousands of innocent people were murdered, oppressed or tortured. “Crimes” such as singing an old regional folk song could be punishable by prison, and the brutality used to obliterate German “nationalism” extended to executions, prison or life in the far away gulag. Many people simply disappeared. Those who didn’t comply with the degrading re-education process inflicted by their new communist masters were enemies of the state.

Refugees in the Eastern Cities after the War: One City’s Story

The refugee problem was of a momentous proportion and what took place in Leipzig is typical of many eastern cities. Families having lost their homes and farms were split up and scattered into unfamiliar areas, children torn from their mother’s arms and fathers and sons missing or dead. Refugees with friends or relatives to rely upon were lucky if they had the capacity to make the journey and if their contacts were still alive and in surviving houses themselves. Others faced long stays in crowded, harsh refugee camps. The plight of the desperate refugees began first with a severe shortage of housing. From 1943, thousands of Leipzig houses had been destroyed by bombing.

Of 221,178 dwellings, 28,178 were completely destroyed and 93,000 were damaged, thus 20 per cent of the native Leipzig inhabitants had become homeless themselves and had to be accommodated in the dwellings of others or in emergency shelters and camps. Sizable buildings still standing, such as the university, were seized, and the evacuation of a large number of dwellings was demanded, but it was not enough. The old Leipzig mansions were also seized, but proved impractical for conversion. There was not only a housing crisis, but an absence of urgently needed clothing, food, furnishings as well as a lack of furnaces, fuel and cooking stoves.

The first refugee camps in Leipzig developed in January, 1945 when Central Germany was affected for the first time by the escape waves of people fleeing East Prussia. Later, exiled Silesian and Sudeten Germans flocked to cities for help. They were put up in private homes, zoos, high schools, auditoriums and restaurants.

Americans were greeted in Leipzig on April 18, 1945 with white flags. Nobody realized at the time that they had been “sold out” to the Red Army. The Allies immediately issued regulations that, among other things, imposed curfews and closing hours and forbade the publication of newspapers and the use of cameras, which were confiscated. Under the Americans, bread rations for the population was only 200 grams for young people, 170 grams for adults and 100 grams for children.

As the Americans prepared to end their occupation and leave July 2, 1945, the corralled refugees, created by Allied bombing and Allied policies set at Yalta, were stunned to hear that Russian troops were about to arrive in the city the next day. Because of the two zones of occupation, traditional supply lines to Leipzig had been cut off and the infrastructure was destroyed per day. There was no escape from a future of brutal communism.

Conditions worsened in the entire Soviet zone of occupation until a uniform food map system was inserted much later, which consisted of categories. The assignment of the food maps was graduated mainly by work status, so non-laboring housewives and pensioners had a diet containing neither fat nor meat. Among the refugees, there were many old people and women who, because they had to supply small children, were exempted from the forced work details and therefore had very little to eat. A “dwelling law” put forth by the temporary Allied occupation forces had decreed that “victims of fascism” and immigrant workers were to be given first preference to housing and the needy second preference, while the refugees did not even rank among the groups privileged by the law! Average floor space was calculated for eight square meters per person, with children under fourteen years old ranked as “half a human” by the Americans, who were given strict orders to destroy or otherwise render inedible their own leftover surplus so as to ensure it could not be eaten by German civilians, a policy in US zones throughout all of Germany.

Within the Soviet zone of occupation, some refugees were sent over the borders, resulting in strong objection from adjacent provinces who were battling their own refugee crisis. Usually the neighboring authorities sent the refugees back to Saxony, some numerous times, ostensibly to prevent the spread of epidemic disease. This resulted in even more trauma for the exhausted refugees. When the surrounding frontier was closed, certain cities such as Leipzig were subjected to the in-pouring of thousands of frightened and weary human beings who had accumulated in the area. Where they would they live and how they would they eat was a horrible problem.

A decree was issued on August 2, 1945 prohibiting the further influx of refugees, and on August 7th, the Leipzig welfare office suggested that any future refugees should receive accommodation of only one night in the Leipzig transit camp. The Red Cross tried to supply these people with at least with one warm meal and bread and jam for their forthcoming travels. Some refugees walked aimlessly for months in hunger, pain and confusion.

Typhus broke out and there was a malaria epidemic in the damp Leipzig camps from 1945-49 where some refugees languished in old, swampy prison camps. The forlorn refugees were afflicted with scourges such as lice, ringworm, bedbugs and transmittable diseases, while the formerly rich and the once poor struggled together for survival. The whole social order had broken down with nothing of substance to replace it and lift the sagging spirits and weary bodies. Stress, grief, illness and pain took a devastating toll, especially in the very young and aged.

One of the linguistic rulings of the Communist regime turned the refugees into “re-settlers,” and after the establishment of a central administration for “re-settlers” at the end of September, 1945, efforts were undertaken to end the chaotic situation in Saxony and to settle thousands of refugees in a more orderly manner. To enforce this, a halt was called to refugee movements from October 1, 1945.

At the same time, the naturalization of all refugees in Saxony was arranged. For the city of Leipzig this meant naturalization of almost 28,000 additional people during a time of incredible hardship for everyone. Worse was to come. The “arranged evacuation” of the remaining Germans who were forced out of their homes in Poland and Czechoslovakia began in summer, 1946, and turned a crisis into a calamity. Saxony alone was assigned 400,000 more refugees. Since most refugees came in the last months of the year, winter was already upon them and many wanted to remain in the camps where, despite disadvantages, at least there was heat and meagre food.

Churchill’s final solution to the German problem was proving deadly. After 1947, another 25,000 people gained admission to Leipzig, and then another 38,000. Leipzig’s standard of 8.8 square meters of floor space had to be lowered. The catastrophic housing conditions caused already traumatized people to become more ill. Strangers shared housing, and often five or more persons had to live in one or two rooms without a kitchen and with a continuing shortage of food, heat, sanitation and private sleeping places. Most refugees had no money. Despite the emergency housing dilemma, in July, 1947 the Soviet military administration demanded the evacuation of approximately one thousand dwellings north of the city to be handed for use by Soviet commercial enterprises.

Only in 1948 was a slow improvement in the living conditions of the refugees finally discerned. Until the stop of all refugee movements in Leipzig, 71,324 “re-settlers” had gone through the Leipzig camp. In 1950, more than half of the Leipzigers were still not in their own home, but in officially assigned dwellings, and 78,000 out of 93,707 refugees still lived in the city. The situation did not begin to remedy itself until the early 1960s. Information from the State Ministry, Saxony.

 

 

 

This scene soon played out in West Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia, the Sudetenland and other areas of eastern Europe. The Red Army was cajoled to behave in Germany “as Mongolian hordes of old” by Stalin’s propagandists, among whom was the grand master of hate, Ilya Ehrenburg, who encouraged troops to injure, torture, rape and kill all German civilians. As the violence spread, the only option for the endangered East Prussians was to flee, and they would face uncounted scenes of terror.

In an article of March 3, 1945 Ehrenburg emphasized that the “historical mission of the Soviet army consists in a modest and honorable task of reduction of the population of Germany.” Ehrenburg whipped the Red Army into such a pathological fury of hatred that by the time they arrived in East Prussia it was easy to rape and kill the mostly female population. There were reports of young women in East Prussia having been crucified on barn doors, tied up by their legs and torn in two by cars, or groups of naked girls being tied to a rope like fish on a line and dragged behind wagons, or of small groups of children being found with their tongues nailed to tables and lifeless babies discovered with their skulls broken and bodies punctured by bayonets. It is said that every captured woman between eight and eighty was violently raped, most multiple times and many were killed after.

“The Germans are not human beings. From now on the word German is for us the worst imaginable curse and strikes us to the quick. We shall not get excited. We shall kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day,you have wasted that day…. for us there is nothing more joyful than a heap of German corpses.” IIya Ehrenburg.

In the winter of 1945, East Prussia was cut off from the west, the only escape route for many being from the small port of Pillau and over the Baltic Sea toward the west. Throngs of desperate Königsberg civilians had only one way out, a frigid walk over half frozen lagoons to Frische Nehrung, a narrow slice of land, from where they hoped to reach Danzig. Almost a million people are said to have tried this perilous crossing. Survivors later recounted the hopelessness and horror of making this deadly trek in the dark as whole families pulling carts and sleds filled with children and the elderly slid into holes in the ice and plunged into the unforgiving sea.

In daylight, Soviet planes circled overhead and intentionally cut off large ice floes with artillery fire, sending them hopelessly adrift. Those who escaped on land joined an endless parade of stunned, bereaved people on overflowing roadways. They witnessed whole cartloads of people crushed and mowed over by advancing Russian tanks, with wailing children and frantic mothers stretched for mile after mile of human misery. Unprepared for the 60 degree below zero wind chill and deep snow, some turned back home in despair. Blazing farms lit up the horizon, burned by the Red Army or set on fire by hopeless owners who then committed suicide.

This was the “orderly and humane expulsion” of Germans that Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin shook hands to. More than 1.9 million of nearly 2.4 million East Prussians joined by Germans from central Poland fled westward under horrible conditions. 173,000 people could not or would not leave. Later, researchers of the Federal Archives counted 3,300 locations just in areas they had access to where at least 120,000 German civilians were either shot or beaten to death by the Red Army.

“The German ‘good fellows,’ those who at home give way to sentimentalities, piggy-backs to their kiddies and feed the German cats with morsels of their rationed hamburgers, murder Russian children with the same pedantry as do the bad Germans. They murder because they have come to believe that only people with German blood are worthy of living on this earth of ours.” Ehrenburg

The Germans initiated “Operation Hannibal” to withdraw German civilians and troops from East Prussia. Beginning on January 21, 1945, it ended up being one of the largest emergency evacuations by sea in history and one of the German Navy’s most significant achievements. In a period of about 15 weeks, between 500 and 1,080 merchant vessels of all types and numerous naval craft, including Germany’s largest remaining naval units, transported about 900,000 refugees and 350,000 soldiers across the Baltic Sea to Germany and occupied Denmark. But not all rescues were successful.

The Wilhelm Gustloff was a 25,000-ton passenger liner. On January 30, 1945, when it steamed out of Gotenhafen, it carried a crew of 1,100 officers and men, 73 critically wounded soldiers, 373 young women of the Women’s Naval Auxiliary and more than 6,000 desperate refugees, most of them women and children who had reached the safety of the ship after grueling personal ordeals.

The Gustloff was 13 miles off the coast of Pomerania when 3 torpedoes from a Soviet sub under the command of Captain A.I. Marinesko, struck the ship. 90 minutes later it sank under the icy waves of the Baltic. Barely 1,100 survived. At least 7,000 Germans died. A few days later, on February 10, Marinesko struck again and sank the German hospital ship the General von Steuben carrying 3,500 wounded soldiers and another 1,000 refugees.

Only 650 people survived. Hailed as a hero despite a record of drunkenness and desertion, Marinesko was later awarded the Combat Order of the Red Banner for his record in sinking the most tonnage in a single cruise. He would later be demoted for other offenses and he died in prison. On May 6, 1945 the German freighter Goya, also part of the rescue fleet, was torpedoed by another Soviet submarine, and more than 6,000 non-combatant refugees fleeing from East Prussia also died. Below: Wm.Gustloff; Marinesko. There is a monument glorifying him in ‘Kalingrad.’

 

 

 

Two Allied air raids were carried out on the old city of Königsberg on August 26/27 and August 29/30, 1944 based on “misinformation” from Churchill that it was a “a modernised heavily defended fortress.” 90% of the city of Kant was absolutely destroyed and it burned for several days. The entire historic city center, including the cathedral, the castle, the old churches, the old and the new universities and the old shipping quarter were entirely destroyed.

After the Red Army’s capture of Königsberg under General Chernyakhovsky, the wreckage of the city was cordoned off and turned into a giant internment camp, then a mass grave. The Red Army immediately and methodically set about erasing any trace of former German presence, starting with the human beings who did not or could not get out in time. Out of Königsberg’s prewar population of 316,000, an estimated 50,000 to 75,000 people were still present in the ruins of the devastated city on the day of capitulation and thousands did not survive the communist orgy of bloodshed and revenge. Many that did survived murder soon met their end by starvation, disease and freezing to death. Probably no other German city paid so cruel a price for defeat. 90,000 German military prisoners were also taken, almost none of whom were never heard from again.

During January and February of 1945, the “evacuation” of surviving German began, including those who had returned to reunite with or save their families. Almost two years later, in October of 1947, there were still 30,000 Germans in the city and they were shipped by trains to the future GDR or sent to Soviet gulags. In February of 1948, the Ministerial Council of the USSR decided to “resettle” all remaining Germans they discovered in East Prussia to the GDR, officially declaring them illegal residents. According to Soviet sources, 102,125 persons were “resettled” to the GDR in 1947 and 1948, but only 99,481 arrived (GDR authorities attributed this to “perhaps a Soviet calculation error.”) In May 1951, another 3,000 East Prussian were shipped to the GDR. These last remaining German residents were expelled in more ethnic cleansing of 1949-50. Thousands totally vanished and are presumed murdered.

 

Top, below: Victims of Allied bombing; Kalinin, Ehrenburg; Street sign in today’s Rostock, Germany; Victims of the Red Army. Bottom: The monument in Gumbinnen, East Prussia honoring Prussian King Friedrich Wilhelm 1, who offered a homeland to thousands of refugees from all over Europe, was replaced by a monument to a Red Army general.

 

 

 

.The German inhabitants who settled these deserted plague and famine devastated lands and made the area their home for centuries, working the land, raising their families and building canals, villages, homes, schools, churches and businesses, were brutally driven into exile with their farms and properties all stolen by force. They are referred to in contemporary Russian and Polish travel guides as “the German invaders.” Any evidence of the region’s long Germanic heritage was carefully obliterated. Russia even claims the great German philosopher Kant as “one of their own.”

In the late 1980’s some ethnic Germans arrived, most driven out of other parts of the USSR, and by 1991, 5,000 ethnic Germans inhabited the city and 13,000 the region. Closed off to foreigners since WWII, the Kaliningrad region, about one half the size of Belgium and some 200 miles away from the border of Russia proper, was reopened on January 1, 1991 when the first direct train since 1945 ran from Kaliningrad to Berlin. After the fall of the USSR when neighboring Lithuania and former Soviet republics gained their independence, Kaliningrad had been cut off from Russia. Although railroads connect Kaliningrad to Russia though Lithuania and Belarus, high tariffs in Lithuania make importing food and supplies from Russia prohibitively expensive.

Kalingrad was declared a ‘free economic zone’ in 1992 in a futile attempt to revive the economy. It never developed into a “Hong Kong of the Baltic” as some desired, and corruption keeps most investment away. Approximately 400,000 people live in metropolitan Kaliningrad and a total of one million are in the “oblast” but not those people who bravely settled the land hundreds of years ago.

The name “Prussia” was formally expunged from international language by order Number 46 of the Allied Control Commission on February 23, 1945 because, as it incorrectly stated: “Since time immemorial it has been the pillar of militarism and reaction in Germany.” Lost in this heroic rhetoric was the fact that Prussia was also the “pillar” of historical religious tolerance lacking in its European neighbors, and a pillar of hospitality in its offering of a new, free, undiscriminating homeland for persecuted refugees from Scotland, France, Austria and elsewhere throughout its history. Prussia was also a “pillar” of musical genius, the arts, science, philosophy and medicine. Prussia as a state was far less aggressive and warlike than Britain, France or Russia, and certainly less adept at gobbling large areas of the earth and subjugating native populations by enforcing blood thirsty colonial rule on anywhere near the scale of her neighbors. Prussia’s history did not include murderous suppression of minorities, profiteering from slave trading or using hunger blockades and enforced famine to inhumanly starve out its enemies. Nor did Prussia ever encourage the exile, rape or burning alive of millions of women and children non-combatants in wartime.

———————————————————————————

A forgotten genocide: the ethnic German cleansing. Germans migrated down the Danube in three major waves beginning more than 700 years ago, and settled in mountainous areas of Bohemia and Moravia. These Ethnic Germans became very prosperous and those in Hungary, Romania and Yugoslavia were known as Danube Swabians.
1939 the Czech President expelled German minority to be executed with utmost brutality resulting 1 million sudeten Germans losing their lives.
Many Ethnic Germans settled in St. Louis, USA

Through interviews with survivors, the memory of this sad period in human history is preserved, and hopefully provides peace to the almost 15 million souls lost.

Ethnic Germans: A Forgotten Genocide

Joshua Bonehill Charged with Thoughtcrime for Organizing Anti-Jew Protest

As we see multiculturalism imploding in on itself a British Patriot has been arrested for thought crimes by the British Stasi. As we are very busy with other matters we used this article by Andrew Anglin.
Article by Andrew Anglin of the Daily Stormer website.

Joshua Bonehill: Unrepentant thought criminal

In Orwellian Britain, yet another man who thinks differently from the establishment has been charged with a hate crime.

Joshua Bonehill had been legally organizing a legally allowed protest against the parasite Jews when the cops swooped him up.

Metropolitan Police:

Officers from the Metropolitan Police Service Public Order branch continue to work with Barnet borough officers and their partners ahead of a proposed demonstration in the Golders Green area on 4 July.

As part of that work, officers from Avon and Somerset Constabulary together with Met officers arrested Joshua Bonehill, 22 (7.12.92) of Hudson Road, Yeovil in Somerset on Thursday, 25 June.

He was taken to a central London police station where he was charged on Saturday, 27 June, with inciting racial hatred contrary to the Public Order Act 1986.

He will appear in custody at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Monday, 29 June.

Officers continue to assess all information and intelligence available in relation to the proposed demonstration and speak with the organisers to ensure an appropriate policing response is in place.

We are aware of concerns in the local community about the negative impact this proposed demonstration may have on them. We are working with residents to ensure that people can exercise their rights in a way that is lawful, while minimising this impact.

I was very surprised to hear that the government would not be ordering the demonstration banned, so this makes sense: allow the demonstration but arrest its organizer for organizing it.

This new wave of thoughtcrime arrests which has been intensifying across Europe over the last two years demonstrates very clearly how on edge these Jews are about a mass awakening of the people. Arresting someone for their beliefs is the last act of a desperate government.

The question is, will they be able to fully destroy our countries with immigrants before enough people become aware and stand up that they can’t arrest all of us?

Find more information on the Golders Green demonstration on Joshua Bonehill’s official website.

img627

CAMPAIGN: Anti-Globalisation Internet Meme Storm

Written by Cigpapers

Memes created by Watt Tyler

Anti-Globalisation Internet Meme Storm

With the internet now the main location for the alternative media and anti-Globalisation struggle, memes have become a very valuable tool. Memes can be endlessly put out on social network sites (Twitter, Facebook etc.) and many other parts of the internet. There are many free sites for making memes after obtaining the required photo or picture from Google Images:

https://imgflip.com/memegenerator

http://www.imagechef.com/meme-maker

Here are some of the memes we’ve been putting out which are free to use if you don’t want to make your own:

img818

img809

img803img752

img535

img804

img508img831

img754

img469

img599

img857

img519

img655

img794

img533

img565

img527

img664

11111111

img567

img722

img760

img569

img741

$(KGrHqN,!jME665(QLbIBO5zFNKvmQ~~_35

img741

img741

IMG522

img537

21092011576[1]

img627

IMG396

img488

img487

img486

img443

img287

img284

img285

img282

img278

img268

img106

img096

pic012

Picture 9

Picture 9

Picture 9

Picture 9

attachment

attachment

attachment

pic004

pic005

pic005

img640

img641

sun

SCAN

img779

SCAN

SCAN

untitled31

27092011583[1]

!Bw7b-h!!Wk~$(KGrHqN,!hEEv1+zyBfNBMLN9YlcZw~~_12

27092011583[1]

$(KGrHqF,!hkE7SmTE+7bBPGVh+itRw~~60_3

11111

$(KGrHqN,!jME665(QLbIBO5zFNKvmQ~~_35

15092011573[1]

img741

Picture 9

NWO – The Telegraph: “Secretive Elite Created EU to Build World Government”. Finally the Great Deception Is Published

ADDENDUM:  Press TV 27 Nov. 2015:  Dutch Prime Minister. Mark Rutte , whose country gears up to be the next EU president: “The first step is to make sure the border is controlled. As we all know from the Roman Empire, big empires go down if the borders are not well protected.

*

The Telegraph 27 Nov. 2015  by Alan Sked, the original founder of Ukip and professor of International History at the London School of Economics.

Why would the UK want to enter the EEC?

The answer is that Harold Macmillan and his closest advisers were part of an intellectual tradition that saw the salvation of the world in some form of world government based on regional federations.

The Canberrra Times 13 Oct. 2015Freemason Winston Churchill worked for a United Europe (EU father) and one-world government

churchill_world_governmentMacMillan was also a close acquaintance of Jean Monnet, who believed the same. It was therefore Macmillan who became the representative of the European federalist movement in the British cabinet.

In a speech in the House of Commons he even advocated a European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) before the real thing had been announced. He later arranged for a Treaty of Association between the UK and the ECSC, and it was he who ensured that a British representative was sent to the Brussels negotiations following the Messina Conference, which gave birth to the EEC.

In the late 1950s he pushed negotiations concerning a European Free Trade Association towards membership of the EEC. Then, when General de Gaulle began to turn the EEC into a less federalist body, he took the risk of submitting a full British membership application in the hope of frustrating Gaullist ambitions.

His aim, in alliance with US and European proponents of a federalist world order, was tofrustrate the emerging Franco-German alliance which was seen as one of French and German nationalism.
The French statesman Jean Monnet, (1888 – 1979), who in 1956 was appointed president
of the Action Committee for the United States of Europe (CIA´s ACUE).

macmillan-620_1890654bMonnet met secretly with Heath and Macmillan on innumerable occasions to facilitate British entry. Indeed, he was informed before the British Parliament of the terms in which the British approach to Europe would be framed.

Despite advice from the Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir, that membership would mean the end of British parliamentary sovereignty,Macmillan deliberately misled the House of Commons — and practically everyone else, from Commonwealth statesmen to cabinet colleagues and the public — that merely minor commercial negotiations were involved. He even tried to deceive de Gaulle that he was an anti-federalist and a close friend who would arrange for France, like Britain, to receive Polaris missiles from the Americans. De Gaulle saw completely through him and vetoed the British bid to enter.

ACUE-1969Macmillan left Edward Heath to take matters forward, and Heath, along with Douglas Hurd, arranged — according to the Monnet papers — for the Tory Party to become a (secret) corporate member of Monnet’s Action Committee for a United States of Europe (ACUE).

Left: ACUE 1969

According to Monnet’s chief aide and biographer, Francois Duchene, both the Labour and Liberal Parties later did the same. Meanwhile the Earl of Gosford, one of Macmillan’s foreign policy ministers in the House of Lords, actually informed the House that the aim of the government’s foreign policy was world government.

monnet-1946Monnet’s (right) Action Committee was also given financial backing by the CIA and the US State Department. The Anglo-American establishment was now committed to the creation of a federal United States of Europe.

Today, this is still the case. Powerful international lobbies are already at work attempting to prove that any return to democratic self-government on the part of Britain will spell doom. American officials have already been primed to state that such a Britain would be excluded from any free trade deal with the USA and that the world needs the TTIP trade treaty which is predicated on the survival of the EU.

Fortunately, Republican candidates in the USA are becoming Eurosceptics and magazines there like The National Interest are publishing the case for Brexit.

Most importantly, having been fooled once, the British public will be much more difficult to fool again.

Comment
With Lying, deception  and cover-ups, the EU has been built as a region of the One World State. And the deception continues. After the Dutch and French had rejected the EU Constitution in 2005, the EU cheated the  Europeans once again with Merkel as leader by  the Treaty of Lisbon.

The author of the Constitution was the leading Trilateralist Giscard d’Estaing. In the Danish newspaper  Politiken d. 27. okt. 2007, d´Estaing strongly emphasized that the Lisbon Treaty is identical with the constitution – only they had taken out inedible parts and hidden them  as simple amendments to the already adopted Maastricht and Nice treaties!!  (Le Monde 14 June 2007).

In Denmark it was even more grotesque: Prime Minister Anders Fog Rasmussen had promised the Danes  a referendum on the treaty – but broke his promise, as its  name changed. For this lie he was received with a standing ovation in the European Council – appointed  NATO’s Secretary General and now counselor of the Rothschild Bank Goldman Sachs in the strife over the unfair  give-away of the decisive shares of Denmark´s crown jewel, the energy  group DONG, to this Rothschild Bank.

euromed

The Goal is one-world government – the means is theEuromediterranean Process/Union for the Mediterranean.

In 1992, the Danes rejected the Maastricht Union Treaty in a referendum. To  entice the Danes to not scuttle the concept across the EU  in a second referendum 1993,  the Danes were previously  guaranteed 4 opts-out, namely with respect to: 1) Citizenship. 2) The common currency, the euro. 3) The common defense policy. 4) Transnational cooperation on legal and internal matters.

Since then, the Danish Masonic politicians have been like obsessed in their efforts to abolish the 4 opts-out.

Now they have decreed  a new referendum for December 3 – this time on the legal opt-out.
But surely there is a legal catch, which the politicians cover up to the people:
As Denmark’s Masonic politicians unconditionally wanted to join the Treaty of Lisbon without a referendum they had a problem: There were 9 in elements in the Lisbon Treaty that were incompatible with the Danish Constitution.
They neutralized those problems in part by coverage by the opts-out – the legal opt-out neutralizing 4 of those unconstitutional elements.

Now they want us to abolish this opt-out on 3 December – which is de facto is unconstitutional and illegal. So the referendum is a vote on the continuing validity of the 166-year-old Danish Constitution – without that being told to the people.

THIS IS THE NWO!

Source: NEW.EURO-MED.DK

———————————————————————————-

NWO Spearhead Angela Merkel´s Open Border Immigration Policy a “Stroke of Genius “: EU now Has Reason to Fasttrack Turkey-Dictatorship into EU

Angela-Merkel-turkey-planThe NWO seems to be sending us the message through its controlled MSM: We don´t care what you think, because you cannot stop us! First theTelegraph told us that the EU has one purpose: Part of  elitist World government. Now The Express tells us that the purpose of the Muslim mass immigration was to fasttrack Turkey into the EU.

Europe´evil spirit is at it again.

The Express 30 Nov. 2015:  EU leaders tabled a deal in exchange for help stemming the flood of migrants into Europe.The plan, spearheaded by German chancellor Angela Merkel, will make Muslim-dominated Turkey the EU’s 29th member state.

Nigel Farage said: “This isn’t just a deal to deal with migration across the Mediterranean. What Merkel is proposing is that we fast track Turkey as member of the EU.
“What that will mean is 75 million people who will have freedom of movement to come to the rest of Europe and to this country”.
At the heart of the EU’s proposed deal are Turkey’s promises to tighten border controls in return for £2.1billion plus other benefits including speeding up work on its bid to join the EU and a push to help win visa-free access for Turks.

In exchange, Turkey, which has more than two million Syrian refugees, would increase patrols in the Aegean and at land borders, as well as cracking down on people-trafficking gangs.

Chancellor Merkel gave her blunt assessment of the situation saying: “We will agree on the EU Turkey action plan.

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu called it an “historic day” for his country.
The only barriers to Turkey joining the EU bloc appear to be its human rights record and Cyprus, which refuses to accept its sworn enemy as a fellow member until it recognises the island’s government.

Comments
euromedEuropean politicians suffer from a sick affiliation to Islam – and are doing all they can to destroy Eropean culture through Muslim Mass immigaration . Both occult EU Father Coudenhove Kalergi´s and former Pres. Sarkozy´s racist war on the white race demonstrate it. And there is high suspicion that the American Masonic lodge of very influential white Shriners is the moving force having contaminated all other lodges, apparently. Their tool ist theEuromediterranean Process/The Union for the Mediterranean.

Tony Blair said (all that the Koran just is not): “To me, the most remarkable thing about the Koran is how progressive it is. I write with great humility as a member of another faith. As an outsider, the Koran strikes me as a reforming book, trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins, much as reformers attempted to do with the Christian church centuries later. The Koran is inclusive. It extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition. It is practical and far ahead of its time in attitudes toward marriage, women, and governance.

Under its guidance, the spread of Islam and its dominance over previously Christian or pagan lands were breathtaking. Over centuries, Islam founded an empire and led the world in discovery, art, and culture. The standard-bearers of tolerance in the early Middle Ages were far more likely to be found in Muslim lands than in Christian ones(Jihad Watch 28 Dec. 2006).  Most of the Koran preaches war, murder and terror on the infidels.

This sickness was widespread already in the 1970es.
Below is  page 171 from Bat Ye´or´s “Eurabia – The Euro-Arab Axis” 2005. This page among others expresses a deep contempt of us Europeans, disparaging our culture. Especially, “our” politicians suffer from the paranoia of “Golden Andalusia” as Paradise on Earth through the Muslim Terror regime 711-1492. By A.D. 1100, the Muslims had destroyed all Christianity in Andalusia by e.g mass crucifixions .
The page  brings  statements from the Council of Europe and the European Parliament.

This entry was posted in english, euromed. Bookmark the permalink. – NEW.EURO-MED.DK

———————————————————————-

The Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan – The Genocide Of The People Of Europe

Mass immigration is a phenomenon, the causes of which are still cleverly concealed by the system, and the multicultural propaganda is trying to falsely portray it as inevitable. With this article we intend to prove once and for all, that this is not a spontaneous phenomenon. What they want to present as an inevitable outcome of modern life, is actually a plan conceived around a table and prepared for decades, to completely destroy the face of the continent.

The Pan-Europe:

Few people know that one of the main initiators of the process of European integration, was also the man who designed the genocide plan of the Peoples of Europe. It is a dark person, whose existence is unknown to the masses, but the elite considers him as the founder of the European Union. His name is Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi. His father was an Austrian diplomat named Heinrich von Coudenhove-Kalergi (with connections to the Byzantine family of the Kallergis) and his mother the Japanese Mitsu Aoyama. Kalergi, thanks to his close contacts with all European aristocrats and politicians, due to the relationships of his nobleman-diplomat father, and by moving behind the scenes, away from the glare of publicity, he managed to attract the most important heads of state to his plan , making them supporters and collaborators for the “project of European integration”.

The man behind White genocide Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi.

In 1922 he founded the “Pan-European” movement in Vienna, which aimed to create a New World Order, based on a federation of nations led by the United States. European integration would be the first step in creating a world government. Among the first supporters, including Czech politicians Tomáš Masaryk and Edvard Beneš and the banker Max Warburg, who invested the first 60,000 marks. The Austrian Chancellor Ignaz Seipel and the next president of Austria, Karl Renner, took the responsibility for leading the “Pan-European” movement. Later, French politicians, such as Léon Bloum, Aristide Briand, Alcide De Gasperi, etc will offer their help.

With the rise of Fascism in Europe, the project was abandoned and the “Pan-European” movement was forced to dissolve, but after the Second World War, Kalergi, thanks to frantic and tireless activity and the support of Winston Churchill, the Jewish Masonic Lodge B’nai B’rith and major newspapers like the New York Times, the plan manages to be accepted by the United States Government. The CIA later undertakes the completion of the project.

The Essence Of The Kalergi Plan:

In his book Practical Idealism, Kalergi indicates that the residents of the future “United States of Europe” will not be the People of the Old Continent, but a kind of sub-humans, products of miscegenation. He clearly states that the peoples of Europe should interbreed with Asians and colored races, thus creating a multinational flock with no quality and easily controlled by the ruling elite.

Kalergi proclaims the abolition of the right of self-determination and then the elimination of nations with the use of ethnic separatist movements and mass migration. In order for Europe to be controlled by an elite, he wants to turn people into one homogeneous mixed breed of Blacks, Whites and Asians. Who is this elite however? Kalergi is particularly illuminating on this:

The man of the future will be of mixed race. The races and classes of today will gradually disappear due to the elimination of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-negroid race of the future, similar in appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples and the diversity of individuals. Instead of destroying European Judaism, Europe, against her will, refined and educated this people, driving them to their future status as a leading nation through this artificial evolutionary process. It’s not surprising that the people that escaped from the Ghetto-Prison, became the spiritual nobility of Europe. Thus, the compassionate care given by Europe created a new breed of aristocrats. This happened when the European feudal aristocracy crashed because of the emancipation of the Jews [due to the actions taken by the French Revolution]

Although no textbook mentions Kalergi, his ideas are the guiding principles of the European Union. The belief that the peoples of Europe should be mixed with Africans and Asians, to destroy our identity and create a single mestizo race, is the basis of all community policies that aim to protect minorities. Not for humanitarian reasons, but because of the directives issued by the ruthless Regime that machinates the greatest genocide in history. The Coudenhove-Kalergi European Prize is awarded every two years to Europeans who have excelled in promoting this criminal plan. Among those awarded with such a prize are Angela Merkel and Herman Van Rompuy.

The incitement to genocide, is also the basis of the constant appeals of the United Nations, that demands we accept millions of immigrants to help with the low birth rates of the EU. According to a report published on January 2000 in «Population division» Review of the United Nations in New York, under the title “Immigration replacement: A solution to declining and aging population,” Europe will need by 2025 159,000,000 migrants.

One could wonder how there can be such accuracy on the estimates of immigration, although it was not a premeditated plan. It is certain that the low birth rate could easily be reversed with appropriate measures to support families. It is just as clear that it is the contribution of foreign genes do not protect our genetic heritage, but that it enables their disappearance. The sole purpose of these measures is to completely distort our people, to turn them into a group of people without national, historical and cultural cohesion. In short, the policies of the Kalergi plan was and still is, the basis of official government policies aimed at genocide of the Peoples of Europe, through mass immigration. G. Brock Chisholm, former director of the World Health Organization (OMS), proves that he has learned the lesson of Kalergi well when he says: “What people in all places have to do is to limit of birthrates and promote mixed marriages (between different races), this aims to create a single race in a world which will be directed by a central authority. ”

Conclusions:

If we look around us, the Kalergi plan seems to be fully realized. We face Europe’s fusion with the Third World. The plague of interracial marriage produces each year thousands of young people of mixed race: “The children of Kalergi”. Under the dual pressures of misinformation and humanitarian stupefaction, promoted by the MSM, the Europeans are being taught to renounce their origin, to renounce their national identity.

The servants of globalization are trying to convince us that to deny our identity, is a progressive and humanitarian act, that “racism” is wrong, because they want us all to be blind consumers. It is necessary, now more than ever, to counter the lies of the System, to awaken the revolutionary spirit Europeans. Every one must see this truth, that European Integration amounts to genocide. We have no other option, the alternative is national suicide.

Translator’s note: Although the reasons due to which Kalergi made the choices he made are of no particular interest to us, we will try to answer a question that will surely our readers have already asked: Why a European aristocrat with Flemish, Polish, Greek-Byzantine roots and even with some samurai blood in his veins (from his mother) was such body plans and organ in the hands of dark forces? The reasons, in our opinion, are multiple, idiosyncratic, psychological and … women.

We therefore observe a personality with strong snobbish attitudes, arrogance, and, allow me the term, “degenerate elitism.” Also, the fact that his mother was Asian, perhaps created internal conflicts and frustrations, something that can happen to people with such temperament. But the most decisive factor must have been the “proper teenager”, which incidentally of course, was beside him, and became his first woman (at age 13): The Jewess Ida Roland, who would later become a famous actress.

EUROPEAN COUNCIL:

Van Rompuy won the Coudenhove-Kalergi prize for the biggest contribution to White genocide.

The Award Of The Coudenhove-Kalergi Prize To President Van Rompuy

On November 16th 2012, the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, was awarded the Coudenhove-Kalergi Prize, during a special conference in Vienna, to celebrate 90 years of pan-European movement. The prize is awarded every two years to leading personalities for their outstanding contribution to the process of European integration.

A decisive factor that helped him win the prize was the balanced way in which President Van Rompuy executed his duties in the new position of President of the European Council, which was established by the Treaty of Lisbon. He handled this particularly sensitive leading and coordinating role with a spirit of determination and reconciliation, while emphasis was also given to his skilful arbitration on European affairs and unfailing commitment to European moral values.

During his speech, Mr Van Rompuy described the unification of Europe as a peace project. This idea, which was also the objective of the work of Coudenhove-Kalergi, after 90 years is still important. The award bears the name of Count Richard Nicolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi (1894-1972), philosopher, diplomat, publisher and founder of the Pan-European Movement (1923). Coudenhove-Kalergi was the pioneer of European integration and popularized the idea of a federal Europe with his work.

Among the winners of the award, the Federal Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel (2010) and the President of Latvia Vaira Vike-Freiberga (2006), are included.

This article is a translation of an Italian article, originally posted on Identità.

Good video here on  “Preventing White Genocide:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsjc5CVujrM

img978

img443

Bus Load of Jews arrested for International Organ Trafficking Business

UnoRaza Back Up

——————————————————————

Jewish-American organized crime

10. srpna 2009 v 14:08 |

Jewish-American organized crime (sometimes called the Jewish Mob, Jewish Mafia, Kosher Mafia, or the Kosher Nostra – a pun on the term “Cosa Nostra“), emerged during the late years of the 19th century and early 20th century.
In its earliest form, in New York City in the late 1800s, Jewish gangs under gang lord Monk Eastman competed with Italian and Irish gangs, notably Paul Kelly‘sFive Points Gang, for control of New York‘s underworld. In the early 1920s, stimulated by the economic opportunities of the Roaring Twenties and later,Prohibition, organized crime figures such as Arnold Rothstein rose to dominate more extensive organized crime activity.
According to crime writer Leo Katcher, Arnold Rothstein “transformed organized crime from a thuggish activity by hoodlums into a big business, run like a corporation, with himself at the top.”[1] Rothstein was allegedly responsible for fixing the 1919 World Series.[2]

Origins and characteristics

Jewish-American gangsters were involved in many areas of organized crime, including racketeering, bootlegging, prostitution[3] and narcotics. Their role was also significant in New York’s burgeoning labor movement, especially the garment and trucking unions, as well as poultry workers. Jewish-American organized crime was a matter of obvious concern to the community, because Jewish gangsterism was seen as irreconcilable with the ethics of Judaism[4] It did not exemplify Jewish immigration and its offspring, nevertheless it was exploited by anti-semites and anti-immigration forces as arguments to bolster their prejudices. However, it did exist in large enough reality to permeate the Lower East Side and Brownsville areas in New York City,[5] and other major American cities. and provided fodder for prejudice against Jews.
Jewish American organized crime was a reflection of the ethnic succession among gangsters, which has tended to follow the immigrant waves in the United States: English, German, Irish, Jewish and then Italian. Ethnic involvement in organized crime gave rise to alien conspiracy theories in the US law enforcement community, in which the conception of organized crime as an alien and united entity was vital. It was presented as many-faced, calculating and relentlessly probing for weak spots in the armor of American morality. America had to be protected from this alien threat. The conspiracy theories conveniently ignored the fact that Jewish-American and Italian-American criminals generally co-existed with (even sometimes subordinate to) other criminals, such as Irish-American organized crime networks before the 1920s.[6]
Jewish American organized crime is part of an entire literature, particularly in the United States, on “tough Jews,” mainly gangsters and boxers among whom Jews played a prominent role, often to the delight – even pride – of other Jews, especially Jewish men, who considered them tougher, more aggressive role models to free them from the stigma of defenselessness and powerlessness and the dominant Jewish stereotype: intellectualism and professional legitimacy, not physical aggressiveness and lawlessness, which was more stereotypical of the Irish and Italian immigrants and their mobs. According to Rich Cohen, author ofTough Jews: Fathers, Sons and Gangster Dreams: “if Jewish gangsters still thrived today, if they hadn’t gone legit, if Jews of my generation didn’t regard them as figments, creatures to be classed with Big Foot and the Loch Ness monster, I think the Jewish community would be better off.”[7]
Following Cohen’s line of reasoning, one could say that Jewish American organized crime played a role in the emancipation of the Jewish American community in American society. However, Cohen’s description of Jewish gangsters ignores that they were criminals who made some of their money by extorting and exploiting other members of the American Jewish community, including the trafficking of women,[3] and were generally considered a scourge within their own community. The Yiddish press and literature of the 1920s and 30s was resolute in its condemnation of Jewish mobsters.

History

19th Century-early 20th Century

Largely originating from the immigration from Eastern Europe during the late-19th and early 20th centuries, Jewish mobsters such as Max “Kid Twist” Zwerbach, “Big” Jack Zelig, and Vach “Cyclone Louie” Lewis, competed with Jewish-American organized crime was not exclusively a New York phenomenon, however, as seen during the early 20th century in other major cities with a considerable Jewish-American population as predominantly Jewish-American gangs operated as well, such as The Purple Gang in Detroit.
As would their Italian counterparts, gangs specializing in extortion began operating in the heavily Jewish neighborhoods of New York’s Lower East Sidemost prominently the so-called Yiddish Black Hand headed by Jacob Levinsky, Charles “Charlie the Cripple” Litoffsky and Joseph Toplinsky during the early 1900s. Early in the century a significant Jewish underworld already existed, giving birth to a litany of criminal slang with Yiddish origins. A pimp was known as a “simcha,” a detective as a “shamus” and a loafer as a “trombenik.”[8] Jewish-American organized crime arose among slum kids who in pre-puberty stole from pushcarts, who as adolescents extorted money from store owners, who as young adults practiced schlamming (wielding an iron pipe wrapped in newspaper against striking workers or against scabs) – until they developed into well organized criminal gangs in a wide variety of criminal enterprises boosted by Prohibition.[9]
For both second-generation Jewish and Italian immigrants, the lure of crime often competed quite successfully with mainstream opportunities. There was a Jewish “crime wave” in early-20th-century New York. About a sixth of the city’s felony arrests were Jews. Many young Jewish criminals gravitated toward the “rackets,” where they met up with the children of Irish, Italian, and other immigrants.[10]
As the 20th century progressed, Jewish-American mobsters such as “Dopey”Benny Fein and Joe “The Greaser” Rosenzweig entered labour racketeering, hiring out to both businesses and labor unions as strong arm men. Labor racketeering or “labor slugging” as it was known, would become a source of conflict as it came under the domination of several racketeers including formerFive Points Gang members Nathan “Kid Dropper” Kaplan and Johnny Spanishduring the Labor slugger wars until its eventual takeover by Jacob “Gurrah” Shapiro in 1927. Other organized crime figures would include Moses Annenbergand Arnold Rothstein, the latter reportedly responsible for fixing the 1919 World Series. [11]
According to crime writer Leo Katcher, Arnold Rothstein “transformed organized crime from a thuggish activity by hoodlums into a big business, run like a corporation, with himself at the top.”[12] According to Rich Cohen, Rothstein was the person who first saw in Prohibition a business opportunity, a means to enormous wealth, who “understood the truths of early century capitalism (hypocrisy, exclusion, greed) and came to dominate them”. Rothstein was the Moses of the Jewish gangsters, according to Cohen, the progenitor, a rich man’s son who showed the young hoodlums of the Bowery how to have style; indeed, the man who, the Sicilian-American gangster Lucky Luciano would later say, “taught me how to dress”.[13]

1920s-1930s

Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegel, driving force behind the development of Las Vegas
During Prohibition (1920-1933), Jewish gangsters became major operatives in the American underworld and played prominent roles in the creation and extension of organized crime in the United States. At the time, Jewish gangs dominated illicit activities in a number of America’s largest cities, including Cleveland, Detroit,Minneapolis, Newark, New York City, and Philadelphia. Numerous bootlegging gangs such as the Bug and Meyer Mob headed by Meyer Lansky and Bugsy Siegel and Abe Bernstein‘s Purple Gang [14] would see the rise of Jewish-American organized crime to its height. Other mobsters included Dutch Schultz,[15]Moe Dalitz, Charles “King” Solomon and Abner “Longy” Zwillman.
During this time, Italian mobster Charlie Luciano began plotting against the Old World Sicilian mafiosi and, enlisting the help of longtime associates Meyer Lansky and Benjamin Siegel, a conference was held at New York’s Franconia Hotel on November 11, 1931 which included mobsters such as Jacob Shapiro,Louis “Lepke” Buchalter, Joseph “Doc” Stacher, Hyman “Curly” Holtz, Louis “Shadows” Kravitz, Harry Tietlebaum, Philip “Little Farvel” Kovolick and Harry “Big Greenie” Greenberg. During this meeting, Luciano and Lansky were able to convince the Jewish-American mobsters to agree to work with Italian mobsters in business following the end of the Castellammarese War – in a consortium known as the National Crime Syndicate. At the meeting’s conclusion, “Bugsy” Siegel supposedly declared “The yids and the dagos will no longer fight each other.”[16]
Those Jewish gangsters hostile to the idea of cooperation with non-Jewish rivals gradually receded, most notably Philadelphia bootlegger Waxey Gordon, who was convicted and imprisoned for tax evasion. Following Gordon’s imprisonment, his operations were assumed by Nig Rosen and Max “Boo Hoo” Hoff.
Under Lansky, Jewish mobsters became involved in syndicate gambling interests in Cuba and Las Vegas.[17] Buchalter would also lead the predominantly JewishMurder Incorporated as the Luciano-Meyer syndicate’s exclusive hitmen.[18]

After World War II

Frank Rosenthal with Frank Sinatra on the Frank Rosenthal Show
For several decades after World War II, the dominant figures in organized crime were second-generation Jews and Italians, often working in concert. As late as the 1960s, Jewish presence in organized crime was still acknowledged as Los Angeles mobster Jack DragnaJimmy “The Weasel” Fratianno: explained to hitman and later government informant
“Meyer’s got a Jewish family built along the same lines as our thing. But his family’s all over the country. He’s got guys like Lou Rhody and Dalitz, Doc Stacher, Gus Greenbaum, sharp fucking guys, good businessmen, and they know better than to try to fuck with us.”
Jewish-American organized crime derived from dislocation and poverty, where language and custom made the community vulnerable to undesirables, the sort of thing that fosters criminality among any other ethnicity in a similar situation. As Jews improved their conditions, the Jewish thug and racketeer either disappeared or merged into a more assimilated American crime environment. American Jews quietly buried the public memory of the gangster past; unlike the Mafia, famous Jewish American gangsters like Meyer Lansky, Dutch Schultz and Bugsy Siegel[19] founded no crime families.
Much like Irish Americans and other ethnicities (with exception to Italian American criminal organizations), Jewish-American presence in organized crime gradually faded after World War II. Jewish-American individuals remained associated with organized crime figures,[20] but the criminal organizations and gangs which once rivaled the Italian and Irish-American mobsters during the first half of the 20th century have long since disappeared.

Late 20th Century

In more recent years Jewish-American organized crime has reappeared in the forms of both Israeli and Russian mafia criminal groups. The Soviet and Russianémigré community in New York’s Brighton Beach contains a large Jewish presence, as does its criminal element. Some of these newer American-based Jewish gangsters, such as Ludwig Fainberg, share more in common culturally with Russia and the Soviet republics than their predecessors such as Meyer Lansky.[21]
Israeli mobsters also have a presence in the United States. Yehuda “Johnny” Attias arrived in New York in 1987 and was ultimately murdered in January 1990, and New York’s Israeli mafia fell apart soon after. Several members such as Ron Gonen had turned informant and the authorities arrested the rest of the gang in September of that year.[22] The Israeli mafia (such as the Abergil crime family) is heavily involved in ecstasy trafficking in America[23]

21st century

In 2009, five Sephardic rabbis, all from orthodox Syrian Jewish communities in New Jersey and Brooklyn, were accused of selling kidneys and laundering tens of millions of dollars through fake charities. [24]

Jewish-American organized crime and Israel

Several notable Jewish American mobsters provided financial support for Israelthrough donations to Jewish organizations since the country’s independence in 1948. As a result, Israel became an option for Jewish-American gangsters fleeing criminal charges or facing deportation from the United States such as Joseph “Doc” Stacher and Meyer Lansky, the latter being denied citizenship by then Prime Minister Golda Meir who had been informed by the United States government of Lansky’s long history in organized crime.[25]
————————————————————————
Dr. David Duke exposes the true figures behind global organized crime and human trafficking (hint – they’re not Italians).

Israel: The Promised Land of Organized Crime – Full Version

—————————————————————————————

Header

Empty styrofoam box used for transporting human organs.(Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

In Jewish law, mutilation of the human body is prohibited. But, Jewish law also holds the utmost responsibility to preserve human life. This paradox sets the scene for the most recent organ transplant debacle.

Haaretz reports that an Israeli organ trafficking ring was uncovered in Costa Rica. On June 19, police announced they learned that doctors were performing kidney transplants to sell to patients back in Israel, or sending Costa Ricans to Israel to have the surgery done:

San Jose police on Wednesday arrested Dr. Francisco Mora Palma, head of nephrology at the large Calderon Guardia Hospital, and raided a number of medical laboratories and clinics suspected of carrying out tests for the network’s doctors. Attorney General Jorge Chavarria said the two people arrested − Mora Palma and an employee at Costa Rica’s Public Security Ministry − were the “tip of the iceberg” of the organ trafficking network. Mora Palma was in touch with Israeli doctors and tested the suitability of the local residents whose organs were to be harvested in Israel, the Attorney General’s Office said.

Israel’s Health Ministry denied knowledge of the illegal surgeries.

Legislation has been initiated to counteract the hesitation in Israel—particularly among the ultra-Orthodox—to consent to organ donation. In 2005, Dr. Jacob Lavee, a cardiothoracic surgeon in Tel Hashomer in Central Israel, had two Haredi transplant patients confide to him that while they would receive an organ donation, they would not return the favor. The experience led him to work on a law that would add nonmedical factors to organ transplant lists, which Danielle Ofri reported on in the New York Times last year:

Working with rabbis, ethicists, lawyers, academics and members of the public, he and other medical experts worked to create a new law in 2010, which will take full effect this year: if two patients have identical medical needs for an organ transplant, priority will be given to the patient who has signed a donor card, or whose family member has donated an organ in the past.

This protocol was added to a 2008 Knesset law that provided an even higher priority to patients with family members who had previously died and donated organs.

Israeli MDs harvesting organs for international trafficking ring [Haaretz]
In Israel, a New Approach to Organ Donation [NYT]

—————————————————————————-

Organ Failure

The arrests of rabbis who trafficked body parts uncover more complicated issues.

Two state legislators and several rabbis were among more than 40 people arrested yesterday in New Jersey.
Two state legislators and several rabbis were among more than 40 people arrested yesterday in New Jersey

With the right ingredients of salaciousness and scandal, the news appeared to be straight out of a Hollywood screenplay: corrupt politicians, money laundering, people being arrested by the busload, raids on synagogues, an Apple Jacks cereal boxstuffed with $97,000 in cash, and rabbis trafficking organs. Allegedly, one paid $10,000 to an impoverished Israeli for his or her kidney and tried to sell it for upward of $150,000 in the United States. The criminal complaint quotes the rabbi as saying he was in the organ business for a decade. (And in a you-can’t-make-this-stuff-up twist, it wasn’t even the day’s only story on Israelis trafficking human body parts.)

The rabbis’ organ trafficking was only one of their many indiscretions. In addition to being against the law, it raises a complex bioethical issue for Jews, one laced in a culture of moral imperatives. Is illegally buying an organ really wrong if it’s saving someone’s life? Is paying for altruism, by definition, counterintuitive? Jews have been battling this quandary for a long time, especially when you consider how little they themselves actually help the cause of transplantation.

“Jews don’t like to donate organs,” says Rabbi Michael J. Broyde, one of the founding members of the Beth Din of America, the equivalent of the Supreme Court of the Jewish justice system. “They don’t donate at the rate of other social groups.” This imbalance—of taking more from organ banks than they are putting in—has put Jews around the world at odds with transplant technology. Israel has suffered for years with an organ shortage, forcing its residents to engage in “transplant tourism” in places across Europe and, most notably, in China. According to statistics from Israel’s transplant authority and the United Network of Organ Sharing, the number of people who hold an organ donation card in Israel is at a paltry 8 percent. Most Western countries hover closer to 35 percent.

In an attempt to repair the disparity, Israel passed a law last year that made it easier to become an organ donor. But it took a while. Earlier versions of the bill failed because people feared it would lead to “rabbinical supervision” of the time of death: They thought doctors and rabbis might conspire to hasten a patient’s death if they knew they could harvest organs. An Israeli organization called Adi, formed by a family who lost their son while he was waiting for a kidney transplant, has worked tirelessly to try to promote awareness among the Israeli populace of the moral imperatives of being an organ donor. But for a religion that prides itself on being a “light unto the nations,” it’s an oddly uphill battle. Some in the ultra-Orthodox community oppose the Adi initiative so fiercely that they have actually created “life cards” that state explicitly that the cardholder does not want to donate organs under any circumstances.

There are a whole host of reasons why Israelis—and Jews in general—don’t wish to part with their anatomy even after they die. For some, it’s simply taboo, yet another guilt-laden stigma in an already guilt-laden religion. Others believe it is a biblical commandment to be buried whole without any missing organs.

Judaism is riddled with hundreds of laws that dictate our daily existence. Interestingly, the Torah itself rarely, if ever, connects a specific commandment to a specific reward; the logic being, if you knew the “value” of each commandment, it would be easy to pick and choose which ones to obey. Only twice in the entire Old Testament are rewards mentioned—by the commandment to shoo away the mother bird before taking her chicks (a mere flick of the wrist) and the commandment to honor your parents (an often lifelong difficult task). The Bible states that the reward for both those commandments is exactly the same: long life. In a sense, what Moses was teaching was that the value of the seemingly simplest commandment and of one of the hardest are actually in the same.

————————————————————–

Jews Arrested over Organ Trafficking Case: US Kids Organs to feed Israel´s Health System

————————————————————————-

NYT Finds ‘Disproportionate Role’ of Israelis in World Organ Trafficking
NYT identifies six patients who underwent kidney transplants in Costa Rica and three Israeli men it says are involved in trafficking.

Haaretz Aug 17, 2014 9:43 PM
2comments   Zen Subscribe now
18  Tweet

Costa Rica police arrest Dr. Francisco Mora Palma.courtesy of OIJ
A globe-spanning illegal industry New details emerge on organ trafficking ring between Israel and Costa Rica
Israeli suspected of luring women into organ traffic ring
Report: Israeli suspected of running Ukraine organ trafficking ring
Orthodox Jew sues Chicago hospital for cremating his amputated leg
Five Israelis charged with organ trafficking
A report Sunday in the New York Times sheds light on the role of Israelis in international organ trafficking. Through the story of Ophira Dorin, a 36-year-old Israeli woman, the report demonstrates how easy it is to illegally buy a kidney in Israel.
Costa Rican authorities announced last year that they had uncovered an international organ trafficking ring that specialized in selling kidneys to Israeli and eastern European patients. The Times said it was able to identify 11 patients – six of them Israelis – who underwent kidney transplants in San Jose, as well as two other Israelis who arrived to the Costa Rican capital with donors for procedures they said would not have been approved back home. The report puts Dr. Francisco Mora Palma, head of nephrology at the large Calderon Guardia Hospital in San Jose, at the center of the operation in Costa Rica.
By following Doris’ story, the Times identified three Israelis it said were involved in the trafficking case – Avigad Sandler, Boris Volfman and Yaacov Dayan – describing them as being “among the central operators in Israel’s irrepressible underground kidney market.”
Doris was originally referred to Sandler, but later changed to Volfman after she was told he could arrange transplants at a lower price. A day after their meeting, Volfman was arrested along with Sandler and others on suspicion of organ trafficking in an unrelated case. Soon after, Dorin was referred by one of her clients to Dayan.
When confronted by the Times reporter to explain his involvement in the case, Dayan said, “We help people,” but refused to elaborate, only adding that he had been out of business for over 18 months at the time.
In a phone interview with the Times, Volfman described himself as a middleman who accompanied patients abroad to organize them accommodation, contacts and medical examinations. He insisted on never having any contact with the organ donors themselves and that it was up to the patients to choose the transplant center and pay them directly.
The story says Dorin wired money to the hospital in San Jose and to Dr. Mora, who then paid some $18,500 to an unemployed 37-year-old man for his kidney. This case is merely one of thousands of illicit transplants that take place around the world each year, experts cited in the report estimate.
Dorin told the Times that she even if what she was doing was illegal, after five years with a kidney disease, she felt she had no choice.
In recent years, more than a few Israelis have been mentioned in media reports involving international organ trafficking, whether in Ukraine, Kosovo, Turkey or Costa Rica.
The Times attributes the “disproportionate role” of Israelis involved in major organ trafficking cases partially to Jewish religious restrictions, which keep donation rates low in Israel.
According to the Israeli Health Ministry, less than 10 percent of the overall population in Israel is registered as organ donors – among the lowest rate among developed countries. The ministry reported an increase in registration after the Knesset passed a law in 2012 granting registered donors priority if they ever need a transplant. Also, in 2010, living donors began receiving compensation of several thousand shekels, which may have contributed to the increase. The compensation is meant to cover lost wages and related expenses.
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.610986

 

Judaizing of Catholicism Proceeds Apace

Monday, July 09, 2012

Judaism’s Strange Gods

Informed by the Secret Gnosis of the Renaissance
By Michael Hoffman  www.revisionisthistory.org
Copyright © 2012

As if we needed any more dreary evidence of the extent to which the Roman Catholic Church under the modern popes has publicly allied with the Talmudists of the Synagogue of Satan (Rev. 2:9), here is more (below), this time focused on Amy-Jill Levine‘s annotated New Testament, which advances the Ratzinger/Wojtyla theology that Jesus Christ reasoned like a Pharisee and would have been horrified by St. John Chrysostom, St. Vincent Ferrer or Johann Andreas Eisenmenger. 

Note that I have qualified with italics the words “modern” and “publicly” in the preceding sentence. In this writer’s estimation, one of the reasons why the “traditional” Catholic movement has been outclassed and out-fought by its enemy is that many traditional Catholics believe the myth that the Judaizing of the Church began with the Second Vatican Council and the popes thereof.
What began with the Vatican II document Nostra Aetate was the public accommodation and blending of the Roman Catholic Church with Pharisaic Judaism. The sub-rosa hybrid process itself has a long history, beginning in the Renaissance era with Judaizing popes such as Leo X, Sixtus V and Clement VIII. One surmises that this secret truth forms the processing of Vatican initiates who are very likely told in private that traditional Catholicism is hopelessly compromised and double-minded, in that it claims to oppose Pharisaic Judaism and yet ignorantly pledges allegiance to all popes previous to Vatican II, when in fact some of these pontiffs were as much in league with the Talmudic/Kabbalistic order as John Paul II or Benedict XVI. This is partly why we see that when “traditional” Catholics like Bishop Bernard Fellay seek to reintegrate into the Vatican fold, the one area in which the pope will not budge is Judaism, since he knows what “traditional” Catholics don’t — that for the past 500 years a clandestine alliance has been forged between the hierarchy of the Church and the Orthodox rabbinate.
I have written an introductory history of these matters in  Revisionist History Newsletter, in issues such as no. 58:”Tracking The Occult Infiltration of The Roman Catholic Church From The Renaissance To The Present;” issue no. 52: “Judaizing Protestantism’ and Neo-Platonic Catholicism in Legend and Reality;” no. 47: On Holocaustianity – “The New Catholic ‘Shoah’ Theology: Alibi for the Revolutionary Overthrow of the Gospel of Jesus Christ;” and most recently, tracing elements of Judaism’s Kol Nidrei rite of oath-breaking in Catholicism: issue no. 62: “Proto-Rabbinic Tactics of Deceit and their Adoption by Churchmen during the Renaissance.”

Until Catholics confront the full reality of the panoply of papal compromise and alliance with Talmudic Judaism, they will be fighting a Vatican that cannot take them seriously philosophically, and accords to itself the task of gradually initiating Catholics in the secret traditions of Catholicism from the Renaissance onward  the traditions of the Pharisees — which Jesus Christ, the Apostles, and the Fathers of the Early Church vigorously challenged and exposed with every fibre of their being.

Imagine what an inside joke it must be in Rome when the “traditional” Catholics come calling and boldly declare that, when it comes to Judaism, they want the Church returned to the way it was before Vatican II. “Boys,” the cardinals and clerics are thinking, “what you wish for is now, and has been, for five long centuries. The only difference is, we went public with it in 1965.”

To win in chess one needs to stay three or four steps ahead of one’s opponent. In the game at hand, the Vatican Cryptocracy is three or four light years ahead of “traditional” Catholics.

Catholic-Jewish Dialogues Explore Economics, Education, Religious Freedom And Jewish Take On New Testament
July 6, 2012 (via Maurice Pinay)
WASHINGTON—Gatherings of two different Catholic-Jewish dialogues explored topics including economics, education, religious freedom and even a Jewish commentary on the New Testament.
The semi-annual consultation of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops/National Council of Synagogues (USCCB/NCS) discussed the publication of Amy Jill Levine and Mark Zvi Brettler’s book, The Jewish Annotated New Testament (Oxford, 2012) at their May 22 meeting in New York City. Bishop Denis Madden, auxiliary of Baltimore, and Rabbi David Straus of the Main Line Reform Temple in Wynnewood, Pennsylvania co-chaired the meeting.
“The publication of Levine’s and Brettler’s comprehensive work on the New Testament represents an important milestone in Catholic-Jewish relations,” said Bishop Denis Madden, chairman of the USCCB Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs. “Never before has a group of Jewish scholars made so learned and technical a reading of the New Testament. Clearly, this new effort reflects the progress we have made since the Second Vatican Council in mutual respect for each other’s sacred Scriptures.”
Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, president of USCCB, joined the meeting to extend his greetings and welcome to all the participants. He made brief remarks on the central importance of Catholic-Jewish dialogue and, in particular, of the work done between the USCCB and National Council of Synagogues. He thanked all of the members present for their continued dedication.
Professor Amy Jill Levine of Vanderbilt University gave a brief overview of her work, co-edited with Professor Marc Brettler of Brandeis University, while Jesuit Father John Donahue, professor of New Testament at Loyola University, Baltimore, offered a Catholic response. Dialogue members then discussed various aspects of biblical studies, as well as how the publication of The Jewish Annotated New Testament marked a deepening of understanding in Catholic-Jewish relations. Levine stressed that it is vital for Jews to study the New Testament to gain respect for their Christian neighbors, even as Christians must do the same with the Hebrew Scriptures.
Rabbi Gil Rosenthal, executive director of the National Council of Synagogues, remarked: “This important volume is testimony not only to the enormous competence of its editors and authors, but to the spirit of dialogue that can allow Jews to read and appreciate the Jewish context of Christian scriptures.”
Reports on other dialogue issues, such as continued progress in the implementation of practical aspects of the Vatican-Israeli accord, and updates on the reconciliation of the Society of St. Pius X with the Vatican filled the second half of the meeting. Plans for a two-day October dialogue were considered, centered around the topic of the role of religion in the public square.
On May 25, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops/Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America/Rabbinical Council of America (USCCB/OU/RCA) met for their semi-annual consultation to discuss global economics, religious education, religious freedom and the state of Israel. Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, New York, and Rabbi David Berger, Ph.D., of Yeshiva University co-chaired the meeting.
The meeting began with a discussion of a religious perspective on financial reform and a vision for a just economic order. The group review of the full text of the Bilateral Commission Meeting of the Delegations for the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, which took place March 27-29, at the Vatican. Both traditions underscored the need for the moral leadership of religious groups to shed light on ethical considerations in economic systems, their failures and possible reforms.
James Cultrara, director of education for the New York Catholic Conference, and Michael Cohen, New York State political director for the Orthodox Union, updated the group on the funding of religious schools in the state of New York, a topic of shared concerns for both communities. “There is a tuition crisis in both of our communities,” Cohen told the group. “The escalating cost of tuition, in some communities it has doubled within six or seven years. We need to find the solution that works.”
Thomas Renker, legal counsel for the Diocese of Rockville Centre, updated the group on developments in the federal HHS contraception mandate and the response of the Catholic community. The group discussed the situation at some length with several noting the inherent threat to religious freedom for all faith traditions which the situation presents.
Rabbi Tzvi H. Weinreb, executive vice president emeritus of the Orthodox Union, gave a brief presentation on current cultural and domestic policy issues in Israel. Bishop Murphy gave a brief report on the new Catholic Catechism for Youth titled “YouCAT.” Of specific interest to the group were sections dealing with Jewish people. Some concerns had previously been voiced surrounding the formulation of some parts of the text, initiating a revision.
Additional Jewish participants in the USCCB/OU/ RCA consultation included: Maury Litwack, director of political affairs, OU; Betty Ehrenberg, executive director of the World Jewish Congress North America; Nathan Diament, director of public affairs, OU; Rabbi Basil Herring, executive vice president, RCA; Rabbi Aaron Glatt, Young Israel of Woodmere; and Mr. Avi Schick, an attorney with experience in both government work and interfaith relations.Additional Catholic included: Msgr. Donald Beckman, ecumenical officer of the Diocese of Rockville Centre; Father Robert Robbins, pastor of the United Nations Parish Church of the Holy Family and New York archdiocesan director for ecumenical and interreligious affairs; Msgr. Robert Stern, Catholic Near East Welfare Association; Father John Crossin, executive director, USCCB Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs (SEIA); Kirsten Evans, program and research specialist, USCCB SEIA.
Jewish participants at the USCCB/NCS consultation included Rabbi Lewis Eron, Cherry Hill, New Jersey; Rabbi Joel Meyers, executive vice-president emeritus of the (Conservative) Rabbinical Assembly; Rabbi Jonathan Waxman, Temple Beth Sholom, Smitonthtown, New York; Rabbi David Straus, Central Conference of American Rabbis; Rabbi Gilbert Rosenthal, National Council of Synagogues; Rabbi Daniel F. Polish of La Grangeville, New York; Ruth Langer, Ph.D., of Boston College; Rabbi David Sandmel, Ph.D. of The Catholic Theological Union, Chicago; Rabbi Alvin Berkin of The Tree of Life Congregation, Pittsburgh; Rabbi Jeffrey A. Wohlberg of Adas Israel, Washington; Rabbi Jerome Davidson of Temple Beth-El, Great Neck, New York; Judith Hertz of the International Council of Presidents of the World Conferences of Religions for Peace and Betty Ehrenberg, executive director of the North American Division of the World Jewish Congress. Catholic participants at the consultation included Bishop Basil H. Losten, former bishop of Stamford for Ukrainians; Brother of the Christians Schools David Carroll, former associate director at Catholic Near East Welfare Association; Msgr. Robert Stern, former director of the Catholic Near East Welfare Association; Father Dennis McManus, USCCB consultant for Jewish Affairs and Jesuit Father Drew Christiansen, editor of America Magazine. (End quote).
Michael Hoffman needs your help: he is nearly 70% of the way through his new book on the theological history of the rise of the Money Power in Christendom. Funds to sustain further writing and research, and the actual publication of the book once it is completed, are very much needed. If you feel led to assist, please click on this link. Thank you.
 
***

The USS Liberty Attack by Israel and the Coverup

The deliberate attack on the USS Liberty by israel pass this video around copy it post it on your pages or link to it here this needs much attention so do your part Thank You

———————————————————————————-

POLITICS

The Day Israel Attacked America

Al Jazeera investigates the shocking truth behind a deadly Israeli attack on a US naval vessel.

Special programme | 30 Oct 2014 20:22 GMT | Politics, War & Conflict, US & Canada, Israel, Spain

In 1967, at the height of the Arab-Israeli Six-Day War, the Israeli Air Force launched an unprovoked attack on the USS Liberty, a US Navy spy ship that was monitoring the conflict from the safety of international waters in the Mediterranean.

Israeli jet fighters hit the vessel with rockets, cannon fire and napalm, before three Israeli torpedo boats moved in to launch a second more devastating attack. Though she did not sink, the Liberty was badly damaged. Thirty-four US servicemen and civilian analysts were killed, another 171 were wounded.

Later Israel apologised for what it claimed to be a tragic case of mistaken identity. It said that it had believed the ship to be hostile Egyptian naval vessel. US President Lyndon Johnson was privately furious but publicly the White House chose not to challenge the word of its closest Middle East ally and accepted that the attack had been a catastrophic accident.

However, as this exclusive Al Jazeera investigation reveals, fresh evidence throws new light on exactly what happened that fateful day – and the remarkable cover up that followed.


FILMMAKER’S VIEW

By Richard Belfield

I was first told about the attack on the USS Liberty in 1980 over dinner with a former analyst from the National Security Agency (NSA) in Washington DC.

Back in 1980, I promised my friend that if I ever got the chance I would make a film about it. Over the years, I pitched the idea to numerous broadcasters and always got the same response: eyes rolled upwards, usually followed by the statement, “Are you completely mad?”

Fast forward to 2009 and I was a guest speaker at the NSA’s biennial conference on historical cryptography, talking about an unsolved code on an 18th century monument in an English stately home.

While there, I went to two other sessions – both about attacks on American signal intelligence naval vessels.

The first was the capture of the US spy ship, the Pueblo (boarded by North Korean forces in 1968 – and never returned). The survivors of that incident were treated like heroes and feted on stage.

The next day there was a session about the USS Liberty. James Scott, who has written easily the best book on the Liberty attack, was on stage and limited to his allotted 20 minutes. Ranged against him were three Israeli apologists, all of whom were allowed to overrun their time. Survivors from the Liberty affair were allowed to sit in the audience, but they were denied any say in proceedings.

As an Englishman, I was brought up with a strong sense of fair play and I thought this was a disgrace. It was gruesome to watch. First, the crew had been attacked in broad daylight by a close ally, then they were betrayed by their government and now they were being humiliated by the same agency many had worked for back in 1967.

Earlier this year, I acquired a copy of the audiotape of the attack as it had unfolded, the real time conversations between Isreali Air Force pilots and their controllers back at base. It had never been broadcast before. I went to talk to Al Jazeera and after careful consideration, the network commissioned the film.

On location, it all started with James Scott (who gets a co-producer credit on this project). When writing his book, he had already interviewed the survivors as well as many of the key people in the Washington political and intelligence machine from that time. The introductions he made would prove invaluable as we began filming interviews.

The veterans were extraordinary. One after another, they were generous with their time, uniformly eloquent and passionate and above all, honest in their recollections.

They all felt betrayed by the American government but were keen to exonerate ordinary Jewish people both in Israel and without, for any responsibility for the incident. Their beef was simply with the senior Israeli officers in the control room and their superiors higher up the command chain who had ordered the attack.

After a few days filming, I rang Elaine Morris, my producer back in London. She asked how things were going. All I could say was that the quality of the interviews was the best I had ever experienced in many decades in this business.

In Texas we interviewed Bobby Ray Inman, an intelligence officer with a glittering track record at the CIA, Naval Intelligence and as a former director of the NSA. My contacts in the UK intelligence world had always told me “he is one of the good guys” and I quickly discovered why. He was frank and clear. The top Israeli commanders, he explained, had known exactly what they were doing when they attacked the Liberty and when it came to holding them to account, the US government rolled over for them.

We filmed an annual memorial ceremony in Washington, D.C. It was emotional, visceral and tense, with survivors, family and friends gathered in the morning sun. Listening to a sole bugler playing the US Navy’s lament, ‘Taps’ is a memory that will never fade.

Years earlier, I had visited the US military graves in Arlington Cemetery but now, following the ceremony, I got to go there again with Dave Lucas, one of the survivors of the attack and a truly wonderful man.

We filmed as he walked up the hill carrying a wreath from the ceremony. Alongside him was a crew member, a Portuguese language specialist, who had left the Liberty in Spain just a few days before it sailed off up the Mediterranean to take up position off the Egyptian coast. He had been temporarily replaced for the mission by an Arab linguist. He wept openly for the comrades he had said goodbye to, never to see again. As we filmed the pair laying the flowers, an interview with one of the other survivors, Jim Kavanagh came suddenly to mind. “I went through hell,” he had said about his shipmates. “But they left this earth.”

Finally, we filmed on a sister ship to the Liberty, now moored in San Francisco. The crew hauled an outsized US flag up a mast for us. The flag – known as the “holiday colours” – was identical to that which was flown from the Liberty on June 8, 1967. It was huge, clearly visible for miles, and I knew immediately that no one could ever have been in any doubt about the nationality of the ship beneath it.

Watching the Stars and Stripes unfurl into the wind, I realised that I had got to keep the promise I first made to my friend in a Washington restaurant 34 years ago.

Source: Al Jazeera

——————————————————–



BBC Documentary on the USS Liberty:
“Dead in the Water”

“If it was an accident, it was the best planned accident I’ve ever heard of” – USS Liberty survivor

Cover-Up Alleged in Probe of USS Liberty

A former Navy attorney who helped lead the military investigation of the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34 American servicemen says former President Lyndon Johnson and his defense secretary, Robert McNamara, ordered that the inquiry conclude the incident was an accident.

In a signed affidavit released at a Capitol Hill news conference, retired Capt. Ward Boston said Johnson and McNamara told those heading the Navy’s inquiry to “conclude that the attack was a case of ‘mistaken identity’ despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.”

It was “one of the classic all-American cover-ups,” said retired Admiral Thomas Moorer, a former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman who spent a year investigating the attack as part of an independent panel he formed with other former military officials. The panel also included a former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, James Akins.


Torpedo hole in USS Liberty

“Why would our government put Israel’s interests ahead of our own?” Moorer asked from his wheelchair at the news conference. He was chief of naval operations at the time of the attack.

Moorer, who has long held that the attack was a deliberate act, wants Congress to investigate. [Newsday]

Israel claims the USS Liberty was mistaken for the out-of-service Egyptian horse carrier El Quseir – can you spot the difference?


El Quseir


USS Liberty

According to a 1981 NSA report on the incident, the El Quseir “was approximately one-quarter of the Liberty’s tonnage, about one-half its length, and offered a radically different silhouette.”

Photos of attack on USS Liberty
Click images for full sized photos

The assault was initiated by French-built high performance Mirage jets armed with cannons and rockets

After the ship was disabled by aircraft cannon, rockets and napalm, Israeli torpedo boats were sent in

Crews mess hall used as an emergency room

Liberty deck crew resting after recovering bodies of shipmates

30mm cannon holes
GTR 5 USS Liberty

30mm cannon holes
GTR 5 USS Liberty

Fifteen years after the attack, an Israeli pilot approached Liberty survivors and then held extensive interviews with former Congressman Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey about his role. According to this senior Israeli lead pilot, he recognized the Liberty as American immediately, so informed his headquarters, and was told to ignore the American flag and continue his attack. He refused to do so and returned to base, where he was arrested.

Later, a dual-citizen Israeli major told survivors that he was in an Israeli war room where he heard that pilot’s radio report. The attacking pilots and everyone in the Israeli war room knew that they were attacking an American ship, the major said. He recanted the statement only after he received threatening phone calls from Israel.

The pilot’s protests also were heard by radio monitors in the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon. Then-U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Dwight Porter has confirmed this. Porter told his story to syndicated columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak and offered to submit to further questioning by authorities. Unfortunately, no one in the U.S. government has any interest in hearing these first-person accounts of Israeli treachery. [Washington Report]


“Then, inexplicably, at 2 p.m., unmarked Israeli aircraft began attacking the ship.” [Ledger Enquirer]

Israel attacked the USS Liberty using UNMARKED AIRCRAFT. This is the single fact which proves Israel knew exactly who they were attacking. Israel’s story is that they thought USS Liberty was an Egyptian ship and therefore a legitimate target of war. Were that true, there would be no reason to attack a supposedly Egyptian ship with unmarked aircraft. The only possible reason to use unmarked aircraft to attack the ship is that Israel knew it was an American ship and intended to sink it, then to blame the attack on Egypt.

Moorer, who as top legal council to the official investigation is in a position to know, agrees that Israel intended to sink the USS Liberty and blame Egypt for it, thus dragging the United States into a war on Israel’s behalf. This seems to be a common trick of Israel. Starting with the Lavon affair, through the USS Liberty, to the fake radio transmitter that tricked Reagan into attacking Libya, to potentially 9-11 itself, Israel’s game is to frame Arabs and set them up as targets for the United States.

The official US investigation is discredited. And with it, every claim of innocence for Israel that relied on the official investigation as a source.

The real question facing the American people is why the US Government seems more concerned with protecting Israel after they are caught playing these dirty tricks, rather than doing something to convince Israel not to kill any more Americans.

“Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified information.” — US official quoted in Carl Cameron’s Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11.

 Is Israel blackmailing America?

——————————————————————————————-

Israel’s Attack on USS Liberty – The Full Story

The lesson of the cold-blooded attack on the USS Liberty 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.

 

by Alan Hart

 

On Thursday 8 June 1967, Israeli air and naval forces attacked America’s most advanced spy ship, the U.S.S. Liberty, killing 34 of its crew and wounding 174.

Forty five years on, thanks to the complicity of the mainstream media, the cover up ordered by President Johnson is still in place.

Two years ago, on New York’s Long Island, I had the pleasure and privilege of being the keynote speaker at the annual dinner of the Liberty Survivors Association. I told them I was aware that if the attack had gone completely according to the plan of the man who ordered it, Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Dayan, none of them would have survived.

I also told them that although I am an Englishman who had not served in any of his country’s armed services (because conscription was abolished by the time I was old enough to have served), we did have something in common –OUTRAGE that could not be expressed adequately in polite words at the continued suppression in America of the truth about Israel’s attack on the Liberty.

On the 45th anniversary of that attack, this post is providing the complete text of Chapter Two of the three-volume American edition of my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews. The chapter is titled The Liberty Affair – “Pure Murder” on a “Great Day”.

My American publisher expressed to me the view that it is “the most revealing, the most riveting and the most important chapter in the whole book.”  My own view is that it assists real understanding of what the Zionist state of Israel is – a monster beyond control.

Here is the chapter, complete with source notes.

Israel insisted (as it still does) that its attack on the Liberty was an unfortunate “accident”, a case of “mistaken identity”.

The attack ought to have been a sensational, headline-grabbing news story, but beyond the fact that an accident had happened and that Israel had apologised, it did not get reported by America’s news organisations. It was too hot an issue for them to handle and pursue. If it had been an Arab attack on an American vessel it would have been an entirely different matter, of course. In that event there would have been saturation coverage with demands for retaliation, with Zionist and other pro-Israeli columnists and commentators setting the pace and tone.

About the attack and its aftermath – the Johnson administration’s cover-up led by the President himself – retired American Admiral Thomas L. Moorer, who was appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) a month after the incident, was subsequently to say to former U.S. Congressman Paul Findley, “If it was written as fiction nobody would believe it.”[i]

The attack itself, Admiral Moorer said to Findley, was “absolutely deliberate.” And the cover-up? “The clampdown was not actually for security reasons but for domestic political reasons. I don’t think there is any question about it. What other reasons could there have been? President Johnson was worried about the reaction of Jewish voters.” (For which read, I add, the awesome power of the Zionist lobby and its many stooges in Congress). The former Chairman of the JCS added: “The American people would be god damn mad if they knew what goes on.”[ii]

As it happened, the institutions of government in America did not succeed in keeping the truth covered up because there were eye-witnesses who would not be silenced. They were the survivors of the Liberty’s crew. The first prime source of the detailed information about the actual attack is the book Assault on the Liberty.[iii] It was written by Lieutenant James M. Ennes. He was the Officer of the Deck on the Liberty throughout the attack.

On 5 June 1982 there was a reunion of Liberty survivors in the Hotel Washington in Washington D.C. The guest speaker was retired Admiral Moorer. He told the survivors that he had “never been willing to accept the Israeli explanation that it was a case of mistaken identity.” He could not accept that Israeli pilots “don’t know how to identify ships.” It followed, he said, that there “must have been some other motive”, which he was confident “some day will be made public.”[iv]

Retired Admiral Moorer’s confidence has not yet been justified. Some of the official documents have been de-classified with the most sensitive (for which read most embarrassing) passages blacked out, but other official documents and reports remain classified, TOP SECRET, and are likely to remain so for as long as America’s pork-barrel politicians are frightened of offending Zionism.

The “motive” for the attack has to be deduced from what happened in the context of the whole war of June 1967 and Dayan’s determination to stop at nothing to create the Greater Israel of gut-Zionism’s mad dream. And the key to complete understanding is knowledge of the Liberty’s capabilities and what its mission was.

A question readers might like to keep in mind is this: When Dayan ordered the attack – he wanted the Liberty to be completely destroyed with the loss of all hands on board – who was the Israeli general who protested and said, “This is pure murder”?

The Liberty’s naval designation was AGTR-5, meaning that it was the fifth ship in a series undertaking “Auxiliary General Technical Research.” It was, in fact, a converted World War II Victory ship – the former Simmons Victory. It had been refitted by the NSA (National Security Agency) for use as a signals intelligence (SIGINT) “platform” – a floating listening post. It had a very sophisticated system of radio antennae including a “Big Ear” sonar-radio listening device with a clear capability range of over 500 miles. Up to that distance the Liberty could intercept virtually any form of wireless communication, including military and diplomatic traffic, telemetry data, rocket guidance and satellite control, among others. It could then decode and process the intercepted messages and relay them back to the NSA at Fort Meade, Maryland, via short-wave radio or through a very special communications system called TRSSCOM, using a 10,000-watt microwave signal bounced off the surface of the moon. The U.S.S. Liberty was America’s most advanced spy ship.

Below decks the communications areas – which housed the computers, listening and decoding devices manned by linguistic experts and other personnel who were changed according to the ship’s mission – were off-limits to the crew, including Captain William I. McGonagle. The communication areas were under the direct control of an NSA technician (managing spook). The on-board NSA controller for the Liberty’s June ’67 mission was known to the crew as “the Major.” With two other civilians he joined the Liberty at Rota in Spain shortly before the spy ship sailed from there for the Middle East on 2 June. The day after Dayan became minister of defence. (A coincidence?)

The Liberty’s movements were controlled by the JCS and the NSA in Washington. With a top speed of 18 knots it was faster than most ships of its kind. On both the forecastle and deckhouse aft of the bridge there were two pedestal-mounted 0.50-calibre Browning machine guns. These four guns, on open mounts without shrapnel shields, were the spy ship’s only defences. Strictly speaking the Liberty was not an unarmed vessel but for all practical purposes it was. Another sitting duck if attacked.

The Liberty’s mission was TOP SECRET and has not been acknowledged to this day.

It was on patrol, listening, because some in the Johnson administration at executive level – perhaps Defence Secretary McNamara especially – did not trust the Israelis to keep their word with regard to the scope of the war.

The Johnson administration had given the green light for Israel to attack Egypt and only Egypt. It was understood that the IDF would have to respond to Jordanian intervention – if it happened, but on no account was Israel to seek to widen the war for the purpose of taking Jordanian or Syrian territory. Apart from President Johnson’s public statement that he was as firmly committed as his predecessors had been to the “political independence and territorial integrity of all the nations in that area”, Washington’s fear was what could happen if the Israelis occupied Syrian territory. If they did there was a possibility of Soviet intervention (for face-saving reasons). Soviet leaders could just about live with the Egyptians being smashed by the IDF but not the Syrians too. Through the CIA the Johnson administration was aware of the IDF’s secret agreement with the Syrian regime. (As revealed in the previous chapter of my book, Syria, in the countdown to war, agreed to put on only a token show of fighting when Israel attacked Egypt). So it, the Johnson administration, was reasonably confident that the Syrians would not seek to widen the war by engaging the Israelis in any serious way. The name of the U.S. counter-intelligence game was therefore preventing Israel from attacking Syria. That was the Liberty’s mission.

When the Liberty was ordered to the Middle East, everybody who needed to know did know that the Israelis would have only a few days in which to smash the Egyptians – because the Security Council would demand a quick end to the fighting and Israel would have to stop when it was shown the international red card. Which meant that when Israel went to war with Egypt, it would be assigning the bulk of its armour to the Egyptian front. The point? If Israel then decided to attack Syria, it would have to re-deploy armour, very quickly, from the Egyptian front to the Syrian front. The orders for any such redeployment would be given by wireless – from Dayan’s Ministry of Defence in Tel Aviv to the commanders in the field and they, naturally, would talk to each other. If there was such radio chatter, the Liberty would pick it up and pass it urgently to the NSA in Washington. President Johnson would then demand that the Israelis abort their intended attack on Syria. So long as the Liberty was on station and functioning, the U.S. would have some control of Israel.

In short the Liberty was the Johnson administration’s insurance policy. It was there to prevent Israel’s hawks going over the top and, on a worst-case scenario, provoking Soviet intervention and possibly World War III. (One could have said then, and one could say with even more point today, that with the Zionist state as its friend the U.S. does not need enemies.)

From Dayan’s perspective… Before he could order an invasion of Syria for the purpose of grabbing the Golan Heights for keeps, the Liberty had to be put out of business.

In what follows it is important to keep two things in mind.

First: It was impossible for the attacking Israelis not to know the identity of their target. From the masthead on the ensign staff the Liberty was proudly flying the standard American flag -five feet by eight feet. The ship’s US Navy markings, GTR-5, were on both sides of its bows in white letters and a figure ten feet high. And the ship’s name was clearly visible on its stern. Not to mention the sophisticated system of radio antennae.

Second: As Stephen Green noted, “The IDF command did not have to consult Jane’s Fighting Ships to learn about the eavesdropping capabilities of the Liberty.”[v] Israeli military intelligence had a very close working relationship with both the CIA and the U.S. Defence Department and knew well that the Liberty could listen to the movement orders for IDF units – movement orders that, on the evening–morning of 7-8 June, would be concerned with rushing units from Sinai to the northern Galilee border with Syria, in preparation for an invasion.

Shortly after 2030 hours local time on the evening of Wednesday 7 June, Israeli aerial reconnaissance reported to IDF Central Coastal Command in Tel Aviv a change in the Liberty’s course. The spy ship was now steaming toward a point on the Israeli coast midway between Tel Aviv and the naval base at Ashdod. The change of course was noted on the Israeli control table. The Liberty was represented by a green symbol indicating a neutral craft – neither foe nor friend. It may or may not have been a coincidence (I think not) that the Liberty’s course change came shortly after the Johnson administration had withdrawn its opposition in the Security Council to a resolution demanding a cease-fire. (The demand meaning that Israel was expected by the U.S. to comply).

At about 2200 hours the Liberty’s sophisticated radar-sensing equipment detected Israeli jets circling the ship. That was not surprising given where the vessel was. The surprise was that fire-control radar was being directed at it. The Israeli jets were homing their rockets as though for an attack.

The small group gathered around the Liberty’s radar screen playfully employed the ship’s electronic countermeasure (ECM) to “spoof” the Israeli pilots. The Liberty’s ECM equipment was of the latest and most sophisticated type and enabled the ship to distort its radar image and send it back to the Israeli planes – making the Liberty appear to be much smaller and then much bigger than it was. First Class Petty Officer Charles Rowley was subsequently to recall that no one took the contact seriously. The Israelis, it was assumed, were only playing games.

They were not; and there was a link between the directing of fire-control radar at the Liberty and what had happened an hour or so earlier. The Office of the U.S. Defence Attaché in Tel Aviv had sent a startling message to the U.S. Army Communications Centre in Washington. By telegram in code the message was that the IDF was planning to attack the Liberty if the ship continued to move closer to the Israeli coast! 

It can be assumed that it was only a matter of minutes before everybody in Washington who needed to know did know about Dayan’s threat. (Everybody in Washington’s war loop knew that it was Dayan’s war).

In retrospect two things seem to me to be obvious.

The first is that Dayan ordered the leaking (to the U.S. Defence Attaché) of his intention to attack the Liberty in the hope that the threat alone would cause the controlling American authorities to abort the spy ship’s mission, and thus remove the need for it to be attacked.

The second is that Dayan ordered the jets which circled the Liberty at 2200 hours to direct fire-control radar at the vessel to underline the fact that he was not bluffing – that the spy ship would be attacked if it did not move away. Dayan was assuming that the Liberty would report to its controllers in Washington the fact that Israeli jets had gone through the motions of preparing to attack the vessel.

As it happened the Liberty did not report its 2200 hours contact because of the assumption that the Israeli pilots were playing games. But the Liberty’s failure to report the incident was of no consequence because the report of the U.S. Defence Attaché had weight enough on its own. Washington knew that Israel’s one-eyed warlord was not a man who made empty threats.

There can surely be no dispute about what President Johnson ought to have done given that the lives of 286 Americans on board the Liberty were at stake. He ought to have telephoned Prime Minister Eshkol and said that an Israeli attack on the Liberty would be regarded as a declaration of war on the United States of America, and would provoke an appropriate U.S. response.

But for obvious domestic political reasons Johnson was not going to do that. Instead, and no doubt at the urging of Walt Rostow and others with influence who were for Zionism right or wrong, the President approved the sending of an order for the Liberty to get away from Israel as fast as possible.[vi] Over the course of two and a half hours, three frantic messages to that effect were sent, each rated “Pinnacle”, which meant highest priority. Incredibly, none were received by the Liberty.

To this day the U.S. Navy has not offered an explanation, so those of us who don’t like mysteries have to speculate. There are, I think, only two possible explanations.

One is that the messages were inadvertently misrouted and delayed in the convoluted channels and procedures of the Defence Department’s worldwide communications system. That supposes an astonishing degree of inefficiency and incompetence. (The subsequent TOP SECRET Naval Board of Inquiry – “Review of Proceedings on the Attack on the U.S.S. Liberty” – asserted that nobody in the Defence Department was to blame for anything).

The other possible explanation is that somebody in high authority was enraged by President Johnson’s surrender to Dayan for domestic political reasons, and took the necessary steps to see to it that the messages were not transmitted to the Liberty – because he believed that the spy ship’s mission was vital; in turn because he believed that the peace of the world might be at stake if Israel attacked Syria and provoked a Soviet response. This explanation supposes that there was in the Johnson administration one hell of a fight between those who supported Zionism right or wrong – even when doing so was not in America’s best interests, and those who put America’s own interests first.

Does anybody know, really know, which of those two possible explanations is the correct one?

The fact that President Johnson, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA and the NSA had advance notice of Dayan’s intention to attack the Liberty meant that, when the early reports of the attack arrived, they had a choice. In Taking Sides, Stephen Green put it this way: The choice was “either to take retaliatory action against Israel, or to become an accessory after the fact by promoting the fiction that it was somehow an accident.”[vii]

Out of fear of offending Zionism and its child it was, of course, the second option that the pork-barrel Johnson administration took, making a cover-up inevitable.

At this point I must pause to acknowledge that I, like most others (the few) who write about the cover-up, would know little that was worth knowing without Stephen Green’s original research. In Peering Into Dark Corners, the title of the first chapter of his book, he told of his epic struggle to make use of the Federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to get access to declassified files from 22 different U.S. government agencies, mainly civilian and military intelligence agencies.

“The FOIA process,” he wrote in 1984 (how appropriate), “has in the past few years become an adversarial one with strong political overtones. Initial requests (for de-classified documents and files) may be simply ignored for months until repeated follow-ups elicit pro forma responses. Once a researcher’s request reaches an active pile, he or she may be threatened with exorbitant search and duplication fees.” He gave an example. In response to one particular request he was informed in writing that servicing it would require “13,000 hours of search time at $16 per hour. If I would just send along the $208,000, they would get cracking on the matter.”[viii]

To my way of thinking Green’s most chilling revelation was about the existence of Executive Order 12356. This was promulgated by President Reagan in mid-1982 to permit the re-classification of previously de-classified documents! “The Reagan Justice Department has encouraged a number of federal agencies to avail themselves of this new ‘opportunity’ to return to an era when the processes of government were none of the American people’s business.”[ix]

In passing it is also worth noting that Green’s credentials were beyond reproach because he is Jewish. He dedicated his book as follows – “For my father, who would have understood.” Green’s hope was that his book would encourage debate about the need for America to have a more distant and rational relationship with Israel.

Precisely when on Thursday 8 June Dayan ordered the actual attack on the Liberty has never been revealed.There was however a Congressional leak to Green from a named member – Representative Robert L.F. Sikes – of the intelligence working group of the investigating Defence Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations. The leak confirmed among other things the existence of a suppressed report of a secret CIA briefing in which it was stated that Dayan had issued the order over the protests of another Israeli general who said, “This is pure murder.”[x]

The attack, the murder at sea, was in two main phases lasting more than one hour (as we shall see, an intended third and final phase had to be aborted); and it was launched after aerial reconnaissance of the Liberty, in the sunlight of the eastern Mediterranean, over a period of eight hours. As all television cameramen and still photographers know, the sunlight in the eastern Mediterranean has almost magical properties. It is Mother Nature’s assistance for taking perfect pictures.

Dawn on the morning of Thursday 8 June brought with it the promise of another beautiful and clear day. Calm sea. Light, warm breezes. The off-duty crew of the Liberty could not have had it better if they were holidaymakers on a cruise ship. Many were, in fact, looking forward to some sunbathing on the deck.

The aerial reconnaissance of the Liberty started at 0600 hours when a lumbering Israeli Noratlas (a Nord 2051) slowly circled the ship three times.

On the bridge Ensign John Scott, near the end of his watch as the Officer of the Deck, studied the plane through his binoculars.

The French-built Noratlas was a transport plane but this one had been modified by the Israeli Air Force. It was carrying not fighting men of any kind but photographers – the best the Israeli Air Force had (which probably meant they were second to none in the world) – and, to direct them, specialists from the directorate of military intelligence. The pictures that were being taken of the Liberty on this and several subsequent over-flights would determine the precise plan of attack.

If Dayan was to get away with it, the Liberty had to be totally destroyed with no survivors to tell the tale. And the key to complete success when the attack was launched would be taking out the Liberty’s transmitting facilities before it could get off a call for help to the American Sixth Fleet which was not too far away. If the Liberty did succeed in transmitting an S.O.S. when it was being attacked, there was at least the possibility that fighter planes from the Sixth Fleet would be ordered to take on the attackers. The prospect of an aerial dog-fight between U.S. and Israeli warplanes was unthinkable. But that was what Dayan would be risking if his attack planes failed to take out the Liberty’s transmitting facilities with their first rockets. The Noratlas’s prime task was to get the pictures that would enable Israeli pilots to attack the Liberty’s communications facilities with, literally, pin-point accuracy on their first run.

At 0720 hours Lieutenant James Ennes replaced Scott as the Officer of the Deck. By now everybody on the Liberty was well aware that their ship was being examined very, very carefully. The first thing Ennes did was to order a new flag (measuring five feet by eight feet) to be run up the main mast. The old one had been badly sooted on the journey from Rota.

At 0900 hours, in accordance with its original operating orders, the Liberty made a sharp right-hand turn and reduced speed to five knots. The ship was doubling back in a westerly direction roughly parallel to the Egyptian coast north of El Arish. As Ennes ordered the turn, the Liberty was 25 miles from Gaza and less than 30 miles from the nearest point on the Israeli coast. The ship was now perfectly placed to listen to IDF movement orders – orders for many Israeli units in Sinai to turn around and move north, to assist with the consolidation of Israel’s capture of the West Bank and, more importantly, an attack on Syria. (I was in Sinai at the time reporting for ITN, and I saw some of the Israel tanks that had smashed through Egypt’s defences being loaded onto huge lorry-drawn trailers for transportation northwards).

As the Liberty was turning, a single jet aircraft was watching from a distance. Then, at 1000 hours, two delta-winged jets armed with rockets circled the ship three times. On this occasion the planes came close enough for Ennes and other officers on the bridge to see the pilots in their cockpits through binoculars. The odd thing, or so the Americans on the Liberty’s bridge thought, was that the two planes did not seem to have any markings.

In retrospect, it is obvious that the 1000 hours visit was something of a trial run, to enable the pilots to take a view on whether or not the first set of pictures taken by the Noratlas would enable them to attack the Liberty’s communications facilities with pin-point accuracy.

Events suggest that the two pilots who were to lead the attack were not happy and wanted more photographs to enable them to guarantee such pinpoint accuracy. After their report, the Noratlas made three more over flights: at 1030 hours – this time passing directly over the Liberty at a very low level, probably not more than 200 feet: at 1126 hours; and 1220 hours.

At 1310 hours, with lunch over, the crew of the Liberty conducted a series of drills including fire, damage control and gas attack. That took 40 minutes. Captain McGonagle then addressed the ship’s officers and crew. In the normal course of events he would have confined himself to complimenting them (or not) on the job done in the drills. But on this particular afternoon, the fourth of the war – they could see the smoke of battle on the shoreline, he knew that his men were in need of reassurance. After the Noratlas’s fourth reconnaissance over-flight there had been mutterings of fear. The Israelis had obviously identified the Liberty several times over. What, really, did they want?

McGonagle addressed the concern of his ship’s company by stressing that they had been under surveillance by “friendly” forces. Given that and the fact that they (the friendly forces) could not have failed to identify the Liberty, the captain was implying that his men should dismiss from their minds the possibility of an attack. He was saying – without saying – that the Israelis could not attack the Liberty without knowing it was the Liberty they were attacking.

At 1405 hours the “friends” returned, led by three Mirages each armed with 72 rockets and two 30-mm cannons. This time there was no circling. At high speed they came straight for the Liberty, so fast that between the time they appeared as blips on the ship’s radar and the start of their attack, Ennes and others on the bridge barely had time to grab and focus their binoculars.

For seven minutes the three Mirages made furious, crisscross runs, hitting the Liberty with everything they had. The first rockets fired toppled several of the ship’s antennae. After the Mirages and for about another 20 minutes, the air attack was continued by several Mystere fighters. They were slower than the Mirages and therefore more efficient for staffing and dropping canisters of napalm. (Napalm is a highly inflammable petroleum jelly. In Vietnam I witnessed American ground forces using it in flame-throwers to burn entire villages. It can reduce a human body to a handful of black pulp).The fact that the Israelis resorted to use of napalm for their attack on the Liberty is on its own proof enough that Dayan wanted there to be no survivors to tell the tale.

When the first attack was over the Liberty had 621 holes in its sides and decks, including over 100 rocket holes six to eight inches wide: and not counting the shrapnel damage. As author Richard Smith wrote, Israeli pilots with the greatest ease could “butcher a large, slow moving and defenceless target like the Liberty,” and the Mirages’ ordnance, designed to penetrate the armour of tanks, “punched through the Liberty’s 22 year-old shell-plating like a hammer against an old block of cheese.”[xi]

Within a minute or so of the start of the attack Captain McGonagle had ordered a report be made to the Chief of Naval Operations. It was an order he gave more in hope than expectation of it being executed – because he was aware that the ship’s transmission facilities had been the first priority for the attacking planes. But… At 1410 hours, five minutes after the attack started, the Liberty’s Chief Radioman, Wayne Smith, did succeed in transmitting an open-channel “Mayday” distress call for assistance. He was subsequently to tell the Navy Board of Inquiry that as soon as the attack started, the participating planes and/or shore-based units were jamming the Liberty’s radios. He recalled that five of the ship’s six shore circuits were very quickly jammed and that whoever was doing it “went searching” for the last circuit. It was on this last circuit that Smith was able to transmit the call for assistance. Because it was an open-channel transmission, the Israelis obviously heard it. The question then waiting for an answer was – would any of the warships of the American Sixth Fleet hear it and, if they did, how would they respond?

Correction – would they be allowed by President Johnson to respond?

Phase two of the attack was executed by three Israeli motor torpedo boats (MTBs). The Liberty’s crew were fighting the fires caused by the air attack when the MTBs announced their arrival by opening up with their 0.20-mm and 0.40-mm guns. Their main task was to sink the Liberty. For that purpose – could there have been any other? – they fired three torpedoes. One struck the communications room dead centre in Number 3 hold, killing in an instant 25 of the 34 men who died in the entire attack. The 25, including the “Major”, were entombed in the flooded wreckage.

Ten years later, the consequences of the combined air and sea attacks were summarised by one of the surviving crew members, Joseph C. Lentini of Maryland, in a letter to the editor of the Washington Star. It was published on 4 October 1977. Lentini wrote: “In less than 39 minutes a fine ship was reduced to a bullet-ridden, napalm scorched and helpless floating graveyard. In those 39 minutes boys brought up in the peaceful aftermath of a horrendous world war experienced their first, and for some their last, trial of fire.”

The Liberty was now listing nine degrees and the MTBs were circling slowly, directing their canon fire at the ship’s bridge and any activity that could be seen on the deck and, also, at the ship’s waterline in an apparent effort to explode its boilers.

What happened next was yet more evidence that Dayan wanted no survivors.

The order “Prepare to abandon ship!” was followed, naturally, by the lowering of the first lifeboats. As they touched the water the Israeli MTBs moved closer and shot them to pieces. Among the Liberty crewmen who witnessed this was Petty Officer Charles Rowley. He also observed the concentration of machine-gun fire on the life-boats still stored on deck. After the attack he carefully photographed the shredded boats, thinking that one day his pictures would help to tell a story. When eventually he told it to Stephen Green, Rowley said, “They didn’t want anybody to live.”[xii]

At 1505 or thereabouts (a time to remember) the MTBs suddenly broke off their attack and departed at high-speed in a “V” formation. They went to a distance of about five miles to await further orders.

The Liberty now had no engines, no rudder and no power. And was taking in water.

Nine of its officers and crew were known dead; another 25 were missing and correctly presumed to be dead (in the communications room that had taken the torpedo); and 171 were wounded. Those who were wounded but not incapacitated joined with the other 90 who had survived unscathed and set about collecting bodies, dressing wounds, fighting fires, stringing lights and hand-operated phone sets, repairing the engines and, above all, trying to keep the Liberty afloat.

While they worked on those tasks, two large Israeli SA-321 Super Frelon helicopters put in an appearance and slowly circled the stricken ship. Both were clearly marked with a large Star of David. A rescue mission? No. (Presumably there had not been time to paint out the Stars of David because the attack was not going according to plan. The Liberty was supposed to have been sunk by now).

The cargo bay doors were open and Liberty crewmen could see that both helicopters were crammed with armed troops (Israeli Special Forces). And a machine gun was mounted in each of the cargo bays.

On the Liberty Captain McGonagle gave the order he deemed to be appropriate. “Standby to repel borders!”[xiii]

As reported by Ennes, the next voice was that of an ordinary sailor, hysterical but logical and probably speaking for many. “They’ve come to finish us off![xiv]

The Israelis had come to do just that, but not yet. For the moment the helicopter pilots and the commanders of the Special Forces on board were under orders to look – to take their measure of the target – and pass by. To await, like the MTBs, further orders.

How was it going to end?

At 1536 hours the MTBs returned, accompanied by two unmarked, armed jets. They were coming for the kill. They were to finish off the Liberty, sink it – the MTBs with more torpedoes; the Special Forces on board the Super Frelon helicopters to do the mopping up, shooting dead any survivors bobbing in the water.

That was to have been the third and final phase of the Israeli attack, gut-Zionism’s final solution, one might say, to the problem of the Liberty and its secrets. There were to be no survivors to tell the tale of what had really happened, and, just as critical from Dayan’s point of view, no survivors to reveal to the American authorities any of the information the Liberty’s complex intelligence apparatus had gathered about the IDF’s preparations for an invasion of Syria.

But it did not happen. At the last minute the third and final phase of the Israeli attack was aborted. The MTBs and the two jets disappeared. Why?

The short answer is that eight aircraft from the U.S. carriers Saratoga and America were on their way to assist the Liberty with orders to “destroy or drive off any attackers.”[xv]

The longer answer is the incredible story of the struggle by elements of the U.S. military to overcome the resistance of an American President to go to the assistance of American servicemen who, defenceless, were under attack by a “friend” and ally.

The first attempt to assist the Liberty was what Green described as a “reflexive” one, meaning that it was the instant response – human as well as professional – of the captain of one of the Sixth Fleet’s aircraft carriers, the U.S.S. Saratoga. Its captain was Joseph Tully.

The Saratoga had received the Liberty’s open-channel “Mayday” distress call and enough information to know that the ship was being attacked by what Radioman Smith had described as “unidentified” aircraft.

By chance the Saratoga was conducting an exercise when it picked up the Liberty’s message and four A-1 Skyhawks were launch-ready on its decks. Captain Tully was handed the Liberty’s message by Navigator Max Morris. After a brief discussion with him, Tully ordered the Saratoga to head into the wind. Less than 15 minutes after the start of the Israeli attack, armed U.S. planes were in the air. The estimated flight time to the Liberty was about 30 minutes. The unthinkable – a confrontation between U.S. and Israeli warplanes – was, it seemed, about to happen

Over the Sixth Fleet’s Primary Tactical Manoeuvring Circuit radio network Captain Tully then informed the fleet’s Commander, Admiral Martin, of the Liberty’s predicament and his response. Martin not only endorsed Tully’s action, he used the same circuit to order the U.S.S. America, the other carrier in Carrier Task Force 60, also to launch planes to protect the Liberty. But… The America did not respond immediately.

In Green’s reconstruction of events, that was because it was not in the same state of alert or readiness as the Saratoga. That might not have been the whole story. There is evidence that Captain (later Admiral) Donald Engen was not going to launch any of the America’s planes immediately even if he could have done so – because he was insisting on playing by the rules to protect his own back and career prospects. What were the rules? Years later former Congressman Findley was to quote Engen as saying: “President Johnson had very strict control. Even though we knew the Liberty was under attack, I couldn’t just go and order a rescue.”[xvi]

In any event it was only minutes after the Saratoga’s launch that the Commander of Carrier Task Force 60, Rear Admiral Geis, issued an order for the recall of the A-1s and minutes later they were back on the Saratoga’s deck. They were not to respond to the Liberty’s desperate plea for assistance.

One inference is that Captain Engen communicated with Rear Admiral Geis and said something like, “Should we not clear this with our political masters in Washington?” And that Geis replied, “You bet”, or words to that effect.

President Johnson was very quickly informed – presumably by Defence Secretary McNamara – that the Liberty was under attack and that the Saratoga had launched planes to go to its assistance. Hence the order – from the President to the Defence Secretary – to recall the planes. In Findley’s account the Saratoga’s planes were hardly in the air when McNamara’s voice was heard over Sixth Fleet radios, “Tell the Sixth Fleet to get those aircraft back immediately![xvii]

Initially, President Johnson was – as Green put it – determined “that no U.S. aircraft would be thrust into an adversary role with the IDF, whatever the implication for the struggling U.S.S. Liberty.” Initially, and for the usual domestic political reason – fear of offending Zionism – this President was prepared to sacrifice the lives of 286 of his fellow Americans on board the Liberty.

What was about to happen indicates that for the best part of 30 minutes or so following the political decision to abandon the Liberty and its crew, elements of the U.S. military took on the President and shamed him into changing his mind. Their argument would have been to the effect that not going to the assistance of the Liberty was disgraceful and dishonourable in the extreme. It is reasonable to assume that this struggle with President Johnson (and those of his advisers he was taking most notice of – those who supported Israel right or wrong) was led initially by the Sixth Fleet’s Commander, Admiral Martin, to the cheers no doubt, of Captain Tully. But Martin could not have prevailed without the support of the Chief of Naval Operations and most if not all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

At about 1500 hours (eastern Mediterranean time) President Johnson changed his mind and authorised some action. At 1505 hours a message from COMSIXTHFLT (Commander Sixth Fleet) was transmitted to the Liberty via plain-language radio. (For U.S. Navy file purposes the message was COMSIXTHFLT 081305Z – Z denoting Greenwich Mean Time, which was two hours earlier than eastern Mediterranean/local Liberty/Israeli time.) The message said: “Your flash traffic received. Sending aircraft to cover you. Surface units on the way. Keep situation reports coming.”

As it happened this message was not received by the Liberty because it had no electricity and was off the air.

Question: Was it co-incidence that at about the time the Commander of the Sixth Fleet was sending his message, the Israeli MTBs were ordered to break off their attack and withdraw five miles to await further instructions? I think not. Though the Liberty was unable to receive Admiral Martin’s plain-language radio message, it would have been picked up by IDF monitors. And that would have been enough for those around Dayan who had opposed the attack – in particular the general who had said it would amount to “pure murder” – to press for it to be called off, or, at least, for the situation to be urgently reviewed. It is also possible that President Johnson, desperate in the extreme to avoid a confrontation with the IDF, authorised Walt Rostow to use his network to inform the Israelis that U.S. warplanes were being launched to go to the Liberty’s assistance.

The next sequence of events, military and political, could not have been more dramatic. A writer of fiction would not have dared to invent them.

  • At 1516 hours Carrier Task Force 60 (Rear Admiral Geis now had his backside covered) ordered the Saratoga and the America to launch eight aircraft to assist the Liberty and to “destroy or drive off any attackers.”
  • At 1520 hours Admiral Martin informed the Commander of U.S. Armed Forces in Europe that aircraft were being deployed.
  • At 1536 hours (as previously noted) the Israeli MTBs moved in for the kill.
  • At 1539 Admiral Martin informed the Chief of Naval Operations in Washington of the actions being taken. The eight U.S. warplanes were going to be over the Liberty at about 1600 hours, plus or minus.
  • Minutes later the Israeli MTBs were ordered to abort their final attack and get the hell out of the area.
  • At 1614 the U.S. Defence Attaché in Tel Aviv informed the White House that the Naval Attaché had been called to the Foreign Liaison Office of the IDF to receive a report that Israeli aircraft and MTBs had “erroneously attacked U.S. ship.” It was “maybe Navy ship.” The Israelis, the Defence Attaché reported, “send abject apologies and request info on other U.S. ships near war zone coasts.[xviii]
  • With that message in his hands, the Commander in Chief of all U.S. forces, President Johnson, ordered the eight U.S. warplanes to abort their mission and return to their carriers. And he accepted Israel’s explanation. The attack on the Liberty had been a ghastly mistake.

And that lie became the official American and Israeli truth.

Though it will remain a matter of speculation forever and a day – because the most relevant documents have not been declassified and presumably never will be, I think what really happened in the final minutes of what Findley described as “an episode of heroism and tragedy at sea which is without precedent in American history” was as follows.

  • Shortly before 1536, when the MTBs were ordered to resume the attack and go for the kill, Dayan said to himself, and perhaps others, something like the following: “We’re in too deep to get out now. Let’s finish the job while we still have time, just about, to destroy the evidence… so that we can blame the Egyptians.”
  • When it was clear that U.S. war planes were on their way – the IDF would have detected them – Dayan’s military colleagues (enough of them), led by the general who had opposed the attack when it was only an idea, insisted that the attack be called off, perhaps indicating that they would expose the defence minister if he did not agree. That is one possible explanation. Another is that it was Prime Minister Eshkol himself who spoke to Dayan on the telephone and said, “Stop!”

Rear Admiral Isaac Kidd was assigned the task of presiding over the Naval Board of Inquiry. Confirming a gagging order issued by Defence Secretary McNamara about not speaking to the media, Kidd instructed Liberty survivors who were to give evidence to refer all questions to the commanding officer or executive officer or to himself. He added: “Answer no questions. If you are backed into a corner, then you may say that it was an accident and that Israel has apologised. You may say nothing else.”[xix]

Marked TOP SECRET, the Naval Board’s report was completed on 18 June 1967. It has not been declassified to this day.

But the Defence Department did issue an unclassified summary of the “proceedings” of the inquiry. It was a cover-up. It stated that the Naval Board had had “insufficient information before it to make a judgement on the reasons for the decision by Israeli aircraft and motor torpedo boats to attack.”[xx]

The contribution to the cover-up by Zionism’s apologists in Congress was swift, well co-ordinated but not very well informed. In the House of Representatives Roman Pucinski from Illinois rose to ask for permission to speak for one minute while they were debating saline water. He said:

“Mr. Speaker, it was with a heavy heart that we learned a little while ago of the tragic mistake which occurred in the Mediterranean when an Israeli ship mistakenly attacked an American ship and killed four of our boys and injured and wounded 53 others. These are the tragic consequences of armed conflict: such mistakes happen frequently in Vietnam. It would be my hope that this tragic mistake will not obscure the traditional friendship we in the United States have with the people of Israel. The Israeli government has already apologised… ”[xxi]

The printed version of Pucinski’s statement in The Congressional Record for the day was headlined “Tragic Mistake”.

On the floor of the Senate the performances were more impressive. In the first five paragraphs of his statement, Senator Jacob Javits, pro-Israel right or wrong – and a heavyweight and persistent critic of the State Department – referred five times to the accidental nature of the attack. As Green noted, Javits even explained how such a mistake could occur.

“Mr. President, I must say it is a great tribute to the valour of the troops of Israel that this morning I have heard Senator after Senator say that while they were terribly dismayed and saddened by this accident, they understood how it could take place under the terrible stresses the forces of Israel have been under in these last few weeks.”[xxii] (i.e. because the Zionist state was, allegedly, in danger of being exterminated).

Through its mouthpieces in Congress and elsewhere, and endorsed by the Johnson administration, Zionism’s message to the people of America was, effectively: “Because the attack was a mistake, and because Israel has apologised, let’s forget about it.”

But there must have been a sense of alarm in Zionism’s ranks when, on 19 June, the day after the Naval Board completed its inquiry, the following item appeared in Newsweek’s “Periscope” section.

“Although Israel’s apologies were officially accepted, some high Washington officials believe the Israelis knew the Liberty’s capabilities and suspect that the attack might not have been accidental. One top-level theory holds that someone in the Israeli armed forces ordered the Liberty sunk because he suspected it had taken down messages showing that Israel started the fighting.”

Except in one respect the item contained the essence of the totally shocking truth. In retrospect it can be seen that the item was in error only to the extent that the “someone”, Dayan, was not concerned by any evidence the Liberty had gathered that could prove Israel started the war. Those in Washington’s war-loop knew that. Dayan’s purpose was to prevent the spy ship giving President Johnson warning of his intention to invade Syria.

But the alarm was short-lived. Zionism had enough friends in the mainstream media, and more than enough influence of various kinds to intimidate writers and broadcasters who were not pro-Israel right or wrong, to prevent the matter of what had really happened being pursued in public.

In private the one top-level American official who initially refused to be a party to the cover-up was Secretary of State Dean Rusk. Like all of his predecessors, and because he believed it was his duty to put America’s interests first, he had to live with Zionism’s smears to the effect that he was anti-Israel. Rusk was outraged by the Johnson administration’s collusion with Israel for war. In fact he was so concerned about the damage being done to America’s interests in the Middle East by Johnson’s decision to take sides with Israel that, at a meeting in Luxembourg, he told NATO Secretary General Manlio Brosio and others in attendance some of the truth about the attack on the Liberty.

We know this from a secret telegram that was de-classified in 1983 as a result of Green’s persistence. It was sent by U.S. NATO Ambassador Harland Cleveland to Under-Secretary of State Eugene Rostow, Walt’s brother. Cleveland’s cable said: “Quite apart from Newsweek Periscope item, Secretary’s comments to Brosio and several foreign ministers at Luxembourg about Israeli foreknowledge that Liberty was a U.S. ship piqued a great deal of curiosity among NATO delegations. Would appreciate guidance as to how much of this curiosity I can satisfy, and when.”[xxiii]

It can be taken as read that Walt advised Eugene to do everything he could to shut his boss up.

So far as I am aware, the question nobody has attempted to answer in public is this: Who was the Israeli general who opposed Dayan’s decision to attack the Liberty and said it would amount to “pure murder?

Despite the fact that in his own memoirs he went along with the fiction that Israeli pilots failed to identify the Liberty as a U.S. ship and that the attack was a tragic mistake, I think it was, very probably, Chief of Staff Rabin – the Israeli leader who, many years later as prime minister, was stopped from advancing the peace process with Arafat and his PLO by an assassin in gut-Zionism’s name. And I think so for a number of reasons.

Rabin was at one with Prime Minister Eshkol in believing that Israel could and should live within its pre-1967 war borders. And as we have also seen, Rabin’s own plan for military action in the summer of 1967 was for a strictly limited operation against Egypt, and only Egypt, a strategy Dayan described as “absurd.”

As it was happening Rabin was opposed to the IDF’s gobbling up of the West Bank. At a meeting of senior officers with Dayan present, Rabin had asked, “How do we control one million Arabs?”[xxiv] He meant: “We won’t be able to. The idea of occupation is madness. We could well be sowing the seeds of catastrophe for the Jewish state.” The only response Rabin got was by way of a correction. A staff officer said: “Actually it’s one million, two hundred and fifty thousand.”[xxv] As Shlaim noted, Rabin had asked the question to which no one had an answer. The real point was that nobody in the military high command except Rabin wanted to think about the implications of what the IDF was doing.More Arab land was there for the taking, so take it.

Rabin was opposed to an invasion of Syria. In his memoirs he wrote that Dayan ordered the attack on Syria “for reasons I have never grasped.”[xxvi] In my analysis that was Rabin pulling his punches. He knew why Dayan ordered the attack on Syria – to take the Golan Heights to complete the creation of Greater Israel; but he, Rabin, was not going to say so except by implication.

When the Liberty was being attacked, the insider gossip in Israel was that Rabin had “lost his nerve… cracked under the pressure…  was drinking heavily… was under the table… a disgrace.” I first heard this gossip from Israeli friends I knew to be very close to Dayan. And it was former DMI Herzog who confirmed to me that such rumours were rife. In retrospect I think the gossip was inspired by Dayan to give him scope to discredit Rabin if the need arose – if he so much as hinted to anybody outside the command circle that he had tried to prevent the attack on the Liberty. (Could it not be said that the idea of attacking the Liberty was enough to drive any rational human being, even an Israeli general, to drink?) The idea that Rabin might have been tempted to make trouble for Dayan is not unthinkable if he shared -and he probably did – Eshkol’s private view of Israel’s warlord.

When the prime minister learned that Dayan had ordered the attack on Syria without consulting or informing himself or Chief of Staff Rabin, he thought about cancelling the order and said of Dayan, to his aide-de-camp, “What a vile man.”[xxvii] That quotation was unearthed by Shlaim. What could have made Eshkol resort to such extraordinary language? My guess is that use of the adjective “vile” reflected most of all the prime minister’s horror at Dayan’s ordering of the attack on the Liberty.

As related by Seymour Hersh, Eshkol also had a pungent way of expressing his grave doubts about the wisdom of keeping occupied territory. After the war Abe Feinberg visited Israel and Eshkol said to him (in Yiddish): “What am I going to do with a million Arabs? They fuck like rabbits.”[xxviii]

With the Liberty taken out of the equation, the first indication official Washington had of Dayan’s intentions thereafter was in the form of a “flash” telegram to Secretary of State Rusk from Evan Wilson, the U.S. Consul General in Jerusalem. (“Flash” was the highest precedence designation for State messages). Quoting the UN’s General Odd Bull, the telegram said that Israel had launched an “intensive air and artillery bombardment” of Syrian positions, and that Wilson assumed it was a “prelude to a large-scale attack.”[xxix] That message was sent, flashed, at about 1530 hours local time, just before Dayan ordered the MTBs to finish off the Liberty.

Rusk was furious and wanted to take immediate action. The fact that it took him the best part of an hour to get President Johnson’s permission to read the riot act to Israel suggests that he had a considerable amount of internal opposition to overcome. (I can imagine the Rostow brothers joining forces – Eugene in the State Department, Walt in the White House – to have the President clip the Secretary of State’s wings). Rusk’s eventual response was another “flash” message in the form of an instruction to Walworth Barbour, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel. He was ordered, urgently, to approach the Israeli Foreign Ministry at the highest level to express “deep concern” at the new indication of military action by Israel. The text of Rusk’s instruction to Barbour included the following:

“If reported bombardment correct, we would presume it prelude to military action against Syrian positions on Syrian soil. Such a development, following on heels Israeli acceptance cease-fire resolution would cast doubts on Israeli intentions and create gravest problems for [U.S. government] representatives in Arab countries. You should stress we must at all costs have complete cessation Israeli military action except in cases where clearly some replying fire is necessary in self-defence.”[xxx]

After making his representation as instructed, Ambassador Barbour sought to defend the IDF’s softening up of Syria’s positions by reminding Rusk that Syria had not yet accepted the Security Council’s demand for a cease-fire (as, I add, Jordan and Egypt had actually done and Israel had falsely claimed to have done). It was true that the Syrians were still shooting from fixed positions in their own territory – but in response to the IDF’s bombardment; and, also, because Syria’s leaders were putting on a token show, to enable them to score points against Nasser in the Arab world by claiming that they had held out longer than him. The Johnson administration knew the Syrian regime had honoured its secret pre-war deal with Israel by not advancing its land forces from their defensive positions, so when Rusk flashed instructions to Barbour he knew that the Syrian army posed no threat to Israel.

In reality any hope the Johnson administration had of stopping the Israelis had been destroyed by their attack on the Liberty.

That evening, Thursday 8 June, Nasser intervened to stop the Syrians – in the hope of stopping the Israelis. The Egyptian President sent the following message to his Syrian counterpart, Nur ed-Din al Atassi: “I believe that Israel is about to concentrate all of its forces against Syria in order to destroy the Syrian army and regard for the common cause obliges me to advise you to agree to the ending of hostilities and to inform U Thant immediately, in order to preserve Syria’s great army. We have lost this battle.”

The message ended:

“May God help us in the future. Your brother, Gamal Abdul Nasser.”[xxxi]

That Nasser message, no doubt like all others, was intercepted by Israeli military intelligence. In the margin of a copy of it, Dayan scribbled the following note:

Eshkol,

1.  In my opinion this cable obliges us to capture maximal military lines.

2.  Yesterday I did not think Egypt and Syria would collapse in this way and give up the continuation of the campaign. But since this is the situation, it must be exploited to the full.

A great day. Moshe Dayan.”[xxxii]

The Syrian leadership took Nasser’s advice and announced its acceptance of the cease-fire. It came into effect at 0520 hours the following morning, Friday 9 June. So far as the Arabs and the organised international community represented by the UN were concerned, the war was over.

Six hours and ten minutes later, the IDF invaded Syria.

Dayan had postponed the attack to allow for the redeployment of IDF units from Sinai and the West Bank – a redeployment that could not be completed while the Liberty was capable of listening to IDF movement orders.

Contrary to Dayan’s expectations and his prediction to the IDF’s northern commander, General David (“Dado”) Elazar, who had never been less than gung-ho for war with Syria, the Syrians fought well. Apart from honour – the eyes of the Arab world were upon them – there were probably two reasons why they did so. The Golan Heights were thought to be impregnable and they felt secure in their bunkers and fox holes. But when Israeli paratroops and armour were landed behind them, they were effectively cut-off, with nowhere to run; they had to fight or die. Because the IDF had an audacious enough plan to capture the Golan Heights, they became less of an impregnable fortress for their Syrian defenders and more of a death-trap.

On Friday 9 June 1967, and for the best part of 24 hours, the Syrians fought with all their strength, and there were great and true acts of courage under fire on both sides, not least on the part of those IDF officers who led their men into the jaws of certain death that the bunkers and fox-holes of the Golan Heights were. But by the evening of Saturday 10 June, in defiance of what had been agreed secretly with the Johnson administration before the war, the Golan Heights were in Israel’s hands. The war was over. In six days the creation of Greater Israel was a fait accompli. Dayan had made Zionism’s mad dream come true.

In his conversations with Rami Tal which were not made public until after his death, Dayan was astonishingly honest. At the heart of the great myth about Israel’s actions on the Syrian front in 1967 is the claim – it remains an article of faith among Israelis and most  Jews everywhere – that the IDF seized the Golan Heights to stop the fiendish Syrians shelling Israeli settlements down below. (As we have seen, it was Israeli provocations that provoked Syrian shooting in the countdown to the war). When Tal demonstrated his belief in this Israeli claim, Dayan cut him short and said the following:

“Look, it’s possible to talk in terms of ‘the Syrians are bastards, you have to get them and this is the right time,’ but that is no policy. You don’t strike every enemy because he is a bastard but because he threatens you. And the Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.”[xxxiii]

Israel’s last land grab of the war did provoke the threat, a real and serious one, of Soviet military intervention. For some hours there was the prospect that gut-Zionism’s territorial ambitions and what Lilienthal rightly called “Israel’s unconscionable use of military force” would provoke a superpower confrontation and possibly World War III. But at the brink, catastrophe was averted by use of the White House-Kremlin hot line.

For Israel’s hawks and those in the Johnson administration with whom they conspired, there was one big disappointment. The humiliation the Israelis had heaped on Nasser did not bring about his downfall, but… There was a moment when it had seemed that he was finished.

On the evening of 9 June, live on television from his home and headquarters in Manshiet el-Bakri near Heliopolis on the road to the airport, Nasser resigned. He was looking drawn and haggard and appeared to be a broken man. The explanation he gave his people for the catastrophe Egypt had suffered was short and simple. He had listened, he said, to the warnings of President Johnson and the Soviet Union not to strike the first blow.

That said, Nasser announced he was resigning the presidency in favour of Vice-President Zacharia Mohieddin, (the man who, on Nasser’s instructions, and given the chance by the Israelis, would have made the necessary concessions in discussions with U.S. Vice-President Humphrey to avert war).

Nasser did actually resign but before the next day was out, in response to mass demonstrations in his favour, he was President again.

Israelis, leaders and ordinary folk, had their own explanation for this turnaround in Cairo. The whole thing had been stage-managed. Nasser was not serious when he resigned. He was playing a game. The popular demonstrations in his favour had not been spontaneous. His secret police had bullied and bribed Egyptians to take to the streets to demand that Nasser stayed in power. (Israel’s intelligence chiefs knew that the CIA’s plan for toppling Nasser included paying Egyptians to take to the streets to denounce him. They assumed that Nasser had done the same thing in reverse, so to speak).

My Israeli friends, and many others who said such things, were kidding themselves. It was what they wanted to believe. The truth about what happened in Cairo is this.

Nasser did not inform his chosen successor of his intention to resign and, consequently, he did not ask Mohieddin if he was prepared to take over. Mohieddin did not want to be President in any circumstances, but especially those now prevailing in Egypt and throughout the Arab world because of the scale and speed of Israel’s victory which, for the Arabs, was an even bigger humiliation than that of 1948. Like all Egyptians and other Arabs, Mohieddin did not know that Nasser was intending to resign until he said so live on TV and radio. As soon as the broadcast ended, Mohieddin drove at top speed to Nasser’s home – to refuse the succession for himself and to tell the resigned President that he could not abandon his post while remnants of his army were still trapped in Sinai.

An argument followed. Nasser insisted there was no going back on his decision. “You are now responsible”, he said to Mohieddin, “you cannot refuse.”[xxxiv] Mohieddin gave as good as he got. He told Nasser that he had no right to choose his successor. Only the National Assembly could decide who would be President.

While the two men continued to argue, the cabinet was assembling in another room for a meeting Nasser had called to ratify his hand-over of power to the Vice-President. Meanwhile, in the streets outside, the people were having their say. Contrary to what Israelis believed at the time, it was an entirely spontaneous happening. The best summary description of it was in a report filed to Le Monde by the perceptive Eric Rouleau, one of the best French correspondents of his generation. He wrote:

“In the twilight and semi-blacked-out streets, hundreds of thousands, some of them still in pyjamas and the women in nightgowns, came out of their houses weeping and shouting, ‘Nasser, Nasser, don’t leave us, we need you.’ The noise was like a rising storm. Tens of thousands threatened to kill any deputies who did not vote for Nasser. Half a million people massed along the five miles from Nasser’s home, millions more began to pour into Cairo from all over Egypt to make sure that Nasser stayed.”[xxxv]

The following day, while the IDF was going for the Golan Heights, the National Assembly, by a unanimous decision, invited Nasser to remain as President.

It might have been that he resigned in the hope and even the expectation that his announcement would trigger a popular response in his favour, but there can be no doubt that it was spontaneous. Why, really, did it happen?

In my analysis the best way to explain it is by comparing perceptions.

Zionism had succeeded in selling its lie for the war. As a consequence (generally speaking), Nasser was perceived in America and throughout the Western world as the common enemy in general and, in particular, the Arab aggressor who had gone to war to annihilate the Jewish state. If that’s what you believed, whether you were Jewish or not, the events in Cairo following Nasser’s resignation statement were perplexing. He had led his people to catastrophe. He was a disaster for them. Surely now they would see that and, if he did not quit, they would overthrow him. Or ought to.

The perception of the people of Egypt and almost all Arabs everywhere was rather different and rooted in reality. In it the Zionist state was the aggressor and the Arabs were the victims of aggression. There were, of course, some Egyptians who realised that Nasser had made mistakes and miscalculations which had contributed to the disaster – given Israel’s hawks and their American conspirators the pretext they wanted for war. But such criticism as there was of Nasser for his leadership failings was the small-print on the invoice for catastrophe.

In summary: The vast majority of Egyptians, and very many other Arabs, still saw Nasser for what he really was – the symbol of their wish not to be dominated, not to be controlled and exploited by the combined forces of emerging American imperialism (replacing British and French imperialism) and its Zionist ally.

That’s why Nasser survived.

I think the best account of the 1967 war by any Jewish writer, Israeli or other, is in Avi Shlaim’s revision of modern Israel’s history: but I think his conclusions about what really happened on the Israeli side in the war miss a fundamental point. (I remain puzzled by the fact that he did not mention the attack on the Liberty, let alone the reasons for it). Shlaim wrote:

“Dayan’s various accounts of the reasons for war against Syria are so alarmingly inconsistent that one indeed needs to be a psychologist to fathom his behaviour. But one thing emerges clearly from all his contradictory accounts: the Eshkol government did not have a political plan for the conduct of the war. It was divided internally, it debated options endlessly, it improvised and it seized opportunities as they presented themselves. It hoped for war on one front, was drawn to war on a second front and ended up by initiating war on a third front. The one thing it did not have was a master plan for territorial aggrandisement. Its territorial aims were defined not in advance but in response to developments on the battlefield. Appetite comes with eating. The decision-making process of the Eshkol government during the war was complex, confused, convoluted. It did not bear the slightest resemblance to what political scientists like to call ‘the rational actor model.’”[xxxvi]

The notion that one needed to be a psychologist to fathom Dayan’s intentions was inspired by a remark made by Eshkol’s aide-de-camp, Israel Lior. He said that, hard as he tried, he was unable to fathom Dayan’s intentions, and thought his decisions needed to be examined by a psychologist no less than by a historian.

In Shlaim’s overview Greater Israel was created by chance. It just happened, was not policy. In my analysis that conclusion is both right and wrong. Right because Israel’s national unity government did not go to war with the intention of creating the Greater Israel of gut-Zionism’s mad dream. Wrong because Dayan did. From the moment he became Defence Minister and consigned to the dustbin of history the Rabin-Eshkol plan for limited military action, it was his war, not the government’s war. It was Dayan who took most if not all of the critical decisions, and in the case of his decision to attack Syria, he took it without consulting or informing Prime Minister Eshkol and Chief of Staff Rabin until after the attack had been launched.

Dayan’s “appetite” for more land came not from “eating” – not simply because the opportunities to eat were there. He was hungry because he was a gut-Zionist,  conditioned by centuries of persecution, traumatised by the Nazi holocaust, driven by the belief that Gentiles were never to be trusted and, above all, convinced that the world would one day turn against the Jews again. I know he was convinced because he told me so. When that day came, Israel had to be big enough and secure enough to serve as the refuge of last resort for all the Jews of the world. Israel confined to its pre-1967 borders was not big enough and did not possess sufficient natural resources, water especially.

I once said the following to Dayan in private conversation: “What you really fear is that a day will come when the major powers will require Israel to be the sacrificial lamb on the altar of political expediency – just as in 1947 and 1948 they required the Palestinians to be the sacrifice on that altar.” Dayan replied, “You could put it like that.” Then, after a long pause, he added, “But we won’t let it happen.” Though he did not say so, he meant, “We have an independent nuclear deterrent and nobody is going to make Israel do what it does not want to do.”

So is there really need to call in the psychologists to explain Dayan’s behaviour, including and especially his truth-telling in conversation with Rami Tal for publication after his death? I think not. If the Syrians “were not a threat to us”, why did he order the IDF to attack them and grab a chunk of their territory – i.e. if not for the sole purpose of completing Zionism’s Greater Israel project? There was a part of the Dayan I knew that wanted to say out loud: “I created Greater Israel. I delivered on the promise our founding fathers made.” But there was also a part of Zionism’s warlord that knew it would not be a good idea to say so – in case the Greater Israel of his creation turned out to be, as it has, a ghastly mistake.

Dayan was never entirely comfortable in the presence of non-Jews and gave me the impression that he was sometimes uncomfortable with himself. I think he went to his grave wondering whether he had done the right or wrong thing for the best interests of Jews everywhere. On that basis the main difference between Moshe Dayan and Golda Meir defines itself. In the privacy of her own conscience (as I indicated in Volume One, Chapter One) she had the courage at the end of her days to consider the possibility that Zionism might have done the wrong thing. Dayan, at times the most charming and most engaging war criminal I ever met, did not have that kind of courage. It was moral courage and he allowed Zionism to rob him of it.

As it happened, the most vivid expression of Zionism’s Great Lie about the 1967 war was given voice by Prime Minister Eshkol himself. In the Knesset on 12 June he asserted that the war had been started by “the Arab invasion of Israeli territory.” He then said: “The very existence of the State of Israel hung upon a thread, but Arab leaders’ hopes of annihilating Israel have been confounded.”

A week earlier, in the first moments of the war, Foreign Minister Eban had launched the lie with an equally remarkable and astonishing statement. In the course of his assertion to reporters (including me) that Israel was acting in self-defence, he said: “Never in history has there been a more righteous use of armed force.”[xxxvii] In retrospect, it could and should be said that never in history has a country’s foreign minister talked such nonsense. Thereafter Israel’s ambassadors around the world spoke from Eban’s script.

We know that our leaders tell lies in war (and peace), and that disinformation is sometimes necessary if right is to triumph over wrong. But why, really, did Israel’s leaders lie, and lie so completely, in 1967?

Prime Minister Eshkol lied after the war because he had no choice. He could not say, “I lost control of events of my side to those who were determined to create the Greater Israel of Zionism’s mad dream.”

And the logic that drove the lie so far as Dayan was concerned can be summarised as follows: the bigger the lie, and the greater the authority with which it was told, the smaller the chance of Israel being branded where it mattered most – in the Security Council – as the aggressor.

Why, really, was it so important that Israel not be branded as the aggressor when it was?

Aggressors are not allowed to keep the territory they take by force. They have to withdraw from it unconditionally. That is the requirement of international law and also a fundamental principle which the UN is committed to uphold, as, for example, President Eisenhower did when Israel invaded Egypt in 1956. That is on the one hand.

On the other is the generally accepted view that when a state is attacked, is the victim of aggression, and then goes to war in self-defence and ends up occupying some or even all of the aggressor’s territory, the occupier has the right, in negotiations, to attach conditions to its withdrawal.

The point?

If in 1967 Israel had been branded as the aggressor, as it should have been, the Johnson administration would have had the choice of:

  • taking the lead in demanding that Israel withdraw unconditionally, which would have required the Johnson administration to confront Zionism; or
  • admitting that the U.S. had taken sides and was irrevocably committed to Zionism right or wrong – whatever the consequences for America’s own longer term best interests. In this case the world would have known, before 1967 had run its course, that the U.S could not be an honest and therefore an effective broker of peace in the Middle East.

In the process of taking sides with Zionism’s child, the Johnson administration not only gave Israel’s hawks the green light for war with Egypt, and not only used its diplomatic clout first to delay a Security Council demand for a cease-fire and then to block calls for an unconditional Israeli withdrawal. The Johnson administration assisted the IDF’s war machine by providing aerial reconnaissance in the form of some very special U.S. aircraft, the American pilots to fly them and the necessary technical support on the ground.

So far as I am aware the only published account of U.S. participation in the war on Israel’s side is in Stephen Green’s book. He stated that his principal source for the story was somebody who claimed to have been involved in the still Top Secret mission from start to finish. Though he had to protect the identity of his deep-throat and therefore did not name him, Green said he had “verified the story circumstantially” by checking “Air Force unit histories, commanders’ names, technical details and so forth.” He also noted that while he was seeking to confirm the story through contacts with other individuals who might have participated in the operation and senior officials in the Pentagon, White House and State Department, Air Force intelligence contacted several members of the units involved “reminding them of their obligations to maintain silence on any previous intelligence missions in which they had been involved.”[xxxviii] (The main reason for Green’s satisfaction that the story was true was, he said, that “certain of the details provided by the source would have been very difficult to learn other than by participation in such a mission in Israel.”)

Assuming Green’s clinically detailed account to be correct – an assumption I make without reservation and not least because of the confirmation in principle I obtained from very high-level Israeli and American sources of my own – the American military contribution to the IDF’s war effort was spearheaded by planes and pilots of the 38th Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron of the 26th Tactical Reconnaissance Wing, U.S. Air Force. The 38th was based in Ramstein, West Germany. Its participating planes (four) were flown from there to the U.S. air base at Moron in Spain where they were joined, before flying to Israel on 4 June, by supporting elements from the 17th Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron of the 66th Tactical Reconnaissance Wing based at Upper Heyford near Oxford in England. At an Israeli air base in the Negev, the 38th’s planes were painted over with a white Star of David on a blue background and new tail numbers corresponding to actual inventory numbers in the Israeli Air Force.

The 38th’s planes were RF-4Cs. They were modified versions of the F-4 Phantom jet fighter. In June 1967 the RF-4C was state-of-the-art military reconnaissance and had been operational for only three years. It utilised cameras of various focal lengths and forward and side-looking radar (SLR) to provide both low and high altitude reconnaissance. Using radar and infrared sensors, which provided a thermal map of the area under reconnaissance, the RF-4C could operate by day or – this was the main reason for U.S. involvement – by night.

Without air cover because their own planes had been destroyed in the first two hours or so of the IDF’s aerial blitzkrieg, the Egyptians had to move their ground forces by night to avoid as much as possible the unopposed attacks of Israeli planes. The Israeli Air Force did not then have the necessary night-time aerial reconnaissance or strike capability. So the main task of the RF-4Cs was to track and photograph the movements of Egypt’s ground forces through the night so that, by dawn the following morning, IDF ground and air forces would know precisely where the enemy was and in what strength, and were positioned to attack without delay. The Sinai campaign of June 1967 was the most one-sided fight in the history of modern warfare. The Egyptians really had no more of a chance than turkeys awaiting the annual Christmas slaughter.

This American military assistance was provided to guarantee that the IDF achieved its objectives on the Egyptian front in the shortest possible time – before the U.S. came under irresistible pressure to stop blocking a Security Council resolution demanding a cease-fire and, initially, an unconditional Israeli withdrawal. The pre-war calculation of those in Washington’s war-loop was that the U.S. would not be able to delay things in the Security Council for probably more than three days. (In retrospect it is not difficult to understand why, before the war, the leaders of America’s intelligence community, CIA director Helms in particular, were so confident in their assurances to President Johnson that the IDF would achieve complete victory on the Egyptian front in three or four days. They had correctly assessed the effectiveness of the contribution the RF-4Cs were to make).

Initially the RF-4Cs were assigned to assist the IDF on only the Egyptian front. But their mission was extended when Israel went to war with Syria. The need then from Washington’s perspective was to help the IDF get that campaign done and dusted before the Soviet Union went over the brink and intervened.

Without American operational assistance it is at least possible that the IDF would have needed more time to destroy the Egyptian army in Sinai, and that in the extra time the U.S. might have come under irresistible international pressure to support a Security Council demand for a ceasefire earlier than it did. In this event the creation of Greater Israel – control of all of the West Bank and the grabbing of the Golan Heights – might not have happened.

For serious seekers of the truth, the record as set down for the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library Oral History Project is a goldmine, especially if the researcher is really focused. Some years after the 1967 war, the previously quoted Harry McPherson made the following contribution to that Oral History. He was reflecting on the nature of the “service” advisers give American Presidents.

“… you tend to view everything in terms of whether it hurts your Administration, your President and that sort of thing; or helps. You look at almost nothing from the point of view of whether it’s true or not. It’s only the sort of PR sense; what effect it will have on public support or lack of support for your Administration. And that’s a terrible way to get. It makes you very efficient. You become very quick. And you become good at offering advice on what your principal should do instantly. But you may miss the boat badly, because you haven’t really understood and taken in what the concern of the country is.”[xxxix]

For “concern of the country” read America’s own longer term and best real interests.

It was the case that the Middle East did not get enough of President Johnson’s quality time because he became increasingly distracted by the prospect of defeat for America in Vietnam; and that and other policy priorities, including his noble fight for the civil rights of black Americans, laid him open to manipulation by the supporters of Zionism right or wrong in his administration.

An example of how Zionism’s power brokers never missed an opportunity to manipulate Johnson was signposted by Macpherson’s recall of a particular comment the President made in an unguarded moment: “Damn it, they want me to protect Israel, but they don’t want me to do anything in Vietnam![xl]

“They” were both the government of Israel and the Jewish Americans who were in the vanguard of the growing anti-Vietnam war movement. The background context revealed by declassified documents makes it clear that Johnson was really pissed off (he undoubtedly would have put it like that in private) by the refusal of Israel’s government to support his “free world effort” in Vietnam, and by the opposition to that war of many Jewish Americans. (Except on the matter of Israel and the Palestinians, many Jewish Americans were and are, like many Jews everywhere, liberal, even left leaning, against injustice and for human rights).

Through 1965 and the early months of 1966, at President Johnson’s request, the State Department made strenuous efforts to get Israel to support the American war effort in Vietnam. The support required by the U.S. was the establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel and the Thieu regime in Saigon and the sending of Israeli rural health teams. In February 1966, when Israel was still saying “no” to American requests, Secretary of State Rusk instructed the American Ambassador in Tel Aviv to give the following message to Israeli Foreign Minister Eban. “Israel would rightly be the first to be frightened if the U.S. were to ‘cut and run’ in Vietnam. You should note that the U.S. is being most helpful to Israel currently, and that reciprocal gestures would be well received in Washington.”[xli]

In April 1966 U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Raymond Hare was sent to Israel to plead with Prime Minister Eshkol. Hare told him that the Vietnam problem was “now the touchstone of American foreign policy”, and that the U.S. government considered closer relations between Israel and the Thieu government to be “important.”[xlii] Eshkol still said “no”. He stuck to the line that Israel’s relations with Asian and African developing nations would suffer if Israel supported America’s war in Vietnam.[xliii]

So it was that President Johnson became increasingly irritated by Israel’s refusal and that of many Jewish Americans to support and be seen to be supporting his Vietnam War policy. (Hence his comment as quoted by McPherson.)

And that gave Zionism’s power brokers an opening to do some manipulating. They chose their moment well. On 7 June, the third day of the war, David Brody, Director of the Anti-Defamation League, was instructed to call at the White House to speak with two of President Johnson’s staffers, Larry Levinson and Ben Wattenberg. The Jewish community of America, Brody said, was concerned that the administration should not force Israel to “lose the peace” after it had won the war, as had been the case with Eisenhower after the Suez war.[xliv] The reality was that Zionism’s power brokers were concerned that President Johnson might not yet be fixed in his determination to prevent Israel being required to withdraw unconditionally from occupied Arab territories. Brody went on to suggest that in future public statements on the war, the President ought to stress the “peace, justice and equity theme”, and should specifically not mention “territorial integrity” (as he had done in his pre-war statements).[xlv] Levinson and Wattenberg then wrote a memorandum to the President quoting Brody’s advice and saying that it was good. “It could lead”, the memorandum stated, “to a great domestic political bonus – and not only from Jews. Generally speaking, it would seem that the Middle-East crisis can turn round a lot of anti-Vietnam, anti-Johnson feeling, particularly if you use it as an opportunity to your advantage.”[xlvi]Translated that meant the Zionist lobby in all of its manifestations would do its best to see that Jewish American opposition to the war in Vietnam was stifled – if President Johnson stuck to his guns and did not require Israel to withdraw without conditions as Eisenhower had done.

On its own the Levinson and Wattenberg memorandum probably did not have a major influence on President Johnson’s thinking, but it was part of a well-executed campaign, inside and outside the White House, to manipulate him by taking advantage of his preoccupation with the war in Vietnam.

True and tragic is that President Johnson knowingly took sides with Israel out of fear of offending Zionism and risking the loss, for himself and his party, of Jewish votes and Jewish campaign funds. And that required him to “miss the boat badly” by putting Zionism’s interests before America’s interests in the Middle East.

The man who had seen it all coming and tried to stop it happening before it was too late was the first U.S. Secretary of Defence, James Forrestal. As we have also seen, President Eisenhower shared Forrestal’s concerns, and for his two terms in office did insist that America’s interests should have priority over Zionism’s interests. And it is reasonable to speculate that a second-term President Kennedy would have followed Eisenhower’s lead. The problem by the time Lyndon Johnson became the leader of the so-called Free World can be simply stated – there was nobody with real influence on U.S. policy who was prepared to argue seriously for putting America’s own best interests first.

Secretary of State Dean Rusk and others knew that support for Zionism right or wrong was bound to have catastrophic consequences for America, eventually. But they also knew they could not buck their pork-barrel system.

Since this book was first published more information has come to light, much but not all of it from Liberty survivors, about who knew what when the spy ship was attacked.

It includes the fact that American intelligence agencies had taped intercepts of Israeli pilots telling ground control that their target was an America ship and asking if they were still required to attack it. The answer was, “Yes, follow orders.” Ray McGovern, 27 years with the CIA under seven presidents and the man who briefed some of them every morning, has confirmed that the NSA destroyed many tapes which proved the Israelis were lying when they said it was an “unfortunate accident” and a “case of mistaken identity”.

In this book I’ll leave the last word on why the Liberty was attacked to a senior IDF officer in conversation with Liberty survivor Don Paegler.

His task after the Israeli attack was to collect and try to re-assemble the bodies of those blown to pieces by Israeli bombs and torpedoes. Don’s own account, which he e-mailed to me, included this:

“The torpedo hit were I worked in the research spaces (commonly called the spook shack).  I had top secret crypto security clearance, and when we reached Malta after the attack and put the ship in dry-dock, I was one of the first to go down to the torpedoed spaces to clean-up.  Within the first 15 to 20 minutes, I picked up a piece of equipment. Under it was an arm.  Although it had been soaked in salt water for a week, I knew whose arm it was. Phil Tiedke was a body builder and I could tell by the muscle structure it was his.  It was like having an out of body experience.  One of the men said, ‘You have to find the rest of the pieces of his body and make sure they all get in the same body bag.’  Another said, ‘They’re all blown apart, just put it in a bag and get on with it.’  Of the two days I spent down there cleaning up that is all I remember. .. When I arrived in Norfolk I was debriefed.  I was told: ‘You have the highest security clearance anyone can get in this country.  Never speak about this to anyone including your family.’”

There reason why Don decided to speak out was to do with his health. The post-traumatic stress caused by keeping the truth bottled up inside him had become a life threatening phenomenon. He put it this way:

“In 1985 I began to lose my vision.  I could no longer see the centre strip in the road while driving.  An optometrist examined my eyes and said I had a physical problem, not an eye problem.  He referred me to a doctor who came in looking as white as a sheet after running his tests.  He told me I should have died a long time ago.  One of my major organs should have popped.  My blood pressure was 240/145.  He said it had been that way for a long time according to the damage to my eyes.  Luckily I was having strokes in the retina of my eyes, instead of my heart or brain, where they could have killed me. I worked with Greg Jarvis who was on the Challenger shuttle when it blew up.  After that I started having nightmares.  Late in that year, balling like a baby, I drove off the San Diego Freeway on my way home to Orange County from work at Hughes Aircraft Co. in El Segundo.  I cried for 10 minutes before I realized I was thinking about the Liberty.  My doctor put me on heavy blood pressure medication for a year and a half. During that time my marriage of 20 years was dissolved.

“In February of 1987, I found out about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) while watching a Simon & Simon episode.  I finally called the VA hospital in Long Beach.  They said they did not do the necessary treatment at their facility. The closest Vet Center to me was 5 blocks north of Disneyland.  Within a month of being able to talk about the Liberty both blood pressure numbers dropped 30 points.  In the late 1990’s I came down with Type II diabetes.  While my doctor says stress is not the cause, he believes stress has contributed greatly to the severity of the disease.

“I attended group therapy from April 1987 to March 1990.  During that time I had to confront many issues.  One night a Marine from Viet Nam looked at me and said, ‘You guys got screwed as bad if not worse than anyone I knew in Viet Nam.  You have every right to be as angry as you can be.  But what are you going to do about your anger?’

“It took me over 4 years to answer that question.  I would never write Congress.  I’m not stupid.  I have a college degree.  I knew they would not do anything about it.  Finally I realized that the only way I was going to get rid of my anger was by giving it to Congress. I wrote a three-page letter with 30 pages of documentation, including my medical charts, to every California and Kansas Congressman and Senator. They all passed the buck back to my local Congressman, Dana Rohrabacher.  He asked me to come in and see him.  He looked at me and said: ‘I have read everything you have written and all the material you sent me.  There is no way I believe this was a mistake on the part of the Israelis.  But I have to tell you, Congress will not touch this until after there is peace in the Middle East.’  That will not be in my life time.  But I succeeded in getting rid of my anger (at least to a great degree).  This man who fancies himself a supporter of Veterans had to face me and say, ‘You’re right and we don’t have the courage to do anything about it.’”

Don still shakes when he is stressed, but he has learned to live with the fact that his memory won’t allow him to recall everything that happened during the Israeli attack and the gathering up of the body parts after it. “This memory failure is only the body’s way of protecting you from pain,” he says.

And so to Don’s recall of his meeting with a senior IDF officer.

“I believe it was the fall of 2003 or 2004. My wife Eva and I (he had married again) were staying at a Best Western hotel in Taos, New Mexico.  While we were walking down the hall, my wife noticed a man looking at my Liberty T-shirt.  She said to him, “Are you interested in that shirt?” I heard her and turned to look at him.  He had a sheepish look on his face and said, “I have to tell you, I was an officer in the Israeli Army in 1967 when you were attacked.”  I was so impressed that he had the courage to say anything to my face that we asked him and his wife to meet us in the bar for a drink.  I showed him my note book of the slide show I had created – 51 pages, 11 word charts and 100-plus photos.  When I finished he looked at me and said: “I never could understand why the U.S. government spent so much time covering this up.  When the Six Days War day war was over, Moshe Dayan briefed the entire officer cadre in the Israeli forces.  When he came to the Liberty he made no bones about it.  He said, ‘We tried to take out the Liberty because we did not want them to find out what our plans were.’”

The lesson of the cold-blooded attack on the Liberty 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.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/government-corruption-1/the-loss-of-liberty.html

 

Israel: Court to consider insanity plea for third suspect on trial for burning death of 16-year-old Abu Khdeir in 2014.

Israel court finds two guilty over Palestinian’s murder

Family members of Abu Khdeir held posters with his portrait outside the Jerusalem court [Oded Balilty/AP)
Family members of Abu Khdeir held posters with his portrait outside the Jerusalem court [Oded Balilty/AP)

An Israeli court has found two Israeli teenagers guilty in the murder case of a 16-year-old Palestinian who was abducted, beaten and burned alive last year.

Mohammed Abu Khdeir was abducted outside his home in Shuafat in East Jerusalem and driven to a forest, where he was burned alive on July 2, 2014.

A third Israeli – considered the main suspect in the case – was found responsible by a Jerusalem district court on Monday, but his verdict was delayed after his lawyers submitted an insanity plea.

The court is expected to consider the plea on December 20. Sentences in the trial are expected on January 13.

The two minors found guilty say they were involved only in the abduction of Abu Khdeir, not the killing.

Abu Khdeir’s killing led to the worst riots in Jerusalem in a decade, spreading to Palestinian cities in Israel and the West Bank.

Nightly clashes between Palestinian residents and Israeli police continued for weeks.


 


Just days after the murder, the war on Gaza began.

It caused the deaths of more than 2,100 Palestinians, mostly civilians, while Israel counted 73 dead on its side, mostly soldiers.
Israelis buy more guns as violence escalates

The three suspects, a 30-year-old ultra-Orthodox man and two minors, were arrested a few days after the murder and confessed to Israel’s Shin Bet security services, saying their acts were in retaliation for the murder of three teenage settlersin the occupied West Bank.

The lawyer of Abu Khdeir’s family questioned why the insanity plea was filed only at the last minute, as the trial has been going on for more than a year.

“The lawyers of the suspect have delayed his final verdict. We see this as manipulation,” Muhanned Jbarah told Al Jazeera. “The suspect cannot get away with this crime, which he re-enacted in detail for the police. We don’t believe he’s insane. This crime was planned meticulously.”

Al Jazeera’s Stefanie Dekker, reporting from East Jerusalem, said there was a lot of anger among Palestinians over how the court had handled the case.

“Palestinians have little trust in the Israeli justice system. They believe Israelis who commit crimes against Palestinians are hardly ever held to account,” she said.

Abu Khdeir’s father, Hussein, described the trial as “shocking”, and vowed to bring the case to the International Criminal Court.

Source: Al Jazeera

————————————————————————————-

Trial of Abu Khdeir killers ‘a sham’, says family

As Mohammed Abu Khdeir’s family marks a year since his death, they fear that justice will not be served.

Nigel Wilson | 01 Jul 2015 11:07 GMT | War & Conflict, Middle East, East Jerusalem, Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Israel

'The trial is a joke, it's a sham trial,' said Hussein Abu Khdeir [Getty]
‘The trial is a joke, it’s a sham trial,’ said Hussein Abu Khdeir [Getty]

Occupied East Jerusalem – Dozens of wooden and brass plaques, along with bouquets of flowers, spill into the living room in Hussein Abu Khdeir’s home. Most of the mementos bear the same image of his son Mohammed, a wide-eyed, skinny teenager in a white baseball cap.

A year has passed since Mohammed Abu Khdeir was snatched from the street outside his house. The 16-year-old Palestinian was kidnapped, beaten and driven to a forest in Jerusalem, where he was burned alive.

Three Jewish Israeli settlers have admitted to killing Mohammed in an act of revenge. Their trial is ongoing at a Jerusalem court.


 


As Hussein prepares to mark a year on Thursday since his son’s untimely death, the 50-year-old electrician recalls a bright, sporty boy who loved dabke, a traditional Palestinian dance, and was known for his sharp wit.

“I took him to work with me sometimes, teaching him the skills to be an electrician. One day his teacher asked me ‘Why are you training him in this work – Mohammed is going to be a comedian, he’s always making the class laugh,'” he recalled.

The community here remembers the teenager in a similar light. Abu Hassan has lived in Shuafat for 25 years

We are burning on the inside every time we see them [culprits], when they re-enact the killing, when they describe exactly where they hit him. Our blood is boiling. There’s fire in our hearts. I can’t describe this feeling.

Hussein Abu Khdeir, Mohammed’s father

and runs a small grocery store across the street from the mosque. He counted the teenager as a neighbour and friend.

“Mohammed was a generous boy. He installed the television receiver here in the shop. He used to come by and change the channel for me when I couldn’t work it out,” he said. “We were shocked by what happened. Who does this? It’s not human.”

The gruesome nature of Mohammed’s death appalled this East Jerusalem community and triggered the worst riots in the holy city in a decade, spreading to Arab cities in Israel and the West Bank. Nightly clashes between Palestinian residents and Israeli police continued for weeks.

Today in Shuafat, the legacy of that anger is still evident in the destroyed light rail station. Just days after Mohammed was killed, the war in Gaza began. It caused the deaths of more than 2,100 Palestinians, mostly civilians, while Israel counted 73 dead on its side, mostly soldiers.

As the bodies mounted in Gaza, rioters in Jerusalem found renewed grievances and impetus.

Repeated attempts by Jewish Israeli hardliners to access the city’s holiest site, known to Muslims as Haram al-Sharif, fuelled unrest that burned long into the autumn.

More than 20 people were killed in Jerusalem in the second half of 2014 in interethnic violence.


RELATED: Israel ‘minimising Palestinian presence’ in Jerusalem


In March, a leaked report by the European Union warned that Jerusalem had entered a period of “polarisation and violence”, not seen since the second Intifada ended in 2005.

The document cited increased Jewish settlement-building, demolitions of Palestinian homes and dire economic and political prospects for the city’s Arab population as underlying causes.

“Since the murder, the veil of a pseudo coexistence in Jerusalem has been ripped away,” said Daniel Seidemann, lawyer and founder of the NGO Terrestrial Jerusalem. “Hatred has become more personalised, more endemic and more intense. The divide in Jerusalem is starker than at any point since 1967.”

While growing right-wing Jewish radicalism and settlement activity in the city have slowly alienated Arab communities here, the most compelling motive behind the unrest, according to Seidemann, was a sense of helplessness among Palestinian youths in East Jerusalem.

“Fifty percent, perhaps more, of the people arrested in the violence were under the age of 18. The kids, who are clashing on a nightly basis with the Israeli police, aren’t being whipped into a frenzy by charismatic people like Abu Mazen. What their large scale participation indicates is a sense that they have no future,” he said.

The events of the past 12 months have taken a heavy toll on the city. There are growing fears that the political conflict here is taking on an increasingly religious edge.

But behind these broad shifts in the contours of the city are stories of human loss and suffering.

In Shuafat, Mohammed’s siblings are still afraid to leave the family home unaccompanied. Weary-eyed and agitated, Hussein described the ongoing court case as a tortuous ordeal.

“When we come home from the trial, my wife and I feel paralysed,” he said. “Once, we came back and couldn’t sleep for four days.”

The Israeli police video, in which the defendants confessed to the murder and re-enacted the attack, has been shown during the trial, while the defendants have replayed the attack in court as well, according to Hussein.

“We are burning on the inside every time we see them [culprits], when they re-enact the killing, when they describe exactly where they hit him,” he said. “Our blood is boiling. There’s fire in our hearts. I can’t describe this feeling.

“The trial is a joke, it’s a sham trial. They are treating the criminals very well, taking them out for breakfast at 11 every day while we wait in the courtroom. The defence lawyer even asked the public prosecutor to show his credentials. It’s a farce.”

The violence in Jerusalem that followed Mohammed’s murder has subsided in recent months, but the city has not recovered from those events. Seidemann believes that if the long-term causes of last summer’s riots are not addressed, the conflict could escalate along religious lines.

“What we’re seeing is the morphing of a political, national conflict which can be resolved into a completely intractable, zero-sum religious conflict that cannot be resolved,” he said. “That is taking place.”

Source: Al Jazeera

——————————————————–

Settlers spit on Abu Khdeir family as they exit court; alleged killer refuses to enter plea

Israel

on November 18, 2014 – Mondoweis

Today was more difficult than most trips to the Jerusalem District Court for the grieving family of the late 16-year old Mohammed Abu Khdeir, who was abducted and then burned to death in a nationalistic crime by Israeli right-wingers in July, just before the summer war in Gaza. Aside from an early winter rain, and slow progress in the murder trial, settlers spat on them as they exited the courthouse.

On the sidewalk a scuffle followed the Abu Khdeirs on their way home. Approaching their car, settlers recognized them; for Abu Khdeir relatives’ faces have become synonymous with the on-going unrest in Jerusalem. The Israelis, a group of religious-nationalist youth, were also in court that day, but for an altogether different case .They allegedly accosted Palestinians. “They came after us,” said Amsam Abu Khdeir, 27, a cousin of the deceased. He stated that one of the Israeli-nationalists “spit on my cousin and then he said to the police, see the Arabs…”

To Palestinians “Mohammed” conjures more than the name of the prophet. He is a child killed by vigilantism and racism cultivated by the state of Israel, a symbol of the unchecked violence Palestinians experience from anti-Arab extremists that was manifested last summer by throngs of rightists youths explicitly “hunting” for Arabs. And his death carries over to the more recent killings of four Palestinians in Jerusalem who were gunned down for the attempted killing, actual killing or suspected killing of Israelis.

Abu Khdeir’s alleged murderers were in court today for a second pre-trial. All three defendants were supposed to enter pleas. In the session the self-proclaimed ringleader of the group, Yosef Haim Ben-David, 29, refused to cooperate. His lawyer told the judge he could not give a statement on guilt on behalf of his client, as was the case in the last pre-trial in October. Today, the delay was because Ben-David is no longer speaking.

The two accused minors pleaded guilty on the charge of abducting Abu Khdeir from outside of his Shuafat home in East Jerusalem, but pleaded not guilty on the charge of murder. They claim that in the spirit of the moment Ben-David alone poured lighter fluid down the kidnapped youth’s throat, doused him in the chemical and then set him alight.

Relatives of Mohammed Abu Khdeir, Jerusalem District Court, November 17, 2014. (Photo: Allison Deger)

Parents of Mohammed Abu Khdeir, Jerusalem District Court, November 17, 2014. (Photo: Allison Deger)

Outside of the hearing room, camerapersons were kept at bay behind blue metal barricades, the kind that are used by police to block streets during riots. Just under a dozen journalists crammed into a corridor. The arrivals and departures were recorded: The family of the defendants entered first, then the Abu Khdeirs. The state prosecutor followed, warmly greeting Abu Khdeir’s father, Hussein Abu Khdeir. But the real draw of the day was Ben-David who again appeared unkempt in court. His black hair was uneven and multi-directional, tucked under a religious skullcap. His beard appeared spotty, yet strong. He sported a black tracksuit with red and gray trim, and his staple of courtroom attire: neon yellow crocs worn over thick gray socks. White tzitzit (religious trims) hung from his waistline.

The hearing itself lasted about thirty minutes. With two pleas delivered, and one withheld, what filled up the rest of the court’s time were procedural matters. The judge scheduled one more motion before the presentation of evidence. The state’s attorney will meet with representatives for the three defendants (they each have separate lawyers) in December to cap the number of witnesses. As of now the prosecution has a hefty list of 113 persons ready to give testimony. The actual trial will not begin until January.

Additionally, the results of an independent mental health review that Ben-David’s lawyer had asked for in the last meeting were not submitted, or rather they were not brought up at all.

When the pre-trial closed, the two minors and Ben-David walked handcuffed with police escorts towards a rear stairwell. One of the accused youths crouched with his head inside his sweatshirt, preventing a glimpse of his unknown face. The identities of the accused youths are sealed because they are minors.

But Ben-David, he strolled. His gaze was stoic, locking eyes with media workers.

The murder trial is part spectacle. Journalists came, in part, to log Ben-David’s moves. The settler from Adam is mounting an insanity defense, authentically or otherwise. In his first court appearance, Ben David announced that he is “the messiah.” Since then no one has heard him speak except for occasional mumbling noises he made during his last court appearance in October.

“He looked me in the eye and he didn’t take his eyes off of me. That was scary,” said Amsam Abu Khdeir, of the accused’s October appearance in the justice hall. Yet this time, Ben-David avoided eye contact during the hearing, staring off into space, unresponsive to his own name.

However, weeks ago state mental health officials reviewed Ben-David and deemed him of sound mind.

“He’s not crazy! He’s not crazy,” said Amsam Abu Khdeir emphatically. “He planned to kidnap and murder a kid. If you read the whole deposition he talks about exactly what he did,” she said referring to a play-by-play confession Ben-David gave to police before the hearing started. He even led them on a reenactment tour. “That’s the craziest thing that I’ve heard. ‘That I’m crazy, but I can plan.’”

Yosef Ben-David, 29, accused ringleader in the murder and abduction of Mohammed Abu Khdeir. (Photo: Allison Deger)

After his July indictment, in chilling detail Ben-David recounted the facts of the crime. He said one of the minors choked Abu Khdeir. He admitted to beating him with a metal pole. Then he said the three of them poured gasoline on him and Ben-David fired up the lighter. “We were hot and angry, and decided we’d burn something of the Arabs’,” he told police. The confessed even showed remorse in the policing questioning—albeit remorse tinged with racism and notions of Jewish supremacy, telling his interrogator after the crime he told the other defendants: “We had a purpose but this is not for us. We were wrong. We are merciful Jews. We are human beings.”

Ben-David also admitted that days before Abu Khdeir was abducted he and one of the indicted minors were responsible for a failed kidnapping of seven-year old Mousa Zaloum who was nearly grabbed off of the same street where the three found Abu Khdeir. That child’s mother struck the kidnappers ultimately chasing them away. The police were called. Nothing happened. Then a few days later Abu Khdeir was taken.

The stakes are high for Ben-David. If he’s found guilty of the gruesome murder and abduction he will be issued a mandatory life sentence. Alternatively if he succeeds in a presentation of not being criminally liable due to insanity, he will be ushered off to a mental hospital and released upon regaining his health. That could happen in as little as a six-months stay in a psychological ward. But in some sense, the state is already being harsh with him. It implemented a Mandate-era law that forbids the presence of lawyers when questioned, only employed for Israeli-Jews once or twice in Israel’s history according to the lawyer for the victim’s family.

Family of Mohammed Abu Khdeir. (Photo: Allison Deger)

“It’s sadness and it’s anger; it’s mixed feelings when you hear people talking about Mohammed,” said Amsam Abu Khdeir. Her family is a national exhibition, of unattainable justice. There was a media circus this summer when Abu Khdeir’s cousin, Tareq Abu Khdeir, 15, was brought in front of cameras for the first time after Israeli police beat and arrested him. CCTV footage showed the younger Abu Khdeir as he slipped out of consciousness from blows to the head by border police during protest in the wake of his cousin’s killing.

“After Mohammed, everything just exploded,” said cousin Amsam Abu Khdeir. Following her relative’s murder, Shuafat, once a quiet leafy Palestinian suburb of Jerusalem, descended into constant chaos. Palestinians demonstrated around the clock for nearly a week over the police’s ineptitude and crackdown. Her family endured an investigation that fingered Abu Khdeir’s father, rather than looking into the killing as a nationalistically motivated crime by Israeli-Jewish settlers. The police even distributed false claims that the youth was murdered by his family because he was gay. Border authorities also stationed themselves outside of the family home, firing tear gas into the mourners tent.

“Actually, there’s a lot of tension. There’s a lot of police cars everywhere,” continued Amsam Abu Khdeir, describing how Shuafat has remained embroiled in clashes between Palestinians and the authorities. “Every 10 meters you see soldiers, or police rather,” she said.  Just last week, police called Amsam Abu Khdeir’s father and uncle and told them the memorial banner bearing Mohammed’s face was illegal and must be taken down.

The hearing comes at a time of growing discomfort for Palestinians with Israeli policies. This week, the Israeli knesset is considering a law that would state, “the State of Israel is the national state of the Jewish People,” as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a cabinet meeting on Sunday. The law would also strike Arabic as one of the state’s national languages.

The Abu Khdeir family has witnessed another unequal application of Israeli law. On Monday, Netanyahu called for the sealing or demolition of the homes of six Palestinians who are alleged to have killed or tried to kill Israelis. The Abu Khdeir’s have been calling for weeks for the demolition of the homes of the defendants in their son’s case, to no avail. “Everyone knows that they [the defendants] are monsters and they are killers. They murdered my cousin in cold blood,” said Amsam Abu Khdeir.

After weeks of trial delays, her frustrations are peaking. “At least to give them prison for life– I don’t know what to say,” she said. “Actually I hope they are burned alive like my cousin.” Such sentiments are heard commonly these days in Jerusalem, on both sides of the conflict.

 

PINK not BLUE – The lie at Nuremberg of mass human gassing was mainly a case of the Allies believing their own propaganda: the BBC started promulgating the gassing stories in 1942.

Young White children are taught to hate their own kind over something that never even happened!

 


PINK  not   BLUE


Cyanide gas produces two different colours, both vitally important for the debate over the German labour-camps. In the human body, it produces a red-pink colour as it kills – whereas, as it soaks into brick walls, it will very slowly produce a blue hue. These got rather confused in wartime testimony. Zyklon-B was the commercial name for the cyanide held in granular form, as it was delivered to the labour-camps. A whole lot of testimonies of blue dead bodies were given after the war – caused by gassing – and we here argue that these are simply impossible.



BLUE TESTIMONIES


The insecticide Zyklon was known as Zyklon-B and often called Zyklon-Blau because of the way it turned the walls blue.1 False witnesses kept testifying that blue-hue corpses were seen, imagining that the Zyklon somehow produced that.2

The so-called ‘Aktion Reinhardt’ camps, in the East of Poland – Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor – havestories of carbon monoxide gassing, with up to two million allegedly dead. These stories have no reference anywhere to pink corpses being seen at these camps.


Fake testimonies with impossible blue colour:

Dario Gabbai, “some of them were black and blue from the gas” (1:55 mins into this Shoah Foundation video) Gabbai also states this in Laurence Rees’ 2005 BBC program on Auschwitz, in episode 4, at 5:30.

Ya’akov Silberberg:

Q: When you took out the bodies, were they warm or cold? 

A: Warm. They were blue, black, and swollen. What I saw in the gas chamber was ghastly, a horrible scene…

Q: What color were the bodies after the gassings?

A: After the gassings they had a totally natural color, but after the blisters burst they turned red as fire.

Interview by Joseph Sacker in Gideon Grief’s book “We Wept Without Tears,”

Milton Buki: Of those gassed in a bunker: “the bodies were all naked and some had blue stains on them.” –Mattogno, The Bunkers of Auschwitz, p. 116, declaration released on December 15, 1989, in Jerusalem.

Natalia Zarembina: “the greenish tinge on the dead bodies does not disappear: it seems rather to become more distinct now in the new light of day. One of the grave-diggers, holding a corpse in his arms to throw it back on the cart, gazes into the greenish-grey face for a while. Years ago he saw similar faces: a deserted trench with corpses of soldiers. The same ghostly pallor. It is the discolouration of poison gas.” Quoted, Mattogno, Auschwitz: the first gassing, pp. 34-36,1943 Polish pamphlet.

Witnesses describing alleged gassed corpses agreed on the bodies being “greenish” (Kula), “bluish” (Banach), “green” (Hałgas), “blue” (Wolny), “bluish” (Kurant), “blue, almost purple-black” (Kielar), “bluish” (Weber), “bluish” (Gemański), “blue-black” (Petzold), “bluish” (Broad), whereas Natalia Zarembina speaks of a “ghostly pallor.” Mattogno Ibid., section 6.5.

Walter Petzold: “The nature of the corpses, on account of the terrible effect of the poison gas, was such that one could see only blue-black, bloated, and mushy flesh that had once belonged to human beings. Cyklon ‘B’ has the property of disintegrating a human body almost completely, of causing the human lung to burst and of turning the rest of the body into a jelly-like state” – quoted by Mattogno.

Stangl allegedly saw at Treblinka, ‘the pits full of black-blue corpses’ – Wiki, Treblinka

‘Their faces were blue, almost purplish’ – at Auschwitz, a recollection of mass gassing of Russian Prisoners of War in September 1941. Chil Raichman, The Last Jew of Treblinka, Pegasus Books LLC, 2011, p. 65ff., p. 67.
Yankel (Jankiel, Yankiel) Wiernik “There was no longer any beauty or ugliness, for they all were yellow from the gas.


Kurt Gerstein:“The bodies were tossed out, blue, wet with sweat and urine, the legs smeared with excrement and menstrual blood. ” one of his reports, PS-1553, p. 7. 

Filip Müller: “Many had their mouths wide open, on their lips traces of whitish dried-up spittle. Many had turned blue, and many faces were disfigured almost beyond recognition from blows” – Eyewitness Auschwitz: Three Years in the Gas Chambers, 1979, published by Ivan R Dee, Inc , 1999, p. 117

Daniel Bennahmias: “When the door finally was opened, the Sonderkommando was assaulted by an overhelming stench and the ghastly sight of putrid flesh. The bodies had turned blue and were bloated to double and treble their normal size, and Danny was among those who had to extricate them.” Rebecca Camhi Fromer, The Holocaust Odyssey of Daniel Bennahmias, Sonderkommando. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, 1993, p. 53.

Polish officer who was sent to Treblinka with his Jewish wife on September 6, 1942, but escaped, in a report sent to the Polish government-in-exile in London on March 31, 1943: “I do not know what kind of gas is used, but I know from a colleague who worked three weeks in ‘Treblinka II’ that the corpses have a bluish color.” Mattogno/Graf Treblinka



BLUE

Two colours have a central relevance to use of cyanide gas in WW2.

Firstly, there is the blue/turquoise colour which glows on the walls of the old delousing chambers, due to ferrocyanide, as in a tube of paint, ‘Prussian blue’. Iron in the wall bonded with the cyanide as it was absorbed into the walls seventy years ago. The Leuchter and Rudolf reports changed forever the whole Revisionist debate, by showing that the blue walls of the little delousing chambers in the German labour-camps, written out of History at Nuremberg, were the one places where cyanide was used on a regular basis. Those old walls are blue inside and out, showing how the cyanide gas penetrated right through them.


Seven tons of cyanide were delivered to Auschwitz just in the year 1942. That’s a lot. It was averred at Nuremberg that it was used for human gassing. Fortunately, Science can now resolve this big question for us.

Both Leuchter and Rudolf chipped away dozens of wall-samples from the old buildings, then measured the cyanide; and their results showed five thousand parts per million of total cyanide on average in the little old delousing-chamber walls, the ones that are generally a deep blue colour; and only one to three parts per million in what are alleged in the big textbooks to be where the mass human gassing took place: buildings which do not have any trace of blue in the walls. They found similar ‘normal’ levels in wall samples from the old kitchens and bathrooms – suggesting they were fumigated maybe once or twice a year with cyanide, as a hygiene precaution.

That’s a fairly open and shut case. Science results don’t come much better than that: a two-thousandfold differential, telling us where the cyanide was used – and where it wasn’t; indicating that the cyanide was used for a hygienic and not homicidal purpose.



PINK


Then, there is the pink. A body killed by inhaling hydrogen cyanide dies through oxygen-denial, as cyanide blocks the body’s oxygen-metabolism. It cannot pass from blood into the body tissues, and in the death-struggle the body will end up bright pink. But, no-one ever heard of a bright pink pile of bodies in a German labour-camp, that’s for sure.

Two gases were used to murder millions of Jews, so the official story has been telling us: cyanide and carbon monoxide. Hundreds of books have alleged this.

Carbon monoxide was supposed to be present in Diesel exhaust – except that it isn’t, but that’s another story. Holocaust orthodoxy claims One third of the Holocaust was caused by gassing with carbon monoxide, using Diesel exhaust fumes, the other two-thirds being gassed by cyanide. The latter was supposed to happen in big, long rooms with holes in the ceiling, the former more in travelling, mobile vans. There are (of course) no photos available of these alleged mobile death-vans.

It happens that death by carbon monoxide also leaves a bright pink body. Like cyanide gas it kills by denying oxygen to the body – but does so differently, by forming carboxyhaemoglobin in the blood. After that, the blood cannot any longer carry oxygen. So the two main gases allegedly used by the Germans to mass murder Jews both leave bright pink bodies. No one realised this around the time of Nuremberg, or indeed for several decades afterwards. It is a relatively recent argument. How could that be? No one will ever show you a pile of bodies allegedly gassed. No such remains were ever detected in any German labour-camp. But, you will be shown piles of very emaciated bodies which have clearly died from two causes: starvation, plus typhus. Those two were the killers. Sometimes if a body is anaemic this pink hue may not appear. But, that was not notably the case for labour-camp inmates. One would have expected at least 90% of deaths to show the pink hue, had CO or cyanide been a cause of death.



MEDICAL REFERENCES

1. In all of the fatalities from acute carbon monoxide poisoning in which the victim was found dead at the scene, a conspicuous finding was the characteristic pink or cherry red post-mortem lividity of carboxyhemoglobin in the skin of the dependent portions of the body. These are readily distinguishable, because of their color, from ordinary post-mortem lividity.’ – American Journal of Public Health, March 1952, p.262 (Source: F. Berg)

2.   Carbon monoxide poisoning may be diagnosed easily, because its inhalation in lethal quantities produces a characteristic cherry red coloration in the areas of hypostasis. A similar reddish hue is seen in cases of cyanide poisoning. D.A.L. Bowen “Medical Investigations in Cases of Sudden Death,” British Medical Journal, 1 April 1967, page 35

3. Picture (above) from Textbook of Maritime Medicine . “Fig. 10.9.2: Bright red lividity on the dorsal side of the body as the expression of lethal carbon monoxide poisoning. Livor mortis is bright red in cases of carbon monoxide or hydrocyanide poisoning (or in cases where the corpse is kept in cold storage).

4. When carbon monoxide binds with haemoglobin in the blood or myoglobin in the muscles it forms carboxyhaemoglobin and carboxymyoglobin respectively and they are responsible for the pink coloration. There are cases in which carbon monoxide poisoning does not result in the formation of a cherry pink coloration (Carson & Esslinger, 2001) and it can be difficult to spot when the victim is dark skinned – though it may be apparent in the lighter regions such as the palms of the hands or inside the lips or the tongue. – Alan Gunn, Essential Forensic Biology, 2009 pp. 21-22

5. Autopsy findings in CO deaths are fairly characteristic. In Caucasians, the first impression one gets on viewing the body is that the person looks very healthy. The pink complexion is caused by coloration of the tissue by carboxyhemoglobin, which has a characteristic cherry-red or bright-pink appearance that can be seen in the tissue. Cherry-red livor mortis suggests the diagnosis even before autopsying the individual – Vincent DeMaio, Dominick DeMaio. Forensic Pathology, 2nd ed. 2001 p. 395.

6. A pink lividity, rather than the usual purple-red, raises the possibility of death from carbon monoxide poisoning, cyanide or hypothermia – Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences / edited by Jay Siegel, Geoffrey Knupfer, Pekka Saukko, 2000 p. 1158, article “Autopsy”

7. Cyanide overdose can be fatal six to eight minutes after ingestion. Rapidly causes weakness, confusion, coma, and pink skin from high blood oxygen saturation. Produces an almond-like odor. –  Forensic Science: Fundamentals and Investigations / Anthony J. Bertino 2012 p. 258



CONCLUSION

There were conditions of deep horror at the camps, as found when they were liberated by the Allies, but that horror was not designed by the Germans to be there. The lie at Nuremberg of mass human gassing was mainly a case of the Allies believing their own propaganda: the BBC started promulgating the gassing stories in 1942.

The chemical evidence clearly shows that Zyklon was used from mid-1942 onwards exactly as the Germans said it was used viz for delousing clothes, in purpose-built delousing chambers; and that diesel exhaust is not lethal, because it does not contain sufficient carbon monoxide to kill people.

A study of alleged carbon monoxide poisoning concluded, ‘witnesses such as Reder, “Szlamek” and Rosenberg would have observed a very large number of bodies showing cherry red discolouration. That not a single one of the alleged eye-witnesses to mass gassings at the above listed camps mention the highly eye-catching type of discolouration that most often accompany lethal carbon monoxide poisoning is in itself enough to throw doubt upon the alleged truthfulness of their statements’


1 There was an earlier Zyklon-A which had the cyanide in liquid form.

 


2 See the CODOH thread, ‘Testimonies on corpse colour.’

——————————————————————————-

The Successful Endeavour to Reduce Camp MortalityPrelude

In the terrible month of August 1942, thirty percent of the Auschwitz male camp population died. A year later, that catastrophic level had been successfully reduced to only one-tenth as much: so that a mere 3% of the camp died in August 1943. It will here be argued that that initial mortality was caused by typhus hitting the camp – to a degree far worse than any other German labour-camp – and that the subsequent drop was due to a successful implementation of hygiene technology and so-called ‘special treatment’ protocols.

We here aim to establish that several quite independent databases are coherent and compatible. It will help to have read theprevious article which evaluated the British-intelligence monthly decrypts data, comparing their figures with the Auschwitz Death-Books,[1]and showing that they were in accord. We here additionally include a Nuremberg document which gave statistics on mortality through the German labour-camps over twelve months 1942-3, and does so in terms of percent monthly mortality, as alluded to above.

By showing that these various databases are interlocking and compatible, we will in some degree discredit the Jewish ‘database in the sky’ concept, whereby it is averred that hundreds of thousands if not millions, of Jews arrived, were not registered but were gassed upon arrival, and then their ashes thrown into the Vistula – so no trace of them remains. A prudent use of Occam ’s razor is here required. The British wartime decryptions made at Bletchley Park give us the key to an authentic arithmetic.

…………………

We saw earlier how the massive peak in mortality happened at Auschwitz in 1942 whereas in contrast that in the German camp of Dachau peaked at the war’s end in 1945. Let’s listen to Arthur Butz on this:

“the camps in Germany, on the one hand, and the camps in Poland, on the other, play different roles in this study, not only in the sense that the legend claims exterminations only in the latter, but also in the sense of historical fact. From the present point of view, the main difference between the two is that the German camps (e.g. Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau) experienced catastrophic death rates only at the end of the war, mainly in the first four months of 1945, while the camps in Poland (e.g. Auschwitz, Majdanek) experienced them much earlier, in 1942.’

The Nuremberg document (a letter by Pohl, 4.9.43) evaluated monthly deaths as a percentage of the total inmates each month. For all camps, it divided total deaths by an average of the monthly total population. The lower (blue) graph shows this % figure as given at Nuremberg (the Table at the end shows the actual figures on which it is based). That overall camp monthly mortality from Nazi documents presented at the Nuremberg court,[2] recorded a total of 224,000 inmates in all of the 16 German labour-camps it included, for August 1943.

The higher graph shows my attempt to do something similar just for the Auschwitz camp, which was the biggest of all the labour-camps; the  previous essay described how the awful peak of thirty percent mortality in August 1942 plummeted downward in Autumn and winter, as the ‘special treatment’ protocols started to take effect. A secondary typhus outbreak then struck in January-February 1943 and once more a total camp lockdown took place.[3] The monthly averages of total camp inmates each month come from the British intel-decrypts, while the corresponding monthly deaths are counted from the Death Books of Auschwitz. We saw in the previous article how these both described the same group. Dividing one by the other gives the percentage.

The Nuremberg document also gave us the respective monthly-death figures of Auschwitz in August 1943 as 3.0% for the men’s camp and 3.6% for the women’s camp -compared to the overall for all camps which came to 2.09 %, see graph. In that month of August 1943 the camps of Auschwitz and Birkenau (two miles apart) had 48,000 men and 26,000 women. That represents a huge increase in population from only seven months earlier, January 1943, when it had 25,449 men and 6,631 women. It is quite remarkable that, despite that increase, the % mortality has plummeted in that same period from 15% in January to just over 3% in August 1943.

Decrees from this time suggest that this massive and continuous drop in mortality was due to the ‘Special Treatment’ protocols coming into effect to curb the devastating epidemics:

December 16, 1942: “Efforts absolutely must be taken to reduce the death rate in the concentration camps by improving the nutrition and, whenever possible and necessary, the working conditions. The camp commandants are to be held personally responsible for this.” – SS Chief Himmler

December 28, 1942: “The senior camp medical doctors will use all the means at their disposal to insure that mortality rates in the several camps decrease substantially. The camp medical doctors should supervise the nutrition of the prisoners more closely than before and submit proposals for improvements in conformance with the administrative measures of the camp commanders… The Reichsfuhrer SS has ordered that mortality absolutely must be reduced”.- SS officer Richard Glucks.

How was this done?

‘[A]lthough in the month of December the mortality rate was still 10%,in January ’43 already it fell to 8% and continued to fall. This reduction in the mortality rate is due primarily to the fact that the hygienic measures which have long been demanded have now been carried out, at least to a large extent. Furthermore it has been ordered in the field of nutrition that one-third of the food raw and properly chopped be added, shortly before distribution, to the cooked food.’ Cooking too long has been avoided. Supplementary ration of sauerkraut and similar foods have been issued. In regard to clothing, it has been ordered that the prisoners may keep their coats on in the winter, insofar as their work permits. Unnecessary prolongation of roll-calls has also been avoided…

In the first half of 1943 the death rate averaged 6% while in August 1943 it was only 2%, the letter said. (letter from Pohl, 4.10.43) A reply to Pohl’s report of 30 September 1943 congratulated him on the result achieved, and expressed the hope that improved sanitation and sewerage would yet further reduce the mortality.

A new role for the camps as industrial centres was being developed:

October 26, 1943: In the framework of German armaments production, thanks to the improvement efforts that have been undertaken in the past 2 years, the concentration camps have become of decisive importance in the war. From nothing we have built armaments works that are second to none. We now have to redouble our efforts to make sure that the production levels so far achieved are not only maintained, but further improved. That will be possible, as long as the works and factories remain intact, only by maintaining and even improving the labor capacity of the prisoners. In earlier years, given the re-educational policy of the time, it did not matter much whether or not a prisoner could perform useful work. Now, however, the labor capacity of the prisoners is important, and all measures of the commanders, director of the liaison service and medical doctors should be extended to maintaining the health and efficiency of the prisoners. notice by Oswald Pohl[4]

The British-intel decrypts surely offer the best possible perspective on this great endeavour, to obtain useful industrial labour from the camps, in 1942-43. The elimination of epidemic diseases from the camp was essential for this endeavour to succeed.

The graph shows us how Auschwitz had, over 1942-43, a far higher % mortality than the other camps. Many books by former inmates of Auschwitz have been published, emphasising the hellish conditions there. These statistics help us to appreciate the true horror of what the camp doctor Paul Kremer called ‘this Auschwitz hell:’[5] where dysentery, typhoid fever and typhus were raging. The ground at Auschwitz was too damp to bury corpses, owing to the two rivers nearby, so rotting dead bodies were lying around – plus people defecating whole time.

More Catholics than Jews died?

The total number of death-certificates recorded in the Death Books for Auschwitz, came to 68,800 with 29,100 Jewish and 31,800 Roman Catholic. There were quite a lot more Christian deaths than Jewish. The important point about these numbers, is that they are in proportion to the total camp numbers of inmates, and do not suggest any one religious/ethnic group was being targeted.

Age-Distribution of Deaths

Here is the age-distribution of deaths in the camp. This tends to refute the numerous accounts of children, old folks and those unfit to work being sent ‘straight to the gas-chamber,’ because it shows a quite normal distribution of deaths, peaking around the age of 40. It is not compatible with the traditional concept of an extermination camp. There are some very old people, 80-90 years, in this distribution.

The huge database of Bad-Arolsen in North Germany has also been recording all deaths in the German labour-camps, over the last sixty years. The database, built up by the International Red Cross, is nowadays called the International Tracing Service. It’s in some degree independent of the Death Books, because these were kept hidden in Russia until 1989. But it seems to havesomewhat comparable numbers of labour-camp deaths recorded: both data-sources imply a comparable number of around thirty thousand Jewish deaths. Both have in common, of recording not one single death by gassing.[6]

Year Month Total for all Camps % Auschwitz only %
population Deaths Mean  totals in camp Deaths
1942 Jun 23070 (M+F) 2335 10.1%
Jul 98000 8329 8.5% 18756 (M) 4124 (M) 22.0%
Aug 115000 12217 10.6% 22965 (M) 6829 (M) 29.7%
Sep 110000 11206 10.2% 18211 (M) + 13270 (F) 7199  DB 22.9%
Oct 85800 8856 10.3% 17335 (M) + 7383 (F) 4492 DB 18.2%
Nov 83500 8095 9.7% 20519 (M) + 6647 (M) 958 DB 3.5%
Dec 88000 8800 10% 24205 (M) + 5580 (F) 997  DB 3.3%
1943 Jan 123000 9839 8.0% 25449 (M) + 6631 (F) 4454  DB 13.9%
Feb 143100 11650 8.1% 42,747 (M+F) 5907  DB 13.8%
Mar 154200 12112 7.9%
Apr 171000 8358 4.9%
May 203000 5700 2.8%
Jun 199500 5650 2.8%
July
Aug 224,000 4699 2.1 48000 (M) + 26000 (F) 1442+938 3.3%

Italic: single-day totals, where no monthly means were available.

……………………………………………………..

Number Sources:

* F.Piper ( in his Auschwitz How Many Perished?, Jews, Poles and Gypsies, 1996, p.4,[1].) gave total Auschwitz inmates as 23070 for 1st June ’42. That gives us a June figure (implying 8882 women, as there were then 14188 mean.

* F.Piper has a chapter in the book ‘Anatomy of the Auchwitz Death-camp’ (Gutman and Berenbaum 1994) entitled, ‘The System of Prisoner Exploitation’ and he gives two figures of total inmate population: 29,306 for January 1943, and 42,742 for February 1943. That is a credulity-straining jump of twelve thousand in one month. But, his first figure agrees with the British decrypt data, adding the male and female totals for 4th January.

* Carlo Mattogno Special Treatment p.65, cites Stärkebuch, analysis by Jan Sehn, states: ‘ In the month of July, 4,401 prisoners died, 4,124 of them in the men’s camp alone…’ The men’s camp in July had an average of 18,756 inmates, giving a 22% mortality.

N.K., March 2013
[1] The Death-Books of Auschwitz, Vols 1-3, 1995; they are written in Polish, but Vol. 2 has a data-analysis chapter in English.

[2] At the Harvard Nuremberg site, select the IMT/NMT symbol PS and type in the number 1469 You should then arrive at a summary screen and if you click on the right arrow > next to 7 pages you should get several pages of the letter with table.

[3]  Mattogno Special treatment, p.44: February 8, 1943: ‘“… a total quarantine of the camp has once again been imposed upon the Auschwitz concentration camp.” This was the second total lock-down in the history of Auschwitz.’

[4] Refs from Graf’s Giant with Feet of Clay, p.61.

[5] See Carlo Mattogno, Special Treatment at Auschwitz’ p.79, or pp75-81 for Kremer’s experience of the horror.

[6] ‘Unfortunately, we cannot reference a single document listing the death of a detainee due to gassing by Zyklon B. As a rule, the Nazis gave other causes of death for inmates, who perished in the concentration camps. With kind regards, U Jost, Archival Manager”– 2.11.06 letter to Mr Mannheim.

———————————————————————————

 

The Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes

And Other Writings on the Holocaust, Revisionism, and Historical Understanding

By Samuel Crowell
Nine-Banded Books, 2011, 370 pp.

Review by Michael K. Smith
www.legalienate.blogspot.com

Reading Samuel Crowell’s, “The Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes” is a little like stumbling across a rational mind in an insane asylum years after being taken hostage by the inmates. Following prolonged immersion in clashing dogmas, the dispassionate use of evidence and logic to arrive at a sensible conclusion comes as a jolting but thoroughly pleasant surprise. And Crowell’s modesty in stating that conclusion tentatively, knowing that genuinely rational inquiry will and should be superseded by later efforts, is an equally refreshing departure from polemical norms.

Drawing on establishment and revisionist authors, along with a careful scrutiny of German source documents, Crowell deftly evaluates contending claims arguing that Nazi “gas chambers” were (1) weapons of extermination (2) disinfection chambers (3) bomb shelters designed to protect against aerial gas attacks. Aligning eyewitness testimony with the material and documentary record, he sketches out the basis for a rational opinion, putting readers in a position to make their own judgments, without first requiring that they join in partisan warfare. Thanks to this effort we no longer need choose between delusional orthodoxy and strident dissidence, but can simply weigh evidence. This should come as a relief to everyone, while hopefully expanding the number of readers who can move beyond ritual denunciation and actually take the gas chamber debate seriously.

Crowell’s work contains not a trace of anti-Semitism. He makes no attempt to whitewash Nazi racial policy, which he characterizes as a “shameful and disgraceful chapter in German history,” even if  “we assumed revisionist theses to their maximum extent.” The important consideration, he notes, is that “we would still be dealing with about a million dead European Jews, who died as a direct result of Nazi persecution, plunder, forced labor, deportation, and yes, mass killing.” As for his personal beliefs, he says, “they remain what they have been for thirty years or more,” that “there certainly was a Holocaust in the sense that Nazi Germany persecuted and massacred many Jews,” with the likelihood “that this massacre ran into the millions.” Philosemitic crusaders, please take note.

A self-declared “moderate revisionist” who clearly values the standards of rational investigation, Crowell avoids exaggeration, misrepresentation, and self-righteousness. He shows no reluctance to admit when a conclusion is debatable or when the evidence is open to varying interpretations; and he is able to perceive shortcomings in the views and tactics of those who share a revisionist stance – and even some merit in those who do not. This adds credibility to his analysis, and marks him as a rare breed of intellectual who actually does what he is supposed to do: face up to facts and plausibly explain them. It is truly sad that on such an important topic his open-mindedness is all but unique.

Alarmed by the banning of revisionist thought in Europe, Crowell originally took up Holocaust research in order to rescue intellectual freedom from the Holocaust witch hunts of the 1990s, ironically doing so under an assumed name (he fears for the safety of his family). He correctly points out that the censorship crusade against revisionism represents nothing other than “the censorship of historical investigation itself,” and notes with considerable relief that it appears to be losing steam. After years of beatings, fire-bombings, heresy trials, and book shreddings, designed to suppress what is openly regarded as a species of historical blasphemy, one can only hope and pray that this judgment is correct.

Due to a lack of corroborating physical and documentary evidence, Crowell is skeptical of the mass homicidal gassing thesis, classifying it as a “conspiracy theory,” which he defines as “a small group of people operating, as it were, invisibly, causing things to happen and covering the traces of their activity.” He finds this an implausible line of thought, because “there is no material evidence to support the theory,” i.e., no forensic evidence of homicidal gas chambers. Such an argument “demands the belief in unseen or invisible agency, which is able to accomplish its work without leaving behind clear material traces of its misdeeds.” Crowell finds people who take such ideas seriously reminiscent of “those millenia of humans who attributed terrible events to demons, devils, or other invisible supernatural beings.”

Crowell’s analysis is particularly apt in critiquing the “convergence of evidence” model borrowed from evolutionary biology, in which multiple strands of facts allegedly “converge” on a conclusion. But as Crowell notes, “no competent historian works that way.” For if historians have corroborating documentary evidence for a conclusion from a high-level document, they look for further substantiation from mid and low-level documents in order to avoid an argument with anomalous gaps. On the other hand, if they have merely eyewitness confirmation or a vague corroboratory reference, they search for higher level evidence before drawing hard and fast conclusions. The difference between this approach and conventional Holocaust historiography is striking. As Crowell notes: “The absence of evidence for gassing in a continuous hierarchy is a serious problem, just as an evolutionary biologist would be dumbfounded if he or she found entire geological strata in which there was no evidence of life at all. That is the proper analogy for the magnitude of the problem faced here.”

Equally helpful is Crowell’s excavation of the devastating impact of the Nuremberg Trials on subsequent Holocaust research. What scholars have been able to access about the Holocaust are a selection of documents from the German archives that were gathered and used for the express purpose of convicting the Nazi leadership in the first five years after World War II ended. Later the judgment of the International Military Court was declared unchallengeable, and criminal penalties were applied to those who publicly questioned the court’s findings. This means that the same documents, along with a prosecutorial interpretation of those documents, have remained fixed for over sixty years. As Crowell notes: “This never happens in normal historiography.”

The strength of Crowell’s book is also its weakness. He stays riveted on “gas chambers,” refusing to be drawn into broader issues or concerns. He explicitly rejects the notion that revisionist theses on the Holocaust carry with them implications for Israel, whose problems, he says “have nothing to do with an aggressive recounting of the suffering of the Jewish people in World War Two.”

But this observation entirely misses the point. For the so-called “mother question” in the Middle East has never been how to solve Israel’s problems, but rather, how to deal with the impossible problems created by Israel. And central to those problems is the political capital the Jewish state has made out of what Crowell calls the Canonical Holocaust. Indeed, it is unlikely that a Jewish state could ever have been founded on Palestinian Arab lands, much less won license to commit permanent ethnic cleansing against them, had it not been for widespread belief in the extermination of European Jewry in gas chambers and cremation ovens, a uniquely horrible destiny, if true. But if that story is fatally flawed, as Crowell’s careful research suggests it is, then world leaders’ ritual deference to a presumed unique Jewish victimhood (especially on the part of U.S. leaders) may very well prove impossible to sustain, as may the justification for maintaining Israel as an exclusively Jewish state. And if U.S. support on these scores ever wavers, it is difficult to see how Israel will be able to stave off the radical transformation it will have to undergo in order to remain part of the Middle East. Whether it continues to exist in name or not, it will no longer be the state the world is familiar with.

———————————————————————————-

The Corpses would have been RED — all of the “eyewitnesses” lied!

If any holocaust gassing claims were true, vast numbers of bright, cherry RED corpses would have always been present among the victims. Not necessarily all of the corpses would have been red–but certainly large numbers, probably the vast majority, would have been intensely red in appearance from cyanide or carbon monoxide and would have been remembered that way long after the war. That intense red coloring would have appeared within minutes of death, in the hypostasis and even in the pre-hypostasis condition, and would have remained present for several days at least. This is, however, contrary to nearly all of the statements from self-described “eyewitnesses” to those alleged gassings or of the supposedly huge piles of stark naked corpses. A-L-L of those “eyewitnesses” LIED: — they claimed the corpses were either “blue,” or “bluish” or “unremarkable!

—————————————————————————————–

The Allied Battle for Bolshevism

The prevailing view of the Reich’s invasion of the Soviet Union is based on misinformation. Woefully uninformed is nearer the mark. It is commonly held that the rapacious land-hungry Reich made a fatal blunder in taking on the unprepared but plucky Russians. This is a fairy tale as far removed from reality as are the Hans Christian Andersen’s children’s tales.

Operation-BarbarossaOn June 22 1941 the Reich Armies, to thwart an imminent Soviet invasion, cut through the Eastern Territories like a hot knife through butter. An estimated 4.5 million fully-equipped Red Army troops were routed and rounded up like cattle. What was left of the Red Army quickly evaporated. Why was the Red Army such a walkover? Let us remember, this was the same hapless Red Army that 30-months earlier invaded Finland. Within 12 weeks it had been totally destroyed and sent packing by a farmer’s army. Not surprisingly, the armies of the Reich, with little resistance, reached the 1,600 kilometres distant Moscow in just 10 weeks. Stalingrad took a little longer.

In June and July 1941, the Red Army was running so fast you couldn’t see their heels for the dust. There was no time to pack their toothbrushes, let alone take their military hardware with them. The Red Army’s equipment was abandoned and scattered across the steppe. As a consequence, when the Red Army had its back to the wall and was staring defeat in the face, their troops were both armless and harmless. The peoples of distressed Eastern Europe held their breath. The scourge of Bolshevism was about to be eradicated and Bolshevik Occupied Europe liberated. The threat to Europe was to be lanced; what could possibly go wrong?

Quite a lot actually; the British and U.S. cavalry were on their way. The British Empire’s armed forces and their territories were stripped bare of their means of defence and re-directed to save Bolshevism. Bolshevism was not saved by the Red Army; it was saved by Westminster and Washington DC.

In August 1941 the Murmansk aid convoys set out from the United States and Britain. Sailing until the war’s end these fleets brought everything needed to rescue the Soviet Union. With over 1,400 warships and freighters of three nations under sail, the convoys, over time, made up the largest armada ever gathered. What was written on these ships manifestos?

A button Made in USAMuch! The Red Army would have shuffled through the snow in bare feet had it not been for 15,417,001 army boots supplied by Britain. Uniforms and buttons were supplied by the U.S, Britain and British Dominions. The convoys lost 101 ships and 3,000 British sailors to submarine and air attacks; to these unfortunates can be added many U.S and Canadian seamen. A small example of what the Capitalists sent free of charge to ensure the continuance of the Bolshevik grip on Russia and Eastern Europe: 14,795 aircraft, 7,056 tanks, 51,503 Jeeps, 435,457 military vehicles, 8,218 field artillery, 1,981 locomotives, and 11,155 freight cars. This rail stock was also used to transport millions of Russians and other unfortunates to Stalin’s Gulag. 131,633 machine guns, 105 submarine hunters, 7,784 ships engines, 197 torpedo boats. Besides much more than can be listed here, 90 cargo freighters were left with Stalin’s Bolshevik Russia. There was 4,478,000 tons of food, machines and equipment $1,078,965,000. Non-ferrous metals 802,000 tons, petroleum products 2,670,000 tons, chemicals 842,000 tons, cotton 106,893,000 tons, leather 49,860 tons, tires 3,786,000.

INF3-130_War_Effort_Arms_for_Russia_-_a_great_convoy_sails_into_Murmansk_Artist_BlakeWestminster supplied Bolshevik Russia with 7,056 tanks, 14,795 aircraft, 1,550 RAF trained pilots and ground crew. Philip Wilkinson, Chairman of the RAF-Russia Association says: “There is no doubt we were under pressure. We could have done with 40 Hurricanes going anywhere else but across the seas to Russia.”

RAF pilots flew sorties’ with the Red Army and engaged with the Luftwaffe in the skies above North-Western Russia. Four of these airmen, including a New Zealander, were to receive the Order of Lenin in recognition of their kills.

There simply isn’t the space to provide here the full inventory of aid sent; it does give a brief insight. There was only the problem of low Red Army morale. Understandably, it took more than a pair of nice new British boots, U.S made warm clothing and Chicago-made rifles to boost their sense of commitment. No problem, ‘Uncle’ Joe Stalin, the curmudgeonly old darling of the Western media had a solution to hand: Stalin explains: “It takes a brave Russian soldier to attack the Nazis, a braver one to retreat.” Follow my drift?

The subject has been previously covered by such books as Hubert van Tuyll’s Feeding the Bear (1989). A more compelling revelation was made by researcher Albert Weeks. Having advantage of access to Russian sources, the author makes a clear case that “the program was a major factor in the survival of the Soviet Union and the victory over Nazism.”

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Crimes of the Bolsheviks

CRIMES OF THE BOLSHEVIKS

 

. . . edited by Isabella Fanfani

 

An edited abridgment of A Sea of Blood: the Truth about Bolshevik Russia, a 12,000-word pamphlet originally published in Munich (1926) and authored by a Russian émigré  known as “Dr Gregor”.

Pictures and captions by Lasha Darkmoon

1.  Introduction

Nine years have already passed since an indescribable crime against humanity, the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, was systematically begun. Now in its ninth year [1926], a government exists which calls itself a worker-and-peasant government—but not one true worker or farmer has ever sat on it. For nine years, torture has been used in the name of democra­cy as an official instrument of the state. And in the name of socialism millions of upright individu­als have been murdered, put to death through starvation, or banished from home and hearth to every distant part of the globe.

In the name of the proletariat the Russian people has been subjugated by rank foreigners, their speech has been silenced, and their bodies sent—to the cheers of the [Jewish] Third International — into mass graves.

An old Russian expression says: “There are never more lies told than before a war and after a hunt.” And in point of fact the Great War [WW1] never had a true armistice; it never really ended. And the hunt for more human skulls — of course only Chris­tian and Aryan skulls will do — continues in accordance with a sinister and systematic plan. And thus the great lie blooms forth, in effect a form of worship of the Father of Lies,  by that international scum calling itself the Bolsheviks.

Mundus vult decipi! — the world wants to be deceived! It believes Soviet lies and fairy tales and even participates in this sick comedy, sending delegations of well-known people, leftists of course, incapable of understanding the Russian language, and sympathetic to boot with the goals of the Third International!

[The 3rd Internationale was the third great convention meeting held by ultra-radical Jews and Marxists in 1919 to coordinate Communist activities worldwide.]

Off these foreign guests go to Soviet Russia to “study” the situation. These splendid chaps have no idea what Russia was like before the Bolsheviks—and what it could have become without them in the meantime! On the other hand, the Soviet Union’s new friends show great knowledge and appreciation for our Russian caviar and vodka! The caviar is good, the vodka burns like fire going down, and in the brain-fog of democratic good will one somehow misses the rivers of blood, the dashed brain fragments, and the slithering clatter of mil­lions of slaves’ chains.

And so internationalist democracy celebrates its rites of sacrifice. The Christian lamb is slaughtered, and Annias and Caiaphas [Jewish leaders in the Sanhedrin who condemned Jesus to death], today representing international stock market capital, are the guests of honor at the feast.

Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky

The four Jews—Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky—who helped to destroy the Christian Russia of the tsars and replace it with an atheistic Communism in which 66 million Russian Christians were put to death in the gulags run by the  cheka.

2.  The systematic destruction of Russia

The old Russia no longer exists.

In its place we have a vast desert: its intelligentsia 90% annihilated, its middle class throttled, its work­ing class made serfs once again — but this time serfs in state-owned factories, workers who just for using the word “strike” can be put up against the wall! As for the farmer, now he is a mere beast of burden, a camel in the Soviet-made Sahara, laboring without question for his Jewish exploiters and nearly without pay.

For a non-initiate it must be entirely incomprehensible how such a mighty empire, seemingly in one night of revolution, could be set aflame at all four corners and destroyed.

However, in one night it did not happen.

The events of March 1917 — Kerensky’s middle-class overthrow of the tsar — and of November 1917 — the Bolshevik putsch against Kerensky’s government — were only the visible re­sult of years of patient, mole-like undermining activities by the Jewish Internationale: a work which did not begin in the criminal minds of Marx, Kautsky and Engels, but instead in an earlier alliance of Jewry with the higher grades of world Freemasonry.

These lofty “idealists” have tortured and killed, in the name of Russia’s workers and peasants — and according to their very own statistics — the following numbers of victims in the first four years of the glorious Russian Revolution: 28 bishops of the Church, 1,215 priests and 6,000 monks. Why? Just because they were bishops, priests and monks, and because they believed in God — who is of course merely a disposable middle-class superstition.

Next come 8,800 Christian doctors and their aides. Why? Because they represented non-Jewish middle-class medicine.

Now come the officers: 54,650 army and naval officers, 10,500 police offi­cers (lieutenant-rank and above) and 48,500 lower-ranking policemen. And for what reason? Because they were military and police officers, and we all know that “militarism” is no longer permissible for any nationalistic and Aryan-conscious white people. It is only allowed to Red bandits, who call themselves proletarians, to dig the real proletariat a mass grave.

Then there are 260,000 flag-loyal soldiers of the old army, all now executed. But even this statistic is trifling. Now come the intelligentsia: teachers, professors, engineers, building contractors, writers and judges — especially judges, because these were the most dangerous for a state ruled by convicted felons.

To them let us add lawyers, district attorneys and all the college-educated occupations — to reach the number of 361,825 murdered members of our most mentally demanding professions. I will not even tarry over our annihilated class of large landowners, consisting of 12,950 persons.

And when someone asks me how the Russian intelligentsia can bear the Bolshevik yoke, I always answer that the Russian intelligentsia is either literally six feet under or in exile, and that the tiny remainder left over has suffered such a blood-letting and systematic humiliation through the communist steamroller that they have forfeited every last bit of self-esteem and personal honor.

Finally, we come to the modest numbers of workers and peasants executed by the worker-and-peasant state. They amount to only 192,350 workers and 815,000 peasants. All these figures are official statistics pub­lished by the Cheka [forerunner of the KGB] and printed in easily obtainable Bolshevik newspapers during this period when the anti-communist White Russian forces were fighting Trotsky and the Red Army, [1917-1921].

All these facts can be verified in the complete volumes of informa­tion or excerpts published in 1922 by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Kingdom of Serbia, the only coun­try in Europe which is fighting mercilessly against the disease of communism.

Even this enormous number of casualties is small compared to the mentally ill persons now running around free in Soviet Russia — four million eight hundred thousand of them. But this is no surprise. Even the old Russia did not have enough sanatoria and hospitals for them. Now the whole country has become a madhouse.

The murders continue and the blood flows on, albeit only Christian and Aryan blood.

When during the 1922 Famine, 30,000 human beings were dying every day, Jewish leader Trotsky made the sarcastic remark: “All the better — look at the paperwork that will save us now!”

3.  Tsars assassinated by the Jews

After Nicholas I, his son Alexander II mounted the throne, a true friend of his people. In 1861 he  abolished serfdom and gave the peasants land. This reform happened through the mir arrangement of village communities — an institution far closer to true and sincere communism than the capitalistic, tax-exploitative system we see in Soviet Russia today.

This same tsar, Alexander II, who in 1864 gave his people a whole new trial procedure for their court system — then the fairest and most progressive in Europe — underwent seven attempts to assas­sinate him, until finally, in an eighth attempt perpetrated by Goldmann, Liebermann and Zuckermann — can anyone mistake their race? — successfully carried out the wishes of London.

[Great Britain was by this time in the control of the Jewish bankers of the City of London.]

Alexander II, the great benefactor of his nation, was dynamited on March 1, 1881 — the very day that he was to bestow on his country a new, constitutional form of government.

Alexander II was gone.

Alexander III now became tsar. With respect to this monarch who preserved Euro­pean peace, we Russians were all convinced that when he died in 1894, he had succumbed to a normal illness — in this case an acute kidney infection. How great was afterward our amazement when we learned — on the run, in exile, and from Jewish sources — that this tsar too had fallen victim to the criminal minds of the tribe of Judah.

The Jew Saltus exults over this fact in his book The Imperial Orgy, published in New York in 1920. In·his foam-mouthed delirium over the successful downfall of the Christian-Aryan world he explains in his book how the Jews, working with the Entente powers — England, France, the U.S. and Italy — got rid of the tsars one after the other.

He further relates that, at the same time as Russian churches were praying for the health of the tsar, he was being cursed in the synagogues.

To the bedside of the sick tsar his personal physician, Zakharin, was summoned. Zakharin, a perfectly good Russian name, and yet — a Jew. When he arrived to see the tsar in Livadiya, he had the medicine all ready for him in his vest pocket. The kind of medicine is easy to imagine: a one-way ticket into the next world.

After the trusting tsar had swallowed the medication and was rolling in pain on his bed, Zakharin bent over-him — according to Saltus — with a diabolical grin on his face.

The tsar choked out the words “Who are you?”

Zakharin’s  answer: “I am a Jew!” And with enormous chutzpah, he then turned to the empress and the tsar’s ministers and said: “Not to worry, his majesty is only talking in a fever!”

Then he bent over the dying man and grinned at him again: “You are breathing your last breath—and we have won!”

This comes straight from the Jew Saltus in his book The Imperial Orgy.

4.  The murder of millions of Christians by the Cheka

And then the Russian Revolution came.

Who were these friends of the common people who in the name of freedom, equality, and democracy began annihilating the Christian-Aryan population?

Undoubtedly there were among them some true idealists who really believed that they could use murder and manslaughter, robbery and theft, to make a happier world and a new paradise of equality. The well-known result, however, was a living hell consisting of hunger, deprivation, despair and an equality only in one’s right to be murdered by the Jewish-controlled Cheka [forerunner of the KGB].

The word “Cheka” is not only an acronym in Russian for “Special Commission for Fighting Counter-Revolution,” but also a Yiddish expression for ani­mal slaughter. How fitting this expression! We Christians, who are called “goyim” or cattle, are in the Jewish view mere animals. Yahweh gave us human faces, however, so as to spare the Jews the distress of having servants who looked like animals. [Paraphrased]

The first provisional government [after the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II and just before the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution] consisted exclusively of Freemasons of Romance-language initiation, from France or Italy, and funded by English money. The criminality of this “provisional government” knew no bounds, because it did the most despicable thing a government can do. It ignored the promises, purposes and ideals for which it was put in power—and for which it had overthrown the Tsar, head of state.

The nine months of this “government” was nothing but a gestation period, and horribly pregnant Russia gave birth to the mis­carriage from hell on October 27, 1917. It can rightly be said that power was lying there on the street and the Bolsheviks merely picked it up. To provide a show for the friendly democracies abroad,  there had to be street battles in Russia. And so the prime minister Kerensky, a half-Jew whose real name was Kirbis, meaning “pumpkin”, deliberately sent a battalion of women and young officer cadets into the jaws of a howling and murderous mob, where they were sadistically annihilated. Meanwhile Kerensky, dressed in a sailor suit, fled St. Petersburg.

Just before that, Kerensky had signed — for publicity reasons — an arrest warrant against the “traitor Trotsky” [Bronstein]. But when General Polovtsev showed up with his Cossacks in Trotsky’s apartment to arrest him, there sitting in a plush armchair with Trotsky was Kerensky, sipping a liqueur. He took the arrest warrant from the aston­ished general’s hand, theatrically tore it up, and sent the general on his way — a man who lacked the courage to simply arrest both these scum — for in a revolution, the first one to pick up his stick is on top.

In any case, the Russian and foreign publics were to be treated to scenes of urban warfare and bloodshed.

Aryan blood, of course.

5.  Lenin, a syphilitic psychopath

The Mensheviks, or “majority people”, wanted a peaceful socialist welfare state and limited state ownership of industries as in Sweden. The Bolsheviks, or  “minority people” [i.e., mostly Jews] wanted a reign of terror and total nationalization under Lenin and Trotsky.

The Mensheviks made only one condition: that Lenin explain himself with respect to allegations of theft from the Party. When the convention began and Lenin was challenged to give an account of himself, he stood up, stuck his hands in his pockets and proclaimed that his standing was so high in the party that he owed no one any answers.

When Lenin first arrived in Russia from Germany, he was already demented from untreated or poorly treated syphilis.

LENIN

With this softening of the brain — a sort of gumming of the tissues — he was now fully qualified to pour his criminal fantasies into the ears of the foaming mob.

Russia already stood in flames, and the shabby gang of brigands were encouraged by Lenin’s slogan, “Rob back what they robbed from us!”

And so the mob hurled themselves upon the meager remains of Russian society. Under the joyful croakings of Jewry, Mother Russia was submerged.

The brain disease which afflicted Lenin continued to take its course. One insane idea after an­other issued forth from his government. The most renowned doctors in Germany boarded airplanes in an attempt to jerry-rig this decrepit swindler statesman, but he descended further and further into mental confusion. It is said that before his death he experienced a few shafts of mental light during which he crawled on all fours on the carpet and whimpered pitifully “Forgive me, Lord, forgive!”

Truly, truly the “international proletariat” can be proud: its leader a thief, its prophet a syphilitic, its greatest man a mass murderer.

Instead of leading mankind into the bright light above the clouds, it has jammed human­ity down into the sewer, and it is no accident that his mausoleum —“Lenin’s tomb” — looks today like a public lavatory.

The last of the Romanovs, Tsar Nicholas II and his family

After the February Revolution of 1917, Nicholas II abdicated his throne and took refuge with his family in a house in Yekaterinburg. The Czar, his wife, his son, his four daughters, his servants and family doctor were all killed in the same room by the Bolsheviks on the night of July 17, 1918. It has since been confirmed that Lenin ordered the clandestine killings from Moscow.

Veteran British journalist Robert Wilton explains in his cult classic, The Fall of the Romanovs,how the murder of the Tsar and his family was orchestrated entirely by Jews:

“The whole record of Bolshevism in Russia is indeliby impressed with the stamp of an alien invasion. The murder of the Tsar, deliberately planned by the Jew Sverdlov, and carried out by the Jews Goloshchekin, Syromolotov, Safarov, Voikov, and Yorovsky, is the act not of the Russan people, but of this hostile invader.” (Robert Wilton, The Fall of the Romanovs, p.148).

6.  Trotsky, another killer of Christians

Lenin’s great rival was a man who nearly exceeds him in treachery, viciousness and sadistic love of executions:  the Jew Laibe Bronstein, who now calls himself Leo Trotsky.

This Bronstein-Trotsky character formerly was an ultra-radical writer of gall-dripping articles for Jewish newspapers. But long before the war he was an agent of the tsarist secret police in Vienna, reporting on Russian Jews who had deserted from the Russian armed forces.

Trotsky, a full-blooded Jew, betrayed his racial brothers to the Russian government for 150 gold crowns a month [about $200]. This perhaps tells us all we need to know about him.

He moved to St. Petersburg and founded a very bourgeois and capitalist freight-moving business. Later he got into the business of lopping off heads when it became more advantageous to be a commu­nist. The whole communist system under Soviet Judea is shot through with bizarre values. While purecommunism is said to promise a community of sharing, the slogan of Russiancommunism seems to be: “What’s mine is mine — and what’s yours is mine, too!”

TROTSKY CARTOON

“This anti-Bolshevik propaganda poster, dated to 1919, shows Leon Trotsky (born Lev Davidovich Bronstein) as a devil.  Elements of the imagery reveal anti-Semitism: a popular  anti-communist tactic was to overplay the role of Jews in the Russian Bolshevik Revolution.” (From a Zionist website, attempting to minimize the role played by Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution. See here).

The Chinese soldiers, presiding here over a mound of corpses and shooting Russian Christians to death, were hired mercenaries for the Jewish Bolsheviks. They did the Jews’ dirty work for them. Their reputation for sadistic torture on behalf of their Bolshevik employers was legendary. Thus they were responsible for introducing into Europe the infamous “rat torture”, a variation of which was to appear later as the horrendous climax of  Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty Four.

FAMOUS  TROTSKY  QUOTE  (1917):

 “We must turn Russia into a desert populated by white negroes upon whom we shall impose a tyranny such as the most terrible Eastern despots never dreamt of. The only difference is that this will be a left-wing tyranny, not a right-wing tyranny. It will be a red tyranny and not a white one. We mean the word ‘red’ literally, because we shall shed such floods of blood as will make all the human losses suffered in the capitalist wars pale by comparison. The biggest bankers across the ocean will work in the closest possible contact with us. If we win the revolution, we shall establish the power of Zionism upon the wreckage of the revolution’s funeral, and we shall became a power before which the whole world will sink to its knees. We shall show what real power is. By means of terror and bloodbaths, we shall reduce the Russian intelligentsia to a state of complete stupefaction and idiocy and to an animal existence.”

 — From the ‘Memoirs of Aron Simanovich’, quoted in The Nature of Zionism by Vladimir Stepin, Moscow, 1993, and translated from Russian into English by Clive Lindhurst.

7.  Fiendish tortures devised by the Jewish Cheka

For all time these names — the Jew Trotsky, the Pole Dzherzhinski, the Russian Moros,  the Latvians Lazis and Peter — all these being the original creators of the infamous Cheka — will stand out in world history as mass mur­derers.

Even the bloodiest persecutions of Christians under Tiberius or Nero and the most grotesque tortures of the Spanish Inquisition under Torquemada — a converted Jew — pale by comparison with the indescribably gruesome deeds committed by the Jewish and Latvian run Cheka.

A whole shelf of books with both written and photographic documentation has been published on this theme.

I need mention only The Blood Intoxication of the Bolsheviks by Nilostonsky, The Battle Against Bolshevism by Avalov, The Plague over Russia by Albert Rosenberg,Soviet Russia by Katharina Haug-Houg, and The Cheka by Georg Popov.

[Here now are some of the gruesome tortures devised by the Jewish Cheka for its mostly Russian Christian victims.]

When the Reds occupied a city, they took hostages — such as people wearing ties or workers in their Sunday best. They stripped them naked and then bound onto the stomach of the murder victim an empty flower pot into which a ravenous, starving rat was placed. Through the small water hole in the base of the flower pot a red-hot iron rod was pushed to torment the rat and make him wild, causing him to try to burrow himself away from the rod — and deep into the abdomen of the horrified human victim.

THE RAT TORTURE: A red-hot poker, when pushed through the bars of the cage, would force the maddened rat to escape by gnawing its way into the stomach of the human prisoner.

They lined up other victims in military formation, then ordered the first row to place one hand upon a wooden table. A nail was driven through the hand into the wood. Then they cut a full circle around the wrist skin, drenched the hand in boiling water and  pulled the hand and finger skin right off. This  they called “making gloves”.

Interestingly, each torture chamber had its own special torture lady, always a Jewess or Latvian female, usually with a nickname such as “Dora, the glove maker” or “Rosa, the glove lady.”

It comes as no surprise to us to learn that the chief justice of a criminal court in Moscow is also a Jewess, Anya Glusmann, who is said to love pronounc­ing death sentences above all else, and, according to a fawning newspaper article about her, she loves flowers and perfume after a “hard day’s work.”

There is more: such as placing a man’s head on an anvil, then slowly exploding it using a huge iron hammer with ever-increasing weights.

Those fated to suffer the same death the following day were ordered to pick up the brain and bone pieces, the nerve tissue and blood which they witnessed flying around the room. When ordered to their work they were told: “You are digging your own grave. You must be happy that tomor­row your own kind will be picking up the pieces of your cadavers.”

As for men of the cloth, they would bring priests into a church, marry them with a sow or mare in a sarcastic ceremony and then nail them to the cross over the altar.

The bishop of Voronesh was plunged live into a giant kettle of boiling water and his monks were forced at revolver point to take spoonfuls of this “soup”.

High-ranking clergymen had their eyes gouged out, the tongue severed, and the ears sliced off.

Then they were buried alive.

Or their abdomen was opened with a knife and the first section of their intestines was nailed to a telephone pole. They were then forced to run around the pole as their entrails unwound until death came.

Officers of the Russian navy were steamed to death in their own engine rooms.

They were chained to ce­ment blocks and hurled off the piers so that their tethered corpses, decomposing and rising under the waves, formed hideous, tossing forests of the dead.

General Viren of Kronstadt had both his arms hacked off and was then paraded around the downtown area until it became boring, whereupon he was shot.

Human beings had burning cigars pushed into their open eyes until they were blind, their entire body being roasted on spits.

Heads were squeezed slowly to the bursting point with special brain vises.

The German Army discovered a chamber full of these and similar devices, including a testicle-cracker, in an underground chamber in Ukraine in 1941. Adapted dentist drills were used to drill deep into the brain.

They sawed off the top of people’s skulls and forced others to eat their brains, whereupon the eaters then came under the saw and in turn had their own brains eaten. [Paraphrased]

Entire families were arrested and children tortured before the eyes of their bound parents, or the wife was tormented before the eyes of her husband or the reverse.

The Bolsheviks drove nails into empty wooden bar­rels, then jammed human beings inside, rolling the barrels around merrily.

Mass graves of people buried alive were found by the White Army. Victims of live burial usually have dirt in their mouth and nostrils from trying to breathe. The writhing bodies of these people were found in the most bizarre contortions.

And all this in the sweet name of freedom and democracy!

————————————————————————————–

Historical Documents Prove the Connection Between Jews and Bolshevism

This video on the jewish role behind bolshevism is packed with information and closes at the end in a dramatic way for those who watch and read from start to finish.

A Collection of Reports on Bolshevism in Russia (1919)

————————————————————————–

Once again, Alex Jones, being a skilled liar and peddler of ridiculous falsehoods, manages to project the treacherous tactics of the Jews onto the enemies of Jews. In actuality, it was the crypto-Jewish communist leader Vladimir Lenin — the butcher of millions! — who openly advocated every imaginable evil, encouraging lies and deceit, terrorism and the wholesale slaughter of entire populations!

Lenin is the one who said:

“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”

Lenin went even further, unashamedly stating:

“We must utilise all possible cunning and illegal methods, deny and conceal the truth.” (“The Present Stage of Soviet Global Expansion,” U.S. Army Institute for Advanced Russian and East European Studies, p.29)

Terrorism, in the mind of Lenin, was a good and justified action, stating:

“… real, nation-wide terror, which reinvigorates the country.”

Lenin openly declared his genocidal bloodlust, casually talking about killing off nearly the entire Russian population to ensure the victory of communism:

“What does it matter if 90 percent of the Russian people perish, provided the surviving 10 percent bring about a World Revolution?” (Time Magazine – February 11, 1924)

Another Jewish Bolshevik leader, Grigory Zinoviev, “wrote off” 10,000,000 Slavs for slaughter, stating:

“To overcome our enemies we must have our own Socialist Militarism. We must win over to our side, 90 millions out of the 100 millions of population of Russia under the Soviets. As for the rest, we have nothing to say to them; they must be annihilated.”  (A Collection of Reports on Bolshevism in Russia. Great Britain: Foreign Office, (1919), p. 99)

I wonder why none of these atrocious Jewish quotes ended up in Jones’s documentary? I wonder why Jones never ever quotes the filth that can be found in the Talmud, Tanakh or Zohar (See: Judaism’s Strange Gods by Michael Hoffman II). I wonder why Jones never quotes the statements of Gentile-hating Jewish rabbis — like Ovadia Yosef and Manis Friedman — who have called for the annihilation and enslavement of non-Jews?

At the 13:12 mark of the documentary we see this graphic:

Oh, what a surprise! Alex Jones is a “true believer” in the epic fairy tale and quasi-religious cult known as the Holocaust™. He states as fact that the Nazis are responsible for 20,946,000 deaths between 1933-1945. Even mainline historianswouldn’t agree with that figure. It’s a steaming pile of “disinfowars” rubbish.

In the years preceding WWII (1933-1939) the Nazis were not rounding people up by the thousands and shooting them the way the Jewish communists were in Russia, Ukraine, Hungary and elsewhere. Hitler wasn’t shooting anybody, including Jews. His SS troops were not raping or terrorizing anyone either. Video footage of everyday life inside Nazi Germany unveils a totally different picture to the one painted by official historiography disseminated in the schools. In it we see happy, jovial Germans — men, women, teenagers and children enjoying life, engaging in social activities, playing games, drinking beer, dancing and celebrating. You won’t be able to find film footage like that in the despotic Jew-run hell hole known as the Soviet Union — a genuine horror house of human misery. Nazi Germany hosted the summer Olympic Games in 1936 for Christ’s sake! Hitler’s Germany was a bastion of freedom, a magnificent society with a myriad of social advantages. The Nazis truly were ahead of their time.

Only after war was declared on Germany by Britain and France in 1939 did the Nazis step up their internal security efforts to enforce law and order. Only then did the Nazis begin interning perceived security threats and saboteurs, such as Jews, communists and other disloyal citizens, in concentration camps (which all the major powers involved in WW2 had). Only after the war against Germany commenced did the Nazis begin rounding up Jews and putting them in ghettos and labor camps. Only after war was declared on Germany by Britain and France — at the behest of International Jewry — did the Nazis become more harsh in their treatment of Jews, whose demonic kinsmen in Paris, Washington and London had instigated this bloody conflict to begin with, and who had been waging a relentless economic and propaganda war against Nazi Germany at the outset of Hitler’s assumption of power in 1933. After six years of intense Jewish agitation and aggression against Nazi Germany the Jews successfully drove two Western powers, as well as their colonies, into war against Germany, with the USA soon to follow. Joseph Goebbels, in a brilliant article he authored in 1943 entitled “The War and The Jews,” stated:

 “Jewry wanted this war. Whether one looks to the plutocratic or the bolshevist side of the enemy camp, one sees Jews standing in the foreground as instigators, rabble-rousers and slave drivers. They organize the enemy’s war economy and encourage plans to exterminate and destroy the Axis powers. England and the USA recruit from among them bloodthirsty and vengeful agitators and political lunatics, and they are the source of the terror commissars of the GPU. They are the mortar that holds the enemy coalition together. In the National Socialist Reich, they see a power that resists their drive for world domination both militarily and intellectually. That explains their rage and deep hatred. Do not think that the Old Testament tirades of their newspapers and radio are merely political propaganda. They would carry it all out to the letter, should they have the opportunity.”

A testament to the truth behind Goebbels’ every word was a letter sent to the British PM Neville Chamberlain in 1939 by a leading Jew figure named Chaim Weizmann — who would become Israel’s first president — in which he stated:

 “I wish to confirm, in the most explicit manner, the declarations which I and my colleagues have made during the last month, and especially in the last week, that the Jews stand by Great Britain and will fight on the side of the democracies.” (The Times, “Jews To Fight For Democracies,” September 6, 1939)

Hitler, like Goebbels, understood the reality of Jewish warmongering against the Reich and decided that the only solution to the Jewish problem in Europe was separation through forced deportation. Thus the Nazis drafted a four-year plan to deport four million European Jews to the island of Madagascar. Once settled there, the Jews would rule themselves but be kept under German surveillence as a means to keep their mischievous brethren in the United States in line. An article publshed in the St. Petersburg Times on August 8, 1940, quotes an SS spokesman as stating that if the Axis Powers were victorious in the war, all Jews will be forced to leave Europe afterwards:

“A German peace will mean a Jew-less peace, Das Schwarze Korps, mouth piece of Adolf Hitler’s elite SS guard, proclaimed yesterday.

Once the war is won, some area remote from Europe will be set apart for Jewish colonization, the paper said, and then the continent will be cleared entirely of Jews. …

Das Schwarze Korps’ discussion of a “peace without Jews” declared Jews had co-operated with Britain in an attempt to “convert all Europe into a chaotic, blood-soaked battlefield.” Therefore they must pay the bill, the paper said.

The German-Italian victory the paper explained, “will secure space far away from European labor and culture where the scum of humanity may try to lead a life of its own toil or die a death it earned.”

Now I will address the gargantuan falsehood perpetrated by Alex Jones in his documentary. He claims that the Nazis are responsible for the deaths of about 20,000,000 people between 1933 and 1945. Firstly, the Holocaust™ as we have been propagandized to believe it is a colossal fraud, a hoax of near planetary proportions. The legendary French holocaust revisionist, Robert Faurisson, succinctly summed up the Hoax in this short statement:

“The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie, which has permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle whose main beneficiaries are the State of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims are the German people – but not their leaders – and the Palestinian people in their entirety.”


The ridiculous fairy tale that exactly 6,000,000 Jews were killed in gas chambers and by other means by Hitler and his forces is already dead, even as far as the official story is concerned. Raul Hilberg, a Jewish supremacist who was considered to be the leading “expert” on the so-called Holocaust™ and preeminent author of exterminationist literature like “The Destruction of the European Jews,” admitted under oath in the kangaroo court of the first Zündel trial in 1985 that there is no scientific proof that Jews had been gassed and that there is not a single Nazi document to be found actually setting forth an order nor allocating a monetary budget for the extermination of Jewry (he actually had to revise an earlier edition of his book where he falsely claimed that there was a Hitler order). On the contrary, all the documents dealing with the Nazis’ solution of the Jewish question refer to emigration.

In 1990, the Auschwitz State Museummassively revised the death toll there from 4,000,000 to 1,000,000, a reduction of 3,000,000. For forty-five years following WWII, governments, historians, journalists, professors, etc, were — like parrots — repeating the fraudulent four million figure as fact, yet now they confess it was a giant lie! Would you really expect to find a swimming pool (fitted with a diving board), a soccer field, a cinema, a theater, a brothel, hospitals, a post-office, religious facilities, a sauna, an artist’s studio, kitchens, dental facilities, etc, in a perilous “death factory”? All of those things existed in the Auschwitz concentration camp complex.

Palestine 1929 – The Shaw Commission of Inquiry: “disappointment … and fear”

year: 1929
Members of the Shaw Commission of Inquiry, Jerusalem, October 1929. The Shaw Commission was sent by London to investigate the causes of the 1929 disturbances. Seated center is Sir Walter Shaw, chairman of the commission. In its report the commission concluded that the fundamental cause of the 1929 outbreak was the Palestinians’ feeling of “disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future .” It recommended that British policies on Zionist mass immigration to and land acquisition in Palestine should give due consideration to Palestinian interests and grievances.

The Myth of the Big Business-Nazi Axis

K.R. Bolton

The party-line of the Left is that Fascism and Nazism were the last resort of Capitalism.1 Indeed, the orthodox Marxist critique does not go beyond that. In recent decades there has been serious scholarship within orthodox academe to understand Fascism as a doctrine. Among these we can include Roger Griffin,2 Roger Eatwell,3 and particularly Zeev Sternhell.4 The last in particular shows that Fascism derived at least as much from the Left as from the Right, emerging from Italy but also in particular from Francophone Marxists as an effort to transcend the inadequacies of Marxism as an analysis of historical forces.

Among the National Socialists in Germany, opposition to international capital figured prominently from the start. The National Socialists, even prior to adopting that name, within the small group, the German Workers’ Party, saw capital as intrinsically anti-national.  The earliest party program, in 1919, stated that the party was fighting “against usury… against all those who make high profits without any mental or physical work,” the “drones” who “control and rule us with their money.” It is notable that even then the party did not advocate “ socialization” of industry but profit-sharing and unity among all classes other than “drones.”5 As the conservative spokesman Oswald Spengler pointed out, Marxism did not wish to transcend capital but to expropriate it. Hence the spirit of the Left remained capitalist or money-centered.6 The subordination of money to state policy was something understood in Germany even among the business elite, and large sections of the menial class; quite different to the concept of economics understood among the Anglophone world, where economics dominates state policy.

Hitler was continuing the tradition of the German economic school, which the German Workers’ Party of Anton Drexler and Karl Harrer had already incorporated since the party’s founding in 1919. Hitler wrote in 1924 in Mein Kampf that the state would ensure that “capital remained subservient to the State and did not allocate to itself the right to dominate national interests. Thus it could confine its activities within the two following limits: on the one side, to ensure a vital and independent system of national economy and, on the other, to safeguard the social rights of the workers.” Hitler now realized the distinction between productive capital and speculative capital, from Feder who had been part of a political lecture series organized by the army. Hitler then understood that the dual nature of capital would have to be a primary factor addressed by any party for reform.7 The lecture had been entitled “The Abolition of Interest-Servitude.”8 A “truth of transcendental importance for the future of the German people” was that “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 as such…”9 While Everette Lemons, apparently a libertarian, quotes this passage from Mein Kampf, he claims that Hitler loathed capitalism, whether national or international. As illustrated by the passage above, Hitler drew a distinction between creative and speculative capital, as did the German Workers’ Party before he was a member.

Hjalmar Schacht with Adolf HitlerAdolf Hitler in discussion with Reich Minister of Economics and Reichsbank President Dr. Hjalmar Schacht in 1936
Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-R98364 / CC-BY-SA [CC BY-SA 3.0 de (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/deed.en)%5D, via Wikimedia Commons

National economy was a widely held legacy of the German school of economics founded by Friedrich List in the 19th century, the aim being national autarchy as distinct from the English school of international free trade.10 National economy governed German thinking like Free Trade governed British thinking. At a glance, List stated: “I would indicate, as the distinguishing characteristic of my system, NATIONALITY. On the nature of nationality, as the intermediate interest between those of individualism and of entire humanity, my whole structure is based.”11 It was an aim that German businessmen readily embraced.

Because the Hitler regime would not or could not fulfill the entirety of the NSDAP program, and because Feder was given a humble role as an under-secretary in the economics ministry, there is a widespread assumption that the regime was a tool of big capital. The Marxist interpretation of the Third Reich as a tool of monopoly capital has been adopted and adapted by their opposite number, libertarians, particularly aided by the book of the Stanford research specialist Dr. Antony Sutton. Sutton followed up his Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution,12 detailing dealings between U.S. and other business interests and the Bolshevik regime, with Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler.13 Many libertarians welcome the second book as showing that Hitler was just as much a “socialist” as the Bolsheviks and that both had the backing of the same big-business interests that pursue a “collectivist” state. Lemons, for example, argues that Hitler’s anti-capitalism was an implementation of many of the ideas in Marx’s Communist Manifesto, thereby indicating an ignorance of German economic theory.14 Lemons refers to Hitler’s “communist style” economy.15

Henry Ford – an Early Nazi Party Sponsor?

If there was any wealthy American who should or could have funded Hitler it was Henry Ford Sr. Indeed, Ford features prominently in allegations that Hitler received financial backing from wealthy elites. But Ford was not part of the financial elite. He was an industrialist who challenged Wall Street. If he had backed Hitler that would have been an example of a conflict between “industrial capital” and “financial capital” that Ford had himself recognized, and that Hitler had alluded to inMein Kampf. Not only did his newspaper the Dearborn Independent, under the editorship of W. J. Cameron, run a series of ninety-one articles on the “Jewish question,” but that series was issued as a compendium called The International Jew, which was translated into German. Such was the pressure from Jewish Wall Street interests on the Ford Motor Company that Ford recanted, and falsely claimed that he had not authorized the series in his company newspaper.16 Yet Ford never funded the Hitlerites, despite several direct, personal appeals for aid on the basis of “international solidarity” against Jewish influence.

Sutton did an admirable job of tracing direct and definitive links between Wall Street and the Bolsheviks. However, perhaps in his eagerness to show the common factor of “socialism” between National Socialists and Bolsheviks, and the way Wall Street backed opposing movements as part of a Hegelian dialectical strategy,17 Sutton seems to have grasped at straws in trying to show a link between plutocrats and Nazis. Sutton repeats the myth of Ford backing of the Hitlerite party that had been in circulation since the 1920s. As early as 1922 The New York Times reported that Ford was funding the embryonic National Socialist party, and the Berliner Tageblatt called on the U.S. ambassador to investigate Ford’s supposed interference in German affairs.18 The article in its entirety turns out to be nothing but the vaguest of rumor-mongering, of making something out of nothing at all, but it is still found to be useful by those perpetrating the myth of big-money backing for Hitler.19 Dr. Sutton quotes the vice president of the Bavarian Diet, Auer, testifying at the trial of Hitler after the Munich Putsch in February 1923, that the Diet long had had information that Hitler was being financed by Ford. Auer alluded to a Ford agent seeking to sell tractors having been in contact with Dietrich Eckart in 1922, and that shortly after Ford money began going to Munich.20 Having provided no evidence whatsoever, Sutton states that “these Ford funds were used by Hitler to foment the Bavarian rebellion.”21

Henry FordPortrait of Henry Ford (ca. 1919)
By Hartsook, photographer. [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Scott Nehmer, who had his dream of an academic career aborted because he would not write his doctoral thesis according to the preconceptions of his supervisor, undertook a convincing examination of the allegations regarding the supposed link during World War II between the Third Reich, Ford, and General Motors.22 His would-be dissertation was published as a book. However, it is indicative of the poor shape of scholarship in tertiary education, and not only in the USA. Mr. Nehmer writes of his recent predicament:

I intended to write my book solely concentrating on the patriotism of Ford and General Motors during World War II but my plans were altered causing me to emphasize how Marxist ideology combined with sensationalism has smeared Ford and GM. The book was conceived as a PhD in history dissertation for Central Michigan University. Almost from its inception my advisor, Eric Johnson,23attempted to force me to libel the Ford Motor Company. He ordered me to accuse Ford of betraying the United States during World War II using falsehoods based on the faulty implications of sensationalist journalists.24

What these accounts of the funding of the Nazi party and even of the Third Reich war machine amount to are descriptions of interlocking directorships and the character of what is today called globalization. Hence, if Ford, General Electric, ITT, General Motors, and Standard Oil are somehow linked to AEG, I. G. Farben, Krupp, etc., it is then alleged that Rockefeller, Ford, and even Jewish financiers such as James Warburg, were directly involved in a conspiracy to aid Nazi Germany. To prove the connections, Sutton has a convenient table which supposedly shows “Financial links between U.S. industrialists and Adolf Hitler.” For example Edsel Ford, Paul M. Warburg and two others in the USA are listed as directors of American I.G. while in Germany I.G. Farben reportedly donated 400,000 R.M. to Hitler via the Nationale Treuhand; ipso facto Edsel Ford and Paul Warburg were involved in funding Hitler.25 The connections do not seem convincing. They are of an altogether different character than the connections Sutton previously documented between Wall Street and the Bolsheviks.

The story behind the Henry Ford-Nazi legend has been publicly available since 1938. Kurt Ludecke had been responsible for attempting to garner funds for the fledgling Nazi party since joining in 1922. In 1934 he had fallen out with Hitler, had been incarcerated, and then left Germany for the USA, where he wrote his memoirs, I Knew Hitler.26He sought out possible funding especially in the USA, met Hiram Wesley Evans, Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, the organization, then 5,000,000 strong, impressing him as a good money-making racket for its recruiters, who got 20% commission on membership fees.27 He met Czarist supporters of Grand Duke Cyril, claimant to the Russian throne, in Paris,28 and in Britain several aristocrats suspicious of Jewish influence: the Duke of Northumberland, and Lord Sydenham.29 Money was not forthcoming from any of them. Indeed, Ludecke traveled about perpetually broke.

Ludecke met Ford in 1922. He attempted to persuade Ford that international solidarity was needed to face the Jewish issue, and that the Hitler movement had the best chance of success. Ford could not relate to the political requirements and while listening had no interest in providing funds. It is evident from Ludecke that all of the party’s hopes had been pegged on Ford’s financial backing. Ford’s series on The International Jew was much admired in Nazi circles. Hitler also greatly admired Ford as an industrial innovator, a picture of the industrialist hanging up in Hitler’s office; something that is seen as of great significance to those seeking a Nazi connection.30

James Pool, on the subject of the funding of Hitler, spends thirty pages attempting to show that Ford might have given money to the NSDAP on the sole basis that he was anti-Jewish. He frequently cites Ludecke, but decides to ignore what Ludecke stated on Ford. Pool states that Frau Winifred Wagner had told him in an interview that she had arranged for Ludecke to meet Ford, which is correct, but it is evident that her claim that Ford gave Hitler money is pure assumption. Pool conjectures that the money was given by Ford to Hitler via Boris Brasol, an anti-Semitic Czarist jurist, who in 1918 had worked for U.S. Military Intelligence, and had who maintained contact with both the Nazi party and was U.S. representative for Grand Duke Cyril. Again Pool is making assumptions, on the basis that Brasol was employed by Ford. Pool’s “evidence” is the same as that used by Sutton; contemporary newspaper accounts of rumors and allegations.31

Had Ludecke succeeded in gaining funds from Ford that would not only have not been an example of funding from Wall Street and international finance, but it would have been an example of how not all wealthy individuals are part of the world’s banking nexus. Ford definitely was not, and drew a distinction between creative and destructive capital. Despite his ignominious surrender and groveling to Jewish interests when the pressure mounted due to his publication of The International Jew, in 1938 Ford described to The New York Times the dichotomy that existed between the two forms of capital:

Somebody once said that sixty families have directed the destinies of the nation. It might well be said that if somebody would focus the spotlight on twenty-five persons who handle the nation’s finances, the world’s real war makers would be brought into bold relief. There is a creative and a destructive Wall Street… [I]f these financiers had their way we’d be in a war now. They want war because they make money out of such conflicts – out of the human misery such wars bring.32

Sutton dismissed this, writing: “On the other hand, when we probe behind these public statements we find that Henry Ford and son Edsel Ford have been in the forefront of American businessmen who try to walk both sides of every ideological fence in search of profit. Using Ford’s own criteria, the Fords are among the ‘destructive’ elements.”33 Contrary to Sutton, however, Pool states that Ford executives had been strongly opposed to their boss’s anti-Jewish campaign, and they persuaded him to drop the campaign in the late 1920s. In the forefront of this was his son, Edsel who owned 41% of the stock.34

Ford’s actions show that he was opposed to the forces of war. He did not do himself any favors by opposing the “destructive Wall Street.” In 1915 Ford chartered the Oscar II, otherwise known as the Ford “Peace Ship,” in the hope of persuading the belligerents of the world war to attend a peace conference. The mission received mostly ridicule. Those aboard, including Ford, were wracked with influenza. Ford continued to fund the “Peace Ship” as it traveled around Europe for two years, and despite the ridicule was widely regarded as a sincere, if naïve, pacifist. Dr. Sutton does not mention Ford’s “Peace Ship” or his peace campaign during World War I. Therefore, when he was an early supporter of the America First Committee,35 founded in 1940 to oppose Roosevelt’s efforts to entangle the USA in a war against Germany, he was too easily dismissed as pro-Nazi, as was America First.36 Very prominent Americans joined from a variety of backgrounds, including General Robert A. Wood, president of Sears Roebuck, and among the most active, aviation hero Charles Lindbergh. Socialist Party leader Norman Thomas was a regular speaker at rallies. Many Congressmen and Senators resisted the Roosevelt war machine. They included pacifists, liberals, Republicans, Democrats, conservatives. Of Henry Ford, George Eggleston, an editor of Reader’s Digest, Scribner’s Commentator, and formerly of Life, and a major figure in America First, recalled that so far from being a “Nazi,” Ford expressed the hope that there would be a “parliament of man,” “a world-wide spirit of brotherhood, and an end to armed conflict.”37

J. P. Morgan & Co. – Thomas Lamont

Thomas W. Lamont, senior partner in J. P. Morgan, was in the forefront of Wall Street agitation for war. Lamont, a supporter of Roosevelt’s New Deal, was a keen protagonist of internationalism. Speaking to the Academy of Political Sciences at the Astor Hotel in New York on 15 November 1939, he stated that the war against Germany was the consequence of the failure of the Versailles treaty and the rise of economic nationalism. In contrast to Old Guard Republicans such as ex-president Herbert Hoover, Lamont did not believe that it was possible to negotiate with Hitler. However, the military defeat of Hitler would not suffice. The USA must abandon isolationism and embrace “internationalism.”38

Lamont indeed had it right: international capital versus economic nationalism. The latter now included imperialism, and all autarchic trading blocs and empires. International finance could no longer be constrained by empires and trading blocs. But the world order that Woodrow Wilson had tried to inaugurate after World War I with his “Fourteen Points” and the League of Nations, based around international free trade, had been repudiated even by his own country.39 The Axis states were building autarchic economic blocs, and had been instituting barter among states, including those that they had occupied. Roosevelt was to candidly state to Churchill during the discussions on the “Atlantic Charter” that the post-war world would not tolerate any empires including the British, and would be based on free trade. He stated unequivocally that the war was being fought over the premise of free trade.40 Roosevelt stated to Churchill, as related by the president’s son, Elliott Roosevelt: “Will anyone suggest that Germany’s attempt to dominate trade in central Europe was not a major contributing factor to war?”41 Apparently the cause of the war was not Pearl Harbor, nor the invasion of Poland. Roosevelt made it clear that international free trade would be the foundation of the post-war world, and empires would be passé.

General Motors – James D. Mooney

Another alleged enthusiast for Nazi Germany was James D. Mooney, vice president of General Motors, in charge of European operations. General Motors plays a large role in the alleged nexus between the Nazis and Big Business because of its European affiliates operating in German-occupied countries during the war. Such was Mooney’s supposed enthusiasm for Nazism that he allegedly regarded himself as a future “Quisling” in the USA in the event of a German victory.42The most extraordinary nonsense has been widely repeated that Mooney practiced how to technically achieve a Nazi salute and “Sieg Heil” in front of his hotel mirror prior to meeting Hitler in 1934. How Edwin Black knows this is not stated.43

It is evident that, utilizing his world-wide connections, Mooney embarked on private diplomacy with the intent of avoiding war. However, already in 1938 a G.M. executive, likely to have been Mooney, approached the British War Office to discuss British requirements in the event of war with Germany. From what is indicated by Mooney’s unpublished autobiography, it seems that, unsurprisingly, a major concern was the German method of trade. A biographer states of this:

Mooney took the opportunity at the dinner to deliver his own “blockbuster”: if the Germans could negotiate some form of gold loan, would they be willing to stop their subsidized exports and special exchange practices which were so annoying to foreign traders, particularly the U.K. and the U.S? Whilst Mooney clearly honestly believed that this might ensure peace, in truth the practices had had a deleterious effect on General Motor’s extraction of profit out of Germany….44

Mooney formulated a list of recommendations to ease tensions. Significantly, most of the list involves the return of Germany to the world trading and banking system:

1. Limitation of armaments.

2. Non-aggression pacts.

3. Move into trade practices of western nations:

a) Free exchange

b) Discontinue subsidized exports

c) Move into most-favored-nation practices.

d) Discharge foreign obligations (pay debts).45

It seems evident that Mooney was acting as an emissary for international capital, if not also as an intelligence agent for the U.S.A. and/or Britain. Some efforts were made by Walther Funk of the Reichsbank to compromise on terms of trade and finance, but war intervened. On February 4, 1939 Mooney stated before an annual banquet of the American Institute of Banking that an accommodation with Hitler could not be reached.46

Reich Commissioner for the Handling of Enemy Property

Allied-affiliated corporations such as Opel, affiliated with General Motors, operating in German-occupied Europe during the war did so under control of the Reich Commissioner for the Handling of Enemy Property.

German state decrees of June 24 and 28, 1941 blocked the assets of American companies, following the blocking of German assets in the USA on June 14, 1941.

In a review for the U.S. National Archives. Dr. Greg Bradsher states that American company and bank assets were seized by a December 11, 1941 amendment to the “Decree Concerning the Treatment of Enemy Property of January 15, 1940.” U.S. corporate and bank assets were controlled by the Reichskommissar für die Behandlung Feindlichen Vermoegens, which was part of the Ministry of Justice. Such trusteeship was part of international law. The Reichskommissar acted as trustee for the property of enemy aliens, in accordance with the German war effort until the end of hostilities, after which they would be returned to the owners with proper accounting. A custodian was appointed for each enterprise, who rendered financial accounts to the Reichskomissar every six months. However, other enterprises were confiscated outright by the Reich Ministry of Economics.47

By March 1, 1945, the Reichskommissar Office had taken under administration property in excess of RM 3.5 billion. On that date, the approximately RM 945 million of US property was administered by the Reichskommissar’s Office and another RM 267 million of US property was not administered by the Reichskommissar’s Office.48

Therefore, foreign corporations were hardly free to pursue their profits during war-time. Communication with the home office of the corporation was discontinued. Nonetheless, the argument persists that such corporations as Ford and General Motors were in league with the enemy during the war.49 On the basis that the same German directors of Opel in Germany prior to the war were approved by the Reich office during the war, and that Alfred P. Sloan and Mooney remained theoretically on the Opel board, this is deemed sufficient to show collusion.50 While Dr. Bradsher is unsure as to what happened to the profits, according to the Dividend Law of 1934, corporations were restricted on the amount of profits and dividends payable to shareholders to 6%. The remainder of profits had to be reinvested into the enterprise or used to buy Government bonds.51 In short, the foreign-affiliated corporations were run by and for Germany as one would expect, and according to the aim of national autarchy.

Dr. Sutton tries to resolve many contradictions and paradoxes by stating that they are part of a Hegelian dialectical process learned in Germany during the early 19th century by scions of Puritan finance who founded the Yale-based Skull and Bones Lodge 322.52 Hence, the reason why sections of Big Business dealt with both National Socialist Germany and the USSR; they were promoting controlled conflict that would result in a dialectical globalist synthesis.53

Fritz Thyssen

Sutton quotes Fritz Thyssen as to why he supported Hitler, but does not see that the motives are different from Wall Street’s. Thyssen, and other industrialists such as Krupp, who funded Hitler, did so openly and for patriotic reasons. Thyssen wrote, as cited by Sutton: “I turned to the National Socialist party only after I became convinced that the fight against the Young Plan was unavoidable if complete collapse of Germany was to be prevented.”54 The Young Plan for the payment of World War I reparations was regarded as the means of controlling Germany with American capital.55 Thyssen is hardly an example of a nexus between Nazism and international capitalism; to the contrary, it shows that German business was motivated by patriotic sentiment to an extent that American business was not then and is today lesser still.

Thyssen was a Catholic motivated by the Church’s social doctrine that sought an alternative to both Marxism and monopoly capitalism. Like many others throughout the world of all classes, Thyssen found the corporatist doctrines of Fascism and National Socialism to reflect Church doctrine on social justice. Thyssen was a member of the conservative National People’s Party. While one of the few industrialists who donated to the NSDAP, at a late date, even this was meagre. The denazification trials in 1948 found that Thyssen donated about 650,000 Reichsmarks to various right-wing parties and groups, of which there were many, including the NSDAP, between 1923 and 1932. He was an adherent of the corporatist theories of Austrian philosopher Othmar Spann. In 1933 Thyssen was asked by the NSDAP to set up an Institute for Corporatism in Düsseldorf.56 However, this was regarded as rivalling the Labor Front and was closed in 1936. In 1940, after having emigrated from Germany, Thyssen and his wife were captured in France and incarcerated in Germany for the duration of the war.

Prescott Bush

A figure that is associated with Thyssen is Prescott Bush. Because he was, like his sons Presidents George H. W. and George W. Bush, initiated into Lodge 322, vastly nonsensical theories has been woven around the Yale secret society, a.k.a. The Order of the Skull and Bones, as a pro-Nazi death cult, and the scions of influential families as part of an international Nazi conspiracy for world domination.

Prescott Bush was partner with W. Averell Harriman in Brown Brothers Harriman & Co., and the Union Banking Corporation. UBC acted as a clearinghouse for Thyssen interests. Because of this UBC’s assets were seized by the U.S government during the war. That Thyssen languished in Nazi concentration camps for the duration of the war is disregarded by those who seek a Wall Street connection with Hitler via Thyssen. Hence, The Guardian claimed to have new revelations in 2004 which turn out as nothing, with the focus on Thyssen being the businessman who “financed Hitler to power.” However, again more is said of the character of international capital than of big business backing for Hitler. The Guardian article states:

Erwin May, a treasury attaché and officer for the department of investigation in the APC,57 was assigned to look into UBC’s business. The first fact to emerge was that Roland Harriman, Prescott Bush and the other directors didn’t actually own their shares in UBC but merely held them on behalf of Bank voor Handel. Strangely, no one seemed to know who owned the Rotterdam-based bank, including UBC’s president.

May wrote in his report of August 16 1941: “Union Banking Corporation, incorporated August 4 1924, is wholly owned by the Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart NV of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. My investigation has produced no evidence as to the ownership of the Dutch bank. Mr. Cornelis [sic] Lievense, president of UBC, claims no knowledge as to the ownership of the Bank voor Handel but believes it possible that Baron Heinrich Thyssen, brother of Fritz Thyssen, may own a substantial interest.”

May cleared the bank of holding a golden nest egg for the Nazi leaders but went on to describe a network of companies spreading out from UBC across Europe, America and Canada, and how money from voor Handel traveled to these companies through UBC.

By September May had traced the origins of the non-American board members and found that Dutchman H. J. Kouwenhoven – who met with Harriman in 1924 to set up UBC – had several other jobs: in addition to being the managing director of voor Handel he was also the director of the August Thyssen bank in Berlin and a director of Fritz Thyssen’s Union Steel Works, the holding company that controlled Thyssen’s steel and coal mine empire in Germany.58

The connections are tenuous at best, but of the same character as the other supposed associations between transnational corporations and the Third Reich.

Who Paid the Nazi Party?

Like the assumption that Ford could have funded Hitler because they had similar views about Jews, Pool also makes the same assumption about Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England, Schacht’s friend, because Norman was also antagonistic towards Jews (and the French). He deplored the economic chaos wrought on Germany by the Versailles diktat and the adverse impact that was having on world trade. On that score, he could have funded the Nazi party, but there is no evidence for it. Pool’s book is useful however insofar as he shows, despite himself, that the Nazi party was not a tool of big business.

I. G. Farben, for example, often depicted as one of the plutocratic wirepullers of the Nazi regime, and as the center of a Third Reich industrial death machine, was headed by liberals. Pool states that from its formation in 1925 I.G. Farben gave funding to all parties except the Nazis and the Communists. Not until 1932, with the NSDAP as the biggest party in parliament, did two representatives of the firm meet Hitler to get his views on the production of synthetic fuel.59 Not surprisingly, Hitler was in favor, given that it was an important factor in an autarchic economy. However, the matter of funds for the party was not raised.

The upshot that we learn from Pool in regard to Nazi party funding is that, quoting economist Paul Drucker:

The really decisive backing came from sections of the lower middle classes, the farmers, and working class… As far as the Nazi Party is concerned there is good reason to believe that at least three-quarters of its funds, even after 1930, came from the weekly dues…. And from the entrance fees to the mass meetings from which members of the upper classes were always conspicuously absent.60

Ludecke, despite his repudiation of Hitler, nonetheless cogently pointed out the difference in world-views between National Socialism and liberal capitalism. He wrote that the “newly legalized concept of property rights in Germany differs radically from the ideas of orthodox capitalism, though Marxian groups in particular persist in the erroneous contention that the Hitler system is a phase of the reaction designed to enforce the stabilization of capitalism.” He pointed out that “this planned economy signifies complete State control of production, agriculture, and commerce; of exports, imports, and foreign markets; of prices, foreign exchange, credit, rates of interest, profits, capital investments, and merchandizing of all kinds…”61 Ludecke quotes from an article in the Council of Foreign Relations journal Foreign Affairs (July 1937) that “the German conception of capitalism was always essentially different from the Anglo-Saxon, because it was developed under an entirely different conception of the state and government…” Interestingly, the Foreign Affairswriter pointed out that what Hitler enacted was the consolidation of what had already been put in place by Social Democracy.62 There were Social Democratic governments that had undertaken similar measures. Anyone familiar with New Zealand’s first Labor Government, assuming power about the same time as Hitler, could easily assume that what the Foreign Affairs writer is describing is the Labor Government’s economic policies.

Hjalmar Schacht

A direct link between international capital and the Hitler regime was Hjalmar Schacht. He is instructive as to how the global banking nexus sought to co-opt the Nazi state, and how it failed. While researchers have focused on the first, they have neglected the implications of the latter. Sutton states that “Schacht was a member of the international financial elite that wields its power behind the scenes through the political apparatus of a nation. He is a key link between the Wall Street elite and Hitler’s inner circle.”63 Schacht was a major figure in the creation of the Bank for International Settlements. The presence of German delegates to that institution during World War II is a primary element of this alleged Nazi-Wall Street nexus. One could say, and some do, the same about the International Committee of the Red Cross64 and Interpol65 during the war.

It is tempting to speculate as to whether Schacht was planted in the National Socialist regime to derail the more-strident aspects of the NSDAP ideology on international capitalism. It is unreasonable to claim that Hitler betrayed the National Socialist fight against international capital, because the full economic program of the NSDAP was not fulfillled. There is always going to be a difference in perspective as to what can be achieved when one is not in government. Schacht was obliged to work within National Socialist parameters and could not help but achieve some remarkable results. Like Montagu Norman and others, he was also concerned that the economic chaos in Germany engendered by the post-war Versailles diktat was having an adverse impact on world trade. Sutton does not mention that he ended up in a concentration camp because of his commitment to international capital. At least Higham states early in his book that “Hjalmar Schacht spent much of the war in Geneva and Basle pulling strings behind the scenes. However, Hitler correctly suspected him of intriguing for the overthrow of the present regime in favor of The Fraternity66 and imprisoned him late in the war.”67

Hjalmar SchachtHjalmar Schacht testifying for the defendant Friedrich Flick, said the industrialist contributed to the Nazi Party’s campaign fund in 1933 because Hitler promised to protect private industry and to eliminate all strikes.
Date: 21 July 1947, Provenance: From Public Relations Photo Section, Office Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, Nuernberg, Germany, APO 696-A, US Army. Photo No. OMT-V-W-16. [Public Domain] via Wikimedia Commons

Hitler re-appointed Hjalmar Schacht as president of the Reichsbank in 1933, and in 1934 as minister of economics.  Schacht wrote after the war:

National Socialist agitators led by Gottfried Feder had carried on a vicious campaign against private banking and against our entire currency system. Nationalization of banks, abolition of bondage to interest payments and introduction of state Giro ‘Feder’ money, those were the high-sounding phrases of a pressure group which aimed at the overthrow of our money and banking system. To keep this nonsense in check, [I] called a bankers’ council, which made suggestions for tighter supervision and control over the banks. These suggestions were codified in the law of 1934… by increasing the powers of the bank supervisory authority. In the course of several discussions, I succeeded in dissuading Hitler from putting into practice the most foolish and dangerous of the ideas on banking and currency harbored by his party colleagues.68

What Schacht did introduce was the MEFO bill. Between 1934 and 1938 12,000,000 bills had been issued at 3,000,000 bills per year. MEFO bills were used specifically to facilitate the exchange of goods.69 However, once full employment had been achieved, Schacht wanted to return to orthodox finance. Hitler objected, and it was agreed that Schacht would continue as president of the Reichsbank until 1939, on the assurance that the MEFO issue would be halted when 12,000,000 bills had been reached.70 After the war Schacht assured readers that fiat money such as the MEFO,71 like barter, should not become the norm for the world, despite their successes in Germany.

Likewise, Schacht opposed the autarchic aims of National Socialism. Schacht was, in short, ideologically inimical to the raison d’etre of National Socialism. Today he would be a zealous exponent of globalization along with David Rockefeller and George Soros. He wrote after the war:

Exaggerated autarchy is the greatest obstacle to a world-wide culture. It is only culture which can bring people closer to one another, and world trade is the most powerful carrier of culture. For this reason I was unable to support those who advocated the autarchistic seclusion of a hermitage as a solution to Germany’s problems.72

Yet Schacht was also responsible during six years for re-establishing Germany’s economy, and among the achievements which were in accord with National Socialism was the creation of bi-lateral trade agreements based on reciprocal credits. Schacht wrote of this:

In September 1934 I introduced a new foreign trade programme which made use of offset accounts, and book entry credit…

My plan was to some extent a reversion to the primitive barter economy, only the technique was modern. The equivalent value of imported goods was credited to the foreign supplier in a German banking account, and vice versa foreign buyers of German goods could make payment by means of these accounts. No movement of money in marks or foreign currency took place. All was done through credits and debits in a bank account. Thus no foreign exchange problem came into being.73

Schacht then hints at what would result in a clash of systems, and world war:

Those interested in the exchange of goods came into conflict with those interested solely in money. There was soon a battle royal between the exporters who sold goods to Germany, and the creditors who wanted their interest. Both parties demanded to be given preference, but the decision always went in favor of foreign trade.

I concluded special agreements with a number of states which were our principal sources of raw materials and foodstuffs. Anyone who wished to sell raw materials to Germany had to purchase German industrial products. Germany could pay for goods from abroad only by means of home-produced goods, and was thus able to trade only with countries prepared to participate in this bilateral programme. There were many such countries. The whole of South America, and the Balkans were glad to avail themselves of the idea, since it favoured their raw materials production. By the spring of 1938 there were no less than 25 such offset account agreements with foreign countries, so that more than one half of Germany’s foreign trade was conducted by means of this system. This trade agreement system in which two countries – Germany and one foreign country – were always involved, has entered economic history under the name of ‘bilateral’ trading policy. 74

It created much ill-feeling in countries which were not part of the system. These were precisely those countries who were Germany’s main competitors in world markets, and who had hitherto attempted to effect repayment of their loans by imposing special charges on their imports from Germany. The countries participating in bilateral trade were not amongst those which had granted Germany loans. They were primary producers or predominantly agrarian, and had hitherto scarcely been touched by industrialisation. They utilised the bilateral trading system to accelerate their own industrial development by means of machines and factory installations imported from Germany.75

However, Schacht was not even in favor of the permanence of this great alternative method of world trade that allowed for the peaceful development of backward economies. Imagine the difference to the world today had this system been allowed to live and grow. Schacht remained a member of The Fraternity, to use Higham’s term, and he worried that

The bilateral trading system kept the German balance of payments under control for many years, but it was not a satisfactory solution, nor was it a permanent one. It is true that it enabled Germany to preserve its industry and to feed its populace, but the system could not provide a surplus of foreign exchange. No more was ever imported than was exported. Import and export balanced out exactly in monetary terms. Thus this system achieved the very opposite of what I, in agreement with the foreign creditors, had deemed to be necessary.76

As if to emphasize that he had never intended to renege on his loyalty to The Fraternity, Schacht lamented apologetically:

Already at the time when I introduced the bilateral trading system I made it known that I regarded it as a most inadequate and unpleasant system, and expressed the hope that it would soon be replaced by an all-round, free, multilateral trading policy. In fact the system did have some considerable influence on the trading policies of Germany’s competitors.77

It seems that Schacht had unleashed forces of economic justice and equity upon the world in spite of his intentions and it could only be stopped by war. Again: “For my part I would not say that the bilateral trading system, ranks among those of my measures which are worth copying.”78Introducing barter in world trade seems to have been the source of great shame to Schacht.

Schacht criticizes Hitler for having financed the war neither with taxation nor with the raising of loans. “Instead he chose to print banknotes,”79 which of course is anathema to a banker such as Schacht, claiming the looming prospect of “inflation.” True enough, the “inflation” did not occur because of the other state controls, but Schacht stated that it did happen – in 1945.80 At the end of the war the bills in circulation amounted to between 40 and 60 billion marks. Schacht comments that it did not result in hyperinflation, and that the aim was to keep the level at that amount.81 Might one conclude then that the fiat money that had been issued by the Third Reich had not been the cause of inflation, but rather the destruction of German production by the end of the war? At any rate it was not until 1948 that the Allied occupation attempted currency reform, based on the recommendations of U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr., by a massive devaluation of the mark. This is what had devastating consequences upon middle- and working-class Germans, and Schacht states that “malevolent intent was involved.”82 Fiat money has long been the great bugaboo among orthodox economists. Amusingly, Schacht spent two days during the Nuremberg proceedings trying to explain the MEFO bills, and when asked for a third time, gave up and refused.83

The Bank for International Settlements reports show that up to the end of the war the Reich Government used a variety of methods of finance, including what Schacht had ridiculed as “state Giro ‘Feder’ money.”

Another interesting point made by Schacht is that, contrary to the widespread assumption, German economic recovery was not based on war expenditure. Schacht even criticizes Hitler with the assumption that he did not understand the requirements of war preparation. During 1935-1938 armaments expenditure was 21 billion RM.84 Schacht assumes that this was due to Hitler’s ignorance. The other alternative is that there was no long-term plan to wage a major war or prolonged aggression. There was no buildup of raw materials and no real war economy until 1939.

In 1939 Schacht was replaced by Dr. Walther Funk, who had served in 1932 as deputy chairman of the NSDAP’s economic council under the chairmanship of Feder. The replacement of Schacht by Funk working under the direction of Göring the head of the Four Year Plan, seems to be an indication that a transitional phase had been completed and that the Government was well aware of Schacht’s role as an agent for international capital. Otto D. Tolischus, writing from Berlin for The New York Times, commented:

Dr. Schacht was ousted because he believed that Germany had reached the limit in debt-making and currency-expansion, that any further expansion spelled danger to the economic system, for which he still considered himself responsible, and that the government would have to curtail its ambitions and confine itself to the nation’s means…

No authoritative explanation of the new financial policy is available so far, but judging from hints in the highest quarters, the policy is likely to proceed about as follows:

  1. Expand the currency circulation only for current exchange demands and not for special purposes.
  2. Open the capital market for private industry and make private industry finance many tasks hitherto financed by the state, either directly or by prices on public orders, which have enabled industry to finance the expansion of new Four-Year Plan factories out of accumulated profits and reserves.
  3. Create a non-interest bearing credit instrument with which the state, now having to share the capital market with private enterprise, will finance its own further orders in anticipation of increasing tax receipts from the resulting expansion of production.

In one respect therefore, Herr Funk presumably will continue ‘pre-financing’ the state’s orders as did Dr. Schacht, but whereas Dr. Schacht did it with bills, loans, delivery certificates and other credit instruments, all of which cost between 4½ and 5 per cent interest per year, Herr Funk proposes doing it with non-interest-eating instruments.

How that is to be done is his secret, but the mere mention of interest-free credit instruments inevitably recalls the plan of Gottfried Feder which at one time fascinated Chancellor Hitler, but which Dr Schacht vetoed.85

What had taken place was an ultimatum from the Reichsbank, which in January 1939 refused to grant the state any further credits.86 This amounted to a mutiny by orthodox banking. On January 19 Schacht was removed a president of the Reichsbank, and his position was assumed by Economics Minister Funk.  Hitler issued as edict that obliged the Reichsbank to provide credit to the state.

Funk commented on Germanys’ monetary policy a year later:

Turning from the external to the internal sector, the question, “How is this war being financed in Germany?” is one in which the world shows a lively interest. The war is financed by work, for we are spending no money which has not been earned by our work. Bills based on labour – drawn by the Reich and discounted by the Reichsbank – are the basis of money…87

Broadly, it seems that Feder’s ideas were being implemented. The NSDAP broke the bondage of the international gold merchants, and this was being openly discussed as the way of the future. Germany created an autarchic trading bloc both before and during the war, based on barter through a Reich clearing center. Pegging national currencies to the Reichsmark resulted in immediate wage increases in the occupied states. The Bank for International Settlements Annual Report for 1940-1941 quoted finance spokesmen from Fascist Italy and the Third Reich:

The development of clearings in Europe has given rise to certain fears with regard to the future position of gold as an element in the monetary structure. It has since been noted that Germany has been able to finance rearmament and war with very slight gold reserves and that the foreign trade of Germany and Italy has been carried on largely on a clearing basis. Hence the question is being asked whether a new monetary system is being developed which will altogether dispense with the services of gold.

In authoritative statements made on this subject in Germany and Italy a distinction is drawn between different functions of gold. The president of the German Reichsbank said in a speech on 26 July 1940 that “in any case in the future gold will play no role as a basis of European currencies, for a currency is not dependent upon its cover but on the value which is given to it by the state, i.e. by the economic order as regulated by the state.” “It is,” he added, “another matter whether gold should be regarded as a suitable medium for the settlement of debit balances between countries, but we shall never pursue a monetary policy which makes us in any way dependent upon gold, for it is impossible to tie oneself to a medium the value of which one cannot determine oneself.”88

After the war Schacht, while acquitted of charges at Nuremberg, did not escape the vindictiveness of the Allies, despite the testimonials of those who stated that he was from the start an enemy of Hitler. In 1959 Donald R. Heath, American ambassador to Saudi Arabia, who had been director of political affairs for the American military government during the time of the Nuremberg trials, wrote to Schacht telling him that he had tried to intervene for Schacht with U.S. prosecutor Robert Jackson:

After consultation with Robert Murphy, now Under Secretary of State, and with the permission of General Clay, I went to Nürnberg to see Jackson. I told Jackson not only should you never have been brought before that tribunal but that you had consistently been working for the downfall of the Nazi regime. I told him that I had been in touch with you consistently during the first part of the war and Under Secretary of State Wells through me, and that you had passed on to me information adverse to the Nazi cause…89

In 1952 Schacht applied to establish a bank in Hamburg but was refused on the basis that the MEFO bills had offended banking morality. Notably, it was the Socialists who found the MEFO objectionable. 90

Who Wanted War?

If some industrialists and businessmen such as Henry Ford Sr. did not want war and supported the America First Committee, others, including those supposedly pro-Nazi, were clamoring for aid to Britain and antagonism towards Germany well before Pearl Harbor. Senator Rush D. Holt, a liberal pacifist, during the last session of the 76th Congress, exposed the oligarchs promoting belligerence against Germany. Commenting on an influential committee, Defend America by Aiding the Allies, headed by newspaperman William Allen White, to agitate for war against Germany, or at least “all aid short of war” to Britain, Senator Holt said the founders included “eighteen prominent bankers.” Among those present at its April 1940 founding were Henry L. Stimson, who had served as counsel for J. P. Morgan and senior Morgan partner Thomas W. Lamont.91 The campaign began on June 10, 1940, with advertisements entitled “Stop Hitler Now” appearing in newspapers throughout the USA. There was an allusion to the advertisements being paid for by “a number of patriotic American citizens.” On July 11 Senator Holt spoke to the Senate on the advertisement:

You find it is not the little fellows who paid for this advertisement, “Stop Hitler Now!” … Listen to these banks. The directors of these banks, or the families of directors, paid for this advertisement. Who are they? No wonder they want Hitler stopped. Director of J. Pierpont Morgan & Co.; Director of Drexel & Co.; Director of Kuhn, Loeb Co.,  – Senators have heard that name before – Kuhn, Loeb & Co. international banking. No wonder Kuhn, Loeb & Co. helped finance such an advertisement. A Director of Lehman Bros., another international banking firm, helped pay for this “Stop Hitler” advisement, and a number of others.92

Holt, referring to a list of names of the advertisement sponsors, stated that they are not the types who die in battle, or the fathers of those who die in battle. He named the wives of international financiers W. Averell Harriman,93 H. P. Davison,94 the late Daniel Guggenheim,95 and John Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. Other sponsors included Frederick M. Warburg,96 a partner of Kuhn, Loeb & Co.; Cornelius V. Whitney, mining magnate associated with Rockefeller and Morgan interests; and Thomas W. Lamont of J. P. Morgan Co. In communications, there was Henry Luce, publisher ofTime, and Samuel Goldman, the Hollywood mogul. Holt described these sponsors not as “patriots,” but as “paytriots.”

In his farewell speech to the Senate, Holt nailed exactly what was behind the agitation for war against Germany, and the different attitude towards the USSR: “Germany is a factor in world trade against England, Russia is not.” “American boys are going to be sent once again to Europe, in the next session of Congress, not to destroy dictatorship or to preserve democracy but to preserve the balance of power and protect world trade.” It is interesting to read now that in reply Senator Josh Lee reminded Holt that Roosevelt had promised that “no American expeditionary force would be sent to Europe.” Holt replied that Roosevelt had broken many promises.97

A survey of the newspaper headlines also indicates those most avid in calling for U.S. war against Germany, from as early as 1938; and indeed the war hysteria that was being pushed against Germany from an early date. Apart from President Franklin D. Roosevelt promising that he would not involve the USA in another European war, out of one side one his mouth while out of the other demanding an urgent military buildup, the two individuals who stand out most prominently in war-mongering are presidential confidant and Wall Street financier Bernard M. Baruch and New York Governor Herbert H. Lehman of Lehman Brothers. In October 1938 Baruch and Roosevelt were both calling for increased military spending by the USA. In January 1939 Baruch offered $3,300,000 of his own fortune to help equip the U.S. army. In February 1939 Roosevelt was saying that U.S. involvement in helping Britain and France was “inevitable,” although hostilities were not declared until September. In May 1940, amidst war-mongering by “rabbis” and Roosevelt, “Baruch exhorts U.S. to re-arm.” In June “Lehman tells Roosevelt to send all arms asked.” A few days later James P. Warburg, of the famous banking dynasty, “says only force will stop Hitler.” In July Lehman called for compulsory military service. In January 1941 James P. Warburg “asks for speed” in rearming the USA. A few days previously Rabbi Stephen S. Wise urged “all aid short of war” to Britain, as Roosevelt asked “billions in loans to fight Axis,” and Lehman “urges speedy passage of aid measure.” In February “Jewish Institute to Plan Role in New World Order,” and “Lehman Urges Speed in Voting British Aid Bill.”98 Lehman, U.S. diplomat Bullitt, and others of the pro-war party were pitching to the American public, overwhelmingly opposed to war, that if Britain is defeated, the USA faced impending invasion.99 Those such as Colonel Charles Lindbergh, who showed that such alarmist claims were utter nonsense, were pilloried as “pro-Nazi.”

Conclusion

Some Wall Street luminaries who are supposed to have been “pro-Nazi” on the basis of business affiliations in Germany were among those agitating for war against Germany. Foreign business holdings were held in trust throughout the war by Germany in accordance with international law. The one individual who had convincing links with international capital, Hjalmar Schacht, was relieved of all positions by 1939 and ended up in a concentration camp. Those German businessmen who did provide funds to the Nazi party did so at a comparatively late date, and were of nationalistic sentiments in a German tradition that was alien to that of the self-interest of the English free-trade school. Even those foreign businessmen who might reasonably have been expected to fund the NSDAP on ideological grounds, primarily Henry Ford, did not do so, persistent allegations to the contrary.

The Third Reich was a command economy, and corporate executives became “trustees” of their firms, subject to state supervision. The NSDAP premise: “the common interest before self-interest” was upheld throughout the regime. Dividends and profits were limited to a large extent. While it is a widespread assumption that Hitler reneged on the “socialist” principles of the NSDAP program, what the regime did carry out was extensive in terms of bilateral trade, and the use of unorthodox methods of finance. The machinations of international capital, including those who were supposedly pro-German, were for war, especially if Germany could not be persuaded to return to orthodox methods of trade and finance. War came the same year as Schacht was dismissed from office.

Notes:

1 See for example: “Fascism” in ABC of Political Terms (Moscow: Novosti Press Agency Publishing House, 1982), pp. 29-30; cited in Roger Griffin, Fascism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 282-283.

2 Ibid.

3 Roger Eatwell, Fascism: A History (London: Vintage, 1995).

4 Zeev Sternhell, The Birth of Fascist Ideology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980);Neither Left nor Right: Fascist Ideology in France (Princeton, 1986).

5 “Guidelines of the German Workers’ Party,” January 5, 1919, in Barbara M. Lane and Leila J. Rupp, Nazi Ideology Before 1933(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1978), pp. 9-11.

6 Oswald Spengler [1926], The Decline of the West (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1971), Vol. 2, p. 402.

7 Hitler, Mein Kampf (London; Hurst and Blackett, 1939), pp. 180-181.

8 Ibid., p. 183.

9 Ibid.

10 Friedrich List, The National System of Political Economy (1841) online at:http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/315

11 Ibid., “Author’s Preface.”

12 Antony Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution (New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House Publishers, 1974).

13 Sutton, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler (Suffolk: Broomfield Books, 1976).

14 Everette O. Lemons, A Revolution in Ideological Inhumanity (Lulu Press, 2013), Vol. 1 pp. 339-340.

15 Ibid. , p. 389.

16 Kurt G. W. Ludecke, I Knew Hitler (London: Jarrolds Publishers, 1938), pp. 287-288.

17 Sutton, How The Order Creates War and Revolution (Bullsbrook, W. Australia: Veritas Publishing (1985). Sutton’s evidence for Wall Street funding of Hitler comprises nothing other than the supposed links with Fritz Thyssen (pp. 58-63), which will be considered below.

18 “Berlin hears Ford is backing Hitler,” New York Times, December 20, 1922, cited by Sutton,Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, pp. 90-92.

19 See for example: “ The Constantine Report,” http://www.constantinereport.com/new-york-times-dec-20-1922-berlin-hears-ford-backing-hitler/
Also the citing of the article in a university thesis: Daniel Walsh, “The Silent Partner: how the Ford Motor Company Became an Arsenal of Nazism,” p. 4, University of Pennsylvania,http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=hist_honors

20 Antony Sutton, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler (Suffolk: Broomfield Books, 1976), p. 92.

21 Ibid.

22 Scott Nehmer, Ford, General Motors and the Nazis: Marxist Myths About Production, Patriotism and Philosophies (Bloomington, Indiana: Author House LLC, 2013).

23 Professor Eric Johnson seems to be particularly close to Jewish interests, which might explain his outrage at Mr. Nehmer’s lack of subservience. See: Central Michigan University, History Department Newsletter, “Faculty Publications and Activities,” June 2010, p. 2,https://www.cmich.edu/colleges/chsbs/history/about/documents/historynewsletter2010.pdf

24 Scott Nehmer, “Ford General Motors, and the Nazis,” http://scottnehmer.weebly.com/

25 Antony Sutton, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, pp. 104-105.
Trading with the Enemy (London: Robert Hale, 1983), by Charles Higham, is along the same lines.

26 Kurt G. W. Ludecke, I Knew Hitler (London: Jarrolds Publishers, 1938).

27 Ibid., p. 196.

28 Ibid., p. 203.

29 Ibid., p. 201.

30 Sutton, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, p. 92.

31 James Pool, Who Financed Hitler (New York: Pocket Books, 1997), pp. 65-96.

32 New York Times, June 4, 1938; quoted by Sutton, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, pp. 90-91.

33 Ibid., p. 90.

34 Pool, p. 84.

35 George T. Eggleston, Roosevelt, Churchill and the World War II Opposition (Old Greenwich, Conn.: The Devin-Adair Co., 10979), pp. 96-97.

36 Ibid., pp. 101, 146, 147, 164, 165.

37 Ibid., p. 101.

38 Thomas Lamont, “ American Business in War and Peace: Economic Peace Essential to Political Peace,” speech before the Academy of Political Sciences, November 15, 1939, quoted by Peter Luddington, Why the Good War was Good: Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New World Order, doctoral thesis, UCLA (Ann Arbor: ProQuest LLC, 2008), pp. 112-113.

39 K. R. Bolton, “The Geopolitics of White Dispossession” in Radix, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2012, pp. 108-110.

40 Ibid., pp. 112-114.

41 Elliott Roosevelt, As He Saw It (New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce, 1946), p. 35.

42 Charles Higham, Trading with the Enemy: How the Allied Multinationals supplied Nazi Germany throughout World War Two (London: Robert Hale, 1983)., pp. 166-177.

43 Edwin Black, “Hitler’s Car Maker: The Inside Story of How General Motors Helped Mobilize the Third Reich,” History News Network, http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/37935

44 James D. Mooney, Always the Unexpected, unpublished autobiography, ed. Louis P. Lochner, (State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Madison, 1948), p. 24; cited by David Hayward,Automotive History, “Mr. James D. Mooney: A Man of Missions,”http://www.gmhistory.chevytalk.org/James_D_Mooney_by_David_Hayward.html

45 Mooney, ibid., p. 27.

46 Luddington, p. 113.

47 Dr. Greg Bradsher, “German Administration of American Companies 1940-1945: A Very Brief Review,” U.S. National Archives, June 6, 2001,http://www.archives.gov/research/holocaust/articles-and-papers/german-administration-of-american-companies.html

48 Ibid.

49 Rinehold Billstein, et al Working for the Enemy: Ford, General Motors and Forced Labor in Germany During the Second World War (Berghahn Books, 2004), p. 141.

50 Anita Kugler, Working for the Enemy, ibid., p. 36.

51 Richard Overy, The Dictators (London: Allen Lane, 2004), p.p. 438-439.

52 Antony Sutton, How The Order Creates War and Revolution, pp. 3-9.

53 Ibid, inter alia.

54 Frtiz Thyssen, I Paid Hitler (New York: Farrar & Rinehart Inc., n.d.) p. 88, cited by Sutton, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, p. 25.

55 Sutton, ibid., p. 25.

56 “Fritz Thyssen,” ThyssenKrupp,http://www.thyssenkrupp.com/en/konzern/geschichte_grfam_t2.html

57 Alien Property Commission.

58 “How Bush’s Grandfather Helped Hitler’s Rise to Power,” The Guardian, September 25, 2004,http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

59 Pool, pp. 336-337.

60 Paul Drucker, The End of Economic Man (London: 1939), p. 105; quoted by Pool, p. 272.

61 Ludecke, p. 692.

62 Ibid., p. 693.

63 Sutton, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, p. 18.

64 Arthur Spiegelman, “WWII Documents Bolster Nazi-Red Cross Connection,” Detroit Free Press, August 30, 1996, p. 6A.

65 Gerald L. Posner, “Interpol’s Nazi Affiliations Continued after War,” New York Times, March 6, 1990, http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/06/opinion/l-interpol-s-nazi-affiliations-continued-after-war-137690.html

66 Higham’s term for the international financial cabal.

67 Higham, pp. 9-10.

68 Hjalmar Schacht, The Magic of Money (London: Oldbourne, 1967), p. 49;http://www.autentopia.se/blogg/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/schacht_the_magic_of_money.pdf

69 Ibid., p. 117.

70 Ibid., p. 114.

71 Ibid., p. 116.

72 Ibid., p. 85.

73 Ibid., pp. 85-86.

74 Ibid., p. 86.

75 Ibid., p. 87.

76 Ibid., p. 87.

77 Ibid., p. 87.

78 Ibid., p. 89.

79 Ibid., p. 98.

80 Ibid., p. 143.

81 Ibid., p. 109.

82 Ibid., p. 121.

83Ibid.,  p. 118.

84 Ibid., p. 101.

85 “The Abolition of Debt-Bonds Is the Story behind the Removal of Dr. Schacht,” Social Justice, February 13, 1939, p. 11

86 Schacht, p. 117.

87 Walther Funk, “The Economic Re-Organisation of Europe,” Speech: July 25, 1940.

88 The Bank for International Settlements Annual Report for 1940-1941, Eleventh Annual Report, June 9, 1941, p. 96.

89 Hjalmar Schacht, p. 107.

90 Ibid., p. 118.

91 “Rabid Tory Propagandists are Worst War Profiteers,” Weekly Roll-Call, January 25, 1941, p. 6; citing Chicago Daily Tribune, June 12, 1940.

92 “Aid to Britain Screech comes from Wall Street Profiteers facing loss,” Weekly Roll-Call, February 3, 1941, p. 5.

93 An elder statesman of American diplomacy under several presidents, he was a founder of Brown Brothers Harriman international bank, one of whose partners was fellow Lodge 322 initiate Prescott Bush. On account of business affiliations with German corporations such as those of Fritz Thyssen, Harriman is assumed to have been a Wall Street backer of Hitler, along with Prescott Bush. His sponsorship of war agitation shows this is not the case.

94 Associated with J.P Morgan interests, he was a Lodge 322 initiate in 1920.

95 Guggenheim, the copper magnate, had been a member of the National Security League, headed by J. P. Morgan, which had agitated for war against Germany during World War I.

96 A director in Harriman railway interests.

97 “Senator Holt in Farewell Speech calls Pro-War agitators ‘Traitors’,” Weekly Roll-Call, January 11, 1941, p. 9.

98 “The Chronology of the Devil who wants War,” Weekly Roll-Call, February 17, 1941, p. 2.

99 “Prompt passage of aid bill urged,” The Pittsburgh Press, January 26, 1941, pp. 1, 12. “U.S. envoys who saw Nazis in action fear invasion, back Lend-Lease Bill,” Pittsburgh Press, p. 12.

—————————————————————————–

er’s Finances and Myth of Nazi Anti-Usury Activism

Hitler’s Finances and the Myth of Nazi Anti-Usury Activism

by for Veterans Today

Hitler's Finances and the Myth of Nazi anti-Usury Activism                                                                                    ( the Emperor wears no moustache……)There is the widespread notion that Hitler was fighting the Money Power and that he was a problem for the Bankers because he created a Usury free economy. But there was no Usury free Third Reich economy. The German taxpayer continued to pay interest over the substantial national debt and commercial banking received interest for its fractional reserve banking based loans, which to a large extent financed the war.

“Our greatest social task is the abolition of interest slavery. This responsibility to abolish interest slavery towers above all other issues of the day. It is the only solution to the greatest problem of our time. The breaking of interest slavery is the most important moral imperative in social terms, it rises in its general significance far beyond all questions of the day, it is the solution of social questions, it is the only way out of the terrible confusion of the time. The abolition of interest slavery will deliver us from ultra-capitalist domination while avoiding both Communist destruction of the human spirit and Capitalist degradation of labour. The abolition of interest slavery opens the way to a truly social economy, by liberating us from the overwhelming domination of money. It opens the way to a state based on creative work and genuine accomplishment.” – Gottfried Feder 1919

By Anthony Migchels

Where does Hitler’s reputation for anti-Usury activism come from? It was more Nazi propaganda to get him to power than his actual policies after he did. It was not Hitler, but Gottfried Feder who was the anti-Usury man of the Nazi. Hitler in Mein Kampf: ” For the first time in my life I heard (through Feder, AM) 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.” And: “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.”

Point 11 of the NSDAP 25 point program, a manifesto that officially (but not in practice) expressed Nazi policy: “Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.”

Hitler put it this way: “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.”

But as we shall see, Hitler did not implement any serious monetary reform after he came to power. He did make finance completely subservient to the State and, more specifically, rearmament. But he did not nationalize any banks and the Reichsbank was already nationalized by the Weimar Republic by the time he came to power. He did not end interest payments to ‘the issuing houses’, who must have made an uncanny fortune throughout the war. He did nothing to decouple the Stock Exchange from the economy.

Feder was made Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, but was from day one sabotaged by Reichsbank President Hjalmar Schacht and replaced by him in August 1934. It was Schacht who was to manage the Nazi economy, not Feder.

Schacht’s and Hitler’s policies allowed full control of the economy, which was used to maximize production for the sake of war. But it did absolutely nothing to limit in any way massive war profiteering by the financial and industrial classes that brought him to power.

The Reichsmark The Reichsmark was created 1924 after its predecessor, the Papiermark, had been inflated into oblivion. 1 Reichsmark was 1 Trillion Papiermark. The Reichsmark lasted until 1948, when it was replaced by the Deutsche Mark. So Hitler simply used the monetary system that he inherited from the Weimar Republic. The Reichsmark, like any other banking unit, was lent into circulation. It was a Gold backed unit until 1931, when the depression forced the Reichsbank (the Central Bank) to implement exchange controls, which effectively took Germany off the Gold Standard. A Gold peg remained in place. There were 1, 2 and 5 Reichsmark silver coins.

Hitler inherited the official Weimar 4,5% maximum interest rate. He ruled by decree, but never changed this. In fact, after the Nazi economy began to boom due to heavy spending on rearmament, it seems interest rates were raised to combat inflation. I’ve been unable to find any data on real interest rates during the Nazi era.

Who was Hjalmar Schacht? Schacht was born in 1934 as the son of an aristocratic family. He joined Dresdner Bank in 1903 and already in 1905 was meeting people like JP Morgan and Theodore Roosevelt. He studied Hebrew to advance his career. In 1908 he joined Freemasonry. He oversaw the financing of Belgian/German trade during WW1 and used his former employer Dresdner Bank for this. This blatant conflict of interest led to his dismissal, but the revolving door was not invented recently and he was taken back by Dresdner Bank after this.

In 1923 he joined the Reichsbank and played a key role in ending the hyperinflation of the day. A little later he was made President of the Reichsbank and remained in this post until 1930. Since at least 1923 he was actively resisting the war reparations that were destroying the German economy and called for resurrection of German power. In 1926 he became involved with the NSDAP and supported their rise to power, although he never became a member.

He oversaw the formation of I.G. Farben in the twenties.

Schacht was a member of the Keppler Circle, a small group of businessmen that were at the heart of the Nazi movement and which financed Hitler’s rise to power. Wall Street was very influential in this group and contrary to what many Hitler apologists claim, played a heavy role in both financing him and war profiteering.

Shortly after Hitler came to power he was reinstated as President of the Reichsbank and when he replaced Feder as Reichscommissar for the Economy, he basically gained full control over the economy. This lasted until he was fired in 1939, when the German economy was overheating and Schacht wanted to limit spending on rearmament and was accused of ‘mutiny’ by Hitler.

Banking in Nazi Germany before the war After becoming President of the Reichsbank, Schacht immediately started implementing policies aiming at giving the State full control of financial markets. This was known as ‘the New Plan’:

“(1) restriction of the demand for such foreign exchange as would be used for purposes unrelated to the conspirators’ rearmament program; (2) increase of the supply of foreign exchange, as a means of paying for essential imports which could not otherwise be acquired; and (3) clearing agreements and other devices obviating the need for foreign exchange. Under the “New Plan”, economic transactions between Germany and the outside world were no longer governed by the autonomous price mechanism; they were determined by a number of Government agencies whose primary aim was to satisfy the needs of the Nazi’s military economy.”

Foreign exchange controls were implemented to manage shortages in foreign currencies. Rules for credit creation by the Reichsbank were cancelled, aimed at potentially limitless credit creation to provide the economy with the liquidity it needed to get back at full employment.

All policies were aimed at 1) making sure the Government was basically the only borrower at domestic capital markets and 2) to make sure there was always enough credit available.

Price and wage controls and indeed rising interest rates were used to combat rising prices that would have resulted from these inflating policies.

Between 31 December and 30 June 1938, the national debt of the Reich rose from 10.4 billion Marks to 19 billion Marks.

There was no nationalization of banks. In fact: some banks that the Weimar republic had nationalized during the early days of the depression, were again privatized. Private banks played a crucial role in financing the rearmament effort. They were put under close Reichsbank control to make sure their lending was what the State wanted, but nothing was done to limit their profitability.

The Stock Exchange While railing against this typical exploitative instrument of finance during his rise to power, Hitler did nothing to limit the stock exchange’s scope and operations once he had the chance. The stock exchange system in the Reich was superficially reformed: a number of its outlets were merged and the number of exchanges declined from 25 to 9 as a result. But volume of trading was never threatened and during the early Hitler years it saw annual double digit rises until 1937, when the Reich’s economy started faltering and the stock exchange lost about 10% of its capitalization between 1937 and 1939. After the war broke out the stock market saw a massive boom, rising 50% between the falls 1939 and 1941.

In 1934 heavy taxes were levied on dividend payments of 6%, but the aim of this was not to limit profiteering, but to enhance self-financing of publicly traded corporations. They were expected to recycle more of their profits into their own operations, to make them independent of capital markets, which the State intended and managed to completely dominate for its own financing needs. There were loopholes to evade this measure and shareholders were not damaged because of these measures, as it implied deferment of dividend payments and not real limitations.

The Reich’s policies also made sure the common man did not enter the stock market, as they were expected to lend to the Government and not to speculate. But still, the amount of funds being diverted to the stock market were not invested in the war and “It was then (1942, AM) that the government stepped in and destroyed the last relatively free market in the economy. Loans for the purchase of stocks were prohibited. Shareholders had to file a declaration with the government of all shares purchased since the outbreak of war if their market value exceeded 100,000 Reichsmark. The government could, at any time, request that any of these shares be delivered to it for cash and that the proceeds be invested in securities to be specified by the government. (Nathan)”

MEFO While every effort was made to assure the State’s domination of capital markets, there was simply not enough liquidity in the economy to create full employment and unlock the German Folk’s full productive capacity for rearmament. This could have been solved by having the State go massively into debt, in typical Keynesian fashion. But this would have created both political and economic problems and, equally important, would have shown the full extent of rearmament to the Reich’s enemies.

Instead, Hitler, right after coming to power, fired Reichsbank President Hans Luther and reinstated Hjalmar Schacht, who was willing to build on Luther’s Oeffa’s: Government promissory notes aimed at creating employment that would create the extra liquidity needed to finance Hitler’s plans.

Schacht created a special purpose vehicle (SPV, a dummy corporation) called MEtallurgische FOrschungsgesellschaft(MEFO), which was used to accept bills of exchange drawn by German weapons manufacturers and received by all German banks for possible re-discounting by the Reichsbank. The bills were guaranteed by the Reich for five years and were thus (indirectly) convertible to Reichsmark.

MEFO bills of exchange were a pure bookkeeping operation and there were no actual paper certificates. They circulated between MEFO, the Reichsbank, commercial banks and manufacturers, not in the wider economy. At its peak there were about 12 billion worth in circulation. Key was that they were kept off the Reich’s books as all transactions were logged at the MEFO SPV. Because of this, nobody really knew the extent of spending on weaponry.

While they solved the depression and allowed for the Nazi war machine, they also created fairly serious inflationary pressures. And while this kind of construct may sound ‘innovative’ to the uninitiated, they would have been a no brainer for an experienced banker like Schacht. As said, they were based on certificates (called Oeffa) that the Weimar Republic was already circulating and national treasuries had been circulating their own certificates routinely, when pressing political issues forced them to increase their financial clout. The US Treasury had its Treasury notes before the Civil War. The UK printed ‘Bradbury Pounds’ (debt free notes) to finance WW1. The Canadian Treasury printed its own debt free money as of 1935 and during the twenties and thirties advanced monetary reform programs were widely discussed throughout the West.

Conclusion Hitler was heavily indebted to Feder’s anti-Usury stance in coming to power. But early on during his reign he got rid of Feder and relied on Schacht for the financing of his war plans. Unlike Schacht, Feder was not heavily involved with the top bankers and industrialists of the age. The German economy was directed completely to rearmament. Consumption levels were kept low through taxation and wage controls. Imports and production of luxuries were severely restricted.

Schacht made sure the financial industry was focused solely on war preparation and in effect allowed only the State to borrow on the domestic capital markets. International trade was primarily reliant on (scarce) foreign currencies and while there was some international bartering, it was far from dominant. The Reich’s financial industry did not decouple entirely from international finance, although foreign exchange controls were strict. For instance: the Bank of International Settlements continued dealings with the Reich.

There was no usury free economy. The common man or small business actually would have next to no access to credit at all. Even manufacturers were forced to become self financing, so the State could monopolize borrowing on the capital markets. The stock market boomed like never before.

Instead, all policies were directed at securing sufficient funds for rearmament, not at minimizing financial exploitation by the parasitical class that Hitler so vehemently attacked with his rhetoric. Finance was a matter of volume, not cost. Schacht’s MEFO bills have been wrongly jumped upon to claim Hitler was an anti banker man, while Schacht himself has the typical bio of a high level Money Power operative. He was a life long friend of BoE chief Montague Norman and was acquitted at Neurenberg, where the Soviets wanted a conviction while the British made sure he was released.

The myth of Nazi anti-Usury activism is damaging, not only because of its mythological character, but because it allows the Money Power to defame anti-Usury activism through ‘guilt by association’. In fact, many Austrians and Mainstreamers, call usury-free monetary reform programs ‘fascist’. Fascism itself is being rehabilitated because of its supposed stance against finance capitalism. But as we have learned from Bolton’s ‘The Banking Swindle’, the twenties and thirties saw many monetary reform programs throughout the West, far from all associated with fascism. After the war they were relegated to a memory hole because of this false association with fascism.

War profiteering by the industrial and financial class was in no way restricted. As a result, they profited immensely from the war. This was indeed the main reason for them to enable Hitler’s rise to power and their loyal support of his policies during the rearmament and the war. Even today, the main culprits like the Thyssen family, Krupp and the Goebbels step-children owning BMW are among the richest people in Germany. The same banks that financed the Reich’s war are now among the biggest in the world.

(with special thanks to Niels Verduijn and Ad Broere)

Afterthought 1 Let me be the first to admit I, until recently, believed much of what was said about Hitler’s ‘usury-free’ economy and have inadvertently contributed to the harnessing of this meme.

Afterthought 2 I agree with much of revisionist history. Post war historiography is just wartime propaganda. The Holocaust needs serious revaluation. Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill were psychopaths who committed horrible crimes, against the Japanese, their own people, the people the colonized and against the Germans.

I do feel that at this point many in the Alternative Media go overboard, making Hitler a hero. This is unwarranted. The current article shows, in spite of what many believe, he was far from a renegade in a financial sense. There is also theHunger Plan: Hitler and the Wehrmacht High Command intended to have the Wehrmacht live of the Russian land they were to occupy by robbing the farmers of their harvests. They cynically calculated this would starve 30 million Russians. Thankfully they never had the chance to fully implement this, but still millions of Russians starved because of the Wehrmacht taking their supplies.

The fact is that Hitler always wanted to invade Russia and his explanation that it was to save the world of Marxism, which he well analyzed to be a Jewish front, is irreconcilable with his take that Britain was a nation of Aryan brothers and the British Empire ‘necessary’ and a great civilizing force in the world: even at that time it was well known that the British Aristocracy had merged with Jewish Money and that the City of London was the Money Power’s capital.

Hitler was an imperialist who wanted to conquer Russia for the third Reich and intended to kill untold millions of Russians to take their land. His rise and fall gave the Money Power everything it wanted, including the war itself, the Zionist Entity in Palestine, the EU, Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, the destruction of the British Empire, the UN and the Cold War.

We will probably never know whether he was a useful idiot or willing stooge, but while he may have been no worse than his antagonists, he certainly also was no better

SHOAH Nakba

Nakba, the Palestinian catastrophe

———————————————————————-

There’s No Business Like Shoah Business!

——————————————————-

Manuel Valls: “la Shoah doit être sacralisée !”

—————————————————-

Reserve Bank’s Holocaust denier

13 APR 2012 00:00 LISA STEYN

Stephen Goodson has been on the South African Reserve Bank’s board from 2003. He holds extremist views on Hitler’s Germany and Gaddafi’s Libya.

Legislation passed in 2010 will mean that, in future, activist shareholders of the Reserve Bank will no longer be able to elect directors to its board.

The last of these directors is Stephen Goodson, who was elected a non-executive director in 2003. It was a mini coup, which resulted in business heavyweight Brian Gilbertson being ousted from the board in favour of the little-known investment consultant.

Goodson’s term ends in July. The Reserve Bank said in a statement that Goodson, who has served as a director for nine years, was not eligible for re-election in terms of the King III code on corporate governance because of his length of service.

“Even though members are eligible for re-election, the central bank board has adopted as a guideline the King III principle that non-executive directors should not serve for a period longer than nine years,” the statement said.

Admiration for Hitler’s policies
Goodson, who earned R360 000 last year for his services to the bank, more than R70 000 for each of the five meetings he attended, holds contentious views that include admiring the economic policies pursued by Hitler in Nazi Germany, a belief that international bankers financed and manipulated the war against Hitler because they saw his model of state capitalism as a threat to their usurious ways, and that the Holocaust was a fiction invented to extract vast amounts of compensation from the defeated Germans.

He has argued that similar reasons underpinned the support of the United Nations for the uprising in Libya. Muammar Gaddafi’s usury-free banking system was a threat to global capitalism and had to be destroyed, according to Goodson.

The South African Reserve Bank is one of about eight worldwide that has private shareholders, even though the institutions perform public functions such as the management of monetary policy and the regulation of the banking system.

Over recent decades, activist shareholders began building up a significant shareholding in the bank and started to have run-ins with the previous bank governor, Tito Mboweni.

The activists demanded that the nominal dividend paid annually be increased and called for an emergency general meeting where their concerns could be raised.

The result was that the Reserve Bank Act was amended in 2010 to tighten the regulations governing the rights of shareholders.

Goodson has been the only activist shareholder to sit on the board. It is unclear what exactly his role has been, but one activist, who did not want to be named, said Goodson had not provided them with feedback, which they had expected him to do when he was elected.

He is best known as a founder of the Abolition of Income Tax and Usury Party, which stood in at least one national election. The party maintains a website but it seems to be dormant.

But Goodson appears to be pushing pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic views on the internet. In a radio interview last year with American talk show host Deanna Spingola, author of The Ruling Elite: A Study in Imperialism, Genocide and Emancipation, Goodson expressed his admiration for the social achievements during the Third Reich.

The interview was broadcast on the Republic Broadcasting Network, which was described by the Christian Science Monitor in 2010 as a network “well known to those who study extremism, as well as to the FBI”.

Denying the Holocaust
Goodson said the Holocaust was “a huge lie” that served several purposes. “Of course, the principle is to extract enormous sums of money from the Germans as compensation — They [international bankers] tarnished that whole period as being one of great evil in order to keep you blind to what is possible.”

Holocaust denial is a crime in several, mainly European, countries.

Spingola’s website states that she “investigates government and corporate corruption as it relates to the faltering liberties of American citizens and the war-targeted population of other countries. She is not afraid to address controversial issues”.

Her radio interviews have centred on topics such as Zionism and Nazi Germany several times.

In the interview, Goodson, who said he served on the board of a central bank in South Africa, said: “Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933 and in six short years he transformed Germany and reduced unemployment for 30% to zero.

“He provided everyone with debt-free and decent housing, excellent labour relations and restored respect and honour to all Germans.

“In these six years, a worker’s paradise was created. There was zero inflation and Germany became the most prosperous and powerful country in the history of Europe.”

Goodson also said the real reason for World War II was Germany’s progressive economic system.

“That was the whole basis of World War II. It had nothing to do with human rights or protecting Poland or any of the other reasons that they advance in the history books.

“Germany — could only be admitted to the family of nations if they abided by the rules of the international bankers.”

Spingola added: “What country is going to deport the Jews [after the Holocaust]? America? Not hardly. Britain? Not hardly. And that Holocaust myth will prevent any country from evaluating and saying: ‘Oh, we’ve got to get rid of these people.’ Right?”

Goodson appeared to agree: “Yes, well, they’ve [Jews] been expelled from over 70 countries, some of them several times. But unfortunately they have such a tight control of the media. Well, there is a small window of hope in that the internet can provide alternative views, but even there they are trying to exercise supervision.”

Goodson’s articles appear on a number of extreme right-wing websites. One, Incog Man, says it was expelled by hosting site WordPress after complaints by “Jewish agents”. The site says it is there to “get the real deal out there and awaken the whites”. It includes images of a rat alongside the Star of David.

Incog Man’s targets include “nation-wrecking Khazar Jews and Israel-Firster HasbaRATs, braindead White Multicults and Marxists, sicko Sodomites and Lezbos, perverted Paedophile Molesters, freaky Gender-benders, greasy Illegal Mestizos, cocaine-crazed and criminal Negroes”.

Goodson is given as the source for claims that international finance was behind both the overthrow of Imperial Russia and provoking war with Japan in the 1940s.

“It can thus be seen that the US Federal Reserve Bank was intimately involved in plotting and financing the overthrow of the Russian Empire. With its stranglehold on the media and its placemen [sic] occupying most of the key positions in government in 1941, the bank was in a favourable position from which to manipulate and provoke war with Japan.

“Both the Bank of Japan and the German Reichsbank with their systems of state creation of the money supply at zero interest—and the inevitability that those systems of finance would be replicated by other countries, in particular those of the proposed Greater East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere—posed such a serious threat to the private investors of the US Federal Reserve Bank that a world war was deemed to be the only means of countering it.”

Right-wing website praises Goodson
Incog Man credits Goodson as a politician and noted banker. It also says he is a director of a central bank in South Africa.

Approached for an interview this week, Goodson said Reserve Bank rules prevented it, although he would agree to it when his term ended in July. The Mail & Guardian subsequently obtained permission from the Reserve Bank for Goodson to discuss non-bank issues.

Although he did answer some questions, he threatened to take legal action if the M&G published the story. He said he could not control where his articles ended up, but he did not distance himself from any of the sites.

Goodson insisted that he was a director of a South African central bank, but was careful to not mention the South African Reserve Bank. “This is a subtle but important difference,” he said.

Goodson said that there were at least 105 Stephen Goodsons in the United States alone and the M&G would have to check carefully before assuming that any article had been written by him.

He appears to have aristocratic British connections. In 2003 when Goodson, whose full name is Stephen Mitford Goodson, was elected a director of the South African Reserve Bank, Moneyweb reported that he was related to Diana Mitford Mosley, a controversial figure.

The article said he had just bid farewell to Mitford Mosley, a family member, although it is not clear what the exact relation is. The Mitford sisters were known in the United Kingdom for being active communists, socialists and fascists—“an interest spurred in them through their father, David Mitford — himself an ardent fascist”, Moneyweb reported.


Stephen Goodson, a non-executive director on the Reserve Bank board, is an admirer of the economic policies pursued by the Third Reich

The article described how the Russian imperial flag fluttered above the door of Goodson’s modest home in Pringle Bay, where an old light-blue Chev was parked outside. A brass plaque on the front door, with the word Mitford on it, greeted visitors.

Diana Mitford left her husband, Bryan Guinness, for Sir Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Union of Fascists. They married in 1936 in the drawing room of Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels’s home in Berlin and Hitler was a guest.

Mitford Mosley’s friendship with Hitler developed through her sister, Unity, who, The New Statesmen reported in 2007, was believed to have had an affair with the leader of the Nazis. The two are even rumoured to have had a love child before Unity returned to England and gave the child up for adoption.

An obituary written by the Guardian said Mitford Mosley claimed that her husband had never been anti-Semitic, but she was inclined to make statements about Jewish people such as ‘maybe they could have gone somewhere like Uganda—very empty and lovely climate”.

A report in the Guardian archives tells of a speech her husband gave at the Albert Hall in 1934 in which he said that Jews would be expected to put Britain before their faith.

Mitford Mosley, a cousin to Winston Churchill, and her husband were imprisoned during World War II although, because of their aristocratic connections, they were allowed to live in a house in the prison and hire prisoners to do their menial work.

Goodson has written many articles that are readily found on the internet. They are often critical of debt finance and ‘the exploitative fractional reserve banking system of the West”, in which private banks are licensed to create money out of nothing.

In one article, Goodson proposes a Cape Town municipal bank that could fund all infrastructure programmes at zero interest and ratepayers could enjoy a permanent reduction of at least 15% on annual property rates, a drop in the home-loan rate and nominal rates for student loans.

In two other articles, ‘The truth about Syria” and ‘The truth about Libya”, he praises the economies of both countries, which employed state banks.

Termination in line with King III
In regard to Stephen Goodson’s personal views, the Reserve Bank said it did not comment in public about its directors.

“However, the bank does not in any way wish to be associated with any ill-considered comments of this nature.”

As far as the end of Goodson’s term is concerned, the bank said the board had adopted as a guideline a maximum period of service of three terms in respect of its non-executive directors, based in principle on guidelines in King III that determine that any independent non-executive director serving more than nine years should be subjected to a rigorous review of their independence and performance.

“Mindful of these guidelines, the board adopted as a principle that non-executive directors should not, in the normal course of business, serve for a period longer than three terms, which equates to more or less nine years.”

The bank said this applied to all independent non-executive directors. “This process was last followed both in 2010 and 2011 when four non-executive directors, who had served terms in excess of nine years, did not avail themselves for election and stepped down from the board.”

Asked whether the bank chose when to adhere to King III, it responded: “The bank does adhere where applicable and appropriate to King III as guiding principles.”

It denied that the aim of the amendment of the South African Reserve Bank Act was to limit shareholder activism.

“The amendment seeks to widen and deepen the spread of shareholding in the South African Reserve Bank by, among others, prohibiting the undue concentration of voting powers in single persons and allowing for members of the general public, in addition to shareholders and serving directors, to nominate candidates for potential appointment as directors to serve on the board of the bank.”

The bank said shareholders could still nominate candidates for potential appointment to the board.

“Such persons, like all other nominated candidates, are subject to a fit and proper evaluation by a panel appointed in terms of the South African Reserve Bank Act.”

The panel was established and appointed in terms of the amendment Act. It comprises five members of the public: a retired judge and one person nominated by the finance minister, plus three nominated by the National Economic Development and Labour Council. It is chaired by the bank’s governor, Gill Marcus.

The bank said it did not respond to unsubstantiated statements such as the allegation that directors were now “hand-picked by the governor”. “Potential candidates for appointment as directors to the board are nominated in accordance with a process as set out before, which does not allow for any candidates to be ‘hand-picked’ by the governor.”—Lisa Steyn

The activist shareholders
The Mail & Guardian canvassed the views of two activist shareholders of the Reserve Bank on its governance structure.

‘It was an extraordinary blip on the horizon,” said shareholder Mario Pretorius. ‘In 2010 the South African Reserve Bank Act was amended to slam every possible door. [Now] there will never be another [Stephen] Goodson or anyone else it doesn’t like.”

He said he had never discussed Goodson’s views with him and had met him only once or twice.

The amendments created a panel that nominates directors, but some shareholders claim only preferred people are put forward. ‘Selection criteria are opaque,” Pretorius said. ‘It is draconian. Every piece of democracy is taken away.”

The amendments also restrict the responsibilities of the board: ‘It can approve the budget, sign the annual report, internal salary structure and it is supposed to look at corporate governance.”

Michael Duerr, another activist shareholder, said it was only once he owned a shareholding in the bank that he realised how deeply flawed the system was ‘through seeing mistakes, breaches of law and the gangsterism of the banks and the Reserve Bank”.

Duerr said he did not share Goodson’s personal views, but the director understood that the system needed real change. ‘Goodson is an odd character. But he did good because he put a lot of pressure on the bank. It picks what it wants from King III and ignores what it doesn’t.”

Pretorius added: ‘It’s [the governance] a farce supposedly having directors and supposedly adhering to King [III].”—Lisa Steyn

————————————————————

JIM RIZOLI

NO Proof of Holocaust

——————————————————————-

JEWISH NEWS By SAM SOKOL, EVA TAPIERO

 07/09/2013
Claims Conference mismanagement key in ‘facilitating’ fraud, internal report alleges
Claims Conference accused of withholding probe results from board WJC blasts Claims Conference’s silence over fraud probe

Former board member calls for chairman Julius Berman and chief operating officer Greg Schneider to step down.

Berman Julius
Berman Julius  -The Jerusalem Post

 

“Management failings” were responsible for “facilitating” $57 million in fraud perpetrated against the Conference of Material Claims Against Germany over 16 years, according to an internal report leaked to The Jerusalem Post on Monday.

The report, written by Ombudsman Shmuel Hollander, pointed to “systematic failings and problematic organization behavior” as the background to the failure to discover and stop years of approvals of fraudulent restitution claims. It was distributed to members of the board of directors on Monday despite having been presented to the Claims Conference nearly a week earlier.

The board is set to meet in New York starting Tuesday.

In a blistering critique of the corporate culture of the Claims Conference, Hollander stated that “the absence of professional control systems… constituted a key factor in enabling, and certainly in facilitating, the fraud.”

The controversy surrounding the Holocaust restitution organization centers around a 2001 tip-off letter sent to the conference that resulted in two internal probes – one conducted by current chairman and then board member and pro bono counsel Julius Berman – that failed to uncover the embezzlement.

Hollander asserted that among the leaders of the Claims Conference, “no one… who was aware of the [2001] letter, treated it with the gravity that it demanded at the time.”

The initial fraud warning was received by Karl Brozik, a conference official in Germany, who investigated the matter without finding any evidence of wrongdoing.

After the 2001 letter went public, a Claims Conference spokeswoman placed responsibility for not investigating further on the official, who died in 2004.

However, the JTA subsequently reported that a paralegal working for the law firm of then-board member and pro bono counsel Berman launched a second investigation, which also terminated without uncovering the fraud.

In May, Berman appointed board member Reuven Merhav to lead a Select Leadership Committee that would investigate the events surrounding the 2001 letter. It was the SLC that tasked Hollander with carrying out his probe after several members of the board, representing major organizations such as the Jewish Agency and World Jewish Congress, called for an independent investigation.

The fraud was organized by conference employee Semen Domnitser, who served as the director of the conference’s Hardship Fund.

Hollander asserted that “none of the Senior Directors examined or supervised the work of the department in any meaningful way” and that Domnitser was able to go about his work, and fraud, for years with effectively no oversight.

Had the allegations in the 2001 letter been “properly addressed and investigated thoroughly by an independent and professional functionary in New York, it is highly probable that the information it contained could have led to the discovery of the missing links in the chain of command and the breaches of procedure which Mr. Domnitser and his partners used to their own advantage to perpetrate their crimes,” the ombudsman wrote.

In his report, Hollander further contended that despite rapid growth between 2001 and 2009, the organization failed in “tailoring its organizational structure to meet the growing range of its activities and needs” and that the Claims Conference was governed in a “manner unacceptable in both public and corporate bodies.” The Claims Conference, he said, was unreasonably centralized.

He subsequently called for an examination in greater depth of the “general conduct over many years that enabled such a large scale fraud to continue unimpeded.”

Among Hollander’s critiques of the Claims Conference’s corporate structure were allegations that the division of activities within the organization was “inadequate” and areas of responsibility were “systemically unclear.”

The report “demonstrates that most regrettably and contrary to what many on the board had earlier assumed, best practice and competence, were missing” in respect to the issue of the 2001 letter and “related events,” wrote members of the SLC in their introduction to the report.

However, not all members of the committee signed off on the report.

Board members Roman Kent and Abraham Biderman both resigned from the committee rather than endorse the ombudsman’s recommendations.

In a letter to the board included with the report, Biderman stated that he believed the report to be “inappropriately pejorative” and to “contain material factual errors.”

The report, he averred, “does not take into account the substantial management improvements” since 2001.

The SLC also denied allegations that Berman engaged in a cover-up of his failure to stop the fraud.

Responding to critics of the Claims Conference who noted that public statements by conference officials blamed Brozik while failing to mention Berman’s own investigation, the members of the SLC stated that there had been no attempt to deceive anybody.

While the failure to disclose these matters to the board was “unacceptable,” they noted, there is nothing in the report to suggest “active concealing.”

Rather, they wrote, the lack of disclosure was “part of the litany of lack of diligence, competence and judgement that, as the ombudsman has shown, characterized this event throughout.”

The SLC also recommended that Berman appoint a Restructuring and Strategic Planning Committee comprised of members of the board and up to three external lay leaders to make recommendations regarding the “structure, administration, management and governance of the Claims Conference.”

Despite his harsh remarks, however, Hollander did also have positive things to say about the senior leadership of the Claims Conference and their ability to expand the scope of the organization’s funding and disbursements during the period of the fraud.

Hollander praised the Claims Conference over the fact that “no Holocaust victims were deprived of any funds as a result of the fraud.”

In response, Alex Moskovic, a member of the Executive Committee of the Holocaust Survivors Foundation USA, stated that his organization rejected this argument.

Survivors consider the theft of $57 million as “typical of the general disregard the Claims Conference has had for Holocaust survivors’ actual rights and interests all these years, and the massive suffering its policies have inflicted especially on those survivors living in poverty,” he said.

“When the Claims Conference mishandles the rights or property of Holocaust survivors, or fails to adequately oversee employees charged with administering such funds, the damage is inflicted on survivors everywhere,” he told the Post through his lawyer.

Moskovic also said that he “hope[s] they also examine the behavior of the accounting firms like Ernst and Young and KPMG who certified the organization’s financial reports over the last decade, and the blindness of the organization’s board of directors as well.”

Hollander’s report can be seen as a harsh rejoinder to comments made by Berman in May, when he said that he felt “no fault at all” for the fraud, that the controls in place at the Claims Conference to prevent fraud were “reasonably adequate” and that the deception discovered in 2009 was as impossible to anticipate as the attacks of 9/11.

When asked if the Claims Conference owed an apology to anybody for the affair – whether survivors, the Claims Conference board or the Jewish community – Berman said the thought never occurred to him.

This stands in contrast to Conference Chief Operating Officer Greg Schneider, who responded to Hollander’s probe in a letter appended to the report, stating that while he only believed that Domnitser was to blame, he could not “escape the fact that Domnitser and his accomplices stole tens of millions of dollars. And, while he was doing it, I was working closely with him – in the same office… I was lied to, fooled, hoodwinked, duped. I missed it. I am sorry.”

In response to the report, Haim Roet, a former member of the board who resigned in 2010, said that the results of Hollander’s investigation bear out concerns that he expressed prior to leaving the conference and called for Berman and Schneider to step down.

“It is [inconceivable] that the chairman and the chief executive officer decline to take responsibility for the large fraud taken place over a period of years and years by so many employees,” he told the Post.

The Claims Conference noted the distribution if the Hollander report in a brief statement. Asked for further comment on the conclusions of the report, a spokeswoman replied that “the Conference will only issue further statements following the board’s deliberations.”

JTA contributed to this report.

Berman Julius

Berman Julius 370. (photo credit:Marc Israel Sellem/The Jerusalem Post)

———————————————————————————

What comes out of the mouths of Jews may shock you…

JEWS 103: When Jewish Chameleons Boast…

——————————————————————

Famous Jews who changed their names

Russia exposed true US colors in Syria

The deployment of 50 US Special Forces troops to Syria further exposes the true nature of American intervention in Syria where only Russians are acting on a legal basis, says an analyst.

————————————————————————————-

Breaking International Law in Syria. US-NATO’s “Humanitarian Air Strikes”

A general view shows the meeting of the United Nations Security Council on Women, Peace and Security at U.N. headquarters in New York

The war drums are getting louder in the aftermath of ISIS attacks in Paris, as Western countries gear up to launch further airstrikes in Syria. But obscured in the fine print of countless resolutions and media headlines is this: the West has no legal basis for military intervention. Their strikes are illegal.

“It is always preferable in these circumstances to have the full backing of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) but I have to say what matters most of all is that any actions we would take would…be legal,” explained UK Prime Minister David Cameron to the House of Commons last Wednesday.

Legal? No, there’s not a scrap of evidence that UK airstrikes would be lawful in their current incarnation.

Then just two days later, on Friday, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2249, aimed at rallying the world behind the fairly obvious notion that ISIS is an “unprecedented threat to international peace and security.”

“It’s a call to action to member states that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures against (ISIS) and other terrorist groups,” British UN Ambassador Matthew Rycroft told reporters.

The phrase “all necessary measures” was broadly interpreted – if not explicitly sanctioning the “use of force” in Syria, then as a wink to it.

Let’s examine the pertinent language of UNSCR 2249:

The resolution “calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter…on the territory under the control of ISIL also known as Da’esh, in Syria and Iraq.

Note that the resolution demands “compliance with international law, in particular with the UN Charter.” This is probably the most significant explainer to the “all necessary measures” phrase.  Use of force is one of the most difficult things for the UNSC to sanction – it is a last resort measure, and a rare one.  The lack of Chapter 7 language in the resolution pretty much means that ‘use of force’ is not on the menu unless states have other means to wrangle “compliance with international law.”

What you need to know about international law

It is important to understand that the United Nations was set up in the aftermath of World War 2 expressly to prevent war and to regulate and inhibit the use of force in settling disputes among its member states. This is the UN’s big function – to “maintain international peace and security,” as enshrined in the UN Charter’s very first article.

There are a lot of laws that seek to govern and prevent wars, but the Western nations looking to launch airstrikes in Syria have made things easy for us – they have cited the law that they believe justifies their military intervention: specifically, Article 51 of the UN Charter. It reads, in part:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

So doesn’t France, for instance, enjoy the inherent right to bomb ISIS targets in Syria as an act of self-defense – in order to prevent further attacks?

And don’t members of the US-led coalition, who cite the “collective self-defense” of Iraq (the Iraqi government has formally made this request), have the right to prevent further ISIS attacks from Syrian territory into Iraqi areas?

Well, no. Article 51, as conceived in the UN Charter, refers to attacks between territorial states, not with non-state actors like ISIS or Al-Qaeda. Syria, after all, did not attack France or Iraq – or Turkey, Australia, Jordan or Saudi Arabia.

And here’s where it gets interesting.

Western leaders are employing two distinct strategies to obfuscate the lack of legal justification for intervention in Syria. The first is the use of propaganda to build narratives about Syria that support their legal argumentation. The second is a shrewd effort to cite legal “theory” as a means to ‘stretch’ existing law into a shape that supports their objectives.

The “Unwilling and Unable” Theory – the “Unable” argument

The unwilling and unable theory – as related to the Syria/ISIS situation – essentially argues that the Syrian state is both unwilling and unable to target the non-state actor based within its territory (ISIS, in this case) that poses a threat to another state.

Let’s break this down further.

Ostensibly, Syria is ‘unable’ to sufficiently degrade or destroy ISIS because, as we can clearly see, ISIS controls a significant amount of territory within Syria’s borders that its national army has not been able to reclaim.

This made some sense – until September 30 when Russia entered the Syrian military theater and began to launch widespread airstrikes against terrorist targets inside Syria.

As a major global military power, Russia is clearly ‘able’ to thwart ISIS –certainly just as well as most of the Western NATO states participating in airstrikes already. Moreover, as Russia is operating there due to a direct Syrian government appeal for assistance, the Russian military role in Syria is perfectly legal.

This development struck a blow at the US-led coalition’s legal justification for strikes in Syria. Not that the coalition’s actions were ever legal – “unwilling and unable” is merely a theory and has no basis in customary international law.

About this new Russian role, Major Patrick Walsh, associate professor in the International and Operational Law Department at the US Army’s Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School in Virginia, says:

The United States and others who are acting in collective defense of Iraq and Turkey are in a precarious position. The international community is calling on Russia to stop attacking rebel groups and start attacking ISIS. But if Russia does, and if the Assad government commits to preventing ISIS from attacking Syria’s neighbors and delivers on that commitment, then the unwilling or unable theory for intervention in Syria would no longer apply. Nations would be unable to legally intervene inside Syria against ISIS without the Assad government’s consent.

In recent weeks, the Russians have made ISIS the target of many of its airstrikes, and are day by day improving coordination efficiencies with the ground troops and air force of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies -Iran, Hezbollah and other foreign groups who are also in Syria legally, at the invitation of the Syrian state.

Certainly, the balance of power on the ground in Syria has started to shift away from militants and terrorist groups since Russia launched its campaign seven weeks ago – much more than we have seen in a year of coalition strikes.

Militant Islamist fighters. © Stringer

Militant Islamist fighters. © Stringer / Reuters

The “Unwilling and Unable” Theory – the “Unwilling” argument

Now for the ‘unwilling’ part of the theory. And this is where the role of Western governments in seeding ‘propaganda’comes into play.

The US and its allies have been arguing for the past few years that the Syrian government is either in cahoots with ISIS, benefits from ISIS’ existence, or is a major recruiting magnet for the terror group.

Western media, in particular, has made a point of underplaying the SAA’s military confrontations with ISIS, often suggesting that the government actively avoids ISIS-controlled areas.

The net result of this narrative has been to convey the message that the Syrian government has been ‘unwilling’ to diminish the terror group’s base within the country.

But is this true?

ISIS was born from the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) in April, 2013 when the group’s leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declared a short-lived union of ISI and Syria’s Al-Qaeda branch, Jabhat al-Nusra. Armed militants in Syria have switched around their militia allegiances many times throughout this conflict, so it would be disingenuous to suggest the Syrian army has not fought each and every one of these groups at some point since early 2011.

If ISIS was viewed as a ‘neglected’ target at any juncture, it has been mainly because the terror group was focused on land grabs for its “Caliphate” in the largely barren north-east areas of the country – away from the congested urban centers and infrastructure hubs that have defined the SAA’s military priorities.

But ISIS has always remained a fixture in the SAA’s sights. The Syrian army has fought or targeted ISIS, specifically, in dozens of battlefields since the organization’s inception, and continues to do so. In Deir Hafer Plains, Mennagh, Kuweires, Tal Arn, al-Safira, Tal Hasel and the Aleppo Industrial District. In the suburbs and countryside of Damascus – most famously in Yarmouk this year – where the SAA and its allies thwarted ISIS’ advance into the capital city. In the Qalamun mountains, in Christian Qara and Faleeta. In Deir Ezzor, where ISIS would join forces with the US-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA): al-Husseiniyeh, Hatla, Sakr Island, al-Hamadiyah, al-Rashidiyah, al-Jubeileh, Sheikh Yasseen, Mohassan, al-Kanamat, al-Sina’a, al-Amal, al-Haweeqa, al-Ayyash, the Ghassan Aboud neighborhood, al-Tayyim Oil Fields and the Deir ez-Zor military airport. In Hasakah Province – Hasakah city itself, al-Qamishli, Regiment 121 and its environs, the Kawkab and Abdel-Aziz Mountains. In Raqqa, the Islamic State’s capital in Syria, the SAA combatted ISIS in Division 17, Brigade 93 and Tabaqa Airbase. In Hama Province, the entire al-Salamiyah District – Ithriyah, Sheikh Hajar, Khanasser. In the province of Homs, the eastern countryside: Palmyra, Sukaneh, Quraytayn, Mahin, Sadad, Jubb al-Ahmar, the T-4 Airbase and the Iraqi border crossing. In Suweida, the northern countryside.

If anything, the Russian intervention has assisted the Syrian state in going on the offensive against ISIS and other like-minded terror groups. Before Russia moved in, the SAA was hunkering down in and around key strategic areas to protect these hubs. Today, Syria and its allies are hitting targets by land and air in the kinds of coordinated offensives we have not seen before.

Seeding ‘propaganda’

The role of propaganda and carefully manipulated narratives should not be underestimated in laying the groundwork for foreign military intervention in Syria.

From “the dictator is killing his own people” to the “regime is using chemical weapons” to the need to establish “No Fly Zones” to safeguard “refugees fleeing Assad”…propaganda has been liberally used to build the justification for foreign military intervention.

Article 2 of the UN Charter states, in part:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

It’s hard to see how Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity has not been systematically violated throughout the nearly five years of this conflict, by the very states that make up the US-led coalition. The US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, the UAE and other nations have poured weapons, funds, troops and assistance into undermining a UN member state at every turn.

“Legitimacy” is the essential foundation upon which governance rests. Vilify a sitting government, shut down multiple embassies, isolate a regime in international forums, and you can destroy the fragile veneer of legitimacy of a king, president or prime minister.

But efforts to delegitimize the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad have also served to lay the groundwork for coalition airstrikes in Syria.

If Assad is viewed to lack “legitimacy,” the coalition creates the impression that there is no real government from which it can gain the necessary authority to launch its airstrikes.

This mere ‘impression’ provided the pretext for Washington to announce it was sending 50 Special Forces troops into Syria, as though the US wasn’t violating every tenet of international law in doing so. “It’s okay – there’s no real government there,”we are convinced.

Media reports repeatedly highlight the ‘percentages’ of territory outside the grasp of Syrian government forces – this too serves a purpose. One of the essentials of a state is that it consists of territory over which it governs.

If only 50 percent of Syria is under government control, the argument goes, “then surely we can just walk into the other ‘ungoverned’ parts” – as when US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford and US Senator John McCain just strolled illegally across the border of the sovereign Syrian state.

Sweep aside these ‘impressions’ and bury them well. The Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad is viewed by the United Nations as the only legitimate government in Syria. Every official UN interaction with the state is directed at this government. The Syrian seat at the UN is occupied by Ambassador Bashar al-Jaafari, a representative of Assad’s government. It doesn’t matter how many Syrian embassies in how many capitals are shut down – or how many governments-in-exile are established. The UN only recognizes one.

As one UN official told me in private: “Control of surface territory doesn’t count. The government of Kuwait when its entire territory was occupied by Iraq – and it was in exile – was still the legitimate government of Kuwait. The Syrian government could have 10 percent of its surface left – the decision of the UN Security Council is all that matters from the perspective of international law, even if other governments recognize a new Syrian government.”

Countdown to more illegal airstrikes?

If there was any lingering doubt about the illegality of coalition activities in Syria, the Syrian government put these to rest in September, in two letters to the UNSC that denounced foreign airstrikes as unlawful:

If any State invokes the excuse of counter-terrorism in order to be present on Syrian territory without the consent of the Syrian Government whether on the country’s land or in its airspace or territorial waters, its action shall be considered a violation of Syrian sovereignty.

Yet still, upon the adoption of UNSC Resolution 2249 last Friday, US Deputy Representative to the United Nations Michele Sison insisted that “in accordance with the UN Charter and its recognition of the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense,” the US would use “necessary and proportionate military action” in Syria.

The website for the European Journal of International Law (EJIL) promptly pointed out the obvious:

The resolution is worded so as to suggest there is Security Council support for the use of force against IS. However, though the resolution, and the unanimity with which it was adopted, might confer a degree of legitimacy on actions against IS, the resolution does not actually authorize any actions against IS, nor does it provide a legal basis for the use of force against IS either in Syria or in Iraq.

On Thursday, UK Prime Minister David Cameron plans to unveil his new “comprehensive strategy” to tackle ISIS, which we are told will include launching airstrikes in Syria.

We already know the legal pretext he will spin – “unwilling and unable,” Article 51, UN Charter, individual and collective self-defense, and so forth.

But if Cameron’s September 7 comments at the House of Commons are any indication, he will use the following logic to argue that the UK has no other choice than to resort to ‘use of force’ in Syria.  In response to questions about two illegal drone attacks targeting British nationals in Syria, the prime minister emphasized:

These people were in a part of Syria where there was no government, no one to work with, and no other way of addressing this threat…When we are dealing with people in ISIL-dominated Syria—there is no government, there are no troops on the ground—there is no other way of dealing with them than the route that we took.

But Cameron does have another route available to him – and it is the only ‘legal’ option for military involvement in Syria.

If the UK’s intention is solely to degrade and destroy ISIS, then it must request authorization from the Syrian government to participate in a coordinated military campaign that could help speed up the task.

If Western (and allied Arab) leaders can’t stomach dealing with the Assad government on this issue, then by all means work through an intermediary – like the Russians – who can coordinate and authorize military operations on behalf of their Syrian ally.

The Syrian government has said on multiple occasions that it welcomes sincere international efforts to fight terrorism inside its territory. But these efforts must come under the direction of a central legal authority that can lead a broad campaign on the ground and in the air.

The West argues that, unlike in Iraq, it seeks to maintain the institutions of the Syrian state if Assad were to step down. The SAA is one of these ‘institutions’ – why not coordinate with it now?

But after seven weeks of Russian airstrikes coordinated with extensive ground troops (which the coalition lacks), none of these scenarios may even be warranted. ISIS and other extremist groups have lost ground in recent weeks, and if this trend continues, coalition states should fall back and focus on other key ISIS-busting activities referenced in UNSCR 2249 – squeezing terror financing, locking down key borders, sharing intelligence…”all necessary measures” to destroy this group.

If the ‘international community’ wants to return ‘peace and stability’ to the Syrian state, it seems prudent to point out that its very first course of action should be to stop breaking international law in Syria.

Sharmine Narwani is a commentator and analyst of Middle East geopolitics. She is a former senior associate at St. Antony’s College, Oxford University and has a master’s degree in International Relations from Columbia University. Sharmine has written commentary for a wide array of publications, including Al Akhbar English, the New York Times, the Guardian, Asia Times Online, Salon.com, USA Today, the Huffington Post, Al Jazeera English, BRICS Post and others. You can follow her on Twitter at @snarwani

How Turkey Exports ISIS Oil To The World: The Scientific Evidence

Over the course of the last four or so weeks, the media has paid quite a bit of attention to Islamic State’s lucrative trade in “stolen” crude.

On November 16, in a highly publicized effort, US warplanes destroyed 116 ISIS oil trucks in Syria. 45 minutes prior, leaflets were dropped advising drivers (who Washington is absolutely sure are not ISIS members themselves) to “get out of [their] trucks and run away.”

The peculiar thing about the US strikes is that it took The Pentagon nearly 14 months to figure out that the most effective way to cripple Islamic State’s oil trade is to bomb… the oil.

Prior to November, the US “strategy” revolved around bombing the group’s oil infrastructure. As it turns out, that strategy was minimally effective at best and it’s not entirely clear that an effort was made to inform The White House, Congress, and/or the public about just how little damage the airstrikes were actually inflicting. There are two possible explanations as to why Centcom may have sought to make it sound as though the campaign was going better than it actually was, i) national intelligence director James Clapper pulled a Dick Cheney and pressured Maj. Gen. Steven Grove into delivering upbeat assessments, or ii) The Pentagon and the CIA were content with ineffectual bombing runs because intelligence officials were keen on keeping Islamic State’s oil revenue flowing so the group could continue to operate as a major destabilizing element vis-a-vis the Assad regime.

Ultimately, Russia cried foul at the perceived ease with which ISIS transported its illegal oil and once it became clear that Moscow was set to hit the group’s oil convoys, the US was left with virtually no choice but to go along for the ride. Washington’s warplanes destroyed another 280 trucks earlier this week. Russia claims to have vaporized more than 1,000 transport vehicles in November.

Of course the most intriguing questions when it comes to Islamic State’s $400 million+ per year oil business, are: where does this oil end up and who is facilitating delivery? In an effort to begin answering those questions we wrote:

Turkey’s role in facilitating the sale of Islamic State oil has been the subject of some debate for quite a while. From “NATO is harbouring the Islamic State: Why France’s brave new war on ISIS is a sick joke, and an insult to the victims of the Paris attacks“, by Nafeez Ahmed:

“Turkey has played a key role in facilitating the life-blood of ISIS’ expansion: black market oil sales. Senior political and intelligence sources in Turkey and Iraq confirm that Turkish authorities have actively facilitated ISIS oil sales through the country. Last summer, Mehmet Ali Ediboglu, an MP from the main opposition, the Republican People’s Party, estimated the quantity of ISIS oil sales in Turkey at about $800 million—that was over a year ago. By now, this implies that Turkey has facilitated over $1 billion worth of black market ISIS oil sales to date.”

Here’s what former CHP lawmaker Ali Ediboglu said last year:

“$800 million worth of oil that ISIS obtained from regions it occupied this year [the Rumeilan oil fields in northern Syria — and most recently Mosul] is being sold in Turkey. They have laid pipes from villages near the Turkish border at Hatay. Similar pipes exist also at [the Turkish border regions of] Kilis, Urfa and Gaziantep. They transfer the oil to Turkey and parlay it into cash. They take the oil from the refineries at zero cost. Using primitive means, they refine the oil in areas close to the Turkish border and then sell it via Turkey. This is worth $800 million.”

Earlier this month, Ediboglu told Russian media that “ISIL holds the key to these deposits and together with a certain group of persons, consisting of those close to Barzani and some Turkish businessmen, they are engaged in selling this oil” (“Barzani” is a reference to Masoud Barzani, President of the Iraqi Kurdistan Region).

But even as Turkey’s ties to the ISIS oil trade have been hiding in plain sight for the better part of two years, the Western media largely ignores the issue (or at least the scope of it and the possible complicity of the Erdogan government) because after all, Turkey is a NATO member.

Unfortunately for Ankara, Erdogan’s move to shoot down a Russian Su-24 near the Syrian border on Tuesday prompted an angry Vladimir Putin to throw Turkey under the ISIS oil bus for the entire world to see. Here’s what Putin said yesterday after a meeting in Moscow with French President Francois Hollande:

“Vehicles, carrying oil, lined up in a chain going beyond the horizon. The views resemble a living oil pipe stretched from ISIS and rebel controlled areas of Syria into Turkey. Day and night they are going to Turkey. Trucks always go there loaded, and back from there – empty. We are talking about a commercial-scale supply of oil from the occupied Syrian territories seized by terrorists. It is from these areas [that oil comes from], and not with any others. And we can see it from the air, where these vehicles are going.”

“We assume that the top political leadership of Turkey might not know anything about this [illegal oil trade although that’s] hard to believe,” Putin continued, adding that “if the top political leadership doesn’t know anything about this, let them find out.”

Obviously, Putin is being sarcastic. He very clearly believes that the Erdogan government is heavily involved in the transport and sale of ISIS crude. In the immediate aftermath of the Su-24 incident, Putin said the following about Ankara:

  • PUTIN: OIL FROM ISLAMIC STATE IS BEING SHIPPED TO TURKEY
  • PUTIN SAYS ISLAMIC STATE GETS CASH BY SELLING OIL TO TURKEY

As part of our continuing effort to track and document the ISIS oil trade, we present the following excerpts from a study by George Kiourktsoglou, Visiting Lecturer, University of Greenwich, London and Dr Alec D Coutroubis, Principal Lecturer, University of Greenwich, London. The paper, entitled “ISIS Gateway To Global Crude Oil Markets,” looks at tanker charter rates from the port of Ceyhan in an effort to determine if Islamic State crude is being shipped from Southeast Turkey.

*  *  *

From “ISIS Gateway To Global Crude Oil Markets

The tradesmen/smugglers responsible for the transportation and sale of the black gold send convoys of up to thirty trucks to the extraction sites of the commodity. They settle their trades with ISIS on site, encouraged by customer friendly discounts and deferred payment schemes.  In this way, crude leaves Islamic State-run wells promptly and travels through insurgent-held parts of Syria, Iraq and Turkey.

Since allied U.S. air-raids do not target the truck lorries out of fear of provoking a backlash from locals, the transport operations are being run efficiently, taking place most of times in broad daylight. Traders lured by high profits are active in Syria (even in government-held territories), Iraq and south-east Turkey.

The supply chain comprises the following localities: Sanliura, Urfa, Hakkari, Siirt, Batman, Osmaniya, Gaziantep, Sirnak, Adana, Kahramarmaras, Adiyaman and Mardin. The string of trading hubs ends up in Adana, home to the major tanker shipping port of Ceyhan. 


Ceyhan is a city in south-eastern Turkey, with a population of 110,000 inhabitants, of whom 105,000 live in the major metropolitan area. It is the second most developed and most populous city of Adana Province, after the capital Adana with a population of 1,700,000. It is situated on the Ceyhan River which runs through the city and it is located 43 km east of Adana. Ceyhan is the transportation hub for Middle Eastern, Central Asian and Russian oil and natural gas (Municipality of Ceyhan 2015).

The port of Ceyhan plays host to a marine oil terminal that is situated in the Turkish Mediterranean and has been operating since 2006. It receives hydrocarbons for further loading in tankers, which carry the commodity to world markets.

Additionally, the port features a cargo pier and an oil-terminal, both of 23.2m depth that can load tankers of more than 500 feet in length (Ports.com 2015). The annual export capacity of the terminal runs as high as 50 million tonnes of oil. The terminal is operated by Botas International Limited (BIL), a Turkish state company that also operates the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline on the territory of Turkey. 

The quantities of crude oil that are being exported to the terminal in Ceyhan, exceed the mark of one million barrels per day. Putting this number into context and given that ISIS has never been able to trade daily more than 45,000 barrels of oil (see Section 2, ‘The Upstream Oil Business of ISIS’, page 2), it becomes evident that the detection of similar quantities of smuggled crude cannot take place through stock-accounting methods. However, the authors of the present paper believe that there is another proxy-indicator, far more sensitive to quantities of ultracheap smuggled crude. This is the charter rates for tankers loading at Ceyhan.

The Baltic Exchange (2015 a) tracks the charter rates on major seaborne trading routes of crude oil. To render its service more efficient and easily understood, it uses the system of Baltic Dirty Tanker Indices (Baltic Exchange 2015 b). One of these indices used to be the BDTI TD 11, 80,000 Cross Mediterranean from Baniyas, Syria to Laveras, France (see Map VI). Route 11 was discontinued in September 2011, due to Syria’s civil war and soon thereafter, it was replaced by BDTI TD 19 (TD19-TCE_Calculation 2015), of exactly the same technical specifications as BDTI TD 11, with the exception of the loading port of Ceyhan instead of Baniyas.

From July 2014 until February 2015, the curve of TD 19 features three unusual spikes that do not match the trends featured by the rest of the Middle East trade-routes (see Graph IV):

  1. The first spike develops from the 10th of July 2014 until the 21st, lasting approximately ten days. It coincides with the fall of Syria’s largest oil field, the AlOmar, in the hands of ISIS (Reuters 2014);
  2. The second spike takes place from the end of October until the end of November 2014, lasting one month. It happens at the same time with fierce fighting between fundamentalists and the Syrian army over the control of the Jhar and Mahr gas fields, as well as the Hayyan gas company in the east of Homs province (International Business Times 2014; Albawada News 214);
  3. The third spike lasts from the end of January 2015 until the 10th of February, stretching roughly ten days. It happens simultaneously with a sustained US-led campaign of airstrikes pounding ISIS strongholds in and around the town of Hawija east of the oil-rich Kirkuk (Rudaw 2015);

 

The authors of this paper would like to make it clear from the very beginning that this has not been the case of a ‘smoking gun’. The evidence has been inconclusive. But even if volumes of ISIS crude found their way, beyond any reasonable doubt, to the international crude oil markets via the Ceyhan terminal, this fact would not conclusively point to collusion between the Turkish authorities and the shadow network of smugglers, let alone ISIS operatives.

However, having clarified such a politically sensitive issue, the authors believe that there are strong hints to an illicit supply chain that ships ISIS crude from Ceyhan. Primary research points to a considerably active shadow network of crude oil smugglers and traders (see section 2.1, page 3), who channel ISIS crude to southeast Turkey from northeast Syria and northwest Iraq. Given the existence of Route E 90, the corresponding transportation of oil poses no unsurmountable geographic and topological challenges.

An additional manifestation of the invisible nexus between Ceyhan and ISIS became evident through the concurrent study of the tanker charter rates from the port and the timeline of the terrorists’ military engagements (see section 3.4 on this page). It seems that whenever the Islamic State is fighting in the vicinity of an area hosting oil assets, the 13 exports from Ceyhan promptly spike. This may be attributed to an extra boost given to crude oil smuggling with the aim of immediately generating additional funds, badly needed for the supply of ammunition and military equipment. Unfortunately, in this case too, the authors cannot be categorical.

*  *  *

No, it can’t be categorical and frankly, if the authors claimed to have discovered indisputable proof, we would be immediately skeptical. What they have done however, is identify a statistical anomaly and develop a plausible theory to explain it.

The key thing to note, is that this is a state-run terminal and it certainly seems as though charter rates spike around significant oil-related events involving Islamic State. Indeed, the fact that the authors mention collusion between Turkish authorities and ISIS operatives (even if they do so on the way to hedging their conclusions) indicates that the researchers think such a partnership is possible.

Finally, note that Ceyhan is less than two hours by car from Incirlik air base from which the US is flying anti-ISIS sorties. In other words, ISIS oil is being shipped to the world right down the road from Washington’s preferred Mid-East forward operating base.

Now that we can add what looks like quantitative evidence that ISIS oil is shipped from Turkey to the voluminous qualitative evidence supplied by ex-Turkish lawmakers, investigative reporters, and the Russian government (to name just a few sources), we can now proceed to consider one final question: where does the crude that helps to fund Bakr al-Baghdadi’s caliphate ultimately end up? More on that over the weekend.

——————————————————————————-

Turkish officers arrested for ‘treason’ after intercepting weapons destined for Syria

Demonstrators shout slogans during a protest outside the headquarters of Cumhuriyet newspaper whose editor-in-chief Can Dundar was arrested on charges of espionage and terrorist propaganda, in Istanbul, Turkey, November 29, 2015. © Osman Orsal
Three Turkish officers, involved in the inspection of an intelligence agency’s weapons-filled trucks, allegedly destined for Syrian terror groups, have been arrested on treason and espionage charges. Meanwhile journalists who broke the news face similar charges.

On Saturday, police detained Ankara Gendarmerie Regional Commander Major General Ibrahim Aydin, former Adana Gendarmerie Regional Commander Brigadier General Hamza Celepoglu and former Gendarmerie Criminal Laboratory Head Colonel Burhanettin Cihangiroglu. An Istanbul court ruled in favor of their arrest shortly after midnight, in the early hours of Monday morning, according to local media.D MORE: ‘Oxygen for jihadists’: ISIS-smuggled oil flows through Turkey to intl markets – Iraqi MP

 

Security officials are facing “spying” charges over an incident in January 2014, when Gendarmerie intercepted trucks belonging to Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization (MIT).

An inspection of the trucks exposed large quantities of munitions being transported to Syria. After opening a metal container bearing a ‘FRAGILE’ mark, the inspectors found munitions hidden in crates under boxes of medicine.

The information caught public attention in May 2015, when the website of the Cumhuriyet media outlet posted footage of MIT trucks being inspected by security officers. The paper reported that altogether, in that particular run, MIT trucks had been carrying over 80,000 rounds of ammunition of different calibers, some 1,000 mortar shells and hundreds of munitions for grenade launchers.

The arrests of Gendarmerie officers comes shortly after a court in Istanbul demanded the arrest of two Cumhuriyet journalists for exposing contacts between Turkish intelligence and Syrian terror groups.

On Thursday a Turkish prosecutor requested the arrest of the editor-in-chief of Cumhuriyet newspaper, Can Dundar, and Cumhuriyet’s representative in Ankara, Erdem Gul, charging them with espionage and treason over a report published back in May that revealed that Turkish weapons were being transferred to Syria by Turkey’s intelligence agency. The journalists are now facing up to 45 years in prison.

Those who sent the convoy from Turkey knew that the weapons were “heading to end [up] in ISIS hands,” one of the Cumhuriyet journalists told RT.

Turkish officials made contradictory statements after the paper first blew the whistle, initially saying that the arms then denying the delivery altogether, and then saying the “aid was destined for the Turkmen.”

According to Damascus, Ankara has increased weapon, ammunition and equipment shipments to the terrorist groups operating in Syria in exchange for oil and antiquities looted by Islamic State terrorists.

“Turkey helps terrorists due to ideological reasons, thinking that these terrorist groups are successors to the Ottoman Empire,” said Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem while visiting Moscow. “Turkey provides terrorists with weapons, logistical support, medical care and even shelter.”

———————————————————————————–

1 Journalist Dead, 3 More Arrested After Exposing Turkey Arming Syrian Extremists

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Claire Bernish via TheAntiMedia.org,

Just over a week after Cumhuriyet Editor-in-Chief, Can Dündar, represented the Turkish daily news outlet in receiving a press freedom award, he and another top editor were arrested and jailed on charges of espionage. In question was a controversial article exposing arms shipments from Turkish intelligence to Syrian extremist rebels.

“We have been arrested,” tweeted Dündar on Thursday. “Don’t worry, these are medals of honor for us.”

He explained further: “We are accused of ‘spying.’ The president said ‘treason.’ We are not traitors, spy [sic], or heroes; we are journalists. What we have done here is an act of journalism,” said Dündar before testifying on Thursday. “Of course, this prosecution will help enlighten how these incidents took place, rather than how we covered this story.”

Now a third Turkish journalist has been arrested, according to local reports. Ertu?rul Özkök, a reporter for Turkish daily Hüriyet, has been arrested for a slanderous criticism of who is presumed to be Erdo?an — even though the president wasn’t explicitly named anywhere in Özkök’s article. As if more evidence of Turkey’s quashing free press and free speech were needed , Özkök potentially faces five years and four months in prison for expressing this opinion.

Dündar and Ankara correspondent, Erdem Gül, if found guilty on charges of spying, as well as aiding a terrorist organization, could spend the rest of their lives in a Turkish prison — for doing their job. There is a painfully ironic undercurrent in the charges considering the subject of the article is the Erdo?an administration’s complicity in arming Syrian extremists (read: terrorists).

Erdo?an himself sued Dündar and accused Cumhuriyet of releasing false information and spying when the story first exploded, stating at the time the journalist responsible would “pay a heavy price,” as the Wall Street Journal reported.

Despite Cunhuriyet’s recent honor from Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF, or Reporters Without Borders), under the paranoid, watchful eye of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdo?an, journalists — and dissenters — have faced sweeping general censorship. Dündar and Gül might be the most prominent recent examples of Erdo?an’s attempt to keep “state secrets” concealed from public scrutiny, but they’re not the first journalists to poke this particular sore spot.

In fact, the last time a reporter tried to expose Turkey’s complicity in arming Syrian extremists, she met an untimely and as-yet unexplained death under seriously suspicious circumstances that remain inscrutable to this day — even to her own family.

PressTV reporter Serena Shim, a U.S. citizen, had been investigating the flow of anti-Assad militants and weapons from Turkey’s border region into northwestern Syria amidst heavy fighting near the town of Kobanî. During this time, she attracted the attention of Turkish Intelligence (MiT — Millî ?stihbarat Te?kilat?). Though locals knew her and the integrity of her reporting, MiT proceeded to question them and requested her whereabouts — under the unfounded guise Shim had been acting as a spy.

In reality, Shim had uncovered evidence of secret Western assistance to the Islamic State” — a particularly touchy subject for Erdo?an, as seen in the arrests of Dünbar and Gül. Her video evidence of this assistance — reportedly “proof of Islamic State terrorists using United Nations World Food Program vehicles for a convoy” into Syria, likely akin to Dünbar and Gül’s discovery — has never been recovered. Her passport and wedding ring, seized by Turkish authorities sometime after her death, have never been returned to her family.

Serena Shim and her cousin, cameraperson Judy Irish, unlike the arguably more fortunate Dünbar and Gül, were ostensibly “hit by a truck after turning into the opposite lane on a highway access road,” as reported in wtfrly.com. Shim was killed, though discrepancies are plentiful in official reports, including whether she died at the scene or an hour later from heart failure in the hospital. Shim and Irish were inexplicably taken to hospitals over 25 miles apart from each other by Turkish military officials, not police, who ‘investigated’ the wreck. After outrage from Shim’s family, Turkish authorities — who first claimed they were unable to locate the vehicle responsible for hitting Shim and Irish — eventually produced photos of the accident, which they then claimed had been caused by a cement truck driver.

Shim’s family has yet to receive answers from either Turkish or U.S. authorities about her dubious demise. On October 20, 2014, Marie Harf of the State Department took questions from the press on a number of subjects, including rumors surrounding Shim’s death. According to the transcript:

QUESTION: Does the U.S. have any comment on reports the death of U.S. citizen Serena Shim in Turkey may be more than just a car crash, following her reports that ISIS militants are being smuggled across the Syrian border?

HARF: Yes. We can confirm that she died in Turkey on October 19th and extend our deepest condolences to her family and friends. Officials from the U.S. Consulate General in Adana are in contact with her family and providing all possible consular assistance. For any details or information about the investigation, I think local authorities in Turkey are handling that.

QUESTION: But I mean, the question was whether you believe that her death had anything other than to do than [sic] a car crash.

 

HARF: I just don’t have anything further for you than that.

 

QUESTION: Can you take the question?

 

HARF: I can, but I don’t think I’m going to have anything further.

On November 20th, the media again attempted to press for answers about Shim’s death during a daily briefing given by Jeff Rathke. Per the transcript:

QUESTION: It’s about the journalist Serena Shim, who died in Turkey under very suspicious circumstances. Did her death raise suspicions here at the State Department?

 

RATHKE: Well, I think we’ve spoken to this in the briefing room several weeks ago, after it happened. I don’t have anything to add to what the spokesperson said at the time, though.

 

QUESTION: But then she died several days after she claimed she had been threatened by the Turkish intelligence. Have you inquired about this? Have you asked questions? Is there really nothing new about this?

 

RATHKE: Well, I just don’t have any update to share with you. Again, this was raised shortly after her death. The spokesperson addressed it. I don’t have an update to share with you at this time.

This icy response sharply contrasts that given by the State for other ‘American’ journalists killed or captured in the area for whom President Obama’s administration appeared to react with care and criticism, such as with James Foley(who was beheaded by ISIS).

U.S. State Dept. spokesperson Mark Toner released a statement on Thursday concerning the arrests of Dünbar and Gül:

“We are troubled by the pre-trial arrest yesterday of senior editors of the respected Turkish newspaper Cumhuriyet.

 

“The investigation, criminal charges, and arrest raise serious concerns about the Turkish government’s commitment to the fundamental principle of media freedom. These events are only the latest in a series of judicial and law enforcement actions taken under questionable circumstances against Turkish media outlets critical of the government.

 

“We call on Turkish authorities to ensure that all individuals and organizations — including but not limited to the media — are free to voice a full range of opinions and criticism, in accordance with Turkey’s constitutional guarantees of media freedom and freedom of expression.”

Most troubling in the silencing of Shim, Dünbar, Gül, and now Özkök are the very real consequences the verity of their reports of the Erdo?an government’s complicity in arming and aiding the Islamic State could have in NATO operations in the region. Should their separate, same discoveries have merit — and considering Erdo?an’s swift and heavy-handed reaction, they likely do — Turkey’s agenda stands at cross purposes with the supposed coalition goal of stunting ISIS. Even Vice President Joe Biden implicated Turkish involvement in the ISIS arms trade, though he apologized and essentially recanted that claim shortly afterwards.

Shortly after Shim’s mysterious death, the Daily Mail revealed video of Turkish border police having friendly interactions with ISIS fighters — apparently further evidence supporting the journalists’ claims.

The U.S. and other allies of Turkey quickly reacted in solidarity with the recent downing of a Russian jet that apparently breached Turkish air space — but is it possible that alliance isn’t as committed to ending ISIS’ growth as it purports to be? Though mostly unstated by the media and State, it has been widely and critically rumored U.S. involvement in the Syrian imbroglio has far more to do with deposing President Bashar al-Assad than leveling the burgeoning Islamic State.

In one of Shim’s final reports from her investigation, she revealed local Turkish populations near the Syrian border simply want an end to fighting. She disclosed many refugee camps in that border region were, in actuality, training camps for militants.

In interviews with local residents, it became clear Erdo?an’s stance on Assad — whom they claim the president used to call “our brother” — sharply reversed after consulting with U.S. officials.

According to Shim, locals stated, “We want Turkey and Syria to be friends again. We want the Syrian militants outside of Turkey’s territory.” She also explained locals “blame their government for the entire chaos taking place across the border [in Syria], calling their Prime Minister a ‘puppet of Israel and the United States.’”

Shim’s family is still waiting for information from the U.S. about her death. Judy Irish survived the deadly ‘accident,’ but so far has not come forward with any public statements about the incident. Press freedom in Turkey, meanwhile, has become a bit of an oxymoron.

Perhaps Voltaire said it best:

“To determine the true rulers of any society, all you must do is ask yourself this question: Who is it that I am not permitted to criticize?”

————————————————————————————

29 NOVEMBER 2015

EU Reaches Deal With Turkey, Will Pay €3 Billion To Stem Refugee Outflow But Not Everyone Wants To Pay Up

Tyler Durden's picture

As previewed earlier today, moments ago the EU and Turkey reached a deal in which Europe would give Erdogan another €3 billion to be embezzled accordingly (perhaps to buy more tankers for Erdogan’s son with which to ferry ISIS oil, or to build a new annex for his palace, or just to recycle the money and purchase even more F-16s from the US), in exchange for which Turkey would promise to close its borders to millions of outpouring Syrian refugees and agree to accept deported refugees already located in Europe.

Furthermore, as part of Turkey’s long-running accession process into the EU, the republic where any journalist who disagrees with the president is promptly arrested, the European Commission has agreed to relax the visa requirements for Turkish citizens going into Schengen. Which is ironic considering Europe is selectively and actively putting up barriers to its own citizens within the customs union, and it remains to be seen if there even is a Schengen one year from now.

Meanwhile, the two Turkish journalists charged with “spying” over their reports about Ankara’s alleged arms supplies to Syrian rebels urged the EU on Saturday not to compromise on human rights and press freedom as it looks to Turkey to help stem Europe’s migrant crisis.

Writing from the Silivri prison near Istanbul, the opposition Cumhuriyet daily’s editor-in-chief Can Dundar and Ankara bureau chief Erdem Gul said they hoped the meeting would produce a lasting solution to the crisis “that has concerned and touched all our hearts.”

 

But they added: “We would also hope that your desire to end the crisis will not stand in the way of your sensitivity towards human rights, freedom of press and expression as fundamental values of the Western world.

 

“The Prime Minister of Turkey, whom you will meet this weekend, and the regime he represents are well known for policies and practices that have flouted human rights and freedom of the press,” they said.

 

The letter was addressed to EU leaders as well as German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Francois Hollande and the British Prime Minister David Cameron.

The letter and their pleas landed on deaf ears.

The terms of the deal are largely as we noted previously, with the European Union agreeing on a three-billion-euro ($3.2-billion) aid package for Syrian refugees in Turkey, EU president Donald Tusk said after a summit in Brussels on Sunday. “Our agreement sets out a clear plan for the timely re-establishment of order at our shared frontier. We will also step up our assistance to Syrian refugees in Turkey through a new refugee facility of three billion euros,” Tusk told a press conference with Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu.

Curiously, the EU appears to have steamrolled over at least some states’ objections as seen in the following text released by the commission, in which it says that “the preparatory work for the opening of a number of chapters without prejudice to the position of Member States.

Indeed as some noted after the presser, it was clear that at least one or more states were not too eager to “chip in”:

More from AFP:

The EU also agreed to open a new chapter in Turkey’s stalled bid for membership of the bloc in exchange for Turkey’s cooperation in reducing the flow of refugees and migrants, Tusk said.

 

Visa requirements for Turkish citizens visiting the EU’s passport-free Schengen area would also be relaxed by October 2016, he said. Brussels would “monitor closely at least once a month” the progress being made by Turkey, Tusk added.

 

Davutoglu said the deal would “re-energise” Turkey’s EU accession process, which has made little headway since it started in 2005.

 

“This is a historic day and a historic meeting, the first meeting of this kind since 11 years,” the Turkish premier added.

 

“No one can guarantee anything on the Syrian issue, we don’t know what will go on in Syria, but I can assure that Turkey will be fulfilling all the promises of the joint plan. Our purpose with the EU is to prevent new waves of refugees from Syria and to manage the existing refugee crisis,” he said.

 

“This three billion euros is to be spent for refugees in Turkey, it’s not for Turkey.”

Actually, the money will be embezzled within moments of being wired over by the country’s unaccountable despotic ruler, and any Turkish journalist who points this out will be immediately branded a spy traitor and charged with treason.

The full European Commission statement is below:

Meeting of heads of state or government with Turkey – EU-Turkey statement, 29/11/2015Today the Leaders of the

  1. Today the Leaders of the European Union met in Brussels with their Turkish counterpart. Turkey has been a candidate since 1999 and negotiating for accession since 2005. 
  2. Turkey and the EU discussed the importance of overcoming the common challenges ahead. In line with the conclusions of the European Council of 15 October, they agreed that the accession process needs to be re-energized. They are committed to carry further their existing ties and solidarity and adopt result-oriented action to prepare their common future. They are determined to confront and surmount the existing risks and threats in a concerted manner to reinforce the European Project. Recalling the final declaration of the last G20 in Antalya, as well as the 2249 UNSC resolution, Turkey and the EU reaffirm that the fight against terrorism remains a priority.
  3. For this purpose it was agreed that a structured and more frequent high-level dialogue is essential to explore the vast potential of Turkey-EU relations, which has not been realised fully yet. In this framework, both sides agreed to have regular Summits twice a year, in an appropriate format. Regular summits will provide a platform to assess the development of Turkey-EU relations and discuss international issues. Regular discussions and cooperation on foreign and security policy should be enhanced including on counter-terrorism against the background of serious security challenges notably the rising threat of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. In this context, the two sides agreed to have comprehensive regular political dialogue meetings at Ministerial/High Representative/Commissioner level. These will be in addition to the regular Association Council meetings. High level dialogues should also be conducted on key thematic issues.
  4. Both sides welcomed the announcement to hold the Intergovernmental Conference on 14 December 2015 for opening of chapter 17. Furthermore, they noted the European Commission’s commitment to complete, in the first quarter of 2016, the preparatory work for the opening of a number of chapters without prejudice to the position of Member States. Preparatory work could subsequently begin also on further chapters.
  5. The EU welcomed the commitment by Turkey to accelerate the fulfilment of the Visa Roadmap benchmarks vis-à-vis all participating Member States. The European Commission will present the second progress report on the implementation by Turkey of the visa liberalisation roadmap by early March 2016. Both sides agree that the EU-Turkey readmission agreement will become fully applicable from June 2016 in order for the Commission to be able to present its third progress report in autumn 2016 with a view to completing the visa liberalisation process i.e. the lifting of visa requirements for Turkish citizens in the Schengen zone by October 2016 once the requirements of the Roadmap are met.
  6. The EU will provide immediate and continuous humanitarian assistance in Turkey. It will also expand significantly its overall financial support. A Refugee Facility for Turkey was established by the Commission to coordinate and streamline actions financed in order to deliver efficient and complementary support to Syrians under temporary protection and host communities in Turkey. The EU is committed to provide an initial 3 billion euro of additional resources. The need for and nature of this funding will be reviewed in the light of the developing situation. As Turkey hosts more than 2.2 million Syrians and as it has spent 8 billion US Dollars, the EU thus underlined the importance of burden-sharing within the framework of Turkey-EU cooperation. In this context, they underlined the contribution by Member State and existing EU resettlement schemes and programmes.
  7. Turkey and the EU have decided to activate the Joint Action Plan that had been agreed until now ad referenda on 15 October 2015, to step up their cooperation for support of Syrians under temporary protection and migration management to address the crisis created by the situation in Syria. Results must be achieved in particular in stemming the influx of irregular migrants. The EU and Turkey agreed to implement the Joint Action Plan which will bring order into migratory flows and help to stem irregular migration.  As a consequence, both sides will, as agreed and with immediate effect, step up their active cooperation on migrants who are not in need of international protection, preventing travel to Turkey and the EU, ensuring the application of the established bilateral readmission provisions and swiftly returning migrants who are not in need of international protection to their countries of origin. Equally, they welcomed the intention of Turkey to adopt immediately measures to further improve the socio-economic situation of the Syrians under temporary protection. Both sides underlined their shared commitment to take decisive and swift action to enhance the fight against criminal smuggling networks.
  8. As stipulated in the European Council Conclusions on Enlargement of December 2014, Turkey and the EU have been working on the establishment of a High Level Economic Dialogue Mechanism which will contribute to further enhancement of economic relations and create a business platform to bring business circles together. They agreed to launch it in the first quarter of 2016.
  9. They welcomed the establishment of a High Level Energy Dialogue and Strategic Energy Cooperation, which had been launched in Ankara on 16 March 2015. A regular exchange of information on energy cooperation at the global and regional level  serves to the benefit of both sides. They agreed to hold the second meeting of this kind in the first quarter of 2016.
  10. They took note of the launching of preparatory steps for upgrading the Customs Union. After completion of this preparatory work by both sides, formal negotiations could be launched towards the end of 2016.
  11. All these elements will have to be taken forward in parallel and monitored closely. Turkey and the EU are determined to advance together the widespread spectrum of their actual agenda to ensure that this fresh impetus yields concrete results.
———————————————————————————

World | Mon Nov 30, 2015 2:01am EST

Declaring ‘new beginning,’ EU and Turkey seal migrant deal

Turkey promised to help stem the flow of migrants to Europe in return for cash, visas and renewed talks on joining the EU in a deal struck on Sunday that the Turkish prime minister called a “new beginning” for the uneasy neighbors.

Leaders of the European Union met Turkish premier Ahmet Davutoglu in Brussels on Sunday to finalize an agreement hammered out by diplomats over the past month, as Europeans struggle to limit the strain on their 28-nation bloc from taking in hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees.

A key element is 3 billion euros ($3.2 billion) in EU aid for the 2.2 million Syrians now in Turkey. The money is intended to raise their living standards and so persuade more of them to stay put rather than attempt perilous crossings to the EU via the Greek islands.

The final offer of “an initial” 3 billion euros represents a compromise between the EU, which offered that sum over two years, and Turkey, which wanted it every year. Now the money, as French President Francois Hollande said, will be paid out bit by bit as conditions are met, leaving the total payout unclear.

“As Turkey is making an effort to take in refugees — who will not come to Europe — it’s reasonable that Turkey receive help from Europe to accommodate those refugees,” Hollande told reporters. He added that the deal should also make it easier to check migrants arriving and keep out those who pose a threat, like Islamic State militants who struck Paris two weeks ago.

Also on offer to Ankara, which wants to revive relations with its European neighbors after years of coolness as it faces trouble in the Middle East and from Russia, is a “re-energized” negotiating process on Turkish membership of the EU, even if few expect it to join soon.

Many Turks could also benefit from visa-free travel to Europe’s Schengen zone within a year if Turkey meets conditions on tightening its borders in the east to Asian migrants and moves other benchmarks on reducing departures to Europe.

“Today is a historic day in our accession process to the EU,” Davutoglu told reporters on arrival. “I am grateful to all European leaders for this new beginning.”

DESPERATION

Aware of a sense of desperation in Europe for a solution to a crisis that has called into question its own cohesion and the future of its Schengen passport-free travel zone, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan has driven a hard bargain.

The deal involves Turkish help, including through naval patrols and border checks, in handling the flow of migrants to the EU, expected to reach 1.5 million people this year alone.

“Results must be achieved in particular in stemming the influx of irregular migrants,” a joint statement read.

“Both sides will, as agreed and with immediate effect, step up their active cooperation on migrants who are not in need of international protection, preventing travel to Turkey and the EU … and swiftly returning migrants who are not in need of international protection to their countries of origin.”

Summit chairman Donald Tusk stressed that the meeting was primarily about migration rather than improving Turkish ties, which have been strained in recent years as Erdogan has used a powerful electoral mandate to consolidate his power. Critics say he has abused the rights of opponents, media and minority Kurds.

“Our main goal is to stem the flow of migrants,” Tusk said, while insisting “this is not a simple, trivial trade-off”.

The Europeans, none more so than German Chancellor Angela Merkel, are under pressure to manage the biggest influx of people since World War Two, the bulk of them to Germany. The crisis has helped populist opponents and set nations against each other, straining the open internal borders of the EU.

Before the summit itself, Merkel met leaders of some other EU states which have taken in many refugees — Sweden, Finland, Austria and the Benelux countries — and said afterwards they had discussed how they might resettle more of them directly from Syria rather than wait for families to reach the EU via dangerous smuggling routes across the Mediterranean.

She said they had discussed no figures. German media reports had spoken earlier of up to 400,000 Syrians being resettled.

Measures the EU has taken have done little to control migrant movements. While winter weather may lower the numbers for a few months, it is also worsening the plight of tens of thousands stuck by closing borders in the Balkans.

Sunday’s summit, called just days ago as Brussels tried to clinch a deal offered over a month ago, has been complicated by Turkey’s downing of a Russian warplane on the Syrian border.

That has complicated European efforts to re-engage with Moscow, despite a continued frost over Ukraine, in order to try to advance a peace in Syria that could end the flight of refugees and contain Islamic State. Davutoglu will remain in Brussels for a meeting with fellow ministers from NATO.

Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny said tensions between Ankara and Moscow over the downing of the warplane were of “enormous concern”. The EU’s foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said the incident should not affect the prospect of finding a political deal on Syria.

Islamic State’s attack on Paris on Nov. 13 has heightened calls in the EU for more controls on people arriving from Syria.

Merkel has forced the pace in securing a deal with Turkey that has left critics of Erdogan’s human rights policies uneasy.

The German leader defended her stance: “If we are strategic partners, we must of course discuss openly with each other those issues on which we have questions, concerns or criticism.”

(Additional reporting by Sabine Siebold, Gabriela Baczynska, Jan Strupczewski, Alastair Macdonald and Ercan Gurses in Brussels; Writing by Alastair Macdonald; Editing byRichard Balmforth and Hugh Lawson)

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu (L) and European Council President Donald Tusk attend a news conference after a EU-Turkey summit in Brussels, Belgium November 29, 2015.
REUTERS/YVES HERMAN
—————————————————————————————–

14,000 Refugees Due For Deportation From Sweden Have Vanished: “We Simply Do Not Know Where They Are”

Tyler Durden's picture

As part of the just concluded “cash for refugees” deal between the EU Turkey, the FT adds that not only will migrants whose asylum applications are rejected be sent back to Turkey but that this “crackdown on irregular migration would be complemented by a parallel programme offering a legal route to Europe, resettling up to 500,000 Syrian refugees directly from Turkey, Lebanon or Jordan.”

The FT adds that, as expected, “if such an EU-wide scheme were made mandatory it would be flatly opposed by many eastern European countries. To avoid the proposals being blocked, Brussels and Berlin are exploring a “voluntary” scheme with 10 countries willing to take refugees. It is unclear whether other Schengen members would be asked to contribute to the costs of resettlement.”

But before crossing that particular bridge, which will sow even further anger, mistrust and antagonism spread among the member countries of the European “Union”, a bigger question is just how will Europe track down and sequester those refugees that pose the biggest threat in the eyes of authorities, those who are already slated for deportation.

As the following case study from Sweden proves, having once entered Europe, Europe may have problems trying to track down the hundreds of thousands of refugees having already found their way to the continent.

As Sweden’s Afton Bladet reports, over half of all the illegal migrants slated for deportation in Sweden have mysteriously disappeared.

The National Border Police Section reports that of the 21,748 individuals due to be sent home after their asylum applications were turned down, a whopping 14,140 have simply vanished off the police radar. Around a third, or the remaining 7,608, still live and are accounted for in the Swedish Migration Board’s premises or have indicated an address for their own homes. It is not clear if anyone has actually tried following up on said home address to see how many have simply made one up.

Based on a translation of the Swedish report by Breitbart, some are expected to have left the country secretly, “but the majority are thought to still be in Sweden, having fallen through the cracks of the comprehensive welfare state.

The local cops is brutally honest: “We simply do not know where they are”, said Patrik Engstrom, a spokesman for the local police.

This is not the first time refugees have vanished from official supervision: one month ago we reported that roughly 4,000 asylum-seekers who had initially been accomodated by the German state of Lower Saxony had “mysteriously disappeared.” To our knowledge they have still not been found.

Ever the egalitarian paradise, Sweden was as concerned about labor abuse as the current whereabouts of the refugees, and Afton Bladet noted that a number of unscrupulous employers in the country have taken advantage of the invisible migrants, using them as cheap labour off the books, with no wages tax to pay or minimum wage to heed.

The reported goes on to note that while at the start of 2015 the migration bureau was responsible for deporting migrants who failed to gain a visa, the rising tide of migration created new challenges and the job was transferred to the Police in October. The task of deportations was handed over to police because the migration board considered that as the situation deteriorated, “coercion would be necessary” to get migrants to leave. Yet through a severe lack of manpower, resources, and political mandate to take proper action the police have proven unable to handle the job.

Now, even the police is proving helpless at managing the process: “a police spokesman said they simply did not have enough officers, having been ordered this month to become border police as well, enacting government policy to check passports and papers.”

“We have failed because too much of our resources go to reintroduce border controls at internal borders” Patrik Engstrom adds.

Hamstrung by government policy, the border checks have also been a failure, making no significant reduction in the number of migrants crossing into the country daily. Officers were only permitted to make spot checks at the border, and were forbidden to profile individuals on the basis of their ethnicity, language spoken, or skin colour, making effective control impossible.

Finally, even in cases where the police manage to find illegals and send them home, nations such as Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, Eritrea, Lebanon, Morocco and Libya don’t accept their own people back in many cases.

In other words, Europe has unleashed the refugee genie without much thought for the consequences. And now that the “consequences” have arrived and Europe is scrambling to put the genie back into the bottle, to its amazement it has realized that the genie has mostly vanished.

——————————————————————————-

The Events: Rescue Effort – One Russian Marine Killed, Abandoned Russian Helicopter Destroyed On the Ground

One of the two Mi-8 helicopters involved in the operation was damaged by gunfire and made an emergency landing in a neutral area, one contracted marine was killed, Russian General Staff reports

 MOSCOW, November 24. /TASS/. A search and rescue operation involving two Mi-8 helicopters was conducted on Tuesday to evacuate pilots who had ejected themselves from the downed Russian Su-24 bomber in Syria, chief of the main operations department of the Russian General Staff Sergey Rudskoy told journalists on Tuesday.

“One of the helicopters involved in the operation was damaged by gunfire and made an emergency landing in a neutral area,” he said. “One contracted marine was killed. The search and rescue team and the helicopter crew were evacuated and are now at the Hmeymim airbase.

The helicopter was destroyed by mortar fire from a territory controlled by terrorists, Rudskoy said.

The search and rescue operation to save the Su-24 pilots continues, he added.

According to preliminary information, one of the pilots was killed in midair by fire from the ground, he said.

“According to accurate data of objective monitoring, our plane did not cross the Turkish border,” he said. “It is confirmed by the data from Syria’s missile defense system. Moreover, the Hmeymim airfield’s radar surveillance data registered violation of the Syria airspace by the attacking Turkish jet.”

“Presumably, the plane was hit by a short-range missile with an infra-red seeker,” he said. “Objective monitoring devices registered no attempts by the Turkish plane to establish radio or visual contact with our crew. The Su-24 plane was hit by a missile over Syria’s territory. It fell down in the Syrian territory four kilometers off the border.”

A Russian Su-24 frontline bomber was shot down at 10:24 a.m. Moscow time on Tuesday while on a combat mission in Syria by a Turkish F-16 fighter jet.

———————————————————————

US Backed Terrorists Pummeled by Russia in Response to Pilot Murder

Senior Commanders of So-Called FSA Killed in Lattakia

Senior Commanders of So-Called FSA Killed in Lattakia

TEHRAN (FNA) – Three senior commanders of the so-called Free Syrian Army were killed in military operations in Syria’s province of Lattakia. On Wednesday, Rasheed Bikdash, one of “Mujahidin Army” leaders, was killed in clashes with the Syrian army in North of Lattakia.

Sources said Bikdash is the highest-ranking defector from the Syrian army that has been killed in Syria. Abbas Hijazi, the commander of Maher Hijazi Battalion, and Abu Salim Julaq were also killed in Lattakia.

The Syrian Army alongside the country’s National Defense Forces (NDF) on Wednesday continued pushing back the militant groups in Lattakia province and restored full security to at least five more key regions in the Northern part of the coastal province.

The pro-government forces hit hard the militant groups in Por Abdullah region, Ketf al-Hareek, the fifth and sixth hills and Ketf al-Safeh and forced them to retreat the fighting areas after leaving behind scores of dead members.

On Tuesday, the Syrian army, backed by the National Defense Forces, captured a hill and more heights in Lattakia as the army’s march on terrorists’ positions in the coastal province is gathering pace. The Syrian forces regained control of al-Sheikh Mohammed hill and the 1281 R5 height in the Northeastern countryside of Lattakia.

 ____________

Russian Air Force Cutting Off Illegal Deliveries of Oil Products From Syria to Turkey

Russian Air Force Cutting Off Illegal Deliveries of Oil Products From Syria

TEHRAN (FNA) – Russia is cutting off ISIL’s illegal oil flows, Kremlin spokesman noted. Russia’s air group in Syria is severing illegal deliveries of oil products that help finance Turkish backed terrorism, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Wednesday.

“The Russian Air Force operation to support the Syrian army’s offensive against extremist groups and organizations is continuing. Russian planes, combat aircraft continue to operate, terrorist infrastructure is being destroyed. Illegal oil and petroleum product flows, which finance terrorism, are being severed,” Peskov told reporters.

Russian, Syrian Bombers Target Militants’ Positions in Aleppo

Russian, Syrian Bombers Target Militants' Positions in Aleppo

TEHRAN (FNA)- The Syrian and Russian warplanes intensified their airstrikes on the Takfiri militants’ positions in the Southern countryside of Aleppo on Thursday.

The Russian and Syrian bombers targeted the terrorists’ concentration centers in Khan Tuman region, al-Zarbeh, Barqoum and Rasm al-Ais in the Southern countryside of Aleppo.

 

 

Field sources also said guided missiles have been used in attacks on militants’ positions in several areas in Northern Syria. There were no more details available.

On Wednesday, the Syrian fighter jets targeted terrorists’ supply routes and convoy of vehicles in the Province of Aleppo. The Syrian airstrikes hit a convoy of terrorists’ vehicles and Takfiris’ supply routes in Enjara and Daret Ezza in Aleppo, destroying tens of the militant’s vehicles.

Meanwhile, terrorist groups acknowledged on their social media pages the death of a large group of their members, including Abad al-Aziz Hilal, in military operations in Aleppo province.

Also on Wednesday, one of the terrorist groups was forced to withdraw from the battle with the Syrian army in the countryside of Aleppo as the terrorists continue to suffer heavy losses throughout the Northern province.

According to the Arabic-language al-Mayadeen television the terrorist group withdrew from the clashes in the Northern countryside of Aleppo.

Earlier reports said the Syrian army launched an attack on ISIL defensive positions along the strategic Aleppo-Raqqa highway on Wednesday, inflicting heavy losses on the terrorists. The Syrian forces launched a powerful assault on ISIL defensive positions along the highway, targeting the Siyasko Chemical Factory’s Western perimeter.

Following a series of fierce clashes with militants at the Eastern perimeter of the Siyasko Chemical Factory, the Syrian forces and its allies regained full control over the Aleppo-Raqqa Highway entrance to this facility.

Earlier on Wednesday, the Syrian Army, popular forces and Hezbollah fighters completed the chain of a security ring around Kuweires airbase after pushing back the ISIL terrorist from all the villages and farms surrounding the airbase East of Aleppo.

The pro-government forces’ mop-up operations in the Eastern countryside of Aleppo successfully have ended in liberation of all the villages and farms and recapturing of the Aleppo-Raqqa highway near Kuweires airbase.

The Syria forces completely cut off the ISIL supplying route from Raqqa.

The military analyzers underlined that by cutting the international Aleppo-Raqqa highway, army troops have seized back all villages surrounding the Air Force Academy and Kuweires Airport and completely securing their surroundings.

On Tuesday, the Syrian army continued their offensives against the terrorist groups in the province of Aleppo, killing tens of militants in heavy clashes.

Over 100 Takfiri terrorists were killed in the Southern parts of Aleppo province.

The terrorists’ high fatalities came after they tried to prevent the Syrian army’s further advances in the Northern province by relocating their forces from the Northern parts of Aleppo province towards the Western and Southwestern parts of the province.

Earlier this month, the Syrian army, popular forces and Hezbollah forces, backed up by Syrian and Russian air force, lifted the two and a half-year-long siege of Kuweires military airbase after killing hundreds of ISIL terrorists.

Russian Air Raids Hit Border Crossing in Idlib

Russian Air Raids Hit Border Crossing in Idlib

TEHRAN (FNA)- The Russian warplanes bombed militants’ targets in Bab Hawa border crossing in Idlib province in Syria on Thursday.

After hitting terrorists’ positions in Bab Al-Salame and Azaz in Aleppo countryside, the Russian airstrikes hit their concentration centers in Bab Hawa border crossing in Idlib countryside, informed sources said.

 

 

On Wednesday, heavy fighting erupted between two rival Takfiri terrorist groups in Idlib province, leaving casualties on both sides.

A large group of terrorists were killed in exchange of fire between al-Nusra Front and Ahrar al-Sham terrorist groups in al-Rami village in Idlib countryside on Wednesday, according to the Arabic-language al-Mayadeen television

Syrian Army Prevailing over Entire Lattakia

Syrian Army Prevailing over Entire Lattakia

TEHRAN (FNA)- The Syrian army and the National Defense Forces, backed by Russian warplanes, seized more territories in the coastal province of Lattakia on Thursday as they are purging the entire province of the Takfiri militants at an increasing momentum.

The Syrian forces retook control of Tel Al-Satrak, North of Tel Al-Malouha in the countryside of Lattakia on Thursday.

 

 

On Wednesday, three senior commanders of the so-called Free Syrian Army were killed in military operations in Syria’s province of Lattakia.

Rasheed Bikdash, one of “Mujahidin Army” leaders, was killed in clashes with the Syrian army in North of Lattakia.

Sources said Bikdash is the highest-ranking defector from the Syrian army that has been killed in Syria.

Abbas Hijazi, the commander of Maher Hijazi Battalion, and Abu Salim Julaq were also killed in Lattakia.

The Syrian Army and NDF have been pushing back the militant groups in Lattakia province all throughout the last two weeks and restored full security to at least five more key regions in the Northern part of the coastal province only Wednesday afternoon.

The pro-government forces hit hard the militant groups in Por Abdullah region, Ketf al-Hareek, the fifth and sixth hills and Ketf al-Safeh and forced them to retreat the fighting areas after leaving behind scores of dead members.

On Tuesday, the Syrian army, backed by the National Defense Forces, captured a hill and more heights in Lattakia as the army’s march on terrorists’ positions in the coastal province is gathering pace.

The Syrian forces regained control of al-Sheikh Mohammed hill and the 1281 R5 height in the Northeastern countryside of Lattakia.

A sum of 8 hills and heights have so far been freed in the province and the Syrian army troops have reached the border with Turkey in, at least, two key crossings.

————————————————————————–

——————————————————————————–

CIA’s Secret War on Russia: Al Jazeera, The ISIS Mouthpiece

lido_006…by  Gordon Duff, VT Senior Editor 

The Dutch have shamed themselves with their coverup of MH17

When Malaysian Air Flight 17 was shot down by Kiev, purposefully routed into restricted airspace by Ukrainian air controllers, shadowed by fighter aircraft and downed not quite close enough to NovoRussian lines, the propaganda war hit full bore.

Russian news organizations were both unprepared and possibly controlled and infiltrated as well.  The CIA/Booz Allen Hamilton run Moscow Times, working with “sockpuppet activists” employed by Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe, long propaganda organs of the CIA, continually “confessed” to the world of Russia’s complicity.

Lest we forget Abby Martin of Russia Today and her dramatic and totally staged attack on Russia that ended her RT career.  Her statements about Russian involvement in Ukraine, the lines of tanks, the invading armies, now consigned to the trash heap of history as Kiev has descended into a brutal police state justifying its existence with continual imaginary invasion threats.

Iran has been similarly victimized, particularly by Christiane “Rubin” Amanpour, whose interview of Iranian President Rohani, as published by her, filled with mistranslations and fabricated statements, set a new low in international journalism.

Yet the hoaxes and fabrications go on day after day, now standard fare for the mainstream media, that relies on blending official statements from named public officials with “mission creep” wild assertions credited to imaginary sources that are obviously editorial “spin” with a strong political agenda.

When a Russian passenger plane was brought down over Sinai, it was al Jazeera that first reported, not conspiracy theory or something to bring in a wide audience, but rather a highly detailed story of conversations between the pilot and air traffic controllers that later turned out to be total fabrications.

VT analysis of Sinai video team position and routes

An investigation by Veterans Today revealed that video teams brought into Sinai from Jordan that were placed exactly under the “external impact” that destroyed the airliner with 244 aboard,  were allowed to quietly leave Egypt.

You see, with the planted al Jazeera story in place, Egypt made no attempts to close her borders while those complicit, the video team or those who may have been involved in sabotaging the plane, if that is the case, those responsible were given a “free pass.”

As intelligence specialists will confirm, there is no state sponsored false flag operations ever planned without a “cover and deception plan” that involves using press assets.  There is no possibility whatsoever that al Jazeera was not directly involved in the downing of the Russian plane, none whatsoever.

To aid in confirmation of this, we have the November 23, 2015 article below from al Jazeera.  Here again they turn to CIA “sockpuppet” sources using “branded” accusations long tied to “black propaganda” operations against Syria.

Al Jazeera and Reuters have long been the cheerleaders for ISIS, basking in the Qatari and Saudi cash, working closely with ISIS media teams and coordinating their operations with SITE Intelligence and Rita Katz, the Mossadist front that provided much of the false intelligence Tony Blair recently referred to in his “non apology-apology” over starting a phony war that killed hundreds of thousands.

Russian air strikes ‘killed over 400 Syrian civilians’

At least 97 children among casualties of military operations which began in late September, two monitoring groups say.

Russian air strikes in Syria have killed over 400 civilians since September this year, monitoring groups say.

The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) said the death toll from September 30 – when the strikes were launched – until November 20 stood at 403 civilians, a figure that includes 97 children.

Meanwhile, the Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR), another monitoring group, said at least 526 were killed, including 137 children, since Russia launched its first air strikes.

Over 400 civilians killed since September this year, including 97 children.
The Syrian Network for Human Rights puts the figure at at least 526, including 137 children.
Since last October, at least 42,234 air strikes have been documented.
Over 22,370 ‘barrel bombs’ have also been dropped in that period resulting in the death of 6,889 civilians, including 1,436 children, and injuring another 35,000 civilians.
At least 100,000 people have fled from Aleppo, while another 1,000 fled an Atma displaced camp in Idlib’s suburbs.
The Syrian conflict has killed at least 250,000 people, according to the UN.
Sources: Syrian Observatory for Human Rights & Syrian Network for Human Rights
____________

Russia’s air force flew 141 sorties and hit 472 targets in Syria over the weekend, the RIA news agency quoted the country’s defence ministry as saying on Monday.

Russian jets hit targets in Aleppo, Damascus, Idlib, Latakia, Hama, Raqqa, Homs, and Deir Az Zor provinces, the ministry said.

On Sunday, Syrian government air strikes killed at least seven people, including three children, in Douma just outside of the capital Damascus, SOHR said.

It said at least seven civilians were killed on Saturday in government air strikes in Aleppo.

On Friday, Russia fired cruise missiles from the Caspian Sea for a fourth day against what it described as ISIL targets.

Russian and Syrian officials said their jets hit 50 ISIL targets in Deir Az Zor province, the most intense air raids since Russia began its air strikes.

Since last October, at least 42,234 air strikes that targeted farms, villages, towns and cities have been documented, according to SOHR.

It said over 22,370 so-called barrel bombs were dropped across the country in that period resulting in a total of 6,889 civilians deaths, including 1,436 children.

Another 35,000 civilians have been injured.

At least 100,000 people fled from Aleppo due to Russian air strikes, SNHR said, while another 1,000 fled a camp for the displaced in Atma, in Idlib city’s suburbs.

Russia says the goal of its military operation in Syria is in response to a request by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and on the basis of a decision granted by its parliament.


 


The Syrian conflict has killed at least 250,000 people, according to the UN, and more than half of Syria’s prewar population of 22.4 million has been internally displaced or have fled abroad.

Assad said what is happening in Syria was not a civil war but a war, he told Phoenix, a Chinese television channel.

You can say this is a civil war when you have a certain line that divides between different components of a certain society, whether sectarian or ethnic or maybe political line, something that we don’t have in Syria,” he said on Sunday.

“Civil war has internal factors, not states supporting terrorists who come to Syria while they announce publicly that their aim is to change the state or, like what they call it, the regime.”

Assad also said that following the Russian intervention, the situation in Syria had improved in a “very good way”.

Source: Al Jazeera

 

World War II: Germany ist still an occupied Country – Additionally an “Enemy State” from the UN Charter

World War II Never Ended for Germany – It remains occupied to this day 

As I stated in the Part 1, the Allies liquidated the legitimate government of the Reich, arrested the leaders, took over, divided, occupied and plundered Germany. They stole all remaining assets, and our culture, and then imposed their own, both in the FRG and GDR.   In the West,  SHAEF erected a bogus state (a legal fiction). They wrote and imposed the “Basic Law” (not a constitution), and in spite of the so-called “reunification” in 1990, that law remains in effect today, as an entirely foreign construct. There is no “Made in Germany” constitution. That means …. Germany is still an occupied and foreign controlled country!

The present FRG government is a FRAUD, because it was NOT created by and for the German people, and has NO constitution!

Obama - Germany is an Occupied Country

Excerpt from an article by Chris Bollyn on the BRD Swindel:

From Rense.com

On 5 June 1945, the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF) accepted Germany’s declaration of defeat* and quickly moved to recognize the legitimacy of the Zweite Deutsche Reich (Second German Reich), which was claimed to have been illegally displaced by Hitler’s Third Reich. [*Editor’s note: that should read “declaration of military capitulation” which was signed by General Keitl, but who was not authorized to surrender the state, nor to sign a peace treaty. Only the President Doenitz could do that, but the Allies arrested him]

The SHAEF lawsunderpinned a treaty between the occupation authorities and the Second German Reich, in which the latter was invested with full administrative rights and governmental sovereignty throughout most of Berlin and in all of the German states. After WWII ended*, a parallel state, founded by ambitious lawyers and Zionist activists and still known as the Federal Republic of Germany (BRD), competed with the Second German Reich for legitimacy. [*Editor’s Note:  again, if there is no peace treaty, a state of war still exists]

Wolfgang Gerhard Guenter

Chancellor Dr. Wolfgang Gerhard Guenter Ebel, Provisional Imperial Government of the Reich

Following the collapse of the DDR, East Germany’s Democratic Republic, a treaty known as the “2 Plus 4” confirmed that only the Second German Reich, now led by Reichskanzler (Prime Minister) Dr. Wolfgang Gerhard Guenter Ebel, represented the legitimate German State. In July 1990, the Secretary of the US Department of State, James Baker, confirmed in writing to German Chancellor Helmut Kohl that the BRD had come to the end of its lifetime and should be dissolved. From that moment on, the United Nations destroyed all of its stationery and placards that carried the words “Federal Republic of Germany” or BRD and replaced them with use of the broader term “Germany” in lieu of the anticipated “German Reich”.

Almosteveryone in diplomatic circles around the world expected the re-emergent German Reich to take over where the BRD had left off.

Yet the government in Bonn, and later in Berlin, continued and still continues to act and behave as if nothing really happened: a sort of disembodied ghost that has no idea that its corpse perished many years ago. [article continues]”

Read More:http://rense.com/general69/germany.htm

The FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY is NOT Germany!

BRD expire on 17.7.1990 - 18.7.1990 from German Empire

For those who speak German, please see http://www.der-reichskanzler.de/  and also http://www.deutsches-reich.com  (or use Google or Bing translator) or see thisWiki page

VIDEO:  Chancellor Dr. Wolfgang Ebel –  German Empire Reunion

(The video is in German only – No English suns …sorry)

The BANKSTER GANGSTERS and their FRG minions merely pretend that the Reich is gone and legally succeeded by the FRG  and they hope that no one will notice or even care. What they established was a legal fiction called, a limited company called the  Bundesrepublik Deutschland Finanzagentur GmbH.

With this, they have attempted to do an “end run” around Germany sovereignty, border issues and the peace treaty.

“Meet the New Boss, same as the Old Boss” ~ The Who – We won’t get fooled again

bundesrepublik-deutschland-finanzagentur-gmbh

As mentioned in the above article, the victors do actually acknowledge the German Reich as legally still existing,  but with what right did they  (SHAEF)  have to declare the NSDAP a criminal organization and Third Reich as illegitimate? Who gave them that right? The Germans certainly did not. Contrary to popular belief, the NSDAP government of Adolf Hitler was democratically elected and Hitler legally and duly appointed as Chancellor. The government enjoyed increasingly massive support and that support remained strong to the end.  Major policy initiatives were also subject plebiscite.

If you have not already seen it, please watch my documentary: Hitler’s War? – What the Historians Neglect to Mention

Soooo, what happened to “liberty, freedom, democracy, the right of self-determination, etc” hmmm?  Well all of that was ignored, Germany was declared guilty, and the Nuremberg Flying Circus show trials were used to punish the presumed guilty, with fake evidence and largely tortured confessions, and to exonerate themselves, while using procedures and rules of evidence that would never be tolerated in an American or British court.  Having dispensed with National Socialism, the enemy of the New World Order agenda of the International Bankster Gangsters (who created and controlled both Western Hyper-Capitalism and Bolshevik Communism), they then, for all intents and purposes, reinstated a Weimar-like, foreign controlled, multi-party republic, and brought it back under the financial control of the worldwide Rothschild Central Banking authority. That is what had caused many of the problems in the first place, following WWI and the dictated Versailles Treaty, which the Germans had rebelled against, and which the NSDAP was elected to solve. Hitler had abolished that and freed the Germans, building up a new social state that served the people, not the bankers and various foreign interests.

Did the war really end for the Germans?

File: Germany - Made in USA.jpg

Documentary:  “Germany Made in USA” (1999)  

A film by Joachim Schröder  shows how CIA agents controlled and shaped post-war Germany.contains numerous original quotes from secret documents and interviews with American officials (including with Zbigniew Brzezinski ) and participants, on how they sought to create a new Germany in America’s image.  The film has some very good info, but also standard propaganda and depicts the “Amis” as the good guys.

So, in addition to the Morgenthau plan to starve the Germans, Psychological Warfare continued and indeed went into overdrive through the the process of so-called “de-Nazification” allegedly to un-brainwash the Germans.  But in the Orwellian post-war world of doublespeak, white was black, black was white, up is down, down is up, as seen with the FRG  flag (Black, Red, Gold)  that symbolizes foreign rule.

"Atrocity Propaganda is how we (Brits) won the war!"  ...and you thought Goebbels was the liar?

They did what Sefton Delmer had stated and used PsyOps to convince the Germans of their guilt … eternally.  By this means, Germans are held in a mental, spiritual and cultural  prison.  More on that later.

As I have previously written about, there was no such thing as “Nazis”.  That is term created by the enemies of National Socialism.  In reality, the Germans were “Nazified”, just as they had already convinced the world of “evil Nazis” prior to and during the war.  I have also spoken with numerous survivors of the NS years, including my own parents, who say they never heard the word “Nazi” until AFTER the war! Sadly, to this day, the Germans still accept the term and use it, against one another.  And some, a very small minority,  even willingly describe themselves as such, having bought into the propaganda.

United States of Germany

There is still much more to come on this topic with a more in depth analysis of legalities stemming from the UN Charte.

—————————————————————————————–

Germany, Italy, Japan and the UN Charter’s “Enemy State Clause”: Obstacle to an Asian and European Peace?

Steinmeier_Merkel_2015_NEO_germany-300x187

The UN Charter still designates Italy, Germany and Japan as enemy states to the United Nations. In legal terms this means that any U.N. Member State can launch a “preemptive” military aggression against these nations without a declaration of war. Seldom discussed, this enemy State status is today, arguably, one of the greatest obstacles for a lasting peace in Asia and in Europe.

Since the end of WW II none of the G-4, that is China, UK, USA, and the USSR / Russia have taken steps to abolish the Enemy State Clause from the Charter of the United Nations. The UN Charter still designates Italy, Japan and Germany as enemy States to the United Nations. This fact is generally omitted from the public political discourse; that is, both in the G-4 nations as well as in Italy, Japan and Germany.

The implications and the lack of the sovereignty (e.g. the jus ad bellum) are, arguably, one of the greatest obstacles with regard to achieving a lasting Asian and European peace. A few examples should amply demonstrate why.

Italy – Germany and Gladio

Both the Italian Brigate Rosse and the German Rote Arme Fraktion (RAF) were in part infiltrated by respectively Italian and West-German intelligence services before they were even formally established. In Germany the internal intelligence service of Berlin (Landesamt für Verfassungsschutz Berlin LfV Berlin) as well as the Federal Internal Intelligence Service (Bundesamt für Verfassungschutz – BfV) had infiltrated the later to be militarized left from the onset of the leftist student protest in the mid-60s.

To mention but one example; a LfV-Berlin agent, Peter Urbach, was one of the first to provide weapons and explosives to what later would develop into the militant 2. Juni and RAF. The situation with regard to Italy’s Brigate Rosse was similar. When German leftists went to Italy to help procuring weapons for the left in Greece that was prepared to take on the Greek military dictatorship, it became obvious that Italy’s police and Intelligence Services with ties to Italy’s Gladio network were well-informed and involved. (Statements by former members of Germany’s 2. Juni and RAF).

Some critics of the armed resistance would construe this fact as if the militant left was working on behalf of the intelligence services all along. Not true. What is true, however, is that the militant left was infiltrated from day one, and that some attacks were incited, other were allowed to happen, with intelligence services obstructing police investigations. Other attacks like the assassinations of von Herrenhausen and Rohwedder have, arguably, been carried out by NATO intelligence, while accusing the RAF or as in the case of von Herrenhausen the RAF as well as parts of the Lebanese Hezbollah which is known to be heavily infiltrated by the Israeli Mossad.

There exist today, serious and justified doubts whether Gladio networks were involved in the assassination of Deutsche Bank Director Alfred von Herrenhausen and Treuhand President Rohwedder. Von Herrenhausen lobbied for a more benign policy toward so-called third world nations and a partial debt moratorium. Rohwedder was, after the German reunification (shotgun wedding), actively inquiring into the mafia-style takeover of East German corporations by foreign entities.

So much to the information that slowly becomes part of the public discourse. What is being omitted, however, is that the domestic and foreign intelligence services of Italy and Germany, at top-levels and in part in the form of “factions with these services” still are heavily controlled by Washington and London.

The CIA and MI6 are playing a role, although the main thrust comes from the Pentagon, the JSOC-CIA interface and the JSOC / NATO interface. In Italy the 1978 kidnapping and assassination of Aldo Moroby an infiltrated Brigate Rosse cell prevented the formation of an Italian Cabinet with participation of Italy’s Communist Party. So much to Italian “sovereignty”.

One may ask whether an Italian or German government could act sovereign and so to speak “clean up” within their respective intelligence services. The answer is an unequivocal no; not as long as both States remain designated as enemy States to the UN.

The situation of German governments is further complicated by the fact that Germany still has no peace treaty and that Washington and London do all that is in their power to maintain that status quo. No post WW II government in Germany has dared to touch upon this “hot potato”, Red – Green coalitions included. Even The Left (Die Linke) avoids the issue as much as possible.

German governments have, generally speaking, used two strategies. 1) To push for a permanent seat at the UN Security Council to force the hands of the G-4. 2) To assert German power within the European Union; at considerable expense for the German economy in form of bail outs etc.

Relevance today?

Considering the situation in Ukraine and tensions between Russia and NATO / EU one cannot underestimate the fact that neither an Italian or German government could maintain a sovereign foreign policy. About 50% of Germans do not perceive Germany as solidly or permanently anchored within NATO and about 50% would like to see Germany maintain a neutral position as bridge between the east and the west, at equal distance and with equally good relations to respectively Moscow and Washington. No German government would be able to reflect this public opinion in its policy.

Japanese – US / Russian / Chinese Relations

Being designated as enemy State to the UN, Japan has to “dance on hot coals” too. There is a growing public consensus against US bases in Japan but no Japanese government could reflect this trend in tangible policies without risking serious implications. Any Japanese top-politician that would touch upon this issue would literally commit political hara kiri.

But it is not only the USA that keeps Japan in the legal limbo of being designated as enemy State. Japanese – Chinese relations with regard to the disputed Senkaku / Diaoyu Islands are strongly biased by Japan’s attempt to assert its sovereignty, even if it, at times reluctantly, has to play geopolitics and use the US against China.

The enemy State clause also has an impact on Japanese – Russian relations. The disputed South Kuril Islands (as Russian would call them) is one issue that is biased by the Japanese legal status as UN enemy State and the lack of a Japanese – Russian peace treaty. Japanese governments, at times reluctantly, have to play the US card against Russia. Russian – Japanese relations could, arguably, become far more positive if Russia took the initiative to level the playing field by signing a peace treaty.

Considering the developing Chinese – Russian relations and considering long-term geopolitical strategies in the Asia – Pacific region, a Russian and Chinese show of confidence in Japan as a partner would free the hands of Japan with regards to US – Japanese relations and be a wise move that would have positive repercussions throughout the region, including the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Korea and Vietnam.

Taking the initiative to remove the enemy State clause and global leverage

Taking into account the complexity of today’s global markets; taking into account the complexity of today’s military alliances and interdependencies across so-called enemy lines, one can argue that any G-4 nation that takes the initiative to genuinely lobby for abolishing the enemy State clause from the UN Charter will gain a considerable political and geopolitical advantage.

With regard to both Russia and China such a step could, using tentative policies, also result in foiling the Anglo-American Axis’ hegemony in Europe and Washington’s Asia Pivot.

A joint Chinese – Russian initiative would also create far greater trust in countries like Vietnam and South as well as North Korea. A Russian initiative would create a more genuine discourse about the situation in Ukraine, NATO’s role with regard to Ukraine and the fact that Germany, and by implication the EU, are forced to “follow suit” and adhere to Washington’s dictates.

The Russian administration of President Vladimir Putin prides itself of being a proponent of a global community of interdependent but sovereign nation States. Taking the initiative with regard to the abolishment of the enemy State clause and a peace treaty with Japan could, arguably, be the most wise long-term investment that would secure that this vision can bear fruit and show that Russia’s position is genuine.

Ultimately, one must ask the question why non of the G-4 has yet taken the initiative

Is it a function of mistrust between cold-war and new-cold-war alliances? Or is it a conscious perpetuation of Yalta where the G-4 carved up the world into hegemonies, divided by Iron, Bamboo and Banana curtains?

If so, the invariable outcome will be that an increasing number of those States who have been subjugated and forced into these hegemonies, sooner rather than later, will rise against the G-4. Others, like Egypt, will note that the UN failed as much as the League of Nations, in protecting smaller nations from the conflicts that were unleashed during and after WW I & WW II. The trend to reform the UN or to abolish it all together is becoming increasingly prevalent.

Another invariable outcome of a continuation of Yalta in new drag will be that the seemingly endless string of low-intensity conflicts that is being fueled by the aftershocks of Yalta will continue while the G-4 position themselves and their power base, using people from Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East as cannon fodder and hostages.

Dr. Christof Lehmann an independent political consultant on conflict and conflict resolution and the founder and editor in chief of nsnbc, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

 

 

 

 

“A Europe of Nations”: Marine Le Pen’s Plan for the Old Continent

Guillaume Durocher

marine-le-pen-dit-non-bruxelles

Like the mass-rape gangs of Rotherham, the recent slaughter of 130 people by Muslim terrorists in the streets of Paris has again given us a quick glimpse, the briefest foretaste, of our coming multicultural future as indigenous Europeans are reduced to a minority. Europe once birthed the most dynamic and luminous of all human civilizations. But as her demographics progressively come to resemble those of the Levant and the Congo, so she will be cursed with lifestyles and violence like the Levantine and Congolese. No one has a right to be surprised at this development.[1]

We then need more than ever to have concrete and constructive thinking on how to build a new Europe in which our nations will survive and thrive. In this article, I will present Front National leader Marine Le Pen’s European policy: First to abolish the European Union and then to establish new forms of European cooperation to better fight immigration and globalism. I will also critically discuss the issue of “European solidarity” in the framework of the FN’s official civic nationalism which, while robustly opposed to immigration and perhaps necessary electorally, is not unproblematic. Read more »

 

Kärlek är allt vi behöver för att komma överens

Refugees-Welcome

Swedish translation of Tim Murray’s “Love is all we need to get along“; originally posted at NYANSERAT.NU

Inbördeskrig gör nationer ”livfulla”. Etnisk homogenitet är tråkigt. Ja det finns blodbad, misär och desperation. Men närhelst det finns andrum mellan striderna, när det är paus i beskjutningen och bombningen, har medborgarna en rad spännande etniska rätter att välja mellan. Under lunchrasterna finns det enighet i mångfalden.

Etniska konflikter bryter enbart ut på grund av en anledning. Problemet är bristande kommunikation, att förstå att vi under ytan allihop bara är människor med samma ambitioner och behov. Vi måste se bortom det ytliga och inse att vi alla är bröder. Gud älskar varenda en av oss, avsett vilket språk vi talar eller vilken tro vi följer.

Vi måste anta samma attityd som den parisiska make som intervjuades på CNN.[1] Han uppgav att han vägrar att hata terroristerna som mördat hans fru. Att göra det skulle löna ont med ont. Istället kommer han att sträva efter att älska dem. Att omfamna dem. När du gör det, sade han, kommer murarna att rämna. Så om du älskar en våldsam psykopat, och vänder den andra kinden till, kommer han att ge upp sina onda sätt att vara på. Kärlek erövrar hat. Hopp övervinner fruktan. Våld föder våld. Riskera fred, inte krig. Freden börjar med mig. Lev sida vid sida…. Ursäkta om jag glömde någon annan spypåsekliché. Read more »

Love is all we need to get along

Civil wars make nations “vibrant”. Ethnic homogeneity is boring. Yes there is carnage, misery and desperation. But whenever there is an interlude in the fighting, when there is pause in the shelling and bombing, citizens have an array of exciting ethnic cuisines to choose from. During lunch breaks, there is unity in diversity.

Ethnic conflict only erupts for one reason. There is a failure to communicate, to understand that underneath, we all just human beings with the same aspirations and needs. We have to look beyond the superficials and see that we are all brothers. God loves every one of us, whatever language we speak or faith we follow.  We must adopt the same attitude as that of a Parisian father who was interviewed on CNN. He stated that he refuses to hate the terrorists who murdered his son. To do so would repay evil with evil. Instead, he will endeavour to love them. To embrace them. When you do that he said, the walls come down. So if you love a violent psychopath, and turn the other cheek, he will give up his evil ways. Love conquers hate. Hope conquers fear. Violence begets violence. Risk peace, not war. Peace begins with me. Coexist.         Sorry if I left out any other barf-bag cliché.

———————————————————

The Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan – The Genocide Of The People Of Europe

Mass immigration is a phenomenon, the causes of which are still cleverly concealed by the system, and the multicultural propaganda is trying to falsely portray it as inevitable. With this article we intend to prove once and for all, that this is not a spontaneous phenomenon. What they want to present as an inevitable outcome of modern life, is actually a plan conceived around a table and prepared for decades, to completely destroy the face of the continent.

The Pan-Europe:

Few people know that one of the main initiators of the process of European integration, was also the man who designed the genocide plan of the Peoples of Europe. It is a dark person, whose existence is unknown to the masses, but the elite considers him as the founder of the European Union. His name is Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi. His father was an Austrian diplomat named Heinrich von Coudenhove-Kalergi (with connections to the Byzantine family of the Kallergis) and his mother the Japanese Mitsu Aoyama. Kalergi, thanks to his close contacts with all European aristocrats and politicians, due to the relationships of his nobleman-diplomat father, and by moving behind the scenes, away from the glare of publicity, he managed to attract the most important heads of state to his plan , making them supporters and collaborators for the “project of European integration”.

The man behind White genocide Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi.

In 1922 he founded the “Pan-European” movement in Vienna, which aimed to create a New World Order, based on a federation of nations led by the United States. European integration would be the first step in creating a world government. Among the first supporters, including Czech politicians Tomáš Masaryk and Edvard Beneš and the banker Max Warburg, who invested the first 60,000 marks. The Austrian Chancellor Ignaz Seipel and the next president of Austria, Karl Renner, took the responsibility for leading the “Pan-European” movement. Later, French politicians, such as Léon Bloum, Aristide Briand, Alcide De Gasperi, etc will offer their help.

With the rise of Fascism in Europe, the project was abandoned and the “Pan-European” movement was forced to dissolve, but after the Second World War, Kalergi, thanks to frantic and tireless activity and the support of Winston Churchill, the Jewish Masonic Lodge B’nai B’rith and major newspapers like the New York Times, the plan manages to be accepted by the United States Government. The CIA later undertakes the completion of the project.

The Essence Of The Kalergi Plan:

In his book Practical Idealism, Kalergi indicates that the residents of the future “United States of Europe” will not be the People of the Old Continent, but a kind of sub-humans, products of miscegenation. He clearly states that the peoples of Europe should interbreed with Asians and colored races, thus creating a multinational flock with no quality and easily controlled by the ruling elite.

Kalergi proclaims the abolition of the right of self-determination and then the elimination of nations with the use of ethnic separatist movements and mass migration. In order for Europe to be controlled by an elite, he wants to turn people into one homogeneous mixed breed of Blacks, Whites and Asians. Who is this elite however? Kalergi is particularly illuminating on this:

The man of the future will be of mixed race. The races and classes of today will gradually disappear due to the elimination of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-negroid race of the future, similar in appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples and the diversity of individuals. Instead of destroying European Judaism, Europe, against her will, refined and educated this people, driving them to their future status as a leading nation through this artificial evolutionary process. It’s not surprising that the people that escaped from the Ghetto-Prison, became the spiritual nobility of Europe. Thus, the compassionate care given by Europe created a new breed of aristocrats. This happened when the European feudal aristocracy crashed because of the emancipation of the Jews [due to the actions taken by the French Revolution]

Although no textbook mentions Kalergi, his ideas are the guiding principles of the European Union. The belief that the peoples of Europe should be mixed with Africans and Asians, to destroy our identity and create a single mestizo race, is the basis of all community policies that aim to protect minorities. Not for humanitarian reasons, but because of the directives issued by the ruthless Regime that machinates the greatest genocide in history. The Coudenhove-Kalergi European Prize is awarded every two years to Europeans who have excelled in promoting this criminal plan. Among those awarded with such a prize are Angela Merkel and Herman Van Rompuy.

The incitement to genocide, is also the basis of the constant appeals of the United Nations, that demands we accept millions of immigrants to help with the low birth rates of the EU. According to a report published on January 2000 in «Population division» Review of the United Nations in New York, under the title “Immigration replacement: A solution to declining and aging population,” Europe will need by 2025 159,000,000 migrants.

One could wonder how there can be such accuracy on the estimates of immigration, although it was not a premeditated plan. It is certain that the low birth rate could easily be reversed with appropriate measures to support families. It is just as clear that it is the contribution of foreign genes do not protect our genetic heritage, but that it enables their disappearance. The sole purpose of these measures is to completely distort our people, to turn them into a group of people without national, historical and cultural cohesion. In short, the policies of the Kalergi plan was and still is, the basis of official government policies aimed at genocide of the Peoples of Europe, through mass immigration. G. Brock Chisholm, former director of the World Health Organization (OMS), proves that he has learned the lesson of Kalergi well when he says: “What people in all places have to do is to limit of birthrates and promote mixed marriages (between different races), this aims to create a single race in a world which will be directed by a central authority. ”

Conclusions:

If we look around us, the Kalergi plan seems to be fully realized. We face Europe’s fusion with the Third World. The plague of interracial marriage produces each year thousands of young people of mixed race: “The children of Kalergi”. Under the dual pressures of misinformation and humanitarian stupefaction, promoted by the MSM, the Europeans are being taught to renounce their origin, to renounce their national identity.

The servants of globalization are trying to convince us that to deny our identity, is a progressive and humanitarian act, that “racism” is wrong, because they want us all to be blind consumers. It is necessary, now more than ever, to counter the lies of the System, to awaken the revolutionary spirit Europeans. Every one must see this truth, that European Integration amounts to genocide. We have no other option, the alternative is national suicide.

Translator’s note: Although the reasons due to which Kalergi made the choices he made are of no particular interest to us, we will try to answer a question that will surely our readers have already asked: Why a European aristocrat with Flemish, Polish, Greek-Byzantine roots and even with some samurai blood in his veins (from his mother) was such body plans and organ in the hands of dark forces? The reasons, in our opinion, are multiple, idiosyncratic, psychological and … women.

We therefore observe a personality with strong snobbish attitudes, arrogance, and, allow me the term, “degenerate elitism.” Also, the fact that his mother was Asian, perhaps created internal conflicts and frustrations, something that can happen to people with such temperament. But the most decisive factor must have been the “proper teenager”, which incidentally of course, was beside him, and became his first woman (at age 13): The Jewess Ida Roland, who would later become a famous actress.

EUROPEAN COUNCIL:

Van Rompuy won the Coudenhove-Kalergi prize for the biggest contribution to White genocide.

The Award Of The Coudenhove-Kalergi Prize To President Van Rompuy

On November 16th 2012, the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, was awarded the Coudenhove-Kalergi Prize, during a special conference in Vienna, to celebrate 90 years of pan-European movement. The prize is awarded every two years to leading personalities for their outstanding contribution to the process of European integration.

A decisive factor that helped him win the prize was the balanced way in which President Van Rompuy executed his duties in the new position of President of the European Council, which was established by the Treaty of Lisbon. He handled this particularly sensitive leading and coordinating role with a spirit of determination and reconciliation, while emphasis was also given to his skilful arbitration on European affairs and unfailing commitment to European moral values.

During his speech, Mr Van Rompuy described the unification of Europe as a peace project. This idea, which was also the objective of the work of Coudenhove-Kalergi, after 90 years is still important. The award bears the name of Count Richard Nicolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi (1894-1972), philosopher, diplomat, publisher and founder of the Pan-European Movement (1923). Coudenhove-Kalergi was the pioneer of European integration and popularized the idea of a federal Europe with his work.

Among the winners of the award, the Federal Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel (2010) and the President of Latvia Vaira Vike-Freiberga (2006), are included.

This article is a translation of an Italian article, originally posted on Identità.

Good video here on  “Preventing White Genocide:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsjc5CVujrM

img978

img443

——————————————————————————————

Love is all we need to get along

Civil wars make nations “vibrant”. Ethnic homogeneity is boring. Yes there is carnage, misery and desperation. But whenever there is an interlude in the fighting, when there is pause in the shelling and bombing, citizens have an array of exciting ethnic cuisines to choose from. During lunch breaks, there is unity in diversity.

Ethnic conflict only erupts for one reason. There is a failure to communicate, to understand that underneath, we all just human beings with the same aspirations and needs. We have to look beyond the superficials and see that we are all brothers. God loves every one of us, whatever language we speak or faith we follow.  We must adopt the same attitude as that of a Parisian father who was interviewed on CNN. He stated that he refuses to hate the terrorists who murdered his son. To do so would repay evil with evil. Instead, he will endeavour to love them. To embrace them. When you do that he said, the walls come down. So if you love a violent psychopath, and turn the other cheek, he will give up his evil ways. Love conquers hate. Hope conquers fear. Violence begets violence. Risk peace, not war. Peace begins with me. Coexist.         Sorry if I left out any other barf-bag cliché.



I am fortunate to live in a community full of people like that Parisian, people who, as Canadian PM Justin Trudeau advised after the Boston bombing, would reach out to killers and help them overcome their social isolation, which is the cause of their anti-social behaviour, just as they do in Sweden where “customized inclusion efforts” for returning jihadists are official government policy. Do that, rescue them from their alienation, and  they wouldn’t take up terrorism.  One man, an old boomer with a Kiwi accent, sitting in his wheelchair, typified this kind of thinking. When he overheard me warning a tourist outside a local cafe about cougars, he interjected with the comment that cougars pose no threat if, in his words,  “We just love them”. Bears likewise. We hug trees, why not predators?He was one of the many people who urged that we settle Syrian refugees on the island without reservation. In response to a question about the security risk we might incur, the Kiwi assured us that if there was any terrorist was among them, the jihadist would soon change his attitude once he experienced the compassion and caring that our people had to offer.

So you see, multi-ethnic societies can work. There can be harmony between psychopathic jihadists and liberals, between third world rapists and their German and Swedish victims. As Paul McCartney sang, “Ebony and Ivory, live on my keyboard in harmony — why can’t we?” And as his fellow Beatle John Lennon famously speculated, just imagine if there were no countries (no borders too). If only John was alive to see the EU today, he could see his beautiful vision unfold.

“All you need is love. All you need is love, love. All you really need is love. Dot da da dah….”

——————————————————————–

Dad-of-six who converted from Islam to Christianity attacked with pickaxe in brutal unprovoked assault

Dad-of-six who converted from Islam to Christianity attacked with pickaxe

————————————————————————-

Muslims Attacked Man of God – Speakers Corner Hyde Park London 2015.

————————————————————————–

With Open Gates: The forced collective suicide of European nations | Multi-subs [Mirror]

———————————————————————————

ANGELA MERKEL IS NOT GERMANY – THE €URO IS AN INSTRUMENT TO ENSLAVE ALL OF EUROPE

union_europea

by Sternbald

The so called €uro crisis has been planned; the foreseeable consequences of the monetary union were well known to the responsible politicians. Top politicians in all countries are lying to their people and cooperating with high finance. Similar to the two world wars, the Germans have been chosen as a scapegoat. We would like the world to know: Angela Merkel is not Germany but a traitor to our nation and all of Europe. The following article will give you the necessary information to understand the mechanisms of the €uro fraud.

***

Read it, forward it, tell it to everybody!

***

Prehistory and origins of the EU and the €uro

Without the Second World War, a monetary union in Europe would not have been possible. The defeat of France (in 1940), Italy (in 1943), and Germany (in 1945) and the hegemony of the USA over Europe were necessary to overcome the resistance autonomous nations would have opposed to such a project. (The fact that countries with a rest of political autonomy such as GB, Switzerland, and Norway did not introduce the €uro confirms this.)

The German nation lost its autonomy completely and has never been able to recover it. The socialist Carlo Schmidt, one of the experts in international law that were asked to elaborate the German ‘basic law’ (‘Grundgesetz’ – the FRG does not have a real constitution) under American supervision said about the new American client state Federal Republic of Germany:

This organization as a state-like entity, of course, can go very far. However, it will always be different from a democratically legitimated state because the self-organization in the face of not existing liberty depends on the acceptance of a superior foreign power as the legitimate ruler; it thus is noting more than the organized form of a modality of foreign domination.

When the USA started the European Recovery Program in 1947 (also known as Marshall Plan), they obliged the participating nations to accept an accompanying strategic plan. The loans were spend in a way that stimulated the American economy. Germany was forced to receive $ US 1.4 billion (6.4 billion Deutsche Mark, ca. 1/10 of the integral sum) from 1949 to 1952 and had to pay back 13 billion Deutsche Mark from 1953 to 1962. The ERP set the base for a common European policy and the respective institutions.

In 1950, the French minister of foreign affairs Robert Schuman proposed “to put the complete German and French production of coal and steel under a common surveillance authority” (“haute autorité”). The following year, the European Coal and Steel Community was founded, and France gained control over the German coal and steel industry.

In 1957, the European Economic Community was founded, canceling custom barriers between France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxemburg, starting a common economic policy towards third countries and creating supranational institutions. With the EEC, the bases for the complete abolition of national autonomy were set. The EEC was eventually converted to the European Union and has been constantly enlarged. Since then, the FRG, an occupied country (still today approximately 100 000 American and British occupation forces are located in Germany and financed by the German taxpayers), has been the paymaster but never the leader, although the mass media try to make a different impression.

On September 19, 2000, the British Telegraph revealed:

Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs

DECLASSIFIED American government documents show that the US intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe. It funded and directed the European federalist movement.

The documents confirm suspicions voiced at the time that America was working aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state. One memorandum, dated July 26, 1950, gives instructions for a campaign to promote a fully fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen William J Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the CIA.

The documents were found by Joshua Paul, a researcher at Georgetown University in Washington. They include files released by the US National Archives. Washington’s main tool for shaping the European agenda was the American Committee for a United Europe, created in 1948. The chairman was Donovan, ostensibly a private lawyer by then.

The vice-chairman was Allen Dulles, the CIA director in the Fifties. The board included Walter Bedell Smith, the CIA’s first director, and a roster of ex-OSS figures and officials who moved in and out of the CIA. The documents show that ACUE financed the European Movement, the most important federalist organisation in the post-war years. In 1958, for example, it provided 53.5 per cent of the movement’s funds.

The European Youth Campaign, an arm of the European Movement, was wholly funded and controlled by Washington. The Belgian director, Baron Boel, received monthly payments into a special account. When the head of the European Movement, Polish-born Joseph Retinger, bridled at this degree of American control and tried to raise money in Europe, he was quickly reprimanded.

The leaders of the European Movement – Retinger, the visionary Robert Schuman and the former Belgian prime minister Paul-Henri Spaak – were all treated as hired hands by their American sponsors. The US role was handled as a covert operation. ACUE’s funding came from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations as well as business groups with close ties to the US government.

The head of the Ford Foundation, ex-OSS officer Paul Hoffman, doubled as head of ACUE in the late Fifties. The State Department also played a role. A memo from the European section, dated June 11, 1965, advises the vice-president of the European Economic Community, Robert Marjolin, to pursue monetary union by stealth.

It recommends suppressing debate until the point at which “adoption of such proposals would become virtually inescapable”.

The EU: an authoritarian system

José Manuel Barroso: never elected

José Manuel Barroso: never elected

The official leaders of the EU such as José Manuel Barroso (President of the EU Commission) or Jean Claude Juncker (President of the €uro Group) were never elected by the people of the member states. The EU is everything but democratic.

Officially, the general lines of the EU policy are established by the European council, a bi-annual meeting of the chiefs of government of the member states. Actually, the most influential politicians such as Barroso, Juncker, and the chiefs of government of the big countries meet constantly with politicians from outside the EU and international economic leaders (people who are invited to Davos and the Bilderberg Conference) behind closed doors.

The only organ in the EU that can initiate new laws is the European Commission. The commissioners are not elected but chosen by the member states. Of course, they are not independent but follow directions.

The laws are voted by the Council of the EU, whose members are chosen by the governments as well; they do not take autonomous decisions neither. The voting weight each member state has in the Council does not represent the importance of the countries, i.e. their population and their financial commitment with the EU.

As we can see, two institutions (the Commission and the Council) that are dominated by some few personalities have all the power. The only democratically legitimated institution, the European Parliament, is not consulted in important questions. It is a mere talking shop. Since EU law stands above national law, the democratically elected national parliaments are deprived of their power. In many cases, one can speak of a violation of the different member states by the EU.

Is Germany the dominant nation in the EU?

This is the voting weight of the different member states:

29 votes: GB, France, Italy, FRG

27: Poland, Spain

14: Rumania

13: The Netherlands

12: Belgium, Greece, Portugal, Czech Republic, Hungary

10: Austria, Sweden, Bulgaria

7: Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Latvia Slovakia

4: Estonia, Latvia, Luxemburg, Slovenia, Cyprus

3: Malta

The FRG is the state that pays mot, Greece is the country that receives most (numbers from 2008)

The FRG is the state that pays most, Greece is the country that receives most (numbers from 2008)

 

As mentioned, the voting weight does not correspond to the population and the financial contributions of the different countries. From 1990 to 2011, Germany has remitted € 324 billions to the EU – that is 45 % of the entire budget! – but has received only € 174 billions (source: Franz-Ulrich Willeke: Deutschland, Zahlmeister der EU, 2011 – the “rescue fond” is not included here). That means that the German tax payers where so kind to make a “present” of € 145 billions to the other countries. But although the FRG pays more than any other country and although it is the biggest country in the EU (82 million inhabitants versus 65 in France, 63 in GB, and 61 in Italy), it has only as much votes as the mentioned neighbors and only one more vote than Spain and Poland. As you can see, Germany will always be easily outnumbered by countries who have benefits from the FRG’s role as the paymaster when it is time to vote. Strangely enough, the mass media present Angela Merkel as the strong lady of the EU and Germany as the dominating nation.

According to the mass media, Angela Merkel would not be a puppet of the NWO elite but the "strong woman" of the EU. Actually, Germany is not the master but only the paymaster as the statistic clearly show.

According to the mass media, Angela Merkel would not be a puppet of the NWO elite but the “strong woman” of the EU. Actually, Germany is not the master but only the paymaster as the statistics clearly show.

 

The €uro

The €uro, which was introduced as cash money in 2002 and which today is the official currency of 22 states, has served high finance to create the “crisis” and allows them to expropriate entire nations. You will learn how this is possible.

How does a currency work?

There are basically two kinds of currencies: such with a gold standard and such without one. Gold standard means that for every banknote a corresponding amount of gold (i.e. real value) is held in the central bank. In both cases, the value of the currency reflects the economic power and stability of the country. Without a gold standard, a currency can only be strong and stable if people have confidence in the reliability of the nation’s economy.

The economic situation in Europe before the monetary union

The wealth of the different economies/societies was reflected by the different currencies: Especially the FRG and GB had strong currencies, which meant that they had favorable import conditions but that they had to produce high quality in order to be able to export their relatively expensive products. Countries such as Greece and Portugal with a weak economy had high inflation: they exported low value products and had to contract debt in order to be able to import expensive quality goods.

Countries with a powerful economy and a strong currency get loans at low interests. Countries with a weak economy, inflation, and high debt have to pay high interests because it is a risk to lend them money. This natural mechanism prevents countries of the second category to enter into a vicious circle of indebtedness.

According to the before mentioned basic insights, the following consequences were foreseeable:

  • The €uro would bring inflation and impoverishment to strong economies (i.e. they would have to pay for the weaker economies).
  • It would bring deflation and lower interest rates to the weaker economies.
  • The weaker economies would run the risk of entering a vicious circle of indebtedness.

As mentioned, countries with a rest of political autonomy do not participate in the monetary union: GB, Switzerland, and Norway did not introduce the €uro!

The €uro has caused inflation and impoverishment in Germany

In Germany, the exchange rate was ap. € 1 = DM 2. Before 2002, a bread roll costed around DM 0,30 and a beer at the pub around DM 2,40. Due to the inflation, a bread roll now costs € 0,30 (= DM 0,60) and more, and a beer at the pub € 2,40 (= DM 4,80) and more, but the salaries did not rise: somebody who earned DM 2000 now earns € 1000. Thus, prices doubled in a few weeks (and have risen more since then), and especially the working class is struggling because of the €uro.

False arguments in favor of the €uro

The German media repeat a number of slogans to convince the citizens of the necessity of the €uro. The following are the two most important:

“The €uro is necessary to maintain peace in Europe.” Very interesting! Who would start war without the €uro?! France, GB, the USA – or high finance?

“The €uro is necessary for exportation; the German economy has benefits.” Even if that was true: the German citizens do not have benefits, they have impoverished. But actually, Germany never has had problems to export high quality products such as cars, and China does not need a monetary union to export their products to the whole world. Arguments in favor of the €uro are merely propaganda.

Complaint before the supreme court

Because of the foreseeable consequences, a team of four German university professors (Wilhelm Hankel, Wilhelm Nölling, Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider und Joachim Starbatty) complained at the Supreme Court of the FRG before the beginning of the monetary union. The mass media did hardly cover the complaint. Instead of reproducing their arguments they portrayed them as “right wing radicals” and “enemies of Europe”. The complaint was rejected by the Supreme Court. Everything the professors predicted has happened.

Fraud, Defalcation, and the role of Goldman Sachs

The monetary union would have had negative consequences for all the participating countries anyway. These consequences have been aggravated by corruption and defalcation. The most representative case is Greece, a country that did not comply with the minimum conditions of economic stability and that, thus, normally would not have been allowed to participate.

However, Goldman Sachs, one of the most powerful banks in the world, helped Greece to manipulate their numbers and thus to be admitted into the €uro zone. Today, Greece practically belongs to Goldman Sachs.

According to official EU law (Treaty of Lisbon, 2007), there should be no bail out (i.e. that a country has to pay for the debts of another country of the €uro zone).Violating its own law, the EU has made bail out a common practice. When Greece was close to bankruptcy in 2009, it was decided that the other members would guarantee for the Greek debts. Naturally, Germany as the strongest economy has been paying more than any other country for the debts of Greece, Ireland, Portugal, etc. The money goes from Germany (and other strong economies) to the Greek (Portuguese, etc.) government, and from there to the banks, especially to Goldman Sachs.

At the same time, Greece (Ireland, Portugal, etc.) are asked to privatize infrastructure (i.e. to sell it to Goldman Sachs and other banks and “investors”) such as airports, railways, and even the water supply. Since the citizens paid for the infrastructure with their taxes, this is expropriation and robbery.

Actually, the bail out does not even cover the debts but only part of the interests. The debts are so high that they cannot be paid. Thus, the bail out pushes other countries into the vicious circle of indebtedness, and Goldman Sachs et al. gain power over the whole continent.

The Germans are the perfect scapegoat: mentioning the word "Nazi" explains everything

The Germans are the perfect scapegoat: mentioning the word “Nazi” explains everything and Merkel cooperates willingly because she has sold her soul to high finance.

 

According to the mass media, Angela Merkel (i.e. Germany), who is portrayed as “the strong lady of Europe”, is responsible for this sellout of entire nations. While Germany has no benefits but, on the opposite, becomes more indebted itself, it is blamed for the crisis by other countries. Germany has to play the role of a scapegoat, making use of anti-German propaganda clichés which have been known since WWI.

The anti-German propaganda has not changed very much since WWI

The anti-German propaganda has not changed very much since WWI

 

The version of the media is true in so far as the German top politicians cooperate with the banks and harm the citizens of their country without scruples. They are traitors, as well as all the other European top politicians. In the meanwhile, important positions (European Central Bank, governments of Greece and Italy, many administrative positions) have been occupied by Goldman Sachs employees (Draghi, Papademos, Monti, etc.). Goldman Sachs’ CEO Lloyd Blankfein’s comment is that he “is doing God’s work” (probably alluding to the Jewish conviction that Jehovah wants the “chosen people” to subjugate all other nations).

Lloyd Blanfein: "Doing God's own work"

Lloyd Blankfein: “Doing God’s work”

 

The €uro fraud is necessary to introduce the New World Order

Politicians such as Mario Monti and Wolfgang Schäuble admit openly: “the crisis is necessary to force the European citizens to accept a political union and the abolition of the European nations. The goal is a New World Order.”

Working for the NWO with Blankfein, Barroso, Monti, et a.: Wolfgang Schäuble

Working for the NWO together with Blankfein, Barroso, Monti, et al.: Wolfgang Schäuble

 

Thus, we see that the political leaders (respectively high finance) have been well aware of the inevitable consequences of the monetary union.They are desired and necessary to establish the New World Order (“One World, one Government”).

As can be seen in Europe, this New World Order means:

  • No democracy but instead authoritarianism.
  • The impoverishment of common people versus immense benefits for an international elite.
  • Hatred between the different nations.

burning-EU-flag

Anti-EU and anti-€uro movements have been founded in all European countries. They have to fight against high finance, the political establishment, and the mass media. The next years will show if the megalomaniac project of the New World Order will succeed or fail in Europe. Please contribute to make the last option come true and to prevent hatred between us European brothers by circulating this information!

——————————————————————————————————-

Kosher Nostra Mafia – I used to tell Lansky that he may’ve had a Jewish mother, but someplace he must’ve been wet-nursed by a Sicilian. —Charles “Lucky” Luciano on Meyer Lansky

I used to tell Lansky that he may’ve had a Jewish mother, but someplace he must’ve been wet-nursed by a Sicilian.

Charles “Lucky” Luciano on Meyer Lansky

Organized crime needs some kind of criminal underclass in order to exist. Criminal underclasses need some kind of social underclass in order to exist. And what group, historically, has generally been a social underclass? Take a guess. Jewish mobsters are every bit as nasty as the other kinds, with the addition that they might have Yiddish as a first language.In fiction, the Kosher Nostra are rare, probably because Jewish organized crime tends to be rolled into other, larger organized criminal groups. In truth, the Jewish community was often too small to be the single dominant organized mob, and Jewish mobsters often made strategic alliances with a larger group, often ending up serving as advisors and technicians. From about Prohibition to some time in the 1960s or 1970s, the main allies were the Italians. Nowadays, the Jewish mob is mostly focused in Israeli or Russian mobs (and as such, are more likely to qualify as Ruthless Foreign Gangsters). Still, they tend to pop up often enough in early-mid 20th century period pieces, particularly in Los Angeles and pre-Castro Cuba.The Jewish mobster in fiction is often characterized as a Motor Mouth, with a tendency to act polite and friendlyuntil they get suddenly and horrifically violent. Comedic tropes applied to Jews usually are not applied to Kosher Nostra types – in other words, Jewish gangsters who argue and complain a lot (probably written by someone Jewish) are rare.Transparent No Celebrities Were Harmed versions of the most famous Real Life examples, Meyer Lansky and Bugsy Siegel, are particularly common (It was joked by Lansky’s friends that he behaved more “Italian” than most Italians). Historically, the Jewish Mob was a dominant force in the brief period between when White America started seeing Irishmen as “white” and the rise of the more numerous Italian Mob. During that period, they were involved in the regularization and “professionalization” of organized crime in the US, with the establishment of The Commission (the Italian-American Mafia’s coordination/dispute-resolution body) andMurder, Inc. (organized, professional hitmen) being the brainchildren of Jewish mobsters (the Commission and Murder, Inc.’s parent organization, the National Crime Syndicate, were specifically Lansky’s ideas).

——————————————————-

Jewish-American organized crime

10. srpna 2009 v 14:08 |  Text

Jewish-American organized crime (sometimes called the Jewish Mob, Jewish Mafia, Kosher Mafia, or the Kosher Nostra – a pun on the term “Cosa Nostra“), emerged during the late years of the 19th century and early 20th century.
In its earliest form, in New York City in the late 1800s, Jewish gangs under gang lord Monk Eastman competed with Italian and Irish gangs, notably Paul Kelly‘sFive Points Gang, for control of New York‘s underworld. In the early 1920s, stimulated by the economic opportunities of the Roaring Twenties and later,Prohibition, organized crime figures such as Arnold Rothstein rose to dominate more extensive organized crime activity.
According to crime writer Leo Katcher, Arnold Rothstein “transformed organized crime from a thuggish activity by hoodlums into a big business, run like a corporation, with himself at the top.”[1] Rothstein was allegedly responsible for fixing the 1919 World Series.[2]

Origins and characteristics

Jewish-American gangsters were involved in many areas of organized crime, including racketeering, bootlegging, prostitution[3] and narcotics. Their role was also significant in New York’s burgeoning labor movement, especially the garment and trucking unions, as well as poultry workers. Jewish-American organized crime was a matter of obvious concern to the community, because Jewish gangsterism was seen as irreconcilable with the ethics of Judaism[4] It did not exemplify Jewish immigration and its offspring, nevertheless it was exploited by anti-semites and anti-immigration forces as arguments to bolster their prejudices. However, it did exist in large enough reality to permeate the Lower East Side and Brownsville areas in New York City,[5] and other major American cities. and provided fodder for prejudice against Jews.
Jewish American organized crime was a reflection of the ethnic succession among gangsters, which has tended to follow the immigrant waves in the United States: English, German, Irish, Jewish and then Italian. Ethnic involvement in organized crime gave rise to alien conspiracy theories in the US law enforcement community, in which the conception of organized crime as an alien and united entity was vital. It was presented as many-faced, calculating and relentlessly probing for weak spots in the armor of American morality. America had to be protected from this alien threat. The conspiracy theories conveniently ignored the fact that Jewish-American and Italian-American criminals generally co-existed with (even sometimes subordinate to) other criminals, such as Irish-American organized crime networks before the 1920s.[6]
Jewish American organized crime is part of an entire literature, particularly in the United States, on “tough Jews,” mainly gangsters and boxers among whom Jews played a prominent role, often to the delight – even pride – of other Jews, especially Jewish men, who considered them tougher, more aggressive role models to free them from the stigma of defenselessness and powerlessness and the dominant Jewish stereotype: intellectualism and professional legitimacy, not physical aggressiveness and lawlessness, which was more stereotypical of the Irish and Italian immigrants and their mobs. According to Rich Cohen, author ofTough Jews: Fathers, Sons and Gangster Dreams: “if Jewish gangsters still thrived today, if they hadn’t gone legit, if Jews of my generation didn’t regard them as figments, creatures to be classed with Big Foot and the Loch Ness monster, I think the Jewish community would be better off.”[7]
Following Cohen’s line of reasoning, one could say that Jewish American organized crime played a role in the emancipation of the Jewish American community in American society. However, Cohen’s description of Jewish gangsters ignores that they were criminals who made some of their money by extorting and exploiting other members of the American Jewish community, including the trafficking of women,[3] and were generally considered a scourge within their own community. The Yiddish press and literature of the 1920s and 30s was resolute in its condemnation of Jewish mobsters.[citation needed]

History

19th Century-early 20th Century

Largely originating from the immigration from Eastern Europe during the late-19th and early 20th centuries, Jewish mobsters such as Max “Kid Twist” Zwerbach, “Big” Jack Zelig, and Vach “Cyclone Louie” Lewis, competed with Jewish-American organized crime was not exclusively a New York phenomenon, however, as seen during the early 20th century in other major cities with a considerable Jewish-American population as predominantly Jewish-American gangs operated as well, such as The Purple Gang in Detroit.
As would their Italian counterparts, gangs specializing in extortion began operating in the heavily Jewish neighborhoods of New York’s Lower East Sidemost prominently the so-called Yiddish Black Hand headed by Jacob Levinsky, Charles “Charlie the Cripple” Litoffsky and Joseph Toplinsky during the early 1900s. Early in the century a significant Jewish underworld already existed, giving birth to a litany of criminal slang with Yiddish origins. A pimp was known as a “simcha,” a detective as a “shamus” and a loafer as a “trombenik.”[8] Jewish-American organized crime arose among slum kids who in pre-puberty stole from pushcarts, who as adolescents extorted money from store owners, who as young adults practiced schlamming (wielding an iron pipe wrapped in newspaper against striking workers or against scabs) – until they developed into well organized criminal gangs in a wide variety of criminal enterprises boosted by Prohibition.[9]
For both second-generation Jewish and Italian immigrants, the lure of crime often competed quite successfully with mainstream opportunities. There was a Jewish “crime wave” in early-20th-century New York. About a sixth of the city’s felony arrests were Jews. Many young Jewish criminals gravitated toward the “rackets,” where they met up with the children of Irish, Italian, and other immigrants.[10]
As the 20th century progressed, Jewish-American mobsters such as “Dopey”Benny Fein and Joe “The Greaser” Rosenzweig entered labour racketeering, hiring out to both businesses and labor unions as strong arm men. Labor racketeering or “labor slugging” as it was known, would become a source of conflict as it came under the domination of several racketeers including formerFive Points Gang members Nathan “Kid Dropper” Kaplan and Johnny Spanishduring the Labor slugger wars until its eventual takeover by Jacob “Gurrah” Shapiro in 1927. Other organized crime figures would include Moses Annenbergand Arnold Rothstein, the latter reportedly responsible for fixing the 1919 World Series. [11]
According to crime writer Leo Katcher, Arnold Rothstein “transformed organized crime from a thuggish activity by hoodlums into a big business, run like a corporation, with himself at the top.”[12] According to Rich Cohen, Rothstein was the person who first saw in Prohibition a business opportunity, a means to enormous wealth, who “understood the truths of early century capitalism (hypocrisy, exclusion, greed) and came to dominate them”. Rothstein was the Moses of the Jewish gangsters, according to Cohen, the progenitor, a rich man’s son who showed the young hoodlums of the Bowery how to have style; indeed, the man who, the Sicilian-American gangster Lucky Luciano would later say, “taught me how to dress”.[13]

1920s-1930s

Benjamin “Bugsy” Siegel, driving force behind the development of Las Vegas
During Prohibition (1920-1933), Jewish gangsters became major operatives in the American underworld and played prominent roles in the creation and extension of organized crime in the United States. At the time, Jewish gangs dominated illicit activities in a number of America’s largest cities, including Cleveland, Detroit,Minneapolis, Newark, New York City, and Philadelphia. Numerous bootlegging gangs such as the Bug and Meyer Mob headed by Meyer Lansky and Bugsy Siegel and Abe Bernstein‘s Purple Gang [14] would see the rise of Jewish-American organized crime to its height. Other mobsters included Dutch Schultz,[15]Moe Dalitz, Charles “King” Solomon and Abner “Longy” Zwillman.
During this time, Italian mobster Charlie Luciano began plotting against the Old World Sicilian mafiosi and, enlisting the help of longtime associates Meyer Lansky and Benjamin Siegel, a conference was held at New York’s Franconia Hotel on November 11, 1931 which included mobsters such as Jacob Shapiro,Louis “Lepke” Buchalter, Joseph “Doc” Stacher, Hyman “Curly” Holtz, Louis “Shadows” Kravitz, Harry Tietlebaum, Philip “Little Farvel” Kovolick and Harry “Big Greenie” Greenberg. During this meeting, Luciano and Lansky were able to convince the Jewish-American mobsters to agree to work with Italian mobsters in business following the end of the Castellammarese War – in a consortium known as the National Crime Syndicate. At the meeting’s conclusion, “Bugsy” Siegel supposedly declared “The yids and the dagos will no longer fight each other.”[16]
Those Jewish gangsters hostile to the idea of cooperation with non-Jewish rivals gradually receded, most notably Philadelphia bootlegger Waxey Gordon, who was convicted and imprisoned for tax evasion. Following Gordon’s imprisonment, his operations were assumed by Nig Rosen and Max “Boo Hoo” Hoff.
Under Lansky, Jewish mobsters became involved in syndicate gambling interests in Cuba and Las Vegas.[17] Buchalter would also lead the predominantly JewishMurder Incorporated as the Luciano-Meyer syndicate’s exclusive hitmen.[18]

After World War II

Frank Rosenthal with Frank Sinatra on the Frank Rosenthal Show
For several decades after World War II, the dominant figures in organized crime were second-generation Jews and Italians, often working in concert. As late as the 1960s, Jewish presence in organized crime was still acknowledged as Los Angeles mobster Jack DragnaJimmy “The Weasel” Fratianno: explained to hitman and later government informant
“Meyer’s got a Jewish family built along the same lines as our thing. But his family’s all over the country. He’s got guys like Lou Rhody and Dalitz, Doc Stacher, Gus Greenbaum, sharp fucking guys, good businessmen, and they know better than to try to fuck with us.”
Jewish-American organized crime derived from dislocation and poverty, where language and custom made the community vulnerable to undesirables, the sort of thing that fosters criminality among any other ethnicity in a similar situation. As Jews improved their conditions, the Jewish thug and racketeer either disappeared or merged into a more assimilated American crime environment. American Jews quietly buried the public memory of the gangster past; unlike the Mafia, famous Jewish American gangsters like Meyer Lansky, Dutch Schultz and Bugsy Siegel[19] founded no crime families.
Much like Irish Americans and other ethnicities (with exception to Italian American criminal organizations), Jewish-American presence in organized crime gradually faded after World War II. Jewish-American individuals remained associated with organized crime figures,[20] but the criminal organizations and gangs which once rivaled the Italian and Irish-American mobsters during the first half of the 20th century have long since disappeared.

Late 20th Century

In more recent years Jewish-American organized crime has reappeared in the forms of both Israeli and Russian mafia criminal groups. The Soviet and Russianémigré community in New York’s Brighton Beach contains a large Jewish presence, as does its criminal element. Some of these newer American-based Jewish gangsters, such as Ludwig Fainberg, share more in common culturally with Russia and the Soviet republics than their predecessors such as Meyer Lansky.[21]
Israeli mobsters also have a presence in the United States. Yehuda “Johnny” Attias arrived in New York in 1987 and was ultimately murdered in January 1990, and New York’s Israeli mafia fell apart soon after. Several members such as Ron Gonen had turned informant and the authorities arrested the rest of the gang in September of that year.[22] The Israeli mafia (such as the Abergil crime family) is heavily involved in ecstasy trafficking in America[23]

21st century

In 2009, five Sephardic rabbis, all from orthodox Syrian Jewish communities in New Jersey and Brooklyn, were accused of selling kidneys and laundering tens of millions of dollars through fake charities. [24]

Jewish-American organized crime and Israel

Several notable Jewish American mobsters provided financial support for Israelthrough donations to Jewish organizations since the country’s independence in 1948. As a result, Israel became an option for Jewish-American gangsters fleeing criminal charges or facing deportation from the United States such as Joseph “Doc” Stacher and Meyer Lansky, the latter being denied citizenship by then Prime Minister Golda Meir who had been informed by the United States government of Lansky’s long history in organized crime.[25
—————————————————————
March, 2010
Kosher Nostra      By Mike La Sorte, Professor Emeritus


Mike La Sorte is a professor emeritus (SUNY) and writes extensively on a variety of subjects.


* * *
“A criminal class has developed among the Jews…Jewish gunmen, Jewish pickpockets, Jewish horse-poisoners, Jewish gamblers, Jewish prostitutes, Jewish white slavers. All of these exist.” (American Hebrew, December 12, 1913)Jewish gangsters have not been studied in such depth as their Italoamerican counterparts, who represent the staple of mob literature. We can rattle off the names of many of the notorious Italians, going back decades, but who can name such characters, many with colorful monikers, as Tick-Tock Tannenbaum, Dopey Benny, Big Jack Zelig, Little Angie, Bennie Green, Crazy Jake, Little Mikie Newman, Gyp the Blood, Big Nose Willie, Alley Fat; or the Detroit Purple Gang leaders Hymie Paul, Joe Lebowitz, Isadore Sutker? The list is lengthy, not to mention a substantial congregation of Jewish associates and hangers-on.

A golden age of Hebraic hoodlums existed, from the turn of the century gonifs(Yiddish: thief or petty crook) like Monk Eastmen, to the 1920s mastermind Arnold Rothstein, to Mickey Cohen and Meyer Lansky (who died in 1983 at 81), to the Chicago-bred artful powerbroker Sidney Korshak (1907-1996) and his white-collar co-conspirators.

The rise of Kosher Nostra began in New York City at the turn of the century when Monk Eastman (nee Jacob Osterman) ended the reign of the Irish gangs in the Five Points area of the old Lower East Side. For two decades thereafter, the now dominant Jews engaged in tribal warfare—spreading outward from their poverty-stricken neighborhoods. The supremacy of the Jewish hoods was to see its twilight when, in 1944, the “King of the Rackets” Louis “Lepke” Buchalter went to the electric chair, and the Italians definitively came to the fore.

“The Jewish criminal [in New York] exploited the opportunities that lay close at hand. He shook down peddlers and pushcart vendors and store owners. He was occasionally a burglar or thief or a ‘fagin.’ One such fagin, Harry Joblinsky, had fifteen nimble pickpockets under his wing; another,