The Historical Review Press

We are the world's leading publisher of revisionist and hard-to-find political material -- serving the truth and fearing no-one! Visit our home website here!

Search This Blog

Tuesday, 31 August 2010

Monsanto's Toxic Milk - Banned in Europe

Monsanto's Toxic Milk - Banned in Europe
video clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SXVpvgXo9Q&feature=player_embedded

http://community.wegohealth.com/profiles/blogs/us-milk-banned-in-europe
U.S. Milk Banned in Europe
Posted by JodyG on April 29, 2010


For as long as I can remember, milk has been advertised as a product that "does a body good". Perhaps the time has come to question the validity of this statement. A couple months ago, I wrote a blog about the continued debate over whether or not individuals should have the right to access, buy, and consume raw milk. There are growing numbers of people who believe raw milk can not only help maintain health but can also cure a huge range of illnesses. Of course, there are also many who remain either skeptical or even outraged by these claims. I suggested in my post that pasteurized milk, because of its highly processed nature, may in fact be causing health issues and have recently found news that further supports this claim. In fact, European governments have deemed U.S produced milk so dangerous that they have banned it completely.


Dr. Samuel Epstein, author, professor of occupational and environmental medicine at the University of Illinois in Chicago, and chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, recently discussed cancer prevention with Dr. Joseph Mercola, leading health activist in the field of alternative healthcare. Their discussion focused on several health dangers that currently receive little attention, one of which is milk.


What should we know about milk in this country?


Much of American milk is genetically modified, meaning it contains a genetically modified bovine growth hormone called rBGH. American dairy farmers inject rBGH into dairy cows to increase milk production. Milk that has been produced in this way contains very high levels of a natural growth factor known as IGF-1. Roughly 20 publications have shown that increased levels of this growth factor increases risks of breast cancer, 10 publications show that it increases risk of colon cancer, and another 10 show that it increases risk of prostate cancer. Besides risks for humans it also causes extreme sickness, and often death, for the cows themselves.


After some of these major concerns were expressed in 1999, the United Nations Food and Safety Agency, representing a hundred nations worldwide, unanimously decided not to set safety standards for rBGH milk, resulting in an international ban on U.S. milk. As far as milk in the states in concerned, the FDA has prohibited retailers from labeling a product "hormone free", claiming that such a label could be misleading (in other words, the label would suggest that milk produced with hormones is bad, possibly causing a decrease in sales for major commerical dairy companies).


Take a look at these articles for more information:


A Needless New Risk of Breast Cancer
FDA Allows Genetically Modified rBGH to Endanger Milk


So what can we do to make change, and/or to make sure we still have an option to consume naturally healthy dairy products?


Check out this article from the Weston Price foundation where the author suggests completely eliminating commercial milk from your diet, and then finding a source of real milk in your area. The article also gives a much more in depth look at the production process for milk products in this country. As health activists, besides educating ourselves, we can also make the FDA aware that we disapprove of their restrictions on labeling.


Are there any other steps we can take to increase awareness about this issue? Would you like to see labels on milk products that contains hormones or do you think the issue is not worth the fight?

Why Western Men lack balls-

Are You Going to Let Them Turn You into a ‘Girly Man’?
Men's Health
Published on October 1st, 2009
Written by Dr. Al Sears

Related Articles
The Next Time You Take That Receipt…
Million Dollar Bribe
How the FDA Went Bad…
Tags
Bisphenol-A, BPA, estrogen, Perfluorooctanoic acid, phthalates, testosterone
Maximize Your Performance and Shift Your Energy into High Gear
You already know that industrial chemicals can be dangerous. But did you know that modern industry is putting hundreds of chemicals into your everyday environment that mimic the female hormone estrogen?
These estrogen look-alikes are waging war on your masculinity. This saps your strength, muscle, ambition, competitive spirit and sexual performance. As your estrogen rises and your testosterone drops, you can expect:

Fat Gain: Fat replaces shrinking muscles.
Sexual Problems: Sex drive fades and erections become seldom or difficult.
Loss of Ambition: Fatigue and low energy sap your drive and will to succeed.
Increasing Risk of Prostate Disease: Excess estrogen causes both prostate enlargement and prostate cancer.
Today, I’ll tell you why fake estrogens are a threat and where they are. Then, I’ll show you how to reduce or eliminate your exposure. You’ll also discover foods and supplements that can reverse this feminizing process.

Know What You’re Up Against
The problem is that many modern synthetics used in today’s products have structures almost exactly like estrogen.
When they get into your bloodstream, they give your cells a new set of instructions. They tell your body to become more feminine.
The most specific sign of excess estrogen is extra fat in your breast. But long before “man boobs,” most men will get a gradual “softening.” You develop a soft, “dough boy” appearance as your muscle turns to fat.
Over time, you start to lose your masculine edge, your confidence and sense of purpose. You may feel fatigued or depressed and your sex drive usually plummets.
If you go to a doctor for advice, he’ll run useless tests, put you on drugs that have nothing to do with the cause of your problem, or tell you that, “you’re just getting old.” Sadly, most men accept their loss of physical power, mental focus and sexual potency as part of the normal aging process.
Few ever realize they’re being poisoned. With the FDA insisting that adding estrogens to our food is safe and doctors knowing virtually nothing about it, how could these men know that they’ve been chemically castrated?

The Dangers of a Plastic World
Since you can’t see, smell or taste them, you can’t tell which products contain estrogen look-a-likes. But they are very common. Here’s a short list:
Vinyl Flooring
Deodorants
Moisturizers
Pesticides

Detergents
Perfumes
Garden hoses
Fertilizers

Shampoo
Hair Spray
Inflatable toys
Plastics

And the list goes on… But plastics are the worst – because they are everywhere. From plastic bags and water bottles to the packaging your food comes in – plastic is almost impossible to escape.
Two of the big offenders are bisphenol A and phthalates (pronounced THAL-ates). These man-made chemicals have structures that look strikingly similar to estrogen.
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) is another. It’s used to make Teflon and Gore-Tex. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) tested for the presence of phthalates and PFOA in the general population. The results were sobering. Every person tested – without exception – had trace amounts of both chemicals in their bloodstream.1
Jim Pirkle, deputy director at the CDC’s Environmental Laboratory warned that these findings have serious implications – especially for men. “The big concern with phthalates is that they have anti-androgen activity. They get rid of things that are in the testosterone line – the things that make a man a man.” 1

Rising Estrogen Can Lead to Infertility – Even Cancer
More than 15 percent of couples in the U.S. are unable to have a child.2 And in 30 percent to 40 percent of these cases, male infertility is the problem. But not just in America. British sperm counts and sperm density have dropped dramatically between 1938 and 1991.3
Scientists in Britain suspected the chemical HPTE, commonly found in pesticides. By experimenting on rats, they found that HPTE directly interferes with testosterone production in the testes.4
Tufts University researchers found that crop dusters who handled estrogen-mimicking pesticides lost their sexual desire and developed very low sperm counts.5 It’s no small wonder that male breast cancer has increased 26 percent over the last two decades.6
Yet prostate disease is a far bigger threat. German researchers found that estrogen levels in prostatic tissue increase, as men get older.7 And the journal Prostate reported that estrogen increases your risk of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) – or swollen prostate.
Even more incriminating, a Japanese team discovered that prostate size directly correlates with the ratio of estradiol (a form of estrogen) to free testosterone. They reported, “patients with large prostates have more estrogen dominate environments” and “estrogens are the key hormones for the induction and development of BPH.”
This problem is made worse when it coincides with another hormonal problem – falling testosterone.

Measure Your Masculine Ratio
Testosterone is the source of your masculine features. But as you get older, your levels drop.
Once you hit 40, your testosterone level decreases about one percent a year.8

As your levels fall, and your body accumulates estrogen, the ratio of testosterone-to-estrogen starts to shift unfavorably:


(Adapted from Dilman and Dean, 1992, based on data from Moroz and Verkhratsky, 1985)

Your ratio of testosterone to estrogen should be at least 4:1. That’s four parts testosterone to one part estrogen. All other things being equal – the higher your ratio, the more masculine you’ll look and feel. I try to get my male patients closer to 8:1.
Many of the men who come to my clinic have ratios that are below 4:1. In fact, about 10 percent of the older men coming to my clinic have more female estrogen than male testosterone.
Once you fall below 4:1, you’ll have the following problems: low sex drive, problems achieving and/or maintaining an erection, excess fat, loss of ambition, memory problems, fatigue and sometimes depression and anxiety.
Rising estrogen increases fat. (That’s why they give it to farm animals.) It starts with a smooth layer of fat under the skin. This robs you of muscle definition. If often progresses to a pudgy abdomen and fat-rounding of the face and jaw. But you’re not stuck with it. If you get rid of excess estrogen rapidly, you’ll reduces this fat.
An example from my clinic: Ron L. came in with fatigue and no sex drive. When his blood tests came back, his testosterone was only 384 – a level I’d expect from someone twice his age. To make matters worse, his estrogen was 156 – (more than some women). His ratio of testosterone to estrogen was only 2.7:1 – far too low for a man.
Even though he only weighed 175, he was carrying a lot of body fat at 35%. In other words, he was obese even though he wasn’t particularly overweight. This can happen if you replace enough of your muscle with fat. Notice he had only 108 lbs. of lean tissue.
I put him on the same program to boost testosterone and muscle, and lower fat and estrogen that you have in this article. As you can see in the chart, he built 30 lbs. of muscle and lost 30 lbs. of fat in only a few months:
Body Composition Chart

% of Body Fat
35%
29%
22%
16%

Lbs. of Fat
58
51
37
26

Lean Body Mass
108
125
133
139


Follow These Simple Steps and Boost Your Masculine Ratio Today…
As a start, reduce or eliminate the most common ways excess estrogen gets into your body. Here are a few suggestions you can apply right away:

Eliminate pesticides from water with a water purifier.
Wash your vegetables and fruits before eating.
Buy grass-fed or hormone free meats. If you get meat from other sources, trim off the fat. Estrogen mimickers collect in the fat.
Avoid processed meats – they have fat ground in.
Avoid processed carbohydrates like bread, cereals, and pasta. They cause excess insulin, which builds fat and stimulates feminizing estrogen.
Eat vegetables high in fiber to absorb excess estrogen.
Work with your doctor to reduce or eliminate medications. These interfere with your liver’s capacity to remove excess estrogens.
By making changes to your food, you can easily improve your testosterone to estrogen ratio. Here are my top choices for boosting testosterone and lowering estrogen:

Oysters: These “original testosterone boosters,” are packed with protein, zinc and magnesium – all three play a key role in testosterone production.
Lean Beef: One of your best choices for overall good health. When possible, eat grass-fed beef.
Beans: These offer a great combination of protein and fiber with more zinc than any other veggie. Navy, lima, kidney, and green beans are good sources.
Eggs: Eggs have all essential amino acids, making them the best source of protein. And don’t believe the hype; cholesterol in eggs won’t hurt you.
Broccoli: This is one of the best foods for eliminating estrogens in the urine.
Cabbage: Also great for reducing estrogen and a good source of fiber.
Brussels’s Sprouts: Also estrogen-targeting fiber and nutrient-rich veggies.
Garlic: Enhances testosterone and blocks cortisol, your body’s stress hormone.
In my practice, I use a combination of supplements to bring down estrogen levels in my patients.
Dindolylmethane (DIM), a naturally occurring compound found in brussels sprouts and cabbage, helps your body break down estrogen into safe compounds, clearing away the unwanted female hormone. I recommend taking 100 mg of DIM.
In a study from the University of California at Berkeley, patients who took DIM were able to break down estrogen — and excrete is as metabolites in their urine — much more efficiently than those not taking DIM.
Indole-3-carbinol, a precursor to DIM, helps metabolize estrogen into harmless compounds. It also prevents the negative effects too much estrogen in a male body can cause, by blocking the fake estrogen from attaching to your cell’s receptors. Take 100 mg of Indole-3-carbinol a day.
Resveratrol inhibits the enzyme aromatase. Aromatase is the enzyme that converts testosterone to estrogen. By stopping that process, resveratrol allows you to keep your testosterone levels high. Take 200 mg of resveratrol daily.
Chaste tree berry helps reduce prolactin levels.9 Prolactin is a hormone women secrete when they are pregnant. Men don’t want it in their bodies. Take 100 mg a day of chaste tree berry.
A blood test will tell you your testosterone to estrogen ratio. Once you’ve established your “baseline,” use the advice here to boost your ratio. Try to keep your estrogen below 130, with a testosterone to estrogen ratio of at least 4:1.

Weise E. Are Our Products Our Enemy? USA Today. Aug 2, 2005.
Pizzorno JE. Textbook of Natural Medicine, 2nd Edition, 1999:1377-1387.
Carlsen E. et al. Evidence for decreasing quality of semen during the past 50 years. British Medical Journal. Sep 1992; 305(6854):609-13.
Akingbemi BT et al. A metabolite of methoxychlor, 2,2-bis(p-hydroxyphenyl)-1,1,1-trichloroethane, reduces testosterone biosynthesis in rat Leydig cells through suppression of steady-state mRNA levels of the cholesterol side-chain cleavage enzyme. Population Briefs, Population Council 1999; 5(4): 31-2
Sonnenschein C, Soto AM. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 1998 Apr; 65(1-6):143-50.
Associated Press. Rise in male breast cancer linked to obesity. May 24, 2004.
Krieg et al. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. 1993.
Byington, John, Better Than Ever (Agora Health Books, 2005).
http://www.itminfo.be/ITM-NEW.data/TIJDSCHRIFT1%20PDF/BPH-1-1.pdf Institute of Traditional Medicine, 2003, “Herbal Therapy of BHP,” Subhuti Dharmananda

Wednesday, 25 August 2010

Mossad in America usual shenanigans by Israelis

Mossad in America

Digg!Digg Stumble Upon Newsvine SlashdotSlashdot Add to Mixx!Mixx Diigo Google Delicious Reddit Facebook

Israeli intelligence steps up its activity in the U.S. — and gets away with it.

By Philip Giraldi

Israeli government claims that it does not spy on the United States are intended for the media and popular consumption. The reality is that Israel’s intelligence agencies target the United States intensively, particularly in pursuit of military and dual-use civilian technology. Among nations considered to be friendly to Washington, Israel leads all others in its active espionage directed against American companies and the Defense Department. It also dominates two commercial sectors that enable it to extend its reach inside America’s domestic infrastructure: airline and telecommunications security. Israel is believed to have the ability to monitor nearly all phone records originating in the United States, while numerous Israeli air-travel security companies are known to act as the local Mossad stations.

As tensions with Iran increase, sources in the counterintelligence community report that Israeli agents have become more aggressive in targeting Muslims living in the United States as well as in operating against critics. There have been a number of cases reported to the FBI about Mossad officers who have approached leaders in Arab-American communities and have falsely represented themselves as “U.S. intelligence.” Because few Muslims would assist an Israeli, this is done to increase the likelihood that the target will cooperate. It’s referred to as a “false flag” operation.

Mossad officers sought to recruit Arab-Americans as sources willing to inform on their associates and neighbors. The approaches, which took place in New York and New Jersey, were reportedly handled clumsily, making the targets of the operation suspicious. These Arab-Americans turned down the requests for cooperation, and some of the contacts were eventually reported to the FBI, which has determined that at least two of the Mossad officers are, ironically, Israeli Arabs operating out of Israel’s mission to the United Nations in New York under cover as consular assistants.

In another bizarre case, U.S.S. Liberty survivor Phil Tourney was recently accosted in Southern California by a foreigner who eventually identified himself as an Israeli government representative. Tourney was taunted, and the Israeli threatened both him and journalist Mark Glenn, who has been reporting on the Liberty story. Tourney was approached in a hotel lounge, and it is not completely clear how the Israeli was able to identify him. But he knew exactly who Tourney was, as the official referred to the Liberty, saying that the people who had been killed on board had gotten what they deserved. There were a number of witnesses to the incident, including Tourney’s wife. The threat has been reported to the FBI, which is investigating, but Tourney and Glenn believe that the incident is not being taken seriously by the bureau.

FBI sources indicate that the increase in Mossad activity is a major problem, particularly when Israelis are posing as U.S. government officials, but they also note that there is little they can do to stop it as the Justice Department refuses to initiate any punitive action or prosecutions of the Mossad officers who have been identified as involved in the illegal activity.

In another ongoing Israeli spy case, Stewart Nozette appears to be headed towards eventual freedom as his case drags on through the District of Columbia courts. Nozette, an aerospace scientist with a top secret clearance and access to highly sensitive information, offered to sell classified material to a man he believed to be a Mossad officer, but who instead turned out to be with the FBI. Nozette has been in jail since October, but he has now been granted an additional 90-day delay so his lawyers can review the documents in the government’s case, many of which are classified. If Nozette demands that sensitive information be used in his defense, his case will likely follow the pattern set in the nine-times-postponed trial of AIPAC spies Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, who were ultimately acquitted in April 2009 when prosecutors determined that they could not make their case without doing significant damage to national security. A month after Rosen and Weissman were freed, Ben-Ami Kadish, who admitted to providing defense secrets to Israel while working as an engineer at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey, walked out of a Manhattan court after paying a fine. He did no jail time and continues to receive his substantial Defense Department pension.

The mainstream media reported the Rosen and Weissman trial intermittently, but there was virtually no coverage of Ben-Ami Kadish, and there has been even less of Nozette. Compare that with the recent reporting on the Russian spies who, by all accounts, did almost nothing and never obtained any classified information. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that spying for Israel is consequence free.

————————————-

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer, is the Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest. His “Deep Background” column appears every month exclusively in The American Conservative.

If you enjoyed this column, please support our work by making a tax-deductible contribution.
23 Responses to “Mossad in America”

1.
Andy, on August 23rd, 2010 at 9:24 am Said:

Israel has enemies committed to its destruction so it’s no surprise to me that theyll try to gather all the information anywhere it can be found in order to most effectively counter those efforts. From the article it sounds like even those who do it clumsily are able walk away free [although for some reason Pollard is the exception and is still serving a surprising long sentence in jail] so where is the incentive to cease? I suppose that if the US gov’t cared that the Mossad was obtaining this information they’d take steps to prevent it.It’s possible that they’re trying and are just inept but I haven’t reached that conclusion.
2.
Doug, on August 23rd, 2010 at 1:02 pm Said:

That part about USS Liberty survivior being harassed is outrageous. He should have punch out that Israeli jerkwad.
3.
Thomas O. Meehan, on August 23rd, 2010 at 1:15 pm Said:

Given the Phil Tourney incident, Mossad may be considering stepping up it’s intimidation efforts to include assault and murder. They’ve done it elsewhere. It’s hard to believe that they would impersonate US government officials without some mutual understanding with our government. Surely line officers within the FBI find this galling. What happens if a law abiding US citizen shoots a Mossad officer? The mind boogles at how our government could keep that under wraps.

I think Israel is operating from Great Britian’s pre-war playbook. The British operated very agressively in the US of the late Thirties, early Fourties. Written acccounts claim there were liquidations.

The question is will the American people allow a foriegn government to run roughshod over them while their own government turns asside? The question answers itself. They are already doing so with the Mexican illegals.
4.
James, on August 23rd, 2010 at 1:37 pm Said:

Thanks for this.. No surprise either when considering the AIPAC espionage case as well that Bamford discusses in further detail via the additional section at the end of the paperback version of his ‘A Pretext for War’ book. Captain Ward Boston (who has since passed away) mentioned how he thought the Mossad had assassinated an American intel contact of his when he wasn’t exactly receptive to what the Israelis were doing to undermine America’s national interests:

Ex-officer alleges cover-up in probe of spy ship attack

http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20040217-9999-1n17liberty.html

One can hear Phil Tourney being cut-off by the moderator near the end of the following panel discussion on the USS Liberty attack/cover-up:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/179892-1

Bamford had read Captain Boston’s declaration there!:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/ul-boston.html
5.
James, on August 23rd, 2010 at 1:58 pm Said:

Keep in mind how the US government allowed the ‘dancing Israelis’ to return home as they weren’t even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report either!:

Five Israelis Were Seen Filming
As Jet Liners Ploughed Into
The Twin Towers
On September 11, 2001

http://www.rense.com/general44/those.htm

And how about the Carl Cameron’s Fox News Channel series which JINSA/CAMERA helped to get suppressed as well?:

Carl Cameron Investigates Part 1 – Israel Is Spying In And On The U.S.?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm

JINSA Behind Drive To
Cover-Up Israeli Spy Scandal

http://www.rense.com/general18/JINSA.htm

Sunday, 22 August 2010

The Kelly Death establishment cover up--

Note: The Kelly death has always stunk to high Heaven. My correspondence with the Lib Dem MP Norman Baker, who was an early political doubter, is immediately below.



To take a few circumstantial oddities which tend not to be normally remarked upon.:





1. The Kelly family's behaviour was abnormal. The normal response of those suffering a dramatic bereavement which is suspicious is to go hard at the most likely culprits. The Kelly family did the exact opposite. Odds one that they had the official frighteners put on them.



2. The behaviour of mediafolk such as Andrew Gilligan and Tom Mangold in vehemently saying the death was not suspicious is best described as ludicrous. These are people normally

only too willing to rake over juicy political stories. Again, they show all the signs of having the frighteners put on them.



3. The body was cremated very rapidly to remove the possibility of another autopsy., a very strange thing in the light of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the death. RH





156 Levita House, Chalton Street London NW1 1HR Tel: 0207 387 5018







To: Norman Baker MP

House of Commons



07 September 2006





Dear Mr Baker,



I have read your Mail on Sunday article and watched your TV interview

on the Sunday Programme (GMTV - 3 7 2006) which also contained

an

interview with Tom Mangold. I agree that Kelly's death is highly

suspicious and commend you for re-opening debate on the matter.



I see that Rowena Thursby is asking for help in carrying the

investigation forward. I do not have any inside information but I think

I might be able to help you in terms of your general investigative

thrust and strategy for drumming up sustained interest within the

media. You will find comments under the following heading:



General investigative thrust

Points to consider and questions to ask

The murder hypothesis

Tom Mangold

Andrew Gilligan

The behaviour of the Kelly family, the media and politicians since

Hutton

Mai Pedersen



General investigative thrust



I suggest you concentrate primarily on two things: contradictory

statements made by those whose words have been recorded publicly,

eg

family, workmates, and ascertainable facts such as whether Kelly left

handed (see below).



The problem with using arguments based on such things as medical

judgements is that they are just that, judgements, not fact. Moreover,

in the case here, there is no conclusive physical cause of death, or

at least, not one which can be proved on the available evidence. The

general public (and many MPs) is also unlikely to follow technical

details.



The advantages of concentrating on contradictory statements are:

(1) the general public can readily understand such information,

(2) it is not a matter of opinion but fact whether someone has

contradicted themselves at different times or contradicted another

person and (3) if the people and organisations involved can be

challenged about the discrepancies they have no meaningful wriggle

room, because they are faced with objective facts - any refusal to

answer would be pro-murder thesis circumstantial evidence.



Points to consider and questions to ask



I suggest you raise these matters publicly (you do not appear to have

done so from the publicly available material - my apologies in advance

if you have):



1. Kelly was within months of drawing a civil service pension. He

had a sick wife who needed treatment which was not available under

the NHS and he was thinking of taking up a new job in the US

after he retired from the civil service to make money to pay for

treatment for her. Dr Kelly had a daughter about to be married

in a few weeks.



2. Kelly would surely have known that suicide would mean that his

widow would at best get a widow's pension. He would also know that

any life assurance he had would be invalidated by suicide. By

committing suicide, he would have been leaving his sick

wife with considerably less support than he could have

provided had he remained alive and continued working for

someone other than the British government.



3. Slashing the wrists is a very painful way to die. If you have

ever had blood taken from the wrist for testing you will have some

vague idea of the excruciating pain a deep cut would engender.

Death through cutting a wrist is not an obvious way to commit

suicide if the person wishes to definitely kill himself. Why

not use pills or drive the family car to a quiet spot and run a

tube from the exhaust to the closed car interior? All perfectly

simple and requiring far less nerve than slashing a wrist deeply.



4. Check whether Kelly owned a gun. If he did, the question

would have to be why not use that?



5. Check whether Kelly was right or left handed. If he was

lefthanded it is improbable in the extreme that he would have used

his right hand to cut his left wrist. I suspect he may have been

left handed simply from the way he held himself when he was before

the Commons Select Committee. That is just the sort of detail a

killer might overlook, ie, he or she would assume Kelly was right

handed and cut the left wrist.



6. Check whether Kelly had any medical condition, such

as arthritis or rheumatism, or injury which would have

prevented him either using his right hand or so impaired it

he would not have been able to make the cut in his wrist.



If Kelly was left handed or incapacitated by a medical condition, that

alone would scupper the suicide claim.



The murder hypothesis



You have been very circumspect to date about who might have done it or

why. I realise that such matters are pure speculation but to maintain

media and public interest I think it important for you to lay out

publicly the possible motives for murder and the possible players

in a murder. You would not be accusing anyone of anything merely

putting forward the possibilities.



Why would anyone wish to kill Dr Kelly? The short easy answer is

because he held information which could terminally damage

politicians or members of the security services. The politicians

and security services could be either British or foreign. Suppose,

for example, Kelly could prove that the dossier had been

deliberately enhanced far beyond any intelligence appreciation of the

evidence. Perhaps Kelly had been threatening privately to go public

with something fundamentally damaging or that someone simply feared

he

might do. It could even be that Kelly did not hold damaging

information but someone feared he did.



A more Machiavellian possibility is that Kelly was killed to

deliberately destabilise Blair and his Government. This could have been

a foreign government, a foreign security service or the British

security services. John Reid claimed not long after the Kelly death

that "rogue elements" within the security services were

attempting to destabilise the government with dirty tricks.



Conceivably Kelly could have been killed by a single individual

in government or working in the security field, who feared

he would reveal something to compromise them.



Kelly was killed by someone with a personal grudge against him

which had nothing to do with his work or the information he gave the

BBC.



The last would seem to me to be improbable going on absurd.

The others are plausible to a greater or lesser degree.



Tom Mangold



As you know from our meetings regarding the Data Protection Tribunal

and MI5, I am a retired Inland Revenue officer. Part of my Revenue

career was spent on investigations. When you do that kind of work you

become very sensitive to the signals, verbal and non-verbal, which

people give out, especially people under stress - posture, facial

expression, speech delivery, content of speech etc.



During the GMTV programme to my mind Mangold was giving out

signals that he was frightened and pretty frightened at that, viz: face

lacking variety of expression, tense posture, nervous hand movements,

eyes constantly looking slightly away from the camera - very odd for an

experienced BBC journalist.



As for his language, it is a curious mixture of the sort of over

emphatic speech which one commonly encounters in a saloon bar

well

into the evening ("Ludicrous", "shadow of doubt" etc) and Mills and

Boon ("This was a man with a very fine mind who thought, 'Oh God I

can't get out of this "....). His statement also had all the hallmarks

of being well-rehearsed rather than spontaneous. It would be

interesting to see Mangold challenged by an interviewer because

someone

with a prepared statement which does not fit reality will struggle for

lying is more demanding than telling the truth.



Here are some Mangold statements from the GMTV interview:



"I think Mr Baker could save his time and energy and should have

stayed on the front bench. An enquiry into the Kelly Affair to find

out if there is the possibility of murder and if so by who is a

complete and utter waste of time. "



"Nothing ever happened by accident with David, you know. What he did

was always calculated..."



"I am sorry to say to my mind there is not a shadow of doubt that he

committed suicide, not a scintilla of doubt..."



"Something awful happened around 11.00 o'clock..."



"This is a man who had a very fine mind... who thought 'Oh God, I

can't get out of this'..."



"I think Janice realised something awful had happened to

David mentally She went upstairs and was sick a couple of times. She

laid down. I think she had already decided that she was beginning to

lose David..."



"The question of the possibility murder is so ludicrous you

only have to think about it for a couple of minutes..."



"This case was investigated by the local police, the county police,

Scotland Yard, Special Branch, MI5, MI6 had a man present and the CIA

had a man present because the Americans were very interested in this.

So, we are taking about seven top flight agencies

investigating this, never mind Hutton, put Lord Hutton to one side.

Are we to believe that all these agencies fooled by the murderers

or that they conspired together to cover up the murder? It is too

silly to contemplate, too silly to contemplate."



I particularly enjoyed the sight of a supposedly sceptical leftist

journalist putting his trust in the likes of M15 and the CIA.



Mangold's performance overall I would describe as blustering. He not

only uses the inflated language quoted above, but his conjectures about

David and Janice Kelly's states of minds are thin at best and bizarre

at worst - his " I think she [Janice Kelly] had already decided that

she was beginning to lose David..." is truly odd.



His claimed necessary scenario for a Kelly murder - abduction from

his home - is all part and parcel of his over-eager desire to rubbish

the idea of murder. Quite clearly Kelly could have been (1) either

abducted by people simply waiting for him to go on what appears to have

been a favourite walk or (2) the phone call he received at 11.00 am may

have resulted in him going out to meet someone, perhaps someone

he

knew, and then being abducted. The e-mail he sent to Judy Miller, a

New York Times writer who had used Kelly as a source for a book on

biological terrorism, in which Kelly wrote of "many dark actors playing

games" (Daily Telegraph 20 7 2003) may well have been sent after he

received the 11.00 am phone call. Perhaps the phone call prompted the

phrase, perhaps the call came from Mai Pedersen.



So outlandishly out of character is Mangold's behaviour that it could

be interpreted as someone trying to signal that what he was saying he

did not believe by being so over the top as to be absurd.



There is something called microexpressions. These are fleeting

expressions which pass over a person's face so rapidly that they are

either barely discernible at the conscious level or not discerned at

all. I suggest that you have the Mangold interview played in slow

motion, the slower the better, and see what his microexpressions were

during the interview. (I do not have access to such super-slomo

equipment myself. Someone friendly to you in the media would be your

best bet). I would be willing to bet that Mangold's microexpressions

during the interview were of high anxiety verging on panic.



I also suggest you get hold of other Mangold TV performances and

compare the micro-expressions and non-verbal behaviours on those with

Mangold's performance on the GMTV Programme.



Andrew Gilligan



Gilligan's article "Those who say David was murdered are so wrong"

(The Evening Standard 24 July 2006) is, if anything, even odder than

Mangold's TV performance. Gilligan begins the article by suggesting why

Kelly was not an obvious suicide candidate, viz:



"As well as being upset, I was very, very surprised. I hadn't known

David all that well - I'd never met his family, for instance - but he

didn't strike me as the suicidal type, if there is such a thing."



"He was quite used to confrontation and pressure: he'd been a weapons

inspector in Iraq, for goodness sake. I thought his famous grilling by

the Foreign Affairs Committee had been distasteful, and symptomatic of

the committee's stupidity, but it hadn't been that bad.



"And anyway, the affair was basically over: Parliament was about to

break for the summer recess, the BBC had refused to confirm or deny

whether David was my source, and the battle between Downing Street

and

the BBC had reached stalemate. Politics was closing down for a month.

The row between the Government and BBC was essentially a

diversion.

All those spin-doctors, toady New Labour journalists and compliant MPs

who had helped to keep it bubbling for the previous few weeks were

about to disperse to Tuscan poolsides.



"All David had to do was keep his head down and it would go away. The

Government, I thought, was unlikely to discipline him for the partial

admissions he had made about his contacts with me. They needed him

more

than he needed them. If anyone was going to find Tony Blair some

weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it was David Kelly.



"Such were my thoughts on that morning of 18 July 2003, thoughts that

made me, at first, question whether David did actually kill himself..."



All fine and dandy, but then Gilligan proceeds to give a string of

arguments for why suicide is the best bet to explain Kelly's death.

These always either take the official line or adopts a line which

explains inconsistencies and anomalies away, viz:



"Even if the motives for David to kill himself do not, on the face of

it, seem quite strong enough, the motives for anyone else to kill him

are far, far weaker. In whose interests can it possibly have been to

murder David Kelly? The Government's? But his death plunged the

Government and New Labour into the greatest crisis in its history, a

crisis from which it has still not recovered, a crisis that has some

claim to be the turning point in the Blair premiership.



"The intelligence services? But even if you accept the (wildly false)

premise that MI5 and MI6 are rogue states within a state, popping off

their own citizens whenever they feel like it, why on earth would they

want to kill Kelly? His death didn't do them much good, either.



"The Iraqis? The Saddam regime had dissolved weeks before and its

members were hiding in holes. The Americans? Not without British

permission, surely - and, again, where's the motive?



"Looking at Baker's dossier, I notice that most of the "new questions"

it raises are actually quite old. The most important piece of evidence

questioning the official explanation is a letter written by three

(later five) doctors to The Guardian newspaper as long ago as January

2004, providing statistics which showed that it was unlikely for death

to be caused by slashing a minor artery, as David had done, and

questioning the toxicity of the co-proxamol painkillers in his blood.



"Baker has gone a little further, revealing the important fact that

only one person - David Kelly - died in this way in the UK during the

whole of 2003.



"However, Chris Milroy, professor of forensic pathology at the

University of Sheffield, points out that "the problem with the use of

statistics in any single case is that 'unlikely' does not make it

impossible". Furthermore, he said, "the toxicology [on Kelly] showed a

significant overdose of co-proxamol".



"There is also the argument that there was very little blood around

David when he was discovered. Two ambulance workers who attended

him,

Dave Bartlett and Vanessa Hunt, said they would expect to find several

pints of blood around someone who had died through slashing a wrist.

They believe it "incredibly unlikely" that David died from the wound

they saw.



"David Kelly's place of death was, however, a field. Professor Milroy

and another forensic pathologist, Professor Guy Rutty, suggested that

the blood could easily have seeped into the ground.



"Another explanation, said Professor Milroy, might be that David's

heart condition may have made it difficult for him to sustain any

significant blood loss.



"Baker also says that calls to David's mobile were not checked by the

police.



"If the evidence of the police to Hutton is to be believed, they were

checked. There is also some confusion about the position of the body,

with different accounts from different witnesses. But eyewitnesses, as

we know from the Jean Charles de Menezes case, are seldom

consistent

and not always reliable...



"Lord Hutton had many failings. But the verdict of suicide on David

Kelly was almost certainly one of the few things he got right.



Some of these arguments are absurd, for example the claim "...even if

you accept the (wildly false) premise that MI5 and MI6 are rogue states

within a state..." By definition Gilligan cannot know whether they do

or not. Or how about the idea that Kelly could not have killed by the

state because it embarrassed the Blair government? Kelly might well

have been in a position to do far more than embarrass Blair and co.

Ditto the intelligence services British and foreign.



Other arguments, such as those regarding blood soaking into the turf

where Kelly was found, improbable - even if the blood had soaked in it

would still have left a large surface stain. Gilligan always takes an

explanation against suicide whether it is probable or not. One or even

two improbable arguments might be accepted as reasonable as part of

an

explanation, a string of them cannot be,



As with Mangold's behaviour, Gilligan's article could be interpreted

as someone trying to signal that what he was saying he did not believe

by making it so over the top as to be absurd.



The behaviour of the Kelly family, the media and politicians since

Hutton



The behaviour of the surviving members of the Kelly family has been of

the same general quality as that of Mangold and Gilligan: ostensibly

they have bought into what might be called the elite version of his

death. This version has two strands: the "suicide" and the

misbehaviour of the Government leading to Kelly taking his life. Mrs

Kelly and her daughter accepted both strands early in the investigation

into his death and by their evidence to the Kelly Enquiry were strident

about the Government driving David Kelly to his death.



I wonder if I am alone in finding this behaviour more than a little

odd. First of all, one might have expected some members of Kelly's

family to have different views. Second, would not any family in the

circumstances have had at least suspicions that his death was not

suicide?



Soon after Kelly's death his wife Janice the New York Times reported

that: "Mrs Kelly told the paper her husband had been under enormous

stress 'as we all had been', but she had no indication he was

contemplating suicide." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3080795

. stm - 19 7 2003). If she did think that, why on earth would she so

readily accept the suicide story when there were so many features about

it which suggested otherwise?



The same willingness to accept the "suicide version" is found amongst

politicians and the mainstream media.



Why is almost everyone who could be and should be expressing public

doubts so determined not to? It is one of two things: either people

have been directly threatened by the state or agents working covertly

for the state - I suspect this has happened to the Kelly family,

Mangold and Gilligan - or people are being driven to keep quiet

because of the natural fear people feel when faced with the powerful,

ie, they feel instinctively that to question Kelly's death is

dangerous.



Mai Pedersen



During the Hutton Enquiry there were persistent reports that the CIA

operative Mai Pedersen might appear at the hearings. She never did

despite being someone who would in all probability have been a valuable

witness. Here is what the Times reported ("American was Kelly's

spiritual mentor", 1 September 2003) at the time:



"The role of Mai Pederson, a US military linguist, in bringing Dr Kelly

to the Baha'i faith was highlighted by Mrs Marilyn VonBerg, who was

secretary of the local Baha'i assembly in Monterey, California, when Dr

Kelly converted there in 1999.



"Mrs VonBerg said Sgt Pederson was "very close" to Dr Kelly's family

and had visited them some time before his death. "He and Mai were

friends because she had taught him the faith. She is high security so

we never asked them questions. But I am sure she was his translator at

one point." The VonBerg family received a call from Ms Pederson, an

Arabic-speaker who holds the rank of senior staff sergeant, to inform

them of Dr Kelly's apparent suicide on July 17.



"All she said is: 'Don't believe what you read in the newspapers," John

VonBerg said. "I do not know which direction she was coming from. It's

very mysterious to us."

[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7813-800123,00.html ]



If she did say that, it is not merely intriguing but it shows she is

not exactly the tight-lipped spy. If you could get an interview with

her I suspect you might find her rather indiscreet.



If there is anything else I can do to help your enquiry I shall be more

than happy to do it.



You may reproduce, circulate and make public any information I send

you.



Your sincerely,





Robert Henderson





--



Norman Baker MP

(LibDem Lewes)

HOUSE OF COMMONS

LONDON SW1A OAA

Mr Robert Henderson

156 Levita House

Chalton Street

LONDON NW1 1HR



Dear Mr Henderson,



Thank you very much for you long and helpful email, concerning my

investigation into the death of Dr David Kelly.

I am determined to get to the bottom of this matter, but I am sure

you, more than most, will understand that it would not be prudent for

me to set down my thoughts in too much detail on paper at this point.

To do so I fear might preclude further progress in my enquiries, at

least in so far as certain directions are concerned.

You may be interested to know that I am due to see Tom Mangold

shortly, at my request, and I am sure the meeting will be an

interesting one. You ask if there is anything you can do to help. You

do in fact make some points about the use of microexpressions and it

might be helpful if you were able to carry out the sort of analysis you

refer to in your email. I do not in fact have the equipment and it is

clear that you know more about what ought to be looked for than I do.

If you were able to do this then that would be a helpful contribution

to my enquiries. If however you are not able to then I would quite

understand.



In any case, thank you very much for writing.



Norman Baker MP



11 September 2006

Our ref: HR1 109-Kelly Affair\cc

Norman Baker MP

Constituency Office: 23 East Street, Lewes, East Sussex BN7 2LJ Tel:

(01273) 480281 Fax: 480287 Email: normanbaker©cix. co. uk

http://www.normanbaker.org.uk Surgeries held every Saturday morning

in

Seaford, Lewes, Newhaven arid Polegate



Your MP will treat as confidential any personal information which you

pass on. He will normally allow his staff and volunteers to see this

information, so that they can find help and advice for you. Each has

signed a confidentiality agreement. In some cases your MP may need to

give all or some of this information to outside agencies









156 Levita House, Chalton Street, London NW1 1HR Tel: 0207 387 5018





Norman Baker MP

House of Commons



18 9 2006



Dear Mr Baker,



Thank you for your letter of 11 Sept. I would be more than happy to

give an analysis of Mangold's microexpressions but I regret that I

do not have access to the requisite "slo-mo" equipment. If you can gain

access to such equipment - a contact in broadcasting would be the place

to start - I will give you an analysis. However, for public

credibility you would need to get a professional working in the area (a

psychologist most probably) to give you a "formal" assessment of

Mangold's microexpressions (or anyone else's).



When you meet Mangold I suggest you concentrate on the two startling

discrepancies in his evidence to Hutton compared with his later

statements, most notably on the GMTV programme. First is his

relationship with Kelly. In the GMTV interview Mangold claimed that he

was a close friend of Kelly. In fact, he did not

meet him until 1998 and so knew Kelly for five years at most. Then there

is his testimony to Hutton, viz (he was questioned by Mr Knox):



"11 Q. How frequently would you speak to him over the years?

12 A. It was not that frequent. I spoke to him whenever I had

13 a query about biological warfare or occasionally

14 chemical warfare subjects. But it was not a frequent

15 relationship.

16 Q. Would these be unattributable briefings?

17 A. Sometimes they were; but the major interview for the

18 book he came to my home and I spoke to him for about

19 eight hours in one day and that was on the record, that

20 was attributable.

21 Q. And his name is mentioned in the book.

22 A. Yes, yes.

23 Q. You would meet him sometimes. Would you be able to say

24 roughly how often you would meet him?

25 A. I would say, on balance, maybe twice a year.



61

1 Q. And when you spoke to each other, it was generally just

2 on professional matters --

3 A. Always.

4 Q. -- or other matters as well?

5 A. But I spoke to him on the phone much more than I met

6 him.

7 Q. In those telephone conversations, what did you talk

8 about?

9 A. Biological warfare."



Note that not only did Mangold say his relationship with Kelly was

infrequent and professional, he ignores the double invitation from Knox

to expand his answer from his claim that they discussed only

"professional matters", viz: "or other matters as well?" and "In those

telephone conversations, what did you talk about?"



The second contradiction concerns his melodramatic claim during the

GMTV interview that "I think Janice [Kelly] realised something awful

had happened to David mentally. She went upstairs and was sick a

couple

of times. I think she had already decided that she was beginning to

lose David..."



His evidence to Hutton runs:



8 Q. Did you speak to Mrs Kelly on 17th or 18th July?

9 A. Yes, I did, yes. I received a phone call on that day,

10 somewhere around 9 to 9.15, telling me that David Kelly

11 was missing.

12 Q. And you then spoke to Mrs Kelly?

13 A. Yes. I sat down and thought about that quite carefully;

14 and then I spoke to Jan, yes.

15 Q. And what did she tell you?

16 A. Well, I had very mixed emotions on that day. I knew the

17 moment I got the phone call at 9 o'clock in the morning,

18 I knew that he had to be dead because David Kelly did

19 not go missing. If he was missing, he was dead. So

20 I had a slightly difficult phone call with Janice. She

21 was still fairly upbeat and felt that he must have had

22 a heart attack or a stroke and was -- she felt he was

23 lying in a field, you know, waiting to be found.



The phone call was only "slightly difficult" and Janice Kelly was

"still fairly upbeat" and "felt he must have had a heart attack or

stroke...". No suggestion that she had given up hope in some

mysterious way even before he went missing or that she believed him to

be suicidal.



It might seem strange to you that an educated intelligent man such as

Mangold would contradict himself in such a fashion. He must, you may

argue to yourself, have known when he gave the GMTV interview that the

contradictions would be obvious because both would be on the public

record, so why put himself in such an awkward position?



Mangold's behaviour is readily understandable. I used to see it

regularly when I worked for the Revenue. People would tell me lies

which they knew I could immediately demonstrate to be lies. For

example, an employer would claim he did not allow overtime. I would

find overtime sheets which did not appear in the wage records. I would

then interview the employer again with the overtime sheets in front of

me and ask whether he paid overtime. More often than not the employer

would deny it again despite the fact that he was staring at the

overtime sheets which he knew would immediately prove him a liar.



The reason that people behave in this seemingly bizarre fashion is

simple: they become psychologically paralysed and are incapable of

behaving rationally, because the acceptance of reality is simply too

painful or frightening. That is what has happened to Mangold. Part of

him knows that his latest story is unsustainable because of his

previous public statements, but whatever is making him do what he is

now doing - almost certainly pure undiluted fear - is simply too

difficult for him to confront.



Because of all this Mangold will be in a delicate mental state when you

meet him. If you keep banging away at these two central contradictions

- his bogus friendship with Kelly and his varying accounts of the wife's

state after the death - over and over again from my experience there is

a

fair chance that Mangold will lose control. If he does, he will

probably become either violently abusive or break down and tell you at

least some of the truth, even if it is in a disjointed form. Either

behaviour provides you will valuable information about Mangold.



Kelly's "training"



I have also been foraging generally around on the Hutton website. Two

emails from Kelly on the 5th and 8th of July 2003 - urls below -

refer to "training" he was undergoing. It is probably a dead end

but just possibly the "training" might be a pointer to his killer or

add something useful to the circumstantial knowledge surrounding his

death. I suggest you try to find out what the "training" was and who

was involved. The urls are:



http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/evidence/com_4_0088.pdf

http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/evidence/com_4_0089.pdf



The Kelly Family



The behaviour of the Kelly Family suggests they have been frightened

into going along with the suicide line. If so, a carrot or carrots have

probably been introduced to balance the stick of threat (the same

applies to Mangold and Gilligan). I suggest you try to find out what

Mrs Kelly has received by way of Civil Service widow's pension and

gratuity. These are standard figures based on years of service so

cannot be fudged.



If Mrs Kelly has received anything more than her strict entitlement

that would suggest foul play. You should be able to get the data,

directly or indirectly, with a Commons question or use of the FOIA. If

you cannot get details of an individual, put in a request for the

anonymised details of all pensions/gratuities larger than those which

are catered for in the regulations paid out the spouses of those in

Kelly's department who died in 2003.



Following the same track, try to discover what private insurances Kelly

had against his life and whether these were (1) claimed by Mrs Kelly

and (2) paid in full or part. The amounts he was insured for, if any,

would be useful both as evidence of why he would not have committed

suicide (commit suicide and wife loses X) and to compare with what Mrs

Kelly (or any other member of her family) has received from the state

(the state may have compensated Mrs Kelly for any lost private

insurances).



In an ideal world you would also want access to all of Kelly's bank

accounts and those of his family, especially that of Mrs Kelly, to see

if any unaccountable money has been introduced into them before or

since Kelly's death.



Finally, find out the value of Kelly's estate - this will be public

knowledge.



Yours sincerely,







Robert Henderson




Note: Strange how the pathologist who did the PM could have missed such an obvious sign of death. Moreoever, if he had the attack when he was in the process of slashing his wrists, the only plausible way he could have slashed hios wrists and had the heart attack, that would have rapidly stopped any bleeding. RH


Kelly had heart attack, says pathologist

New theory questions Hutton finding over death of weapons inspector, but
says he was not murdered

By Andrew Johnson

Sunday, 15 August 2010


A retired pathologist cast further doubt yesterday on the circumstances
surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly, the government weapons
inspector said to have committed suicide in 2003. She also criticised
Lord Hutton's handling of the inquiry into his death. Dr Jennifer Dyson
joined other experts questioning the official finding that Kelly bled to
death. She argued it was more likely that the 59-year-old scientist
suffered a heart attack due to the stress he had been placed under.

The intervention came as Michael Howard, the former Conservative Party
leader, became the most prominent politician to call for a full inquest
into the inspector's death. He told The Mail on Sunday that questions
over the death meant that calling a full inquiry would be "entirely
appropriate".

Kelly, Britain's most senior inspector in Iraq, was found dead in woods
near his home in Oxfordshire. He was revealed to be the source behind a
BBC news story which accused Tony Blair's former communications chief
Alastair Campbell of "sexing up" the so-called "dodgy dossier" about
Iraq's weapons.

Kelly had taken a non-lethal dose of painkillers and had cut his left
wrist. A small knife was found near his body. Unusually for such a
sudden and high-profile death, Kelly's case has never been the subject
of a full coroner's inquiry. Instead, the case was examined during the
Hutton inquiry. Lord Hutton concluded that Kelly had principally died
from "bleeding from incised wounds to his left wrist which Dr Kelly had
inflicted on himself with the knife found beside his body". He added
that Kelly's death was hastened by the 29 pills he swallowed, and
coronary heart disease.

Many medical experts have asked why there was so little blood, and
assert that severing the ulnar artery would in itself be insufficient to
cause death. Conspiracies surrounding the death were further fuelled by
revelations that Kelly had told friends that if Iraq were invaded, "I'll
probably be found dead in the woods".

Last week a group of nine experts, including former coroners and a
professor of intensive-care medicine, wrote a letter to The Times
questioning Lord Hutton's verdict. "Insufficient blood would have been
lost to threaten life," they wrote. "Absent a quantitative assessment of
the blood lost and of the blood remaining in the great vessels, the
conclusion that death occurred as a consequence of haemorrhage is
unsafe."

Dr Dyson amplified last week's criticism, saying that a coroner would
probably have recorded an open verdict in the absence of absolute proof
that suicide was intended. "I don't believe he died of a loss of blood,"
she told The Independent on Sunday. "I don't know that the presence of
the knife in itself can be taken as evidence of intent to kill himself,
but there seem to have been a lot of pills in his stomach, which makes
me think that he did indeed intend to commit suicide. There appears to
be good reason to think he was in a state of distress, so my suspicion
would be that he had a coronary attack, brought on by the circumstances
he found himself in and the stress that that entailed.

"Very often you cannot say with confidence that a person has had a
coronary," Dr Dyson added. "It is a pity that Hutton usurped the
function of the coroner in this case. It was a silly thing to do. It
should have been an open verdict, as suicides often are, unless there is
pretty incontrovertible evidence. I think a trained coroner would have
brought in an open verdict. Also, I don't understand why Hutton chose to
keep the papers under lock and key for 70 years."

The nine who wrote to The Times have asked Kenneth Clarke, the Secretary
of State for Justice, to make the relevant medical records available to
experts. Yesterday he was reported to have decided that the unanswered
questions about Kelly's death can no longer be ignored.

A spokesman for Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, said he "remains
concerned" and was looking at how to take the matter further.

Evidence: Ten reasons to query the suicide verdict

1. An elbow injury had left David Kelly's right arm too weak to cut his
wrist.

2. He had "difficulty swallowing pills" so he couldn't have swallowed 29
tablets.

3. Medical records about the case have been classified for 70 years,
implying there's something to hide.

4. There were no fingerprints on the pruning knife used to cut his
wrist.

5. He anticipated his own death, predicting he would "probably be found
dead in the woods" if Iraq was invaded.

6. Doctors doubt the severed artery would have caused enough blood loss
for him to have died of a haemorrhage.

7. The detective who found his body, Constable Graham Coe, said there
wasn't much blood, so how could he have died of blood loss after
slitting his wrist?

8. Two paramedics at the scene were sceptical the "wrist wound we saw"
could have caused his death.

9. There was no evidence he was depressed; he was looking forward to his
daughter's wedding.

10. His death certificate was not signed by a doctor or coroner and does
not state a place of death.

Http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/kelly-had-heart-attack-
says-pathologist-2053048.html



David would never have committed suicide in that spot


Conspiracy theory: Nikolai Tolstoy believes Dr Kelly was killed

A distinguished historian and neighbour of Dr David Kelly has added to the growing clamour for an inquest by declaring he does not believe Dr Kelly committed suicide.

Count Nikolai Tolstoy said last night that the scientist's 'considerate' character meant he would never have chosen to die in a place where passers-by were likely to be shocked – particularly when he could easily have deployed more discreet and effective means of killing himself.

Tolstoy, who is an expert on Celtic mythology and the Second World War, lives in the Oxfordshire village of Southmoor where the scientist shared an old farmhouse with his wife, Janice Kelly. Dr Kelly died on nearby Harrowdown Hill, on a walking route that is widely used by locals.

'I remember the night of his death very well' Tolstoy said last night. 'There were helicopters flying overhead for hours after the body was found.

'The general view in the village is that suicide is extremely unlikely. He used to drink in our local pub and he was a very friendly and considerate man.

'I frequently walk past the spot where he died, and he would not have done something like that in a place where an old lady could have found him.

'It just seems wholly implausible that he should have chosen to saw away at his wrist with a blunt knife when there were other means available to him at home, where his wife kept various drugs for her medical conditions.'

Tolstoy, who stood as a UKIP candidate against David Cameron at the last Election, believes that Dr Kelly died because he had annoyed Tony Blair's Government.

The historian, who is a distant cousin of War And Peace author Leo Tolstoy, had his own battle with the Establishment in the Eighties when he was ordered to pay '£1.5 million damages to Lord Aldington, after making claims in a pamphlet accusing the peer of complicity in war crimes.

Tolstoy's defence against the libel action was seriously hampered when the Ministry of Defence removed vital papers from the Public Record Office which Tolstoy needed to fight his case - while Aldington found his access to war records unimpeded.

'I was in a similar position when I was attacked by the Establishment and it didn't make me feel that way [suicidal],' Tolstoy added.

'As Sherlock Holmes said, when you have eliminated the impossible, you are left with what happened.

'Presumably the British Government was behind it all. I don't believe the theory that Iraqi agents murdered him – how would they have the means and the opportunity to come into the country?

'I wouldn't put anything past the Government, as I know from personal experience. When the Establishment is threatened, it closes ranks.'



http ://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1303190/Michael-Howard-leads-MPs-Dr-David-Kelly-inquest.html

Home
News
News Topics
Politics
Ken Clarke under pressure to release Kelly papers as Dominic Grieve waits for evidence
Kenneth Clarke is under fresh pressure to release sealed medical reports surrounding the death of David Kelly after an appeal from the Attorney General for concrete evidence that he did not kill himself.

By Christopher Hope, Whitehall Editor
Published: 5:06PM BST 19 Aug 2010

Link to this video
The Daily Telegraph disclosed how Dominic Grieve, the Government’s senior law officer, was prepared to intervene in the controversy, after admitting that those who doubted Dr Kelly’s suicide “may have a valid point”.
Mr Grieve said he was waiting until Mr Clarke, the Justice Secretary, decided whether to release the medical documents, including the post-mortem report, which were sealed by Lord Hutton, who investigated the death in 2004, for 70 years.
The leader of a group of doctors, who are pushing for Mr Grieve to apply for a full inquest into the death, said it was “strange” that Mr Clarke was sitting on the evidence which Mr Grieve, wished to see.
Dr Michael Powers QC said: “The clamour for a full inquest is based upon the concern that neither the doctors nor the public have been given access to key information.
“It seems strange that the Attorney General too is left waiting for the release of medical evidence held by the Ministry of Justice.
"Secrecy only fuels speculation. It is time now for all the issues and unanswered questions to be explored by a coroner.”
Mr Grieve told The Daily Telegraph in an interview that the Government wanted to resolve the controversy. He said: “We would like to resolve this in a way that can give the public reassurance.
“People who have expressed concerns about why Lord Hutton did not tie up every loose end may have a valid point.”
Pressed later on television whether he thought there had been a “cover-up” over Dr Kelly’s death by the last Government, Mr Grieve, told ITV News: “"I have no reason to think... that there has been a cover-up.
“I know that some people have put some theories forward but if you're, going to put a theory forward like that you need some evidence.
“As matters stand at the moment I haven't seen any evidence but if there is any evidence my office is the place to send it to.”
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "The request for the release of papers is currently under consideration”.
Dr Kelly’s body was found in a wood near his home in Oxfordshire in July 2003 shortly after he was exposed as the source of a BBC report which said the Government had exaggerated the grounds for the war in Iraq.
His death led to an inquiry by Lord Hutton which concluded that he had, killed himself, using a knife to cut his wrist and taking an overdose of co-proxamol painkillers.
But conspiracy theorists have suggested there might be more to his death, particularly as Lord Hutton ordered that the post mortem remain ,secret for 70 years ““in view of the distress that could be caused to Dr Kelly’s wife and daughters”.



Telegraph
Attorney General will step in to end speculation over David Kelly death
The Attorney General has signalled that he is prepared to intervene in the controversy over the death of Dr David Kelly, admitting that those who doubted his suicide “may have a valid point”.

By Christopher Hope, Whitehall Editor
Published: 11:14PM BST 18 Aug 2010

Link to this video
In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Dominic Grieve said he hoped to settle any concerns about the government scientist’s death to “give the public reassurance”.
His remarks raise the prospect that a full inquest, which could see Tony Blair, Alastair Campbell and other senior Labour figures questioned in public, could finally be held. But the Attorney General said that before he applied for such a hearing he would need convincing evidence that the weapons expert had not committed suicide.
Dr Kelly’s body was found in a wood near his home in Oxfordshire in July 2003, shortly after he had been exposed as the source of a BBC report which said the government had exaggerated the grounds for the war in Iraq.
Rather than the usual inquest, his death led to an inquiry by Lord Hutton which concluded that he had killed himself, using a knife to cut his wrist and taking an overdose of painkillers.
But conspiracy theorists have suggested there may be more to his death, particularly as Lord Hutton ordered that the results of the post mortem examination remain secret for 70 years.
Senior politicians and doctors have now called for a full inquest to examine in public how the scientist came to die.
Mr Grieve said: “We would like to resolve this in a way that can give the public reassurance.”
He added: “People who have expressed concerns about why Lord Hutton did not tie up every loose end may have a valid point.”
Concerns over Dr Kelly’s death intensified last week, when a group of doctors signed a letter stating that the official explanation was “extremely unlikely”.
The principal cause was given as bleeding from a severed ulnar artery, a finding which the group argued was unsafe.
Det Con Graham Coe, who found the body, also said earlier this month that there had not been much blood at the scene. Calls for an inquest have come from the former Labour defence minister Peter Kilfoyle and the Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker. At the weekend, Lord Howard of Lympne, the former Conservative leader, added his voice.
Dr Andrew Davison, a Home Office pathologist, responded by saying that the circumstances of Dr Kelly’s death were “not a game of Cluedo” and should be left to the experts.
Because a full inquest was never carried out, Mr Grieve is able to apply to the High Court for one as the most senior legal officer in England and Wales, under Section 13 of the 1988 Coroners’ Act. Normally, this is done on behalf of the deceased’s family.
However, Mr Grieve said he could not apply on a “hunch” and had to take account of the feelings of Dr Kelly’s close family, who have not called for a fresh investigation.
A High Court judge would only agree to order an inquest if Mr Grieve could prove such a course was in the interests of justice.
“I have been given no evidence to suggest an alternative cause of death,” Mr Grieve said.
“If new evidence is put to me I can consider if an application should be made to the High Court that a fresh inquest goes ahead.” Mr Grieve said he was unable to take any action until Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, decided whether to release a number of key documents from an archive used by Lord Hutton for his report.
Their release was requested by the doctors who raised their concerns last week.
The archive includes Dr Kelly’s post mortem examination report, which Lord Hutton ordered sealed “in view of the distress that could be caused to Dr Kelly’s wife and daughters”.
The request was under consideration, a Ministry of Justice spokesman said

Saturday, 21 August 2010

Dutch Muslim group fined over Holocaust cartoon

The Dutch dilemma-which minority do we grovel to most?

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCATRE67I3ZT20100819

Dutch Muslim group fined over Holocaust cartoon

Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:07pm EDT

Print This Article
[-] Text [+]

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - A Dutch Muslim group was fined 2,500 euros ($3,200) for publishing a cartoon which suggested the Holocaust was made up or exaggerated by Jews, a Dutch appeals court ruled on Thursday.

The court in the western city of Arnhem overruled an acquittal handed down by a Dutch lower court, saying the cartoon, published on the website of the Arab European League's (AEL) in 2006, was "unnecessarily hurtful."

"The court points out that the European Court of Human Rights, which considers freedom of speech of paramount importance and defends it thoroughly, makes no exception for the denial or trivialization of the Holocaust," the court said.

The court also imposed a 2-year probation period on the AEL.

The cartoon shows two men in Auschwitz looking at several dead bodies. "I don't think they are Jews," says one man. The one man replies: "We have to get to the 6,000,000 (figure) somehow'. Six million Jews were killed during the Holocaust.

The Dutch group says it had no intention of disputing the Holocaust, but wanted instead to highlight what it described as double standards in free speech.

The AEL circulated it in 2006 after a Danish newspaper published a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad which triggered an outcry among Muslims in many countries.

(Reporting by Gilbert Kreijger; Editing by Maria Golovnina)

Wednesday, 18 August 2010

HITLER SPEAKS On Palestine

HITLER SPEAKS

On Palestine

Listen to Hitler's own words:

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

"For while the Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that
the national consciousness of the Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation
of a Palestinian state, the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb Goyim.
It doesn't even enter their heads to build up a Jewish state in Palestine
for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organization
for their international world swindle, endowed with its own sovereign
rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for
convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks."

— MEIN KAMPF, I:11/324-325

The Hidden but Awkward Origins of World War 2 The unexpected views of four key diplomats who were close to events:

The Hidden but Awkward Origins of World War 2

The unexpected views of four key diplomats who were close to events:

Just consider the following:
Joseph P. Kennedy, U.S. Ambassador to Britain during the years immediately preceding WW2 was the father of the famous American Kennedy dynasty. James Forrestal the first US Secretary of Defense (1947-1949) quotes him as saying "Chamberlain (the British Prime Minister) stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war". (The Forrestal Diaries ed. Millis, Cassell 1952 p129).
Count Jerzy Potocki, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, in a report to the Polish Foreign Office in January 1939, is quoted approvingly by the highly respected British military historian Major-General JFC Fuller. Concerning public opinion in America he says "Above all, propaganda here is entirely in Jewish hands…when bearing public ignorance in mind, their propaganda is so effective that people have no real knowledge of the true state of affairs in Europe… It is interesting to observe that in this carefully thought-out campaign… no reference at all is made to Soviet Russia. If that country is mentioned, it is referred to in a friendly manner and people are given the impression that Soviet Russia is part of the democratic group of countries… Jewry was able not only to establish a dangerous centre in the New World for the dissemination of hatred and enmity, but it also succeeded in dividing the world into two warlike camps…President Roosevelt has been given the power.. to create huge reserves in armaments for a future war which the Jews are deliberately heading for." (Fuller, JFC: The Decisive Battles of the Western World vol 3 pp 372-374.)
Hugh Wilson, the American Ambassador in Berlin until 1938, the year before the war broke out, found anti-Semitism in Germany ‘understandable’. This was because before the advent of the Nazis, "the stage, the press, medicine and law [were] crowded with Jews…among the few with money to splurge, a high proportion [were] Jews…the leaders of the Bolshevist movement in Russia, a movement desperately feared in Germany, were Jews. One could feel the spreading resentment and hatred." (Hugh Wilson: Diplomat between the Wars, Longmans 1941, quoted in Leonard Mosley, Lindbergh, Hodder 1976).
Sir Nevile Henderson, British Ambassador in Berlin ‘said further that the hostile attitude in Great Britain was the work of Jews and enemies of the Nazis, which was what Hitler thought himself’ (Taylor, AJP: The Origins of the Second World War Penguin 1965, 1987 etc p 324).
Is all of this merely attributable to terrible antisemitism?

The economic background to the war is necessary for a fuller understanding, before casting judgement on the originators of these viewpoints.

At the end of the First World War, Germany was essentially tricked [see Paul Johnson A History of the Modern World (1983) p24 and H Nicholson Peacemaking 1919 (1933) pp13-16] into paying massive reparations to France and other economic competitors and former belligerent countries in terms of the so-called Treaty of Versailles, thanks to the liberal American President Woodrow Wilson. Germany was declared to be solely responsible for the war, in spite of the fact that ‘Germany did not plot a European war, did not want one, and made genuine efforts, though too belated, to avert one.’ (Professor Sydney B Fay The Origins of the World War (vol. 2 p 552)).

As a result of these massive enforced financial reparations, by 1923 the situation in Germany became desperate and inflation on an astronomical scale became the only way out for the government. Printing presses were engaged to print money around the clock. In 1921 the exchange rate was 75 marks to the dollar. By 1924 this had become about 5 trillion marks to the dollar. This virtually destroyed the German middle class (Koestler The God that Failed p 28), reducing any bank savings to a virtual zero.

According to Sir Arthur Bryant the British historian (Unfinished Victory (1940 pp. 136-144):

‘It was the Jews with their international affiliations and their hereditary flair for finance who were best able to seize such opportunities.. They did so with such effect that, even in November 1938, after five years of anti-Semitic legislation and persecution, they still owned, according to the Times correspondent in Berlin, something like a third of the real property in the Reich. Most of it came into their hands during the inflation.. But to those who had lost their all this bewildering transfer seemed a monstrous injustice. After prolonged sufferings they had now been deprived of their last possessions. They saw them pass into the hands of strangers, many of whom had not shared their sacrifices and who cared little or nothing for their national standards and traditions.. The Jews obtained a wonderful ascendancy in politics, business and the learned professions (in spite of constituting) less than one percent of the population.. The banks, including the Reichsbank and the big private banks, were practically controlled by them. So were the publishing trade, the cinema, the theatres and a large part of the press – all the normal means, in fact, by which public opinion in a civilized country is formed.. The largest newspaper combine in the country with a daily circulation of four millions was a Jewish monopoly.. Every year it became harder and harder for a gentile to gain or keep a foothold in any privileged occupation.. At this time it was not the ‘Aryans’ who exercised racial discrimination. It was a discrimination that operated without violence. It was exercised by a minority against a majority. There was no persecution, only elimination.. It was the contrast between the wealth enjoyed – and lavishly displayed – by aliens of cosmopolitan tastes, and the poverty and misery of native Germans, that has made anti-Semitism so dangerous and ugly a force in the new Europe. Beggars on horseback are seldom popular, least of all with those whom they have just thrown out of the saddle.’

Goodness gracious, Sir Arthur! What made you get out of the wrong side of the bed?

Strangely enough, a book unexpectedly published by Princeton University Press in 1984, Sarah Gordon (Hitler, Germans and the "Jewish Question") essentially confirms what Bryant says. According to her, ‘Jews were never a large percentage of the total German population; at no time did they exceed 1% of the population during the years 1871-1933.’ But she adds ‘Jews were over-represented in business, commerce, and public and private service.. They were especially visible in private banking in Berlin, which in 1923 had 150 private Jewish banks, as opposed to only 11 private non-Jewish banks.. They owned 41% of iron and scrap iron firms and 57% of other metal businesses.. Jews were very active in the stock market, particularly in Berlin, where in 1928 they comprised 80% of the leading members of the stock exchange. By 1933, when the Nazis began eliminating Jews from prominent positions, 85% of the brokers on the Berlin Stock exchange were dismissed because of their "race".. At least a quarter of full professors and instructors (at German universities) had Jewish origins.. In 1905-6 Jewish students comprised 25% of the law and medical students.. In 1931, 50% of the 234 theatre directors in Germany were Jewish, and in Berlin the number was 80%.. In 1929 it was estimated that the per capita income of Jews in Berlin was twice that of other Berlin residents..’ etc etc.

Arthur Koestler confirms the Jewish over-involvement in German publishing. ‘Ullstein’s was a kind of super-trust; the largest organization of its kind in Europe, and probably In the world. They published four daily papers in Berlin alone, among these the venerable Vossische Zeitung, founded in the eighteenth century, and the B.Z. am Mittag, an evening paper.. Apart from these, Ullstein’s published more than a dozen weekly and monthly periodicals, ran their own news service, their own travel agency, etc., and were one of the leading book publishers. The firm was owned by the brothers Ullstein - they were five, like the original Rothschild brothers, and like them also, they were Jews.’ (The God that Failed (1950) ed. RHS Crossman, p 31).

Edgar Mowrer, Berlin correspondent for the Chicago Daily News, wrote an anti-German tract called Germany Puts the Clock Back (published as a Penguin Special and reprinted five times between December 1937 and April 1938). He nevertheless notes ‘In the all-important administration of Prussia, any number of strategic positions came into the hands of Hebrews.. A telephone conversation between three Jews in Ministerial offices could result in the suspension of any periodical or newspaper in the state.. The Jews came in Germany to play in politics and administration that same considerable part that they had previously won by open competition in business, trade, banking, the Press, the arts, the sciences and the intellectual and cultural life of the country. And thereby the impression was strengthened that Germany, a country with a mission of its own, had fallen into the hands of foreigners.’

Mowrer says ‘No one who lived through the period from 1919 to 1926 is likely to forget the sexual promiscuity that prevailed.. Throughout a town like Berlin, hotels and pensions made vast fortunes by letting rooms by the hour or day to baggageless, unregistered guests. Hundreds of cabarets, pleasure resorts and the like served for purposes of getting acquainted and acquiring the proper mood..’ (pp. 153-4). Bryant describes throngs of child prostitutes outside the doors of the great Berlin hotels and restaurants. He adds ‘Most of them (the night clubs and vice-resorts) were owned and managed by Jews. And it was the Jews.. among the promoters of this trade who were remembered in after years.’ (pp. 144-5).

Douglas Reed, Chief Central European correspondent before WWII for the London Times, was profoundly anti-German and anti-Hitler. But nevertheless he reported: ‘I watched during the one-day boycott of Jewish shops the Brown Shirts going from shop to shop with paint pots and daubing on the window panes the word "Jew", in dripping red letters. The Kurf├╝rstendamm was to me a revelation. I knew that Jews were prominent in business life, but I did not know that they almost monopolized important branches of it. Germany had one Jew to one hundred gentiles, said the statistics; but the fashionable Kurf├╝rstendamm, according to the dripping red legends, had about one gentile shop to ninety-nine Jewish ones.’ (Reed Insanity Fair (1938) p. 152-3). In Reed’s book Disgrace Abounding of the following year he notes ‘In the Berlin (of pre-Hitler years) most of the theatres were Jewish-owned or Jewish-leased, most of the leading film and stage actors were Jews, the plays performed were often by German, Austrian or Hungarian Jews and were staged by Jewish film producers, applauded by Jewish dramatic critics in Jewish newspapers.. The Jews are not cleverer than the Gentiles, if by clever you mean good at their jobs. They ruthlessly exploit the common feeling of Jews, first to get a foothold in a particular trade or calling, then to squeeze the non-Jews out of it.. It is not true that Jews are better journalists than Gentiles. They held all the posts on those Berlin papers because the proprietors and editors were Jewish’ (pp238-9).

The Jewish writer Edwin Black notes ‘For example, in Berlin alone, about 75% of the attorneys and nearly as many of the doctors were Jewish.’ (Black, The Transfer Agreement (1984) p58.

To cap it all, Jews were perceived as dangerous enemies of Germany after Samuel Untermeyer, the leader of the World Jewish Economic Federation, declared war on Germany on August 6 1933. (Edwin Black The Transfer Agreement: the Untold Story of the Secret Pact between the Third Reich and Palestine (1984) pp272-277) According to Black, ‘The one man who most embodied the potential death blow to Germany was Samuel Untermeyer.’ (p 369). This was the culmination of a permanent worldwide boycott of German goods led by international Jewish organizations. The London Daily Express on March 24, 1933 carried the headline Judea Declares War on Germany. The boycott was allegedly particularly motivated by the German imposition of the Nuremberg Laws, however imposed in 1935 only, which ironically were similar in intent and content to the Jewish cultural exclusivism practiced so visibly in present-day Israel (Hannah Arendt Eichmann in Jerusalem p 7).

Hitler saw the tremendous danger posed to Germany by Communism. He appreciated the desperate need to eliminate this threat, a fact that earned him the immense hatred and animosity of the Jewish organisations and the media and politicians of the west which they could influence. After all, according to the Jewish writer Chaim Bermant, although Jews formed less than five percent of Russia's population, they formed more than fifty percent of its revolutionaries. According to the Jewish writer Chaim Bermant in his book The Jews (1977, chapter 8):

‘It must be added that most of the leading revolutionaries who convulsed Europe in the final decades of the last century and the first decades of this one, stemmed from prosperous Jewish families.. They were perhaps typified by the father of revolution, Karl Marx.. Thus when, after the chaos of World War I, revolutions broke out all over Europe, Jews were everywhere at the helm; Trotsky, Sverdlov, Kamenev and Zinoviev in Russia, Bela Kun in Hungary, Kurt Eisner in Bavaria, and, most improbable of all, Rosa Luxemburg in Berlin.

‘To many outside observers, the Russian revolution looked like a Jewish conspiracy, especially when it was followed by Jewish-led revolutionary outbreaks in much of central Europe. The leadership of the Bolshevik Party had a preponderance of Jews.. Of the seven members of the Politburo, the inner cabinet of the country, four, Trotsky (Bronstein), Zinoviev (Radomsky), Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Sverdlov, were Jews.’ Other authors agree with this:

"There has been a tendency to circumvent or simply ignore the significant role of Jewish intellectuals in the German Communist Party, and thereby seriously neglect one of the genuine and objective reasons for increased anti-Semitism during and after World War 1.. The prominence of Jews in the revolution and early Weimar Republic is indisputable, and this was a very serious contributing cause for increased anti-Semitism in post-war years.. It is clear then that the stereotype of Jews as socialists and communists.. led many Germans to distrust the Jewish minority as a whole and to brand Jews as enemies of the German nation." (Sarah Gordon Hitler, Germans and the ‘Jewish Question’ Princeton University Press (1984) p 23).

"The second paroxysm of strong anti-Semitism came after the critical role of Jews in International Communism and the Russian Revolution and during the economic crises of the 1920s and 30s… Anti-Semitism intensified throughout Europe and North America following the perceived and actual centrality of Jews in the Russian Revolution.. Such feelings were not restricted to Germany, or to vulgar extremists like the Nazis. All over Northern Europe and North America, anti-Semitism became the norm in 'nice society', and 'nice society' included the universities." (Martin Bernal, Black Athena vol. 1 pp. 367, 387).

"The major role Jewish leaders played in the November (Russian) revolution was probably more important than any other factor in confirming (Hitler's) anti-Semitic beliefs." (J&S Pool, Who Financed Hitler, p.164).



Hitler came to power in Germany with two main aims, the rectification of the unjust provisions of the Versailles Treaty, and the destruction of the Soviet/ Communist threat to Germany. Strangely enough, contrary to the mythology created by those who had an opposing ethnic agenda, he had no plans or desire for a larger war of conquest. Professor AJP Taylor showed this in his book The Origins of the Second World War, to the disappointment of the professional western political establishment. Taylor says, "The state of German armament in 1939 gives the decisive proof that Hitler was not contemplating general war, and probably not intending war at all" (p.267), and "Even in 1939 the German army was not equipped for a prolonged war; and in 1940 the German land forces were inferior to the French in everything except leadership" (p104-5). What occurred in Europe in 1939-41 was the result of unforeseen weaknesses and a tipping of the balance of power, and Hitler was an opportunist ‘who took advantages whenever they offered themselves’ (Taylor). Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Hitler wanted peace with Britain, as the German generals admitted (Basil Liddell Hart, The Other Side of the Hill 1948, Pan Books 1983) with regard to the so-called Halt Order at Dunkirk, where Hitler had the opportunity to capture the entire British Army, but chose not to. Liddell Hart, one of Britain’s most respected military historians, quotes the German General von Blumentritt with regard to this Halt Order:

"He (Hitler) then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilisation that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked, with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of its Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but ‘where there is planing, there are shavings flying’. He compared the British Empire with the catholic Church – saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the Continent. The return of Germany’s colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in difficulties anywhere.." (p 200).

According to Liddell Hart, "At the time we believed that the repulse of the Luftwaffe in the ‘Battle over Britain’ had saved her. That is only part of the explanation, the last part of it. The original cause, which goes much deeper, is that Hitler did not want to conquer England. He took little interest in the invasion preparations, and for weeks did nothing tospur them on; then, after a brief impulse to invade, he veered around again and suspended the preparations. He was preparing, instead, to invade Russia" (p140).

David Irving in the foreword to his book The Warpath (1978) refers to "the discovery.. that at no time did this man (Hitler) pose or intend a real threat to Britain or the Empire."

This gives a completely different complexion, not only to the war, but to the successful suppression of this information during the war and afterwards. Historians today know only too well where the boundaries lie within which they can paint their pictures of the war and its aftermath, and the consequences of venturing beyond those boundaries, irrespective of the evidence. Unfortunately, only too few of them have been prepared to have the courage to break out of this dreadful straitjacket of official and unofficial censorship.

E-mail comment received:

I worked and studied in Berlin for three years, have an MA in International Relations and a BA in Government with a minor in History. I am embarrassed to say that until I read this article, I had no idea of the scope and cause for the anti-Semitism in Germany before WWII. The Halt Order at Dunkirk was never mentioned in my studies, nor was the ownership of the media, banks and businesses.

Thank you for the excellent article. It certainly gives me a new perspective. I have always questioned the actual numbers of Jewish victims of the concentration camps, as the numbers didn't make sense based upon Germany's population. Perhaps it was fear of failing or being labeled an anti-Semite by my history professors (all but two were Jewish) and classmates that I refrained from demanding an honest discussion during my classes. I once said that the only reason Israel existed was out of Holocaust guilt, and I was immediately labeled a terrorist sympathizer.

I see what is now happening in Israel and I am aghast. The parallels to WW II are frightening. Even today, one cannot bring up this subject without being labeled a Holocaust denier or white supremacist.

Thanks again for an excellent article. I am forwarding it to several friends.

JBP