Chemical evidence relating to the ‘gas chambers’ at Auschwitz/ Birkenau.

By Nick Kollerstrom – 30th June 2010

I used to work at University College, London, getting by as a science historian.
Having written papers on various suitably obscure subjects - from Newton’s lunar theory to the discovery of Neptune - three years ago I made what in retrospect looks like a rather large mistake. I began to take an interest in the published chemical evidence relating to the ‘gas chambers’ at Auschwitz/ Birkenau.

Maybe it was foolish to imagine that hard scientific data was of relevance in this case. It strangely turned out that I was engaging with a predominantly religious issue, and I simply became damned as a heretic.

There is no disagreement that cyanide gas chambers existed at many WW2 concentration camps. These were delousing rooms built to kill the bugs that threatened the health of the camp inmates. They were designed to keep the prisoners healthy so that they could carry out their work effectively. Their purpose was hygienic.

We can nowadays agree that many tons of cyanide (in granular form as the insecticide Zyklon) was used during the WW2 for hygienic delousing technology. Before DDT was invented around 1945, Zyklon was the normal delousing method. Special gas chambers made by a firm called Degesch, 10m3 in volume, were installed in all the German labour-camps in 1942, the year when typhus hit the camps. That epidemic is spread by bugs, so all clothing and bedding had to go repeatedly into the delousing chambers. It was a procedure designed to be safe for regular use.

These chambers still exist at four WW2 labour camp ruins, Madjanek, Dachau, Auschwitz and Birkenau, and can be easily identified because their walls are mostly turquoise blue. There is iron in the walls of the old chambers at Auschwitz and Birkenau and this combined permanently with the cyanide then used, the brick walls being very porous to the cyanide gas. These walls are blue on the inside and on the outside, showing that the cyanide soaked right through them. The blue in the walls is ferrocyanide – just like the colour in a tube of turquoise oil paint.

In contrast to these real gas chambers, the walls of the alleged human gas chambers have no such blue colouring. This simple and obvious fact was one of the first causes of skepticism for some of those who visited the camps.

My contribution to ‘Holocaust Studies’ related to this issue: I spent a while integrating the Leuchter and Rudolf reports – the two big chemical surveys of the walls - and ascertaining what they found to be the control-background levels of residual cyanide. These are levels in samples where no-one is suggesting that mass cyanide gassing took place. Putting together the combined measurable data of these two chemical surveys (42 samples) I got the following three groups:

Delousing chambers 5000 ppm* (15 samples) *parts per million
Washrooms, Kitchens etc (‘Controls’) 2 ppm (11 samples)
Alleged human gas chambers 3 ppm (16 samples)

The ‘official’ explanation given for these figures is that ‘bugs are harder to kill than humans.’ No wonder the cyanide levels in the delousing chambers are higher, they had to kill all those little bugs... well, have a look at those figures. There is no significant difference between the control, background levels of cyanide (2 ppm) and those for the alleged human gas chambers (3ppm). Absolutely none. The fact that there are measurable levels for cyanide in ordinary rooms at Auschwitz is probably because of occasional fumigation to kill bugs living in cracks and crevices in the walls etc.

Whereas there is a two-thousandfold difference between the ‘control’ measurements and the delousing chambers – where the Zyklon was indisputably used hour after hour, day after day. Here the cyanide content, at an average value of around 5000 ppm, is about half of one percent of the samples taken.

The modern books that continue to roll off the presses about Auschwitz and ‘The Holocaust’ advocate a view that some Zyklon went to the delousing chambers, whereas some was ‘diverted’ for ghastly human use. It is important to note here that in 1946 at Nuremberg, no such dual use was posited. All knowledge of the normal, hygienic function was blotted out, and it was assumed that any can of Zyklon was for the ‘human gassing.’ Operators of the delousing chambers did not get to testify.

Over the years there has appeared a growing difference of opinion on the ‘human gas chambers’ issue... In fact it’s almost hard to believe that such a vast, dizzying difference of opinion over a single issue can exist in the world today. It remains that all decent citizens believe that millions of people, mainly Jews, were gassed in huge, cyanide gas chambers, over 1942-45, as the ultimate industrialised mass killing in human history. On the other hand, there are a few down-and-out, ethically-damned loners who have the nerve to affirm that such mass human gas chambers have never existed on Planet Earth…..

Nowhere!
Never!
….and, apart from that, had they existed they would be, in practice, totally unworkable.

But that’s another story.

Over the last few years I have noticed that one side of this argument proceeds by trying to debate the evidence while the other uses every time, without exception, name-calling, abuse and ethical damnation.

Understandably it is a subject which many people find unbearable to discuss.….but on even this ‘sacred’ ground the earth is moving. Since startling revelations about 9/11 have been exposed there are increasingly massed ranks of ordinary but shocked and awakened people, now terminally cynical about the capacity of the powerful to lie and deceive in the service of their own interests.

Today, I believe we should formulate the unbearable Big Questions as:

Were the deadly Nazi gas chambers of WW2 used to kill Jews…..or bugs?
Did they work to take lives……or save them?
Did they have people ..... or clothing, put into them?
(Warning: a ‘wrong’ answer here can land you in jail, in ten European nations.)

I’m intrigued by historical questions with a chemical twist to them. Admittedly this one lost me half of my friends, got me thrown out of my College, made me virtually unemployable, and closed the doors of publishers and public venues. However, I cannot regret publishing what I believe to be true about this profoundly important issue. I hold the view that, if the truth about such an important matter is to remain out of bounds and beyond debate, then there is really no point in getting out of bed in the morning.

The truth has to matter.
The truth about the ‘human gas chambers’ particularly matters because much of modern history (and modern calamities) is founded on it.

As a vision of ghastly horror it has become the Most Holy Mystery in this spiritually bankrupt culture of ours. It has a transcendental function in expressing Ultimate Evil. It even seems to be morphing into a new religion, which has replaced the suffering of Christ by the ‘suffering of The Jews.’ The word ‘Holocaust’ actually means a fiery sacrifice.

This has to be the original WMD hoax - but, more than that, the total absence of any physical or chemical evidence for it, is precisely what has lead to ‘the Holocaust’ taking on its present numinous, transcendental nature.

So, are we discussing science or religion? I say that a scientific, rational approach to the subject became possible for the first time in 2003, when two published, chemical investigations appeared in the English language, and were concordant. But, I noticed that my fellow countrymen behaved as if the issue was a theological question about which the expression of doubt was a most serious sin.

Personally I prefer living in the real world and that has to mean discerning the difference between what is real and illusory. It will be a Copernican Revolution when the truth on this issue becomes widely understood. The lid cannot be kept on such lies indefinitely. I’d say that Mother Nature played the trump card: slowly, after the war, the walls of those delousing chambers turned blue, as the ferrocyanide complex developed.

I believe that no happy future can lie in store for humanity, so long as we continue to believe in this nightmare-hallucination. Belief in it is a badge of enslavement, it is the supreme sacred Myth of the New World Order.

Plato in his Republic said every civilisation needed a founding myth – but, he added, that myth did not have to be true. Karl Popper the philosopher of science was shocked by this and disagreed – it had to be true, he averred. I know who I want to believe. The consequences of founding society’s culture and relationships upon false narratives is provably disastrous. We get wars based on lies, global tyranny by bankers, debased, demoralised populations and now quite possibly World War Three.

The Frankfurt School in Exile, Part II: The Critique of Mass Culture Prof. Kevin MacDonald

The Frankfurt School in Exile, Part II: The Critique of Mass Culture
Prof. Kevin MacDonald
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-WheatlandII.html

Review of Thomas Wheatland's The Frankfurt School in Exile, Part II: The Critique of Mass Culture

One of Wheatland's strengths is his rich documentation of the strong connections between the New York Intellectuals and the Frankfurt School. Both groups were predominantly Jewish (the first generation Frankfurt School exclusively so), and both were associated with the anti-Stalinist left. However, they had somewhat different theoretical perspectives and overlapping associations. It is common among intellectual historians (e.g., Eric P. Kaufmann) to view the New York Intellectuals as the most important group advocating cosmopolitan racial ideology in the post-World War II era.

Prominent New York Intellectuals include the art critic Clement Greenberg, writer and critic Robert Warshow, philosopher Sidney Hook, Partisan Review editors William Phillips and Philip Rahv, and several forerunners of the neoconservative movement, especially Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz. Wheatland shows that the some of the second-generation New York Intellectuals (e.g., Daniel Bell, Irving Howe, and Nathan Glazer) were well acquainted with the work of the Frankfurt School. Howe and Glazer had minor roles in the notorious Studies in Prejudice series discussed in Part I of this review.

The Critique of Mass Culture

These linkages and cross-fertilization were especially apparent in the analysis of culture. The Frankfurt School viewed contemporary Western societies of the 1930s and '40s as "soft authoritarianism" — a phrase also used by Tom Sunic in describing contemporary Western societies. From their point of view, the basic problem was to explain the lack of revolutionary fervor in Western societies. Quite clearly, orthodox Marxism was wrong: The predicted revolution hadn't happened.
This lack of fervor was particularly problematic because there was a considerable degree of personal freedom in Western societies:

Theoretically at least, people had the freedom to be revolutionary, but instead they passively accepted the evils of capitalism.

These intellectuals developed the theory that control had shifted from obvious forms of external control (like gulags in the USSR) to control via the media — "secondary emanations of authority … namely newspapers, advertising, radio, etc." (p. 79). Because the media was an expression of "late capitalism," it prevented people from seeing the world as good leftists should, and as a result they were unable to "break the cycle of injustice and domination" (p. 79).

Early on Erich Fromm gathered survey data showing that working class Germans were not interested in revolution but were passive and prone to escapism. (Incidentally, Fromm seems to have been the originator of the most important ideas of the Frankfurt School. As noted in Part I of this review, he also came up with the disastrous idea of explaining ethnocentrism among Whites as due to family pathology.)

The passivity and escapism of the working class were viewed as due to the failure of the culture, and particularly the media, to properly foment revolutionary consciousness. For example, during the 1930s, Herbert Marcuse wrote attacking "all bourgeois culture for its escapism, repression, and concealment of capitalism's harsh realities" (p. 160). As discussed extensively by Elizabeth Whitcombein TOO, the Frankfurt School criticized culture because it upheld a reactionary status quo.

Eventually, there was a general understanding among both the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals that mass culture — whether in the USSR (both of these groups were anti-Stalinist), National Socialist Germany, or bourgeois United States — promoted conformism and escape from harsh political realities; it "offered false pleasure, reaffirmed the status quo, and promoted a pervasive conformity that stripped the masses of their individuality and subjectivity" (p. 175). Obviously this fits well with the Frankfurt School ideas on the family: Again, there is a plea for individualists free from family and ethnic ties and in favor of non-conformity with the status quo.

These intellectuals promoted modernism in art at least partly because of its compatibility with expressive individualism, but also because they believed that it effectively opposed the culture of capitalism. Modernism was also seen as capable of alienating people from modern Western societies. As Elizabeth Whitcombe points out, "Adorno's desire for a socialist revolution led him to favor Modernist music that left the listener feeling unsatisfied and dislocated — music that consciously avoided harmony and predictability."

To be modern is to be alienated from the society of capitalism. The alienation of the New York Intellectuals is legendary. Norman Podhoretz was famously asked by a New Yorker editor in the 1950s "whether there was a special typewriter key at Partisan Review with the word `alienation' on a single key."

In short, they were trying to make all of America as alienated as they were.

Both the New York Intellectuals and the Frankfurt School had nothing but disdain for traditional art. In Adorno's words, they sought "the end of the order that bore the sonata" — the end of European high culture. And if the audience failed to appreciate modernism, it was their fault. For example, Adorno wrote that the failure of the audience to appreciate Schoenberg "pointed to widespread alienation and irrationalism that were pervasive in society" (p. 29). Only the revolution would make people psychologically whole again and in tune with a genuine aesthetic sense.

The view that modernism would ultimately usher in the revolution eventually faded when it became obvious that it would never be popular with the great mass of people. The view that, say, Schoenberg, could ever have become popular with the great mass of people can only be described as amazingly naïve. We just aren't wired that way. But of course realistic ideas about human penchants and limitations have never been a strong suit of the intellectual left.

In reading the views of the Frankfurt School on the importance of cultural control, it struck me that those of us attempting to preserve the traditional peoples and culture of the West are in a similar situation to the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals. Their complaints about the American culture of the 1930s through the 1950s are mirror images of the complaints that we have now.

Whereas the New York Intellectuals and the Frankfurt School felt alienated from the culture of the West, now we are the ones with feelings of alienation from the culture that has been so strongly influenced by these Jewish intellectual movements.

We are dismayed at the failure of the media to properly address White interests or even to allow expressions of White identity to be seen or heard in the mainstream media.

We are well aware that when there is a failure of media self-censorship (e.g., when media critic William Cash described the Jewish media elite as "culturally nihilist" in the Spectator in 1994), there are powerful campaigns to punish the guilty parties and to get them to recant.

Just as the Frankfurt School theorized, the West has come under the control of soft authoritarianism. But now the shoe is on the other foot: Power resides in the soft totalitarianism of the multi-cultural, multi-racial, anti-White left.

These Jewish intellectual movements decried the passivity, escapism, and conformity of American culture. Those of us who are White advocates are horrified that the vast majority of White people passively accept media messages filled with distorted images of Whites and their history. We are appalled that so many Whites are far more interested in escapist entertainment, ranging from sporting events to sci-fi thrillers, than they care about the future of their people.And we are dismayed by the conformity of the great mass of Whites people who are terrified of being called a racist or in any way violating the current taboos of political correctness. We deplore the pathetic conformists striving to uphold the rules of a society deeply hostile to their own long term interests.

Rather than see a culture controlled by the "late capitalist" media," White advocates see the culture of the West as controlled by a hostile media that advocates multiculturalism, the displacement of Whites, and the culture of Western suicide. And many of us believe that a very large influence on this culture stems not only from the influence of the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals, but also from Jewish ownership and production of the media.

There is thus a common ground between these Jewish intellectual movements and those of us attempting to preserve the traditional people and culture of the West. We all agree in the importance of media control. As I concluded in an article describing the psychology of cultural control, paraphrasing a Bill Clinton campaign slogan: "It's the culture, stupid."

Control of the media is critical. If there were strong media messages advocating White identity and the legitimacy of White interests, things would turn around rather dramatically and rather quickly. This is because the psychological power behind a movement of ethnic defense is far greater than the motivation that can be mustered for a multi-racial, multi-ethnic communist revolution.

Such media messages would be able to tap into the natural wellspring of ethnic feeling. There is a deep psychological attachment to one's people and culture — even among us individualistic White folks — that can easily motivate a mass movement of ethnic defense.

Often these feelings are implicit and unconscious rather than explicit and conscious. They manifest themselves in moving to neighborhoods where their children can attend school with other Whites. Or they manifest themselves in activities where they are able to enjoy the company and camaraderie of others like themselves.

But these feelings are nevertheless real. And they are potentially very powerful. The revolution needed to reverse the cultural tides of the last decades would therefore be far easier to pull off than the communist revolution so ardently desired by the Frankfurt School.

If there is one central message from the post-World War II world, ethnicity and race matter. As Jerry Z. Muller has shown, there has been a strong trend toward ethnically based nations over the last 150 years, not only in the territorial adjustments in Europe following World War II, but around the world.

It's interesting that these leftist critics of the media completely ignored the actual mechanisms of cultural control that were in place during the period when they were writing. The controls on culture had little if anything to do with the culture of "late capitalism." Instead, the traditional Anglo-American culture managed to retain its primacy during this period because of political activism on the part of Anglos in defense of their culture, often quite self-consciously directed against Jewish influence in the media.

Jewish influence on the media, especially Hollywood movies,weighed heavily on the minds of people like Henry Ford early in the 20th century. Public outrage at the content of Hollywood movies led to more or less successful controls on the moral and political content of movies until around the mid-1960s. The following passage fromChapter 2 of Separation and Its Discontents discusses this American Kulturkampf (references omitted):

During the McCarthy era, there was concern that the entertainment industry would influence American culture by, in the words of an overt anti-Semite, Congressman John R. Rankin of Mississippi, "insidiously trying to spread subversive propaganda, poison the minds of your children, distort the history of our country and discredit Christianity" ....

The great majority of those stigmatized by the Un-American Activities Committee of the House of Representatives (HUAC) were Jews, many of them in the entertainment industry.... A belief that "Jewish Hollywood" was promoting subversive ideas, including leftist political beliefs, was a common component of anti-Semitism in the post-World War II period, and indeed the push for the HUAC investigation was led by such well-known anti-Semites as Gerald L. K. Smith and Congressman Rankin .... For example, Smith stated that "there is a general belief that Russian Jews control too much of Hollywood propaganda and they are trying to popularize Russian Communism in America through that instrumentality. Personally I believe that is the case" ....

The substantive basis of the opinion of Rankin and others was that beginning in the 1930s Hollywood screenwriters were predominantly Jewish and politically liberal or radical — a general association that has been typical of Jewish intellectual history in the 20th century .... The American Communist Party (CPUSA), which was under Soviet control during the period, sent V. J. Jerome and Stanley Lawrence, both Jews, to Hollywood to organize the writers and take advantage of their political sentiments. Jerome argued that "agitprop propaganda was actually better drama because Marxists better understood the forces that shaped human beings, and could therefore write better characters" .... Writers responded by self-consciously viewing themselves as contributing to "the Cause" by their script writing. "But as much as the Hollywood Communist party was a writers' party, it was also . . . a Jewish party. (Indeed, to be the former meant to be the latter as well)."

Nevertheless, during this period the radical writers were able to have little influence on the ultimate product, although there is good evidence that they did their best to influence movie content in the direction of their political views .... Their failure was at least partly because of pressures brought to bear on Hollywood by conservative, predominantly [non-Jewish] political forces, resulting in a great deal of self-censorship by the movie industry. ... The Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, headed by Will H. Hays, was created in 1922 in response to movements in over thirty state legislatures to enact strict censorship laws, and the Production Code Administration, headed by Joseph I. Breen, was launched in response to a campaign by the Catholic Legion of Decency. The result was that producers were forced to develop projects "along the lines of a standard Hollywood genre while steering clear of both the Hays and Breen offices and the radical writer who may have been assigned to the project" ....

In addition, the HUAC investigations of the late 1940s and early 1950s and the active campaigning of religious (Legion of Decency, Knights of Columbus), patriotic (Daughters of the American Revolution [DAR]), and educational (Parents and Teachers Association) groups influenced movie content well into the 1950s, including a great many anticommunist films made as a rather direct response to the HUAC investigations. The result was, in the words of one studio executive, that "I now read scripts through the eyes of the DAR, whereas formerly I read them through the eyes of my boss" .... Particular mention should be made of the American Legion, described ... as "the prime mover" in attempting to eradicate "Communist influence" in the movie industry during the 1950s. The list of sixty-six movie personalities said to be associated with communism published in the American Legion Magazine caused panic in Hollywood and a prolonged series of investigations, firings, and blacklistings.

The point here is that there were strong controls emanating from political conservatives and from religious and cultural traditionalists that kept a lid on Jewish influence on culture through the 1950s — doubtless much to the chagrin of the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals who prided themselves in their alienation from that culture.

This all ended when the culture of the left finally triumphed in the 1960s. At that point, when the multi-cultural, anti-White left had seized the high ground in the cultural wars, they had far less reason to engage in the types of cultural criticism so apparent in the writings of the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals. Hollywood and the rest of the American media were unleashed, and it must have became apparent to many on the left that passivity, escapism and (leftist) conformity weren't so bad after all.

Indeed, as Elizabeth Whitcombe suggests, there seems to have been some realization among the Frankfurt School intellectuals in the late 1940s and 1950s that popular culture could be utilized to "manipulate the masses in the directions that they wanted — toward liberal cosmopolitanism, breaking down racial barriers, and promoting Black cultural icons."

What would have surprised these intellectuals is that the culture of the left could co-exist with capitalism. As Marxists at heart, at least for most of their existence, they felt that it was necessary to destroy capitalism in order to usher in a revolution in culture that would affect the great mass of people.

But it turns out that capitalism was not the problem they faced any more than it is the problem White advocates face. It is certainly true that capitalism requires control by a racially conscious political and intellectual elite. In the absence of such controls, capitalists may, for example, advocate mass immigration because of the purely economic benefits for individual capitalists.

Political control over capitalism was certainly apparent during the period from 1924–1965 when America reaffirmed that it was a nation of Europeans. Capitalism remained on a strong leash — a leash motivated by a deep desire for ethnic defense on the part of the great majority of European Americans.

Even when the immigration law was finally changed in 1965, business interests were notable for their absence. Far more important wasJewish activism motivated ultimately by perceptions of ethnic self-interest.

All of the great changes in culture over the last 100 years occurred within the capitalist system. Capitalism co-existed with immigration restriction from 1924–1965, and it co-exists with the open borders reality of recent decades.

Ethnic interests and cultural traditionalism were far more important than capitalism in defending the ethnic and cultural integrity of pre-1965 America. And the ethnic interests of the nascent Jewish elite were far more important than capitalism in undermining the traditional people and culture of America in the post-1965 era.

As Eric P. Kaufmann shows, the best explanation for the enormous shift in culture is that the left was able to seize the elite institutions of society — the media, the universities, and the political culture. In my view, this would not have happened without the intellectual and political activism of Jewish intellectual and political activists who not only identified as Jews, but also saw their work as advancing specifically Jewish interests. Certainly the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals played important roles in this revolution.

The result of the countercultural revolution is that those who detest the cosmopolitan culture erected by these movements are now on the sidelines, feeling alienated, and decrying the passivity, escapism, and conformity of the contemporary culture of Western suicide.
End of Part 2 of 3. Click here to go to Part I.

Kevin MacDonald is editor of The Occidental Observer and a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach.

Quango Land how the coalition of washed up teachers and social workers ruined Britain

The phony cuts
£167 billion a year was wasted on quangos in 2007 according to the Cabinet Office - its nearly 200 billion pa now.

These British Quangos are the largest bribery structure in the world - that's 12.5% of our economy of £1,330 billion to pay up to £300,000pa salaries to 100,000 people the government wishes to influence.
£60 billion is wasted on 800,000 overpaid bureaucrats installed in the NHS by Common Purpose to destroy it.

Hospital and medical staff are only 400,000 and are deliberately paid peanuts and overworked to sap moral as they watch the bureaucrats make continual changes calculated to sabotage the NHS.

£100 billion a year was wasted on EU regulations according to the goverments Better Regulation Task Force Annual Report 2005, with a foreward by Tony Blair.

Since then the waste in these three areas has got much worse, but the government won't publish full figures.

Even if they just cut all this waste at 2007 levels, the government would save £167 + £60 billion = £227 billion, and save industry £100 billion in EU costs, total saving £327 billion, far, far more than they ever need to save: the budget deficit is only £155 billion. Total government borrowing £903 billion, 60% of GDP. They could pay it all off in just 3 years.

If they really meant to save, these are the cuts they would make, but they have no intention of saving; their intention is to keep stealing 70% of the economy in taxes to collapse our nation, to fund their bloated lifestyles and waste, and keep as many British as possible diesempowered and in poverty on £5 per hour as they can. Our government ministers do not represent us, but are agents for a foreign power.

Why Kelly Was Murdered a theory.

Policy -
4
THE HUNT FOR THE MISSING NUKES AND THOSE THAT COVERED IT UP

There are nuclear weapons out there, maybe in terrorists hands, two or five, as many as seven or more. Iran and North Korea didn’t build them. North Korea’s nuclear program is a sham and Iran may simply be a scapegoat. Iran is not building nuclear weapons, they don’t possess the necessary centrifuges to enrich uranium. Using their available technology, a nuclear weapon could not be produced in a century.

However, the threat of nuclear terrorism is very real, the facts are there but America is sitting on the truth. Remember three names, Valerie Plame and Dr. David Kelly and Mordechai Vanunu. Plame was “burned” as an American spy, burned by the Bush administration. Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff, “Scooter” Libby (Liebowitz) was convicted of the crime but received a pardon from President Bush.

Plame wasn’t looking for “yellow cake” uranium from Niger, she was looking for lost nuclear weapons. When she got close, she was destroyed and then silenced by the Justice Department. Dr. David Kelly was a weapons scientist in Britain until his very unexpected suicide while trying to report wrongdoing tied to missing nuclear weapons, wrongdoing he attributed directly to Prime Minister Tony Blair. A secret investigation currently being conducted has ruled his death a murder and top members of government, from Blair downward are being grilled about, not only this, but missing nuclear weapons, a subject newspapers are being threatened to stay silent on daily.

Mordechai Vanunu is a nuclear weapons specialist who worked at the illegal Dimona facility in Israel. When he fled the country and alerted the world about the nuclear program there, he was kidnapped, returned to Israel and put in solitary confinement for 18 years. He has been under house arrest or in solitary confinement after his release. He is currently locked in a small cell in a secret prison in Israel for talking to someone not on his official list of contacts.

These three people and a number of people behind them hold the key to the biggest story in recent years, a massive worldwide coverup so frightening it is treated almost as though it was involved secret UFO landings. Not everyone has all the information. Some key figures are waiting for the results of the investigations going on in London now, the findings of which will be above top secret.

Stories are leaking out and some have been reported over the years, labeled “conspiracy theory” but partially accurate, at least in some of the most frightening facts, but also filled with conjecture and wrong conclusions. The same stories went to all the major news sources along with documents and reliable first hand testimony from people like, well, Dr. David Kelly, murder victim.

There is nothing more dangerous than a journalist in love with their own ideas. Anything can be falsified, as we saw in the videos Israel released after the Mavi Marmara incident showing cheap special effects with people walking through walls. Any piece of paper, using simple technology, can be created with ease and any person interviewed can lie, most do, especially those with political or military careers. What has happened is that journalists in the United Kingdom and around the world have been receiving information, some from highly placed sources, first person testimony and much backed by documentation. The results haven’t been a solid conspiracy but a mosaic of facts, some proven, some very likely and some questionable.

As a reader, a citizen and a person concerned for the safety of family and friends, the information if shocking but incomplete. Let’s start with what we know.

THE STORY UNFOLDS

The story isn’t about politics as much as the international trade in weapons. As weapons, particularly the “mass destruction” kind, can alter history, the politics are sure to follow. We will start with Israel, the first “high threat” small nation to have nuclear weapons. A fact we know is that Britain, in the 1960s, sold a small amount of plutonium to Israel for use in experiments in nuclear weapon design. Prime Minister Harold Macmillan authorized this extremely illegal act. We also know that the CIA informed President Kennedy that Israel was building nuclear weapons at their “peaceful” Dimona reactor. Kennedy demanded to inspect the reactor, a demand refused. By far, the most likely reason for the killings of John and Robert Kennedy was their opposition to these weapons. All other reasons given, when even examined superficially, are simply silly.

What we do know for sure is that people who have held evidence on Israeli involvement in the Kennedy killings have been subjected to decades of well documented assaults, everything from stalking to murder of family members. Documentation on this is extensive and has long been in the hands of federal authorities up to and including the President of the United States.

There is considerable evidence that “Israeli Firsters” in the United States shipped significant amounts of plutonium to Israel. When the information leaked out, cover stories listing 6.5 tons were put out by Israel as part of their “junkyard dog” scare tactics. However, the figures on bomb production given to the British press by Mordechai Vanunu indicate that US produced fissionable material has made up the basis for Israel’s nuclear arsenal.

In addition, the Soviet Union is believed to have delivered tactical nuclear weapons to Israel in return for information supplied by Israeli spy, Jonathan Pollard, information such as launch codes, NATO battle plans, locations of American strategic weapons and the names of every CIA operative in the world. The US admits that 110 CIA agents lost their lives because of Israeli spying in the 1980s.

When the US took the Davy Crockett shoulder fired nuclear weapons out of service, some of these were transferred to Israel, though how, we have no idea. These were shown to US military officers on a “top secret” tour a few years ago and some familiar with out dated US weapons recognized them as American. The internet experts who continually rant on about the smallest nuclear weapon weighing three tons or more need to know that “Special Weapons Officers” regularly parachute with “nuclear munitions.”

During the 1970s, Israel and South Africa joined in a program to develop, not only nuclear weapons but biological and chemical weapons as well. Working closely with them were the following countries: Iran, Libya, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union and North Korea.

We know for certain that ten nuclear weapons were built in South Africa, six of which were dismantled, one tested on September 22, 1979. Of the remaining three, one was detonated in North Korea on May 25, 2009. The three weapons, at the time in possession of Great Britain, 1991, were stolen and the whereabouts of the remaining two “Hiroshima sized” nuclear weapons is unknown. We also know, for certain, that Israel informed the Bush administration that these weapons were in the possession of Saddam Hussein, information that led to the invasion of Iraq. This information was totally false. Israel then told the US, while the invasion was on, that the weapons were being moved to Syria. This was also false, proven by US detection devices. Israel has since claimed these remaining nuclear weapons are either in Iran, Syria, Lebanon or Gaza.

A fact, Pakistan has never been involved in nuclear proliferation and Dr. A. Q. Khan is a patsy covering for another group at the demand of the United States. This is not conjecture.

When news services were told that 3 more nuclear weapons, thermonuclear W69 warheads, 3 or as many as 8, had “gone missing” from a damaged B-52 that crashed off Diego Garcia in 1990, few took it seriously, especially after vigorous denials by the United States. These weapons are plutonium based hydrogen bombs, out dated at the time, unstable and requiring regular servicing to replace the tritium gas necessary to trigger the second stage that makes these so much more deadly than simple fission devices.

The stories about these weapons have been reported in one variation or another for years with fact and fancy mixed to the point where no one takes this threat seriously. The stories of these missing American hydrogen bombs has been sent to every major news service in the world. Some don’t believe the stories and others have been threatened if they attempt to publish them. When we were told these weapons, three American hydrogen bombs, were ejected from a B-52 off the coast of Somalia we found the idea unlikely. When the names of those involved in the recovery, shipment and sale came up and we were able to directly verify many of the facts, we began to reconsider.

Aging hydrogen bombs are useless unless “recharged” every seven years, something only a nuclear state is capable of. However, they can be used for weapons such as the August 18, 2006 North Korean plutonium bomb that failed. North Korea is incapable of producing any plutonium, thus a plutonium bomb, especially one that proved ineffective, such as this one with an explosion of less than one kiloton, may have been a “Rube Goldberg” device made from an unserviced American weapon, in fact this is extremely likely. With North Korea exploding one fully verified nuclear weapon build by Israel and South Africa and an earlier failure that was certainly an aging unserviced device from another nuclear power, a pattern emerges. Some country is supplying North Korea with weapons to publicly test, for the purpose of creating political instability in the world.

Four nations are being actively investigated for these violations: South Africa, Pakistan, Israel and Iran.

There is no scientific proof, not available for publishing, that establishes the first plutonium device detonated by North Korea in 2006 as being an American W-69. However, intelligence agencies, since 1990, have scoured the planet offering nuclear triggering devices to any buyer, as part of sting operations. It is believed by many that Dr. A. Q. Khan of Pakistan assisted in this intelligence effort.

With a proper triggering device, even an aging W69 warhead could be converted from its thermonuclear state to a configuration similar to the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, but much more powerful.

CURRENT BRITISH EFFORTS

Britain’s concern is the Israeli/South African weapons, three of which it took into possession in 1990. Current Prime Minister David Cameron, then a member of parliament, was involved in the negotiations and Dr. David Kelly made the arrangements.

Funding authorizations were signed personally by Margaret Thatcher in a classified document referring to the bombs as “cylinders.”

We are told by informants tied to the highest levels of the British security services that the current closed hearings are not just to determine who is responsible for the death of Dr. David Kelley, who we have also been informed was not just ready to inform on Tony Blair falsifying intelligence leading up to the war but on much wider areas.

The David Kelley “suicide” is one of the most famous in British history. Kelley is said to have killed himself after being attacked on the BBC for saying Tony Blair lied about WMD’s. Were people who know Tony Blair to have lied to have killed themselves, all of them, our planet might today be barren of human life entirely. Kelley’s involvement in South Africa was twofold. He investigated relationships between Russia and the Mossad in South Africa tied to, not only the manufacture of illegal germ warfare weapons but their use as well. The South Africa Truth Commission outlined instances where bio-weapons were deployed in Africa in a program involving Israel, Libya and Russia. The program which also developed a number of crop diseases is said to have relocated, not to Iraq as claimed, but to Israel. In fact, all of the programs said by Bush and Blair to have been in Iraq were, in fact, South African and later relocated in Israel. Iraq had used bio-weapons and gas but had purchased these weapons from brokers involved in Iran-Contra with ties to, not only South Africa and Rhodesia but Israel and the United States as well.

The South African Truth Commission also released in their report that the United States, not only purchased poison gas from South Africa but deployed it in Iraq, gas which may well have indirectly poisoned hundreds of thousands of American soldiers. Invoices for purchases of BZ gas by the United States and evidence of its use in Iraq are currently in the public domain.

THE KELLY DEATH

The Kelly death, though ruled a suicide despite the fact all forensic evidence indicated otherwise, was actually blamed on Iraq by Ahmed Chalabi, fabricator of much of the false evidence NATO troops followed across Iraq, from one imaginary sight to another in their fruitless search for weapons labs, a story outlined in the recent film, Green Zone. Kelley was found in a wooded area in Oxfordshire, an area 40 some miles outside London. Around the body were packets of harmless arthritis medications and a half filled bottle of Evian spring water. Autopsy results show a minuscule amount of medication in his body and injuries inflicted by a dull kitchen paring knife, injuries not potentially fatal. Kelly had told of being stalked by security services, of a recent break-in and how he had been warned to keep silent or he faced being “found dead in the woods somewhere.”

Informants who tie this murder to weapons of mass destruction, some to Israeli involvement and others to stolen nuclear weapons sold to North Korea, a crime Israel is suspected of, have amazing pedigrees. Nearly all are full fledged “James Bond” types from the highest levels of the intelligence services or directly tied to companies long involved in support of covert operations. This is a group of people who have “royals” on speed dial.

THE “BUSH-BLAIR” FACTOR

The missing nuclear weapons that Dr. David Kelly was directly involved in moving from South African and Israeli hands to British custody are one of the biggest secrets in recent history. That they were stolen and one of the weapons exploded in North Korea, a fact verified by western intelligence services, would be a security concern but is also a serious crime. Britain has a law called The Nuclear Explosions Act. This law states that if any “British resident” has knowledge of a nuclear explosion not involved in a war, they may be imprisoned for life, initially even without trial. The purpose of the law was to punish any British citizen or resident who got involved in trading nuclear weapons or hiding information.

One British citizen is at the center of this enquiry, former Prime Minister Tony Blair, tied to allegations that he had been briefed in 1997 about missing nuclear weapons and failed to act to recover them. Stories coming in list mysterious campaign donations, millions, from foreign arms dealers, not just to Blair but even earlier on, funding John Major’s campaign as well. The British “spooks” pressing stories on the papers, stories still largely suppressed, have much of Britain’s government involved in running interference for these illicit nuclear weapons.

Remember, there are two sets, one heading out of Oman, the “Hiroshima” sized nukes and the other out of Somalia. This is where it gets tricky. Word out of Somalia confirms, not only a possible recovery of nukes, done by a South African diving group claiming to be on a treasure hunt and more confirmations have prominent white South African politicians contacting sources for, not only triggers but special equipment to load and ship the weapons as well, dealing with companies known and backed by reliable testimony.

Another story says the US went after these nukes when they were shipping through Kenya and blew up an embassy blaming Osama bin Laden. No hard confirmations but they are expected. If this is true, everything Americans have been told about Al Qaeda is a total fiction, covering a “broken arrow” operation that has been ongoing for well over two decades.

AMERICAN SILENCE, NO INVESTIGATION, NO NEWS, NOTHING BUT COVERUP

When “lost nuke” recovery team leader Valerie Plame was framed by Republicans close to President Bush, was this to cover Bush or Tony Blair or Israel. The Plame “outing” puts the lost nukes in Israel. None of the other possible countries that could be holding the weapons would get White House protection. Plame got too close but couldn’t be murdered like Dr. David Kelly, not with a husband that had the kind of political connections that Plame has.

How many stories in the news have been nothing but cover for one half baked attempt after another to recover nuclear weapons that may be in South Africa, perhaps at the bottom of a mine with the Israeli nuclear arsenal rumored to be stored there? Remember when a B-52 filled with nukes showed up at Barksdale Air Force Base, all by accident, a “bent arrow” misplaced nuke gambit supposedly a mutiny of top Air Force officials who refused to take part in moving these weapons forward to Diego Garcia? Ever wonder why such a story was never made into a movie of the week for the Hallmark Channel?

No, the end of the story isn’t here. Investigations are ongoing, only in Britain. We will never know what they reveal, well, that’s not true. I will get a call. Will I hear the truth?

Gordon Duff is a Marine Vietnam veteran. A 100% disabled vet. He has been a featured commentator on TV and radio including Al Jazeera and his articles have been carried by news services around the world. He has been a UN Diplomat, defense contractor and is a widely published expert on military and defense issues. This article first appeared in Veterans and Foreign Affairs Journal.

Tony Blair--horrible little creep.

Tony and the Shah of Palestine

By Yvonne Ridley

July 05, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- Ever since a group of ordinary people from more than 40 different countries came together and set sail for Gaza have we seen various world leaders scramble to persuade Israel to lift the blockade on Gaza. Why? To honour the memory of those martyred by Israeli soldiers who shot nine unarmed peace activists at virtually point-blank range? Hell no!

They realize that people power has achieved more in that one heroic action, than any of them have achieved for the people of Palestine. And, despite that brutal episode, they know that more flotillas and convoys are being planned because people power is achieving more than anything else has over the past 60 years for the people of Palestine.

The so-called Middle East Peace Envoy Tony Blair certainly does not want to see any more flotillas sailing for Gaza. It’s not because he lies awake at night thinking about the deaths of those innocent humanitarian activists. No, Blair is afraid ‑ very afraid ‑ that people power will expose him for what he is, probably the most useless peace envoy on this planet. Exactly what has he done for the Palestinians since he took the job? Actually it would be easier to list what he hasn’t done:

*HE HAS NOT stopped the land-grabbing Israelis from building ever more illegal settlements in complete defiance of international law.

* HE HAS NOT managed to lift the Siege of Gaza so that the thousands left homeless after last year’s invasion can start rebuilding their homes.

* HE HAS NOT been able to push ahead with an independent UN investigation in to the Israeli raid on and hijacking of the Freedom Flotilla.

* HE HAS NOT been able to stop babies dying in the hopelessly under-equipped Gaza maternity units.

* HE HAS NOT stopped or even attempted to expose the corruption of the Palestinian Authority.

* HE HAS NOT been able to make one iota of progress in fulfilling his job description.

Apart from the Shah of Palestine – Mahmoud Abbas – I am struggling to think of a more redundant individual than Tony Blair, but I’ll come to Abbas later.

Blair was on television recently boasting about how life is improving in the West Bank for the Palestinians and saying that there’s been a reduction in the number of checkpoints. What a stupid, silly, silly little man he is, almost as blinkered as the journalist who was interviewing him. There are fewer checkpoints because the Israelis are grabbing more land and huge swathes of stolen land are merging into other tracts of stolen land, making some checkpoints redundant. That doesn’t change the fact that the West Bank is now a series of small islands, cut off by Israel and its Apartheid Wall and settler-only roads, as well as the illegal settlements.

The inference during the interview was that if the people of Gaza dumped Hamas and put their faith once more in the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority then everyone’s lives would be so much easier.

What the journalist failed to ask and Blair failed to address is the fact that even with the horrendous hardships facing the people of Gaza and their children, many Palestinians living in the West Bank are actually worse off.

The truth is, children living in the poorest parts of the occupied West Bank face significantly worse conditions than their counterparts in Gaza, according to a report by Save the Children UK.

The European Commission-funded study found that in “Area C” ‑ the 60 percent of the West Bank under direct Israeli control – the poorest sections of society are suffering disproportionately because basic infrastructure is not being repaired due to Israel’s refusal to approve the work. Homes, schools, drainage systems and roads are in urgent need of repair, but instead of work being allowed, families are being forced to live in tents and do not have access to clean water. Restrictions on the use of land for agriculture have left thousands of Palestinian children without enough food and many are becoming ill as a result, the study found.

Conditions in Area C have reached “crisis point”, says Save the Children, with 79 percent of the local communities surveyed lacking sufficient food, a greater proportion than in blockaded Gaza, where the figure is 61 percent. Many children living in such communities are showing signs of stunted growth, with the figure running at more than double Gaza’s rate, and more than one in ten children surveyed for the study were found to be underweight.

So there you have it – the Shah of Palestine has delivered nothing but more hardship for his own people in the West Bank while lining his own pockets and those of his enforcers. Abbas has been praised by Tony Blair for making friends with Israel and proving he’s someone the West can do business with. This might be true but in the process he has well and truly sold his own people down the river and I hope they punish him in the ballot box, should there ever be another free and fair election.

No wonder Mahmoud Abbas has no time for the human rights activists and humanitarian aid workers who put their lives on the line to launch the Gaza-bound Freedom Flotilla. But that’s nothing new. I remember in 2008 being slightly crestfallen after arriving on the shores of Gaza on board one of the first boats in the Free Gaza Movement only to learn Abbas had brushed away our efforts with a shrug of the shoulders. Still, none of us were in it for the glory, we just wanted to raise public awareness about the Siege of Gaza, and I think it’s fair to say that virtually the whole world now knows about the Siege of Gaza and the brutality of the Israeli government. Why? Because of the efforts of those on board the Turkish-led flotilla, that’s why. The reality is that charities like the Turkish IHH and the UK-based Interpal, the Free Gaza Movement, Viva Palestina and other groups such as the International Solidarity Movement, have done so much more for the people of Palestine than the politicians.

That is why we can never leave Palestine to the politicians; if we had done so it would have been wiped off the face of the map completely by now. Instead, thanks to people power, Palestine has a global support movement among hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of ordinary people. We are too many in number to be bought off by the Israeli lobbies, and are too pure in heart to want our palms greased by even greasier individuals. We are people of all faiths and no faith, many cultures, skin colours, nationalities and political beliefs. We are going to cause great pain – as is already evident – through our boycotts of Israeli goods and products and we will continue until the Apartheid State of Israel is a fading memory just like the Apartheid State of South Africa.

It doesn’t matter how many corrupt politicians there are in the pay and sway of Tel Aviv, we, the ordinary people of the world, outnumber you and we are growing in number and strength.
There are more flotillas being planned, more land convoys in the making and more ordinary people prepared to step up to the plate to do what it takes to free Palestine. And we will. When the people lead the leaders must follow or they will become irrelevant and redundant. Just like Mr. Tony Blair.

Yvonne Ridley was on board the first boat to break the siege of Gaza with the Free Gaza Movement and she is one of the founders of Viva Palestina. She is also the European President of the International Muslim Women’s Union. She presents the current affairs weekly show The Agenda and co-presents Rattansi & Ridley both for Press TV.

Alexandr Solzhenitsyn's “The 1920s.” Chapter 18 of 200 Years Together

Kevin MacDonald

July 5, 2010

The English translation of Chapter 18 of 200 Years Together, “The 1920s” is now available. (See here, and notice the link requesting donations.) It has a very different feel from Chapter 20, on the Gulag. Whereas Solzhenitsyn’s account of the Gulag stresses his own experiences, this chapter relies on a wide range of academic historical writing to paint his picture of the USSR during the critical decade of the 1920s. His account is therefore based on mainstream scholarship and overall is similar to other accounts, such as Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century. However, it goes beyond other accounts in several important ways and provides a great deal of new information for Western audiences. It is a very long chapter (26000 words). Here I summarize some of the main points and draw analogies to the current situation in the West.

Solzhenitsyn recounts the migration of Jews to the urban areas of the USSR—the centers of culture and of power. Well over 80% of ethnic Jews moved to urban areas, and they were represented in the government at around their percentage of the urban population and 6.5 times their representation in the population at large.

Russians commonly perceived Jews as dominating the Soviet government, a situation that resulted in anti-Jewish attitudes. A Jewish observer is quoted about the situation in 1923:

"The Jew is in all corners and on all levels of power.” “The Russian sees him as a ruler of Moscow, at the head of the capital on Neva [Leningrad], and at the head of the Red Army, a perfected death machine. He sees that St. Vladimir Prospect has been renamed Naumson Prospect… The Russian sees the Jew as judge and hangman; he sees Jews at every turn, not only among the communists, but among people like himself, everywhere doing the bidding of Soviet power… . Not surprisingly, the Russian, comparing present with past, is confirmed in his idea that power is Jewish power, that it exists for Jews and does the bidding of Jews.

Jews also took full advantage of new opportunities for education, aided by the “social origins policy” in which non-Jews who were children of the pre-revolutionary middle and upper classes were expelled from the universities. Jews were not subject to exclusion based on social origins because they were classified as a “repressed nationality” under that Czar. The result was that the ethnic Russian intelligentsia was “pushed to the margins.” Jews were then competing for prestigious occupations with the children of proletarian Russians. Jews therefore came to be overrepresented in the intelligentsia even controlling for the percentage of the urban population. The Russian merchants and traders were also subjected to a much harsher fate than Jews in similar positions: “The Jewish bourgeoisie was not destroyed like the Russian bourgeoisie. The Jewish merchant, much less likely to be damned as a “man of the past,” found defenders. Relatives or sympathizers in the Soviet Apparatus … warned about pending arrests or seizures. And if he lost anything — it was just capital, not life.”

This is a speeded up version of what is happening via affirmative action in America and other Western societies now. There is discrimination against higher IQ Whites in favor of lower-IQ groups. Jews, however, continue to be overrepresented in elite academic institutions on the basis of IQ, so they are not suffering a similar level of discrimination. The only difference is that the beneficiaries are non-Whites, not the White working class. Indeed, the White working class is losing the most as a result of the multicultural revolution and, not surprisingly, this is where most of the White anger is coming from (see here and here).

The Russians were angry too. In 1926 a professor gave a “remarkable speech” in which he described the dispossession of the Russians:

We have isolated expressions of hooliganism…. Its source is hurt national feelings of Russians. The February Revolution established the equality of all citizens of Russia, including Jews. The October Revolution went further with the Russian nation proclaiming self-renunciation. A certain imbalance has developed with respect to the proportion of the Jewish population in the country as a whole and the positions they have temporarily occupied in the cities. We are in our own cities and they arrive and squeeze us out. When Russians see Russian women, elders and children freezing on the street 9 to 11 hours a day, getting soaked by the rain in their tents at the market and when they see relatively warm covered Jewish kiosks with bread and sausage they are not happy. These phenomena are catastrophic …. There is a terrible disproportion in the government structure, in daily life and in other areas….We have a housing crisis in Moscow — masses of people are crowding into areas not fit for habitation and at the same time people see others pouring in from other parts of the country taking up housing. These arrivals are Jews. A national dissatisfaction is rising and a defensiveness and fear of other nationalities. We must not close our eyes to that. A Russian speaking to a Russian will say things that he will not say to a Jew. Many are saying that there are too many Jews in Moscow. This must be dealt with, but don’t call it anti-Semitism.

Notice particularly the comment that Russians were supposed to engage in “self-renunciation” — precisely what we see now in the common expectation that Whites are expected to accept their dispossession without complaint because of their complicity in the pre-revolutionary, traditional culture of America. As would also happen in contemporary America, the speech was quickly denounced as nothing more than “anti-Semitism.” Those who opposed the dispossession of the Russians or criticized the position of the Jews were framed as counterrevolutionaries. “And for counter-revolutionaries there is 9 grams of lead — that much is clear.”

The result was that “the average person saw [quoting a Jewish author], ‘arrogant, self-confident and self-satisfied adult Jews at ease on ‘red holidays’ and ‘red weddings’…. ‘We now sit where Czars and generals once sat, and they sit beneath us’’” “Judeophobia is everywhere in Russia today. It has swept areas where Jews were never before seen and where the Jewish question never occurred to anyone. The same hatred for Jews is found in Vologda, Archangel, in the towns of Siberia and the Urals.”

Solzhenitsyn cites a Jewish writer, Maslov:

“The expression ‘Kike Power’ is often used in Russia and particularly in Ukraine and in the former pale of settlement not as a polemic, but as a completely objective definition of power, its content and its politics.” “Soviet power in the first place answers the wishes and interests of Jews and they are its ardent supporters and in the second place, power resides in Jewish hands.”

As in his chapter on the Gulag, Solzhenitsyn stresses Jewish ethnic networking as a key to their success, again citing Maslov: the “tightly welded ethnic cohesion they have formed as a result of their difficult thousands-year-old history.” “This is particularly noticeable when it comes to selecting staff at institutions — if the selection process is in the hands of Jews, you can bet that the entire staff of responsible positions will go to Jews, even if it means removing the existing staff.” Jews were also aided by international Jewish charities throughout the 1920s, and during the New Economic Policy period (1921–1928), when capitalism was encouraged, Jews quickly came to dominate certain industries. Anger against Jewish success stemmed from the perception that “their commerce was routinely facilitated by their links and pulls in the Soviet apparatus.”

Not only did Jews favor their own, observers noted that they regarded the Russians with contempt. Solzhenitsyn again quotes Maslov: “The preference for their own is displayed in a sharp, discourteous manner which is offensive to others” (emphasis in text).

The Parisian Zionist journal Sunrise wrote in 1922 that Gorky essentially said that “the growth of anti-Semitism is aided by the tactless behavior of the Jewish Bolsheviks themselves in many situations. That is the blessed truth!” And Gorky wasn’t speaking of Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev — he was speaking of the typical Jewish communist who occupies positions in the collegiums, presidiums and petty and mid-level Soviet institutions where they come into contact with large swaths of the population. They occupy leading front-line positions which naturally multiplies their number in the mind of the public.

Russian concern about the overrepresentation of Jews at the highest levels of the party (e.g., 3 of 6 Politburo members) led to a plan for an anti-Jewish revolt in 1924 at a Party conference. It was thwarted when the leader died, “literally on the eve of the conference [as the result of] an unsuccessful and unnecessary operation for a stomach ulcer by the same surgeon who dispatched [Mikhail] Frunze with an equally unneeded operation a year and a half later” (see Wikipedia’s account of Frunze’s death.)

Solzhenitsyn makes the point that the Cheka held life and death power over all of the USSR: “Each of them with the flick of a finger could destroy anyone of us!” Seventy percent of its leadership positions during the Red Terror were non-Russian, but this fell to around 40–45% by the mid-1920s. However, Jews became an increasing percentage of the Cheka at this time; hence, Slezkine’s comment on Jews as “Stalin’s willing executioners.” “In the 20’s the inevitable question hangs in the air that was posed many year later by Leonard Schapiro: why was it ‘highly likely that anyone unfortunate enough to fall into the hands of the Cheka would go before a Jewish interrogator or be shot by a Jew.’”

Solzhenitsyn is emphasizing the ethnic angle to mass murder in the USSR: Russians were disproportionately victims, and non-Russians, and particularly Jews, were disproportionately perpetrators. He also emphasizes that a prime motive for Jews was revenge against the old order. Describing a family of Hasidic Jews who became prominent in the Cheka, he notes, “They thirsted for revenge on everyone — aristocrats, the wealthy, Russians, few were left out. This was their path to self realization.”

Again, the analogy is striking. As emphasized repeatedly on TOO, Whites can expect to be increasingly victimized by non-Whites with historical grudges as they sink to minority status and lose political power. The difference, of course, is that because the Bolsheviks had totalitarian control, they were able to carry out their war on ethnic Russians even though the Russians comprised a dominant majority of the population.

But the general Jewish reaction to this horror has been pride in accomplishment, not guilt for having perpetrated mass murder against their perceived ethnic enemies.

Often these Jewish authors thoughtlessly and meticulously comply and publish vast lists of the Jewish leadership of the time. For example, see how proudly the article “Jews in the Kremlin,” published in journal Alef, provides a list of the highest Soviet officials — Jews for 1925. It listed eight out of twelve directors of the state Central Bank. The same Jewish representation was found among top trade union leaders. And it comments: “We do not fear accusations. Quite the opposite — it is active Jewish participation in governing the state that helps in understanding why the affairs of state were better then than now, when Jews at top positions are as rare as hen’s teeth.” Unbelievably, it was written in 1989.

As usual, Jews themselves had self-serving and self-deceptive attitudes on the causes of anti-Jewish attitudes. For example, Yuri Larin prepared a report asserting that anti-Jewish attitudes were “dreamed up and spread among the masses by an underground organization of counter-revolutionaries!” The closest Larin comes to a reasonable interpretation is his assertion that the anti-Semitism of the Russian intelligentsia comes from competition with Jews for government jobs, but he denied that Jews in fact held an “excessive number” of government jobs.

The result was a government-led campaign against anti-Semitism: “The battle to create an atmosphere of intolerance of anti-Semitism was to be taken up in educational programs, public reports, lectures, the press, radio and school textbooks and finally, authorities were ‘to apply the strictest disciplinary measures to those found guilty of anti-Semitic practices.’”

Again, the analogies with the present are striking, although in the contemporary West there is a greater role for non-governmental entities, such as privately owned media and activist organizations, most notably the ADL and the SPLC. However, whereas current propaganda about anti-Semitism emphasizes Jewish suffering, particularly the Holocaust, in the USSR the ideology was that anti-Semitism was a cloak for anti-revolutionary activities: “The masses must regard anyone who shows sympathy to anti-Semitism as a secret counter-revolutionary or the mouthpiece of a secret monarchist organization.”

Solzhenitsyn alludes to a 1930 ruling that prevented the Draconian provisions of the law on anti-Semitism (prison, confiscation of property, and in some cases, death) from being used in cases of personal dispute. This suggests that at least prior to this ruling, Jews at times made accusations of anti-Semitism in order to win personal disputes with non-Jews.

Because Jews had assumed a position of power and influence in the USSR, the USSR was regarded quite highly in the West. Much of the West, including European and American Jews, maintained feelings of good will towards the Soviets. The Soviet Union was good for the Jews, and therefore received positive coverage in the West.

Positive relations with the Soviet regime were held not only because of European intellectuals’ sympathy for any socialist movement but, to a large degree, because world and American Jewry were satisfied with the status of Russian Jews. Undoubtedly things would be good for Jews under the Soviets and no pogroms threatened. Effective Soviet propaganda further publicized the positive outlook for Soviet Jews.

International good will and sympathy helped Soviet leaders obtain Western, particularly American, financial support. Without that support, the Soviet economy could not have escaped the damage of the “war communism” era.

The fact that the USSR was good for the Jews therefore had a major effect in bolstering and motivating the Jewish left which was the backbone of the left in the US and elsewhere in the West. This in turn had major implications well into the Cold War era. Jews were vastly overrepresented as targets of the McCarthy era, and Jewish intellectuals generally continued to have rosy views of the USSR throughout the 1950s. Most egregiously, the American Jewish Congress — by far the largest Jewish organization in terms of membership — continued to be associated with the far left and was formally affiliated with organizations listed as subversive by the US Attorney General. The CPUSA viewed members of the AJCongress as “democratic forces” in their attempt to create “democratic and anti-fascist” policies in the World Jewish Congress.

Writers like Yuri Slezkine and Jewish activist organizations like the ADL claim that the Jews who played such an important role in the USSR left their Jewish identity behind and completely assimilated to Soviet culture. Solzhenitsyn rejects this myth (see also here, p. 79ff). Despite government hostility toward all religion, Jewish ethnicity remained intact: “A remnant of Jewish self-awareness was preserved and remained. Even in the flood of the internationalism of the 20’s, mixed marriages (between Jews and Russians or Jews and any non-Jew), as measured from 1924–1926, were only 6.3% of the total marriages for Jews in the USSR, including 16.8% in RSFSR, but only 2.8% in Byelorussia and 4.5% in Ukraine (according to another source, on average in USSR, 8.5%; in RSFSR, 21%; in Byelorussia, 3.2%; and in Ukraine, 5%).

Solzhenitsyn makes the important point that the public face of the USSR in the West was Jewish, since such a large percentage of the diplomatic corps and embassy and trade officials were Jewish: A Jewish author notes that “‘In the publishing arm [of the People’s Commissariat of Foreign Affairs] there is not one non-Jew’ and further, with evident pride, the author ‘examines the staff in Soviet consulates around the world and finds there is not one country in the world where the Kremlin has not placed a trusted Jew.’”

This then fed into the public perception throughout the West among conservatives that Jews dominated the USSR, with far-reaching implications. Despite the fact that the left continued to see the USSR as the promised land, at least partly because of its treatment of Jews, this was not the case with a great many non-Jewish intellectuals and political leaders, including Winston Churchill, Woodrow Wilson, and the National Socialists in Germany (see here, pp. xxxix–xli). Hitler in particular saw Jews as being an elite in the USSR and as involved in mass murder of Russians.

Solzhenitsyn also presents an interesting discussion of the struggle for control of the Party between Stalin and Trotsky. Trotsky was joined by two other Jews, Grigory Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev. As a result, the “United Opposition” had a decidedly Jewish look, and many of its supporters, followers of Trotsky, were also Jewish. However, Stalin decided not to use the Jewish angle in his battle with the United Opposition because of the power of Jews within the Party and the need to preserve good relations with the West — a comment that says much about Jewish power in the West at that time. He also realized that he needed to continue to curry favor with Jews in his struggle with Russian nationalism and the collectivization of the Russian peasants. Nevertheless, there was an undercurrent of anti-Semitism in the opposition to Trotsky.

Particularly interesting is that Stalin continued to see the Jews as reliable allies in his opposition to Russian nationalism: “At the 26th Party Congress in 1930 Stalin declared 'Great Russian chauvinism' to be the 'main danger of the national question.' Thus, at the end of the 20’s Stalin did not carry out his planned purge of the party and government apparatus of Jews, but encouraged their expansion in many fields, places and institutions.”

This is a common theme in Jewish history from the ancient world into modern times—Jews as making alliances with oppressive elites in opposition to the great majority of the population. Stalin would continue this policy in post-World War II Eastern Europe, where Jews were often installed as a ruling elite in opposition to nationalist movements. (See, for example, the discussion of Poland here, p. 60ff). As ethnic outsiders, Jews had no allegiance to the native population and were "willing executioners" of the native peoples.

Solzhenitsyn makes clear the Jewish role as ethnic outsiders who could be counted on to carry out the war on the predominantly Slavic Russian peasants:

At the 25th Congress in December 1927, the time had come to address the looming “peasant question” — what to do with the presumptuous peasantry which had the temerity to ask for manufactured goods in exchange for their grain. Molotov delivered the main report on this topic and among the debaters were the murderers of the peasantry — Schlikhter and Yakovlev-Epstein (250). A massive war against the peasantry lay ahead and Stalin could not afford to alienate any of his reliable allies and probably thought that in this campaign against a disproportionately Slavic population it would be better to rely on Jews than on Russians. He preserved the Jewish majority in the Gosplan. The commanding heights of collectivization and its theory included, of course, Larin. Lev Kritzman was director of the Agrarian Institute from 1928. As Assistant to the President of the Gosplan in 1931–33 he played a fateful role in the persecution of Kondratev and Chayanov. Yakov Yakovlev-Epstein took charge of People’s Commissariat of Agriculture in 1929. … And thus he led the “Great Change,” the imposition of collectivization on millions of peasants with its zealous implementers on the ground. A contemporary writer reports: “for the first time ever a significant number of young Jewish communists arrived in rural communities as commanders and lords over life and death. Only during collectivization did the characterization of the Jew as the hated enemy of the peasant take hold — even in those places where Jews had never been seen before”

Solzhenitsyn acknowledges that Russians could have been found who would have done the same thing. Nevertheless, “Jewish communists participated efficiently and diligently” in collectivization. It was a war against the Russian people — a war that was carried out with "a certain enthusiasm among Jews."

De-Kulakization was not a socio-economic measure, but a measure taken against a nationality. The strategic blow against the Russian people, who were the main obstacle to the victory of communism, was conceived of by Lenin, but carried out after his death. In those years communism with all its cruelty was directed mostly against Russians. It is amazing that not everything has perished during those days. Collectivization, more than any other policy of the communists, gives the lie to the conception of Stalin’s dictatorship as nationalist, i.e., “Russian.”

This was not only a war against Russians. It was a war against the concept of being a Russian. “The study of Russian history, archeology, and folklore was suppressed — the Russians could not have a past. … Even the word ‘Russian,’ as in ‘I am Russian’ sounded like a counter-revolutionary cry which I well remember from my childhood. But without hesitation everywhere was heard and printed “Russopyati” [an anti-Russian slur]! Thus a Jewish writer demands the removal of “history’s garbage” from the city square in Moscow — the removal of statues and other tokens of Russian historical memory.

Russian patriotism was abolished forever. But the feelings of the people will not be forgotten. Not how it felt to see the Church of the Redeemer blown up by the engineer Dzhevalkin and that the main mover behind this was Kaganovich who wanted to destroy St. Basil’s cathedral as well. Russian Orthodoxy was publicly harassed by “warrior atheists” led by Gubelman-Yaroslavsky. It is truthfully noted: “That Jewish communists took part in the destruction of churches was particularly offensive… No matter how offensive the participation of sons of Russian peasants in the persecution of the church, the part played by each non-Russian was even more offensive.”

This makes psychological sense because the actions of an outgroup member are always seen in a more negative light — an aspect of evolutionary psychology.

Despite all this, Jewish intellectuals and activist organizations have attempted to sanitize the Jewish role in the darkest days of the USSR. Solzhenitsyn notes that now there is a myth that

under Soviet power Jews were always second class citizens. … It’s very rare to hear an admission that not only did they take part, but there was a certain enthusiasm among Jews as they carried out the business of the barbaric young government. “The mixture of ignorance and arrogance which Hannah calls a typical characteristic of the Jewish parvenu filled the government, social and cultural elite. The brazenness and ardor with which all Bolshevik policies were carried out — whether confiscation of church property or persecution of ‘bourgeois intellectuals’ gave Bolshevik power in the 20’s a certain Jewish stamp” (263).

Solzhenitsyn closes with a comment that also has a very clear analogy to the present situation in the US and other Western nations.

In the 90’s another Jewish public intellectual, writing of the 20’s said: “In university halls Jews often set the tone without noticing that their banquet was happening against the backdrop of the demise of the main nationality in the country. … During the 20’s Jews were proud of fellow Jews who had brilliant careers in the revolution, but did not think much about how that career was connected to the real suffering of the Russian people… Most striking today is the unanimity with which my fellow Jews deny any guilt in the history of 20th century Russia”

A similar comment could be made about the role of Jews in the erection of the current multicultural, anti-White climate in the US, and especially their role in bringing about massive non-White immigration and the erection of the “proposition nation” idea in place of the historical American nation with a sense of White racial and cultural identity. In the USSR Jews actively participated in the destruction of the idea that there was any ethnic or national basis to the USSR and they were eager participants in the destruction of the older culture as well as in the mass murder of millions of ethnic Russians. But Jewish intellectuals deny any special role for Jews in these transformations, and this line is rigorously enforced by Jewish activist organizations.

White Americans must think long and hard about what this portends in a future America where Jews are already a major part of the elite and are already active in promoting alliances with non-White ethnic groups, many of which, like the Jews themselves, have historical grudges against the traditional people and culture of America.

Kevin MacDonald is editor of The Occidental Observer and a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach. Email him.

Permanent URL: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Solzhenitsyn-200-Years-Together-18.html

We Destroyed Iraq.. Iraq must Stay Divided and IsolatedŠ The Oil of Northern Iraq will Flow into Israel!

Well the war was for Jews after all==

http://windowintopalestine.blogspot.com/2010/05/israel-we-destroyed-iraq-iraq-must-stay.html

Israel:

We Destroyed Iraq.. Iraq must Stay Divided and IsolatedŠ The Oil of Northern Iraq will Flow into Israel!

Avi Dichter, the Israeli Internal Security Minister, said in a lecture at the ŒIsraeli National Security Research Center¹ ³about the Israeli role in destroying Iraq after it was occupied in 2003 ³we achieved in Iraq more than we expected and plan!² Dichter confirmed that keeping Iraq weak and isolated is an Israeli national interest.

³Weakening and isolating Iraq is no less important than weakening and isolating Egypt,² he said. Weakening and isolating Egypt done by diplomatic methods while everything is done to do achieve a complete and comprehensive isolation to Iraq², Dachter added.

³Iraq has vanished as a military force and as a united country. Our strategic option is to keep it divided,² he added.

³Our strategic goal is not to allow this country (Iraq) to take its regional and Arabic role back. Iraq must stay divided and isolated from its regional environment² he said.

About the role of the Kurdish parties in facilitating occupying Iraq Dichter said ³the top goal for Israel is to support and provide the Kurds with weapons and training and to make them our partners in security in order to establish a Kurdish independent state in the northern part of Iraq where it can control Kirkuk¹s and Kurdistan¹s oil,² he added.

³The Kurdish leadership guaranteed to put the oil pipeline from Kirkuk to IBC line through Jordan. We did primary negotiations with Jordan and we reached an agreement with the Kurdish leadership in this regard. If Jordan withdrew his promises we have the substitute: Turkey. We finished putting the plans and studies to establish pipelines for water and oil with Turkey and from Turkey into Israel,² he added.

The full transcript of the lecture is below:

Nobody can ignore what we had achieved on this field (Iraq). What was achieved was beyond what we had planned. We have to recall back our primary goals in Iraq since we started interfering in it at the beginning of the seventies of the last century. Our top goal was supporting the Kurds getting benefit from their feeling that they are persecuted ethnicity who have the right to self determination and to enjoy freedom as all other peoples.

At first our colleagues in Israel- who planned for (destroying) Iraq as uri Librani the previous advisor of the ex-prime minister and our ambassador to Turkey and Ethiopia and Iran- defined the core plan for the Israelis to support the Kurds. Our (Israeli) support to the Kurds was humble at the beginning. It was limited to a political support, mentioning the Kurds issue in the international meetings and conferences. We provided the Kurds also with money, but this was limited.

In 1972 this support had taken a security dimensions: providing the Kurds with weapons through Turkey and Iran and receiving Kurdish groups and gorillas for training in Israel and in Turkey and Iran.

After the Kurdish ³resistance² fall apart as a result of the agreement with Iran, the Kurdish leadership went to Turkey, Syria and Israel. Israel for morale reasons had to stay beside the Kurds and support them till they got their national aim in achieving the self-rule in the first stage and the full state independent later on.

I won¹t talk long but I have to say that now in Iraq there¹s an independent Kurdish state. This state has people, land, authority, army, economic, oil. This state aims not to limit itself to Kurdistan only but to annex the northern of Iraq also; Kirkuk first, then al-Musel and may be SalahEddin city in addition to Jlolaa and Khankin.

The Kurds can¹t imagine what had been achieved thanks to our support.

Iraq which was in our strategic view the most dangerous challenge after it became a very huge military force. Suddenly Iraq falls apart as a military force and as a country! Iraq, the country which was united, suddenly became divided geographically, and its people is divided, it has now a civil war which led to the death of hundreds of thousands of the Iraqis!

If we watch Iraq since 2003 we would find ourselves in front of more than one perspective:

Iraq is now divided into three areas in spite of the existence of the central government.