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

Wednesday, 28 December 2011

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

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

Tuesday, 27 December 2011

UK war on free speech

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

Saturday, 24 December 2011

On the Avoidability of World War One

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

Sunday, 4 December 2011

Is Germany Responsible for the Financial Crisis?

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

Tuesday, 22 November 2011

Atzmon on Lowles.

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

Saturday, 19 November 2011

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

By Gilad Atzmon 19 November 2011 Gilad Atzmon explains the latest – failed – attempt by Britain’s Zio-fascists to kill the UK's most precious cultural values: openness, pluralism, freedom of expression and artistic freedom. ”By bullying British cultural institutions and harassing artists in the name of the Jewish community, Jewish organizations are achieving nothing but the defamation of the whole of British Jewry.” (Gilad Atzmon) There was a time when Jewish politics and culture were associated with liberalism, human rights, pluralism and freedom of expression. Those days are clearly over. Nowadays, it is pretty much the opposite. Clear outburst of Zionist hysteria “What we see here is scarily similar to the experience of Jazz musicians in Nazi Germany. Astonishingly enough, it is Jewish representative bodies such as the Board of Deputies of British Jews that are actively engaging in trying to restrict artistic expression.” Here in Britain, Jewish nationalist lobbies are engaged in several kinds of repressive behaviour. Their practices include bullying, harassment, disinformation and smear campaigns. This kind of activity does not serve the Jewish community or its interests. In fact, it gives the Jewish community as a whole a thoroughly bad name. Last week, the American academic Norman Finkelstein and I were on the front of the Jewish Chronicle (JC). We were presented as “Public Jewish Enemies Number One”. We were branded together with British National Party leader and a racist Nick Griffin. This was obviously a clear outburst of Zionist hysteria. This week, in an embarrassingly crude attempt to stop my new book The Wandering Who, the JC now appear to be launching an attack on music. Together with the Board of Deputies of British Jews and other Jewish groups ,they attempted to put pressure on the British Arts Council to withdraw its funding from a music festival at which I am playing. Echoes of Nazi Germany What we see here is scarily similar to the experience of Jazz musicians in Nazi Germany. Astonishingly enough, it is Jewish representative bodies such as the Board of Deputies of British Jews that are actively engaging in trying to restrict artistic expression. Apparently, some people out there, really drew the wrong lesson from that disturbing era. Needless to say, they didn’t get far. The Arts Council, stood by its principles of freedom of expression and, in a statement responding to the JC's demands, it suggested that the Arts Council shouldn’t "restrict an artist from expressing their views". It stated that the council believes in funding events and artists that show "a diverse view of world society”. Once again, their campaign had backfired. The Jewish Chronicle “appears to want to transform the British music scene, cultural gatherings and festivals into Stalinist enterprises and demands the right to dictate its own political agenda to the British public”. Of course, the JC wasn’t at all happy. It appears to want to transform the British music scene, cultural gatherings and festivals into Stalinist enterprises and demands the right to dictate its own political agenda to the British public. The JC even went as far as to openly call for its subservient lobby-funded politicians to impose an “immediate sanction”. Reading the JC today, I wonder how long it will take before Ava Nagila becomes a compulsory part of our national musical curriculum. This is the reality: The most radical exponents of the most vile form of Jewish racist and supremacist ideology are accusing me, an anti-racist campaigner, of being an anti-Semite. Considering that I lead one of the most ethnically varied musical ensembles on this planet, this accusation is absurd, amusing or sad – and probably all three. But here’s the good news. On every possible front they are failing. No matter how much these Zionist supremacists convince themselves that I am the ultimate Jew hater, they have failed to convince anyone else. By bullying British cultural institutions and harassing artists in the name of the Jewish community, Jewish organizations are achieving nothing but the defamation of the whole of British Jewry. So, to the Jewish Chronicle and the Board of Deputies of British Jews: you are acting against openness, pluralism, freedom of expression and artistic freedom – probably the most precious values this country has. Perhaps it is worth bearing this in mind.

Monday, 14 November 2011

The Bund - A Disturbing Jewish Political Exercise

The Bund - A Disturbing Jewish Political Exercise Introduction by Gilad Atzmon: A few years ago I saw a small extract of this film (The story of the Bund in Israel- film by Eran Torbiner). This week a bigger chunk of the documentary was left on YouTube. Bundaím, Socialists in Yiddish and Hebrew or: By the way, we do not have an access to the entire film, but so far, I didn’t notice a single reference to Palestine, Palestinians their cause or plight. This is a film about the ‘Jews only’ socialist party - The Bund. In the documentary you can watch for yourself ‘young’ revolutionary Bundists in action. In spite of being ‘Socialists’ and ‘Internationalists’, they, for some reason, ended up living in a ‘Jews only’ State in occupied Palestine at the expense of the Palestinians. I guess that this may as well be, the real meaning of ‘Jewish socialism’ - You sing the International in Yiddish on someone else’s land. By the way, we do not have an access to the entire film, but so far, I didn’t notice a single reference to Palestine, Palestinians their cause or plight. Towards the end, Bundist Yaakov Belek speaks nostalgically about the pre war Bund in Poland (7:41). His words are an insight into Jewish progressive supremacy and exceptionalism. It is almost disturbing to watch and listen. “The Bund was a unique Party” he says. “It wasn’t like any other party… it was an empire. A bund member was a different kind of person. Maybe I am a patriot but this is how it was. For years we grew bigger and bigger. Before the beginning of WWII it was the largest party in Poland. We possessed* everything. We had the youth, future, SKIP **, sport, so many schools, we were the new type, we were the new man.” It seems to me, as if Belek himself fails to grasp that he is outlining the true meaning of Jewish Power, we are special, we are unique, we are an empire, the future and we posses everything. I guess that AIPAC and CFI members are also blind to the potential danger entangled with their so-called ‘success’. --------- *GA: my translation from Hebrew **GA: SKIP is a sociality youth movement --------- To read more about Tribal 'Marxism' and progressive thought: 1. 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sunday, 6 November 2011

Fraud in Psychological Research

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

Saturday, 22 October 2011

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

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

Thursday, 20 October 2011

More shocking news from the Vatican.

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