Jew World Order

If I converted to Buddhism, does that make me Chinese? If I converted to Hinduism, does that make me Indian? When Khazarians (Turks) converted to Judaism…. did that make them Hebrew? Well, the Jew World Order seems to think so. They wrote the Bible to invent themselves as the chosen ones. They even got Adolf Hitler to legitimize and nationalize themselves by making Israel and moving them there. Jews are not Hebrew. DNA tests prove Jews genetic mix of many different nationalities… ever since they migrated from their homeland Khazaria (Turkey) in 800 BC. Jews were the original Gypsies, that moved from country to country, thieving, murdering and killing children for their rituals to Moloch. Ever since the Jews infiltrated Monarchies and Governments in countries all over the globe hundreds of years ago, they have been using non jews to do their dirty work for them. People need to understand that Hebrews are a race of Negros, Jews have been proven to be just an invention, created by their Satanic Motherland Khazaria / Babylon, now known as Turkey.

israel jews now plant knives after they kill semite palestinians

israel jews now plant knives after they kill semite palestinians

israel planting knives after they kill palestiniansisrael jews now plant knives after the kill palestinians..


Satan’s chosen people the Jews

Why are Khazarian Barbarians ( Jews ) so successful? because they do not have a problem stealing, scamming, using people, drug trafficking, being organized crime lords, killing anyone that gets in their way. Enslaving populations. Invading and plundering countries. Also jews network and promote other jews.

These are the psychos that run our governments and industries and have been invading and killing non jews and genuine Hebrews (negros) all across the globe using proxy regimes (creating Terrorist groups and using Goyim Military) , so they are never blamed for the genocides in every country.

Jesus Christ said to the Jews: “You belong to your father, the devil and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.” (John 8:44)

History of the Jew

What World-famous Men have said About the Jews


3 Goals Of The New World Order Jews

Jewish Agenda Articles, Three Goals Of The New World Order Jews


By Brother Nathanael Kapner, Copyright 2008-2011


Sources: The World And Europe – A Hidden Agenda Behind A Hall Of Mirrors, Alexander Niles;
The Empire Of “The City” – The Secret History Of British Financial Power, E.C. Knuth; EU And The Globalist Alliance, Fjordman; The Islamization of Europe and The European UnionHere

THE PROPAGANDA ARM of the New World Order is the Jewish-controlled major media. Here is the New World Order Jewish hierarchy:
The Rothschild Banking Cartel: Jacob Rothschild is the pope. Ben Bernanke (Federal Reserve) and James D. Wolfensohn (World Bank) are the Cardinals.

The Council Of Foreign Relations; Trilateral Commission; Bilderberg Group: Henry Kissinger, Alan Greenspan, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz are the Priests.

Time, Newsweek, US News & World Report, Reuters (Rothschilds), The Economist (Rothschilds), CBS, NBC, ABC:Zuckerman of US News & World Report, Redstone (AKA Murray Rothstein of MTV/Viacom), Eisner of ABC, Tisch of CBS, Sarnoff of NBC, Murdoch ofFox News, are the Deacons.

PLANNING A ONE WORLD GOVERMENTTHERE ARE 3 SPHERES in which the NWO Jews have 3 specific goals:

I. The Melt-Down Of National Borders:

A) The invasion of illegals into the US.
B) The invasion of Muslims throughout Christian Europe.
C) The invasion of alien cultures into the Christian West.

II. The Melt Down Of Financial Institutions:

A) The dismantling of American Savings & Loan Banks in the 1990s caused by the Fed’s high-interest loans to the US government & forced low interest loans of the S&Ls.

B) The dismantling of independent banks such as the recent takeover ofBear Stearns by JP Morgan and the Jewish-owned Federal Reserve Bank. (Bear Stearns was forced by the Fed to loan money to unqualified borrowers or be sued causing its collapse.)

C) The dismantling of national banks by the Jewish International Finance Cartel run by the Rothschilds of London & France.

III. The Melt-Down Of Christian Culture:

A) The eradication of public Christian expression by the Jewish-run & funded ACLU in America through the Jewish-run US legal system.

B) The eradication of Christian culture such as in Christian Kosovo wherein the Albanian Muslims of the drug-running KLA declared independence vis-a-vis sanction by the Jewish-run US State Department Here.

C) The eradication of Christian political activity throughout the Western World vis-a-vis the Jewish lie known as “Separation Of Church & State” used in the Jewish-run American & European Courts.


* Rent a spaceship and fly to another planet.

* Get on a very slow boat to China.

+ Pray to the Lord Jesus Christ for a revival of Christianity in historicChristian regions: America – Europe – Balkans & The Middle East!

Only Then Will The New World Order Jews Be Stopped!———————————————————————————————–

codex magica

Exclusive Intelligence Examiner Report

Texe Marrs

Masonic Jews Plot To Control World

Now the lid is blown off the forbidden, secret powderkeg of the Masonic Jews who run Israel and, by extension, the United States and the world. Unbeknownst to either the Israeli elite or to America’s pro-Israel cabal in Washington, D.C., for over six years I have conducted an intensive investigation of Jewish Masonic influence. Finally, I have released three bombshell videos unmasking my grotesque discoveries in this area, Masonic Lodge Over Jerusalem (Available in VHS or DVD), Thunder Over Zion(Available in VHS or DVD), and Cauldron of Abaddon (Available in VHS orDVD).

Illuministic Communism the Goal

The goal of the Jewish Masonic elite is to establish dictatorial Illuministic Communism and to enslave all of mankind under the thumb of a Jewish master race led by a world messiah who is to rule from Jerusalem.

An essential element in this grandiose plan is the Masonic plot to blow up and destroy Islam’s golden-domed monument now sitting on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, despised by Orthodox Jewish rabbis and the secularist Masonic Illuminists alike.

On the heap of its ruins, the Masons intend to build a Jewish Masonic temple where they and their satanically energized messiah shall worship and pay homage to the Egyptian double-headed eagle deity, Mammon-Ra, the god of money and prosperity (Daniel 11:37-39).The Jews are beset with an unbridled ambition—a consuming desire to acquire global power and establish once and for all their long-delayed Zionist Kingdom on planet earth.

Freemasonry is Jewish Magic

One of the unheralded and least known facts about Freemasonry and the Masonic Lodge is its Jewish origins and nature. The religion of Judaism, based on the Babylonian Talmud, and the Jewish Cabala (or, Kabala), an alchemical system of magic and deviltry, form the basis for the Scottish Rite’s 33 ritual degree ceremonies.

Thus, The Jewish Tribune of New York, on October 28, 1927, stated;“Masonry is based on Judaism. Eliminate the teachings of Judaism from the Masonic Ritual and what is left?”

The well known rabbi, Isaac Wise, was emphatic when he concluded:“Freemasonry is a Jewish establishment, whose history, grades, official appointments, passwords, and explanations are Jewish from beginning to end.”

The idolatrous image of the double-headed eagle—shown here on the cover of Albert Pike’s classic text,Morals and Dogma—is a much-treasured symbol of Jewish Masons. It represents the Babylonian god of money and forces, Mammon-Ra, as well as the Hegelian dialectical process practiced by the Jewish elite. This same symbol is the “Masonic Jewel” awarded high-level Masons initiated into the 33rd degree.

In the classic treatise of the Masons,Morals and Dogma, authored by the late Sovereign Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite, Albert Pike, we discover the revelation that the Jewish cabala is the very basis of Masonic practice and ritual and that the cabalistic “Theology of the Sephiroth” is at the root of all Masonic knowledge. This, admits Pike, is “high magic,” the “Sacerdotal Art,”and the “Royal Art.”The Jewish cabalistic nature of Masonry is demonstrated by the Lodge’s odd view of evil. Pike writes: “The true name of Satan, the Kabalists say, is that of Yahweh reversed; for Satan is not a black god, but the negation of God…For the Initiates, this is not a Person, but a Force, created for good, but which may serve for evil. It is the instrument of Liberty and Free Will.”

As for Lucifer, the alternate name for the Devil, the former Sovereign Grand Commander frankly admits that he, Lucifer, is a good angel, and a divine god worthy of our esteemed worship.“Doubt it not!,” Pike commands.

Intimating that the antichrist, the one whom the Bible warns shall have the unholy, combined triple number 666, is the one whom the Masons (Jews) await and shall recognize as their Messiah, Pike cryptically refers to the “Triple Secret of the Great Work.”

Of course, he adds, “Masonry…conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead.”

Having studied the dark recesses of occultism and satanism for nearly two decades and having produced and authored dozens of books and videos on this foul subject, I can assure you that Masonry, which, as Pike, Wise, and others assure us, is nothing more than pure Jewish cabalism, is rife with sorcery and witchcraft.

It is of great interest that in the book of Revelation, chapter 18, verse 23, we are told that the bloody and wicked, last days “Great City,” Mystery Babylon(Jerusalem!—see Revelation 11:8), shall constitute a vast Empire of Evil that is to compass the whole earth. Its octopus-like tentacles spread via its control of money, banking, and commerce. Its rich men are secretly also sorcerers who merchandise both products and the souls of men: “…for your merchants were the great men of the earth; for by your sorceries were all the nations deceived.”

When we survey the traditions of the Masonic sect, we see sorcery and witchcraft in abundance. We view their unmitigated worship of Mammon, their god. We also see how the Masonic Lodge is pleased to welcome in its ranks not only Jews but Gentiles, even apostate Moslems, Buddhists, and men of every religion…and no religion. Yet, Jews remain “first among equals,” to use George Orwell’s phrase from Animal Farm. They are the “Princes of Masonry” (Morals & Dogma, p. 819).

This display ad was run in The Jerusalem Post newspaper in November, 1994.

“Masons of Peace”

In The Jerusalem Post (November 1994) was an advertisement placed by “The Grand Lodge of the State of Israel.” The display ad was addressed“To the Masons of Peace,” and listed:“The Honorable Yitzak Rabin, Prime Minister of Israel,” “His Majesty,King Hussein of Jordan,” and “The Honorable Bill Clinton, President of the United States.”

The ad closed with these fascinating words: “With warm fraternal congratulations on the signing of the peace agreement between Israel and Jordan.” Signed—Ephraim Fuchs,President of the Israel Order of Masons.”

In his remarks graveside at the funeral service in Israel for the assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Rabin, President Bill Clinton, wearing a Jewish yarmulke, a skull cap, referred to the slain Rabin as “Our elder brother.” Of course, he was referring to the Brotherhood of the Lodge.

Jordan’s King Abdullah II gives his “brother, ” then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, a Masonic handshake at their meeting in Amman, Jordan, in August, 2000.

King Hussein, a Moslem, was also present to honor his fallen Masonic elder brother. Later, shortly after the death of this same Jordanian King Hussein, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak traveled to Amman, Jordan, where he met with Hussein’s successor, King Abdullah II. An Associated Press photo of Barak and the King clearly shows a Masonic handshake being exchanged.

Masons: Masters of Israel and the World

The rise of Masons to political power in Israel dates back to 1948 and to Israel’s founding as a modern-day nation. David Ben-Gurion, its first Prime Minister, was both a Mason and an avowed Marxist-Leninist and Communist. Since that time, every single Prime Minister has been a high-level Mason, including Golda Meier, who was a member of the women’s organization, the Co-Masons.

In 1993 in Jerusalem, a celebration of political Masons was held. According to the respected Italian newspaper La Republica (October 1993), in an article entitled, “Israel: There is a Pact Between Politicians and Masons,” the ceremony was attended by the Mayor of Jerusalem, Teddy Kollek, as well as by the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi, Israel Meier Lau. Kollek told the gathered Masons, “You do a great honor to Jerusalem. This is natural, considering that King Soloman was the great builder of the temple, which is at the roots of the Masonic idea, and that his workmen were the first Masons.”

At that same ceremony, sponsored by the “Grand Lodge of the State of Israel,” Rabbi Lau stated that, “The principles of Freemasonry are all contained in the Book of Books of the Jewish people.”

It is presumed that Rabbi Lau was referring to the pornographic and racist Jewish (Babylonian) Talmud, which is, in fact, their chief law book and guide for living. I have a picture of this same Chief Rabbi, Meier Lau, giving a cabalistic Masonic hand signal to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, at a meeting in Cairo, Egypt, in 1998.

Former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly stated (see the Israeli publication Shishi, Spring 1994) that he was initiated into the Masonic Lodge while in the United States. The La Republica newspaper stated that Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin was active in Masonry and estimated there are 4,000 Israeli Freemasons, divided into 76 lodges. Most Israeli judges and religious figures are Masons. Rothschild-supported Hebrew University in Israel has erected an Egyptian obelisk, symbol of Freemasonry, in its courtyard, and inside the new Israeli Supreme Court building is a law library architecturally designed in the shape of an Egyptian pyramid.

The Bnai B’rith Lodge of New York is affiliated with Israel’s lodges and so is the hate-mongering ADL and ACLU, not to mention almost every top investment magnate on Wall Street in New York. Truly, the Holy Bible is proven true in its prophecy of great “merchants” who, in the last days, deceive the world through their commercial trade and their sorcery.

The Planned Jewish “Temple of all Religions”

In my video, Masonic Lodge Over Jerusalem, I reveal the secret rituals conducted by Jewish Masons deep in a cave under the city of Jerusalem. I also expose the sordid plot of these men to utterly destroy and remove from the Temple mount both the Islamic Mosque of Omar and the Golden-domed structure known as the “Dome of the Rock.” These two Islamic religious edifices will be brought down by Israeli defense forces—by missiles, sapper bombs, laser bursts, or other means. Naturally, this atrocity will be done in the chaotic midst of an ongoing war, and the disaster will be scandalously blamed on the Arabs. It will be said that an errant Arab missile or bomb is responsible.

Then shall come a prophesied (II Thes. 2) Masonic Temple of All Religions to be built on the very spot from where the debris and ashes of the Moslem structures were bulldozed off and cleared.

Through its golden portals shall pass the New Zionist Messiah, King of Planet Earth. Before its evil altar he shall announce to all the world, via television, that their Universal Savior has finally come, a man knowledgeable of “the Holy Kabbalah, the exclusive heritage of the people of Israel” (Morals & Dogma, page 839).

The Jews to Become Christ and God Collectively

The Zionist Messiah will confide that it is God’s Chosen People, the Jews, who collectively are “Christ.” According to the Kabbala and the Zohar, the Jews created “God” in their image and, in turn, this “God” of the Jews is the reflected image of divine man (the Jews) himself, for Jews are said to be “partakers of the Divine Nature.”

This, then, is the ages-old, two-fold goal and final secret mystery of the Masons: First, through the worship of Mammon-Ra, god of forces (Daniel 11:39) and of money and riches, is to come the synthesis of all religions, superintended by a Jewish Messiah. Then will come a Jewish Utopia: World Government, of the Jews, by the Jews, and for the Jews, forever and ever. Amen.

A Resounding Surprise

But regardless of their plots and their Grand Scheme, the Lord of Hosts, our Savior Jesus Christ, true God of the Universe, has a resounding surprise in store for these Masonic criminals. The scriptures describe these evil men as“natural brute beasts made to be taken and destroyed” (II Peter 2:12). Their fate is clear. The scriptures say their plots shall utterly fail, their Empire shall be dissolved, their covenant and agreement with hell disannulled, and they“shall utterly perish in their own corruption.”

Oh, what a glorious hour that shall be when an angel from heaven cries mightily with a strong voice, saying, “Babylon the Great is fallen, is fallen and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird…For in one hour so great riches is come to nought…” (Revelation 18: 2,17)




jew world order parasites

Don’t Ask, Just Plant — Taking Back Our Food

Reconsidering the Nuremberg Trials by CODOH

Reconsidering the Nuremberg Trials

Published: 1996-01-01

“It is the victors who write the history.”
Patrick J. Buchanan

  1. “[The Nuremberg] war-crimes trials were based upon a complete disregard of sound legal precedents, principles and procedures. The court had no real jurisdiction over the accused or their offenses; it invented ex post facto crimes; it permitted the accusers to act as prosecutors, judges, jury and executioners; and it admitted to the group of prosecutors those who had been guilty of crimes as numerous and atrocious as those with which the accused were charged. Hence, it is not surprising that these trials degraded international jurisprudence as never before in human experience.”

    Professor Harry Elmer Barnes, Ph.D.
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., Doenitz at Nuremberg: A Re-appraisal,(Torrance: Institute for Historical Review, 1983) p.148\.

  2. “Unfortunately, humanity does not seem to have advanced beyond the motto, ‘The winner is always right’.”

    Lieutenant General Fahri Belen, Turkish Army
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 17\.

  3. “It is not right to bring to trial officers or men who have acted under orders from higher authority… The most brutal act of the War was the dropping of the Atom Bombs on Japan… I consider it wrong to try Admirals, Generals, and Air Marshals for carrying out definite orders from the highest authority…the Allies were far from guiltless and should have taken that into fuller consideration.”

    Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Chatfield, P.C., G.C.B.
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 7\.

  4. “I consider the War Trials as one of the more disgraceful manifestations of the past war hysteria.”

    Vice Admiral, Richard H. Cruzen, U.S.N.
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 39\.

  5. “No matter how many books are written or briefs filed, no matter how finely the lawyers analyzed it, the crime for which the Nazis were tried had never been formalized as a crime with the definiteness required by our legal standards, nor outlawed with a death penalty by the international community. By our standards that crime arose under an ex post facto law. Goering et al deserved severe punishment. But their guilt did not justify us in substituting power for principle.”

    U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
    Kennedy, Profiles in Courage, (New York: Harper & Row, 1964),p.190\.

  6. “I think the Nuremberg trials are a black page in the history of the world…I discussed the legality of these trials with some of the lawyers and some of the judges who participated therein. They did not attempt to justify their action on any legal ground, but rested their position on the fact that in their opinion, the parties convicted were guilty…This action is contrary to the fundamental laws under which this country has lived for many hundreds of years, and I think cannot be justified by any line of reasoning. I think the Israeli trial of Adolf Eichmann is exactly in the same category as the Nuremberg trials. As a lawyer, it has always been my view that a crime must be defined before you can be guilty of committing it. That has not occurred in either of the trials I refer to herein.”

    Edgar N. Eisenhower, American Attorney, brother of President Dwight D.Eisenhower
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.168\.

  7. “I was from the beginning very unhappy about the Nuremberg trials… the weak points of such trials are obvious: they are trials of the vanquished by the victors instead of by an impartial tribunal; furthermore the trials are only of the crimes committed by the vanquished, and the fact that the Katyn massacre of Polish officers was never properly investigated casts doubt on the conduct of such trials.”

    T.S. Eliot, English poet and author
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 51\.

  8. “I shall always have doubts about the whole ‘War Crimes Trials,’ both in Germany and in Japan. I am unable to understand how one can try an officer for obeying orders or for doing his duty. It makes no difference what flag he fights under. To me, the War Crimes Trials of Nuremberg and elsewhere are one illustration of the greatest danger of our times: mass pressure based largely on little information and perilously close to mass hysteria.”

    George B. Fowler, Ph.D., Professor of History, University of Pittsburgh
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 111\.

  9. “My opinion always has been that the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials were acts of vengeance. War is a political and not a legal act, and if at the termination of a war, should it be considered that certain of the enemy’s leaders are politically too dangerous to be left at large, then, as Napoleon was, they should be banished to some island. To bring them to trial under post facto law, concocted to convict them, is a piece of hideous hypocrisy and humbug.”

    Major General J.F.C. Fuller, C.B., C.B.E., D.S.O.
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.43\.

  10. “This kangaroo court at Nuremburg was officially known as the ‘International Military Tribunal.’ That name is a libel on the military profession. The tribunal was not a military one in any sense. The only military men among the judges were the Russians…. At Nuremberg, mankind and our present civilization were on trial, with men whose own hands were bloody sitting on the judges’ seats. One of the judges came from the country which committed the Katyn Forest massacre and produced an array of witnesses to swear at Nuremberg that the Germans had done it.”

    Rear Admiral, U.S.N. Dan V. Gallery
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., pp.XXI-XXII\.

  11. “I am quite clear that any trial of defeated foes by their victors is a mistake and a precedent which should not be followed among what are commonly described as civilised nations.”

    Dr. George Peabody Gooch, C.H., British historian and author.
    Thompson, and Strutz ed.,p.87\.

  12. “It was clear from the outset that a death sentence would be pronounced against me, as I have always regarded the trial as a purely political act by the victors, but I wanted to see this trial through for my people’s sake and I did at least expect that I should not be denied a soldier’s death. Before God, my country, and my conscience I feel myself free of the blame that an enemy tribunal has attached to me.”

    Reichsmarschall Herman Göring
    David Irving, Göring: A Biography, (New York: William Morrow and Co.,1989) p.506\.

  13. “I may, and do, say that I have always regarded the Nuremberg prosecutions as a step backward in international law, and a precedent that will prove embarrassing, if not disastrous, in the future.”

    Honorable Justice Learned Hand
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 1\.

  14. “I have a very long record of opposition to the holding of these trials, which began with speeches in the House of Lords during the war and has continued ever since.”

    The Rt. Hon. Lord Hankey, P.C., G.C.B., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., LL.D\.
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 50\.

  15. “The designation and definition by the London Charter of the so-called crimes with which the defendants were charged, after such so-called offenses were committed, clearly violated the well-established rule against ex post facto legislation in criminal matters. The generally accepted doctrine is expressed in the adage: “Nullum Crimen Sine Lege” – a person cannot be sentenced to punishment for a crime unless he had infringed a law in force at the time he committed the offense and unless that law prescribed the penalty. Courts in passing on this proposition had declared that: “It is to be observed that this maxim is not a limitation of sovereignty, but is a general principle of justice adhered to by all civilized nations.”
    In my opinion, there was no legal justification for the trial, conviction or sentence of the so-called “war criminals” by the Nuremberg Tribunal. We have set a bad precedent. It should not be followed in the future\.

    William L. Hart, Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.xx\.

  16. “The Nuremberg Trials… had been popular throughout the world and particularly in the United States. Equally popular was the sentence already announced by the high tribunal: death. But what kind of trial was this? …The Constitution was not a collection of loosely given political promises subject to broad interpretation. It was not a list of pleasing platitudes to be set lightly aside when expediency required it. It was the foundation of the American system of law and justice and [Robert Taft] was repelled by the picture of his country discarding those Constitutional precepts in order to punish a vanquished enemy.”

    U.S. President, John F. Kennedy
    John Kennedy, Profiles in Courage p.189-190\.

  17. “The war crimes trials were a reversion to the ancient practice of the savage extermination of a defeated enemy and particularly of its leaders. The precedent set by these trials will continue to plague their authors.”

    Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, U.S.N.
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 42\.

  18. “I could never accept the Nuremberg Trials as representing a fair and just procedure.”

    Dr. Igor I. Sikorsky
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.3\.

  19. “About this whole judgment there is the spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom justice. The hanging of the eleven men convicted will be a blot on the American record which we shall long regret.”

    U.S. Senator Robert A. Taft
    Kennedy, Profiles in Courage, p.191\.

  20. “I have always regarded the Nuremberg Trials as a travesty upon justice and the farce was made even more noisome with Russia participating as one of the judges.”

    Charles Callan Tansill, Ph.D.
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 47\.

  21. “To me the Nuremberg trials have always been totally inexcusable and a horrible travesty of justice. This is especially true when such trials are used to punish the men of the military services who were directing those services in time of war, and thus giving nothing more than an expression of the basic purposes of their whole adult life. In the execution of their wartime duties, these officers naturally carried out, to the letter, the orders and directions which they received from the head of their government\.
    If an officer… should ever, for one instant, consider disregard or disobedience to his government’s orders, all cohesion in the military services would fail, from that moment, and the military services would fail in the one reason for their existence – the waging of successful war in the interests of their country.”

    Rear Admiral Robert A. Theobald, U.S.N.
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.39\.

  22. “My conclusion is that the entire program of War Crimes Trials, either by International Courts, the members of which comprise those of the victorious nations, or by Military Courts of a single victor nation is basically without legal or moral authority… The fact remains that the victor nations in World War II, while still at fever heat of hatred for an enemy nation, found patriots of the enemy nation guilty for doing their patriotic duty. This is patently unlawful and immoral\.
    One of the most shameful incidents connected with the War Crimes Trials prosecutions has to do with the investigations and the preparation of the cases for trial. The records of trials which our Commission examined disclosed that a great majority of the official investigators, employed by the United States Government to secure evidence and to locate defendants, were persons with a preconceived dislike for these enemy aliens, and their conduct was such that they resorted to a number of illegal, unfair, and cruel methods and duress to secure confessions of guilt and to secure accusations by defendants against other defendants. In fact, in the Malmedy case, the only evidence before the court, upon which the convictions and sentences were based, consisted of the statements and testimony of the defendants themselves. The testimony of one defendant against another was secured by subterfuge, false promises of immunity, and by mock trials and threats.”

    Honorable Edward Leroy Van Roden, President Judge
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 67\.

  23. “The Tribunal claimed in theory the right — it certainly had the power –to declare any act a war-crime. But it interpreted Article 6 of the Charter creating it, as excluding from its consideration any act committed by the victorious powers. As a consequence any act proved to have been committed by the victorious powers could not be declared by the Tribunal a war-crime. For this reason, the indiscriminate bombing of civilians which had indisputably been initiated by Great Britain was excluded from consideration as a war crime by the Tribunal.”

    F.J.P. Veale, English jurist and author
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.146\.

Huge smoking gun: The fake “confession” of Rudolf Höss to the “mass murder of 2.5 million jews” at Auschwitz — Obtained via torture by jewish interrogators, and now exposed/admitted as false

The “confessions” of this man are the “kingpin evidence” for the “Holocaust” story and the claim that Auschwitz was a “factory of death”

Rudolf Höss was the first of three commandants of the Auschwitz concentration camp, and commanded the camp for three and one half years.  According to the official story, he introduced the idea of using Zyklon B gassing as method to accomplish the supposed Nazi plan to “exterminate every jew in Europe”, and was the architect of the “the most heinous killing machine in world history”.

Höss “confessed” that Himler had ordered him to utilize Auschwitz as a site to enact Hitler’s “final solution” to mass murder all of Europe’s jews.  Since there is no German documentation proving any policy to exterminate jews (nor any physical evidence, including autopsies or corpses), the alleged “confession” of Höss is key to “proving” such a policy actually existed.

At the Nuremberg kangaroo trials, Höss “confessed” to killing “2.5 million” jews at Auschwitz

The prosecutors at Nuremberg accused and convicted the Germans of murdering some “4 million” people at Auschwitz — based largely upon the supposed “confessions” (obtained via torture) of German officers, such as the signed “confession” by Rudolf Höss to having supervised the murder of “2.5 million” jews.

Then, around 1990 the Polish Government reduced the claim of the number killed at Auschwitz from 4 million to around 1 million.

Therefore, Höss’ “confession” was a lie.

Höss’s handwritten confession to murdering “2.5 million” jews at Auschwitz

The note reads:

“I declare herewith under oath that in the years 1941 to 1943, during my tenure in office as commandant of Auschwitz Concentration Camp, 2 million Jews were put to death by gassing and a ½ million by other means.”

– May 14, 1946 [signed] Rudolf Höss

An image of this handwritten “confession” was published in a newsletter of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.  Click on image to enlarge.   (Source: historiography-project)

The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum presented the copy of Höss’ note with these words:

“Rudolf Höss scribbled this frank acknowledgment of the mass murder in Auschwitz on a piece of notepaper during the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal…Höss penciled this statement in the presence of Joseph Maier, chief of the Analysis Section within the Interrogation Division under the U.S. Counsel, who was gathering evidence from Nazi war criminals and witnesses in preparation for the prosecution at the Nuremberg trials. At the bottom of the document Prof. Maier hand wrote: “The above was written and signed before me at Nuremberg, Germany on May 14, 1946 [signed] Joseph Maier, Chief, Analysis Section, Interrogation Division, Office of U.S. Chief of Counsel”.

Note: Joseph Maier was Jewish and an active member of the so-called “Frankfurt School”. As noted under his signature, he was Chief of the “Analysis Section Interrogations Division, Office of U. S. Chief of Counsel”, which was overwhelmingly jewish.  The entire prosecution of German “war criminals”, including at Nuremberg, was completely controlled by jews within the U.S. and British military and governments.

Rudolf Höss’ testimony at Nuremberg

Höss appeared at the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg on 15 April 1946.  In his affidavit made at Nuremberg on 5 April 1946 Höss stated:

I commanded Auschwitz until 1 December 1943, and estimate that at least 2,500,000 victims were executed and exterminated there by gassing and burning, and at least another half million succumbed to starvation and disease, making a total dead of about 3,000,000. This figure represents about 70% or 80% of all persons sent to Auschwitz as prisoners, the remainder having been selected and used for slave labor in the concentration camp industries. (Source)

HERE is video of Höss testifying at the Nuremberg trial.

Höss was tortured by jewish interrogators to obtain his “confessions”

As explained in his memoirs, Höss claims he was beaten by the British military interrogators and forced to sign a document that he did not read.  When he was taken to Nuremberg to appear at the International Military Tribunal, Höss says that he was treated “unpleasantly” by interrogators and that “they were all jews”.   (source)

In 1983 a book was published (“Legions of Death” by Rupert Butler) that confirmed that Höss was tortured by the British (members of the “jewish brigade” operating in the British army).  Höss was tortured for three days by jewish interrogators, lead by Sergeant Bernard Clarke.  Höss was severely beaten and deprived of sleep for three days, after which he broke down and signed the prepared “confession” statement.



How the British Obtained the Confessions of Rudolf Höss

Robert Faurisson

Rudolf Höss was the first of three successive commandants of the Auschwitz concentration camp. He is often called “theCommandant of Auschwitz,” and the general public knows of him from a book published under the title Commandant in Auschwitz.

He appeared before the International Military Tribunal as a witness on 15 April 1946, where his deposition caused a sensation. To the amazement of the defendants and in the presence of journalists from around the world, he confessed to the most frightful crimes that history had ever known. He said that he had personally received an order from Himmler to exterminate the Jews. He estimated that at Auschwitz 3,000,000 people had been exterminated, 2,500,000 of them by means of gas chambers. His confessions were false. They had been extorted from Höss by torture, but it took until 1983 to learn the identity of the torturers and the nature of the tortures they inflicted upon him.

The confessions of Rudolf Höss supply the keystone to the theory which maintains that systematic extermination of the Jews, especially by means of homicidal gas chambers, was a historical reality. These confessions consist essentially of four documents which, in chronological order, are the following:

1. A written deposition signed on l4 March (or l5 March?) l946 at 2:30 in the morning; it is an 8-page typed text written in German; I do not think, under normal circumstances, a court in any democracy would agree to take into consideration those pages lacking as they did any heading and any printed administrative reference; and crawling with various corrections, whether typed or handwritten, uninitialled and without a notation at the end of the total number of words corrected or deleted. Höss signed it for the first time after having written: “14.3.46 230.” He signed again after two lines which are supposed to have been handwritten but which were typed, and which say:

I have read the above account and confirm that it is corresponding to my own statement and that it was the pure truth. (Official translation.]

The names and the signatures of the two witnesses, British sergeants, follow. One did not note the date, while the other indicated 15 March. The last signature is that of a captain of the 92nd Field Security Section, who certifies that the two sergeants were present throughout the entire proceedings, during which the prisoner Rudolf Höss made his statement voluntarily. The date indicated is 14 March 1946. Nothing indicates the place!

The Allies numbered this document NO-1210.

2. An affidavit signed 22 days later on 5 April 1946. It is a typed text, 20 pages long, written in English. That is surprising: thereby Höss signed a declaration under oath, not in his own language but in that of his guards. His signature appeared three times: at the bottom of the first two pages, then on the third and last page, after a text of four lines, still in English, still typed, which reads:

I understand English as it is written above. The above statements are true: this declaration is made by me voluntarily and without compulsion; after reading over the statement, I have signed and executed the same at Nurnberg, Germany, on the fifth day of April 1946.

There follows the signature of Lieutenant-Colonel Smith W. Brookhart after the statement: “Subscribed and sworn before me this 5th day of April 1946, at Nurnberg, Germany.”

In its form, this text is, if possible, even less acceptable than the preceding one. In particular, entire lines have been added in capital letters in the English style, while others are crossed out with a stroke of the pen. There is no initialling in the margin next to these corrections, and no summary at the end of the document of the words struck out. The Allies assigned this document the number PS-3868.

In order to hide the fact that Höss had signed an affidavit that was in English when it ought to have been in his own language, and in order to make the crossed-out words and the additions and corrections disappear, the following trick was used at Nuremberg: the original text was recast and presented as a “Translation” from German into English! But the person responsible for this deception did his work too quickly. He thought that a handwritten addition to paragraph 10 (done in an English handwriting style) was an addition to the end of paragraph 9. The result of that misunderstanding is that the end of paragraph 9 is rendered totally incomprehensible. There are, therefore, two different documents that bear the same file number, PS-3868: the document signed by Höss and the “remake.” It is the “remake,” really a glaring forgery, that was used before the Nuremberg tribunal. One historical work that claimed to reproduce document PS-3868 by Höss in fact reproduced the “remake” but omitted (without saying so) the end of paragraph 9 as well as all of paragraph 10: see Henri Monneray, La Persécution des Juifs dans les pays de l’Est présentee à Nuremberg, Paris, Center for Contemporary Jewish Documentation,1949, pp.159 – 162.

3. The spectacular oral deposition, which I have already mentioned, made before the IMT on 15 April 1946, ten days after the writing of document PS-3868. Paradoxically, it was a lawyer for the defense, Kurt Kauffmann, Ernst Kaltenbrunner’s attorney, who had asked for Höss’s appearance. His obvious intention was to show that the person responsible for the presumed extermination was Himmler and not Kaltenbrunner. When it came time for the representative of the prosecution (at that point the American assistant prosecutor, Col. Harlan Amen) to question Höss, he seemed to be reading from the affidavit signed by the latter but, in fact, he was reading excerpts from the “remake.” Col. Amen gave an excuse for not reading paragraph 9 (and, at the same time, paragraph 8). Stopping after reading each excerpt, he asked Höss if that was in fact what he had stated. He received the following responses: “Jawohl,” “Jawohl,” “Jawohl” “Ja, es stimmt,” a two sentence response (containing an obvious error about the Hungarian Jews supposedly having been killed at Auschwitz as early as 1943 even though the first convoy of them did not arrive at Auschwitz until May 2 of 1944), “Jawohl,” “Jawohl,” “Jawohl,” a one-sentence response, “Jawohl,” and “Jawohl.” [IMT, XI, pp. 457-461]. Höss is quoted according to the text of the German-language edition of the IMT series.

In a normal murder case there would have been a hundred questions to ask about the extermination and the gas chambers (that is to say about a crime and an instrument of the crime which were without precedent in history), but no one asked those questions. In particular, Colonel Amen did not ask for a single detail nor for any additional information about the frightening text which he had read in the presence of journalists whose stories would make the headlines in newspapers around the world the next day.

4. The texts generally collected under the title Commandant in Auschwitz. Höss is alleged to have written these texts in pencil under the watchful eye of his Polish-Communist jailers, while in a prison at Cracow awaiting his trial. He was condemned to death on 2 April 1947 and hanged at the Auschwitz concentration camp fourteen days later. The world had to wait 11 years, until 1958, for the publication in German of his alleged memoirs. They were edited by the German historian Martin Broszat without regard for scholarly method. Broszat went so far as to suppress several fragments which would have too clearly made it appear that Höss (or his Polish jailers) had offered outrageous statements which would have called into question the reliability of his writings in toto.

The four documents that I have just enumerated are closely connected in their origin. Looking at them more closely, there are contradictions among their respective contents, but, for the most part, they are internally consistent. The eight pages of NO-1210 are in a sense summed up in the 2º pages of PS-3868; that latter document served as the central document in the oral testimony before the IMT; and, finally, the memoirs written at Cracow crown the whole. The base and the matrix are thus document NO-1210. It was in the Cracow memoirs, written under the supervision of Polish examining magistrate Jan Sehn, that Höss was to give particulars about how the British had obtained that very first confession.

Höss’s Revelations about His First Confession (Document NO-1210 of 14 or 15 March 1946)

The war ended in Germany on 8 May 1945. Höss fell into the hands of the British, who imprisoned him in a camp for SS men. As a trained agronomist, he obtained an early release. His guards were unaware of the importance of their prey. A work office found him employment as an agricultural work at a farm near Flensburg, not far from the Danish border. He remained there for eight months. The military police looked for him. His family, with whom he succeeded in making contact, was closely watched and subjected to frequent searches.

In his memoirs Höss recounts the circumstances of his arrest and what followed. The treatment that he underwent was particularly brutal. At first sight it is surprising that the Poles allowed Höss to make the revelations he did about the British military police. On reflection, we discover that they might have done so out of one or more of the following motives:

  • to give the confession an appearance of sincerity and veracity;
  • to cause the reader to make a comparison, flattering for the Polish Communists, between the British and Polish methods, Indeed Höss later said that during the first part of his detention at Cracow, his jailers came very close to finishing him off physically and above all morally, but that later they treated him with “such decent and considerate treatment” that he consented to write his memoirs;
  • to furnish an explanation for certain absurdities contained in the text (NO-1210) that the British police had had Höss sign, one of these absurdities being the invention of an “extermination camp” in a place which never existed on any Polish map: “Wolzek near Lublin”; confusion with Belzec is not possible since Höss talks about three camps: “Belzek (sic), Tublinka (sic) and Wolzek near Lublin.” Farther on, the spelling of Treblinka will be corrected. Let us note in passing that the camps of Belzec and Treblinka did not yet exist at the time (June 194l) when Himmler, according to Höss, told him that they were already functioning as “extermination camps.”

Here are the words Höss uses to describe, in succession, his arrest by the British; his signing of the document that would that would become NO-1210; his transfer to Minden-on-the-Weser, where the treatment that he underwent was worse yet; his stay at the Nuremberg tribunal’s prison; and, finally, his extradition to Poland.

I was arrested on 11 March 1946 (at 11 pm).

My phial of poison had been broken two days before.

When I was aroused from sleep, I thought at first I was being attacked by robbers, for many robberies were taking place at that time. That was how they managed to arrest me. I was maltreated by the Field Security Police.

I was taken to Heide where I was put in those very barracks from which I had been released by the Bntish eight months earlier.

At my first interrogation, evidence was obtained by beating me. I do not know what is in the record, although I signed it. Alcohol and the whip were too much for me. The whip was my own, which by chance had got into my wife’s luggage. It had hardly ever touched my horse, far less the prisoners. Nevertheless, one of my interrogators was convinced that I had perpetually used it for flogging the prisoners.

After some days I was taken to Minden-on-the-Weser, the main interrogation centre in the British Zone. There I received further rough treatment at the hands of the English public prosecutor, a major.

The conditions in the prison accorded with this behaviour.

After three weeks, to my surprise, I was shaved and had my hair cut and I was allowed to wash. My handcuffs had not previously been removed since my arrest.

On the next day I was taken by lorry to Nuremberg, together with a prisoner of war who had been brought over from London as a witness in Fritzsche’s defence. My impnsonment by the Intemational Military Tribunal was a rest-cure compared to what I had been through before. I was accommodated in the same building as the principal accused, and was able to see them daily as they were taken to the court. Almost every day we were visited by representatives for all the Allied nations. I was always pointed out as an especially interesting animal.

I was in Nuremberg because Kaltenbrunner’s counsel had demanded me as a witness for his defence. I have never been able to grasp, and it is still not clear to me, how I of all people could have helped to exonerate Kaltenbrunner. Although the conditions in prison were, in every respect, good — I read whenever I had the time, and there was a well stocked library available — the interrogations were extremely unpleasant, not so much physically, but far more because of their strong psychological effect. I cannot really blame the interrogators — they were all Jews.

Psychologically I was almost cut in pieces. They wanted to know all about everything, and this was also done by Jews. They left me in no doubt whatever as to the fate that was in store for me.

On 25 May, my wedding anniversary as it happened, I was driven with von Burgsdorff and Bühler to the aerodrome and there handed over to Polish officers. We flew in an American plane via Berlin to Warsaw. Although we were treated very politely during our joumey, I feared the worst when I remembered my experiences in the British Zone and the tales I had heard about the way people were being treated in the East. (Commandant in Auschwitz, Introduction by Lord Russell of Liverpool. English translation, Weidenfeld and Nicolson,. 1959, p. 173-175.)

Revelations in 1983 About the British Torturers of Rudolf Höss

The Revisionists proved a long time ago that the various confessions of Rudolf Höss contained so many gross errors, nonsensical elements, and impossibilities of all kinds, that it is no longer possible to believe them, as did the judges at Nuremberg and Cracow, as well as certain self styled historians, without any prior analysis of their content and of the circumstances in which they were obtained.

In all likelihood, Höss was tortured by the British soldiers of the 92nd Field Security Section, but a confirmation of that hypothesis was necessary. Confirmation has come with the publication in England of a book containing the name of the principal torturer (a British sergeant of Jewish origin) and a description of the circumstances of Höss’ arrest, as well as his third-degree interrogation.

The book is by Rupert Butler. It was published in 1983 (Hamlyn Paperbacks). Butler is the author of three other works:The Black Angels, Hand of Steel and Gestapo, all published by Hamlyn. The book that interests us is entitled Legions of Death. Its inspiration is anti-Nazi. Butler says that he researched this book at the Imperial War Museum in London, the Institute for Contemporary History and Wiener Library, and other such prestigious institutions. At the beginning of his book, he expresses his gratitude to these institutions and, among others, to two persons, one of whom is Bernard Clarke (“who captured Auschwitz Commandant Rudolf Höss”). The author quotes several fragments of what are either written or recorded statements by Clarke.

Bernard Clarke shows no remorse. On the contrary, he exhibits a certain pride in having tortured a “Nazi.” Rupert Butler, likewise, finds nothing to criticize in that. Neither of them understands the importance of their revelations. They say that Höss was arrested on 11 March, 1946, and that it took three days of torture to obtain “a coherent statement.” They do not realize that the alleged “coherent statement” is nothing other than the lunatic confession, signed by their quivering victim on the l4th or l5th of March 1946, at 2:30 in the morning, which was to seal Höss’ fate definitely, a confession which would also give definitive shape to the myth. The confession would also shape decisively the myth of Auschwitz, the supposed high-point of the extermination of the Jews, above all due to the alleged use of homicidal gas chambers.

On 11 March 1946, a Captain Cross, Bernard Clarke and four other intelligence specialists in British uniforms, most of them tall and menacing, entered the home of Frau Höss and her children.

The six men, we are told, were all “practised in the more sophisticated techniques of sustained and merciless investigation” (p. 235). Clarke began to shout:

If you don’t tell us [where your husband is] we’ll turn you over to the Russians and they’ll put you before a firing-squad. Your son will go to Siberia.

Frau Höss broke down and revealed, says Clarke, the location of the farm where her husband was in hiding, as well as his assumed name: Franz Lang. And Bernard Clarke added:

Suitable intimidation of the son and daughter produced precisely identical information.

The Jewish sergeant and the five other specialists in third degree interrogation then left to seek out Höss, whom they surprised in the middle of the night, sleeping in an alcove of the room used to slaughter cattle on the farm.

Höss screamed in terror at the mere sight of British uniforms.

Clarke yelled “What is your name?”

With each answer of “Franz Lang,” Clarke’s hand crashed into the face of his prisoner. The fourth time that happened, Höss broke and admitted who he was.

The admission suddenly unleashed the loathing of the Jewish sergeants in the arresting party whose parents had died in Auschwitz following an order signed by Höss.

The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pyjamas ripped from his body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where it seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were endless.

Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: “Call them off, unless you want to take back a corpse.”

A blanket was thrown over Höss and he was dragged to Clarke’s car, where the sergeant poured a substantial slug of whisky down his throat. Then Höss tried to sleep.

Clarke thrust his service stick under the man’s eyelids and ordered in German: “Keep your pig eyes open, you swine.”

For the first time Höss trotted out his oft-repeated justification: “I took my orders from Himmler. I am a soldier in the same way as you are a soldier and we had to obey orders.”

The party arrived back at Heide around three in the morning. The snow was swirling still, but the blanket was torn from Höss and he was made to walk completely nude through the prison yard to his cell. (p. 237)

So it is that Bernard reveals “It took three days to get a coherent statement out of [Höss]” (ibid.). This admission was corroborated by Mr. Ken Jones in an article in the Wrexham Leader. (October 17,1986):

Mr. Ken Jones was then a private with the fifth Royal Horse Artillery stationed at Heid[e) in Schleswig-Holstein. “They brought him to us when he refused to cooperate over questioning about his activities during the war. He came in the winter of 1945/6 and was put in a small jail cell in the barracks,” recalls Mr. Jones. Two other soldiers were detailed with Mr. Jones to join Höss in his cell to help break him down for interrogation. “We sat in the cell with him, night and day, armed with axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to help break down his resistance,” said Mr. Jones. When Höss was taken out for exercise he was made to wear only jeans and a thin cotton shirt in the bitter cold. After three days and nights without sleep, Höss finally broke down and made a full confession to the authorities.

Clarke’s statement, obtained under the conditions just described by bullies of British Military Security under the brutal inspiration of sergeant-interpreter Bernard Clarke, became Höss’s first confession, the original confession indexed under the number NO-1210. Once the tortured prisoner had begun to talk, according to Clarke, it was impossible to stop him. Clarke, no more conscious in 1982 or 1983 than in 1946 of the enormity of what he forced Höss to confess, goes on to describe a series of fictitious horrors presented here as the truth: Höss went on to tell how after the bodies had been ignited, the fat oozing from them was poured over the other bodies (!). He estimated the number of dead during just the period when he was at Auschwitz at two million (!); the killings reached 10,000 victims per day (!).

It was Clarke’s duty to censor the letters sent by Höss to his wife and children. Every policeman knows that the power to grant or withhold permission to a prisoner to write to his family constitutes a psychological weapon. To make a prisoner “sing” it is sometimes sufficient to merely suspend or cancel that authorization. Clarke makes an interesting remark about the content of Höss’s letters; he confides to us:

Sometimes a lump came to my throat. There were two different men in that one man. One was brutal with no regard for human life. The other was soft and affectionate. (p. 238)

Rupert Butler ends his narrative by saying that Höss sought neither to deny nor to escape his responsibilities. In effect, at the Nuremberg tribunal Höss conducted himself with a “schizoid apathy.” The expression is that of the American prison psychologist, G.M. Gilbert, who was in charge of the psychological surveillance of the prisoners and whose eavesdropping aided the American prosecution. We can certainly believe that Höss was “split in two”! He had the appearance of a rag because they had turned him into a rag.

“Apathetic”, writes Gilbert on page 229 of his book; “apathetic, he repeats on the following page; “schizoid apathy,” he writes on page 239 (Nuremberg Diary, 1947, Signet Book, 1961).

At the end of his trial at Cracow; Höss greeted his death sentence with apparent indifference, Rupert Butler comments as follows:

[Höss] reasoned that Allies had their orders and, that there could be absolutely no question of these not being carried out. (ibid.)

One could not say it any better. It seems that Rudolf Höss, like thousands of accused Germans turned over to the mercy of conquerors who were totally convinced of their own goodness, had quickly grasped that he had no other choice but to suffer the will of his judges, whether they came from the West or from the East.

Butler then quickly evokes the case of Hans Frank, the former Governor of Poland. With the same tone of moral satisfaction he recounts the circumstances of Frank’s capture and subsequent treatment:

Celebrity status of any kind singularly failed to impress the two coloured GIs who arrested him and made sure he was transported to the municipal prison in Miesbach only after he had been savagely beaten up and flung into a lorry.

A tarpaulin had been thrown over him to hide the more obvious signs of ill-treatment; Frank found the cover useful when he attempted to slash an artery in his left arm.

Clearly, no such easy way out could be permitted; a US army medical officer saved his life and he stood trial at the International Military Tribunial at Nuremberg. (p. 238-239)

Rudolf Höss and Hans Frank were not the only ones to undergo treatment of that kind. Among the most celebrated cases, we know of Julius Streicher, Hans Fritzsche, Oswald Pohl, Franz Ziereis, and Josef Kramer.

But the case of Rudolf Höss is by far the most serious in its consequences. There is no document that proves that the Germans had a policy of exterminating the Jews. Léon Poliakov agreed with this in 1951:

As regards the conception properly called of the plan for a total extermination, the three or four principal actors committed suicide in May of 1945. No document has survived or perhaps has ever existed.

(Bréviaire de la haine: Le IIIe Reich et les Juifs, Calmann-Levy, 1951, Livre de Poche, 1974, p.171 )

In the absence of any document, historians à la Poliakov have repeatedly returned, primarily, to doubtful confessions like those of Kurt Gerstein or Rudolf Höss, sometimes modifying the texts to suit their convenience.

Bernard Clarke is “today a successful businessman working in the south of England” (Legions of Death, 1983, p. 235). One can in fact say that it is his voice that was heard at Nuremberg on 15 April 1946, when Assistant Prosecutor Amen read, piece by piece, to an astonished and overwhelmed audience, the supposed confession of Rudolf Höss. On that day was launched a lie of world-wide dimensions: the lie of Auschwitz. At the origins of that prodigious media event: several Jewish sergeants of British Military Security, including Bernard Clarke, “today a successful businessman working in the south of England.”

The Testimony of Moritz von Schirmeister

During the war, Moritz von Schirmeister had been the personal press attaché of Joseph Goebbels. On 29 June 1946, he was interrogated before the IMT as a defense witness for Hans Fritzsche. His deposition was particularly interesting regarding the actual personality of Dr. Goebbels and the attitude of the official German news services toward the flood of atrocity stories about the concentration camps spread during the war by the Allies.

At the end of the war, Moritz von Schirmeister had been arrested by the British and interned in a camp in England, where he was given the task of politically “re-educating” his fellow prisoners. Before testifying at Nuremberg, he was transferred by plane from London to Germany. At first he was kept at Minden-on-the-Weser, which was the principal interrogation center for the British Military Police. From there he was taken by car (31 March — 1 April 1946) to the prison at Nuremberg. In the same car rode Rudolf Höss. Moritz von Schirmeister is precisely that “prisoner of war who had been brought over from London as a witness in Fritzsche’s defense about whom Höss speaks in his “memoirs” (see above, p. 393).

Thanks to a document that I obtained from American researcher Mark Weber, who gave me a copy of it in Washington in September of 1983 (a document whose exact source I not yet authorized to indicate), we know that they were able to talk freely in the car that took them to Nuremberg. In that document, slightly more than two pages long, Schirmeister reports, as regarding the charges hanging over Höss, that Höss confided to him:

Gewiss, ich habe unterschrieben, dass ich 2 Millionen Juden umgebracht habe. Aber ich hätte genausogut untershrieben, dass es 5 Millionen Juden gewesen sind. Es gibt eben Methoden, mit denen man jedes Geständnis erreichen kann — ob es nun wahr ist oder nicht.

“Certainly, I signed a statement that I killed two and a half million Jews. But I could just as well have said that it was five million Jews. There are certain methods by which any confession can be obtained, whether it is true or not.”

Another Confession Signed by Rudolf Höss

The British torturers of Rudolf Höss had no reason to exercise any restraint. After making him sign document NO-1210 at 2:30 in the morning of the l4th or l5th of March 1946, they obtained a new signature from him on March 16, this time at the bottom of a text in English, written in an English handwriting style, with a blank in the space where the name of the place ought to have been given. His guards made him sign a simple note written in English:

Statement made voluntarily at ______ Gaol by Rudolf Höss, former Commandant of Auschwitz Concentration Camp on l6th day of March 1946.

I personally arranged on orders received from Himmler in May 1941 the gassing of two million persons between June/July 1941 and the end of 1943 during which time I was commandant of Auschwitz.

Rudolf Höss,
Eh. (?) Kdt. v. Auschwitz-Birkenau

(even the word “signed” was written in an English hand).

The Auschwitz Myth

We have known for some time that the Auschwitz myth is of an exclusively Jewish origin. Arthur R. Butz has related the facts in his book, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, as has Wilhelm Stäglich in The Auschwitz Myth. The principal authors of the creation and the peddling of the “rumor of Auschwitz” have been, successively, two Slovaks, Alfred Wetzler (or Weczler) and Rudolf Vrba (or Rosenberg or Rosenthal); then a Hungarian, Rabbi Michael Dov Ber Weissmandel (or Weissmandl); then, in Switzerland, representatives of the World Jewish Congress like Gerhard Riegner, who were in touch with London and Washington; and finally Americans like Harry Dexter White, Henry Morgenthau Jr. and Rabbi Stephen Samuel Wise. Thus was born the famous World Refugee Board Report on Auschwitz and Birkenau, published in Washington in November 1944. Copies of this report were included in the files of the judges advocate general in charge of prosecuting the Germans involved in the Auschwitz camp. It constituted the official version of the story of the alleged gassing of the Jews in that camp. Most probably it was used as a reference work by the inquirers-interrogators-torturers of “the Commandant of Auschwitz.” All the names here mentioned are those of Jews.

Moreover we now see that Bernard Clarke, the first British torturer, was a Jew, The second British torturer, Major Draper (?), may also have been a Jew. The same for the two Americans: psychologist G.M. (Gustave Mahler) Gilbert and Colonel Harlan Amen. Finally, in Poland, Höss was faced with Polish Jews who treated him more or less the same way. When he wrote his “memoirs” it was under the supervision of instructing magistrate Jan Sehn, who was also probably a Jew.

Establishment historians dispute that Höss had been tortured and had confessed under duress. Since the publication of Rupert Butler’s book in 1983, however, it is no longer possible for them to contest that. The Revisionists were right.

Since 1985 it is even less possible. In January-March 1985, the trial of Ernst Zündel, who was accused by a Jewish association and by the Crown of spreading Revisionist literature, took place in Toronto (Canada). Rudolf Vrba testified as a Crown witness. (He lives now in British Columbia). Affirmative and self assured as long as he answered the questions of the Crown, he suffered a spectacular rout when cross-examined by Ernst Zündel’s lawyer, Doug Christie. For the first time since 1945 a Jewish witness to the alleged gassings in Auschwitz was asked to explain his affirmations and his figures. The result was so terrible for R. Vrba that finally the Crown itself gave a kind of coup de grace to its key witness. That unexpected event and some others (like the leading specialist of the Holocaust, Raul Hilberg, being caught red-handed in his lies) really made of the “Toronto Trial” the “Trial of the Nuremberg Trial.”

The unintentional revelations of Rupert Butler in 1983 and unexpected revelations of the “Toronto Trial” in 1985 succeeded at last in showing entirely and clearly how the Auschwitz myth was fabricated from 1944 to 1947, to be exact from April 1944, when Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Wetzler are supposed to have escaped from Auschwitz to tell their story to the world up until April 1947, when Rudolf Höss was hanged after having supposedly told the same world his own story about Auschwitz.

It is remarkable that from beginning to end that story comes from essentially or perhaps even exclusively Jewish sources. Two Jewish liars (Vrba and Wetzler) from Slovakia convinced or seemed to have convinced other Jews from Hungary, Switzerland, United States, Great Britain, and Poland. This is not a conspiracy or a plot; it is the story of the birth of a religious belief: the myth of Auschwitz, center of the religion of the Holocaust.

This photograph was published after p. 161 of Lord Russell of Liverpool’s Geissel der Menschheit, Berlin, Verlag Volk und Welt, 1960. The title of the original book in English is The Scourge of the Swastika. The caption of the photo says: ‘The Confession of Rudolf Höss.” It is not NO-1210 or PS-3868 but only a very short text of 16 March 1946. You will note the difference between the handwriting of the text of the confession and Höss’s own handwriting. In his introduction to the English edition of Commandant in Auschwitz Lord Russell claims to furnish some information on the conditions in which Höss had to sign that note, but, since he commits errors in the chronology of the events in that regard, his information is to be received with reservations. (See Commandant in Auschwitz, p.18.)

The second photo was published as photo #22 in Tom Bower, Blind Eye to Murder (Britain, America and the Purging of Nazi Germany — A Pledge Betrayed), Granada: London, Toronto, Sydney, New York 1981. The caption of the photo says: “Colonel Gerald Draper of the British War Crimes Group photographed as he finally secured the confession of Rudolf Höss, the commandant of Auschwitz, to the murder of three million people.” As one remembers, Höss said in his “memoirs”: “I received further rough treatment at the hands of the English public prosecutor, a major” (Commandant in Auschwitz, p. 74). Did this major become a colonel and was his name “Draper”?

From The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1986-87 (Vol. 7, No. 4), pages 380-403

Donald Trump’s “Great Big Beautiful Bubble” Explained.

outranet graffiti


jesus moneylenders

Explaining the structurally inbuilt insurance policy of the bankster Jews, developed to deal with the danger of a president they don’t like ever arising to contest their power. A cleverly designed rip-off which may this time have gone too far, and all triggered at the end of every presidential cycle. This is the bomb the private Jewish Federal Reserve bank’s Janet Yellen, on behalf of the the JWO, will drop on Trump if he is elected:

The War is over…….The Victors’ Lies About German War Guilt on WW II

Die Kriegschuld-Lüge – Answering The Victors’ Lies About German War Guilt

Jürgen Rieger

“The most vital task of the day is to spread the truth” ~ Jürgen Rieger, 2 September, 2009

The following article was originally published on September 2, 2009 by a German lawyer,  politician and activist Jürgen Rieger, on his own website in Germany. It was written in response to the now infamous speech by FRG Chancellor Angela Merkel’s at Westerplatte, in Polish occupied Danzig, on the 1st of September 2009 in which she declared that “Germany alone was responsible for the war and the deaths of 60,000 million people and that there can be no re-writing this history”.  That speech was enough to make any knowledgeable and patriotic German’s blood boil. But he Herr Rieger had a more pressing personal motivation, as we shall see later on.

A portion of that Merkel speech is featured in the film “Hitler’s War? – What the Historians Neglect to Mention” and I have included an excerpt below.  Herr Rieger’s article very eloquently elucidated many of the same facts covered in that documentary film, and echoed many of those documented by Maj.-Gen (Ret) Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof’s book “The War that Had Many Fathers” (1939 – Der Krieg, der viele Väter hatte) and Prof. Udo Walendy’s book “Truth for Germany” (Wahrheit fuer Deutschland). Rieger’s article was subsequently translated by J.M. Damon and posted at on September 26, 2009.  I am re-posting here with some added graphics.   Sadly, less than two months after publishing this article, Jürgen Rieger suddenly passed away as the result of a stroke.  But it must be said that he left nothing unsaid.  His courageous parting words, however, remain with us, and they continue to educate and inspire us in this struggle for truth and justice for Germans.

Jürgen Rieger wrote:

“Once again we have another round-number date to observe: the 70th anniversary of the invasion of Poland. Once again we are told that we must observe it with “shame and guilt.” We must declare ad nauseam that “…never ever again from German soil…” etc., etc. But what else could we expect from such an occupation regime as ours?

As the Springer publication “Welt am Sonntag” laments in its issue of 30th August 2009:

“…It is discouraging that at the solemn and imposing Polish observance of the beginning of the War, which took place at the place where it began, the Danziger Westerplatte, no heads of state of Western nations participated except Angela Merkel.”

We are told that it would have been a good thing

“…if the West, through its presence in Danzig, had solemnized the great suffering that occurred in Eastern Europe and not just Poland.”

In other Establishment publications the story goes that Adolf Hitler on 1 September 1939 “ignited World War II;” “released world conflagration;” “set out to conquer the world” …and other such claptrap!

THE TRUTH is that the German-Polish war began on 1 September 1939, and this local war became a European war with England’s and France’s declaration of war against the Third Reich on 3 September. The European War became World War II on 12 September 1941, when President Roosevelt instructed the American navy to sink any German warships it encountered. (On that occasion the American Secretary of the Navy remarked laconically that “the US had entered the war but the American people did not know it yet”.)

THE TRUTH is that Poland, which had long been under Russian rule, was reestablished as an independent state by Germany and Austria in 1916. As thanks for this generous act, regular units of the Polish army joined Korfanty armed bands and began seizing purely German districts in Upper Silesia and Western Prussia. In response to German electoral victories in every region that held a plebiscite, they initiated a reign of terror; and thanks to French backing, Poland was allowed to keep these German districts.

danzig map

Under the Dictate of Versailles Poland was given a “corridor” to the Baltic Sea, along with large areas of West Prussia that were populated by Germans. This “corridor” completely separated East Prussia from the Reich, making trade and communication difficult or impossible. During Allied discussions on the peace treaty, Lloyd George, the English Prime Minister during the First World War, tapped this spot on the map and predicted “This is where the next world war will begin!”

Unlike the Western leaders, Hitler had realistically evaluated the dangers posed by the Bolshevik Soviet Union. He realized that Germany would be unable resist the Soviet Union without an alliance with Poland. For this reason he signed a non-aggression treaty with Poland in 1934. President Pilsudski in turn realized that Poland could not simultaneously conduct hostilities against its two powerful neighbors Germany and the Soviet Union.

In addition to seizing German districts, Poland had grabbed White Russian and Ukrainian districts after the Russian Empire had been weakened by the First World War. The present eastern border of Poland, which the Soviet Union established in 1939, corresponds to the ethnic border. With its wars of aggression, Poland had overreached this line, making the Soviet Union its enemy.

The German minority had been disfranchised in the 1920s, and in the 1930s it was subjected to open terror, murder and rape, especially in the months preceding September 1939. Under the nonaggression treaty German newspapers were not allowed to report on Polish atrocities against the minority Germans, which led to the emigration of a million Germans. Another million remained behind in German regions that had been seized by the Poles.

A popular song about the Poles that originated among the fighting home defense units in Upper Silesia was rewritten in National Socialist songbooks to suggest that the struggle was not against “Pjorunje” but rather “Bolschewike.”

Hitler badly wanted an accommodation with Poland. Until the month of April 1939, National Socialist propaganda continued to include the names of deceased President Pilsudski and Foreign Minister Beck among the “great statesmen of Europe.”

Adolf Hitler at Jozef Pilsudski, 1935

In contrast to his general officers, who with their friends and relatives had had large landholdings in the regions now occupied by Poland, Hitler did not insist on re-establishing the 1914 border. Instead, he offered the sizeable concession of limiting Germany’s demands to a plebiscite in West Prussia and nowhere else.

He proposed that in the event the plebiscite favored Germany, the city and harbor of Gdingen would remain Polish territory, along with an extraterritorial freeway extending from Poland through West Prussia to the harbor. In case the plebiscite favored Poland, Germany would be allowed to build an extraterritorial freeway from Pomerania to East Prussia so that bothersome border controls could be eliminated. In addition Danzig, which was 98% German and under mandate of the League of Nations, would be allowed to join the Reich, in keeping with the preference of the population of Danzig.

Publicly and privately, Hitler indicated that this would be Germany’s last territorial claim since it would undo the mischief done at Versailles. Although his proposal was decidedly moderate, the Poles reacted with obstinacy, bolstered in their hard line by Britain.


For 300 years Britain had pursued a “Balance of Power” policy of allying herself with the second most powerful nation against the most powerful. This policy had allowed Britain to cover its rear while establishing a ‘world empire’. In accordance with this plan, Britain in 1935 reached a naval agreement with Germany that limited the German fleet to 1/3 the size of the English fleet. (At that time France was more powerful militarily than Germany.) Hitler wanted to assure Britain that a naval arms race would not occur again – Kaiser Wilhelm had initiated such a contest and it led to Britain’s declaration of war in 1914.

By 1938, Germany had become more powerful than France and, in keeping with its “Balance of Power” policies, Britain again adopted an anti-German policy. This led to the British government’s protesting Austria’s joining the Reich, even though 99% of Austrians had voted for unification in the plebiscite. [Editor’s note:  my research indicates that this was not the case; that Hitler in fact was deliberately deceptive in overstating Germany’s military strength. He bluffed in the hopes of deterring an attack, but more on this another in a future post]

Britain has never acknowledged other nations’ right of self-determination, whether in India (where those who favored independence were tied to English cannon) or in Ireland (where almost the entire population was annihilated because they would not submit to British domination.)

It is a mistake to maintain that the entry of German troops into Czechoslovakia on 15 March 1939 brought about a change in Britain’s policy toward the Reich. This must be said about Czechoslovakia: in this clumsily cobbled-together country, a minority of Czechs ruled three million Germans as well as Slovaks, Ruthenians, Poles and Hungarians.

All these ethnic splinter groups wanted to rejoin their nations but were brutally prohibited by the Czechs from doing so. The reason for this was that under the Dictate of Versailles, France was able to pursue a policy of aggrandizing Germany’s neighbors so as to have powerful allies in the coming war against Germany.

After Austria had been reunited with the Reich came the problem of annexing the millions of Germans living under Czech rule. Hitler proposed self-determination, but the Czechs responded with increased repression. They did everything to provoke Hitler, including a general mobilization on 21 May 1938 to counter an allegedly impending attack by Germany, which was a total fabrication.

Since no attack took place, the Czech as well as French and English press triumphantly announced that their determined military measures had dissuaded Hitler from invasion, which caused the Reich to lose prestige.

The American ambassador in Paris clearly recognized the bellicose character of the Czech mobilization and characterized it in a report to President Roosevelt as a “provocation for another war in Europe.”

In order to evaluate the situation the British government sent Lord Runciman to the Sudetenland. In his report on 16 September 1938 he wrote:

“I have great sympathy for the cause of the Sudeten Germans. It is difficult to be governed by a foreign nation, and my impression is that Czechoslovak rule in the Sudetenland displays such a lack of tact and understanding, and so much petty intolerance and discrimination, that dissatisfaction among the German population must inevitably lead to outrage and rebellion.”

Following this, the British government joined in urging the Czechs to allow a plebiscite in Sudetenland. The French government, which had a mutual assistance treaty with Czechoslovakia, did the same, since France was not prepared to go to war with Germany over the Sudetenland. The Czech Government rejected the suggestion of a plebiscite because this would have served as precedent for other national minorities to demand plebiscites as well. However, they agreed to relinquish the Sudeten districts without plebiscite since these regions bordering the Reich were populated almost entirely by Germans.


This is how the “Munich Agreement” came about. It resulted not from threats and extortion by Hitler, but rather an agreement by all parties that the Sudeten Germans rightfully belonged “Heim ins Reich” (back home in the Reich.)

It is important to note that both Britain and Germany agreed to guarantee the borders of Czechoslovakia as soon as its other problems of national minorities were solved. Neither Hitler nor anyone else guaranteed any national borders, since Czechoslovakia never solved its minority problems.

In March 1939 both the Slovaks and the Ruthenians declared independence, whereupon the Poles invaded Czechoslovakia and occupied the Olsa Region, which was populated by Poles. The Hungarians did the same, occupying the border areas that were populated by Hungarians.

Since Czechoslovakia had ceased to exist, its President Hacha flew to Berlin on 15 March 1939 and placed the remainder of his country under the protection of the Reich. He was afraid that Poland and Hungary would follow the Czech example and divide the Czech regions among themselves.

The Reich then formed the Protectorate of Bohemia and Maeren, which provided for exclusive Czech administration in all areas except military and foreign policy. Hitler was concerned about the threat to German cities and industrial areas that was posed by Czech air bases.

Because it felt betrayed by the Sudeten agreement and the Western powers, Czechoslovakia had adopted close relations with the Soviet Union, which had already stationed 300 airplanes in the Czech regions. Hitler, who knew that war with the Soviet Union inevitable, could not allow the Czech regions to serve as a staging area and “aircraft carrier” for the Soviet Union. Hacha remained in office and attended the parade of 20 April 1939 as a guest of the Reich, standing next to Hitler. It is very clear that Hitler did not violate the Munich accord.

When Prime Minister Chamberlain was questioned in the Lower House about the entry of German troops in Prague on 15 March 1939, he explained:

“In our view, the situation has changed significantly since the Slovakian parliament declared independence.

This explanation produced the effect that the state whose borders we intended to guarantee collapsed internally and ceased to exist. Accordingly, the situation that the honorable Secretary for the Dominions has described, and which we had always considered temporary, has now ceased to exist.”

Just two days later, however, in sharp contrast to this explanation given in the British lower house, Chamberlain condemned the “German invasion” in his Birmingham speech of 17 March 1939; and on 31 March 1939 he signed an agreement with the Polish government in which Great Britain promised to support Poland in the event of war.

It promised to do this not only if Poland were attacked, but even if Poland should start a war – for example on account of its pretended “rights” in Danzig. Both of these contradicted in word and spirit the written message that Chamberlain carried in his hand on his return from Munich, to which he proudly referred and for which he was enthusiastically applauded by the masses. At that time he had announced “Peace in our time.”

In this announcement Hitler and Chamberlain established that all questions concerning their mutual interests would be handled in mutual consultations.

Gemeinsame Erkl„rung Neville Chamberlains und Adolf Hitlers nach dem Mnchener Abkommen.

So how did it come about that England encouraged Poland to go to war against Germany?

Following 15 March 1939, Roosevelt exerted strong pressure on the British government to “finally exert opposition” against “Nazi tyranny” or else he would apply methods of coercion against Great Britain. It is impossible to determine precisely what threats he made, since their correspondence is still off-limits to historians.

Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal wrote in his diary that US Ambassador Joseph Kennedy remarked that Chamberlain was convinced that America and the Jews were forcing Britain into war. This is only part of the story, however. The germanophobic senior British diplomat Vansittart and the Rumanian Ambassador  Tilea also played a major role.

Immediately after the entry of German troops into Czech territory,  Tilea announced that during German-Rumanian economic negotiations, Germany had threatened to invade Rumania if it was not allowed to exploit Rumanian oil. This was an absurd allegation since Germany and Rumania did not even share a common border – they were 400 kilometers apart.

The English believed it, however, and newspapers in London, Paris and New York spread false reports of a threatened German attack. In reality, German-Rumanian economic negotiations were entirely cordial. Nobody made any threats of any kind.

It could be that Tileda’s false allegations about German threats were inspired by Rumania’s needing British economic assistance, and he was desperately trying to persuade Britain to grant this assistance. It could also be that Tileda had been bribed by the germanophobic Vansittart, who was determined to bring about an understanding between Tileda and Chamberlain.

At any rate, these false allegations greatly alarmed London’s financial City. The City had no economic interests in Poland and the Czech state, but it did have interests in Rumania, where most of the oil fields were owned by British stockholders. The allegations moved British economic circles to take an anti German course.

Even more significant was the circumstance that Chamberlain was neither an appeaser nor a Germanophile, as his biographer accurately points out. He simply realized that a war against Germany could not be won in 1939. Britain’s regular army was relatively small – it had just recently introduced conscription, and its air force was smaller than the Luftwaffe.

As Hitler well understood, Chamberlain was playing for time in order to displace Germany as the leading power on the Continent as soon as Britain, which had enormously increased its armaments program, would have adequate trained men and material. What Chamberlain was really hoping for was political upheaval in Germany following a declaration of war.

He arrived at this fond hope because numerous opponents of Hitler, including the secretary to German ambassador Kordt in London, Clergyman Goerdeler, head of German Military Intelligence Canaris, State Secretary Weizsäcker (No. 2 man after Germany’s foreign minister) and Army Chief of Staff General Beck had joined the opposition and established contact with the British government.

Initially, in view of the universal principle “my country right or wrong,” the British had assumed that contact by the German Opposition was a trick to make them take hasty action. On the basis of very precise details reported to them, they now assumed the honesty and correctness of the figures provided by the Opposition. For example, Hitler was surprised by the sudden mobilization of the British Fleet, excavation of air raid shelters and drills with gas masks in London in the summer of 1939. These had come as a response to a report by Opposition figures to the effect that Hitler was plotting a surprise attack with over a thousand bombers.

The British journalist John Colvin, who was in quest of a “scoop,” had close ties with the British secret service, and met with Opposition circles that included high-ranking officers. The officers told him that Britain’s agreement in the Sudeten crisis had denied them the possibility of displacing Hitler and the National Socialist regime in a putsch. They suggested that Britain adopt a much harder line against Germany, including a declaration of war. They believed this would make Hitler so unpopular in Germany that the generals would be able to overthrow him.

On 29 March 1939, before the British-Polish Pact, Colvin met with Chamberlain at the instigation of Churchill. He told him that there was a good chance the German generals Beck and von Witzleben, H. von Bismarck and Major von Kleist-Schmenzien would revolt and stop Hitler. Chamberlain then asked whether it would influence these people if Britain gave the Poles a guarantee and Colvin responded: “Yes, that would help.” The guarantee followed.


Churchill, who had said that his life’s mission was to lead another Thirty Year’s War against Germany, remarked jovially when he met Colvin again after the War: “Here’s the man who gave us the War!” Chamberlain’s diary also provides evidence that the German Opposition played a decisive role in the British declaration of war. On 3 September 1939 he wrote that he did not believe Britain could win the war and was hoping for upheaval in Germany instead. In the save vein, he wrote his sister on 10 September 1939: “What I am hoping for is not military victory, but rather a collapse of the German domestic front.”

Since the British guarantee of 31 March 1939 gave Poland carte blanche in its dealings with Germany, Poland intensified its persecutions of the German minority. Abductions became common, speaking German in public was proscribed, German associations and newspapers were suppressed, the German consul in Krakow was murdered, etc.

It is irrelevant whether Poles or Germans attacked the Gleiwitz transmitting station; whoever reads the White Book of the German-Polish war will find countless undisputed murders and assaults committed by the Poles in the weeks and months preceding 1 September 1939.

For example, ethnic Germans attempting to flee Poland were murdered and German commercial aircraft flying between Pomerania and East Prussia were fired upon by Polish anti-aircraft artillery. Such provocations could only be intentional.


In June 1939, Pilsudski’s successor Marshal Rydz-Smigly smugly addressed Polish military officers as follows: “Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid war even if it so desires.” Presumably he pictured himself riding a white horse at the head of victorious Polish troops marching through the Brandenburg Gate.


German intelligence succeeded in breaking the Polish code, so that the Germans knew that Warsaw had given directives to Polish ambassador Lipski that under no circumstances could he intervene or offer concessions to Germany. In addition, the German Opposition informed Roosevelt that Germany was planning to attack Poland. They also informed the Polish ambassador, Polish government and French government, none of whom were disturbed. They were confident that in the event of war they could penetrate deep into Germany because domestic disorders would break out there.

Thus the US, England, France and Poland all trusted in the promises of the German Opposition to execute a putsch if Hitler invaded Poland and the Western powers declared war on Germany. This is surprising in view of the fact that, as several secret ballotings had shown, 90% of all Germans supported Hitler. Germany’s enemies, as well as its domestic Opposition, must have known that the Opposition had no support among the German people. Against their better knowledge they continued egging Poland and Britain into war, however.

Even on 20 July 1944, despite the heavy losses Germany had already sustained in the war, the members of the Opposition still did not have enough confidence to reveal themselves as opponents of Hitler. Instead, they prepared an explanation to be given following the anticipated death of Hitler that the SS had carried out the putsch and the Wehrmacht was now taking power. And yet, such spineless traitors as these are officially lauded by the present System as “heroes!”

The fact that Chamberlain, knowing of the Polish, French and American desire for war, gave a free hand to Polish war policies and did not urge Poland to accept the moderate German demands can be explained only by the fact that he also wanted war on 1 September 1939.

Another indication of this is the fact that in Britain the evening edition of the newspaper DAILY MAIL for 31 August 1939 was confiscated. The edition had carried the story of Germany’s proposals concerning the Polish Corridor as well as Poland’s response, which was general mobilization. The newspaper was compelled to publish a different evening edition.

The British Naval Minister Cooper, who favored war, was highly perturbed when he learned of the German proposal, which he considered moderate and reasonable. He telephoned the DAILY TELEGRAPH AND demanded that it present the German proposal in as unfavorable light as possible. The British ambassador to Berlin also did everything he could to keep the moderate German proposal secret for as long as possible.

Occasionally the Establishment media admit that Hitler had not planned a World War on 1 September 1939. Numerous witnesses reported that he was shaken by receipt of the British ­ French declaration of war. When this is mentioned, however, it is accompanied by the suggestion that he had been “playing Vabanque” (gambling) as he had done before, and this time his bet did not pay off.

In response to this it should be said that Hitler accurately evaluated public sentiment in England and France. Many Frenchmen were not enthused by the prospect of “dying for Danzig;” “mourir pour Danzig” was the phrase on everyone’s lips. What Hitler did not suspect, since Germans traditionally held sworn oaths to be sacred, was that influential persons in the military, foreign ministry and information agencies were conspiring with the enemy to bring about “regime change.” Perhaps these individuals believed the enemy propaganda line that their goal was to replace Hitler rather than annihilate Germany.

As for the German-Soviet War, there can be no doubt, in view of the revelations of the Russian secret agent Suvorov, that what the Germans suspected in 1941 is factual: The Reich interrupted a Russian offensive that, as we know today, was scheduled to begin on 6 July 1941. This explains why millions of Soviet soldiers were quickly surrounded and taken prisoner – they were supposed to be rushed from hidden positions to the border just before the attack. It also explains why huge numbers of artillery pieces and stockpiles of munitions were captured at the border, as well as millions of extra leather boots, detailed maps of the Red Army’s objectives in Germany and so forth.

When the Establishment media blather about the “surprise attack on an unsuspecting Soviet Union in 1941,” it is just one more Gigantic Lie.

Beginning with the English-German War of September 1939 that he so ardently desired, Roosevelt violated the guidelines for neutral nations countless times. As early as 1939 he was already shadowing German merchant ships with US cruisers, who then called in British cruisers to sink them. He also seized German assets, supplied the British with war materiel on credit, “loaned” them fifty destroyers and guarded British convoys with American warships.

Hitler, who was determined not to provoke the US, responded to none of these provocations. He even forbade German submarines to defend themselves with torpedoes when attacked by US destroyers, remembering Washington’s pretext for entering World War I in 1917.

Even in the Nuremberg show trials, the hypocritical and avaricious US government did not dare to pronounce Germany guilty of conducting “offensive war” against them, since they had already been at war with Germany for three months when Japan, driven to desperate measures by the oil embargo, attacked the US fleet at Peal Harbor in December of 1941.

The above is the simple unadorned TRUTH!

The longer German youth remain in school, the more they are indoctrinated with lies and brainwashed against their fatherland. After 65 years of such brainwashing, the teachers either know no better or else they are compelled to instruct nonsense.

Our Establishment media all play the same tune and our abject politicians perform never-ending kowtows to do penance for our “endless guilt” for the 60 million victims of the Second World War. We pay countless billions in tribute to foreign countries while, to quote Merkel, we must never be allowed to “go a separate German way.”

We were forced to abolish the D-Mark and abandon our sovereignty to NATO and the European Union. When German nationalists demand that at long last German schools adopt a factual historiography, it is not just a “backwards-looking” as some who describe themselves as “modern nationalists” believe. In actuality, it has an enormous political effect.

If we are unable to succeed in making German youth proud and self confident again, they will be unable to resist ever-growing foreign demands, plundering of our social security fund and squandering of our money in international banks. They will continue to be unable to resist predatory foreign lobbyists and parasitic organizations.

The most vital task of the day is to spread the truth!”

Jürgen Rieger
2 September 2009
(The original German version was published at  and no longer exists)

Juergen Rieger

Rest in Peace

Jürgen Rieger died on October 29, 2009 at the age 0f 63 at the Vivantes Clinic, Neukölln (Berlin), after suffering a stroke on October 24th.

In his political life, he was roundly denounced in the FRG mainstream media and by establishment leaders as a “Neo-Nazi”, “right-wing extremist” and “Holocaust denier” etc. all politics aside, he was a very patriotic German, and not a “sell out”, who demonstrated great courage in speaking out on behalf of the German people, to tell the truth as best he knew it, in the interest of Justice for Germans!

Jürgen Rieger was also very involved in the defense of Ernst Zundel (in Germany). On the basis of the evidence which he presented in court, which included some 700 documents, Herr Rieger was then also charged and convicted under S.130 of the FRG Penal Code, and facing a sentence of 5 years imprisonment, along with fellow lawyer Sylvia Stolz.  Only his passing prevented this indignity, and would have also meant that he could never again practice law.

Knowing his fate, however, no doubt prompted him to write this article, anticpatiing that he may never get another chance to publicly speak his truth, and the stress of the legal ordeal likely led to his demise.

In the following video, Herr Rieger spoke about (in German) her case, his own case, and that Orwellian laws and trials in Germany which demonstrate clearly that Germany is not a free country.

I concur with Herr Rieger’s article, and with honour I heed his call to “spread the truth!” and I proudly pick up the torch where he, Udo Walendy, and other great post-war German patriots have left off (including those who have been silenced by law) and I carry on to tell the truth as best I know it, for as long as I can,  in seeking truth, justice and freedom for my Volk, in our undying hope of a Golden Future,  won with our blood, our sweat and tears, in a glorious victory over the Blackness of foreign rule,  tyranny, and sheer ignorance.

Justice for Germans - Amazing cure for chronic low self-esteem among Germans

I pray that God Almighty intervened on behalf of Herr Rieger, and that he is now in a much better place and having a good long laugh at those devils in the corrupt FRG legal system, for whom a special place is reserved in Hell for the betrayal of our people and of the justice which they profess to represent.

Gott segne ihn, und möge er in Frieden ruhen!,_J%C3%BCrgen

Refugee Crisis Threatens European Social Fabric: How NATO-linked Think Tanks Control EU Refugee Policy


A flood of uncontrolled war refugees from Syria, Libya, Tunisia and other Muslim countries destabilized by Washington’s ‘Arab Spring’ Color Revolutions, has created the greatest social dislocation across the EU from Germany to Sweden to Croatia since the end of World War II.

By now it has become clear to most that something quite sinister is afoot, something which threatens to destroy the social fabric of the very core of European civilization. What few realize is that the entire drama is being orchestrated, not by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, or by faceless EU bureaucrats of the Brussels EU Commission. It is being orchestrated by a cabal of NATO-linked think tanks.

Last October 8, 2015 amid the great stream of hundreds of thousands of refugees flooding into Germany from Syria, Tunisia, Libya and other lands, a newly self-confident German Chancellor Angela Merkel proclaimed on a popular German TV program, “I have a plan.” She took the occasion to take a sharp dig at coalition partner, Bavarian CSU head, Horst Seehofer, a stauch critic of Merkel’s open arms refugee position since spring 2015 that saw more than one million refugees enter Germany last year alone.

Since that point, with iron-hard resolve, the German Chancellor has defended the criminal Erdogan regime in Turkey, an essential partner in her “plan.”

Most of the world has looked on with astonishment as she ignored principles of free speech and decided to prosecute publicly a well-known German TV comedian, Jan Böhmermann, for his satirical remarks about the Turkish President. They were astonished as the symbol of European democracy, the German Chancellor, chose to ignore Erdogan’s imprisonment of opposition journalists ands his shutting of Turk opposition media as he proceeded with plans to establish a de facto dictatorship rule within Turkey. They were puzzled as Berlin’s government chose to ignore overwhelming proof that Erdogan and his family were materially aiding and abetting ISIS terrorists within Syria who were in fact creating the war refugee crisis. They were astonished to see her push through an EU committment to give Erdogan’s regime billions of euros to supposedly deal with the refugee flow from Turkish refugee camps across the border into EU neighbor land, Greece and beyond.

The Merkel Plan

All of those seemingly inexplicable actions from the once-pragmatic German leader appear to go back to her embrace of a 14-page document prepared by a network of pro-NATO think-tanks, brazenly titled “The Merkel Plan.”

What the newly-self-confident German Chancellor did not tell her hostess, Anne Will, or her viewers was that “her” plan was given to her just four days earlier, on October 4, in a document already titled The Merkel Plan, by a newly-created and obviously well-financed international think-tank called the European Stability Initiative or ESI. The ESI website showed that it had offices in Berlin, Brussels and in Istanbul, Turkey

Suspiciously, the authors of the ESI plan titled their plan as if it had come from the German Chancellor’s office and not from them. More suspicious is the contents of The Merkel Plan of ESI. In addition to already taking more than one million refugees in 2015, Germany should “agree to grant asylum to 500,000 Syrian refugees registered in Turkey over the coming 12 months.” In addition, “Germany should accept claims from Turkey…and provide safe transport to successful applicants…already registered with the Turkish authorities…” And finally, “Germany should agree to help Turkey obtain visa-free travel in 2016.”

That so-called Merkel Plan was a product of US and NATO-linked think tanks and of governments of NATO member countries or prospective members. The maxim “follow the money trail” is instructive in this case to see who really runs the EU today.

The European Stability Institute (ESI)

The ESI came out of NATO-led efforts to transform South East Europe following the US-instigated war in Yugoslavia during the 1990’s that resulted in the Balkanization of the country and establishment of a major USA and NATO airbase, Camp Bond Steel in Kosovo.

Current ESI Chairman directly responsible for the final Merkel Plan document is Istanbul-based Austrian sociologist, Gerald Knaus. Knaus is also a member of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), and an Open Society Fellow.

Founded in London in 2007, the ECFR is an imitation of the influential New York Council on Foreign Relations, the think-tank created by the Rockefeller and JP Morgan bankers during the 1919 Versailles peace talks to coordinate an Anglo-American global foreign policy.

In virtually every US State Department-backed Color Revolution since the collapse of the Soviet Union, including in Serbia in 2000, in Ukraine, in Georgia, in China, in Brazil and in Russia, the various offshoots of the Open Society Foundations have been in the shadows financing “democracy” NGOs and activists to install pro-Washington and pro-NATO regimes.

The select members, called Council Members or associates, of the London-based ECFR include ECFR co-chairman Joschka Fischer, former German Green Party Foreign Minister who arm-twisted his party into backing Bill Clinton’s illegal 1999 bombing of Serbia without UN Security Council backing.

Other members of the Council of the European Council on Foreign Relations think tank include former NATO Secretary General, Xavier Solana. It includes former German Defense Minister, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg; Annette Heuser, Executive Director Bertelsmann Stiftung in Washington DC; Wolfgang Ischinger, Chairman, Munich Security Conference; Cem Özdemir, chairman, Bündnis90/Die Grünen; Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, German Liberal Party (FDP) MP; Michael Stürmer, Chief Correspondent, Die Welt; Andre Wilkens, Director of Mercator Foundation; Daniel Cohn-Bendit of the European Parliament. Cohn-Bendit, known as “Danny the Red” during the May, 1968 French student riots, was a member of the the autonomist group Revolutionärer Kampf (Revolutionary Struggle) in Rüsselsheim, Germany along with his close ally, now ECFR chairman, Joschka Fischer. The two went on to found the “realo” wing of the German Greens.

The Open Society Foundations is the network of tax-exempt “democracy-promoting” foundations created to promote “free market” pro-IMF market liberalization of former communist economies that opened the doors for the systematic plundering of invaluable mining and energy assets of those countries. Soros’ Open Society Foundations were also involved in supporting the liberal economic team of Boris Yeltsin including Harvard “Shock Therapy” economist, Jeffrey Sachs, and Yeltsin liberal adviser, Yegor Gaidar.

Already it becomes clear that the “Merkel Plan” is the ECFR Plan in fact. But there is more if we wish to understand the darker agenda behind the plan.

The ESI Funders

The European Stability Initiative think-tank headed by Gerald Knaus is financed by an impressive list of donors. Their website lists them.

The list includes, in addition to Soros’ Open Society Foundations, the German Stiftung Mercator, and the Robert Bosch Stiftung. ESI funders also include rthe European Commission. Then, curiously enough the funder list for The Merkel Plan includes an organization with the Orwellian name, The United States Institute of Peace.

Some research reveals that the United States Institute of Peace has anything but a peace-loving background. The United States Institute of Peace is chaired by Stephen Hadley, former US National Security Council adviser during the neo-conservative war-waging Bush-Cheney administration. Its Board of Directors includes Ashton B. Carter, current Obama Administration neo-conservative hawkish Secretary of Defense; Secretary of State John Kerry; Major General Frederick M. Padilla, President of the US National Defense University. These are some very seasoned architects of the US Pentagon Full Spectrum Dominance strategy for world military domination.

The “Merkel Plan” authors at the European Stability Initative, in addition to the largesse of Open Society Foundations, list as “core” funder, the German Marshall Fund of the United States. As I describe in my book, The Think Tanks, the German Marshall Fund is anything but German. With its seat in Washington, as I noted in the book,

“It’s an American think tank with its headquarters in Washington, D.C. In point of fact, its agenda is the deconstruction of postwar Germany and more broadly of the sovereign states of the EU to fit them better into the Wall Street globalization agenda.”

The German Marshall Fund of Washington has been involved in the post-1990 USA agenda of regime change around the world in league with the US-funded National Endowment for Democracy, Open Society Foundations, and the CIA front called USAID. As I describe it in the think tanks book,

“The major focus of the German Marshall Fund according to its 2013 Annual Report was to support the US State Department agenda for so-called democracy-building operations in former communist countries in eastern and south-eastern Europe, from the Balkans to the Black Sea. Significantly their work included Ukraine. In most instances, they worked together with the USAID, widely identified as a CIA front with ties to the State Department, and the Stewart Mott Foundation which gives funds to the US Government-funded National Endowment for Democracy.”

Notably, the same Stewart Mott Foundation is also a funder of the ESI-authored Merkel Plan, as is the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

This all should give pause for reflection as to who and for what goals the Merkel-Erdogan deal for dealing with the EU refugee crisis is intended.

Does the Rockefeller-Bush-Clinton faction in the United States intend to use it as a major social engineering experiment to create chaos and social conflict across the EU at the same time their NGOs such as the NED, Freedom House and Open Society Foundations are stirring things up in Syria and Libya and across the Islamic world?

Is Germany, as former US presidential adviser and Rockefeller crony, Zbigniew Brzezinski called her, a “vassal” of US power in the post-1990 world? To date the evidence is pretty strong that that’s the case. The role of US and NATO-linked think tanks is central to get an understanding of how the Federal Republic of Germany and the European Union are actually controlled from behind the Atlantic curtain.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

Jewish Infiltration

Jew Traitors: Master List (Part I)

. The previous post on murdering Russian Jew Commies is also a part of this series. I will be adding to this particular post as time goes on, so please help out with any suggestions, corrections and additions.

Michael Mukasey

Former US Attorney General. Mukasey also was the judge in the litigation between developer Larry Silverstein and several insurance companies arising from the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001.

Michael Chertoff

Former Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, at the Justice Department and former head of Homeland Security. He also released the 9/11 Dancing Israelis (a MOSSAD ops) from custody and had close ties to Magdy Ealimir, conduit of finances to the supposed 9/11 terrorists.

Richard Perle

One of Bush’s foreign policy advisors, he is the chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board. A very likely Israeli government agent, Perle was expelled from Senator Henry Jackson’s office in the 1970’s after the National Security Agency (NSA) caught him passing Highly-Classified (National Security) documents to the Israeli Embassy. He later worked for the Israeli weapons firm, Soltam. Perle came from one the above mentioned pro-Israel thinktanks, the AEI. Perle is one of the leading pro-Israeli fanatics leading this Iraq war mongering within the administration and now in the media.

Paul Wolfowitz

Former Deputy Defense Secretary, and member of Perle’s Defense Policy Board, in the Pentagon. Wolfowitz is a close associate of Perle, and reportedly has close ties to the Israeli military. His sister lives in Israel. Wolfowitz came from the above mentioned Jewish thinktank, JINSA. Wolfowitz was the number two leader within the administration behind this Iraq war mongering. He later was appointed head of the World Bank but resigned under pressure from World Bank members over a scandal involving his misuse of power.

Former AIPAC members Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman

Pentagon Iran analyst Larry Franklin admitted that he met periodically with Rosen and Weissman between 2002 and 2004 and discussed classified information, including information about potential attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq. Rosen and Weissman would later share what they learned with reporters and Israeli officials.” (source:

Douglas Feith

Under Secretary of Defense and Policy Advisor at the Pentagon. He is a close associate of Perle and served as his Special Counsel. Like Perle and the others, Feith is a pro-Israel extremist, who has advocated anti-Arab policies in the past. He is closely associated with the extremist group, the Zionist Organization of America, which even attacks Jews that don’t agree with its extremist views. Feith frequently speaks at ZOA conferences. Feith runs a small law firm, Feith and Zell, which only has one International office, in Israel. The majority of their legal work is representing Israeli interests. His firm’s own website stated, prior to his appointment, that Feith “represents Israeli Armaments Manufacturer.” Feith basically represents the Israeli War Machine. Feith also came from the Jewish thinktank JINSA. Feith, like Perle and Wolfowitz, are campaigning hard for this Israeli proxy war against Iraq. Feith was investigated by the FBI under suspicion of leaking classified information to Israel, being that he was Larry Franklin’s boss when Franklin leaked those documents to Rosen and Weissman of AIPAC. For that he was forced to leave the National Security Council. Feith was also investigated by the Senate Intelligence Committee for ’sexing-up intelligence’ that was used to justify invading Iraq.

Edward LuttwakEdward Luttwak

Member of the National Security Study Group of the Department of Defence at the Pentagon. Luttwak is reportedly an Israeli citizen and has taught in Israel. He frequently writes for Israeli and pro-Israeli newspapers and journals. Luttwak is an Israeli extremist whose main theme in many of his articles is the necessity of the U.S. waging war against Iraq and Iran.

Henry Kissinger

One of many Pentagon Advisors, Kissinger sits on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board under Perle. For detailed information about Kissinger’s evil past, read Seymour Hersch’s book (Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House). Kissinger likely had a part in the Watergate crimes, Southeast Asia mass murders (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos), Installing Chilean mass murdering dictator Pinochet, Operation Condor’s mass killings in South America, and more recently served as Serbia’s Ex-Dictator Slobodan Milosevic’s Advisor. He consistently advocated going to war against Iraq. Kissinger is the Ariel Sharon of the U.S. Unfortunately, President Bush nominated Kissinger as chairman of the September 11 investigating commission. It’s like picking a bank robber to investigate a fraud scandal. He later declined this job under enormous protests.

Dov Zakheim

Dov Zakheim is an ordained rabbi and reportedly holds Israeli citizenship. Zakheim attended Jew’s College in London and became an ordained Orthodox Jewish Rabbi in 1973. He was adjunct professor at New York’s Jewish Yeshiva University. Zakheim is close to the Israeli lobby.

Dov Zakheim is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and in 2000 a co-author of the Project for the New American Century’s position paper, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, advocating the necessity for a Pearl-Harbor-like incident to mobilize the country into war with its enemies, mostly Middle Eastern Muslim nations. He was appointed by Bush as Pentagon Comptroller from May 4, 2001 to March 10, 2004. At that time he was unable to explain the disappearance of $1 trillion dollars. Actually, nearly three years earlier, Donald Rumsfeld announced on September 10, 2001 that an audit discovered $2.3 trillion was also missing from the Pentagon books. That story, as mentioned, was buried under 9-11’s rubble. The two sums disappeared on Zakheim’s watch. We can only guess where that cash went.

Despite these suspicions, on May 6, 2004, Zakheim took a lucrative position at Booz Allen Hamilton, one of the most prestigious strategy consulting firms in the world. One of its clients then was Blessed Relief, a charity said to be a front for Osama bin Laden. Booz, Allen & Hamilton then also worked closely with DARPA, the Defense Advanced

Research Projects Agency, which is the research arm of the Department of Defense. Judicial Inc’s bio of Dov tells us Zakheim is a dual Israeli/American citizen and has been tracking the halls of US government for 25 years, casting defense policy and influence on Presidents Reagan, Clinton, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. Judicial Inc points out that most of Israel’s armaments were gotten thanks to him. Squads of US F-16 and F-15 were classified military surplus and sold to Israel at a fraction of their value.

Kenneth Adelman

One of many Pentagon Advisors, Adelman also sits on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board under Perle, and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor, who supported going to war against Iraq. Adelman frequently is a guest on Fox News, and often expresses extremist and often ridiculus anti-Arab and anti-Muslim views. Through his racism or ignorance, he actually called Arabs “anti-Semitic” on Fox News (11/28/2001), when he could have looked it up in the dictionary to find out that Arabs by definition are Semites.

I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby

Vice President Dick Cheney’s ex-Chief of Staff. As chief pro-Israel Jewish advisor to Cheney, it helps explains why Cheney is so gun-ho to invade Iran. Libby is longtime associate of Wolfowitz. Libby was also a lawyer for convicted felon and Israeli spy Marc Rich, whom Clinton pardoned, in his last days as president. Libby was recently found guilty of lying to Federal investigators in the Valerie Plame affair, in which Plame, a covert CIA agent, was exposed for political revenge by the Bush administration following her husband’s revelations about the lies leading to the Iraq War.

Robert Satloff

U.S. National Security Council Advisor, Satloff was the executive director of the Israeli lobby’s “think tank,” Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Many of the Israeli lobby’s “experts” come from this front group, like Martin Indyk.

Elliott Abrams

National Security Council Advisor. He previously worked at Washington-based “Think Tank” Ethics and Public Policy Center. During the Reagan Adminstration, Abrams was the Assistant Secretary of State, handling, for the most part, Latin American affairs. He played an important role in the Iran-Contra Scandal, which involved illegally selling U.S. weapons to Iran to fight Iraq, and illegally funding the contra rebels fighting to overthrow Nicaragua’s Sandinista government. He also actively deceived three congressional committees about his involvement and thereby faced felony charges based on his testimony. Abrams pled guilty in 1991 to two misdemeanors and was sentenced to a year’s probation and 100 hours of community service. A year later, former President Bush (Senior) granted Abrams a full pardon. He was one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the Reagan Administration’s State Department.

Marc Grossman

Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. He was Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources at the Department of State. Grossman is one of many of the pro-Israel Jewish officials from the Clinton Administration that Bush has promoted to higher posts.

Richard Haass

Director of Policy Planning at the State Department and Ambassador at large. He is also Director of National Security Programs and Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He was one of the more

hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the first Bush (Sr) Administration who sat on the National Security Council, and who consistently advocated going to war against Iraq. Haass is also a member of the Defense Department’s National Security Study Group, at the Pentagon.

Robert Zoellick

U.S. Trade Representative, a cabinet-level position. He is also one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the Bush (Jr) Administration who advocated invading Iraq and occupying a portion of the country in order to set up a Vichy-style puppet government. He consistently advocates going to war against Iran. {now head of the World Bank – Peter M.}

Ari Fleischer

Ex- White House Spokesman for the Bush (Jr) Administration. Prominent in the Jewish community, some reports state that he holds Israeli citizenship. Fleischer is closely connected to the extremist Jewish group called the Chabad Lubavitch Hasidics, who follow the Qabala, and hold very extremist and insulting views of non-Jews. Fleischer was the co-president of Chabad’s Capitol Jewish Forum. He received the Young Leadership Award from the American Friends of Lubavitch in October, 2001.

James Schlesinger

One of many Pentagon Advisors, Schlesinger also sits on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board under Perle and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor, who supported going to war against Iraq. Schlesinger is also a commissioner of the Defense Department’s National Security Study Group, at the Pentagon.

David Frum

White House speechwriter behind the “Axis of Evil” label. He lumped together all the lies and accusations against Iraq for Bush to justify the war.

Joshua Bolten

White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Bolten was previously a banker, former legislative aide, and prominent in the Jewish community.

David and Meyrav Wurmser

Special Assistant to UN ambassador and obviously pro-Zionist John Bolton (FOX news pundit); also the under-secretary for arms control and international security. Wurmser also worked at the AEI with Perle and Bolton. His wife, Meyrav Wurmser, along with Colonel Yigal Carmon, formerly of Israeli military intelligence, co-founded the Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri),a Washington-based Israeli outfit which distributes articles translated from Arabic newspapers portraying Arabs in a bad light.

Eliot Cohen

Member of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board under Perle and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor. Like Adelman, he often expresses extremist and often ridiculus anti-Arab and anti-Muslim views. More recently, he wrote an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal openly admitting his rascist hatred of Islam claiming that Islam should be the enemy, not terrorism.

Mel Sembler

President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. A Prominent Jewish Republican and Former National Finance Chairman of the Republican National Committee. The Export-Import Bank facilitates trade relationships between U.S. businesses and foreign countries, specifically those with financial problems. Made ambassador to Italy.

Steve Goldsmith

Senior Advisor to the President, and Bush’s Jewish domestic policy advisor. He also served as liaison in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (White House OFBCI) within the Executive Office of the President. He was the former mayor of Indianapolis. He is also friends with Israeli Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert and often visits Israel to coach mayors on privatization initiatives.

Adam Goldman

Bush White House’s Special Liaison to the Jewish Community. Gildenhorn

Bush Campaign’s Special Liaison to the Jewish Community. He was the DC finance chairman for the Bush campaign, as well as campaign coordinator, and former ambassador to Switzerland.

Christopher Gersten

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families at HHS. Gersten was the former Executive Director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, Husband of Labor Secretary.

Mark Weinberger

Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Public Affairs.

Samuel Bodman

Deputy Secretary of Commerce. He was the Chairman and CEO of Cabot Corporation in Boston, Massachusetts.

Bonnie Cohen

Under Secretary of State for Management.

Ruth Davis

Director of Foreign Service Institute, who reports to the Office of Under Secretary for Management. This Office is responsible for training all Department of State staff (including ambassadors).

Daniel Kurtzer

Ambassador to Israel.

Cliff Sobel

Ambassador to the Netherlands.

Stuart Bernstein

Ambassador to Denmark.

Nancy Brinker

Ambassador to Hungary

Frank Lavin

Ambassador to Singapore.

Ron Weiser

Ambassador to Slovakia.

Martin Silverstein

Ambassador to Uruguay.

Lincoln Bloomfield

Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs.

Jay Lefkowitz

Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy


Ken Melman

White House Political Director.

Brad Blakeman

White House Director of Scheduling.

With all acknowledgements to Dan Eden who has produced a very comprehensive and revealing article here:



This list posted by Benjamin Freedman on the OpposingDigits Vlog is comprehensive …


List from JewishVirtualLibrary:

Jewish population of the World –

Jews in the Bush Administration –

Jews in Korean War –

List of Anti-Semitic Incidents –

List from Jewish Times Australia:

Jewish Billionaires –

List from

Famous Actors/Actresses –

List from Simpletoremember:

Jewish success in American Media –

List from rhodesjewishmuseum:

Jews deported by the Nazis –

List from RighteousJews:

Righteous Jews –

List from Masada2000:

Self-Hating Israel-Threatening Jews –

List from Wikipedia:

List from AllExperts:

List from Heebz:

Lists from Jew Watch:

Millionaires –

Entertainers –

Oligarchs –

List from Answers:

Jewish American Businesspeople –

List from RadioIslam:

Who Rules Hollywood? –

Jews in the Bush Administration –

List from BibleBelievers:

Jews who run Bush and USA –

List from 100777:

Partial List of Pro-Israeli Jews who Control the Media –

Jewish Politicians –

Jewish Communists –

Also there are these lists …

This “Shit List” of Jews is useful …

Here’s Texe Marrs’ “Swindler’s List” of Obama’s Jews …

LIST CONTINUES HERE! with the Obama administration.


Special thanks to readers JamesTheJust and JR

March 17, 2010

(Oct. 24, 2009)

The Development of Anti-German Propaganda

Free Book: Dealing in Hate – The Development of Anti-German Propaganda

A free e-book by Dr. Michael F. Connors, published by the Institute for Historical Review (IHR)  Second edition: 1996.  Approx. 35 pages. The book goes through the long history of Anti-Germanism but these selections are taken from the end of the book and deal primarily with the hatred, hypocrisy of and iniquities of the post-war years by the victors, and the consequences for the German people specifically, and which continue through to the present day. But one must also bear in mind the greater implications for all humanity, as this pattern continues to this day.  While fairly old now, the book is no less relevant. I found it to be well worth the read and would highly recommend it.  I have added highlights to what I felt are the most salient points from my own perspective, as well as related images.


Unconditional Hatred

During World War II this stream of Germanophobic literature reached flood tide proportions. The situation in the cinema and radio was, if anything, worse. The “hate Germany” motive seemed uppermost even in our top level strategic planning. Indeed, our entire wartime policy can very well be summed up as one of “Unconditional Hatred,” to borrow  Russell Grenfell’s apt term. This driving, irrational impulse seemed to operate without reference to, and even to the exclusion of, all other goals. No thought was given to the power balance situation of tomorrow or the day after, to the insane folly of substituting the inherently far more menacing power of the U.S.S.R. for that of Germany, Italy and Japan in Europe and the Far East. One might have imagined that the alliances and enmities of the period had been given eternal certification in Heaven.84

Had there been even a modicum of rational planning from the standpoint of enlightened self-interest, we would not, we could not, have made “Unconditional Surrender” and the diabolical “Morgenthau Plan” the bases of our policy. Had we not permitted reason and good sense to be consumed in the fires of vindictive passion, we would never have assented to the fateful innovation of constituting ourselves at once as judge, jury, prosecutor, and hangman of defeated military and political leaders at Nuremberg. Had we not permitted ourselves to be moved by the base spirit of hypocrisy, our much vaunted sense of humanitarian values and moral indignation would never have permitted us to wink at and even encourage the “Crimes Against Humanity” perpetrated by the Poles, Czechs, and Russians against 14,000,000 Eastern Germans in 1945-1946.85

A Gallery of expelled German refugees:

Post-World War II Germanophobia

After World War II there was a marked lessening of interest in Germany with the consequence that there was a considerable decline in the current production of literature concerned with that country. Be that as it may, however, books and articles about Germany are still fairly plentiful. Hence the question arises: Has there been any significant development of a corrective literature to counter the tendentious interpretations of previous years? To the shame of honest historiography, the answer must be a very decided negative. There is a continuing “historical blackout,” to borrow Harry Elmer Barnes’ phrase, where Germany is concerned. The older historians, of the most part, manifest a stubborn reluctance to surrender their fixed delusions. The younger ones have been so indoctrinated during their entire education careers that they seem completely unaware of the challenge thus presented to their scholarship. The sole exception to this is a veritable handful of revisionist historians. Thus far, however, their efforts have been mainly limited, by and large, to tracing the origins of World War II and the genesis of Pearl Harbor. Little attention of a revisionist nature has been accorded to German history as such by non-German scholars.

Typical of postwar attempts by Western historians to perpetuate the Germanophobic myth was Hans Kohn’s article “Rethinking Recent German History.”86 Kohn resuscitated all the stock villains of German history who had long been so dear to the hearts of melodramatic anti-German writers: Bismarck as the supposed embodiment of Machiavellian power politics; the wicked Prussian and German ruling classes; that nebulous demon, German intellectual development and all the rest of the tiresome litany. He even attacked those who “attempt to show that the pernicious trends in modern German history were common to European civilization as a whole.” For example, he cites the charge that Gobineau’s racism influenced Wagner, though it is an undeniable fact. He writes:

But isolated trends in Western nations become dominant ideas in Germany. Kings, diplomats, and demagogues, who succumbed to the demoniac lure of power, existed elsewhere; but the inclination of the majority of the German people and of German intellectuals to accept them uncritically is the troubling problem.

Further on he relates that the Nazi “deviation from the main lines of European development … started long before Hitler.” He quotes with obvious approval the hackneyed view that “National Socialism was made possible by the separating of German political thought from Western European thought …” This supposed separation he traces back to Fichte and Hegel. Perhaps it should not surprise us that even the present urgent state of world affairs had had little influence upon Mr. Kohn’s tendentious views of German history. He still seems to feel we can afford the luxury of baiting Germany, as is evident from some of his recent articles in which he delivers his accustomed wearying preachments to the Germans on the alleged pernicious influences in their history.87

A widely read college level text by Louis L. Snyder, gathers between its covers all the threadbare cliches and superstitions ever penned by Germanophobic writers.88 Snyder is virtually obsessed with his favorite delusions of intellectual history. To read his account, one might imagine that pre-Hitlerite Germany had some sort of monopoly on “irrationalism,” “racism,” and “anti-Semitism.”


But undoubtedly the most widely publicized book dealing with Germany to appear in America since the end of World War II had been William L. Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.95 For many months in succession the Shirer volume held first place in the nonfictional category of the best seller list. When one considers the sheer bulk of the volume and the turgid if ingratiating style in which it is written, this is a remarkable tribute to the manner in which skilled promoters can contrive popularity. But far more important, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,embodying as it does the very worst features of the Germanophobic propaganda of 1933-1945, contributes very little to an honest understanding of German history, its publicity buildup and the rave reviews to the contrary notwithstanding. Again and again the reader is sharply reminded of the author’s bias against not merely the Nazis but the entire German people. For example, as early as page five he writes that “the German people” were “a natural instrument which he [Hitler, that is] was able to shape to his own sinister ends.” And again we are told96 that Bismarck, Kaiser Wilhelm II, and HItler left a common stamp upon the German people in the form of a “lust for power and domination, a passion for unbridled militarism, a contempt for democracy and individual freedom and a longing for authority, for authoritarianism.” And once more in thundering tones of pontifical certitude it is asserted that “Nazism and the Third Reich … were but a logical continuation of German history.” 97

Shirer gives scarcely a hint as to the real reason for the advent of Nazism: the fact that Germany was saddled with a Draconian peace, the terms of which were mitigated through the years but slightly and then haltingly and with ill grace. His account of the coming of World War II simply takes no account of the findings of recent revisionist scholarship, as is perhaps to be expected, while his repeated sneers directed at the members of the anti-Nazi resistance within Germany only betray still further his basic and deep-seated antipathy to everybody and everything German. The appearance of such a work at this time when German and Western amity was never more urgently needed is distinctly to be regretted.

Even more regrettable, however, has been the emergence, in large part during the months following the seizure of Adolf Eichmann, of a body of horror literature alleging brutal German wartime crimes, mainly against the Jews of Europe, of such depravity and magnitude that readers might thereby be tempted to speculate that, whatever Allied statesmen did to provoke conflict with the Axis powers, they were entirely justified in taking such action.98 Should even the worst of these questionable charges against Germany be one day verified by some tribunal concerning whose impartiality there is agreement on all sides, it would still be necessary to remember that they were made possible by the war itself. Equally as important, they would have to be balanced off against the crimes perpetrated against the Germans by the Allies. Hitherto it had been customary only to cite those crimes attributed to Germany.
Allied ‘war crimes’

Certainly, the expulsion in 1945 of 14,000,000 Eastern Germans from their ancestral homeland by the Czechs, Poles, and Soviets with the tacit connivance of the Western Allies was a “war crime” by any standard. Moreover it took on distinctly macabre overtones when the discrepancy between the number expelled and those who actually reached Germany reached a possible three million mark.

Surely, too, the as yet little known fact that not Hitler but the British, by their own admission, initiated unrestricted bombing of civilian areas ought to merit for them membership in the select society of “war criminals.” The unbelieving reader need only consult the testimony of the British officials J. M. Spaight and Sir Arthur Harris, for incontrovertible proof of this charge.99 A decision of the British Air Ministry made on May 11, 1940, to attack targets in Western Germany instituted the practice of bombing purely civilian objectives. This “epoch-making event,” as F. J. P. Veale correctly describes it, marked an ominous departure from the rule that hostilities are to be limited to operations against enemy military forces alone.100 Spaight, former Principal Secretary of the Air Ministry, makes the following amazing comment on the decision of May 11, 1940:


Because we were doubtful about the psychological effect of propagandist distortion of the truth that it was we who started the strategic bombing offensive, we have shrunk from giving our great decision of May 11, 1940, the publicity it deserves. That surely was a mistake. It was a splendid decision.101

But the “great decision,” the “splendid decision” of May 11, 1940, which was ultimately to cost the lives of millions, including thousands of Mr. Spaight’s own countrymen, was to have an even more grisly sequel, for, according to Sir Charles Snow who had charge of selecting scientific personnel for war research in Great Britain in World War II, F. A. Lindemann, a Cabinet member and confidant of Churchill, produced in early 1942 a remarkable Cabinet paper on the subject of the strategic bombing of Germany:

It described, in quantitative terms, the effect on Germany of a British bombing offensive in the next eighteen months (approximately March 1942-September 1943). The paper laid down a strategic policy. The bombing must be directed essentially against German working-class houses. Middle-class houses have too much space round them, and so are bound to waste bombs …102

bombed-out Nuremberg

One wonders if it was the cultivated humanitarianism inherent in this decision to assure the death of more working class Germans per bomb which entitled the Allies, and in particular the British, to sit in moral judgment on German leaders at Nuremberg in 1946!

Can anyone doubt that the “Morgenthau Plan” which envisaged the destruction of the Ruhr mines, the pasteurization of a primarily industrial Germany, and the political dismemberment of Germany was a “war crime?” Had it been carried out rigorously, it would have been, as Freda Utley describe it, “the greatest act of genocide perpetrated in modern times … At least thirty million people would have died of starvation.”103 Though, fortunately, this diabolical scheme was never carried out to the letter, its spirit so permeated the occupational planning for Germany under the early “levels of industry” plans that for a long time after the war had ended Germans were deliberately kept on a diet far below that enjoyed by the inmates of Auschwitz up to almost the end of the war.

Starving Germans Digging Through Garbage

Starving Germans Digging Through Garbage, Frankfurt, 1947

Who can doubt the criminal quality of the Soviet butchery of thousands of Polish officer in theKatyn forest in 1940? Even the Nuremberg tribunal resisted (albeit by inaction) Soviet attempts to lay that one at the door of Germany.104 Or perhaps the moral superiority of our “noble” Soviet allies, as we were fond of calling them, rested upon the manner in which they distinguished themselves in brutalizing the women of conquered lands. No doubt the enthusiastic response of the Soviet soldiery to the incitements of Ilya Ehrenburg to seize the women of Germany as the spoils of victory which resulted in the rape of half the women of Berlin alone lent substance to the pretensions of moral dignity assumed by the prosecuting powers at Nuremberg.105


German ‘guilt’ in perspective

Any final summation or balance sheet of German war crimes honestly verified, it may then be assumed, will most assuredly be balanced out by the sordid record of Germany’s hypocritically self-righteous enemies.

At the heart of the conviction that German World War II atrocities were quantitatively and qualitatively without parallel in the annals of human experience is the as yet unverified allegation that, in the pursuit of a macabre “Final Solution,” 6,000,000 Jews were cold-bloodedly murdered in gas chambers and before Einsatzkommando firing squads. The “evidence” presented in support of this charge to date had not been more persuasive than that used to substantiate the gruesome stories of German atrocity horrors spelled out in the long since discredited Bryce Report of 1915.

Neither the proceedings at Nuremberg in 1946 nor those associated with the recent trial of Adolf Eichmann were such as to inspire the confidence of the impartial investigator. Likewise the frenetic efforts of some academic scholars to prove the charge have fallen quite flat.106 But even if one should assume the worst to be true and, from the welter of conflicting numerical estimates as to the number of Jewish fatalities, accept the largest, 6,000,000, as undoubtedly correct, the number of victims of these German atrocities would still fall far short of the number of German, Japanese, and Italian non-combatants who perished at Allied hands as the result of mass population expulsions, saturation bombing of civilian centers, postwar deprivation, and Soviet massacres and political liquidations.

The simple fact then is that there is every reason to believe that a final accounting must exculpate Germany of any unique inhumanity in the waging of World War II, just as revisionist scholarship had exonerated her of sole or even primary guilt for the war itself.

Certainly there is not justification for those writers, and above all those academic “scholars,” in the West who continue to parrot the crudities and distortions of yesteryear. There is a monotonous uniformity in all their interpretations, the fundamental error of which lies in the fact that they, in assessing the reasons for the demise of democracy and the rise of Nazi totalitarianism in Germany, ascribe primary or even sole causality to factors supposedly indigenous to German history and society. The alleged “weakness” or “ineptitude” of democratic Germans is a theme which runs like a red thread through most such treatments. Coupled with a sinister streak” which has purportedly manifested itself in a diseased intellectual and political development and an alleged obsession with militarism, this usually suffices to “explain” for us “the course of German history” with its “logical culmination” in National Socialism.

As might be expected, such critics scarcely comment on the Allied “statesmen” at Versailles, who, in direct violation of the pre-Armistice agreements, imposed a punitive peace on the Reich. Nor have they much to say of the intransigence of Western “democratic” politicians who refused to make the slightest concessions to Germany during the interwar years. Non-German “guilt,” however much it might have contributed to the rise of Hitler, is never a popular subject with them.

all lies4

Germany during the Weimar era produced in Gustav Stresemann and Heinrich Brüning two of the ablest statesmen of the present century. These men were thoroughly “democratic” to the core.107

Had either of these men been offered a fraction of the concessions to which they were entitled, the Weimar Republic could have been saved and the world spared the insane bloodbath of 1939-45, as well as the consequent alteration of the world balance of power to the advantage of the U.S.S.R. This was the portentous, terrifying essence of the most genuinely crucial period in modern world history; what seems, indeed, to have marked the real beginning of the Decline of the West. It is a story in which the impartial historian can assign at most a very minor role to German villainy.

If villains must be had, the historian must also look elsewhere: to Paris, to London, to Washington, and to Moscow, but only lastly to Berlin.

allies brag of killing germans

Download free pdf

We are admonished time and time again to learn the lessons of history; lest we repeat past mistakes. But if we do not know the full and true history, and continue naively believing that our governments usually tell the truth, and blindly accept the biased propaganda we are fed to move us in order to do their bidding without critical thinking, then we are not only doomed to repeat historical mistakes, but we are doomed …period! And the same must be said in respect to trusting our media and the academics, etc to explain it all to us truthfully in retrospect.  It essential to do your own research and to see the patterns!

I will be focusing on post-war Germany over the course of the week or so.