Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Conspiracy’ Category

Former French President might be the one of the axe bearers to chop the head of Gaddafi regime together with the other Arab, European leaders and US President Obama, but there are skelotons in Sarkozy’s closet which will haunt him forever. Sarkozy will always feel guilty about the fact that he was a part of the larger group of world leaders which plotted against Gaddafi.

Does that make Nicolas Sarkozy a back stabber?

Mediapart in its investigation of the possibility of illicit financing of the presidential campaign of Nicolas Sarkozy in 2007. Launched in July 2011, this long-term research revealed financial ties forged in secret in 2005 by the entourage of Mr. Sarkozy, then interior minister, with the Libyan regime of Colonel Gaddafi deceased.The current investigations of Medipart about Gaddafi financing the Sarkozy 2007 election campaign will never get a justified judgement, but one thing was sure, that Gaddafi was the key sponsor of Sarkozy.

The seriousness of the facts revealed by the sections of Mediapart, which reveals strong evidence of corroboration of the illicit financing and consistency of submissions is indispensable to justice the appointment of an independent and impartial, to perform all acts necessary to ascertain the truth. Our attorneys, Mi, Jean-Pierre Mignard and Emmanuel Tordjman, had specifically requested that the Paris prosecutor, François Molins. Ignoring this legitimate request, prefers to stick to a preliminary inquiry into allegations by Mr. Sarkozy.

It is only in the context of a criminal investigation secret, under the control of the prosecution and without respect for the parties, which Mediapart been cited for the judicial police. As editor in chief, I asked for Friday, May 18, while the authors of the research, Fabrice Arfi and Karl Laske, are Monday 21 and Tuesday, May 22 After being deprived of a public debate on the choice of procedure of Nicolas Sarkozy, who has not placed on the floor of the defamation through the press, is now private Mediapart for the prosecution of human rights defense enjoyed in democratic societies continued to any journalist because of his writings.

Mediapart this procedure refused to limit press freedom, but remains at the disposal of justice that respects the equality of arms. We are determined to prove we have made ​​in compliance with our rules of conduct, a legitimate mission of information on a topic public interest . So to show our good faith, we will give the police all the articles and pieces in which our investigative reporting, and have joined our complaint for false accusation.

But they refuse to answer questions as part of this preliminary investigation. And we reiterate our request for an independent and impartial justice, respecting the right of the press is that the right of citizens to know. Above all, a justice who diligently investigate facts grave discovered by our disclosures and attest that the documents filed by us with justice.

List of documents disclosed to the court by Mediapart

Annex 1: The article of April 28, 2012 entitled “Sarkozy and Gaddafi: proof of funding” .

Annex 2: Mail the card of Mr. Takieddine of April 27, 2012.

Annex 3: Interview with Mr. Takieddine the newspaper Libération , April 29, 2012.

Annex 4: July 10, 2011 article entitled “ The financial secrecy that endangers the Sarkozy clan ” .

Parts 5: The article of July 22, 2011 entitled “ The Elysee secret negotiations to wash the right arm of Gaddafi ” , and reference sample (3 pages):

-. 1.5 Fax dated October 30, 2008 I Azzad Maghur lawyer, Libya. – 5.2. Note of 25 June 2008 on the legal situation in France by Mr. Senoussi. – 5.3. confidential note of a meeting of 16 May 2009 in the presence of Mr. Herzog and Mr. Gueant.

Part 6: The article of July 28, 2011 entitled “ Sarkozy and Gueant: suspicion of Libya, a large ” and reference sample (29 pages):

– 6.1. letter of invitation to Libya Mr. Sarkozy, interior minister, June 22, 2005 (in Arabic). -. 6.2 surround the private secretary of Mr. Gueant, chief of staff for Mr. Sarkozy, addressed to Mr. Takieddine. -. 6.3 Mr confidential note Takieddine preparing Sarkozy’s visit October 6, 2005. -. 6.4 Note of Mr. Takieddine in a preparatory visit to Claude Gueant in Libya. -. 6.5 Letter of 10 September 2005, Mr. Sarkozy confirmed his visit to Libya on October 6, 2005. -. 6.6 Letter of 23 September 2005 Mr Gueant confirm his arrival in Tripoli from 30 September to 2 October 2005. -. 7.6 Letter of 15 November 2005 Hortefeux, minister for local government on a future visit to Libya. -. 6.8 Presentation Software CryptoWall society i 2 e (Amesys) -. 6.9 Set of six payroll, payment of commissions by firm i 2 e (Amesys) foreign companies Mr. Takieddine. to 6.10. undated note of a meeting with Mr. Seif al-Islam Gaddafi and Mr . Senussi . 6.11 – Fax series of 20 July and 29 August 2007 from the Secretary General of the Elysee to Mr. M. Gueant Takieddine (11 pages). -. 6.12 Mr Takieddine confidential note of 23 April 2008 concerning the various files of Libya.

Table 7: August 12, 2011 article entitled “ The arms dealer, Gaddafi’s nephew and beaten prostitutes in London ” .

Pieces of 8: August 18, 2011 article entitled “ The emissary of the Sarkozy clan in Libya paid in total secrecy “ parties and referenced (38 pages):

- 8.1 by mail on 13 and 17 June 2008 in reference to a proposed partnership between the Libyan national oil company TOTAL. -. 2.8 Notes 9 and 25 June 2008 Mr de Margerie, Total CEO Ghanem, the Libyan company counterpart. – 8.3. Letter dated 3 December 2008 the Director of Global Oil and Gas Co. North, the total. – 8.4. Fax 12 December 2008 refers to the full cooperation of Libya and North Oil and Gas Global Co. -. 5.8 Confidential letter of December 19, 2008 Lord Pouyanné, CEO of Total, the North Oil and Gas Global Co. – 8.6 . Booklet 20 pages, dated July 2008 on cooperation in TOTAL LIBYA. – 8.7 . Confidential letter of 20 January 2009 Lord Pouyanné, executive director of the North Oil and Gas Co. the world total -. 8.8 Calendar confidential “TOTAL LIBYA” Mr. Takieddine. – 8.9. memo written by Mr. Takieddine. – 8.10. Memorandum of Understanding of 27 August 2009 between the National Petroleum Corporation and Total signed by Mr. Chokri Ghanem and Mr. de Margerie. – 8.11. Letter of 17 September 2009 Northern Oil and Gas Global Co. sent TOTAL – 8.12. Letter Pouyanné 30 September 2009, Mr, executive director of the North Oil world total and Gas Co.

Pieces of 9: 18 September 2011 article entitled “ Delivered by the clan of Sarkozy, the French 4 × 4 that protects Gaddafi ” , and pieces of reference (10 pages):

- 9.1. eight-page extract of the contract “Program for Homeland Security” company i2e (Amesys) and technical descriptions on the sale of four quarters Gaddafi regime secure. -. 2.9 Slip counter 18 December 2007 the company i2e on payment of a fee of 990.720 euros to an offshore company of Mr. Takieddine.

Parties No. 10: October 6, 2011 article titled “ Evidence of French intelligence network in Libya ”, and part references (18 pages):

- 10.1. Extract 18-page contract “Program for Homeland Security” company i2e (Amesys) and the technical descriptions of the “current network analysis”, foreshadowing the system “Eagle” spy in the country to the Internet.

Annex 11: December 17, 2011 article entitled “ Justice survey of Libya’s spy network ” .

Annex 12: the article of March 12, 2012 entitled “ Presidential Election 2007: Gaddafi was financed Sarkozy “ , and quoted parts: -. 12.1 . Hearing of Mr. Brisard by the National Financial Investigation Division (DNIF), October 18, 2011 – 12.2. list of notes given by Mr. Brisard. – 12.3. Memo Shows of December 20, 2006 – 12.4. new hearing Jean-Charles Brisard of October 18, 2011, at 14h 30. – 12.5. Appearance by Mr. Didier Grosskopf of October 19, 2011 – 12.6. Tickets for MM. Takieddine Grosskopf and a common movement in Tripoli in May June 2006.

Exhibit 13: Article of March 15, 2012 entitled “ Gaddafi-Sarkozy: Our new revelations ” .

Exhibit 14: Article 16 March 2012 entitled “ Gaddafi-Sarkozy: Mr. Brisard, under pressure, he wrote ” . Exhibit No. 15: Article of April 10, 2012 entitled “ The Libyan refugees spied accuse France in Paris ” , and some mentioned (10 pages):

-. 1.15 Note 13 June 2007 headed the direction of the Libyan intelligence to spy on a petition from residents of the opposition in Paris, in Arabic and translated into French.

Annex 16: April 28, 2012 article entitled “ Libya, the urgency of a formal investigation ” .

Annex 17: April 29, 2012 article titled “ Sarkozy-Gaddafi: news, their disinformation ” .

Proof # 18: April 30, 2012 article entitled “ Saleh Bashir is protected by France: the tangle of power ” .

Proof # 19: May 2, 2012 article titled “ Sarkozy-Gaddafi: the Elysee caught by witnesses ” .

Exhibit 20: The free transcripts of Sarkozy’s statements of 29 and 30 April 2012.

Exhibit 21: AFP dispatch of August 19, 2011 on the destruction of the residence of Mr. Senoussi, head of Libyan intelligence.

Part 22: Dispatch from Reuters March 22, 2012 regarding the arrest of Mr Senussi.

Annex 23: Hearings on 5 and 6 March 2011 Mr Takieddine.

Annex 24: . The examination of Mr. Takieddine of October 12, 2011 Exhibit No. 25: Article of May 3, 2012 entitled “ 50 million Sarkozy: Former Prime Minister of Libya confirmed ” . Exhibit No. 26: Article 4 May 2012 entitled “ Gaddafi, Sarkozy knew the Tunisian justice ” .

Annex 27: . The examination of Mr. Takieddine of May 10, 2012

Parties No. 28: Article of May 11, 2012, entitled “ Following his election, Sarkozy proposed nuclear plant Gaddafi “ and refers to part (7 pages):

- 28.1. The transcripts of the telephone conversation of May 28, 2007 between Nicolas Sarkozy and Gaddafi in Arabic and French.

Parties No. 29: Article on May 15, 2012 entitled “ Libya: Sarkozy to ingratiate himself with Saleh’s family “ , and pieces of reference (2 pages):

-. 29.1 Boris Boillon note of 30 June 2008 -. 29.2 Muriel Mathieu mail June 20, 2008

Proof # 30: Mandate of July 6, 2006 Mr. Abdallah Senussi Thierry Herzog, for me to represent you in the case of UTA DC10.

Annex 31: Evaluation of Mr. Takieddine visit to Libya on 11 and 12 April 2005.

Proof # 32: Draft letter to Mr. Takieddine Hortefeux.

Annex 33: Evaluation of two pages of Mr. Takieddine of September 7, 2006

Part 34: The translation of an invitation from the Libyan authorities on October 22, 2005, addressed to Mr. Hortefeux

Annex 35: Letter dated May 17, 2005 by M. Takieddine Brochand, director of the DGSE.

Exhibit 36: undated note on the establishment of a think tank Franco-Libyan

Annex 37: Summary of January 26, 2006 Mr. Takieddine an appointment with Mr. Alain Juillet, economic intelligence advisor to the Prime Minister.

Exhibit 38: Note Confidential January 23, 2007 on “the flying club contract” of 12 Mirage F1 of the Libyan Air Force.

Proof # 39: confidential notes of June 11, 2007 referred in particular to industrial cooperation between France and Libya in the areas of arms and nuclear.

Exhibit 40: undated confidential memorandum on a visit to Tripoli by Claude Guéant.

Parties No. 41: confidential note 11 June 2007 refers to a visit from “The minister Hortefeux” in Tripoli.

Annex 42: Evaluation of 11 July 2007, citing “important points” file Franco and Libya.

Annex 43: Evaluation of 3 September 2007 refers to “following the case of nurses and the establishment of a Crown corporation Franco-Libyan arms.

Exhibit 44: undated note on “the elements of the language of a letter from the president leader” .

Part # 45: My letters sent by Mignard and Tordjman to the Prosecutor of the Republic, Mr. François MOLINS

(Editor’s Note: This is the reason why General Abdel Fatah Younes was murdered! as he knew too much the same goes for the son of Qaddafi Mutassem Qaddafi, and lets not forget of-course Mr. Ghanem that he suddenly drowned in Austria! they all knew too much. The people who are still alive and should die as it will burn the WEST are: Saif Qaddafi, Khamis Qaddafi, Dr. Abuzeid Dorda and Mr. Baghdadi al Mahmoudi.)

Read Full Post »

There is not existent in the world a single original book or manuscript of Hebrew or Christian Scriptures, containing the inspired Word of Yahveh. The most ancient manuscripts of the Hebrew texts date only from the eighth century of the era of Christ; while of the Christian books, said to have been written by the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost within the first century of the era, all, all are lost, and the oldest “copies” bear the marks of the fourth century. And even in this fourth century, so gross was the corruption of text, so numberless the errors and conflicting readings, that the great St. Jerome, author of the celebrated Latin Vulgate version of the Scriptures, has left it recorded, as his reason for his great work, that the sacred texts “varied so much that there were almost as many readings as codices,” or manuscript copies of the text. And for years past, the papal authorities have been collating all known extant versions and bits of Scriptures for the purpose of trying to edit them into one approved version of the inspired Word of Yahveh Curious indeed it seems that in this inspired revelation of Yahveh, the Hebrew God, to Man, wherein the awful destinies of the human soul are said to be revealed to eternal salvation or damnation, some ten thousand different, conflicting, and disputed readings and textual corruptions and verbal slips of inspiration admittedly exist in the inspired texts, with the knowledge and sufferance of the God whose awful will it all is; while the Providence of that same God, Yahveh, by special miraculous intervention has preserved wholly “incorrupt” through all the ages of faith, the cadavers and ghastly scraps and relics of holy saints and martyrs galore, from
the very Year One on, which are yet to-day (or at last reports were-Cath. Encyc., passim) as fresh, fragrant, and wholly “encorrupt” of flesh as when alive-which, in very truth, in the case of many saints-as their lives are recorded by the monks-is not saying very much for either freshness or fragrance.

An instance-e pluribus unumis that of the pioneer Saint Pachomius, who, ambitious to outdo in bodily mortification his companions in filth,
left the pig-sty in which he dwelt, and sat himself on the ground at the entrance of a cave full of hyenas in the pious desire of entering glory via their bestial maws; but the hyenas, rushing out upon the holy saint, stopped short of a sudden, sniffed him all over, turned tail, and left him in disgust uneaten.
AND TRANSLATIONS OF TRANSLATIONS
On the title-page of Bibles in current use is the statement “translated out of the original tongues”; but this does not tell the whole or the true story. The first translation of some of the Hebrew Scriptures (for all were not yet written) was the Septuagint into Greek, undertaken at the behest of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, of Egypt, begun at Alexandria about the year 285 B.C., and completed after some three hundred years. In many places this Greek translation differed widely from the Hebrew. About 392 A.D. Jerome made his translation from the Hebrew into Latin, this being the “Vulgate” version, which only gradually made its way into acceptance and suffered so many perversions that it was pronounced by Roger Bacon to be “horribly corrupt”; but it was adopted by the
Council of Trent in 1546 as the “sole authoritative source of quotation; and it [the Council] threatened withpunishment those who presumed to interpret the Scriptures contrary to the sense given them by the Fathers”
(New Int. Encyc., Vol. ]3: p. 251 ).
This Latin Vulgate, Old and New Testaments alike, with the Apocrypha added, was in its turn translated into English in the Douai Catholic version of 1609, thus removed three steps of translation from the Hebrew and two from the Greek. The Protestant versions in English, including the King James version of 1611, are more directly from the Hebrew and Greek texts of the respective Testaments. It is reported that the Tennessee legislator who sponsored the notorious “Anti-evolution” law in that state was greatly surprised to learn, from
the eye-opening revelations of the Scopes trial, that his cherished King James version of Holy Writ, whose precious petrified “Sacred science” he sought to protect from the destroying effects of modern knowledge, was not in the original language of “revelation,” in which Yahveh and the talking snake spoke to Adam and Eve. Some further anomalies and a number of tricks of translation will appear in their due order as we proceed.
WHEN THE BOOKS WERE WRITTEN
It will be of signal value to inquire, for a moment, concerning the periods of time indicated by the Bible, and the times when the principal books of it were written and by whom they were written-oather, as that is the only course possible, to show, negatively, by whom, and when, they were not written. This inquiry will be confined to the “internal evidences” of the Bible texts themselves, with a bit of reference to their marginal editorial annotations. The force of such “internal proofs” is self-evident.
To assist to an easier understanding, take this illustration:
If one picks up a book, a newspaper, a letter, or any piece of written or printed matter which bears no datemark or name of some known writer, one may not be able to ascertain exactly when or by whom it was written or printed. But one can often very readily determine, by the nature of its contents, that it was not written or published until after such or such a known time; and hence that it could not have been written by some person already dead or of one not yet born. If such a document, for instance, contains the name of Julius Caesar or of Jesus Christ, this proves at once that it was written some time within the past 1900-odd years, and not possibly before the advent of these two personages. If it mentions President Washington or some incident of his administration, it is evident that it could not have been written before Washington became President, in 1789; if it mentions Presidents Washington, Lincoln, and Coolidge, it is proof that it was written as late as the date the latter became President.
So of every factual or fanciful allusion-it can go no higher than its source. In a word, we know that no writing can speak as of a matter of fact of any event, person, or thing, until after such event has become an accomplished fact, or such person or thing has existed. No one can to-day write even the name of the President of the United States in the year A.D. 1939. With this simple thumb-rule of ascertaining or approximating the time of production of written documents by what is known as their “internal evidences” we may gather some astonishing proofs as to when, and by whom, sundry inspired records of Holy Writ were not written-contrary to some currently accepted theories.
SOME LIGHTS ON BIBLE CHRONOLOGY
According to the chronology, or time-computations worked out of the Bible narratives (principally by Bishop Usaher) and printed in the margins of all well-edited Bibles, Catholic and Protestant alike, until recent ridicule shamed the Bible editors into quietly dropping them, the world and Man were created by the fiat or by the fingers of the Hebrew God Yahveh about 4004 years before the present so-called Christian Era, not yet two thousand years old; so that the reputed first man, Adam, inhabited the new-made earth slightly less than six
thousand years before the present time. The revelation of this interesting event-which by every token of human knowledge outside the Bible is known not to have occurred just when and how there related-and of many equally accredited events, is recorded (for wonder of mankind) in the first five books of the Bible Genesis to Deuteronomy, called the Pentateuch or Five Books, or, as entitled in the Bible, “The Five Books of Moses.”
Moses is reputed to have written them at the inspiration or by the revelation of Yahveh, the God of Israel. According to the Bible chronology, Moses lived some 1500 years before Christ; the date of his exodus out of Egypt with the Israelites is laid down as the year 1491 Before Christ, or some 2500 years after the Biblical creation of the world. So, if Moses wrote the account of the creation, the fall of man, the flood, and other notable historical events recorded in Genesis, he wrote of things happening, if ever they happened, 2500 years
more or less before his earthly time, and some of them before even man was created on earth; things which Moses of course could not personally have known. But it is explained that while this is true, yet Yahveh inspired Moses with a true knowledge or “revelation” of all those things unknown to him, and so what he wrote was revealed historical fact. This is a matter which will be noticed a little later.
But the Book of Genesis, and all the Five Books of Moses, contain many matters of “revealed” fact which occurred, if ever at all many hundreds of years after the death of Moses. Moses is not technically “numbered among the Prophets,” and he does not claim for himself to have been inspired both backwards and forwards, so as to write both past and future history. It is evident therefore, by every internal and human criterion, that these “five Books of Moses,” containing not only the past events referred to, but many future events-not in form of
prophecy, but as past occurrences — could not have been written by Moses, the principal character of the alleged Exodus and of the forty years’ wandering in the Wilderness of Sin, at the end of which he died. The cardinal significance of this fact, and of others connected with it, as bearing upon the historicity of Mosaic narrative and revelation, will appear in due course.
Indeed, in the light of modern knowledge, it is quite evident that Moses and the “Hebrews” of his supposed time (1500 B.C.) could not write at all; or, if at all, on the theory of their 430 years in Egypt, only in Egyptian hieroglyphs. Not till many centuries later did the Hebrews acquire the art of writing. Professor Breasted, the distinguished Egyptologist of the University of Chicago, points out that to the nomad Hebrews writing was unknown; and that it was not until about the time of Amos (about eight hundred years after Moses) that the Hebrews were just “learning to write”; that “they were now abandoning the clay tablet, and they wrote on papyrus with Egyptian pen and ink. They borrowed their alphabet from the Phoenician and Aramean merchants.” [James H. Breasted, Ancient Times (Boston: Ginn & Co.), see. 305] These Arameans themselves
borrowed the alphabet from the Phoenicians “about 1000 B.C.”; [Op. cit., see. 205.] the Phoenicians had
themselves “devised an alphabet drawn from Egyptian hieroglyphs.” [Op. cit., see. 400; see also Andrew
Norton, The Pentateuch, p. 44.]

Read Full Post »

The information in this German White Book contains alleged documents that record events as they transpired in those last weeks before Adolph Hitler realized there was no way to avoid war.

The masters who controlled the British Prime Minister, French President, Polish President, etc. would not tolerate a peace being negotiated. They MUST have this war, or their Plan for World Dominion is waylaid for a time. We say waylaid, because it’s become clear they’ve never stopped, regardless the setbacks or holdups, and today the beat goes on.

Researchers/authors whose work has been suppressed have confirmed the information herein.

Jackie

July 9th, 2003

______________________________________________

GERMAN WHITE BOOK

DOCUMENTS

Concerning the Last Phase

of the

German-Polish Crisis

GERMAN LIBRARY OF INFORMATION

NEW YORK

The original German white Book, “Documents Concerning the Last Phase of the German-Polish Crisis”, is not available to students of international affairs in the United States in adequate quantities, owing to illicit British interferences with the mails.

The German Library of Information, therefore, issues a reprint of the original for the benefit of such students, with a prefatory note disposing of certain widely-circulated allegations made in the British Blue Book.

Further copies may be obtained from the German Library of Information, 17 battery Place, New York.

______________________________________________

INDEX

Note on the German white Book

I.  The Last Phase of the German-Polish Crisis

II.  Documents

1.  First Note from the Diplomatic Representative of the Republic of Poland in the Free City of Danzig to the President of the Senate of the Free City of Danzig, August 4, 1939.  12

2.  Second Note from the diplomatic Representative of the Republic of Poland to the President of the Senate of the Free City of Danzig, August 4, 1939

3.  Reply of the President of the Senate of the Free City of Danzig to the Diplomatic Representative of the Republic of Poland, August 7, 1939

4.  Communication from the Secretary of State in the German Foreign Office to the Polish Charge d’Affairs in Berlin, August 9, 1939

5.  Communication from the Under-Secretary of State in the Polish Foreign Office to the German Charge d’Affairs in Warsaw, August 10, 1939

6.  Letter from the British Prime Minister to the Fuhrer, Aug. 22, 1939

7.  Fuhrer’s Reply to the British Prime Minister, August 23, 1939

8. Declaration made by the Fuhrer to the British Ambassador on  August 25, 1939, at 1:30 p. m.

9.  Letter of the French Premier to the Fuhrer, August 26, 1939

10. The Fuhrer’s letter of reply to the French premier, August 27, 1939

11. Memorandum from British Government handed to Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs by the British Ambassador on August 28, 1939, at 10:30 p.m

12. The Fuhrer’s reply to the British Government handed to the British Ambassador august 29, 1939 at 6:45 p.m

13. Telephone Message from the German charge d’Affairs in Warsaw to the German Foreign Office on August 30, 1939 at 5:30 p. m.

14.  Memorandum from the British Government handed to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs by the British Ambassador on August 30, 1939, at midnight.

15.  Official German Statement published on August 31, 1939, at 9 p.m. containing the Proposal for a settlement of the Danzig and the Polish Corridor Problem, as well as of the question concerning the German and Polish Minorities.

16.  Announcement made by the Polish Broadcasting Station at Warsaw on August 31, 1939, at 11 p.m.

17.  Speech delivered by the Fuhrer before the Reichstag on September 1, 1939

18.  Note handed to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs by the British Ambassador on September 1, 1939, at 9:30 p. m.

19.  Note handed to the Reich Minister for foreign Affairs by the French Ambassador on September 1, 1939, at 10 p. m.

20. Communication handed to the German Foreign Office by the Italian Ambassador on the morning of September 2, 1939.

21.  Information from the Havas news Agency on September 2, 1939

22.  Extract from a Declaration made by the British Secretary of State for Foreign affairs in the House of Lords on the afternoon of September 2, 1939

23.  Note handed to the German Foreign Office by the British Ambassador on September 3, 1939, at 9 a.m.

24. Note from the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs handed to the German Charge d’Affairs in London on September 3, 1939, at 11:a5 a.m.

25.  Memorandum from the German Government handed to the British Ambassador by the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs, September 3, 1939, at 11:30 a.m.

26. Note handed to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs by the French Ambassador on September 3, 1939, at 12.20 p.m.

_______________________________________________________

 Note on the German White Book

The German White Book, presented herewith, is a collection of official documents and speeches, not a collection of uncontrollable conversations. It does not pretend to cover the entire field of German-Polish relations but, as the title implies, concerns itself solely with the last phase of the German-Polish crisis, from August 4th to September 3rd, 1939.

the Polish-german controversy concerning the Corridor, Upper Silesia and Danzig, began in 1919; it has never, since the signing of the Versailles Treaty, ceased to agitate europe. For many years intelligent commentators and statesmen of all nations, including Great Britain, agreed that the separation of East Prussia from the Reich and, indeed, the whole Polish settlement, was unjust and fraught with danger.

Germany, again and again, made attempts to solve the differences between the two countries in a friendly spirit. It was only when all negotiations proved vain and Poland joined the encirclement front against Germany, that chancellor Hitler cut the Gordian knot with the sword. It was England that forced the sword into his hand.

Great Britain asserts in her Blue Book and elsewhere that she was compelled to “guaranty” Poland against “aggression” for reason of international morality. Unfortunately the British Government subsequently admitted (Under-Secretary of State Butler, House of Commons, October 19, 1939) that the “guaranty” was aimed solely against Germany.

It was not valid in case of conflicts with other powers. In other words, the British “guaranty” was merely a link in the British encirclement chain. The Polish crisis was deliberately manufactured by Great Britain with the connivance of Poland: it was the fuse designed to set off the explosion!

Great Britain naturally attempts to becloud this fact. Official British statements on the outbreak of the war place great emphasis on the allegation that England did not give a formal “guaranty” to Poland until March 31, 193, whereas the German demand on Poland, which Poland rejected, was made on march 21st. Britain contends that the British “guaranty” was merely the consequence of the German demand of March 21st.

Britain denies that her “guaranty” stiffened Polish resistance. She insists that Germany took advantage of a moment of highly strained international tension by springing upon Poland her demand for an extra-territorial road through the Corridor between the Reich and East Prussia.

The British ignore a vital fact in this connection. The existence of the “guaranty”, not its formal announcement, was the decisive factor. The future may reveal when the British promise was first dangled before Poland. In any event, Poland was assured of British aid before March 21st.

Chamberlain’s speech of march 17, 1939, and the statement by Lord Halifax of March 20th, (both reprinted in the British Blue Book) leave no doubt on that question. The British “guaranty” was in the nature of a blank check. Poland did not know when she marched to her doom, that the check would not be honored.

The allegations that the Poles were surprised or overwhelmed by the German proposals, does not hold water. Poland was fully informed of the German demands. When as Herr von Ribbentrop points out in his Danzig speech (October 24, 1939) chancellor Hitler in 1934 concluded a Friendship and Non-Aggression Pact with Marshal Pilsudski, it was clearly understood that the problem of Danzig and the Corridor must be solved sooner or later. Chancellor Hitler hoped that it would be solved within the framework of that instrument.

Poland callously disregarded her obligations under the German-Polish Pact, after the death of Marshal Pilsudski. The persecution of German minorities in Poland, Poland’s measures to strangle Danzig economically, the insolent manner the Polish Government chose to adopt with the British blank check in its pocket and the Polish mobilization frustrated chancellor Hitler’s desire to settle Polish-German differences by peaceful negotiation, as he had solved every other problem arising from the bankruptcy of statesmanship at Versailles.

No one can affirm that the National Socialist Government did not attempt with extraordinary patience to impress upon Poland the desirability of a prompt and peaceful solution. The Polish Government was familiar with the specific solution proposed by Chancellor Hitler since October 24, 1938. The nature of the German proposals was discussed at least four times between the two governments before March 21, 1939.

On October 24, 1938, von Ribbentrop, the German foreign Minister, proposed to the Polish Ambassador, Lipski, four steps to rectify the injustice of Versailles and to eliminate all sources of friction between the two countries.

1).  The return of the Free City of Danzig to the Reich, without severance of its economic ties to the Polish State. (The arrangement vouchsafed to Poland free port privileges and extra-territorial access to the harbor.)

2.)  An exterritorial [sic] route of communication through the Corridor by rail and motor to reunite Germany and East Prussia.

3.)  Mutual recognition by the two States of their frontiers as final and, if necessary, a mutual guaranty of their territories.

4.)  The extension of the German-Polish Pact of 1934 from ten to twenty-five years.

On January 5, 1939, Poland’s Foreign Minister, Josef Beck, conferred with the German chancellor on the problems involved.  At this time Chancellor Hitler offered Beck a clear and definite guaranty covering the Corridor, on the basis of the four points outlined by von Ribbentrop.  The following day, January 6th, at Munich, the German Foreign Minister once more confirmed Germany’s willingness to guaranty, not only the Corridor, but all Polish territory.

The generous offer for a settlement along these line, liquidating all friction between the two countries, was reiterated when Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop paid a state visit to Warsaw (January 23rd to 17th, 1939). On that occasion von Ribbentrop again offered a guaranty of the Polish-German boundaries and a final all-inclusive settlement of German-Polish relations.

Under the circumstances it is absurd to allege that Poland was “surprised” by the German proposal of March 21st, and subsequent developments.  It is possible that Poland may have concealed Germany’s friendly and conciliatory offers from Paris and London.  With or without British promptings, Poland prepared the stage for a melodramatic scene, in which the German villain brutally threatened her sovereignty and her independence.

In spite of Polish intransigence, culminating in threats of war, Chancellor Hitler made one more desperate attempt to prevent the conflict.  He called for a Polish plenipotentiary to discuss the solution presented in Document 15 of the German White book. This solution envisaged the return of Danzig to the Reich, the protection of Polish and German minorities, a plebiscite in the Corridor under neutral auspices, safeguarding, irrespective of the result, Poland’s unimpeded exterritorial access to the sea.

The British are please to describe this reasonable document as an “ultimatum”. This is a complete distortion of the facts.  The German government, it is true, had set a time-limit (August 30th) for the acceptance of its proposal, but it waited twenty-four hours after its expiration before concluding that the possibilities of diplomatic negotiations had been exhausted. There was ample opportunity for England and Poland to act within those twenty-four hours.

The British take the position that Germany’s demands were not known either in Warsaw or London.  That pretense is demolished by the British Blue Book itself, for we find here a dispatch from Sir Nevile Henderson, the British Ambassador to Berlin, which leaves no doubt that he relayed the German proposal to London after his midnight conference with von Ribbentrop on August 30th, and that he understood the essential points of the German proposal. Henderson even transmitted to the British Government Chancellor Hitler’s assurance that the Polish negotiator would be received as a matter of course on terms of complete equality with the courtesy and consideration due to the emissary of a sovereign state.

Henderson sent his night message not only to Downing Street, but also to the British Embassy in Warsaw. There is evidence, which has recently come into the possession of the German Foreign Office that, in spite of all its protestations of ignorance and helplessness, the British Cabinet communicated the substance of Henderson’s midnight conversation with the German Foreign Minister directly to the Polish Government. The London Daily Telegraph, in a late edition of August 31st, printed the following statement:

“At the Cabinet Meeting yesterday, at which the terms of the British Note were approved, it was decided to send a massage to Warsaw, indicating the extent of the latest demands from Berlin for the annexation of territory”.

This item appeared only in a few issues. It was suppressed in later editions.

Germany’s demands were so reasonable that no sane Polish Government would have dared to reject them. They certainly would have been accepted if England had advised moderation. There was one more chance to preserve peace on September 2nd. It was offered by a message from Premier Mussolini (Document 20). The Italian suggestion was acceptable to Germany and France (Document 21). but was rejected by Great Britain (Document 22).

—————————————————————

I

THE LAST PHASE

of the German-Polish Crisis

(pp.7-12)

Appended to this are printed the documents which were exchanged during the last days before the beginning of the German defensive action against Poland and the intervention of the western Powers, or which in any other respect refer to these events. These documents, when shortly recapitulated, give the following general survey:

1).   At the beginning of August the Reich Government was informed of an exchange of notes between the representative of Poland in Danzig and the Senate of the Free City (Danzig), according to which the Polish Government in the form of a short-term ultimatum and under threat of retaliatory measures had demanded the withdrawal of an alleged order of the Senate — an order which, in fact, had never been issued — concerning the activities of Polish customs inspectors (Documents 1 to 3).

This caused the Reich Government to inform the Polish Government, on August 9th, that a repetition of such demands in the form of an ultimatum would lead to an aggravation of the relations between Germany and Poland, for the consequences of which the Polish government would alone be responsible.

At the same time, the attention of the Polish Government was drawn to the fact that the maintenance of the economic measures adopted by Poland against Danzig would force the Free City to seek other export and import possibilities (Document 4).

The Polish government answered this communication from the Reich Government with an aide-Memoire of August 10th, handed to the German Embassy in Warsaw, which culminated in the statement that Poland would interpret every intervention of the Reich Government in Danzig matters, which might endanger Polish rights and interests there, as an aggressive action (Document 5).

2).   On August 22nd, the British Prime Minister, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, acting under the impression of announcements of the impending conclusion of a Non-Aggression Pact between Germany and the U.S.S.R., sent a personal letter to the Fuhrer. Here he expressed on the one hand the firm determination of the British Government to fulfill its pledged obligations to Poland, on the other hand, the view that it was most advisable in the first instance to restore an atmosphere of confidence and then to solve the German-Polish problems through negotiations terminating in a settlement which should be internationally guaranteed (Document 6).

The Fuhrer, in his reply of August 23rd, set forth the real causes of the German-Polish crisis.

He referred in particular to the generous proposal made by him in March of this year and stated that the false reports spread by England at that time regarding a German mobilization against Poland, the equally incorrect assertions about Germany’s aggressive intentions towards Hungary and Roumania and, finally, the guarantee given by England and France to the Polish Government had encouraged the Polish Government not only to decline the German offer but to let loose a wave of terror against the Germans domiciled in Poland and to strangle Danzig economically. At the same time, the Fuhrer declared that Germany would not let herself be kept back from protecting her vital rights by any methods of intimidation whatsoever (Document 7).

3).   Although the above-mentioned letter from the British Prime Minister of August 22nd, as well as speeches made on the subsequent day by British statesmen, showed a complete lack of understanding for the German standpoint, the Fuhrer nevertheless resolved to make a fresh attempt to arrive at an understanding with England.

On August 25th, he received the British Ambassador, once more with complete frankness explained to him his conception of the situation, and communicated to him the main principles of comprehensive and far-sighted agreement between Germany and England which he would offer to the British Government once the problem of Danzig and the Polish Corridor was settled (Document 8).

4).   while the British government were discussing the preceding declaration from the Fuhrer, and exchange of letters took place between the French President, M. Daladier, and the Fuhrer. In his answer the Fuhrer again submitted his reasons for Germany’s standpoint in the German Polish question and once more repeated his firm decision to regard the present Franco-German frontier as final (Documents 9 and 10).

5).   In their answer to the step taken by the Fuhrer on August 25th, which was handed over on the evening of August 28th, the British Government declared themselves prepared to consider the proposal for a revision of Anglo-German relationships. They further stated that a they had received a definite assurance from the Polish Government that they were prepared to enter into direct discussions with the reich Government on German-Polish questions.

At the same time they repeated that in their opinions a German-Polish settlement must be safeguarded by international guarantees (Document 11).

Despite grave misgivings arising from the whole of Poland’s previous attitude and despite justifiable doubts in a sincere willingness on the part of the Polish Government for a direct settlement, the Fuhrer, in his answer handed to the British Ambassador on the afternoon of August 29th, accepted the British proposal and declared that the Reich Government awaited the arrival of a Polish representative invested with plenipotentiary powers on August 30th. At the same time the Fuhrer announced that the Reich Government would immediately draft proposals for a solution acceptable to them and would, if possible, have these ready for the British Government before the Polish negotiator arrived (Document 12).

6).   In the course of August 30th, neither a Polish negotiator with plenipotentiary powers nor any communication from the British Government about steps undertaken by them reached Berlin. On the contrary, it was on this day that the Reich Government were informed of the ordering of a general Polish mobilization (document 13).

Only at midnight did the British Ambassador hand over a new memorandum which, however, failed to disclose any practical progress in the treatment of Polish-German questions and confined itself to a statement that the Fuhrer’s answer of the preceding day was to be communicated to the Polish Government and that the British Government considered it impracticable to establish a German-Polish contact so early as on August 30th (Document 14).

7).   Although the non-appearance of the Polish negotiator had done away with the conditions under which the British government were to be informed of the Reich government’s conception of the basis on which negotiations might be possible, the proposals since formulated by the Reich were none the less communicated and explained in detail to the British Ambassador when he handed over the above-mentioned memorandum.

The Reich Government expected that now at any rate, subsequently to this, a Polish plenipotentiary would be appointed. Instead, the Polish Ambassador in Berlin made a verbal declaration to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs on the afternoon of August 31st, to the effect that the Polish Government had been informed in the preceding night by the British government that there was a possibility of direct negotiations between the Reich Government and the Polish Government, and that the Polish Government were favorably considering the British proposal.

When expressly asked by the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he had the authority to negotiate on the German proposals, the Ambassador stated that he was not entitled to do so, but had merely been instructed to make the foregoing verbal declaration. A further question from the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he could enter into an objective discussion on the matter was expressly denied by the Ambassador.

8).   The Reich Government thus were confronted with the fact that they had spent two days waiting in vain for a Polish plenipotentiary. On the evening of August 31st, they published the German proposals with a short account of the events leading up to them (Document 15).

These proposals were described as unacceptable by Polish broadcast (Document 16).

9).   Now that every possibility for a peaceful settlement of the Polish-German crisis was thus exhausted, the Fuhrer saw himself compelled to resist by force the force which the Poles had long employed against Danzig, against the Germans in Poland, and finally, by innumerable violations of the frontier, against Germany.

10).   On the evening of September 1st, the Ambassadors of Great Britain and France handed to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs two notes couched in the same terms in which they demanded that Germany should withdraw her troops from Polish territory, and declared that if this demand were not conceded, their respective Governments would fulfill their obligations to Poland without further delay (Documents 18 and 19).

11).   In order to banish the menace of war, which had come dangerously close in consequence of these two notes, the Duce made a proposal for an armistice and a subsequent conference for the settlement of the German-Polish conflict (Document 20).

The Germans and the French Government replied in the affirmative to this proposal whilst the British Government refused to accept it (Documents 21 and 11).

That this was so was already apparent in the speeches made by the British Prime Minister and the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the afternoon of September 2nd in the British Houses of Parliament, and a communication to that effect was made to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs by the Italian Ambassador on the evening of September 2nd. Thus also in the opinion of the Italian Government the initiative of the Duce had been wrecked by England.

12).   On September 3rd, at 9 a.m., the British Ambassador arrived at the German Foreign Office and handed over a note in which the British Government, fixing a time limit of two hours, repeated their demand for a withdrawal of the German troops and, in the event of a refusal, declared themselves to be at war with Germany after this time limit had expired (Document 23).

The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on September 3rd, 1939, at 11:15 a. m. delivered a note to the German Charge d’Affairs in London in which he informed him that a state of war existed between the two countries as from 11 a. m. on September 3rd (Document 24).

On the same day, at 11:30 a. m. the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs handed to the British Ambassador in Berlin a memorandum from the Reich Government in which the Reich rejected the demands expressed by the British Government in the form of an ultimatum and in which it was proved that the responsibility for the outbreak of war rested solely with the British Government (Document 25).

On the afternoon of September 3rd, the French Ambassador in Berlin called on the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs and inquired whether the Reich government were in a position to give a satisfactory answer to the question directed to them by the French government in their note of September 1st. The Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs told the Ambassador that after the English and French Notes of September had been handed to him, the Head of the Italian Government had made a new intermediary proposal, to which the Duce had added, the French Government had agreed.

The Reich Government had informed the Duce on the preceding day that they were also prepared to accept the proposal.

The Duce however had informed them later on in the day that his proposal had been wrecked by the intransigent attitude of the British Government.

The British Government several hours previously had presented German with an ultimatum which had been rejected on the German side by a memorandum which he, the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs, would hand over to the French Ambassador for his information.

Should the attitude of France towards Germany be determined by the same considerations as that of the British Government, the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs could only regret this fact.  Germany had always sought understanding with France. Should the French Government, despite this fact adopt a hostile attitude towards Germany on account of their obligations towards Poland, the German people would regard this as a totally unjustifiable aggressive war on the part of France against the Reich.

The French Ambassador replied that he understood from the remarks of the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs that the Reich Government were not in a position to give a satisfactory answer to the French Note of September 1st. Under these circumstances he had the unpleasant task of informing the Reich Government that the French Government were forced to fulfill the obligations which they had entered into towards Poland, from September 3rd at 5 p.m. onwards.

The French Ambassador at the same time handed over a corresponding written communication (CF, Document 26).

The Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs thereupon declared in conclusion the the French Government would bear the full responsibility for the suffering which the nations would have to bear if France attacked Germany.

II

Documents

Documents 1 through 8 (of 26)

1.   First Note from the Diplomatic Representative of the Republic of Poland in the Free City of Danzig to the President of the Senate of the Free City of Danzig, august 4, 1939

(Translation)

Danzig, August 4, 1939.

I learn that the local Danzig customs officials posted on the frontier between the Free City of Danzig and East Prussia have declared in an unprecedented statement to the Polish customs officials, that the Danzig executives intend from 7 o’clock a. m. on august 6th onwards to oppose a certain number of Polish inspectors in the exercise of their normal duties, which functions are a part of the prerogatives of the Polish government on the customs frontier. I am convinced that this act on the part of the local authorities depends either on a misunderstanding or on an erroneous interpretation of the instructions of the Senate of the Free city of Danzig.

I am fully convinced that you, Mr. President of the Senate, can have no doubt that this infringement of the fundamental rights of Poland will on no pretext whatever be tolerated by the Polish Government.

I await, by august 5th at 6 p. m. at the latest, your answer with the assurance that you have given instructions cancelling the action of your subordinates.

In view of the fact that the above-mentioned action is one of a series which have taken place on the frontier, I am forced to warn you, mr. president of the Senate, that all Polish customs inspectors have received the order to appear for duty in uniform and bearing arms, on August 6th of the current year and on subsequent days, at every point on the frontier which they consider necessary for examination of the customs.

Every attempt made to hinder them in the exercise of their duties, every attack or intervention on the part of the police will be regarded by the Polish Government as an act of violence against the officials of the Polish State in the pursuance of their duties.

If the above-mentioned illegal actions should take place, the Polish Government will take retaliatory measures (retorsions) without delay against the Free City, as the responsibility for them will rest entirely on the Senate of the Free City.

I hope to receive a satisfactory explanation before the above-mentioned date.

(signed): CHODACKI,

Diplomatic Representative of the Republic of Poland.

________________________________________

2.   Second Note from the Diplomatic Representative of the Republic of Poland to the President of the Senate of the Free City of Danzig, August 4, 1939

(Translation)

Danzig, August 4, 1939.

Mr. President of the Senate:

The Polish Government beg to express its astonishment at the fact that the Senate should find technical difficulties in replying to so simple a matter. In the interest of avoiding threatening consequences, I note for the time being that no act of violence will be undertaken against our customs inspectors and that they will be able to proceed in a normal way with their duties. I must repeat nevertheless that the admonitions contained in my note of August 4th, 11:40 p. m. remain in force.

I beg to remain. . .

(signed): CHODACKI

To

His Excellency, Herr Arthur Greiser,

President of the Senate of the Free City of Danzig

_____________________________________________

3.   Reply of the President of the Senate of the Free City of Danzig to the Diplomatic Representative of the Republic of Poland, August 7, 1939.

(Translation)

Danzig, August 7, 1939

His Excellency

The Diplomatic Representative of the Republic of Poland.

M. Chodacki, Minister with plenipotentiary powers,

Danzig.

Sir:

In reply to your two notes dated the 4th of this month, the second of which I received on August 5th, I must express my astonishment to you that you should make a completely unverified rumor a pretext for sending the Danzig Government a short-term ultimatum from the Polish Government, and thus in this time of political unrest conjure up unfounded danger which may result in inconceivable disaster.

The sudden decree of the Polish Government that all Polish customs officials on duty are to appear in uniform and bearing arms, is a breach of the arrangement agreed upon and can be understood only as an intentional provocation to bring about incidents and acts of violence of the most dangerous nature.

According to facts which I have since ascertained and concerning which I immediately telephoned to you on Saturday morning, the 5th inst., no order announcing that the Danzig executives from August 6th at 7 a. m. onwards are to oppose a certain number of Polish inspectors in the exercise of their normal duties has been issued from an office, certainly not from any administrative quarter of the Customs Office of the Free City of Danzig.

I refer you further to my note of June 3rd of this year, in which I already carefully defined the relationship of the Danzig customs officials and the Polish customs inspectors on the frontier.

The Danzig Government protest with great energy against the threatened retorsions of the Polish Government which they regard as an absolutely inadmissible threat and the consequences of which will devolve on the Polish Government alone.

I beg to remain. . .

(signed): GREISER

__________________________________________________

4.   Communication from the Secretary of State in the German Foreign Office to the Polish Charge d’Affairs in Berlin, August 9, 1939.

(Translation)

Berlin, August 9, 1939.

The Reich Government have received with great astonishment information of the note of the Polish Government to the Senate of the Free City of danzig, in which a demand was made in the form of an ultimatum to revoke an alleged decree intended to hinder the Polish customs inspectors in the exercise of their normal duties (which decree, however, was based on unfounded rumors, and in reality had never been issued by the Senate of the Free City of Danzig). In case of a refusal, the Free City of Danzig was threatened with retaliatory measures.

The Reich Government see themselves obliged to point out to the Polish Government that the repetition of such a demand, in the form of an ultimatum, to the Free City of Danzig and the threat of retaliatory measures would lead to greater tension in the relationship between Germany and Poland, and that the responsibility of such consequences would devolve exclusively on the Polish Government, the German Government already now declining all responsibility for them.

The German Government further draw the attention of the Polish Government to the fact that the measures taken by the Polish Government to prevent the import of certain goods from the Free City of Danzig to Poland are likely to bring about serious economic loss to the population of Danzig.

Should the Polish Government insist on further lending their support to such measures, there would, in the opinion of the Reich Government, be no choice left to the Free City of Danzig, as matters lie, but to seek other export and consequently import possibilities.

_____________________________________________________

5.   Communication from the Under-Secretary of State in the Polish Foreign Office to the German Charge d’Affairs in Warsaw, August 10, 1939.

(Translation)

     With the greatest surprise ‘the Government of the Republic of Poland have taken note of the declaration given in Berlin on August 9, 1939, by the Secretary of State in the German Foreign Office to the Charge d’Affairs a.i. of Poland on the relations existing between Poland and the Free City of Danzig. The Polish Government in fact cannot perceive any legal foundation justifying Germany to interfere in the above-mentioned relations.

Whatever discussions on the Danzig problem may have taken place between the Polish Government and the Government of the Reich, these had their foundation merely in the good will of the Government and did not arise out of any obligation whatsoever.

In reply to the aforesaid declaration of the Government of the Reich, the Polish Government are compelled to point out to the German Government that, as hitherto, they will in the future oppose by such means and measures as the Polish Government alone consider adequate, any attempt made by the authorities of the Free City of Danzig to jeopardize the rights and interests that Poland possesses in Danzig, on the basis of the agreement to which she is a part, and that the Polish Government will consider as an aggressive act any possible intervention of the Government of the Reich which may endanger these rights and interests.

________________________________________________________

6.   Letter from the British Prime Minister to the Fuhrer, August 22, 1939.

10. downing Street, Whitehall,

August 22, 1939.

Your Excellency:

Your Excellency will have already heard of certain measures taken by His Majesty’s Government, and announced in the press and on the wireless this evening.

These steps have, in the opinion of His Majesty’s'y Government, been rendered necessary by the military movements which have been reported from Germany, and by the fact that apparently the announcement of a German-Soviet Agreement is taken in some quarters in Berlin to indicate that intervention by Great Britain on behalf of Poland is no longer a contingency that need be reckoned with.

No greater mistake could be made. Whatever may prove to be the nature of the German-Soviet Agreement, it cannot alter Great Britain’s obligation to Poland which His Majesty’s Government have stated in public repeatedly and plainly, and which they are determined to fulfill.

it has been alleged that, if His Majesty’s Government had made their position more clear in 1914, the great catastrophe would have been avoided. Whether or not there is any force in that allegation, His Majesty’s Government are resolved that on this occasion there shall be no such tragic misunderstanding.

If the case should arise, they are resolved, and prepared, to employ without delay all the forces at their command, and it is impossible to foresee the end of hostilities once engaged. It would be a dangerous illusion to think that, if war once starts, it will come to an early end even if a success on any one of the several fronts on which it will be engaged should have been secured.

Having thus made our position perfectly clear, I wish to repeat to you my conviction that war between our two peoples would be the greatest calamity that could occur. I am certain that it is desired neither by our people, nor by yours, and I cannot see that there is anything in the questions arising between Germany and Poland which could not and should not be resolved without the use of force, if only a situation of confidence could be restored to enable discussions to be carried on in an atmosphere different from that which prevails today.

We have been, and at all times will be, ready to assist in creating conditions in which such negotiations could take place, and in which it might be possible concurrently to discuss the wider problems affecting the future of international relations, including matters of interest to us and to you.

The difficulties in the way of any peaceful discussion in the present state of tension are, however, obvious, and the longer that tension is maintained, the harder will it be for reason to prevail.

These difficulties, however, might be mitigated, if not removed, provided that there could for an initial period be a truce on both sides — and indeed on all sides — to press polemics and to all incitement.

If such a truce could be arranged, then, at the end of that period, during which steps could be taken to examine and deal with complaints made by either side as to the treatment of minorities, it is reasonable to hope that suitable conditions might have been established for direct negotiations between Germany and Poland upon the issues between them (with the aid of a neutral intermediary, if both sides should think that that would be helpful).

But I am bound to say that there would be slender hope of bringing such negotiations to successful issue unless it were understood beforehand that any settlement reached would, when concluded, be guaranteed by other Powers. His Majesty’s Government would be ready, if desired, to make such contribution as they could to the effective operation of such guarantees.

At this moment I confess I can see no other way to avoid a catastrophe that will involve Europe in war.

In view of the grave consequences to humanity, which may follow from the action of their rulers, I trust that Your Excellency will weigh with the utmost deliberation the considerations which I have put before you.

(Signed): NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN.

___________________________________________

7.   The Fuhrer’s Letter in reply to the British Prime Minister, August 23, 1939.

(Translation)

August 23, 1939.

Your Excellency:

The Ambassador to His Britannic Majesty has just handed me a note in which Your Excellency, in the name of the British Government, has drawn attention to a number of points, which, in your opinion, are of extreme importance.

I beg to reply to your note as follows:

1.   Germany has never sought to enter into conflict with Great Britain nor at any time interfered where British interests were concerned. On the contrary, Germany has for many years, although unfortunately without success, attempted to gain the friendship for Great Britain. For this reason, Germany voluntarily undertook a restriction of her own interests throughout a large area in Europe which would otherwise have been difficult to justify from a national political point of view.

2.   The German Reich, however, has, like every other state, certain interests which it is impossible for it to renounce and which lie within the category which Germany’s past history and her economic necessities have rendered of vital importance. Certain of these problems were, and are, of the utmost importance to any German Government bot, from a national political and from a psychological point of view.

One  of these problems is that of the German City of Danzig and the problem of the Polish Corridor connected therewith. Only a few years ago this fact was recognized by numerous statesmen, by authorities in historical research and literary men, even in England.

I should like to add that the civilization of all those areas which come within the sphere of German interests aforementioned, and especially those provinces which have returned to the Reich within the past eighteen months, was developed not by Englishmen but exclusively by Germans, and, in part, during a period of history which covers more than the last thousand years.

3.   Germany was prepared to settle the problem of Danzig and of the Polish Corridor by a very generous proposal, made once for all, and by means of negotiations. The assertions disseminated by Great Britain with regard to the mobilization of German troops against Poland, the assertion concerning aggressive intentions with regard to Roumania, Hungary, etc., as also the more recent so-called guarantees given to Poland, effectually destroyed any inclinations on the part of Poland to negotiate on a basis which would at the same time be acceptable to germany.

4.    The general assurance given by Great Britain to Poland that Great Britain would support Poland in case of conflict in any circumstance, irrespective of the causes giving rise to such conflict, could only be regarded here as an incitement to let loose, under cover of what might be termed a bland cheque, a wave of unspeakable terror against the one and a half million Germans domiciled in Poland.

The atrocities which have taken place there since that time were terrible indeed for those on whom they were inflicted, but intolerable for the German Reich, which, as one of the Great Powers, was expected to watch them idly.

In regard to the Free city of Danzig, Poland has, on countless occasions, infringed its rights, sent demands which were in the nature of an ultimatum and begun a process of economic strangulation.

5.     The Reich government informed the Polish government a short time ago that they were not inclined to accept these developments in silence, that they would not tolerate the dispatch of further notes couched in the form of an ultimatum to Danzig, that they would not tolerate a continuance of acts of violence inflicted on the German section of the population, nor would they tolerate the ruin of the Free City of Danzig by means of economic pressure, that is to say, the destruction of the very existence of the population of Danzig by a form of customs blockade, nor would they tolerate the continuance of such acts of provocation against the Reich. Regardless of the above, a solution must and will be found for the problem of Danzig and of the Polish Corridor.

6.   Your Excellency informs me in the name of the British Government that in the event of any act of interference on the part of Germany, you will be compelled to support Poland. I have taken due note of your statement and can assure you that it can in no way shake the determination of the Reich government to protect the interests of the Reich as set forth in Section 5.

I likewise agree with your assurance that the ensuing war would, in this case, be a long one. If Germany is attacked by Britain, she is prepared and determined to fight.

I have often declared to the German people and to the whole world that there can be no doubts as to the determination of the New German Reich to accept privation and misfortune in any form and at any time rather than sacrifice her national interests or even her honor.

7.   The Reich Government have received information of the fact that the British Government intend to carry out mobilization measures, which in their nature are solely directed against Germany, as is stated in Your Excellency’s note addressed to me. This is stated also to apply to France.

As Germany never intended to adopt military measures other than those of a purely defensive nature against either Great Britain or France and, as has already been emphasized, never intended nor in the future intends to attack either Great Britain or France, the announcement which Your Excellency confirmed in your note can only constitute an intended threat against the Reich. I must therefore, inform Your Excellency that in the event of such military measures being taken, I shall order the immediate mobilization of the German armed forces.

8.   The question of a settlement of European problems in a peaceful spirit cannot be decided by Germany but chiefly by those who, since the crime of the Treaty of Versailles was committed, have steadily and obstinately opposed any peaceful revision of its terms.

Only a change of attitude on the part of the Powers responsible for the Treaty can bring about a change for the better in the existing relations between Britain and Germany.

During my whole life-time I have struggled to achieve a friendship between Britain and Germany, but the attitude adopted by British diplomacy, up to the present at least, has served to convince me of the hopelessness of such an attempt. If the future were to bring a change in this respect, none would welcome it more than I.

_________________________________________________

8.   Declaration made by the Fuhrer to the British Ambassador on August 25, 2939, at 1:30 p.m.

(Translation)

     The Fuhrer declared at the outset that the British Ambassador at the close of their last conversation had expressed the hope that it would still prove possible to arrive at an understanding between Germany and England. He, the Fuhrer, had thereupon considered the situation once more and intended today to take a step in regard to England which was to be as decisive as the step taken in regard to Russia, the result of which had been the recent pact.

Yesterday’s meeting of the House of Commons and the speeches made by Mr. chamberlain and Lord Halifax were further reasons why the Fuhrer had again invited the British Ambassador to meet him.

The assertion that Germany wanted to conquer the world was ridiculous.

The British Empire covered a territory of forty million square kilometers, Russia of nineteen million square kilometers, America of nine and a half million square kilometers and Germany of less than 600,000 square kilometers. It was thus quite clear who wanted to conquer the world.

The Fuhrer informed the British Ambassador of the following:

1)  The acts of provocation committed by Poland had become intolerable, irrespective of who might be responsible for them.

If the Polish government contested their responsibility, this merely proved that they themselves had no longer any influence on their military subordinates. In the preceding night twenty-one new frontier incidents had occurred.

On the German side the utmost discipline had been displayed. All the incidents were due to Polish provocation.

Besides this, civil aeroplanes had been fire on. If the Polish Government declared themselves not responsible, this merely proved that they were unable to keep control over their own people.

2)  Germany was resolved under all circumstances to put an end to these Macedonian conditions on her eastern frontier, not only in the interests of law and order but also for the sake of European peace.

3.  The problem of Danzig and the Corridor would have to be solved.

The British Prime Minister had made a speech which had done nothing towards bringing about a change in the German attitude. This speech might, if anything, give rise to a desperate and incalculable war between Germany and england, a war which would cause far greater bloodshed than that of 1914.

In contrast to the last world war, Germany would not have to carry on a war on two fronts. The agreement concluded with Russia was unconditional and represented a turning point in the foreign policy of the Reich for the longest conceivable time. In no circumstance would Russia and Germany again take up arms against one another. Apart from this fact the agreements made with Russia would safeguard Germany, in economic respects also, for a war of the longest duration.

The Fuhrer had always been strongly in favor of Anglo-German understanding. A war between england and Germany could in the most favorable circumstances bring Germany an advantage, but certainly not the slightest gain to England.

the Fuhrer declared that the German-Polish problem had to and would be settled. He was, however, ready and resolved to approach England again, after his settlement, with a generous and comprehensive offer. He himself was a man of great decisions and he would in this case also be capable of a great action. he approved of the British Empire and was prepared to give a personal undertaking for its existence and to stake the might of the German Reich to that end provided that

1)  His Colonial demands, which were limited and could be settled by peaceful negotiations, were fulfilled, for which he was prepared to concede a most protracted time-limit;

2)  that his obligations to Italy remained untouched; in other words the Fuhrer did not expect England to give up her French obligations and could for his part not abandon his Italian obligations;

3)  he wished also to emphasize Germany’s unalterable resolution never again to enter into a conflict with Russia.

The Fuhrer would then be prepared to enter into agreements with Great Britain which, as he had already emphasized, would not only, on the German side, in any case safeguard the existence of the British empire, but if necessary would guarantee German assistance for the British empire, irrespective of where such assistance might be required. The Fuhrer would then also be ready to accept a reasonable limitation of armaments, in accordance with the new political situation and economic requirements. finally the Fuhrer renewed his assurance that he was not interested in western problems and that he did not for one moment consider any frontier correction in the west.

The western line of fortification which had cost billions, was the final frontier of the Reich in the west.

If the British Government would consider these suggestions, they might end in a blessing not only for Germany but also for the British Empire. If the British Government rejected the suggestions, war would be inevitable. In no circumstances, however, would such a war add to the strength of Great Britain. That this was true, the last war had amply proved.

The Fuhrer repeated that he was a man of great decisions to which he felt himself bound, and that this was his final proposal. Immediately after the settlement of the German-Polish question he would approach the British Government with an offer.

German White Book – Documents

Concerning the Last Phase of the German-Polish Crisis

Documents 9 through 13 (of 26)

9.   Letter of the French Premier to the Fuhrer, August 26, 1939

(Translation)

Paris, August 29, 1939.

Your Excellency:

The French Ambassador in Berlin has brought your personal message to my knowledge.

At an hour when you speak of the gravest responsibility which two Heads of Government can be asked to take, namely, that of shedding the blood of two great peoples desiring only peace and work, I owe it to you personally and to our respective nations to state that the fate of peace still rests in your hands.

You cannot doubt my feelings towards Germany, or the friendly feelings of France for your nation. No Frenchman has done more than I have to ensure not only peace between our two peoples, but also sincere cooperation in your own interests as well as in those of Europe and of the world.

Unless you are prepared to credit the French nation with a lower ideal of honor than the one with which I credit the German people, you cannot doubt that France will faithfully fulfill her obligations towards other powers which, like Poland, are, I am convinced, desirous of living at peace with Germany.

Both convictions are fully compatible with one another.

To this day there is nothing which might prevent a peaceful solution of the international crisis in a spirit of honor and dignity for all nations as long as the same will for peace prevails on all sides.

Together with the good will of France I proclaim that of all her allies.  I personally guarantee the readiness always shown by Poland to have mutual recourse to methods of free conciliation such as can be envisaged between the Governments of two sovereign nations. With a perfectly clear conscience I can give you an assurance that among the differences which have arisen between Germany and Poland with regard to the Danzig question, there is not a single one which could not be submitted to such a procedure with a view to finding a just and peaceful solution.

Upon my honor I can also state that in the clear and sincere solidarity of France with Poland and her allies there is nothing that might in any way impair the peaceful disposition of my country. This solidarity has never prevented us from supporting this peaceful disposition in Poland, and it does not do so today.

At so critical a moment I sincerely believe that no noble-minded person could understand how a war of destruction could be waged without a final attempt at a peaceful settlement between Germany and Poland having been undertaken. Your desire for peace could exercise its influence with full determination towards this end without detracting anything from Germany’s honor. As Head of the French Government, desirous of attaining full harmony between the French and the German nation, yet bound on the other hand to Poland by ties of friendship and my pledged word, I am prepared to make every effort that an honorable man can make to bring this endeavor to a successful end.

Like myself you were a soldier in the last war.  You know as well as I do the feelings of disgust and universal condemnation which the destruction caused by war left in the conscience of all nations, irrespective of its issue. The idea which I cherish of your great part as leader of the German nation on the road to peace towards the fulfillment of its tasks in the common effort towards civilization, prompts me to ask you for an answer to this my proposal.

Should French and German blood once more have to flow, just as it did twenty-five years ago, in an even longer and more murderous war, each nation will fight fully confident of its ultimate victory. Yet we can be sure that ruin and barbarity will be the most certain victors.’

(Signed) DALADIER

__________________________________________________

10.   The Fuhrer’s Letter in reply to the French Premier, August 27, 1939.

Berlin, August 27, 1939

Your Excellency:

I appreciate the concern you have expressed.  I have always been equally conscious of the grave responsibility place upon those who must decide the fate of nations. As an ex-soldier, I know as well as you do the horrors of war.  This spirit and knowledge have guided me in a sincere endeavor to remove all causes of conflict between our two nations.

I once told the French people quite frankly that the return of the Saar territory would be the basis for the achievement of this aim. Once that territory was returned I immediately solemnly renounced any further claims which might affect France.

The German people approved of my attitude.  As you were able to see for yourself when you were in Germany last, the German people, conscious of the way they themselves behaved, did not and still do not entertain any animosity or still less hatred against their former brave opponents. On the contrary; once peace was definitely established along our western frontier, there cam an increasing sympathy, at any rate on the part of the German nation — a sympathy markedly demonstrated on many occasions.

The construction of the great western fortifications which have cost and will still cost many billion Marks, is documentary evidence that Germany has accepted and fixed the final frontier of the Reich. In doing so, the German people renounced two provinces which once belonged to the old German Reich, were later on regained at the price of many lives, and were finally defended at the price of still more lives.

Your Excellency will admit that this renunciation was not merely a gesture for tactical reasons but a decision confirmed by all our subsequent measures.

You cannot, Excellency, cite a single instance in which this final settlement of the German frontier in the West has ever been disputed by one line or word.  I believed that by this renunciation and by this attitude every possible cause of conflict between our two nations, which might have led to a repetition of the tragic years of 1914 to 1918, had been eliminated.

This voluntary limitation of German claims in the West cannot however be regarded as an acceptance of the Dictate of Versailles in all other fields.

Year by year I have tried earnestly to achieve the revision of at least the most impossible and most unbearable of all the conditions of this Dictate through negotiation.  This proved impossible.  Many enlightened men of all nations believed and were convinced that revision was bound to come. Whatever objection may be raised against my methods, whatever fault may be found with them, it cannot be overlooked or denied that I succeeded without any more bloodshed in finding solutions which were in many cases satisfactory not only for Germany.

By the manner in which these solutions were accomplished, statesmen of other nations were relieved of their obligation, which they often found impossible to fulfill, of having to accept responsibility for this revision before their own people.

One thing I fee sure Your Excellency will admit, namely, that the revision was bound to come. The Dictate of Versailles was unbearable. No Frenchman with a sense of honor and certainly not you, M. Daladier, would have acted differently in a similar position than I did. I therefore tried to remove this most insane stipulation of the Dictate of Versailles. I made an offer to the Polish Government which actually shocked the German people.

No one but I could have dared to come forward with such a proposal. Therefore I could only make it once. I am firmly convinced that if Poland at that time had been advised to take a sensible course instead of being incited by a wild campaign of the British press against Germany, accompanied by rumors of German mobilization, then Europe would today be able to enjoy a state of profound peace for the next twenty-five years.

Actually, it was the lie about German aggression that excited public opinion in Poland; the Polish Government were handicapped in making necessary and clear decisions and, above all, their judgment on the extent of Poland’s possibilities was clouded by the subsequent promise of a guarantee.

[The guarantee England made to Poland that England would come to Poland's defense if hostilities ensued. It was, as Hitler said, "a blank cheque for the Polish government to continue its abuse and oppression of the Germans caught in that 'country' -- Poland -- that was created at Versailles.]

The Polish Government rejected the proposals.

Firmly convinced that Britain and France would now fight for Poland, Polish public opinion began to raise demands which might best be described as sheer lunacy were they not so extraordinarily dangerous. At that time unbearable terrorism se in; physical and economic oppression of the more than one and a half millions of Germans living in the territories severed from the Reich. I do not intent to speak of the atrocities which have occurred.

Even in Danzig, the outrages committed by the Polish authorities fully created the impression that the city was apparently hopelessly delivered up to the arbitrary action of a power that is foreign to the national character of the city and its population.

May I ask you, M. Daladier, how you as a Frenchman would act if, by the unfortunate ending of a bravely-fought war, one of your provinces were separated by a corridor in the possession of an alien power, and a large city — let us say Marseilles — were prevented from bearing allegiance to France, while Frenchmen in this territory were being persecuted, beaten, maltreated and even murdered in a bestial manner.

You are a Frenchman, M. Daladier, and I therefore know how you would act. I am a German, M. Daladier, and you will not doubt my sense of honor and my sense of duty which make me act in exactly the same way.

If you had to face a calamity such as confronts us, would you, M. Daladier, understand how Germany, for no reason at all, could use her influence to ensure that such a corridor through France should remain?

That the stolen territories should not be returned, and that Marseilles should be forbidden to join France?

I certainly cannot imagine Germany fighting you for such a cause. I, for Germany, renounced our claim to Alsace-Lorraine in order to avoid further bloodshed. Still less would we shed blood in order to maintain such an injustice as I have pictured, which would be as intolerable for you as it would be meaningless for us.

My feelings on everything expressed in your letter, M. Daladier, are the same as yours. Perhaps we, as ex-soldiers, should readily understand each other on many points. Yet I would ask you to appreciate also this: namely, that no nation with a sense of honor can ever give up almost two million people and see them maltreated on its own frontiers.

I therefore formulated a clear demand: Danzig and the Corridor must return to Germany. The Macedonian conditions prevailing along our eastern frontier must cease. I see no possibility of persuading Poland, who deems herself safe from attack by virtue of the guarantees given to her, to agree to a peaceful solution.

Unless we are determined under the circumstances to solve the question one way or the other, I would despair of an honorable future for my country.

If fate decrees that our two peoples should fight one another once more over this question, it would be from different motives. I for my part, M. Daladier, would fight with my people for the reparation of an injustice, while the others would fight for its retention.

This is all the more tragic in view of the fact that many great men of your nation have long since recognized the folly of the solution found in 1919 and the impossibility of keeping it up for ever. I am fully conscious of the grave consequences which such a conflict would involve.  But I think that Poland would suffer most, for whatever the issue of such a war, the Polish State of today would in any case be lost.

That our two peoples should now engage in another murderous war of destruction causes me as much pain as it does you, M. Daladier. Unfortunately, as stated earlier in my letter, I see no possibility open to us of influencing Poland to take a saner attitude and thus to remedy a situation which is unbearable for both the German people and the German Reich.

(signed) ADOLF HITLER.

________________________________________________________

11.   Memorandum from the British Government handed to the Fuhrer by the British Ambassador on August 28, 1939, at 10:30 p. m.

1.   His Majesty’s Government have received the message conveyed to them from the German Chancellor by H.M. Ambassador in Berlin and have considered it with the care which it demands.

They note the Chancellor’s expression of his desire to make friendship the basis of the relations between Germany and the British Empire and they fully share this desire. they believe with him that if a complete and lasting understanding between the two countries could be established it would bring untold blessings to both peoples.

2.   The Chancellor’s message deals with two groups of questions: — those which are the matters now in dispute between Germany and Poland, and those affecting the ultimate relations of Germany and Great Britain.

In connection with these last, His Majesty’s Government observe that the German Chancellor has indicated certain proposals which, subject to one condition, he would be prepared to make to the British Government for a general understanding. These proposals are of course stated in very general form and would require closer definition, but His Majesty’s Government are fully prepared to take them, with some additions, as subjects for discussion and they would be ready, if the differences between Germany and Poland are peacefully composed, to proceed so soon as practicable to such discussion with a sincere desire to reach agreement.

3.     The condition which the German Chancellor lays down is that there must first be a settlement of the differences between Germany and Poland. As to that, His Majesty’s Government entirely agree.  Everything, however, turns upon the nature of the settlement and the method by which it is to be reached. On these points, the importance of which cannot be absent from the Chancellor’s mind, his message is silent, and His Majesty’s Government will be aware that His Majesty’s Government have obligations to Poland by which they are bound and which they intend to honor.

They could not, for any advantage offered to Great Britain, acquiesce in a settlement which put in jeopardy the independence of a State to whom they have given their guarantee.

4.    In the opinion of His Majesty’s Government a reasonable solution for the differences between Germany and Poland could and should be effected by agreement between the two countries on lines which would include the safeguarding of Poland’s essential interest, and they recall that in his speech of the 28th of April last the German Chancellor recognized the importance of these interests to Poland.

But as was stated by the Prime Minister in his letter to the German Chancellor of the 22nd of August, His Majesty’s Government consider it essential for the success of the discussions which would precede the agreement that it should be understood before hand that any settlement arrived at would be guaranteed by other Powers. His Majesty’s Government would be ready if desired to make their contribution to the effective operation of such a guarantee.

In view of His Majesty’s Government it follows that the next step should be the initiation of direct discussions between the German and Polish Governments on a basis which would include the principles stated above, namely the safeguarding of Poland’s essential interests and the securing of the settlement by an international guarantee.

They have already received a definite assurance from the Polish Government that they are prepared to enter into discussions on this basis, and His Majesty’s Government hope the German government would for their part also be willing to agree to this course.

If, as His Majesty’s government hope, such discussion let to agreement the way would be open to the negotiation of that wider and more complete understanding between Great Britain and Germany which both countries desire.

5.   His Majesty’s Government agree with the German Chancellor that one of the principal dangers in the German-Polish situation arises from the report concerning the treatment of minorities. The present state of tension, with its concomitant frontier incidents, reports of maltreatment and inflammatory propaganda, is a constant danger to peace.

It is manifestly a matter of the utmost urgency that all incidents of the kind should be promptly and rigidly suppressed and that unverified reports should not be allowed to circulate, in order that time may be afforded, without provocation on either side, for a full examination of the possibilities of settlement. His Majesty’s Government are confident that both governments concerned are fully alive to these considerations.

6.   His Majesty’s Government have said enough to make their own attitude plain in the particular matters at issue between Germany and Poland. They trust that the German Chancellor will not think that, because His Majesty’s Government are scrupulous concerning their obligations to Poland, they are not anxious to use all their influence to assist the achievement of a solution which may comment itself both to Germany and to Poland.

That such a settlement should be achieved seems to His Majesty’s Government essential, not only for reasons directly arising in regard to the settlement itself, but also because of the wider considerations of which the German Chancellor has spoken with such conviction.

7.   It is unnecessary in the present reply to stress the advantage of a peaceful settlement over a decision to settle the questions at issue by force of arms. The results of a decision to use force have been clearly set out in the Prime Minister’s letter to the Chancellor of the 22nd of August, and His Majesty’s Government do not doubt that they are as fully recognized by the Chancellor as by themselves.

On the other hand His Majesty’s government, noting with interest the German Chancellor’s reference in the message now under consideration to a limitation of armaments, believe that, if a peaceful settlement can be obtained, the assistance of the world could confidently be anticipated for practical measures to enable the transition from preparation for war to the normal activities of peaceful trade to be safely and smoothly effected.

8.   A just settlement of these questions between Germany and Poland may open the way to world peace. Failure to reach it would ruin the hopes of better understanding between Germany and Great Britain, would bring the two countries into conflict, and might well plunge the whole world into war. Such an outcome would be a calamity without parallel in history.

___________________________________________________________

l2.   The Fuhrer’s Reply to the British Government handed to the British Ambassador on August 29, 1939, at 6:45 p. m.

(Translation)

August 29, 1939.

The British Ambassador in Berlin has informed the British government of certain suggestions which I felt it incumbent upon me to put forward, in order:

1.   to express once more the desire of the German Government for sincere Anglo-German understanding, cooperation and friendship;

2.  to leave no room for doubt that such an understanding cannot be purchased at the expense of Germany’s renunciation of her vital interests or even by the sacrifice of claims based just as much on general human rights as on the national dignity and honor of our nation.

It was with satisfaction that the German Government learned from the written reply of the British government and the verbal declarations of the British Ambassador, that the British government for their part also prepared to improve Anglo-German relations and to develop and to foster these in the spirit of the German suggestions.

The British government are likewise convinced that the removal of the tension between Germany and Poland, which has become intolerable, is indispensable if this hope is to be realized.

Since the autumn of 1938 and for the last time in March 1939, verbal and written proposals have been submitted to the Polish Government, which in consideration of the friendship then existing between Germany and Poland, might have let to a settlement of the questions under dispute which would have been acceptable to both parties.

The British government are aware that the Polish government saw fit to reject these proposals finally in March of this year. At the same time the Polish government made their rejection a pretext or an occasion for the adoption of military measures which have since then been continued on an ever-increasing scale. Poland had, in fact, mobilized as early as the middle of the month.

In connection with the mobilization, numerous incidents took place in the Free City of Danzig at the instigation of the Polish authorities, and demands of a more or less threatening character amounting to an ultimatum were addressed to the Free city of Danzig. The closing of the frontier, which was at first in the nature of a custom measure, was afterwards carried out on military lines and was extended to affect traffic with the object of bringing about the political disintegration and the economic ruin of the German community.

Furthermore, the large group of Germans living in Poland was subjected to atrocious and barbarous ill treatment and to other forms of persecution which resulted in some cases in the death by violence of many Germans domiciled there or in their deportation under the most cruel circumstances.

Such a situation is intolerable for a Great Power and has now forced Germany after months of inactive observation to undertake the necessary steps for the protection of her rightful interests. The German Government can only most seriously assure the British Government that that state of affairs has now been reached for which continued acquiescence or even inactive observation is no longer possible.

The demands of the German government imply a revision of the Treaty of Versailles in this area, a fact which was recognized as necessary from the very outset; they constitute the return of Danzig and the Polish Corridor to Germany and the safeguarding of the German minorities domiciled in those territories remaining in Polish possession.

the Reich Government note with satisfaction that the British Government are also convinced on principle that some solution must be found for the state of affairs which has now developed. They further consider they may assume that the British Government entertain no doubt on the fact that this is a state of affairs which can no longer be remedied in a matter of days or even weeks but for which perhaps only a few hours yet remain. For in view of the disorganized state of Poland we must at any moment be prepared for the possibility of events occurring which Germany could not possibly tolerate.

If the British Government still believe that these grave differences can be solved by direct negotiations, the Reich Government on their part regret at the outset that they are unable to share such an opinion. They have already tried to open up a way for peaceful negotiations of this nature, without meeting with the support of the Polish government, and only seeing their efforts rejected by the abrupt initiation of measures of a military character in accordance with the general development indicated above.

There are two factors which the British Government consider important:

1.  to remove most speedily the imminent danger of a conflagration by means of direct negotiations, and

2.  to give the necessary economic and political safeguards by means of international guarantees for the future existence of the remaining Polish State.

Despite their skeptical judgment of the prospects of such direct negotiations, the Reich Government are nevertheless prepared to accept the English proposal, and to enter into direct discussions. They do so solely because — as already emphasized — the written communication from the British Government, which they have received, gives them the impression that the latter also desire a friendly agreement along the lines indicated to their Ambassador, Sir Nevile Henderson.

The German Government desire in this way to give to the British Government and to the British people a proof of the sincerity of the German intention of arriving at a state of permanent friendship with Great Britain.

The Reich Government nevertheless feel bound to point out to the British Government that in the case of a reorganization of the territorial condition in Poland, the Reich Government are no longer in a position to take upon themselves any guarantees, or to participate in any guarantees, without the cooperation of the U.S.S.R.

The Reich Government in their proposals moreover never had the intentions of attacking vital Polish interests or of questioning the existence of an independent Polish state. Under these conditions, the Reich Government therefore agree to accept the proposed intermediation of the British Government to send to Berlin a Polish representative invested with plenipotentiary powers. They expect his arrival on Wednesday, August 30, 1939.

The Reich Government will immediately draft the proposals for a solution acceptable to them and, if possible, will make such proposals also available for the British government before the Polish negotiator arrives.

____________________________________________________________

13.   Telephone Message from the German Charge d’Affairs in Warsaw to the German Foreign Office on August 30, 1939, at 5:30 p. m.

(Translation)

     Notices ordering a general mobilization have been posted in Poland for one hour. The first day of mobilization is August 31st; everybody in possession of a white mobilization card must report at once.

Documents 14 through 16 (of 26)

14.  Memorandum from the British Government handed to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs by the British Ambassador on August 30, 1939, at midnight.

1.   His Majesty’s Government appreciate the friendly reference in the declaration contained in the reply of the German Government to the latter’s desire for an Anglo-German understanding and to their statement of the influence which this consideration has exercised upon their policy.

2.   His Majesty’s Government repeat that they reciprocate the German government’s desire for an improvement in relations, but it will be recognized that they could not sacrifice the interests of friends in order to obtain that improvement. They fully understand that the German Government cannot sacrifice Germany’s vital interests, but the Polish government are in the same position, and His Majesty’s Government believe that the vital interests of the two countries are not incompatible.

3.   His Majesty’s government note that the German Government accept the British proposal and are prepared to enter into direct discussions with the Polish Government.

4.   His Majesty’s Government understand that the German government accept in principle the condition that any settlement should be made subject to an international guarantee. the question of who shall participate in this guarantee will have to be discussed further, and His Majesty’s Government hope that to avoid loss of time the German Government will take immediate steps to obtain the assent of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics whose participation in the guarantee His Majesty’s Government have always assumed.

5.   His Majesty’s Government also note that the German Government accept the position of the British government as to Poland’s vital interests and independence.

6.   His Majesty’s government must make an express reservation in regard to the statement of particular demands put forward by the German Government in an earlier passage in their reply. They understand that the German Government are drawing up proposals for a solution. No doubt these proposals will be fully examined during the discussions. It can then be determined how far they are compatible with the essential conditions which His Majesty’s Government have stated and which the German Government have expressed their willingness to accept.

7.   His Majesty’s government are at once informing the Polish Government of the German Government’s reply. The method of contact and the arrangements for discussions must obviously be agreed with all urgency between the German government and the Polish government, but in His Majesty’s Government’s view it would be impracticable to establish contact so early as today.

8.   His Majesty’s Government fully recognize the need for speed in the initiation of discussions and they share the apprehensions of the Chancellor arising from the proximity of two mobilized armies standing face to fact. They would accordingly most strongly urge that both parties should undertake that during negotiations no aggressive military movements will take place.

His Majesty’s Government feel confident that they could obtain such an undertaking from the Polish Government, if the German Government would give similar assurances.

9.     Further His Majesty’s Government would suggest that a temporary modus vivendi might be arranged for Danzig, which might prevent the occurrence of incidents tending to render German-Polish relations more difficult.

____________________________________________________

15.   Official German Statement published on August 31, 1939, at 9 p. m. containing the Proposal for a settlement of the Danzig and the Polish Corridor Problem, as well as of the question concerning the German and Polish Minorities.

(Translation)

     In a note dated August 28, 1939, addressed to the German government, the British Government declared themselves prepared to offer their services as intermediaries in arranging direct negotiations between Germany and Poland for the settlement of the problems under dispute. In this note they left no room for doubt that in view of the continued incidents and the general state of tension throughout Europe they also were aware of the urgency of such action.

In spite of their skepticism regarding the willingness of the Polish Government to reach any agreement, the German government, in a reply dated August 29, 1939, declared themselves prepared in the interests of peace to accept British intermediation or suggestions.

Taking into account all the circumstances prevailing at the moment they considered it necessary to point out in their reply that, if the danger of catastrophe is to be avoided at all, quick and immediate action is indispensable.

The German Government have therefore declared themselves willing to receive a delegate appointed by the Polish government by the evening of August 30, 1939, provided that this delegate should be invested with full power not only to take part in discussions but to negotiate and to take a final decision.

The German government have further expressed the hope that they would be able to submit to the British government the gist of the proposed agreement before the arrival of the Polish delegate in Berlin.

Instead of a declaration regarding the arrival of an authorized Polish representative the German government, in reply to their readiness to negotiate, received firstly the news of the Polish mobilization, and it was only towards midnight on August 30, 1939, that they received the assurance by Britain, couched in more general terms, that she would use her influence to arrange for the opening of negotiations.

Owing to the non-arrival of the Polish delegate who was expected by the Reich Government, the primary condition for informing the British Government, who had themselves recommended direct negotiations between Germany and Poland, of the standpoint taken by the Reich as to the basis for such negotiations, no longer existed.

Nevertheless, Herr von Ribbentrop, the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs, acquainted the British Ambassador, when the latter handed over the last British note, with the exact wording of the German proposals as prepared for the expected arrival of the Polish plenipotentiary.

Under these circumstances the German Government considered that they had every right to expect that, at least subsequently to this, the nomination of a Polish delegate would immediately take place. It was clearly too much to expect of the German Government that they should continue not only to reiterate their willingness to enter upon such negotiations, but even to sit and wait and allow themselves to be put off by the Polish side with feeble subterfuges and empty declarations.

In the meantime a demarche by the Polish Ambassador has again shown that not even he is authorized to enter upon any discussion whatsoever, much less to negotiate.

Thus the Fuhrer and the German Government have now waited for two days in vain for the arrival of an authorized Polish delegate.

Under these circumstances the German Government cannot but regard their proposals as having been once more virtually rejected, although they are of the opinion that in the form in which they were also communicated to the British Government, they were formulated in a spirit of more than goodwill and fairness ann could have been accepted.

The Government of the Reich consider it appropriate to inform the public of the proposed basis for negotiation as communicated to the British Ambassador by Herr von Ribbentrop, the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs.

______________________________________________

Proposal for a settlement of the Danzig and the Polish Corridor Problem as well as of the question concerning the German and Polish Minorities.

The situation between the German Reich and Poland is at the present time such that any further incident may lead to an outbreak of hostilities between the military forces of the two countries, which have already taken up their position on the respective side of the frontier.

Any peaceful solution of the problem must be of such a nature that the events which originally brought about this state of affairs cannot be repeated on the next occasion thus causing a state of tension not only in Eastern Europe but also elsewhere.

The causes of this development are to be found in

(1) the intolerable demarcation of the frontiers as dictated in the Treaty of Versailles.

(2.) the intolerable treatment of the minority in the territories cut off from the Reich.

In putting forward these proposals, the Reich government are attempting to find a final solution putting an end to the intolerable situation arising from the present demarcation of frontiers, securing to both parties their vital lines of communication, eliminating as far as possible the problem of the minorities and, in so far as this should prove impossible, rendering the fate of the minorities bearable by effectively guaranteeing their rights.

The Reich Government feel convinced that it is indispensable that economic and personal damage inflicted since 1918 should be investigated, and full compensation made therefore. Of course, the Reich Government regard this obligation as binding upon both parties.

The above considerations give rise to the following concrete proposals:

(1)   By reason of its purely German character and the unanimous will of its population, the Free City of Danzig shall be returned forthwith to the German Reich.

(2)  The territory known as the Polish Corridor, that is to say, the territory bounded by the Baltic Sea and a line running from Marienwerder to Graudenz, Kulm, Bromberg, (including these towns), and then in a westerly direction towards Schonlanke, shall itself decide whether it shall become part of the German Reich or remain with Poland.

(3)  For that purpose, a plebiscite shall be held in this territory. All Germans who were domiciled in this area on the first of January 1918 or who were born there on or before that day, also all Poles, Cassubians, etc. who were domiciled in this area on that day or who were born there on or before the above-mentioned date, shall be entitled to vote. Germans who have been expelled from this territory shall return for the purpose of registering their votes.

In order to ensure an impartial plebiscite and to guarantee that the necessary and extensive preparations for the plebiscite shall be carried out correctly, an International Commission like the one formed in connection with the Saar plebiscite, and consisting of members appointed by the four Great Powers, Italy, the U.S.S.R., France and Great Britain, shall be formed immediately, and placed in charge of this territory.

This commission shall exercise sovereign rights throughout the territory. To that end, the territory shall be evacuated by the Polish military forces, by the Polish police and by the Polish authorities within the shortest possible time to be agreed upon.

(4)  The Polish port of Gdynia to the extent of the Polish settlement is not included in this area but, as a matter of principle, is recognized as Polish territory.

The details of the boundaries of this Polish port shall be decided on by Germany and Poland, and if necessary established by an International Court of Arbitration.

(5)  In order to allow for ample time for the necessary and extensive preparations for the carrying out of an impartial plebiscite this plebiscite shall not take place before a period of twelve months has elapsed.

(6)  In order that during that period, Germany’s lines of communication with East Prussia and Poland’s access to the sea may be unrestrictedly ensured, certain roads and railway lines shall be determined in order to facilitate unobstructed transit. In this connection only such taxes may be levied as are necessary for the upkeep of the lines of communication and for the carrying out of transport.

(7)  The allocation of this territory shall be decided on by the absolute majority of the votes cast.

(8)  In order to secure, after the plebiscite (irrespective of the result thereof), Germany’s unrestricted communication with the province of Danzig — East Prussia, and Poland’s access to the sea, Germany shall, should the territory be returned to Poland as a result of the plebiscite, be given an exterritorial traffic zone running, from say, Butow to Danzig or Dirschau, for the purpose of building a Reich Motor Road (Reichsautobahn) and also a four-track railway line.

The construction of the motor road and of the railway shall be carried out in such a manner that Polish lines of communication are not affected thereby, i.e. they are to be overbridged or underbridged. This zone shall be one kilometer in width and shall be German territory.

Should the result of the plebiscite be in favor of Germany, Poland shall have the same rights as Germany would have had, to build an exterritorial road and railway connection in order to secure her free and unrestricted access to her port of Gdynia.

(9)  In the event of the Polish Corridor being returned to the Reich, the latter declares herself prepared to arrange with Poland for an exchange of population to the extent to which this could be carried out according to the conditions in the Corridor.

(10)  Any special rights claimed by Poland within the port of Danzig shall, on the basis of parity, be negotiated in exchange of equal rights for Germany at the Port of Gdynia.

(11)  In order to avoid any sense of menace or danger on either side, Danzig and Gdynia henceforth shall have a purely commercial character, i.e. neither of these places shall be provided with means of military defence or fortifications.

(12)  The Peninsula of Hela which according to the result of the plebiscite would be allocated either to Poland or to Germany, shall also be demilitarized in any case.

(13)  The Reich Government having most serious complaints to make about the treatment of the minority by the Poles, the Polish Government on the other hand considering themselves entitled to raise complaints against Germany, both parties agree to submit these complaints to an International Commission of Investigation charged to investigate into all complaints and economic and personal damage, as well as other acts of terrorism.

Germany and Poland bind themselves to indemnify the minorities on either side for any economic damages and other wrongs inflicted upon them since 1918; and or to revoke all expropriations or otherwise to completely indemnify the respective person or persons for these and other encroachments upon economic life.

(14)  In order to free the Germans remaining in Poland, as well as the Poles remaining in Germany, from the feeling of being deprived of the benefits of International Law, and above all to afford them the certainty of their not being made to take part in actions and in furnishing services of a kind not compatible with their national convictions, Germany and Poland mutually agree to safeguard the rights of their respective minorities by most comprehensive and binding agreements for the purpose of warranting these minorities the preservation, free development and cultivation of their national customs, habits and traditions, to grant them in particular and for that purpose the form of organization considered necessary by them. Both parties undertake not to draft the members of the minority into military service.

(15)  In case of an agreement on the basis of these proposals being reached, Germany and Poland declare themselves prepared immediately to order and carry through the demobilization of their respective armed forces.

(16)  Any additional measures required to hasten the carrying through of the above agreement shall be mutually agreed upon between Germany and Poland.

___________________________________________________

16.   Announcement made by the Polish Broadcasting Station at Warsaw on August 31, 1939, at 11 p. m.

(Translation)

     the publication today of the official German communique has clearly revealed the aims and intentions of German policy. It proves the undisguised aggressive intentions of Germany towards Poland. The conditions under which the Third Empire is prepared to negotiate with Poland are:

Danzig must immediately return to the Reich.

Pomorze together with the cities of Bromberg and Graudenz are to be subjected to a plebiscite, for which all Germans who left that territory for any reason whatsoever since the year 1918 may return.

The Polish military forces and the police force shall be evacuated from Pomorze.

The police force of England, France, Italy and the U.S.S.R. will be placed in charge of the territory. The plebiscite is to take place after twelve months have elapsed.

The territory of the Hela Peninsula will also be included in the plebiscite, Gdynia as a Polish town is excluded. Irrespective of the result of the plebiscite an exterritorial road one kilometer wide is to be constructed.

The German News Agency announces that the time allowed for the acceptance of these conditions expired yesterday. Germany has waited in vain for a Polish delegate. The answer given was the military orders issued by the Polish Government.

Words can now no longer veil the aggressive plans of the new Huns. Germany is aiming at the domination of Europe and is cancelling the rights of nations with as yet unprecedented cynicism. This impudent proposal shows clearly how necessary were the military orders given by the Polish Government.

17.  Speech delivered by the Fuhrer before the Reichstag on September 1, 1939. [Poland fired the first shots knowing that France and England would jump to their defense.]

(Translation)

Members of the German Reichstag:

For months we have been tormented by a problem once set us by the dictated Treaty of Versailles and which has now assumed such a character as to become utterly intolerable.

Danzig was and is a German city!

The Corridor was and is German!

     All these districts owe their cultural development exclusively to the German people, without whom absolute barbarism would prevail in these eastern tracts of country.

Danzig was separated from us! The Corridor was annexed by Poland! The German minorities living there were ill-treated in the most appalling manner! More than a million persons with German blood in their veins were compelled to leave their homes as early as 1919-1920.

Here, as always, I have attempted to change this intolerable condition of things by means of peaceful proposals for a revision. It is a lie when the world alleges that we always used pressure in attempting to carry out any revision.

There was ample opportunity for fifteen years before National Socialism assumed power to carry through revisions by means of a peaceful understanding. This was not done!

I myself then took the initiative in every single case, not only once, but many times, to bring forward proposals for the revision of absolutely intolerable conditions.

As you know, all these proposals have been rejected. I need not enumerate them in detail: those proposals for a limitation of armaments, if necessary even for the abolition of armaments, those for restrictions on methods of warfare, those for eliminating methods of modern warfare, which, in my opinion, are scarcely compatible with International Law.

You know the proposals which I made as to the necessity of restoring German sovereign rights in certain territories of the Reich, those countless attempts I made to bring about a peaceful solution of the Austrian problem, and later on that of the Sudetenland, Bohemia and Moravia. It was all in vain!

One thing, however, is impossible: to demand that a peaceful revision should be made of an intolerable state of affairs — and then obstinately refuse such a peaceful revision.

And it is just as impossible to assert that in such a situation to act on one’s own initiative in making a revision is to violate a law. For us Germans the dictated Treaty of Versailles is not a law!

It won’t do to blackmail a person at the point of a pistol with the treat of starvation for millions of people into signing a document and afterwards proclaim that this document with its forced signature was a solemn law!

In the case of Danzig and the Corridor, I have again tried to solve the problems by means of peaceful proposals suggesting a discussion. One thing was obvious: they had to be solved!

That the date of this solution may perhaps be of little interest to the Western Powers is conceivable. But this date is not a matter of indifference to us. First and foremost, however, it was not and could not be a matter of indifference to the suffering victims.

In conversation with Polish statesmen, I have discussed the ideas which you have heard me express here in my last speech to the Reichstag. No one can maintain that this was an unjust procedure or even unreasonable pressure.

I then had the German proposals clearly formulated and I feel bound to repeat once more that nothing could be fairer or more modest than those proposals submitted by me.

And I now wish to declare to the whole world that I, and I alone, was in a position to make such proposals. for I know quite definitely that I was thereby acting contrary to the opinion of millions of Germans. Those proposals were rejected!

But more that that! They were replied to by mobilization, increased terrorism, intensified pressure on the German minorities in those areas and by a gradual economic and political strangulation of the Free City of Danzig which, during the past few weeks, found its expression in military measures and traffic restrictions.

Poland virtually began a war against the Free City of Danzig. Furthermore, she was not prepared to settle the problem of the Corridor in a fair manner satisfying the interests of both parties.

And lastly, Poland has never thought of fulfilling her obligations with regard to the minorities.

In this connection I feel it necessary to state that Germany has fulfilled her obligations in this respect! Minorities domiciled in Germany are not subject to persecution. Let any Frenchman get up and declare that French citizens living in the Saar territory are oppressed, ill-treated or deprived of their rights! No one can make such an assertion!

For four months I have watched these developments without taking action but not without issuing repeated warnings. Recently I have made these warnings more and more emphatic. Over three weeks ago the Polish Ambassador was, at my request, informed that: if Poland persisted in sending further notes in the nature of an ultimatum to Danzig and in further oppressing the German minorities, or if attempts were made to bring about the economic ruin of Danzig by means of customs restrictions, Germany would no longer stand aside and remain inactive.

I have left no room for doubt that in this respect the Germany of today is not to be confused with post-war Germany.

Attempts have been made to justify the action against the German minorities by declaring that they had given provocation. I am at a loss to know what “provocation” those women and children are supposed to have given who have been ell-treated and deported or what was the nature of the provocation given by all those who were tortured in the most inhuman and sadistic way before they were finally put to death.

One thing I know however: there is not one single Great Power possessed of a feeling of honor, which would countenance such conditions for any length of time! In spite of all I have made one last attempt.

Although possessed of the innermost conviction that the Polish Government — perhaps also owing to their dependence on a now unchained wild soldiery — are not in earnest as regards a real understanding. I have nevertheless accepted a proposal of mediation submitted by the British government. The latter proposed not to carry on any negotiations themselves, they assured me however of their establishing a direct connection between Poland and Germany for the purpose of thus facilitating once more direct discussions.

I must here state the following: I have accepted that proposal. for these discussions I had drawn up the fundamentals which are known to you. And then I an my Government have sat expectantly for two whole days in order to find out whether the Polish Government saw fit finally to dispatch an authorized representative or not!

Up to last night the Polish Government did not dispatch an authorized representative, but informed us by their ambassador that at present they were considering the question whether and to what extent they might be able to accept the English proposals; of the result they would inform England.

Gentlemen, if such an impertinence could be offered to the German Reich and its ruler, and if the German Reich and its ruler were to tolerate such treatment, the German Nation would not deserve a better fate than to vanish from the political arena.

My love of peace and my endless patience should not be confounded with weakness or even cowardice! Last night I informed the British government that under these conditions I found it impossible to detect any inclination on the part of the Polish government to enter into a really earnest discussion with us.

Thus these proposals of mediation were frustrated, because in the meantime the answer to these offers of mediation had been, first, the order for Polish general mobilization, and second, additional serious outrages. Repetitions of the latter incidents occurred last night. while only recently during one single night twenty-one frontier incidents occurred, last night there were fourteen, three of them of a most serious character.

For that reason, I now have decided to address Poland in exactly the same language applied by Poland to us in recent months.

Now if there are statesmen in the West who declare that their interests are involved, I can only regret such a statement, their opinion, however, cannot for one single minute persuade me to deviate from the execution of my duties. I have solemnly declared and repeat once more that we have no claims at all on these Western States, and shall never demand anything from them. I have declared that the frontier between Germany and France is final. I have repeatedly offered England our friendship, and if necessary closest cooperation.

Love, however, is not a one-sided affair, but must be responded to by the other side. Germany has no interests in the West, our fortifications in the West (Westvail) are for all times to come the frontier of the Reich. We have no other aims in the future, and this attitude of the Reich will remain unchanged.

Some of the other European States understand our attitude. First of all I would thank Italy for having supported us all this time. You will also understand that in connection with this struggle we do not want to make an appeal for any foreign help. This task of ours we shall solve ourselves.

The neutral states have assured us of their neutrality exactly as we previously have guaranteed their neutrality. This assurance we consider a sacred obligation, and as long as nobody infringes upon their neutrality, we too shall painstakingly abide by it. Because, what could we expect or desire from them?

I feel very much gratified at being able to hereby inform you of an event of special importance. You are aware that Russia and Germany are governed by two different doctrines There was only one single question to be cleared: Germany has no intention of exporting her doctrine, and as long as soviet Russia does not intend exporting her own doctrine to Germany, I do not see any longer any reason for our being opponents again.

Both of us are agreed on that point. Any struggle between us would only result in the benefit of others. We have therefore resolved to enter into an agreement which will exclude any application of force between us in the future, which obligates us to consult with each other in certain European questions and facilitates economic collaboration, and above all warrants that the energies of these two great states are not mutually consumed.

Any attempt on the part of the Western States, aiming at a change of the existing facts will prove futile, and in that connection I would like to state one thing: this political decision signifies an enormous change regarding the future, and is absolutely final!

I believe that the whole German people will approve of this political attitude! In the World War, Russia and Germany fought against each other and were the ultimate sufferers. That shall and will never happen again! Yesterday, the Non-Aggression and consultation Pact, which came into force the day it was signed, was ratified in Moscow and in Berlin. In Moscow the Pact was acclaimed with the same satisfaction as in Berlin.

I approve of every word in the speech made by M. Molotov, the Russian Commissar for Foreign Affairs.

Our aims: I am determined to solve: firstly, the Danzig question, secondly, the corridor question, thirdly, to see to it that a change takes place in Germany’s relations to Poland, which will ensure a peaceful co-existence of the two States.

I am determined to fight until either the present Polish government is disposed to effect this change or until another Polish Government is prepared to do so.

I will eliminate from the German frontiers that element of insecurity, that atmosphere which permanently resembles that of civil war.

I will see to it that on the eastern frontier the same peaceful conditions prevail as on the other frontiers. I will at the same time act in such a way as not to contradict what I announced to you, Gentlemen, in the Reichstag as my proposals to the world. That is, I will not wage war against women and children! I have instructed my air force to limit their attacks to military objects. but should the enemy think this leaves him free to fight in the opposite way, then he will get an answer which will drive him out of his senses!

In the night Polish soldiers of the regular Army fired the first shots in our own territory. Since 5:45 a. m. we have been returning their fire. And from now onwards a bomb will be answered by a bomb!

who fights with poison will be fought with poison. Who disregards the rules of human warfare can only expect us to take the same steps.

I will carry on this fight, no matter against whom, until the safety of the Reich and its rights are secured!

For more than six years now I have been at work in building up the German armed forces. during this period more than ninety billions have been expended in creating our armed forces. Today, they are the best equipped in the world and are far superior to those of 1914!

My confidence in them can never be shaken!

When I called up these forces, and when I now expect the German people to make sacrifices, if necessary every sacrifice, I have the right to do so; for I myself am just as ready today as I was in the past to make every personal sacrifice.

There is nothing I demand of any German which I myself was not prepared to do at any moment for four long years.

There shall not be any deprivations for Germans in which I myself shall not immediately share!

From this moment my whole life shall belong more than ever to my people. I now want to be nothing but the first soldier of the German Reich.

Therefore, I have once again put on that uniform which was always so sacred and dear to me. I shall not take it off until after the victory — or I shall not live to see the end.

Should anything happen to me in this fight, my first successor shall be Party Member Goering. Should anything happen to Party Member Goering, his successor shall be Party Member Hess. To these men as your leaders you would then owe the same absolute loyalty and obedience as you owe me!

In the event that something fatal should happen to Party Member Hess, I now have made legal provisions for the convocation of the Senate, which shall then elect the worthiest, that is to say the most valiant among them.

As a National socialist and a German soldier I enter into this fight with a strong heart! My whole life was but one continued struggle for my people, for its rebirth, and for Germany, and above all that struggle there stood one single conviction: The Faith in that People!

One word I have never known: Capitulation.

If, however, there should be anyone thinking that we are at the brink of hard times, I urge him to consider the fact that at one time a Prussian King ruling over a ridiculously small state confronted one of the greatest coalitions, yet ultimately defeated it in three campaigns, simply because he was possessed of that certain undaunted spirit and believing heart also required of us in these times.

The contemporaneous world I would assure however that in the future course of German history a November 1918 will never occur again.

In the same measure in which I myself am prepared to sacrifice my life for my people and for Germany, I demand the same of every other person.

But whosoever believes that he can resist this national decree, be it directly or indirectly, will find himself vastly mistaken.

We will not tolerate traitors.

We thus act in accordance with our old principle, namely, that it is of no importance whether we go on living, but it is vital that our nation and that German should live.

I expect of you, as the emissaries of the Reich, that you will do your duty in whatever position you are called upon to fill.

You must be the standard-bearers of resistance, cost it what it may. Let no one report to me that in his province, his district, his group or his unit the morale is bad. It is you who are responsible for the moral. I am responsible for public feeling throughout Germany and you are responsible for public feeling in your provinces and districts.

No one has the right to refuse this responsibility The sacrifice that is demanded of us is not greater than the sacrifice which has been demanded of many past generations. All those men who have, before us, trod the path of bitter and difficult duty for Germany’s sake did nothing more than we are called upon to do, the sacrifice they made was neither lighter, less painful nor easier than the sacrifice that is demanded of us.

I expect every German woman to join up in strict discipline and do her duty in this great community of combatants.

German youth, needless to say, will fulfill heart and soul what is expected and demanded of them by the nation and by the National-Socialist State.

If we form this community, fused together, ready for anything, determined never to capitulate, our firm resolve will master every need.

I conclude with the words with which I once started my fight for power in the Reich. At that time I said:

“If our will is so strong that no emergency can break it, then our will and our good German sword will master and overthrow need and distress.”

Germany — Sieg Heil!

Documents 18 through 26 (final)

_______________________________________________

18.  Note handed to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs by the British Ambassador on September 1, 1939, at 9:30 p. m.

Berlin, September 1, 1939.

Your Excellency:

On the instructions of His Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs I have the honor to make the following communication.

Early this morning the German Chancellor issued a proclamation to the German Army which indicated clearly that he was about to attack Poland.

Information which has reached His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom and the French Government indicates that German troops have crossed the Polish frontier and that attacks on Polish towns are proceeding.

In these circumstances it appears to the Governments of the United Kingdom and France that by their action the German Government have created conditions (viz. and aggressive act of force against Poland threatening the independence of Poland) which calls for the implementation by the Governments of the United Kingdom and France of the undertaking to Poland to come to her assistance.

I am accordingly to inform Your excellency that unless the German government are prepared to give His Majesty’s Government satisfactory assurances that the German Government have suspended all aggressive action against Poland and are prepared promptly to withdraw their forces from Polish territory, His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom will without hesitation fulfill their obligations to Poland.

I avail myself of this opportunity re renew to your Excellency the assurance of my highest consideration.

(Signed): NEVILE HENDERSON

_______________________________________________________

19.  Note handed to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs by the French Ambassador on September 1, 1939, at 10 p. m.

(Translation)

Berlin, September 1, 1939

Your Excellency:

On the instructions of the French Minister for Foreign Affairs I have the honor to make the following communication.

Early this morning the German Chancellor issued a proclamation to the German Army which indicated clearly that he was about to attack Poland.

Information which has reached the French Government and His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom indicates that German troops have crossed the Polish Frontier and that attacks on Polish towns are proceeding

In these circumstances it appears to the Governments of France and the United Kingdom that by their action the German Government have created conditions (viz. and aggressive act of force against Poland threatening the independence of Poland) which calls for the implementation by the Governments of France and the United Kingdom of the undertaking to Poland to come to her assistance.

I am accordingly to inform Your excellency that unless the German government are prepared to give His Majesty’s Government satisfactory assurances that the German Government have suspended all aggressive action against Poland and are prepared promptly to withdraw their forces from Polish territory, the French government will without hesitation fulfill their obligation to Poland.

I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to your Excellency the assurance of my highest consideration.

(Signed): COULONDRE

__________________________________________

20.  Communication handed to the German Foreign Office by the Italian Ambassador on the morning of September 2, 1939.

(Translation)

     For your information Italy communicates to you, naturally leaving every decision to the Fuhrer, that she is still in a position to obtain the consent of France, England and Poland to a conference on the following basis:

1.  An armistice leaving the armies where they now are;

2.  The calling of a conference within two or three days;

3.  A solution of the Polish-German conflict, which, as matters lie today, would certainly be favorable to Germany.

This idea, which originated with the Duce, is today particularly advocated by France.

 ______________________________________________

21.  Information from the Havas News Agency on September 2, 1939

(Translation)

     The French government as well as several other Governments have been informed of an Italian proposal for a settlement of the European difficulties. After discussing the proposal the French Government gave a reply in the affirmative.

___________________________________________________

22.  Extract from a Declaration made by the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the House of Lords on the afternoon of September 2, 1939*

“. . . . Up to the present no reply has been received to the warning message delivered to Germany last night.

It was possible that delay had been due to proposals put forward by the Italian Government that hostilities should cease and that there would be immediately a conference between Great Britain, France, Poland, Germany and Italy.

The British Government would not find it possible to take part in a conference when Poland was being subjected to invasion and her towns were under bombardment and Danzig had been made the subject of unilateral settlement by force. . .”

*) According to the wording appearing in “The Observer” of September 3, 1939. A similar declaration was made at the same time by the British Prime Minister in the House of Commons.

__________________________________________________

23.  Note handed to the German Foreign Office by the British Ambassador on September 3, 1939, at 9. a.m.

September 3, 1939.

Your Excellency:

In the communication which I had the honor to make to you on September 1st I informed you on the instructions of His Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that, unless the German Government were prepared to give His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom satisfactory assurances that the German Government had suspended all aggressive action against Poland and were prepared promptly to withdraw their forces from Polish territory, His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom would without hesitation fulfill their obligations to Poland.

Although this communication was made more than twenty-four hours ago, no reply has been received, but German attacks upon Poland have been continued and intensified.

I have accordingly the honor to inform you that unless not later than 11 a.m. British Summer Time today, September 3rd, satisfactory assurance to the above effect has been given by the German Government and has reached His Majesty’s Government in London, a state of war will exist between the two countries as from that hour.

I avail myself of this opportunity. . . .

(Signed) NEVILE HENDERSON

_____________________________________________

24.  Note from the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs handed to the German Charge d’Affairs in London on September 3, 1939, at 11:15 s.m.

September 3, 1939.

Sir:

On September 1st H.M. Ambassador in Berlin acting upon my instructions informed the same Government that unless they were prepared to give H.M. Government in the United Kingdom satisfactory assurances that the German Government have suspended all aggressive actions against Poland and were prepared promptly to withdraw their forces from Polish territory, H. M. Government in the United Kingdom would without hesitation fulfill their obligations to Poland.

At 9 a.m. this morning H. M. Ambassador in Berlin acting upon my instructions informed the German Government that unless not later than 11 a.m. British summer time, today, September 3rd, satisfactory assurance to the above effect has been given by the German Government and has reached H. M. Government in London a state of war would exist between the two countries as from that hour.

No such assurances having been received I have the honor to inform you that a state of war exists between the two countries as from 11 a. m. today, September 3rd.

I have the honor. . . .

(Signed) HALIFAX

__________________________________________

25.  Memorandum from the German Government handed to the British Ambassador by the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs, September 3, 1939, at 11:30 a.m.

(Translation)

     The Reich government acknowledges receipt of the British Government’s ultimatum of september 3, 1939, to which the Reich Government has the honor to reply as follows:

1)   The Reich Government and the German people refuse to be handed, to accept, and still less, to comply with demands amounting to an ultimatum made by the British Government.

2)   For many months past, a state of war has actually prevailed along our eastern border. Every since the Treaty of Versailles rent Germany in two, all subsequent German Governments were denied any peaceful Settlement.

Since 1933, the National socialist Government have also tried again and again by way of peaceful negotiations to do away with the worst oppression and violations of law perpetrated by that treaty.

Primarily it has been the British Government who, by their intransigent attitude, have frustrated any practical revision. Had it not been for the interference on the part of the British Government, a reasonable solution, doing justice to either party, would undoubtedly have been arrive at between Germany and Poland, a fact which the Reich Government and the German people are convinced of.

For Germany had no intention of destroying Poland, nor did she ever demand Poland’s destruction. All that the Reich demanded was the revision of those articles in the Treaty of Versailles which sensible statesmen of all nations, already when the treaty was drawn up, termed unbearable for any length of time — unbearable both for a great nation and for the entire political and economic interest of Eastern Europe, and therefore impossible.

Even British statesmen declared specifically that the terms which Germany was forced to accept in the East held the seed of future wars. To go away with this danger has been the desire of every German Government, and in particular the aim of the New National Socialist Government of the German people.

The policy of the British Cabinet is to blame for the fact that a peaceful revision has not been reached.

3)   The British government — an unprecedented occurrence in history — has given Poland full power with regard to any action against Germany which she might intend to undertake.

The British Government gave the Polish Government the assurance of their military support in any circumstance, in case Germany should commence hostilities in reply to any provocation or attack.

Thereupon Polish acts of terror against Germans domiciled in the districts torn from Germany immediately assumed intolerable proportions. The treatment to which the Free City of Danzig was subjected was in contravention to all legal provision; it was first threatened with economic ruin and submitted to customs restrictions, and finally encircled by military forces and throttled by transport restriction.

Every one of these infringements of the Danzig Statute was fully known to, and approved by, the British Government, and backed by the blank cheque given to Poland.

The German Government, although greatly distressed by the sufferings of the German minority subjected to atrocities and inhuman treatment by the Poles, nevertheless looked on in patience for five months without once undertaking even the slightest aggressive action of a similar nature against Poland.

Germany merely warned Poland that these actions would not be tolerated in the long run and that she was determined, in the event of no other help forthcoming for the population concerned, to take the matter in hand herself.

The British Government was fully aware of all that was going on. It would have been an easy matter for them to use their great influence in Warsaw to exhort those in authority to conform to the laws of justice and humanity, and to fulfill their existing obligations.

The British Government did not see fit to do anything of the kind. On the contrary, by constantly stressing the fact of their duty to assist Poland under all circumstances, they clearly encouraged Poland to continue in her criminal attitude which still might have saved the peace of Europe, although the Reich Government had expressed their readiness to accept such proposal.

The British Government are thus responsible for all the misery and suffering that has overtaken now, or is about to overtake, so many peoples.

4)   Now that all attempts to find and settle on a peaceful solution have been frustrated owing to the intransigent attitude of the Polish Government as shielded by Great Britain; now that for many months already conditions similar to civil war on the eastern frontiers of the Reich have gradually — without any objection on the part of the British Government — assumed the character of open attacks on Reich territory, the Reich Government have decided to put an end to the continued menace, at first from outside, but later also at home, against the peace of the German nation, a situation no Great Power can be expected to bear with.

In order to defend the peace, the security and the honor of the German Reich, the Reich Government have decided to resort to the only means now left to them, since the Governments of the Democracies have wantonly frustrated all other possibilities of revision.

They have replied to the last Polish attacks threatening Reich territory with similar measures. The Reich Government is not willing, on account of any British intentions or obligations, to tolerate in the East of the Reich conditions similar to those prevailing in the British Protectorate of Palestine.

The German people, however, is certainly not willing to submit to ill-treatment by Poland.

5)  the Reich government therefore reject any attempt to force Germany, by an ultimative demand, to withdraw her troops, called up for the purpose of protecting the Reich, and thus to put up once more with the former unrest and injustice. The treat that war would otherwise be waged against Germany coincides with the intentions, for many years proclaimed, of numerous British politicians.

Innumerable times the Reich Government and the German people have assured the British people of their desire for an understanding and even close friendship with them. If the British Government have hitherto rejected these offers and now reply to them with n open threat of war, the responsibility for this lies not with the German nation and its Government, but exclusively with the British Cabinet, especially with those men who for years have preached the destruction and extermination of the German people.

The German people and the German Government do not intend, as does Great Britain, to rule the world, but they are determined to defend their own freedom, their independence and very life.

We take note of the intentions made known to us by Mr. King Hall on behalf of the British government, to deal the German nation a still more crushing blow than did the Treaty of Versailles and shall therefore reply to any act of aggression on the part of Great Britain with the same weapons and in the same way.

Berlin, September 3, 1939.

_______________________________________________

26.  Note handed to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs by the French Ambassador on September 3, 1939, at 12:20 p.m.

(Translation)

Berlin, September 3, 1939.

Your Excellency:

As I received no satisfactory reply from the Reich Government at noon on September 3rd to the Note which I handed to you on September 1st at 10 p.m. I have the honor of making the following communication to you on behalf of my Government:

The Government of the French Republic consider it their duty to remind you for the last time of the grave responsibility which the Reich Government incurred when they opened hostilities against Poland without a declaration of war and did not adopt the proposal of the Government of the French Republic and that of His Britanic Majesty to desist from every aggressive action against Poland and to declare themselves ready immediately to withdraw their troops from Polish territory.

The Government of the Republic therefore have the honor of informing the Reich Government that they are themselves in duty bound to fulfill the contractual obligations, from today, September 3rd, 5 p.m. onwards, which they have entered into with Poland and with which the German Government are acquainted.

Permit me . . . .

 

Read Full Post »

By ADRIAN SALBUCHI

In the US, we see untold millions suffering from the impact of mass foreclosures and unemployment; in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Italy, stringent austerity measures are imposed upon the whole population; all coupled with major banking collapses in Iceland, the UK and the US, and indecent bail-outs of “too-big-to-fail” bankers (Newspeak for too powerful to fail).

No doubt, the bulk of the responsibility for these debacles falls squarely on the shoulders of caretaker governments in these countries that are subordinated to Money Power interests and objectives. In country after country, that comes together with embedded corruption, particularly evident today in the UK, Italy and the US.

As we assess some of the key components of today’s Global Financial, Currency and Banking Model in this article, readers will hopefully get a better understanding as to why we are all in such a crisis, and that it will tend to get much worse in the months and years to come.

Foundations of a Failed and False Model

Hiding behind the mask of false “laws” allegedly governing “globalised markets and economies,” this Financial Model has allowed a small group of people to amass and wield huge and overwhelming power over markets, corporations, industries, governments and the global media. The irresponsible and criminal consequences of their actions are now clear for all to see.

The “Model” we will briefly describe, falls within the framework of a much vaster Global Power System that is grossly unjust and was conceived and designed from the lofty heights of private geopolitical and geo-economic1 planning centres that function to promote the Global Power Elite’s agenda as they prepare their “New World Order” – again, Newspeak for a Coming World Government.2

Specifically, we are talking about key think tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, and other similar entities such as the Cato Institute (Monetary Issues), American Enterprise Institute and the Project for a New American Century that conform an intricate, solid, tight and very powerful network, engineering and managing New World Order interests, goals and objectives.

Writing from the stance of an Argentine citizen, I admit we have some “advantages” over the citizens of industrialised countries as the US, UK, European Union, Japan or Australia, in that over the last few decades we have had direct experience of successive catastrophic national crises emanating from inflation, hyper-inflation, systemic banking collapse, currency revamps, sovereign debt bond mega-swaps, military coups and lost wars…

Finance vs the Economy

The Financial system (i.e., a basically unreal Virtual, symbolic and parasitic world), increasingly functions in a direction that is contrary to the interest of the Real Economy (i.e., the Real and concrete world of work, production, manufacturing, creativity, toil, effort and sacrifice done by real people). Over the past decades, Finance and the Economy have gone their totally separate and antagonistic ways, and no longer function in a healthy and balanced relationship that prioritises the Common Good of We the People. This huge conflict between the two can be seen, amongst other places, in today’s Financial and Economic System, whose main support lies in the Debt Paradigm, i.e., that nothing can be done unless you first have credit, financing and loans to do it. Thus, the Real Economy becomes dependent on and distorted by the objectives, interests and fluctuations of Virtual Finance.3

Debt-Based System

The Real Economy should be financed with genuine funds; however with time, the Global Banking Elite succeeded in getting one Sovereign Nation-State after another to give up its inalienable function of supplying the correct quantity of National Currency as the primary financial instrument to finance the Real Economy. That requires decided action through Policies centred on promoting the Common Good of We The People in each country, and securing the National Interest against the perils posed by internal and external adversaries.

Thus, we can better understand why the financial “law” that requires central banks to always be totally “independent” of Government and the State has become a veritable dogma. This is just another way of ensuring that central banking should always be fully subordinated to the interests of the private banking over-world – both locally in each country, as well as globally.

We find this to prevail in all countries: Argentina, Brazil, Japan, Mexico, the European Union and in just about every other country that adopts so-called “Western” financial practice. Perhaps the best (or rather, the worst) example of this is the United States where the Federal Reserve System is a privately controlled institution outright, with around 97% of its shares being owned by the member banks themselves (admittedly, it does have a very special stock scheme), even though the bankers running “Fed” do everything they can to make it appear as if it is a “public” entity operated by Government, something that it is definitely not.

One of the Global Banking Over-world’s permanent goals is – and has been – to maintain full control over all central banks in just about every country, in order to be able to control their public currencies.4 This, in turn, allows them to impose a fundamental (for them) condition whereby there is never the right quantity of public currency to satisfy the true demand and needs of the Real Economy. That is when those very same private banks that control central banking come on scene to “satisfy the demand for money” of the Real Economy by artificially generating private bank money out of nothing. They call it “credits and loans” and offer to supply it to the Real Economy, but with an “added value” (for them): (a) they will charge interest for them (often at usury levels) and, (b) they will create most of that private bank money out of thin air through the fractional lending system.

At a Geo-economic level, this has also served to generate huge and unnecessary public sovereign debts in country after country all over the world. Argentina is a good example, whose Caretaker Governments are systematically ignorant and unwilling to use one of the sovereign state’s key powers: the issuance of high power non-interest generating Public Money (see below for a more detailed definition). Instead, Argentina has allowed IMF (International Monetary Fund) so-called “recipes” that reflect the global banking cartel’s own interests to be imposed upon it in fundamental matters like what are the proper functions of its Central Bank, sovereign debt, fiscal policy, and other monetary, banking and financial mechanisms, that are thus systematically used against the Common Good of the Argentine People and against the National Interest of the country.

This system and its dreadful results, now and in the past, are so similar in so many other countries – Brazil, Mexico, Greece, Ireland, Iceland, UK, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Indonesia, Hungary, Russia, Ukraine… that it can only reflect a well thought-out and engineered plan, emanating from the highest planning echelons of the Global Power Elite.

Fractional Bank Lending

This banking concept is in use throughout the world’s financial markets, and allows private banks to generate “virtual” Money out of thin air (i.e., scriptural annotations and electronic entries into current and savings accounts, and a vast array of lines of credit), in a ratio that is 8, 10, 30, 50 times or more larger than the actual amount of cash (i.e., public money) held by the bank in its vaults. In exchange for lending this private “money” created out of nothing, bankers collect interest, demand collateral with intrinsic value and if the debtor defaults they can then foreclose on their property or other assets.

The ratio that exists between the amount of Dollars or Pesos in its vaults and the amount of credit private banks generate is determined by the central banking authority which fixes the fractional lending leverage level (which is why controlling the central bank is so vital strategically for private banker cartels). This leverage level is a statistical reserve based on actuarial calculations of the portion of account holders who in normal time go to their banks or ATM machines to withdraw their money in cash (i.e., in public money notes). The key factor here is that this works fine in “normal” times, however “normal” is basically a collective psychology concept intimately linked to what those account holders, and the population at large, perceive regarding the financial system in general and each bank in particular.

So, when for whatever reason, “abnormal” times hit – i.e., every time there are (subtly predictable) periodic crises, bank runs, collapses and panics, which seem to suddenly explode as happened in Argentina in 2001 and as is now happening in the US, UK, Ireland, Greece, Iceland, Portugal, Spain, Italy and a growing number of countries – we see all bank account holders running to their banks to try to get their money out in cash. That’s when they discover that there is not enough cash in their banks to pay, save for a small fraction of account holders (usually insiders “in the know” or “friends of the bankers”).

For the rest of us mortals “there is no more money left,” which means that they must resort to whatever public insurance scheme may or may not be in place (e.g., in the US, the state-owned Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation that “insures” up to US$250,000 per account holder with taxpayer money). In countries like Argentina, however, there is no other option but to go out on the streets banging pots and pans against those ominous, solid and firmly closed bronze bank gates and doors. All thanks to the fraudulent fractional bank lending system.

Investment Banking

In the US, so called “Commercial Banks” are those that have large portfolios of checking, savings and fixed deposit accounts for people and companies (e.g., such main street names as CitiBank, Bank of America, JPMorganChase, etc.; in Argentina, we have Standard Bank, BBVA, Galicia, HSBC and others). Commercial Banks operate with fractional lending leverage levels that allow them to lend out “virtual” dollars or pesos for amounts equal to 6, 8 or 10 times the cash actually held in their vaults; these banks are usually more closely supervised by the local monetary authorities of the country.

A different story, however, we had in the US (and still have elsewhere) with so-called global “Investment Banks” (those that make the mega-loans to corporations, major clients and sovereign states), over which there is much less control, so that their leveraging fractional lending ratios are far, far higher. This greater flexibility is what allowed investment banks in the US to “make loans” by, for example, creating out of thin air 26 “virtual” Dollars for every real Dollar in cash they held in their vaults (i.e., Goldman Sachs), or 30 virtual Dollars (Morgan Stanley), or more than 60 virtual Dollars (Merrill Lynch until just before it folded on 15 Sept 2008), or more than 100 virtual Dollars in the cases of collapsed banks Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers.5

Private Money vs Public Money

At this point in our review, it is essential to very clearly distinguish between two types of Money or Currency:

Private Money – This is “Virtual” Money created out of thin air by the private banking system. It generates interests on loans, which increases the amount of Private money in (electronic) circulation, and spreads and expands throughout the entire economy. We then perceive this as “inflation.” In actual fact, the main cause of inflation in the economy is structural to the interest-bearing fractional lending banking system, even among industrialised countries. The cause of inflation nowadays is not so much the excessive issuance of Public Money by Government as all so-called banking experts would have us believe but, rather, the combined effect of fractional lending and interest on private banking money.

Public Money – This is the only Real Money there is. It is the actual notes issued by the national currency entity holding a monopoly (i.e., the central bank or some such government agency) and, as Public Money, it does not generate interest, and should not be created by anyone other than the State. Anybody else doing this is a counterfeiter and should end up in jail because counterfeiting Public Money is equivalent to robbing the Real Economy (i.e., “we, the working people”) of their work, toil and production capabilities without contributing anything in return in terms of socially productive work. The same should apply to private bankers under the present fractional lending system: counterfeiting money (i.e., creating it out of thin air as a ledger entry or electronic blip on a computer screen) is equivalent to robbing the Real Economy of its work and production capacity without contributing any counter-value in terms of work.

Why We Have Financial Crises

A fundamental concept that lies at the very heart of the present Financial Model can be found in the way huge parasitic profits on the one hand, and catastrophic systemic losses on the other, are effectively transferred to specific sectors of the economy, throughout the entire system, beyond borders and public control.

As with all models, the one we suffer today has its own internal logic which, once properly understood, makes that model predictable. The people who designed it know full well that it is governed by grand cycles having specific expansion and contraction stages, and specific timelines. Thus, they can ensure that in bull market times of growth and gigantic profits (i.e., whilst the system, grows and grows, is relatively stable and generates tons of money out of nothing), all profits are privatised making them flow towards specific institutions, economic sectors, shareholders, speculators, CEO and top management & trader bonuses, “investors”, etc who operate the gears and maintain the whole system properly tuned and working.

However, they also know that – like all roller coaster rides – when you reach the very top, the system turns into a bear market that destabilises, spins out of control, contracts and irremediably collapses, as happened to Argentina in 2001 and to the better part of the world since 2008, then all losses are socialised by making Governments absorb them through the most varied transference mechanisms that dump these huge losses onto the population at large (whether in the form of generalised inflation, catastrophic hyperinflation, banking collapses, bail-outs, tax hikes, debt defaults, forced nationalisations, extreme austerity measures, etc).

The Four-sided Global “Ponzi” Pyramid Scheme

As we know, all good pyramids have four sides, and since the Global Financial System is based on a “Ponzi” Pyramid Scheme, there’s no reason why this particular pyramid should not have four sides as well.

Below is a summary of the Four-side Global “Ponzi” Pyramid Scheme that lies at the core of today’s Financial Model, indicating how these four “sides” function in a coordinated, consistent, and sequential manner.

Side One – Create Public Money Insufficiency. This is achieved, as we explained above, by controlling the National Public entity that issues public money. Its goal is to demonetise the Real Economy so that the latter is forced to seek “alternative funding” for its needs (i.e., so that it has no choice but to resort to private bank loans).

Side Two – Impose Private Banking Fractional Lending Loans. This, as we said, is virtual private money created out of thin air on which bankers charge interest – often at usury levels – thus generating enormous profit for “investors,” creditors and all sorts of entities and individuals who operate as parasites living off other people’s work. This would never have been the case if each local central bank were to flexibly generate the correct quantity of Public Money necessary to satisfy the needs of the Real Economy in each country and region.

Side Three – Promote a Debt-Based Economic System. In fact, the whole Pyramid Model is based on being able to promote this generalised paradigm that falsely states that what really “moves” the private and public economy is not so much work, creativity, toil and effort of workers, but rather “private investors,” “bank loans” and “credit” – i.e., indebtedness. With time, this paradigm has replaced the infinitely wiser, sounder, more balanced and solid concept of corporate profit being reinvested and genuine personal savings being the foundation for future prosperity and security. Pretty much the way Henry Ford, Sr. originally grew his most successful company.

Today, however, Debt reigns supreme and this paradigm has become entrenched and embedded into people’s minds thanks to the mainstream media and specialised journals and publications, combined with Ivy League universities’ Economics Departments that have all succeeded in imposing such “politically correct” thinking with respect to financial matters, especially those relating to the proper nature and function of Public Money.

The facts are that this Model generates unnecessary loans so that banking creditors can receive huge profits, which includes promoting uncontrolled, unwarranted and often pathological consumerism, which goes hand in hand with the increasing abandonment of the traditional value of “saving for a rainy day.”

Such debts having political and strategic goals rather than merely financial ones, are usually given a thin layer of “legality” so that they may be imposed by the creditor on the debtor (i.e., in the case of The Merchant of Venice, the bond entered into between Antonio and Shylock giving the latter the legal right to a pound of the former’s flesh; in the case of chronically indebted countries like Argentina, such “legality” is achieved through a complex public debt laundering6 mechanism carried out by successive formally “democratic” Caretaker Governments to this very day).

Side Four Privatisation of Profits/Socialisation of Losses. Lastly, and knowing full well that, in the long run, the numbers of the entire Cycle of this Model never add up, and that the whole system will inevitably come crashing down, the Model imposes a highly complex and often subtle financial, legal and media engineering that allows privatising profits and socialising losses. In Argentina, this cycle has become increasingly visible for those who want to see it, because in our country the local “Ponzi” Pyramid Cycle lasts on average 15 to 17 years, i.e., we’ve had successive collapses involving brutal devaluation (1975), hyperinflation (1989) and systemic banking collapse (2001), however in the industrialised world, that cycle was made to last almost 80 years (i.e., three generations spanning from 1929 to 2008).

Conclusions

The fundamental cause of today’s on-going global financial collapse that exerts massive distortions over the Real Economy – and the ensuing social hardship, suffering and violence – is clear: Virtual Finance has usurped a pedestal of supremacy over the Real Economy, which does not legitimately belong to it. Finance must always be subordinated to, and in the service of, the Real Economy just as the Economy must heed the law and social needs of the Political Model executed by a Sovereign Nation-State (as we back-engineer this entire system, we thus understand why it is necessary for the Global Power Elite to first erode the sovereign Nation-State and to eventually do away with it altogether, in order to achieve its monetary, financial and political ends).

In fact, if we look at matters in their proper perspective, we will see that most national economies are pretty much intact, in spite of having been badly bruised by the financial collapse. It is Finance that is in the midst of a massive global collapse, as this Model of “Ponzi” Finance has grown into a sort of malignant “cancerous tumour” that has now “metastasised,” threatening to kill the whole economy and social body politic, in just about every country in the world, and certainly in the industrialised countries.

The above comparison of today’s financial system with a malignant tumour is more than a mere metaphor. If we look at the figures, we will immediately be able to see signs of this financial “metastasis.” For example, The New York Times in their 22 September 2008 edition explains that the main trigger of the financial collapse that had exploded just one week earlier on 15 September was, as we all know, mismanagement and lack of supervision over the “Derivatives” market. The Times then went on to explain that twenty years earlier, in 1988, there was no derivatives market; by 2002 however, Derivatives had grown into a global 102 trillion Dollar market (that’s 50% more than the Gross Domestic Product of all the countries in the world, the US, EU, Japan and BRICS nations included), and by September 2008, Derivatives had ballooned into a global 531 trillion Dollar market. That’s eight times the GDP of the entire planet! “Financial Metastasis” at its very worst. Since then, some have estimated this Derivatives global market figure to be in the region of One-Quadrillion Dollars…

Naturally, when that collapse began, the caretaker governments in the US, European Union and elsewhere, immediately sprang into action and implemented “Operation Bail-out” of all the mega-banks, insurance companies, stock exchanges and speculation markets, and their respective operators, controllers and “friends.” Thus, trillions upon trillions of Dollars, Euros and Pounds were given to Goldman Sachs, Citicorp, Morgan Stanley, AIG, HSBC and other “too big to fail” financial institutions… which is newspeak for “too powerful to fail”, because they hold politicians, political parties and governments in their steel grip.

All of this was paid with taxpayer dollars or, even worse, with uncontrolled and irresponsible issuance of Public Money bank notes and treasury bonds, especially by the Federal Reserve Bank which has, in practice, technically hyper-inflated the US Dollar: “Quantitative Easing” they call it, which is Newspeak for hyperinflation.

So far, however, like the proverbial Naked Emperor, nobody dares to state this openly. At least not until some “uncontrolled” event triggers or unmasks what should by now be obvious to all: Emperor Dollar is totally and completely naked.7 When that happens, we will then see bloody social and civil wars throughout the world and not just in Greece and Argentina.

By then, however, and as always happens, the powerful bankster clique and their well-paid financial and media operators, will be watching the whole hellish spectacle perched in the safety and comfort of their plush boardrooms atop the skyscrapers of New York, London, Frankfurt, Buenos Aires and Sao Paulo…

Footnotes

1. The concept of “Geoeconomics” was coined by the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations, through a studies group honouring Maurice Greenberg, the financier who was for decades CEO of American International Group (AIG) which collapsed in 2008 and had strong conflict-of-interest ties with major insurance and reinsurance broker Marsh Group whose CEO was his son Jeffrey. Both father and son were indicted for fraud by then New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer. Spitzer would later pay a very heavy price for this after becoming Governor of New York State when someone “discovered” his sex escapades which were quickly blown up into a major scandal by The New York Times

2. We have described the basic Global Power Elite structure, model and objectives in our e-Book The Coming World Government: Tragedy & Hope?, available through www.asalbuchi.com.ar.

3. For more information, see the Third Pillar of the Second Republic Project “Reject the Debt-Based Economy” on www.secondrepublicproject.com.

4. Some notable exceptions: Today: Libya, Iran, Syria, China; In the past: Peron’s Argentina, Germany and Italy in the 30’s and 40’s….  Are we seeing a pattern here?

5. See The New York Times, 22 September 2008

6. See White Paper comparing Debt Laundering mechanisms to Money Laundering mechanisms, lodged under Pillar No 3 “Reject the Debt-Based Economy” of Second Republic Project in www.secondrepublicproject.com.

7. This is more fully described in the author’s book The Coming World Government: Tragedy & Hope?, in the chapter “Death & Resurrection of the US Dollar”. Details on www.asalbuchi.com.ar. Also available upon request by E-mail: salbuchi@fibertel.com.ar.

ADRIAN SALBUCHI is a political analyst, author, speaker and radio talk-show host in Argentina. He has published several books on geopolitics and economics in Spanish, and recently published his first eBook in English: The Coming World Government: Tragedy & Hope? which can be ordered through his web site www.asalbuchi.com.ar, or details can be requested by E-mail to arsalbuchi@gmail.com. Salbuchi is 58 years of age, married, with four adult children, and works as strategic consultant for domestic and international companies. He is also founder of the Second Republic Project in Argentina, which is expanding internationally (visit: www.secondrepublicproject.com).

Read Full Post »

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

The war against Libya is built on fraud. The United Nations Security Council passed two resolutions against Libya on the basis of unproven claims, specifically that Colonel Muammar Qaddafi was killing his own people in Benghazi and Libya. The claim in its exact form was that Qaddafi had ordered Libyan forces to kill 6,000 people in Benghazi and Libya. These claims were widely disseminated, but always vaguely explained. It was on the basis of this claim that Libya was referred to the U.N. Security Council at U.N. Headquarters in New York City and kicked out of the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva.

False claims about African mercenary armies in Libya and about jet attacks on civilians were also used in a broad media campaign against Libya. These two claims have been sidelined and have become more and more murky. The massacre claims, however, were used in a legal, diplomatic, and military framework to justify NATO’s war on Libya.

Using Human Rights as a Pretext for War: The LLHR and its Unproven Claims

One of the main sources for the claim that Qaddafi was killing his own people is the Libyan League for Human Rights (LLHR). The LLHR was actually pivotal to getting the U.N. involved through its specific claims in Geneva. On February 21, 2011 the LLHR got the 70 other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to sent letters to the President Obama, E.U. High Representative Catherine Ashton, and the U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon demanding international action against Libya invoking the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine. Only 25 members of this coalition actually assert that they are human rights groups.

The letter is as follows:

We, the undersigned non-governmental, human rights, and humanitarian organizations, urge you to mobilize the United Nations and the international community and take immediate action to halt the mass atrocities now being perpetrated by the Libyan government against its own people. The inexcusable silence cannot continue.

As you know, in the past several days, Colonel Moammar Gadhafi’s forces are estimated to have deliberately killed hundreds of peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders across the country. In the city of Benghazi alone, one doctor reported seeing at least 200 dead bodies. Witnesses report that a mixture of special commandos, foreign mercenaries and regime loyalists have attacked demonstrators with knives, assault rifles and heavy-caliber weapons.

Snipers are shooting peaceful protesters. Artillery and helicopter gunships have been used against crowds of demonstrators. Thugs armed with hammers and swords attacked families in their homes. Hospital officials report numerous victims shot in the head and chest, and one struck on the head by an anti-aircraft missile. Tanks are reported to be on the streets and crushing innocent bystanders. Witnesses report that mercenaries are shooting indiscriminately from helicopters and from the top of roofs. Women and children were seen jumping off Giuliana Bridge in Benghazi to escape. Many of them were killed by the impact of hitting the water, while others were drowned. The Libyan regime is seeking to hide all of these crimes by shutting off contact with the outside world. Foreign journalists have been refused entry. Internet and phone lines have been cut or disrupted.

There is no question here about intent. The government media has published open threats, promising that demonstrators would meet a “violent and thunderous response.”

Accordingly, the government of Libya is committing gross and systematic violations of the right to life as guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Citizens seeking to exercise their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly are being massacred by the government.

Moreover, the government of Libya is committing crimes against humanity, as defined by the Explanatory Memorandum to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Libyan government’s mass killing of innocent civilians amount to particularly odious offences which constitute a serious attack on human dignity. As confirmed by numerous oral and video testimonies gathered by human rights organizations and news agencies, the Libyan government’s assault on its civilian population are not isolated or sporadic events. Rather, these actions constitute a widespread and systematic policy and practice of atrocities, intentionally committed, including murder, political persecution and other inhumane acts which reach the threshold of crimes against humanity.

Responsibility to Protect

Under the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, you have a clear and unambiguous responsibility to protect the people of Libya. The international community, through the United Nations, has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help to protect the Libyan population. Because the Libyan national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their population from crimes against humanity, should peaceful means be inadequate, member states are obliged to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the UN Charter, including Chapter VII.

In addition, we urge you to convene an emergency Special Session of the UN Human Rights Council, whose members have a duty, under UNGA Resolution 60/251, to address situations of gross and systematic violations of violations of human rights. The session should:

-Call for the General Assembly to suspend Libya’s Council membership, pursuant to Article 8 of Resolution 60/251, which applies to member states that commit gross and systematic violations of human rights.

-Strongly condemn, and demand an immediate end to, Libya’s massacre of its own citizens.

-Dispatch immediately an international mission of independent experts to collect relevant facts and document violations of international human rights law and crimes against humanity, in order to end the impunity of the Libyan government. The mission should include an independent medical investigation into the deaths, and an investigation of the unlawful interference by the Libyan government with the access to and treatment of wounded.

-Call on the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights and the Council’s relevant Special Procedures to closely monitor the situation and take action as needed.

-Call on the Council to remain seized of the matter and address the Libyan situation at its upcoming 16th regular session in March.

Member states and high officials of the United Nations have a responsibility to protect the people of Libya from what are preventable crimes. We urge you to use all available measures and levers to end atrocities throughout the country.

We urge you to send a clear message that, collectively, the international community, the Security Council and the Human Rights Council will not be bystanders to these mass atrocities. The credibility of the United Nations — and many innocent lives — are at stake.

According to Physicians for Human Rights: “[This letter was] prepared under the guidance of Mohamed Eljahmi, the noted Libyan human rights defender and brother of dissident Fathi Eljahmi, asserts that the widespread atrocities committed by Libya against its own people amount to war crimes, requiring member states to take action through the Security Council under the responsibility to protect doctrine.”

The letters signatories included Francis Fukuyama, United Nations Watch (which looks out for Israel’s interests and according to Israeli sources organized the entire session against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), B’nai B’rith Human Rights Commission, the Cuban Democratic Directorate, and a set of organizations at odds with the governments of Nicaragua, Cuba, Sudan, Russia, Venezuela, and Libya. Some of these organizations are viewed with hostility as organizations created to wage demonization campaigns against countries at odds with the U.S., Israel, and the European Union. Refer to the annex for the full list of signatories for consultation.

LLHR is tied to the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), which is based in France and has ties to the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). FIDH is active in many places in Africa and in activities involving the National Endowment for Democracy in the African continent. Both the FIDH and LLHR also released a joint communiqué on February 21, 2011. In the communiqué both organizations asked for the international community to “mobilize” and mention the International Criminal Court while also making a contradictory claiming that over 400 to 600 people had died since February 15, 2011. This of course was about 5,500 short of the claim that 6,000 people were massacred in Benghazi. The joint letter also promoted the false view that 80% of Qaddafi’s support came from foreign mercenaries, which is something that over half a year of fighting proves as untrue.

According to the General-Secretary of the LLHR, Dr. Sliman Bouchuiguir, the claims about the massacres in Benghazi could not be validated by the LLHR when he was challenged for proof. When asked how a group of 70 non-governmental organizations in Geneva could support the LLHR’s claims on Geneva, Dr. Buchuiguir has answered that a network of close relationship was the basis. This is a mockery.

Speculation is neither evidence nor grounds for starting a war with a bombing campaign that has lasted about half a year and taken many innocent civilian lives, including children and the elderly. What is important to note here is that the U.N. Security Council decided to sanction the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya on the basis of this letter and the claims of the LLHR. Not once did the U.N. Security Council and the member states pushing for war once bother to even investigate the allegations. In one session in New York City, the Indian Ambassador to the U.N. actually pointed this out when his country abstained from voting. Thus, a so-called “humanitarian war” was launched without any evidence.

The Secret Relationship between the LLHR and the Transitional Council

The claims of the Libyan League for Human Rights (LLHR) were coordinated with the formation of the Transitional Council. This becomes clear when the close and cagey relationship of the LLHR and the Transitional Council becomes apparent. Logically, the Obama Administration and NATO had to also be a part of this.

Whatever the Transitional Council is and whatever the intent of some of its supporters, it is clear that it is being used as a tool by the U.S. and others. Moreover, five members of the LLHR were or would become members of the Transitional Council almost immediately after the claims against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya were disseminated. According to Bouchuguir individuals with ties to the LLHR or who hold membership include Mahmoud Jibril and Ali Tarhouni.

Dr. Mahmoud Jibril is a government figure brought into Libyan Arab Jamahiriya government circles by Saif Al-Islam Qaddafi. He would undemocratically be given the position of Transitional Council prime minister. His involvement with the LLHR raises some real questions about the organization.

The economist Ali Tarhouni on the other hand would become the minister for oil and finance for the Transitional Council. Tarhouni is Washington’s man in Libya. He was groomed in the United States and was present at all the major meetings about plans for “regime change” in Libya. As Minister of Oil and Finance the first acts he did were privatize and virtually handover Libya’s energy resources and economy to the foreign corporations and governments of the NATO-led coalition against Libya.

The General-Secretary of the LLHR, Sliman Bouchuiguir, has even privately admitted that many influential members of the Transitional Council are his friends. A real question of interests arises. Yet, the secret relationship between the LLHR and the Transitional Council is far more than a question of conflict of interest. It is a question of justice and manipulation.

Who is Sliman Bouchuiguir?

Sliman Bouchuguir is an unheard of figure for most, but he has authored a doctoral thesis that has been widely quoted and used in strategic circles in the United States. This thesis was published in 1979 as a book, The Use of Oil as a Political Weapon: A Case Study of the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo. The thesis is about the use of oil as an economic weapon by Arabs, but can easily be applied to the Russians, the Iranians, the Venezuelans, and others. It examines economic development and economic warfare and can also be applied to vast regions, including all of Africa.

Bouchuguir’s analytical thesis reflects an important line of thinking in Washington, as well as London and Tel Aviv. It is both the embodiment of a pre-existing mentality, which includes U.S. National Security Advisor George F. Kennan’s arguments for maintaining a position of disparity through a constant multi-faced war between the U.S. and its allies on one hand and the rest of the world on the other hand. The thesis can be drawn on for preventing the Arabs, or others, from becoming economic powers or threats. In strategic terms, rival economies are pinned as threats and as “weapons.” This has serious connotations.

Moreover, Bouchuiguir did his thesis at George Washington University under Bernard Reich. Reich is a political scientist and professor of international relations. He has worked and held positions at places like the U.S. Defense Intelligence College, the United States Air Force Special Operations School, the Marine Corps War College, and the Shiloah Center at Tel Aviv University. He has consulted on the Middle East for the Foreign Service Institute of the U.S. State Department and received grants such as the Defense Academic Research Support Program Research Grant and the German Marshal Fund Grant. Reich also was or is presently on the editorial boards of journals such as Israel Affairs (1994-present), Terrorism: An International Journal (1987-1994), and The New Middle East (1971-1973).

It is also clear that Reich is tied to Israeli interests. He has even written a book about the special relationship between the U.S and Israel. He has also been an advocate for a “New Middle East” which would be favourable to Israel. This includes careful consideration over North Africa. His work has also focused on the important strategic interface between the Soviet Union and the Middle East and also on Israeli policy in the continent of Africa.

It is clear why Bouchuiguir had his thesis supervised under Reich. On October 23, 1973, Reich gave a testimony at the U.S. Congress. The testimony has been named “The Impact of the October Middle East War” and is clearly tied to the 1973 oil embargo and Washington’s aim of pre-empting or managing any similar events in the future. It has to be asked, how much did Reich influence Bouchuiguir and if Bouchuiguir espouses the same strategic views as Reich?

The “New North Africa” and a “New Africa” – More than just a “New Middle East”

A “New Africa” is in the works, which will have its borders further drawn out in blood like in the past. The Obama Administration and its allies have opened the gateway for a new invasion of Africa. United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) opened the salvos of the war through Operation Odyssey Damn, before the war on Libya was transferred to NATO’s Operation Unified Protector.

The U.S. has used NATO to continue the occupation of post-Second World War Europe. It will now use AFRICOM to occupy Africa and create an African NATO. It is clear the U.S. wants an expanded military presence in Libya and Africa under the disguise of humanitarian aid missions and fighting terrorism – the same terrorism that it is fanning in Libya and Africa.

The way is being paved for intervention in Africa under the guise of fighting terrorism. General Carter Ham has stated: “If we were to launch a humanitarian operation, how do we do so effectively with air traffic control, airfield management, [and] those kind of activities?” General Ham’s question is actually a sales pitch for fashioning African military partnerships and integration, as well as new bases that could include the use of more military drones against Libya and other African countries. The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) have both made it clear that the Pentagon is actively trying to establish more drone bases in Africa and the Arabian Peninsula to expand its wars. In this context, the AFRICOM Commander says that there are ties between the Al-Shabaab in Somalia, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb in North Africa, and the Boko Harem in Nigeria.

The War in Libya is a Fraud

General Ham has said: “I remain confident that had the U.N. not made the decision, had the U.S. not taken the lead with great support, I’m absolutely convinced there are many, many people in Benghazi alive today who would not be [alive].” This is not true and a far stretch from reality. The war has cost more lives than it could have ever saved. It has ruined a country and opened the door into Africa for a neo-colonial project.

The claims of the Libyan League for Human Rights (LLHR) were never supported or verified. The credibility of the United Nations must be questioned as well as the credibility of many humanitarian and human rights organizations that have virtually pushed for a war. At best the U.N. Security Council is an irresponsible body, but it has clearly acted outside of due legal process. This pattern now appears to be repeating itself against the Syrian Arab Republic as unverified claims are being made by individuals and organizations supported by foreign powers that care nothing for authentic democratic reforms or liberty.

About Auntie Adjeley

Auntie Adjeley is a retired musician, teacher and artisan who is dedicated to Peace, Justice and Social Harmony and is opposed to the hegemony of the so-called ‘New World Order’.

#

http://www.mathaba.net/news/libya ( Reference )

Read Full Post »

A cruel terrorist is now a newspaper writer. Perhaps this is the way the western elite are trying to control the world with their new strategy by openly employing former terrorists as head of governments. The western elites have been using this tactic for a long time, earlier with Saddam, Mubarak and others. First by replacing them as head of governments and then getting rid of them, it’s going to be the same fate of the current NTC Libyan puppet leader and terrorist.

 

Global elite defile memories of “War on Terror” dead, humor terrorist Belhaj who fought and killed Western troops. Photo: The face of Libya’s “rebels” is literally Al Qaeda. The Western world now enters surreal territory as men who have verifiably killed Americans are writing pro-NATO propaganda for British newspapers.

by Tony Cartalucci

One would think Abdul Belhaj, leader of Libya’s NATO-backed seizure of Tripoli a month ago would be an overly busy man. After all, the city itself is still not secure enough to move the alleged “National Transitional Council” there to preside over the war torn nation, and rebel forces 85 miles southeast near Bani Walid have been soundly defeated and are now slinking away from the battlefield. Meanwhile, the “final, final” siege of Sirte looks to be once again stalled, and now civilians fleeing the brutalized city are claiming NATO and rebels (western media incorrectly call them “revolutionaries”), not Qaddafi, are committing genocide against the civilians of Libya. [1]

However, Mr. Belhaj has had time, apparently, allegedly, to draft a lengthy editorial titled, “The revolution belongs to all Libyans, secular or not,” gladly published by the London Guardian, where he is allowed to go on at length, whitewashing what is essential a life-long career in terrorism and expound the merits of the wholesale mass murder he and his cohorts, under NATO cover, are committing against the Libyan people. Belhaj, for those that don’t know, is a founding member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), an official Al Qaeda affiliate, and listed by both the US State Department [2] and the United Kingdom Home Office [3] as a foreign terrorist organization and proscribed terrorist organization respectively. LIFG was the subject of a lengthy report issued by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center [4] regarding foreign fighters turning up in Iraq killing US and British soldiers, LIFG and more specifically, the Benghazi-Darnah region of Libya lending more fighters to Iraq per-capita than any other nation, including Saudi Arabia.

Image: Terrorist Op-Ed. The Guardian affords Belhaj, commander of LIFG, a US/UK listed terrorist organization ample room to praise NATO’s efforts in Libya and give stern warnings to those that threaten to impede his “freedoms.”

….

Belhaj’s Gaurdian piece, worded suspiciously more like a US State Department PR release than an essay by an Al Qaeda terrorist, verbatim touches on each and every point made by the US, UK, NATO, and found within UNSC r.1973. Belhaj maintains that in 2010 he was released from Libyan prison after promising to abandon his campaign of terror in Libya, only to go on to lead armed insurrection against the Libyan government months later in February of 2011. Belhaj claims that the revolution turned violent only after Qaddafi used force against protesters – this is a verified lie, as Belhaj and his LIFG have been in continuous US/UK-backed armed conflict with Qaddafi’s government for over 30 years.

Belhaj, after this initial, seemingly scripted litany of lies goes on to make veiled threats against the new “transitional government” over the dangers of “excluding” members of the “revolution.” He then thanks the “international community” presumably NATO who literally handed the country to him – NATO whose soldiers he was literally killing in the mountains of Afghanistan, and whose soldiers his fellow LIFG fighters were killing in Iraq, and whose member states captured, imprisoned and tortured him. Belhaj looks forward to Libya becoming a “politically, economically and socially advanced civil state” and a “dynamic player among the family of nations.” Compared to the secular leaders Belhaj claims to fear will undermine his and his followers’ “freedom” one must wonder where exactly the divergence in ideology is, as both seem to relish the concepts of globalization [5].

One doesn’t know whether to laugh, cry, or scream. Not just because of the obvious fraudulent propaganda the guardian is trying to pass off as the words of a stone cold killer with the writing prowess of a statesman, or the fact that the Guardian, even as a hoax, is affording column space to the leader of a listed terrorist organization who we are told is part of a decade long war that has cost millions their lives, liberty, national stability, and economic prosperity. It is the fact that the Guardian, along with the rest of the corporate media is trying to literally rewrite reality and paradigms they have forced down our throats for decades with new narratives so ridiculous and contrived it is an assault against human dignity.

The Guardian itself is a corporate-owned propaganda machine, a member of the unelected policy think-tank Chatham House [6], along side a myriad of other media, corporate, and financier interests that in reality shape our national and global destiny rather than the politicians we think we elect to represent us and our interests. Think-tanks like the Chatham House represent the collective interests and agenda of the world’s most powerful elite. They are the literal architects and helping hands that propel the global elite’s agenda forward, as clearly the Guardian is now in trying to rewrite the narrative regarding the 1o year ongoing “War on Terror” by whitewashing and elevating one of the war’s most notorious terrorists by either giving him column space, or ghost writing a column in his name.

Quite truly if Belhaj wrote this farcical, verbatim repeat of US State Department talking points regarding Libya and its future, one must wonder what prompted Belhaj to fight in the mountains of Afghanistan against US troops in the first place. Surely what is good for Libya is good for Afghanistan. We must also wonder why this terrorist and his organization, apparently enamored with the idea of fitting into the “family of nations” were fighting in Iraq against nations he is now thankful toward. More than likely Belhaj has been turned into another fictional character upon the stage of globalist theater, confounding an ignorant public with well-written statements giving well-intentioned people exactly what they want to hear, however debased from logic or reality it may be.

And above all, let us remember this is not only “Obama’s War” but a war of the global elite including big oil, big banks, the military defense industry, and many of the “Neo-Conservatives” that helped engineer the “War on Terror” during Bush’s “administration.” In fact, some of the most vehement supporters of Obama’s war in Libya have included John McCain [7] who was literally praising the Benghazi terror brigades in person, and the remnants of the Bush era “Project for a New American Century.” [8]

The “War on Terror” is a war on free humanity by the criminally insane. Civilians, police, and military alike, who adhere to any code of honor must face the reality that their leadership has lost all legitimacy and needs to be expediency removed from power. Hard decisions are coming as the insanity becomes ever more acute. A certified terrorist writing columns for a British newspaper regarding a war that is supported by both “left” and “right” political establishment should ring alarms and conjure horror in even the most skeptical of minds.

[1] The Australian, “Civilians accuse NATO of massacre in Sirte raids” September 28, 2011
[2] US State Department, List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, #26 Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG)
[3] UK Home Office Proscribed Terrorist Groups, page 5
[4] 2007 West Point Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) report
[5] The Future of Libya: A View from the Opposition, Brookings Institution May 12, 2011
[6] Chatham House, Standard Corporate Members, listed as “Guardian, The”
[7] Senate.gov, Statement by Senator McCain in Benghazi, Libya April 22, 2011
[8] Foreign Policy Initiative, Foreign Policy Experts Urge House Republicans to Support U.S. Operations in Libya, June 20, 2011
#

Courtesy from the original posting from : http://www.mathaba.net/news/libya

Read Full Post »

 
 
Russia gives a slap in the face of the tens of thousands of Libyans butchered in recent days, weeks and months by terrorists and NATO on the 1st September Revolution day while the democratic Libyan Jamahiriya is still very de facto and in all cases de jure

by Quoriana

 

As world leaders met in Paris on Thursday to discuss how to spend the billions of stolen Libyan financial assets, Russia declared to recognize the NATO-led Libyan Al Qaeda rebels’ National Transitional Council as the country’s legitimate government.

“The Russian Federation recognizes the National Transitional Council (NTC) as Libya’s current authorities,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

The announcement was made just a week after Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that “Russia will not recognize the National Transitional Council as the sole legitimate representative”, because “NATO far exceeded the mandate handed to the alliance by the UN Security Council” and “the Russian and Libyan people have traditions of friendship and years-long interaction”, herewith explaining Russia supports the huge majority of the Libyan who support Gaddafi and their legitimate government.

Russia, which always has been very critical of NATO’s war against Libya, is holding Libyan Government assets worth billions of dollars, including arms, energy and infrastructure deals with Libya’s legitimate government.

In July Russia turned down an invitation by the U.N. Security Council for a meeting in Istanbul concerning a Turkish proposed road-map for a political settlement in Libya, saying Russia will have no part in the NATO aggression against Libya as they have been calling for it to stop since several months.

Also a few weeks ago Russia’s Foreign Ministry denounced France’s decision to transfer almost $260 million to the Benghazi-based rebels, saying: “Paris is a going to spend the Libyan money which means that Libyan money is used to fight Libyans. This is absolutely illegal.”

However, Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, who has been accused of being a US agent in a leaked report, now joins Western leaders in urging Gaddafi to give up power and in the theft and plundering of the Libyan resources.

About Quoriana

Visit Quoriana on Twitter: @Quoriana

Read Full Post »

The purpose of this article is to outline what I consider to be the major arguments in support of a ―pure-myth‖ viewpoint or position concerning the question of the historicity of the biblical figure we know as Jesus, a.k.a. Jesus Christ, Jesus the Christ, or Jesus of Nazareth. A second purpose is to provide the reader with a selected bibliography of books, generally written by highly qualified biblical scholars, which the author has either used as sources of information, and/or has directly quoted from in the preparation of this paper. The author, himself, makes no pretense of being a ―biblical scholar,‖ only an avid reader of their works.

Before I attempt to present at least ―summaries‖ of arguments in support of the pure-myth point of view, (hereafter referred to as a ―position‖) I think it would be helpful to make clear the various positions which have traditionally been listed as possible. Some scholars have listed three positions. I prefer John Remsberg‘s four different options. The positions listed below are from Remsberg‘s 1909 book, The Christ, page 327, with slight additions of mine for clarification.

1. ―Orthodox Christians believe that Christ was a historical character. [However, he was] both supernatural and divine; and that the New Testament narratives, which purport to give a record of his life and teachings, contain nothing but infallible truth.‖ (This is generally know as the ―literalist position.‖)

 2. Conservative Rationalists, like Renan and the Unitarians, believe that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical character and that these narratives, eliminating the super-natural elements, which they regard as myths, give a fairly authentic account of his life.‖ (This is usually referred to as the ―historical myth‖ position.)

3. Many radical Freethinkers believe that Christ is a myth, of which Jesus of Nazareth is the basis, but that these narratives are so legendary and contradictory as to be almost if not wholly, unworthy of credit.‖ In other words, there was most likely a historical Jesus, but virtually all of the stories about him are mythical. (This is known as the ―philosophical myth‖ position.) My added comment would be that in the intervening years between 1909 and now, this position would no longer be considered at all ―radical,‖ and the Unitarians referred to in position 2, above, have shifted almost entirely to this third perspective.

 4. ―Other [‗more radical‘ is implied here] Freethinkers believe that Jesus Christ is a pure myth—that he never had an [historic] existence, except as a Messianic idea, or an imaginary solar deity.‖ I would add here that a natural concomitant of this position is that the four canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are entirely fictional—made up stories, no parts of which have any basis in reality whatsoever. (This is the ―pure-myth‖ position.)

The Seven Major Arguments

I admit that there may very well be more than ―seven major arguments‖ for the pure-myth position, and that in some instances the arguments presented here partially overlap. Also, many of the same arguments can be used to support position three. However, I have, perhaps arbitrarily, outlined the following seven arguments for the reader‘s consideration:

(1) No one seemed to have noticed Jesus in his time.

(2) The Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses.

(3) The gospels are entirely fictional, pure myths.

(4) What we now call ―Christianity‖ existed long before Jesus‘ time. It was derived from earlier ―scripture‖ and more ancient myths.

 (5) Paul, writing earlier than the gospels, clearly spoke of a ―spiritual‖ Christ. He knew nothing of a real, live human Jesus.

(6) There is no agreement at all concerning this putative historical Jesus‘ looks, lineage, biography, character, moral worthiness, or even his central message.

(7) The ―you-can‘t-have-it-both-ways‖ argument.

Again, the combination of all the arguments and opinions outlined in support of the above points will not absolutely ―prove‖ that there was no historical Jesus. Logicians tell us it is impossible to absolutely prove a negative. It might be possible that there was a ―real‖ William Tell who served as the inspiration for, and may have even engaged in some of the activities ascribed to the legendary Swiss folk hero. However, the great preponderance of the evidence we have at this time argues very strongly against this possibility. I believe that position four, described above, is an exact parallel to the pure myth claim for William Tell. The same claim might also be made about any of the long list of crucified saviors that have ―visited‖ earth long before the beginning of the first century of this era. My claim is, in other words, that applying ―Ockham‘s razor,‖ (e.g. the simplest, most logical explanation that comports with all the known facts), and considering the tremendous dearth of evidence to the contrary, the most rational conclusion is that there never was an historical Jesus. Further, I contend that he, and consequently all that is said about him, are entirely fictional.

Now that I‘ve made that exceedingly clear, let‘s get on with the arguments, one by one.

No one noticed Jesus in “his day.”

As most of the readers of this article know, Christian apologists, world-wide, have ―pointed with pride‖ to a handful of early extra-biblical writings which directly mention Jesus, John the Baptist, and/or James the Just, a.k.a. James the Brother of the Lord as a real first-century historical persons. ―Ah ha,‖ they say. ―Since you skeptics erroneously believe that the four Gospels are works of fiction, how can you account for these writings of reliable, unbiased historians who wrote about or referred to Jesus at or very near the time when he was alive?‖

Just to mention the one ―main gun‖ that Christian apologist have been firing at us skeptics for the past 1,800 years, (The difficulty of defending the Gospels has been a well-recognized problem for the church since they first where apparently ―noticed‘ by anyone around the middle of the second century.), I will briefly discuss the famous ―Testimonium Flavium.‖ This Latin phrase refers to a single paragraph of about twelve sentences which appears to most critics to have been inserted awkwardly between two paragraphs which make perfectly good sense without the insertion. The reference is in a book by the well-known first century Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus [37 – c95 CE]. The reference is contained in his book, The Antiquities of the Jews. This book is—appropriately enough for the reference to be contained in—a book about the early history of the Jews in the area where Jesus is supposed to have preached, and in the time when he was supposedly alive.

As Frank R. Zindler says, ―Although Flavius Josephus was born too late to be an eyewitness of the lives of Jesus or John the Baptist nevertheless he was a contemporary of the evangelists [assuming they existed] who wrote of these characters. He should have heard of Paul [if he existed, whom he never mentions]. Furthermore, from his priest-craft father, Matthias [b 6 CE] he should have known about the religious ferment supposedly stirred up by the doings of Jesus.‖ (Zindler, Frank R., The Jesus The Jews Never Knew, p. 35). Yet this well-respected historian mentions none of this with the single exception of the paragraph referred to above. In that paragraph only, he names a man called Jesus. ―He was the Christ,‖ Josephus is made to say. He was a ―doer of wonderful works‖ and that ―Pilate condemned him to the cross.‖ The paragraph concludes that, ―The tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.‖ ―This day‖ would be about the year 90 CE, approximately when Josephus wrote his history book. This phrase, at the very least, is an obvious later interpolation as there was no ―tribe of Christians‖ during Josephus‘s time. Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.

It is also interesting that the mention of this particular Jesus, ―Jesus the Christ,‖ is divulged by Josephus with no more emphasis than he gives to the other 20 Jesuses he speaks of in his writings. (See Leidner, Harold, The Fabrication of the Christ Myth, p. 19 – 20). In summary, let me just say that the single paragraph referred to above has been one of the most thoroughly researched and debated topics in all of biblical criticism. Those that want a more detailed analysis can refer to Zindler‘s entire chapter on it in the above cited book, (―Faking Flavius‖, p. 31 to 73.) Additionally, Earl Doherty‘s book supporting the mythical Christ theory, The Jesus Puzzle discusses this and other early likely Christian interpolations in chapter 21, ―Flavius Josephus‖ p. 205 to 222. Referring to another oft-quoted reference to Jesus in the writings of the Roman historian Tacitas [c55CE-c120 CE], Doherty says, ―If the silence on Jesus in the earlier works of both Tacitus and Josephus casts doubt on the authenticity of their later references, then we truly have lost every clear non-Christian reference to Jesus as a human being [emphasis added] before the latter half of the second century.‖ (p. 222)

Think about that sentence for a minute. Dozens of books of Christian apologists will offer long lists of citations about Jesus from early writings. However, most of these citations refer to either clearly awkwardly done interpolations, whereas others were written by authors who lived anywhere from a century and a half up to several centuries past the time when Jesus was supposed to have lived. These quotations referring to Jesus and other Gospel characters simply repeat stories that the writer has heard from other Jesus cult enthusiasts. As such, they are of no value whatsoever. In addition to the above noted refutation of the most important references to a supposed historical Jesus written near Jesus‘ time, I should also mention at least two ―deafening silences‖ by highly regarded writers of the same time period. I am referring to the writings of Philo, an eminent Jewish philosopher and historian who lived during the early first century, and Justus of Tiberias, a native of Galilee who wrote a history covering the period in which Jesus is said to have lived. Neither one of them ever mentioned a ―Jesus.‖

The works of Justus have all perished now. However, we have the writings of a ninth century Christian Bishop and scholar of Constantinople, Photius, who says that he had read Justus‘ works. He reports, in utter amazement one might imagine, that, ―He (Justus) makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or of the wonderful works he did.‖ (Jackson, J. G., Pagan Origins of the Jesus Myth, p. 8.) Personally, I find that quote absolutely jaw-dropping.

The Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses

Whether one believes that the canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke & John) are partly fictional elaborations of some core of truth, or whether you believe they are entirely fictional is not the issue at this point. (What I see as a separate issue of their fictional or non-fictional status will be taken up in the next point.) The question here is simply, were the gospels written by human witnesses to the ―life and times‖ of the putative Jesus? This point can be handled quite briefly. The answer is a resounding ―No!‖ There is virtual unanimity of opinion by all un-brainwashed, rational biblical scholars—even so-called Christian scholars (perhaps an oxymoron)—that the gospels were written by now unknown writers anytime between 40 years after Jesus‘ time up to about 185 years after his supposed death, depending on what scholar one consults. Most scholars place Mark, the generally recognized first written gospel, at about the year 70 CE, just after the destruction of the Jewish temple of Yahweh. However, Earl Doherty has advanced some closely reasoned arguments that support a time ―around the years 85 to 90 CE.‖ (The Jesus Puzzle, p. 3).

 Famed Jesus scholar, Dr. G. A Wells summarizes in his 1988 book, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, ―The gospels are usually put between 70 and 110, with Mark at about 70, Matthew and Luke a little later, and John, the latest, at about 100. Acts (written as we shall see, by the author of Luke) and some of the pseudo-Pauline epistles are assigned to the turn of the century. I find all this convincing enough, except in the case of Mark, which I date at about 90 rather than 70. If this is correct, then all four gospels were written soon after 90 and drew some of their material from earlier documents which have not survived and from oral tradition, much of which must have been available from about 80, although it would have taken time for them to have become generally disseminated.‖ (Wells, op. cit. p. 10 & 11).

There is near unanimous agreement that the very first mention of the existence of what we now call the gospels was by Justin Martyr, in the 150s. Doherty says, however, that he may only have known of Matthew and Luke. ―Even at that, he does not refer to them by name, calling the documents he is quoting from ‗memoirs of the Apostles.‘ Moreover, his quotations for the most part do not agree with our present texts.‖ (The Jesus Puzzle, p. 259)

So, it seems that the ―eyewitness testimony‖ of the so-called ―apostles‖ was still being sort of ―worked out‖ a century and a half after J.C.‘s supposed birth.

The gospels are entirely fictional, pure myths

Many large tomes have been entirely devoted to supporting the point that great sections, if not all, of the New Testament, as well as the Old Testament, are simply a retelling of fabulous tales based on older Jewish, Roman, Greek, Persian, and even more ancient Egyptian stories. Substantiating this point does not advance this paper‘s major thesis, except as it applies to the only supposed biblical ―evidence‖ in support of a historic Jesus—that is, that testimony provided by the four gospels. For those readers who might be interested in the spurious origins of not only the gospels, but also the entire bible, the names several entire books devoted to this subject can be found in the bibliography of this paper. It is interesting to me that a great many freethinkers and rationalists—people who might be reading this article—are very quick to agree that pretty much the entire bible is chock full of misinformation, forgeries, bad history and just plain lies. Not only that, but most rationalists are quite willing to accept the proposition that this mish-mash of prevarication was not simply a naive passing along of old legends, but were written for the express purpose of convincing (i.e. ―converting‖) the gullible reader into subscribing to the particular fanciful dogma the ancient writers were trying to peddle. However, for some reason or another that entirely escapes me—perhaps just early brainwashing imbedded as deeply as potty training—these same rationalists are reluctant to imagine that the four gospels are completely fictional.

Surely, they say, there must have been some sort of demythologized, even perhaps anonymous nobody who was arrested, tried by Roman authorities, then crucified. We can‘t be sure of any more details than that, they say. I simply ask, why must this be so? What more tangible evidence can anyone present that the whole story is not simply what it appears to be—a retelling of one or more of the dozens, perhaps hundreds, of ancient sun-god or sky-god‘s traditional, descending then ascending god myths, generally consisting of elements such as of first some tribulations (a trial), conviction, crucifixion, and finally resurrection? One could go on for several paragraphs pointing out the many details of the ―passion story‖ that have parallels not only in more ancient myths, but also in earlier Jewish writings including the Old Testament. See, for example, Zechariah 9: 9, which foreshadows Jesus‘ triumphal entrance into Jerusalem on an ass; actually ―on an ass and the foal of an ass‖—a neat trick, eh?), and the foreshadowing of the whole ―passion story‖ in Psalms 22, the virgin birth in Isaiah 7: 14, his birth in Bethlehem in Micah 5: 2. All of this has been well noted for centuries. Why in the world would any rational person imagine that any of these fables were in any sense true? It is interesting to speculate on the source material for the first written gospel, the Gospel according to Mark. Perhaps Mark—probably a well educated Greek-speaking member of the Jewish Diaspora—had read the works of ―Philo Judaeus, the Jewish philosopher-theologian of Alexandria in Egypt.‖ (A speculation of Alvar Ellegard, Jesus One Hundred Years Before Christ, p. 5) Or, perhaps he had heard the stories of the so-called ―Teacher of Righteousness‖ of the Essenes who may have lived (mythological or real—who knows?) sometime in the first century BCE. (Ellegard, op. cit., p. 258). Maybe Mark wrote in the second century as scholar Ellegard holds, and had read Flavius Philostratus‘s Life of Apollonius, whose life almost exactly paralleled the life of the mythical Jesus and who reportedly died in 98 CE. (See Randel Helms, Gospel Fictions, p. 9) Surely, he had read of the so-called ―Suffering Servant of the Lord‖ described in Isaiah 52: 13 – 53: 12. (See Doherty’s The Jesus Puzzle, p. 80). Certainly Mark, and later the other gospel writers, had no shortage of inspiration. What they didn‘t have is anyone who was in any sense ―real.‖ It is important to remain focused on the primary reason why these gospels were written, or perhaps ―compiled‖ would be a better word. They were written for the express purpose of convincing the uneducated and gullible masses that they no longer needed to believe in a sort of mystical, unseen, spiritual Christ—a somewhat difficult concept for the unsophisticated to grasp even though it was familiar to them as I will discuss later. Here, in the gospels, the new Jesus cult offers a ―real‖, flesh and blood incarnation of god to believe in. (In truth, there was a terrific argument early on between the Gnostic Christians and the main line, later to become the Catholic Christians as to this ―flesh and blood‖ issue.) This savior figure spoke real words (i.e. the Sermon on the Mount, etc.), ate food, performed miracles, visited real places, and spoke to ―multitudes.‖ He was truly crucified, not allegorically crucified in a heavenly realm. Remember ―doubting Thomas‖? He wanted to stick his fingers into Jesus‘ wounds, just to be sure. (John 20: 26-27) I thought that was a “nice touch‖ for the last gospel fiction writer to add; don‘t you? For those of you that might still be unconvinced of the absolute untrustworthiness of the gospels in particular, I offer just one more powerful quotation for your consideration: ―Nearly every thing written concerning the gospels to the year 325, and all the copies of the gospels themselves to the same period, are lost or destroyed. The truth is that very few early Christian texts exist because the autographs, or originals, were destroyed after the Council of Nicea and the ―retouching‖ of 506 CE under Emperor Anastasius, which included ―revision‖ of the Church fathers‘ works—catastrophic acts that would be inconceivable if these ‗documents‘ were truly the precious testaments of the very Apostles themselves regarding the ‗Lord and Savior,‘ whose alleged advent was so significant that it sparked profound fanaticism and endless wars. Repeating what would seem to be utter blasphemy, in the 11th and 12th centuries the ‗infallible Word of God‘ was ‗corrected‘ again by a variety of church officials. In addition to these major ‗revisions‘ have been many others, including copying and translation mistakes and deliberate mutilation and obfuscation of meaning.‖ (Acharya S, The Christ Conspiracy, p. 26).

Still think the gospels are about real events? If so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I‘d like to talk to you about.

What we now call “Christianity” existed long before Jesus’ time

As with point two above, there is little or no debate among serious scholars that what we now call ―Christianity‖ has so heavily plagiarized from prior existing Christ and risen sun-god myths as to be virtually indistinguishable from many of them. Of course, first of all there is simply Judaism, which had long talked about and predicted a soon-to-arrive ―Christ.‖ Ironically, according to them, he still hasn‘t come. The documentation of this claim is the subject of literally hundreds of books. A small number of these books are quoted in this paper. Just to present a quick summation, I would like to quote a well-recognized scholar of the early 20th century. ―The Pagans had their holy days (from which the Christians plagiarized their Christmas, Easter, Rogation Days, etc.); their monks, nuns, religious processions carrying images of idols, incense, holy water, holy oil, chants, hymns, liturgies, confessions of sins to priests, revelations by gods to priests, prophecies, sacred writings of ‗holy bibles,‘ Pontiffs, Holy Fathers, holy crafty priesthoods. All these sacrosanct things of Christian ‗Revealed Religion,‘ were age-old pre-Christian Pagan myths and superstitions.‖ (Forgery in Christianity, by Joseph Wheless, p. 17 and 18) All of this is not even ―controversial‖ among knowledgeable secular biblical scholars. I will quote one more source, a small pamphlet published by The Freedom From Religion Foundation which ―zeroes in‖ on the mythical antecedents of the Jesus Christ figure. The pamphlet—really, a tract—is entitled, ―Cookie Cutter Christs.‖ The sun-god Mithra, who was very popular in the Roman Empire around 2000 years ago was ―born of a virgin about 600 BC, was celebrated on December 25. Magi brought gifts to his birth. His first worshipers were shepherds and he was followed in his travels by twelve companions. Mithra was slain upon a cross in Persia to make atonement for humankind and take away the sins of the world. His ascension to heaven was celebrated at the spring equinox (Easter).‖ Additionally, the pamphlet continues, ―Mithra celebrated a ‗Last Supper‘ with his 12 disciples. The Mythraists observed weekly sabbath days and celebrated the Eucharist by eating wafers marked with a cross.‖ Does any of this sound familiar? The same pamphlet notes that, ―Attis was born of a virgin mother named Nana, in Phrygia sometime before 200 BC. He was hanged on a tree, died, rose again, and was called ‗Father God‘.‖ ―Horus was born of the virgin Isis in Egypt around 1550 BC. Horus as an infant received gifts from three kings, and was crucified on a cross. There are about 200 close parallels of the careers of Horus and Jesus Christ.‖ ―Adonis (Tammuz) was born of a virgin mother called Ishtar (Easter), depicted like the Virgin Mary with her divine child in her arms. Adonis was regarded as both the son and husband of his mother Ishtar, as God the Father and God the Son.‖ We could go on and on. Any of the above named books will give the interested reader much more information about ancient gods along this same line. The mythology doesn‘t change much, just the name of the current sun-god de jure. Indeed, the parallels in the cult of Mithraism—perhaps Christianity‘s major contemporary and most competitive religion of the first century CE—most especially, are so striking that I have often reflected that had Emperor Constantine not mandated that Christianity be the Empire‘s only religion in 325 CE, and had that decree not been brutally enforced by the ―firebrand and the sword‖ for the next 1,700 years by the Catholic Church, then we might see steepled little Mithric Churches dotting the landscape throughout Europe and the United States especially. As part of this same fantasy, I have often wondered if there would now be heated debates as to whether or not the now recognized as mythic Mithra was somehow based on a historic, real flesh-and-blood, human being named Mithra. If the Catholic Mithraist myth enforcers had been equally as successful as have been the Catholic Jesus myth enforcers, I suppose the answer of the masses—and even of some atheists—throughout most of the world would clearly be, ―Yes, most likely there was a historic Mithra.‖ Incredible! What a brainwashing we have all been subjected to! Most well informed Christian apologists—even back to the early ―Church Fathers‖—admit that the above parallels are true. Their standard response is that just because there are all of these parallels doesn‘t necessarily prove that Jesus wasn‘t a real human figure who may have been just doing his best to ―fulfill‖ all the ancient prophesies, and to ―fit in‖ to the familiar legends about him. This counter-point can‘t be denied. I only ask the reader which of the two possible explanations seems the most likely?

Paul clearly spoke only of a “spiritual Christ,” not a human one.

 It is well recognized by all but the most fanatical fundamentalist bible scholars that Paul, writing between approximately 54 C. E. an 65 C.E., was not a ―witness to Jesus.‖ By his own admission, he saw Jesus ―in a vision‖ while on the road to Damascus. This Jesus was a purely mythical, ―spiritual Christ,‖ not in any sense a human being Christ. Paul ―received‖ this Jesus through a kind of divine revelation. I believe that Doherty explains this sort of ―Jesus‖ best when he says that the message Paul received, ―…was about a heavenly Son of God who was both an intermediary between God and the world, and a Savior figure. He was variously called Jesus, or Yeshua (meaning ‗Yahweh Saves‘ in Hebrew), the Christ (Greek for the Hebrew ―Mashiach,‖ or Messiah, meaning ‗Anointed One‘), and the Son. Some looked upon this new Son of God as a Reveler who bestowed saving knowledge of God, others as one who had undergone a sacrificial death and a resurrection. [In another heavenly realm] All manner of apostles like Paul were going about preaching this divine being and often not agreeing among themselves about him; indeed, they could be at each others‘ throats, as certain passages in Paul‘s letters revealed. This Son and Savior was not identified with a recent human man or placed in an earthly setting, much less given a ministry of teaching and miracle-working in Galilee. [Paul knew no details of the yet to be written, gospel ‗historical‘ Jesus.] Instead, he was a heavenly deity who had done his redeeming work in the supernatural dimension.‖ (The Jesus Puzzle p. 5.) This kind of thinking is very difficult for the modern mind. Remember that since every reader of this paper was born he or she has been constantly bombarded—well, except when you were in your church, synagogue, or mosque—with cause and effect, logical, scientific thinking. For the residents of Galilee two thousand years ago, however, nothing could have been more natural. The whole culture and the entire ―civilized world‖ was saturated with this way of thinking. It was, as Doherty explains, ―The view shared by a whole range of pagan salvation cults, each of which had its own savior god who had performed deeds in the mythical world. Like Paul‘s Christ, savior gods such as Attis and Osiris had been killed; like Paul‘s Christ, Osiris had been buried (after being dismembered); like Christ on the third day, Adonis and Dionysos had been resurrected from death. All these things were not regarded as historical; they had taken place in the world of myth and higher reality.‖ (Doherty, op cit. p. 16.) In summary, all of the parts of the New Testament attributed to a probably historical Paul are of no help at all in establishing a ―historical‖ Jesus, since they never speak of such a person.

There is no agreement on any information about this supposedly historical Jesus

By way of amplifying the above point, what I mean is that, normally, a very well-known historical person—even one existing as long as two thousand years ago—would certainly be much better known to historians than is Jesus. For example, we know much more about Alexander the Great, who lived 200 years before the Jesus character is said to have lived. Let‘s examine just a few points of reference that one might reasonably be expected to know about a person whose influence was so great that it literally change the course of history over the next two millenium. (1) Looks? No one in the entire bible gives any definitive description of Jesus whatsoever. He is depicted in artistic works, ranging from the ninth century up to modern times, as everything from being rather short with a ―male pattern baldness problem‖ to the tall, handsome Nordic Jesus with the neatly trimmed beard we all met in Sunday School. Secular scholar, Dr. William Harwood, an advocate of a ―historical nobody‖ who served as a basis of the mythical Jesus, believes that Jesus was, ―an odd looking man, balding, stooped, with joined eyebrows, and approximately 4 ft 6 in tall‖ (Mythology’s Last Gods, p. 63). Enough said. (2) Birth date? Biblical scholars of all stripes disagree as to the date of the mythical Jesus‘ birth. Dates range from about 4 BCE (the one most often quoted) to about 7 CA. (3) Birthplace? The bible says Bethlehem. However, Jesus is constantly referred to as ―Jesus of Nazareth.‖ Scholars now understand that this was probably a linguistic confusion and perhaps an early mistranslation. Jesus was a ―Nazarene,‖ the title of a sect, not a name having geographical associations. Thus, as G. A. Wells explains, ―‗Jesus the Nazarene‘ is equivalent to, say, ‗Henry the Quaker‘ or ‗George the Methodist.‘‖ (Wells, Did Jesus Exist, p. 147.) Furthermore, modern archeology has established that there was no such city as Nazareth in the first century. Dr. Harwood, mentioned above, argue strongly for the city of Capurnaum as a probable birth city. (4) Personal character and/or moral worthiness? Although we heard all about the loving, compassionate Jesus in church, and how we ought to ―turn the other cheek,‖ we were not given the quotations that urged his followers to bring those that would not have me for their leader and ―slay them before me.‖ (Luke 19: 27.) We were told not to lie. However, we read about how Jesus lied when it suited him. (See Mattill, A. J. Sweet Jesus, p. 103) We remember the part about not stealing, but we heard nothing about Jesus‘ habit of stealing pigs, wheat, donkeys, cash, cows, olive oil, and figs. (op. cit. p. 31-33.) Perhaps more critical than all of the above inconsistencies and silences is the confusion about what, exactly, was J.C.‘s central message? The problem of discerning a ―central message‖ is confounded not because there isn‘t one, but because there are too many. If one asks the average Christian what was Jesus‘ essential message to us, they look at you as if you must be the stupidest person they have ever met. Then, they explain patiently that, ―God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son to die for us so as to atone for our sins, and that if you would simply believe in him, you could have a sort of second life, ever-lasting, in a place called heaven.‖ Now, at first you must try to ignore the sheer imbecility of what you just heard, and ask a few follow-up questions. You may ask something like, ―Well, how can I ‗believe on him‘ as the bible phrases it, when I am not clear about his full message and his teachings?‖ The Christian has a ready answer. ―You can read the bible and there you will learn all about his wonderful message to us.‖ ―I already did that,‖ you might say, ― but then I became even more confused.‖ As mentioned above, there seems to be hundreds of messages, often with conflicting ideas and pronouncements. You might also add that you were a bit confused as to whether you should pay more attention to Peter‘s Jewish ‗works-based‘ Christianity, or to Paul‘s Gentile ‗faith-based‘ Christianity. You confess further confusion when you read about the early Gnostic Christian‘s ‗knowledge‘ (Gnosis) based Christianity. Despite all your reading, you say, you are still ―unclear on the concept.‖ At this point the Christian will generally say something like, ―Jesus loves you anyway‖ and walk away. The summary point here is that because of the great amount of hopelessly conflicting information and the lack of any definitive information on everything about Jesus—his looks, lineage, biography, nature (three in one; one in three?), character, moral worthiness, message, etc.—it is clear, at least to this writer, that there is simply no one underneath this great pile of b.s. to see.

You can’t have it both ways

This last point can be briefly explained. Despite its simplicity, I think it is a very powerful argument for a completely fictional Jesus. It has been said ―many times in many ways,‖ as the song lyric goes, but Frank Zindler recently stated it quite succinctly. Zindler notes that many liberal Christian apologists will readily agree that, ―While the gospels cannot be taken literally, they are at least evidence of somebody [emphasis in original] extraordinary. But these same apologists miss the irony of Jesus being so obscure that no secular record of him survives. (It is ironic also that despite being a well-known public figure and rabble-rouser, Jesus nevertheless is so colorless and forgettable that the authorities have to bribe Judas to point him out!)‖ (The Jesus The Jews Never Knew, p. 5) This last point Zindler puts in parenthesis because it assumes that the reader might think that at least some part of the gospel fables might be true. I believe, as does Zindler, that this is extraordinarily unlikely, to the point of a vanishing possibility. In conclusion, I believe that in this article I have at least ―hit the highlights‖ of the arguments for a purely fictional Jesus with his purely fictional ―gospel.‖ Clarence Darrow may have summarized the pure-myth position most succinctly when he said, ―I don‘t believe in Jesus because I don‘t believe in Mother Goose.‖ No, Virginia, I‘m afraid that it is time now to grow up. There really isn‘t any Santa Claus. And even though there may have been a Christian bishop, born in 270 CE, who was rumored to have secretly shared his inherited wealth with the poor, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the myth of the fat guy in a red suit who, on December 25th, drops down the chimney‘s of every world-wide Christian family who has one or more children to deliver presents, with the aide of a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer. Additionally, there is also no Tooth Fairy, no Mother Goose, and Jesus never was!

———–

By Don Havis (havis@att.net)

Bibliography

Note: Some of the books listed here support a historical myth, or a philosophical myth position (positions 2 or 3, described earlier). Some, like Burton Mack, Robert Price and others seem to adopt an agnostic stance on the historicity matter, although they have often done some of the best research which has lead to a nearly complete destruction of any chance for such a historical Jesus. All the books in this bibliography are highly recommended. I have undoubtedly left out others that by chance I have not read or just didn‘t consider for inclusion. For those readers who wish to ―zero in‖ on the pure myth (position 4) supporters, I have indicated these books with an asterisk. *Acharya S, The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Conspiracy Ever Sold, Klempton, IL, Adventures Unlimited, 1999. Anonymous, ―Cookie Cutter Christs, nontract # 8‖, Madison, WI, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. No date. *Barker, Dan, Losing Faith in Faith, (See Chapter 51, ―Jesus: History or Myth‖), Madison, WI, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., 1992. *Doherty, Earl, Challenging the Verdict, Ottawa Canada, Age of Reason Publications, 2001. *_______ , The Jesus Puzzle, Ottawa Canada, Canadian Humanist Publications, 1999. Ellegard, Alvar, Jesus One Hundred Years Before Christ, Woodstock, NY, The Overlook Press, 1999. *Freke, Timothy & Gandy, Peter, The Jesus Mysteries, NY, Harmony Books, 2000. Harwood, William, Mythology’s Last Gods, Amherst, NY, Prometheus Books, 1992. Helms, Randel, Gospel Fictions, Amherst, NY, Prometheus Books, 1988. Jackson, John G., Christianity Before Christ, Austin, TX, American Atheist Press, 1985. _______ , ―Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth,‖ (a pamphlet), Austin, TX, American Atheist Press, no date given. Leidner, Harold, The Fabrication of the Christ Myth, Tampa, FL, Survey Books, 1999. Mack, Burton L., Who Wrote The New Testament? San Francisco, CA, HarperSanFrancisco, 1995. Mattill Jr., A. J., Sweet Jesus, Gordo, AL, The Flatwoods Free Press, 2002. McCabe, Joseph, The Forgery of the Old Testament and other essays, Buffalo, NY, Prometheus Books, 1993. Price, Robert M., Deconstructing Jesus, Amherst, NY, Prometheus Books, 2000. Smith, Homer W., Man And His Gods, Boston, Little Brown & Co., 1956. *Wells, G. A., Did Jesus Exist? London, Elek Books, Ltd., 1975. *_______ , The Historical Evidence for Jesus, Amherst, NY, Prometheus Books, 1988. Wheless, Joseph, Forgery in Christianity: A Documented Record of the Foundations of The Christian Religion, New York, Knopf, 1930. *Zindler, Frank R., The Jesus The Jews Never Knew, Cranford, NJ, American Atheist Press, 2003.

Read Full Post »

JEWS HAVE BEEN SHOT  IN CALIFORNIA, CHICAGO PITTSBURGH, AND SYNAGOGUES DESECRATED WITH SWASTIKAS IN  CITIES THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES… BY NEO NAZIS,  WHITE SUPREMISTS AND MANY OTHER HATE GROUPS, WHO ONCE AGAIN, SEEK TO SCAPEGOAT JEWS FOR AMERICA’S GROWING RACIAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC PROBLEMS.

An epidemic of swastikas has spread in the United States in recent days. Police are scrambling to find suspects as Nazi symbols and other anti-Semitic graffiti have appeared on storefronts, synagogues and other locations in dozens of locations across the country, mostly over the Labor Day holiday.

In Arizona, graffiti “artists” spray-painted swastikas on several buildings, including a Family Dollar store. Some of the swastikas were accompanied by a painted circle with an “x” running through it and the words “Say No” appearing in the middle. Police are looking for the culprits of these attacks and others in the area, including swastikas and other anti-Semitic messages found on a traffic sign, a garage door and several mailboxes.

 

On Sunday, near Boston, Massachusetts, a swastika was found scratched into the door of a Reform Jewish temple. Suspects have yet to be found after Rabbi Benjamin Lefkowitz found the Nazi symbol on the door of Temple Beth Sholom in the town of Hull, according the local newspaper The Patriot Ledger.

 

Jewish institutions in Georgia and California also became the repeated targets of swastika tagging over the weekend.

 

The same Sunday of the Hull, MA attack, the Atlanta Jounal-Consitution reported that in the Atlanta, Georgia suburb of Sandy Springs a swastika was found painted on a stop sign near a Jewish day school. It was the second time in a month that the area near the Epstein School has been targeted with swastikas.

 

Sandy Springs police announced Tuesday that they were doubling the reward offered for information leading to the capture and conviction of the perpetrators, from $2,500 to $5,000.

 

Over the weekend, vandals painted a swastika on a Conservative synagogue northeast of San Diego, California. The San Diego Sheriff’s Department reported that it was the third time since April that Temple Ner Tamid in Poway was targeted with anti-Semitic graffiti. Local authorities reported that the synagogue, serving some 120 families, was targeted in May with “white-supremacist letters, numbers and signs”, including symbols that apparently meant “Heil Hitler.”

 

The Anti-Defamation League, an organization founded to combat anti-Semitism and other hate crimes, led a number of other organizations in offering a cash reward of $11,500 for information helping the police to apprehend the suspects in the Ner Tamid case.

 

In Upstate New York, a swastika was discovered Saturday morning on a local synagogue by postal workers. Goldie Goldberg, president of the Kerhonkson Synagogue, said that until it was painted over the swastika was large enough to be visible from the road. Kerhonkson is a small community about 70 miles north of New York City near the Catskill Mountains, an area long known for its numerous summer resorts catering to Jewish families. The synagogue serves about 40 families.

 

In St. Cloud, Minnesota, paper cutouts of the letters “KKK” – likely a reference to the white supremacist Ku Klux Klan – were found Monday taped to the wall of an elevator of a residence hall on the campus of St. Cloud State University.

 

Police say that the case may be linked to the appearance last year of more than a dozen swastikas and other racist images, carved or written on walls, bathroom stalls and elevators across the St. Paul-Minneapolis-area campus.

 

Last Thursday, an 18-year-old in Longview, Washington, was arrested for assaulting an interracial couple. Shawn Mooney wore a cap with a swastika during the attack, and police are also questioning Mooney in a case of swastikas that were found spray-painted on the home of a black family in the town.

 

 

 

KILL A JEW DAY

 

 

 

 

 

WARNING:
The U.S. Dollar is Teetering on the Brink of Collapse

Financially-desperate politicians and central bankers have secretly declared war on the value of our currency, your purchasing power, and your standard of living……and the situation threatens to spin wildly out of control. Debt monetization. Quantitative easing.

    Bailouts. Fiscal stimulus. Zero interest rate policy (ZIRP).

 

    These high-powered phrases bandied about by the media are just French for INFLATION… and, quite possibly, a sudden and catastrophic dollar collapse that will change our nation forever   

 Anyone holding dollars or dollar-denominated assets is sitting on a ticking time bomb, and frankly, there isn’t a moment to lose before something triggers a rush to the exits. It’s extremely important you read this Urgent Briefing carefully… and NOW. With the U.S. government frantically borrowing and spending money in a desperate effort to re-inflate stock

and housing markets, the government itself is going bankrupt. In a press conference on May 23, in which he tried to explain his multi-trillion spending boondoggles, President Obama admitted to adoring reporters “we are out of money now…” HISTORY HAS PROVEN THAT WHEN THE ECONOMY OF A COUNTRYFAILS…JEWS ARE BLAMED AND BECOME  THE VICTIMS OF VIOLENT HATRED …. AS THAT WHICH IS ADVOCATED BY THE NEO-NAZIS AND WHITE SUPREMISTS IN AMERICA TODAY.

 SHUVA (The Israel Emergency Aliyah Movement)

     website: www.shuva.net

      is calling upon American  Jews to “pick up,pack up, and COME HOME

       TO ISRAEL     BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!

          ”   The detention camps are an ominous sign

      that what happened in the HOLOCAUST …   

      CAN HAPPEN AGAIN,… EVEN IN America!!!

             As the U.S. economy worsens, countless neo-nazi

       and white supremist groups are spreading their venomous

‘      message on the Internet…and at public demonstrations

       seeking to scapegoat Jews for America’s  problems!

       They praise Hitler as a ‘great hero’…and preach violence”

       said Shifra Hoffman, Executive Director of SHUVA                

 

The libelous accusation that the Jews killed Jesus continues…

 

 

Read Full Post »

The Great Scandal: Christianity’s Role in the Rise of the Nazis by Gregory S. Paul


“You know what happens when atheists take over—remember Nazi Germany?” Many Christians point to Nazism, alongside Stalinism, to illustrate the perils of atheism in power.1 At the other extreme, some authors paint the Vatican as Hitler’s eager ally. Meanwhile, the Nazis are generally portrayed as using terror to bend a modern civilization to their agenda; yet we recognize that Hitler was initially popular. Amid these contradictions, where is the truth?

A growing body of scholarly research, some based on careful analysis of Nazi records, is clarifying this complex history.2 It reveals a convoluted pattern of religious and moral failure in which atheism and the nonreligious played little role, except as victims of the Nazis and their allies. In contrast, Christianity had the capacity to stop Nazism before it came to power, and to reduce or moderate its practices afterwards, but repeatedly failed to do so because the principal churches were complicit with—indeed, in the pay of—the Nazis.

Most German Christians supported the Reich; many continued to do so in the face of mounting evidence that the dictatorship was depraved and murderously cruel. Elsewhere in Europe the story was often the same. Only with Christianity’s forbearance and frequent cooperation could fascistic movements gain majority support in Christian nations. European fascism was the fruit of a Christian culture. Millions of Christians actively supported these notorious regimes. Thousands participated in their atrocities.

What, in God’s name, were they thinking?

Before we can consider the Nazis, we need to examine the historical and cultural religious context that would give rise to them.

 

Christian Foundations

Early Christian sects promoted loyalty to authoritarian rulers so long they were not intolerably anti-Christian or, worse, atheistic. Christian anti-Semitism sprang from one of the church’s first efforts to forge an accommodation with power. Reinterpreting the Gospels to shift blame for the Crucifixion from the Romans to the Jews (the “Christ killer” story) courted favor with Rome, an early example of Christian complicity for political purposes. Added energy came from Christians’ anger over most Jews’ refusal to convert.3

Christian anti-Semitism was only intermittently violent, but when violence occurred it was devastating. The first outright extermination of Jews occurred in 414 c.e. It would have innumerable successors, the worst nearly genocidal in scope. At standard rates of population growth, Diaspora Jewry should now number in the hundreds of millions. That there are only an estimated 13 million Jews in the world4 is largely the result of Christian violence and forced conversion.5

Anti-Semitic practices pioneered by Catholics included the forced wearing of yellow identification, ghettoization, confiscation of Jews’ property, and bans on intermarriage with Christians. European Protestantism bore the fierce impress of Martin Luther, whose 1543 tract On the Jews and Their Lies was a principal inspiration for Mein Kampf.6 In addition to his anti-Semitism, Luther was also a fervent authoritarian. Against the Robbing and Murdering Peasants, his vituperative commentary on a contemporary rebellion, contributed to the deaths of perhaps 100,000 Christians and helped to lay the groundwork for an increasingly severe Germo-Christian autocracy.7

With the Enlightenment, deistic and secular thinkers seeded Western culture with Greco-Roman notions of democracy and free expression. The feudal aristocracies and the churches counterattacked, couching their reactionary defense of privilege in self-consciously biblical language. This controversy would shape centuries of European history. As late as 1870, the Roman Catholic Church reaffirmed a reactionary program at the first Vatican Council. Convened by the ultraconservative Pope Pius IX (reigned 1846–1878), Vatican I stridently condemned modernism, democracy, capitalism, usury, and Marxism.8 Anti-Semitism was also part of the mix; well into the twentieth century, mainstream Catholic publications set an intolerant tone that later Nazi propaganda would imitate. Anti-Semitism remained conspicuous in mainstream Catholic literature even after Pope Pius XI (reigned 1922–1939) officially condemned it.

Protestantism, too, was largely hostile toward modernism and democracy during this period (with a few exceptions in northern Europe). Because Jews were seen as materialists who promoted and benefited from Enlightenment modernism, most Protestant denominations remained anti-Semitic.

With the nineteenth century came a European movement that viewed Judaism as a racial curse. Attracting both Protestant and Catholic dissidents within Germanic populations, Aryan Christianity differed from traditional Christianity in denying both that Christ was a Jew and that Christianity had grown out of Judaism.9 Adherents viewed Christ as a divine Aryan warrior who brought the sword to cleanse the earth of Jews.10 Aryans were held to be the only true humans, specially created by God through Adam and Eve; all other peoples were soulless subhumans, descended from apes or created by Satan with no hope of salvation.11 Most non-Aryans were considered suitable for subservient roles including slavery, but not the Jews. Spiritless yet clever and devious, Jews were seen as a satanic disease to be quarantined or eliminated.

During the same years neopagan and occult movements gained adherents and incubated their own form of Aryanism. Unlike Aryan Christians, neopagan Aryans acknowledged that Christ was a Jew—and for that reason rejected Christianity. They believed themselves descended from demigods whose divinity had degraded through centuries of interbreeding with lesser races. The Norse gods and even the Atlantis myth sometimes decorated Aryan mythology.

Attempting to deny that Nazi anti-Semitism had a Christian component, Christian apologists exaggerate the influence of Aryan neopaganism. Actually, neopaganism never had a large following.

German Aryanism, whether Christian or pagan, became known as “Volkism.” Volkism prophesied the emergence of a great God-chosen Aryan who would lead the people (Volk) to their grand destiny through the conquest of Lebensraum (living space). A common motto was “God and Volk.” Disregarding obvious theological contradictions, growing numbers of German nationalists managed to work Aryanism into their Protestant or Catholic confessions, much as contemporary adherents of Voudoun or Santería blend the occult with their Christian beliefs. Darwinian theory sometimes entered Volkism as a belief in the divinely intended survival of the fittest peoples. Democracy had no place, but Nietzschean philosophy had some influence—a point Christian apologists make much of. Yet Nietzsche’s influence was modest, as Volkists found his skepticism toward religion unacceptable.12

Though traceable to the ancient world, atheism first emerged as a major social movement in the mid-1800s.13 It would be associated with both pro- and antidemocratic worldviews. Strongly influenced by science, atheists tended to view all humans as descended in common from apes. There was no inherent anti-Semitic tradition. Some atheists accepted then-popular pseudoscientific racist views that the races exhibited varying levels of intellect due to differing genetic heritages. Some went further, embracing various forms of eugenics as a means of improving the human condition. But neither of these positions was uniquely or characteristically atheistic. “Scientific” racism is actually better understood as a tool by which Christians could perpetuate their own cultural prejudices—it was no accident that the races deemed inferior by Western Christian societies and “science” were the same!

When we seek precursors of Nazi anti-Semitism and authoritarianism, it is among European Christians, not among the atheists, that we must search.

Following World War I, the religious situation in Europe was complex. Scientific findings about the age of the Earth, Darwin’s theory of evolution, and biblical criticism had fueled the first major expansion of nontheism at Christianity’s expense among ordinary Europeans. The churches’ support for the catastrophic Great War further fueled public disaffection, as did (in Germany) the flight of the Kaiser, in whom both Protestant and Catholic clergy had vested heavily.14 But religion was not everywhere in retreat: postwar Germany experienced a Christian spiritual renaissance outside the traditional churches.15 Religious freedom was unprecedented, but the established churches enjoyed widespread state support and controlled their own education systems. They were far more influential than today.

Roughly two-thirds of Germans were Protestant, almost all of the rest Catholic. The pagan minority claimed at most 5 percent. Explicit nontheism was limited to an intellectual elite and to committed socialists. Just 1.5 percent of Germans identified themselves as unbelievers in a 1939 census, which means either that very few Nazis and National Socialist German Worker’s Party supporters were atheists, or that atheists feared to identify themselves to the pro-theistic regime.

Most religious Germans detested the impiety, secularism, and hedonistic decadence that they associated with such modernist ideas as democracy and free speech. If they feared democracy, they were terrified by Communism, to the point of being willing to accept extreme countermethods.

Thus it was a largely Christian, deeply racist, often antidemocratic, and in many respects dangerously primitive Western culture into which Nazism would arise. It was a theistic powder keg ready to explode.

 

Nazi Leaders, Theism, and Family Values

According to standard biographies, the principal Nazi leaders were all born, baptized, and raised Christian. Most grew up in strict, pious households where tolerance and democratic values were disparaged. Nazi leaders of Catholic background included Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich, and Joseph Goebbels.

Hitler did well in monastery school. He sang in the choir, found High Mass and other ceremonies intoxicating, and idolized priests. Impressed by their power, he at one time considered entering the priesthood.

Rudolf Hoess, who as commandant at Auschwitz-Birkinau pioneered the use of the Zyklon-B gas that killed half of all Holocaust victims, had strict Catholic parents. Hermann Goering had mixed Catholic-Protestant parentage, while Rudolf Hess, Martin Bormann, Albert Speer, and Adolf Eichmann had Protestant backgrounds. Not one of the top Nazi leaders was raised in a liberal or atheistic family—no doubt, the parents of any of them would have found such views scandalous. Traditionalists would never think to deprive their offspring of the faith-based moral foundations that they would need to grow into ethical adults.

So much for the Nazi leaders’ religious backgrounds. Assessing their religious views as adults is more difficult. On ancillary issues such as religion, Party doctrine was a deliberate tangle of contradictions.16 For Hitler consistency mattered less than having a statement at hand for any situation that might arise. History records many things that Hitler wrote or said about religion, but they too are sometimes contradictory. Many were crafted for a particular audience or moment and have limited value for illuminating Hitler’s true opinion; in any case, neither Hitler nor any other key Nazi leader was a trained theologian with carefully thought-out views.

Accuracy of transcription is another concern. Hitler’s public speeches were recorded reliably, but were often propagandistic. His private statements seem more likely to reflect his actual views, but their reliability varies widely.17 The passages Christian apologists cite most often to prove Hitler’s atheism are of questionable accuracy. Apologists often brandish them without noting historians’ reservations. Hitler’s personal library has been partly preserved, and a good deal is known about his reading habits, another possible window onto Hitler’s beliefs.18 Also important, and often ignored by apologists, are statements made by religious figures of the time, who generally—at least for public consumption—viewed Hitler as a Christian and a Catholic in good standing. Meanwhile, the silent testimony of photographs is irrefutable, much as apologists struggle to evade this damning visual evidence.

Despite these difficulties, enough is known to build a reasonable picture of what Hitler and other top Nazis believed.

Hitler was a Christian, but his Christ was no Jew. In his youth he dabbled with occult thinking but never became a devotee. As a young man he grew increasingly bohemian and stopped attending church. Initially no more anti-Semitic than the norm, in the years before the Great War he fell under the anti-Semitic influence of the Volkish Christian Social Party and other Aryan movements. After Germany’s stunning defeat and the ruinous terms of peace, Hitler became a full-blown Aryanist and anti-Semite. He grew obsessed with racial issues, which he unfailingly embedded in a religious context.

Apologists often suggest that Hitler did not hold a traditional belief in God because he believed that he was God. True, Hitler thought himself God’s chosen leader for the Aryan race. But he never claimed to be divine, and never presented himself in that manner to his followers. Members of the Wehrmacht swore this loyalty oath: “I swear by God this holy oath to the Führer of the German Reich and the German people, Adolf Hitler.” For Schutzstaffel (S.S.) members it was: “I pledge to you, Adolf Hitler, my obedience unto death, so help me God.”

Hitler repeatedly thanked God or Providence for his survival on the western front during the Great War, his safe escape from multiple assassination attempts, his seemingly miraculous rise from homelessness to influence and power, and his amazing international successes. He never tired of proclaiming that all of this was beyond the power of any mere mortal. Later in the war, Hitler portrayed German defeats as part of an epic test: God would reward his true chosen people with the final victory they deserved so long as they never gave up the struggle.

Reich iconography, too, reveals that Nazism never cut its ties to Christianity. The markings of Luftwaffe aircraft comprised just two swastikas—and six crosses. Likewise the Kreigsmarine (German Navy) flag combined the symbols. Hitler participated in public prayers and religious services at which the swastika and the cross were displayed together.

Hitler openly admired Martin Luther, whom he considered a brilliant reformer.19 Yet he said in several private conversations that he considered himself a Catholic. He said publicly on several occasions that Christ was his savior. As late as 1944, planning the last-ditch offensive the world would know as the Battle of the Bulge, he code-named it “Operation Christrose.”

Among his Nazi cronies Hitler criticized the established churches harshly and often. Some of these alleged statements must be treated with skepticism,20 but clearly he viewed the traditional Christian faiths as weak and contaminated by Judaism. Still, there is no warrant for the claim that he became anti-Christian or antireligious after coming to power. No reliably attributed quote reveals Hitler to be an atheist or in any way sympathetic to atheism. On the contrary, he often condemned atheism, as he did Christians who collaborated with such atheistic forces as Bolshevism. He consistently denied that the state could replace faith and instructed Speer to include churches in his beloved plans for a rebuilt Berlin. The Nazi-era constitution explicitly evoked God. Calculating that his victories over Europe and Bolshevism would make him so popular that people would be willing to abandon their traditional faiths, Hitler entertained plans to replace Protestantism and Catholicism with a reformed Christian church that would include all Aryans while removing foreign (Rome-based) influence. German Protestants had already rejected a more modest effort along these lines, as will be seen below. How Germans as a whole would have received this reform after a Nazi victory is open to question. In any case, Hitler saw himself as Christianity’s ultimate reformer, not its dedicated enemy.

Hitler was a complex figure, but based on the available evidence we can conclude our inquiry into his personal religious convictions by describing him as an Aryan Volkist Christian who had deep Catholic roots, strongly influenced by Protestantism, touched by strands of neopaganism and Darwinism, and minimally influenced by the occult. Though Hitler pontificated about God and religion at great length, he considered politics more important than religion as the means to achieve his agenda.

None of the leaders immediately beneath Hitler was a pious traditional Christian. But there is no compelling evidence that any top Nazi was nontheistic. Any so accused denied the charge with vehemence.

Reich-Führer Himmler regularly attended Catholic services until he lurched into an increasingly bizarre Aryanism. He authorized searches for the Holy Grail and other supposedly powerful Christian and Cathar relics. A believer in reincarnation, he sent expeditions to Tibet and the American tropics in search of the original Aryans and even Atlantians. He and Heydrich modeled the S.S. after the disciplined and secretive Jesuits; it would not accept atheists as members.21 Goering, least ideological among top Nazis, sometimes endorsed both Protestant and Catholic traditions. On other occasions he criticized them. Goebbels turned against Catholicism in favor of a reformed Aryan faith; both his and Goering’s children were baptized. Bormann was stridently opposed to contemporary organized Christianity; he was a leader of the Church Struggle, the inconsistently applied Nazi campaign to oppose the influence of established churches.22

The Nazis championed traditional family values: their ideology was conservative, bourgeois, patriarchal, and strongly antifeminist. Discipline and conformity were emphasized, marriage promoted, abortion and homosexuality despised.23

Traditionalism also dominated Nazi philosophy, such as it was. Though science and technology were lauded, the overall thrust opposed the Enlightenment, modernism, intellectualism, and rationality. It is hard to imagine how a movement with that agenda could have been friendly toward atheism, and the Nazis were not. Volkism was inherently hostile toward atheism: freethinkers clashed frequently with Nazis in the late 1920s and early 1930s. On taking power, Hitler banned freethought organizations and launched an “anti-godless” movement. In a 1933 speech he declared: “We have . . . undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” This forthright hostility was far more straightforward than the Nazis’ complex, often contradictory stance toward traditional Christian faith.

 

Destroying Democracy: a Political-Religious Collaboration

As detailed by historian Ian Kershaw, Hitler made no secret of his intent to destroy democracy. Yet he came to power largely legally; in no sense was he a tyrant imposed upon the German people.

The Nazi takeover climaxed a lengthy, ironic rejection of democracy at the hands of a majority of German voters. By the early 1930s, ordinary Germans had lost patience with democracy; growing numbers hoped an authoritarian strongman would restore order and prosperity and return Germany to great-power status. Roughly two-thirds of German Christians repeatedly voted for candidates who promised to overthrow democracy. Authoritarianism was all but inevitable; at issue was merely who the new strongman would be.

What made democracy so fragile? Historian Klaus Scholder explains that Germany lacked a deep democratic tradition, and would have had difficulty in forming one because German society was so thoroughly divided into opposing Protestant and Catholic blocs. This division created a climate of competition, fear and prejudice between the confessions, which burdened all German domestic and foreign policies with an ideological element of incalculable weight and extent. This climate erected an almost insurmountable barrier to the formation of broad democratic center. And it favored the rise of Hitler, since ultimately both churches courted his favor—each fearing that the other would complete the Reformation or the Counter-Reformation through Hitler.24

Carefully plotting his strategy, Hitler purged some of the Volkish Nazi radicals most belligerent toward the traditional Christian churches. In this way he lessened the risk of ecclesiastical opposition. At the same time, he knew that the presence of both Catholics and Protestants among the Nazi leadership would ease churchmen’s fears that the Party might engage in sectarianism.

Though it had many Catholic leaders (including Hitler), the Nazi Party relied heavily on Protestant support. Protestants had given the Party its principal backing during the years leading up to 1933 at a level disproportionate to their national majority.25 Evangelical youth was especially pro-Nazi. It has been estimated that as many as 90 percent of Protestant university theologians supported the Party. Indeed, the participation of so many respected Protestants gave a early, comforting air of legitimacy to the often-thuggish Party. So did the frequent sight of Sturmabteilung (S.A.) units marching in uniform to church.

As German life between the wars grew more desperate, some Protestant pastors explicitly defended Nazi murders of “traitors to the Volk” from the pulpit. Antifascist Protestants found themselves marginalized. The once-unlikely topic of Volkist-Protestant compatibility became the leading theological subject of the day.26 This is less surprising when we consider that Volkism and German Protestantism were both strongly nationalistic; Lutheranism in particular had German roots.

This mirage of harmony enticed Hitler into a naïve attempt to unite the German Protestant churches into a single Volkish body under Nazi control. Launched shortly after the Nazis came to power, this project failed immediately. The evangelical sects proved as unwilling as ever to get along with one another, though much of their clergy eventually Nazified.

 

Catholicism and the Nazi Takeover

Ironically—but, as we shall see, for obvious reasons—Chancellor Hitler had greater initial success reaching accommodation with Roman Catholic leaders than with the Protestants. The irony lay in the fact that the Catholic Zentrum (Center) Party had been principally responsible for denying majorities to the Nazis in early elections. Although Teutonic in outlook, German Catholics had close emotional ties to Rome. As a group they were somewhat less nationalistic than most Protestants. Catholics were correspondingly more likely than Protestants to view Hitler (incorrectly) as godless, or as a neo-heathen anti-Christian. Catholic clergy consistently denounced Nazism, though they often undercut themselves by preaching traditional anti-Semitism at the same time.

Even so, and despite Catholicism’s minority status, it would be German Catholics and the Roman Catholic Church that whose actions would at last put total power within the Nazis’ reach.

Though it was not without antimodernists, the Catholic Zentrum party had antagonized the Vatican during the 1920s by forming governing coalitions with the secularized, moderate Left-oriented Social Democrats. This changed in 1928, when the priest Ludwig Kaas became the first cleric to head the party. To the dismay of some Catholics, Kaas and other Catholic politicians participated both actively and passively in destroying democratic rule, and in particular the Zentrum.

The devoutly Catholic chancellor Franz von Papen, not a fascist but stoutly right-wing, engineered the key electoral victory that brought Hitler to power. Disastrously Papen dissolved the Reichstag in 1932, then formed a Zentrum-Nazi coalition in violation of all previous principles. It was Papen who in 1933 made Hitler chancellor, Papen stepping down to the vice chancellorship.

The common claim that Papen acted in the hope that the Nazis could be controlled and ultimately discredited may be true, partly true, or false; but without Papen’s reckless aid, Hitler would not have become Germany’s leader.

The church congratulated Hitler on his assumption of power. German bishops released a statement that wiped out past criticism of Nazism by proclaiming the new regime acceptable, then followed doctrine by ordering the laity to be loyal to this regime just as they had commanded loyalty to previous regimes. Since Catholics had been instrumental in bringing Hitler to power and served in his cabinet, the bishops had little choice but to collaborate.

German Catholics were stunned by the magnitude and suddenness of this realignment. The rigidly conformist church had flipped from ordering its flock to oppose the Nazis to commanding cooperation. A minority among German Catholics was appalled and disheartened. But most “received the statement with relief—indeed with rejoicing—because it finally also cleared the way into the Third Reich for Catholic Christians” alongside millions of Protestants, who joined in exulting that the dream of a Nazi-Catholic-Protestant nationalist alliance had been achieved.27 The Catholic vote for the Nazis increased in the last multi-party elections after Hitler assumed control, doubling in some areas, inspiring a mass Catholic exodus from the Zentrum to the fascists. After the Reichstag fire, the Zentrum voted en masse to support the infamous Enabling Act, which would give the Hitler-Papen cabinet executive and legislative authority independent of the German Parliament. Zentrum’s bloc vote cemented the two-thirds majority needed to pass the Act.

Why did the church direct its party to provide the critical swing vote? It had its agenda, as we shall see below.

 

Deal Making with the Devil

Even after the Enabling Act, Hitler’s position remained tenuous. The Nazis needed to deepen majority popular support and cement relations with a skeptical German military. Hitler needed to ally all Aryans under the swastika while he undermined and demoralized regime opponents. What would solidify Hitler’s position? A foreign policy coup: the Concordat of 1933 between Nazi Germany and the Vatican.

The national and international legitimacy Hitler would gain through this treaty was incalculable. Failure to secure it after intense and openly promoted effort could have been a crushing humiliation. Hitler put exceptional effort into the project. He courted the Holy See, emphasizing his own Christianity, simultaneously striving to intimidate the Vatican with demonstrations of his swelling power.

Catholic apologists describe the Concordat of 1933 as a necessary move by a church desperate to protect itself against a violent regime which forced the accord upon it—passing over the contradiction at the heart of this argument. Actually, having failed in repeated attempts to negotiate the ardently desired concordat with a skeptical Weimar democracy, Kaas, Papen, the future Pius XII (who reigned 1939–1958), the sitting Pius XI, and other leading Catholics saw their chance to get what they had been seeking from an agreeable member of the church—that is, Hitler—at an historical moment when he and fascism in general were regarded as a natural ally by many Catholic leaders.28 Negotiations were initiated by both sides, modeled on the mutually advantageous 1929 concordat between Mussolini and the Vatican.

Now Zentrum’s pivotal role in assuring passage of the Enabling Act can be seen in context. It was part of the tacit Nazi-Vatican deal for a future concordat.29 The Enabling Act vote hollowed Zentrum, leaving little more than a shell. Thus, a clergy far more interested in church power than democratic politics could take control on both sides of the negotiating table. In a flagrant conflict of interest, the devout Papen helped to represent the German state. Concordat negotiations were largely held in Rome, so that Kaas could leave his vanishing party yet more rudderless. Papen, Kaas, and the future Pius XII worked overtime to finalize a treaty that would, among other things, put an end to the Zentrum. In negotiating away the party he led, Kaas eliminated the last political entity that might have opposed the new Führer.30 Nor did the Vatican protect Germany’s Catholic party. Contrary to the contention of some, evidence indicates that the Vatican was pleased to negotiate away all traces of the Zentrum, for which it had no more use save as a bargaining chip. In this the Holy See treated Zentrum no differently than it had the Italian Catholic party, which it negotiated away in the Concordat with Mussolini.

Hitler sought to eliminate Catholic opposition in favor of obligatory loyalty to his regime. For its part, the church was obsessed with its educational privileges,31 and especially with securing fresh sources of income. It would willingly sacrifice political power to protect them. As both sides worked in haste to produce a treaty that would normally have required years to complete, Hitler took masterful advantage of Vatican overeagerness. Filled with “certainty that Rome neither could nor would turn back, [Hitler] was now able to steer the negotiations almost as he wanted. The records prove he exploited the situation to the full.”32 Indeed, Hitler was so confident that he had the Church in his lap that he went ahead and promulgated his notorious sterilization decree before the Concordat’s final signing. Hitler’s project for involuntary sterilization of minorities and the mentally ill was an direct affront to Catholic teaching. But as Hitler surmised, not even this provocation could deflect the Holy See in its rush toward the Concordat. Because ordinary Catholics largely supported the Nazis, the party even felt free to use violence against the remaining politically active Catholics, frequently disrupting their rallies.

Signed on July 20, 1933, the Concordat was a fait accompli, the negotiations having been conducted largely in secret. Most German bishops gave their loyal, though impotent, approval to the pact that would strip away their power. A few bishops objected, criticizing the Nazi regime’s lack of morality (but never its lack of democracy).

The Concordat was a classic political kickback scheme. The church supported the new dictatorship by endorsing the end of democracy and free speech. In addition it bound its bishops to Hitler’s Reich by means of a loyalty oath. In exchange the church received enormous tax income and protection for church privileges. Religious instruction and prayer in school were reinstated. Criticism of the church was forbidden. Of course, nothing in the Concordat protected the rights of non-Catholics.

If Catholic officials were disappointed with the Concordat’s terms, they did not show it, sending messages of congratulation to the dictator. In Rome, a celebratory mass followed the treaty’s signing by Papen and the future Pius XII amid great pomp and circumstance. In Germany, the church and the Berlin government held a joint service of thanksgiving that featured a mix of Catholic, Reich, and swastika banners and flags. The musical program mixed hymns with a rousing performance of the repugnant Nazi anthem “Horst Wessel”—which was set, by the way, to the traditional hymn “How Great Thou Art.” All of this was projected by loudspeaker to the enthusiastic crowd outside; as most German Catholics welcomed the Concordat, the thanksgiving service drew far more than Berlin’s cathedral could hold.

Scholder comments that “anyone who saw things from the Roman perspective could come to the conclusion that . . . the treaty was . . . an indescribable success for Catholicism. Even a year before, the Holy See had only been able to dream of the concessions which the concordat contained. . . . On the Catholic side the concordat was accordingly described as ‘something very great,’ indeed as nothing short of a ‘masterpiece.’”33 Catholic response was so exuberant that Hitler felt it necessary to defend himself to Protestant clerics and Nazi radicals who viewed this sudden amity with Rome as a betrayal.

The practical results of the collaboration were clear enough. Most Catholics “soon adjusted to the dictatorship”34; indeed they flocked to the Party. Post-Concordat voting patterns suggest that Catholics, on average, even outdid Protestants in supporting the regime, further undermining any efforts by the clergy to challenge Nazi policies. In any case much of the Catholic clergy was Nazifying. Even the idiosyncratic S.S. welcomed Catholics, who would ultimately compose a quarter of its membership.

The Concordat’s disastrous consequences cannot be exaggerated. It bound all devout German Catholics to the state—the clergy through an oath and income, the laity through the authority of the church. If at any time the regime chose not to honor the agreement, Catholics had no open legal right to oppose it or its policies. Opponents of Nazism, Catholic and non-Catholic, were further discouraged and marginalized because the church had shown such want of moral fiber and consistency.

Apologists have insisted that the church had no choice but to accept the Concordat for the modest protections it provided. But those provisions were never needed. Major Protestant denominations suffered no more than Catholicism, though the Protestant churches lacked protective agreements and had snubbed Hitler’s early attempt to unite them. Apologists make much of Vatican “resistance” to Nazism, but the net effect of Vatican policy toward Hitler was collaborative.

Indeed, the 1933 Concordat stands as one of the most unethical, corrupt, duplicitous, and dangerous agreements ever forged between two authoritarian powers. Perhaps the Catholic strategy was to outlast the Nazi’s frankly popular tyranny rather than try to bring it down. But the Catholic Church made no attempt to revoke the Concordat and its loyalty clause during the Nazi regime. Indeed, the 1933 Concordat is the only diplomatic accord negotiated with the Nazi regime that remains in force anywhere in the world.

Germany’s Protestant sects were too decentralized to be coopted by a single document. To this extent Protestants who disputed Nazi policies could be said to enjoy a more favorable position than Catholics. But opposition was rare among Protestants too. Hitler cynically courted the major denominations even as they cynically courted him. Most smaller traditional Christian sects did little better. For example, Germany’s Mormons and Seventh-Day Adventists bent over backwards to accommodate National Socialism.35

 

Christian Comfort with the Rising Regime

Catholics and Protestants at first embraced the new German order. Germany was regaining international prestige, the economy improving thanks to growing overseas support.36 Industrialists like Henry Ford invested heavily in the new Reich. German Christians also looked to the Nazis for a revival of “Christian” values to help counter the rise of nontheism. Most welcomed the Nazis’ elimination of chronic public strife by terrorizing, imprisoning, and killing the fast-shrinking German Left. The leftists had long been despised by traditionalists, who composed four fifths of the population. The state purged a far higher proportion of atheists than traditional Christians. In newspapers and newsreels the Nazis proudly publicized their new concentration camps. Reports sanitized the camps’ true nature, but no one could mistake that they were part of a new police state—to which most German followers of Jesus raised no objection. The very high rate of “legal” executions reported in the press also met with mass indifference or positive approval.

Far from being hapless victims, the great bulk of German Christians joined, eagerly supported, collaborated with, or accommodated to a greater or lesser degree, the new tyranny.

 

Hitler: the Popular Oppressor

Apologists for Christian conduct during the Nazi era imagine that the regime suppressed dissent ruthlessly, no matter whom—or how many—it needed to slaughter to achieve its ends. Hitler’s regime is portrayed as Stalinesque in its response to dissent. This simplistic view reveals a failure to understand the complicated actuality of a popular terror state. The keyword is popular: Hitler was Europe’s most popular leader, and his goal was universal Aryan support. The Party obsessively tracked public opinion, something never seen in the USSR.37 Before the war, foreign tourism was encouraged; Hitler knew most Germans would speak well of the Reich to visitors, in sharp contrast to the USSR, whose leaders prudently feared interaction between foreigners and a citizenry of dubious loyalty. During most of the Reich, any unprovoked attempt to liberate Germany would have met fierce majority resistance.

Though there were assassination attempts, the top Nazis had little to fear from ordinary Germans.38 Hitler’s personal security was shockingly lax; Goering regularly drove his open convertible around Berlin.

If the apologists were right, we should expect the Gestapo to have been a massive organization, relentlessly searching out and crushing widespread dissent. Analysis of surviving Gestapo records reveals that in fact it was surprisingly small.39 Germany’s Christian population being largely satisfied, there was little resistance to suppress. Most cases the Gestapo handled were initiated by ordinary citizens looking to settle petty disputes and had no ideological content.

The Führer had been successful in buying off his Aryans with false egalitarian prosperity, stolen Jewish wealth, and his refusal to put Deutschland on a full war footing until well into the war. During the early war years civilians were under much tighter control in submarine-blockaded England than in Germany. Since nearly all Aryans were Protestant and Catholic, Hitler had to keep both sects reasonably happy, and he did. After all, the main focus of Nationalist Socialism was to make the divinely favored Aryan Volk, both Protestant and Catholic, thrive in order to transform the German population into a unified machine of domination over the lesser peoples. Contrary to Catholic apologists, the nominally Catholic Hitler had not the slightest desire to slaughter masses of the very Aryan people to whom he belonged, and whom he wanted to elevate to supreme power. Leaving aside the fact that doing so would have been ideological and racial suicide, the record makes clear that Hitler’s intention was to reform and standardize Aryans’ political, social, and ultimately their religious beliefs, not to purge them or to kill off groups of Aryans. Doing that would have grossly violated Nazi doctrine, undermined the myth of Aryan solidarity, grievously weakened the state, and risked religious civil war. Disloyalty of the Catholic third of the population would have been disastrous to a modest-sized nation trying to expand its resources in preparation for epic wars of conquest; it was this fact, not the Concordat, that would be the main constraint on Nazi actions. For that reason, apologist claims that thousands or millions of Catholics and Protestants would have joined the Jews had they protested Nazis policies are false. The proof is found in the historical record.

 

Rosenstrasse: the Power of Resistance

Far from exercising absolute power at home, Hitler often discontinued, modified, or concealed initiatives that threatened his regime’s precious popular approval. Stout public objection could and repeatedly did alter Nazi behavior. Flummoxed when the Protestant churches refused to unite, Hitler deferred his grand effort to reform German Christianity to a dreamlike utopian future. Later attempts by Nazi authorities to hamper church activities were often frustrated by sizeable demonstrations.40 When Party elements stripped Bavarian schools of their crucifixes without Hitler’s approval, vigorous protests by, among others, the mothers of schoolchildren quickly brought about their replacement.41 When Hitler denounced Protestant opposition bishops Hans Meiser and Theophil Wurm and ordered their ouster, public anger boiled over. One protest drew 7,000 demonstrators. Hitler reversed course and reinstated Meiser and Wurm with fulsome praise. Strong opposition to the mass killing of the mentally disabled circa 1941 drove it further underground, saving many lives, even though this program too enjoyed the Führer’s approval.

This is not to say that protesters courted no danger. Opposition figures were frequently harassed, sometimes killed. But the top Nazis knew how limited their power was. When regime officials contemplated forcing the removal of Muenster’s Catholic bishop, Clemens Galen, Goebbels warned that the “the population of Muenster could be regarded as lost during the war if anything were done against the bishop . . . [indeed] the whole of [the state] of Westphalia.”42 Though Galen suffered harassment, he remained active throughout the war and held his office.

In occupied countries from Norway to Italy, residents successfully opposed Nazi racial policies and saved hundreds of thousands of Jews. In Denmark, political and ecclesiastical leaders forcefully protested Nazi policies; the whole nation worked under the noses of the Gestapo to save almost all of Denmark’s Jews. Neither leaders or citizens suffered severe retaliation. French bishops who opposed Nazi actions against Jews likewise survived the war.

Most extraordinary and telling is the Rosenstrasse incident.43 Some 30,000 Jews lived openly in Germany as the spouses of Christians. Nine in ten such marriages remained intact despite ceaseless harassment. Oriented toward family values as they were, the Nazis could not decide how to handle these Jews without violating the sanctity of marriage. Early in 1943, Goebbels, then in charge of Berlin, decided it was time to cleanse the capital by rounding up these last Jews. Hitler agreed. Some 2,000 Jewish men from mixed marriages were seized and taken to a large downtown building on the Rosenstrasse, from which they would be deported to the camps.

For a week their Gentile wives stood in the winter cold, chanting “We want our husbands back!” Ordinary Germans sometimes joined them. All told, the protests involved about 6,000 people. They continued in the face of S.S. and Gestapo threats, even threats to use machine guns. They continued though British bombers pounded the city by night. But the Nazis dared not fire upon these defenseless, unorganized Aryan women. Berliners saw the protests directly. Foreign diplomats spread word of it to the world press. The British Broadcasting Company broadcast the story back into Germany.

What was the outcome of Nazi Germany’s only mass demonstration to save Jews? The 2,000 Jewish husbands were released with Hitler’s approval. Two dozen who had already been sent to Auschwitz were returned. Jewish-Christian couples continued to live openly and survived the war. They would comprise the great majority of German Jewish survivors.

Goebbels later commented to an associate that the regime relented “in order to eliminate the protest from the world, so that others didn’t begin to do the same.” Sadly, this strategy was successful: during the rest of the war, no similar action would ever be taken in defense of Jews in general.

Nor does this exhaust the catalogue of successful opposition. When Goebbels called for mass employment of housewives in war industries, also early in 1943, refusal was widespread. Again, reprisals were rare, partly because of the regime’s established emphasis on traditional roles for women. On a broader scale, Germans who refused to participate in atrocities—even if they were soldiers, party members, or S.S. men—almost never suffered retaliation. This was so well known that, after the war, Nazis accused of war crimes were forbidden to claim fear of retaliation as a defense.

These incidents suggest that the Nazi regime was at root cowardly, happy to pick on the weak and disorganized but intimidated by public demonstrations. When it came to the Volk, Nazi leaders preferred propaganda, education, persuasion, and social pressure to terror. They knew that terror worked best when its objective was supported by many and opposed by few. Only toward the end of the war was widespread domestic terror resorted to in Germany, and it was often ineffective.

Clearly ordinary citizens could oppose and alter state policy, all the more so if powerful nongovernemental institutions supported them.44 As Sarah Gordon comments, the “failure of German churches to speak out against racial persecution is a disgrace . . . because the Nazis feared the propaganda or political power of the churches, it is almost certain that church leaders could have spoken out more vehemently against racial persecution.”45

The apologist claim that Germany’s traditional Christians were impotent in the face of Nazi terror is an exaggeration on a scale that Goebbels might have appreciated. As the wives of Berlin discovered, Christians had the power to protect the lives and well-being of others and the potential to confound Hitler and his minions. Had they wished to, they need only have applied it.

Read Full Post »

March 29, 2011

Source: By Dr. Webster G. Tarpley

http://www.blacklistednews.com/The_CIA%E2%80%99s_Libya_Rebels%3A_The_Same_Terrorists_who_Killed_US%2C_NATO_Troops_in_Iraq/13276/0/27/27/Y/M.html

Serpents, thirst, heat, and sand … Libya alone can present a multitude of woes that it would beseem men to fly from.” Lucan, Pharsalia

Washington DC, March 24, 2011 — The current military attack on Libya has been motivated by UN Security Council resolution 1973 with the need to protect civilians. Statements by President Obama, British Prime Minister Cameron, French President Sarkozy, and other leaders have stressed the humanitarian nature of the intervention, which is said to aim at preventing a massacre of pro-democracy forces and human rights advocates by the Qaddafi regime.

But at the same time, many commentators have voiced anxiety because of the mystery which surrounds the anti-Qaddafi transitional government which emerged at the beginning of March in the city of Benghazi, located in the Cyrenaica district of north-eastern Libya. This government has already been recognized by France and Portugal as the sole legitimate representative of the Libyan people. The rebel council seems to be composed of just over 30 delegates, many of whom are enveloped in obscurity. In addition, the names of more than a dozen members of the rebel council are being kept secret, allegedly to protect them from the vengeance of Qaddafi. But there may be other reasons for the anonymity of these figures. Despite much uncertainty, the United Nations and its several key NATO countries, including the United States, have rushed forward to assist the armed forces of this rebel regime with air strikes, leading to the loss of one or two coalition aircraft and the prospect of heavier losses to come, especially if there should be an invasion. It is high time that American and European publics learned something more about this rebel regime which is supposed to represent a democratic and humanitarian alternative to Gaddafi.

The rebels are clearly not civilians, but an armed force. What kind of an armed force?

Since many of the rebel leaders are so difficult to research from afar, and since a sociological profile of the rebels cannot be done on the ground in the midst of warfare, perhaps the typical methods of social history can be called on for help. Is there a way for us to gain deeper insight into the climate of opinion which prevails in such northeastern Libyan cities as Benghazi, Tobruk, and Darnah, the main population centers of the rebellion?

It turns out that there is, in the form of a December 2007 West Point study examining the background of foreign guerrilla fighters — jihadis or mujahedin, including suicide bombers — crossing the Syrian border into Iraq during the 2006-2007 timeframe, under the auspices of the international terrorist organization Al Qaeda. This study is based on a mass of about 600 Al Qaeda personnel files which were captured by US forces in the fall of 2007, and analyzed at West Point using a methodology which we will discuss after having presented the main findings. The resulting study1 permits us to make important findings about the mentality and belief structures of the northeastern Libyan population that is furnishing the basis for the rebellion, permitting important conclusions about the political nature of the anti-Qaddafi revolt in these areas.

Darnah, northeast Libya: World Capital of Jihadis

The most striking finding which emerges from the West Point study is that the corridor which goes from Benghazi to Tobruk, passing through the city of Darnah (also transliterated as Derna) them represents one of the greatest concentrations of jihadi terrorists to be found anywhere in the world, and by some measures can be regarded as the leading source of suicide bombers anywhere on the planet. Darnah, with one terrorist fighter sent into Iraq to kill Americans for every 1,000 to 1,500 persons of population, emerges as suicide bomber heaven, easily surpassing the closest competitor, which was Riyad, Saudi Arabia.

According to West Point authors Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman, Saudi Arabia took first place as regards absolute numbers of jihadis sent to combat the United States and other coalition members in Iraq during the time frame in question. Libya, a country less than one fourth as populous, took second place. Saudi Arabia sent 41% of the fighters. According to Felter and Fishman, “Libya was the next most common country of origin, with 18.8% (112) of the fighters listing their nationality stating they hailed from Libya.” Other much larger countries were far behind: “Syria, Yemen, and Algeria were the next most common origin countries with 8.2% (49), 8.1% (48), and 7.2% (43), respectively. Moroccans accounted for 6.1% (36) of the records and Jordanians 1.9% (11).”

This means that almost one fifth of the foreign fighters entering Iraq across the Syrian border came from Libya, a country of just over 6 million people. A higher proportion of Libyans were interested in fighting in Iraq than any other country contributing mujahedin. Felter and Fishman point out: “Almost 19 percent of the fighters in the Sinjar Records came from Libya alone. Furthermore, Libya contributed far more fighters per capita than any other nationality in the Sinjar Records, including Saudi Arabia.” (See the chart from the West Point report, page 9)

But since the Al Qaeda personnel files contain the residence or hometown of the foreign fighters in question, we can determine that the desire to travel to Iraq to kill Americans was not evenly distributed across Libya, but was highly concentrated precisely in those areas around Benghazi which are today the epicenters of the revolt against Colonel Gaddafi which the US, Britain, France, and others are so eagerly supporting.

As Daya Gamage of the Asia Tribune comments in a recent article on the West Point study, “…alarmingly for Western policymakers, most of the fighters came from eastern Libya, the center of the current uprising against Muammar el-Qaddafi. The eastern Libyan city of Darnah sent more fighters to Iraq than any other single city or town, according to the West Point report. It noted that 52 militants came to Iraq from Darnah, a city of just 80,000 people (the second-largest source of fighters was Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which has a population of more than 4 million). Benghazi, the capital of Libya’s provisional government declared by the anti-Qaddafi rebels, sent in 21 fighters, again a disproportionate number of the whole.”4 Obscure Darnah edged out metropolitan Riyadh by 52 fighters to 51. Qaddafi’s stronghold of Tripoli, by contrast, barely shows up in the statistics at all. (See chart from West Point report, page 12)

What explains this extraordinary concentration of anti-American fighters in Benghazi and Darnah? The answer seems related to extremist schools of theology and politics which flourished in these areas. As the West Point report notes: “Both Darnah and Benghazi have long been associated with Islamic militancy in Libya.” These areas are in theological and tribal conflict with the central government of Colonel Gaddafi, in addition to being politically opposed to him. Whether such a theological conflict is worth the deaths of still more American and European soldiers is a question which needs urgently to be answered.

 

Felter and Fishman remark that “The vast majority of Libyan fighters that included their hometown in the Sinjar Records resided in the country’s northeast, particularly the coastal cities of Darnah 60.2% (52) and Benghazi 23.9% (21). Both Darnah and Benghazi have long been associated with Islamic militancy in Libya, in particular for an uprising by Islamist organizations in the mid-1990s. The Libyan government blamed the uprising on ‘infiltrators from the Sudan and Egypt’ and one group—the Libyan Fighting Group (jama-ah al-libiyah al-muqatilah)—claimed to have Afghan veterans in its ranks. The Libyan uprisings became extraordinarily violent.”5

Northeastern Libya: Highest Density of Suicide Bombers

Another remarkable feature of the Libyan contribution to the war against US forces inside Iraq is the marked propensity of the northeastern Libyans to choose the role of suicide bomber as their preferred method of struggle. As the West Point study states, “Of the 112 Libyans in the Records, 54.4% (61) listed their ‘work.’ Fully 85.2% (51) of these Libyan fighters listed “suicide bomber” as their work in Iraq.”6 This means that the northeastern Libyans were far more apt to choose the role of suicide bomber than those from any other country: “Libyan fighters were much more likely than other nationalities to be listed as suicide bombers (85% for Libyans, 56% for all others).”7

The anti-Qaddafi Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) Merges with al Qaeda, 2007

The specific institutional basis for the recruitment of guerrilla fighters in northeastern Libya is associated with an organization which previously called itself the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). During the course of 2007, the LIFG declared itself an official subsidiary of al Qaeda, later assuming the name of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). As a result of this 2007 merger, an increased number of guerrilla fighters arrived in Iraq from Libya. According to Felter and Fishman, “The apparent surge in Libyan recruits traveling to Iraq may be linked the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group’s (LIFG) increasingly cooperative relationship with al-Qaeda, which culminated in the LIFG officially joining al-Qaeda on November 3, 2007.”8 This merger is confirmed by other sources: A 2008 statement attributed to Ayman al-Zawahiri claimed that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group has joined al-Qaeda.9

Terrorist “Emir” Touts Key Role of Benghazi, Darnah in al Qaeda

The West Point study makes clear that the main bulwarks of the LIFG and of the later AQIM were the twin cities of Benghazi and Darnah. This is documented in a statement by Abu Layth al-Libi, the self-styled “Emir” of the LIFG, who later became a top official of al Qaeda. At the time of the 2007 merger, “Abu Layth al-Libi, LIFG’s Emir, reinforced Benghazi and Darnah’s importance to Libyan jihadis in his announcement that LIFG had joined al-Qa’ida, saying: ‘It is with the grace of God that we were hoisting the banner of jihad against this apostate regime under the leadership of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which sacrificed the elite of its sons and commanders in combating this regime whose blood was spilled on the mountains of Darnah, the streets of Benghazi, the outskirts of Tripoli, the desert of Sabha, and the sands of the beach.’”10

This 2007 merger meant that the Libyan recruits for Al Qaeda became an increasingly important part of the activity of this organization as a whole, shifting the center of gravity to some degree away from the Saudis and Egyptians who had previously been most conspicuous. As Felter and Fishman comment, “Libyan factions (primarily the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group) are increasingly important in al-Qa’ida. The Sinjar Records offer some evidence that Libyans began surging into Iraq in larger numbers beginning in May 2007. Most of the Libyan recruits came from cities in northeast Libya, an area long known for jihadi-linked militancy.”11

The December 2007 West Point study concludes by formulating some policy options for the United States government. One approach, the authors suggest, would be for the United States to cooperate with existing Arab governments against the terrorists. As Felter and Fishman write, “The Syrian and Libyan governments share the United States’ concerns about violent salafi-jihadi ideology and the violence perpetrated by its adherents. These governments, like others in the Middle East, fear violence inside their borders and would much rather radical elements go to Iraq rather than cause unrest at home. U.S. and Coalition efforts to stem the flow of fighters into Iraq will be enhanced if they address the entire logistical chain that supports the movement of these individuals—beginning in their home countries — rather than just their Syrian entry points. The U.S. may be able to increase cooperation from governments to stem the flow of fighters into Iraq by addressing their concerns about domestic jihadi violence.”12 Given the course of subsequent events, we are on firm ground in concluding that this option was not the one selected, neither in the closing years of the Bush administration nor during the first half of the Obama administration.

The West Point study also offers another, more sinister perspective. Felter and Fishman hint that it might be possible to use the former LIFG components of Al Qaeda against the government of Colonel Qaddafi in Libya, in essence creating a de facto alliance between the United States and a segment of the terrorist organization. The West Point report notes: “The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group’s unification with al-Qa’ida and its apparent decision to prioritize providing logistical support to the Islamic State of Iraq is likely controversial within the organization. It is likely that some LIFG factions still want to prioritize the fight against the Libyan regime, rather than the fight in Iraq. It may be possible to exacerbate schisms within LIFG, and between LIFG’s leaders and al-Qa’ida’s traditional Egyptian and Saudi power-base.”13 This suggests the US policy we see today, that of allying with the obscurantist and reactionary al Qaeda fanatics in Libya against the Nasserist modernizer Qaddafi.

Arming the Rebels: The Experience of Afghanistan

Looking back at the tragic experience of US efforts to incite the population of Afghanistan against the Soviet occupation in the years after 1979, it should be clear that the policy of the Reagan White House to arm the Afghan mujahedin with Stinger missiles and other modern weapons turned out to be highly destructive for the United States. As current Defense Secretary Robert Gates comes close to admitting in his memoirs, Al Qaeda was created during those years by the United States as a form of Arab Legion against the Soviet presence, with long-term results which have been highly lamented.

Today, it is clear that the United States is providing modern weapons for the Libyan rebels through Saudi Arabia and across the Egyptian border with the active assistance of the Egyptian army and of the newly installed pro-US Egyptian military junta.14 This is a direct violation of UN Security Council resolution 1973, which calls for a complete arms embargo on Libya. The assumption is that these weapons will be used against Gaddafi in the coming weeks. But, given the violently anti-American nature of the population of northeast Libya that is now being armed, there is no certainty that these weapons will not be soon turned against those who have provided them.

A broader problem is represented by the conduct of the future Libyan government dominated by the current rebel council with its large current majority of northeastern Islamists, or of a similar government of a future Cyrenaica rump state. To the extent that such regimes will have access to oil revenues, obvious problems of international security are posed. Gamage wonders: “If the rebellion succeeds in toppling the Qaddafi regime it will have direct access to the tens of billions of dollars that Qaddafi is believed to have squirreled away in overseas accounts during his four-decade rule.”15 Given the northeast Libyan mentality, we can imagine what such revenues might be used for.

What is al Qaeda and Why the CIA Has Used It

Al Qaeda is not a centralized organization, but rather a gaggle or congeries of fanatics, dupes, psychotics, misfits, double agents, provocateurs, mercenaries, and other elements. As noted, Al Qaeda was founded by the United States and the British during the struggle against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Many of its leaders, such as the reputed second-in-command Ayman Zawahiri and the current rising star Anwar Awlaki, are evidently double agents of MI-6 and/or the CIA. The basic belief structure of Al Qaeda is that all existing Arab and Moslem governments are illegitimate and should be destroyed, because they do not represent the caliphate which Al Qaeda asserts is described by the Koran. This means that the Al Qaeda ideology offers a ready and easy way for the Anglo-American secret intelligence agencies to attack and destabilize existing Arab and Muslim governments as part of the ceaseless need of imperialism and colonialism to loot and attack the developing nations. This is precisely what is happening in Libya today.

Al Qaeda emerged from the cultural and political milieu of the Moslem Brotherhood or Ikhwan, itself a creation of British intelligence in Egypt in the late 1920s. The US and the British used the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood to oppose the successful anti-imperialist policies of Egyptian President Nasser, who scored immense victories for his country by nationalizing the Suez Canal and building the Aswan High Dam, without which modern Egypt would be simply unthinkable. The Muslim brotherhood provided an active and capable fifth column of foreign agents against Nasser, in the same way that the official website of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb is trumpeting its support for the rebellion against Colonel Qaddafi.

I have discussed the nature of Al Qaeda at some length in my recent book entitled 9/11 Synthetic Terrorism: Made in USA, and that analysis cannot be repeated here. It is enough to say that we do not need to believe in all the fantastic mythology which the United States government has spun around the name of Al Qaeda in order to recognize the basic fact that militants or patsies who spontaneously join al Qaeda are often sincerely motivated by a deep hatred of the United States and a burning desire to kill Americans, as well as Europeans. The Bush administration policy used the alleged presence of Al Qaeda as a pretext for direct military attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq. The Obama administration is now doing something different, intervening on the side of a rebellion in which Al Qaeda and its co-thinkers are heavily represented while attacking the secular authoritarian government of Colonel Gaddafi. Both of these policies are bankrupt and must be abandoned.

Rebel Leaders Jalil and Younis, Plus Most of Rebel Council are Members of the al Qaeda-linked Harabi Tribe

The result of the present inquiry is that the Libyan branch of Al Qaeda represents a continuum with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group centered in Darnah and Benghazi. The ethnic base of the Libyan Islamic fighting group is apparently to be found in the anti-Qaddafi Harabi tribe, the tribe which makes up the vast majority of the rebel council including the two dominant rebel leaders, Abdul Fatah Younis and Mustafa Abdul Jalil. The evidence thus suggests that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, the elite of the Harabi tribe, and the rebel council supported by Obama all overlap for all practical purposes. As the late Foreign Minister of Guyana Fred Wills, a real fighter against imperialism and neo-colonialism, taught me many years ago, political formations in developing countries (and not just there) are often a mask for ethnic and religious rivalries; so it is in Libya. The rebellion against Qaddafi is a toxic brew compounded of fanatical hatred of Qaddafi, Islamism, tribalism, and localism. From this point of view, Obama has foolishly chosen to take sides in a tribal war.

When Hillary Clinton went to Paris to be introduced to the Libyan rebels by French President Sarkozy, she met the US-educated Libyan opposition leader Mahmoud Jibril, already known to readers of Wikileaks document dumps as a favorite of the US.16

While Jibril might be considered presentable in Paris, the real leaders of the Libyan insurrection would appear to be Jalil and Younis, both former ministers under Qaddafi. Jalil seems to be the primus inter pares, at least for the moment: “Mustafa Abdul Jalil or Abdul-Jalil (Arabic: مصطفى عبد الجليل, also transcribed Abdul-Jelil, Abd-al-Jalil, Abdel-Jalil or Abdeljalil; and frequently but erroneously as Abud Al Jeleil) (born 1952) is a Libyan politician. He was the Minister of Justice (unofficially, the Secretary of the General People’s Committee) under Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi…. Abdul Jalil has been identified as the Chairman of the National Transitional Council based in Benghazi… although this position is contested by others in the uprising due to his past connections to Gaddafi’s regime.”17

As for Younis, he has been closely associated with Qaddafi since the 1968-9 seizure of power: “Abdul Fatah Younis (Arabic: عبد الفتاح يونس) is a senior military officer in Libya. He held the rank of General and the post of Minister of Interior, but resigned on 22 February 2011….”18

What should concern us most is that both Jalil and Younis come from the Haribi tribe, the dominant one in northeast Libya, and the one that overlaps with al Qaeda. According to Stratfor, the “…Harabi tribe is a historically powerful umbrella tribe in eastern Libya that saw their influence wane under Col. Gadhafi. The Libyan leader confiscated swaths of tribal members’ land and redistributed it to weaker and more loyal tribes…. Many of the leaders now emerging in eastern Libya hail from the Harabi tribe, including the head of the provisional government set up in Benghazi, Abdel Mustafa Jalil, and Abdel Fatah Younis, who assumed a key leadership role over the defected military ranks early in the uprising.”19 This is like a presidential ticket where both candidates are from the same state, except that Libya’s ferocious tribal rivalries make the problem infinitely worse.

The Rebel Council: Half the Names Are Kept Secret; Why?

This picture of a narrow, sectarian tribal and regional base does not improve when we look at the rebel council as a whole. According to one recent version, the rebel council is “chaired by the well-spoken former justice minister for Libya, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, [and] consists of 31 members, ostensibly representatives from across Libya, of whom many cannot be named for “security reasons”…. “The key players on the council, at least those who we know about, all hail from the north-eastern Harabi confederation of tribes. These tribes have strong affiliations with Benghazi that date back to before the 1969 revolution which brought Gaddafi to power.”20 Other accounts agree about the number of representatives: “The council has 31 members; the identities of several members has not been made public to protect their own safety.”21 Given what we know about the extraordinary density of LIFG and all Qaeda fanatics in northeast Libya, we are authorized to wonder as to whether so many members of the council are being kept secret in order to protect them from Qaddafi, or whether the goal is to prevent them from being recognized in the west as al Qaeda terrorists or sympathizers. The latter seems to be a more accurate summary of the real state of affairs.

Names released so far include: Mustafa Abduljaleel; Ashour Hamed Bourashed of Darna city; Othman Suleiman El-Megyrahi of the Batnan area; Al Butnan of the Egypt border and Tobruk; Ahmed Abduraba Al-Abaar of Benghazi city; Fathi Mohamed Baja of Benghazi city; Abdelhafed Abdelkader Ghoga of Benghazi city; Mr. Omar El-Hariri for Military Affairs; and Dr. Mahmoud Jibril, Ibrahim El-Werfali and Dr. Ali Aziz Al-Eisawi for foreign affairs.22

The State Department needs to interrogate these figures, starting perhaps with Ashour Hamed Bourashed, the delegate from the terrorist and suicide bomber stronghold of Darnah.

How Many al Qaeda Members, Veterans, or Sympathizers are on the Rebel Council?

Seeing as clearly as we can in the fog of war, it looks like slightly more than a dozen of the members of the rebel council have had their names officially published — in any case, not more than half of the reported 31 members. The US and European media have not taken the lead in identifying for us the names that are now known, and they above all have not called attention to the majority of the rebel council who are still lurking in the shadows of total secrecy. We must therefore demand to know how many LIFG and/or al Qaeda members, veterans, or sympathizers currently hold seats on the rebel council.

We are thus witnessing an attempt by the Harabi tribe to seize dominance over the 140 tribes of Libya. The Harabi are already practically hegemonic among the tribes of Cyrenaica. At the center of the Harabi Confederation is the Obeidat tribe, which is divided into 15 sub-tribes.23 All of this might be of purely academic ethnographic interest, were it not for the fact of the striking overlap between the Harabi tribe and the LIFG and al Qaeda.

The Senussi Movement of Libya — Monarchist Democracy?

The political-religious tradition of northeast Libya makes this area such fertile ground for the more extreme Muslim sects and also predisposes it to monarchism rather than to the more modern forms of government favored by Qaddafi. The relevant regional tradition is that of the Senussi or Sanussi order, an anti-western Moslem sect. In Libya the Senussi order is closely associated with monarchism, since King Idris I, the ruler installed by the British in 1951 who was overthrown by Gaddafi in 1969, was also the leader of the Senussi order. The Senussi directed the rebellion against Italian colonialism in the person of Marshal Rodolfo Graziani and his army in the 1930s. Today, the rebels use the monarchist flag, and may advocate the return to the throne of one of the two pretenders to the Idris line. They are far closer to monarchism than to democracy

King Idris, Revered by the Libyan Rebels of Today

Here is the Stratfor view of King Idris and the Senussi: “King Idris came from a line of rulers of the Sanussi order, a Sufi religious order founded in 1842 in Al Bayda, that practices a conservative and austere form of Islam. The Sanussiyah represented a political force in Cyrenaica that preceded the creation of the modern state of Libya, and whose reverberations continue to be felt to this day. It is no coincidence that this region is the home of Libyan jihadism, with groups like the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). The Gadhafi family has thus been calling the current uprising an elaborate Islamist plot….”24 Under the monarchy, Libya was by some estimates absolutely the poorest country in the world. Today, Libya ranks 53 on the UN Human Development Index and qualifies as the most developed country in Africa, ahead of Russia, Brazil, Ukraine, and Venezuela. Qaddafi’s stewardship has objective merits which cannot be seriously denied.

Glen Ford’s Black Agenda Report has correctly sought to show the racist and reactionary character of the Libyan insurrection. The tribes of southern Libya, known as the Fezzan, are dark skinned. The tribal underpinning of the Gaddafi regime has been an alliance of the tribes of the West, the center, and the southern Fezzan, against the Harabi and the Obeidat, who identify with the former monarchist ruling class. The Harabi and Obeidat are known to nurture a deep racist hatred against the Fezzan. This was expressed in frequent news reports from the pro-imperialist media at the beginning of the rebellion evidently inspired by Harabi accounts, according to which black people in Libya had to be treated as mercenaries working for Gaddafi — with the clear implication that they were to be exterminated. These racist inventions are still being repeated by quackademics like Dean Slaughter of the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton. And in fact, large numbers of black Africans from Chad and other countries working in Libyan have been systematically lynched and massacred by the anti-Gaddafi forces. The Obama White House, for all its empty talk of not wanting to repeat the massacre in Rwanda, has conveniently ignored this shocking story of real genocide at the hands of its new racist friends in Cyrenaica.

Against the obscurantism of the Senussi, Qaddafi has advanced the Moslem equivalent of the priesthood of all believers, arguing that no caliphate is necessary in order to discover the meaning of the Koran. He has supplemented this with a pan African perspective. Gerald A. Perreira of the Black Agenda Report writes the following about the theological division between Gaddafi and the neo-Senussi of northeast Libya, as well as other obscuranitsts: “Al Qaeda is in the Sahara on his borders and the International Union of Muslim Scholars is calling for [Qaddafi] to be tried in a court…. [Qaddafi] has questioned the Islam of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda from a Quranic/theological perspective and is one of the few political leaders equipped to do so…. Benghazi has always been at the heart of counter-revolution in Libya, fostering reactionary Islamic movements such as the Wahhabis and Salafists. It is these people who founded the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group based in Benghazi which allies itself with Al Qaeda and who have, over the years, been responsible for the assassination of leading members of the Libyan revolutionary committees.”25 And what would be for example the status of women under the neo-Senussi of the Benghazi rebel council?

Al Qaeda from Demon to US ally in Libya

For those who attempt to follow the ins and outs of the CIA’s management of its various patsy organizations inside the realm of presumed Islamic terrorism, it may be useful to trace the transformation of the LIFG-AQIM from deadly enemy to close ally. This phenomenon is closely linked to the general reversal of the ideological fronts of US imperialism that marks the divide between the Bush-Cheney-neocon administrations and the current Obama-Brzezinski-International Crisis Group regime. The Bush approach was to use the alleged presence of Al Qaeda as a reason for direct military attack. The Obama method is to use Al Qaeda to overthrow independent governments, and then either Balkanize and partition the countries in question, or else use them as kamikaze puppets against larger enemies like Russia, China, or Iran. This approach implies a more or less open fraternization with terrorist groups, which was signaled in a general way in Obamas famous Cairo speech of 2009. The links of the Obama campaign to the terrorist organizations deployed by the CIA against Russia were already a matter of public record three years ago.26

But such a reversal of field cannot be improvised overnight; it took several years of preparation. On July 10, 2009, The London Daily Telegraph reported that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group had split with Al Qaeda. This was when the United States had decided to de-emphasize the Iraq war, and also to prepare to use the Sunni Moslem Brotherhood and its Sunni Al Qaeda offshoot for the destabilization of the leading Arab states preparatory to turning them against Shiite Iran. Paul Cruikshank wrote at that time in the New York Daily News about one top LIFG honcho who wanted to dial back the relation to al Qaeda and the infamous Osama Bin Laden; this was “Noman Benotman, a former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. While mainstream Muslim leaders have long criticized Al Qaeda, these critics have the jihadist credentials to make their criticisms bite.”27 But by this time some LIFG bosses had moved up into al Qaeda: the London Daily Telegraph reported that senior Al Qaeda members Abu Yahya al-Libi and Abu Laith al-Libi were LIFG members. Around this time, Qaddafi released some LIFG fighters in an ill-advsided humanitarian gesture.

Northeast Libyan Jihadis Killing US, NATO Forces in Afghanistan Right Now

One of the fatal contradictions in the current State Department and CIA policy is that it aims at a cordial alliance with Al Qaeda killers in northeast Libya, at the very moment when the United States and NATO are mercilessly bombing the civilian northwest Pakistan in the name of a total war against Al Qaeda, and US and NATO forces are being killed by Al Qaeda guerrillas in that same Afghanistan-Pakistan theater of war. The force of this glaring contradiction causes the entire edifice of US war propaganda to collapse. The US has long since lost any basis in morality for military force.

In fact, terrorist fighters from northeast Libya may be killing US and NATO troops in Afghanistan right now, even as the US and NATO protect their home base from the Qaddafi government. According to this account, a top Al Qaeda commander in northwest Pakistan was killed by US action as recently as October 2010: “A senior al Qaeda leader who serves as al Qaeda’s ambassador to Iran, and is wanted by the US, is reported to have been killed in a Predator air strike in Pakistan’s Taliban-controlled tribal agency of North Waziristan two days ago…. [This was] Atiyah Abd al Rahman, a Libyan national who has been based in Iran and served as Osama bin Laden’s ambassador to the mullahs. Unconfirmed press reports indicate that Rahman was killed in an airstrike….”28 The US State Department’s Rewards for Justice page for Atiyah Abd al Rahman notes that he was al Qaeda’s “emissary in Iran as appointed by Osama bin Ladin.” Atiyah “recruited and facilitated talks with other Islamic groups to operate under” al Qaeda and was “also a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and Ansar al Sunna.”29 Rahman was ranked high enough in al Qaeda to be able to give orders to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of al Qeada in Iraq, in 2005.

Also killed in Pakistan was another apparent northeast Libyan going by the name of Khalid al Harabi, whose choice of a nom de guerre may well link him to the jihadi farm among the Harabi tribe in Cyrenaica. According to one account, “Khalid al Harabi is an alias for Khalid Habib, al Qaeda’s former military commander who was killed in a US Predator strike in October 2008.”30

The Scenario Uncovered by the 1995 Shayler Affair is Operative Today

In 1995, David Shayler, an official of the British counterintelligence organization MI-5, became aware that his counterpart at the British foreign espionage organization MI-6 had paid the sum of £100,000 to an Al Qaeda affiliate in exchange for the attempt to assassinate Qaddafi. The assassination attempt did occur, and killed several innocent bystanders, but failed to eliminate the Libyan ruler. As Shayler understood the MI-6 scenario, it included the liquidation of Gaddafi, followed by the descent of Libya into chaos and tribal warfare, with a possible option for a direct seizure of power by al Qaeda itself. This situation would then provide a pretext for Britain, probably but not necessarily acting together with the United States or other countries, to invade Libya and seize control of the oil fields, probably establishing a permanent protectorate over the oil regions, the pipelines, and the coast.31 This remains the goal today.

Timed to coincide with the attempt to assassinate Qaddafi, MI-6 and other Western secret intelligence agencies fomented a considerable insurrection in northeast Libya, almost precisely in the same areas which are in rebellion today. Its insurrection was successfully crushed by Qaddafi’s forces by the end of 1996. The events of 2011 are simply a reprise of the imperialist attack on Libya 15 years ago, with the addition of outside intervention..

The War Against the Nation State

Today’s attack on Libya comes in the context of a broad attack on the institution of the sovereign nation state itself, as it has existed since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. The United States and the British are deeply concerned by the large number of nations which are seeking to escape from Anglo-American hegemony by actively pursuing large-scale cooperation with Russia on security, with China on economic questions, and with Iran for geopolitical considerations. The CIA/MI-6 response has been a wild orgy of destabilizations, people power coups, color revolutions, and palace putsches, signaled by the document dumps by the CIA limited hangout operation known as Wikileaks, which has targeted names of the CIA hit mist from Ben Ali to Qaddafi. The Obama strategy would have preferred an exclusive reliance and the illusion that the Arab Spring was really a matter of youthful visionary idealists gathering in the public square to praise democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. This was never the reality: the actual decisions were being made by brutal cliques of generals and top officials bribed or blackmailed by the CIA who were moving behind the scenes to oust such figures as Ben Ali or Mubarak. Whatever else Qaddafi has done, he has undoubtedly forced the CIA and NATO to drop the pleasant mask of youthful idealism and human rights, revealing a hideous visage of Predator drones, terror bombing, widespread slaughter, and colonialist arrogance underneath. Qaddafi has also ripped the mask of “Yes We Can” off Obama, revealing a cynical warmonger intent on the continuation of Bush’s infamous “Dead or Alive” and “Bring it on” policies, although by other means.

A Distant Mirror for Imperialists in Libya: Lucan’s Pharsalia

Modern imperialists eager to rush into Libya should ponder Lucan’s Pharsalia, which treats of warfare in the Libyan desert during the contest between Julius Caesar and Pompey the Great at the end of the Roman Republic. A critical passage in this Latin epic is the speech by Cato of Utica, a follower of Pompey, who urges his soldiers to undertake a suicide mission into Libya, saying: “Serpents, thirst, heat, and sand … Libya alone can present a multitude of woes that it would beseem men to fly from.” Cato goes forward, and finds “a little tomb to enclose [his] hallowed name, Libya secured the death of Cato….”32

Let us not imitate this folly.

Investigative leads from the West Point Study: An Appeal to Scholars

The West Point study, as noted, was conducted on the basis of almost 700 Al Qaeda personnel files captured by coalition forces in Iraq.33 The authors of the study have promised to keep available online the documentary basis of this investigation, both in the form of the raw Arabic language al Qaeda personnel files34, and also of the same file cards in English translation.35 Assuming that this material remains available, it might be possible for researchers and reporters, and especially those with capabilities in Arabic not possessed by the present writer, to investigate the Libyan fighters who went into Iraq with a view to determining whether any of them are family members, neighbors, or even political associates of the known members of the Benghazi rebel council or of other anti-Qaddafi forces. Such a procedure could contribute to allowing the European and American public as well as others around the world to better understand the nature of the military adventure currently unfolding in Libya by gaining a more specific knowledge of who the Libyan rebels :

Notes

1 Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman, “Al Qa’ida’s Foreign Fighter in Iraq: A First Look at the Sinjar Records,” (West Point, NY: Harmony Project, Combating Terrorism Center, Department of Social Sciences, US Military Academy, December 2007). Cited as West Point Study.

2 Joseph Felter and Brian Fishman, “Al Qa’ida’s Foreign Fighter in Iraq: A First Look at the Sinjar Records,” (West Point, NY: Harmony Project, Combating Terrorism Center, Department of Social Sciences, US Military Academy, December 2007). Cited as West Point Study.
3 West Point Study, pp. 8-9.
4 Daya Gamage, “Libyan rebellion has radical Islamist fervor: Benghazi link to Islamic militancy, U.S. Military Document Reveals,” Asian Tribune, March 17, 2011, at http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2011/03/17/libyan-rebellion-has-radical-islamist-fervor-benghazi-link-islamic-militancyus-milit
5 West Point Study, p. 12.
6 West Point Study, p. 19.
7 West Point Study, p. 27.
8 West Point Study, p. 9.
10 West Point Study, p. 12.
11 West Point Study, p. 27.
12 West Point Study, p. 29.
13 West Point Study, p. 28.
14 See “Egypt Said to Arm Libya Rebels, Wall Street Journal, March 17, 2011, at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704360404576206992835270906.html; see also Robert Fisk, “America’s secret plan to arm Libya’s rebels,” Independent, Mach 7, 2011, at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/americas-secret-plan-to-arm-libyas-rebels-2234227.html
15 Gamage.
19 Stratfor, “Libya’s Tribal Dyanmics, February 25, 2011, available at http://redstomp.org/forums/showthread.php?1109-Libya-s-Tribal-Dyanmics
20 Venetia Rainey, “Who are the rebels we are fighting to protect,” The First Post, http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/76660,news-comment,news-politics,who-are-the-rebels-we-are-fighting-to-protect#ixzz1HMRIrUP9
22 Statement by “Transition National Council,” Benghazi, March 5, 2011 at http://www.libyanmission-un.org/tnc.pdf; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Transitional_Council
23 Massimo Introvigne, “L’occidente alla guerra delle tribù,” La Bussola quotidiana, March 22, 2011, at http://www.cesnur.org/2011/mi-rivolte-05.html
24 Stratfor, “Libya’s Tribal Dyanmics, February 25, 2011, available at http://redstomp.org/forums/showthread.php?1109-Libya-s-Tribal-Dyanmics
25 Gerald A. Perreira, “Libya, Getting it Right: A Revolutionary Pan-African Perspective,” Black Agenda Report, March 2, 2011, at http://blackagendareport.com/content/libya-getting-it-right-revolutionary-pan-african-perspective
26 Webster G. Tarpley, “Obama Campaign Linked To Chechen Terrorism: Grant Of Taxpayer-Funded U.S. Asylum For Chechen Terror Envoy Gave Obama Foreign Policy Guru Zbigniew Brzezinski ‘One Of The Happiest Days Of My Life,’” February 2, 2008, Obama the Postmodern Coup: The Making of a Manchurian Candidate (Joshua Treet CA: Progressive Press, April 2008), pp. 97-115, online at http://tarpley.net/2008/02/03/obama-campaign-linked-to-chechen-terrorism/


 

Read Full Post »

Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya. War on terror. George Bush. George W Bush and now Obama.

Certainly the Libyan government hasn’t invited US & its allies to bomb its nation and neither have the rebels ( These rebels do not have an organized leadership to dictate terms ). We only know these rebels as Al Qaeda or foreign mercenaries trying a provoke an international attention, which only attracts the west. The initial condemnation of the Russian, Indians & Chinese have become soft and now these three nations do not oppose Allied attacks on Libya and have given a blind eye to this crises. The rest of the world has just become a spectator of the drama created by west. Its been almost 1000 years of religious bloodshed, imperialism, invasion and power which have torn apart the worlds developing nations and most nations still strive to be under the chains of western rule, directly or indirectly.The mess that the West has created in the Middle East, namely a number of rogue states (not just Israel), corrupt oil sheiks and puppets, a mosaic of CIA failures which the Islamic world has been duped, is suddenly threatened by forces that are fighting to modernize and democracy. Gaddafi’s despotic rule has no political base and is funded by all of us when we buy gasoline. Gaddafi went on one day with his checkbook to Israel to order arms and 50,000 mercenaries. Stories about deserted troop and tank brigades appear fictitious.

It is easy to see that countries like the United States, Britain and Australia are under the control of the kabbalistic associations. Any legitimate opposition to the status quo is immediately discredited by a mix of paid and unpaid disinformation agents. Those who most news achieve from the Internet are unable to distinguish and run the risk to be deceived. Add here the “researchers” who have no experience in the real world and have learned to survive in a university atmosphere where cronyism and cowardice long ago have replaced activism and originality, and the deception is complete.

The internet is full of stories about U.S. and British oil companies who try to take-off Gaddafi. First they should need to throw out BP and Halliburton. They and 300 other British and American companies control Libya since 2004. Gaddafi took power in 1969 after a military coup. He was never able to allow elections and a constitution is prohibited. The party congress of the Libyan comprises 2,700 members, chosen by the regime. In fact, Gaddafi was a Marxist, but he is flexible enough to handle his billions of oil money to buy a circle of friends.

US and its allies are embarking on yet another regime change and this is done all at the cost of their tax payers. Little less the tax payers in US and in the allied countries know that how much financial burden its going to cause on its country, while they are spending huge amounts on this war on terror. There isn’t any internet website which will show anything related to the financial situation on its country. Dont waste your time google this, cause the topics in US, UK , French or German money matters is not and cannot be studied by common man. All that is at common mans disposable is youtube and some other internet sites which will keep their curiosity rolling. The conspiracy theory followers will be happy with the stories given on internet, which are in reality only behind veils. The real intentions of the white house and their allies never get published on websites.

If US and its allies were so concerned about Democracy then I wonder why they didn’t attack North Korea or Burma or Zimbabwe or Sudan. It’s difficult to get those answers. One reason is sure, its slow and steady strategy of the west to have a sovereign world government, to get rid of all the despotic rulers and to have their command in all major economies around the world. This has nothing to do with religion. This has nothing to do with people thinking that this is some Zionist or Jewish agenda and the Jews are the ones controlling the world, no it’s not. This is just a cover, so that weak people will continue to discuss about Jews in control of the world and be busy in this anti-semitic drama. No one has been deprived of their success in the world or to become successful in the world. Today we have more Indians, Chinese, Persian gulf Arabs who are richer than the jews. The entire game is about money, about power about economic gains. Whereas the weaker and ignorant mass will be busy in the religious drama. Once Gaddafi is ousted we will have the similar situation in the peaceful Libya like how we have in Iraq or Afghanistan today. Libya will be torn to pieces, western contracts will dominate all  businesses in Libya, ethnic groups will fight against each other and Libya will never be peaceful again.

I know Libya from last 20 years and I don’t think anyone there has ever disrespected Gaddafi or even doubted his ability to run the country. The people in Libya knew that they have no rights to vote, but at least the have employment and best basic necessities provided to them by Gaddafi.

There was law & order in the country , people lived happily and in peace. Libya had the best standard of living in the African continent and the best GDP. Libya had given equal rights to woman, as compared to other Islamic countries where woman are denied of their rights. Libya according to my eye-witness experience was the best nation in Africa & Middle east.

The protest and the protesters which marked the beginning of Gaddafi downfall is surely not bred in Libya. I only hope that Libya doesn’t become like the next Iraq or Afghanistan.

Read Full Post »

War on Libya

Libya was always on the agenda of west, even before the Iraq invasion. The western forces then, were not prepared to tackle Libya as they had extreme pressure from the Saudis and Kuwaitis to topple Saddam. The Iraqi dictator then and his team from the Ministry persuaded the Saudis & Americans not to attack Iraq. USA & Saudi never paid heed to Saddam, as his days were already numbered. Today we have a same scenerio with Libya. What surprises me is that I have not heard the Libyans ever complaint about their lifestyle of any economic problems. Although the regime controls the nation with a iron fist, yet I do not see why thats wrong?

Even countries like India or England or France , for that instance which have democracy still have large numbers of people who are unhappy with the ruling party or their corrupt governments. For example in India, you can hear every other day about millions of dollars worth of scam done by the government.

Look at Sudan, how many civilians have been killed by Bashirs regime, does west not count such atrocities under Human rights or peoples right to vote?

Look at the scene of Zimbabawe , Robert Mugabe, he is certainly more brutal and killed many more people than Saddam Hussein.

 

On March 19, ironically on the eighth anniversary of “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” a White House Office of the Press Secretary quoted Obama saying:

“Today I authorized the Armed Forces of the United States to (attack) Libya in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians,”
he, in fact, doesn’t give a damn about. “That action has now begun,” he added, claiming military action was a last resort.

 

 

In fact, it was long-planned. All military interventions require months of preparation, including target selections, strategy, enlisting political and public support, troop deployments, and post-conflict plans.

Weeks, maybe months in advance, Special Forces, CIA agents, and UK SAS operatives were in Libya, enlisting, inciting, funding, and arming so-called anti-Gaddafi opposition forces, ahead of Western aggression for imperial control. More on it below.

A March 19 Department of Defense (DOD) Armed Forces Press Service release announced America’s led “Operation Odyssey Dawn,” saying:

“Coalition (of the willing) forces launched “Operation Odyssey Dawn” today to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973 to protect the Libyan people from the country’s ruler….Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people.”

False! In fact, Washington-led naked aggression was launched to replace one despot with another, perhaps assassinate Gaddafi, his sons and top officials, colonize Libya, control its oil, gas and other resources, exploit its people, private state industries under Western (mainly US) control, establish new Pentagon bases, use them for greater regional dominance, perhaps balkanize the country like Yugoslavia and Iraq, and prevent any democratic spark from emerging.

According to DODspeak, Libya is being attacked, its people killed, civilian targets destroyed, and a humanitarian disaster created to save it. In other words, “destroying the village to save it” on a nationwide scale like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Southeast Asia in the 1960s and 70s, and Korea in the 1950s since WW II alone. Besides numerous proxy wars in Central America, Africa and elsewhere. Wherever America shows up, blood spills followed by horrific human suffering, what Libyans can now expect.

Military and government targets include:

  • command-and-control centers;
  • air defense systems;
  • Gaddafi, his sons and senior officials;
  • communications systems;
  • government buildings and other facilities; and
  • military air fields, tanks, artillery, other weapons, munitions, fuel depots, mobile and other targets.

About 25 US, UK, French, Canadian and Italian ships are involved, 11 from America, including three nuclear submarines. The Pentagon is providing command, control and logistics support. Air and surface-launched munitions are being used, including against Tripoli, the capital and Gaddafi stronghold.

Moreover, invasion and perhaps occupation may follow, despite official denials.

Either way, widespread death and destruction is likely. Surgical war is an oxymoron. Expect considerable “collateral damage,” the Orwellian designation for war crimes against noncombatants and civilian targets.

In his 1992 book titled, “Beyond Hypocrisy,” Edward Herman referred to “nuclear chicken analysis,” defining “collateral casualties” as “civilians killed as a regrettable ‘spillover effect’ of a nuclear attack on a military target’ more generally, allegedly unintended casualties” of any type attack.

In other words, “inadvertent and tragic errors” that, in fact, constitute wanton murder and destruction of schools, hospitals, vital infrastructure and other non-military targets.

Pack Journalism Promotes War

A previous article explained how it enlists public support for imperial war, accessed through the following link:

http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/9211-promoting-war-on-libya.html

Western media, including BBC and Al Jazeera incite it, no matter how lawless, mindless, destructive and counterproductive. Smell it. It arrived again because inflammatory journalism stoked reasons to attack. As a result, America, Britain and France primarily readied strikes. Ground and submarine-launced cruise missiles inflicted widespread destruction. In addition, French jets struck “targets of opportunity,” preceded by exaggerated/unverified/inflammatory reports like the following:

On March 19, New York Times writers David Kirkpatrick and Elisabeth Busmiller headlined, “Reports Say Attacks by Regime Against Rebels Continue,” saying:

Unverified “(r)eports indicated that Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces were continuing to press their attacks despite warnings that such moves would provoke military action.”

On March 19, Financial Times writer Tobias Buck headlined, “Gaddafi launches assault on Benghazi,” saying:

Forces loyal to Gaddafi attacked “in violation of the regime’s promise of a ceasefire.”

Libyan state TV channel, Al Jamahiriya, reported it differently, saying “the people of Benghazi have risen up against the rebels and raised the flag of Libya over the government building in the middle of the city.”

On March 19, New York Times writers Steven Erlanger and David Kirkpatrick headlined “Allies Open Push in Libya to Block Qaddafi Assaults,” saying:

“American, European and Arab leaders began the largest international intervention” since 2003 against Iraq, omitting the illegality of both aggressions.

On March 19, New York Times writers David Kirkpatrich and Elisabeth Musmiller headlined, “France Sends Military Flights Over Libya,” saying:

Flying reconnaissance missions, it’s “the first sign” of premeditated war, launching new hostilities against a war-torn region, without explanation why.

On March 19, Times writers Steven Erlanger and David Kirkpatrick headlined, “Allies Open Push in Libya to Block Qaddafi Assaults,” saying:

Hostilities began to stop “Qaddafi’s war on the Libyan opposition,” after a no-fly zone was established.

As a result, war arrived preemptively. French President Sarkozy said it’s to stop Gaddafi’s “murderous madness,” no matter that he responded to violence. He didn’t instigate it. So would Sarkozy, Obama or any leader against armed insurrection.

Love or hate him, Gaddafi said:

“Libya is not yours. Libya is for all Libyans. This is injustice, it is clear aggression, and it is uncalculated risk for its consequences on the Mediterranean and Europe. You will regret it if you take a step toward intervening in our internal affairs.”

Hours earlier, he pledged a ceasefire. Conflicting reports disagree if he honored it. Is he or Western intervention stoking violence? US media reports point fingers one way.

Washington, Britain, France, other NATO allies, and complicit Arab States back armed anti-Gaddafi insurrection. They’re promoting it, inciting it, funding it, arming it, with clear imperial aims. A previous article explained, accessed through the following link:

http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/9399-un-war-resolution-on-libya.html

On March 19, ahead of intervention, Al Jazeera headlined, “Gaddafi forces encroaching on Benghazi,” saying:

Gaddafi unleashed “a fresh act of defiance even as the United States and its allies prepared to launch military attacks on Libya.”

Unverified “(r)eports from Libya say pro-government forces have entered the western outskirts of the opposition stronghold of Benghazi, with the city also coming under attack from the coast and the south.”

Unnamed “(w)itnesses….said they heard large explosions….Government troops reportedly bombed the southern Benghazi suburb of Goreshi among other places.”

No verification was given, except to quote Mustafa Abdel Jalil, opposition National Libyan Council leader. More on him below. Al Jazeera’s Tony Birtley reported “a lot of jittery people…a lot of activity and a lot of firing going on.”

In contrast, Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim told the BBC that “the ceasefire is real, credible and solid. We are willing to receive (international and NGO) observers as soon as possible.” He insisted no air strikes were launched.

Hours later Al Jazeera headlined, “Airstrikes begin on Libya targets,” saying:

“French warplanes hit four tanks….on a day when opposition fighters in (Benghazi) reported coming under constant artillery and mortar fire.” Expect sustained strikes to follow.

Al Jazeera and other media reports don’t explain that  “opposition” officials from organizations like the National Libyan Council and National Front for the Salvation of Libya have close Western ties, pretending they’re credible. More about them below.

Headquartered in Qatar, moreover, Al Jazeera noticeably abstains from criticizing its government, now part of Washington’s anti-Gaddafi coalition-of-the-willing, complicit in illegal aggression.

On March 18, Obama stopped short of declaring war, announcing “all necessary measures” against Gaddafi without full compliance with UN Resolution terms, including an immediate ceasefire, withdrawing his forces, reestablishing essential services to all parts of the country, and letting in “humanitarian assistance,” including foreign imperial forces opposed to his leadership.

In other words, impossible terms to accept to be followed by others likely demanding he step down, permit balkanization, predatory Western investment, US bases, and free exploitation of his resources and people. Imagine comparable demands made on America – non-negtiable to be followed by military action for non-compliance.

On March 18, NATO Secretary-General Anders Rogh Rasmussen signaled war, saying the alliance was “completing its planning to be ready to take appropriate action in support of the UN resolution as part of the broad international effort.”

Launched the next day, the resources of another resource-rich Arab state will be divided among Western belligerents, to benefit Libyans, they claim.

On March 20, New York Times writers David Kirkpatrick, Steven Erlanger and Elisabeth Busmiller headlined, “Qaddafi Pledges ‘Long War’ as Allies Pursue Air Assault,” saying:

“On Sunday, American (stealth) B-2 bombers were reported to have struck a major Libyan airfield,” following initial attacks against Libya’s air defense systems, “missile, radar and communications centers around Tripoli,” Misurata and Surt.

Reuters said “US fighter planes backed by electronic warfare aircraft” attacked Gaddafi’s ground troops and air defenses. A Pentagon statement stated:

“US Navy Growlers provided electronic warfare support over Libya while AV-8B Harriers from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit conducted strikes….”

Parliamentary secretary Muhammad Zweid said attacks “caused some real harm against civilians and buildings.” According to an unnamed US official, Libya’s air defenses are now “severely disabled.”

As of Sunday morning, visible destruction also included 14 tanks, 20 armored personnel carriers, two or more trucks, rocket launchers, dozens of pick-ups, and exploding munitions. Ahead of cruise missile attacks, France initiated reconnaissance flights and aggression.

On March 19, Middle East/Central Asian analyst Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya’s Global Research.ca article headlined, “Breaking News: Libyan Hospitals Attacked. Libyan Source: Three French Jets Downed,” saying:

Regime change-planned naked aggression was launched. “The war criminals are back at it again,” Washington, of course, in the lead. On March 19, “sources in Libya have reported that three medical facilities were bombarded. Two were hospitals and one a medical clinic. These were civilian facilities.”

Targets attacked included Al-Tajura and Saladin hospitals as well as a clinic near Tripoli, unrelated to military necessity, distant from combat areas. Moreover, civilian air facilities were struck as well as “all Libyan military bases” – air, naval and ground. In addition, “a vast naval blockade around Libya has now been imposed,” America the lead belligerent.

Further, Libyan sources report “two French jets were also shot down….near Janzour” plus another “near Anjile.” Washington and co-belligerents “are creating a real humanitarian disaster,” waging war for peace, killing civilians to save them, and destroying Libya by “humanitarian intervention.”

Moreover, Washington enlisted Egypt and Saudi Arabia to supply “opposition forces” with weapons, in violation of Resolution 1973 prohibiting any sent. Of course, international and US law forbid aggressive war, but that never deterred imperial America from preemptively attacking, invading, occupying and colonizing nations illegally, Libya its latest target.

Libya’s So-Called “Opposition”

Included are the National Front for the Salvation of Libya, its officials with ties to the CIA and Saudi Arabia. Also, Muhammad as-Senussi, Libya’s so-called heir to the Senussi Crown, concerned only for his own self-interest.

Central is the National Libyan Council (NLC), announced on February 26, established officially on March 5, led by former Libyan Justice Minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, a Western-allied opportunist.

NLC is an umbrella group of local so-called opposition leaders headquartered in Benghazi. Bogusly, it claims to represent all Libyans. Abdel-Jalil calls it a “transitional government” ahead of future elections after Gaddafi is deposed.

At the same time, Abdel-Hafidh Ghoga, a Benghazi lawyer, refuted his leadership, calling himself NLC’s official spokesman. Both men, however, have similar aspirations, including controlling Libya by ousting Gaddafi.

As of now, Abdel-Jalil remains NLC’s official head, Ghoga its spokesman, and Omar El-Hariri in charge of military operations. General Abdel Fattah Younis may be another key member, his status, however, not confirmed. In total, NLC has about 30 members. Most aren’t named. Two known include, Mahmoud Jebril and Ali al-Essawi, former Libyan ambassador to India in charge of foreign affairs.

On March 5, Reuters headlined, “Rebel National Libya Council sets up (a three-member) crisis committee,” saying:

In charge of military and foreign affairs, members include Omar El-Hariri, Ali al-Essawi, and Mahmoud Jebril as leader.

Western Hypocrisy – Denouncing Violence While Backing It

At Obama’s behest, about 1,000 Saudi troops invaded Bahrain guns blazing, attacking peaceful protesters, arresting opposition leaders and activists, occupying the country, denying wounded men and women medical treatment, and imposing police state control in support of the hated monarchy.

Not an angry Western demand was heard to stop hostilities and leave. Nor against similar Egyptian army attacks or on civilians in Tunisia, Jordan, Algeria, Oman, Iraq, and Yemen, let alone daily against Palestinians.

On March 18, in fact, dozens of Yemenese were killed, scores more wounded in Sanaa, the capital, when security forces attacked thousands, demanding President Ali Abdullah Saleh step down.

Ally turned bete noire Gaddafi was targeted for removal. In contrast, Saleh is supported because of Yemen’s strategic location near the Horn of Africa on Saudi Arabia’s southern border, the Red Sea, its Bab el-Mandeb strait (a key chokepoint separating Yemen from Eritrea through which three million barrels of oil pass daily), and the Gulf of Aden connection to the Indian Ocean.

Instead of denouncing his brutality, Obama endorsed it, calling on “all sides (to pursue) a peaceful, orderly and democratic path to a stronger and more prosperous nation.”

Friday’s massacre was the bloodiest since resistance erupted in mid-February. Security forces and plainclothes police opened fire on demonstrators, shooting to kill, hitting some in the back of the head as they fled. Afterward, Saleh imposed a state of emergency and nationwide curfew.

Demonstrations, nonetheless, persist, Yemenese wanting his 32-year dictatorship ended. Achieving it, however, entails overcoming Washington’s imperial grip on regional client states, all run by favored despots.

A Final Comment

On March 19, Professor As’ad AbuKhalil’s Angry Arab.com headlined, “Bush Doctrine revised: Obama puts his stamp,” saying:

“Western/Saudi/Qarari military intervention in Libya sets a dangerous precedent.” Under Bush, ousting regimes for democracy “was a bloody farce….” Obama’s model may be installing puppets “without having ‘boots on the ground,’ ” but don’t discount them. He expanded Bush’s Afghan war, began his own in Pakistan as well as in Somalia, Yemen and Bahrain, backing favored despots besides the Saudi monarchy.

AbuKhalil calls NLC’s Abdel-Jalil “a useful idiot.” Moreover, “Western enthusiasm for (Libyan) intervention” was never properly explained beyond nonsensical platitudes about “humanitarian intervention” to protect civilians.

In contrast, “why (didn’t) the hundreds of deaths in Egypt or Tunisia….warrant” similar outrage, let alone Israel’s Cast Lead, occupation and daily aggression against defenseless Palestinians.

Intervening militarily is Libya “is far more dangerous: it is intended to legitimize the return of colonial powers, (and) abort democratic uprisings all over the region. Bahrain (Yemen and Saudi Arabia) of today (are) the vision for Libya for tomorrow,” Western-dominated, of course.

Will it work? Love or hate Gaddafi, Libyans know what Iraqis, Afghans and Palestinians endure. Moreover, its society is fractious, divided by tribal loyalties, suspicious of Western intervention, and long-governed locally as well as nationally.

Against them is America’s military might under leaders not shy about using it. As a result, Libyans are experiencing firsthand what’s ahead under Western control, what makes Iraqis yearn for Saddam, almost saintly compared to Washington.

After I watched a number of news shows about Libya and saw that very few of them were trying to show an objective outlook on Gadhafi or on Libya, I decided that another perspective really needed to be presented to the American people. I have decided to write on the information presented to me and let the readers of this article make their own judgment on the information presented.

First of all, very few good things have been presented on Col. Gadhafi. I would like to mention some of the things that have taken place in Libya since he overthrew the monarchy in 1969 in a popular revolution against the US supported King.

Some aspects of Libyan progress since the downfall of the monarchy in 1969:

  1. Literacy rates have risen from 10% of the nation to around 90% of the population. (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_literacy_rate_in_Libya)
  2. Women have the right to go to school and hold down a job.
  3. The life expectancy of Libyans has risen by twenty years and the infant mortality rate has dropped dramatically.
  4. Libya had the highest Human Development Index ranking in Africa. This is a U.N. measurement of life expectancy, educational attainment and adjusted real income.  (http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/)
  5. Most basic necessities: food, housing, fuel, healthcare and education were either heavily subsidized or became entirely free. Subsidies were considered the most effective way to redistribute the national wealth.
  6. Libya had a lower incarceration rate than the Czech Republic (or the United States). Libya ranked 61st in the world while the US has been number one for years.
  7. Libya has the third highest GDP on the African continent, South Africa has the highest, Algeria is second.(http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/)

Who is behind the insurgency in Libya?

This is the question that most people following the situation there would like to know. The details are far from clear. There are more questions than answers. One question in particular seems to be elusive, and that is why does the United States take such an active interest in a nation that has less than 6.5 million people? Egypt by comparison (with a population of almost 79 million) was a resolute ally that had a peace agreement with our other ally Israel and controlled the Suez Canal, the oil gateway into the Middle East. Why does Libya provoke such a response like the one Secretary of State Hillary Clinton articulated from the Middle-East yesterday when she said “all of our options regarding actions towards Libya are on the table” (This is euphemism for military options). Yesterday President Obama made the statement that Gadhafi’s time was up and that he should resign. This is a much harder stance than the one the United States took towards Mubarak in Egypt.

The primary opposition group most widely quoted is the National Front for the Salvation of Libya. According to Wikipedia:

“NFSL was based in Sudan until 1985 when the regime of Colonel Nimeiry fell. It opposed military and dictatorial rule in Libya, and called for a democratic government with constitutional guarantees, free elections, a free press, and separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. NFSL launched a wide campaign to topple Gaddafi in Libya, establishing a short-wave radio station, a commando military training camp and also published a bi-monthly newsletter, Al Inqadh (Salvation). According to various sources, Saudi Arabia and the United States Central Intelligence Agency had supported the NFSL.”

The facts are that the United States has considered Gadhafi an enemy of the U.S. for well over 35 years. The NFSL now operates out of Virginia. According to Sara Flounders, writing for Global Research:

“The U.S. carried out numerous assassination and coup attempts against the Gadhafi regime and financed armed opposition groups, such as the NFSL. Some U.S. attacks were blatant and open. For example, without warning 66 U.S. jets bombed the Libyan capital of Tripoli and its second-largest city, Benghazi, on April 15, 1986. Gadhafi’s home was bombed and his infant daughter killed in the attack, along with hundreds of others.”

Looking at the situation in Libya now, according to past history, the United States is not behaving in any way that could be described as anything new. She also states that:

“Even if Gadhafi were as quiet and austere as a monk and as careful as a diplomat, as president of an oil-rich, previously underdeveloped African country he still would have been hated, ridiculed and demonized by U.S. imperialism if he resisted U.S. corporate domination. That was his real crime and for that he has never been forgiven.”

As Americans, what can we do to stop American involvement in the affairs of Libya, A country we have been engaged against for almost 40 years?

It is clear from the outset that it is our political establishment and not our military that are calling for interference in another nation’s internal affairs. The Secretary of defense, Robert Gates has warned that a No-Fly Zone begins with a military attack on Libya’s air defense facilities.

“Let’s just call a spade a spade. A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya. That’s the way you do a no-fly zone. And then you can fly planes around the country and not worry about our guys being shot down.”

That is calling a spade a spade indeed. We need people like Gates to stop another war being waged against another nation that has not attacked us. Once the military option is used in any situation, it is hard to control. We have enough debt to deal with and even without intervention in Libya we spend 53% of our total Federal spending on defense (defense, really?) Politicians like John Kerry are calling for a no fly zone in order to stop Gadhafi from bombing his people.  According to the Associated Press, “Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that despite media reports of Libyan aircraft attacking rebel areas, the Pentagon had not confirmed any air attacks.”

How often are we going to allow the American military to act as the world’s policemen? In the long run, we stand to gain nothing from interfering in the politics of Libya. This will only turn out to be another in a long list of military attacks on sovereign nations. The truth of the matter is that we would not be thinking of acting militarily against Libya if they did not sit on oil reserves estimated at over 40 billion barrels of high-quality crude. If Russia or China launched military operations against Libya we would be screaming at the top of our lungs.

The American people need to see this as what it is, and that is just another attempt by the United States to secure resources by force. We are already fighting a war in Afghanistan in order to stabilize the country so that we can build the Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indian pipeline (T.A.P.I.). Our attempt to control the oilfields of Iraq has yielded no significant gains for the U.S. Sending America’s military to Libya will be a grave mistake. Obama’s entire presidency will be gauged by what we do in Libya and other potential trouble spots in the resurgent Middle-East. I don’t want to be writing about what I wrote today years from now.

Resources:

http://www.medialens.org/articles/the_articles/articles_2002/rk_secret_war.html
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/Test-CIA/LIBYA
http://empirestrikesblack.com/2011/02/libya-the-rest-of-the-story/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23472
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/24-02-2011/117000-libya_surface-0/#
http://davidrothscum.blogspot.com/2011/02/world-cheers-as-cia-plunges-libya-into.htm

Read Full Post »

The hype of WikiLeaks has been intensified last few weeks as Julain Assange becomes the Osama Bin Laden of the western world.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/wikileaks-cables-detail-torture-detainees-kashmir-20101215-161912-033.html

This above link which gets highlighted on yahoo home page gets huge attention especially by the Assange followers. As I have already noted in my earlier article on WikiLeaks about its farce. Yet, I am forced to write another after seeing this above link on ( WikiLeaks cables details torture on detainees in Kashmir ).

London, Dec 17 (IANS) US diplomats were secretly briefed by staff of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) about the systematic abuse of detainees in Kashmir, according to diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks.

The dispatches reveal that US diplomats in Delhi were briefed by ICRC in 2005 about the use of electrocution, beatings and sexual humiliation against hundreds of detainees, the Guardian reported Friday.

After reading the above , I question how many ICRC representatives are or perhaps were ever in Kashmir.It surprises me to my astonishment further that , these ICRC staff revealed secretly these incidents to US Embassy in India. If ever someone has ever been to Jammu & Kashmir , will understand the situation there. The Indian media personnel who have the best advantage of covering the news from Kashmir can’t get access to such detention camps in Kashmir, so how on earth ICRC interviewed the detainees who are under the captivity of Indian Army.

Morever, even if these detention camps exist, then these camps are no different from the regular Indian jails or prisons. The hospitality met on the prisoners across India is fairly known to all the Indian citizens and no Indian person would ever want to get to that place.  If Indian Army is detaining such militants, then its our countries internal matter & national security. As these militants are fully trained under ISI – Pakistan and execute their duties as full-fledged terrorists. These militants are also involved in torturing the normal Kashmiri citizens and forcing them into terror activities. Kidnapping , ransom of youngsters and family members to force them to achieve the terror plans are just few of the atrocities met by these militants on the ordinary citizens. The militants also go further to penetrate into other parts of India and spread terror.

One has to understand that Kashmir is under the state of war at all times with these dark figures , with who the WikiLeaks is compassionate. I wonder WikiLeaks is just another American agenda of supporting terror in India. In the state of war even the prisoners of war ( real soldiers ) are treated in a good manner and guess what? these detainees are not soldiers , but real hard-core terrorists. How should they be dealt with?

ICRC should really look into nations & places on earth where their real assistance is required by much needy people and not get involved with political matters which concern the national security of India. Subsequently , the US Embassy should focus on their diplomatic jobs , as it clearly displays that every information from US Embassy is getting leaked. This shows they are not great in their spy stuff. ( lol ).

These militants who go raping and killing people , are they not violating human rights. WikiLeaks cannot demoralise Indian Security forces by declaring that they are violating human rights.

The US-Pak allaince cannot blackmail India with such fake documents that are no concern for the Indian government. India doesn’t need aggression in Kashmir and neither do the Kashmiris living there. The state is always imposed with curfews & bandhs and every Kashmiri has realised the bad intention of Pakistan. Therefore, they too need peace as when they see the situation in India and compare with Pakistan,. any sane human being can decide which side they want to go.

 

Read Full Post »

Image: You're not going to poison my water with fluoride! (Source: Illuminati News)

il@Fluoride has been added to water in the form of hexafluorosilicic acid (an industrial waste product) in the hope that it would reduce tooth decay. However it is a poison that has some serious side effects, badly affecting almost every organ in the body and does not reduce tooth decay in permanent teeth (has graphs) nor even in first teeth and The decline in tooth cavities has been the same in fluoridated and non fluoridated countries. Europe is only 2% fluoridated but has tooth decay similar to or less than the USA, which is 64% fluoridated. It is more poisonous than lead and only marginally less so than arsenic.
—-SIDE EFFECTS (the most serious is Alzheimer�s disease) —-The side effect that is the most obvious is a discoloration of the teeth called fluorosis (includes treatments) [Pendrys]. This is inevitable if the dose of fluoride is only a little over optimum. This is very easy to happen to anyone who drinks a lot of water, say for kidney problems or for baby formula. It is also likely if someone eats or drinks food high in fluoride such as tea [Gulati], coffee, reconstituted fruit juice, grapes or raisins that have had fluoride insecticide (cryolite), dried eggs, soy beans, and carbonated drinks. Fagin gives fluoride content of some foods [Fagin]. You may see contents of all foods here. While the fluorosis effect is fairly trivial other than appearance, the cost of correcting it can be as much as $15,000. This cost should be made good by the water companies and insecticide manufacturers. The cost of dental repair is significantly greater in fluoridate British communities than in non fluoridated and the number of dentists required per population is greater. This is probably primarily because of the cost of correcting fluorosis. Since 1950, it has been found that fluorides do little to prevent pit and fissure tooth decay, a fact that even the dental community has acknowledged [Gray 1987; and Pinkham 1999]. This is significant because pit and fissure tooth decay represents up to 85% of the tooth decay experienced by children today [Gray 1987]. Pit and fissure decay is best prevented with sealants. Studies that seemed to show less number of cavities in children from fluoride did so because the tooth eruption process was delayed by one of the poisonous affects of fluoride. The number of eventual cavities were the same.
—- Fluorides cause premature aging of the human body [Leone] [Erikson].
—-A more serious effect is irreversible bone deformation [Fagin, with pictures] [Reddy] and increases of bone fractures [Orcel]. 99% of the body�s fluoride burden is in the bones. There are villages in India where two thirds of the people are crippled by fluorosis of the bone caused by less than 5 parts per million of fluoride. The affects on bone can mimic some of the symptoms of arthritis.

Fluoride interferes with the hydroxylation of proline to hydroxyproline [Sharma]. Therefore fluoride exposure disrupts the synthesis of collagen and leads to the breakdown of collagen in bone, tendon, muscle, skin, cartilage, lungs, kidney, trachea and arteries. [Susheela and Mukerjee]. That is the type of damage you’d expect to see in connective tissue disorders. It will also cause damage to ligaments resembling arthritis.
—-An even more serious effect is bone cancer in young boys, but for some strange reason, not girls. During the growth spurt during 6 to 8 years the bone cancer rate is 8 times higher in boys living in fluoridated areas than in non poisoned water areas [Bassin]. Fluoride confuses the immune system and causes it to attack the body’s own tissues, and increases the tumor growth rate in cancer prone individuals [Taylor]. There is increased incidence of melanotic tumors following treatment with sodium fluoride [Herskowitz]. In view of this adding fluoride to water is breaking the former Delaney amendment law prohibiting adding cancer causing chemicals to food. That law should be reestablished.
—-Proteins are kept in their three dimensional structure by weak bonds between adjacent proteins called hydrogen bonds. Emsley, et al found that fluoride disrupts this hydrogen bonding within proteins by virtue of an unusually strong bond between fluoride ion and the NH group of amides [Emsley]. In other words, it changes some associated proteins and enzymes from the exact shape they�re suppose to be in. It also reduces the ability of white blood cells to kill pathogens [Weisman].
—- Fluoride depresses thyroid activity [Von Mundy] [Galleti]. Fluoride and bromide block the uptake and utilization of iodide in target cells [Abraham 2004]. Fluoride has been proposed to inhibit the thyroid and fluoride symptoms have many similarities to low thyroid. Also see this site for acute symptoms. Children in India who had fluoride in their blood had thyroid abnormality. Fluoride has been found to cause goiter in South Africa. A government-sponsored report has concluded that levels of fluoride that people are regularly exposed to in drinking water can cause serious malfunctioning of the thyroid gland, leading to even more serious health problems..
—- I now have to take thyroid hormone, so I have a personal reason for resenting adding this poison to my drinking water, for it is highly probable that fluoride is the reason why. As a friend if mine once said �everything is caused by something�.
—- Fluoride depletes the energy reserves and the ability of white blood cells to properly destroy foreign agents by the process of phagocytosis. As little as 0.2 ppm fluoride stimulates superoxide production in resting white blood cells, virtually abolishing phagocytosis. Even micro-molar amounts of fluoride, below 1ppm, may seriously depress the ability of white blood cells to destroy pathogenic agents [Curnette]. Fluoride inhibits antibody formation in the blood [Jain].
—-The most serious effects of all are damages to the nervous system. Fluoride synergistically with aluminum, causes nerve degeneration similar to Alzheimer�s disease. Aluminum is present in some city water, in a toothpaste tube, using aluminum pans to boil water, or drinking beverages in aluminum cans, and some baking powder. Alzheimer�s disease is very prevalent and has been rising in recent years.
—- It has been found that behaviors associated with lead neurotoxicity are more frequent in communities using silicofluorides than in comparable localities that do not use these chemicals. Violent acts were up to 2 and 1/2 times higher in fluoridated communities, particularly among African Americans. He attributes this to lead levels in these criminals, which lead has its uptake enhanced by fluoride [Masters]. Rats fed amounts of fluoride similar and also slightly higher to that found in artificially fluoridated drinking water, suffered from impaired central nervous system functioning and poorer memory. There was more malaise and fatigue and significant alteration of enzyme functioning. Some researchers have concluded that there is a mechanism by which fluoride can contribute to so many neurological problems in children. Thus, links of fluoridated water to decreased intelligence in children [Lu], increased incidence of ADD and ADHD, lower cognitive ability, poorer memory and other related problems, are almost certainly correct.
—- Varner et al found that when fluoride in water with just 1 part per million fluoride, (the amounts used for artificially fluoridated water), was used in the presence of aluminum sulfate (frequently used to improve the appearance of drinking water, present in some baking powders, and as an adjuvant in vaccines [Eisenbarth] ), the results were disastrous. Aside from brain and kidney damage, there was an eighty percent mortality rate in the animals fed doses of sodium fluoride and aluminum similar to those found in artificially fluoridated water. Animals fed the aluminum/fluoride laced water developed sparse hair and abnormal, copper-colored underlying skin which is related to premature aging. Mostly the researchers related these effects to chronic kidney failure. Further autopsy results showed serious kidney abnormalities in animals that drank water containing both sodium fluoride and aluminum fluoride. The Varner team said that �Striking parallels were seen between aluminum-induced alterations in cerebral blood vessels that are associated with Alzheimer�s disease and other forms of pre-senile dementia�. Fluoride studies in rats can be indicative of a potential for motor disruption, intelligence deficits and learning disabilities in humans. Humans are exposed to plasma levels of fluoride as high as those in rat studies. Fluoride involves interruption of normal brain development. Fluoride affects the hippocampus in the brain, which integrates inputs from the environment, memory, and motivational stimuli, to produce behavioral decisions and modify memory. Experience with other developmental neurotoxicants prompts expectations that changes in behavioral functions will be comparable across species, especially humans and rats [Muellenix] Fluorides accumulate in the brain over time to reach neurologically harmful levels [Muellenix]. If you keep rodents for pets, be sure not to give them city water.
—- It is also important that pregnant women imbibe no fluoride because it damages several brain functions and hormones in the fetuses. It also alters behavior of the babies. There is an average decline of IQ of 8 points in children showing fluorosis of the teeth. Also see this site and this one for review of Chinese studies, some of which indicate the mental damage is much greater when iodide is deficient. It has been proposed that the decline in American academic achievement may be partly due to fluoride.
—-About 2 or 3% of people are especially sensitive to fluoride poisoning. Such people can not even take showers without being affected with colicky stomach and intestinal pains, severe headaches, weakness and fatigue, skin rashes, mouth ulcers, worsening of allergic conditions including wheezy breathing, blurred vision, excessive thirst and joint pains. So apparently fluoride can be absorbed from shower water. If you live in a fluoridated area, you can collect water off your roof in barrels and wash off with that.
—- Fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland, which secretes melatonin, more than any other soft tissue in the body [Luke]. The hydroxyapetite crystals in the pineal gland accumulate more fluoride than bone or teeth, up to 21,000 ppm. As a result melatonin is interfered with by several mechanisms [Blaylock] and this causes earlier maturation of female animals. It must also be interfering with the circadian sleep rhythm.
—-At the same time there are substances that give protection to teeth, especially while children are growing, such as vitamin D, calcium, phosphate, copper and magnesium with no adverse effects in reasonable amounts and at the same time they strengthen bone [Holick]. You should be able to get all you need of these except vitamin D from unprocessed food. Vitamin D must come from sun light or supplements. There are also substances present in cashew nuts and mango fruit, anacardic acids, which are very lethal to tooth cavity gram positive bacteria [Eichbaum]. Fluoride is not more lethal to cavity bacteria than conventional mouth wash [Bibby]. Fluoride does reduce solubility of enamel in acid, but only when applied topically. Eating fluoride while teeth are forming has no affect on solubility. Therefore according to the ADA fluoride should NEVER be given to babies or pregnant mothers or used for formula.The Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA�s Dec. 1995, July 1996, July 1997, March 1999, June 2000) has published a series of studies reporting on pervasive overexposure to fluoride due to “the widespread use of fluoridated water, fluoride dentifrice, dietary fluoride supplements and other forms of fluoride…{There is} an increased prevalence of dental fluorosis, ranging from about 15% to 65% in fluoridated areas and 5% to 40% in non-fluoridated areas in North America.” In February of 1997, The Academy of General Dentistry (AGD), representing 35,000 dentists, warned parents to limit their children�s intake of juices due to fluoride content. The U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) stated in its Toxicological Profile on Fluoride in 1993`, “Existing data indicate that subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, and/or vitamin C, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems… Postmenopausal women and elderly men in fluoridated communities may also be at increased risk of fractures.”
—- I definitely recommend that you drink bottled water or collect rain water directly (not from your roof) in a sanitary container or wheel barrow if your tap water contains fluoride. This is especially important if you are on dialysis since the National Kidney Foundation has reported several deaths from fluoride in water. Cities should discontinue fluoridation because of the likelihood of future liability suits along with concern for their citizen�s health. At the very least legislators should insist that citizens be warned of the toxicity. Individual septic systems are exempt from polluting the environment law. This exception should be removed. 98% of European citizens now drink non fluoridated water. We should join them in the USA.
—- Also when fluorinated water is used for irrigation, it poisons the soil for a long time. Fluoride in phosphate fertilizers can cause fluoride to build up to high values, especially since it does not easily move in neutral or alkaline soil. Fluoride is thought to be able to damage vegetation when the concentration is high enough, especially when boron is also high in the soil. Fluoride is more readily taken up by plants from acid soil. It has been found that calcium inhibited fluoride uptake by plants (Soil Science, 1961 92(3): 172 ). Fluoride in soil has been found to be zero to 1500 ppm in eastern USA soil. Biotite and muscovite micas probably furnish the most from the parent material sources, as much as 4 and 2 per cent in each respectively. There is 290 ppm average in 10 mile deep crustal rock (Soil Science, 1946 61(5): 341 ). So fluoride must leach out of soils eventually. Formations of dolomite, bentonite, or volcanic ash produce dangerous concentrations of fluoride in ground water (from a study in Estonia). I strongly suspect that the brown ivy leaves only over my septic field that shows up in fall is from fluoride. Tomato picks up more than twice as much fluoride as bean plants.
—- Iodide can be used to increase fluoride excretion. Iodide used to be very popular with the medical profession. It was called �The Universal Medicine� over 100 years ago because it was safe, effective and had widespread applications in clinical medicine for conditions that were not responding to other treatment such as metallic poisonings, as by lead and mercury, asthma, aneurism, arteriosclerosis, angina pectoris, gout, goiter, syphilis, haemophilia, Bright�s disease (nephritis) and bronchitis. (scroll up) Iodide probably has many functions in the body other than creating thyroid hormone.
—-However, after World War II, misinformation about iodide resulted in medical professionals turning against iodide. As a result, iodide has been neglected in medical textbooks and vilified in endocrine publications [Abraham 2006]. This may be part of the reason why the World Health Organization estimates that 2 Billion people, 30 percent of the world�s population, suffer from iodine deficiency disorders. More than a billion people have visible goiters and 5.7 million are cretins. An estimated additional 750 million people without goiters have undiagnosed hypothyroidism [WHO], and many millions have iodine-related mental retardation. Double the excretion of fluoride takes place if 50 milligrams of iodide/iodine as Iodoral are taken daily for one month [Brownstein][Abraham 2003]. Half again as much bromide is also excreted. It has been suggested that the symptoms of iodism is from release of bromide. Another trial showed much higher increases of bromide from supplementation with iodide. This must have been because the patient had been eating much more than normal intake of bromide added to food. I do not know if it is safe to take this much Iodoral interminably and I am apprehensive about the use of elemental iodine or iodates since iodate has been used to cure hyperthyroid condition [Starr][Thompson]. However the Japanese average 14 milligrams IODIDE daily from 4.5 grams of seaweed (dried?) [Nutrition Section, Bureau of Public Health], which is 50 times the amount in the USA. In some sections the Japanese average 200 milligrams per day. A much lower breast cancer rate has been attributed to this [LeMarchand][Nagata]. Women with goiters (a visible, non cancerous enlargement of the thyroid gland) owing to iodine deficiency have been found to have a three times greater incidence of breast cancer. 15% of American women get breast cancer, as opposed to 5% thirty years ago. 90% of women have fibrocystic breast disease, sometimes painful, which can be improved with 50 milligrams of KI during the intermenstrual period [Vishniakova]. The Russian study has been replicated in the USA with similar results, but using elemental iodine.
Iodide also stimulates the immune system. Iodide has been proposed to have an affect rivaling antibiotics. It is possible that supplementation with as much as 50 milligrams of iodide per day to start would augment immunity against fungal infection, syphilis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Also see this site. Iodide also reduces the amount of insulin necessary during type I and Type II diabetes.
—- Iodide concentrations in seaweeds are as follows (milligrams. per 100 gm.); Alaria 16.6, Dulse5.2, Kelp 45.3, Laver 1.4, Hiziki 40, Arame 98-564, Kombu 193-471, Wakame 18-35, Nori .5, Rockweed 153.7, Bladderwrack 65. Potassium iodide can be purchased without a prescription from this site. The pill form contains 100 milligrams of iodide, so must be subdivided by dissolving it in a glass of water, and then drinking a portion each day. A list of wholesale suppliers of iodide is available here, although individuals may have difficulty doing business with them. Iodide is probably better than sea weed because seaweed has bromine and arsenic (22 milligrams of arsenic per 1000 grams) in it, both largely as organic compounds. Between 0.2 to 1.0 milligrams per day of arsenic is ingested by the Japanese daily. Inorganic arsenic is a risk factor for liver cancer. However hijiki seaweed has only 0.3 milligrams per 1000 grams of arsenic as arsenate, the remainder being organic, which is only mildly toxic. The UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) issued advice to consumers to avoid eating seaweeds.
—- 12 milligrams of iodide and iodine will also cause fluoride excretion with no adverse side effects after one month. If the body is deficient, a large percentage of iodide is retained. It is said that the retention ends when the body contains about 1500 milligrams [Abraham 2005]. It has been suggested that the only way iodide excess can produce hyperthyroid condition is if the patient has had goiter or other thyroid disease prior [Roti]. Epidemiological studies confirm that hyperthyroid is most prevalent in areas that are LOW in iodide.
—-For a forum that discusses iodide access this site. For a discussion of the affect of medications on thyroid secretion or supplementation, see this site.
—- The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment has come out strongly in opposition to fluoridation. They maintain that decline in tooth decay is not from fluoride and that adverse effects have been underestimated.
—- Joel Kauffman has written an extensive review of the history of the political maneuvers that have foisted this poison, fluoride, on society. New hypotheses can be dangerous to the power wealth or prestige of old theory adherents [Charlton], or as Tolstoy puts it, “Most men can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, have proudly taught to others, and have woven thread by thread into the fabric of their lives” or as Paul Connett put it “When public policy is controlled by spin, producing a single fact is a subversive act.” , �Insanity� would be a better word than �spin�. So it will be difficult to get this unhealthy procedure discontinued. Laws spelling out liability and setting reasonable compensations would be very desirable. If liability were removed from those organizations that advocated it because of stupidity, perhaps they would not be reluctant to come out against it. Such a law should still preserve the legal concept of �malum in se� so that any who gave such advice for evil intent would still be susceptible.
—-If you should wish to see an extensive discussion of side effects of fluoride, see http://tompetrie.net/id6.html> this site.
—-Paul Connett has formed an organization devoted to getting rid of fluoride in city water and has a site giving 50 reasons for doing so, as well as a list of references.
—-This site lists the bad health affects of fluoride with numerous references for each. and you may see a blog devoted to persuading officials to discontinue fluoride here.
—-You can see a site that has links to information on fluoride content of water in each state here.
—-You may see a videotape of a dentist making a passionate plea to stop fluoride poisoning here,
—- You may see a list of US cities that have fluoridated water.
—- The Canadian Physicians Association has come out with opposition to fluoridation in http://fluoridealert.org/cape.html ,
—- The Great Lakes United has also come out with a resolution opposing fluoridation in http://www.glu.org/sites/default/files/Resolution-regarding-artificial-water-fluoridation.pdf . Part of their opposition is based on the poisoning of the Great Lakes Great Lakes by sewer water.

—-I have submitted a petition a few years ago to the FDA to make fluoride in tooth paste a prescription drug because of acute toxic effects if it is swallowed by children. The contents of a family-size tube of fluoridated toothpaste is enough to kill a 25-pound child. This petition was because fluoride ingestion from mouth rinses and dentifrices in children is extremely hazardous to biological development, life span and general health [Eriksson] [Augenstein]. Children in Canada aged 7 months to 4 years old averaged 0.087 to 0.160 milligrams per day in fluoridated areas and 0.045 to 0.096 in non fluoridated areas. The adults in non fluoridated areas received only 0.032 to 0.036 in spite of their much greater weight. This was because the children were getting 0.020 to 0.060 in all areas from tooth paste. Perhaps if you wrote in to support the petition the matter would be expedited. The address is; Dockets Management Branch, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, Room 1-23, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Rockville, MD 20857.
—- You may see a source of filters that take out much of the fluoride here.
—- A book has been written about fluoride in drinking water called �THE CASE AGAINST FLUORIDE: how hazardous waste ended up in our drinking water and the bad science and powerful politics that keep it there�. It is reviewed in this URL: http://www.fluorideresearch.org/433/files/FJ2010_v43_n3_p170-173.pdf .

REFERENCES are below. Hundreds of references are also available from Second Look�s web site. �Second Look� is an organization devoted primarily to educating people about the dangers of fluoride. An organization called �Keepers of the Well� presents arguments against fluoridation. The National Research Council Report concludes that there should be no fluoride in water. Paul Conent analyzes the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) report on fluoride in http://fluoridealert.org/re/connett.sept.24.2010.pdf . He concludes they were hopelessly inadequate, especially about brain researc.

EPILOGUE

Any information adopted in this article you must understand is used at your own risk.

A copper deficiency has been implicated in low thyroid secretion (there are many abstracts of copper reference articles in this URL). He thinks it can be implicated in too much thyroid secretion also.

For information about how to increase potassium to prevent arthritis and heart disease, see this site.

You may see how to get more copper from food to prevent slipped discs, aneurisms, hemorrhoids, and emphysema. A table, which gives copper and zinc in food per thousand Calories, is available at this site, as well as zinc/copper ratios

There is an article discussing cashew nuts to cure a tooth abscess Which might prove useful at this site.
There is also an article which proposes some speculation about diabetes and a possible cause from chili pepper at this site.

See this site for evidence of a correlation between magnesium deficiency and cancer. The taurate is proposed as the best magnesium supplement. However, it probably only seems to be because the taurate no doubt has advantageous properties of its own in some circumstances. Taurine or 2-aminoethanesulfonic acid is an acidic chemical substance sulfonated rather than carboxylated found in high abundance in the tissues of many animals (metazoa), especially sea animals. Taurine is also found in plants, fungi, and some bacterial species, but in far less abundance. It is an amine with a sulfonic acid functional group, but it is not an amino acid in the biological sense, not being one of the twenty protein-forming compounds encoded by the universal genetic code. Small polypeptides have been identified as containing taurine, but to date there has been no report of a transfer RNA that is specifically charged with taurine [from Wikipedia]. It is essential to babies. It has been found that supplements of the amino acid, taurine, will restore the abnormal electrocardiogram present during a potassium deficiency by an unknown mechanism. This information has been used in several case histories by George Eby to control a long standing type of cardiac arrhythmia called pre atrial contractions (PACs), a benign but irritating and nerve racking heart problem, with 2,500 grams of taurine with each meal. Taurine is said to be low in the diets of vegetarians. The 2,500 milligrams recommended by the American Heart Association causes diarrhea in some people and should probably be reduced in those people. Taurine has been used for high blood pressure [Fujita], migraine headache (I suspect that less than 1000 milligrams can remove the headache caused by allergy to peanuts), high cholesterol, epilepsy, macular degeneration, Alzheimer�s disease, liver disorders, alcoholism, and cystic fibrosis, and depression. Keep in mind that some people may have a genetic defect that limits the amount of taurine tolerated and that adequate molybdenum may desirable. Taurine may make a copper deficiency worse, based on a single case history [Brien Quirk, private communication]. This may be because taurine may be mobilizing copper and zinc into the plasma [Li]. So if you should decide to take taurine, make sure your copper intake is more than adequate, as well as your zinc.

There is a site that contains reviews of natural remedies for many diseases

There is an opioid antagonist drug called Naltrexone, which stimulates the immune system to eliminate several serious diseases, including multiple sclerosis and possibly some cancers (Naltrexone in the large 50mg size, originally manufactured by DuPont under the brand name ReVia, is now sold by Mallinckrodt as Depade and by Barr Laboratories under the generic name naltrexone), that blocks some endorphin receptors. Said blockage is thought to cause the body to temporarily secrete more endorphins, especially after midnight at night. These endorphins are thought to stimulate the immune system, and in particular to stimulate the TH-1 or type 1 antiviral response by decreased interleukin-4 and with increased gamma interferon and interleukin-2 and a simultaneous decrease of type 2 anti bacterial response [Sacerdote]. It appears to be especially effective for minimizing symptoms and retarding progression of multiple sclerosis (MS) (also see these sites hereand here and this site). A few doctors have had encouraging results in Crohn’s Disease (prompting Penn State College of Medicine to plan 4mth Study of Crohn’s Disease & LDN. This has now been completed with very good results [Smith JP] ) and) CFIDS, and even to some extent in cancer. Low doses of Naltrexone (LDN), 1.5 to 4.5 milligrams, at bedtime is used (timing is important, and it is important not to buy slow release forms). It is said to have no known bad side effects at those doses other than stimulate the TH-1 or type 1 antiviral response by decreased interleukin-4 and with increased gamma interferon and interleukin-2 and a simultaneous decrease of type 2 anti bacterial response [Sacerdote]. There is also reports from an extensive survey in this site. I think some clinical studies on Naltrexone are in order, and it should not be a prescription drug. Though side effects appear unlikely, it is not proven over longer periods. If you try it (it is a prescription medicine in the USA), it seems likely that you should discontinue if you get a bacterial infection in view of its inhibition of antibacterial response. There are suggestions on how to obtain Naltrexone without a prescription in this site. Naltrexone is currently being used by Dr. Enlander, a New York City doctor, but with limited success for chronic fatigue syndrome using 3 to 4.5 milligram doses for CFIDS. . It is also being explored for AIDS by Dr. Bernard Bihari, 29 W 15th St. New York, NY 10011, 212) 929-4196 who is still prescribing Naltrexone for HIV/AIDS. (and currently Executive Director of the Community Research Initiative). Dr. Gale Guyer of Advanced Medical Center located in Zionsville, Indiana also is using it for cancer. Dr. Bihari has shown promising results for a large percentage of his cancer patients.

Olive leaf extract has shown clinical evidence of effectiveness against a wide range of viruses, including AIDS [Bihari], herpes, and cold viruses. It sometimes produces a Herxheimer or pathogen die off symptoms (from effectiveness against bacteria?). There is evidence that it is synergistic (reinforce each other) with Naltrexone. There have been a few case histories of improvement in what were probably arthritis patients and CFIDS patients. The active ingredient is said to be oleuropein or enolate. There has been very little follow up research done on it.

Also it has been found that curcumin in turmeric or curry powder will inhibit several forms of cancer, including melanoma. People who live in India where these spices are eaten, have one tenth the cancer elsewhere. Keep in mind, though, that chemicals in plants can not automatically be trusted simply because they are natural. >

A site is available which shows. foods which are high in one nutrient and low in another (including calories). This last site should be especially useful for a quick list of foods to consider first, or for those who must restrict another nutrient because of a genetic difficulty with absorption or utilization

The very extensive USDA Handbook #8 may be seen here. To access the information you must press “enter” to search, and then divide Kcal into milligrams of potassium. This last table is very comprehensive, is used in search mode, and even lists the amino acids. There are also links in it to PDF types of printouts from the table for individual nutrients available here Just click on the �A� or �W� button for the nutrient you desire.

Take a look at a marvelous site that gives average RDR multiples for most of the essential elements in graphical form from several food groups along with average costs. Vegetables are the winners. (But no copper entry)

You may find useful and easy to use a search for abstracts of medical journal references, “Gateway”.
—-Google�s �scholar search site� is excellent for all types of references.

The journal �Medical Hypotheses� publishes new theories in the medical field, including radical ideas. There is a URL that has an incredible number of links to information supposedly for those interested in law as applying to environmental concerns at http://www.lawvianet.com/desk_ref.html , However it lists main newspapers, news search engines, financial news sources, directories (telephone, email, lawyer, government, financial, congressional, business, corporate executives, zipcodes), online legal and ethics research, banking, trade associations, law reviews, bar associations, weather, airline tickets, and more.
—- There is an article that has an incredible number of links to information supposedly for those interested in law as applying to environmental concerns. �> , However it lists main newspapers, news search engines, financial news sources, directories (telephone, email, lawyer, government, financial, congressional, business, corporate executives, zipcodes), online legal and ethics research, banking, trade associations, law reviews, bar associations, weather, airline tickets, and more.

The author, Charles Weber, has a degree in chemistry and a masters degree in soil science. He has researched copper and potassium nutrition for over 30 years, primarily a library research, as well as fluoride poison for the last year. He has published articles on allied subjects in; The Journal of Theoretical Biology (1970, 1983), The Journal of Applied Nutrition (1974), Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology (1983), and Medical Hypotheses (1984, 1999, 2007, and 2008).

The author recommends that you seek a second opinion on any medical problems from competent professionals before making any substantive changes in any of your procedures. Any information, including names and addresses, from readers to this author is held in confidence and not relayed to third parties, nor are cookies used. The privacy laws of the USA are followed. This site does no advertising and is funded solely by the author.

Email = isoptera at morrisbb.net — or 828 692 5816 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              828 692 5816      end_of_the_skype_highlighting (USA)

REFERENCES

—-Abraham GE. 2003 Iodine supplementation markedly increases urinary excretion of fluoride and bromide. Townsend Letter, 238:108-109.
—-Abraham GE. 2004 Serum inorganic iodide levels following ingestion of a tablet form of Lugol solution: Evidence for an enterohepatic circulation of iodine. The Original Internist, 2004; 11(3):29-34.
—-Abraham GE. 2005 The historical background of the Iodine Project. The Original Internist; 12(2):57-66.
—- Abraham GE. 2006 The history of iodine in medicine. Part II: The search for and the discovery of thyroid hormones The Original Internist 13(2);:67-70.
—- W.L. Augenstein WL, et al 1991 Fluoride ingestion in children: a review of 87 cases. Pediatrics 88; 907-912.
—- Bassin EB Wypij D Davis RB Mittleman MA 2006 Age specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes and Control. 17; 421-428.
—- Bibby BG Zander HA McKelleget M Labunsky B 1946 Preliminary reports on the effect on dental caries of the use of sodium fluoride in a prophylactic cleaning mixture and in a mouthwash.J Dent Res 25(4): 207-211, 1946.
—- Blaylock RL 2004 Excitotoxiity: a possible central mechanism in fluoride neurotoxicity. Fluoride 37; 301-314.
—-Brownstein D. 2005 Clinical experience with inorganic, non-radioactive iodine/iodide. The Original Internist 12(3):105-108. Available at: http://www.optimox.com/pics/Iodine/IOD-09/IOD_09.htm.
—- Charlton BG 2008 False, trivial, obvious: Why new and revolutionary theories are typically disrespected. Medical Hypotheses 71; 1-3.
—- Pierre Galleti P Joyet G 1958 Effect of Fluorine on Thyroid Iodine Metabolism and Hyperthyroidism. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. 18; 1102-1110.
—- John Curnette, et al, 1979 Fluoride-mediated Activation of the Respiratory Burst in Human Neutrophils. Journal of Clinical Investigation 63; 637-647.
—-Eichbaum FW 1946 Biological properties of anacardic acid (O- pentadeca dienylsalicylic acid) and related compounds. General discussion-bactericidal action. Memorias do Instituto Butanen 19 71-86.
—- Ericsson Y Forsman B 1969 Fluoride retained from mouth rinses and dentifrices in preschool children. Caries Research 3; 290-299
—-Eisenbarth SC Colegio OR O�Connor W Jr. Sutterwala FS Flavell RA 2008 Crucial role for Nalp3 inflammasone in the immunostimulatory properties of aluminum adjuvants. Nature 453; 1122-1126.
—- Emsley J, et al 1981 An unexpectedly strong bond: Ab initio calculations and spectroscopic studies of amide fluoride systems. Journal of the American Chemical Society 103; 24-28.
—- Erikson JD 1978 Mortality of Selected Cities with Fluoridated and Non-Fluoridated Water Supplies. New England Journal of Medicine 298; 1112-1116.
—- Fagin D 2008 Second Thoughts about Fluoride. Scientific American 2008, 298; 74�81.
—- Gray AS. (1987). Fluoridation: Time For A New Base Line? Journal of the Canadian Dental Association. 53(10): 763-5.
—- Gulati P et al 1993 Studies on the leaching of fluoride in tea infusions. The Science of the Total Environment 138 (1-3); 213-221.
—- Irwin Herskowitz I Norton I 1963 Increased Incidence of Melanotic Tumors Following Treatment with Sodium Fluoride. Genetics 48; 307-310.
—- Jain SK Susheela AK 1987 Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Antibody Formation in Rabbits. Environmental Research 44; 117-125.
—- Le Marchand L, Kolonel LN, Nomura AM.1985 Breast cancer survival among Hawaiian Japanese and Caucasian women: ten-year rates and survival by place of birth.Am. J. of Epidemiol.;122:571-578.
—- Leone N, et al., 1954 Medical Aspects of Excessive Fluoride in a Water Supply. Public Health Reports 69; 925-936.
—- Lu Y, Sun ZR, Wu LN, Wang X, Lu W, Liub SS 2000 Effect of high fluoride water on intelligence in children. Fluoride 33; 74-78.
—- Luke J 2001. Fluoride deposition in the aged human pineal gland. Caries Res. 35(2);125-8.
—- Masters RD and Coplan M 1998 Water Treatment with Silicofluorides and enhanced lead uptake, Fluoride, Vol. 31, No 3, Aug.
.—- Muellenix, Denbesten, Schunior, Kernan 1995 Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride in Rats. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 17; 176.
—- Nagata C, Shimizu H. Risk factors for breast cancer 1996 Findings from comparative studies on Japanese in Japan, Japanese and whites in the United States. Gann Monograph on Cancer Research ;44:51-57.
—-Nutrition Section, Bureau of Public Health.1964 Nutrition in Japan. Tokyo, Japan: Ministry of Health and Welfare; 1965.
Orcel P, et al 1990 Stress fractures of the lower limbs in osteoporotic patients treated with fluoride. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 5 Suppl 1:S191-4.
—-Pendrys DG Katz RV 1989 Risk of enamel fluorosis associated with fluoride supplementation, infant formula and fluoride dentifrice use. American Journal of Epidemiology 130; 1199-1208.
—- Pinkham JR, ed. (1999). Pediatric Dentistry: Infancy Through Adolescence. 3rd Edition. WB Saunders Co.
—-Reddy GB, Arjun L. Khandare, P. Yadagiri Reddy, G. Shankar Rao, N. Balakrishna and I. Srivalli 2003 Antioxidant Defense System and Lipid Peroxidation in Patients with Skeletal Fluorosis and in Fluoride-Intoxicated Rabbits Toxicological Sciences 72, 363-368.
—- Roti E Uberti ED 2001 Iodine Excess and Hyperthyroidism. Thyroid 11(5): 493-500.
—-Sharma YD, 1982 Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Collagen Cross-Link Precursors, Toxicological Letters, Vol. 10, pp. 97-100
—-Starr, P., Walcott, H.P., Segall, H.N., et al, 1924 The Effect of Iodin in Exophthalmic Goiter. Arch, Int. Med., 34:355-364.
—-Susheela AK and Mukerjee D, 1981 Fluoride poisoning and the Effect of Collagen Biosynthesis of Osseous and Nonosseous Tissue,” Toxicological European Research, Vol. 3, No.2, pp. 99-104.
—-Taylor A Taylor NC 1965 Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Tumor Growth. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine. 119; 252.
—-Thompson, W.O., Thompson, P.K., Brailey, A.G., et al, 1930 Prolonged Treatment of Exophthalmic Goiter by Iodine Alone. Arch. Int. Med., 45:481-502.
—-Varner, J.A., et al., 1984 Chronic administration of aluminum-fluoride or sodium fluoride to rats in drinking water: Alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Brain Medicine, Vol. 4, pp. 151-157.
—- Vishniakova YY, Murav�eva NI. 1966 On the treatment of dyshormonal hyperplasia of mammary glands. [Article in Russian] Vestn Akad Med Nauk SSSR 21(9):19�22.
—- Von Mundy VG 1963 Influence of Fluorine and Iodine on the Metabolism, Particularly on the Thyroid Gland,” Muenchener Medicische Wochenschrift, Vol 105, pp. 182-186.
—-Weisman G et al 1972 Lekocyte proteases and the immunologic release of lysosomal enzymes. American Journal of Pathology 68; 539-569.
—-WHO, World Health Organization. 1996 Iodine deficiency disorders. Fact Sheet No. 121. Geneva

Read Full Post »

I cannot forget that the priests of every age have protected, as ours do now protect, impostures, and that in every age numerous examples of pious fraud may be found…Magic is pretty nearly over, but fraud seldom throve better – Godfrey Higgins (Anacalypsis)

On this page we present excerpts from James Wheless’ fine work entitled Forgery in Christianity, published in 1930. This work followed on from his masterpiece entitled Is it God’s Word? We also present excerpts from John E. Remsberg’s exceptional book entitled The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence, published in 1909. First let us begin with some miscellaneous quotes and comments on clerical forgery and plagiarism:

The Ten Commandments

The Ten Commandments of the Druids, were almost identical with those given by God to Moses – Richard Kelley Hoskins (In the Beginning)

The Sibylline Oracles

Church records stated that an Egyptian presbyter ‘wrote over’ the original Sybil’s document to create the fabricated version now in the New Testament. The forged document was renamed ‘Apocalypse’ and to imply an apostolic origin from ‘divine revelation’ it was re-titled ‘Revelation’ by Emperor Justinian at the second church council of Constantinople in 553, the same council that officially removed all references to reincarnation from the New Testament – Tony Bushby (The Secret in the Bible)

Celsus Exposes the Plagiarism

Celsus was an acknowledged expert on Biblical writings and the most important intellectual opponent of Christianity during its early years. He threw the early presbyters into perturbation when he accused them of accepting the worst superstitions of Paganism, and then interpolating passages into various writings without understanding the meaning of what they created. His accusations were so plausible that for a long time no Christian writer ventured to answer the challenge…His books were later burnedit is apparent that even towards the end of the Second Century it was commonly accepted that the orators’ manuscripts, now called Gospels, were shallow, manipulated transcripts and had already been altered on many occasions Tony Bushby (The Bible Fraud)

The Sibylline Oracles

Church records stated that an Egyptian presbyter ‘wrote over’ the original Sybil’s document to create the fabricated version now in the New Testament. The forged document was renamed ‘Apocalypse’ and to imply an apostolic origin from ‘divine revelation’ it was re-titled ‘Revelation’ by Emperor Justinian at the second church council of Constantinople in 553, the same council that officially removed all references to reincarnation from the New Testament – Tony Bushby (The Secret in the Bible)

Saint Augustine Recants

Towards the end of his life…St Augustine confessed that Christianity was ‘a religion of threats and bribes unworthy of wise men’ – Tony Bushby (The Bible Fraud)

The Forger Eusebius

We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity – (Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, Chapter 2)

The Forger St. Jerome

How it may be lawful and fitting to use falsehood as a medicine, and for the benefit of those who want to be deceived - (Twelfth Book of Evangelical Preparation)

The Forger John Chrysostom

Do you see the advantage of deceit?…
For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind…
And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived – (Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1)

Concocted Histories

Cornelius Tacitus, the Roman historian, in his celebrated Annals, refers to the burning of Rome in 64 AD, and the Neroian persecution of the Christians. He describes them as a “vast multitude” and says that the cult was founded by Christus, who was punished as a criminal by the Prosecutor Pontius Pilate. Eusebius made a list of Jewish and Pagan references to Christianity, but Tacitus is not mentioned by him. In fact, the passage in question was not quoted by any Christian writer before the fifteenth century – John G. Jackson (Pagan Origins of the Jesus Myth)

Schemer Ignatius Loyola

We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides.

Schemer Martin Luther

What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them – (Cited by his secretary, in a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel Landgraf Phillips des Grossmüthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, vol. I.)

Paul

For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?- (Romans 3:7)

St. Paul must have been well acquainted with some ancient copy of the Ritual of Egypt, as expressed here in the almost identical words as found there – Albert Churchward (Origins and Evolution of Religion)

The religious teaching presented in Paul’s Epistles is fundamentally different from what research has recognized as being authentic sayings of Jesus…What we know as Christianity today is not the teaching contained in these authentic sayings; it is the theology disseminated by Paul and the doctorers of his Epistles - Elmer H Gruber (The Original Jesus)

The possibility of the so-called Pauline epistles having been the work of later theologians, and of having been christened in the name of Paul…is therefore by no means excluded; especially when we consider how exuberantly literary falsifications and “pious frauds” flourished in the first century, and at other times also, in the interests of the Christian church - Arthur Dewes (The Christ Myth)

Of the works of the Old Testament neither the Psalms, nor the proverbs, nor the so-called Preacher, nor the Book of Wisdom, can be connected with the historical kings David or Solomon, whose names they bear, and the prophet Daniel is just such a fictitious personality as the Enoch and the Ezra of the Apocalypses known under their names - Arthur Dewes (The Christ Myth)

…the so-called Five Books of Moses are the literary product of an age much later than the one in which Moses is supposed to have lived - Arthur Dewes (The Christ Myth)

Plagiarizing the Pagans

Paul also introduced an important change to Jesus’ title of Christ (Christos). The Gospels tell us that his immediate followers called him “the Christ” (ho Christos), showing they regarded him as the prophesized Messiah. Paul dropped the definite article, calling Jesus simply Christos, turning it into a name – Jesus Christ – probably to emphasize his uniqueness and distance him further from the Jewish interpretation of his mission…Many authorities argue that…Paul was influenced by the pagan mystery cults of Rome, and that he freely borrowed concepts from them – Pickett and Prince (Masks of Christ)

Saint Peter

There was never any recorded form of ordination from a supernatural Jesus Christ or Simon of Petra (Simon Peter) to the presbyters. They appointed themselves and continually restructured their own writings to further appeal to the rabble without understanding the meaning of what they were compiling - Tony Bushby (The Bible Fraud) …most of the stories written about him are now admitted to be as fictitious the romance of Robinson Crusoe – J. P. Mendum (Revelations of the Anti-Christ)

Forgery in Mark

It is now conceded by Biblical scholars that the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark, which tell of the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, were not written by Mark but were added by a later hand – James Wheless

But the most remarkable point in this connection is the absolute silence of the Gospel of Mark on the subject of the Resurrection and Ascension–that is, of the original Gospel, for it is now allowed on all hands that the twelve verses Mark xvi. 9 to the end, are a later insertion. Considering the nature of this event, astounding indeed, if physically true, and unique in the history of the world, it is strange that this Gospel–the earliest written of the four Gospels, and nearest in time to the actual evidence-makes no mention of it. The next Gospel in point of time–that of Matthew–mentions the matter rather briefly and timidly, and reports the story that the body had been stolen from the sepulchre. Luke enlarges considerably and gives a whole long chapter to the resurrection and ascension; while the Fourth Gospel, written fully twenty years later still–say about A. D. 120–gives two chapters and a great variety of details! – Edward Carpenter (Pagan and Christian Creeds)

Book of Revelation

Church records stated that an Egyptian presbyter ‘wrote over’ the original Sybil’s document to create the fabricated version now in the New Testament. The forged document was renamed ‘Apocalypse’ and to imply an apostolic origin from ‘divine revelation’ it was re-titled ‘Revelation’ by Emperor Justinian at the second church council of Constantinople in 553, the same council that officially removed all references to reincarnation from the New Testament – Tony Bushby (The Bible Fraud)

The claim set up by Christians that the Bible is a revelation of God, is nowhere supported by its own allegations, except in the very last book of the canon…Now of all the books in the Bible the Revelation is the least intelligible. It is literally a Revelation which reveals nothing – J. P. Mendum (Revelations of the Anti-Christ)

Hinduism

…the Canon of the New Testament, is nothing more or less than a copy of the mythological histories of the Hindoo Savior Krishna, and the Buddhist savior Buddha, with a mixture of mythology borrowed from the Persians and other nations… T. W. Doane (Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions)

Moses

The Assyrian prince Sargon also, being pursued by his uncle, is said to have been abandoned on the Euphrates in a basket made of reeds, to have been found by a water-carrier, and to have been brought up by him – a story the Jews have interwoven into the account of the life of their fabulous Moses - Arthur Dewes (The Christ Myth)

…the so-called Five Books of Moses are the literary product of an age much later than the one in which Moses is supposed to have lived - Arthur Dewes (The Christ Myth)

The Anointed One

There is no doubt that we have before us in the Vedic Agni Cult the original source of all the stories of the birth of the Fire-Gods and Sun-Gods. These gods usually enter life in darkness and confinement. Thus the Cretan Zeus was born in a cavern, Mithras, Dionysus and Hermes in a gloomy grotto, Horus in the “stable” of the holy cow – Jesus too was born at dead of night in a lowly “stable” at Bethlehem - Arthur Dewes (The Christ Myth)

The Trinity

Among the most amazing and important events of the Ptolemaic period was the establishment of the cult of the Egyptian Osiris trinity as the official religion of a state ruled by Macedonian Greeks with the result that the cult of Isis spread throughout the Mediterranean world becoming the most popular religion of the age. The cult of Isis, Osiris, and Horus was transmitted to Rome where, by the time of Christ, it had become the most popular religious faith of Romans, especially Roman soldiers - R. A. Gabriel (Jesus the Egyptian)

 


◊ ◊ ◊

Forgery in Christianity
by James Wheless

Forgery
Forgery, in legal and moral sense, is the utterance or publication, with intent to deceive or defraud, or to gain some advantage, of a false document, put out by one person in the name of and as the genuine work of another, who did not execute it, or the subsequent alteration of a genuine document by one who did not execute the original.

The Indictment

All truth is safe, and nothing else is safe; and he who keeps back the truth, or withholds it from men, from motives of expediency, is either a coward or a criminal, or both – Max Muller (The Science of Religion)

I charge, and purpose to prove, from unimpeachable texts and historical records, and by authoritative clerical confessions, beyond the possibility of denial, evasion, or refutation:

1. That the Bible, in its every Book, and in the strictest legal and moral sense, is a huge forgery.

2. That every Book of the New Testament is a forgery of the Christian Church; and every significant passage in those Books, on which the fabric of the Church and its principal Dogmas are founded, is a further and conscious later forgery, wrought with definite fraudulent intent.

3. Especially, and specifically, that the famous Petrine text – “Upon this Rock I will build my church” – the cornerstone of the gigantic fabric of imposture, and the other “Go, teach all nations,” were never uttered by the Jew Jesus, but are palpable and easily proven late Church forgeries.

4. That the Christian Church, from its inception in the first little Jewish-Christian religious societies until it reached the apex of its temporal glory and moral degradation, was a vast and tireless Forgery-mill.

5. That the Church was founded upon, and through the Dark Ages of Faith has battened on…(yet languishes decadently upon), monumental and petty forgeries and pious frauds, possible only because of its own shameless mendacity and through the crass ignorance and superstition of the sodden masses of its deluded votaries, purposely kept in that base condition for purposes of ecclesiastical graft and aggrandizement through conscious and most unconscionable imposture.

6. That every conceivable form of religious lie, fraud and imposture has ever been the work of Priests; and through all the history of the Christian Church, as through all human history, has been…and, so far as they have not been shamed out of it by skeptical ridicule and exposure, yet is, the age-long stock in trade and sole means of existence of the priests and ministers of all the religions.

7. That the clerical mind, which .reasons in chains,. is, from its vicious and vacuous .education, and the special selfish interests of the priestly class, incapable either of the perception or the utterance of truth, in matters where the interests of priestcraft are concerned.

 

Church Admits Much Forgery

There was need for a revision which is not yet complete, ranging over all that has been handed down from the Middle Ages under the style and title of the Fathers, the Councils, the Roman and other official, archives. In all these departments forgery and interpolations as well as ignorance had wrought mischief on a great scale – (Catholic Encyclopedia. xii, 768

To undo the creed is to undo the Church. The integrity of the rule of faith is more essential to the cohesion of a religious society than the strict practice of its moral precepts! – (CE. vii, 259)

The Vatican

It is matter of fact, that for some 1500 years of this Era there was but one. True Church of Christ; and that Church claims with conscious pride the origin and authorship of all the New Testament Books, out of its own Holy bosom, by its own canonized Saints. The New Testament Books are, therefore, distinctively Catholic documents. That Church, therefore, if these its credentials and documents are forgeries, as from its own records I shall prove itself forged all the Books of the New Testament and all the documents of religious dogma and propaganda the forgery of which shall be proved in this book, and did itself perpetrate all the pious frauds herein revealed, and is their chief beneficiary.

Why the Forgeries?

If the Hebrew originals had been truthfully translated, we should have no such false pretenses for faith as the Hebrew One God anciently revealed to Adam, and to Moses, no Adam, no man but little lower than the angels, because of his immortal soul, no unique revelation of the Ineffable Name, Jehovah to Moses; all that we would have, all that the Hebrew texts reveal is a primitive polytheistic idolatry of the crudest and most superstitious order – Wheless

Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea
Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, the great Father of Church History (324 A.D.), whom Niebuhr terms “a very dishonest writer,” of which we shall see many notable instances, says this:

But it is not our place to describe the sad misfortunes which finally came upon (the Christians), as we do not think it proper, moreover, to, record their divisions and unnatural conduct to each other before the persecution (by Diocletian, 305 A.D). Wherefore we have decided to relate nothing concerning them except things in which we can vindicate the Divine judgment. But we shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity – (Ecclesiastical History)

Bishop Eusebius, as we shall see, was one of the most prolific forgers and liars of his age of the Church, and a great romancer; in his hair-raising histories of the holy Martyrs, he assures us that on some occasions the bodies of the martyrs who had been devoured by wild beasts, upon the beasts being strangled, were found alive in their stomachs, even after having been fully digested!

 

John Chrysostom

St. John Chrysostom, the Golden Mouthed, in his work On the Priesthood, has a curious panegyric on the clerical habit of telling lies…Great is the force of deceit! provided it is not excited by a treacherous intention.

St. Jerome

He reaches the climax in his famous Lives of sundry Saints. He relates with all fervor the marvelous experiences of the blessed hermit Paulus,. who was 113 years of age, and for sixty years had lived in a hole in the ground in the remotest recesses of the desert; his nearest neighbor was St. Anthony, who was only ninety and lived in another hole four days. journey away. The existence and whereabouts of Paulus being revealed to Anthony in a vision, he set out afoot to visit the holy Paulus. On the way, .all at once he beholds a creature of mingled shape, half horse half man, called by the poets Hippo-centaur with whom he holds friendly converse. Later he sees a mannikin with hooked snout, horned forehead, and extremities like goat’s feet, this being one of the desert tribe whom the Gentiles worship under the names of Fauns, Satyrs, and Incubi, and whose strange, language Anthony was rejoiced to find that he could understand, as they reasoned together about the salvation of the Lord. Let no one scruple to believe this incident, pleads Father Jerome, its truth is supported by. one of these creatures that, was captured and brought alive to Alexandria and sent embalmed to the emperor at Antioch. Finally holy Anthony reached the retreat of the blessed Paulus, and was welcomed. As they talked, a raven flew down and laid a whole loaf of bread at their feet, said Paulus, the Lord truly loving, truly merciful, has sent us a meal. For the last sixty years I have always received half a loaf, but at your coming the Lord has doubled his soldier’s rations. During the visit Paulus died; Anthony saw Paulus in robes of snowy white ascending on high among a band of angels, and the choirs of prophets and apostles. Anthony dragged the body out to bury it, but was without means to dig a grave; as he was lamenting this unhappy circumstance, .behold, two lions from the recesses of the desert with manes flying on their necks came rushing along; they came straight to the corpse of the blessed old man, fawned on it, roared in mourning, then with their paws dug a grave just wide and deep enough to bold the corpse; came over and licked the hands and feet of Anthony, and ambled away - (Jerome, Life of Paulus the First Hermit).

St. Jerome on Paul

He, then, if anyone, ought to be calumniated; we should speak thus to him: .The proofs which you have used against the Jews and against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your Epistles. We see passages taken captive by your pen and pressed into service to win you a victory, which in volumes from which they are taken have no controversial bearing at all the line so often adopted by strong men in controversy of justifying the means by the result – (Jerome: Epistle to Pammachus).

 

Jerome on Eusebius

To confute the opposer, now this argument is adduced and now that. One argues as one pleases, saying one thing while one means another. Origen, Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinaris write at great length against Celsus and Porphyry. Consider how subtle are the arguments, how insidious the engines with which they overthrow what the spirit of the devil has wrought. Sometimes, it is true, they are compelled to say not what they think but what is needful.

Of Eusebius and the others he again says, that they presume at the price of their soul to assert dogmatically whatever first comes into their head. (Jerome, Epistle li, 7; id. p. 88).

 

St. Augustine

It is more pernicious for Catholics to lie that they may catch heretics, than for heretics to lie that they may not be found out by Catholics – (Against Lying, Chapter Five)

It is lawful, then, either to him that discourses, disputes, and preaches of things eternal, or to him that narrates or speaks of things temporal pertaining to edification of religion or piety, to conceal at fitting times whatever seems fit to be concealed; but to tell a lie is never lawful, therefore neither to conceal by telling a lie - ibid

Augustine’s Headless Women

I was already Bishop of Hippo, when I went into Ethiopia with some servants of Christ there to preach the Gospel. In this country we saw many men and women without heads, who had two great eyes in their breasts; and in countries still more southly, we saw people who had but one eye in their foreheads - (Sermon 37; quoted in Taylor, Syntagma, Diegesis, and by Doane in Bible Myths)

Dr. Conyers Middleton
In his masterpiece entitled: A Free Inquiry Into The Miraculous Powers, Which Are Supposed To Have Subsisted In The Christian Church: From The Earliest Ages Through Several Successive Centuries, published in 1749, Dr. Middleton writes:

Many spurious books were forged in the earliest times of the Church, in the name of Christ and his apostles, which passed upon all the Fathers as genuine and divine through several successive ages.

It will not appear strange to those who have given any attention to the history of mankind, which will always suggest this sad reflection: That the greatest zealots in religion, or the leaders of sects and parties, whatever purity or principles they pretend to have seldom scrupled to make use of a commodious lie for the advancement of what they, call the truth. And with regard to these very Fathers, there is not one of them, as an eminent writer of ecclesiastical history declares, who made any scruple in those ages of using the hyperbolical style to advance the honor of God and the salvation of men – ibid

 

Lecky on Pious Forgery

During that gloomy period the only scholars in Europe were priest and monks, who conscientiously believed that no amount of falsehood was reprehensible which conduced to the edification of the people. All their writings, and more especially their histories, became tissues of the wildest fables, so grotesque and at the same time so audacious, that they were the wonder of succeeding ages, And the very men who scattered these fictions broadcast over Christendom, taught at the same time that credulity was a virtue and skepticism a crime – (History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe)

The Fathers laid down as a distinct proposition that pious frauds were justifiable and even laudable, and if they had not laid this down they would nevertheless have practiced them as a necessary consequence of their doctrine of exclusive salvation. Immediately all ecclesiastical literature became tainted with a spirit of the most unblushing mendacity. Heathenism was to be combated, and therefore prophecies of Christ by Orpheus and the Sibyls were forged, lying wonders were multiplied. Heretics were to be convinced, and therefore interpolations of old writings or complete forgeries were habitually opposed to the forged Gospels. The tendency triumphed wherever the supreme importance of dogmas was held. Generation after generation it became more universal; it continued till the very sense of truth and the very love of truth seemed blotted out from the minds of men - ibid

The Septuagint (Greek Version of the Bible)

…the text of the Septuagint was regarded as so unreliable, because of its freedom in rendering, and of the alterations which had been introduced into it, etc., that, during the second century of our era it was discarded by the Church – (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Copies of the Septuagint, says CE, were multiplied, and, as might be expected, many changes, deliberate as well as involuntary, crept in…Indeed, the itch for Scripture-scribbling was so rife among such ex-Pagan Christians as could write and get hold of a copy, that St. Augustine complains: .It is possible to enumerate those who have translated the Scriptures from Hebrew into Greek, but not those who have translated them into Latin. In both, in the early days of the faith whoso possessed a Greek manuscript and thought he had some knowledge of both tongues was daring enough to undertake a translation…So the Faith was founded on befuddlement of the Blessed Word of God as any nondescript scribbler palmed it off to be – Wheless

…Holy Church never possessed or used a single book of Scripture or other document of importance, to the glory of God and the glorification of the Church, which was not a rank original forgery and bristled besides with many deliberate changes or forged interpolations - Wheless

 

The Virgin Birth Fallacy

The Greek priest who forged the Gospel according to St. Matthew, having before him the false Septuagint translation of Isaiah, fables the Jewish Mary yielding to the embraces of the Angel Gabriel to engender Jesus, and backs it up by appeal to the Septuagint translation of Isaiah vii, 14: Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, (Matt 1: 23). Isaiah’s original Hebrew, with the mistranslated words underscored, reads: Hinneh ha-almah harah ve-yeldeth ben ve-karath shem-o immanuel…which, falsely translated by the false pen of the pious translators, runs thus in the English: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel, (Isa. 7:14). The Hebrew words ha-almah mean simply the young woman; and harah is the Hebrew past or perfect tense, .conceived,. which in Hebrew, as in English, represents past and completed action. Honestly translated, the verse reads: Behold, the young woman has conceived…(is with child)…and beareth a son and calleth his name Immanuel. Almah means simply a young woman, of marriageable age, whether married or not, or a virgin or not; in a broad general sense exactly like girl or maid in English, when we say shop-girl, parlor-maid, barmaid, without reference to or vouching for her technical virginity, which, in Hebrew, is always expressed by the word bethulah. But in the Septuagint translation into Greek, the Hebrew almah was erroneously rendered into the Greek parthenos, virgin, with the definite article ha, in Hebrew, and “e” in Greek (the), rendered into the indefinite “a” by later falsifying translators…And St. Jerome falsely used the Latin word virgo. As early as the second century B.C, says the distinguished Hebrew scholar and critic, Salomon Reinach, the Jews perceived the error and pointed it out to the Greeks; but the Church knowingly persisted in the false reading, and for over fifteen centuries she has clung to her error…The truth of this accusation of conscious persistence in known error through the centuries is proved by confession of St. Jerome, who made the celebrated Vulgate translation from the Hebrew into Latin, and intentionally clung to the error though Jerome well knew that it was an error and false; and thus he perpetuated through fifteen hundred years the myth of the prophetic virgin birth of Jesus called Christ - Wheless

Old Testament Fraud Conceded
Wheless writes: “It is true that the Pentateuch, so long attributed to Moses, is now held by the vast majority of non-Catholic, and by an increasing number of Catholic, scholars to be a compilation of four independent sources put together in final shape soon after the Captivity.”

It is true that the Pentateuch, so long attributed to Moses, is now held by the vast majority of non-Catholic, and by an increasing number of Catholic, scholars to be a compilation of four independent sources put together in final shape soon after the Captivity - (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Massacre of the Innocents

That a Roman king, under the great Roman Peace of the Golden Age of Augustus, could execute such a wholesale massacre of the subjects of the Empire – why it proves itself impossible. No human history records such a massacre in Judea, not even Josephus, who retells the most trifling of details of the life and reign of Herod, has a word of this tremendous murderous event – Wheless

Jesus – Not of the Seed of David

Jesus was not the carnal son of Joseph, but was the incarnate son of Yahweh by the Holy Ghost and the yet Virgin Mary, he could not, by any possibility of human descent be a blood descendant of David, whose line and generation ended with Joseph, if Joseph was not the carnal son of Jesus. So in no sense could Jesus be a direct descendant and “Son of David” and so could not fill the first essential requirement of the Promised Messiah – Wheless

◊ ◊ ◊

The Christ: A Critical Review
and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence
by John E. Remsberg


Phallic Worship

We find the cross in India, Egypt, Tibet, Japan, always as the sign of life-giving power, it was worn as an amulet by girls and women, and seems to have been specially worn by the women attached to the temples [sacred prostitutes], as a symbol of what was, to them, a religious calling. The cross is, in fact, nothing but the refined phallus, and in the Christian religion is a significant emblem of its pagan origin; it was adored, carved in temples, and worn as a sacred emblem by sun and nature worshipers, long before there were any Christians to adore, carve, and wear it. The crowd kneeling before the cross in Roman Catholic and in High Anglican churches is a simple reproduction of the crowd who knelt before it in the temples of ancient days, and the girls who wear it amongst ourselves are — in the most innocent unconsciousness of its real significance — exactly copying the Indian and Egyptian women of an elder time – Annie Besant

In the Etruscan tombs have been found crosses of four phalli - American Cyclopedia

It has been reserved for Christian art to crowd our churches with the emblems of Bel and Astarte, Baalim and Ashtoreth, linga and yoni, and to elevate the phallus to the position of the supreme deity - Dr. Thomas Inman (Ancient Pagan and Modern Christian Symbolism)

The Sacred Prostitutes

Aschera, the voluptuous goddess of fertility, was a Hebrew goddess and was worshiped, along with Jehovah, in the temple itself at Jerusalem…Associated with the worship of Aschera and other goddesses of this character was what is known as sacred prostitution. Thousands of women, the fairest and best lured of their race, and also men (sodomites), prostituted themselves for the support of their religion. John Clark Ridpath, in his History of the World, dwells upon this institution. It was practiced for centuries among the Hebrews, constituting a part of the temple worship, the Jewish kings, with the exception of a few, like Hezekiah and Josiah, sanctioning it. Solomon’s temple was largely a Pagan temple. Before it stood two Phallic pillars, while its doors were ornamented with symbols of Phallic and Solar worship. Solomon worshiped, in addition to other Pagan deities, Astarte (Ashtoreth), the Sidonian Aschera (1 Kings 11: 5-7).

Crimes and Debauchery

We may not lay much stress on such isolated instances of depravity as that of Pope John XXII, who was condemned, among many other crimes, for incest and adultery; or the abbot-elect of St. Augustine, at Canterbury, who in 1171 was found, on investigation, to have seventeen illegitimate children in a single village; or an abbot of St. Pelayo, in Spain, who in 1130 was proved to have kept no less than seventy concubines; or Henry III, bishop of Liege, who was deposed in 1274 for having sixty-five illegitimate children; but it is impossible to resist the evidence of a long chain of Councils and ecclesiastical writers, who conspire in depicting far greater evils than simple concubinage…The writers of the middle ages are full of accounts of nunneries that were like brothels, of the vast multitude of infanticides within their walls, and of that inveterate prevalence of incest among the clergy, which rendered it necessary again and again to issue the most stringent enactments that priests should not be permitted to live with their mothers or sisters – W. E. H. Lecky (History of European Morals, Vol. II)

Monotheism

To Judaism Christians ascribe the glory of having been the first religion to teach a pure monotheism. But monotheism existed long before the Jews attained to it. Zoroaster and his earliest followers were monotheists, dualism being a later development of the Persian theology. The adoption of monotheism by the Jews, which occurred only at a very late period in their history, was not, however, the result of a divine revelation, or even of an intellectual superiority, for the Jews were immeasurably inferior intellectually to the Greeks and Romans, to the Hindus and Egyptians, and to the Assyrians and Babylonians, who are supposed to have retained a belief in polytheism. This monotheism of the Jews has chiefly the result of a religious intolerance never before equaled and never since surpassed, except in the history of Christianity and Mohammedanism, the daughters of Judaism. Jehovistic priests and kings tolerated no rivals of their god and made death the penalty for disloyalty to him. The Jewish nation became monotheistic for the same reason that Spain, in the clutches of the Inquisition, became entirely Christian - Remsberg

Judaism and Paganism

The early Israelites were mostly sun worshipers. And even in later times, the sun god, Baal. divided with Jehovah the worship of the Jews. Saul, Jonathan, and David named their children in honor of this god - Remsberg

Sun-worship was by no means unknown to the Israelites…The myths that were circulated among these people show that they were zealous worshipers of the sun. These myths are still preserved, but, as in all other cases, they are so much altered as to be hardly recognizable. The writer who has preserved them for us lived at a time when the worship of the sun had long ago died out. He transforms the sun god into an Israelite hero (Samson) – Dr. H. Oort (The Old Testament for Learners)

Charles Francois Dupuis, in his Origin of Worship, one of the most elaborate and remarkable works on mythology ever penned, shows that nearly all the religions of the world, including Christianity, were derived largely from solar worship. All the solar deities, he says, have a common history. This history, summarized, is substantially as follows: “The god is born about December 25th, without sexual intercourse, for the sun, entering the winter solstice, emerges in the sign of Virgo, the heavenly Virgin. His mother remains ever-virgin, since the rays of the sun, passing through the zodiacal sign, leave it intact. His infancy is begirt with dangers, because the new-born Sun is feeble in the midst of the winter’s fogs and mists, which threaten to devour him; his life is one of toil and peril, culminating at the spring equinox in a final struggle with the powers of darkness. At that period the day and night are equal, and both fight for the mastery. Though the night veil the urn and he seems dead; though he has descended out of sight, below the earth, yet he rises again triumphant, and he rises in the sign of the Lamb, and is thus the Lamb of God, carrying away the darkness and death of the winter months. Henceforth he triumphs, growing ever stronger and more brilliant. He ascends into the zenith, and there he glows, on the right hand of God, himself God, the very substance of the Father, the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, upholding all things by his life-giving power – Remsberg

Concocted Saints

Every cathedral or monastery had its tutelar saint, and every saint his legend, fabricated in order to enrich the churches under his protection, by exaggerating his virtues, his miracles, and consequently his power of serving those who paid liberally for his patronage. Many of those saints were imaginary persons; sometimes a blundered inscription added a name to the calendar, and sometimes, it is said, a heathen god was surprised at the company to which he was introduced, and the rites with which he was honored – Henry Hallam (Middle Ages)

The very same temples, the very same images, which were once consecrated to Jupiter and the other demons (gods), are now consecrated to the Virgin Mary and the other saints - Bishop Newton

the worship of the martyrs was modeled, by degrees, according to the religious services that were said to the gods before the coming of Christ – Von Mosheim (Ecclesiastical History)

This transference was promoted by the numerous cases in which Christian saints became the successors of local deities, and Christian worship supplanted the ancient local worship. This explains the great number of similarities between gods and saints – (Catholic Encyclopedia)

 

Read Full Post »

From all these facts it appears that the population of Ireland came from the West, and not from Asia – that it was one of the many waves of population flowing out from the Island of Atlantis – and herein we find the explanation of that problem which has puzzled the Aryan scholars. As Ireland is farther from the Punjab than Persia, Greece, Rome, or Scandinavia, it would follow that the Celtic wave of migration must have been the earliest sent out from the Sanskrit centre; but it is now asserted by Professor Schleicher and others that the Celtic tongue shows that it separated from the Sanskrit original tongue later than the others, and that it is more closely allied to the Latin than any other Aryan tongue. This is entirely inexplicable upon any theory of an Eastern origin of the Indo-European races, but very easily understood if we recognize the Aryan and Celtic migrations as going out about the same time from the Atlantean fountain-head. There are many points confirmatory of this belief. In the first place, the civilization of the Irish dates back to a vast antiquity - Ignatius Donnelly (Atlantis: The Ante-Diluvian Epoch, 1882)

A young Queen Elizabeth with the High Druid during a ceremony. Modern Druidism is nothing more than Atonism. It’s a far cry from the original form known in ancient times.

As we have shown throughout the Irish Origins of Civilization, the symbols and traditions we associate with Judaism, Christianity, Templarism, and Masonry, originate in Ireland.

They were first employed by the Druid elders of the West, once known throughout the world as the Arya. The name of Ireland was originally Ari or Arya Land. One of the main connotations of this term was “Western Land.” Another connotation was “Land of the Pure or Noble Ones.”

Hard as it is for most modern men and women to comprehend, once-upon-a-time the little green island of Ireland was home to the world’s original aristocracy. This fact has not been conceded by the vast majority of Celtic scholars who are for the most part in doubt about where the so-called “Celts” originally came from, and unaware that the term “Celt,” as promulgated by Roman mythmongers, is both inaccurate and prejudicial.

Our Thesis

The Ten Commandments of the Druids were almost identical with those given by God to Moses – Richard Kelley Hoskins

We began work on The Irish Origins of Civilization in 2005 and published both volumes of the book in November 2007. Our researches into Ireland’s role in world history commenced in 1981, after a preliminary study of ancient Irish mythology. As of this date, few of our theories and assertions have been accepted by modern-day writers and researchers. Nor have they been deeply contemplated and correctly tackled by revisionists. Nevertheless, we are now in an age when the ideas we present are likely to be corroborated. Recent archaeological discoveries are helping to radically change everything that has hitherto been accepted about the history of the West. The lies and fallacies that have concealed the facts about our past are daily being compromised.

…he who keeps back the truth, or withholds it from men, from motives of expediency, is either a coward or a criminal, or both – Max Muller (The Science of Religion)

In our text we assert the following controversial points, which must be deeply considered by every unbiased historian and researcher:

  • The elements of modern civilizations originated in prediluvian times, long before the official dates given for the advent of sophisticated human artifice. After the destruction of Atlantis and other prehistoric civilizations (approximately 13,500 years ago), surviving cultural elements were transported to Britain and Scandinavia.
  • The preservers and disseminators of prediluvian knowledge were the priesthood known as the Druids. This word means Servant or Keeper of Truth. However, the Druids were a worldwide priesthood and were not confined to Western Europe. In Egypt they were known as Amenists. The cosmologies and pantheons of India, Egypt, Italy, Greece, and other countries, were not autochthonous. They originated in Britain and Scandinavia. (Norway was once joined to Scotland via a great land bridge.)
  • Ireland, not Egypt, was the post-diluvian cradle of the elements of civilization. It is from Britain and Scandinavia that these elements spread throughout the world. This fact is widely denied because it would inevitably give rise to speculation about Atlantis, the Age of Catastrophe, and antiquity of advanced humans. Revelations on these subjects devastate fundamental tenets of modern-day science and religion. However, the true facts about the widespread influence of Irish Druidism is largely unknown because of the wholesale destruction of the Druids and the prolonged and deliberate suppression and mutilation of their social traditions and religious leitmotifs.
  • There were primordial connections between Britain and Egypt. Long before the first official dynasties, over 4,000 years ago, the Western Arya migrated to the Middle and Far East, establishing new civilizations and enriching existing ones. Their remains have been discovered in Upper Egypt and locations farther East. They were the original architects of the Giza Pyramids and the many sacred temples along the Nile. They brought with them the worship of Amen Ra, Osiris, Horus, and Isis (the Nordic Is) . While in the East, the Arya referred to their own Western habitats as “lands of the dead,” due to the colossal devastation that occurred there.
  • The many prehistoric and historic migrations to the British Isles (of Iberians, Celts, Gaels, and so on) were for the most part returns. During the so-called “Age of Catastrophe,” titanic cataclysms (following on from those that destroyed Atlantis) displaced the original inhabitants of Britain, who were forced to flee to the Continent across land-bridges now lost beneath the waves.
  • The Druids were Aryans. This word has been deliberately misinterpreted to signify members of a race. However, the term truly refers to a spiritual caste, an elect. It is also the true name of Ireland, correctly rendered Ariland, or “Land of the Arya.” The term can also be correctly rendered Eri, signifying the Earth goddess of the ancient Druids. Etymologically, Ari and Eri can be found as roots in terms and names such as area, terra, Tara, Mary, Hera, Benares, Armenia, Aramaic, and aristocracy, etc.
  • The language of the Arya is now referred to as Aramaic and Hebrew. However, these languages have been fraudulently put before us by duplicitous linguists and other so-called “experts.” They are not “Semitic” and were not invented by early Jews or Canaanites. On the contrary, the twenty two letters of the Hebrew alphabet are based on the ancient Irish alphabet. Specifically, the so-called “Hebrew” alphabet was the sacred alphabet of the initiates. It was the non-hieroglyphic “hieratic” script of Egyptian adepts, the sacerdotal alphabet of the Ibaru who were not the ancestors of modern religious Jews. They were the Judites, Judges, and Wise Ones; the architects of high civilizations eventually brought low by desecrators who appropriated, corrupted, and misrepresented their sacred leitmotifs. (According to researcher Tony Bushby, the shapes of the twenty two “Hebrew” letters were, in fact, based on the serpentine shadows cast by sunlight passing through the, now lost, crystalline capstone on top of the Great Pyramid of Giza. These “letters” were assigned to the twenty two cards of the Tarot, which originated in Ireland, and to the twenty two “paths” on the Kabalistic “Tree of Life.” The concept of the sacred tree was known to Western adepts – British, Nordic, and European – millennia before the rise of Judaism and Christianity.)
  • Terms such as Israel, Israelite, Jew, Judite, Yahud, Jehovah, Adonai, Aton, Amen, Elohim, Christ, Jesus, Messiah, Joshua, Isaac, David, Solomon, and so on, were originally Druidic or Aryan appellations. Some of these terms were titles denoting senior members of Druidic colleges. These terms were plagiarized and deliberately mistranslated to obscure the facts about the origins of religion.
  • Judeo-Christianity is an adulterated form of Druidism and Amenism. The vast majority of tenets, doctrines, terms, and symbols of modern religion are the result of deliberate plagiarism. They are based on ancient Aryan theology and astrotheology. The adulterated form of Druidism and Amenism can also be referred to as Atonism.
  • Atonism is the basis for the monotheistic elements of Judeo-Christian theology. That modern experts foam at the mouth denying this fact, does not make it less true. The truth is that Christianity was not conceived by egalitarian Jews or Essenes, Mandeans, Stoics, Therapeuts, or Alexandrian Gnostics, as many misinformed researchers and authors believe. Most of these Oriental sects were branches of ancient Atonism. The same can be said of Mithraism and Talmudism. The Jewish Jehovah is none other than Adon or Aton, god of light.
  • The emperors who codified and established Christianity were members of Solar Cults that were outer cells of a more secretive Atonist lodge. Senior members of the Claudian, Piso, and Flavian dynasties of Rome worked closely with wealthy and powerful Sadducees and Pharisees to establish the Christian religion. This Atonist quorum feared the rise of other religions with egalitarian tenets and “Druidic” elements. To suppress rivals and galvanize imperial dominion, they funded duplicitous scribes and compilers (such as Paul and Marcion) to create Christianity, basing their “Jesus Christ” on many ancient solar heroes and deities. The sidereal motifs found throughout the scriptures prove this beyond all doubt. Nevertheless, the god of the Bible, Jehovah, was not the god of the Jews, as most academic historians falsely allege. He was the god of Solar Cult priests and pharaohs who were themselves descended from the Hyksos kings cryptically referred to in the scriptures as “Israelites.” This term derives from Isa (god of the Western Arya and their descendents), and Amen Ra (god of the ancient Egyptian kings.)
  • The so-called but misnamed “Jewish” co-conspirators who directed the operations of the Roman Caesars and Emperors, were Atonists. Specifically, they were the leaders of the Order of Melchizedek (or Akhenaton). They were Pharisees and Sadducees of high rank, keepers of the so-called “Oral Tradition” allegedly delivered to their ancestors at Mount Sinai. This quorum of sorcerers were also known as the Gaonim. The capitalized letter “G” found on Masonic iconography refers to this super secret Luciferian cabal. The Gaonim have nothing whatever in common with modern religious Jews or the individuals, races, and tribes featured in the testaments.
  • The original Jews or Judites are not the religious Torah-readers known today. Terms and appellations of this kind do not refer to the kind of sects or beliefs we might first imagine. They refer to a caste of sorcerers descended from the corrupt Solar Cults (or Luciferians) of antiquity. The members of the British royal family, for example, are Judites, even though they belong to the Protestant religion. The Pope is a Judite, and so are his bishops and cardinals, even though they belong to the Catholic religion. The word Tudor derives from Juda or Judah, as do the terms judge, tutor, and Teuton. These facts are known to members of Masonic Orders and other “Judaic” enclaves. To them religious affiliations mean little and are merely a form of camouflage. They serve to dupe the uninformed masses of the world.
  • The founder of Atonism was Pharaoh Akhenaton (Amenhotep IV). He appears in Jewish history as Moses, Zadok, and Melchizedek. He was not an enlightener, as ninety eight percent of the world’s writers and historians apparently imagine. On the contrary, Akhenaton was a megalomaniac who ravaged Egypt and violently destroyed its many marvels. He was finally ousted from power and expelled from the country. As researcher Ralph Ellis has shown, the rise of Akhenaton’s monotheistic beliefs and warped brand of solar theology coincided with an important astrological phenomenon, namely, the precessional transition of the sun out of the house of Taurus into Aries.
  • Akhenaton’s Atonists were members of the Hyksos dynasty of kings and princes. However, in our estimation, these controversial kings were of Scythian (or Gaelic) ancestry. In other words, they were from the West. During and after the Age of Catastrophe their ancestors (the pure Arya) fled from Britain to Northern and Eastern Europe, and from there further Eastward toward Syria, Palestine, and India. Although the Scythians of later ages were originally affiliated with the Megalithic Arya, some of their number became spiritually and morally corrupt. Today, a few mainstream historians and archeologists hesitatingly accept that Western “Celts” (as they are erroneously called) had settlements in the Middle and Far East. This is because these migrations were relatively late, historically speaking. They date from approximately 600 years BC onward. Modern academics, however, dare not accept or acknowledge earlier Megalithic migrations from the West to the East. As we said, this idea leads to a plethora of vexatious questions that “experts” habitually and contemptuously ignore.
  • The modern-day revisionists Ralph Ellis, Moustafa Gadalla, and Ahmed Osman (following on from Comyns Beaumont and other maverick geniuses) conclude that the so-called “Israelites” and “Judites” of the Old Testament were none other than the Hyksos-Atonists, first expelled from Egypt at the beginning of the eighteenth dynasty and again during the reign of Akhenaton. We assert that the Hyksos/Atonists were originally Scythians from the West. We also assert that Akhenaton’s first wife Nefertiti, her daughter Meritaten, and their descendents, were Scythians.
  • The exiled Scythian/Hyksos/Atonists, or Israelites, did not disappear from the world and did not spend any time in “Captivity.”  They were a super-wealthy pharaonic dynasty with connections throughout the world. After the fall of Akhenaton, their descendents eventually migrated to their ancestral homes in the West in order to establish a new empire. From Britain they exercised control over their many lieutenants in Athens, Rome, Tanis, Alexandria, Judea, and elsewhere. The British Empire is the Atonist Empire upon which the sun (Aton) never sets. (The Union Jack is really a symbol of the Union of Jacob.) Its founders and maintainers have unleashed untold mayhem for centuries and have caused unfathomable suffering throughout the world. Our work is dedicated utterly to the exposure of these psychopathic plutocrats and the ruin of their anti-human industry.
  • The coming of the Atonists was recorded by Irish and Scottish annalists. The records refer to the invaders as Milesians, after their leader King Mil. (He is known to the Scots as Gathelos or Gaythelos, which is probably were we derive the term “Gael,” meaning “stranger.”) Officially, the Milesians are believed to have crossed over to Ireland from Spain around 600 BC. However, we believe these dates have been deliberately falsified. The Atonist invasion probably occurred nearly one thousand years before the official dates given. The falsification occurred because historians have been directed to date the Gaelic invasion of Ireland, suppression of the Druids, and creation of Christianity, to the period following the rise of Rome (700 BC), and not before. As we said, the ancestors of the Milesians (the Scythians) were originally Irish. They had been displaced to Europe and the Middle East after experiencing the havoc of the Age of Catastrophe.
  • Eradicating the Druids proved to be a difficult task for the Milesian-Atonists. They eventually called on their agents in Rome to lend a hand. In our opinion, the imperialist activities of Alexander the Great, Julius and Augustus Caesar, and other Greek and Roman tyrants, were mercenary actions, funded and directed by high-ranking Atonists ensconced in Britain. This same British-based cabal also financed the establishment of the Christian Church in Byzantium (Constantinople) and finally Rome. Christianity was and is hybridized Druidism. It has usurped the place of the unadulterated school once known and respected throughout the world. Furthermore, Irish Culdean (or Atonist) monks (those in charge of cannibalizing Druidic traditions) became tutors of the Templar nobility of Britain and Europe. The Culdeans, together with their Templar and Cistercian scions, were the “preservers” of cannibalized Druidic traditions. This the secondary reason why pagan elements turn up in Christianity. It is also the reason for the rivalry that eventually erupted between hardline Romish Christians and “Gnostic” types such as the Knights Templar.
  • Members of the French, German, and Swiss Merovingian dynasty were, and still are, Atonists. Powerful secret societies such as the Priory de Sion, Knights Templar, Freemasons, and Rosicrucians, etc, are funded and operated by elite royals who were and are either biologically or ideologically related to the Hyksos-Atonist-Judites of antiquity. They are “Luciferians” or “Princes of Light.” In times past most of the autocratic Merovingian dukes and princes were tutored by Irish Culdean monks who had appropriated, corrupted, and cannibalized the traditions, teachings, and iconography of the Druids. The Culdeans, Cistercians, and Templars were descended from the Atonist-Milesians who, after being expelled from Egypt with Akhenaton, journeyed West to eventually conquer Ireland approximately one thousand years BC.
  • The modern-day architecture of control, and so-called “New World Order,” is the brainchild of the Atonist imperialists whose existence we expose throughout our work. The politically active members of present-day royal dynasties, who fund the powerful secret societies, are either biologically or ideologically related to the Atonist pharaohs of old. The majority of the symbols permeating the corporate and religious world denotes this Atonist Cult of Luciferians. Their “New World Order” is a architecture of control designed to replace the “Old World Order” lost to them in ages past. This cult of sorcerers – the Gaonim or Exilarchs (the Princes and Brothers of Light, or of Aton) – exercise control over human beings politically and theologically. The religions they have spawned serve to control man’s emotions and pacify his rebellious spirit, while their political orgs offer him a semblance of superiority and power. Tantalized with chimeras of positive social change and technical progress, and blinded by the “light of Aton,” man remains psychologically arrested. Consequently, he presents no threat whatsoever to the Establishment figures who habitually treat him as a disposable pawn on their geopolitical board game.
  • The modern-day architects of control are not scions of some indefinable “mystery religion,” as many Christian conspiracy buffs allege. They are initiates of secret fraternities created by the same Black Lodge responsible for the establishment of the Christian Church. Therefore, Christians who seek to expose the workings of secret societies are largely ignorant of vital facts concerning their own allegiances. They are handicapped by not knowing that the  very religions to which they belong were established and financed by the same Atonists who fund and direct the secret societies. The Atonists have cunningly divided society in order to pit one faction against another. While the “opposames” witlessly ride their see-saws, the Atonist presence remains indistinct. Nevertheless, the Judaism, Protestantism, Catholicism, Zionism, and Masonry, known today, are all “brands” manufactured by the Atonist “corporation” or Black Lodge. Therefore, only those free from political and religious bias can successfully combat the nefarious intelligence that has preyed over mankind for so many ages.

Servants of Aton

There is some evidence that one of the Flavian emperors may have converted to Judaism even as Constantine later converted to Christianity - Richard A. Gabriel (Jesus the Egyptian)

One day soon, perhaps, the world will finally realize that high civilizations existed prior to the tenth millennia BC, and that the knowledge man has gained in recent ages is but a paltry recapitulation of prediluvian wisdom. Unbiased and open-minded “experts” within the academies of the world may soon agree that the elements of civilization germinated in Western lands, and that there were, in remote ages, relationships between Western and Eastern nations. They may finally acknowledge the facts about the true origins of Judaism and Christianity and hopefully shed light on the sinister Atonist cabal that has long directed the operations of the Western world’s religions and governments. We can but hope.

In our work, we assert that Christianity and Judaism as we have come to know them, and as they have been deliberately put before us, are branches of the tree of Atonism. They arose from the ideology of Akhenaton and his Solar Cult priests. Christianity was created by the Princes of Light – the Gaonim – who were either biologically or ideologically related to the Solar Cult pharaohs of the eighteenth dynasty. As we mentioned above, the prime movers in this worldwide conspiracy are descended from ancient Scythians, known in Egypt as the Hyksos or “Shepherd” kings. They and their descendants can correctly be referred to by the following appellations:

Atonists
Gaonim
Levites
Judites
Israelites
Zadokites (or elite Sadducees)
Sons of Zadok
Zionists (or Sionists)

However, we believe that members of Eastern enclaves were not the only men in cahoots with the Atonists. Members of elite families in Western lands, such as Vespasian, Titus, Claudius, Poppaea Constantine, Theodosius, and Justinian, were we believe also seduced by their power. Several members of the Flavian dynasty of Rome, for example, rose to power because of their allegiance with the descendants of Pharaoh Akhenaton. The actions of these men were directed and funded by a powerful Atonist quorum whose existence has been largely unknown until recent times.

Emperor Titus was the son of Emperor Vespasian (7-79AD) of the Flavian dynasty. According to certain records (in the works of Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus), Vespasian was associated with elite Jews, such as procurator Tiberius Julius Alexander and Alexandrian priest Basilides. According to a few researchers, Vespasian and his Eastern allies created the religion that would eventually become Christianity. As the arch-conspirators funded the creation of their new religion, they saw to it that rival cults and sects were undermined and exterminated. Vespasian’s successor, his son Titus (79-81 AD), ransacked Judea, slaughtered one million people or more, and had the sacred treasures of the Temple of Jerusalem transported under guard to Rome. We believe the Flavians were merely servants of “Atonist” elites who considered certain powerful sects in Alexandria and Judea a threat to their hegemony. They feared the advent of a “Gnostic” type religion that would incorporate Druidic and Amenist theological elements. Fearing diminution of their power, they directed their Roman and Roman-Jewish lackeys to fund “Paul” and other scribes. These scribes were to plagiarize and cannibalize ancient doctrines so that a new empire-galvanizing religion could be concocted. As we show in the following chapters, the Roman oligarchs worked closely with the shadowy elite Sadducees of Judea to suppress revolt and expand theocratic and imperial power. These groups were directed by the highest-ranking Atonists in Britain - Michael Tsarion (Irish Origins of Civilization, Vol. II)

The Sadducee high priest, appointed by the Romans, was assassinated by the Zealots, and a major terrorist campaign was launched against other Sadducees who had aligned themselves with Rome – Baigent and Leigh (The Messianic Legacy)

There is no room for doubt that the presence of many learned men from Egypt who maintained close contact with the emperors (e.g., Chaeromon of Naucratis or Dionysus of Alexandria…) contributed to the popularity of the Egyptian cults at the Imperial court – Dr. Margarita Tacheva (Eastern Cults in Moesia Inferior and Thracia)

Claudius was also positively disposed toward Egyptian religion, and Nero…had an Egyptian teacher, Chaeromon, who saw to the dissemination of Egyptian knowledge at Rome…Vespasian dedicated a large statue of the Nile to Rome…Together with his son Titus, he spent the night before their triumph over Judea (71 AD) in the temple of the Roman Isis…Titus is probably the anonymous “pharaoh” depicted in front of the Apis bull in the catacombs of Kom el-Shuqafa in Alexandria – Erik Hornung (The Secret Lore of Egypt)

Emperor Vespasian took possession of all Jewish religious artifacts that had previously been safely stored in the Temple, including the precious Torah, and stored them in the Capitoline Jove in Rome. He then proclaimed the entire Jewish territory the Roman Emperor’s persona property. And had his decision officially ratified by the Senate…Josephus recorded that Vespasian personally kept the Torah, revealing that it had at sometime been recovered from Rabbi Jesus Cunobeline and replaced in the Temple…the great Temple of Jerusalem was no longer, and the Jews had been disposed of their land, their treasure and the physical substance of their religion – Tony Bushby (The Bible Fraud)

The Romans…harbored no hostility toward the Jews whom they though more ethical and religiously observant than the Greeks. The Romans knew that Judaism  was a religion of great antiquity and respected this. Jews had a reputation as ethical people among the Romans and were granted full religious liberty. Many Romans became “God-fearers,” that is practitioners of Judaism observing all precepts except circumcision…There is some evidence that one of the Flavian emperors may have converted to Judaism even as Constantine later converted to Christianity - Richard A. Gabriel (Jesus the Egyptian)

He is brought in chains to Rome, but against tradition, and because of their legal title to the Emperorship, he is greeted and freed of all charges. He and his family live splendidly in Rome, in the Palace of the British, given them by the Emperor - Tony Bushby (The Bible Fraud, on British King Caradoc’s treatment after his capture)

The Arch of Titus was erected to commemorate the sacking of Jerusalem by Roman forces in AD 70. The Holy of Holies was violated and the Menorah and Scrolls of the Torah were pillaged and transported to Rome. Emperor Titus ordered the slaughter of over one million people in Judea. To this day, Jews refuse to walk beneath the Arch of Titus in Rome. (Here for more)

The Aryans

Cities may burn, floods may destroy, pestilence may kill, and wars may ravage, yet a word may survive – Henry Binkley Stein (Thirty Thousand Gods Before Jehovah)

Although the priests of Aton were monotheistic, Atonism itself was a corrupt version of earlier sacred traditions. The theology of Atonism was built upon the age old foundations of Amenism and Druidism. The facts about the Amenists and Druids have, however, been deliberately obscured by the ideological descendants of the Atonists who have funded and directed so-called “historians” to skew the facts about Egypt and Ireland and distort the meaning of many important terms and titles.

One of the most misunderstood and misapplied titles is “Aryan.” Its origins are much more interesting than we might at first imagine. To this day Ireland is known by the Gaelic appellations Eire and Erin. But where do these terms come from? In fact, they refer directly to the primordial goddess Eri or Ari. Therefore, the syllables ari and eri either denote or connote the goddess after whom Ireland was named. In many cases, therefore, wherever word roots such as ari, ara, eri, and so on, are found, they connote or denote either the land of Ireland specifically or, alternatively, the Western hemisphere. They signify the men of the West, their sacred land and beloved goddess.

Goddesses permeated Ireland. Mountain, rivers, valleys, wells, all testified to her presence. Around the eleventh century, Ireland became known predominately as Eire, a name derived from the Goddess Eriu, one of the triple Goddesses: Eriu, Banba, and Fotla…Eriu makes it clear that anyone wishing to enter Ireland would have to revere the goddesses if they wished to prosper and be fruitful – Mary Condren (The Serpent and the Goddess)

As to the original homeland of the Arya, we take the view of researchers Ignatius Donnelly, Anna Wilkes, Conor MacDari, and Comyns Beaumont, who stressed that the ancestral habitat of the Arya lay in the West. Donnelly specified the lost prediluvian continent of Atlantis, and we agree wholeheartedly with his assertion. The lands of the North-West, namely Britain, Scandinavia, Iceland, Greenland, and perhaps even the Arctic climes, are in our opinion remnants of lost Atlantis. There is ample evidence for this contention, even though it has long been suppressed by academics who would rather that vexatious questions about man and his true history are never sufficiently answered.

…the Aryans were autochthonous neither in Europe nor in Central Asia, but had their original home somewhere near the North Pole in the Paleolithic times, and that, they migrated from this place southwards in Asia and Europe, not by any “irresistible impulse,” but by unwelcome changes in the climatic conditions of their original home. The Avesta preserves traditions which fully support this view. But these have been treated as valueless by scholars, who worked up their theories at a time when man was regarded as post-glacial, and the Avestic traditions were, it was believed, not supported by any Vedic authority. But with the time-telescope of a wider range supplied to us by recent scientific discoveries it has become possible to demonstrate that the Avestic traditions represent a real historical fact and that they are fully supported by the testimony of the Vedas – L. B. G. Tilak (The Artic Home in the Vedas)

The North Pole is already considered by several eminent scientific men as the most likely place where plant and animal life first originated; and I believe it can be satisfactorily shown that there is enough positive evidence in the most ancient books of the Aryan race, the Vedas and the Avesta, to prove that the oldest home of the Aryan people was somewhere in regions round about the North Pole – ibid

…the strongly substantiated proof of the frequent travelling of Sagas from people to people, and their taking root among many different groups, shows that the majority of basic myths have a fixed point of radiation—their place of creation. Thus, in their outward form, they are only comprehensible on the basis of a completely distinct point of origin - Alfred Rosenberg (Myth of the Twentieth Century)

The solar myth, with all its ramifications, did not arise spontaneously as a stage of general development, but was born where the appearance of the sun must have been a cosmic event of profoundest significance, that is, in the far north. Only there would the year be sharply divided into two halves, and only there would the sun represent a certainty in man’s innermost being of the life renewing, primal creative substance of the world. And so today the long derived hypotheses becomes a probability, namely that from a northern centre of creation which, without postulating an actual submerged Atlantic continent, we may call Atlantis, swarms of warriors once fanned out in obedience to the ever renewed and incarnate Nordic longing for distance to conquer and space to shape. These currents of Atlantic men moved by water in their swan and dragon ships into the Mediterranean – ibid

The Druids

Druid colleges existed in many regions due to the guardian role of the Celtic race all across Europa. Druids, or Hibernian Gnostics as they might be called, were known to be fluent in several languages – John Lamb Lash (Not in His Image)

The high priests of Ireland – the original Arya or Aryans – are commonly known as “Druids.” In Volume One we analyzed this word and discussed the beliefs and relevance of this ancient priesthood. We showed just how many insidious falsehoods have been deliberately disseminated about their origin and beliefs. Fortunately, the truth about this mysterious pre-Celtic and Celtic priesthood is slowly coming to light:

The true Celts were a tall, fair race, warlike and masterful…who spread their dominion both by conquest and by peaceful infiltration over Mid-Europe, Gaul, Spain, and the British Isles. They did not exterminate the original prehistoric inhabitants of these regions…but they imposed on them their language, their arts, and their tradition, taking, no doubt, a good deal from them in return, especially in the important matter of religion. Among these races the true Celts formed an aristocratic class - T. W. Rolleston (Myths and Legends of the Celtic Race, 1911)

Although the term Druid is local, their religion was of deep root, and a distant origin. It was of equal antiquity with those of the Persian Magi, the Chaldeans of Assyria, and the Brahmins of Hindustan. It resembled them so closely in its sublime precepts, in its consoling promises, as to leave no doubt that these nations, living so widely apart, were all of the same stock and the same religion-that of Noah, and the children of men before the flood - W. Windwood Reade (Veil of Isis)

For, without the Druids, the Kings may neither do nor consult anything; so that in reality they are the Druids who reign – John Chrysostom (fifth century Christian Bishop of Constantinople)

…it is they who command, and kings on thrones of gold, dwelling in splendid palaces, are but their ministers, and the servants of their thought – Dion Chrysostom (Greek Philosopher, on the Druids)

The Druids are men of penetrating and subtle spirit, and acquired the highest renown by their speculations, which were at once subtle and profound. Both Caesar and Mela plainly intimate that they were conversant with most sublime speculations in geometry and in measuring the magnitude of the earth - Ammianus Marscellus (Historian 350 AD)

…the Druids or Derwydd…were the sublime and intellectual philosophers who directed the machineries of the state and the priesthood, and presided over the dark mysteries of the consecrated groves – W. Windwood Reade (The Veil of Isis)

…follow me to a corner of the world where, at least for many ages religion was preserved in its pristine purity, and whose priests…were received as martyrs in heaven before they had learned to be knaves upon earth. It was an isolated spot unknown to the world in the earlier ages of vice. It is now a kingdom renowned for its power and for its luxuries from hemisphere to hemisphere. It was encircled by the blue waters of the German and Atlantic Seas, and abounded in the choicest gifts of nature. It was called The White Island from those cliffs which still frown so coldly upon Gaul, and The Land of Green Hills from its verdant mountains. Come with me to its shores, and I will show you its priests in their white robes, and its warriors in the blue paint of war, and its virgins with their long and glossy yellow hair. But first I will lead you back into the past, and relate to you why this land was called Albion, and why Britain – ibid

Ages of Catastrophe

At the end of the Pleistocene about 10,000 years ago, there was an extinction event that decimated the large terrestrial mammalian herbivores and carnivores of North America, South America and Australia. In North America alone, more than thirty two genera of mammals became extinct…The cause of this extinction is debatable - R. W. Graham (Evolution of New Ecosystems at the End of the Pleistocene)

The world is unaware of the existence of prediluvian civilizations for the simple reason that they no longer exist. As the majority of myths and legends tell us, the continents that housed them were destroyed in a violent cataclysm. And this premise is now scientifically confirmable. Evidence exists to show that sometime between 10,000 and 13,500 years BC, our planet was wrecked by a natural cataclysm of unimaginable proportions. The devastating catastrophe was recorded by numerous tribes and nations. It is mentioned in the earliest Irish legends. Due to its disruptive geospheric effects, the earth suffered subsequent upheavals. Significant disasters (tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanoes) shook the world at 8,000, 6,000, and 3,000 years BC. The Mycenaean Drought, the eruption of Thera in the Aegean, the Storegga Tsunami of Scandinavia, the rise of aridity throughout the Sahara region of North Africa, the rise of the waters of the Mediterranean, the dwindling of the vast Saraswati River in the Indus Valley in Pakistan, and the prolonged Bronze Age famine of Britain, are just a few of the super-catastrophes known to have occurred at different periods after the original global “Age of Catastrophe” mentioned in the records of antiquity. Legends from all over the world, which tell of the fall of the prehistoric continents Atlantis and Lemuria, record a real and exceptionally traumatizing episode in humankind’s history. We dealt with the great catastrophe and the subsequent trauma to human consciousness in our book entitled Atlantis, Alien Visitation and Genetic Manipulation.

The Flood, to the world generally a vague and nebulous tradition, really conceals the most appalling visitation and its ravages in the British Isles and Scandinavian lands may be retraced to more considerable extent by the effects of what geologists term the “Drift” Age. It was no mere ice drift. It was sudden and terribly swift and violent – Comyns Beaumont

Old World Disorder

Concerning the Sphinx…Another inscription shows that it was consecrated to the god Ra Atum, or the “Sun in the West,” thereby connecting it with the “lands toward the setting sun,” with “the place of the dead,” and with the country of their ancestors’ origin – Edward F. Malkowski (Before the Pharaohs)

In The Irish Origins of Civilization, we covered the aftermath of global cataclysm and showed that nature’s fury was particularly devastating to Britain and Scandinavia. These land were so smitten that they were through following ages referred to as “lands of the dead.” So horrific was the onslaught, that the Western elders were, along with the aboriginal inhabitants of Britain and Scandinavia, forced to vacate their homelands for new habitations and territories in Europe and Asia. Wherever the elders traveled they were received as veritable gods. They, and their people, have been referred to by most historians as “Celts.” They are, however, properly distinguished by the following more accurate titles:

Aryans (Arya, Aryo, Ari, etc)
Goths (Gots, Guts, Gets, etc)
Nordics
Indo-Europeans
Caucasians

The Gaels, Iberians, and Scythians, were descendants of these illustrious Megalithic ancestors. The primordial elders, the Druids, were members of the world’s forgotten Stellar, Solar, and Lunar Cults. (For more information on these Cults we refer the reader to our DVD and book entitled Astro-Theology and Sidereal Mythology.) There was not a savant of antiquity who did not know of the existence and significance of the ancient Western elders:

…a caste incorporating all the learned professions. The caste not only consisted of those who had a religious function but also comprised philosophers, judges, teachers, historians, poets, musicians, physicians, astronomers, prophets and political advisers or counselors – Peter Berresford Ellis (The Druids)

The elder race excelled in sciences such as geometry, astronomy, and navigation, and also in metasciences such as astrology and geomancy. In European and Asian history the original Megalithic elders appear as the following:

Shemsu Hor (Disciples of Horus)
Phoenicians (Arcadians)
Sumerians (Sum Ari)
Chaldeans (The Magi)
Cabiri (or Kab Ari)
Amenists

As we explain in the introduction of Volume One, we do not regard the term “Celtic” as an accurate description either of the Megalithic Irish or of their European descendants. Recent scientific research strongly supports our contention that the term was merely the concoction of propagandists and mythmongers. As one perceptive commentator said, the Irish were Celticized. We find ourselves in complete agreement with this statement and cannot forget that the inaccurate “history” of the early Irish was concocted by their destroyers and colonizers.

What makes it difficult, however, to measure the extent of this influence, as well as the mythico-religious significance of the monuments themselves, is the fact that the liturgy and mythology which constituted their frame of reference are almost wholly missing. The druids did not commit their teaching to writing, and consequently the whole of their sacred literature perished with the eventual extinction of their language – Otto Hermann (The Celts)

After Christians had spent years destroying books and libraries, St. John Chrysostom, the pre-eminent Greek Father of the Church, proudly declared, “Every trace of the old philosophy and literature of the ancient world has vanished from the face of the earth” – Helen Ellerbe (The Dark Side of Christian History)

The two invasions of Ireland by King Henry were bloody and ruthless culminating in the complete and utter dismantling of Tara to bare Earth and the final destruction of almost all remaining non-Christian Irish texts –

None of the Celtic source literature is by druids…In Ireland, the amount of poetic/druidic material in manuscripts…is substantial…the bulk of the source material is unpublished, and still untranslated – R. J. Stewart (Celtic Bards, Celtic Druids)

The earliest Christian missionaries found the native religion extinct, and themselves took the name of Culdees from inhabiting the Druids’ empty cells – Prof Todd (Quoted in Bonwick’s Irish Druids And Old Irish Religions)

Evidence from the Heavens

Col. Vallencey has proved, as clear as the sun at noon, that the ancient gods of the Greeks and Romans came from the Hyperboreans – Godfrey Higgins

Proof that a supremely educated elder race of adepts lived for extended periods of time in Northern Europe and Asia is made evident from a study of astronomy. Astronomically, certain cycles of luminaries, planets, stars, and constellations may only be observed and noted from specific locations on earth. These various sidereal cycles are of such immense duration that they simply cannot be reckoned by any tribe or nation not geographically stable for an extended period. In short, the exceptional class of men responsible for precise astronomical calculations, and resident at the requisite geographical location, were the Megalithic Irish and Nordic elders displaced to Europe and Asia from shattered Western habitats. They were the Hyperboreans or Atlanteans, and it was they and their descendants who were the world’s first master astronomers, astrologers, geomancers, and cyclopean monument designers.

They profess to have great knowledge of the motions of the heavens and the stars - Pomponius Mela (on the Druids)

As scholar Godfrey Higgins explained:

In his treatise on the origin of the sciences in Asia, that most excellent man and great astronomer Baillie has undertaken to prove that a nation possessed of profound wisdom of elevated genius and of an antiquity far superior even to the Egyptians or Indians, immediately after the flood, inhabited the country to the north of India between the latitudes 40 and 50 degrees - (Anacalypsis)

The megalithic yard is much older…and was certainly in use in Britain as early as 3500 BC, at which time the Minoan civilization was still a full thousand years short of its ultimate emergence. Since there is little or no evidence of the existence of the megalithic system within central or southern Europe, the inference must surely be that the Minoan civilization ultimately responded to ideas that had originated further West - Alan Butler and Stephen Dafoe (The Knights Templar Revealed)

Several thousand years ago, a highly civilized and cultured people lived happily and abundantly in a paradise near the northern polar regions. All the major religions on earth, of whatever nationality, state emphatically that they were the original five races of mankind. In Judaism and Christianity, we call this paradise Eden. The Hindus call it Uttara Kuru. The Tibetan Buddhists call it Khedar Khand (Country of God Shiva) and Shambala. It was also called Sivariya or Sibirya (Land of God Shiva), now called Siberia. The ancient Greek historians and myths referred to it as Hyperborea. The Chinese Taoists don’t call it by a specific name, but they do describe it as a type of paradise where men lived in complete harmony with Nature - Gene D. Matlock (What Strange Mystery Unites the Turkish Nations, India, Catholicism, and Mexico?)

The Migration of Words

In Irish the word for “saint” (niamh) is akin to the word “heavens” (neamh) – Patrick McCafferty and Mike Ballie (Celtic Gods)

In Appendix XIV we deal with the subject of etymology and briefly examine the theory concerning the parent or root language. At this point we can simply note that a lot of evidence for the eastward spread of the Arya, and of later Scythians, can be found from a study of words and place names. The author T. W. Rolleston provides us with many examples demonstrating cultural dispersion:

The word dunum, so often traceable in Gaelic place names in the present day (Dundalk, Dunrobin, etc,) and meaning fortress or castle, is another typically Celtic element in European place-names. It occurred very frequently in France – e.g., Lug-dunum (Lyons), Viro-dunum (Verdun). It is also found in Switzerland – e.g., Minno-dunum (Moudon)Eburo-dunum (Yverdon) – and in the Netherlands, where the famous city of Leyden goes back to a Celtic Lug-dunum. In Great Britain the Celtic term was often changed by simple translation into castra; thus Camulo-dunum became Colchester, Bran-dunum Brancaster. In Spain and Portugal eight names terminating in dunum are mentioned by classical writers. In Germany the modern names Kempton, Karnberg, Liegnitz, go back respectively to the Celtic forms Cambo-dunum, Carro-aunum, Lugi-dunum, and we find a Singi-dunum, now Belgrade, in Servia, a Novi-dunum, now Isaktscha, in Roumania, a Carro-dunum in South Russia, near the Dniester, and another in Croatia, now Pitsmeza. Sego-dunum, now Rodez, in France, turns up also in Bavaria (Wurzburg), and in England (Sege-dunum, now Wallsend, in Northumberland), and the first term, sego, is traceable in Segorbe (Sego-briga), in Spain. Briga is a Celtic word, the origin of the German burg, and equivalent in meaning to dunum…One more example: the word magos, a plain, which is very frequent as an element of Irish place-names, is found abundantly in France, and outside of France, in countries no longer Celtic, it appears in Switzerland (Uro-magus, now Promasens), in the Rhineland (Broco-magus, Brumath), in the Netherlands, as already noted (Nimègue), in Lombardy several times, and in Austria – (Myths and Legends of the Celtic Race, 1911)

  • For more information on the this subject, refer to Chapter Fourteen of Volume One, entitled: The Lost Language of the Ancients.

Read Full Post »

The Drug Story

The truth about cures without drugs is suppressed, unless it suits the purpose of the censor to garble it. Whether these cures are effected by chiropractors, Naturopaths, Naprapaths, Osteopaths, Faith Healers, Spiritualists, Herbalists, Christian Scientists, or MDs who use the brains they have, you never read about it in the big newspapers.” …Morris A. Bealle

By Morris A. Bealle
Essay by Hans Ruesch

http://educate-yourself.org/fc/drugstory.shtml

In the 30′s, Morris A. Bealle, a former city editor of the old Washington Times and Herald, was running a county seat newspaper, in which the local power company bought a large advertisement every week. This account took quite a lot of worry off Bealle’ s shoulders when the bills came due. But according to Bealle’ s own story, one day the paper took up the cudgels for some of its readers that were being given poor service from the power company, and Morris Bealle received the dressing down of his life from the advertising agency which handled the power company’ s account. They told him that any more such ‘stepping out of line’ would result in the immediate cancellation not only of the advertising contract, but also of the gas company and the telephone company.

That’ s when Bealle’ s eyes were opened to the meaning of a ‘free press’, and he decided to get out of the newspaper business. He could afford to do that because he belonged to the landed gentry of Maryland, but not all newspaper editors are that lucky.

Bealle used his professional experience to do some deep digging into the freedom-of-the-press situation and came up with two shattering exposes – The Drug Story, and The House of Rockefeller. The fact that in spite of his familiarity with the editorial world and many important personal contacts he couldn’t get his revelations into print until he founded his own company, The Columbia Publishing House, Washington D.C., in 1949, was just a prime example of the silent but adamant censorship in force in ‘the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave’. Although The Drug Story is one of the most important books on health and politics ever to appear in the USA, it has never been admitted to a major bookstore nor reviewed by any establishment paper, and was sold exclusively by mail. Nevertheless, when we first got to read it, in the 1970s, it was already in its 33rd printing, under a different label – Biworld Publishers, Orem, Utah.

As Bealle pointed out, a business which makes 6% on its invested capital is considered a sound money maker. Sterling Drug, Inc., the main cog and largest holding company in the Rockefeller Drug Empire and its 68 subsidiaries, showed operating profits in 1961 of $23,463,719 after taxes, on net assets of $43,108,106 – a 54% profit. Squibb, another Rockefeller controlled company, in 1945 made not 6% but 576% on the actual value of its property.

That was during the luscious war years when the Army Surgeon General’s Office and the Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery were not only acting as promoters for the Drug Trust, but were actually forcing drug trust poisons into the blood streams of American soldiers, sailors and marines, to the tune of over 200 million ‘shots’. Is it any wonder, asked Bealle, that the Rockefellers, and their stooges in the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Public Health Service, the Federal Trade Commission, the Better Business Bureau, the Army Medical Corps, the Navy Bureau of Medicine, and thousands of health officers all over the country, should combine to put out of business all forms of therapy that discourage the use of drugs.

‘The last annual report of the Rockefeller Foundation’, reported Bealle, ‘itemizes the gifts [grants] it has made to colleges and public agencies in the past 44 years, and they total somewhat over half a billion dollars. These colleges, of course, teach their students all the drug lore the Rockefeller pharmaceutical houses want taught. Otherwise there would be no more gifts, just as there are no gifts to any of the 30 odd colleges in the United States that don’t use therapies based on drugs.

‘Harvard, with its well publicized medical school, has received $8,764,433 of Rockefeller’s Drug Trust money, Yale got $7 ,927,800, Johns Hopkins $10,418,531, Washington University in St. Louis $2,842,132, New York’s Columbia University $5,424,371, Cornell University $1,709,072, ete., etc.’

And while ‘giving away’ those huge sums to drug propagandizing colleges, the Rockefeller interests were growing to a world-wide web that no one could entirely explore. Already well over 30 years ago it was large enough for Bealle to demonstrate that the Rockefeller interests had created, built up and developed the most far reaching industrial empire ever conceived in the mind of man. Standard Oil was of course the foundation upon which all of the other Rockefeller industries have been built. The story of Old John D., as ruthless an industrial pirate as ever came down the pike, is well known, but is being today conveniently ignored. The keystone of this mammoth industrial empire was the Chase NationaI Bank, now renamed the Chase Manhattan Bank.

Not the least of its holdings are in the drug business. The Rockefellers own the largest drug manufacturing combine in the world, and use all of their other interests to bring pressure to increase the sale of drugs. The fact that most of the 12,000 separate drug items on the market are harmful is of no concern to the Drug Trust…

The Rockefeller Foundation was first set up in 1904 and called the General Education Fund. An organization called the Rockefeller Foundation, ostensibly to supplement the General Education Fund, was formed in 1910 and through long finagling and lots of Rockefeller money got the New York legislature to issue a charter on May 14, 1913.

It is therefore not surprising that the House of Rockefeller has had its own ‘nominees’ planted in all Federal agencies that have to do with health. So the stage was set for the ‘education’ of the American public, with a view to turning it into a population of drug and medico dependents, with the early help of the parents and the schools, then with direct advertising and, last but not least, the influence the advertising revenues had on the media makers.

A compilation of the magazine Advertising Age showed that as far back as 1948 the larger companies in America spent for advertising the sum total of $1,104,224,374, when the dollar was still worth a dollar and not half a zloty. Of this staggering sum the interlocking Rockefeller-Morgan interests (gone over entirely to Rockefeller after Morgan’ s death) controlled about 80 percent, and utilized it to manipulate public information on health and drug matters – then and even more recklessly now.

‘Even the most independent newspapers are dependent on their press associations for their national news,’ Bealle pointed out, ‘and there is no reason for a news editor to suspect that a story coming over the wires of the Associated Press, the United Press or the International News Service is   censored when it concerns health matters. Yet this is what happens constantly.’

In fact in the ’50s the Drug Trust had one of its directors on the directorate of the Associated Press. He was no less than Arthur Hays Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times and as such one of the most powerful Associated Press directors.

It was thus easy for the Rockefeller Trust to persuade the Associated Press Science Editor to adopt a policy which would not permit any medical news to clear that is not approved by the Drug Trust ‘expert’, and this censor is not going to approve any item that can in any way hurt the sale of drugs.

This accounts to this day for the many fake stories of serums and medical cures and just-around-the-corner breakthrough victories over cancer, AIDS, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, which go out brazenly over the wires to all daily newspapers in America and abroad.

Emanuel M. Josephson, M.D., whom the Drug Trust has been unable to intimidate despite many attempts, pointed out that the National Association of Science Writers was ‘persuaded’ to adopt as part of its code of ethics the following chestnut: ‘Science editors are incapable of judging the facts of phenomena involved in medical and scientific discovery. Therefore, they only report ‘discoveries’ approved by medical authorities, or those presented before a body of scientific peers.’

This explains why Bantam Books, America’s biggest publisher, made a colossal mistake in its initial enthusiasm and optimism sending review copies of  SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENT to the 3,500 ‘science writers’ on its list, instead of addressing them to the literary book reviewers who are not  subject to medical censorship. One single censor decreed NO and SLAUGHTER OF  THE INNOCENT sank in silence.

Thus newspapers continue to be fed with propaganda about drugs and their alleged value, although according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1.5 million people landed in hospitals in 1978 because of medication side effects in the U.S. alone, and despite recurrent statements by intelligent and courageous medical men that most pharmaceutical items on sale are useless at best, but more often harmful or deadly in the long run.

The truth about cures without drugs is suppressed, unless it suits the purpose of the censor to garble it. Whether these cures are effected by Chiropractors, Naturopaths, Naprapaths, Osteopaths, Faith Healers, Spiritualists, Herbalists, Christian Scientists, or MDs who use the brains they have, you never read about it in the big newspapers.

To teach the Rockefeller drug ideology, it is necessary to teach that Nature didn’t know what she was doing when she made the human body. But statistics issued by the Children’s Bureau of the Federal Security Agency show that since the all-out drive of the Drug Trust for drugging, vaccinating and serumizing the human system, the health of the American nation has sharply declined, especially among children. Children are now given ‘shots’ for this and ‘shots’ for that, when the only safeguard known to science is a pure bloodstream, which can be obtained only with clean air and wholesome food. Meaning by natural and inexpensive means. Just what the Drug Trust most objects to.

When the FDA, whose officials have to be acceptable to Rockefeller Center before they are appointed, has to put an independent operator out of business, it goes all out to execute those orders. But the orders do not come directly from Standard Oil or a drug house director. As Morris Bealle pointed out, the American Medical Association (AMA) is the front for the Drug Trust, and furnishes the quack doctors to testify that even when they know nothing of the product involved, it is their considered opinion that it has no therapeutic value.

Wrote Bealle:
‘Financed by the taxpayers, these Drug Trust persecutions leave no stone unturned to destroy the victim. If he is a small operator, the resulting attorney’s fees and court costs put him out of business. In one case, a Dr. Adolphus Hohensee of Scranton, Pa., who had stated that vitamins (he used     natural ones) were vital to good health, was taken to court for ‘misbranding’ his product. The American Medical Association furnished ten medicos who reversed all known medical theories by testifying that ‘vitamins are not necessary to the human body’. Confronted with government bulletins to the contrary, the medicos wiggled out of that one by declaring that these standard publications were outdated!’

In addition to the FDA, Bealle listed the following agencies having to do with ‘health’ – i.e., with the health of the Drug Trust to the detriment of the citizens – as being dependent on Rockefeller: U.S. Public Health Service, U.S. Veterans Administration, Federal Trade Commission, Surgeon General of the Air Force, Army Surgeon General’ s Office, Navy Bureau of Medicine & Surgery, National Health Research Institute, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Sciences in Washington is considered the all wise body which investigates everything under the sun, especially in the field of health, and gives to a palpitating public the last word in that science. To the important post at the head of this agency, the Drug Trust had one of their own appointed. He was none other than Alfred N. Richards, one of the directors and largest stockholders of Merck & Company, which was making huge profits from its drug traffic.

When Bealle revealed this fact, Richards resigned forthwith, and the Rockefellers appointed in his place the President of their own Rockefeller Institution, Detlev W. Bronk.

The medico drug cartel was summed up by J.W Hodge, M.D., of Niagara Falls,  N.Y., in these words:   ‘The medical monopoly or medical trust, euphemistically called the American Medical Association, is not merely the meanest monopoly ever organized, but the most arrogant, dangerous and despotic organization which ever managed a free people in this or any other age. Any and all methods of healing the sick by means of safe, simple and natural remedies are sure to be assailed and denounced by the arrogant leaders of the AMA doctors’ trust as fakes, frauds and humbugs Every practitioner of the healing art who does not ally himself with the medical trust is denounced as a ‘dangerous quack’ and impostor by the predatory trust doctors. Every sanitarium who attempts to restore the sick to a state of health by natural means without resort to the knife or poisonous drugs, disease imparting serums, deadly toxins or vaccines, is at once pounced upon by these medical tyrants and fanatics, bitterly denounced, vilified and persecuted to the fullest extent.’

The Lincoln Chiropractic College in Indianapolis requires 4,496 hours, the Palmer Institute Chiropractic in Davenport a minimum of 4,000 60 minute classroom hours, the University of Natural Healing Arts in Denver five years of 1,000 hours each to qualify for a degree. The National College of Naprapathy in Chicago requires 4,326 classroom hours for graduation. Yet the medico drug cartel spreads the propaganda that the practitioners of these three ‘heretic’ sciences are poorly trained or not trained at all – the real reason being that they cure their patients without the use of drugs. In 1958, one of those ‘ill trained’ doctors, Nicholas P. Grimaldi, who had just graduated from the Lincoln Chiropractic College, took the basic science examination of the Connecticut State Board along with 63 medics and osteopaths. He made the highest mark (91.6) ever made by a doctor taking the Connecticut State Board examination.

Rockefeller’ s various ‘educational’ activities had proved so profitable in the U S. that in 1927 the International Educational Board was launched, as Junior’ s own, personal charity, and endowed with $21,000,000 for a starter, to be lavished on foreign universities and politicos, with all the usual strings attached. This Board undertook to export the ‘new’ Rockefeller image as a benefactor of mankind, as well as his business practices. Nobody informed the beneficiaries that every penny the Rockefellers seemed to be throwing out the window would come back, bearing substantial interest,
through the front door.

Rockefeller had always had a particular interest in China, where Standard Oil was almost the sole supplier of kerosene and oil ‘for the lamps of China’. So he put up money to establish the China Medical Board and to build the Peking Union Medical College, playing the role of the Great White Father who has come to dispense knowledge on his lowly children. The Rockefeller Foundation invested up to $45,000,000 into ‘westernizing’ (read corrupting) Chinese medicine.

Medical colleges were instructed that if they wished to benefit from the Rockefeller largesse they had better convince 500 million Chinese to throw into the ashcan the safe and useful but inexpensive herbal remedies of their barefoot doctors, which had withstood the test of centuries, in favor of the expensive carcinogenic and teratogenic ‘miracle’ drugs Made in USA, which had to be replaced constantly with new ones, when the fatal side effects could no longer be concealed; and if they couldn’t ‘demonstrate’ through large-scale animal experiments the effectiveness of their ancient  acupuncture, this could not be recognized as having any ‘scientific value’. Its millenarian effectiveness proven on human beings was of no concern to the Western wizards.

But when the Communists came to power in China and it was no longer possible to trade, the Rockefellers suddenly lost interest in the health of the Chinese people and shifted their attention increasingly to Japan, India and Latin America.

‘No candid study of his career can lead to other conclusion than that he is victim of perhaps the ugliest of all passions, that for money, money as an end. It is not a pleasant picture…. this money maniac secretly, patiently, eternally plotting how he may add to his wealth…. He has turned commerce to war, and honey-combed it with cruel and corrupt practices…. And he calls his great organization a benefaction, and points to his church-going and charities as proof of his righteousness. This is supreme wrong-doing cloaked by religion. There is but one name for it – hypocrisy. ‘

This was the description Ida Tarbell made of John D. Rockefeller in her ‘History of the Standard Oil Company’, serialized in 1905 in the widely circulated McClure’s Magazine. And that was several years before the ‘Ludlow Massacre’, so JDR was as yet far from having reached the apex of his  disrepute. But after World War II it would have been hard to read, in America or abroad, a single criticism of JDR, nor of Junior, who had followed in his father’ s footsteps, nor of Junior’ s four sons who all endeavored to emulate their illustrious forbears. Today’s various encyclopedias extant in public libraries of the Western world have nothing but praise for the Family. How was this achieved?

Ironically, the two apparently most NEGATIVE events in the career of JDR brought about a huge POSITIVE change in his favor, to a degree that he himself could not foresee. To wit:

In the year when according to the current Encyclopedia Britanica (long become a Rockefeller property and transferred from Oxford to Chicago), Rockefeller had ‘retired from active business’, namely in 1911, he had been convicted by a U.S. court of illegal practices and ordered to dissolve the Standard Oil Trust, which comprised 40 corporations. This imposed dissolution was to provide his Empire with added might, to a degree that was unprecedented in the history of modem business. Until then, the Trust had existed for all to see – an exposed target. After that, it went underground,
and thereby its power was cloaked in security, and could keep expanding unseen and therefore unopposed.

The Ludlow Massacre

The second apparently negative experience was a certain 1914 event that persuaded JDR, until then utterly contemptuous of public opinion, to gloss over his own image.

The United Mine Workers had asked for higher wages and better living conditions for the miners of the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company, one of the many Rockefeller owned companies.

The miners – mostly immigrants from Europe’ s poorest countries – lived in shacks provided by the company at exorbitant rent. Their low wages ($1.68 a day) were paid in script redeemable only at company stores charging high prices. The churches they attended were the pastorates of company-hired ministers; their children were taught in company-controlled schools; the company libraries excluded books that the Bible-thumping Rockefellers deemed ‘subversive’, such as ‘Darwin’s Origin of the Species.’ The company maintained a force of detectives, mine guards, and spies whose job it was to keep the camp quarantined from the danger of unionization.

When the miners struck, JDR, Jr., then officially in command of the company, and his father’ s hatchet man, the Baptist Reverend Frederick T. Gates, who was a director of the Rockefeller Foundation, refused even to negotiate. They evicted the strikers from the company-owned shacks, hired a thousand strike-breakers from the Baldwin-Felts detective agency, and persuaded Governor Ammons to call out the National Guard to help break the strike.

Open warfare resulted. Guardsmen, miners, their women and children, who since their eviction were camping in tents, were ruthlessly killed, until the frightened Governor wired President Wilson for Federal Troops, who eventually crushed the strike, The New York Times, which then already could never be accused of being unfriendly to the Rockefeller interests, reported on April 21, 1914.

‘A 14 hour battle between striking coal miners and members of the Colorado National Guard in the Ludlow district today culminated in the killing of Louis Tikas, leader of the Greek strikers, and the destruction of the Ludlow tent colony by fire.’

And the following day.

‘Forty five dead (32 of them women and children), a score missing and more than a score wounded is the known result of the 14 hour battle which raged between state troops and coal miners in the Ludlow district, on the property of the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company, the Rockefeller holding. The Ludlow is a mass of charred debris, and buried beneath it is a story of horror unparalleled in the history of industrial warfare. In the holes that had been dug for their protection against rifle fire, the women and children died like trapped rats as the flames swept over them. One pit uncovered this afternoon disclosed the bodies of ten children and two women.’

The worldwide revulsion that followed was such that JDR decided to hire the most talented press agent in the country, Ivy Lee, who got the tough assignment of whitewashing the tycoon’ s bloodied image.

When Lee learned that the newly organized Rockefeller Foundation had $100 million lying around for promotional purposes without knowing what to do with it, he came with a plan to donate large sums – none less than a million- to well known colleges, hospitals, churches and benevolent organizations. The plan was accepted. So were the millions. And they made headlines all over the world, for in the days of the gold standard and the five cent cigar there was a maxim in every newspaper office that a million dollars was always news.

That was the beginning of the cleverly worded medical reports on new ‘miracle’ drugs and ‘just-around-the-corner breakthroughs’ planted in the leading news offices and press associations that continue to this day, and the flighty public soon forgot, or forgave, the massacre of foreign immigrants for the dazzling display of generosity and philanthropy financed by the ballooning Rockefeller fortune and going out, with thunderous press fanfare, to various ‘worthy’ institutions.

In the following years, not only newsmen, but whole newspapers were bought, financed or founded with Rockefeller money. So Time Magazine, which Henry Luce started in 1923, had been taken over by J.P. Morgan when the magazine got into fInancial difficulties. When Morgan died and his financial empire crumbled, the House of Rockefeller wasted no time in taking over this lush editorial plum also, together with its sisters Fortune and Life, and built for them an expensive 14 story home of their own in Rockefeller Center – the Time & Life Building.

Rockefeller was also co-owner of Time’s ‘rival’ magazine, Newsweek, which had been established in the early days of the New Deal with money put up by Rockefeller, Vincent Astor, the Harrimann family and other members and allies of the House.

For all his innate cynicism, JDR must have been himself surprised to discover how easily the so-called intellectuals could be bought. Indeed, they turned out to be among his best investments.

By founding and lavishly endowing his Education Boards at home and abroad, Rockefeller won control not only of the governments and politicos but also of the intellectual and scientific community, starting with the Medical Power – the organization that forms those priests of the New Religion that
are the modern medicine men. No Pulitzer or Nobel or any similar prize endowed with money and prestige has ever been awarded to a declared foe of the Rockefeller system.

Henry Luce, officially founder and editor of Time Magazine, but constantly dependent on House advertising, also distinguished himself in his adulation of his sponsors. JDR’s son had been responsible for the Ludlow massacre, and an obedient partner in his father’ s most unsavory actions. Nonetheless, in 1956 Henry Luce put Junior on the cover of Time, and the feature story, soberly titled ‘The Good Man’, included hyperbole like this:

‘It is because John D. Rockefeller Junior’s is a life of constructive social giving that he ranks as an authentic American hero, just as certainly as any general who ever won a victory for an American army or any statesman who triumphed in behalf of U.S. diplomacy.’

Clearly, Time’s editorial board wasn’t given the choice to change its tune even after the passing of Junior and Henry Luce, since it remained just as dependent on House of Rockefeller advertising. Thus, when in 1979 one of Junior’s sons, Nelson A. Rockefeller died – who had been one of the loudest hawks in the Vietnam and other American wars, and was personally responsible for the massacre of prisoners and hostages at Attica prison – Time said of him in it obituary, without laughing:

‘He was driven by a mission to serve, improve and uplift his country.’

Perhaps it was all this that Prof. Peter Singer had in mind when telling the judges in Italy that the Rockefeller Foundation was a humanitarian enterprise bent on doing good works. One of their best works seems to be sponsoring Prof. Peter Singer, the world’s greatest animal friend and protector who claims that vivisection is indispensable for medical progress and for more than 20 years refuses to mention that legions of medical doctors are of the opposite view.

Another interesting revelation in the article of Time was that many years ago already Singer ‘was pleasantly surprised when Britanica approached him to distill in about 30,000 words the discipline that is, at its heart, the systematic study of what we ought to do.’ So now we touch the subject of sponsorship and patronage. They don’ t always mean immediate cash but, more important, long-term profits.

Many decades ago the Encyclopedia Britannica moved from Oxford to Chicago because Rockefeller had bought it to add much needed luster to the University of Chicago and its medical school, the first one he had founded. Peter Singer, ‘the world’s greatest animal defender’ who keeps a door permanently open to vivisection and the lucrative medical swindle, gets millions of dollars free publicity thanks to the worldwide engagement of the Rockefeller Foundation and the media makers who are in no position to oppose it.

From the article in Time we also learned that Singer’ s mother had been a medical doctor in the old country, which could mean that little Peter started assimilating all the Rockefeller superstition on vivisection with his mother’s milk.

Taken from the CIVIS Foundation Report number 15, Fall-Winter 1993

CIVIS: POB 152, Via Motta 51-CH 6900, Massagno/Lugano, Switzerland

Originally web posted at: http://www.eurosolve.com/charity/bava/story.htm

Read Full Post »

Please notice the picture above with an upside-down cross. In his article, The Kingdom of Satan, Professor J. S. Malan says this about the inverted cross . . .

“This cross is not broken, but turned upside down. It indicates the rejection of Jesus Christ and contempt for the gospel of salvation. Inverted symbols are typical of the opposite values pursued by Satanists. People who are sometimes sacrificed to Satan on Black Sabbath are crucified upside down in accordance with this tradition.”

“…even now are there many antichrists…” —1st John 2:18.

It is easy to find Satanic websites and occult stores where you can purchase all types of items with inverted crosses. The “Upside Down Cross” symbolizes mockery and rejection of Jesus. Necklaces are worn by many Satanists. It can often be seen on Rock singers and their album covers.”

“…and no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light”
—2nd Corinthians 11:14.

The “Bent Cross” is a grotesque emaciated depiction of Jesus Christ, the only Son of God who died to provide salvation for those who believe in Him. This scepter is used by the Popes on many occasions. Its occult ramifications and connections cannot be disregarded.

Pope John Paul II with frontal view of the Bent Cross.

Pope John Paul II with side view of the Bent Cross.


The Catholic religion often calls herself the “Mother Church.” She’s NOT the mother of Christ’s church! By calling herself “mother” she is telling on herself. Is this the abomination spoken of in the Scriptures? . . .

THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH

(Revelation 17:5)!

Notice the Catholic religion calls herself a woman. The Bible calls Catholicism a whore, and what a GREAT WHORE she is—committing spiritual fornication with the kings and rulers of the earth (nearly every king throughout history has had some type of political, economic or religious ties with the Vatican). Read about how Nazi Germany and the Vatican worked together to murder millions of innocent Jews in the holocaust!  Read The Vatican’s Holocaust. She’s DRUNKEN with the blood of the saints. Study the Inquisitions—the torture and killing of tens-of-millions of people.Oh, even the antichrist is naked in light of God’s word.

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists (Popes and priests); whereby we know that it is the last time —1st John 2:18

And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet color (official Vatican colors), and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls (the Vatican is filthy rich), having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations (the Holocaust, inquisitions, etc.) and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY (very few people realize where the Catholic religion started), BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS (who seduce people into their damnable religion) AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH” —Revelation 17:4,5

Catholicism’s ill-gotten children profess to know Christ but do service to Satan by disregarding the commandments of God in order to keep the traditions of men which papists even themselves call “TRADITION.” Why is she (the whore) called a mystery? The antichrist spirit of ancient pagan Babylon, though seemingly long fallen, lives in the rites and blasphemies of the Roman Catholic religion. Now that ancient Babylonian false religion lives today within the Catholic religion, disguised by Christian names. What a Satanic scam! The queen of heaven is now… Mary! Mystery Babylon lives, undetected by doomed millions across the world.

It is a sin to bow down to mother Mary! -Exodus20:5

The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the QUEEN OF HEAVENthat they may provoke me to anger” —Jeremiah 7:18

Notice the Halo around Mary (especially her head). The is an idolatrous practice of the Catholics which symbolizes deity (that she is equal with God).The Babylonians practiced the same idolatrous worship to the Queen of Heaven. Mary is NOT deity, she was a normal every-day woman. Yes friend, Satan is definitely working in the Vatican and in Catholic organizations all across the world. Though most Catholics will deny worshipping Mary, the evidence says something very different! They bow down and literally pray in the name of “Mother Mary” to a graven statue of Mary. This is sinful idolatry! They are lying through their teeth. God makes CLEAR in His Word that He will NOT share His glory with another (that includes Mary).

“I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.” —Isaiah 42:8

How could anyone be so foolish to actually bow down in prayer to a statue of Mary, yet at the same time deny that they are worshipping her? Talk about crazy! God clearly command us in the second of the Ten Commandments NOT to make unto ourselves ANY graven images.

“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:” —Exodus 20:4

Do the Catholics need glasses? It says right there in black and white in Exodus 20:4 that we are NOT to make unto ourselves ANY likeness of anything that is in heaven!!! Mary is in Heaven.   We are NOT to make any likeness of her according to Exodus 20:4. So what do you call a statue of mother Mary?It surely is a likeness of her, a graven image! Here’s another shocker…

“Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them…” —Exodus 20:5

Ok, so then why does every Catholic BOW DOWN before a statue of Mary in their worship places? I’ll tell you why… because they are practicing FALSE religion totally void of the truth of God. You can argue whether or not you are worshipping Mary as your bowing down to her; but one thing is for certain, God has commanded us in Exodus 20:5 NOT TO BOW DOWN to her. Even if your not worshipping Mary, you ARE SINNING if you bow down to her because the Bible strictly forbids it! As I write, millions of people all around the world are bowing down to Mary in violation of God’s Word. Yes, Satanism is in the Vatican!

“Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” —Mark 7:7

“For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.” —Mark 13:22

Sister Faustina’s blasphemous Image of Divine Mercy. Notice the occult New Age pyramid.

Read Full Post »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/popes-banker-faces-inquiry-over-money-laundering-2085833.html?emv_mid=7971309&emv_rid=14382725178

Vatican perplexed as police launch investigation into ‘suspicious’ transactions.

By Michael Day in Milan

Wednesday, 22 September 2010

REUTERS; Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, the head of the Vatican Bank

The Vatican, still picking up the pieces after the global paedophilia scandal, was yesterday rocked by news that the heads of its bank are under investigation in connection with a £20m money laundering probe.

Vatican Bank president Ettore Gotti Tedeschi and director-general Paolo Cipriani are being investigated following two transactions that were reported as “suspicious”, police sources said.

The transactions on 15 September are thought to involve €20m sent to the German bank JP Morgan in Frankfurt, and €3m sent to a central-Italian bank, the Banca del Fucino. The funds have been seized by Italian authorities.

It is the first time such action has been taken against the Vatican Bank, which is officially known as the Institute for Religious Works (IOR). But the bank has faced scrutiny of its activities for some time. Investigators are checking if bank officials breached money laundering regulations by failing to reveal key account details of those involved in the transactions.

In a statement, the Vatican expressed consternation at the developments. “The Holy See is perplexed and astonished at the action taken by the Rome prosecutor,” it said, adding that it had “complete faith in the president and in the director-general of the IOR.”

Mr Gotti Tedeschi is a member of the ultra-conservative religious movement Opus Dei, and an outspoken advocate of the need for greater morality in finance.

Yesterday’s revelations, which come just days after Pope Benedict completed his controversial tour of Britain, are only the latest in a series of incidents that have raised doubts about the financial integrity of the bank, however.

In June, magistrates said the Vatican Bank, along with 10 other lenders, was being investigated for alleged fraud, according to La Repubblica newspaper.

The magistrates leading the investigations, Nello Rossi and Stefano Rocco Fava, who are also running the current inquiry, suspect that IOR officials may have used the bank, and its status as a non-Italian institution, to avoid taxes as well as launder money.

A few months earlier, investigators had said they were focusing on one or more accounts the IOR opened with UniCredit, Italy’s biggest bank, into which some €60m had poured in three years. The accounts were opened at a branch of UniCredit, then Banca di Roma, a stone’s throw from St Peter’s Square, but in Italian territory.

Magistrates said the probe was centred on clarifying the “opaque screen” which hid the identity of the person, persons or organisations that had actual control over the IOR accounts.

Yesterday, some observers suggested that the announcement of Mr Gotti Tedeschi’s and Mr Cipriani’s formal involvement in money laundering inquiries might be the judiciary’s way of pressuring the Vatican into being more open about its finances.

The Vatican Bank, after a series of scandals stretching back to the fraudulent bankruptcy of Banco Ambrosiano in the 1980s, is under pressure to adopt new financial standards following a 2009 push by the G20 nations for greater transparency.

The IOR said it been working “for some time” with the Bank of Italy and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development “for the Holy See’s inclusion in the so-called White List” – an OECD designation for countries that apply international tax regulations. The Bank of Italy has declared that transactions with banks such as the IOR, which are not on the White List, will be subject to greater scrutiny.

The bank’s reputation was most badly damaged, however, by the collapse in 1982 of Banco Ambrosiano, in which it was a major shareholder. The Vatican paid around £150m to compensate Ambrosiano’s account holders – without admitting any wrongdoing.

The then head of the bank, Archbishop Paul Marcinkus, was indicted but was able to claim diplomatic immunity as a high-ranking Vatican official. Events became much murkier when Banco Ambrosiano’s chairman Roberto Calvi, known as “God’s Banker”, was found hanging from Blackfriars Bridge in London, his clothes stuffed with bricks and £10,000 in his pockets.

After initially being labelled suicide, Calvi’s death was later reclassified as murder, following two coroner’s inquests and an independent investigation. Prosecutors said he was killed for stealing Mob money, a verdict repeated by the Italian Court of Appeal this year, even as they cleared three suspects for lack of evidence.

The Vatican Bank, located in a tower just inside the gates of the Vatican City, manages assets for religious works or works of charity. It also manages the pension system for the Vatican’s thousands of employees. Its leadership is composed of five cardinals, but the day-to-day operations are headed by Mr Gotti Tedeschi and the bank’s council.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 79 other followers